Pelosi backs Medicare
buy-in plan in Senate health-care deal
Speaker says expansion has
appeal, but she still prefers a public option
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday,
December 11, 2009
House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed a proposal Thursday that would allow people in
late middle age to buy insurance through Medicare, helping to sustain an idea
that sprang unexpectedly from the Senate this week.
But the California Democrat reiterated that she would prefer to create
government-sponsored coverage for Americans of all ages, and questions linger in
the Senate about the politics and policy of expanding Medicare by allowing
people ages 55 to 64 to buy into the federal insurance program for the elderly.
The speaker stopped short of embracing the broader contours of a fragile
compromise worked out by liberal and moderate Senate negotiators in an effort to
nudge forward broad changes to the health-care system. Still, she said: "There's
certainly a great deal of appeal" to expanding Medicare.
Such an expansion is an old idea among Democrats, but one that was largely
absent from this year's congressional health-care debate before it made a
Phoenix-like appearance in recent days. The "buy-in," as the idea is known, is
intended to help 6.5 million Americans who lack health insurance or purchase
expensive policies on their own. They are in an age group in which medical
problems become more common and coverage is particularly expensive.
But how many of those people could afford to sign up -- and how many would
prefer the option over other avenues to insurance that lawmakers are
contemplating -- hinge on critical details that even the senators embracing the
idea have not resolved. The team of senators that proposed the Medicare
expansion is declining to disclose the proposal's fine print until congressional
budget analysts examine the impact for patients and the federal budget.
Opposition from hospitals
The idea has met with a wall of opposition to the idea from hospitals and
physicians, whose lobbyists contend that Medicare pays them too little for treating
patients. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), a crucial vote as one of the
chamber's few Republican moderates, sided firmly with those constituencies,
telling reporters that the buy-in "is the wrong direction to take. . . . I am
talking to a lot of my [health-care] providers . . . and I know they are mighty
unhappy."
At the same time, leading advocates for patients and for older Americans, who
have in the past favored letting younger people buy insurance through Medicare,
predict that the current version of the idea could prove relatively unattractive
to the people it is meant to help.
"I just don't see it being that popular," said John Rother, executive vice
president for policy and strategy for AARP, an enormous lobby for people 50 and
older.
He and others said it remains unclear whether the program would be designed
with the same health benefits, co-payments by patients, or access to private
health plans and supplemental coverage as the rest of Medicare. Depending on
such details, Rother said, "it's not even Medicare, but that's a brand name
everyone likes."
Still, he said, AARP always has favored the creation of a buy-in, as long as
it would not worsen the Medicare system's already shaky finances.
The 10 moderate and liberal Democratic senators who negotiated the tentative
agreement regarded the buy-in as a compromise. They dropped the idea, central to
the health-care bill adopted by the House, of a government-sponsored insurance
system. Instead, the buy-in would provide a new public alternative to people
within a 10-year age span.
Some critics characterize this approach as disingenuous. "This was in the
context of an alternative to a public program, when [Medicare] is . . . perhaps
the biggest public program in health care in the universe," said Richard J.
Pollack, executive vice president for advocacy and public policy for the
American Hospital Association, which sent out an alert urging hospitals
nationwide to complain to their members of Congress.
Drew E. Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy
organization, said that "this is less about the outside groups and the public,
and it's more about the clock ticking. . . . They are trying to nail down a few
swing votes."
Kaiser has for years conducted public opinion polls about expanding Medicare
to younger Americans, and the idea is consistently popular, supported by
three-fourths of those surveyed most recently, in September.
Questions
remain
The idea made its first serious recent appearance in 1998, when President
Bill Clinton proposed it. Chris Jennings, a consultant who was Clinton's main
White House health-care adviser, said that then, as now, there was pressure for
the expansion not to increase federal spending. That proposal included no
subsidies and would have required people who took part to pay extra for Medicare
once they reached the usual eligibility age of 65.
At a time when Congress was in Republican control, bills to create a buy-in
gained little traction. Some critics, Jennings recalled, said the premiums would
have been too expensive, and others said that employers might drop coverage for
older workers or that people might retire early, creating fiscal ripple effects
for the Social Security system.
With Congress and the White House now led by Democrats, the politics are
different, but policy experts said that substantial questions remain about how
the buy-in would work -- and how it would relate to other health-care changes
Congress is considering. A central question, they said, is the extent to which
the government would subsidize Medicare premiums for younger participants.
According to Census data analyzed by Kaiser, nearly two-thirds of people age
55 to 64 who are uninsured or buy individual coverage -- the groups that
probably would be eligible -- have incomes that would qualify for at least some
federal health-care subsidy, under the main bills before Congress.
But some of their subsidies would be small, policy experts note, and Medicare
premiums could prove much more expensive than those of other insurance plans
available under "health exchanges" lawmakers are contemplating, because rates
for other plans would be aided by the inclusion of younger patients who use
fewer medical services.
© 2009 The
Washington Post Company