The Obama administration unveiled its latest round of proposed cuts to the Medicare Advantage program Friday, but days later even the insurance industry isn’t sure how big a blow the administration dealt.
The payment regulation itself, and an accompanying press release, didn’t make it easy to figure out exactly what the Medicare agency was proposing — aside from the fact that it was definitely a cut, of some magnitude. An email sent Monday by the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, says Wall Street analysts are estimating cuts of anywhere between 4 percent and 9 percent to the program.
Without its own estimates of the impact, AHIP’s spokesman Robert Zirkelbach repeated the line insurers have been pushing for weeks: Any cut is too big.
“The goal here is to keep payments flat, given that the program just saw a 6 percent cut last year,” Zirkelbach said.
Roughly 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in private insurance through the Medicare Advantage program, and according to consulting firm Avalere Health, the program’s numbers continue to swell despite the measured implementation of new cuts. Health plans face some $150 billion in Medicare Advantage reductions over the next 10 years due to the Affordable Care Act, as lawmakers seek to rein in overspending in the program.
At the top of the spectrum, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch analysts pegged the total industry impact to be about -9.3 percent, while Wells Fargo’s gurus estimate a much lower -3.79 percent impact.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, however, continues to push -1.9 percent. That number, an agency spokesman wrote in an email, is the estimated proposed 2015 payment reduction rate, based on the combined growth rates in traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.
The growth rate by itself does not account for cuts imposed by the Affordable Care Act, the new health insurance tax, the end of a quality bonus program which insurers qualified for through this year, and other changes such as no reimbursements for home health and reductions for coding.
Wall Street analysts did factor those additional proposals into their estimates. CMS did not provide the combined impact of its proposed policies on the industry, when asked.
Despite the proposed cuts, insurance companies’ stocks rose Monday. Humana, for instance, had initially predicted worse cuts than what it interpreted from Friday’s announcement.
CMS is expected to release the final rates on April 7.
What We're Following See More »
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.
Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."
In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."