The Medicare solvency projection is one way of measuring Medicare’s financial status. Since the Medicare fund only includes Part A benefits, it is not a full scope of the financial status of the Medicare program. In the years when the income exceeds the benefits paid, there is an increased in the asset level. In years when the benefit spending exceeds the income, the assets decrease. Each year, this calculation is used to project how long the Medicare program will last. I remember hearing about his some years back and never understood how the projections kept changing. I see now that the payroll taxes play a roll in the Medicare trust fund and it’s speculated that as the baby boomer’s continue to retire, the workforce will decrease, therefore less payroll taxes, but also the expenses will increase due to projected increase in benefit spending as the baby boomer’s age and their needs for health care services grow.
In 2005, it was projected that Medicare would be depleted by 2020. In 2017, it’s projected to be depleted in 2029. While the projections have shown improvements as the era of the baby boomer population continues to grow in age, I wonder if the projections will significantly decrease. This is one of the many reasons for the need to continue to cut costs and get to a high quality, low cost health care model.
Reply to the following discussion at least 150 words, no copy and paste, no plagiarism
(Tyler7)
According to our power point slides that were provided to us, because of slower growth in Medicare in the past years, the solvency of part A trust fund has been extended further into the future compared to projections before the ACA was passed. The level of growth in our economy also affects the Part A trust fund solvency. According to The Facts on Medicare Spending and Financing, “an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boomer generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll tax contributions”. This would then directly impact Medicare solvency from the baby boomers. As baby boomers age, they will transform health care.
According to the Census Bureau, “by 2029, when the last round of boomers reaches retirement age, the number of Americans 65 or older will climb to more than 71 million, up from about 41 million in 2011, a 73 percent increase”. Once this happens, a good amount of people are going to switch from commercial plans to Medicare coverage. The copious amount of boomers pose a potential problem for funding Medicare. One of the biggest unknowns is how well Medicare is going to take in 75 million baby boomers during the federal governments attempt to transform how care is provided and paid for.
Complete the following discussion, no plagiarism no copy and paste. At least 250 words
Does it surprise you that the Stark Law’s definition of financial relationship extends to a physician’s immediate family? Why do you think it is important that financial arrangements of a physician’s immediate family be scrutinized?
Reply to the following discussion at least 150 words, no copy and paste, no plagiarism
(Brittany8)
According the the department of health and human services website the Stark Law is defined as “The Physician Self-Referral Law, commonly referred to as the Stark law, prohibits physicians from referring patients to receive “designated health services” payable by Medicare or Medicaid from entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship, unless an exception applies. Financial relationships include both ownership/investment interests and compensation arrangements.” I am not surprised that the law would extend to the physicians immediate family members such as parents and grandparents. Often times the lines can be blurred ethically when family members are involved. I would say that overall the Stark Law protects not only patients but the physicians as well from violating a code of conduct. I would say that if the physician was bias towards his own family this could be seen as deceitful and not in the best interest of the patient. I do know a couple of physicians who are married and work in the same practice. I guess this goes along with the concept of mixing family or friends and business is not always the best idea. I think there could be a compromise in which it was disclosed that the physician KNEW who the patient was being referred too and then it would be up to the patient to decide if they wanna go to the doctor or not. I think that often times family members go to the same schools and there fore would have a similar education.
Answer preview
I agree that a code of conduct is very crucial to any practice. Having the Stark law include immediate family is important since it ensures that regardless of who the patient is the procedures are done ethically. There is no bias that can happen towards the patient. This is an important concept since the physician is protected from any malpractices. If a physician refers a family member to entities that they have a financial relationship, the entity may feel that they are under an obligation to attend to them first as they leave other needier patients waiting. This can also be viewed in another way, if the physician with the financial ties in not in a good relationship with the entity. It may lead to the family member been discriminated against (Sutton, 2011). The physician in the entity may also not be comfortable attending to the patient since they may feel like it is too much pressure on them. Such a case ultimately results in unethical procedures in the entity.
