The longevity of MA plans?

The bottom line for MA viability is Medicare's funding of the program. If the funding is cut again as it was about 10 years ago, you will see plans pulling out again. The increasing costs of Part D will likely be a factor as well.

I sell Humana, which in my area at least, appears to be the most conservative when it comes to pricing, at least up until now. My guess is that they are hedging against the day that funding may drop again. IIRC they only pulled out of two major markets when it happened the last time.

A MA plan is often a good option in the following scenarios:

1. The client cannot afford a Medicare Supplement.
2. The client did not enroll in a Supp. during their open enrollment/guaranteed issue period and cannot get one now for health reasons.
3. A client who is on Medicare Disability, supps being very expensive for those on disability.
4. A client who is in relatively good health (i.e. no current or forseeable major problems) who is looking to save money and who has good plans available in their area in terms of premiums, benefits, network, etc.

I agree...those are the same scenarios in which I recommend an MA plan.
 
Cenla and Kyle,

I totally agree with the criteria you both are using in situations where you recommend an Advantage plan. Those are what I use also. Otherwise I still recommend a supp.

I believe that it is a much better approach than simply dumping everyone into an Advantage plan because they appear to be less expensive. They are only "less expensive" if the person remains in relatively good health and doesn't develop major health problems.

The med supp policies I sell cost a lot less than the $2,500 to $3,000 out of pocket expense a person would have to pay if they became chronically ill. It shouldn't always be just about how much the monthly premium is.
 
The stakes are high for every company in this market since it depends on the politicians and most of the major players ratings have taken a hit as a result. Humana in particular has always taken heat from Wall Street and others for having such a high percentage of their business with the federal government. They administer Tricare, MA and now PDP is a huge part of their business, etc. I think a much higher percentage of their business used to be with the feds than it is now since Humana has focused more on group and individual policies in recent years. But IIRC about 1/2 of their revenue is from business with government of one kind or another.

No doubt a cut in payments will hurt, but my guess is that Humana is better prepared for this possibility than are several of the other companies that are now offering dirt cheap PFFS plans.
 
True about Humana and other companies getting away with offering less expensive MA plans.

However, according to the rumors, next year the funding will go down, and then all the "cheaper" MA plans may take a price hike. But I am sure that they will still be far cheaper then a typical supplement.

MA plans will probably go through some changes over the next handful of years, and the may not see a $0 premium in all the places they are now, but I do not see them leaving the market.
 
True about Humana and other companies getting away with offering less expensive MA plans.

However, according to the rumors, next year the funding will go down, and then all the "cheaper" MA plans may take a price hike. But I am sure that they will still be far cheaper then a typical supplement.

MA plans will probably go through some changes over the next handful of years, and the may not see a $0 premium in all the places they are now, but I do not see them leaving the market.

I doubt that the plans will leave entirely either and if they are smart and raise rates when needed, they'll stick around. With the great expansion of the plans and the % of seniors who are now in them and are happy, my guess is that it will be harder politically to change unless the industry shoots itself in the foot with unscrupulous agents and headlines like we've seen with Universal.

Humana seems more focused on managed care, especially HMO's compared to the newcomers who are only offering PFFS. Humana's PFFS is attractively priced in some markets but in some others is around $100 per month more than some of the competition with the same or worse benefits, although some of the cheaper plans like Sterling do not have a maximum OOP limit.
 

While I agree that a Medicare Supplement is still the best option for many seniors, overall this is a misleading article that is so filled with half-truths and misinformation that I don't even know where to begin. He assumes all MA plans are HMO's because that is what is mainly available in NY and paints every agent who sells MA as ravenous wolves who misrepresent themselves as being from Medicare.
 
He claims that insruance carriers can "cherry pick" Medicare beneficiaries. Actually, the only health question that agents are allowed to ask is "Do you have ESRD? You do not know what that is? Then you do not have it." So, how are they cherry picking.

Supplement companies are the cherry pickers since they underwrite their plans. You were in the hospital last month, I am sorry to hear that, and I am sorry to say that you cannot have coverage.
 
I get so tired of hearing the phrase, "I'm on a fixed income".

I agree.

Probably why I never really stayed in the 65+ market.

Of course, when you think about it, most folks are on a fixed income. They earn a fixed salary, or a fixed hourly wage.

Some of us are fortunate enough to earn $20,000 in one month & $600 the next.

What a country!
 
Back
Top