In recent weeks, liberal politicians, editorialists, and policy analysts have vigorously attacked reform of Medicare based on a defined contribution financing. In fact, this approach to reforming Medicare has a long bipartisan tradition, going back to the 1980s and Representatives Richard Gephardt (D–MO) and David Stockman (R–MI). In fact, much of this criticism is distorted, misleading, or just plain wrong.
The Status of the Medicare Advantage Program (James Capretta)
Testimony before Congress, 9/21/12
“[C]ontrary to what is often stated, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are not less efficient than the traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) program.”
Sebelius Misleads the Public on Medicare Advantage (Alyene Senger)
The Heritage Foundation, 9/20/12
“So what happened to this year’s Obamacare cuts to MA plans? The Obama Administration effectively hid them through an administrative maneuver that is politically clever but legally questionable.”
A Simple Idea (John Goodman)
National Center for Policy Analysis, 9/17/12
“Whatever you think of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) there are two propositions that are hard to argue with: (1) seniors have been singled out and forced to bear a disproportionate share of the cost of a new entitlement for young people and (2) the states are administratively just not ready to implement the new program in time for its January 1, 2014, start date.”
Medicare Reform: Battling the Myths (Diana Furchtgott-Roth)
The Wall Street Journal, 9/13/12
“Ryan’s new plan is known as ‘premium support.’ Modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Ryan would let seniors who retire in 2023 and later choose from a variety of government-approved, competing and comprehensive health insurance plans, at different prices with different levels of service, including traditional fee-for-service Medicare.”
To read last week’s Medicare Roundup, click here.