The post A Model Whose Time Has Come appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Medicare Advantage plans do not try to avoid the sick; they try to attract them getty The American health care system has two distinguishing characteristics. First, similarly situated individuals pay the same premium, regardless of their medical conditions. Put differently, no one who acquires health insurance ever pays an actuarially fair price. Second, insurers invariably lose money on people who are known to be relatively sick and make money on people who are known to be relatively healthy before they ever enter the insurance pool. As a result, no health plan wants a sick enrollee – especially one who requires expensive drugs. No employer. No commercial insurer. No (Obamacare) marketplace insurer. And if the truth were known, no government-run system wants a high-cost enrollee either – including Medicare and Medicaid. Health plans respond to these conditions in three ways. First, they try to attract the healthy and avoid the sick. They can do this by making their plan designs attractive to the former and unattractive to the latter and /or by overproviding to the healthy and underproviding to the sick. Second, they avoid creating specialized products for people with special needs. In a free market for health insurance, you would expect one type of insurance plan to meet the needs of diabetics, another for people with congestive heart failure, another for respiratory disease. Instead, we tend to get one-size-fits-all: same deductible, same coinsurance, etc., regardless of medical condition. Third, they help create a health care system that is incredibly bureaucratic. Prices don’t serve the function they serve in other markets. In fact, most of us never see a real price for anything. Competition also doesn’t serve the function it serves in other markets. In general, health care providers do not compete on price, and when they don’t compete on price,… The post A Model Whose Time Has Come appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Medicare Advantage plans do not try to avoid the sick; they try to attract them getty The American health care system has two distinguishing characteristics. First, similarly situated individuals pay the same premium, regardless of their medical conditions. Put differently, no one who acquires health insurance ever pays an actuarially fair price. Second, insurers invariably lose money on people who are known to be relatively sick and make money on people who are known to be relatively healthy before they ever enter the insurance pool. As a result, no health plan wants a sick enrollee – especially one who requires expensive drugs. No employer. No commercial insurer. No (Obamacare) marketplace insurer. And if the truth were known, no government-run system wants a high-cost enrollee either – including Medicare and Medicaid. Health plans respond to these conditions in three ways. First, they try to attract the healthy and avoid the sick. They can do this by making their plan designs attractive to the former and unattractive to the latter and /or by overproviding to the healthy and underproviding to the sick. Second, they avoid creating specialized products for people with special needs. In a free market for health insurance, you would expect one type of insurance plan to meet the needs of diabetics, another for people with congestive heart failure, another for respiratory disease. Instead, we tend to get one-size-fits-all: same deductible, same coinsurance, etc., regardless of medical condition. Third, they help create a health care system that is incredibly bureaucratic. Prices don’t serve the function they serve in other markets. In fact, most of us never see a real price for anything. Competition also doesn’t serve the function it serves in other markets. In general, health care providers do not compete on price, and when they don’t compete on price,…

A Model Whose Time Has Come

Medicare Advantage plans do not try to avoid the sick; they try to attract them

getty

The American health care system has two distinguishing characteristics.

First, similarly situated individuals pay the same premium, regardless of their medical conditions. Put differently, no one who acquires health insurance ever pays an actuarially fair price.

Second, insurers invariably lose money on people who are known to be relatively sick and make money on people who are known to be relatively healthy before they ever enter the insurance pool.

As a result, no health plan wants a sick enrollee – especially one who requires expensive drugs. No employer. No commercial insurer. No (Obamacare) marketplace insurer. And if the truth were known, no government-run system wants a high-cost enrollee either – including Medicare and Medicaid.

Health plans respond to these conditions in three ways.

First, they try to attract the healthy and avoid the sick. They can do this by making their plan designs attractive to the former and unattractive to the latter and /or by overproviding to the healthy and underproviding to the sick.

Second, they avoid creating specialized products for people with special needs. In a free market for health insurance, you would expect one type of insurance plan to meet the needs of diabetics, another for people with congestive heart failure, another for respiratory disease. Instead, we tend to get one-size-fits-all: same deductible, same coinsurance, etc., regardless of medical condition.

Third, they help create a health care system that is incredibly bureaucratic. Prices don’t serve the function they serve in other markets. In fact, most of us never see a real price for anything. Competition also doesn’t serve the function it serves in other markets.

In general, health care providers do not compete on price, and when they don’t compete on price, they don’t compete on quality either.

There is one exception to all of the above: the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. This is the only place in our health care system where a doctor who discovers a change in a patient’s health condition can send that information to the insurer (in this case Medicare) and receive a higher premium, reflecting the higher expected cost of care.

Because of a highly sophisticated risk adjustment system, MA plans not only do not try to avoid the sick, they actually try to attract them. There are “special needs plans” for diabetics, for heart disease, for respiratory ailments, etc. By specializing in a particular type of care these plans have the potential to evolve into what Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger calls “focused factories,” or centers of excellence.

(Note: there is risk adjustment in the (Obamcare) marketplace. But it is highly imperfect.)

The MA program is also one of the few places in the health care system where health plans find it profitable to keep people healthy.

As good as I think the MA system is, it could be made better, as I suggest below. But first, let’s consider three frequently asked questions.

Is Medicare Advantage saving taxpayers money?

It may surprise you know that no one really knows for sure. The reason: there has never been a true apples-to-apples comparison between the cost of traditional Medicare (TM) and the cost of the MA program.

For example, many people in TM are also in an employer plan. (Those people are probably relatively healthy.) Others are also in Medicaid. (Those are probably less healthy.)

One well known estimator of the taxpayer cost of TM and MA plans (the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission or MedPAC) claims that MA costs 20 percent more than if the same patients were in TM. However, MedPAC makes no attempt to separate out the different kinds of enrollees.

A conclusive study would separate out 16 categories of enrollees and compare the taxpayer cost in TM and in MA separately for each. Yet for that to happen, the CMS has to do something it has never done before: release the data. Interestingly, Rep. Aaron Bean (R-FL) has introduced a bill in Congress that is designed to force that very kind of disclosure.

In the meantime, a more rigorous study by Milliman estimates that taxpayers save $576 per enrollee per year when an enrollee joins an MA plan. This is consistent with an industry financed study by Elevance.

The Elevance study also found that as MA penetration in a market increases, all doctors in the area begin to practice more efficient medicine. Owing to these “spillover effects,” a 10 percent increase in market share by MA plans leads to an average decrease in spending on all Medicare beneficiaries of between $105 and $127 per person, per year.

Does Medicare Advantage save money for seniors?

To get comparable coverage, enrollees in TM must enroll in parts A, B, and D plus purchase medigap insurance (averaging $2,604 in 2023). By contrast, many MA plans have zero premiums and offer extra benefits (hearing, dental and eye care) that TM does not offer.

An analysis (commissioned by a MA-advocacy group) found that MA enrollees with 3+ chronic conditions spent on average about $3,165 less per year out-of-pocket than those in TM.

Bottom line: most analysts agree that not only does MA save seniors money, but MA plans are delivering more efficient health care.

Does Medicare Advantage deliver higher quality care?

Numerous studies have found that MA plans are providing higher quality care at a lower cost. When enrollees with comparable characteristics are compared:

On diabetes care, Kaiser Permanente’s former CEO, George Halvorson notes:

Halvorson also addresses the issue of blindness:

How could Medicare Advantage be improved?

Good as Medicare Advantage is, the program would be better if there were less regulation.

For example, if an MA plan gets its amputation rate down to 2 percent, it cannot advertise that fact during open enrollment. If its blindness rate is really low, it can’t advertise that fact either. If these facts are established by an independent research origination with no financial interest in the study conclusions, that has to be kept secret as well.

Similarly, if a plan has fewer pre-authorizations or if pre-authorizations are cleared up faster than in other plans, consumers don’t get to learn about those facts either.

Every communication from an MA plan to potential enrollees has to have the government’s approval! And CMS appears to really not like quality comparisons among plans.

This is not the way a normal market works.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2025/11/06/medicare-advantage-a-model-whose-time-has-come/

Market Opportunity
Notcoin Logo
Notcoin Price(NOT)
$0.0006481
$0.0006481$0.0006481
-11.55%
USD
Notcoin (NOT) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

What John Harbaugh And Mike Tomlin’s Departures Mean For NFL Coaching

What John Harbaugh And Mike Tomlin’s Departures Mean For NFL Coaching

The post What John Harbaugh And Mike Tomlin’s Departures Mean For NFL Coaching appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Baltimore Ravens head coach John Harbaugh (L
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/01/15 10:56
Twitter founder's "weekend experiment": Bitchat encryption software becomes a "communication Noah's Ark"

Twitter founder's "weekend experiment": Bitchat encryption software becomes a "communication Noah's Ark"

Author: Nancy, PANews In the crypto world, both assets and technologies are gradually taking center stage with greater practical significance. In the past few months
Share
PANews2026/01/15 11:00
Urgent: Coinbase CEO Pushes for Crucial Crypto Market Structure Bill

Urgent: Coinbase CEO Pushes for Crucial Crypto Market Structure Bill

BitcoinWorld Urgent: Coinbase CEO Pushes for Crucial Crypto Market Structure Bill The cryptocurrency world is buzzing with significant developments as Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong recently took to Washington, D.C., advocating passionately for a clearer regulatory path. His mission? To champion the passage of a vital crypto market structure bill, specifically the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act. This legislative push is not just about policy; it’s about safeguarding investor rights and fostering innovation in the digital asset space. Why a Clear Crypto Market Structure Bill is Essential Brian Armstrong’s visit underscores a growing sentiment within the crypto industry: the urgent need for regulatory clarity. Without clear guidelines, the market operates in a gray area, leaving both innovators and investors vulnerable. The proposed crypto market structure bill aims to bring much-needed definition to this dynamic sector. Armstrong explicitly stated on X that this legislation is crucial to prevent a recurrence of actions that infringe on investor rights, citing past issues with former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler. This proactive approach seeks to establish a stable and predictable environment for digital assets. Understanding the CLARITY Act: A Blueprint for Digital Assets The Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act is designed to establish a robust regulatory framework for the cryptocurrency industry. It seeks to delineate the responsibilities of key regulatory bodies, primarily the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Here are some key provisions: Clear Jurisdiction: The bill aims to specify which digital assets fall under the purview of the SEC as securities and which are considered commodities under the CFTC. Investor Protection: By defining these roles, the act intends to provide clearer rules for market participants, thereby enhancing investor protection. Exemption Conditions: A significant aspect of the bill would exempt certain cryptocurrencies from the stringent registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, provided they meet specific criteria. This could reduce regulatory burdens for legitimate projects. This comprehensive approach promises to bring structure to a rapidly evolving market. The Urgency Behind the Crypto Market Structure Bill The call for a dedicated crypto market structure bill is not new, but Armstrong’s direct engagement highlights the increasing pressure for legislative action. The lack of a clear framework has led to regulatory uncertainty, stifling innovation and sometimes leading to enforcement actions that many in the industry view as arbitrary. Passing this legislation would: Foster Innovation: Provide a clear roadmap for developers and entrepreneurs, encouraging new projects and technologies. Boost Investor Confidence: Offer greater certainty and protection for individuals investing in digital assets. Prevent Future Conflicts: Reduce the likelihood of disputes between regulatory bodies and crypto firms, creating a more harmonious ecosystem. The industry believes that a well-defined regulatory landscape is essential for the long-term health and growth of the digital economy. What a Passed Crypto Market Structure Bill Could Mean for You If the CLARITY Act or a similar crypto market structure bill passes, its impact could be profound for everyone involved in the crypto space. For investors, it could mean a more secure and transparent market. For businesses, it offers a predictable environment to build and scale. Conversely, continued regulatory ambiguity could: Stifle Growth: Drive innovation overseas and deter new entrants. Increase Risks: Leave investors exposed to unregulated practices. Create Uncertainty: Lead to ongoing legal battles and market instability. The stakes are incredibly high, making the advocacy efforts of leaders like Brian Armstrong all the more critical. The push for a clear crypto market structure bill is a pivotal moment for the digital asset industry. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong’s efforts in Washington, D.C., reflect a widespread desire for regulatory clarity that protects investors, fosters innovation, and ensures the long-term viability of cryptocurrencies. The CLARITY Act offers a potential blueprint for this future, aiming to define jurisdictional boundaries and streamline regulatory requirements. Its passage could unlock significant growth and stability, cementing the U.S. as a leader in the global digital economy. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) What is the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act? The CLARITY Act is a proposed crypto market structure bill aimed at establishing a clear regulatory framework for digital assets in the U.S. It seeks to define the roles of the SEC and CFTC and exempt certain cryptocurrencies from securities registration requirements under specific conditions. Why is Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong advocating for this bill? Brian Armstrong is advocating for the CLARITY Act to bring regulatory certainty to the crypto industry, protect investor rights from unclear enforcement actions, and foster innovation within the digital asset space. He believes it’s crucial for the industry’s sustainable growth. How would this bill impact crypto investors? For crypto investors, the passage of this crypto market structure bill would mean greater clarity on which assets are regulated by whom, potentially leading to enhanced consumer protections, reduced market uncertainty, and a more stable investment environment. What are the primary roles of the SEC and CFTC concerning this bill? The bill aims to delineate the responsibilities of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) regarding digital assets. It seeks to clarify which assets fall under securities regulation and which are considered commodities, reducing jurisdictional ambiguity. What could happen if a crypto market structure bill like CLARITY Act does not pass? If a clear crypto market structure bill does not pass, the industry may continue to face regulatory uncertainty, potentially leading to stifled innovation, increased legal challenges for crypto companies, and a less secure environment for investors due to inconsistent enforcement and unclear rules. Did you find this article insightful? Share it with your network to help spread awareness about the crucial discussions shaping the future of digital assets! To learn more about the latest crypto market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping crypto regulation and institutional adoption. This post Urgent: Coinbase CEO Pushes for Crucial Crypto Market Structure Bill first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 20:35