Tag: Direct contracting

  • Project 2025: A plan to destroy Medicare quickly

    Project 2025: A plan to destroy Medicare quickly

    Project 2025 proposes to make private Medicare plans, also known as Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, the default enrollment option for beneficiaries. Similar to Trump-era programs that automatically enrolled beneficiaries in privatized Medicare programs known as Direct Contracting Entities, Project 2025 would shuttle seniors and people with disabilities into private Medicare very quickly.

    Given the importance of Medicare to the overall health and well-being of the people of the United States, it’s important to understand how this forced migration of almost all beneficiaries into privatized Medicare Advantage plans would affect the future of the program. Extrapolating upon the projections of the Medicare Trustees based on the current flux of people in Medicare and Medicare Advantage, shifting 100% of beneficiaries into Medicare Advantage would bankrupt the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund within 5 years.

    Though MA was originally cast as a cost-saver, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found that payments to MA insurers are 22% higher than they are for similar patients in traditional Medicare. Unfortunately, this higher spending does not lead to better health outcomes; it just results in billions of dollars in profits for Big Insurance. The higher cost of MA compared to traditional Medicare means that carrying the strategy of Project 2025 to its possible endgame, if all Medicare beneficiaries are compulsorily enrolled in a private plan, the Medicare Trust Fund will immediately go into deficit spending. By 2030 the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund would run out of funds and become insolvent, disrupting the health care of more than  60 million seniors and people with disabilities unless Congress intervened in ways the authors of Project 2025 didn’t bother to call out. Ten years of Project 2025’s policy of all beneficiaries being in MA plans would cost taxpayers an additional $1.5 trillion.

    And all for providing care that is not on par with traditional Medicare.

    Instead of improving Medicare, an overwhelmingly popular program, Project 2025, would dismantle the program quicker than many even thought possible. In a post-solvency world, Medicare would either become a fully privatized system, turning beneficiaries into revenue generators for earnings reports to Wall Street, or require hefty increases in deductibles, premiums, copays, and taxes. Either way, the result would be little to no health coverage for our most vulnerable communities, and worse care for everyone.

    Medicare turns 60 next year. The implementation of Project 2025’s health care agenda would leave the program careening toward full privatization. A more prudent approach would be to stop the $140 billion in overpayments to Medicare Advantage insurers each year and use the savings to improve the traditional Medicare program. Instead of sending those billions to insurance corporation shareholders, use it to expand coverage in traditional Medicare to include dental, vision and hearing care and establish an out-of-pocket cap that our seniors and disabled citizens can afford.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Amazon moves into primary care

    Amazon moves into primary care

    Amazon plans to buy One Medical, a large group of primary care doctors, for $3,9 billion. What does that mean for the future of health care in the US? Stat News reports.

    Amazon already owns a pharmacy business, health clinics and telehealth services. With the purchase of One Medical, it will own 180 medical facilities and business from a number of companies that use One Medical to care for their workers. One Medical says that it currently provides care to about 800,000 people.

    Once it acquires One Medical, Amazon will offer both in-person and virtual services through Amazon Care. It will offer primary care, lab services, vaccinations, preventive care, urgent care and an online pharmacy. Most likely, Whole Foods will offer some medical services on sit. Amazon Care also sends nurses to patient homes in some instances.

    Presumably, Amazon will generate revenues from big corporate health insurers and Medicare. One Medical has been contracting with Medicare on both the Medicare Advantage side as well as now in traditional Medicare as a direct contracting entity–an entity that is paid a flat rate by the government to “manage” care for people in traditional Medicare.

    Currently, employers and others pay One Medical an annual fee of $199 a person plus care costs to provide their workers and others primary care.

    Amazon intends to offer primary care services throughout the nation. The question remains as to whether Amazon will improve quality and lower costs. And, can it turn a profit? One Medical charges high costs for its primary care services.

    Primary care has never been a profitable business. Doing it well takes time. So, Amazon might be thinking it will use this primary care business as a tool to generate more revenue from its other businesses.

    And, how will Amazon address the care needs of people with costly and complex conditions? Older adults and people with disabilities who need a lot of care have always been a population corporate health plans have sought to avoid, for fear of losing money.

    I have always assumed that Amazon or Facebook or Google or Apple would take over our health care system. They continue to take over large tranches of the economy. It’s easy to imagine that these companies would not use their power to the good of patients. They need to generate profits. But, the current system is anti-competitive and completely broken. Could a world with Amazon Care be worse?

    What should you do? Choose your primary care doctor carefully. You need a good one for many reasons,, even if you’re healthy. You want one who puts your health care needs first and will direct you to the best specialists should you develop a complex condition. You want to avoid primary care doctors driven by financial incentives to delay or deny you care.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Can you trust AARP when it comes to choosing a Medicare Advantage plan or health clinic?

    Can you trust AARP when it comes to choosing a Medicare Advantage plan or health clinic?

    Back in the 90’s, when I was launching the Medicare Rights Center, AARP partnered with United Healthcare to offer standardized Medicare supplemental insurance policies for people in traditional Medicare. Since then, AARP has partnered with UnitedHealthcare to support its private Medicare Advantage plans. Now, Fred Shultz reports for Kaiser Health News, that AARP is now partnering with Oak Street Health, which operates health clinics in more than 20 states. Can you trust AARP when it comes to choosing a Medicare Advantage plan or using a health clinic?

    Make no mistake. AARP, a non-profit trade association for older adults, is partnering with health insurers and health clinics in order to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in income. If AARP had meaningful data to assess and choose partners offering high quality products and services, its partnerships could add value for its members. But, no one has that ability because the data is not available.

    AARP’s partnerships with UnitedHealthcare and Oak Street are all about the money, pure and simple. And, therefore you cannot trust the AARP name when it comes to deciding whether you should join a Medicare Advantage plan operated by UnitedHealthcare or visit a health clinic operated by Oak Street. AARP is generating $1 billion a year from these partnerships. Talk about conflicts of interest.

    As it turns out, Oak Street is under investigation by the Justice Department for possible violation of the False Claims Act because of its marketing practices. Naturally, Oak Street denies any wrongdoing, and it claims it offers “value-based care.” I say, “no data, no value.”

    Oak Street is one of the 99 “direct contracting entities” that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that oversees Medicare, has contracted with as part of an experiment intended to reduce Medicare spending and improve quality of care for people in traditional Medicare. But, the experiment injects for-profit middlemen into traditional Medicare that show no evidence of delivering value as I and many others have argued.

    As health economist Marilyn Moon explains, these partnerships put AARP in a compromising position. These partnerships are very different from AARP partnering with a travel company to help its members get travel discounts. The partnerships could keep AARP from advocating to promote the needs of their members.

    For example, because of its partnership with Oak Street,  AARP does not appear to have spoken out against the privatization of traditional Medicare through direct contracting entities, renamed REACH. REACH is a government experiment in which Oak Street and other private equity and insurer entities are paid to “manage” care for people in traditional Medicare.

    AARP claims that its partnerships do not affect its advocacy on behalf of its members. Even if that were true, the appearance of a conflict in and of itself is troubling.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • DCE “experiment” could mean total privatization of Medicare

    DCE “experiment” could mean total privatization of Medicare

    In 2020, the Trump administration launched a plan to hand traditional Medicare over to Wall Street. Inexplicably, the Biden administration is playing along.

    The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the plan will drive up healthcare costs, inhibiting people from getting needed care. So-called Direct Contracting Entities, DCEs, must pay for the care of the people assigned to them. Here’s the sweet part for Wall Street: In addition to the normal profits from providing services, these firms can keep as much as 40 percent of the money they don’t spend on care. Talk about a financial incentive to deny treatments.

    In addition, a new safe harbor rule lets DCEs owned by the same investors shuffle money between them without risking civil or criminal penalties for paying kickbacks. That’s the kind of system that makes profiteering easy.

    In phase one of this healthcare experiment, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, pays 53 DCEs. They receive a fixed amount of money to cover care for each traditional Medicare enrollee whose primary care doctor signs up with that DCE. The government already auto-assigned hundreds of thousands of people to DCEs.

    Since people in traditional Medicare did not sign up for this, they likely do not know or understand what’s in store.
    Yes, they should have received written notice of their new status. But CMS treats the change as if it does not affect the quality of care provided to these older and disabled people.

    Astonishingly, CMS does not require DCEs to tell people that they have the right to opt out, let alone alert them that there is good reason to do so.

    Anyone enrolled in a DCE should worry that their primary care doctors will limit their access to costly necessary care. The DCEs are likely paying these doctors more to keep patients away from specialty care or providing them with guidance to delay and withhold care. We have seen this profit maximizing before, and it isn’t pretty.

    With Medicare Advantage, which corporate health insurers administer, the Office of the Inspector General found widespread and persistent inappropriate delays and denials of care and coverage.

    The Biden administration continues to mislead people about Medicare Advantage or Part C of Medicare with information claiming it offers people more than traditional Medicare without explaining its risks, including considerable financial and administrative barriers to care.

    Conflicts of Interest Abound

    These business models mean that providing quality health care and abiding by their legal obligations is at odds with profiting handsomely, reports by government agencies and independent researchers have shown again and again.

    Private equity firms and corporations that own or operate dialysis centershospice programslong-term care programs and even dermatology practices put their own interests first, to the detriment of their patients, government watchdogs found.

    Similarly, the DCEs can deliver more for their investors when they avoid paying for costly care.

    How can they do that? Unlike other wealthy countries and large employers in the United States, our government pays a flat fee per person to insurers regardless of the amount they spend on care. Unlike other wealthy countries, our government does not dictate the terms for providing care. Instead, our government lets DCEs decide when to cover care and to do so without accountability. The DCEs don’t even have to make public their coverage policies.

    Covering Medicare benefits, which DCEs must do, is very different from providing people with the medically necessary services and treatments they need.

    For example, as far as a DCE is concerned, three physical therapy visits might be all that is medically necessary after a hip replacement, even though many more are needed. Likewise, a DCE may decide a plain old X-ray will suffice when the treating physician has determined that an MRI is required.

    What Wall Street Loves

    Why would the Biden administration want to give corporations control over the health care of the most vulnerable Americans?

    Wall Street loves it. And the Trump administration, which promised to drain the swamp and stop Wall Street predations, instead turned Washington into a prosperous paradise for the worst Wall Street predators.

    This move away from quality healthcare service to profit-oriented denials of care is worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year in taxpayer money flowing to private industry.

    The CMS description of the program shows how much it is directed at Wall Street, not to the quality of care.

    The DCE approach “draws upon private sector approaches to risk-sharing arrangements and payment with reduced administrative burden commensurate with the level of downside risk.

    “The risk-sharing options… also includes a reduced set of quality measures that focuses more on outcomes and beneficiary experience than on process.

    “By providing flexible options with regard to, for example, risk-sharing arrangements, financial protections, and benefit enhancements” they are expected to be attractive to people with Medicare but also to “organizations that have experience with risk-based contracts.” That’s a euphemistic way to refer to the DCEs financed by Wall Street.

    That description, interestingly, is contained in an announcement about a new rule that effectively exempts related DCEs from civil and criminal liability for paying kickbacks so long as they pay in accord with the new rule.

    If that sounds like a license to loot the Treasury, it’s because that is precisely what it can and likely will become.

    Basically, one DCE can make payments to a brother or sister entity, which can become a way for these related businesses to keep more of the money taxpayers pay them.

    These private business dis-Advantage plans are a far less cost-effectivequality-questionable arm of Medicare.

    Pilot Program Metastasizes

    Direct contracting is supposed to be a pilot program, yet Medicare has no plans to limit the number of people it enrolls in these new plans. Instead, Medicare has announced plans to enroll 100% of traditional Medicare members into DCE-like programs by 2030.

    This massive handover appears to violate the limited authority that Congress granted to conduct an experiment. Without any Congressional oversight, CMS is moving all people on Medicare into these private business plans by the Orwellian redefining of its direct contracting authority with providers and suppliers.

    Through the Medicare Innovation Center, Congress gave CMS authority to test new models for paying for care provided that they neither increase costs nor undermine quality.

    Our Congress did not authorize models that are known to be more costly, that are subject to large-scale inappropriate denials of care or to systems that involve private insurers and investors as intermediaries with complete control over people’s care.

    Our Congress did not authorize the wholesale overhaul of traditional Medicare, so why is this happening?

    The Biden administration should be held to account immediately and pressured to halt this dangerous and costly Medicare transformation. And members of Congress, especially on the committees that oversee Medicare, need to hold public hearings where people denied care would testify to their experiences.

    What You Can Do About It

    The Biden administration could stop this Direct Contracting pilot that is privatizing traditional Medicare.
    The Honorable Xavier Becerra, secretary, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services
    Washington, D.C. 20201
    The Honorable Chiquita Brooks-LaSure
    administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    Baltimore, MD. 21244

    You also can sign this petition.

    Note: This article appeared originally on DCReport.