President Obama's No-Win Medicare Cuts
Joseph Antos, a health policy scholar at The American Enterprise Institute, helpfully explains the dual problems with the Medicare "cuts" proposed in President Obama's new budget blueprint: On the one hand, even ignoring the near certainty that Obama's budget plan won't ever pass, the cuts aren't likely to go into effect. On the other hand, if they did, they could screw up health care access for Medicare beneficiaries:
We have eight years of proof that Congress will never allow those payment reductions to go into effect. Unmentioned in the budget is the little matter of the 27.4% reduction in Medicare payments to physicians, scheduled to take effect on March 1. Whenever physician payments grow more quickly than the economy, Medicare is required to cut their fees using the "sustainable growth rate" formula. However, Congress has overridden those formula-driven payment cuts every year since 2003 and the uncollected bills have mounted up. It is now ludicrous to think that Congress could ever allow such a large payment reduction to take effect. It is equally ludicrous to think that Congress would enforce sizeable reductions in payments to hospitals and other health facilities on top of the hundreds of billions in reductions already levied on them by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
But suppose the implausible happened and Congress accepted the president's cuts. The cumulative effect of the ACA and the 2013 budget would drive providers out of Medicare, making it increasingly difficult for seniors to get the care they need. Medicare's actuary reported that in 2019 the ACA reductions by themselves would cause 15 percent of hospitals, nursing facilities, and home health agencies to lose money. Piling on with more cuts will only make the problem worse.
So the proposed cuts won't work, because they won't pass. And even if they did, they still wouldn't work, because they'd cause other problems.
It is imperative that the United States reduce its long-term commitment to spending on Medicare and Medicaid; even the Obama administration admits that in the long run, the country's current commitments are totally unsustainable. But centralized cuts to provider payments are both politically difficult and likely to have significant unintended consequences on health care and access—and yet as I reported in my recent magazine feature on Medicare price setting, policymakers have been trying to control spending by controlling prices for decades without much success. Indeed, Antos, who talked to me for the piece, helped implement one of the major price-setting that he now believes has failed. The problem Antos outlines is the problem with giant-size health entitlements that rely heavily on technocratic price setting, especially as those programs expand coverage and benefits: Policymakers end up having to choose between budget problems and big health system problems.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
When, oh when, will the shitheads who central control everything, fuck everything up, and then kick the can down the road, pay for it? Oh, that's right, they won't. So they'll keep doing it, and nothing will change. Awesome.
My neighbor had a threesome with [EMPIRE] and the [ASPCA].
You can find many likeminded evil organizations a HERCULE.TRIATHLON.SAVINIEN*c0m
Even you can't make it better, HERC. But I appreciate you trying.
Even you can't make it better, HERC
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!'... and I'll whisper 'No'."
--Herc
The thing is, we could do charity without the government being involved at all. Even now, we're a very wealthy country. Kill most of the government spending, drastically reduce taxes, and we'll address the problem of supporting old, sick, and poor people in civil society. I guarantee we'll do a better, cheaper, and more efficient job of it than the government does. And with less fraud, which is rampant in welfare programs.
The connsequences of top-line revenue cuts will not be unintended. They may be unwanted, but they are foreseeable. If you intend to take action, and you know the action will have certain consequences (good and bad), then you intend that all those consequences come to pass.
You don't get to say "Oh, I only intended the good things." No, you are responsible for all the foreseeable consequences of what you do.
Medicare is the out-of-control beast that represents everything wrong with big government and neither party will confront it.
For all you conservatives - this is why I don't take the GOP seriously.
Your front-runner is campaigning on preserving every dollar of it and he is bashing Obama for the modest cuts he signed (although nothing Romney says can be trusted).
"Your front-runner is ..."
Really? I don't recall Ron Paul doing any of that.
Not many taking the GOP seriouslt here, shreik.
The difference between us and you, though is that we dont take the Democratagogues seriously either.
I'll take politicians talk about "reforming" Medicare seriously when they come up with controlling Medicare costs the way Euro-style welfare systems do. By rationing care and denying all but palliative treatment to the worst cases.
I'd love to see the reaction of the Association of Aged Rich People to that one.
🙂
But you take the Dems seriously? because Paul Ryan proposed at least some sort of solution to the problem, and all he got was the "throw granny off the cliff" stuff fromthe Dems. If not for the Ryan budget (flawed as it was) I'd say both parties are equally unserious about this problem. But comparing the Ryan budget, which the House passed, to Obama's budgets actually proves that the GOP is better on this issue.
I don't take the Dems seriously. I just think Obama is a huge improvement over Bush or the three idiots running. Put me in the Bruce Bartlett camp.
You're easily impressed, then. Obama, better than Bush? Yeah, so is the stool I left this morning.
You're still a Team Blue cheerleader, though. And the stool I left this morning, is an improvement over you as well.
Why do you take Team Blue seriously, shrike?
This--like the ACA--is laying the groundwork.
Once the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional no one will be able to afford insurance because of the remaining 'shall issue' requirement. Next, the government will price-control Medicare patients out of the market.
With no one able to afford insurance and seniors 'dying in the streets' of treatable illnesses, the feds will have justification for a single-payer system--and everyone will heave a mighty sigh of relief...
You are assuming sick people can afford private insurance under 'shall issue'. My bet is they can't.
My bet is that people who just got into a car crash would have to pay a hell of a lot for insurance that would pay for the repairs resulting from the wreck they were just in.
Using the pro-Obamacare argument, people who don't drive should be forced to buy car insurance.
SOmetimes you really just have to wonder an.
http://www.anon-dot.tk
But suppose the implausible happened and Congress accepted the president's cuts. The cumulative effect of the ACA and the 2013 budget would drive providers out of Medicare, making it increasingly difficult for seniors to get the care they need.
You say this like it's a bad thing.
My fervent hope is that Medicare gets gutted by driving the majority of doctors out of the system.
Turning Medicare into a minimum-income welfare program that only the poorest of the elderly use
would be an excellent turn of events and driving doctors out of teh system is an easy way to get there.
I hope that Medicare gets gutted by driving the majority of doctors out of the system.
Turning Medicare into a minimum-income welfare program that only the poorest of the elderly use
would be an excellent turn of events and driving doctors out of teh system is an easy way to get there.
As a direct result of the "Affordable Care Act," Medicare "as we know it" has already ended. Medicare patients face reduced access to care, which will be increasingly rationed through relentless payment cuts. Key decisions will be made by an unelected board?the Independent Payment Advisory Board?which will determine specific payments Medicare providers receive and under what circumstances. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is tasked with shifting traditional Medicare from fee-for-service into new payment and delivery models that are to be imposed in top-down fashion. Meanwhile, the bureaucracy will metastasize, and doctors and hospitals will face more reams of costly rules and red tape.
The President's proposes double and triple taxation on some Medicare supplement Insurance owners. Are seniors or people who one day expect to be seniors aware of this proposed tax?