{"title":"From Disappointment to Predominance: Medicare Advantage's Ascendancy and Transformation of Medicare.","authors":"Rick Mayes, Micah Johnson","doi":"10.1111/1468-0009.70042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Policy Points Since 2004, beneficiaries in government-administered traditional Medicare decreased by about 3 million (8%), whereas enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans run by private insurance companies increased by approximately 30 million (500%). MA's growth has exceeded the adequate evolution and refinement of the program's regulatory apparatus. MA now annually costs at least 20% (around $84 billion) more than what Medicare would have spent if all MA enrollees were in traditional Medicare (TM). This differential in payments has advantaged MA relative to TM and transformed the Medicare program in part by corporatizing it for tens of millions of beneficiaries. Most MA revenue now flows to large, increasingly vertically integrated, multinational, for-profit companies that are reshaping the US health care landscape for all patients, providers, and payers. Overpayments have strengthened the political position of the largest MA plan providers such that the program is at risk of interest group capture because of their powerful lobbying and political influence. Reforming MA should include the following: (a) ongoing improvements to the program's risk adjustment system and benchmark policy for rate setting, (b) replacing the quality bonus program with a value incentive program that is budget-neutral, and (c) standardizing MA plans into a small number of basic plan categories and having private health companies make competitive bids in each of them to compete on price instead of on benefit offerings. Savings from any MA payment reforms could shore up Medicare's Hospital Trust Fund or improve TM for a \"Medicare 2.0\" that competes on a more level playing field with MA.</p>","PeriodicalId":49810,"journal":{"name":"Milbank Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":"652-675"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12438443/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Milbank Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.70042","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Policy Points Since 2004, beneficiaries in government-administered traditional Medicare decreased by about 3 million (8%), whereas enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans run by private insurance companies increased by approximately 30 million (500%). MA's growth has exceeded the adequate evolution and refinement of the program's regulatory apparatus. MA now annually costs at least 20% (around $84 billion) more than what Medicare would have spent if all MA enrollees were in traditional Medicare (TM). This differential in payments has advantaged MA relative to TM and transformed the Medicare program in part by corporatizing it for tens of millions of beneficiaries. Most MA revenue now flows to large, increasingly vertically integrated, multinational, for-profit companies that are reshaping the US health care landscape for all patients, providers, and payers. Overpayments have strengthened the political position of the largest MA plan providers such that the program is at risk of interest group capture because of their powerful lobbying and political influence. Reforming MA should include the following: (a) ongoing improvements to the program's risk adjustment system and benchmark policy for rate setting, (b) replacing the quality bonus program with a value incentive program that is budget-neutral, and (c) standardizing MA plans into a small number of basic plan categories and having private health companies make competitive bids in each of them to compete on price instead of on benefit offerings. Savings from any MA payment reforms could shore up Medicare's Hospital Trust Fund or improve TM for a "Medicare 2.0" that competes on a more level playing field with MA.
期刊介绍:
The Milbank Quarterly is devoted to scholarly analysis of significant issues in health and health care policy. It presents original research, policy analysis, and commentary from academics, clinicians, and policymakers. The in-depth, multidisciplinary approach of the journal permits contributors to explore fully the social origins of health in our society and to examine in detail the implications of different health policies. Topics addressed in The Milbank Quarterly include the impact of social factors on health, prevention, allocation of health care resources, legal and ethical issues in health policy, health and health care administration, and the organization and financing of health care.