Where the Candidates Stand on Medicare and Medicaid

Suevon Lee
Pro Publica / News Report
Published: Saturday 15 September 2012
“Earlier this year, the Medicare Board of Trustees estimated that the Medicare hospital trust fund would remain fully funded only until 2024.”
Article image

Medicare and Medicaid, which provide medical coverage for seniors, the poor and the disabled, together make up nearly a quarter of all federal spending. With total Medicare spending projected to cost $7.7 trillion over the next 10 years, there is consensus that changes are in order. But what those changes should entail has, of course, been one of the hot-button issues of the campaign.

With the candidates slinging charges, we thought we’d lay out the facts. Here’s a rundown of where the two candidates stand on Medicare and Medicaid:

THE CANDIDATES ON MEDICARE

Big Picture

Earlier this year, the Medicare Board of Trustees estimated that the Medicare hospital trust fund would remain fully funded only until 2024. Medicare would not go bankrupt or disappear, but it wouldn’t have enough money to cover all hospital costs.

Under traditional government-run Medicare, seniors 65 and over and people with disabilities are given health insurance for a fixed set of benefits, in what’s known as fee-for-service coverage. Medicare also offers a subset of private health plans known as Medicare Advantage, in which roughly one-quarter of Medicare beneficiaries are currently enrolled. Obama retains this structure.

The Obama administration has also made moves that it says would keep Medicare afloat. It says the Affordable Care Act would extend solvency by eight years, mainly by imposing tighter spending controls on Medicare payments to private insurers and hospitals.

In contrast, Rep. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate, has proposed a more fundamental overhaul of Medicare, which he says is on an “unsustainable path.” On his campaign website, Romney says that Ryan’s proposals “almost precisely mirrors” his ideas on Medicare. But he’s been fuzzy on other aspects of the plan.

A Romney-Ryan administration would replace a defined benefits system with a defined contribution system in which seniors are given federal vouchers to purchase health insurance in a newly created private marketplace known as Medicare Exchange. In this marketplace, private health plans, along with traditional Medicare, would compete for enrollees’ business. These changes wouldn’t start until 2023, meaning current beneficiaries aren’t affected – just those under 55.

Under the Romney-Ryan, the vouchers would be valued at the second-cheapest private plan or traditional Medicare, whichever costs less. Seniors who opt for a more expensive plan would pay the difference. If they choose a cheaper plan, they keep the savings.

Who’s covered

In the current system, people 65 and over are eligible for Medicare, which Obama has said he would keep for now. 

Romney has proposed raising the eligibility age for Medicare beneficiaries from 65 to 67 in 2022, then increasing it by a month each year after that. In the long run, he would index eligibility levels to “longevity.” Ryan’s budget plan proposes raising Medicare eligibility age by two months a year starting in 2023, until it reaches 67 by 2034.

Many others looking to keep Medicare solvent have also proposed raising the age of eligibility.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that raising the minimum age from 65 to 67 would reduce annual federal spending by 5 percent. But it would also result in higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs for seniors who would lose access to Medicare.

Obama’s health care law also adds some benefits for seniors, such as annual wellness visits without co-pays, preventive services like free cancer screenings and prescription drug savings.

Proposed Savings

The Affordable Care Act is projected to reduce Medicare spending by $716 billion over the next 10 years. These reductions, as detailed by Washington Post’s Wonkblog, will come mostly from reducing payments to hospitals, nursing homes and private health care providers.

While Ryan criticized such spending cuts in his speech at the Republican National Convention, his own budget proposed keeping these reductions.

“The ACA grows the trust fund by giving more general revenue to the Treasury, which then gives the trust fund bonds. But it then uses the money from those bonds to expand coverage for low- and middle-income people,” explains Dylan Matthews on Washington Post’s Wonkblog.

Romney hasn’t really come up with a solid answer: he previously said he would restore the $716 billion savings that the health care law imposes. Per this New York Times story, the American Institutes for Research calculates this would increase premiums and co-payments for Medicare beneficiaries by $342 a year on average over the next 10 years.

For more on where the candidates stand on the $716 billion, the private health policy Commonwealth Fund offers this helpful explanation.

Caps on Spending

Both Obama and Ryan have set an identical target rate that would cap Medicare spending at one-half a percentage point above the nation’s gross domestic product.

But they have different ideas on mechanisms to achieve it.

The Affordable Care Act establishes a 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board that, starting in 2015, would make binding recommendations to reduce spending rates. As Jonathan Cohn points out in the New Republic, the commission is prohibited from making any changes that would affect beneficiaries.

Ryan has proposed hard caps on spending and derided this panel of appointed members as “unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.” When laying out his plan in a 2011 memo, Ryan wrote that to control spending, “Congress would be required to intervene and could implement policies that change provider reimbursements, program overhead, and means-tested premiums.”

Romney hasn’t stated clear proposals for imposing a cap on spending.

THE CANDIDATES ON MEDICAID

Big Picture

Though, it’s far less discussed on the campaign trail, Medicaid actually covers more people than Medicare. The joint federal-state insurance program for the poor, the disabled, and elderly individuals in long-term nursing home care currently covers about 60 million Americans.  The Affordable Care Act has expanded Medicaid coverage further. Beginning 2014, Medicaid will include people under 65 with income below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (roughly $15,000 for an individual, $30,000 for a family of four). This was estimated to cover an additional 17 million Americans as eligible beneficiaries.

In June, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could opt out of the Medicaid expansion. A ProPublica analysis estimated that the 26 states that challenged the health care law, and thus may possibly opt out, would account for up to 8.5 million of those new beneficiaries.

Romney and Ryan would overhaul this current system by turning Medicaid into a system of block grants: the federal government would issue lump sum payments to the states, who would determine eligibility criteria and benefits for enrollees. These grants would begin in 2013.

Effects on spending

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Medicaid expansion under the new health care law would cost an additional $642 billion over the next 10 years.

Under the Ryan plan, federal Medicaid grants would be adjusted only for inflation, but not health care costs, which grow at a much higher rate. The CBO estimates Ryan’s plan would save the federal government $800 billion over the next 10 years. Another study conducted by Bloomberg News shows that the block-grants could decrease Medicaid funding by as much as $1.26 trillion over the next nine years.

Actual Impact                                                                                                     

The New York Times points out that more than half of Medicaid spending goes toward the elderly and disabled. An Urban Institute analysis estimates the Ryan plan would result in 14 million to 27 million fewer people receiving Medicaid coverage by 2021.

Though rarely mentioned by any of the candidates, Medicaid costs are soaring to cover the elderly who require long-term nursing care. As the Times’ details how, states saddled by high Medicaid costs have begun turning to private managed care plans to blunt the cost.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange

Top Stories

5 comments on "Where the Candidates Stand on Medicare and Medicaid"

tabitha

September 15, 2012 8:13pm

I get the point "chetdude" is making although the rudeness is unnecessary. I am Canadian and we enjoy one the best health care systems in the world and I have always wondered why you Americans don't just cross the border and come learn from us how to provide affordable health care for all your citizens the way we are able to do. The founding fathers of Canada decided that it is every citizen's fundamental right to have access to free health care. God Bless their souls. One of the arguments I heard was that letting the government control health care would turn America into a socialist country. That is so ignorant in my opinion. Canada is not a socialist country because of it.
The basic health care for everyone is free although you pay for your medication out of pocket. When you turn 65 you pay $100 a year premium and dispensing fee for each medication which is about $6. If you need hospital care you will be admitted in a ward with other people but it does not cost you anything.
I worked for the government and had supplementary coverage in addition to the basic care, which cost me ~$10.62 a month. It was subsidized by the government. I recently retired and no more subsidies so the payment is now a whopping $53 a month. That is because I chose the higher premium which entitles me to a private room in case I am admitted to hospital which I haven't needed yet but happy to know that it is there if I do need it. I could have chosen $9 for a ward or about $29 (if I remember right) or so for a semi-private room. I am thankful to have been blessed with good health and do not need as much as others. I pay another $19 or so a month premium for dental care and receive 80% back for the cost of routine check-ups. The rate for more invasive procedures is around 40-50% back. You have to pay the full amount first and then the insurance company sends you the refund.
Why is it we can do it so efficiently, satisfy the insurance companies, the doctors ( they do complain about their wages) and all concerned and you can't. You can trust private companies to control your health care more than the government? It is heartbreaking to hear people die because they can't afford treatments - in America? That is unforgivable and immoral. People are denied care because they chose to get sick before and had a pre-existing condition, like yeast infection?
I hope and pray that you would drive all the Tea Party members and the hooligans back to where they came from. They can go have tea with Sarah Palin. She has been a thorn and a curse on America. Ryan is in over his head and might not have a job come November. How sweet that would be. Pompous.....

Ron in NM

September 15, 2012 2:53pm

CHETDUDE:

Since you've categorized all Americans as "STUPID," what is your nationality?

It hardly makes sense to lump all Americans together like that, since millions of people in this country wanted universal health care, but our broadcast medium is unregulated, and Big Pharma and the insurance industry have billions of dollars to propagandize against any meaningful reform that steps on their exorbitant profits.

And that's the reality of life in America today, not because all Americans are stupid. To overcome these obstacles will take a lot of time, will, and effort, and screaming and typing in caps won't do a damned thing. Why not offer us a real solution instead of acting like a child throwing a tantrum? A practical solution, I mean, not just something that sounds good and makes you feel good.

Ciindy

September 15, 2012 2:32pm

ChetDude is absolutely right. It is frustrating and I understand that he is angry. Makes me angry too, that we don't use the sense God gave us to see this. Actually, it is our leaders who choose NOT to see this because it means money out of the pockets of their friends in the insurance businesses. We paid for health care out of pocket some decades ago and because health insurance was used by employers to lure potential employees, there were health plans available everywhere. The insurance companies saw a good thing and jumped on it. The health care industry saw that insurance was going to pay, so the cost of everything medical skyrocketed until today some folks can't afford to even see a doctor let alone insure themselves.

We need a one payer system just like the other 'civilized' countries where it has been shown to work. My husband had a physical in February. We just got the bill for $900! It is just totally out of control. I saw that it will take your entire paycheck to pay for health insurance by 2025.

Why do we wait until a bad situation becomes a crisis to act? Why are we the dumbest a----oles on the face of the earth as the commenter below me observed too?

ChetDude

September 15, 2012 9:58am

OK, one more time...

HOW F*CKING STUPID ARE YOU, AMERICANS??? HOW F*CKING STUPID WILL YOU REMAIN!!!!!!!!!

God damn right I'm shouting...in fact, I'm SCREAMING!!!!

You have got to be the dumbest a**holes on the face of Planet Eaarth!!!

For less than half what USAmericans spend for your failing experiment with for-profit corporate sick care, the CIVILIZED nations on Earth -- ALL OF THEM -- cover all of their people with BETTER HEALTH CARE!

Why can't you get it through your f*cking thick heads that THEY ALL DO IT BETTER than YOU DO, that you should combine the best features of their HEALTH CARE systems, save money, COVER EVERYONE COMPLETELY, have healthier and happier people (except for the corporate leeches who make out like BANDITS in the existing system) and DUMP THIS SH*T!!!

GOD DAMN, WHAT WILL IT TAKE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

don-concerned

September 16, 2012 2:00pm

Dear Chetdude, Your language is offensive. If you have to cross it out or replace word, you must know it is offensive. Regardless, what foreign country are you from, or how many foreign countries have you lived in? As with so many people you seem to be angry about something that is not quite true.

You say all civilized countries, ALL OF THEM cover all the people with better care.

My wife is from Brazil. She is on their national health care system. She is elderly, over eighty and became acutely ill. My sister in law took her to the hospital. They said they had no room available, and to try again in a couple of weeks! My sister-in-law knew one of the doctors. He pulled some strings and got her a room. As with all patients, they told her to bring her own bedding, sheets, blankets, towels, toilet tissue, etc.

The doctor wanted an EKG and other tests. They said there was a waiting list and perhaps in a couple of weeks she could get the tests!

When we heard, we sent money by wire, and got her in a private hospital and had her tests. We got her a good cardiologist and she is doing well now.

But, please don't tell me all of the other civilized countries give better care than we do here.

Even indigents and illegal aliens get better care here.

Respectfully,

Concerned.