<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Medicare&#8217;s (true) Administrative Costs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:10:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: On Capitalism and Efficiency: Socialism and Medical Care &#171; Eutychus the Scribe</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-7354</link>
		<dc:creator>On Capitalism and Efficiency: Socialism and Medical Care &#171; Eutychus the Scribe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 10:40:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/#comment-7354</guid>
		<description>[...] report indicated that the Medicare administrative costs were 4% and health insurance 16%. A little research indicates that it is more like 5.2% versus more than 8% (excluding, of all things, sales [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] report indicated that the Medicare administrative costs were 4% and health insurance 16%. A little research indicates that it is more like 5.2% versus more than 8% (excluding, of all things, sales [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken&#8217;s Notes &#187; Blog Archive &#187; On Capitalism and Efficiency: Socialism and Medical Care</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-4828</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken&#8217;s Notes &#187; Blog Archive &#187; On Capitalism and Efficiency: Socialism and Medical Care</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 23:45:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/#comment-4828</guid>
		<description>[...] report indicated that the Medicare administrative costs were 4% and health insurance 16%. A little research indicates that it is more like 5.2% versus more than 8% (excluding, of all things, sales [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] report indicated that the Medicare administrative costs were 4% and health insurance 16%. A little research indicates that it is more like 5.2% versus more than 8% (excluding, of all things, sales [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Why do people oppose the health care reform? &#171; alek davis: personal blog</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-4706</link>
		<dc:creator>Why do people oppose the health care reform? &#171; alek davis: personal blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:54:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/#comment-4706</guid>
		<description>[...] care programs (like Medicare, VA hospitals, and other that cover about 28% of the population) are managed cheaper and get higher customer satisfaction than private insurance.  Even the most vocal opponent of the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] care programs (like Medicare, VA hospitals, and other that cover about 28% of the population) are managed cheaper and get higher customer satisfaction than private insurance.  Even the most vocal opponent of the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Serious Non-Objective Look at Healh-Care (Let's have a real discussion) - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 4 - City-Data Forum</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-4513</link>
		<dc:creator>Serious Non-Objective Look at Healh-Care (Let's have a real discussion) - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 4 - City-Data Forum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/#comment-4513</guid>
		<description>[...]  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Healthcare Economist &#183; Healthcare Economist Manifesto</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-3659</link>
		<dc:creator>Healthcare Economist &#183; Healthcare Economist Manifesto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:36:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/#comment-3659</guid>
		<description>[...] May stifle innovation if new technologies depend on government approval; administrative costs savings may not be as high as anticipated; benefit generosity will grow over time as special interests lobby for inclusion in benefits; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] May stifle innovation if new technologies depend on government approval; administrative costs savings may not be as high as anticipated; benefit generosity will grow over time as special interests lobby for inclusion in benefits; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Healthcare Economist &#183; Private Health Insurance and Administrative Expenses</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-112</link>
		<dc:creator>Healthcare Economist &#183; Private Health Insurance and Administrative Expenses</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:20:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/#comment-112</guid>
		<description>[...] than for Medicare, the higher admin cost percentage does not tell the whole story. As mention on my July 27, 2006 post,  Medicare does not take into account the deadweight loss from the taxation needed to raise money [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] than for Medicare, the higher admin cost percentage does not tell the whole story. As mention on my July 27, 2006 post,  Medicare does not take into account the deadweight loss from the taxation needed to raise money [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Universal Health Care - Page 4 - SpartanTailgate.com - Michigan State Spartans Forums</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-111</link>
		<dc:creator>Universal Health Care - Page 4 - SpartanTailgate.com - Michigan State Spartans Forums</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:37:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/#comment-111</guid>
		<description>[...]   Quinn: We Can Afford Universal Health Care - Newsweek Jane Bryant Quinn - MSNBC.com       Healthcare Economist · Medicare&#8217;s (true) Administrative Costs    __________________ &quot;The liberals&#039; favorite argument is that there is no [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]   Quinn: We Can Afford Universal Health Care &#8211; Newsweek Jane Bryant Quinn &#8211; MSNBC.com       Healthcare Economist · Medicare&#8217;s (true) Administrative Costs    __________________ &quot;The liberals&#8217; favorite argument is that there is no [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: America moves to the Left - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-110</link>
		<dc:creator>America moves to the Left - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/#comment-110</guid>
		<description>[...] 2% administrative cost issue, apperantly there are some hidden costs Medicare doesn&#039;t account for.  http://healthcare-economist.com/2006...trative-costs/    __________________  The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 2% administrative cost issue, apperantly there are some hidden costs Medicare doesn&#8217;t account for.  <a href="http://healthcare-economist.com/2006...trative-costs/" rel="nofollow">http://healthcare-economist.com/2006&#8230;trative-costs/</a>    __________________  The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Healthcare Economist &#183; Single payer commentaries</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-109</link>
		<dc:creator>Healthcare Economist &#183; Single payer commentaries</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:07:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/#comment-109</guid>
		<description>[...] Tyler Cowen has interesting piece in The New York Times (&#8221;Abolishing the Middlemen&#8230;&#8220;) in which he states that a single-payer system&#8217;s cost savings from the reduced administrative and overhead cost may be illusory. The article&#8217;s arguments are sound and are similar to the one&#8217;s I made in the post titled &#8220;Medicare’s (true) Administrative Costs.&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Tyler Cowen has interesting piece in The New York Times (&#8221;Abolishing the Middlemen&#8230;&#8220;) in which he states that a single-payer system&#8217;s cost savings from the reduced administrative and overhead cost may be illusory. The article&#8217;s arguments are sound and are similar to the one&#8217;s I made in the post titled &#8220;Medicare’s (true) Administrative Costs.&#8221; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-108</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:24:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/#comment-108</guid>
		<description>There are several points that are overlooked in this situation. One very important one is this. Who adjudicates Medicare claims?

Private carriers.

The same folks who adjudicate claims for folks like GM, Coca Cola and Home Depot adjudicate for Medicare.

As for the profit motive of carriers vs. the alleged non-profit of government entities, I suspect you do not know how the budgetary process works within government. Any money allocated for a program that is not spent by the end of the fiscal year is then cut from the following years budget.

So what is wrong with that you may ask?

If an entity want&#039;s more money for the following year, including money for pay raises, they must spend MORE than was allocated in order to receive more money for the following fiscal year.

So where is the incentive to save money in government?

It simply does not exist.

And when have you ever heard of a tax decrease?

As for Medicare, the costs in fact are increasing every year in not so subtle ways.

Every year the deductible for Medicare participants increases. CMS also adjusts their reimbursement rates on a regular basis which create more of a disparity between what the rest of the public pays for health care vs. Medicare recipients. As reimbursements fall, or at least fail to keep pace with medical inflation, there are fewer providers willing to accept Medicare patients.

You speak of unnecessary medical treatment and fraudulent claims. You must not be aware of the fraudulent Medicare claims that are filed with regularity and the number of providers that are on the 6 o&#039;clock news as they are hauled off to jail in handcuffs. More often than not they are not arrested for scamming private carriers but Medicare. Wonder why? Could it be because it is EASIER to defraud Medicare than private carriers?

All of these items add to the overall cost of Medicare and must be factored in along with the alleged savings for administration of Medicare claims.

When you focus solely on the administrative costs you ignore the bigger picture. If you truly want to save on the cost of health care you don&#039;t fixate on the 8 - 10% side of the equation but rather the remaining 90%.

And there is the issue of taxes.

Premium taxes hold one of the top 3 spots in state revenue. In some cases they are the largest single source of revenue. Eliminate private carriers from the mix and states have to find a new source of revenue.

So when you want to cut out the private carrier from health care, don&#039;t forget to factor in loss of tax revenue, fewer providers who are willing to serve the Medicare participants which leads to even more rationing, and a larger increase in cost shifting to those in the Medicare system through higher deductibles and fewer covered services.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are several points that are overlooked in this situation. One very important one is this. Who adjudicates Medicare claims?</p>
<p>Private carriers.</p>
<p>The same folks who adjudicate claims for folks like GM, Coca Cola and Home Depot adjudicate for Medicare.</p>
<p>As for the profit motive of carriers vs. the alleged non-profit of government entities, I suspect you do not know how the budgetary process works within government. Any money allocated for a program that is not spent by the end of the fiscal year is then cut from the following years budget.</p>
<p>So what is wrong with that you may ask?</p>
<p>If an entity want&#8217;s more money for the following year, including money for pay raises, they must spend MORE than was allocated in order to receive more money for the following fiscal year.</p>
<p>So where is the incentive to save money in government?</p>
<p>It simply does not exist.</p>
<p>And when have you ever heard of a tax decrease?</p>
<p>As for Medicare, the costs in fact are increasing every year in not so subtle ways.</p>
<p>Every year the deductible for Medicare participants increases. CMS also adjusts their reimbursement rates on a regular basis which create more of a disparity between what the rest of the public pays for health care vs. Medicare recipients. As reimbursements fall, or at least fail to keep pace with medical inflation, there are fewer providers willing to accept Medicare patients.</p>
<p>You speak of unnecessary medical treatment and fraudulent claims. You must not be aware of the fraudulent Medicare claims that are filed with regularity and the number of providers that are on the 6 o&#8217;clock news as they are hauled off to jail in handcuffs. More often than not they are not arrested for scamming private carriers but Medicare. Wonder why? Could it be because it is EASIER to defraud Medicare than private carriers?</p>
<p>All of these items add to the overall cost of Medicare and must be factored in along with the alleged savings for administration of Medicare claims.</p>
<p>When you focus solely on the administrative costs you ignore the bigger picture. If you truly want to save on the cost of health care you don&#8217;t fixate on the 8 &#8211; 10% side of the equation but rather the remaining 90%.</p>
<p>And there is the issue of taxes.</p>
<p>Premium taxes hold one of the top 3 spots in state revenue. In some cases they are the largest single source of revenue. Eliminate private carriers from the mix and states have to find a new source of revenue.</p>
<p>So when you want to cut out the private carrier from health care, don&#8217;t forget to factor in loss of tax revenue, fewer providers who are willing to serve the Medicare participants which leads to even more rationing, and a larger increase in cost shifting to those in the Medicare system through higher deductibles and fewer covered services.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

