List date(s) this work was published or aired.
24-Aug-12
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
Raising the age of Medicare eligibility from age 65 to 67 is “a raw deal” for communities of color in the United States. Raising the eligibility age “would negatively impact seniors of color because they tend to be in poorer health at earlier ages,” said Maya Rockeymoore, chair of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, a Washington advocacy group.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Congressional Budget Office; Kaiser Family Foundation 2011 study on raising the eligibility age
Explain types of human sources used.
Maya Rockeymoore, chair of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; Stuart Guterman, executive director of the Commonwealth Fund’s Commission on a High Performance Health System; Corri Uccello, a senior health fellow at the American Academy of Actuaries; J. Eugene Grigsby III, president of the National Health Foundation in Los Angeles; Timothy A. Waidmann, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.
Results:
n/a
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
No
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Think about the following: 1) How will an increase in eligibility age impact the private market and state exchanges, which will absorb most of those waiting longer for Medicare? 2) How would the actuarial science play out in the private market? Would 65- and 66-year-olds face higher premiums and cost-sharing because of their demographics or would the risk be spread among the entire insured population? 3) A recent report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that examined the eligibility age issue hypothesized that millions might be left in the lurch and suffer from sub-standard care: “Some people would end up without health insurance. People without health insurance are likely to receive lower quality care and pay more than insured people do, the report states. “Many, but not all, people who end up with a different source of insurance would pay higher premiums than they would for Medicare and spend more out of pocket.” So how would these results impact the personal finances of those who would enter Medicare at an older age? 4) How could those people plan and save money to take care of their medical needs? Can a dollar amount be computed for what the cost would be for a typical delayed beneficiary? Will beneficiaries have to remain in the workforce longer just to maintain affordable insurance? 5) How would extracting 65- and 66-year-olds — Medicare’s healthiest and lowest-risk population — impact the cost for Medicare beneficiaries on the program? Would their premiums and cost-sharing rise? 6) How would employer costs change as a result of adding additional employees in this age bracket into their sponsored plans? Would this shift costs to other employees paying into the plan? 7) How many additional would-be beneficiaries will now become Medicaid-eligible? How would this impact state budgets and the federal subsidies to states for Medicaid? 8) How would all of the above costs compare to the amount Medicare saves by delaying the eligibility age? Again, might the government end up spending those savings on other federal aid programs for those having difficulty obtaining insurance or as mentioned above in Medicaid?”