Medicare Buy-In Proposal Is Viewed As More Moderate Cousin Of ‘Medicare For All,’ But Hospitals Say It Will Still Disrupt System
The American Hospital Association and Federation of American Hospitals project that Medicare buy-in legislation--which would allow Americans to buy into the program instead of moving everyone onto Medicare--would cost hospitals $800 billion over a decade. Meanwhile, candidates are rushing to show their support for "Medicare for All," but what does the public think?
Modern Healthcare:
Hospitals Could Lose $800 Billion From Medicare Buy-In, AHA Says
Hospital groups on Tuesday pushed back against mounting Democratic support for a public option, saying the policy will lower Medicare reimbursement for providers as people leave commercial plans. In a new analysis of a universal Medicare buy-in policy, the American Hospital Association and Federation of American Hospitals on Tuesday projected hospitals would lose $800 billion over a decade through the lower Medicare reimbursements and raise premiums within the private market—disrupting the employer insurance market where the majority of people get coverage. (Luthi, 3/12)
Reuters:
Democrats Support Expanding Medicare, With Some Caveats That Could Matter To Voters
After launching his 2020 presidential bid last week, John Hickenlooper took a different stance on establishing a "Medicare-for-all" government health insurance program than many of his Democratic competitors. "I probably would oppose Medicare-for-all just because there are over 150 million people, Americans who have some form of private insurance through their business, and the vast majority of them are happy with that," the former Colorado governor said on MSNBC. He added he supported reaching universal health insurance coverage by another route. (3/13)
The New York Times:
How ‘Medicare For All’ Would Work (Or Not Work)
“Medicare for all” has become a punching bag for Republicans and a rallying cry for many Democrats. But what exactly is it? (3/13)
