Implementing Competitive Bidding in the Medicare Program: An Expressway to Solvency.

The Medicare program faces increasing budgetary pressures, with recent estimates suggesting that the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust will be insolvent as soon as 2028. Simultaneously, the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, a managed competition model, continues to grow its market penetration as beneficiaries increasingly choose private plans over traditional fee for service (FFS) Medicare. With the relative cost of the 2 forms of Medicare a subject of debate, policy experts have proposed a variety of policy options to address the program's budgetary pressures and place it on a firmer fiscal footing. This paper explores the implementation of one of these proposals in greater detail: fully transitioning the entire Medicare program to a competitive bidding model in order to reduce overall program costs and improve price competition. Current MA plan bidding methodology is explored, followed by a description of prior proposed competitive bidding models. Implementation challenges are addressed, along with specific policy considerations to protect beneficiaries who wish to remain in FFS Medicare.

Comparing spending across Medicare programs.

As Medicare Advantage increasingly becomes the dominant form of Medicare, meaningful and accurate comparisons with traditional fee-for-service Medicare will be increasingly important for both beneficiaries and policy makers. Recent debate among policy experts, government advisory bodies, and health plans highlights the need to create standardized comparison between the 2 Medicare programs. Supplemental benefits, Part B cost-sharing differences, and prescription drug benefits should be valued with a series of structured comparisons. Making this information transparent to beneficiaries through the plan finder would improve beneficiary decision-making. Finally, pragmatic comparisons would support policy makers in making improvements to Medicare Advantage program policy, undertaking comparative program evaluation, and engaging in Medigap plan oversight.

Health Insurance Coverage After the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Ends.

This JAMA Forum discusses the potential ramifications after the COVID-19 public health emergency ends such as limiting telehealth, ending the continuous enrollment requirement in Medicaid, and decreasing regulatory flexibility that has allowed pharmacists to administer COVID-19 vaccines.

Health Costs And Financing: Challenges And Strategies For A New Administration.

It is likely that 2021 will be a dynamic year for US health care policy. There is pressing need and opportunity for health reform that helps achieve better access, affordability, and equity. In this commentary, which is part of the National Academy of Medicine's Vital Directions for Health and Health Care: Priorities for 2021 initiative, we draw on our collective backgrounds in health financing, delivery, and innovation to offer consensus-based policy recommendations focused on health costs and financing. We organize our recommendations around five policy priorities: expanding insurance coverage, accelerating the transition to value-based care, advancing home-based care, improving the affordability of drugs and other therapeutics, and developing a high-value workforce. Within each priority we provide recommendations for key elected officials and political appointees that could be used as starting points for evidence-based policy making that supports a more effective, efficient, and equitable health system in the US.

Closing The Medicaid Coverage Gap: Options For Reform.

Eight years after the US Supreme Court's landmark decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, more than two million of the nation's poorest working-age adults continue to feel its effects. These are the people who, because of the decision, remain without a pathway to affordable health insurance coverage because they live in a state that has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Closing the coverage gap created by NFIB v. Sebelius represents the ACA's most pressing piece of unfinished business. Several options, which vary in cost and political complexity, exist for closing the gap in ways that respect the ACA's pluralistic approach to insurance coverage while adhering to constitutional principles. These considerations must be balanced against the urgency of the problem and the fact that, constitutionally speaking, Medicaid alone can no longer guarantee a national remedy to the fundamental issue of health insurance inequality for the poorest Americans.

Do Americans have the political will to tackle healthcare costs? a Q&A with Gail Wilensky, PhD.

To mark the 25th anniversary of the journal, each issue in 2020 will include an interview with a healthcare thought leader. For the February issue, we turned to Gail Wilensky, PhD, an economist and senior fellow at Project HOPE.