Medicare Growth

[Jacob]

This is a scary chart (its from Heritage Foundation, so discount it if you want:



I always thought that SS was the biggest thing we had to worry about, but it appears that almost all the future growth is in medicare. Anyone know what is causing this medicare growth? Is it related to Obamacare?

It looks like we can probably keep going without changing SS indefinitely, but Medicare has to be fixed.

I'm all in favor of the large part of these "death panels" which is to say that we need to get (old) people signing these end of live directives and living wills so that we aren't using as much money on end of life medicine/care when the patient doesn't even want it.

What are the other ways to stop the medicare growth? I know we can disqualify the wealthy from receiving benefit, but is that really going to make much of a dent?

[Uncle Ted]

What are the other ways to stop the medicare growth? I know we can disqualify the wealthy from receiving benefit, but is that really going to make much of a dent?

The medicare growth problem could be stopped by the government going broke. That might fix a lot of other government spending problems as well.

[Sullyute]

Anyone know what is causing this medicare growth?

How about the fact that 78 million baby boomers start becoming eligible for medicare starting next year (2011).

Since seniors traditional vote at a higher percentage than other age groups, it will be surprising to see many changes unless they are not set to be enforced for 10-20 years down the road. Politicians can barely see past the next election cycle let alone 50 years from now.

[Jacob]

How about the fact that 78 million baby boomers start becoming eligible for medicare starting next year (2011).

Since seniors traditional vote at a higher percentage than other age groups, it will be surprising to see many changes unless they are not set to be enforced for 10-20 years down the road. Politicians can barely see past the next election cycle let alone 50 years from now.

If that were the cause, wouldn't it also be causing a big problem with social security? It apparently is not.

[Sullyute]

If that were the cause, wouldn't it also be causing a big problem with social security? It apparently is not.

I think the fact of the end of life expenditures are so great that with such a large portion of american becoming eligible over the next couple decades that the Medicare bill will be ballooning. Also G.W. Bush's unfunded presription benefits did not help the medicare numbers.

Social security is pretty much a fixed number and you can only get so much a month, but medicare can cost an unlimited amount of funds which make the numbers harder to confirm and plan for. Healthcare expenses are the big ? in the future.

Here is an interesting read about the end of life medical expeneses from Bloomberg:
End of Life Warning

[Jacob]

Interesting read.

One other huge problem mentioned there:

As I leafed through the stack of documents, it was easy to see why 31 percent of the money spent on health care goes to paperwork and administration, according to research published in 2003 by the New England Journal of Medicine.

[ERCougar]

Interesting read.

One other huge problem mentioned there:

Meh...this stat gets thrown out a lot, but really doesn't mean anything. I believe Medicare's administration costs are much lower, yet I'm not convinced they're any more efficient. Many administrative costs are necessary, even efficient. Take the hypothetical example of an insurance company which never evaluates any claims, approving everything. Stellar administrative costs, but is it efficient?

[cowboy]

Meh...this stat gets thrown out a lot, but really doesn't mean anything. I believe Medicare's administration costs are much lower, yet I'm not convinced they're any more efficient. Many administrative costs are necessary, even efficient. Take the hypothetical example of an insurance company which never evaluates any claims, approving everything. Stellar administrative costs, but is it efficient?

You make a good point, but I will say from an administrative perspective that administrative costs are rising much faster than efficiency. Much of it has to do with the increasingly burdensome reporting requirements of the Feds. There is also a fair amount of it that comes as a result of hospitals making more money and funding administrative wish lists with new staff to make less work for the rest.

[ERCougar]

You make a good point, but I will say from an administrative perspective that administrative costs are rising much faster than efficiency. Much of it has to do with the increasingly burdensome reporting requirements of the Feds. There is also a fair amount of it that comes as a result of hospitals making more money and funding administrative wish lists with new staff to make less work for the rest.

Oh, I'm certainly not saying that all administrative costs are necessary. But single payer advocates often pull that stat out as a game-set-match proof that we should move to single payer, when it really isn't that at all.