Tag: Long-term care

  • It’s time to rethink nursing home care

    It’s time to rethink nursing home care

    For decades now, nursing homes in the US have failed to provide older residents with a dignified and humane life. Their horrifying response to the COVID-19 pandemic and inability to provide residents safe shelter or quality care only underscore the need to rethink nursing home care. We need to replace large institutional nursing homes with smaller facilities that feel more like home.

    For a long time now, most institutional nursing homes have had persisting deficiencies. Of late, more than 54,000 nursing home residents and staff have died as a result of the novel coronavirus. COVID-19 provides an opportunity to see the grave vulnerabilities of institutionalized nursing home care today.

    The Green House model of nursing home, small and focused first on the needs and desires of residents, is a great model. Green Houses offer a dignified way and patient-centered way to provide long-term care.

    Dr. Joanne Lynne, an analyst at the Program to Improve Eldercare at Altarum, explains why we should defund today’s nursing homes, shut them down and provide care to people in need of long-term care in the community.

    Dr. Lynne argues that different types of nursing care are best suited to older adults, depending upon their conditions. Small nursing homes are appropriate for people in need of a lot of assistance and of sound mind who need care over a long-stretch of time. Dr. Lynne sees five categories of people who need nursing care.

    1. People discharged from the hospital who need short-term care so that they can return home or to another place in the community.
    2. People with brain damage, including dementia and stroke, who do not know where they are and do not have family or friends to provide them assistance.
    3. People who need a lot of assistance and don’t mind moving out of their homes and having someone take care of them in a home-like setting.
    4. People who need a lot of care because of significant disabilities and favor congregate care, and can either afford it or who have coverage to pay for it.
    5. People at the end of life who need hospice care for a short period of time.

    People who have been discharged from the hospital and need short-term care and people who have dementia or otherwise do not know where they are could manage in a less-homelike setting. A small nursing home might not be best for them.

    But, people with serious disabilities need a comfortable living space, where they can socialize, build relationships with others, and their personal needs can be tended to. A small nursing home could be appropriate for them. No more than a small group of people should live together to ensure good outcomes.

    People in hospice also need a home-like and comfortable setting, but they do not need an environment conducive to establishing long-term relationships.

    Nursing homes in the age of COVID-19 are more like prisons for their 1.3 million residents. No visitors. No family or friends with whom to socialize. Often, residents are isolated in a single room. They have had no choice in this arrangement for four months now. They have been disenfranchised and their well-being jeopardized. Smaller nursing homes would make it much easier to contain the spread of a deadly virus.

    Medicaid must be able to pay for smaller nursing homes, as it does in many cases with Green Houses. And, in order to help ensure patients needs are met, these homes must be required to spend at least 85 percent of their revenue from insurers on direct patient care.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Coronavirus: Lawmakers ignore horrific number of nursing home deaths

    Coronavirus: Lawmakers ignore horrific number of nursing home deaths

    David Dayen writes for The American Prospect on the horrific number of deaths at nursing homes during this novel coronavirus pandemic. At last count, more than 31,000 nursing home residents had died from COVID-19. What’s shocking is that lawmakers are turning a blind eye to the issue and protecting nursing home owners.

    First, we have incomplete and inaccurate information about nursing home deaths. In fact, only four in five nursing homes have reported COVID-19 casualties to CMS. It’s unclear how many are misreporting their data.

    At a minimum, one in four COVID-19 deaths are in nursing homes. To put that in context, nursing home residents represent fewer than one in 165 Americans. Dayen says that the number of nursing home deaths translate to between 12 and 18 deaths each hour.

    This is criminal. Horrific. But, there is not the due uproar and focus on this scandal because it is largely hidden. We are not seeing the images to trigger the needed response. We only recently have seen data.

    Meanwhile, states have imposed rules on nursing homes regarding testing of residents and staff to help contain the spread of the novel coronavirus. In some states, staff are expected to be tested twice a week. Some insurers are refusing to pay for these tests, which are related expressly to employment and not personal health. Nursing homes say they cannot afford to pay for them. Again, a guaranteed, universal health care system could easily address this issue.

    On a separate note, lawmakers have given nursing home executives immunity from liability for failing to properly care for their residents. Nursing home regulations have been loosened. Fines for failing to abide by regulations have been lowered. Yet, many nursing homes have been cited for endangering their residents over the last decade, including improper care, abuse and theft of resources.

    We have a terrible long-term care system in this country that is desperately in need of fixing. It’s long past time to start remedying this abhorrent situation.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Coronavirus is making it harder to get long-term care

    Coronavirus is making it harder to get long-term care

    The financial and emotional toll of caring for older adults has always been enormous. The novel coronavirus pandemic is making it still harder for caregivers attending to older adults living at home and, even more so, in nursing homes. Bob Herman reports for Axios on why long-term care has become an even bigger issue with COVID-19.

    The data show that older adults are most at risk of becoming gravely ill or dying if they get the novel coronavirus. Many nursing homes and other long-term care facilities have been hard-pressed to contain the spread of the virus. The particular vulnerability of older adults if they get COVID-19 means added stress for them and the people who care for them.

    The question becomes how to ensure older adults receive long-term care safely and affordably. Assisted living facilities and other group homes for older adults tend to cost a minimum of $4,000 a month. Medicare and private health insurance almost never covers their cost. Long-term care insurance will usually cover the cost, but it tends to be a bad investment.

    Medicaid often covers the cost of nursing home coverage for people with low incomes and limited assets. In order for Medicaid to pay, people with more savings need to spend them. Depending upon the state you live in, your income may need to be very low. Also, many nursing homes are not safe and deliver poor quality care.

    When choosing a nursing home, check out Nursing Home Inspect. Do not rely on Medicare’s Nursing Home Compare; it’s star-rating system is a farce. Kaiser Health News reports on how poorly many nursing homes do at controlling the spread of infections.

    Increasingly, people opt for home care as a safer alternative. Over the last several years, more older adults are choosing to age in place, remaining in their homes and hiring home health aides or having friends and loved ones care for them.

    But, aging in place can be enormously costly unless family or friend caregivers are able to help when needed. It also can be difficult to keep a paid caregiver. Wages tend to be low and turnover rates are high. And, in this time of COVID-19, having caregivers coming and going from the home of a loved one has its own set of risks.

    If you are thinking of moving into an assisted living facility or other care facility, now is a hard time to consider your options. In person tours are limited at best. Virtual tours do not provide a 360 degree view of the facility. Unfortunately, it might still be several months before these facilities reopen.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Nine takeaways for the US from other health care systems

    Nine takeaways for the US from other health care systems

    Dylan Scott at Vox traveled to Taiwan, Australia and the Netherlands to gain a better understanding of their health care systems and how they differ from ours. Here are his nine takeaways.

    1. The US is the only developed country that is not committed to universal health care.

    Unlike Taiwan, Australia, the Netherlands and the UK, policymakers in the US have not reached consensus that the federal government should guarantee everyone in the country access to health care, much less that health care should be affordable to all.

    2. There’s no perfect universal health care system.

    Every other developed country covers everyone, and their residents pay far less for their care than we do in the US. Still, some countries do not have enough health care providers and costs are rising.

    Australia recently adopted a two-tiered system, offering everyone public health insurance and those who can afford it, private insurance. The government is investing a lot of money in the private system. As a result, there is less needed funding for the public system. Also, there are longer wait times for people in the public system.

    Meanwhile, the Dutch system now relies on private insurers which has driven up health care spending. Administrative costs are higher, deductibles are now almost $500, and health care is less affordable for people.

    3. Governments spend a lot to guarantee their citizens health care. 

    In other countries, governments negotiate health care prices, set rules for what is covered and when and how much people can be charged for copays. Private insurers are really claims processors, without the liberty to decide how care is covered, unlike in the US, where they must each negotiate their own rates and have tremendous freedom to restrict access to care and set copay amounts.

    4. To ensure health care affordability, governments impose cost controls.

    Some countries rely on global budgets–they set aside a fixed amount to pay for health care each year. The Australian government sets prices for doctors’ services. And, Australia has a system for evaluating whether a prescription drug offers value.

    Moreover, governments tend to rely on national electronic health records databases to see what’s working and not. Governments determine what care is covered, at what price, and how much patients will pay for their care. Insurers operate more like claims processors. They cannot set their own rules.

    5. Many countries are struggling to deliver and cover long-term care.

    Long-term care costs for older adults and people with disabilities are growing. And, it’s not clear whether and how countries will deliver the care people need or help to cover the costs of long-term care.

    The US government today spends far less on long-term care than every western European country except Portugal.

    6. Private insurance is sometimes part of the health care system, but with lots of controls and challenges.

    Scott sees private insurance as a political compromise in other countries, not a policy solution.

    The insurance industry has a lot of financial and political power to sway policy in their favor. In Australia, private insurance gives people with means more health care choices, but it has hurt everyone else to some degree.

    7. Physicians will never be completely happy with a universal health care system.

    Curiously, in every country almost twice as many doctors or more are satisfied or very satisfied with their health care system than are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Only Germany has less doctor satisfaction (63 percent) than the US (65 percent) and more dissatisfaction (36 percent v. 34 percent). Norway had the highest doctor satisfaction (91 percent), with Australia close behind (88 percent).

    8. Health insurance coverage is not the same as guaranteeing people the health care they need.

    Health care delivery system reforms need to be part of the picture if you want everyone to have access to care. Coverage is not enough. For example, some underserved regions might need hospitals or specialists. Or, as in the Netherlands, doctors might be required to provide care during the evening and weekends and make home visits. To share the load, doctors formed cooperatives.

    9. What works in the US might be different from what works in other countries.

    The US effectively has more than 50 health care systems. It has one for people with Medicare, one for people with Medicaid, one for Vets, and one in each state. And, the US has substantial racial disparities in our health care system.

    Health care in the US varies depending upon which system you are in, your race and your ability to pay. And, it is profoundly inequitable. So long as policymakers are beholden to the corporate health insurers, it’s not likely much will change.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Roundup: Housing options for older adults

    Roundup: Housing options for older adults

    Where you live can play a large role in your mental and physical health. There are a range of housing options for older adults to consider, meeting a variety of needs. Here’s a round-up of some of the most notable options.

    • Aging in place—Of all the options, remaining in your home and community as you age or “aging in place” feels best to most people. There is already familiarity with the home, neighborhood and community resources. Medical and social networks are generally in place. But, can it meet your long-term care needs?
    • CohousingThis may be the newest type of housing springing up for older adults. These housing complexes are designed for a group of people who want to create their own community, retaining their own housing unit while sharing common spaces and other facilities. With cohousing, the group might agree to share paid caregivers as well.
    • Tiny housesThese small homes, generally no more than 400 square feet, offer people who are ready to downsize significantly a way to simplify their lives and save money on maintenance. And, you can continue to live independently in the privacy of your own home. The question is what happens when you need long term services and supports.
    • Green homesLaunched in 2003, they are small intimate nursing homes, where aides have more time to spend with residents and work to accommodate their needs, be it a late breakfast or a trip to the doctor’s office. There are now 242 licensed homes in 32 states and 150 more being developed.
    • Continuing care retirement communitiesCCRCs offer housing, along with a range of social services and health care services, so you can live independently and, if the need arises, with less or more assistance.
    • Assisted living facilities–Assisted living facilities offer housing and meals as well as some social, personal care and housekeeping services. Some assisted living facilities offer small homes and others offer apartments. Most offer a common dining room.

    If you decide that you want to live entirely independently, in your home or a smaller home without long-term services and supports, plan ahead for when you may need those supports. Modifying your home sooner rather than later could prevent an unneeded fall. It could also allow you to manage in your home if you have a disability. Think through what you would want to do if you cannot remain safely in your home.

    Depending upon your situation and where you live, you may be eligible for PACE, a Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly in your community. PACE provides you with the long-term services and supports they may need so that you can live safely in your home.

    If you choose to move, be sure to consider the location carefully. If you will no longer be able to see your doctors, identify new doctors and schedule appointments with them before moving. Think about whether the new location is convenient for family and friends to visit. If you like walking, make sure it is a walkable community. And, contact the local area aging on aging to learn about community resources and other benefits for older adults.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • The FAMILY Act would ensure paid leave to workers caring for older family members

    The FAMILY Act would ensure paid leave to workers caring for older family members

    Across the country, millions of working people must give up their jobs or take unpaid leave to be caregivers for older relatives, putting their financial well-being at risk. Advocates are now engaged in a campaign to urge Congress to create a comprehensive, national paid leave program through the Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act. The Act would ensure that workers are not financially penalized for leaving work to care for themselves or family members with serious health conditions.

    Around 40.4 million Americans serve as unpaid caregivers for older adults. More than six in ten of them are working people and nearly half of them work full-time. But, not even one in five working people (just 19 percent of workers) has paid family leave through their employers. As a result, when people need to stop working or to reduce their workload to care for an aging relative, they often face a significant loss of income.

    The FAMILY Act would enable working people to take up to a total of 12 weeks each year (60 working days) to care for themselves or a family member with a serious health condition. And, they would still receive a portion of their wages. Workers could take the paid time away from work however they please, all at once or intermittently.

    Workers could earn as much as two-thirds of their monthly wages up to a capped amount. And, the FAMILY Act would cover all workers, no matter the size of their employer. The Act covers full-time, part-time and self-employed workers.

    The FAMILY Act would not require government funding. The Act would create an affordable and self-sustaining national family and medical leave insurance fund to cover all workers. Workers and their employers would pay .02 cents on every $10.00 earned, less than $2.00 a week (less than $100 a year) for most workers. All workers would be required to participate in the program.

    Representative Rosa DeLAuro (D-CT) introduced the FAMILY Act, H.R. 1185 in the House and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the FAMILY Act, S. 463 in the Senate.

    We need a groundswell of support for this Act. If you support the FAMILY Act, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Support increases for Medicare for All the better it is understood

    Support increases for Medicare for All the better it is understood

    The latest Morning Consult + Politico national tracking poll shows that support increases for Medicare for All as it is better understood. Support rises once people understand that Medicare for All covers their care from the doctors they want to see.

    Overall, more than half the public (53 percent) supports or strongly supports Medicare for All, whereas 36 percent oppose or strongly oppose it. Support falls to 46 percent if people are told Medicare for All reduces the role of private insurance. Yet, people may be confusing private insurance with care from private doctors and hospitals. Support increases to 55 percent when people are told that Medicare for All would allow them to continue to get care from their doctors and hospital while reducing the role of private insurance.

    These poll results suggest that a large portion of the public still does not understand that Medicare for All gives them freedom to see the doctors they want to see anywhere in the US. They appear to mistakenly believe that if they lose their private insurance they lose access to their doctors. They also likely do not know or believe Medicare for all may generate savings of as much as $5 trillion over ten years and lower their health care costs.

    The poll did not ask voters whether they would support Medicare for All if it eliminated premiums, deductibles and copays and added vision, hearing, dental and long-term care benefits. It’s reasonable to assume that were voters asked, support for Medicare for All would increase substantially.

    Medicare for All is clearly not yet well understood by people with Medicare. Medicare for All would reduce their out-of-pocket health care costs and expand their benefits. Still, stunningly, only 40 percent of people over 65 support or strongly support Medicare for All, with 54 percent opposing or strongly opposing it. The percentage of supporters and strong supporters increases to 50 percent once people learn they would be able to continue to get care from their doctors and hospital.

    Support for Medicare for All varies by party lines. More than three in four Democrats (78 percent), 56 percent of Independents, and 26 percent of Republicans support Medicare for All once they know it would allow them to continue to get care from their doctors and hospital.

    The public option proposal–Medicare for some— enjoys 68 percent support or strong support, greater support than Medicare for All. It sounds good. But, most people likely do not understand that the public option cannot and does not guarantee them affordable health care coverage or provide them additional benefits. It does not lower provider rates for people with private insurance. It does not reduce administrative costs. And, it keeps premiums, deductibles and coinsurance high.

    If you support Medicare for all, please let Congress know. Sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Washington and Hawaii rely on public funds to cover cost of home care for older adults

    Washington and Hawaii rely on public funds to cover cost of home care for older adults

    Kaiser Health News reports on two states that have passed laws to help cover the cost of home care for older adults. Washington and Hawaii are relying on public funds to pay for long-term services and supports that enable more older adults to age in place.

    In Washington, a 0.58 percent payroll contribution will pay for a $36,500 long-term services and supports (LTSS) benefit under the Long-Term Care Trust Act. Everyone must pay this tax except self-employed people and people with private long-term care insurance. They can opt to pay in or not. The state government passed this new law after considering and rejecting the idea of strengthening commercial long-term care insurance.

    The LTSS benefit begins in 2025 for people who pay in at least three years. Contributions will be collected beginning 2022. People who need help with at least three activities of daily living–bathing, dressing, toiletting, eating, and transferring– will be eligible for the benefit.

    Up to $100 a day, adjusted for inflation, will cover home care and related services, including home modifications and respite care for family caregivers. It could also cover the cost of a wheelchair ramp or training a family caregiver on how to best care for someone with a particular condition. Washington authorities believe that the broader the range of covered services, the more likely older adults will be able to remain in their own homes.

    The state projects Medicaid savings of $3.9 billion over 30 years. And, it predicts 15,000 residents will take advantage of the benefit in 2025. By 2052, they project 98,000 residents will use the LTSS benefit. Today, 66,000 residents get long-term supports and services through Medicaid.

    In Hawaii, public funds pay for a caregiver program that covers $210 a week in home care services. The program restricts enrollment to people whose family caregivers work outside the home for at least 30 hours each week.

    These two states’ innovative ways to help older adults age in place could be a model for the rest of the country. Nearly 100 million Americans will be 65 or older by 2050. And, the data suggests that the vast majority will not be able to afford long-term services and supports. But, as many as 70 million could need them.

    Older adults often need help with bathing, feeding, toiletting, dressing and/or transferring from their bed to a chair. And, they typically need that help for two years. If they can stay out of nursing homes, they are not only likely to be happier, but it should save the government money.

    Fewer than one in six Americans have long-term care insurance to cover the cost of LTSS. Those policies cost around $3,000 a year. And, it is not at all clear they are a good investment.

    So far, the federal government has not passed legislation to cover long-term services and supports. Most recently, it tried to do so through the Affordable Care Act. The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Plan, a provision of the ACA that was jettisoned, would have delivered as much as $50 in daily benefits for home care or nursing home care. It was a voluntary government insurance program that would have charged people a premium.

    For now, several states are looking into a variety of ways to help their residents age in place. In Minnesota, the state may let people convert life insurance policies to long-term care insurance. In Maine, the state is promoting long-term care insurance. Mainers recently voted against a ballot proposal to provide free long-term care to residents. It would have been paid through a 3.8% income tax on people with annual incomes above $128,400.

    In California, Michigan and Illinois, state long-term services and support programs are also under consideration. Over the years, the New York State Assembly has passed a bill that would increase income taxes to pay for LTSS. But, the New York State Senate has not passed it.

    Medicare for All would cover long-term care for everyone in the country.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Many older adults cannot afford home care

    Many older adults cannot afford home care

    Home care is significantly less costly than nursing home care. And, most Americans would far prefer to age in place, in their homes, and receive home care than move to a care facility. But, the latest Urban Institute research by Richard Johnson and Claire Wang shows that nearly half of older adults will not be able to afford care in their home when they need it.

    Researchers looked at the cohort of older adults with severe need for long-term services and supports (LTSS), assistance with bathing, feeding, cooking and the like. They found that nearly half could not afford two years of paid home care on their own even if they sold all their assets. Overall, about two in three adults over 65 not on Medicaid can afford two years of paid home care if they rely on income and other savings that can easily be turned into cash.

    The researchers found that three in four older adults could afford home care for two years if they sold less easily liquidated assets, including their cars and businesses, but not their homes. And, four in ten older adults could afford home care as long as needed based on their income alone. Half as many with severe LTSS needs, two in ten, could afford indefinite home care based on their income alone.

    But, most older adults end up relying on unpaid family caregivers and not paying for home care. In the 14 years between 1998 and 2012, fewer than one in five adults 55 and older needing help with four out of five activities of daily living–bathing, feeding, toileting, transferring and dressing–received it.

    If you are interested in learning more about care options outside the home, including assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, nursing homes and more, click here.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Medicare for all improves the lives of older adults

    Medicare for all improves the lives of older adults

    Letter to Chairman McGovern and members of the U.S. House of Representatives House Rules Committee in support of the Medicare for All Act of 2019, H.R. 1384, with a focus on its value for older adults:

    I want to share my thoughts on a very important and often overlooked aspect of the Medicare for All debate: How Medicare for All will greatly improve the lives of people with Medicare. Any discussion of this issue starts with the unacceptable state of the broader American health insurance system.

    Americans of all ages are increasingly being forced to make health care choices no one should have to make. Two in three[i] of us forego needed care in order to afford the rent, the heat, our dinner. In our commercial insurance marketplace, health care choice too often means gambling with our health. Not surprisingly, more than nine in ten Americans[ii] are asking Congress to address health care costs.

    Commercial health insurers charge Americans ever higher costs for their care. They have not succeeded at negotiating fair health care prices. Rather, prices are excessive and irrational. The same procedures[iii] cost tens of thousands of dollars more in one hospital than in another. On average, the US spends twice as much[iv] on health care as other wealthy countries; yet, the US ranks at or near bottom on most health outcomes, including infant mortality and life expectancy.

    Americans suffer or die needlessly for lack of health care. I recently spoke with one woman, Eve Meikle who was forced to “backburner” treatment for her ulcerative colitis in order to pay for diagnosis and treatment of her daughter’s gastritis. Eve and her family have insurance and an annual income just over $80,000. Still, it will take them years to free themselves of medical debt, and, left untreated, Eve’s condition may very well worsen and keep her from working.

    Medicare for All is the only policy proposal before you that controls costs and guarantees health care as a right[v] to everyone. Other proposals on the table– Medicare buy-ins, Medicaid expansion or state-based reforms–neither rein in costs nor make health care affordable for all Americans.

    Medicare for All guarantees health care for all. It promotes the public good. It provides greater security to older adults by filling Medicare coverage gaps, eliminating premiums, deductibles and coinsurance, and adding vision, hearing, dental and long-term services and support benefits. And, it does so while reducing national health care spending. It uses the leverage of all Americans to rationalize health care prices and eliminate administrative waste. Even by conservative estimates, it saves $2 trillion[vi] over 10 years. And, if we paid what other countries paid for their drugs, as President Trump and Senator Sanders have both proposed, it would save still more.

    Medicare for All builds on Medicare, which has a 50-year track record of providing health and financial security to older and disabled Americans. Medicare has helped significantly to reduce the poverty rate among older adults, which has fallen from 29 percent in 1965 to nine percent in 2016.[vii]

    Medicare works. I know firsthand. I am the founder and past president of the Medicare Rights Center, a national not-for-profit consumer service organization.

    Medicare works because it is designed to meet the needs of everyone, including people in poor health with costly conditions. It works because it gives people the freedom to travel or move in with an out-of-area family caregiver and see the doctors they want to see, wherever in the US they happen to be. Medicare works because it allows its enrollees, their children and grandchildren, to sleep at night knowing they can and will get the care they need. Still, three in four older adults say the government is not doing enough to address health care costs.[viii]

    Medicare for All would significantly improve the health and financial security of older Americans. Older adults are counting on you[ix] to expand Medicare benefits. Older adults, much like their kids, increasingly struggle to pay for health care that Medicare does not cover. One in four of them have less than $15,000 in savings.[x] Half live on annual incomes under $26,200.[xi] Social Security benefits are critical, but inadequate, to cover many basic needs. Private sector retiree benefits have eroded.

    Even with Medicare, Americans have thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket health care costs for hearing, dental, vision and long-term services and supports. They also need supplemental coverage to fill Medicare coverage gaps and protect themselves financially, which can be extremely costly. A Gallup poll[xii] released last week reveals that one in seven older adults, 7.5 million people, are unable to pay for the medicines their doctors prescribe. And, of those, eight in ten say that these medicines are for a somewhat or very serious condition.

    Traditional Medicare, without supplemental coverage, has high out-of-pocket costs and no catastrophic cap. For this reason, many older Americans have no choice but to sign up for commercial Medicare plans, known as Medicare Advantage plans, which have a catastrophic cap. The commercial Medicare Advantage system is a looming tragedy for older Americans that can only be addressed through Medicare for All.

    Commercial Medicare plans offer lower upfront costs than people with government-administered Medicare. Older and disabled Americans enroll in Medicare Advantage plans hoping to save money. But, there is compelling reason for serious concern that Medicare Advantage plans are keeping enrollees from getting needed care, jeopardizing their health, and overcharging the government and taxpayers. I want to highlight these three big issues.

    Wrongful Delays and Denials of Care

    Medicare Advantage plans routinely and improperly delay or deny coverage for needed care. The Office of the Inspector General[xiii] reports that audits by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reveal “widespread and persistent [Medicare Advantage] performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” This should come as no surprise. The less care they deliver, the more Medicare Advantage plans profit.

    CMS has sanctioned dozens of commercial Medicare plans[xiv] for, among other things, “threatening the health and safety” of their members and “charging incorrect copayments to enrollees for medical services.”

    Poor Quality Care

    In addition, Medicare Advantage plans may prevent their enrollees from receiving good quality care. A recent study published in Health Affairs[xv] shows that Medicare Advantage plans send enrollees to lower quality nursing facilities than traditional Medicare. Research soon to be published shows that Medicare Advantage enrollees generally have less access to top hospitals than people in traditional Medicare. They also lack access to higher quality home care.

    A recent study in JAMA Internal Medicine[xvi] shows that people with significant health care needs are disenrolling from Medicare Advantage plans to traditional Medicare at far higher rates than people without significant health needs.

    In addition, Medicare Advantage enrollees cannot rely on continuity of care from their doctors. Kaiser Health News[xvii] reported earlier this month on a cancer patient in a Medicare Advantage plan who is losing the in-network doctors who have kept her alive over the last several years but are no longer in-network. She cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket for her doctors’ out-of-network services.

    No trustworthy public data is available as to which, if any, Medicare Advantage plans promote access to quality providers and good care. The current five-star rating system for Medicare Advantage plans is regarded as a farce. CMS policy[xviii] permits a Medicare Advantage plan to get a five-star rating even though CMS has sanctioned[xix] it for threatening the health and safety of its members and has “a longstanding history of noncompliance with CMS requirements.”

    Government Overcharges

    Of concern as well, government overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans appear significant. Congress entrusts commercial Medicare Advantage plans with covering the healthcare of our most vulnerable citizens at significant taxpayer expense. Yet we know from government audits that the Medicare Advantage plans bill taxpayers for tens of billions of dollars[xx] they are not due. They “upcode,” services, improperly claiming the health status of their enrollees is worse than it is in order to generate higher payments.

    The GAO[xxi] reports that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services identified $14.1 billion in overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans in 2014 alone but that CMS is not recovering nearly as much in improper payments as it could with better oversight.

    A more recent study published in Health Services Research[xxii] estimates that “upcoding” by Medicare Advantage plans could account for as much as 13 percent of payments[xxiii] to Medicare Advantage plans and increase Medicare spending over ten years by $200 billion. And, it is not clear whether CMS can recoup this money.[xxiv]

    The litany of wrongful and harmful behaviors by Medicare Advantage plans is likely greater than we know. Critical Medicare Advantage data is unavailable for analysis. We know more about how restaurants, automobiles and televisions perform and rank against one another than we do about Medicare Advantage plans. Yet, the government paid them $210 billion in 2017[xxv] alone.

    With or without the data, we know that commercial health insurers are hard-pressed to meet the needs of people with Medicare or anyone else who develops a complex and costly condition. Imagine the best commercial health insurance company in the US. Let’s promise that it will always provide high value care for people with stroke, cancer and heart disease. This best health insurance company would be out of business before it opened its doors. Everyone in poor health would join, driving premiums up so high that no one could afford them. To make a profit, commercial health plans must compete to avoid high-cost enrollees.[xxvi]

    Instead of meeting our needs, commercial health insurers offer little health or financial security. They can and do change their network providers all the time, keep doctors from providing the care their patients need, shift costs onto their members who most need care and pull out of markets. They do whatever they need to do to promote their business interests.

    Medicare for All—an improved and expanded Medicare system—can do what commercial health insurance can never do: Protect Americans from the high cost of health care, while ensuring access to good quality care.

    To some, Medicare for All may seem too big a change too quickly. For Americans, the change could not come quickly enough.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    [i] Becker’s Hospital Review: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/64-of-americans-avoid-treatment-due-to-cost-of-medical-care-5-survey-insights.html

    [ii] Politico.com: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/07/politico-harvard-poll-medicare-for-all-1061791

    [iii] Modern Healthcare: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160427/NEWS/160429918/the-striking-variation-of-commercial-healthcare-prices

    [iv] Peterson Kaiser Health System Tracker: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/

    [v] Political Economy Research Institute: https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all

    [vi] Blahous, Charles, The Costs of a National Single-Payer Health Care System: https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf

    [vii] Joint Economic Committee, Democrats, Medicare: Protecting Seniors and Families: https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/5f4be5d9-b297-467a-948a-e7525d04f924/medicare-final.pdf

    [viii] Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/248741/seniors-pay-billions-yet-cannot-afford-healthcare.aspx

    [ix] Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/248741/seniors-pay-billions-yet-cannot-afford-healthcare.aspx

    [x] Kaiser Family Foundation: http://files.kff.org/attachment/Issue-Brief-Income-and-Assets-of-Medicare-Beneficiaries-2016-2035

    [xi] Kaiser Family Foundation: https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-many-seniors-live-in-poverty/

    [xii] Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/248741/seniors-pay-billions-yet-cannot-afford-healthcare.aspx

    [xiii] Office of the Inspector General: https://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-09-16-00410.pdf

    [xiv] CMS Compliance and Audits: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Compliance-and-Audits/Part-C-and-Part-D-Compliance-and-Audits/PartCandPartDEnforcementActions-.html

    [xv] Meyers, David J. et al., Health Affairs: https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0714

    [xvi] JAMA Internal Medicine: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2725083

    [xvii] Kaiser Health News: https://khn.org/news/patients-caught-in-middle-of-fight-between-health-care-behemoths/

    [xviii] CMS policy memo: https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.fiercemarkets.net/public/004-Healthcare/external/star_ratings_memo.pdf

    [xix] CMS policy memo: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Compliance-and-Audits/Part-C-and-Part-D-Compliance-and-Audits/Downloads/Cigna_Sanction_01_21_16.pdf

    [xx] GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-76

    [xxi] Ibid.

    [xxii] Health Services Research: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1475-6773.12977

    [xxiii] Van de Water, Paul, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/medicare-advantage-upcoding-overpayments-require-attention

    [xxiv] UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, et al. v. Alex M. Azar II, et al., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services: https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.fiercemarkets.net/public/004-Healthcare/external_Q32018/UHvBurwell_overpayments.pdf

    [xxv] Cubanski, Juliette and Neuman, Tricia, Kaiser Family Foundation: https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/

    [xxvi] Archer, Diane and Marmor, Theodore, Health Affairs, Medicare and Commercial Health Insurance: The Fundamental Difference: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20120215.016980/full/