ltcinsuranceshopper

All blog posts

Trending topics include

Congress Protects Big Insurance While Slashing Care

May 14, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

2025 NBA Mock Draft 2.0: Who goes after Cooper Flagg?

May 14, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

Q4 Results 14th May Live: Muthoot Finance & Tata Power profit up, Eicher Motors consolidated profit stood at ₹1,362 cr, HAL Q4 profit at ₹3,976 cr, Lupin, Hitachi Energy to announce Q4 results today, GRSE shares rally, Dalmia Bharat Sugar sweeten post Q4 results

May 14, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

Texas Bill That Limits Spread of ‘Forever Chemicals’ Misses Key Deadline

May 14, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

General Hospital: Lulu & BLQ Team up to Expose Lois’ Cruel Lies – Shocking Twist?

May 14, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

Dance Music Dominance: Coachella 2025 DJs Discuss Festival's Evolving Soundscape

May 14, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

Ramaco’s CEO Says Surprise Rare Earth Discovery Sparks US Production

May 14, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

Grace VanderWaal Reclaims Her Voice on New Album ‘CHILDSTAR’

May 14, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

Make His Heart Beat, Bang & Hammer With Attraction For You…

May 14, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

Guide to Passing the Plumbers Exam

May 14, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

New Jersey Announces $450 Million PFAS Settlement With 3M Days Before Start of Trial

May 14, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

Why Life Insurance Can Be a Key Component of Your Estate Planning Strategy

May 13, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

Maine Weighs What to Do When Religion Collides With Auto Insurance

May 13, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

Dallas Mavericks win NBA draft lottery despite huge odds

May 13, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper

Hims & Hers Health, Inc. (HIMS): A Bull Case Theory

May 13, 2025 | by ltcinsuranceshopper


The House of Representatives’ reconciliation bill, passed by the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee today, cuts just about everything when it comes to health care – except the actual waste, fraud and abuse. Now the bill heads to the floor for a vote of the full House of Representatives before it must also be passed by the Senate to become law. 

I know what you’re thinking: not another story about Medicaid. With the flood of articles detailing the devastating Medicaid cuts proposed by House Republicans —cuts that could strip 8.7 million people of their health coverage — there’s an important fact being overlooked: Members of Congress chose to sidestep policies aimed at reining in Big Insurance abuses and, instead, opted to cut Medicaid.

And the real irony of it all is they could have saved a ton of money if they would just address the elephant in the room. 

Abuses by Big Insurance companies have been going on for decades but have only recently come under scrutiny. Insurance companies figured out how to take advantage of the structure of the Medicare Advantage program to receive higher payments from the government. They do this in two ways:

  1. They make their enrollees seem sicker than they are through a strategy called “upcoding” and;

  2. They use care obstacles such as prior authorization and inadequate provider networks that eventually drive sicker people to drop their plans and leave them with healthier enrollees, referred to as “favorable selection.” 

According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) these tactics lead the government to overpay insurance corporations running MA plans by $84 billion a year. This number is expected to grow, and estimates show that overpayments will cost the government more than a $1 trillion from 2025-2034. That is $1 trillion dollars in potential savings Republicans could have included in their bill instead of cutting Medicaid spending that provides care for vulnerable communities. 

These overpayments do not lead to better care in MA plans; in fact, research has shown that care quality and outcomes are often worse in MA compared to traditional Medicare. Even worse, these overpayments are tax dollars meant for health care that end up in the pockets of shareholders of big insurance corporations, which spend billions of taxpayer dollars on things like stock buybacks and executive bonuses. 

One of the most frustrating parts of the lawmaker’s choice to target Medicaid rather than Big Insurance abuses is that there are multiple policies supported by both Republicans and Democrats to stop these abuses. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), along with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), have introduced the NO UPCODE Act, which would cut down on the practice of upcoding explained above. President Trump’s Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz, said during his confirmation hearing that he supports efforts to crack down on practices used by insurers to upcode. And Rep. Mark Green (R-Tennessee) introduced a bipartisan bill to decrease improper prior authorization denials in MA. 

Share

In a somewhat cruel twist, the only mention of Medicare fraud in the Republican reconciliation bill proposals is a section claiming to crack down on improper payments in Medicare Parts A and B (which make up traditional Medicare) by using artificial intelligence. The total improper payments in TM represent just over one-third of the overpayments going to MA plans each year, and many of the payments flagged as improper in TM are flagged due to missing documentation rather than questionable tactics that MA insurers use. 

In reflecting on why Republicans in Congress ignored potential savings from Big Insurance reforms and instead pursued cuts to care for people depending on Medicaid, which do not save as much, my biggest question was, why? Why would lawmakers swerve around a populist policy right in front of them to stop Big Insurance from profiting off of the federal government to instead propose a regressive policy that targets millions of working Americans and leaves health insurance corporations that make billions in profits each year untouched?

Unfortunately, the answer likely lies in money. Although people enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) make up roughly one-third of the U.S. population, they account for just 0.5% of all political campaign contributions — about $60 million annually. This disparity is likely driven by financial constraints: Many of these individuals are rightly focused on covering basic needs such as housing, food, and childcare, especially as wages have not kept pace with the rising cost of living.

In contrast, the health care sector — which includes major players like big insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital companies—contributed $357 million during the 2020 election cycle, including $97 million to outside groups such as Super PACs. These outside spending groups are largely funded by corporations and wealthy individuals, who represent less than 1% of the population but wield significant political influence.

Super PACs spent more than $2 billion during the 2020 election cycle, amplifying the voices of industry-aligned donors. This stark imbalance in political spending may help explain why congressional proposals targeted Medicaid recipients while leaving the powerful health insurance industry largely untouched.

It is not only Republicans who have failed to stop Big Insurance from taking advantage of federal health programs, Democrats declined to take action when negotiating their health care legislation during President Biden’s term. Rather, it seems to be a failure of policymakers of both parties to pass legislation that makes it clear to Big Insurance that our health care is not an investment opportunity for Wall Street, and the dollars we pay in taxes to support Medicare are not pocket change for executives to use for stock buybacks.

The failure to include MA reform represents a missed opportunity to prioritize patient care over corporate profits. However, the growing strength and voices of patients across the nation will ultimately make it impossible for lawmakers to ignore this issue much longer. With continued momentum, the fight to put patients over Big Insurance profits will succeed.

Rachel Madley is Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Center for Health & Democracy. She previously worked for Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. She received her PhD from Columbia University and has written for publications including The New York Times.



Source link