Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The federal budget proposed by Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, extols the benefits of “promoting true choice” for Medicare beneficiaries. In truth, though, the Ryan plan would substantially reduce choice for many people on Medicare -- by cutting them off from their current doctors.
Doctors see Medicare patients, despite the relatively low payments they receive for doing so, partly because Medicare represents such a large share of the health-care market. If a substantial number of beneficiaries moved out of Medicare and into private plans, as Ryan proposes, doctors would have much less incentive to see Medicare patients. And the elderly who want to remain in traditional Medicare would risk being stranded.
The evidence suggests that, in time, this problem could well affect a large share of Medicare beneficiaries. To put that evidence in context, though, it helps to first review the history of the Ryan plan.
The proposal has changed since it was presented in 2011. In the original version, traditional Medicare was eventually to be replaced in its entirety by private plans. The Congressional Budget Office found that this shift would raise health-care costs drastically because the private plans wouldn’t be large enough to enjoy Medicare’s leverage in negotiating prices with hospitals and other large providers. The savings that private plans could achieve because beneficiaries would share more of the costs, and therefore economize more, would be more than offset by that loss of leverage -- and by the private plans’ higher overhead and need to turn a profit.
In response to the devastating CBO report, Ryan revised his proposal. Under Ryan 2.0, private plans would co-exist with traditional Medicare. (The CBO hasn’t fully evaluated the revised plan yet.)
Many supporters argue that the new plan can’t be as big a problem as the old one, since beneficiaries could always choose to remain in traditional Medicare. In health care, however, choice isn’t always innocuous -- and can sometimes be harmful.
I have previously described two downsides to expanding private plans in Medicare. First, it would undercut Medicare’s ability to help move the payment system away from fee-for-service reimbursement and toward payments based on value, because no private plan is large enough to accomplish that shift by itself. Second, the mechanism for adjusting premiums to even out the health risks of individual beneficiaries is far from perfect, so plans can easily game the system, raising total costs. In effect, the plans would end up being overpaid.
The reduced choice of doctors for those who remain in traditional Medicare is a third adverse consequence of moving beneficiaries out of the program.
Currently, Medicare beneficiaries almost universally enjoy excellent access to doctors. And the great majority of beneficiaries never have to wait long for a routine appointment, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has found. Roughly 90 percent of doctors accept new Medicare patients.
Doctors provide this access even though they are reimbursed by Medicare at rates that are only about 80 percent of commercial rates -- partly because Medicare is such a large share of the market. Which brings us to the concern about the Ryan plan.
How important is Medicare’s market share in influencing physician participation? The evidence is limited, but the best study to date suggests it is significant. In the 1990s, Peter Damiano, Elizabeth Momany, Jean Willard and Gerald Jogerst, all associated with the University of Iowa, surveyed Iowa physicians and examined variation among counties. They found that for each percentage-point increase in the share of Medicare beneficiaries in a county’s population, doctors were 16 percent more likely to accept patients on Medicare. The only other study I know of on this topic, an unpublished analysis by Matthew Eisenberg of Carnegie Mellon University, also found an effect from Medicare’s market share, albeit one that was substantially smaller than the one Damiano and his colleagues found.
About 10 percent of the U.S. population is now enrolled in traditional Medicare, and an additional 5 percent has private Medicare plans. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the Ryan plan would cause another 5 percent of the population to shift, and to be conservative let’s cut in half the Damiano estimate of the impact from that reduction in Medicare’s market share. Then the chance that a doctor is willing to see traditional Medicare patients would be expected to decline by a whopping 40 percent. The share of doctors accepting Medicare would fall from about 90 percent to 54 percent.
To be even more conservative, let’s average the reduced Damiano estimate (already been cut in half and applied only to today’s market share rather than the higher one that will exist in the future when more people are on Medicare) with the Eisenberg estimate. Still, about 20 percent of doctors would be expected to stop accepting Medicare patients.
Supporters of the Ryan approach might argue that fewer people would shift into the private plans, so the impact would not be that great. After all, the existing Medicare program already offers Medicare Advantage plans, so perhaps anyone who wants private insurance already has it. But then, what is the point of Ryan’s Medicare reform?
Another defense might be that the government could simply raise doctor-reimbursement rates to encourage providers to continue treating a shrinking population of traditional Medicare patients. And that’s true. However, Ryan has not included the extra cost in his budget.
So, which is it, Mr. Ryan? Will your plan cause Medicare beneficiaries to lose access to their doctors, or are your budget numbers too rosy because you haven’t counted the extra payments needed to keep doctors in the program?
(Peter Orszag is vice chairman of corporate and investment banking at Citigroup Inc. and a former director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Read more opinion online from Bloomberg View. Subscribe to receive a daily e-mail highlighting new View editorials, columns and op-ed articles.
Today’s highlights: the editors on Romney’s 47 percent fallacy and on how not to be tough in the Middle East; Ezra Klein on Romney and the responsibility of the poor; Margaret Carlson on how Romney isn’t necessarily doomed; Clive Crook on why the Fed made the right move; William Pesek on rising tensions between China and Japan; Matthew Bryza on how Europe can hang tough on Gazprom; Mel and Patricia Ziegler on the creation of Banana Republic.
To contact the writer of this article: Peter Orszag at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Mary Duenwald at firstname.lastname@example.org