Newspaper Editorials Respond to New York Times Story on Medicare Beneficiaries’ Access to Providers

On March 18, the New York Times reported that for the first time, a significant number of doctors are refusing to take new Medicare patients because of low reimbursement rates. The following are three recent editorials reacting to this trend and what it could mean for the long-term future of the program:

• Chattanooga Times & Free Press: Proposed cuts in Medicare reimbursements "threate[n] the foundation of Medicare" and "jeopardiz[e] the health care of vast number of seniors who cannot find a private physician because they cannot afford to pay the difference between Medicare reimbursement schedules and physicians' bills," an editorial says. Noting that the number of Medicare beneficiaries is expected to double to 80 million by 2030, the editorial states, "If the decline in Medicare payments and participating physicians continues, health care for many [seniors] will be seriously eroded." The newspaper faults Bush for seeking a large increase in defense spending while holding down expenditures on domestic programs and resisting a rollback of last year's tax cut. The editorial concludes, "In reality, the Medicare cuts ... beg action on two fronts: national health care reform, and revised budget and tax priorities. Unfortunately, neither is likely to happen under a Bush administration absent a groundswell of dissent from citizens concerned about declining health care" (Chattanooga Times & Free Press, 3/20).
• Dayton Daily News: While the cuts in provider reimbursement "aren't mean-spirited" and are an "attempt to rein in Medicare spending," the editorial states that "paying less to doctors is an oversimplified response" to the fundamental problems facing Medicare. It notes that the cuts, and doctors' subsequent refusal to see new Medicare patients, could lead to unintended consequences by forcing seniors to obtain expensive care in emergency rooms. "Some who can't get in to see a doctor ultimately will run up huge hospital bills ... because an illness wasn't treated early. Medicare will pay the bills," the editorial says. It concludes, "One day we'll get to the hard question: Can we afford for Medicare to be an entitlement, even for those who have the means to pay for other insurance? That day may be soon" (Dayton Daily News, 3/19).
• Detroit News: The fact that doctors are refusing to see new Medicare patients is a "worrisome development that should prompt Congress to summon the will to fundamentally reform the system." Stating that physician bills account for only about 20% of Medicare spending, the editorial says that "[s]lashing payments" to providers "won't do much to control Medicare's soaring costs." Instead, Congress should reform the program using the model of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, under which the federal government offers its employees a defined contribution to spend on health care offered through private insurers in a given year. The editorial concludes, "Such an approach will not only help to contain [Medicare costs] but also give seniors the option of prescription drug coverage. ... Washington should get serious about Medicare reform. Forcing doctors to absorb the rising costs of the program will be good neither for them nor their patients" (Detroit Free Press, 3/20).