There’s a Major Medicare Change Taking Place. Here’s Everything You Need to Know

In April, the government will start sending out new Medicare cards, launching a massive, yearlong effort to alter how 59 million people enrolled in the federal health insurance program are identified.

Historically, Medicare ID cards have been stamped with the Social Security numbers of members — currently, about 50 million seniors and 9 million people with serious disabilities. But that’s been problematic: If a wallet or purse were stolen, a thief could use that information, along with an address or birthdate on a driver’s license, to steal someone’s identity.

For years, phone scammers have preyed on older adults by requesting their Medicare numbers, giving various reasons for doing so. People who fall for these ruses have found bank accounts emptied, Social Security payments diverted or bills in their mailboxes for medical services or equipment never received.

The new cards address these concerns by removing each member’s Social Security number and replacing it with a new, randomly generated 11-digit “Medicare number” (some capital letters are included). This will be used to verify eligibility for services and for billing purposes going forward.

Such a major change can involve bumps along the way, so there will be a transition period during which you can use either your new Medicare card or your old card at doctors’ offices and hospitals. Both should work until Dec. 31, 2019.

If you forget your new card at home, your doctor’s staff should be able to look up your new Medicare number up at a secure computer site. Or, they can use information that’s already on file during the transition period.

“We’ve had a few people contact us and ask ‘If I don’t have the new card at a doctor’s appointment, does that mean my provider won’t see me?’” said Casey Schwartz, senior counsel for education and federal policy at the Medicare Rights Center. “That shouldn’t be an issue.”

Cards will be sent to people covered by Medicare on a rolling basis over a 12-month period ending in April 2019. Older adults in Alaska, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia will be the first to receive the mailings, between April and June, along with several U.S. territories — American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

The last wave of states will be Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee, along with Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

 

New Medicare Card

Have you heard about the new Medicare card? We’ll start mailing these new cards beginning in April 2018. You don’t need to do anything to get your new Medicare card — it will automatically be mailed to you. While the Medicare card is changing, your Medicare coverage and benefits will stay the same.

Watch this short video to see what you need to know about your new Medicare card, and what we’re doing to protect your identity.

 

Health insurer Cigna to buy Express Scripts for about $52 billion

(Reuters) - U.S. health insurer Cigna Corp (CI.N) struck a $52-billion deal to buy pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) Express Scripts Holding Co (ESRX.O) on Thursday, looking for new ways to hold onto their profits as the industry faces greater scrutiny for rising healthcare costs.

The pharmacy benefits business, which tries to negotiate down the price of prescription medicines for large employers, has drawn fire from the Trump administration and Congress, who have questioned whether those discounts are really being passed on to consumers.

Cigna’s deal follows close on the heels of a rival $69-billion merger between CVS Health Corp (CVS.N) and health insurer Aetna Inc (AET.N), announced in December. Together, the transactions would represent a massive consolidation of the market for managing employees’ prescription drug benefits, prompting some experts to question whether they will be approved.

“Employers are growing increasingly frustrated with the cost of prescription drugs and a lack of transparency into the economics of how this works,” said Jim Winkler, senior vice president for health at benefits manager and broker Aon, part of Aon Plc (AON.N).

Cigna and Express Scripts say the combination will lower costs for corporate clients by giving them more coordination between medical care and pharmacy benefits, particularly for pricey specialty drugs.

“Our employer clients will be delighted with that,” Cigna Chief Executive David Cordani said in an interview.

It could help Cigna more closely manage how costly drugs are prescribed and delivered to patients, and fend off potential competition from new players such as Amazon.com.

All told, the companies project $600 million in annual savings.

Express Scripts shares were up 8 percent at $79.29 on Thursday afternoon, but they were trading 12.6 percent below the current value of the bid, suggesting that some investors see difficulties closing the deal.

5 ways to become an informed Medicare consumer

Each day, you make important choices about your finances, health, privacy, and more.

During National Consumer Protection Week (NCPW), March 4–8, 2018, non-profit organizations and government agencies can help you take advantage of your rights and make better-informed choices.

Here are 5 things you can do to become an informed Medicare consumer:

  1. Know your rights. As a person with Medicare, you have certain rights and protections designed to help protect you and make sure you get the health care services the law says you can get.
  2. Protect your identity. Identity theft happens when someone uses your personal information without your consent to commit fraud or other crimes. Keep information like your Social Security Number, bank account numbers and Medicare Number safe. To help protect you from identity fraud, starting in April 2018, Medicare will mail new Medicare cards to all people with Medicare. Your new card will have a new Medicare Number that’s unique to you. Get more information on how to protect yourself from identity theft.
  3. Help fight Medicare fraud. Medicare fraud takes money from the Medicare program each year, which means higher health care costs for you. Learn how to report fraud.
  4. Get involved with other seniors with the Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP). The SMP educates and empowers people with Medicare to take an active role in detecting and preventing health care fraud and abuse.
  5. Make informed Medicare choices. Each year during the fall Open Enrollment Period (October 15–December 7), review your plan to make sure it will meet your needs for the next year. If you’re not satisfied with your current plan, you can switch during the Open Enrollment Period.

Visit NCPW.gov to learn more about the campaign, see which agencies and organizations are able to help you, and to find out if there are any activities happening in your area. Also, check out our videos for tips on preventing Medicare fraud.

The Medicare ‘Savings’ in the New Budget Deal

Medicare Part D has been a success story so far, but a new provision could derail that achievement.

Congress just passed a new budget deal to fund the federal government for another two years. Tucked away in the 652-page bill was a provision that proponents claim is a huge win for enrollees in Medicare Part D, the federal prescription-drug benefit program for seniors.

This provision is aimed at the “doughnut hole,” a coverage gap that forces Part D enrollees to bear high out-of-pocket medical costs once their prescription costs hit a spending limit. The hole was already scheduled to be eliminated by 2020, but the budget deal speeds up the timeline, closing it next year.

On the surface, this is a huge win for patients. But the way that the deal closes the coverage gap is problematic. Part D is a rare public-policy success story celebrated by Republicans and Democrats alike. It has a unique structure in which the government, instead of providing health coverage directly, manages a market of private options. Patients have the freedom to choose among dozens of competing plans.

This market structure has worked precisely as intended. Insurers have to compete for enrollee dollars, steadily reducing their prices and improving benefits. Today, overall Part D costs are $350 billion less than estimated when the program was created in 2003. And it’s wildly popular among enrollees: Nine out of ten report being satisfied or more than satisfied with their coverage.

With the standard benefit, Part D enrollees have to pay the first $405 in drug costs out of pocket. Then proper coverage kicks in, covering about 75 percent of their expenses. However, once enrollees spend $3,750 on medicines, that normal coverage falls away and their out-of-pocket costs spike significantly. Suddenly, they’re responsible for 35 percent of brand-name-drug costs and 44 percent of generic ones.

Part D patients keep facing those higher expenses until their annual drug spending hits $5,000, at which point the program’s catastrophic coverage kicks in and their portion drops way down, to just 5 percent.

This is the doughnut hole, a strange quirk in Part D’s structure. It chiefly affects those who rely on several prescription drugs, such as seniors battling multiple chronic diseases. The high out-of-pocket costs seniors in the gap experience force many to forgo needed drugs because they can’t afford them.

Fortunately, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President Barack Obama’s 2010 health-care law, does actually fix the problem. It bulked up doughnut-hole coverage by immediately requiring drug companies to cover 50 percent of the costs of brand-name drugs purchased by patients stuck in the gap, with the rest of the costs borne by patients and their insurers.

The ACA has the federal government gradually cover a bigger and bigger share of the cost of doughnut-hole drugs until, starting in 2020, the gap is completely filled in. At that point, Part D patients will  have to pay only their normal 25 percent share until catastrophic coverage kicks in.

The new budget deal expedites that timeline by simply ordering drug companies to pick up 70 percent of the cost of doughnut-hole drugs next year. The doughnut-hole cost-sharing for insurers drops dramatically, down to 5 percent.

Previously, insurers had some incentive to drive drug costs down and keep patients out of the doughnut hole: The insurer still had to pick up a big chunk of the drug costs once the patient fell into the gap.

That’s a big reason why Part D insurers have aggressively encouraged the use of generic drugs, which typically cost a small fraction of the brand names on which they’re based. They want to keep patient costs down. That’s why, under the current incentive structure, only one in four Part D patients hits the doughnut hole.

This new budget provision eliminates that incentive. Insurers will now bear just a tiny fraction of the doughnut-hole expenses — so they’ll have little reason to keep costs under control. In fact, they may even have a reason to drive costs up: The sooner patients hit that catastrophic-care threshold, the sooner the government steps in and takes over virtually the entire bill.

More than 40 million seniors depend on Part D. Congress shouldn’t mess with what has so far been a big achievement. This budget deal could undermine a rare success story.

How Medicare Was Made

Fifty years ago, Congress created Medicare and Medicaid and remade American health care. The number of elderly citizens lacking access to hospitals and doctors plummeted. Hospitals, physicians, and state and local governments came to depend on this federal funding. We have a tendency to forget the history of laws that extended the obligations and commitments of the federal government. But the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, which shattered the barriers that had separated the federal government and the health-care system, was no less contentious than the recent debates about the Affordable Care Act.

When Medicare was first proposed, in the late nineteen-fifties, national health insurance had been a losing cause for decades. In the thirties, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had chosen not to add health care to his Social Security proposal because he believed that it would be too controversial, and would damage the prospects of other programs. Whereas most Western democracies had adopted some form of national health-care program, the United States relied on a private system that revolved, as the sociologist Paul Starr has recounted, around a sacred understanding of the doctor-patient relationship. When liberals talked about giving the government a bigger role in health care, stakeholders in the existing system always fought back, protecting their authority and autonomy by warning that Washington would sever the ties between doctors and their patients. It was one thing to distribute old-age pensions but quite another to allow the government to intrude into intimate medical affairs. When one senator suggested in 1937 that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was prepared to expand the government’s role in medicine if doctors did not do more to help the needy, Time magazine asked in its June cover story, “Nationalized Doctors?”

When President Harry Truman proposed national health insurance for every American in 1945, and again in 1949, as part of his effort to move forward with domestic policies that had been left out of the New Deal, he and allied liberals came to see why F.D.R. had avoided the issue of health care back in the nineteen-thirties. The American Medical Association conducted the most expensive lobbying effort to that date in opposition to Truman’s health-care plan, which it branded as “un-American” and “socialized medicine.” Charging that the Truman Administration consisted of “followers of the Moscow party line,” the A.M.A. worked closely with the conservative coalition in Congress to kill the measure in committee. By 1950, the proposal was dead.

Meanwhile, during the forties and fifties, the government solidified the private health-care system through corporate tax breaks that subsidized companies offering their workers insurance. More workers were brought into the private system through this indirect and hidden form of government assistance, creating even greater resistance to the idea of the federal government directly providing insurance.

Still, many Democrats remained convinced that the health-care system left too many Americans without access to affordable care. In 1957, Congressman Aime Forand, an ardent New Deal liberal who had quit school after seventh grade to take care of his ailing father, came up with the idea of a smaller and more targeted program as a first step toward national health insurance. With Congressman Cecil King, a California Democrat, Forand proposed covering some of the medical costs of the growing number of Americans over the age of sixty-five. The problem of elderly Americans who lacked health care was acute, according to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Older Americans required more than twice as much hospital care as people under the age of sixty-five. Even with Social Security benefits, most could not afford the cost of hospitalization, which was rising rapidly during these years as a result of medical advances. Forand and King made the tactical decision to propose that the program fall under the Social Security Administration. Liberals would be able to argue that they were simply expanding the popular program and paying for the new benefits through the Social Security payroll tax.

In the House and Senate, the proposal, which the media called Medicare, received strong support from a new cohort of Democrats including Richard Bolling, of Missouri, and Hubert Humphrey, of Minnesota, whose numbers had been steadily growing since the 1946 election and exploded in the 1958 midterms. They were a new generation of Northern liberals who, while slightly younger than Forand and King, had been deeply influenced by the New Deal and were committed to extending its benefits in areas like health care, civil rights, and education. In their minds, the economy was booming, so the U.S. could afford to have the federal government alleviate all kinds of social problems that, until then, had been ignored. They were aligned with Walter Reuther, the president of the United Automobile Workers, who said to the program’s critics that it was time to “quit fighting ideological windmills and deal with basic human needs.”

Organized labor, a powerful player in American politics at this time, when thirty per cent of the workforce was unionized, threw its support behind Medicare. Labor leaders cheered when Massachusetts Senator John Kennedy announced his support for Medicare during his 1960 Presidential campaign against Richard Nixon. Kennedy was no radical, but he believed that health care was one area where the government needed to have an expanded role. Kennedy saw the revised health-care bill as attractive in principle, as well as fiscally responsible, because workers would pay for the benefits that they would eventually receive. On August 14, 1960, Kennedy visited Hyde Park to celebrate, with Eleanor Roosevelt, the twenty-fifth anniversary of Social Security, and he used the occasion to promote Medicare. The program was desperately needed in “every city and town, every hospital and clinic, every neighborhood and rest home in America—wherever our older citizens live out their lives in want and despair under the shadow of illness,” the candidate said.

Despite his reputation for being dispassionate about domestic policy, Kennedy, as President, authorized an all-out public-relations effort in support of Medicare. While there were many areas of policy, like civil rights, where Kennedy avoided action for fear that congressional conservatives would kill his ideas, the President believed that the bill stood a decent chance of passing, because so many voters loved their Social Security. On May 20, 1962, the President delivered a spirited address at a rally in Madison Square Garden, with more than seventeen thousand people in attendance and many more watching on television. “The fact of the matter is that what we are now talking about doing, most of the countries of Europe did years ago,” Kennedy said. “The British did it thirty years ago. We are behind every country, pretty nearly, in Europe, in this matter of medical care for our citizens.”

The A.M.A. launched an aggressive campaign in opposition to the President. Edward Annis, the president of the A.M.A., delivered a televised response to Kennedy’s address: Medicare would “put the government smack into your hospital.” A new A.M.A. political-action committee offered campaign support to candidates who opposed the bill. The A.M.A. women’s auxiliary launched Operation Coffee Cup, in which doctors’ wives hosted living-room discussions about the dangers of socialized medicine. Ronald Reagan produced a record to be played at these events, “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,” in which he warned that “one of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.” The A.M.A. also had strong allies, such as the insurance lobby, which preferred to work behind the scenes to combat the bill.

In the House of Representatives, A.M.A. officials were counting on Wilbur Mills, an Arkansas Democrat and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. At five foot eight and a hundred and eighty pounds, with slicked-back hair and thin silver-rimmed glasses, Mills didn’t look like a congressional giant, but he was a key player in the insular world of tax and security experts. A graduate of Hendrix College, in Arkansas, he had attended Harvard Law School and was rumored to spend evenings reading the tax code. He had lived with his wife in the same modest apartment, near the National Zoo, for almost twenty-five years, and was renowned for his grasp of abstruse fiscal issues.

What drove Mills most was his belief in fiscal conservatism. He understood that the federal government was a permanent part of American life, but he was determined to contain the growth of the federal budget and to limit the tax burden that fell on working Americans. What most troubled Mills about the Medicare proposal was that its costs would grow rapidly, especially when voters learned that physicians’ bills were not covered by the program and pressured legislators to add those benefits as well. With Medicare, Congress could be forced to raise Social Security taxes beyond reasonable levels, resulting in a backlash against the entire program.

Each time liberals had pushed for Medicare over the six years since Forand and King first proposed it, Mills had refused to let it up for a vote in his committee. In 1960, working with Oklahoma Senator Robert Kerr, Mills had attempted to stifle the drive toward Medicare by passing a limited program that provided means-tested health insurance to elderly citizens who were poor. As with public welfare, the program would be administered by state and local governments that chose to participate. Although Congress passed Medical Assistance for the Aged, known as the Kerr-Mills Act, only twenty-eight states had adopted it, and the guidelines for participation were so stringent that only one per cent of the elderly received benefits. Still, when Kennedy sent the proposal to Congress and rallied support on television, Mills would not bring Medicare up for a vote.

When Lyndon Johnson became President, in November, 1963, he made it clear that he was determined to pass Medicare. His overriding goal was to persuade Congress to pass a series of major bills that would constitute a second New Deal. Along with civil rights, Medicare was at the top of his list. Johnson urged Wilbur Cohen, a leading figure in the Social Security Administration, to work with Mills to come up with a Medicare proposal that was acceptable to the Ways and Means chairman. “If labor will buy it, that he can call a Mills bill,” Johnson told Cohen.

The negotiations didn’t get far.  Even as Johnson called on Congress to fulfill the unfinished agenda of the slain President, Mills refused to hold a vote. He said that the cost problems had not been solved, and that there were not enough votes in the House to pass a bill if he sent it out of committee. In October, Medicare proponents in the Senate made a bold move by attaching Medicare as an amendment to legislation increasing Social Security benefits. Mills killed the proposal in conference committee. “I don’t know whether we can pass it next year or not,” Johnson told Senator Hubert Humphrey.

On Election Day, everything changed. Johnson defeated the right-wing Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in a landslide victory. Democrats obtained two hundred and ninety-five seats in the House and sixty-eight in the Senate. For the first time in decades, liberal Democrats, rather than more conservative Southerners, held the balance of power within their own party.

When the eighty-ninth Congress convened, in January, 1965, the emboldened liberals drove through a series of reforms and reorganization to further strengthen their hand. One of the important changes was to alter the party ratios on each committee to reflect the new majority. The Democrats added two pro-Medicare legislators to Ways and Means, while the G.O.P. assigned one. Democrats also instated the “twenty-one-day rule,” a procedure that offered a mechanism for moving a bill out of the House Rules Committee if the conservative chairman, the notorious Howard Smith, was refusing to allow it out for a vote. With these changes, House Majority Leader Carl Albert told Johnson, it wouldn’t matter if Mills was “for Medicare or not.”

On January 5th, Mills told the White House that Medicare would be the first order of business. The chairman knew that even if he continued to oppose the bill, pro-Medicare Democrats would be able to pass it without him, and without consulting him. Mills understood that his best option was to craft a Medicare proposal that would contain costs as much as possible and would allow him to take credit for a major legislative victory.

Republicans, too, wanted to be part of the debate, and offered alternative proposals. Congressman Thomas Curtis, of Missouri, and A. Sydney Herlong, a Florida Democrat, proposed an expansion of Kerr-Mills that had the backing of the A.M.A. The ranking Republican on Ways and Means, John Byrnes, of Wisconsin, offered a more ambitious plan. Byrnes, who shared Mills’s fiscal conservatism but also believed in the importance of social policy, proposed a voluntary program that would cover the costs of physicians for older Americans. Those who elected to participate would contribute a monthly premium toward their care, while the federal government would finance the rest through general tax revenue.

Medicare proponents had to make sure that there were not so many proposals that they siphoned off majority support for their bill. In closed-door hearings, Mills was now defending the fact that the Administration’s plan depended on Social Security taxes. “Haven’t we done a better job ... of financing the cost of the Social Security program out of a separate fund, paid for by a payroll tax, than we have some other expenditures of government?” he asked.

As the discussions proceeded, the chairman had an even bigger idea, thinking of a way to put together a bill that would be almost impossible to defeat and which would satisfy some of his fiscal fears. On the afternoon of March 2nd, he leaned back in his chair and told Wilbur Cohen, “Maybe it would be a good idea if we put all three of these bills together.” Cohen, who had been negotiating with Mills for years, immediately had his staff draft a new bill.

Based on Mills’ idea, which Cohen called a “three-layer cake,” the Administration revised its bill to include hospital insurance paid for by Social Security taxes, a voluntary program covering physicians' costs paid for by a contribution from beneficiaries and general revenue from the federal government, and an expanded version of Kerr-Mills, later called Medicaid.

Mills boasted that this plan satisfied everyone. Republicans couldn’t complain, because their ideas were part of the bill. Premiums and general tax money would pay for the part of the program covering doctors’ bills, so the future burden on Social Security taxes would be more predictable. Because private physicians fell under the voluntary part of the program, the A.M.A. could not as easily claim that this was “socialized medicine.”

On March 23rd, the Ways and Means Committee approved the bill by a vote of seventeen to eight. Republicans still voted for the John Byrnes bill, but did so knowing that the “three-layer cake” would pass. Cohen called Johnson to tell him about the outcome. “I think it’s a great bill, Mr. President,” Cohen said. “You got not only everything that you wanted but we got a lot more than—on this thing. It’s a real comprehensive bill.”

The American Medical Association knew that it had been beaten. Once it lost Wilbur Mills, it lost Congress. The House passed the final bill by a vote of three hundred and thirteen to a hundred and fifteen, on April 8th.  The only remaining threat to Mills’s proposal came from liberals who tried to add amendments in the Senate, which would increase the cost of the legislation. But, in the conference committee, Mills systematically knocked down each amendment. He made only one major compromise, that hospitals and doctors would determine the “reasonable charges” for costs rather than the government doing so through regulated prices. He incorrectly assumed that this would not result in huge costs.

On July 30th, Johnson signed the Medicare bill, in Independence, Missouri, with former President Harry Truman standing beside him. For the first time, the federal government would play a direct role in the health-care system. Most liberals wanted much more, but they understood that passing Medicare and Medicaid was itself a historic step.

With the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, decades of obstruction came to an end. But turning a legislator like Mills was not easy. Persuasion and negotiation could only go so far. It took a big election, with voters changing the balance of power on Capitol Hill, to get him moving in the right direction.

Home Care Agencies Often Wrongly Deny Medicare Help To The Chronically Ill

Colin Campbell needs help dressing, bathing and moving between his bed and his wheelchair. He has a feeding tube because his partially paralyzed tongue makes swallowing “almost impossible,” he said.

Campbell, 58, spends $4,000 a month on home health care services so he can continue to live in his home just outside Los Angeles. Eight years ago, he was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or “Lou Gehrig’s disease,” which relentlessly attacks the nerve cells in his brain and spinal cord and has no cure.

Register For Newsletter

Get KHN’s latest stories on Medicare and aging issues, delivered periodically to your inbox.

The former computer systems manager has Medicare coverage because of his disability, but no fewer than 14 home health care providers have told him he can’t use it to pay for their services.

That’s an incorrect but common belief. Medicare does cover home care services for patients who qualify, but incentives intended to combat fraud and reward high quality care are driving some home health agencies to avoid taking on long-term patients such as Campbell, who have debilitating conditions that won’t get better, according to advocates for seniors and the home care industry. Rule changes that took effect this month could make the problem worse.

“We feel Medicare coverage laws are not being enforced and people are not getting the care that they need in order to stay in their homes,” said Kathleen Holt, an attorney and associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a nonprofit, nonpartisan law firm. The group is considering legal action against the government.

Federal law requires Medicare to pay indefinitely for home care — with no copayments or deductibles — if a doctor ordered it and patients can leave home only with great difficulty. They must need intermittent nursing, physical therapy or other skilled care that only a trained professional can provide. They do not need to show improvement. Those who qualify can also receive an aide’s help with dressing, bathing and other daily activities. The combined services are limited to 35 hours a week.

Medicare affirmed this policy in 2013 when it settled a key lawsuit brought by the Center for Medicare Advocacy and Vermont Legal Aid. In that case, the government agreed that Medicare covers skilled nursing and therapy services — including those delivered at home —to maintain a patient’s abilities or to prevent or slow decline. It also agreed to inform providers, bill auditors and others that a patient’s improvement is not a condition for coverage.

Campbell said some home health care agencies told him Medicare would pay only for rehabilitation, “with the idea of getting you better and then leaving,” he said. They told him that Medicare would not pay them if he didn’t improve, he said. Other agencies told him Medicare simply did not cover home health care.

Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income adults and families, also covers home health care and other home services, but Campbell doesn’t qualify for it.

Securing Medicare coverage for home health services requires persistence, said John Gillespie, whose mother has gone through five home care agencies since she was diagnosed with ALS in 2014. He successfully appealed Medicare’s decision denying coverage, and afterward Medicare paid for his mother’s visiting nurse as well as speech and physical therapy.

“You have to have a good doctor and people who will help fight for you to get the right company,” said Gillespie, of Orlando, Fla. “Do not take no for an answer.”

Yet a Medicare official did not acknowledge any access problems. “A patient can continue to receive Medicare home health services as long as he/she remains eligible for the benefit,” said spokesman Johnathan Monroe.

But a leading industry group contends that Medicare’s home health care policies are often misconstrued. “One of the myths in Medicare is that chronically ill individuals are not qualified for coverage,” said William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, which represents nearly half of the nation’s 12,000 home care providers.

Part of the problem is that some agencies fear they won’t be paid if they take on patients who need their services for a long time, Dombi said. Such cases can attract the attention of Medicare auditors who can deny payments if they believe the patient is not eligible or they suspect billing fraud. Rather than risk not getting paid, some home health agencies “stay under the radar” by taking on fewer Medicare patients who need long-term care, Dombi said.

And they may have a good reason to be concerned. Medicare officials have found that about a third of the agency’s payments to home health companies in the fiscal year ending last September were improper. 

Shortages of home health aides in some areas might also lead an overburdened agency to focus on those who need care for only a short time, Dombi said.

Another factor that may have a negative effect on chronically ill patients is Medicare’s Home Health Compare ratings website. It includes grades on patient improvement, such as whether a client got better at walking with an agency’s help. That effectively tells agencies who want top ratings “to go to patients who are susceptible to improvement,” Dombi said.

This year, some home care agencies will earn more than just ratings. Under a Medicare pilot program, home health firms in nine states will start receiving payment bonuses for providing good care and those who don’t will pay penalties. Some criteria used to measure performance depend on patient improvement, Holt said.

Another new rule, which took effect last Saturday, prohibits agencies from discontinuing services for Medicare and Medicaid patients without a doctor’s order. But that, too, could backfire. 

“This is good,” Holt said. “But our concern is that some agencies might hesitate to take patients if they don’t think they can easily discharge them.”

This article was written with the support of a journalism fellowship from New America Media, the Gerontological Society of America and the Silver Century Foundation.

3 Changes to Medicare in 2018 That You Need to Know

Before you get too consumed with pumpkin spice everything and Halloween preparations, I want to remind everyone that one of the most important enrollment periods of the year is set to kick off in a week: The Medicare enrollment period begins on Oct. 15 and continues through Dec. 7.

Next to Social Security, Medicare might be the most important social program for seniors. Without it, many might struggle to pay their medical bills and receive medical care. Since medical care inflation (surgeries, prescription medicines, and even receiving care) has regularly outpaced Social Security's annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), it's not out of the question that Medicare could provide more in lifetime benefits to seniors than Social Security within the next couple of decades. Thus, enrolling in Medicare, or an alternative plan known as Medicare Advantage, for those 65 and up, and ensuring that you choose the right plan, is crucial to your financial and physical well-being.

As we head into the 2018 enrollment period, you should be aware of three notable changes to Medicare or the Medicare Advantage market, along with one aspect of Medicare that surprisingly didn't change for some folks.

1. Rejoice! Part D premiums are going down

This past week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released copious amounts of prescription drug pricing data via its annual landscape file data release. Normally, this data would take a long time to pore over, but Avalere Health did the grunt work, thankfully. When all is said and done, Avalere's experts found that Part D (prescription drug plan) premiums are set to drop slightly in 2018 as a result of higher-than-predicted rebates. We can also likely attribute this drop to weakness in generic drug pricing.

However, just because Part D premiums are falling doesn't mean you should blindly remain enrolled in the same Part D plan as you had in 2017. Premiums and coverage commonly change from year to year on most plans, meaning what offered the best value in 2017 may not be the best value for you in 2018. You'll want to closely examine the plans available to you to ensure that your prescription medicines are covered for the best possible price. Failing to take this step could wind up costing you big-time.

2. Medicare Advantage members have fewer low out-of-pocket plan options

The aforementioned alternative to Medicare, known as Medicare Advantage (MA), has been an increasingly popular option for eligible enrollees. Between 2005 and 2015, the number of eligible Medicare enrollees who chose an MA plan instead of traditional Medicare rose from 13% to 30%. There's a lot to like about MA plans, including a maximum annual out-of-pocket expense for traditional Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (outpatient services) coverage, along with the ability to roll dental, hearing, and vision coverage into your plan. Traditional Medicare doesn't offer these coverage options, and there is no maximum annual out-of-pocket expense.

In 2018, MA providers will offer plenty of $0 monthly premium plans to act as a lure to attract seniors, but the number of plans with out-of-pocket expenses capped at $4,000 or less will be significantly lower, according to Avalere. Health benefit providers are finding that an effective way to buffer their profitability is to push more in the way of out-of-pocket expenses back to the consumer.

3. There are new Part B surcharge income brackets for the wealthy

In April 2015, at seemingly the 11th hour, Congress passed legislation that introduced a new reimbursement schedule for physicians who accept Medicare. This new payment schedule removed the possibility of a major cut in pay and replaced it with gradual increases in reimbursements through 2020. But in order to pay for such a move, adjustments needed to be made. Beginning in 2018, the well-to-do could find themselves paying more for Part B premiums.

In 2017, the breakdown for Part B surcharges looked like this:

  • $134/month: less than $85,001 (single)/less than $170,001 (married)
  • $187.50/month: $85,001-$107,000 (single)/$170,001-$214,000 (married)
  • $267.90/month: $107,001-$160,000 (single)/$214,001-$320,000 (married)
  • $348.30/month: $160,001-$214,000 (single)/$320,001-$428,000 (married)
  • $428.60/month: more than $214,000 (single)/more than $428,000 (married)

In 2018, Part B premiums and surcharges will remain unchanged, by the individual and joint-filer brackets will adjust a bit as follows:

  • $134/month: less than $85,001 (single)/less than $170,001 (married)
  • $187.50/month: $85,001-$107,000 (single)/$170,001-$214,000 (married)
  • $267.90/month: $107,001-$133,500 (single)/$214,001-$267,000 (married)
  • $348.30/month: $133,501-$160,000 (single)/$267,001-$320,000 (married)
  • $428.60/month: more than $160,000 (single)/more than $320,000 (married)

As you can see, the change happens once an individual hits $133,500 in income, or a couple hits $267,000. If you find yourself eligible for Medicare and earning more than these amounts, prepare to pay a potentially higher Part B surcharge in 2018. 

Surprise! Part B premiums aren't changing (for some people)

Lastly, it's worth pointing out what was brushed over above: Part B premiums aren't expected to increase in 2018. While that's great news for newly eligible enrollees, as well as those folks who haven't enrolled for Social Security as of yet, it's not necessarily great news for those protected by the hold harmless clause.

Hold harmless is what protects folks who receive Social Security, and who have their Part B premiums automatically deducted from their monthly benefits check, from experiencing greater inflation from Part B than they received from Social Security's annual COLA. In plainer terms, if Social Security recipients who are already enrolled in Medicare receive a 2% raise, hold harmless prevents Part B premiums for these grandfathered members from rising more than 2% -- even if the actual inflation was much higher. In 2018, even though Part B premiums aren't set to increase, these grandfathered recipients are liable to see their Part B premiums rise by the exact same percentage as their COLA, which is expected to be around 2%. 

Make note of these changes, folks, because what you don't know could cost you dearly during the Medicare enrollment period.

 

The $16,122 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $16,122 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies.

U.S. government proposes 1.84 percent hike in 2019 payments to Medicare insurers

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. government on Thursday proposed an increase of 1.84 percent on average in its 2019 payments to the health insurers that manage Medicare Advantage insurance plans for more than 20 million elderly or disabled people.

The 2019 payment proposal also expands the benefits that insurers can offer in the plans to include items like wheelchair ramps and devices to diminish the impact of health conditions, a positive for insurers competing with traditional Medicare for members.

Kim Monk, managing director of company and investing research group Capital Alpha Partners, said she had expected an increase of 1 percent to 2 percent on average. Payments rates will vary based on geography and on factors like the health of members and the quality ratings of the insurer.

January enrollment data showed that Medicare Advantage 2018 enrollment was 20.9 million and had grown to account for 35 percent of overall Medicare enrollment, BMO Capital Markets analyst Matt Borsch said in a recent research note.

Medicare Advantage competes with the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program. Both have grown as the so-called “Baby Boomer” generation ages into Medicare and together cover more than 55 million people.

Insurers have bet on future growth of Medicare Advantage as the Trump Administration turns to private insurers to control healthcare costs.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources, releases the proposed rate early each year and then opens a public comment period. The final rate released in April could be higher or lower than the proposed one.

In December, CMS provided a forecast for medical services cost growth of more than 4 percent, one of the key components of the total payment rate, which also includes other factors. For instance, the law requires the government to pay similar amounts in the Medicare Advantage plans and the fee-for-service Medicare program, which typically results in a payment cut to insurers.

 

Medicare Advantage plans can expect 1.84% rate hike in 2019

The CMS Thursday proposed to bump up baseline Medicare Advantage payment rates for 2019 by 1.84% on average, up from the 0.45% plans received last year.

The average Medicare Advantage payment rate will increase by 3.1% after taking into account the way health plans code their members' diagnoses, the CMS said. That's up from a 2.95% increase last year.

The CMS will also move ahead with plans to increase the use of encounter data, or information about the care an enrollee received from a provider, to determine risk scores for plans.

In the proposed notice, the agency suggested that 75% of Medicare Advantage risk scores are based on traditional fee-for-service data, and 25% are based on encounter data.

That differs from 2018, when the agency used a risk score blend of 85% of fee-for-service data and 15% of the encounter data in 2018.

Stakeholders such as the American Hospital Association have pushed back at using encounter data after a January 2017 Government Accountability Office report found such information is often not accurate.

"Since the quality of the encounter data has improved, CMS believes it is appropriate to move forward with the proposed increased percentage of encounter data in the blend," the agency said in a release Thursday.

The insurance industry may be dismayed by another proposed change. In 2016, the CMS suggested terminating the bidding process for employers and unions that offer Medicare Advantage plans to their retirees, also known as "employer group waiver plans."

Instead, those plans would receive a lump-sum payment based on county-level individual bids that would have lowered plan revenue.

AHIP had said the policy could disrupt care for the more than 3.6 million beneficiaries enrolled in these plans.

While the move was delayed in the final 2017 and 2018 notices, the CMS now proposes completing the transition to county benchmark rates for retiree plans in 2019.

The agency previously said it would phase in the policy over two years, with half of employer Advantage plan payments to be based on their own bids and half on county benchmarks.

The CMS will accept comments on the proposals through March 5 and release the final 2019 rates by April 2.

Medicare Advantage enrollment is projected to grow by 9% to 20.4 million in 2018. The CMS estimated that more than one-third of all Medicare enrollees, or 34%, will be in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2018.

New Medicare cards protect your personal information

Starting in April 2018, Medicare will mail new Medicare cards to all people with Medicare, to help protect you from identity fraud. Fraudsters are always looking for ways to get your Social Security Number so we’re removing Social Security Numbers from all Medicare cards to make them safer.

Your new card will have a new Medicare Number that’s unique to you. The new card will help protect your identity and keep your personal information more secure. Your Medicare coverage and benefits stay the same.

And there’s more good news—Medicare will automatically mail your new card at no cost to the address you have on file with Social Security. There’s nothing you need to do! If you need to update your official mailing address, visit your online my Social Security account.

Once you get your new Medicare card, take these 3 steps to make it harder for someone to steal your information and identity:

  1. Destroy your old Medicare card right away.
  2.  Use your new card. Doctors, other health care providers, and plans approved by Medicare know that Medicare is replacing the old cards. They are ready to accept your new card when you need care.
  3. Beware of people contacting you about your new Medicare card and asking you for your Medicare Number, personal information, or to pay a fee for your new card. Treat your Medicare Number like you treat your Social Security or credit card numbers. Remember, Medicare will never contact you uninvited to ask for your personal information.

For more information about your new Medicare card, visit go.medicare.gov/newcard. You can also visit Medicare.gov for tips to prevent Medicare fraud.