"The move to privatize Medicare," said one expert, has "been very profitable, in part because insurers are good at making their patients seem sicker."
Insurance giants are exploiting Medicare Advantage—a corporate-managed program that
threatens to result in the complete privatization of traditional Medicare—to
capture billions of dollars in extra profits, Saturday reporting by The New York Times confirmed.
The newspaper's analysis of dozens of lawsuits,
inspector general reports, and watchdog investigations found that overbilling
by Medicare Advantage (MA) providers is so pervasive it exceeds the budgets of
entire federal agencies, prompting journalist Ryan Cooper to call the
program "a straight up fraud scheme."
Nearly
half of Medicare's 60 million beneficiaries are now enrolled in MA plans
managed by for-profit insurance companies, and it is expected that most of the
nation's seniors will be ensnared in the private-sector alternative to
traditional Medicare by next year. Six weeks ago, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) launched an
inquiry into "potentially deceptive" marketing tactics used by MA
providers to "take advantage" of vulnerable individuals.
As
the table below shows, almost every major player in the industry has been
accused of fraud by a whistleblower or the U.S. government. In addition, the
vast majority are engaged in rampant upcoding, or exaggerating patients'
illnesses in order to reap more money from taxpayers—something they do while refusing to provide necessary care for tens of
thousands each year.
Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health
policy at Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), which has has no connection with
Kaiser Permanente, wrote on
social media that "the move to privatize Medicare" has "been
very profitable, in part because insurers are good at making their patients
seem sicker."
Journalist
Natalie Shure concurred, tweeting:
"Privatized Medicare plans cherry pick healthier enrollees, fudge medical
records to make them look as sick as possible, coax doctors into tacking on
extra sham diagnoses to bill for, and pay themselves a profit on top of it.
Medicare Advantage shouldn't exist."
"For
all its faults, Medicare is a (nearly) universal program for 65+, with overhead
hovering around 2%—far lower than its private counterparts," Shure added.
"What inefficiencies did anyone think MA would be solving exactly[?]"
she asked.
According
to the Times, MA was created by congressional Republicans
"two decades ago to encourage health insurers to find innovative ways to
provide better care at lower cost."
Matt
Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, a left-wing think tank, argued that
the notion that private insurers would "provide more benefit for less
money" than traditional Medicare "while taking a profit" is
insane on its face.
"They
innovate on other margins, namely by bending and breaking rules that determine
how much money Medicare gives them, as such things are hard to detect,"
said Bruenig, "and we are now stuck in an endless cat and mouse
enforcement game with them."
As
the Times reported:
"The
government pays Medicare Advantage insurers a set amount for each person who
enrolls, with higher rates for sicker patients. And the insurers, among the
largest and most prosperous American companies, have developed elaborate
systems to make their patients appear as sick as possible, often without
providing additional treatment, according to the lawsuits.
"As a result, a program devised to help lower health care spending has instead become substantially more costly than the traditional government program it was meant to improve...
"The
government now spends nearly as much on Medicare Advantage's 29
million beneficiaries as on the Army
and Navy combined. It's enough money that even a small increase
in the average patient's bill adds up: The additional diagnoses led to $12
billion in overpayments in 2020, according to an estimate from
the group that advises Medicare on payment policies—enough to cover hearing and
vision care for every American over 65.
"Another estimate,
from a former top government health official, suggested the overpayments in
2020 were double that, more than $25 billion."
Citing
a KFF study which found that
companies typically rake in twice as much gross profit from MA plans as from
other types of insurance, the Times pointed
out that the growing privatization of Medicare is "strikingly
lucrative."
MA
plans "can limit patients' choice of doctors, and sometimes require jumping through
more hoops before getting certain types of expensive
care," the newspaper noted. "But they often have lower premiums or
perks like dental benefits—extras that draw beneficiaries to the programs. The
more the plans are overpaid by Medicare, the more generous to customers they
can afford to be."
The MA program has grown in popularity, including in
Democratic strongholds, over the course of four presidential administrations.
Meanwhile, regulatory and legislative efforts to rein in abuses have failed to
gain traction.
Officials
at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), some of whom move
between the agency and industry, have not been aggressive "even as the
overpayments have been described in inspector general investigations, academic
research, Government Accountability Office studies,
MedPAC reports,
and numerous news articles,"
the Times reported. "Congress gave the agency
the power to reduce the insurers' rates in response to evidence of systematic
overbilling, but CMS has never chosen to do so."
Ted
Doolittle, who served as a senior official for CMS' Center for Program
Integrity from 2011 to 2014, said that "it was clear that there was some
resistance coming from inside" the agency. "There was foot
dragging."
Almost 80%
percent of U.S. House members, many of whom are bankrolled
by the insurance industry, signed a letter earlier
this year indicating their readiness "to protect the program from policies
that would undermine" its stability.
David
Moore, co-founder of Sludge,
an independent news outlet focused on the corrupting influence of corporate
cash on politics, observed on
social media that "members of the health subcommittee of the House Ways
and Means Committee could publicly on whether they think oversight of the
insurance industry has been adequate."
However,
Moore pointed out, committee Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.) "has received
$3.1 million from the insurance industry, the most in the House."
As
the Times noted, "Some critics say the lack of
oversight has encouraged the industry to compete over who can most effectively
game the system rather than who can provide the best care."
"Medicare
Advantage overpayments are a political third rail," Richard Gilfillan, a
former hospital and insurance executive and a former top regulator at Medicare,
told the newspaper. "The big healthcare plans know it's wrong, and they
know how to fix it, but they're making too much money to stop."
"There's a risk" that the increased
scrutiny of MA providers "blows over because the program's beneficiaries
continue to have access to doctors and hospitals," Joseph Ross, a primary
care physician and health policy researcher at the Yale School of Medicine, wrote on
Twitter. "But by exploiting and overbilling Medicare, these companies
profit off the public."
"Think
of how this money could have been better spent," said Ross. "The
overbilling alone could have provided hearing and vision care to ALL Medicare
beneficiaries, or been used to fund any of these agency's budgets."
Despite mounting evidence of widespread fraud in MA
plans, the Biden administration announced in
April that MA insurers will receive one of the largest payment increases in the
program's history in 2023, eliciting pushback from
several congressional Democrats led by Rep. Katie Porter of California.
Progressives argue that
MA is part of a broader effort to privatize Medicare and must be resisted.
Another
major culprit is ACO REACH, a pilot program that critics have described as
"Medicare Advantage on steroids."
The
pilot—an updated version of Direct Contracting launched by
the Trump administration and continued by the Biden administration—invites MA
insurers and Wall Street firms to "manage" care for Medicare
beneficiaries and allows the profit-maximizing middlemen to pocket as much as
40% of what they don't spend on patients, all but ensuring deadly cost-cutting.
Physicians
and healthcare advocates have warned that
failing to stop ACO REACH could result in the total privatization of
traditional Medicare in a matter of years.
Kenny Stancil, Common Dreams
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.