• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Ryan-Wyden: The Basic Ingredients of Structural Medicare Reform

    Congressman Paul Ryan (R–WI) and Senator Ron Wyden (D–OR) have proposed a new bipartisan framework for structural Medicare reform. It continues the conversation with the American people on a solution to save the popular but financially troubled entitlement program.

    While there are differences between the proposal and the Heritage plan outlined in Saving the American Dream, and while their proposal does not go as far or as fast as it should in changing the massive entitlement program, it would establish a premium-support system of financing for Medicare, a variant of a defined contribution toward the health care plans chosen by retirees. This policy is central to the transformation of Medicare into a consumer-based system relying on competition rather than bureaucratic fiat.

    Also, similar to the Heritage proposal, government payment for health coverage would be based on competitive bidding among health plans, and Medicare would be put on a budget. This is a crucial improvement in the functioning of the program, because pricing would be determined by market competition rather than by Washington bureaucrats.

    The Ryan-Wyden proposal is the latest in a long tradition of bipartisan efforts to reform Medicare on the basis of a defined contribution for financing, following the proposals of Breaux–Thomas in 1999 and the Gephardt–Stockman in 1983. Premium support offers a way to reduce future Medicare costs without draconian cuts to doctors and hospitals, sharp tax increases or dramatic hikes in Medicare premiums. It would also expand options for beneficiaries, who would secure government contributions to enable them to purchase insurance, either from a private plan or traditional Medicare.

    Payment for health plans would be based on a process of competitive market bidding. Private plans, as well as traditional fee-for-service Medicare, would bid by offering a package of Medicare benefits for a certain price. The Ryan–Wyden proposal would establish a benchmark for plan payment based on the second-lowest-plan bid. Beneficiaries would be free to choose the benefit packages of plans above the benchmark payment, but they would pay the difference between the government payment and the higher-priced plan. On the other hand, if a beneficiary chooses a cheaper plan, they would pocket the difference as personal savings.

    With competition on a level playing field, health plans would have powerful market incentives to offer a variety of benefits at the lowest possible cost. This is the beauty and benefit of the free market. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office and academics such as Bryan Dowd and Roger Feldman estimate that these changes can result in substantial savings.

    Under the Ryan–Wyden proposal, all Medicare beneficiaries would be guaranteed the level of benefits offered in traditional Medicare. But the financing of the system would be improved by replacing the rigid system of administrative pricing and price controls on medical services. Medicare bureaucrats routinely set prices too high and too low, resulting in windfalls for some providers or a shortfall in services in some areas. Intense competition on a level playing field among health plans ensures that they would bid to offer services closer to the actual costs of providing those services.

    Similarities with the Heritage Proposal

    Like Heritage’s Saving the American Dream (see also The Second Stage of Medicare Reform: Moving to a Premium Support Program), private plans in the Ryan–Wyden proposal would be permitted to compete head to head with traditional Medicare. Like the Heritage proposal, the reform would also include a risk-adjustment mechanism to ensure that enrollees who are older and sicker could stay in plans of their choice and that those plans could remain in the market.

    Ryan–Wyden would provide higher payment to plans that have a higher number of high-risk and sicker patients. Like the Heritage proposal, Ryan–Wyden would also provide lower taxpayer subsidies to high-income beneficiaries by requiring these beneficiaries to pay higher premiums. Medicare is a highly subsidized government program, and younger taxpayers should not subsidize Medicare for those who can afford to pay their own share.

    Finally, like the Heritage plan, the Ryan–Wyden proposal would put Medicare on a budget, just like other government programs. Medicare spending would no longer be on automatic pilot. In the Heritage plan, Medicare spending would be indexed to price increases (CPI+1 percent), while in the Ryan–Wyden proposal, the spending is indexed to economic growth (GDP +1 percent). If Medicare expenditures exceed economic growth, Ryan–Wyden would require a variety of congressional measures to slow the growth in Medicare costs.

    Ensuring that Medicare has a fixed budget instead of being an open-ended entitlement is essential to fiscal discipline. It is important that if congressional action is needed, actions are not taken that weaken the competitive model. If Medicare beneficiaries have to pay higher premiums, for example, they would also have strong economic incentives to choose lower-cost plans and spend wisely.

    Making Further Improvements

    Since the Ryan–Wyden proposal is based on working principles, there are still many policy questions to resolve. For example, it is silent on the future of Obamacare. Make no mistake: Structural Medicare reform should begin after full repeal of Obamacare. Furthermore, given the depths of our fiscal crisis, the proposal is slow to take effect. The Heritage proposal transitions to premium support beginning in 2016; Ryan–Wyden does not begin until 2022, the same date embodied in the House budget resolution.

    Nonetheless, Ryan–Wyden continues the conversation about the need for fundamental structural Medicare reform. Trying to save Medicare through more government price controls will not do. Converting the outdated Medicare program into a premium-support model is the best and more honest way forward.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Ryan-Wyden: The Basic Ingredients of Structural Medicare Reform

    1. Rick Thompson says:

      agree that the system needs reform, but for many of us, it is NOT an Entitlement… it IS and WAS the LAW! I had no choice as to whether I would participate… it was mandated. If I could go back 40 years and have a choice, I would have created my own medical savings plan and been money ahead today and not have to worry about the same bureaucrat that created this mess tell me I have to give it up without a backup plan. I PAID into Medicare… just like Social Security… and neither one is an entitlement as both were mandated! Congress should get off its collective backside and cut spending on real "entitlements" like welfare for the undocumented and farm subsidies and and wasting money having us buy "ethanol enriched" gasoline that takes more energy to produce than it saves in crude oil costs… just for a few examples.

      • joe smith says:

        yes….agree….but the average American in a lifetime of working puts in $40,000 or less but takes out $125,000. That's the problem. More loans from the Chinese to guarantee this program.

    2. Bobbie says:

      aren't entitlements earned? the problem I see is people are given entitlements (like candy) they haven't earned BY BEING EXEMPT FROM PAYING INTO THE SYSTEM getting better the care and personal accommodations at higher expenses like it's brainwashed into them that it's everyone elses problem and responsibility to them! Time to get things straightened out with constitutional common sense!!!

      Do you ever notice there are no complaints from the great population of cultural immigrants who have been coming here since the 80's? the FEAR might not be "big government" to immigrants as much as it may be THEIR FEAR to self govern by freedom? Immigrants are manipulated by government who misinterprets the peoples' constitution for gain of power and control with immigrant leaders in public office helping. hmm….

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×