Why's the New York Times Such a Big Supporter of Public Part C Medicare Advantage?

What's this summer's series of damned-with-faint-praise Medicare Advantage columns in the New York Times all about? Have the Democrats decided they cannot fight the skyrocketing popularity of President Clinton's 15-year-old public Part C health plan program any longer for fear of political peril? Or do the Democrats think Part C 'as is' will serve as a bulwark against needed total reform of Medicare into a defined-contribution plan¹? The answer might be in the fact that Senator Charles Schumer has recently been designated a Medicare Advantage champ by the American Health Insurance Plans' lobby.

 

Whatever, this week's New York Times Medicare Advantage (MA) column -- like those that preceded it in this strange "summer of love" series -- presents President Clinton's Part C program totally out of context and is based on years-old data.

• As always, the Times ideologues call MA private when Part C is no more private than Parts A, B and D of Medicare. The word "Part" means Part C is Part of the public Medicare health program.
• And this week's column like its predecessors never mentions the critical effects of truly private Medigap and retiree insurance on fee for service (so-called "traditional") Medicare. No one actually has just fee for service Medicare; almost everyone supplements FFS Medicare with private insurance on which they really depend. That is not required with public Part C because C includes annual out-of-pocket spending limits.

 Specifically, this column breathlessly describes all the advantages of networked health care as if they are some new discovery and have something specifically to do with Medicare or MA.  (There are some disadvantages as well, particularly for Medicare beneficiaries. In particular, do not sign up for a Part C plan that does not include favored providers in its network just because you like the price.)

 

And then the article apparently ends with a question. The Times' blogger sort of asks if whether maybe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should be amended to allow a higher payment to Part C beneficiaries than FFS beneficiaries. Maybe that's what is behind this strange series of articles. Senator Schumer,

 

"What do you propose, Champ?"

 

¹Medicare is already effectively a defined-contribution plan albeit in a very inefficient form. Through its competitive bidding process, Part C is effectively defined contribution. And via the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "death panel," Original Medicare Part A/B is effectively defined contribution.