Comments

Health Affairs encourages readers to engage in discussion via comments on our Web site.

• To RESPOND to a particular article: Click on the link "Submit a response to this article" in the box at the top right-hand corner of the article.
• To READ responses to a particular article: Click on the link "View responses" in the box at the top right-hand corner of the article.

Comments to:

Karen Davis, Stuart Guterman, Michelle M. Doty, and Kristof M. Stremikis, Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare And Employer Coverage Stack Up?, Health Affairs Web Exclusive, May 12, 2009 [Abstract] [PDF] [Reprints & Permissions]

Comments:Submit a response to this article

Comments published:

Unsupplemented Medicare

Karin O. Patrick   ( 27 May 2009 )

CMS, Medicare, And Proposed Coverage Regulations For Over-65 Workers

Bett Lujan Martinez   ( 4 June 2009 )

Unsupplemented Medicare 27 May 2009
Karin O. Patrick, Manager, Health Programs Minnesota Senior Federation Send comment to journal: Re: Unsupplemented Medicare kpatrick{at}mnseniors.org Karin O. Patrick	This study categorized all Medicare beneficiaries as Medicare enrollees, including those with supplemental coverage (Medicaid and supplemental retiree coverage). However, unsupplemented Medicare is very different than Medicare with some form of supplementation, and has an enormously different impact on the beneficiary's pocketbook. Due to out-of-pocket costs and non-covered items, people with unsupplemented Medicare as a whole spend between 30% and 50% of their incomes on health care (statistic depends upon the source). Medicare alone is considered "underinsurance." Regardless of ease of use, people without a supplement to Medicare fall increasing farther behind -- most wouldn't notice whether it is easy to use. In June 2008, AARP's Public Policy Institute reported that bankruptcies in the over-age-65 demographic increased by 150% from 1999 to 2007, with health care costs being the primary driver. A Kaiser Family Foundation study in February of this year found that health care spending accounts for an average of 14% of all expenditures for Medicare households, and that one in four Medicare households devote more than 25% of their spending to health care. The "Meeting Enrollees Needs..." study has little value without separating people with unsupplemented Medicare from those who have Medicaid or a supplement in addition to their Medicare. The satisfaction rates of properly categorized groups with statistically valid sample sizes would most likely reflect the alarming economic realities found in multiple other studies.
CMS, Medicare, And Proposed Coverage Regulations For Over-65 Workers 4 June 2009
Bett Lujan Martinez, Principal Bett Martinez Insurance Solutions Send comment to journal: Re: CMS, Medicare, And Proposed Coverage Regulations For Over-65 Workers well-being{at}pacbell.net Bett Lujan Martinez	It's clear now that for personal and financial reasons, 65 is no longer the time to enjoy the so-called Golden Years. This article points to the fact that for people who've worked long enough to earn Medicare, and continue to work, it's a better option to elect Medicare primary and receive Medigap/Medsupp coverage than to accept the high-deductible plan offered to others with Medicare as secondary payer. They've paid into the system. They've earned it. It's a lot less expensive to the employer as well. I have seen premiums of $900+ a month for employees 65+ receiving regular coverage on the employee plan. Best Med Supp plans including Part D can run $275 a month at most. I could go on about benefits to all, but hopefully the point is taken. Still, the CMS regs forbid employers with groups over 20 purchasing or paying in any way for a supplement for over-65 employees. I've spoken to officials in the alphabet soup -- DOL, EEOC, etc. -- and they see my poiht. CMS does too, but says it's up to legislators to change the regs. If you agree this would be a nose under the tent to help lower health costs, as well as benefit the over-65 worker, can you communicate this issue appropriately to the administration, which so wants to get something passed this year? Since they're going to be spending money anyway, this proposal seems like a winner all around.