Tag Archives for CMA

Medicare and Medicaid at 60: Historic Milestones, Looming Changes

Published in RINewstoday on August 4, 2025

As 68 million Medicare beneficiaries recognize the 60th anniversary of Medicare, changes are coming to these landmark programs. Presented as efforts to slash costs and combat fraud, the thought of change to Medicare in almost any way leaves many older Americans feeling threatened that their health and financial security will be impacted in a negative way.

A Legacy Under Threat – or Repair?

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 into law during a ceremony at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri. Lasting between 45 and 60 minutes, the event marked the official creation of Medicare and extended guaranteed health coverage to 16 million Americans aged 65 and older—coverage that had not previously existed.

Former President Harry Truman, who had fought for national health insurance two decades earlier, was present for the ceremony. He was enrolled as Medicare’s first beneficiary and received the first Medicare card at the event.

Speaking at the bill signing, President Johnson declared, “No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime… No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents.” Johnson concluded, “When the final chapter of this generation is written, it will be said that we met the needs of the old, and that we did not abandon them to the despair and loneliness and hardship that comes when illness strikes the aged.”

Today, Medicare provides universal health coverage to Americans age 65 and older—though, as the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) humorously noted in its blog, “Ironically, the program is not yet old enough to qualify for itself.”

 The law created Part A to provide hospital insurance funded through payroll taxes and Part B to cover doctor visits and outpatient services on a voluntary basis. Part C, known as Medicare Advantage, offers a privatized, for-profit alternative to traditional Medicare. Part D (coverage through private, for-profit insurers rather than through the traditional Medicare program), added in 2003, provides coverage for prescription drugs. Over the years, Medicare has evolved to offer a wider range of services, yet it still falls short in some areas. Efforts to expand coverage to include essential benefits like dental, hearing, and vision have repeatedly failed to pass Congress.

Medicaid is a federal-state program that offers health coverage to low-income individuals, including children, pregnant people, and those with disabilities — in addition to covering long-term care for eligible seniors. It is a key funding source for U.S. safety net healthcare providers.

NCPSSM’s President and CEO, Max Richtman said that, “We should take a moment to marvel at the fact that — like Social Security — Medicare was created by national leaders who had a vision of a more just society, where, instead of leaving older people to get sick and die in poor houses or becoming a burden to their children, America would commit itself to providing basic health (and financial) security to our most vulnerable citizens.  Through the foresight of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, these benefits (Medicare Part A and Social Security) would be earned through workers’ payroll contributions, giving Americans a true stake in insuring themselves against the hardships of aging.”

What’s at Stake

Despite Medicare’s broad support, it has frequently come under political attack, often rationalized by concerns over its long-term financial viability. The most recent Medicare Trustees report projects that the program’s Part A trust fund could be depleted by 2033 if Congress does not act. At this point the fund’s reserves would only be able to pay 90% of the total scheduled benefits in what there is to spend on Part A.

In 2025, following weeks of political discourse, the “Big Beautiful Bill” was signed into law on July 4, 2025. Known formally as H.R. 1, the sweeping 900-page legislation passed the House on May 22 by the razor-thin margin of 215–214–1. Every House Democrat opposed the measure. Two Republicans joined them. Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris of Maryland voted “present.” Two Republican members abstained.

Richtman, sharply criticized the law, saying it “rips health coverage away from as many as 16 million Americans and food assistance from millions more.” Its Richtman’s opinion to warn that 7.2 million seniors who are dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, and another 6.5 million who rely on SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), stand to lose vital support for health care and nutrition.

The Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA) also raised serious concerns. CMA is a national, non-profit law organization, working to advance access to Medicare and quality health care through advocacy on behalf of older and disabled people. They warn that Medicare is being steadily privatized. More than half of all beneficiaries now receive their care through Medicare Advantage plans, which costs taxpayers approximately 20 percent more than traditional Medicare. These plans often restrict access to care through networks and pre-authorization requirements. CMA estimates that the $84 billion in overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans this year alone could instead have funded comprehensive dental, vision, and hearing coverage for every Medicare recipient.

CMA further maintains that H.R. 1 strips Medicare coverage from certain lawfully present immigrants who had earned eligibility through their work histories. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicare. It also blocks implementation of enhancements to the Medicare Savings Program that would have helped low-income beneficiaries afford care, stops new federal nursing home staffing standards estimated to have the potential to save 13,000 lives per year, and limits Medicare’s ability to negotiate lower drug prices for some of the most expensive medications.

Medicaid, enacted alongside Medicare in 1965 to serve low-income individuals and families, faces even steeper reductions under H.R. 1. The law’s new eligibility restrictions are projected to cause from 10-16 million people to lose coverage.

Medicaid Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Medicaid fraud, like other forms of healthcare fraud, involves intentionally submitting false information to receive payment for services not rendered, unnecessary services, or inflated claims. This fraudulent activity has serious consequences, harming patients, honest providers, and taxpayers. In 2024, the national Medicaid improper payment rate was estimated at 5.09%, translating to $31.1 billion in federal Medicaid improper payments. Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs) recovered $1.4 billion in FY 2024, representing a return of $3.46 for every $1 spent. Criminal recoveries in FY 2024 were the highest in 10 years, reaching $961 million, more than double the five-year average.

In 2024, 8% of Medicaid claims were deemed improper payments due to fraudulent practices. Fraudulent billing for services not rendered or exaggerated in complexity (upcoding or ghost billing) was a common theme in 2024 fraud cases. Misuse of telehealth and the involvement of third-party billing firms were also notable trends in Medicaid fraud cases in 2024. Prescription drug scams, especially involving opioids and controlled substances, remain among the most significant Medicaid fraud cases. Medicaid fraud in managed care settings increased by 30% in the past five years.

Examples of recipient fraud include lending or sharing a Medicaid Identification card; forging or altering a prescription or fiscal order, using multiple Medicaid ID cards, re-selling items provided by the Medicaid program, and selling or trading the card or number for money, gifts or non-Medicaid services.

Examples of provider Fraud, Waste, and Abuse include billing for Medicaid services that were not provided or for unnecessary services, selling prescriptions, intentionally billing for a more expensive treatment than was provided, giving money or gifts to patients in return for agreeing to get medical care, and accepting kickbacks for patient referrals.

Rhode Island Senators React 

In response to the changes in H.R. 1, Rhode Island’s U.S. Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse joined the entire Senate Democratic caucus to introduce S. 2556 on July 30, the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid. This three-page bill seeks to repeal the health care cuts included in H.R. 1 and permanently extend the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. Full Democratic caucus sponsorship of legislation—led in this case by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—is exceptionally rare and underscores their urgent need to call out the Big Beautiful Bill for its healthcare changes.

S 2556 has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee and at press time no House companion measure has been introduced.

Senator Reed emphasized the wide-reaching impact of H.R. 1, saying that millions of people are expected to lose health coverage under the combined effects of the bill’s Medicaid and ACA cuts. The repercussions, he said, will be felt by health clinics, hospitals, seniors, nursing homes, and patients across the country.

According to an analysis by KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) 43,000 Rhode Islanders could lose health coverage due to the bill. Of those, 38,000 would lose insurance as a result of Medicaid cuts, and another 5,500 due to changes in the Affordable Care Act. The same analysis projected that Rhode Island would lose $3 to 5 billion in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade due to the law’s provisions.

Reed also noted that the bill includes cuts to the SNAP (food stamps) program—reducing federal funding by 20 percent through 2034. States would have the option to pick up the difference using their own funds.  In Rhode Island, where 1/3 of the population is on social welfare assistance of some kind, including Medicaid and SNAP, an estimated 144,000 Rhode Islanders are expected to lose SNAP benefits entirely. To maintain SNAP provisions in Rhode Island, the estimated cost could be as high as $51 million.

Reed explained that without ACA premium tax credits, younger workers will also face rising health insurance premiums beginning in 2026, putting additional financial strain on working families. When people lose access to health insurance, they are more likely to delay or skip care, leading to poorer health outcomes and higher overall costs. Federal law would still require hospitals to provide emergency care, meaning hospitals will absorb the financial burden when patients cannot pay. There are also new limits on how medical costs can be held against individuals, especially in Rhode Island, with provisions against destroyed credit ratings, liens, and bankruptcy moves.

BBB Supporters Say It’s a Pill We May Need

According to supporters of H.R. 1, recent changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP may be seen as fearful, but positive, because they improve affordability, access, and long-term health outcomes.  They says that H.R. 1. Medicare’s new $2,000 cap on drug costs protects seniors from crushing out‑of‑pocket expenses. Medicaid’s pilot coverage for obesity treatments like GLP‑1 drugs supports preventative care and could reduce chronic illness. Meanwhile, efforts to modernize SNAP enrollment and target benefits more effectively aim to reduce administrative waste and better serve low‑income families. However, the introduction of new SNAP work requirements, while controversial, is intended to encourage workforce or volunteer participation among beneficiaries. These reforms reflect a broader commitment to updating essential safety net programs, making them more efficient, equitable, and responsive to today’s health and economic realities—without sacrificing core benefits, supporters add.

A New Reality

As aging advocates and policymakers mark the 60th anniversaries of Medicare and Medicaid, they are forced to address a new reality in both programs. Rather than continually expanding to meet growing needs of older adults, these programs now face reductions that could lead to challenges in access, lower quality care, increased paperwork, disruption in treatment, higher premiums, and fewer covered services. Provider reimbursements are also expected to be cut, which may further limit access to care.

Instead of being a milestone for celebration, the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid has become a turning point for aging advocate groups—marking not progress, but threat for millions of older Americans who depend on these essential programs to live with dignity, independence, and health.

Expanding Medicare on political agendas: In-home Health Care critically important

Published in RINewsToday on October 14, 2024

This week Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled a “Medicare at Home” proposal on ABC’s The View that would expands Medicare to assist older Americans to age in place at home by covering some of the cost of in-home care. The proposal targets adults who are part of the ‘sandwich generation,’ estimated to be 105 million Americans who are raising children along with taking care of their elderly parents.

The Medicare benefit to assist caregivers would propose to have cost-saving benefits for the federal government by allowing seniors to stay at home rather than being sent to costly nursing homes. It would also reduce hospitalizations, too.

Harris told about her personal experience as a caregiver, providing care to her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a biomedical scientist, who died of cancer in 2009 at the age of 70. Caring for a parent can translate into “trying to cook what they want to eat, what they can eat,” she said. “It’s even trying to think of something funny to make them laugh or smile,” she added.

“We’re talking about declining skills” of older people, “but their dignity, their pride, has not declined,” Harris added.

“There are so many people in our country who are right in the middle. They’re taking care of their kids and they’re taking care of their aging parents, and it’s just almost impossible to do it all, especially if they work,” Harris said.  “…we’re finding that so many are having to leave their job, which means losing a source of income, not to mention the emotional stress,” she said, explaining why there is a need to expand Medicare to cover more in-home care services.

Harris’ Issues on her website – Protect and Strengthen Social Security and Medicare

“Vice President Harris will protect Social Security and Medicare against relentless attacks from Donald Trump and his extreme allies. She will strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the long haul by making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes. She will always fight to ensure that Americans can count on getting the benefits they earned”.

The Costs

The Brookings Institution recently estimated that a “very conservatively designed” program would cost $40 billion a year. They noted that “controlling demand in such a program is nearly impossible – for reference, Medicaid, which covers far fewer adults than Medicare, actually spent $207 billion on long-term services and supports in 2021”.

In addition, “Home health is such a hotbed of fraud,” said Theo Merkel, a health policy expert at the Paragon Health Institute and the Manhattan Institute. “If the proposal is adopted, taxpayers could end up paying for everyone who stays at home with their Medicare-eligible family member as a government paid Service Employees International Union member.”

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C., charges that Harris’ new Medicare home care benefit is “uncompassionate, fiscally reckless, and a corrupt attempt to buy the votes of Medicare enrollees and their middle-aged children in an election year.”

Examining the Differences…

According to Matthew E. Shepard, Communications Director for the Center for Medicare Advocacy, the new Harris proposal is quite different from the existing home care benefits that Medicare’s 65.5 million enrollees receive. ”The new proposal focuses on Long Term Services and Supports, something of a term of art in the health care world. While details are scarce, it would provide, we believe, ongoing affordable home care aide service without a need for skilled care or that strict definition of homebound,” said Shepard.  The proposal’s funding would come from increased savings in Medicare Part D as the list of negotiable drugs grows  [a historic provision of the Inflation Reduction Act which is lowering the cost of senior’s medication]  savings currently estimated at $6 billion in 2026, and which will only grow as more drugs are added, he noted.

“We are going to save Medicare that money, because we’re not going to be paying these high prices [for drugs] and that those resources are then put to use in a way that helps a family,” Harris said.

The Trump proposal

The Trump/Vance campaign quickly issued a statement taking credit for already making a commitment to America’s seniors receiving at-home care, saying that Harris’ Medicare expansion policy was just following his lead. Former President Trump released his home care platform last summer, according to an Oct. 8th statement. “Specifically, President Trump will prioritize home care benefits by shifting resources back to at-home senior care, overturning disincentives that lead to care worker shortages, and supporting paid family caregivers through tax credits and reduced red tape,” noted the statement.

One of Trump’s 20 point platforms is “Fight for and protect social security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age”. In the accompanying 16-page document, which, supports Medicare it says, “President Trump has made absolutely clear that he will not cut one penny from Medicare or Social Security. American citizens work hard their whole lives, contributing to Social Security and Medicare. These programs are promises to our Seniors, ensuring they can live their golden years with dignity. Republicans will protect these vital programs and ensure Economic Stability. We will work with our great Seniors, in order to allow them to be active and healthy. We commit to safeguarding the future for our Seniors and all American families. We will strengthen Medicare. Republicans will protect Medicare’s finances from being financially crushed by the Democrat plan to add tens of millions of new illegal immigrants to the rolls of Medicare. We vow to strengthen Medicare for future generations.”

 Dementia caregiving already set to quadruple in 2025

AARP notes on their website that one expansion of caregiver coverage, “a program for dementia patients and their caregivers that launched this year will quadruple in 2025, serving more of the country. The program, called Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE), provides a 24/7 support line, a care navigator to find medical services and community-based assistance, caregiver training and up to $2,500 a year for at-home, overnight or adult day care respite services. Patients and their caregivers typically won’t have copayments”.

Praise for expanding Medicare benefits

“We have long championed the expansion of federal support for long-term care,“ says Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), noting that Harris’ proposal gives that cause an enormous boost.

“Expanded Medicare coverage for home health care also would provide relief to millions of ‘sandwich generation’ Americans, who are struggling to provide care for their elderly relatives while also raising children.  Those ‘sandwich generation’ members are not Medicare beneficiaries, but would most definitely benefit from Harris’ long-term care plan,” says Richtman in an Oct. 8 statement.

According to Richtman, the plan also would add hearing and vision coverage to traditional Medicare. “Proper hearing and vision care are essential to healthy aging — but too many beneficiaries forgo it due to cost and lack of coverage. It is long past time that those coverages be added,” he added.  

Co-Director David Lipschutz says that the Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA) strongly supports the proposed enhancement of Medicare coverage for on-going home care. “Access to services and supports in the home for those who are unable to independently perform activities of daily living would provide immeasurable help to millions of beneficiaries and their families and is an important step forward for the Medicare program,” says CMA’s Lipschutz. To maximize access to care for people who need it, expansion of home care coverage in Medicare should be combined with enforcing the benefit that exists now, he suggests. 

“Recognizing that most older persons and those with disabilities prefer to remain at home when they need help with daily living tasks, the Senior Agenda Coalition has worked for years to increase access to home and community-based care at the state level as these services are one of the biggest gaps in Medicare,” says Maureen Maigret, Policy Advisor for Senior Agenda Coalition of RI.  To include them in Medicare will lift a financial burden on both recipients and family caregivers as home care costing at least $35/hour that  can be out of reach for far too many who need these services to stay at home,” she says.

“We have not seen many details about the plan, but it would be important to make sure that Medicare provider reimbursement levels are sufficient to allow direct care staff to earn livable wages in order to have workforce sufficient to meet the demand,” note Maigret. “This new Medicare home care benefit should also be a boon for states as it can prevent persons from spending down their resources to a level where they become eligible for state Medicaid and need costly nursing home care,” she says.  

In a new paper for O’Neill Institute for Georgetown Law, McCourt Professor Judith Feder and Nicole Jorwic explore how adding a home care benefit can help beneficiaries and family caregivers. “While this new benefit would not reach the full population in need of long-term care, paired with investments in Medicaid, it’s a good strong start-and given our nation’s resources, clearly within our means,” say the authors. 

“A support system that relies on unpaid family members and underpaid workers is simply not sustainable for the future,” warn the authors.

“Our failure to make Medicare “whole” by addressing Long Term Services and Support needs is not about a shortage of resources, it’s about a shortage of political will. It’s time the nation stepped up,” they say.

Pay attention to Caregiver voters

AARP is nonpartisan and does not take a position on campaign proposals, though AARP has previously said financial relief is needed to help individuals age in place at home and support family caregivers, says Sarah Lovenheim, AARP’s vice president, external relations.

According to AARP’s “She’s the Difference” survey released last month, 96% of woman aged 50 and over say they are highly motivated to vote in the upcoming elections, making them one of the most driven and key voting groups.

“Any political candidate would be wise to pay attention to the concerns and needs of caregivers today. Voters over age 50, who disproportionately make up America’s 48 million plus caregivers, could make or break elections up and down the ballots,” says Nancy LeaMond, AARP’s executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer. “From recent battleground polls, we know that roughly one-third of swing voters over age 50 identify as family caregivers,” she notes.

“Supporting family caregivers is an urgent need – not only for families struggling to get by but for our country’s future,” warns LeaMond.

Regardless of who wins the election, a Medicare at home proposal cannot happen without Congressional support. As the presidential campaign winds down, older voters must make it extremely clear to lawmakers seeking their vote how they feel about expanding Medicare benefits.