“the Swedes feature partial privatization in their pension system, tie benefits to contributions, and vote each year on supplemental benefits based on demographic and economic conditions, all while balancing their budget.
By rejecting socialism and embracing privatization as well as mechanisms to prevent overspending, the Swedes demonstrated that reforming entitlement programs in a fiscally prudent way is not a pipe dream after all.
Conversely, U.S. Social Security benefits are guaranteed regardless of economic or demographic conditions. Social Security, among other programs, is deliberately excluded from our government’s normal budgetary process. Social Security and other entitlement programs are considered “mandatory spending,” in which funding is provided without congressional debate or action.
Putting entitlement spending on autopilot means the federal debt, currently standing at $34 trillion, will only grow. Mandatory spending, which includes, but is not limited to, Social Security, accounts for about two-thirds of government spending. The annual total dollar amount of mandatory spending increases by an average of about 10 percent per year.
The level of automatic mandatory funding demonstrates the staggering extent of the federal government’s spending problem. Last year’s tax revenue, about $4.4 trillion, just barely pays for mandatory entitlement spending. Therefore, much of the remaining $1.7 trillion we spend on our military and other programs is funded with borrowed money.”
…
“Sweden previously promised a socialist pension program similar to Social Security. Under that retirement system, Swedish citizens were, subject to certain requirements, entitled to a universal basic and supplemental income.
Facing alarming projections of insolvency in the 1980s, Sweden established a commission to review the pension program’s fiscal sustainability and develop options for reform.
Sweden’s efforts were not immediately successful. The pension commission presented its recommendations during an economic downturn in 1990, which the Swedish parliament rejected. But Sweden continued to seek a solution. A new working group, comprised of representatives of each of the seven political parties, found that the aging Swedish population, inflation, and rising unemployment eroded the sustainability of the Swedish pension system. The working group also found that, barring reforms, the payroll tax would need to rise from 18 percent to 30 percent to support the program. The Swedes rejected both an initial set of reforms and a confiscatory tax increase.
So how did the Scandinavian country get back on the path to a sustainable pension system?
The Swedes’ pension reforms worked because they abandoned many of the socialistic aspects of its previous system. Sweden rejected Social Security–like defined benefits in favor of a defined contribution rate. Sweden also introduced some privatization into the system, which empowers beneficiaries to determine how to invest their retirement funds and take an active role in planning for their own future.
Critically, the new system features a mechanism called the “brake,” which is designed to prevent overspending by automatically preventing benefits from growing quicker than contributions.
The new Swedish system was fully implemented in 2003, and it has withstood the test of time. Swedish benefits have consistently increased, and their pension program has featured a surplus in all but three of the last 20 years. For the last 10 years, the program experienced a consistently growing surplus. Even during the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, the Swedish pension system remained strong. Conversely, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the Social Security’s retirement account will be depleted in 2032.
Today, the Swedish system consistently ranks among the world’s best-performing retirement income programs. This feat was accomplished because Sweden recognized the most socialistic aspects of the program were failing and implemented reforms to avoid the same problems that plague Social Security: unsustainability and passing the costs of overspending to future generations.
America’s officials should act like adults and acknowledge that Social Security can only be strengthened by ending the problem of uncontrolled costs. In this sense, maybe America should be more like Sweden.”
https://reason.com/2024/01/13/why-america-should-be-more-like-sweden-its-not-what-you-think/
“If you’re signing up for Medicare benefits this open enrollment, odds are you aren’t actually enrolling in the traditional government program that people may envision. More than half of Medicare beneficiaries are now choosing an alternative version of the program administered by private companies.
Medicare, the paragon of America’s welfare state, is undergoing a subtle but fundamental transformation from government program to public benefit provided by private companies, a shift with major implications for both patients and taxpayers. This alternative version of Medicare, known as Medicare Advantage, now covers more than half of the program’s 60 million enrollees, or about 31 million Americans — nearly double its share 10 years ago.”
…
“Medicare Advantage allows private insurers to offer their own plans that provide Medicare benefits, as well as some additional perks not available in the original program. The secret to the program’s success is simplicity. Traditional Medicare is a fragmented program: Part A covers hospital care, and Part B covers outpatient services. Patients must enroll in a separate Part D plan for prescription drug coverage that is administered by private insurers. Most people also purchase supplemental coverage, extra insurance that helps reduce their out-of-pocket costs.
Medicare Advantage, also known as Part C, combines those benefits into one insurance plan that also includes an annual limit on out-of-pocket costs, something that does not technically exist in regular Medicare.
But the benefits to patients seem to come at a cost to taxpayers. Though the health insurance industry disputes these findings, MedPAC, the independent committee tasked with overseeing Medicare on Congress’s behalf, found Medicare Advantage plans cost the federal government more money per patient than the original program would have if those same people had stuck with the traditional benefits.
Private companies are also making healthy margins on their Medicare business.”
…
“Patients have clearly found something to like in what Medicare Advantage offers. The program was established in 1997 to give people a streamlined alternative, a private option less overt than more recent GOP voucher proposals.
But scholarly research and media investigations have revealed notable downsides in turning over a program that covers America’s seniors, the people who need and use the most health care, to private companies. Medicare Advantage enrollees are more likely to report trouble affording health care than people on traditional Medicare. Some of the behavior by Medicare Advantage plans, such as using AI to decide when to stop covering services for their enrollees, may be becoming more common in the private sector but is still unheard of for public programs.
The trade-off the United States seems to be making is accepting more administrative bloat and more stringent provision of benefits in exchange for a more navigable Medicare plan. The trade-off is one other countries have made as they designed universal health care programs. (A similar trend is underway in Medicaid.)
But as concern grows about Medicare facing a potential financial cliff, and evidence mounts about the costs of Medicare Advantage, the risks of the trade-off are becoming clearer. Medicare is no longer what it used to be: Once the epitome of government-run health insurance, its benefits are on the verge of being primarily funneled through private companies. Any attempts to change the program will have to wrestle with that reality.”
…
“Why the movement? In a 2021 analysis published in Health Affairs, Ken Terry and David Muhlestein observed that “we’re witnessing the rapid privatization of Medicare” and offered an explanation: Medicare Advantage plans “offer beneficiaries a better deal than traditional Medicare.”
The premiums people pay for a Medicare Advantage plan can be significantly lower than the combined cost of supplemental coverage and a Part D plan — less than $50 compared to more than $200 on average, per Terry and Muhlestein — with the added benefit of having only a single insurance card. According to a 2022 Commonwealth Fund survey, the additional benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans (such as dental or vision) and the limits on out-of-pocket costs were the most common reasons seniors gave for choosing the alternative over the original program.
In general, patients with traditional Medicare and people with Medicare Advantage say they have similar satisfaction with their benefits. On some metrics, the latter group excels; people with a Medicare Advantage plan are more likely to have a regular doctor and to say they have received preventive health care services. With a few exceptions for particular medicines, Medicare Advantage customers report fewer problems accessing their prescription drugs, too.
But people enrolled in Medicare Advantage also experience a unique set of problems compared to people who choose the original program.”
…
“A higher percentage of Medicare Advantage enrollees report having problems affording care (about 19 percent, per a 2021 KFF analysis) than those on traditional Medicare (15 percent), though people on the original program without supplemental coverage had the most problems with affordability (30 percent). (Most people on Medicare do purchase this coverage.) Black Americans and people with lower incomes were more likely to report having trouble paying for health care while enrolled in Medicare Advantage.
Other findings appear worrisome, too. Medicare Advantage patients are less likely to receive medical care at the highest-rated facilities for their particular needs, compared to people with traditional Medicare, a reflection of more restrictive provider networks. Families also reported more satisfaction with end-of-life care when using traditional Medicare.
Specific business practices by Medicare Advantage plans, and their consequences for patients, have also been called into question by investigative reporting and government inquiries over the past few years, practices that seem to run counter to Medicare’s function as an entitlement program for Americans over 65 and those with long-term disabilities.
Earlier this year, STAT reported on the increasing use of AI algorithms by these plans to determine when to cut off benefits for a customer. The lead example of their reporting was an 85-year-old woman with a broken left shoulder, whose insurer followed an algorithm that said she should be ready to leave a nursing facility and return home within 17 days.
On the 17th day of her stay, the insurer said it would no longer cover the bills for her stay, even though her doctors and nurses observed that the woman was still in extreme pain and incapable of doing basic activities, such as dressing herself or going to the bathroom. It took more than a year, and a federal judge’s order, for the patient to receive payments for the three additional weeks she needed to stay in the nursing facility. Doctors shared other stories of patients who saw benefits withdrawn at the end of their life, leaving their families to fight over the leftover bills for years after their loved one had died.
A report from federal investigators published in April 2022 found that tens of thousands of Medicare Advantage customers were denied coverage for services they should have been entitled to. A significant number of prior authorization denials (13 percent) and payment denials (19 percent) reviewed by the investigators were for services that should have been covered by the program but were not.
“Denied requests that meet Medicare coverage rules may prevent or delay beneficiaries from receiving medically necessary care and can burden providers,” they wrote. “Even when denials are reversed, avoidable delays and extra steps create friction in the program.”
In addition, as the New York Times reported last October, most of the largest Medicare Advantage insurers have been the subject of federal audits that found they improperly billed the program and of litigation that accused them of fraud. Taken together, the plans overbilled Medicare by between $12 billion and $25 billion in 2020, depending on the estimate.
Though Medicare Advantage was first established as a tool for reining in spending, these private plans instead seem to be perpetuating the program’s solvency crisis.
According to MedPac, since 2004, Medicare has always paid more to Medicare Advantage insurers for the cost of covering their customers than the program would have spent if the same beneficiaries had instead been enrolled in traditional Medicare. Some years, the private plans were receiving a nearly 20 percent markup compared to the original benefit structure.”
…
“The growth of Medicare Advantage is contributing to the financial crunch. Those plans receive funding based on the type of service provided to their customer, which means money for hospital care comes from Part A. Annual Part A payments to Medicare Advantage plans are expected to increase from about $176 billion in 2022 to $336 billion by 2030.
With revived concerns over Medicare’s solvency and evidence of excess spending in Medicare Advantage, policymakers are starting to look at making changes to the program. But that won’t be easy.”
…
“Health insurers are going to fiercely defend their Medicare Advantage business against any proposed cuts”
…
“It is difficult, at this point, to imagine the Medicare program without Medicare Advantage. The question is whether policymakers can make it more cost-effective and crack down on insurer behavior that runs counter to the program’s objectives. Recent events suggest that if they try, they will have a fight on their hands.”
https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/3/17/23639685/medicare-medicaid-plans-health-insurance-open-enrollment-privatization
“Almost half of people on Medicare, 31 million Americans, are now enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, nearly double the share of 10 years ago. It is widely assumed that Medicare Advantage will cover a majority of the program’s beneficiaries within the next few years.”
…
“Medicare Advantage allows private insurers to offer their own plans that provide Medicare benefits as well as some additional perks not available in the original program. The secret to the program’s success is simplicity. Traditional Medicare is a fragmented program; Part A covers hospital care and Part B covers outpatient services. Patients must enroll in a separate Part D plan for prescription drug coverage that is administered by private insurers. Most people also purchase supplemental coverage, extra insurance that helps reduce their out-of-pocket costs.
Medicare Advantage, also known as Part C, combines those benefits into one insurance plan that also includes an annual limit on out-of-pocket costs, something that does not technically exists in regular Medicare.
But the benefits to patients seem to come at a cost to taxpayers. Though the health insurance industry disputes these findings, MedPAC, the independent committee tasked with overseeing Medicare on Congress’s behalf, found Medicare Advantage plans cost the federal government more money per patient than the original program would have if those same people had stuck with the traditional benefits.
Private companies are also making healthy margins on their Medicare business.”
…
“Medicare Advantage enrollees are more likely to report trouble affording health care than people on traditional Medicare. Some of the behavior by Medicare Advantage plans, such as using AI to decide when to stop covering services for their enrollees, may be becoming more common in the private sector but is still unheard of for public programs.
The trade-off the United States seems to be making is accepting more administrative bloat and more stringent provision of benefits in exchange for a more navigable Medicare plan. The trade-off is one other countries have made as they designed universal health care programs. (A similar trend is underway in Medicaid.)
But as concern grows about Medicare facing a potential financial cliff, and evidence mounts about the costs of Medicare Advantage, the risks of the trade-off are becoming clearer. Medicare is no longer what it used to be: Once the epitome of government-run health insurance, its benefits are on the verge of being primarily funneled through private companies. Any attempts to change the program will have to wrestle with that reality.”
…
“In traditional Medicare, for example, patients can go to any doctor or hospital that accepts Medicare; Medicare Advantage has more limited provider networks, and patients can be on the hook for higher costs if they are treated at an out-of-network doctor or hospital.
The federal government pays Medicare Advantage plans a flat rate for the expected cost of covering their particular customers and the insurers are required to adhere to certain rules about benefits and costs. But companies still have flexibility about how to run their plans and have a financial incentive to limit expenses. The less money they spend, the more they get to keep for themselves.
Still, customers will vote with their feet and, after slower-than-expected initial uptake, Medicare Advantage is now growing so quickly that it will soon be the dominant form of Medicare.”
…
“The premiums people pay for a Medicare Advantage plan can be significantly lower than the combined cost of supplemental coverage and a Part D plan — less than $50 compared to more than $200 on average, per Terry and Muhlestein — with the added benefit of having only a single insurance card. According to a 2022 Commonwealth Fund survey, the additional benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans (such as dental or vision) and the limits on out-of-pocket costs were the most common reasons seniors gave for choosing the alternative over the original program.”
…
“Medicare Advantage patients are less likely to receive medical care at the highest-rated facilities for their particular needs, compared to people with traditional Medicare, a reflection of more restrictive provider networks.”
…
“A report from federal investigators published in April 2022 found that tens of thousands of Medicare Advantage customers were denied coverage for services they should have been entitled to. A significant number of prior authorization denials (13 percent) and payment denials (19 percent) reviewed by the investigators were for services that should have been covered by the program but were not.”
…
“According to MedPac, since 2004, Medicare has always paid more to Medicare Advantage plans for the cost of covering their customers than the program would have spent if the same beneficiaries had instead been enrolled in traditional Medicare. Some years, the private plans were receiving a nearly 20 percent markup compared to the original benefit structure.”
…
“The growth of Medicare Advantage is contributing to the financial crunch. Those plans receive funding based on the type of service provided to their customer, which means money for hospital care comes from Part A. Annual Part A payments to Medicare Advantage plans are expected to increase from about $176 billion in 2022 to $336 billion by 2030.
With revived concerns over Medicare’s solvency and evidence of excess spending in Medicare Advantage, policymakers are starting to look at making changes to the program. But that won’t be easy.”
…
“States have outsourced much of the administration of Medicaid to managed care plans. Countries like the Netherlands have set up health systems that use private insurers, operating under strict government oversight, to provide insurance benefits to their citizens. Giving people more choice and a more streamlined experience can have its benefits, as evidenced by the popularity of Medicare Advantage in the US.
But asking private actors, with profit motivations, to administer government benefits to which people are supposed to be entitled brings risks. People are more likely to have trouble affording health care and their claims are more likely to be denied; that is true in places like the Netherlands, compared to other countries with more direct government administration, and that is true of Medicare Advantage when compared to the traditional Medicare program.”