Proposals to Cut Medicare Will Save Billions but Shift Burden, Risk

http://www.insidearm.com/news/00019787-proposals-to-cut-medicare-will-save-billi/

Anyway you slice it, cutting Medicare will shift the burden onto someone else and threaten the physical and financial health of the nation’s seniors–but it will reduce the federal government’s financial responsibility and burden on taxpayers.

A newly released Rand Corporation study examined three proposals to cut Medicare spending that have been circulating lately: increase the beneficiary’s financial responsibility, pay the beneficiary a flat amount to get their own insurance, or raise the eligibility age. All proposals will save the federal government of the future billions, but all shift financial responsibility elsewhere and force many seniors, when presented with the option to spend or not to spend, to reject any coverage at all.

According to Kaiser Health News, the study examined three specific proposals:

Means testing Part A: Medicare Part A includes coverage of care in hospitals and nursing homes, and unlike Part B (which covers doctor visits, labs and equipment), the Part A premium is the same no matter how much a beneficiary earns. The idea of making wealthier seniors pay more for Part A has been around for a long time: It was suggested by the bipartisan Kerrey-Danforth commission back in the mid-1990s. This proposal would reduce federal spending by 2.4 percent through 2036, the study found.

Premium support: Premium support would give seniors a set amount of money to purchase a private or Medicare-like health insurance plan. It’s a proposal similar to the one championed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). This proposal would result in the greatest savings after 2019, the study found.

Raising the eligibility age: If Medicare mirrored Social Security, the eligibility age would be 67. This proposal has been floated by both parties and has stoked heated debate. Medicare’s age requirement has not changed since the program’s inception in 1965, though life expectancy has increased by eight years in that time. The study found that this proposal would reduce federal spending by 7.2 percent.