Answer our
quick poll
Proposed Healthcare Reform and Medicare
by Nancy Eustis December 28, 2009
I am pleased and honored to be the new chair of the Vital Aging Network. In keeping with the theme of this bulletin, I will comment on a topic related to national healthcare reform. These thoughts represent my own views. VAN has not taken a position.
At the time of writing, both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate have passed healthcare reform legislation. In early 2010 a conference committee presumably will reconcile differences between the two bills and forward a final bill to President Obama for his signature.
The two pieces of legislation are complex and difficult to digest. According to a December 22 article from Politico.com, “Most Americans’ opinions [have been] shaped less by hard information about actual provisions than by themes in the debate — what role the government should have in the health care industry and whether the legislation would add more red ink to the federal balance sheet.” One such theme of debate focuses on the impact of proposed changes on those who receive Medicare benefits.
Last August at town-hall meetings, Medicare beneficiaries expressed outrage at government making end-of-life decisions. In September, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that 51 percent of persons over 64 thought that changes under consideration would hurt senior citizens as compared with 36 percent of all adults surveyed. Conservative New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat, wrote, “If the Democratic Party’s attempt at health care reform perishes, senior citizens will have done it in….”
Partisan opponents to health reform have reportedly encouraged this opposition. But is it really in our best interest to oppose this round of healthcare reform on the basis of its impacton Medicare?
It is true that the legislation would likely result in cuts to Medicare in order to reduce the rate of growth in costs. However, the proposed legislation also contains measures that would have a direct advantage for Medicare beneficiaries: Medicare would cover an increased portion of the “donut hole”—costs for prescription drug currently not covered by Medicare Part D. It would also cover selected preventive procedures.
Persons over 65 also stand to benefit in more indirect ways from other provisions in the bills, such as:
- The legislation would provide healthcare coverage for an approximately 31 million people who are currently uninsured. These people are our kids and grandkids and our neighbors’ kids and grandkids. The changes would allow them to get needed services and surgeries and keep them healthy, contributing members of society.
- Access to medical care for a broader cross-section of the population reduces the spread of infectious diseases, which can be particularly dangerous to the elderly and other Medicare beneficiaries.
- Measures that provide preventive care for all age groups would result in early treatment of chronic conditions. As a result people would be healthier when they are on Medicare, reducing the overall increase in Medicare costs and helping to delay the depletion of the Medicare Part A trust fund. Current estimates for depletion without reform are 2019 and with reform, 2026.
Other arguments against the healthcare reform legislation now in Congress may have merit, but I would hate to see Medicare beneficiaries, myself included, stop important healthcare reform because we are not fully informed about what we stand to gain—or lose—from the legislation being considered.
You can read a concise comparison of the two bills on the StarTribune website or a more complete side-by-side comparison at the Kaiser Family Foundation website.
I welcome your thoughts and comments and look forward to an exciting year of engagement as part of the Vital Aging Network.
Comments
Pauline C. - January 09, 2010
Congratulations, Nancy, on your selection as chair of the Leadership Group. From being on the board with you, I know that VAN will be in excellent hands. Your willingness to take on this responsibility is most commendable.
