Aetna just canceled wifes medicare advantage plan

[mf15]

I say great, thank you, now I can get her into plan F high deductible like I have, without underwriting. I have no idea why they did this but of course suspect the government messing with medicare advantage plans is the reason.
I thought this might happen, I would much rather have them cancel the plan than raise rates and total out of pocket each year.
They sent a letter of proof,so you can switch to a medigap without underwriting.
Old Mike

 

[W2R]

I say great, thank you, now I can get her into plan F high deductible like I have, without underwriting. I have no idea why they did this but of course suspect the government messing with medicare advantage plans is the reason.
I thought this might happen, I would much rather have them cancel the plan than raise rates and total out of pocket each year.
They sent a letter of proof,so you can switch to a medigap without underwriting.
Old Mike

Thank goodness for that. Still, it must have been a little unnerving when you first got the news. Glad that you have a good plan for a path forward.

 

[donheff]

I have no idea why they did this but of course suspect the government messing with medicare advantage plans is the reason.

A lot of people like their Medicare Advantage plans but keep in mind the rest of us are supplementing them through our tax dollars. If I understand correctly, the subsidy for Medicare Advantage was supposed to be temporary so the much vaunted private sector insurers could come up with policies that would eventually demonstrate how Part B could be done better for less. Unfortunately, the for less part never developed and the supplements continued until -- the ACA. The diversion of the Medicare Advantage supplements to pay for other ACA costs was the source of all those "don't cut my Medicare" complaints. Now Medicare Advantage plans have to slim down, price up, or really do what they set out to do -- better than Part B for less.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

The diversion of the Medicare Advantage supplements to pay for other ACA costs was the source of all those "don't cut my Medicare" complaints.

Those complaints were not entirely without merit since the $500B taken out of the Medicare Advantage subsidies probably should have gone back into original Medicare, which has its own serious funding problems.

 

[donheff]

Those complaints were not entirely without merit since the $500B taken out of the Medicare Advantage subsidies probably should have gone back into original Medicare, which has its own serious funding problems.

True if we were doing nothing else but fixing Medicare but the change was part of the broader ACA and was simply costed into the equations to determine the overall costs/savings of the law. Seems fair.

 

[samclem]

True if we were doing nothing else but fixing Medicare but the change was part of the broader ACA and was simply costed into the equations to determine the overall costs/savings of the law. Seems fair.

I'd dispute the "fair" part as being irrelevant. But the $500B was being used to pay for care to those over 65 and on Medicare, then was diverted to offset costs of the ACA incurred almost exclusively by those under 65 and not on Medicare. It seems no more appropriate than finding the money anywhere else--DoD, NASA, USDA, etc.

 

[donheff]

I'd dispute the "fair" part as being irrelevant. But the $500B was being used to pay for care to those over 65 and on Medicare, then was diverted to offset costs of the ACA incurred almost exclusively by those under 65 and not on Medicare. It seems no more appropriate than finding the money anywhere else--DoD, NASA, USDA, etc.

I agree that the Advantage supplement was going to medical care. It still is. It just seems to me that it was time to direct it more appropriately. The supplement was envisioned as temporary to give private sector insurers a period to ramp up programs that could deliver better (or different) service than Part B for the same or less cost (i.e. it was experimental). The ACA itself will fund lots of other experiments chosen by the states and the Feds. One would hope that the experiments that prove viable will be incorporated in the program and those that don't pan out will be dropped. Medicare Advantage has proved popular but expensive. We could choose to expand it to all (and raise the Medicare tax to cover the costs), drop it, or, as was done, stop supplementing it and let the market decide what to offer.

 

[2B]

True if we were doing nothing else but fixing Medicare but the change was part of the broader ACA and was simply costed into the equations to determine the overall costs/savings of the law. Seems fair.

Using "fair" to describe any part of the US tax code, subsidies, credits, entitlements, etc, demonstrates something. I just can't grasp the right word for it.

 

[donheff]

Using "fair" to describe any part of the US tax code, subsidies, credits, entitlements, etc, demonstrates something. I just can't grasp the right word for it.

Fair enough

 

[haha]

Fair means "this interpretation or action is favorable to me or my close relatives". What else could it mean?

Ha

 

[donheff]

Fair means "this interpretation or action is favorable to me or my close relatives". What else could it mean?

Ha

I think all of us act ultimately out of self interest but not neccesarily because we see direct benefit to us or close relatives. Many people favor policies that are more costly to them such as increased taxes on the assumption that the policies will improve the lot of others thus leading to a better environment for all. You and I choose to live in urban centers. Helping assure the well being of all may enable us to do so without resort to gated communities with armed guards.

 

[haha]

I think all of us act ultimately out of self interest but not neccesarily because we see direct benefit to us or close relatives. Many people favor policies that are more costly to them such as increased taxes on the assumption that the policies will improve the lot of others thus leading to a better environment for all. You and I choose to live in urban centers. Helping assure the well being of all may enable us to do so without resort to gated communities with armed guards.

True, but also true that people with far more clout than I will see to it that appropriate bribes are paid. And overall, I do not think that we are doing very well with a return on our money. Still not too clever to walk around in the dark.

I can always rest assured that power centers will spend way more of my money way less carefully than I would, and demand way less proof that it is having a reasonable result.

However, I was responding to the immediate discussion, where it was asserted that Medicare funds were diverted to ACA. This is likely not a public safety issue, since most who might bash heads when unhappy are being taken care of one way or another. When I see the small group of people who even understand ACA facing off against Medicare recipients in the streets, I'll get out my camera.

Ha