Sometimes it's November before all of that info is released. Sure would be nice to see it before AEP begins though.
Sometimes it's November before all of that info is released. Sure would be nice to see it before AEP begins though.
Quick question for people, Part B premiums are expected to increase not only next year but the following years from what I understand. If someone doesn't have to pay the higher part B premium because they are on Social Security via the Hold Harmless provision, what if the Part B premium increases again the year after that with a COLA increase. Would the senior that didn't have to pay the increase the year before, be required to pay the new higher Part B premium?
Reading the Trustees Report, the government couldn't be bigger idiots! They are using GDP measurements that our economy can't live up to. They are using ACA assumptions when planning for how much profits to expect for assets of Part B and Part A to grow. On top of that there is a repeated mantra in the background....The inspector who researched these findings doesn't believe things are this rosy, and that huge changes are needed to keep the long term viability of the program intact aka raise premiums and deductibles.
I see the Physicians lobbying group won the SGR bill, they got their increase back and the seniors had to increase part B premiums and deductibles to make up for it, but who will win out over the long term, lobbying groups or irate seniors? If seniors win, will doctors continue to take Medicare patients? Or will lobbyists win and seniors have to foot the bill for increased price of doing business in the healthcare sector?
But my original question was the priority, will a senior find themselves skipping one year of a Part B premium increase due to no COLA only to find themselves paying an even higher Part B premium the year following if there is a COLA and Part B increase? If so that seems like a tough break...
Reading the Trustees Report, the government couldn't be bigger idiots! They are using GDP measurements that our economy can't live up to. They are using ACA assumptions when planning for how much profits to expect for assets of Part B and Part A to grow. On top of that there is a repeated mantra in the background....The inspector who researched these findings doesn't believe things are this rosy, and that huge changes are needed to keep the long term viability of the program intact aka raise premiums and deductibles.
I see the Physicians lobbying group won the SGR bill, they got their increase back and the seniors had to increase part B premiums and deductibles to make up for it, but who will win out over the long term, lobbying groups or irate seniors? If seniors win, will doctors continue to take Medicare patients? Or will lobbyists win and seniors have to foot the bill for increased price of doing business in the healthcare sector?
But my original question was the priority, will a senior find themselves skipping one year of a Part B premium increase due to no COLA only to find themselves paying an even higher Part B premium the year following if there is a COLA and Part B increase? If so that seems like a tough break...
- 2,177
Yes. This happened in 2012. Two years of Part B increase but no COLA had non-IRMAA SS beneficiaries at $96.40 in 2010-11 while the rest saw increases to $110.50 and $115.40 in the these years. COLA came in 2012, raising SS beneficiaries from $96.40 to the current $104.90. Everyone else saw a drop to $104.90
- 18,988
No, it hasn't worked like that in the past. And the hold harmless is only for people already on medicare. They can raise the Part B premium for those new to medicare. That happened for two years straight a few years ago. The people on medicare didn't get an increase but people new to medicare did and the second year of that the new to medicare people were paying almost $115 part B premium. So we had 3 levels of payers. Then when they got a raise after 2 years of not and it went to the $104.90 they lowered to the premiums of the group of 2 year new to medicare people to the $104.90 and we were back to one level again. Except for the high income earners, or course.
So no, it won't catch up later and they could even have it decreased.
