Why Insurers Are Wary Of Raising The Medicare Age

[eridani]

Their opinions will probably count much more than overwhelming public opposition, but wotthehell--we need all the help we can get on this issue.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/insurers-raising-medicare-age.php

The possibility that Democratic and Republican leaders will agree to slowly increase the Medicare eligibility age to 67 is creating strange bedfellows: liberals — both in and out of Congress — and the health insurance industry.

A well-placed industry source tells TPM insurers haven’t taken a public position but are skeptical of the idea, particularly those insurers that don’t cover elderly patients via Medicare Advantage, supplemental Medigap coverage or prescription drug coverage.

House Republican leaders want to avoid the fiscal cliff with a proposal that would gradually raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67. Democrats are broadly reluctant to cut benefits, but President Obama was willing to accept the policy last year in failed deficit reduction talks with House Speaker John Boehner, and top Democrats have left the door open to including that measure in a grand budget bargain.

That may seem counter-intuitive. Why would an industry threatened by government insurance not want it to shrink?

The reason: hiking the Medicare eligibility age would throw seniors aged 65 and 66 off Medicare and into the private market, forcing insurers, who will soon be required to cover all consumers regardless of health status, to care for a sicker, more expensive crop of patients.

[MrYikes]

1. and you are just putting off taking care of the patient's problems.

It will still be there in two years, but it will be more expensive to treat.
A better option would be to lower the age limit.

[Sherman A1]

2. Precisely

We simply need single payer for all. It makes so very much more sense from so many points of view.

[daleanime]

5. Who cares about sense?

CEO's need more money!

[rhett o rick]

8. That's not what I get from this. They are not suggesting that patients

problems be put off for two years. They are suggesting that these patients be covered by the insurance companies instead of the government. More money for insurance companies.

Easy rule of thumb. If the insurance companies want it, vote no.

[truth2power]

3. Oh, so Medicare is a BETTER choice, cost-wise,

than trying to care for seniors' health needs in the private sector. I see.

Who woulda thought?

[eridani]

4. I've put that one in my No Shit, Sherlock! file n/t

[tclambert]

6. Raising the Medicare eligibility age is exactly the opposite of what they should do.

Many, many of us (including Ted Kennedy) wanted to gradually LOWER the Medicare age until, eventually, it covered everybody. That was the simple, simple path to single payer.

[glowing]

7. If insurance company's had a preferred age of cut off

and for Govt to take over health care costs, it would be younger.. Like 50. That way they aren't paying out so much and collecting mostly profit off of younger, normally more healthy people.

I'm surprised they haven't pushed for the age to decrease... I suppose if they did that, they would actually show people that Medicare for all would be much more efficient and solvent by adding the younger, healthier, working class into the program.

And we already pay Medicare out of our checks, most wouldn't mind an increase in paying the Medicare rate, so long as they also weren't bleeding out health insurance fees as well.

If only politicians weren't so bought. They would solve a lot of issues more easily. The whole fiscal cliff is something they created in the first place. Morons!

[democrattotheend]

9. I would think small business owners (and maybe all employers) should also oppose it

For those who keep working after 65, employers with more than 20 employees are required to offer them the same health coverage they offer workers under 65, and Medicare acts as secondary coverage. But for employers w/less than 20 employees, the employer can require the employee to sign up for Medicare Part B. If the retirement age were raised, small employers would have to keep covering workers for another 2 years, and would likely see their group rates spike, since the older and sicker the group, the higher the rate.

Even larger employers might be hurt by raising the eligibility age for Medicare, because it might force some workers to keep working for an extra two years, driving up the cost of group health insurance for the company (although the effects are probably less pronounced in a big company).

[FarCenter]

10. On the other hand, 66 and 67 year olds are healthy relative to others on Medicare

So how much will this really save Medicare?

How much does Medicare spend per cohort by years of age?

http://www.medpac.gov/documents/Jun12DataBookEntireReport.pdf doesn't have enough data to tell, but maybe about 4% savings?