On One Hand . . .
A Friday report from the Medicare Board of Trustees
shows that there was a slowdown in the growth of Medicare costs in 2012. The Medicare trust fund is now projected to last until 2026, two years longer than previously estimated. Medicare spending is now growing at the historically low rate of 1.7% per year. Of course, a decline in the rate of growth doesn't mean the problem is solved. Costs are still going up. But at least they are heading in the right direction. The report attributes the decline in costs to a combination of the current recession, which is causing people to cut back on health care, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Reduced payments for Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage allows seniors to purchase private insurance in lieu of traditional Medicare. It costs the government 14% more than Medicare even though it doesn't produce any better outcomes. That 14% is presumably being pocketed by the private insurance companies, and the government is taking it back.
Reduced payments to Medicare providers, i.e., hospitals, home care agencies, etc. Emanuel says these organizations have profited from increased productivity in recent decades, but have not passed these savings on to the consumer. Therefore, Medicare is paying them less.
In short, the ACA made $716 million in automatic cuts to the Medicare program in 2012.
This chart shows that these two payment reductions account for the bulk of these Medicare cuts. They are the primary reason for the slowdown in the growth of Medicare spending.
The structural and incentive changes include things like bundled payments, where Medicare pays a fixed rate for an episode of care rather than fee-for-service, and Medicare's Independent Payment Advisory Board, which can make specific treatment recommendations in order to reduce excess cost growth. Most of these changes are several years away.
These cost controls are an important positive changes, since they have reduced costs
without eliminating benefits to Medicare recipients. However, they're only a fraction of the amount that could be saved if the country were to move to a single payer system. First of all, they only affect Medicare, which insures 17% of Americans. Secondly, they are relatively modest cuts when you consider the excess profits currently being taken by hospitals and insurance companies.
The bottom line is that these data seem to show that the ACA is working in controlling Medicare costs, but it is only a modest first step compared to what we could and should be doing.
Elisabeth Rosenthal has a long article in the Sunday
New York Times about the high cost of medical care in the U. S., similar to
the February Time feature by Steven Brill. Her article focuses on colonoscopies, presumably because it is a vivid metaphor for what the for-profit health care system is doing to all of us. However, her chart shows several common medical costs in which the average U. S. price tag is as much as 25 times higher than the price in other countries.
The sub-heading of the article says, “Colonoscopies explain why U. S. leads the world in health expenditures,” but they do no such thing. Merely listing the costs of medical procedures does not explain
why those costs are so much higher in this country. Most of Rosenthal's argument is a tautology: Prices are high because prices are high. The closest she comes to offering an explanation is
buried in the nineteenth paragraph:
A major factor behind the high costs is that the United States, unique among industrialized nations, does not generally regulate or intervene in medical pricing, aside from setting payment rates for Medicare and Medicaid, the government programs for older people and the poor. Many other countries deliver health care on a private fee-for-service basis, as does much of the American health care system, but they set rates as if health care were a public utility or negotiate fees with providers and insurers nationwide, for example.
Of course, she manages to make this point without mentioning the poisonous words “single payer,” which all the other countries cited in her article have. But the Medicare data show us what could happen if the government were to take a more active role in combating greed in the health care system.
You may also be interested in reading:
