A project of the George Washington University's Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Sen. Wyden (D-OR) joins Rep. Ryan (R-WI) on Medicare Plan

Posted on December 18, 2011 | No Comments

PDF Version
Details
Library
Implementation Briefs
Editor's Comment

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon teamed up with Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin on a Medicare overhaul plan that would provide beneficiaries with a fixed amount to buy private coverage or pay for a traditional fee-for-service plan. Different from the Ryan plan introduced earlier this year, the Ryan-Wyden proposal would not do away with Medicare, but instead would leave it is an option for beneficiaries to purchase with their vouchers. However, this plan would not ensure that the voucher would make Medicare affordable, nor would it preclude private insurance policies from designing benefit plans to exclusively attract healthy beneficiaries.

No Comments

Leave a Comment

The Kaiser Family Foundation recently released an issue brief which compares the expected value of benefits for individuals ages 65 and older under Medicare's fee-for-service program to two "typical" plans offered by large employers: a typical large employer preferred provider organization (PPO) plan and the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Option for enrollees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), also a PPO plan. The analysis updates a 2008 Kaiser Family Foundation report that found...
In her New England Journal of Medicine article, "Hard Choices--Alternatives for Reining in Medicare and Medicaid Spending," Dr. Meredith B. Rosenthal of the Harvard School of Public Health compares and contrasts the two most prominent proposals to reform health care: Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" and the White House's Affordable Care Act (ACA). She summarizes the main arguments supporting and opposing the two plans. The beauty of Ryan's plan is that by fixing the federal government's contribution to Medicare and Medicaid to a formula unrelated to the growth of overall health care costs, it would guarantee controlled federal spending growth. However, this would also shift financial risk to beneficiaries and state governments. The ACA alters the landscape for control federal health care spending by creating new institutions intended to facilitate progress toward reform and by directly altering payment formulas for Medicare and Medicaid. The downside of this cost savings portion of the ACA is that implementation of payment and delivery reforms is complex.
The New England Journal of Medicine's perspective piece "Consensus and Conflict in Health System Reform--The Republican Budget Plan and the ACA" by Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, J.D., compares and contrasts Representative Paul Ryan's (R-WI) "Roadmap for America's Future" with the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In terms of their similarities, both plans would create a health care system in which many Americans purchase private health insurance using partially means-tested public subsidies through an exchange-based, information-rich competitive market, which is (more or less) open to all regardless of health status. Those who choose to remain uninsured would incur a penalty (or forgo a benefit), and those who purchased insurance would be responsible for significant costs. Jost also details five key differences between Roadmap and the ACA in the piece.
"The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise" is the House Budget Committee's Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget resolution. The sections "Strengthening the Social Safety Net," and "Fulfilling the Mission of Health and Retirement Security for All Americans," encourage government to repeal and defund the Affordable Care Act (ACA), offering instead a reform proposal that builds upon the Rivlin-Ryan Medicare reform plan advanced in the President's Fiscal Commission in 2010. The FY2012 budget resolution proposes to 1) convert state Medicaid funding into a block grant, 2) offers Medicare beneficiaries the same health care options as members of Congress, 3) calls for the advance of social security solutions.
A new article released in the February 2011 issue of Health Affairs, co-authored by Professor Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, and Professor Sara Rosenbaum, JD, Chair of the Department of Health Policy at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, examines the potential for gaps in health coverage for some Americans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), at least 27 lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of various provisions of the law. While nearly half of the lawsuits have been dismissed on procedural grounds, three district courts have found provisions challenged to be constitutional, and three have found them to be unconstitutional. Previous HealthReform GPS Implementation briefs/updates have discussed these lower court decisions. Following appeals of each of these rulings, the United States Courts of Appeals in the Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have now issued decisions as well. Most importantly, the appellate decisions continue to reflect a split in judicial opinion regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Other important issues addressed by the appellate rulings concerned the constitutionality of the ACA Medicaid expansion and the question of whether the trial court in the Virginia cases (Liberty University v. Geithner and Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius) had the authority to hear the cases at all.
On September 23, 2010, Congressional Republicans released a document entitled “A Pledge to America” to help voters in November better understand their position on a broad set of policy issues. Featured in the document, is a pledge to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), and replace it with “common-sense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting American jobs.”