GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Medicare ABCs

• 65560
  

  Why is it that we, as federal employees, think we have the best insurance available for 30 yrs. Then the day after we retire we are told we need Medicare? It doesn't make sense. We would be better off putting the Medicare premiums in an interest bearing account; if there is anything our insurance doesn't pay for we can then dip into the acct. We are sold a bill of goods! I know the government wants us to sign up to pay for Medicare but it makes no sense.

  Kathleen Smith Posted December 23, 2008 4:42 PM
• 64578
  

  Your response to the question about reducing the premiums paid leaves me wondering who is looking out for the federal retiree.

  You stated: "NARFE (National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association) did an excellent article a while back on this question. The answer boils down to the fact that retirees as a whole have greater medical expenses and prescription drug claims than younger, sometimes, healthier employees. If retirees were to be placed in a different "price" category for health insurance, the premiums would be higher than for the total population of employees and retirees. This is true even when you consider that Medicare is the primary payer after age 65 (and retired). FEHB still pays a good portion of prescription drugs for retirees as well as the Medicare deductibles and co-pay which is significant. Be careful what you wish for!"

  It seems to me that the premium costs to both the retiree AND the Government should be decreased because,upon the insured's enrollment in Medicare Part A (and Part B if so chosen), the insurance companies no longer have the burden of paying significant dollars for major surgeries or prolonged hospital stays. That benefit to the insurance companies has little to do with the economies of scale that you tout in your answer; It has to do with projections of costs avoided for an individual insured person. It seems that reduction in the premiums is a fairly insignificant sacrifice for the insuror. Reducing their liability to a few copays and secondary coverages while still allowing them to get the same premiums does not seem to be quite equitable.

  Can you provide a link to the NARFE article that you mentioned? I would love to read it to see how they addressed this peculiarity.

  Thank you.

  George Hyde Posted December 8, 2008 7:21 PM
• 16673
  

  My response to: I still do not understand why our Office of Personnel Management and Congress are not pushing the private insurance companies to reduce the premiums paid by those over 65 when Medicare covers most everything necessary. For government employees with part A & B Medicare coverage, shouldn't the private insurers reduce the monthly healthier premiums by at least $88 dollars?

  NARFE (National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association) did an excellent article a while back on this question. The answer boils down to the fact that retirees as a whole have greater medical expenses and prescription drug claims than younger, sometimes, healthier employees. If retirees were to be placed in a different "price" category for health insurance, the premiums would be higher than for the total population of employees and retirees. This is true even when you consider that Medicare is the primary payer after age 65 (and retired). FEHB still pays a good portion of prescription drugs for retirees as well as the Medicare deductibles and co-pay which is significant. Be careful what you wish for!

  Tammy Flanagan Posted May 11, 2006 4:18 PM
• 16456
  

  Your article implied that Medicare is first payer. I am still employed and have BC/BS under FEHB. I have been told several times, by both Social Security and our civilian personnel folks, that Medicare is always second payer to my FEHB BC/BS. I believe the article should have been clearer on that.

  In relation to the letter about Tricare for Life (TFL), I was told I can not suspend my FEHB while carrying Medicate and TFL until I am retired.

  Larry Baker Posted May 1, 2006 10:28 AM
• 16324
  

  Well done. Medicare recently decided to cover in part the cost of bone-conducting hearing aids but not "conventional" hearing aids. Go figure. Where on the Medicare.gov site does one go to for current information on coverage? Thanks.

  Norman Metzger Posted April 24, 2006 9:29 AM
• 16321
  

  This is an outstanding summary of the benefits and costs. I think this will help many in government decide to avoid Part B or the Medicare plan that the human resource departments are pushing!

  I still do not understand why our Office of Personnel Management and Congress are not pushing the private insurance companies to reduce the premiums paid by those over 65 when Medicare covers most everything necessary. For government employees with part A & B Medicare coverage, shouldn't the private insurers reduce the monthly healthier premiums by at least $88 dollars? I think it should be more but at a minimum the premium paid for Medicare part B!

  The waving of co-pay and deductible is nowhere close to the premium paid on the private insurance. Why does the government continue this ridiculous position for those of its employees 65 and over with part A & B Medicare? The premium for Part B is more than $1,050 a year (and rising). The deductible for family coverage (Blue Cross Blue Shield) is $250 with a co-pay of $20 a visit. Assuming $150 a visit that means I would have to have seven or more visits a year to break even, or almost one a month! Am I missing something?

  It seems to me that Part B is a ridiculous waste of money for the average government employee, as it also appears Part D is a ridiculous waste of money. I think the government needs to get the private insurance carriers to lower the premiums for those that carry parts A & B of Medicare. Why are we subsidizing the rest of the government employees in health care?

  Taxpayer Posted April 24, 2006 7:54 AM
• 16296
  

  Your column has been wonderful and timely!! As I come close to retirement, I'm finding out how little information is provided by my agency. I do have one more issue that was not addressed in this article -- I am also the widow of a CG retiree with TRICARE benefits, as well as a government employee with federal employee health insurance, nearing age 65, and extremely healthy. I know I need to sign up for Part B to continue my TRICARE for life, but should I suspend my federal employee insurance? I haven't been able to get answers to that one. I also have long term care insurance and I don't want to be "insurance poor."

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 21, 2006 8:54 AM
• 16295
  

  I found that to be a very informative article. Super job Tammy, keep up the good work. I look forward to your next column.

  Rick Posted April 21, 2006 8:22 AM