Why Ryan might be right about Medicare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

"Overlooked in the furor surrounding Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal — a plan, it should be recalled, that wouldn’t start until 2023 and even then would affect only new beneficiaries — is a just-published study in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggesting that, well, Ryan might be right. The study finds that a voucher-type system might noticeably reduce costs compared to “traditional” fee-for-service Medicare. Three Harvard economists did the study, including one prominent supporter of President Obama’s health-care overhaul.

The study compared the costs of traditional Medicare with Medicare Advantage, a voucher-like program that now enrolls about 25 percent of beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage has cost less for identical coverage. From 2006 to 2009, the gap averaged 11 percent between traditional Medicare and voucher plans that, under the proposal by Ryan and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), would serve as a price “benchmark.” "...............

Here is an article from The New England Journal of Medicine. with a different point of view:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1200156

In general, Medicare's experience with private plans strongly suggests that hard decisions cannot be avoided merely by shifting to a different system. Private plans are not inherently more efficient than the those provided by the public sector.

Medicare Advantage creates a role for private plans in Medicare but is not a voucher or premium-support plan.

Private Medicare plans can modify their cost sharing if the changes result in plans that are at least actuarially equivalent to traditional Medicare and do not discriminate against the sick. Beneficiaries retain the right to return to the traditional program during the annual open-enrollment period. Although premium-support proposals vary, most would not provide such guarantees, and many would eliminate traditional Medicare altogether. (bold is mine)

That is not the original Archer. Different publication. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=1273025

Sorry...I googled the premise and found the wrong journal, I will correct my post. Googling after midnight should probably be banned. I tried to read all the JAMA report, but was unable to get the second page without a subscription. What I did read from the first page sounds a lot like what the NEJM article, I wish I could read the entire article to see where the WP got it's conclusion from.

You could always try the library and see if they had a copy of the actual magazine that you could read.

Medicare part D also uses subsidies (or is vouchers more correct?) to select from private plans and its cost has been far less than origionally projected as well. Many more insurance companies have participated than projected, and many say the competition between the insurance companies have driven down premiums. Some others say the fact that some major drugs went generic had more to do with it, but I would think that would of been known in advance when they made the original cost projections.

Then again, the ACA also proposes something similar (subsidies with private insurance in competition) so we'll see how that goes...

Apparently you aren't the one paying the premiums. My part D premium rose 20% in one year. I'll shop around for a new plan the end of the year, but it's tricky. One may have a lower premium but charge more for the meds I take, each plan covers different drugs at different prices. Part D is a nightmare, pure and simple.

Blessed are the children for they shall inherit our debts.

archer wrote: Apparently you aren't the one paying the premiums. My part D premium rose 20% in one year. I'll shop around for a new plan the end of the year, but it's tricky. One may have a lower premium but charge more for the meds I take, each plan covers different drugs at different prices. Part D is a nightmare, pure and simple.

No, I'm not paying Part D premiums.

My comment was about the cost of the program to the government, and the cost of Medicare Part D has been much less than was projected when the program first started. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you. As I recall, premiums have also been lower than originally projected too but I'd have to look that one up to confirm how much, and as mentioned I wasn't talking about premiums anyway.

As you know, Part D is entirely voluntary. If it's not helping you save money (it should, since Medicare heavily subsidizes it) or is to much of a pain to use, then why keep using it?

Disclaimer: No personal info is requested nor is necessary. No reply requested either since I wasn't talking about premiums anyway.

Simple..if you don't use part D, a senior eligible for medicare cannot get an Rx policy from any insurance co. It's part D or nothing.