Roll Call reports that the members of Congress actually agree on something:
A record-setting 403 lawmakers — 75 percent of Capitol Hill — sent companion letters from the Senate and House to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expressing strong support for Medicare Advantage, the public-private partnership through which more than a third of Medicare beneficiaries receive coverage today.
Sens. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., and Reps. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Tony Cárdenas, D-Calif., Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., and Mike Kelly, R-Pa., led the letters. The hundreds of co-signers are as ideologically and geographically diverse as the lead authors and were split nearly evenly between Democrats and Republicans.
This showing of congressional unity amid a polarizing election year should not be missed by the media or the public. At a time when health care policy is increasingly partisan, the supermajority of support behind Medicare Advantage offers us a lesson on the future of health care and where lawmakers can find common ground.
At the Better Medicare Alliance, where I serve as president and CEO, we have long said that Medicare Advantage offers a framework on which to build future health care reforms. It is working for consumers who like the quality coverage and care at an affordable cost, and give it a 94 percent satisfaction rating.
Democratic members of Congress like the security of Medicare Advantage’s coverage, accountability for quality care and its leadership in caring for those individuals with chronic conditions. Enrollees are guaranteed the same benefits as those in traditional Medicare and often receive additional ones such as vision, dental, hearing and wellness programs. Ninety-seven percent of plans provide some combination of these benefits and nearly 6 in 10 offer all four. Most recently, Medicare Advantage has offered services that address social risk factors such as meal delivery, transportation to medical appointments or home care.
Likewise, Republicans on Capitol Hill appreciate the choice that Medicare Advantage offers to consumers, seeing this as an alternative to traditional Medicare’s one-size-fits-all coverage. Private plans can modify their offerings to compete based on quality and cost, enabling beneficiaries to choose the plan that works best for them. Virtually all beneficiaries have access to a Medicare Advantage plan and, for the 2020 open enrollment season, the average beneficiary had 28 plans to choose from based on their unique needs.
Lawmakers of both parties appreciate Medicare Advantage’s cost savings for lower- and modest-income beneficiaries — enrollees save an average of $1,276 a year compared to traditional Medicare — and the ability of plans and providers to innovate new models of care and service delivery, all without adding new costs to the government.
If you are dismayed at the lack of bipartisanship in the Congress, you may find this encouraging. If you think more radical solutions than Medicare Advantage are necessary, you could find it disheartening. It all depends.
Literature on Medicare Advantage is pretty mixed. In general if people had to pay for the extras they offer they would not be willing to pay for them at the rate MA charges. It is also pretty clear that MA is very good at signing up the younger, healthier Medicare population. Also, at least in the past, MA plans tended to avoid direct competition. All that said, I think people like the idea of MA and people want it to work, but I am skeptical about it. If an MA plan accepts you then that is very good for you and it is generally a good deal. However, I am doubtful that it reduces overall health care spending. The sicker pts just go to conventional Medicare.
Steve