HMOs Provide Supplemental Relief

May 6, 2003 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) do a better job than other widely available supplemental health insurance plans in protecting Medicare recipients from high out-of-pocket medical expenses.

People who enroll in senior-focused HMOs to supplement their basic Medicare coverage had the lowest out-of-pocket costs in nearly every circumstance examined by researchers. This was particularly the case among those seniors who used the most health services, according to a report by RAND Health researchers.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

So-called “Medigap” insurance-sold by traditional insurance plans to supplement Medicare-did little to insulate seniors from high medical bills. The best protection came from employer-provided supplemental plans, which are predominant among the more affluent, and Medicaid for the very poor.

Overall, seniors who had Medigap coverage had the highest out-of-pocket expenses, spending an average of $2,585 in the two-year study period on items such as co-payments and prescriptions. Those with no supplemental coverage averaged $2,431 in costs over two years, followed by those with HMOs, who spent an average of $1,738. Those enrolled in employer-sponsored plans spent an average of $1,676 and those with Medicaid spent an average of $963.

Among seniors who reported having fair or poor health, those enrolled in the HMOs had lower costs than their peers enrolled in other types of plans, excluding Medicaid. Among seniors who used the most medical services, HMOs provided significant cost savings compared with other commercially available health plans.

The more wealth people reported, the more likely they were to have supplemental insurance, according to researchers. Nearly one-fourth of the low-wealth seniors had no supplemental coverage, while just 7% of the wealthiest group did not buy coverage.

RAND researchers found the most popular insurance option for senior citizens is coverage offered by former employers. Just over 32% of seniors reported such coverage, which cost an average of $519 per year. Just slightly less popular was Medigap insurance sold to cover costs not paid by Medicare. Nearly 32% of the seniors in the study had Medigap insurance, which cost an average of $1,459 per year.

About 15% of the seniors were enrolled in Medicare HMOs, which cost an average of $238 per year. About 8% of the seniors were enrolled in Medicaid, the government insurance plan for the poor. About 14% of the seniors had no supplemental Medicare coverage.

The study found that a few seniors account for much of the out-of-pocket spending, which drives the average spending estimates higher. About 10% of the seniors spent $4,800 or more over two years and the top 1% spent more than $15,000 over the period.

Federal payments to Medicare HMOs have been trimmed in recent years, causing some plans to increase co-payments, reduce benefits, raise enrollment fees and, in some instances, leave the market. Other research has shown that fewer Medicare supplements now offer prescription drug benefits and many have limited the types of medicines covered.

In addition, fewer employers are offering low-cost supplemental health benefits to their retirees. Higher costs and changing corporate accounting rules have caused many employers to drop this benefit, a trend expected to continue.

The researchers examined information collected in 1998 from the US Health and Retirement Study, a national effort that surveys a representative sample of the nation’s elderly and near elderly every two years about a wide range of health issues.

Ex-Pan Am Worker Group Asks for Favorable PBGC Case Ruling

May 5, 2003 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A group of ex-Pan Am workers and retirees that has been battling the federal pension insurer over the size of its members' pension payments for seven years, has now asked a New York federal judge to decide the case in the group's favor before a trial.

>The request by plaintiff the Association of Former Pan Am Employees (AFPAE) came in the group’s 1996 lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to an AFPAE news release. The suit alleges that that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the agency that backs private sector traditional benefit pensions for bankrupt or ailing companies, has underpaid former employees of Pan Am since taking over their five plans in July 1991.

>Among those taken over was Pan Am’s Cooperative Retirement Income Plan, which was underfunded by over $900 million. The PBGC currently pays out $900 million in benefits annually to 14,000 former Pan Am employees.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

>Since the plan was taken over, the Oceanside, New York-based AFPAE has been waging a campaign to draw public attention to what it claims is the agency’s mismanagement. The group faults the PBGC for poor administration and six years of delays in notifying Pan Am retirees and beneficiaries of its calculation of their retirement benefits. In some cases,  the AFPAE also says the agency’s calculations were wrong.

>The objective of the lawsuit is to have a third party appointed trustee instead of the PBGC, which would then recalculate the benefits. The plaintiffs expected that would raise the benefits about 75% from the levels the PBGC is currently paying to early retirees (See  Reversal Of Fortune).

>Early retirees, such as the lead plaintiffs , are particularly unhappy with the PBGC’s decision to set their benefits at levels they feel are lower than what the Pan Am pension plan provided. The plaintiffs claim that the agency is paying only 45.2% of prior salary levels, while participants are, in fact, owed 79% under agreements Pan Am had with its workers. The PBGC contends that those early retirement benefits could only be given to those who were age 55 with 10 years of service at the time of the plan’s termination. Those who have reached 55 since 1991 are not eligible for those benefits, the agency has contended.

«