***
Twisting the Facts About Health Care
OCT. 20, 2012
The outcome of the
presidential election will determine which of two opposing paths the nation
will follow on health care for all Americans. If voters re-elect President
Obama, he will protect the health care reforms that are his signature domestic
achievement. If they elect Mitt Romney, they will be choosing a man who has
pledged to repeal the reform law and replace it with — who knows what?
The competing visions are
often difficult to evaluate because the Republican candidates — Mr. Romney and
his running mate, Paul Ryan — have become so artful about obfuscating their
plans for Medicare, Medicaid and what they will do to reform the whole system.
Almost nothing the Republican candidates say on these or other health care
issues can be taken at face value.
Here are some of their bigger
evasions:
REPLACING OBAMACARE Although
Mr. Romney has said he wants to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act,
he has provided few details on what he would replace it with. When challenged
to do so at the first presidential debate, Mr. Romney never quite answered and
made some egregious misstatements along the way, some of which were repeated by
Mr. Ryan in the vice-presidential debate.
Mr. Romney asserted that his
plans had already been laid out in “a lengthy description,” implying that
anyone could read the whole story by turning to his campaign Web site. As it
turns out, the site has a page-and-a-half statement that says he would rely on
private markets and state leadership but gives no hint of what it would cost or
who would pay. A one-page list of frequently asked questions about his Medicare
plan assures us that “Mitt continues to work on refining the
details.”
He continues to assert that
his plan would cover people with pre-existing conditions when it clearly would
not. People who have pre-existing conditions — and are not already covered by
insurance — are often refused coverage or charged exorbitant rates by private
insurers. Starting in 2014, the reform law will require insurers to accept all
applicants and charge them without regard to health status. By contrast, Mr.
Romney has simply pledged to protect people who had insurance but then lost it,
provided they take out a new policy within a short time. But this protection is
already required by law and offers absolutely nothing for millions of people
who can’t get or can’t afford private insurance.
He has also implied that the
reform law created an unelected board that’s “ultimately” going to tell people
what treatments they can have. The advisory board is specifically precluded by
the law from recommending cuts in benefits or eligibility; its job is to
propose cuts in payments to providers and insurers if necessary to meet budget
targets.
A major goal of the law was
to cover some 30 million more people by expanding Medicaid and subsidizing
coverage for middle-income people. That goal would be lost if the law was
repealed. The Republicans, of course, have no plans for covering the uninsured
beyond assuming they can use emergency rooms, leaving the problem to the
states.
MEDICARE Mr. Romney has
misrepresented what would happen to both current beneficiaries and future
generations under his proposals. He says his plans would have no effect on
people now on Medicare or nearing eligibility. But if he succeeded in repealing
the reform law, which has many provisions that hold down costs for Medicare
enrollees, most beneficiaries would see their annual premiums and cost-sharing
go up. The average beneficiary in traditional Medicare would pay about $5,000
more through 2022, and heavy users of prescription drugs about $18,000 more
over the same period, if the act is repealed, according to the Department of
Health and Human Services. Department of Health and Human Services.
Mr. Romney also argues that
the reform law will weaken Medicare because it cuts some $716 billion from
future Medicare spending by slowing the rate of increase over the next decade.
Of course, that is essentially the same amount of Medicare cuts in Mr. Ryan’s
budget resolutions, approved this year and last year by House Republicans.
The reform law justifiably
reduces the excessive subsidies to private plans (known as Medicare Advantage)
that enroll many beneficiaries. It also lowers the annual rate of increase in
payments to providers, like hospitals, nursing homes and home care agencies, to
force them to become more efficient. Mr. Romney wants to keep overpaying the
plans and providers simply to pander to elderly voters.
For future generations, the
Romney-Ryan ticket would turn Medicare into a premium-support — or voucher —
program in which the federal government provides a fixed amount of money to
beneficiaries each year and allows it to grow by a small amount annually, which
may not keep pace with medical costs. The whole point of turning to vouchers is
to reduce federal spending on Medicare, so it seems likely that many
beneficiaries would end up worse off than now. (At the vice-presidential
debate, Mr. Ryan tried to pretend his premium-support proposal was bipartisan,
but the sole Democrat who backed an early version — Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon — has disavowed
his plan.)
Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan
insist that the magic of competition among health insurers — both private plans
and a public option like Medicare — will bring down premiums. But if
competition fails to do that, beneficiaries would almost certainly get socked
with added payments or fewer benefits.
They say that lower-income
beneficiaries would get more-generous premium support and wealthier individuals
would receive less support. But, of course, they provide no numbers on what
those support levels might be.
MEDICAID The Republicans
want to repeal the reform law’s expansion of Medicaid to cover millions of low-
and middle-income people and instead shrink federal funding by turning Medicaid
into a block grant. States would be given a fixed amount of money equal to what
they had been getting in federal payments for Medicaid, and that grant would
then grow at a rate tied to inflation. If those increases failed to keep up
with medical costs, states — faced with the necessity of balancing their
budgets every year — would probably have to cut enrollments or benefits or
payments to providers. That could include cuts to coverage for long-term and
nursing home care that millions depend on.
The block grant proposal in
Mr. Ryan’s budget resolution would reduce federal Medicaid payments to the
states by more than $800 billion over 10 years and would cut federal funding by
a third in 2022, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Mr.
Romney blithely said that if a state got into trouble “Why, we could step in
and see if we could find a way to help them.” Or maybe not. It’s another of
those vague promises.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment