Aetna shares the concerns of the brokerage community about decisions being made right now in Washington, D.C. regarding the future of Medicare Advantage and the health care that our seniors will be able to access in the future.
Medicare Advantage members have had a brief reprieve from the negative impact of Medicare funding cuts as a result of a very close June 26th vote when the U.S. Senate rejected the House-passed Medicare bill that would have unfairly cut funding to the Medicare Advantage Program.
However, the Senate will surely revisit this issue in the next few days, and the House may have to vote again on a Medicare bill.
We still have a major fight ahead of us on this issue, and we need your help in the next 48 hours by sending a message to Washington to save Medicare choices for beneficiaries.
Please call your U.S. Senator at 1-888-270-6140 today.
After entering your zip code at the prompt, the Senate phone message center will route your call to your Senator’s voice message box. You can now:
1. Thank your Senator for voting “NO” last week, or
2. Encourage your Senator to change their vote and NOT APPROVE UNFAIR Medicare Advantage cuts moving forward.
To determine in advance which message to deliver, see how your Senator voted by checking here.
Background on the legislation along with talking points for your phone call follows:
Background and Aetna Position
The bill (H.R. 6331) was designed to stave off a 10.6 percent cut in Medicare physician reimbursement rates (scheduled for July 1) largely by making funding cuts to private Medicare Advantage plans. By an overwhelming vote of 355 to 59 earlier in the week, the House approved the Medicare bill. While Aetna supports the intent of the bill (to reimburse physicians a fair amount), we strongly oppose the source and size of the funding — 90 percent of the funding would be from cuts to Medicare Advantage in two areas: IME (Indirect Medical Education) and PFFS (“deeming”). After the House vote, Democrats in the Senate immediately pushed for Senate consideration of the unacceptable and problematic House bill. Aetna opposed this effort and lobbied against proceeding. Democrats needed 60 votes to proceed; they fell short with a 58 to 40 vote.
Talking points to thank your Senator for voting “NO” last week
- Thank you for supporting 10 million Medicare Advantage enrollees by voting against the cloture motion for H.R. 6331, the “Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.”
- Thanks to your vote, the estimated $13.8 billion in budget savings over the next five years will not come at the expense of seniors enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program. We agree that it would be very unfair for one segment of the Medicare population to shoulder such a large share of Medicare funding cuts.
- H.R. 6331 would have caused major disruptions for millions of Medicare beneficiaries by eliminating health plan choices for many and leading to reduced benefits and higher out-of-pocket costs for others.
- Thanks to your vote, – many beneficiaries will not lose the care coordination and other innovative strategies that Medicare Advantage plans have implemented to help keep beneficiaries healthy, detect diseases at an early stage, and avoid preventable illnesses.
- I appreciate the fact that you recognize that Medicare Advantage plans offer a coordinated and quality-focused approach to patient care, and funding cuts would undermine the availability of these important health plan choices.
- Thank you again for your leadership on this issue.
Talking points to encourage your Senator to vote against unfair Medicare Advantage cuts
- Medicare Advantage programs provide important coverage options to seniors nationwide.
- PFFS plans save the average senior $800 per year in health costs, according to Congress’ own Government Accountability Office. Seniors in poor health save thousands more.
- This legislation would cause major disruptions for millions of Medicare beneficiaries, eliminating health plan choices for many, leading to reduced benefits and higher out-of-pocket costs for others, and diminishing access to care coordination and other innovative strategies offered by Medicare Advantage plans.
- The Medicare Advantage funding cuts proposed by H.R. 6331 (which will be considered in the Senate in the coming days) would have a harmful impact on health care choices and benefits for the more than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries who rely on Medicare Advantage to meet their health care needs. This bill includes three separate provisions that would take an estimated $13.8 billion from Medicare Advantage over the next five years at the expense of Medicare Advantage enrollees.
- If Congress enacts this legislation, many beneficiaries will lose the care coordination and other innovative strategies that Medicare Advantage plans have implemented to help keep beneficiaries healthy, detect diseases at an early stage, and avoid preventable illnesses. Recognizing that Medicare Advantage plans offer a coordinated and quality-focused approach to patient care, it would be a serious mistake to impose funding cuts that would undermine the availability of these important health plan choices.
Thank you for sharing your opinion and participating in this important issue.
Rick:
I’d have to look at the source for the 117% number, however, I believe a good bit of this has to do with the fact that PFFS plans typically flourish in the “floor” counties. The 2009 Capitation rate in floor counties is $740.82/month. So, if original Medicare paid 17% more than the $740, you would get an additional $126/month in benefits, which is, I think where you get the $1,600/year.
I’m not sure what the cost of original Medicare is in these floor counties (I’d have to search for this data), but I’m sure it’s somewhat less than the $740.
I’ll see if I can get you a better answer, but in the meantime, I’ll post the 2009 Capitation Rates by county for your reference.
Craig:
I wonder what would happen if CMS funded Medicare at 117% of current levels. Would Medicare then provide the same level of benefits as PFFS plan?
While I appreciate the assertion that PFFS plans save the consumer $800 per year, my calculations (which are likely way off) show that it cost taxpayers about $1,600 per year.
I’d love to see your response to this. Am I wrong?
Rick