This post on ABC News web site is a surprisingly good explanation of Medicare's complexity given that ABC's is a left wing web site. The one major thing that might be misleading in this article is the explanation of the difference between the A/B/D/private-Medigap option vs. the A/B/C option.
- The article does not make it clear that you have to have both A and B before choosing a public Part C health plan (or a private Medigap supplement for that matter). C is not an alternative to A and B; it is an add-on to A and B.
- If you are just entering Medicare because of turning 65 or because of a disability, the choice between the two options is mostly likely not going to seem unusual to you. It's the same "local HMO/PPO vs. Blue-Cross/Aetna/Cigna choice" you have had from an employer or union for many years. Part C plans are mostly HMOs and the fact they are networked has nothing to do with Medicare; it has to do with HMOs
- The article implies that you could choose A/B/C and then further supplement that with a private Medigap plan; you can't.
The article does not make the point forcefully that almost everyone on Medicare (over 95% of those not still working for an employer offering insurance) gets some kind of supplement.
- About 30% of the people on Medicare choose a public Part C health plan to go with A and B.
- About 20% choose a private Medigap supplement to go with A and B and also add a Part D drug plan.
- This article leaves out the fact that the plurality of people on Medicare (about 35%-40%) receive their Medicare supplemental insurance -- often with a drug plan -- through a former employer or union and those people basically do not face all these choices (only because they have to take whatever the former employer or union offers). If you are in this category, it is still worth comparing what's out in the real world every year to see if it is a better deal but be aware that once you leave the former-employer/union cocoon you probably will not be able to go back.
Comments