The Columbia University journalism school has teamed up -- perhaps from the beginning -- with a flawed series of articles by a far left wing group called the Center for Integrity. The ignorance about Medicare and public Part C Medicare Advantage plans by the Integrity Center is breathtaking. In its ongoing attack on Part C the it does not appear to even have analyzed the data by separating PACE and other special-needs risks from basic public Part C Medicare Advantage risk coding (but we can't be sure because its analysis is so opaque).
The fact that the Columbia Journalism Review would find this ignorant series useful, on the other hand, is not surprising. Not that anyone would go to the Columbia Journalism Review for Medicare advice anyways but add it to your Do Not Read list just out of general principle.
Perhaps no one else in the press is paying attention to these inaccurate Center for Integrity articles because the major issue discussed (risk adjustment methodologies) was investigated in detail years ago and changes have been made multiple times over the years to straighten out any alleged issues. I say "alleged" because no one has actually found any serious problems although the GAO, MedPAC, HHS OIG and others have tried mightily for years. According to GAO, perhaps a percent or two of spending is related to erroneous risk-adjustment methodology (not the 10%-plus alleged by the Center for Integrity). Or perhaps fee for service (FFS) Medicare coding understates seniors' health status because Original Democratic-Party/LBJ Medicare does not require precise risk coding. Whatever, the government can always claw back any overpayments.
The rest of the Center for Integrity series is warmed over misrepresentations claiming Part C is different than any other Part of Medicare in terms of who administers it (all four Parts of Medicare -- including Part C -- follow "a social insurance model with the federal government" paying for the benefits, which are provided by doctors and nurses, with insurance companies doing the administration); failing to explain that the law setting up Part C was passed under President Clinton in 1997(not at the same time as the prescription drug program); mischaracterizing the capitated payments vs. fee for service payments by the government for the benefit of Medicare beneficiaries as "much more" when it has only been a few percent more except in 2008-2010 (and was 5% less from 1997 to 2004);
Of course, not unexpectedly given its bias, Columbia is chimes in regularly by adding the senior-hating gym membership slur. I don't think the Center for Integrity even stooped that low in its 20,000 words of nothingness. For the record, seniors -- assuming their doctors accept it -- choose public Part C Medicare Advantage health plans because Part C plans provide annual out of pocket spending limits that Original Democratic-Party/LBJ Medicare lacks (the reason one buys insurance after all) and provide much lower co-pays and deductibles than Original Democratic-Party/LBJ Medicare.
Comments