Medicare is Changing:What's New for Benificiaries?

[MULTIZ321]

Medicare is Changing: What's New for Benificiaries? - by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar/ Associated Press/ News/ news.yahoo.com.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Whether it's coverage for end-of-life counseling or an experimental payment scheme for common surgeries, Medicare in 2016 is undergoing some of the biggest changes in its 50 years.

Grandma's Medicare usually just paid the bills as they came in. Today, the nation's flagship health-care program is seeking better ways to balance cost, quality and access..."


Richard

 

[simpsontruckdriver]

Which means, increasing Out-Of-Pocket (OOP) costs for Medicare, like increased premiums and increased deductibles. For those with Medicare Supplements, eliminating the wonderful Plan-F, which pays everything (*zero* OOP except premiums).

TS

 

[artringwald]

More Social Security, Not Less?

More Social Security, Not Less? - by Scott Burns, AssetBuilder Inc.

The notion came to me as I read the flood of articles on the changes in Social Security claiming rules in the long awaited budget bill. The bill enables our government to borrow yet more billions. At the same time, it eliminates the ability of some to use the many rules of Social Security to squeeze out a few more bucks in benefits.

Closing those Social Security claiming strategies ends a minor growth industry. Invitations to Social Security advice seminars are on the way out. Many commented, but most missed the real story here. It has two parts.

• First, for the vast majority of Americans, the nuances of Social Security claiming might as well not exist. Most people need their Social Security benefits ASAP. A massive 91 percent of retirees claim their benefits on, or before, full retirement age.
• Second, the only reason Social Security claiming got to be a big deal is that people with savings can’t earn any interest. This is due to the Federal Reserve zero interest rate policy, ZIRP.

I've follow Scott Burns' column for many years. This article has some interesting suggestions.

 

[WinniWoman]

This commenter on the OP's posted article says it all for me. I have been saying this for years- I am also on the tail end of the baby boomers. I actually feel more like I belong in the next generation and don't relate to baby boomers much at all.

Bee 5 days ago
0
32

"I'm at the tail end of the Baby Boomers. This is how it's always been at every stage of my life....just when I am about to reach some stage of life they change the deal. When started working, suddenly job requirements were that you needed a college degree for even entry level mundane jobs. When I was in my 30's, pensions went away and now it was 401(k)'s (what a gyp!). And now, when getting to the age where in a few years my medical insurance and bills should be 80% taken care of, well, sorry pal, the well is dry.

It's like being at the end of a long, long line to the concession stand, and when you near the front, they tell you they are out of popcorn and soda, and they are raising the price of the candy 500%. "

Add the fact that the Social Security file and suspend strategy was just eliminated and it really makes me wonder what the point of planning and saving and sticking with our jobs despite being burnt out is. We keep wrongly thinking if we just hang in there and stick it out, everything will be ok when we get to retirement (Barring no illnesses, etc). But- I am starting to think we should just pack it in because we can't win.

I was just speaking with my newly retired 71 year old single friend and she was telling me how much it costs for Medicare premiums and that she went with a managed care option because everything else was unaffordable for her. If she wasn't in fairly decent health she would have had to go with a much higher premium plan this year.

I was planning to retire at 65 when I could be eligible for Medicare and just delay taking my SS. But I am sure that is a futile strategy now as well. The government's next plan will be to take our Medicare/SS tax money and redirect it for use to gas everyone over age 65.

I am even more concerned for the younger generations like those of my 28 year old son- what the heck will they do?

 

[wilma]

The government's next plan will be to take our Medicare/SS tax money and redirect it for use to gas everyone over age 65.

A bit dramatic...

 

[Laurie]

For those with Medicare Supplements, eliminating the wonderful Plan-F, which pays everything (*zero* OOP except premiums).

TS

Why do you say that? Are you speculating or is there something about that printed somewhere?

 

[simpsontruckdriver]

That is in the "Doc Fix" law that states after 2020, Medicare Supplement insurers will no longer offer Plan-F. The closest thing to it is Plan-G, where the MedSupp user will pay the Medicare deductible before the plan pays 100%.

 

[Tia]

This resonates w/me pretty well actually . On the way to being re

This commenter on the OP's posted article says it all for me. I have been saying this for years- I am also on the tail end of the baby boomers. I actually feel more like I belong in the next generation and don't relate to baby boomers much at all.

Bee 5 days ago
0
32

"I'm at the tail end of the Baby Boomers. This is how it's always been at every stage of my life....just when I am about to reach some stage of life they change the deal. When started working, suddenly job requirements were that you needed a college degree for even entry level mundane jobs. When I was in my 30's, pensions went away and now it was 401(k)'s (what a gyp!). And now, when getting to the age where in a few years my medical insurance and bills should be 80% taken care of, well, sorry pal, the well is dry.

It's like being at the end of a long, long line to the concession stand, and when you near the front, they tell you they are out of popcorn and soda, and they are raising the price of the candy 500%. "

Add the fact that the Social Security file and suspend strategy was just eliminated and it really makes me wonder what the point of planning and saving and sticking with our jobs despite being burnt out is. We keep wrongly thinking if we just hang in there and stick it out, everything will be ok when we get to retirement (Barring no illnesses, etc). But- I am starting to think we should just pack it in because we can't win.

I was just speaking with my newly retired 71 year old single friend and she was telling me how much it costs for Medicare premiums and that she went with a managed care option because everything else was unaffordable for her. If she wasn't in fairly decent health she would have had to go with a much higher premium plan this year.

I was planning to retire at 65 when I could be eligible for Medicare and just delay taking my SS. But I am sure that is a futile strategy now as well. The government's next plan will be to take our Medicare/SS tax money and redirect it for use to gas everyone over age 65.

I am even more concerned for the younger generations like those of my 28 year old son- what the heck will they do?

 

[John Cummings]

We have had a Medicare Advantage plan with Health Net for 10 years and I couldn't be happier. I don't pay any premium for it, zero co-pays, no deductibles, etc. I have had over $200,000 in medical costs, in the past 2 years and It hasn't cost me one cent. I was in the hospital 3 times, several CT Scans, I have been to several different specialists. The care has been fantastic. Prescription drugs are covered and it also includes dental insurance at no premium. Life is good.

So far there has been little change in my plan over the years. I have the option of choosing from over 30 competing Medicare Advantage plans.

 

[Conan]

The oddest thing about Social Security as I see it is the way it punishes the two-earner couple / rewards the single earner couple (two sides of the same coin).

In most two-earner couples, one is the higher-paid spouse and the other works to supplement the family income. The lower earning spouse either works 30+ years in a lower-paying job, or earns at the same rate as the first spouse but works part time or stays home entirely during the child-raising years.

That second spouse pays social security taxes at the same rate as the rest of us, but often gets not a penny more in benefits that the non-working spouse in the single earner couple. So those taxes yielded no benefit at all.

The claiming strategy that's now been outlawed gave a limited supplemental benefit to the lower earning spouse in some two-earner couples. Typically, the lower earning spouse could collect half of the higher-paid spouse's benefit at age 66 (the same benefit that goes to the non-working spouse in the single earner couple). But when the lower earning spouse reached age 70, there was the possibility of switching to their own earned and paid for benefit if by then their own age 70 benefit was greater than half of their higher-paid spouse's age 66 benefit. Not a huge benefit, collecting half of the higher earning spouse's record from age 66 to 70 without forfeiting their own age 70 benefit eligibility, but it did give some extra dollars to some (not all) of the lower earners in two earner couples.

 

[WinniWoman]

The oddest thing about Social Security as I see it is the way it punishes the two-earner couple / rewards the single earner couple (two sides of the same coin).

In most two-earner couples, one is the higher-paid spouse and the other works to supplement the family income. The lower earning spouse either works 30+ years in a lower-paying job, or earns at the same rate as the first spouse but works part time or stays home entirely during the child-raising years.

That second spouse pays social security taxes at the same rate as the rest of us, but often gets not a penny more in benefits that the non-working spouse in the single earner couple. So those taxes yielded no benefit at all.

The claiming strategy that's now been outlawed gave a limited supplemental benefit to the lower earning spouse in some two-earner couples. Typically, the lower earning spouse could collect half of the higher-paid spouse's benefit at age 66 (the same benefit that goes to the non-working spouse in the single earner couple). But when the lower earning spouse reached age 70, there was the possibility of switching to their own earned and paid for benefit if by then their own age 70 benefit was greater than half of their higher-paid spouse's age 66 benefit. Not a huge benefit, collecting half of the higher earning spouse's record from age 66 to 70 without forfeiting their own age 70 benefit eligibility, but it did give some extra dollars to some (not all) of the lower earners in two earner couples.

This irritates me as well. My husband and I have always worked full-time. I used to earn more than him, then we earned the same and now he earns more than me, but our SS checks will not be much different from each other's when we retire.

Now, for example, a woman (just using a "woman" for an example for all those who are politically correct) who- let's say- her husband makes a lot of money that she can stay home. Let's say she never worked or worked very little if at all.

Well- she can collect half of her husband's SS when she reaches the eligible age- a check that - because her husband was a very high earner- will be equal to my full check! And then, of course, her husband gets his well-deserved max SS check.

So I busted my butt leaving the house every morning to go to work. This woman stayed home and I am getting the same SS check as she is!

This makes me nuts! Certainly, if her husband passes, she should be entitled to his SS check. But- how is she eligible for a SS check while her husband is alive and collecting his own if she never worked?

 

[WinniWoman]

We have had a Medicare Advantage plan with Health Net for 10 years and I couldn't be happier. I don't pay any premium for it, zero co-pays, no deductibles, etc. I have had over $200,000 in medical costs, in the past 2 years and It hasn't cost me one cent. I was in the hospital 3 times, several CT Scans, I have been to several different specialists. The care has been fantastic. Prescription drugs are covered and it also includes dental insurance at no premium. Life is good.

So far there has been little change in my plan over the years. I have the option of choosing from over 30 competing Medicare Advantage plans.

John- this sounds great. But why doesn't everyone have this plan, then? Is it only sold in certain states? You would think everyone would be on it. It's free- I can't imagine that no one knows about it?

 

[Sugarcubesea]

I feel the same as you do. When I started at my first company they were just doing away with pensions and they had not started 401K's, so they gave you a larger bonus.

My next company gave a pension but did away with it year 3 of my employment with them and then they went bankrupt and there went my small pension. They also had us take 5 pay cuts even after they came out of bankruptcy.

Our financial planner has told me and the hubby that we will both need to work to age 66 to recoup the losses from the Great (Depression in our state) Recession. Hubby was out of work for 5 years and just last year got a direct hire job making 22K less then he was making prior to the 2009 crash.

I can so relate to what you are staying.

This commenter on the OP's posted article says it all for me. I have been saying this for years- I am also on the tail end of the baby boomers. I actually feel more like I belong in the next generation and don't relate to baby boomers much at all.

Bee 5 days ago
0
32

"I'm at the tail end of the Baby Boomers. This is how it's always been at every stage of my life....just when I am about to reach some stage of life they change the deal. When started working, suddenly job requirements were that you needed a college degree for even entry level mundane jobs. When I was in my 30's, pensions went away and now it was 401(k)'s (what a gyp!). And now, when getting to the age where in a few years my medical insurance and bills should be 80% taken care of, well, sorry pal, the well is dry.

It's like being at the end of a long, long line to the concession stand, and when you near the front, they tell you they are out of popcorn and soda, and they are raising the price of the candy 500%. "

Add the fact that the Social Security file and suspend strategy was just eliminated and it really makes me wonder what the point of planning and saving and sticking with our jobs despite being burnt out is. We keep wrongly thinking if we just hang in there and stick it out, everything will be ok when we get to retirement (Barring no illnesses, etc). But- I am starting to think we should just pack it in because we can't win.

I was just speaking with my newly retired 71 year old single friend and she was telling me how much it costs for Medicare premiums and that she went with a managed care option because everything else was unaffordable for her. If she wasn't in fairly decent health she would have had to go with a much higher premium plan this year.

I was planning to retire at 65 when I could be eligible for Medicare and just delay taking my SS. But I am sure that is a futile strategy now as well. The government's next plan will be to take our Medicare/SS tax money and redirect it for use to gas everyone over age 65.

I am even more concerned for the younger generations like those of my 28 year old son- what the heck will they do?

 

[bogey21]

I feel the same as you do. When I started at my first company they were just doing away with pensions and they had not started 401K's, so they gave you a larger bonus.

Back in the late 80s, early 90s when it became apparent to me that the move from Defined Benefit Pension Plans to 401k Plans was inevitable I sat down with my 12 key long term employees and my successor to be and cut a deal. We all agreed we would retire in the year 2000. We also agreed to zero to 1% pay raises every year until then. In exchange we were able to extend (and even improve) our Defined Benefit Plan until we retired. About 3 months after we left it was discontinued.

George

 

[bogey21]

We have had a Medicare Advantage plan with Health Net for 10 years and I couldn't be happier. I don't pay any premium for it, zero co-pays, no deductibles, etc. I have had over $200,000 in medical costs, in the past 2 years and It hasn't cost me one cent. I was in the hospital 3 times, several CT Scans, I have been to several different specialists. The care has been fantastic. Prescription drugs are covered and it also includes dental insurance at no premium. Life is good.

It all comes down to the Doctors and Hospitals in the Advantage Plan Networks. It sounds like John's was decent. Because the Advantage Plan I was in (AARP United Healthcare Texas) has a very limited Network of Doctors and Hospitals I chose to switch back to Traditional Medicare adding Plan D and Medigap Policies. Yes, it costs me more but I can now use any Doctor or Hospital who accepts Medicare anywhere in the US.

George

 

[vacationhopeful]

Back in the late 80s, early 90s when it became apparent to me that the move from Defined Benefit Pension Plans .....

George

George ---

I learned THAT about defined (private, NON government) pension plans in late Nov 1982 .... and I directly BLAME the Federal Government changing the pension vesting term from 10 years down to 5 years (on January 1, 1983 at midnight). With an IRA capped at $2000 yearly contribution, non-government employees were left with wages being deflated and savings for retirement being a LARGELY NEGATIVE rate of return.

Plus, employment became widespread contract workers ... for limited terms and less benefits. Direct employees had benefits of at least 35% of base salary ... with longer employment plus minimum 2 weeks paid vacation plus 1 week added on for each 5 years of service and annual raises ADDING even a collective higher rate.

Now, if I was employed by a GOVERNMENT (municipal, state or federal) ... my retirement would be TOP of the line ... with cost of living, health benefits and a good pension.

Glad you, as the bank president, could protect your employees during your tenure. But that was NOT what happened to the almost all other private (large and small) corporate employees ... the executive staff mostly had tenure in their pension corporate plans AND their executive BONUSES GREW by reducing direct employees' pension funding and other benefits ... via out sourcing (overseas) jobs, temporary (contract) employment, computerizing functions and cutting training to employees.

 

[Tia]

Exactly right!! Someone once told me those with the gold make the rules and seems this is one example of such :annoyed:

This irritates me as well. My husband and I have always worked full-time. I used to earn more than him, then we earned the same and now he earns more than me, but our SS checks will not be much different from each other's when we retire.

Now, for example, a woman (just using a "woman" for an example for all those who are politically correct) who- let's say- her husband makes a lot of money that she can stay home. Let's say she never worked or worked very little if at all.

Well- she can collect half of her husband's SS when she reaches the eligible age- a check that - because her husband was a very high earner- will be equal to my full check! And then, of course, her husband gets his well-deserved max SS check.

So I busted my butt leaving the house every morning to go to work. This woman stayed home and I am getting the same SS check as she is!

This makes me nuts! Certainly, if her husband passes, she should be entitled to his SS check. But- how is she eligible for a SS check while her husband is alive and collecting his own if she never worked?

 

[John Cummings]

John- this sounds great. But why doesn't everyone have this plan, then? Is it only sold in certain states? You would think everyone would be on it. It's free- I can't imagine that no one knows about it?

The MA plans work well when there is a large subscriber base and provider base. My. Provider network is huge plus they will allow out of network providers.

 

[isisdave]

Medigap F G and N

Plan G is exactly the same as F, except that it does not cover the annual part B deductible, now $166. So if F costs more than $14 per month more than G, G is the better deal, assuming you will have to pay the deductible at all.

Plan N is the same as G, with an exception, sort of, and co-pays.

The exception is that it also doesn't cover "Part B excess charges," which you may or may not be subject to, and can avoid by changing doctors if you have some chronic illness.

And there is a copay for doctor visits ($20) and ER visits ($50). But I've never been charged the copay for my routine, in-office visits.​

I'm 66, and my Blue Shield of CA plan N is $110 per month; plan F would be $175. $750 per year would cover a lot of $20 copays. They don't offer Plan G. There may be "deals"; they offer $15 a month off F, but not N, for the first year, for example. There's a tiny discount for putting your spouse on the same plan.

Prices go up with age (and inflation), and vary a lot with location, so you should, every year, price out several plans here. You can compare plans here.

Remember, every insurer's plan x is identical, so you can choose by price and reputation alone. The other thing to remember is that any doctor who takes Medicare will also be paid by any company's Medigap policy, so your favorite doctor doesn't have to be on any particular company's list.

[Medicare Advantage has very different rules, so don't confuse those with Medigap.]

 

[Laurie]

That is in the "Doc Fix" law that states after 2020, Medicare Supplement insurers will no longer offer Plan-F. The closest thing to it is Plan-G, where the MedSupp user will pay the Medicare deductible before the plan pays 100%.

Thank you. So I looked it up and find that the change as I read it applies to those people eligible after 2020, not to those already signed up.

"Effective January 1, 2020, any newly eligible Medicare beneficiary will not be able to buy Medigap plans C or F with Part B deductible coverage. They also won’t be able to purchase plans C or F as part of a guaranteed issue right. Instead they can choose plans D or G that don’t cover the Part B deductible. People who are eligible for or enrolled in Medicare before January 1, 2020, however, will still be able to purchase plans C and F with that first dollar benefit, and will be able to purchase C or F as part of their guaranteed issue right."

Read more here: http://www.cahealthadvocates.org/news/basics/2015/Doc-Fix-and-HR2.html

 

[Laurie]

Yes, it costs me more but I can now use any Doctor or Hospital who accepts Medicare anywhere in the US.

As I recall, this also means coverage when traveling outside the US, as opposed to very possibly not under an Advantage plan. That was/is a big difference to us.

And one more difference between Supplement and Advantage plans - as I recall - everyone is guaranteed supplement coverage when you first start medicare. If you start by going with an Advantage plan, and later decide to change to Supplement, the companies who offer those plans don't have to accept you.
I learned that before ACA went into effect, so maybe that has changed by now.

 

[bogey21]

"Effective January 1, 2020, any newly eligible Medicare beneficiary will not be able to buy Medigap plans C or F with Part B deductible coverage....

Right now I have the High Deductible Plan F. The deductible is something like $1,870 but the difference in premium between Regular Plan F and the High Deductible version with my Provider is about $300 per month or $3,600 if you annualize it. And remember if I stay relatively healthy, I will spend a whole lot less than the $1,870 deductible. Thus the savings make it worthwhile.

George

 

[bogey21]

And one more difference between Supplement and Advantage plans - as I recall - everyone is guaranteed supplement coverage when you first start medicare. If you start by going with an Advantage plan, and later decide to change to Supplement, the companies who offer those plans don't have to accept you.
I learned that before ACA went into effect, so maybe that has changed by now.

Very true. As a transferee I had to be accepted by my Medigap Provider. Also, I think you only have 12 months to decide to switch back from Advantage to Regular Medicare. If you don't do it within 12 months I think you may be stuck in Medicare Advantage forever.

George

 

[Glynda]

Just guessing...

This irritates me as well. My husband and I have always worked full-time. I used to earn more than him, then we earned the same and now he earns more than me, but our SS checks will not be much different from each other's when we retire.

Now, for example, a woman (just using a "woman" for an example for all those who are politically correct) who- let's say- her husband makes a lot of money that she can stay home. Let's say she never worked or worked very little if at all.

Well- she can collect half of her husband's SS when she reaches the eligible age- a check that - because her husband was a very high earner- will be equal to my full check! And then, of course, her husband gets his well-deserved max SS check.

So I busted my butt leaving the house every morning to go to work. This woman stayed home and I am getting the same SS check as she is!

This makes me nuts! Certainly, if her husband passes, she should be entitled to his SS check. But- how is she eligible for a SS check while her husband is alive and collecting his own if she never worked?

Could it be because, as a high earner, he paid a great deal more into the system than he will ever even begin to recover given the maximum limit he can receive back monthly? Thus the non-working or lower earning spouse is given an opportunity to draw on some of that? Just thinking...

 

[WinniWoman]

Could it be because, as a high earner, he paid a great deal more into the system than he will ever even begin to recover given the maximum limit he can receive back monthly? Thus the non-working or lower earning spouse is given an opportunity to draw on some of that? Just thinking...

It is the law- whether or not the husband was a high earner or not. The stay at home wife can collect half of whatever the working husband's SS is.