[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] KEEPING THE PROMISE: ALLOWING SENIORS TO KEEP THEIR MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS IF THEY LIKE THEM ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ MARCH 13, 2014 __________ Serial No. 113-127 Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce energycommerce.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 89-802 WASHINGTON : 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE FRED UPTON, Michigan Chairman RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon ANNA G. ESHOO, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York MIKE ROGERS, Michigan GENE GREEN, Texas TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JOHN BARROW, Georgia CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Islands BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa CORY GARDNER, Colorado PETER WELCH, Vermont MIKE POMPEO, Kansas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PAUL TONKO, New York H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BILL JOHNSON, Missouri BILLY LONG, Missouri RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina Subcommittee on Health JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania Chairman MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey Vice Chairman Ranking Member ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York MIKE ROGERS, Michigan LOIS CAPPS, California TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JIM MATHESON, Utah PHIL GINGREY, Georgia GENE GREEN, Texas CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JOHN BARROW, Georgia BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky Islands H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia KATHY CASTOR, Florida GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex JOE BARTON, Texas officio) FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 1 Prepared statement........................................... 2 Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 4 Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, opening statement............................ 5 Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement.............................. 107 Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement................................... 111 Witnesses Hon. Erik Paulsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota...................................................... 7 Prepared statement........................................... 9 Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the State of California..................................................... 11 Prepared statement........................................... 13 Hon. Dennis A. Ross, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida..................................................... 19 Prepared statement........................................... 21 Hon. Keith J. Rothfus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania.......................................... 24 Prepared statement........................................... 26 Hon. Jackie Walorski, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana..................................................... 30 Prepared statement........................................... 32 Frank Little, Medicare Beneficiary with a Medicare Advantage Plan 36 Prepared statement........................................... 38 Answers to submitted questions............................... 127 Mitchell Lew, M.D., CEO and Chief Medical Officer, Prospect Medical System................................................. 41 Prepared statement........................................... 43 Answers to submitted questions............................... 130 Glenn Giese, Principal, Oliver Wyman Consulting Actuaries........ 58 Prepared statement........................................... 60 Answers to submitted questions............................... 133 Judith Stein, Executive Director, Center for Medicare Advocacy... 67 Prepared statement........................................... 69 Paul N. Van De Water, Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities..................................................... 81 Prepared statement........................................... 83 Submitted Material Letter of March 10, 2014 from The 60 Plus Association to the subcommittee, submitted by Jeff Denham......................... 17 Letter of February 28, 2014 from Majority Members of Congress to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services....................... 113 Letter of February 28, 2014 from Minority Members of Congress to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services....................... 116 Minority Memorandum dated March 13, 2014......................... 120 KEEPING THE PROMISE: ALLOWING SENIORS TO KEEP THEIR MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS IF THEY LIKE THEM ---------- THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Pitts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Members present: Representatives Pitts, Burgess, Whitfield, Shimkus, Murphy, Blackburn, Gingrey, Lance, Cassidy, Guthrie, Griffith, Bilirakis, Ellmers, Pallone, Engel, Green, Barrow, Christensen, and Waxman (ex officio). Staff present: Clay Alspach, Chief Counsel, Health; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member; Noelle Clemente, Press Secretary; Paul Edattel, Professional Staff Member, Health; Sydne Harwick, Legislative Clerk; Robert Horne, Professional Staff Member, Health; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment & Economy; Heidi Stirrup, Health Policy Coordinator; Josh Trent, Professional Staff Member, Health; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Jessica Wilkerson, Legislative Clerk; Ziky Ababiya, Staff Assistant; Phil Barnett, Staff Director; Eddie Garcia, Professional Staff Member; Kaycee Glavich, GAO Detailee; Amy Hall, Senior Professional Staff Member; Karen Lightfoot, Communications Director and Senior Policy Advisor; and Karen Nelson, Deputy Committee Staff Director for Health. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Pitts. The subcommittee will come to order. The chair will recognize himself for an opening statement. Nearly 15 million seniors, or almost 30% of Medicare beneficiaries, have chosen to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan, an alternative to fee-for-service or traditional Medicare. Medicare Advantage or MA plans offer benefits not provided under traditional Medicare, such as reduced cost- sharing, vision and dental coverage, preventive care, and care coordination services. Numerous studies show that MA enrollees enjoy better health outcomes and receive higher quality care than those in traditional Medicare. So who are MA beneficiaries? Medicare Advantage covers a disproportionate share of low-income and minority seniors when compared to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Four in ten seniors with MA plans have incomes of $20,000 or less. Medicare Advantage is fundamentally about offering seniors the choice of better healthcare through traditional Medicare. Beneficiaries choose the plans that best meet their individual health needs. And, according to the latest CMS National Health Expenditures data, more than half of new Medicare enrollees are choosing Medicare Advantage plans. We should be encouraging seniors to take control of their healthcare and expanding this proven program. Instead, this Administration's policies are harming seniors by reducing their choices of high quality care through a series of cuts to the Medicare program that began with the Affordable Care Act. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare cut more than $700 billion from Medicare and spent the money on new government programs not for seniors. CBO also has said more than $300 billion of those cuts come from Medicare Advantage. Last year, CMS imposed regulatory cuts of 4 to 6% on MA plans, resulting in benefit reductions of $30 to $70 per senior per month. And on February 21, 2014, CMS released its 2015 Advance Notice outlining changes to Medicare Advantage payment policies, which an Oliver Wyman study estimates will result in an additional cut of nearly 6%. This newest cut is projected to cause seniors to lose an additional $35 to $75 per month in benefits. According to experts, these cumulative cuts from the Democrats' policies on seniors could result in ``plan exits, reductions in service areas, reduced benefits, provider network changes, and MA plan disenrollment.'' The week before last, this subcommittee held a hearing on the Administration's assault on Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. Now, we are learning about more crippling cuts to Medicare Advantage. Why is the Administration dead set on pushing policies that harm seniors and using their Medicare program as a piggy bank to fund other healthcare programs? Today, we will hear from a number of Members who have authored legislation that would improve the Medicare Advantage program for seniors. We also have witnesses who can speak to the harm that this Administration's policies have done to them. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today. I will yield at this point the remainder of my time to vice chair of the subcommittee, Dr. Burgess. [The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:] Prepared statement of Hon. Joseph R. Pitts The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair will recognize himself for an opening statement.Nearly 15 million seniors, or almost 30% of Medicare beneficiaries, have chosen to enroll in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, an alternative to fee-for-service (FFS) or traditional Medicare. MA plans offer benefits not provided under traditional Medicare, such as reduced cost-sharing, vision and dental coverage, preventive care, and care coordination services. Numerous studies show that MA enrollees enjoy better health outcomes and receive higher quality care than those in traditional Medicare. So, who are MA beneficiaries? Medicare Advantage covers a disproportionate share of low-income and minority seniors when compared to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Four in ten seniors with MA plans have incomes of $20,000 or less. Medicare Advantage is fundamentally about offering seniors the choice of better health care than traditional Medicare. Beneficiaries choose the plans that best meet their individual health needs. And, according to the latest CMS National Health Expenditures data, more than half of new Medicare enrollees are choosing Medicare Advantage plans. We should be encouraging seniors to take control of their health care and expanding this proven program. Instead, the Obama Administration policies are harming seniors by reducing their choices of high quality care through a series of cuts to the Medicare program that began with Obamacare. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare cut more than $700 billion from Medicare and spent the money on new government programs not for seniors. CBO also has said more than $300 billion of those cuts come from Medicare Advantage. Last year, CMS imposed regulatory cuts of 4%-6% on MA plans, resulting in benefit reductions of $30-$70 per senior per month. And, on February 21, 2014, CMS released its 2015 Advance Notice outlining changes to Medicare Advantage payment policies, which an Oliver Wyman study estimates will result in an additional cut of nearly 6%. This newest cut is projected to cause seniors to lose an additional $35-$75 per month in benefits. According to experts, these cumulative cuts from the Democrats' policies on seniors could result in ``plan exits, reductions in service areas, reduced benefits, provider network changes, and MA plan disenrollment.'' The week before last, this Subcommittee held a hearing on the Administration's assault on Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. Now, we're hearing about more crippling cuts to Medicare Advantage. Why is the Administration dead set on pushing policies that harm seniors and using their Medicare program as a piggy bank to fund other health care programs? Today, we will hear from a number of members who have authored legislation that would improve the Medicare Advantage program for seniors. We also have witnesses who can speak to the harm that this Administration's policies have done to them. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today. Thank you, and I yield the remainder of my time to Rep. -- --------------------------------. Mr. Burgess. I want to thank the chairman for yielding. We do spend a lot of time in Congress talking about the problems in healthcare. The problem is we are so busy triaging the mistakes that we don't think about the things that are actually working. And Medicare Advantage is one of those things that is actually working. What do we always talk about? We talk about disease management, coordinated care. We have talked about that in this committee in a bipartisan fashion for a long time, but guess what? Medicare Advantage plans are delivering on that promise. The President, however, decided to take money away from a working program in order to fund one that is dysfunctional. The President sold the Affordable Care Act on a foundation of false promises. You can keep your plan: false. You can keep your doctor: also not true. President Obama told seniors he would use the money from Medicare to fund the Affordable Care Act, and at the same time improve Medicare for beneficiaries. In reality, these payment cuts are not going back to Medicare but instead they are funding other provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Along with less money to Medicare Advantage plans, the Affordable Care Act burdened plans with additional requirements. The most recent proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage are part of a historic strategy of provider cuts that have always backfired. The sustainable growth rate is the leading example. It limits access for seniors and doesn't reduce cost. It is time for the Administration to shift gears and change strategies. Don't fix what is not broken. It is time for the Administration to start addressing the real problem, the Affordable Care Act, and not look for problems that are nonexistent. I yield back to the chairman. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now yields 5 minutes for an opening statement to the ranking member, Mr. Pallone. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Pitts. Unfortunately, I have to begin today's hearing expressing my disappointment in the tactics and process from your side of the aisle. This hearing has morphed from the future of Medicare Advantage, or MA, into what your side is now calling a legislative hearing, and we clearly have different definitions of what a legislative hearing should look like. You have invited seven Republican Members to come and talk about bills they have introduced or plan to introduce that will affect Medicare in some way. When we were told of this development, there were requests from staff on whether any Democratic bills on Medicare could be included today and those requests were ignored. In fact, I have a bill on Part D program integrity that is very similar to one presented, but for some reason, that bill was not given any consideration. So, Mr. Chairman, one bill in particular is quite egregious. It attempts to gut the coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act in order to provide billions of dollars to private insurance companies. The others are not new ideas from Republicans; they involve allowing individuals to switch to high deductible health plans which do nothing but worsen the risk pool for those in comprehensive MA plans. Another bill would reinstate the second enrollment period for seniors, an issue that has already been litigated and determined to be confusing and unhelpful to beneficiaries. And I can go on and on about my concerns here, but most importantly, I wish we could hear from substantive witnesses today on how these bills would weaken--or as the other side claims, strengthen--the MA program, but unfortunately, we were not given that opportunity. So I hope that if the chairman intends to move forward on any of these bills, that the Administration, stakeholders, and Democratic staff would have an opportunity to weigh in. I don't have to remind you that recent history has shown that nothing becomes law out of this committee without bipartisanship. While the majority of Medicare's 52 million beneficiaries are in the traditional federally administered Medicare program, MA offers beneficiaries an alternative option to receive their Medicare benefits through private health plans. MA has become fairly popular among seniors with more than \1/4\ of all beneficiaries now enrolled in such plans across the country. The ACA included quality improvements of MA plans by rewarding plans that deliver high-quality care with bonus payments. Incentivizing quality patient care over quantity of services provided is key to improving health outcomes and reducing the rising cost of healthcare. The bottom line is the ACA reined in a program whose costs were excessive and put the program on a more sustainable footing. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, MA enrollment has increased by nearly \1/ 3\, premiums have dropped by nearly 10%, and over \1/3\ of MA contracts will receive 4 or more stars, an increase from 28% in 2013. Despite warning cries to the contrary, the program is stronger than ever. Now, today, we will hear from some witnesses about a study commissioned by the plans themselves. They will claim that CMS' recent proposed cuts could devastate the MA market, but I would like to point out that these are not new cuts; these were expected cuts that bring MA plan payments in line with fee-for-service payments as required by law. And since by law MA plans are paid based on overall growth of Medicare, it is no surprise that when healthcare spending in Medicare slows, payments to MA plans will follow. And we should all think that is a good thing, especially those who continually take aim at the percentage of federal spending on healthcare. So not only were plans prepared for these reductions, Wall Street doesn't seem to think the outlook is as dire. In fact, some company stocks skyrocketed because the truth is, as more and more baby boomers age into Medicare, and hopefully, unless the Republicans mess it up, a permanent replacement for the SGR is passed into law, the MA program will become even more robust and will continue to be an area of growth for insurance companies. Regardless of the talking points from the other side and industry, I continue to believe that removing plan overpayments is the right policy for Medicare. To reverse course would raise costs for taxpayers and all Part B beneficiaries, drain from the solvency of the trust fund, and expand beneficiary inequities that disadvantage the overwhelming majority of Medicare beneficiaries who remain in fee-for-service. So I look forward to hearing from our second panel today, specifically from Ms. Stein and Mr. Van de Water, because a debate about how much we pay private insurance companies is overshadowing some important aspects of CMS' work in protecting beneficiaries. We should all work together to strengthen and improve the program and not weaken it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GUS M. BILIRAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this important hearing on how to protect Medicare Advantage. My bill, H.R. 3392, the Medicare Part D Patient Safety and Drug Abuse Prevention Act, will reduce fraud and abuse without negatively impacting Medicare beneficiaries by enacting cost-saving measures employed not only by TRICARE and the State Medicaid programs but also by private industry. H.R. 3392 creates a safe pharmacy access program to establish a single point-of-sale pharmacy system for the dispensing of controlled substances for high-risk beneficiaries. This will directly address the issue of doctor and pharmacy shopping where individuals go to multiple locations to fill multiple prescriptions. I would like to thank my cosponsor, Mr. Ben Lujan, and then I also want to yield now the balance of my time to Dr. Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I submit for the record a letter to the CMS that Mr. Barrow and I and over 200 of our congressional colleagues have signed. We are concerned about the proposed cuts to the MA program and the negative impact it will have on seniors. Over 15 million seniors rely on Medicare Advantage, almost \1/3\ of Medicare beneficiaries. These plans are popular because they have been proven to contain costs and improve enrollee health outcomes by focusing on prevention and disease management. CMS is planning to cut MA plans for overall seniors by 5.9% in 2015. In Louisiana that averages out that the MA beneficiary will have about a $55 to $65 cut per month, which of course is $660 to $780 per year in higher premiums, higher cost-sharing, and lower benefits for about 200,000 MA beneficiaries in my State. In response, Members of Congress are coming out of the woodwork to say to CMS stop these cuts, protect Medicare Advantage, protect seniors. Now, if Mr. Bilirakis will allow me to, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow. Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Dr. Cassidy, for yielding time, and thank you for your partnership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, Georgia is home to hundreds of thousands of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who are worried about the stability of the program. The proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage would amount to a 5.9% cut. These cuts will reduce benefits and increase premiums by $35 to $75 per month for our Nation's 15 million seniors with Medicare Advantage. Further cuts to Medicare Advantage would dramatically alter the standard of care that folks have come to rely on. That is why, as of today, 204 of our colleagues have joined Dr. Cassidy and me to warn Administrator Tavenner against these proposed cuts. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. I look forward to learning much from the witnesses and working with you to strengthen this vital program. With that, I yield back the balance of my time to Dr. Cassidy. Mr. Cassidy. Would the gentleman yield for one second just to welcome our panel and my roommate Mr. Paulsen? Mr. Pitts. Thank you. And without objection, the letter that Dr. Cassidy submitted will be entered into the record. [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Pitts. We have two panels today. The first is a Member panel and I will introduce them at this time and they will speak in this order. First, Hon. Erik Paulsen, Member of Congress from Minnesota; then Hon. Jeff Denham, Member of Congress from California; Hon. Dennis Ross, Member from Florida; Hon. Keith Rothfus, Member from Pennsylvania; and Hon. Jackie Walorski, Member from Indiana. Thank you very much for coming today. Your written testimony will be made part of the record. You will be each given 5 minutes for your opening statement, so the chair recognizes Mr. Paulsen for 5 minutes. STATEMENTS OF HON. ERIK PAULSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA; HON. JEFF DENHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HON. DENNIS ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA; HON. KEITH ROTHFUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; AND HON. JACKIE WALORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA STATEMENT OF HON. ERIK PAULSEN Mr. Paulsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Chairman Pitts and Ranking Member Pallone, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today to ensure that our seniors and their Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are protected from unnecessary cuts. I have received many calls and emails and letters from my constituents, my seniors in my district, who are concerned about cuts to the Medicare Advantage program and the impact that it could have on their healthcare plans. The Medicare Advantage program is a resounding success in providing coordinated care for seniors with better quality, more choices, and greater savings for millions of Americans. Over 175,000 seniors in Minnesota are enrolled in an MA plan, including more than 50,000 in my congressional district alone. More than half of Medicare-eligible seniors in my district have opted to enroll in MA plans rather than the traditional fee- for-service system. Nationwide, millions of Medicare beneficiaries have chosen a Medicare Advantage plan because they value access to better quality of care, innovative services, and additional benefits. The MA program enjoys high patient satisfaction and will reduce the cost of Medicare in the long run by providing evidence- based, coordinated care for our seniors. Unfortunately, the future viability of the MA program is at risk. The MA program is facing ObamaCare-mandated payment cuts, the health insurance tax, and the coding intensity cut in last year's fiscal cliff deal. The latest threat is the 12% cut in regulatory cuts that have been proposed the last 2 years, including a 6% cut to plans this year. Seniors in my district could pay as much as $900 more per year as a result of these cuts. Many might lose benefits, and some could lose their plan completely. The Administration is also attacking Medicare Advantage's innovative delivery system reforms, like in-home risk assessments, that have been absent in fee-for-service. Home risk assessments are clinical encounters in a beneficiary's home designed to prevent, to detect, and to treat chronic diseases to reduce hospital admissions, decrease readmissions, and improve the overall quality of life for seniors. And instead of increasing costs for seniors and hindering plans' ability to utilize innovative models of care, Congress should be providing more flexibility to plans and make it easier for seniors to participate in MA-like plans. That is why I have authoring legislation, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4177, to allow Medicare beneficiaries to contribute their own money to their Medicare Savings Accounts, these MSAs. Medical Savings Accounts are health savings accounts for Medicare Advantage plans. They allow seniors to utilize money in the accounts to pay for healthcare costs, including some costs that aren't covered by Medicare. Right now, seniors can't contribute their own money to their MSA like they can to a healthcare savings account. But by giving seniors more flexibility with these accounts, we will empower them to take charge of their own healthcare decisions. And this will strengthen the Medicare Advantage program and it will reduce healthcare costs for seniors and the system in the long-term. I encourage the committee to take a look at this legislation and maybe bring it up for consideration. Thankfully, Mr. Chairman, there is hope that we can avoid these additional cuts to Medicare Advantage. Over 200 Members, as was mentioned in earlier opening statements, of both parties, including myself, sent a letter to the Administration opposing these proposed cuts. We must protect our seniors and their healthcare plans by opposing these cuts. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to testify and commend the committee for their work to protect seniors in Minnesota and around the country. [The prepared statement of Mr. Paulsen follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes Mr. Denham, 5 minutes for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF DENHAM Mr. Denham. This is straightforward legislation. It will serve to inform the more than 14 million seniors currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage about how the Affordable Care Act is affecting the healthcare plans that they rely on every day. For over 60,000 seniors who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage in the counties I represent, the Medicare Advantage program has been tremendously successful in improving health outcomes when compared to traditional Medicare fee-for-service. This is because the Medicare Advantage model emphasizes preventive services and managed care to keep beneficiaries healthy. Medicare Advantage plans also limit out-of-pocket costs, protecting vulnerable seniors from the threat of bankruptcy due to the complicated medical conditions. Maybe this is why a survey of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries found that 90% were satisfied with their coverage, 92% were satisfied with their choice of doctor, and 94% were satisfied with the quality of care received under Medicare Advantage. The 14 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans nationwide deserve to know that the massive government overhaul of our healthcare system was paid for in part by the $300 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans and a health insurance tax that has just started this year. The combined effects of these payment cuts and the new health insurance tax are already being felt through cancelled plans, reduced benefits and increased copays. During this year alone, beneficiaries in over 2,000 counties will have fewer plan options compared to 2013 and on average will see their annual costs increased by nearly 10%. Unfortunately, the impact will only grow with time. As an example, in 2015, seniors in Stanislaus County in my district can expect to pay an additional $90 per month, or $1,080 per year for their Medicare Advantage plan. A large percentage of the 33,000 enrollees in Stanislaus County are low-income individuals earning under $20,000 per year. This rate increase will force them out of participating in the Medicare Advantage program altogether. Did the 111th Congress really mean to cut Medicare Advantage in order to subsidize the Affordable Care Act? Whether Congress meant to or not, seniors have a right to know that these changes are coming so that they can actually plan and budget for these increases that they are going to see. Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, there have been at least 37 major alterations to the Affordable Care Act since it was enacted. Some of these were done in cooperation with the Congress, yet on 20 separate occasions, after it became clear that the implementation of the law was failing the American people, the Administration moved unilaterally to change the law. These delays and alterations are proof that the Affordable Care Act is not working as intended. Unfortunately for our seniors in our districts, while the promises of healthcare remain unfulfilled, the cuts and taxes on Medicare Advantage plans required to finance the law are moving forward as scheduled. Congress must act today to protect the future of Medicare Advantage by repealing the cuts and taxes on the program. This would prevent the immediate erosion of health security for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries while we work to replace the Affordable Care Act with a healthcare reform that puts patients and seniors first. Until we can enact such legislation, seniors have the right to know why their Medicare Advantage plans are being impacted and I urge this committee to support this bill. I would also like to thank the 60 Plus Association and the Association of Mature American Citizens for their support of this legislation and would like to submit their letters for the record. [The prepared statement of Mr. Denham follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Pitts. Without objection, so ordered. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Ross, 5 minutes for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS A. ROSS Mr. Ross. Thank you, Chairman Pitts and Ranking Member Pallone, committee, for taking the time today to hold this hearing to highlight the significant threat facing the Medicare Advantage program. In 2012, healthcare spending in the United States accounted for 17.2% of our Nation's economic output, equal to $8,915 per person. Mr. Chairman, these statistics tell me that for a country with arguably the best healthcare in the world, we have yet to properly align patient and provider incentives to enable our healthcare system to be cost-efficient, highly accessible, and ultimately to achieve self-sustaining cost-containment with little need for government intervention. More than 3.5 million Medicare beneficiaries reside in my home State of Florida; 1.2 million of these beneficiaries have chosen a Medicare Advantage plan over Medicare's traditional and more costly fee-for-service structure. In fact, since 2008, the State of Florida alone has seen a 30% increase in the number of Medicare Advantage plan beneficiaries, while currently, 30% of our Nation's Medicare population have opted for a Medicare Advantage plan, serving as a clear testament to the high level of patient satisfaction the program has achieved. Among the many satisfied Medicare Advantage plan beneficiaries in the State of Florida are Michael and Sandra Cox from my hometown of Lakeland, Florida. Michael and Sandra did what so many Medicare Advantage plan beneficiaries have done since January 1, 2014, writing to their Members of Congress expressing a mix of anger, confusion, and panic at the senseless cuts that have been made to this effective program. Sandra and Michael wrote, ``Please explain the logic of the ObamaCare cuts to Medicare Advantage. My husband and I have never experienced such a high level of satisfaction with our health coverage as we have with our Medicare Advantage plan, and all with a much cheaper monthly Premium.'' Unfortunately, Michael and Sandra learned on January 1 that the doctors that they had been seeing for more than 10 years were no longer available under the Medicare Advantage plan as a result of the continued cuts to the program. They would face the full out-of-pocket cost should they choose to continue seeing those providers they had come to know over the last 10 years and their health status they treated so well. Mr. Chairman, was it not the Administration's goal to ensure patients develop a relationship with their provider resulting in better prevention and a more consistent continuum of care? Unfortunately, these cuts to Medicare Advantage, like so many other healthcare-related actions by this Administration are contradictory to the purported message. Even more baffling, past cuts have already crippled innovative programs like home health visits instituted by Medicare Advantage plan sponsors to ensure our seniors are able to maximize the value of healthcare services they receive. Going forward, additional cuts of this magnitude will devastate medical innovation in areas like tele- health that show great promise for increasing efficiency and cost-containment in Medicare Advantage and the healthcare system at large. Overall healthcare spending and utilization habits are a critical threat to America's declining fiscal health. If we are to successfully curb healthcare costs, we must preserve and enhance the Medicare Advantage program because of its proven ability to achieve cost-efficiency while maximizing patient access to high-quality health services and providers. To be more specific, data collected between 2003 and 2009 showed service utilization rates in areas like emergency department use and ambulatory surgery were 20 to 30% lower among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries than traditional Medicare. Overutilization of healthcare services, however, is only one facet of healthcare cost growth tempered by the Medicare Advantage plan structure. Although this current Administration has tried to discredit the power of market competition in creating organic, self-sustaining incentives for patients, providers, and insurers alike, the facts always prevail. Artificial market controls put in place by the Federal Government lead to more out-of-control health spending, as we have seen time and time and again. As far back as 1995, health economists have shown that combining coverage like that offered by Medicare Advantage with appropriate patient incentives leads to an avoidance of excessive doctor visits and tests, as well as more engaged patients seeking the best value for the healthcare service they need. In this same vein, I was proud to introduce H.R. 4180, the Preserving Health Savings Accounts for Medicare Beneficiaries Act, which would allow for this consistently proven economic strategy for reducing healthcare costs across the spectrum. My legislation would incentivize younger Americans to establish Health Savings Accounts with the promise that upon being Medicare-eligible, they are able toTransfer the HSA funds into a Medicare savings account. Simple enhancements like this one will help both Medicare Advantage and the entire healthcare system achieve organic alignment between insurers and patients and providers and creating a powerful, self-sustaining cost-containment tool. Patients have more control over their healthcare dollars, increasing awareness of reasonable health service costs and quality options, while also actively engaging providers to offer the highest quality service at the lowest reasonable cost in order to earn a patient's business. Mr. Chairman, this is what value in healthcare looks like. Unfortunately, through continued cuts to the Medicare Advantage program, this Administration will eliminate any possibility we currently have to build upon the Medicare Advantage program's success in curbing healthcare cost. And I yield back. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ross follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman. And now the chair is proud to introduce from the State of Pennsylvania Mr. Rothfus and recognize him for 5 minutes for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH J. ROTHFUS Mr. Rothfus. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me here today to testify about H.R. 2453, the Medicare Beneficiary Preservation of Choice Act. I am very pleased to discuss this bipartisan legislation that Congressman Kurt Schrader and I introduced in June of 2013. Enacting H.R. 2453 is one small fix we can make to Medicare Advantage that can have a big impact on the lives of the seniors utilizing the program in our districts. It simply restores the open enrollment period that existed prior to 2011. This open enrollment period permitted seniors to change Medicare Advantage plans once between January and March if needed. It essentially let seniors test drive the Medicare Advantage plan they would have just selected and change plans if it turns out the plan is not working for them. H.R. 2453 is about choice and fairness for seniors.It is about empowering them to make decisions about their healthcare needs. Restoring the January to March open enrollment period also makes sense in light of the 2014 Medicare Advantage cuts and the new cuts just proposed by CMS. Last November, the Wall Street Journal reported that one of the Nation's largest Medicare Advantage providers had dropped thousands of doctors from network due to ``significant changes and pressures in the healthcare environment.'' This is significant because seniors may not have known about the change in time to adjust their decisions during the October to December enrollment period. So if they liked their doctor, seniors may be finding out just now that they cannot keep him or her because they are no longer included in the plan. Passing H.R. 2453 and restoring the 90-day open enrollment period during the first quarter of the year would let seniors react to these types of plan changes, many of which are driven by the harmful cuts to Medicare Advantage that we see happening as the result of the Affordable Care Act. H.R. 2453 is a patient-centered option for improving Medicare Advantage. It will provide choice for seniors and it will ensure that they have access to the doctors they know and trust. That is why it is supported by America's Health Insurance Plans, the Association of Mature American Citizens, and the 60 Plus Association. The subcommittee members and its chairman should be thanked for their efforts to strengthen Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage delivers quality healthcare and peace of mind with consistently superlative satisfaction ratings from participants. Preserving the program and preventing more cuts to Medicare Advantage is a top priority for me and for the seniors in Pennsylvania's 12th District. Incidentally, in my district, utilization of Medicare Advantage is in excess of 60%, more than double the national rate. Additional cuts to Medicare Advantage will lead to higher out-of-pocket costs, reduced benefits, and fewer plan options. Instead of limiting access to a successful program which 9 out of 10 seniors are satisfied with, we should be empowering them to make choices about what best suits them. We should make sure seniors have access to the healthcare providers they know and trust. Instead of cutting Medicare Advantage, we should be finding solutions to lower costs for seniors and sustain the program for the long run. I had an incident this past Monday with a senior in my district at a restaurant. She was the hostess and she expressed to me a real concern about the cuts to Medicare Advantage personally impacting her. I asked her to call my office and give us more background because I wanted to tell that story here in Washington. And she simply looked at me and said why? So the politicians can accuse me of lying? That is what is happening out there in the country. People are very concerned about what is happening with Medicare Advantage. I thank the chairman and I yield back. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rothfus follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now introduces the gentlelady from Indiana, Ms. Walorski. I recognize her for 5 minutes for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE WALORSKI Ms. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to be here today and I thank you for holding this hearing to examine Medicare Advantage, a vital program that is critical to the health and well-being of many of our nation's seniors. Over 15 million Americans depend on Medicare Advantage. Through this popular program, seniors and individuals with disabilities are able to select a private health plan of their choice that provides affordable, comprehensive coverage, disease management, and care coordination. The Affordable Care Act and other regulatory changes have placed significant financial strain on this program, the brunt of which will be borne by the seniors we have promised to protect. Cuts to Medicare Advantage mean higher out-of-pocket costs, a more limited choice of doctors, decreased management of chronic conditions, and decreased coverage for dental and vision services. In my home State of Indiana, 22% of Medicare-eligible Hoosiers have chosen to enroll in Medicare Advantage, and enrollment in my district is even as high as 27%. This program serves my constituents well, and I am deeply concerned about how cuts will impact seniors in theHoosier State. Marcia from Mishawaka told me she is very pleased with her Medicare Advantage program. She loves the quality of the services provided and the prescription drug program that is included. She is worried about the looming cuts because she wants to keep her current doctor. As a senior citizen living on a fixed income, it is important that her premiums remain low and she wonders who will take care of seniors if the cuts continue. Eighty-seven-year-old Phyllis and her 93-year-old husband Owen like the peace of mind that comes with knowing they will receive excellent care through their current healthcare plan. Back in June, Phyllis fell and broke her hip. She was promptly picked up by an ambulance, admitted to surgery, and received excellent follow-up care in rehab. Her Medicare Advantage plan took care of the costs. Owen had a pacemaker inserted last year, which was also taken care of by his MA plan. Originally, there was no premium for this plan. Now they pay $34 a month. Although $34 a month may not seem like much, Phyllis told me if their premiums become too high, they will have to cut back on other necessities. Phyllis and Owen never imagined the Affordable Care Act would negatively impact them, especially when the President said that you can keep your healthcare plan if you like it. But now their healthcare plan is in jeopardy, too. Medicare Advantage plans are particularly critical to low- income and minority beneficiaries. According to a study by America's Health Insurance Plans, 1 of 5 of those enrolled in Medicare Advantage are minorities and 41% of enrollees have annual incomes of less than $20,000. Cuts to the program have the potential to disproportionately affect these most vulnerable populations. That is why I introduced H.R. 4211, the Advantage of Medicare Advantage for Minorities and Low-Income Seniors Act of 2014. This legislation directs the Government Accountability Office to study the number of minority and low-income seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage and to assess the impacts of Medicare Advantage payment reductions resulting from the Affordable Care Act and other administrative actions. Studies show that enrollees in Medicare Advantage have lower hospital readmissions, receive higher quality of care, and enjoy better health outcomes as compared to their counterparts in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage serves as a vital source of coverage for low-income and minority beneficiaries. On behalf of my constituents in the 2nd District and all Hoosiers, I look forward to working with both Congress and the Administration to keep the promise to maintain the integrity of Medicare Advantage. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. [The prepared statement of Ms. Walorski follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentlelady and again thanks the Members for the testimony on your initiatives. We will be happy to work with you on those. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to appear before us today. There will be no questions. I will excuse panel one at this time and call the second panel to the table and introduce them in the order that they will make presentations. First, Mr. Frank Little, a Medicare beneficiary with a Medicare Advantage plan; secondly, Dr. Mitchell Lew, CEO and Chief Medical Officer of Prospect Medical Systems; thirdly, Mr. Glenn Giese, Principal, Oliver Wyman Consulting Actuaries; and then Ms. Judith Stein, Executive Director, Center for Medicare Advocacy; and finally, Dr. Paul Van de Water, Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Thank you all for coming today. Your written testimony will be made part of the record, and we will give each of you 5 minutes to summarize your testimony. Mr. Little, we will start with you. You are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENTS OF FRANK LITTLE, MEDICARE BENEFICIARY WITH A MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN; MITCHELL LEW, M.D., CEO AND CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, PROSPECT MEDICAL SYSTEM; GLENN GIESE, PRINCIPAL, OLIVER WYMAN CONSULTING ACTUARIES; JUDITH STEIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY; AND PAUL N. VAN DE WATER, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES STATEMENT OF FRANK LITTLE Mr. Little. Chairman Pitts and members of the committee, thank you for providing me this opportunity to testify about my personal experience with the Medicare Advantage plan. My name is Frank Little. I am a retired small business owner from Virginia Beach. I am 70 years old. My wife and I have been enrolled in three different Medicare Advantage plans over the past 5 years. We have received high quality, affordable coverage through our Medicare Advantage plans, but we are concerned that our plan choices are shrinking due to the deep funding cuts in this program. When I first became eligible for Medicare, I had a choice of four different Medicare Advantage plans that offered prescription drug benefits with no additional premiums. Over the years, uncertainty about the program funding has forced several of these plans to either withdraw from my area or increase premiums. Today, I am enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan offered by Humana, which is still the only plan in my area offering a plan that includes prescription drug coverage with no additional premium. I am very satisfied with my Medicare Advantage plan and feel fortunate to have this option. To help the committee understand why my Medicare Advantage plan is important to me, I want to explain my experience over the last several years. I have had three major medical problems since I retired. I have had open-heart surgery, colon cancer, and a medical procedure on my lungs. I estimate that my medical bills for these conditions have totaled approximately $750,000 over the last 5 years, and I am pleased to tell you that my Medicare Advantage plans have covered almost all of these expenses. I have paid only a few hundred dollars in out-of- pocket costs. Without my Medicare Advantage plan, I would have faced a high deductible and 20% copayments if I had not been enrolled in the original Medicare program. Like many seniors, I live on a fixed income and such high costs would have had a devastating impact on my budget. I also want to emphasize that my Medicare Advantage plan has allowed me to receive high quality care from my personal physician, from outstanding specialists, and from an excellent hospital in my community. Other seniors in my community have several stories to tell about the quality coverage they receive through their Medicare Advantage plan. We appreciate that our plan provides prescription drug coverage as part of our medical coverage, while also taking care of our expenses to ensure that our out- of-pocket expenses are affordable. My message to Congress is that I want you to make sure that Medicare Advantage continues to be a strong and adequately funded program. I am asking you to block any additional funding cuts. I am counting on both Congress and the Obama Administration to do the right thing and protect this program from any further funding cuts. In closing, I want to say that I love my Medicare Advantage plan and I will be deeply disappointed if I lose my plan. Thank you for considering my comments on this important issue. [The prepared statement of Mr. Little follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman. I now recognize Dr. Lew 5 minutes for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF MITCHELL LEW, M.D. Dr. Lew. Thank you, Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of this committee for the invitation to testify today. My name is Dr. Mitchell Lew, and I am part of the CAPG National Board and am pleased to testify on behalf of CAPG, which is the largest association in the country of physician organizations that practice capitated coordinated care. CAPG members represent 160 medical groups in 20 states and serve 1.2 million Medicare Advantage enrollees. I also address you as a physician who practiced for 10 years before transitioning to a physician executive role 15 years ago. I am CEO of Prospect Medical Group, which is an IPA model with over 4,500 physicians in three States and serving 225,000 members. This model allows us to contract with smaller physician practices under the umbrella of one large organization. For background, Prospect Medical began in 1985 and we have evolved over the years and we now offer a full range of coordinating care services and programs, and this has resulted in better value to our seniors. It is better care, better health with cost control. Prospect has grown and we now have physicians and hospitals in California, Texas, and Rhode Island. I come to emphasize the merits of Medicare Advantage and the coordinated care model and the need to preserve the financial support for Medicare Advantage and to continue our investment into the model. Medicare Advantage takes a population-based payment approach, which reduces the high utilization incentives of traditional Medicare. It is value over volume. It is team-based. Physician organizations are structured to provide the best care at the right time in the most appropriate setting. Seniors are managed across an entire continuum of care. They get preventive services, home visits, high-intensity case management for the sickest members, chronic disease management, palliative care. It allows for innovation. Physicians are held to performance standards and they receive quality incentive payments. Social and behavioral services are also delivered in a coordinated manner. The impact of Medicare Advantage is better care, lower admissions, lower readmissions, lower lengths of stay, better outcomes, higher member satisfaction, more benefits, and higher interest among the new seniors. And that is particularly important for the low-income seniors who like the enhanced benefits and they need the enhanced benefits. Medicare Advantage has grown by 30% over the last 3 years and now 50% of new Medicare enrollees are choosing Medicare Advantage. The proposed reductions and cumulative cuts pose very serious threats. It will cause an erosion of the coordinated care infrastructure, higher cost-sharing, which will have a profound impact on the lower-income and minority seniors, fewer benefits. These cuts will undermine all of the progress that we have made in developing the healthcare delivery system. Medicare Advantage should be the infrastructure that all of the newer models in fee-for-service should use to build coordinating care such as the ACOs and the medical homes. I urge Congress and the Administration to find ways that will strengthen, not cut Medicare Advantage, develop policies that will promote population-based payments. Medicare Advantage should be the foundation upon which the entire healthcare delivery system builds coordinated care. As you develop Medicare and fiscal policy, I ask that you consider all that Medicare Advantage has to offer and know that additional cuts will have very serious consequences on the coordinated care model and the seniors that it serves. Without Medicare Advantage, we have very little chance to transform our healthcare delivery system. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Dr. Lew follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes Mr. Giese 5 minutes for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF GLENN GIESE Mr. Giese. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Glenn Giese, a senior principal with Oliver Wyman Actuarial Consulting. My testimony today will focus on the findings of a recent analysis by Oliver Wyman commissioned by America's Health Insurance Plans, which estimates the potential impact of funding cuts that would be imposed by Medicare Advantage program by proposed changes to the MA payment methodology in 2015. Our analysis focused on the combined impact of preliminary payment policies and regulatory changes announced by CMS on February 21, 2014, in its 45-day notice and draft call letter, cuts included in the Affordable Care Act and other legislative provisions addressing MA payments. Specifically, we identified nine different factors that would impact MA payments in 2015, most of which would reduce payments. A detailed explanation of these factors is outlined in the appendix to my testimony. We have calculated that the projected overall impact of these policies would be to reduce MA payments by an estimated 5.9% in 2015. We note that the impact of these changes on individual plans will vary based on a number of factors, including the geographic area in which the MA organization participates. We further estimate that the 5.9% funding cut translates into a potential reduction of $35 to $75 per month or $420 to $900 for the year in funding that will be available to support the benefits of MA enrollees in 2015. These cuts, if implemented, would represent a second consecutive year of deep cuts in MA funding. Due to a combination of legislative and regulatory policies implemented for 2014, MA payments already have been cut by 4 to 6% this year, resulting in cost increases and benefit cuts of $30 to $70 per month for beneficiaries. If the new changes proposed by CMS are implemented, the program would be hit by a double-digit cut over just a 2-year period, causing cost increases and benefit reductions that could total as much as $1,740 per enrollee over 2 years according to our projections. MA cuts proposed for 2015 could have far-reaching implications for over 15 million seniors and individuals with disabilities who are enrolled in MA plans. In our report we explained that these cuts ``could result in a high degree of disruption in the MA market,'' including the potential for plan exits, reductions in service areas, reduced benefits, provider networks changes, and disenrollment from MA plans. We further cautioned that the proposed funding cuts would disproportionately affect beneficiaries with low incomes, including the 41% of MA enrollees who have annual incomes below $20,000. For these beneficiaries, the potential increase in out-of-pocket costs resulting from cuts would constitute a significant burden. Another serious concern we highlight is that individuals who utilize healthcare services the most would adversely be affected if they lose their MA plans and are forced to move back through the Medicare fee-for-service program with its higher cost-sharing and lack of coordinated care. This is a particular concern for enrollees in Special Needs Plans that serve beneficiaries who have severe or disabling chronic conditions or who reside in institutions. For example, Chronic Care SNPs offer services that are tailored to meet the specific medical needs of patients with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other conditions. The loss of these specialized services would be a serious blow to beneficiaries whose medical conditions require customized treatments and care. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I encourage the subcommittee and Congress to consider the findings of our analysis as you communicate with CMS about its proposed payment policies and regulatory changes to the MA program for 2015. [The prepared statement of Mr. Giese follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes Ms. Stein 5 minutes for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF JUDITH STEIN Ms. Stein. Mr. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify. I am Judith Stein, founder and Executive Director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. I have dedicated my legal career to representing Medicare beneficiaries exclusively since 1977. The Center is a private, nonprofit organization based in Connecticut and Washington, D.C., with offices throughout the country. We responded to over 7,000 calls and emails from Medicare beneficiaries and their families each year. Medicare beneficiaries have had the option to enroll in private health plans since the '70s. The Medicare private plan option, now called Medicare Advantage, prior Medicare Plus Choice, was supposed to provide equal or better coverage for beneficiaries at a lower cost than traditional Medicare. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. As you know, in fact on average, private MA plans, Medicare Advantage, are paid significantly more than it would cost to provide similar coverage in traditional Medicare. Now, we recognize that MA plans can be a viable option for some enrollees, but I must remind the committee that the vast majority, 36 million or more older and disabled people, are enrolled in traditional Medicare, which is no longer a fee-for- service program, and 50% of all Medicare beneficiaries have incomes under $23,500 a year. At the Center, we regularly hear from families and individuals who have had problems with their MA plans. One of the most frequent issues we encounter concerning MA coverage relates to post-acute care. For example, over the last year the Center has received complaints from across the country about MA plans that have denied coverage for skilled nursing facility care despite the fact that the individuals at issue were receiving nutrition through feeding tubes, which under federal regulations and common sense is a skilled service. We have heard this from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and of course Connecticut. In fact, one of the beneficiaries who called us, or the family did, was granted coverage on appeal but the MA plan actually appealed that case to federal court. And we, a nonprofit that is not paid by our clients, had to go to federal court to make sure that that individual and the others like him in that MA plan would get coverage and care. These issues are not new and occurred even at the height of MA overpayments when plans were paid at an average of 114% of the amount traditional Medicare would spend on a similar individual. In 2009, for example, the Center had to take another case to federal court in order to obtain coverage for an individual receiving tube feeding. But the MA plan was so determined to deny coverage it continued that case into federal court in Minnesota. One of the most important health considerations for individuals is the ability to choose one's doctors and healthcare providers. This is the choice that people really care about. By design, as you know, MA plans contract with a limited network of providers to care for enrollees. Some coordinate care, but that is far from the normal course we have found with their beneficiaries over the 30 plus years I have done this work. For example, a Connecticut resident was referred to us by his Congressman because he had almost $100,000 in outstanding medical bills for his recently deceased wife that would have been covered had he been in traditional Medicare. That is because he traveled to Florida to be with his daughter where his wife fell. And while her fractured hip was taken care of and paid for by the plan, it turned out she had a brain tumor, and all the services related to the brain tumor were not covered by the MA plan. Sometimes Medicare Advantage enrollees face barriers close to home. When MA plans change their provider networks, as they often do annually, enrollees often have to make sure that their doctors will be in the plan in the coming year. As you may know, the largest plan in our State of Connecticut and in New York, Ohio, and Florida cut many, many providers, 2,250 doctors and healthcare facilities in Connecticut alone, including Yale New Haven Hospital where my mother, who is on traditional Medicare, recently had urgently needed neurosurgery, which she would not be able to have if she was in a Medicare Advantage plan. Neither physicians nor Medicare patients in that plan, the largest in Connecticut--and in Ohio, Florida, New York-- were given adequate notice regarding these extraordinary provider cuts. In addition to the concerns raised for Medicare beneficiaries by MA networks, too many plans fail to provide adequate coverage and access to care when enrollees are seriously ill. While I am grateful for the care that my co- presenter has received from his MA plan, too often we find that when people become truly ill or injured, they are less satisfied with their MA plan. That has been the case with my uncle just this year, my mother's brother, who is 92 and has been in an MA plan all these years despite my protestations. He is not receiving coordinated care or the care he needs. Mr. Pitts. Can you wrap up, please? Ms. Stein. Instead of focusing on how much Medicare payments are being cut, which is not really a cut, Congress should focus on making sure they provide what we are paying for. It is simply unfair to ask beneficiaries and taxpayers to shoulder extra payments to private plans that truly don't provide uniformly better value. Enrollees in poor health often receive less coverage and all have less options of providers. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Stein follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes Dr. Van de Water 5 minutes for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF PAUL N. VAN DE WATER Mr. Van de Water. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to be with you this morning. My statement reviews the role of private health plans in Medicare, identifies the factors that will hold down payments to Medicare Advantage plans in 2015, and explains why the Administration and Congress should reject demands from some quarters to freeze Medicare Advantage payment rates in 2015 at their 2014 levels. For 40 years, Medicare beneficiaries have been able to receive their benefits through private health plans. And as you have heard, in 2014, 29% of beneficiaries are enrolled in a private health plan through Medicare Advantage and virtually all beneficiaries have access to such a private plan. The remaining 70% or so of Medicare beneficiaries are in traditional Medicare. Congress' advisory body, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, has long recommended that Medicare's payment system be neutral, favoring neither Medicare Advantage plans nor traditional Medicare. But in recent years, the system has been substantially tilted in favor of private plans, the result of a large increase in MA payments enacted in the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law. In 2009, Medicare paid MA plans 14% more per enrollee than what it would have cost traditional Medicare to cover comparable enrollees. The Affordable Care Act is gradually reducing MA payment rates to bring them more in line with payments in traditional Medicare. This year in 2014, Medicare Advantage payments average only 6% higher than the levels in traditional Medicare. These overpayments, I must add, drive up premiums for beneficiaries and weaken Medicare's finances. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has recently announced preliminary 2015 payment policies for Medicare Advantage plans. Although the health insurance industry's trade association AHIP says that the CMS announcement includes ``new proposed cuts,'' the agency CMS is simply applying current law. The announced payment policies reflect four factors that will hold down MA payments in 2015. First, CMS continues to phase in the payment reductions that health reform requires, which curb some, but as I said, not all, of the excessive payments to MA plans. Second, since MA payments are tied in part to the cost per enrollee in traditional Medicare, the continuous slowdown in fee-for-service spending lowers MA payment rates. Third, CMS is implementing more accurate risk adjustment procedures as health reform requires. It will modestly reduce MA payments to address the problem of up-coding. Also, CMS will no longer include diagnoses identified during a home assessment visit rather than a clinical encounter in determining an enrollee's health status since these tend to make enrollees appear sicker than comparable enrollees in traditional Medicare. And fourth, ending a demonstration project that pays higher-quality bonuses to some plans will effectively lower payments in those plans in 2015 compared to 2014. Now, AHIP and other interest groups charge that the preliminary 2015 payment policies will substantially increase costs to MA participants and will reduce the choice of plans. They ask that MA payment rates be frozen in 2015 at their 2014 levels, but I would argue that the Administration and Congress should reject those demands. The predictions of doom and gloom are greatly exaggerated. AHIP issued these same warnings about the MA payment cuts that were made in 2014, but MA enrollment, as you have noted, has nonetheless reached record levels. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that MA plans will continue to thrive despite further payment cuts. Nationwide, the number of plans available dropped by only 3% in 2014, a small change that reflects both the offsetting effects of newly entering plans and those departing the market. Plans also responded to the payment reductions by becoming more efficient. The unweighted average monthly premiums for MA plans with prescription drug coverage actually fell from 2013 to 2014 and is lower today than in 2011 or 2012. And again, this is also despite the payment reductions. Wall Street certainly isn't pessimistic about Medicare Advantage. In the wake of the CMS announcement, shares of Humana, the second largest insurer in the MA market, recorded their biggest single-day increase in 4 years and reached their highest level in more than 30 years. Standard & Poor's overall index for managed healthcare plans also climbed. Finally, preventing overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans is sound policy. Along with the other cost-saving provisions in the Affordable Care Act, eliminating overpayments reduces premiums for all beneficiaries, including the large majority who are not enrolled in MA plans and extends the solvency of Medicare's Hospital Insurance trust fund. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Van de Water follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman. That concludes the opening statements. We will begin questioning. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for that purpose. Mr. Little, I will go first to you. What would have happened to you if you had had a health episode and were not on an MA plan? How did your MA plan compare to what service you might have received under traditional Medicare if you could explain? Mr. Little. If I would have had traditional Medicare with my problems that I had, instead of being approximately $400 out-of-pocket cost because I stayed 2 extra days at the hospital when I had the open heart, if I had had traditional Medicare, it would have cost me $150,000 and that is a financial burden. Mr. Pitts. Now, what would happen to you if you would lose your MA plan that you have today? Mr. Little. Well, if I had looked at the closest Medigap and it would add about $700 to $800 a year to my cost, which, because I am retired, something would have to be taken out of the budget to pay for the plan. Mr. Pitts. All right. Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act cut more than $300 million from the Medicare Advantage program to spend on new government programs, new entitlement not for seniors. What is your reaction to that? Mr. Little. Well, I have seen the cuts. When I turned 65 5 years ago, we had four plans to choose from and Medicare Advantage plans and I had always been with Blue Cross Blue Shield so I signed up with them. I was informed the following year that they were dropping that plan so I went to Optima. They had the next-best plan. The following May I got my letter that they were dropping me, and the third year I went to Humana because they were basically the only one left. And in my area that I live in, Virginia Beach, Humana offers the only Medicare Advantage plan available. The others said they had to drop it because of the higher cost and cuts. Mr. Pitts. Can you describe what your plan has done for you that you think may have prevented a hospitalization or from returning to the hospital? Mr. Little. Yes, sir. Every January and June part of the plan is to go into your GP and have a thorough checkup. And of course I have to go to my cardiologist and have a thorough checkup. But even the co-pay for those preventive is zero for a GP and of course my specialist is $35, which is easily affordable. So they keep me running. Mr. Pitts. If you could do a ballpark, how much do you think your health plan has saved you in costs out-of-pocket, you know, costs for the services you need so far? Mr. Little. Well, I know in the last 5 years it has saved me $140, $150,000. Mr. Pitts. Now, due to cuts in Medicare Advantage under the Affordable Care Act, some seniors may get to keep their plan at least this year but might still lose their doctor or lose affordable premiums or lose needed benefits. Have you lost your doctor or plan before? Mr. Little. No, sir. Mr. Pitts. Have you or your friends with Medicare Advantage plans experienced fewer choices and higher cost? Mr. Little. We have experienced fewer choices but the low cost is still there. And in fact, with all respect to Ms. Stein, I don't know which Medicare Advantage plan they have, but they need to switch. Mr. Pitts. All right. Let me go to Mr. Giese. What are the tools that CMS has at its disposal to legally reduce the impact of the cuts and the advance notice through administrative or regulatory means? Mr. Giese. Some of the cuts are statutory and some of the cuts are discretionary, so if Congress were to act, things like the ACA reductions, the demonstration plan, and the risk score stuff could be changed. But the other stuff that is discretionary is decided by CMS, so the rate book change, which are the trends in Medicare Advantage, we are not quite sure how CMS develops the trends. They are not really released to the public. So that could change. That is partially discretionary and I would say that is the biggest one. Mr. Pitts. My time has expired, unfortunately. The chair recognizes the ranking member 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask questions initially of Mr. Van de Water. I have heard different views on whether the quality of care that Medicare beneficiaries receive from an MA plan is any different than fee-for-service Medicare. What is your take on the relative quality of care provided in fee-for-service versus MA plans? Mr. Van de Water. Mr. Pallone, I think the short answer is that we don't really have clear data. I like to rely on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. They are a good impartial source. And in their report from last March on Medicare payment policies, they said that according to them we have little information on which to base a comparison of MA quality indicators with those in private fee-for-service. That having been said, the evidence is mixed. There are some studies which some of the Members have referred to that suggest that at least in some particular MA plans, quality may be better. There is other data, for example, that MedPAC sites that suggests that the quality is about the same on average in Medicare Advantage plans and traditional Medicare. So I think the right answer is that the record is probably mixed that in some cases the quality is probably better but we can't make that conclusion across the board. Mr. Pallone. Well, I think we should strive to improve the quality provided to all Medicare beneficiaries both in the fee- for-service system and the Medicare Advantage program. Now, fee-for-service has undertaken new payment models such as accountable care organizations, medical homes, and other initiatives, and Congress, including our committee, has made great bipartisan progress towards tying physician Medicare payments more closely to the quality of care provided. And now that MA plan payments are linked to quality performance, the plans are also working to improve quality. So what is your recommendation for steps we can take to continue to improve quality for all Medicare beneficiaries? Mr. Van de Water. Well, I think you are exactly right to focus on the whole system. You know, we are developing--this is referred to a mix of payment models. We have not only traditional Medicare on the one hand and Medicare Advantage plans, but we are developing intermediate models such as accountable care organizations. I think that what Congress has done to encourage these different payment models is exactly the right thing. In your proposed SGR legislation you have additional steps to develop models of that sort. The quality bonuses in MA plans, that makes sense. So I think in general you are on the right track. Mr. Pallone. All right. Let me ask you a question about the mechanics of how Medicare Advantage plans are paid. CMS reported that the proposed reductions will result in a 2.4 decrease to MA plan benchmarks in 2015 while the witness from Oliver Wyman testified on their recent report and that is a report that I remind everyone that the insurance industry paid for, which claims that the plans' rates will be cut by 5.9%. And the plans are saying these reductions are going to either put them out of business, force them to hike premiums, reduce benefits, or take other drastic measures. On the other hand, they said this last year, too, and yet nothing really happened. But I know this is a very complex issue and I would like to get to the bottom of it. So let's just talk about the facts. Can you please explain the mechanics of how Medicare Advantage plans are paid, like what a benchmark is, what a bid is, and how plans' payments are determined? Mr. Van de Water. I will try to give a simple answer which will necessarily be a bit oversimplified, but, as you say, the key factors in determining what a plan gets paid are, one, the plan's bid, which represents how much the plan estimates that it will cost to provide Part A and Part B services to a representative group of people, that is people of sort of an average---- Mr. Pallone. What I am trying to get at is whether the reductions that CMS has proposed to the plan, you know, whether the reductions are to the payments or the benchmarks? And given the reductions in benchmarks, will the plans on average end up getting less money than fee-for-service? But, you know, go ahead. Mr. Van de Water. OK. The answer is that the reductions that are being discussed are the reduction to the so-called benchmarks. What the plans actually get relates both to the benchmarks and to what they bid and to other factors, so there is a lot of intervening steps, and reductions in the benchmarks don't translate one-for-one into reductions in the plan payments. Mr. Pallone. So can we say that the proposed reductions and benchmarks will on the average end up that the plans get less money than fee-for-service Medicare? Mr. Van de Water. Other things being equal, they will tend to reduce what the Medicare Advantage plans get paid, but on average, in 2015 MA plans are still going to get paid, somewhat more than what it would cost to cover their enrollees under traditional Medicare. Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Dr. Burgess, 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to address this to Dr. Lew and Mr. Giese. I mean you heard the ranking member's question to Dr. Van de Water about the issue of quality between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Can you offer us your perspectives on that? Is there a difference in your estimation on the difference between the quality of care provided the enrollee in traditional Medicare versus Medicare Advantage? Dr. Lew, let's start with you. Dr. Lew. Yes. Thank you for that question. Absolutely I can attest to that, that the quality of care delivered in a coordinated care model is far superior to a fragmented fee-for- service system because you have got the whole continuum of care. Again, as I mentioned, the home visits coordinated with inpatient, outpatient visits, palliative care and disease management. It is a team approach where you have got providers, nurses, pharmacists, social workers taking care of patients across the continuum. There was a mention about home care. Home care absolutely is an essential piece of this. You take out home care; that leaves a gap in our system. You know, it is not an up-coding situation. It is a situation where we do actually recognize what could be admission drivers. We look for areas where a patient, perhaps he would be at a fall risk. So there is a lot of information gathered at a home visit. But absolutely, quality measures, there is no question. We can reduce bed days, we reduce lengths of stay, we reduce costs, we get better outcomes and obviously patient satisfaction, and that is why members are wanting to migrate to Medicare Advantage. Mr. Burgess. Thank you. Mr. Giese? Mr. Giese. Thank you. There are studies out there that show that the quality in fee-for-service is lower than in MA on average, in fact, a number of studies. But going beyond that, think about your parents and if they are sick. They want to be taken care of. These people who sign up for Medicare Advantage plans are so happy that they are taken care of. They are called by the plan to say, did you take your prescription? Did you get a checkup? And the people love this. It is so important to these people who signed up for these plans. Mr. Burgess. Have there been any efforts to identify--you know, we talk on this committee a lot about readmission rates for patients with certain diagnoses. Is there any evidence to point to, say, the readmission rate for someone who is hospitalized with congestive heart failure that is partly controlled, that is hospitalized, gets toned up, gets sent home? Do they do better or worse on Medicare Advantage? Mr. Giese. Readmission rates are lower in Medicare Advantage. There have been some studies that show that. Mr. Burgess. Well, let me ask you a question and then because part of this is we overpay Medicare Advantage. But you have just identified one of the larger cost drivers and you say that is less with Medicare Advantage. So how can it be? A program that costs more is actually costing less? It is paradoxical, isn't it? Mr. Giese. Well, all of the---- Mr. Burgess. It is a trick question, Mr. Giese. I am sorry. I couldn't help myself. Dealing with the Congressional Budget Office all the time---- Mr. Giese. All of the so-called overpayments to Medicare go directly to beneficiaries. The rules for bids and the way the bids work, everything goes back to the beneficiary. Mr. Burgess. And I thank you for that. I did just want to point out we deal with the tyranny of the Congressional Budget Office all the time and it is bipartisan. Both sides of the dais feel the tyranny of the Congressional Budget Office. Mr. Little, I just have to ask you a question. Mr. Little. Yes, sir. Mr. Burgess. Your written testimony you have provided you said you were a small business owner? Mr. Little. Yes, sir. Mr. Burgess. So were you self-employed? Mr. Little. Yes, sir. Mr. Burgess. So being self-employed, you know of course you paid your taxes, your payroll taxes? Mr. Little. Yes, sir. Mr. Burgess. And for Medicare Part A, what was the payroll tax that you paid during most of your years? Mr. Little. Well, nobody in my organization was that old at that time. Mr. Burgess. Well, but I mean as you worked, in your working years you pay Social Security and Medicare---- Mr. Little. Oh, yes. Mr. Burgess [continuing]. Every paycheck, right? Mr. Little. Oh, yes, sir. Mr. Burgess. Do you remember what the percentage was that you paid for Medicare? Mr. Little. The FICA was 6.2. The Medicare was--I don't know. Mr. Burgess. 1.3, I have it on good authority. It is said it is 1.3 so let's stipulate that that is correct. But you were a small business owner so for yourself you paid both the employer and the employee contribution, is that correct? Mr. Little. Yes, sir. Mr. Burgess. So you paid 2.6% of your earnings throughout your lifetime. So let me just ask you. Do you feel that what you are receiving now and Medicare is an entitlement or is that something for which you have paid? Mr. Little. Oh, I think it is something I have earned. Mr. Burgess. Yes, exactly. Exactly so. And I just wanted to make that point. It is then incumbent upon us to make sure you get the very best of what is available, and in your case, it sounds like that would be Medicare Advantage. I have gone over time. I will yield back. Mr. Pitts. All right. The chair thanks the gentleman. I now recognize the gentleman, Mr. Green, 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CMS proposed to disallow the use of the home assessment diagnoses unless the beneficiary received appropriate follow-up care as a good policy. Mr. Van de Water, I understand that plans were allowed to use beneficiary diagnosis information obtained during home assessment visits to increase their risk adjustment payment. Basically what happened is that the plans were providing assessments for beneficiaries finding that there were certain diagnoses and using that information for increased payment. But this is important in that plans were not following up and providing the services the patient required as a result of that diagnosis. So the plans get more money and the patient doesn't receive anything. This seems like it is a scam on tax dollars. Just so we are clear, can you please explain exactly what CMS has proposed? Mr. Van de Water. Yes, sir. I think you actually provided a very good summary yourself. All I would add is that what CMS is proposing to do is not an anyway suggesting that these home assessment visits cannot be helpful or useful, but as you say, it is important that if a home assessment visit takes place and a condition is found, that the appropriate follow-up is provided. CMS is not saying that diagnoses identified during home visits are never going to be considered but simply they do have to be recognized by the subsequent encounter with a doctor or health professional to make sure that the appropriate follow-up is indeed taking place. Mr. Green. It seems like if they are getting paid for that assessment of that illness, they should be actually treating that patient---- Mr. Van de Water. Exactly. Mr. Green [continuing]. Instead of just building up their payment. What is your take on this policy? Is it reasonable to require a plan if they wish to receive higher payments with identifying a diagnosis to require they provide that patient with those services? Mr. Van de Water. I am not sure we need to make the requirement but we certainly shouldn't allow plans to get the higher payments for the diagnoses if they are not followed up on. Mr. Green. In other words, that is a cost savings we could do. But we hear about in Medicare is overpayment if they are not receiving the services that they are actually being paid for. Mr. Van de Water. Yes. That is precisely what CMS has tried to do in the proposed policy. Mr. Green. Medicare Advantage overpayment often hurt beneficiaries and Medicare in the long run. Ms. Stein, I know that you have been a strong advocate for strengthening Medicare and ensuring it remains secure in the long run. That is why I have concerns about continuing to overpay Medicare Advantage. First, Medicare Part B premiums are based on program spending, so the extent Medicare is paying too much, it drives the beneficiary premiums up, isn't that right? Ms. Stein. That is exactly correct. The overpayments to the Medicare Advantage program are a problem not only for Medicare Advantage enrollees but for all Medicare beneficiaries because their Part B premiums increase and of course taxpayers pay more for Medicare as a whole. Mr. Green. We know that most beneficiaries have modest incomes, fixed incomes. They don't have a lot of disposable income to pay extra to manage care. How are beneficiaries affected by unjustified overpayments to private insurance companies while the minority who are enrolled in plans might see some additional benefits but how the vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries are affected? It seems like if you are raising premiums for--and I will take a number out of the air-- 70% of the folks in my district, last numbers I saw, received regular Medicare, about 30% do Medicare Advantage. So you raise the premiums for 70% to provide some additional benefit to the 30%. Ms. Stein. That is correct. And I have to even question the additional benefits. I mean what were mentioned were vision, which is usually some help with some eyeglasses, not very much, and preventive services, which are now zero based in Medicare as a result of the Affordable Care Act. And I have not seen a great deal of actual coordination. When there is true coordination, I applaud it, but very often, we have as much siloing of care in Medicare Advantage as we have in traditional Medicare. It is costing everybody more, even the vast majority who don't choose Medicare Advantage but stay in traditional Medicare. Mr. Green. Well, I only have a few seconds left and I have heard some folks argue that we can't take away access payments to plans and put them on parity with fee-for-service because some beneficiaries are low-income, rely on these plans for additional benefits. And they do. I know Medicare Advantage offers other things, but the problem is plans can change their benefits and cost-sharing from year to year. Just because a low-income person has a plan that would reduce cost-sharing today, that plan doesn't necessarily have to offer that extra benefit over that year. Ms. Stein. That is right. The plans can change the benefits from year to year so long as they are actuarially equivalent to traditional Medicare. And I just want to say CMS did do a study in 2012 that showed about low-income people, people with high-risk needs and health issues disproportionately disenroll from Medicare as they are dealing with those issues across the country. I have no skin in this game. My entire career is just representing mostly low- and moderate-income Medicare beneficiaries and protecting Medicare. That is all I care about here and getting access to care. And I think the Medicare Advantage plan is providing way too much money for way too little uniform value and it is hurting the Medicare program and most Medicare beneficiaries. I say that as an advocate, as a cancer survivor, and as the daughter of a woman who is just going through an extraordinary neurosurgery that was available to her because she was in traditional Medicare. I can't understand why it would cost Mr. Little $100,000 and I hope he will call my office if we can ever help him. We don't charge for our services. Mr. Green. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I am over my time but I thank all of our witnesses for being here. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina, Mrs. Ellmers, 5 minutes for questions. Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our panel for being here today. I just want to start off by associating myself with some of the comments, Dr. Lew, you said our seniors enjoy their Medicare Advantage plans, and it is so important that we work in Congress to protect them from these large cuts that will negatively affect 476,000 North Carolina seniors that I have the incredible honor to represent. I am very concerned about this issue because I do believe it is a choice that our seniors are able to make. I think that our seniors are in jeopardy when they cannot make choices for themselves. Mr. Little has made a choice of what it is that he would like to see for his coverage, and I don't understand why we would consider jeopardizing that ability. When something works for someone, they should keep it. Isn't that what our President said? If you like your healthcare plan, you should be able to keep it. Yet, now we are saying no, as a matter of fact, you can't. And, Dr. Lew, thank you for your comments about patients in the home-health setting. You know, our seniors want to take care of themselves. Our seniors want to be able to be independent, and if they are going to do a better job recovering from surgery or sickness, illness at home, I think that is where they need to be. I think these are all the things that are jeopardizing our system. And to the point that Dr. Burgess was making earlier about savings in one part of Medicare only to spend more money in another, if we are helping to keep seniors out of the hospital or the inpatient setting, that is a dramatic savings within Medicare. So it only makes sense to me that we would continue to advocate another program, or Medicare Advantage would help seniors be able to do that. You know, keeping people out of the hospital is the best way we can keep people healthy and safe in this country. Dr. Lew, as a physician, do you believe seniors in rural areas--I have a large rural area in my district. How do you feel about seniors in the rural setting? How do you feel that they respond to the higher premiums or potentially no Medicare Advantage offered? I mean, how will that affect them? Dr. Lew. Well, if Medicare Advantage plans pull out of certain markets, that will certainly leave seniors very vulnerable. You know, there are some parts of certain States that we do business in where there are very few Medicare Advantage plans. In fact, recently, one plan pulled out of one of these States where we do business and that left one dominant player, which is very vulnerable, because after that one player pulls out, the seniors are going to be left without physicians and without a network. But hopefully that won't happen. And, to your point about seniors liking choice and having choice, and having the better outcomes on the back end, that is all a result of what we have built, this coordinated-care model and what I consider an investment, not an overpayment, but an investment into this model that we have shown has worked that we are threatening now to jeopardize by cuts. That is what I am concerned about because that is going to impact the physicians and the seniors. Mrs. Ellmers. Absolutely. And, there again, to me it is a matter of common sense. I struggled with the idea that the Obama Administration and that CMS would choose to hit something that is working so well as Medicare Advantage when we have numerous programs that don't work at the federal level. As a fiscally responsible individual representing my constituents, this is simply not the place that we should go for savings. There are many others. And again, Mr. Little, I just want to thank you on behalf of my constituents, my seniors for coming forward and sharing your stories and your experience with the healthcare issues that you had to deal with, with heart disease and cancer, because that is just so important. Your recovery and your ability to recover on your own terms probably had a lot to do with the Medicare Advantage plan that you chose. Mr. Little. Yes, it did. And one thing I would like to interject that I didn't before, I have noticed it because I have been with the Medicare Advantage plan for 5 years. The costs are kept down mainly because of what they pay the hospitals, the physicians. Mrs. Ellmers. Yes. Mr. Little. I have noticed my checkup this year was $300. My doctor---- Mrs. Ellmers. Yes. Mr. Little [continuing]. Got $74. There it is. Mrs. Ellmers. Yes. Mr. Little. There is your savings. It is not costing the government any extra money. They are negotiating, but of course that is why---- Mrs. Ellmers. That is right. Mr. Little [continuing]. Several of the Medicare Advantage plans dropped out because they couldn't get down---- Mrs. Ellmers. Yes. Mr. Little [continuing]. To that price. Mrs. Ellmers. Yes. Mr. Little. And also with every claim that I do, and they send me what I did, they also send a letter if you see any fraud or anything that was done that wasn't really done, please let us know immediately. So they self-govern themselves and I think that is how they are keeping the cost down. Mrs. Ellmers. Well, thank you again for being such a great advocate on this issue. We truly appreciate it and my constituents thank you. Mr. Little. You are welcome. Mrs. Ellmers. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit to the record a letter that we sent to Ms. Tavenner from the Doctors Caucus. Members of the Doctors Caucus put it together; I would like to submit it for the record. Mr. Pitts. Without objection, so ordered. [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, sir, and I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes the gentlelady from Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen, 5 minutes for questions. Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Stein, we have heard a lot today about Medicare Advantage plan choices and how seniors need to have a lot of choices of different plans, but like you, I believe that the most important choice that a senior can have is a choice of a doctor, the ability to access your physician or even a hospital where you are familiar with the services and you know you will get good care. You spoke about Connecticut where you are headquartered and where there was a serious problem when Medicare Advantage plans abruptly dropped providers from the network leaving beneficiaries, who had selected a plan based on being able to continue to see their doctors, in the lurch. To me, this highlights a very serious problem with Medicare Advantage. Plans make these choices to contract with a provider and that is a result of really business decisions. This is part of the downside of having private insurance companies whose main goal it is to make a profit serving vulnerable seniors. What recommendations might you have for how Congress and CMS could better protect seniors that Medicare Advantage plans from such disruption? Ms. Stein. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity. I think that the choice that people want of whatever age is the choice of who is going to take care of them and where they are going to be taken care of. And traditional Medicare is pretty much an open network. You can go around the country. So, for example, my mother has just come from western Connecticut to eastern Connecticut to be in a nursing home near me. If she was in a Medicare Advantage plan in our State, that wouldn't be possible. So you can go near family, you can choose pretty much all the doctors that are providing care, not all but most, and also, as I said, Yale New Haven Hospital is no longer in the largest Medicare Advantage plan in our State and that is certainly not because of quality of care and that is because before these further level playing field of Medicare Advantage to the costs of traditional Medicare. One of the things I think is that we should relook at the definition of an adequate network in Medicare Advantage plans and make sure that the definition is truly going to meet the needs of the people who enroll. We should look to providing enrollees whose plans terminate contracts with their doctors, that they must be given notice regardless of what the plan thinks of the adequacy of the network after that doctor and their hospital is terminated. If the physician or local hospitals that this person is known to use have been terminated from that plan, they should be given notice of that before it is effective. We should ensure clear, meaningful differences between the different Medicare Advantage plans that a given sponsor is offering because it is very hard for people to know what they are choosing very often. We should standardize benefits within plans, as Congress intelligently did with Medicare supplement, Medigap, plans many years ago. You can really tell apples to apples and know what you are getting. I would say finally, perhaps most importantly, we should make sure that there is a true even, level playing field in benefits and payments to traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. If we want people to truly have choice, besides of their doctors, between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare, we should make sure that the benefits are available in both. Now, because of the Affordable Care Act, we have mostly zero cost preventive services in traditional Medicare. We should have the same reimbursement structure for those who provide care in traditional Medicare as in Medicare Advantage. We should offer prescription drug coverage in traditional Medicare because people often go to Medicare Advantage now because it is the only one-stop shopping. It is the place where it is simpler. You go there, you get your prescriptions usually and your other services. So they feel they don't have that choice. Also, it is called Medicare Advantage. People think they have some advantage. They think they are getting something on top of Medicare. There should be a level playing field between the two operating choices, the two models. Mrs. Christensen. Well, thank you. And I think some of those, especially the adequate network, could be applicable. There is a very troubling situation happening in Tennessee, Florida, and Texas in dental Medicaid managed care where providers are being dropped, and I hope that maybe at some point we can have a hearing on Medicaid managed care as well. Thank you for your time. Ms. Stein. It has been a huge issue in our State and we lost almost all our Medicare Plus Choice plans. And now, before these reductions and overpayments are in effect, United Healthcare dropped 2,250 physicians and hospitals and other care providers in Connecticut. That was a provider for 1 for every 200 Medicare beneficiaries in our State. It has been stunning. And I fear this is going to be used as an argument for even higher payments to Medicare Advantage when, if we could put that money into traditional Medicare, all 50 million Medicare beneficiaries would benefit and taxpayers would pay less. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentlelady, recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance, 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I recently had a constituent contact me to inform me that her Medicare Advantage plan had been canceled and her new plan requires her to pay $600 per month, which is $50 more than her previous plan, with no indication that she will maintain her current plan benefits or the doctor she likes. It is my experience that this woman, my constituent, is not alone. According to Oliver Wyman actuaries, New Jersey, the State I represent, will be one of the States hardest hit by these proposed cuts. Approximately 217,000 New Jerseyans are enrolled in Medicare Advantage and they may see a reduction in benefits. And, Mr. Little, thank you for being here with us today, and I am hoping you can tell us a little more about your experience with Medicare Advantage and I imagine it is similar to the experience of those in the district I serve who have reached out to me. Would you please explain, sir, to the committee why you chose a Medicare Advantage plan over traditional Medicare? Mr. Little. Well, I go to the gym. Mr. Lance. Yes. My wife tells me I should go more often. Mr. Little. Well, you will find it is really a convention of old people talking. We shoot the bull more than we exercise to be exact. But when I first became of age, 65---- Mr. Lance. Yes, sir. Mr. Little [continuing]. All the men that were in the gym and stuff say, well, make sure you look at the advantage plan; that is what you want to go with. Mr. Lance. Yes, sir. Mr. Little. And so I Googled it and, of course, came up with four plans that were available. All of them were great. I took Blue Cross Blue Shield because I had been with them all my life when I was in business in a regular plan. Of course, they dropped it the following year due to financial things. Then, I shifted to Optima and then they dropped it the following year. So then I only had Humana left. That is the only one left in my place. And they had been great. Whatever my GP says, when he found the mitral valve going bad in my heart, he immediately sent me next door to the cardiologist, and at 6:00 a.m. the next morning they had my heart laying on the table fixing it. And of course Norfolk Heart is one of the top 10 in the Nation. There is never, ever in the last 5 years, between my pulmonary and my other physicians, anything about not being able to have the best service there is and the one of my choice. And of course for the last 12 years since I retired I have kept my same doctor. Mr. Lance. When you had your open-heart surgery, your primary care doctor worked with your specialist to ensure that you received the care you needed. Is that your testimony? Mr. Little. Yes, sir. He called right then. He said you need to go right now because he heard something. And I went to the cardiologist, which happened to have his office next door, and he picked up the phone and he said be at Sentara Heart tomorrow morning at 6:00 a.m. So it was fairly quick. Mr. Lance. Thank you. Under traditional Medicare without a supplemental policy I think that some senior citizens could face financial difficulty and perhaps even worse than financial difficulty due to the unpredictable cost-sharing from unexpected illnesses or hospitalization, and that is certainly one of my concerns. Dr. Lew, in your testimony you described how Medicare Advantage incentivizes value and coordinating care whereas that is not always the case with the fee-for-service Medicare program. Would you please elaborate on the importance of coordinated care and what this means for our Nation's senior citizens? Dr. Lew. Right. Coordinated care, essentially, is it is a team---- Mr. Lance. Yes. Dr. Lew [continuing]. Not just physicians, the whole, you know, team of pharmacists and social workers and case managers working along a continuum of care. So it is not just when a patient comes into a hospital. It is home, hospital, office. It is throughout no matter what type of problem that they have. You know, and the other thing I wanted to note is we are not a health plan. We are a physician group. Mr. Lance. Yes, sir. Dr. Lew. And so we get 85 cents on the dollar that is passed to us. So what might look like a level playing field is not when it gets down to the physician level, and that is what we are dealing with when we are trying to deliver these extra services and provide the great care to the seniors. Mr. Lance. Thank you. I think the testimony has been compelling and certainly I hope that Medicare Advantage can continue. That is a certainly my perspective based on my representation of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman. OK. I guess Mr. Guthrie is here. The chair recognizes Mr. Guthrie 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me move over to the microphone so it will be picked up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Dr. Lew. Some people have suggested that insurance companies are being overpaid for Medicare Advantage and rates should be cut to fee-for-service levels for equity. What do you think the impact would be for patients if it was cut to fee-for-service levels? Dr. Lew. Well, I think that the investment that was made has been made over the years to build this model, which I think now we are seeing the results of and the seniors like it and that is why they are migrating over. I think that was a smart investment. Now that we are facing cuts, which are really starting to roll in right now--just January of this year I see it happening with our company--you know, it is going to impact physician payments. It will impact programs and services that we are able to provide to seniors. And as these cuts continue throughout '14 and '15, I think that is just going to get worse. Mr. Guthrie. And how long have you cared for seniors with Medicare Advantage plans and what do you think they like the most about being in Medicare---- Dr. Lew. I am sorry. I didn't hear that first question. Mr. Guthrie. How long have you cared for seniors in Medicare Advantage plans and what do you think they like the most about being in Medicare Advantage? Dr. Lew. Our company has been taken care of Medicare Advantage patients for 20 years and, you know, what I think the seniors like is, again, the coordinating care that it is not just the primary care and the specialist and the case manager or the touches with member services. They like that comprehensive treatment. And obviously we had given more benefits, too. I mean we provide transportation and a lot of other extra services. Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thanks. Mr. Giese, can you explain what types of choices plans face with the projected cuts under the ACA, what kind of choices will the plans have under these projected cuts? Mr. Giese. Plans have a bunch of levers that they have at their disposal to try to ward off these cuts. Those changes or these adjustments include increases in benefits, increases in premiums but of course CMS limits the amount of premiums and benefits they can change in a given year. They also can try to incorporate more care management programs, but that sometimes is a leap of faith because in their pricing, if they assume a certain level of care management and don't achieve it, it could lead to not successful results. Plans could exit, they could change their service area, they could limit their network, making it a stronger network with better physicians, more quality care that would help lower their costs as well. Mr. Guthrie. But less choice for the patient? Mr. Giese. But less choice for their patients. Mr. Guthrie. So if you like your doctor, you might not be able to keep that? Mr. Giese. Correct. Mr. Guthrie. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate your attendance. It is a great debate. I know there is some diversity of views. [Slide] Mr. Shimkus. When we talk about budgeting, that is the 2012 fiscal budget. The red is mandatory spending. You will see Medicare is in there. The blue is discretionary budget, which is what we fight and shut down government about. Mandatory spending is spending that we can't control. Medicare is part of that, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest payments on the debt. I do this all the time because if you have a national debt, it is based upon mandatory spending and Medicare is part of that actuary problem that we have for future generations. Do you know why we are having this debate on Medicare Advantage? The President, through ObamaCare, cut $716 billion from Medicare. And that is not disputed. Secretary Sibelius was right there. She admitted in testimony to me in front of this committee that she double counted Medicare cuts. So now we have got to find the money. Now we are going after seniors and programs that--we should have both. We should have traditional fee-for-service for those who want it and we should have the Medicare Advantage plans that we promised them. This is the same debate we had last week on Medicare D. We were able to stop the Administration from hurting seniors and cutting Medicare D program. And so that is why these hearings are very, very important. And I know it is tough but, you know, facts and numbers are hard to dispute. That is why we are here, because of the attack on seniors from ObamaCare and the cutting of $716 billion. Dr. Lew, only 20% of this cut has been actualized right now. My guess is there is still 300 billion more projected to go in the future. What do you think for this big portion of seniors, if that is the true number, what is the future of Medicare Advantage and Mr. Little and the plan and healthcare that he enjoys writing out? Dr. Lew. Thank you for the question. As I said, we just are starting to feel the pain of the cuts, 20% or less, and as these cuts roll out, it is going to be very difficult and very unlikely that we can continue at the same level of programs and payments to physicians. Mr. Shimkus. So you are saying 300 billion more in cuts, Medicare Advantage might not even be---- Dr. Lew. We are looking at double digit cuts---- Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Available as a program---- Dr. Lew [continuing]. In 2014 plus 2015. I don't see how what we can do can be sustainable. Mr. Shimkus. All right. Let me go quickly because time runs fast. And talk to me about the better healthcare aspects of Medicare Advantage and the diversity of population that you see in Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Lew. Better healthcare, you know, we can reduce hospitalizations, readmissions, we get better outcomes, shorter lengths of stay. Mr. Shimkus. Saving dollars? Dr. Lew. Absolutely saving. I mean investment with a great return. In terms of diversity in the markets that we are in, it is all demographics. Mr. Shimkus. Explain that. I mean it is a senior population so you are---- Dr. Lew. Ethnicities, socioeconomic levels. Mr. Shimkus. Rich, poor, different ethnic backgrounds. Dr. Lew. Different ethnic backgrounds. Mr. Shimkus. Doesn't discriminate? Dr. Lew. No. No. It is all comers and it is not one particular demographic. Mr. Shimkus. All right. Let me ask you one more question and no one has raised this, but because of the funding problem, waste, fraud, and abuse is a big aspect on Medicare spending, right? And I have always argued because of fee-for-service, what do we do? We chase costs. We don't manage the illicit theft of the Medicare fund at the point of entry. We have to wait until there is 5, 10 years of data before we go after the provider. You may not know this but I would like for all of the panel to look at what is a better plan to address the waste, fraud, and abuse that we currently know in Medicare today, especially fee-for-service, and does Medicare Advantage provide a more timely response to fraud? And I think, Mr. Little, you kind of mentioned that, did you not? Mr. Little. Yes, sir. I get a monthly statement from Humana showing everything I spent and they caution you on the bottom if you have anything that you didn't have done, please call us immediately. Mr. Shimkus. Dr. Lew, do you want to jump in? Dr. Lew. Yes. I think that is the value of a population- based payment. It is a fixed payment that forces us to manage the care quality, and so we contract with good providers that won't commit fraud, whereas you have got a fragmented fee-for- service that incentivizes volume, a lot of potential for fraud. Mr. Shimkus. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like Medicare Advantage because I think it aligns incentives. Ms. Stein, I am sure we can find horror stories with fee-for-service Medicare. I am a practicing doctor so I know some of those horror stories. But the nice thing I like is effectively it is a capitated payment which physicians are at risk. If they do what I think Dr. Lew's organizations do, they go two-sided risk with someone like Humana. So you align incentives and frankly you make money by keeping people out of the hospital and improving outcomes. If you don't, you lose them. Now, I am struck, Dr. Lew. I am so frustrated I can't open up my email account, but a physician practicing from southern California sent me a document about the dual-eligible project that is happening in southern California. And in this dual- eligible project, so far, there is not a company which is certified. They all have the poor rating for quality and outcomes than the better rating. Now, that is not your organizations. This is something specifically set up for the dual-eligibles. And speaking to some folks like WellMed out of Austin, Texas, I gather that they selectively go after the dual- eligibles, that they improve outcomes, that they are focusing resources knowing that if not, it breaks the bank. They are a two-sided risk and so with prospective assignment of patients and so that is where they earn the money, keeping that patient out of the hospital and in better health. Would you like to comment on that, please? Dr. Lew. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy. That is absolutely correct. In our model we don't make money unless we keep the population healthy. It is very simple. Mr. Cassidy. And the patient can change at the end of the year and you have quality indicators, so it is not like if you stiff them, you lose them, and if you stiff them, you get dinged. Dr. Lew. Right. There is transparency in quality metrics and so members can choose to opt out or switch to another plan. Mr. Cassidy. So what percent can you give me of a typical plan that you might represent would be dual-eligibles? Dr. Lew. Health Net. Is that what you mean? An actual plan? Mr. Cassidy. Medicare/Medicaid. Pick a typical plan that if dual-eligibles, would they be 10% of an enrollee group or 15%? Dr. Lew. OK. I would say out of the senior population it is probably 20%. Mr. Cassidy. OK. Now, a lot of these would be in the special needs plans as well? Dr. Lew. Special needs plan. Mr. Cassidy. Now, there has been specific cuts targeted to the special needs plans. I assume that that could in particular negatively impact folks who are most vulnerable. Is that a correct intuition? Dr. Lew. Definitely. I mean these patients, you know, by definition have more medical problems, chronic illness, chronic disease, and require a lot more intensive management. And so without an infrastructure to take care of them, those are the ones that are really going to be hurt. Mr. Cassidy. Well, and my concerns I think in some of the cuts they kind of make the home visit a second-class visit. Again, I treat lot of cirrhotics, and cirrhotics would typically be in a special needs plan. You want to go home and you want to look at their diet and you want to look at their cabinet. You want to see where their salt is coming from. Cirrhotics are very sensitive to salt overload. I kind of like that special needs visit, that home visit which looks at that. Again, any comments on the impact of decreasing the emphasis upon that? Dr. Lew. Yes. Well, that is again at a point--home visits for the special needs patient that are bed-bound or home-bound don't have transportation. It is essential that we get to the home and take care of them to look at, you know, cirrhotics that may have fluid overload and you have got to see what they are eating and what their diet is. It is important. You can assess a lot more from a patient in the house than you ever can in the clinic. Mr. Cassidy. I once visited a patient of mine and I saw he had a jar of salsa by his bed. I pointed out that salsa has a lot of salt and so, oh, really? Dr. Lew. Yes. Mr. Cassidy. I figure most men are pretty ignorant when it comes to their food and he was a man. OK. Now, Ms. Stein, you probably disagree with what I have been saying. What are your thoughts? Ms. Stein. My experience tells me, as does the research in report by CMS, that people with high medical needs and low income are disproportionately disenrolling from Medicare Advantage plans. And I don't think I am here to talk about horror stories. As I said earlier, I have no skin in this game. My job is solely to represent low-income---- Mr. Cassidy. But in fairness, you are mentioning the person who went to Florida and his brain tumor wasn't covered. Ms. Stein. One of your colleagues referred to my office and, yes, there are problems in both models. But the point is that we are paying as taxpayers and your colleague earlier put up the pie chart which showed all the cost to Medicare. And the CBO says that we are spending as taxpayers $150 billion more than we would if these individuals were paid for in traditional Medicare. Mr. Cassidy. We can argue about that. I will point out--and I will finish with this, Mr. Chairman--that when Medicaid and Medicare pay differently, it disaggregates payment. When you disaggregate payment, you disaggregate care. So the dual- eligibles are a particular interest of mine. That is why I have been looking at the demonstration projects in southern California. I am very disappointed that the companies that are running this are being rated so poorly, and I do contrast that with some of the folks who are doing kind of subcontracting for Humana and others and just seeing that they are getting superior outcomes. I think that kind of shows you the benefit of the special needs plans in Medicare Advantage. Ms. Stein. Actually, I suspect that my organization represents more dually eligible home health and nursing home organizations that anyone in the country. We have about 11,000 open cases right now. I just completed a training seminar with all the home health agencies in Connecticut and one of the questions was do the rules with regard to coverage for home health--these are home health agencies--for people in traditional Medicare also apply for people in Medicare Advantage plans? And I said of course, yes. And there was general agreement in the group of home health agency providers that they have a much greater difficulty getting access to coverage admission, particularly from the community for people in Medicare Advantage plans---- Mr. Cassidy. We are out of time---- Ms. Stein [continuing]. And earlier---- Mr. Cassidy [continuing]. But let me just say the nice thing about it is that if the beneficiary doesn't like the MA plan, they can change the next year. And that is the wonderful thing about markets. We have to yield back. I am sorry. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman. Ms. Stein. That is only helpful if the person can survive the year and that often doesn't happen. Mr. Pitts. The gentleman's time is expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Pallone. Thank you for holding today's hearing. Let me try to put some things in perspective here. In 2009, prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the rates paid to Medicare Advantage plans exceeded that of traditional Medicare by approximately 18%. The Affordable Care Act required changes to Medicare Advantage payment rates to better align them with the costs associated with traditional Medicare. These changes were estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to save over $135 billion over 10 years, something that I think my Republican friends would love. The ACA did not make any cuts to the benefits guaranteed to all Americans over the age of 65, whether or not they are in traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage. So I think it is worth noting that while Republicans are aghast at this Administration that is moving forward and implementing the provider payment cuts included in the Affordable Care Act, my Republican friends included and voted in support of these very same provider payment cuts and their budget proposals for the last several years. So to act horrified about the changes that are being made to Medicare Advantage now after voting to support them for years strikes me as being disingenuous. I know in the past there have been concerns about Medicare Advantage plans cherry picking and sticking to enroll the healthiest of seniors leaving sicker beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare. Ms. Stein, in your written testimony you mentioned a 2012 report from CMS that found disenrollment by individuals from Medicare Advantage plans back to traditional Medicare--and I am going to quote what you wrote--``continues to occur disproportionately among high-cost beneficiaries, raising concerns about care experiences among sicker enrollees and increased costs to Medicare.'' So let me ask you, given your organization often assists patients when they have issues with the Medicare program, can you elaborate on some of the challenges sicker beneficiaries sometimes have with their Medicare Advantage plans? Ms. Stein. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. As Dr. Van de Water said a little earlier, there isn't a lot of data about actual healthcare outcomes, but we do know about disenrollment patterns, and you just expressed one of them, which is that people at risk, low-income and people who are ill, tend to disenroll from Medicare Advantage plans. And that is because they have much more difficulty in accessing a variety of specialists, different hospitals where they might get the treatment they want, being able to move around the country to be near their families because there are network limitations, and a variety of other problems. And we very, very often get calls from people who think that because the program itself is called Medicare Advantage, that they have got something on top of their Medicare. And when they find that they are ill and they need to go see a specialist and the doctor isn't in their network, they are terribly confused and didn't understand that when they enrolled initially. And while I don't think that Medicare Advantage plans are purposely closing their doors to people with particular conditions, we do know that of the 2,250 doctors and hospitals that were terminated in Connecticut alone, a very small State, this year by an MA plan, a lot of specialists who provide care for long-term illnesses, for instance, nephrologists were on the termination list and particularly in areas of low-income in Bridgeport and other areas in our State leading to significant problems for people who are ill with chronic conditions in MA plans. Mr. Engel. Well, thank you. My home State of New York, which is of course right next to Connecticut, we have countless doctors, hospitals, and health insurance plans that have always made it their mission to provide quality care to all New Yorkers regardless of whether or not their patients have private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, or pay for their healthcare costs out of their own pockets. And we also have several Medicare Advantage plans which focus on providing Medicare coverage for the dual-eligible and low-income population in particular, often with more than half of their plan participants eligible for Medicare and Medicaid or receiving a low-income subsidy. Yet an overwhelming number of these plans have found it challenging to achieve the four stars needed to earn a bonus in 2015 despite having scored high on improvement measures. The let me again ask you, Ms. Stein or Mr. Van de Water, how can we better incentivize Medicare Advantage plans to take on more challenging beneficiaries so that these patients enjoy the same access to high-quality plans and choices available to healthier, more well-off beneficiaries? Mr. Van de Water. Well, I think the improved risk adjustment, which we have talked about this morning, is actually one of those ways. What we want to do is make sure that health plans are encouraged to attract customers through providing better quality service and not to make money through attracting healthier beneficiaries. So while this has been, you know, criticized on the one hand, actually I think it is a very positive step. Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Stein. I also suggest that---- Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman. Ms. Stein [continuing]. I think it was a MedPAC study in March of 2013 that showed that about 20% of dual-eligible special MA plans did score well on the star model rating, and I think that we should look at what they are doing and encourage the other plans to do that because apparently it is possible to score well on that rating. Mr. Pitts. The gentleman's time is expired. Mr. Engel. Thank you. Mr. Pitts. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would say to you all, and appreciate you all being here. I would say that my 83- year-old mother likes her Medicare Advantage plan. She has had to pay a little bit more for it than she had in some of the previous years. And even though we had Secretary Sebelius here April of last year saying that the plans were costing less nationwide, that hasn't been my mother's experience. I surveyed, and it was a very small group of constituents in my district that responded, but they responded that theirs were either staying the same or going up. So it does appear that there are some increases. Has that been your experience as well, Mr. Little? Mr. Little. They didn't increase the base but I have noticed this year that I am a paying 25% more for my prescriptions. Mr. Griffith. OK. I understand that. Mr. Giese, you have been kind enough. I am just wondering if there is something we haven't touched on? I have got some questions for Dr. Lew; I don't have any questions for you, but I thought maybe there was something that you have been sitting here that you wanted to say that you haven't had an opportunity to get out and I am going to give you that opportunity. Mr. Giese. No, not really. Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate that. You know, we sometimes have folks here and you have a lot of very good witnesses and then somebody, because of the way the flow of the discussion is going, they get left out and I always hate to see that because I know that your time is just as valuable as everybody else's. So I do appreciate that. Mr. Giese. A lot of people have read the report, I can tell, and have quoted it and so---- Mr. Griffith. Very good. Dr. Lew, according to the CBO, the ACA cut more than $300 billion from Medicare Advantage programs to spend on new government programs that weren't necessarily for seniors. What types of important health benefits do you think that the MA plans help provide the seniors that would have to be cut if the proposed cuts occur? Dr. Lew. Well, we have to look at what the investment from prior years did into building up the model---- Mr. Griffith. Yes. Dr. Lew [continuing]. The coordinator care model and all the additional benefits that the seniors get. And we would have to look at how can we even sustain that with the 10% cuts over the next 2 years? So you are looking at jeopardizing programs, reduced payments to our physicians, and subsequently, it could impact care to the seniors. Mr. Griffith. Now, I don't know anything about the Connecticut situation, but with those 2,200 some healthcare providers that were eliminated from an MA plan there, is it at least reasonable to assume that maybe they couldn't afford to pay those doctors the rates that they previously were paying and that maybe one of the reasons--I know it has got to be more complicated than that--but could that be one of the reasons why? Dr. Lew. That is likely one of the reasons, sure. Mr. Griffith. Yes. In a recent letter, more than 140 physician groups called on Medicare officials to hold MA rates flat. In the letter they said, ``cutting Medicare Advantage year after year will result in deterioration of the care coordination infrastructure and seniors will see a deterioration of benefits, and we are worried we will ultimately move back into fragmented fee-for-service care delivery models. This would be a bad outcome for seniors and a step backward on the healthcare delivery system.'' You have been saying the same thing---- Dr. Lew. Saying exactly that same thing, yes. Mr. Griffith. And can you elaborate on that some? Dr. Lew. Yes. Well, I think that rather than going backwards is we need to use the platform that we have built to build more, to build more coordinated care. And even some of the newer models within fee-for-service such as ACOs, medical homes, you know, how can we take all that we have learned from the Medicare Advantage coordinated care model, how can we use that to build the newer models that we are trying to do in fee- for-service? But this impacts all of the healthcare delivery system. It is not just Medicare Advantage. It is care for everybody in the country. And so, you know, if we want to really transform the delivery system, we don't want to touch Medicare Advantage and all that we have built. Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate that very much. Thank you all again, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out that there are a lot of things going on at the same time, additional subcommittee and another committee that I am involved with, so I haven't been here the full time. But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert my opening statement in the record. Mr. Pitts. Without objection, so ordered. [The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:] Prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman The topic of today's hearing started out as a look at Medicare Advantage. But now we are also considering a hodge podge of GOP bills that do not improve the Medicare Advantage program. I will return to those bills, but first I want to focus on the state of the Medicare Advantage program itself. In the five years since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama Administration has accomplished what the Republicans couldn't accomplish in the 12 preceding years--even with tens of billions of overpayments that drained the Medicare Trust Fund. As a result of the ACA, the Medicare Advantage program is stronger than ever. Enrollment is at an all-time high and growing, premiums have declined, and benefits have improved along with the health of the Medicare Trust fund--while we have reduced overpayments and improved efficiency. Chicken Little, the sky is NOT falling. Mr. Chairman, I want to put a Democratic Staff memo into the record that details this history of exaggerated claims by some in the industry and critics of the ACA. Since the ACA was enacted, premiums are down by 10% and enrollment is up by 30%. Since CMS released its 2015 payment notice, independent analysts and the financial markets have expressed an optimistic view of Medicare Advantage plans. Insurance company stocks have risen rapidly and Medicare Advantage is poised for growth, even as we gradually reduce the overpayments they have received for years. Why did the ACA address Medicare Advantage over-payments? At the time, Medicare was paying on average $800 more per year for beneficiaries enrolled in private plans. Those excess payments drained the Trust Fund and drove up costs for all of Medicare. Even today, the overpayments are not yet completely phased out, and this year alone Medicare is paying on average 106% more than for care in Medicare Advantage. And as a result, ALL beneficiaries pay higher Part B premium costs. Seniors also didn't have a lot of confidence in the Medicare Advantage program before the ACA. Too many plan choices made picking one confusing. Differences among plans--on quality or value--were too difficult to discern. Consumer confidence was not strong as patients had no guarantee plans were even spending a minimum amount of their premiums on medical care. The ACA and the Obama Administration addressed that situation too. We need Medicare to be solvent for beneficiaries today and in the future. That's what the ACA did, and the Administration should be staying the course to improve quality and value. Some of the bills considered today turn back the clock on Medicare Advantage. The two tax bills would encourage healthier and wealthier people to switch to high-deductible health plans for tax sheltering purposes. Another bill would bar CMS from disapproving private insurance company marketing material--no matter how misleading, incomplete, or biased. A fourth bill would reinstate the second open enrollment period for Medicare Advantage--which was eliminated because it caused confusion for beneficiaries. And finally one of the bills eliminates the ACA's cost sharing reductions, which provide critical protections for lower income Americans, with the vague goal of giving those funds to Medicare Advantage plans. All of these bills have significant problems and I cannot support them as drafted. I hope today's hearing takes an honest look at the healthy state of the Medicare Advantage program. Demonizing the Affordable Care Act and falsely claiming that the sky is falling is not a productive use of our time. Mr. Waxman. And there is an awful lot of fear-mongering going on about Medicare Advantage program and it is not based on the facts. The Democratic staff released a memo this morning. The first one is that independent analysts and the financial markets do not agree with the industry's dire claims about the future of Medicare Advantage. And then the second point is that this scare campaign is not the first time the industry has cried wolf about commonsense reforms being flat wrong. The memo looks at the facts, not anecdotes or claims by industry-backed groups. And here are the facts we point out: Since the ACA was enacted, Medicare Advantage premiums are down almost 10% and enrollment is up 30%. After CMS released its payment notice and the industry claimed the sky was falling, independent experts examine the issue and found that the industry was wrong. They predict the future is bright for Medicare Advantage, and as a result, insurer stock rises have risen, not fallen, since the CMS announcement. And this is not the first time the industry has cried wolf on Medicare Advantage or other commonsense reforms. They said that the ACA would destroy Medicare Advantage but it is stronger than ever. They said the requirement that they pay back rebates if they spend more than 20% of premiums on profits and overhead would put patients at risk and it did not. Instead, it has resulted in more than $1.5 billion in rebates and $5 billion in lower premiums. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert the memo I referred to in the record. Mr. Pitts. Without objection, so ordered. [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Waxman. And the next thing I want to ask in the time I have is, Mr. Van de Water, we have heard a lot today about the Medicare Advantage changes in the Affordable Care Act. These changes strengthen the program in my view and help to improve the solvency of the Medicare trust fund as well preserving Medicare's health for a number of years. If you listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you would think these cuts were killing the program, but in fact, this has not been the case. Could you comment on what has happened in Medicare Advantage enrollment and premiums since the Affordable Care Act was enacted? Mr. Van de Water. Yes, Mr. Waxman, I would be happy to. In fact, in my prepared statement I cite some of the same figures that you have just reiterated about how enrollment has indeed grown over the past several years and how premiums have actually gone down. And you are absolutely right that the efficiencies in Medicare payments that were enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act had indeed made an important contribution to strengthening Medicare's Hospital Insurance trust fund. My recollection is that the CBO estimate is that the Affordable Care Act extended the life of the Hospital Insurance trust fund by roughly 8 years. Mr. Waxman. Well, if the health insurance companies like getting more money and the 30% of beneficiaries who are in these plans are generally happy, why not keep overpaying them? Mr. Van de Water. Well, one of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle showed a chart a few minutes ago showing that, you know, Medicare, as we all know, is a substantial part of the federal budget and we are concerned about reducing projected large deficits. So we---- Mr. Waxman. Well, that gives us ideas about how we should make the elderly pay more for their healthcare costs but they don't want to reduce the cuts of overpayments to these Medicare Advantage plans. We have heard a great deal about ObamaCare cuts to Medicare Advantage, but didn't the Republican budget led by Representative Paul Ryan include the very same so-called cuts that were in the Affordable Care Act? Mr. Van de Water. Yes, it did. Mr. Waxman. I have been in Congress for 40 years. That is why I am retiring, among other reasons. And I remember when we first made Medicare managed plans available for Medicare reimbursement if the beneficiary chose to go with such plans. And we had it less than what the fee-for-service would be because they selected out some of the lowest risk people and the fee-for-service were covering the highest risk. We went from a little less than what fee-for-service was to way more than the fee-for-service without doubt in my opinion as I look at this program. Medicare Advantage is important. It serves a very useful purpose to beneficiaries free to choose it and many of them are very happy, but that is just not a reason to overpay them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very much. And I have been going back and forth as well from CMT, but this is a very important hearing. Mr. Giese, 40 to 45% of my seniors in my district--and I have over 100,000 seniors in the Tampa area; I represent an area, the 12th Congressional District of Florida--on Medicare Advantage, 40 to 45%. That is higher than the national average. So, they really love their plans, and they love the fact that they have all these choices. I am concerned with some of the changes that CMS is doing to their risk model. It seems to me that CMS is ignoring or not factoring in certain chronic conditions when determining their risk model. When considering the risk adjustments, CMS seems to ignore or not count patients with certain chronic conditions. What is the impact of the 2014 changes to the risk model on sick and frail Medicare beneficiaries and particularly to those on the Special Needs Plans area? Mr. Giese. Well, changes to the risk model result in reductions in payments to plans, which means the plans have to react by increasing benefits to everyone, but in particular to the poor and actually sicker people who pay the cost-sharing. So these people have to pay more as a result of changes to the risk adjustment model. Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. The next question is for Dr. Lew. In the 2015 Advance Notice, CMS eliminated the home health assistance assessments as part of the risk model. As I understand their change, CMS would only count the diagnosis identified in a home visit if and when it was confirmed in a later in-office doctor's visit. Can you explain the dangers of the payment change related to the home-based health assessments, especially for the elderly? Dr. Lew. Yes, thank you. As I had mentioned, home visits are part of the continuum of care and you take out home care and the benefits, it leaves a gap. If you are only going to count a visit or a diagnosis obtained at a visit if the patient is followed up in the office, a lot of these patients go to the hospital because, you know, that is the value of going to the home, early detection, catching something as opposed to a 911 phone call and something a lot more serious. The patient can be sent to the hospital for care. So, you know, to only count a diagnosis where the patient has a follow-up visit in the doctor's office, that is very narrow in scope and it really discounts the advantage and the benefits of a home visit. Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. Mr. Giese, this question is for you. For all these cuts to Medicare Advantage, these plans are dependent on the Star Ratings to survive. However, it seems to me that Special Needs Plans may be disadvantaged because of their unique population. Can you describe some of the challenges that Special Needs Plans face in the Star Rating program? Mr. Giese. Sure. First of all, a lot of the star ratings are based on survey data and sometimes it is hard to get to these people. Some of them are homeless, some of them, they don't know where they live. So it is hard to find them in these surveys. So special needs plans tend to have lower star ratings because we can't find the people and they don't respond well to the survey as well. Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Now, for Dr. Lew and Mr. Giese again, if the proposed cuts occur, what kind of benefits would no longer be provided to seniors in your opinion, an example of some of the benefits that they might lose if the cuts take place? Dr. Lew. Well, from our delivery side, you know, I think you are going to jeopardize all of the extra home visits perhaps. I mean that would be one example. I mean we have a lot of programs built around, again, the continuum of care, visits from pharmacists and social workers, which have sufficient costs. And, you know, if we are on a budget and our revenue is reduced, that is obviously going to jeopardize a lot of our programs. Mr. Giese. Remember that cuts and benefits are not just additional benefits over Part A and B; they are also changes in cost-sharing. So if the plan has to increase their cost- sharing, that is a reduction in benefits. Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Very good. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman. That concludes the questions from the Members who are present. There are several committee meetings going on so other Members will have questions. We may have follow-up questions. We will submit those to you in writing. We ask that you promptly respond. And I recognize the ranking member for a UC request. Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask unanimous consent to submit for the record some Democratic comments in a letter to CMS. Mr. Pitts. Without objection, so ordered. [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Mr. Pitts. Thank you very much for your testimony. This is a very important issue and we appreciate you coming today. And I remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit questions for the record. Members should submit their questions by the close of business on Thursday, March 27. Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton Today we examine the future of the popular Medicare Advantage program under the president's health care law. Before this law passed, the president repeatedly promised, ``If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period. Nobody is going to take it away from you, no matter what.'' Unfortunately, many seniors who like the Medicare Advantage plan they have, are joining the millions of Americans who have learned the hard way that this is a promise the president cannot keep. The president's health care law raided more than $700 billion from Medicare to spend on new government programs that do not improve health care for seniors. More than $300 billion of this came from the Medicare Advantage program. These cuts threaten the high quality, affordable health coverage that seniors enjoy. As numerous media outlets have already reported, Medicare Advantage plans have been forced to reduce seniors' benefits, increase their premiums, and reduce plan offerings in light of these cuts. Sadly, the situation is only going to get worse as only about 20% of the health law's cuts to Medicare Advantage have already been realized, with significant cuts in the hundreds of millions of dollars still on the horizon. According to Medicare data, in 2014 Medicare Advantage enrollment will total approximately 15 million enrollees-- roughly 29% of seniors in Medicare. The MA program also enjoys high popularity among seniors, evidenced by CMS' figures that MA enrollment as a percentage of total Medicare enrollment has increased by 173% over the past 10 years. Medicare Advantage provides millions of seniors better health care than traditional Medicare. MA plans provide seniors a cap against unlimited cost-sharing in the case of catastrophic medical event or hospitalization. The plans provide seniors coordinated care with medical teams working together, provide disease management programs, hotlines to access medical advice, and tools to help better manage chronic disease. All of these are benefits that traditional Medicare does not offer its patients. As a result, it is no surprise that studies and clinical research shows that seniors with MA plans have lower rates of hospitalization and emergency department utilization. Surveys also confirm that seniors are happy with their high quality, affordable Medicare Advantage options. Seniors who have MA plans they like should be able to keep them--just as the president promised so many times. Today, we will hear from witnesses on this important issue, including several of my colleagues who have brought forth ideas to improve the MA program and keep the promise to seniors. I appreciate their work. I want to thank Rep. Dennis Ross for his bill, H.R. 4180, which would permit rollovers from health savings accounts to Medicare Advantage savings accounts. I want to thank Rep. Erik Paulsen for his bill, H.R. 4177, which would allow Medicare beneficiaries participating in a Medicare Advantage savings account to contribute their own money to such an account. I want to thank Rep. Keith Rothfus for his bill, H.R. 3392, which would restore the Medicare Advantage open enrollment period that existed prior to the health law. This will once again allow seniors to try out their newly selected plan from January to March and make one switch if they discover the selected plan is not meeting their needs. I want to thank committee member Rep. Gus Bilirakis for his bill, H.R. 3392, which would establish a patient-assignment program in MA and Part D drug plans to protect patients who have demonstrated drug-abuse behavior and would help prevent drug diversion. I want to thank Rep. Jackie Walorski for her bill, The Advantage of Medicare Advantage for Minorities and Low-Income Seniors Act, which would require the Government Accountability Office to use data reported to the government to produce a study showing how the Medicare Advantage program is particularly beneficial to participants of lower-income and ethnic or racial minority status. I want to thank Rep. Bill Johnson for his bill, H.R. 4196, which would eliminate Obamacare's cost-sharing subsidies and reinvest the savings from that policy in the Medicare Advantage program. I want to thank Rep. Jeff Denham for his bill, H.R. 4201, which would enable Medicare Advantage plans to inform potential enrollees of how Obamacare's cuts to the program may impact their choices of plans. I commend all of these members for their contributions in the effort to keep the promise to America's seniors. ---------- [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]