or we'll share our diseases before you can feel yours or that of this
increasingly illegitimate republic!
+********** Snail me yer rosehips if you liked this post! ************
*Better Living Thru Better Living!* http://www.***.com/ ~rugosa *
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999
Families USA
The Impact of Medicare Reform
on Low-Income Beneficiaries
March, 1999
red line
CREDITS
INTRODUCTION
The National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare is
considering recommendations to radically restructure Medicare. These
recommendations are likely to have a particularly profound effect on
the one out of four Medicare beneficiaries who have low -incomes. The
proposal under consideration-called "premium support"-could diminish
significantly affect both the availability and affordability of health
care for the low-income elderly and disabled.
In the three decades of Medicare's existence, cost-sharing and
out-of-pocket spending has increased steadily. The average Medicare
beneficiary spends about one-fifth of income on out-of-pocket health
care costs, but those at or below the federal poverty level spend more
than a third of their incomes on health care. About half of these
low-income beneficiaries do not have Medicaid coverage, and
out-of-pocket spending consumes an astounding 50 percent of their
income.1-2
Congress has taken a number of steps over the past decade to protect
low-income beneficiaries from rising costs by paying their Medicare
premiums and, in some cases, their Medicare cost-sharing. These
programs have worked imperfectly- they actually reach only about half
those eligible- -- but have made a significant difference to the
seniors who have participated in them.
Now, the Bipartisan Commission is about to propose a significant
restructuring of Medicare. The proposal under consideration builds on
a competitive, market-based approach and limits federal fiscal
responsibilities. If not carefully structured, this proposal could
further increase the financial burden on beneficiaries-in particular,
the low-income beneficiaries. The Commission's draft proposal
addresses low-income issues in only a limited way.3 The proposal calls
for the continuation of the existing buy-in program that provides
assistance to low-income beneficiaries but leaves serious questions
unanswered. No consideration is given to the significant
administrative obstacles involved in folding the low-income assistance
program into a premium support model or to the significant reforms
needed to make it work effectively. To adequately meet the needs of
low-income people, the Commission's final proposal should include
these four protections:
1. Medicare reform should include coverage of Medicare premiums as
well as realistic, meaningful assistance with deductibles and
copayments for beneficiaries with low incomes. Eligibility should
be expanded over time to keep pace with the increasing burden of
Medicare premiums and cost-sharing.
2. The plan must ensure that all those eligible for low-income
protections actually know about the assistance and can easily
apply for and receive the benefits to which they are entitled.
3. The plan should assure that low-income people have access to the
full range of medically necessary services, guaranteed in a
"defined benefit" package, and that they have a variety of health
plan choices. They should not be forced into a few segregated
plans.
4. The plan should not increase the number of uninsured seniors (as
will happen if the eligibility age is raised), and it should
provide opportunities for people below age 65 to buy in to
Medicare, with adequate subsidies for those with low incomes.
CURRENT LOW-INCOME PROTECTIONS IN MEDICARE
As health costs grew in the 1980s along with Medicare cost-sharing,
Congress recognized the burden on low-income beneficiaries and acted
to protect those who were particularly hard hit. As a result, a number
of programs-imperfect, but important nonetheless-now exist to help
low-income beneficiaries.:
bullet Under the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) program,
beneficiaries with incomes up to 100 percent of the federal
poverty level are entitled to full coverage of their Medicare
premiums, deductibles, and copayments, paid for by the Medicaid
program.
bullet Under the Specified Low-Income Beneficiary (SLMB) program,
those with incomes between 100 and 120 percent of poverty are
entitled to Medicaid coverage of their Medicare Part B premiums
(but not their cost-sharing).
bullet Under the Qualified Individual-1 (QI-1) program, those with
incomes between 120 and 135 percent of poverty are eligible
for-but not entitled to-Medicaid coverage of their Part B premiums
from a pool of limited funding available on a first-come,
first-served basis.
Collectively, these programs are referred to as the Medicare buy-in.
The Medicare buy-in has helped millions of seniors afford the health
care they need, but obstacles to participation have prevented millions
more from receiving the help to which they are entitled. About 45
percent of the 8 million individuals who are eligible for QMB and SLMB
benefits-about 3.5 million people-are not receiving their benefits.
The result is that these eligible individuals are paying about $2
billion annually in Medicare Part B premiums through inappropriate
deductions from their Social Security checks. Another 1.6 million
individuals are eligible for assistanceare under QI-1 but only a
fraction of them currently receive assistance. All told, there are now
more than 5 million Medicare beneficiaries who need, but do not
receive, Medicare cost-sharing assistance.
One obstacle to full participation in the buy-in is that many
different entities are responsible for the program, and each appears
to "pass the buck" to others. The Social Security Administration
(SSA), the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), and state
social service agencies are all involved. SSA deducts Part B premiums
from Social Security checks, but to date SSA has had no consistent
role in administering the buy-in. HCFA oversees the buy-in but does
not directly implement it.
Currently, Medicare beneficiaries sign up for Medicare Part B benefits
when they apply for Social Security at local SSA offices. However,
beneficiaries cannot apply for buy-in benefits at the same time.
Instead, they must go to a state social services office to apply. Many
beneficiaries are never told by Social Security personnel that they
may be eligible for of the buy-in and have little or no experience
with social services offices. Unfamiliarity with social services
offices and the inconvenience of traveling to another location deter
some beneficiaries from applying. Other beneficiaries are discouraged
by the complex application processes at social services departments.
In some states, social service agencies require buy-in applicants to
complete the same time-consuming application required of Medicaid
clients; these forms often ask difficult and involved financial
questions. Additionally, social service workers are ill-informed about
the buy-in program and its procedures, which delays the application
process. In some cases, social service workers have denied the
existence of the program and turned applicants away.
Another obstacle to full participation is that states have to pay part
of the costs. Under the buy-in program, Medicare premiums and
cost-sharing are paid for by the Medicaid program; states, on average,
pay, 45 percent of the cost of Medicaid. Thus, states have a
disincentive to improve the application process and increase
enrollment.
Even if there were no impending changes in Medicare, the buy-in
program should be redesigned so that all eligible beneficiaries
actually receive the protections to which they are entitled. Several
steps should be taken:5
* First, the program should be administered fully by the federal
government. The Social Security Administration, which already
determines Medicaid eligibility for beneficiaries of the
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program in 32 states, should
take all applications for the Medicare buy-in program.
* Second, all Social Security personnel should be knowledgeable
about the program and, as a matter of protocol, should discuss the
buy-in program and the individual's potential eligibility when
taking applications for Social Security and Medicare. Personnel
should encourage applicants to apply and should help them with
their applications.
* Third, the buy-in program should be funded fully by the federal
government. The buy-in program is essentially a Medicare benefit,
not a Medicaid benefit. Requiring states to pay for what is
essentially a federal program is unreasonable and, as experience
has shown, unworkable. With full federal funding and
administration, the buy-in program stands a better chance of
reaching Medicare beneficiaries who are entitled to its benefits.
HOW MEDICARE REFORMS AFFECT THE LOW-INCOME
The Medicare Commission's draft recommendations call for transforming
Medicare into a "premium support" program and for making major changes
in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. These recommendations could
leave low-income beneficiaries with increased cost-sharing. To see why
this is true, it is necessary, to outline understand the proposed
reforms.
bullet The Impacts of the Premium Support Model
The premium support model proposed by the Commission is patterned on
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The Commission's
model works like this:6
1. A new "Medicare Board" will takes premium bids from health
plans, including the traditional Medicare program.
2. The Board will negotiates with the health plans on the price
and scope of benefits. A precise benefit package with
specific cost-sharing limits is not required.
3. The Board will average the agreed-upon premium prices from
the different plans in each market to determine a "benchmark"
premium for each market.
4. The federal government will pays an average of 88 percent of
the benchmark premium toward the cost of the health plan
chosen by each beneficiary. Beneficiary contributions will be
income-related. This means that beneficiaries with incomes
below 135 percent of poverty (if the proposal maintains
consistency with current law, as it says it will) will pay no
premium; beneficiaries with incomes between 135 and 300
percent of poverty will pay about 12 percent of the benchmark
premium (plus any additional premium required if they select
a higher cost plan); and beneficiaries with incomes above 300
percent of poverty will pay a surcharge according to a
graduated scale ranging from 1.5 percent to 15 percent of the
premium amount. The funds from income-relating premiums will
be used to augment low-income protections above those that
exist now. As possible low-income expansions, the proposal
cites "support for prescription drug coverage, efforts to
expand participation in assistance currently offered, and
extending assistance to the near poor."
How would the premium support model affect low-income
beneficiaries?
Premium Assistance under the Premium Support Model
All Medicare beneficiaries currently pay a Medicare Part B premium
of $546 a year. The Medicare buy-in program covers pays this
premium for beneficiaries with incomes below 135 percent of
poverty. The Commission projects that an average premium under its
proposal would be about $5,700 with a beneficiary contribution of
about $708.7 This average beneficiary share of premium ($708) is
$162 higher than the current share.
The Commission's proposal includes premium and cost-sharing
assistance for low-income beneficiaries. However, the proposal
does not explicitly define "low-income;." nor does it describe the
assistance that will be provided to low-income beneficiaries.
Instead, the proposal refers only to extending buy-in protections
"as under current law." If people at or below 135 percent of
poverty are included, as under the current QMB/SLMB/QI-1 programs,
these low-income beneficiaries would remain eligible for premium
assistance. However, if the income threshold is set below 135
percent, millions of people currently eligible for buy-in
protection could lose it and would be required to pay a
potentially unaffordable premium.
Since the Commission's estimate of the average premium is about
the same as the current per capita cost of the traditional
Medicare program, the projected premium does not allow for any new
benefits. If benefits-such as prescription {*filter*}- are added,
premiums would have to increase further to cover the additional
cost.
The Breaux proposal raises a host of questions about how premium
assistance for low-income beneficiaries will be implemented in a
premium support model.
Who will be eligible? How will they find out about the
assistance?
What exactly will low-income people get premium assistance for?
Will it be the beneficiary premium for the traditional
fee-for-service plan, the average-cost plan, or a lesser
amount? (Since there will be one national premium for the
traditional Medicare plan, but the amount provided towards
each beneficiary's premium will be based on regional costs,
beneficiaries who live in low-cost areas may not receive
enough to make the traditional Medicare plan affordable.)
How will low-income beneficiaries know how much assistance they
will get when they choose a health plan?
How will the Medicaid program administer an assistance program
that provides different amounts of assistance for different
people?
Cost-sharing Assistance Uunder the Premium Support Model
The premium amount for which low-income beneficiaries would be
liable is only one concern. Of equal concern is how the proposed
low-income assistance would cover cost-sharing responsibilities.
These questions remain to be answered:
The Commission's proposal allows each health plan to vary the
scope and duration of benefits, as well as the amount of
cost-sharing. Exactly how much support will low-income people
get to cover their cost-sharing? Will it be tied to the
traditional fee-for-service plan, the average-cost plan, or a
less expensive plan?
Who will decide what cost-sharing low-income people actually
get? Will it be the state Medicaid program, the Medicare
Board, or the Health Care Financing Administration? How will
a program that pays varying amounts in cost-sharing be
administered effectively?
However these questions are answered, it is crucial that
low-income beneficiaries' out-of-pocket requirements be realistic
and that assistance be sufficient to ensure that needed health
services remain affordable in the full spectrum of health plans.
bullet The Impacts of a Reconfigured Traditional Medicare Program
Cost-sharing is also a serious concern in traditional Medicare as
reconfigured in the Commission's proposal, which contains these
changes:
1. Like private health plans, traditional Medicare will submit a
premium bid to the Medicare Board. The rules governing
premium contributions will be the same as for private health
plans, described above.
2. Beneficiaries will pay a combined deductible of $350.
Currently, the deductible for Part A (hospital services) is
$768, and the deductible for Part B (out-patient services) is
$100.
3. Coinsurance of 10 percent will be required for home care and
in-patient hospital care.8 In the current program, there are
no co-payments are required for home care or for the first 60
days of hospital care.
The combination of two deductibles into one means that most
beneficiaries-the 80 percent who are not hospitalized in a given
year-will have higher out-of-pocket costs up front. Even if the
current cost-sharing protections for low-income beneficiaries
eligible for QMB benefits (those underwith incomes below 100
percent of poverty) are continued as under current law,
beneficiaries currently eligible for SLMB and QI-1 benefits (those
with incomes between 100 percent and 135 percent of poverty) will
be responsible for a $350 deductible before Medicare coverage
applies-$250 more than the deductible they pay today. This new
burden will deter these low-income seniors from securing the
health care they need.
Just as troubling are the provisions that establish 10 percent
copayments for home health care and hospitalization. If current
law is continued, low-income people currently eligible for SLMB
and QI-1 benefits (those with incomes between 100 percent and 135
percent of poverty) who need hospital and home care would
experience a dramatic increase in out-of-pocket costs. Low-income
people, whose health is generally worse than average, are at
greater risk of needing home care and hospitalization than other
income groups.
WHAT LOW-INCOME PEOPLE NEED IN MEDICARE REFORM
Medicare reform should include coverage of Medicare premiums as well
as and realistic, meaningful assistance with deductibles and
copayments beneficiaries with low incomes. Eligibility should be
expanded over time to keep pace wiith the increasing burden of
Medicare premiums and cost sharing.
A premium support system in Medicare must contain buy-in protections
that cover not only premiums but cost-sharing a realistic package of
benefits that includes prescription {*filter*}.
Under current law, beneficiaries with incomes up to 100 percent of
poverty are eligible for full cost-sharing protection, but those
eligible for the SLMB and QI-1 benefits are not eligible for
cost-sharing. A restructured program should explicitly provide
subsidies for these low-income individuals. The precise income levels
that determine eligibility should be legislatively guaranteed and not
contingent on cost-savings expected from Medicare reform.
If, as expected, health care costs again begin to increase faster than
inflation, the income ceiling for buy-in protections must increase
accordingly and more beneficiaries should be eligible for buy-in
protection. Medicare reforms should include effective mechanisms to
raise the ceiling of buy-in eligibility in accordance with increases
in Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
Medicare reform should ensure that all those eligible for low-income
protections actually know about the assistance and can easily apply
for and receive the benefits to which they are entitled.
The Commission proposal calls for extending the current buy-in program
- a program that is inherently unworkable. In the current program,
around 5 million people-about half of those eligible-are not receiving
their benefits due to its complex application requirements and faulty
administrative structure. The proposal fails to explain how the
premium support model will fix the buy-in program so that all those
eligible actually receive benefits.
As part of reform, the low-income protection program should should be
redesigned so that all beneficiaries who are entitled to the benefit
actually receive it. It is not unreasonable to expect that the
participation rate in the buy-in program be the same as in
Medicare-about 98 97 percent.
To accomplish this, buy-in protections must be administered and funded
by the federal government, as outlined above. Low-income beneficiaries
should be able to apply for and receive buy-in protections from
agencies that are knowledgeable and helpful. Many eligible
beneficiaries have never been to a social services office; the
inconvenience and the lack of familiarity with welfare agencies
discourages beneficiaries from applying for buy-in benefits. The
Social Security Administration, which administers Part B Medicare
applications, would be the more appropriate agency to administer the
buy-in program.
Medicare reform should assure that low-income people have access to
medically necessary services guaranteed in a "defined benefits"
package, and that they have a variety of health plan choices. They
should not be forced into a few segregated plans.
Under the current Medicare program, beneficiaries are guaranteed a
defined set of benefits, and all beneficiaries, regardless of income,
have access to these benefits. The Commission's draft proposal would
reduce or eliminate this guarantee. It would allow health plans to
determine the scope, duration, and dollar limits on specific health
benefits, possibly resulting in less health coverage than in
Medicare's current "defined benefit" system. Beneficiaries would have
no guarantee that a specific uniform set of benefits would be
available in every health plan. As a result, the cost of needed health
benefits might be shifted onto the backs of low-income beneficiaries.
The absence of comprehensive standard benefits would pose several
specific problems for low-income people: First, Beneficiaries
beneficiaries would have to pick up the costs of excluded services-a
financial burden that cost-sharing protections do not address. Second,
low-income beneficiaries would becould become unfairly restricted to
choosing from those health plans offering less valuable benefits to
keep premiums low. With restricted choices, low-income beneficiaries
would become segregated into certain plans. This would inevitably lead
to a two-tiered health system, with low-income beneficiaries receiving
second class service and coverage.
For low-income people to be assured access to necessary services, all
health plans must offer a defined, comprehensive set of guaranteed
benefits. This package should include existing Medicare benefits, plus
prescription drug coverage and protection against catastrophic
expenses-two of the most glaring gaps in Medicare's current benefit
package. A health plan, if it desired, could offer additional optional
benefits in a supplementary package for a separate premium.
An increase in the age for Medicare eligibility will cause many
seniors to become uninsured and will cause greater hardship to
low-income seniors. A buy-in program, with adequate subsidies for the
poor and near-poor, should be established for people under 65 years of
age.
If the eligibility age for the Medicare participation increases form
65 to 67 years of age as proposed by the Bipartisan Commission, a
significant increase is likely to occur in the number of seniors who
are uninsured. Increasing the eligibility age in such a manner could
result in as many as 1.7 million seniors becoming uninsured or
seriously underinsured.9 Seniors would have to fend for themselves in
procuring health coverage in the individual insurance marketplace, and
many would find that health coverage, if available, is unaffordable.
This would be especially be true for sick and frail elders in an
insurance marketplace where premiums are based on individual health
history.
At the same time that the Commission is contemplating increasing
Medicare's eligibility age, seniors are losing access to
employer-subsidized retiree health benefits. During this decade,
employer-provided retiree health coverage dropped steadily and
significantly. A recent survey of large employers (those with more
than 500 workers) found that 40 percent offered retiree health
benefits in 1993 but only 31 percent did so in 1997.10 This trend is
likely to continue in the future on as employers strive to contain
health care spending.
To protect seniors who have not yet reached the eligibility age for
Medicare, a program must be established that allows them to buy in to
Medicare and that includes meaningful subsidies for low-income
seniors. These seniors have had a tenuous connection to the job market
throughout their lives; old age and health problems further weaken the
connection. The failure to provide a subsidized buy-in assistance will
leave these seniors without the means to obtain health coverage.
CONCLUSION
Advocates of the premium support model for Medicare expect the model
to produce savings by making beneficiaries more cost-conscious in
purchasing health care, presumably more cost-conscious than they are
under Medicare's current system of copayments and deductibles.
However, by its design, premium support is also a mechanism for the
government to lower its financial risk and shift more risk to
beneficiaries.
Supporters and opponents both agree that any savings from premium
support will be too little to cover the bulging Medicare population in
coming years. Under the model proposed by the Commission, the Medicare
Board would have the authority to shape benefits and negotiate bids.
As medical costs rise, the Board will have an incentive to allow plans
to reduce benefits, raise premiums, and increase cost-sharing in order
to limit the government's exposure to rising costs. Under the
Commission's model, these decisions could be made without
congressional approval. Therefore, low-income beneficiaries would be
at greater risk of going without crucial health benefits or having to
pay out of pocket for those benefits.
For a premium support model to work for all the nation's elderly,
low-income beneficiaries must have the certainty of a good uniform
benefits package and federally funded wraparound protections that
cover premiums and cost-sharing. These protections must be designed
and administered so that all eligible low-income beneficiaries
actually receive the wraparound benefits to which they are entitled.
Furthermore, the program design must be flexible so that wraparound
subsidies can be modified to meet the rising costs of health care
premiums and cost-sharing over time. Because premium support shifts a
portion of the government's financial burden to beneficiaries,
well-defined protections for low-income people are vital.
ENDNOTES
1 David Gross, Lisa Alecxih, et al., "Out-of-Pocket Health Spending by
Medicare Beneficiaries Age 65 and Older: 1997 Projections"
(Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute and the Lewin Group,
1997).
2 Marilyn Moon, Crystal Kuntz, and Laurie Pounder, "Protecting
Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries" (New York: The Commonwealth Fund,
1966). Moon's estimate of Medicare out-of-pocket spending is 21
percent for all non-institutionalized beneficiaries, and the
AARP/Lewin estimate is 19 percent. The Moon estimate projects from the
National Medical Expenditure Survey of 1987 and includes home care,
while the AARP projection uses data from the 1993 Medicare Current
Beneficiary Survey and excludes home care.
3 National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare,
"Preliminary Staff Estimate: Senator Breaux's Medicare Proposal"
(Washington, DC: February 16, 1999); "Draft Working Document"
(Washington, DC: January 22, 1999).
4 Families USA, Shortchanged: Billions Withheld from Medicare
Beneficiaries (Washington, DC: Families USA, 1998).
5 Ibid.
6 National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, op. cit.
7 Ibid.
8 Memorandum from Sen. John Breaux to the Medicare Commission,
February 23, 1999, "Premium support estimate from the HCFA Actuary."
The reform package scored by the HCFA Actuary contains the provision
for 10 percent hospital coinsurance under a chart labeled, "Draft
Medicare legislative package introduced by Senator Breaux at January
26 Commission meeting."
9 Timothy Waidman, "Potential Effects of Raising Medicare's
Eligibility Age," Health Affairs, Vol 17, No. 2, 1998, 156:64; John
Sheils, David Stapleton, Jessica Graus, Andrea Fishman, "Rethinking
the Medicare Eligibility Age" (Washington, DC: The Lewin Group, for
the National Coalition on Health Care, June 1998.).
10 Paul Fronstin, "Features of Employment-Based Health Plans," Issue
Brief No. 201 (Washington, DC: Employee Benefits Research Institute,
September 1998).
red line
CREDITS
This report was written by:
Kathleen Haddad, Director of Health Policy, Families USA
The following Families USA Foundation staff contributed to the
preparation of this report:
Ron Pollack, Executive Director
Peggy Denker, Director of Publications
Judy Waxman, Director of Government Affairs
Vyda Stewart-Stancell, Administrative Assistant
Justine Zabala, Administrative Assistant
Families USA Home Page bullet Newest Releases bullet Publications
bullet Child Health Expansion
Get Involved!bullet Links bullet Human Services & Advocacy Job Bank
bullet Media Center bulletSearch Our Sites
Managed Care Central
Visit Managed Care Central The Medicaid Clearinghouse
Visit the Medicaid
Clearinghouse
return to top of page To the
top of the page