Join AARP
Join for Just $16 A Year
- Discounts on travel and everyday savings
- Subscription to AARP The Magazine
- Free membership for your spouse or partner
Help those devastated by the Oklahoma tornadoes. Click here to donate today and AARP will match your gift
Members can save up to 80% on gift certificates from more than 15,000 restaurants nationwide.
Members can get exclusive online access to hundreds of free printable grocery coupons from leading brands.
Welcome to the AARP Discussion Board. Here you can talk with peers about current events ranging from Social Security to caring for your parents to the latest on health care reform. It is also the perfect place to exchange healthy eating recipes and job hunting tips.
These forums are for you to engage and have fun meeting new people. Just remember the community code: Be nice!
|
Judicial Ruling - Changes to Medicare "Implied" Coverage and Financial Issues
posted at October 23, 2012 3:36 PM EDT
|
Posts: 1923
First: November 27, 2011 Last: May 18, 2013 |
New York times 10/22/2012: Settlement Eases Rules for Some Medicare Patients Do you think this is good? Do you think that it will be costly for Medicare? Where and when will a line be drawn, if any? Bet this sure puts a dent in any Medicare "savings" that were in the pipeline. Exerpts from the linked article: "In a proposed settlement of a nationwide class-action lawsuit, the administration has agreed to scrap a decades-old practice that required many beneficiaries to show a likelihood of medical or functional improvement before Medicare would pay for skilled nursing and therapy services. Under the agreement, which amounts to a significant change in Medicare coverage rules, Medicare will pay for such services if they are needed to “maintain the patient’s current condition or prevent or slow further deterioration,” regardless of whether the patient’s condition is expected to improve. Federal officials agreed to rewrite the Medicare manual to make clear that Medicare coverage of nursing and therapy services “does not turn on the presence or absence of an individual’s potential for improvement,” but is based on the beneficiary’s need for skilled care. . . . . In many cases, she (Ms Stein, Center for Medicare Advocacy) said, the denial of coverage led to a denial of care because most people cannot afford to pay for these services on their own. Neither she nor Medicare officials could say how much the settlement might cost the government, but the price of expanding such coverage could be substantial. . . . . The proposed settlement, negotiated with lawyers from the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services, was submitted last week to Christina C. Reiss, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in Vermont. If she approves it, as expected, she would have authority to enforce it for up to four years. Asked about the proposed settlement, Robert D. Reischauer, a public trustee of the Medicare program, said: “Unquestionably that would increase costs. How much, I can’t say.” Other independent experts expressed similar views. While the settlement is likely to generate additional costs for the government, it might save some money too. For example, physical therapy and home health care might allow some people to avoid more expensive care in hospitals and nursing homes. . . . . The changes will apply to the traditional Medicare program and to private Medicare Advantage plans. They apply to people 65 and older, as well as to people under 65 who qualify for Medicare because of disabilities. The Obama administration initially urged the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. Medicare officials denied that they had a formal policy requiring beneficiaries to show their conditions would improve."
|
|
Re: Judicial Ruling - Changes to Medicare "Implied" Coverage and Financial Issues
posted at October 24, 2012 6:17 PM EDT
|
|
Re: Judicial Ruling - Changes to Medicare "Implied" Coverage and Financial Issues
posted at October 24, 2012 8:45 PM EDT
|
Posts: 1923
First: November 27, 2011 Last: May 18, 2013 |
In Response to Re: Judicial Ruling - Changes to Medicare "Implied" Coverage and Financial Issues: Probably good, but has to increase the deficit in Medicare. Wonder how many people realize Medicare rules can be and are changed by an administration at will. Posted by krlklar The way it was before this ruling seemed pretty logical to me because there was a distinct measure based on whether or not there was progress or even expected progress - now I don't really know what the measure will be based upon. It seems pretty open ended to me, especially if the malady does not pretty much go away. In certain instances, I can see this last forever ( $$$$$$$) I am wondering if it had happened to anyone here - that's why I tried to open the discussion. |