Republicans Have Buyers Remorse About Advantage Plans

somarco

GA Medicare Expert
5000 Post Club
38,336
Atlanta
Republicans in Congress, long an unwavering source of support for privatized Medicare plans, are increasingly calling for reforms amid widespread evidence that health insurers are abusing the system to collect billions of dollars in unwarranted payments.

The rising discontent with Medicare Advantage is especially prevalent within the GOP's Doctors Caucus, a group of Republican congressmen who have firsthand experience treating patients covered by these plans and, in some cases, have seen how insurers manipulate the program's rules to increase profits. In Capitol Hill hearing rooms and interviews with STAT, some have sharply criticized insurers' efforts to make older patients appear as sick as possible to extract more money from Medicare, a practice known as upcoding.

The fact that Medicare Advantage incentivizes upcoding has been recognized for almost two decades, and Democrats in Congress have long pressed for an overhaul of the $500 billion program. But the increasing buy-in from Republicans lends bipartisan support to those efforts and represents a major shift in the politics surrounding the program, which has been fiercely protected by GOP lawmakers since its initial creation in the late 1990s and a subsequent modernization passed under former President George W. Bush. Republicans argued that allowing private insurers to cover patients with the government's money would cut costs and produce better outcomes for patients.


 
While the problems may be more obvious in MA plans because they are given more money than OM is, upcoding is a huge problem across the board, especially in the for profit sector (medicare or not).

I think I mentioned before that one of the local hospitals has outsourced their ER staffing to a for profit company. I had to use them once a couple of years ago and they were ordering unnecessary tests (I knew they were unnecessary as I knew exactly what the problem was and ended up there because it was a weekend, urgent care was closed as was my PCP office so no choice). I kept refusing.

In frustration the PA, in frustration, told me that they had a "mandate to have $1200 in billable charges for every patient who came through the door" and their employment depended on that as that was on the bean counter list of things to count per NP, PA, MD and DO. I told him I wasn't going to participate in insurance fraud so he didn't get a demerit. He told me I couldn't see the MD until I had all these tests done. I told him that the MD had to explain to me why they were medically necessary before I'd agree to have them; that malpractice also included ordering tests that were not medically necessary as that indicated their incompetence. I got to see the MD.

Although they lied in the visit notes to upcode the visit (oops they forgot that if I had had an IV it would have showed up in hospital side of the bill for supplies and didn't) at least fewer unnecessary things were billed to insurance. Most people wouldn't have known enough to argue with them.

Another ER in the area has also outsourced their ER staffing, but to a non-profit. In that ER there is no "mandate" and there is no pressure on the staff to order unnecessary tests (a friend works in that ER and I asked - I don't really want to go to an ER where a friend works as my medical issues aren't their business).
 
Some are CYA moves to hopefully prevent/deter litigation.
Which opens an entirely different can of worms. The driver of the upcoding would be unnecessary tests for liability reasons rather than profit as you point out.

It would be far less likely to explain the upcoding in state owned facilities though as usually those practitioners, across the board, are protected from liability in many instances where in a non-state own facility they would not be for the same "mistake made". What comes to mind is in one (out of state to me) facility you can only sue for malpractice and win if you can prove that the malpractice was done with the purposeful intent to hurt the patient. Say what??? That sure protects the incompetent.
 
Back
Top