Medicare Advantage shopping season arrives with a dose of confusion and some political implications | Canada News Media
Connect with us

News

Medicare Advantage shopping season arrives with a dose of confusion and some political implications

Published

 on

Thinner benefits and coverage changes await many older Americans shopping for health insurance this fall. That’s if their plan is even still available in 2025.

More than a million people will probably have to find new coverage as major insurers cut costs and pull back from markets for Medicare Advantage plans, the privately run version of the federal government’s coverage program mostly for people ages 65 and older.

Industry experts also predict some price increases for Medicare prescription drug plans as required coverage improvements kick in.

Voters will learn about the insurance changes just weeks before they pick the next president and as Democrat Kamala Harris campaigns on promises to lower health care costs. Early voting has already started in some states.

“This could be bad news for Vice President Harris. If that premium is going up, that’s a very obvious sign that you’re paying more,” said Massey Whorley, an analyst for health care consulting company Avalere. “That has significant implications for how they’re viewing the performance of the current administration.”

Insurance agents say the distraction of the election adds another complication to an already challenging annual enrollment window that starts next month.

Insurers are pulling back from Medicare Advantage

Medicare Advantage plans will cover more than 35 million people next year, or around half of all people enrolled in Medicare, according to the federal government. Insurance agents say they expect more people than usual will have to find new coverage for 2025 because their insurer has either ended a plan or left their market.

The health insurer Humana expects more than half a million customers — about 10% of its total — to be affected as it pulls Medicare Advantage plans from places around the country. Many customers will be able to transfer to other Humana plans, but company leaders still anticipate losing a few hundred thousand customers.

CVS Health’s Aetna projects a similar loss, and other big insurers have said they are leaving several states.

Insurers say rising costs and care use, along with reimbursement cuts from the government, are forcing them to pull back.

Some people can expect a tough search

When insurers leave Medicare Advantage markets, they tend to stop selling plans that have lower quality ratings and those with a higher proportion of Black buyers, said Dr. Amal Trivedi, a Brown University public health researcher.

He noted that market exits can be particularly hard on people with several doctors and on patients with cognitive trouble like dementia.

Most markets will still have dozens of plan choices. But finding a new option involves understanding out-of-pocket costs for each choice, plus figuring out how physicians and regular prescriptions are covered.

“People don’t like change when it comes to health insurance because you don’t know what’s on the other side of the fence,” said Tricia Neuman, a Medicare expert at KFF, a nonprofit that researches health care.

Plans that don’t leave markets may raise deductibles and trim perks like cards used to pay for utilities or food.

Those proved popular in recent years as inflation rose, said Danielle Roberts, co-founder of the Fort Worth, Texas, insurance agency Boomer Benefits.

“It’s really difficult for a person on a fixed income to choose a health plan for the right reasons … when $900 on a flex card in free groceries sounds pretty good,” she said.

Don’t “sleep” on picking a Medicare plan

Prices also could rise for some so-called standalone Part D prescription drug plans, which people pair with traditional Medicare coverage. KFF says that population includes more than 13 million people.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said Friday that premiums for these plans will decrease about 4% on average to $40 next year.

But brokers and agents say premiums can vary widely, and they still expect some increases. They also expect fewer plan choices and changes to formularies, or lists of covered drugs. Roberts said she has already seen premium hikes of $30 or more from some plans for next year.

Any price shift will hit a customer base known to switch plans for premium changes as small as $1, said Fran Soistman, CEO of the online insurance marketplace eHealth.

The changes come as a congressional-approved coverage overhaul takes hold. Most notably, out-of-pocket drug costs will be capped at $2,000 for those on Medicare, an effort championed by Democrats and President Joe Biden in 2022.

In the long run, these changes will lead to a “much richer benefit,” Whorley said.

KFF’s Neuman noted that the cap on drug costs will be especially helpful to cancer patients and others with expensive prescriptions. She estimates about 1.5 million people will benefit.

To ward off big premium spikes because of the changes, the Biden administration will pull billions of dollars from the Medicare trust fund to pay insurers to keep premium prices down, a move some Republicans have criticized. Insurers will not be allowed to raise premium prices beyond $35 next year.

People will be able to sign up for 2025 coverage between Oct. 15 and Dec. 7. Experts say all the potential changes make it important for shoppers to study closely any new choices or coverage they expect to renew.

“This is not a year to sleep on it, just re-enroll in the status quo,” said Whorley, the health care analyst.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Rachel Homan, Kayla Skrlik to clash in curling’s PointsBet Invitational women’s final

Published

 on

CALGARY – Rachel Homan’s curling team is a win away from defending its PointsBet Invitational women’s title.

Homan beat Kaitlyn Lawes 10-5 in Saturday’s semifinal to extend her winning streak to 11 wins this season.

Homan, the reigning Canadian and world champion, will meet Kayla Skrlik’s Calgary foursome in Sunday’s final.

Curling Canada’s five-day PointsBet is a single-knockout event offering a purse of just over $350,000. The men’s and women’s victors each take home $50,000.

Skrlik beat Winnipeg’s Kate Cameron 10-4 to advance to the women’s final. The men’s semifinals features Brad Gushue versus Jordan McDonald and Brad Jacobs taking on Mike McEwen.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 28, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Roughriders down Redblacks 29-16 to vault over Lions in CFL’s West Division

Published

 on

REGINA – The Saskatchewan Roughriders moved into second place in the CFL’s West Division with a 29-16 victory over the Ottawa Redblacks on Saturday.

The Roughriders (7-7-1) reached 15 points and one more than the B.C. Lions (7-8-0) who lost 32-29 in overtime to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats on Friday.

The Redblacks (8-6-1) rank second in the East Division three points up on the Toronto Argonauts, who were at home to the Montreal Alouettes on Saturday night.

Kicker Brett Lauther led Saskatchewan going 7-for-7 on field goals. Thomas Bertrand-Hudon scored a rushing touchdown.

Ottawa kicker Lewis Ward produced nine points from his three field goals on four attempts. Kalil Pimpleton caught a touchdown pass for the Redblacks with just under two minutes remaining in the game.

Roughrider quarterback Trevor Harris completed 27 of 36 pass attempts for 315 yards.

Ottawa starter Jeremiah Masoli went 20-for-30 in passing for 210 yards and was intercepted three times.

Ward’s two field goals in the fourth quarter narrowed Saskatchewan’s lead to 15-9, but the Roughriders regained control with the game’s first touchdown.

Bertrand-Hudon took a pitch from Harris and broke through the Ottawa defence for a 26-yard touchdown run.

Harris connected with KeeSean Johnson on a two-point convert to increase the lead to 23-9.

Lauther’s sixth field goal added to that lead with four minutes left in the game.

Ottawa responded with its only touchdown when Masoli connected with Pimpleton on an 11-yard scoring pass with 1:56 remaining.

Lauther closed out the contest with his seventh field goal, from 37 yards, with 17 seconds left in the game.

Saskatchewan lost two starters on offence to injury during the game.

Tailback Ryquell Armstead, who ran for 207 yards in his Saskatchewan debut last week against the Calgary Stampeders, left the game in the third quarter with a shoulder injury.

Receiver Shawn Bane Jr. took a low hit in the second quarter when he tried to haul in a pass deep down the middle. He needed help off the field with an apparent right-knee injury.

Both offences struggled in the first half with Saskatchewan picking up 144 yards in total offence to Ottawa’s 116.

Lauther kicked field goals from 35, 33 and 21 yards in the first half, which gave the ‘Riders a 9-0 lead before Ward’s 37-yarder.

Ward missed a 46-yard field goal attempt late in the first quarter that Saskatchewan’s Mario Alford returned 75 yards to the Ottawa 43-yard line.

Alford’s return eventually led to Lauther’s second field goal of the game.

Masoli had a tough second quarter, tossing interceptions on consecutive possessions.

Rolan Milligan, with his league-leading seventh interception, snared the first. Marcus Sayles, with his fourth pick of the season, produced the second.

Saskatchewan linebacker Adam Auclair also intercepted Masoli in the third quarter.

UP NEXT:

The Roughriders play the Elks on Oct. 5 in Edmonton. The Redblacks have a bye week before an Oct. 14 date with the Alouettes.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 28, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Children learn to cooperate early, but world leaders at the UN struggle to get that done

Published

 on

NEW YORK (AP) — Our children are told when they’re little: Play nicely. Work together. Don’t hit. Use your words. Multiply that by nearly 200 countries, leaders of varied backgrounds and a preposterously complex set of 21st-century priorities and goals, and you come up with what exists in the world today: the United Nations.

There, the word for “play nicely” and “work together” is a complex one — “multilateralism” — and its goals often get lost in its syllables. But the principle remains the same: Unite to get more done, unite to offset bullies, unite to find outcomes that all can endorse and that benefit as many of the planet’s human beings as possible — and can be the foundation for an eventual lasting world peace.

At the U.N. General Assembly this week, it’s a principle that leaders — and, not surprisingly, leaders of smaller nations most of all — mention constantly. That’s not just because the U.N. has stood for multilateralism since it rose from the dictator-inflicted rubble of World War II. It is because today, in an interconnected era where human fates lie more than ever in what other humans do in other places, cooperation isn’t just an ideal but a necessary reality, whether anyone wants it or not.

But the problem, many leaders say, is that despite that hope that the U.N. still offers, the aging model of multilateralism — “a mirror that obstinately reflects the values of 1945,” according to Mexican Foreign Minister Alicia Bárcena — hasn’t been retooled to be effective in an era it quite possibly never envisioned.

“We cannot ignore that our common multilateral progress is failing us in the hour of greatest need,” said Hilda Heine, president of the Marshall Islands.

“This old political shell of the post-1945 political order can barely contain the contradictions,” said Ralph Gonsalves, the prime minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. “We cannot continue to rule in the old way, but the new is yet to be born.”

The old model isn’t working anymore

Both of those nations are small ones, and that’s no coincidence. Though many larger nations embraced multilateralism and still do — to a point, depending on their own strategic priorities — it is smaller states that embrace it most fervently. After all, they stand to benefit most from a united front in everything from military operations to development. “For small states, multilateralism in international law is not an option. It is in fact an existential necessity,” Singapore’s foreign minister, Vivian Balakrishnan, said Saturday.

Four generations after World War II ended, the challenges of the 21st century and — of late — the rising tide of populism have led many to conclude that old models of multilateralism aren’t working. But even leaders who still believe that working together and equally is ultimately the most effective and most secure way to do things lamented, one after another, that they are still waiting for the emergence of such a fresh approach.

António Guterres, head of the United Nations for the past seven years, has spent most of that time preaching passionately about the virtues of multilateralism — first patiently, then less so, then more urgently, now increasingly desperately. He knows things aren’t working. He believes they still can — not in spite of an increasingly complex world but precisely because of its realities.

“I have no illusions about the obstacles to reform of the multilateral system,” Guterres told leaders this week. “Those with political and economic power – and those who believe they have power – are always reluctant to change. But the status quo is already draining their power. Without reform, fragmentation is inevitable, and global institutions will become less legitimate, less credible and less effective.”

Fragmentation. That’s a key word here. The rise of the internet and the global economy and the subsequent repercussions stitched things together in some ways but tore them into a million pieces in others. Long-prevailing narratives are crumbling — for good and for ill. Putting the pieces back into a recognizable and productive mosaic — the very job of the United Nations — is a Sisyphean task.

This is where most conversations about multilateralism tend to end up. The very things that make it strong — many voices, many backgrounds, many diverse priorities — also make it, and the United Nations itself, almost impossible to wrangle.

That has a particularly strong impact on those smaller states, which need that collaboration desperately in the face of larger, more muscular ones.

Increasingly beleaguered Tuvalu can’t solve the encroaching waters of climate change on its own. Saint Kitts and Nevis isn’t going to figure out all the impact of AI alone. Without a thriving international economy, there are a lot more problems that descend upon everywhere from Kazakhstan to Suriname to Eswatini. African nations in particular have been seeking a permanent seat on the powerful U.N. Security Council so they can have a strong bloc of cooperation — and power — within the larger one.

“Multilateral institutions, including the Security Council, do not represent African needs and aspirations,” said Nangolo Mbumba, Namibia’s president.

New approaches — and fast — are seen as pivotal

Because of the wide perception that multilateralism is at a breaking point, Guterres this year convened a summit that produced a “Pact for the Future,” a wide-ranging plan that the secretary-general said was “designed to bring multilateralism back from the brink.”

He said that, unlike many other U.N. initiatives, this one must be more than talk and documents but produce tangible, collaborative results in coming years. Essentially, it resembles a soft reboot of the United Nations itself to make it more relevant in an age of globalization, interconnectivity, fragmentation and artificial intelligence.

Many speakers this week have seized upon precisely that kind of modernization across the board — what Mohamed Irfaan Ali, the president of Guyana, called “enlightened multilateralism.” To nations like his, that notion would represent a more substantive inclusion, a world in which they are not simply partners but equal partners — not just being a member of the club of nations, but helping to run the clubhouse.

Could the “great powers” ever accept this? Could a reset, even a limited one, of the only truly global body of nations push the United Nations back on the path it has long envisioned? Everyone, including Guterres, insists that it’s possible — but that time for a new and reinvigorated multilateralism is running out.

“The world stands fractious, polarized and frustrated. Conversations have become difficult; agreements even more so,” said Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. “Conversations have become difficult, agreements even more so. This is surely not what the founders of the U.N. would have wanted of us.”

The founders recognized that people wouldn’t always play nicely — but that they had to work together. And, ideally, not hit each other. And using their words? Even in a forum committed to dialogue and understanding (not to mention long equipped with real-time translation), that is becoming a taller order with each passing year. “If we carry on like this,” Jaishankar said Saturday, “the state of the world is only going to get worse.”

___

Ted Anthony, director of new storytelling and newsroom innovation for The Associated Press, has been writing about international affairs since 1995. Follow him at



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version