Video: Medicare’s chief actuary explains why system has no future
posted at 2:55 pm on August 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Meet Richard Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary and now chief skeptic. Greg Hengler captures a key part of Foster’s speech to the American Enterprise Institute, a dry affair that will probably only delight the wonks in the room, but it’s still a must-see. Foster captures the heart of the ridiculous assumptions that drive the CMS analysis of Medicare’s health and explains why, failing a major transformation of the entire health-care industry, Medicare is doomed to collapse:
With the reimbursement reductions that funded ObamaCare, the Obama administration will have done the impossible — they will have made Medicare even less attractive to providers than Medicaid. Simply put, the system will have so few providers at the rates imposed for reimbursement that the system will simply shut itself down. Rescinding the rate cuts will keep providers within the system, but only for a while, as private insurance reimbursement rates will still outstrip them by ever-increasing amounts and discourage providers from seeing Medicare patients. But rescinding the rate cuts means much higher costs than CMS projected in its latest analysis and puts the entire system into collapse from another direction.
The only way to make Medicare healthy is to tighten eligibility requirements and to reduce inefficiencies within the system. One cannot rescue an entitlement by expanding it, which is exactly what ObamaCare proposes to do.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Time for another speech, once the birthday festivities finally wrap up.
Drained Brain on August 9, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Heckuva job Barry!
Monica on August 9, 2010 at 3:02 PM
PBHO to announce forced resignation of Mr. Foster, his replacement to be some eugenics freak from the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Bishop on August 9, 2010 at 3:03 PM
Perhaps we should start throwing around the phrase
“The science is settled.”
MeatHeadinCA on August 9, 2010 at 3:04 PM
What’s going to happen tomorrow?
It’s Gingrich/Huckabee vs. Romney/Palin
We need to let Greta know that any candidate that both Romney and Palin get behind will beat any other candidate EVERY TIME.
dnlchisholm on August 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM
WHAT??? Now Gingrich is sitting on the Huckster’s couch?
MeatHeadinCA on August 9, 2010 at 3:06 PM
Wither on the vine…?
Seven Percent Solution on August 9, 2010 at 3:09 PM
Start killing off people over 64, that’s the answer.
leftnomore on August 9, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Is he John Bolton’s brother?
stenwin77 on August 9, 2010 at 3:12 PM
That’s the plan.
stenwin77 on August 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM
Or raise the eligibility age to 75. Cheaper
Electrongod on August 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM
Admitting the problem in regards to medicare and medicaid, the administration will no doubt see the only solution is that of a single payer plan further diminishing the appeal of the medical proffession. Lowering the standards for one and all.
fourdeucer on August 9, 2010 at 3:17 PM
LOGANS RUN
lm10001 on August 9, 2010 at 3:19 PM
My primary care practice simply could not withstand even a 10% cut in Medicare – I will be out of business. Then I will be forced to work for someone else, as opposed to maintaining a private practice. That would actually mean higher pay and more benefits, in exchange for the loss of independence. The result of that would be I could actually retire sooner. Thus starts the (?)unintended consequences. I just hope I will be able to find a doc to care for me.
humdinger on August 9, 2010 at 3:19 PM
Physician, heal thyself.
Ever see “Master and Commander”? You could do surgery on yourself, no problem.
Bishop on August 9, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Timely. Just in time for midterms.*grin* Litmus question for GOP hopefuls. Will you vote for repeal? Litmus question for donks. Will you vote for repeal?
a capella on August 9, 2010 at 3:21 PM
You mean the pill?
antisocial on August 9, 2010 at 3:22 PM
Brilliant. Most won’t reach there.
antisocial on August 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM
eligibility–healthy caucasians only allowed
reduce inefficiency—death panels for those healthy caucasians
voila! medicare healthy
/too easy
ted c on August 9, 2010 at 3:26 PM
Hey I’m 61 and Alan Greyson said I should “die now” so as not to burden Obamacare. Do the wingnuts who voted for this realize that there won’t be any Docs in 20 years to serve them or their families? No new medical research, no new drugs and decrepit buildings. No private sector=no prosperity. Take a trip to Havana and see the future!
tim c on August 9, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Here’s a short list why I will never be a liberal:
Medicare: Broke
Medicaid: Broke
Social Security: Broke
Fannie/Freddie: Broke
Welfare: Revamped
ObamaCare: Hated and will quickly be broke like 1 and 2
Chuck Schick on August 9, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Chances are that someone else may already be looking for that someone else too.
fourdeucer on August 9, 2010 at 3:38 PM
Barry’s shuck and jive act just isn’t working anymore.
Don’t those Styrofoam Temples look really stupid now.
tarpon on August 9, 2010 at 3:44 PM
OK, there are now stories on this, from WSJ to Foxnews to E21, even allusions to it in mainstream wire service articles. It’s becoming widely known that the actuary’s statement disavows the rosy medicare projections.
Question: Why did the administration make the statements it made this past week? They had Foster’s written disavowal in hand, but the rosy statements about the benign effects of health care reform don’t allow in the slightest for is sobering caveats about the analysis. Knowing that Foster’s analysis would go public, why did they do this? Why overspin the fiscal benefits, and subject themselves to charges of misrepresenting the analysis? Why not simply tout their more optimistic take on things while recognizing the issues Foster raised? How does it benefit them to be refuted by the CMS actuary? Can someone explain?
Chuckles3 on August 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM
When FDR signed Social(ist) Security into law, ‘long ’bout 1937 it was understood that you had to wait until age 65 to start collecting. (The life expectancy of the average American in 1935 was 61.7 years.) According to http://www.nysun.com/national/american-life-expectancy-passes-78-years/79783/, the life expectancy of the average American is now 78 years. In the spirit of FDR, raise the age of retirement to 80. Problem solved!
oldleprechaun on August 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Are you saying that if you can’t afford something it doesn’t help to buy more of it?
But what about volume discounts?
/
Lily on August 9, 2010 at 4:06 PM
Obama will use the excuse that doctors won’t work for these rates to:
a. conscript all doctors, as has happened in Canada;
b. push for the single government payer idea.
AshleyTKing on August 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM
Nobody ever talks about the fact that private insurance rates that health insurance carriers pay (like Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, Cigna etc) are usually tied to Medicare rates. In other words, the contracts they have with providers often state that they pay a certain percentage above Medicare rates. So if Medicare rates go down, so does the rest of the market. This will further encourage providers to just give up and go out of business to the extent they are close to the edge of profitability with rates at their current level. In the alternative, they will cut services they provide to patients to be able to make a living.
txmomof6 on August 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM
Wow. That’s terrifying. Obama better make another speech and fix it. Maybe he can use that witty “D for drive, R for reverse” line, that outta fix it.
29Victor on August 9, 2010 at 4:26 PM
What the actuary should be saying is that ss is not a pension plan – it is a whole life insurance plan, and was not sold as, nor funded to be, a pension plan.
Vashta.Nerada on August 9, 2010 at 4:35 PM
Fixed.
rockmom on August 9, 2010 at 4:39 PM
Forgot to add: medicare was designed to be an adjunct to private insurance, not a primary policy, so the entire structure of SS/Medicare is fraudulent
Vashta.Nerada on August 9, 2010 at 4:40 PM
Well, we could increase efficiency by having the government treat patients with robot doctors, but the AMA is going to be pissed about that.
Socratease on August 9, 2010 at 5:21 PM
We shouldn’t have entitlement programs in the first place. I seriously doubt the founders envisioned a massive welfare state being the bulk of America’s budget.
therightwinger on August 9, 2010 at 5:34 PM
Hah, and I’ll bet you don’t believe we can’t spend our way out of the current deficits either!
/s
darury on August 9, 2010 at 5:57 PM
More likely to fix it.
mr.blacksheep on August 9, 2010 at 6:02 PM
I’m not worried. What they lose in per capita expenses, they’ll make up for in volume.
malclave on August 9, 2010 at 7:58 PM
Sharon Angle says all the entitlements should go.
tim c on August 9, 2010 at 9:22 PM
Remind me never to listen to another Town Hall clip. That loud noise at the end is unnecessary and ridiculous.
Laurence on August 9, 2010 at 9:37 PM