GAO finds Medicare plans paid too much
WASHINGTON — Health insurers that offer private plans in the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled were overpaid by as much as $5.1 billion during the past three years, government auditors said.
The report, from the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, was compiled as insurers are fighting a proposed 2.2 percent cut in a rate used to determine their payments in the Medicare Advantage program. About a quarter of Medicare's 49 million beneficiaries sign up for Advantage plans, in which their care is covered by insurers led by UnitedHealth Group Inc. instead of the government.
The plans were paid about $135 billion in 2012, according to the GAO. Payments will fall by about $11 billion in 2014 if the proposed cut is enacted, UnitedHealth said in a recent letter to Medicare's acting administrator, Marilyn Tavenner.
“The cuts result in higher costs for millions of beneficiaries, diminish choice for Medicare enrollees, compromise the viability of the Medicare Advantage program and undercut Medicare Advantage's ability to deliver better quality at lower costs,” John Larson, chief executive officer of UnitedHealth's Medicare and Retirement unit, wrote in the letter.
A spokesman for UnitedHealth, Matt Stearns, said in an email that the company wouldn't comment on the GAO report.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- FBI blames North Korea for Sony hack
- West Virginia man dies after being shot with arrow in Wellsburg
- Computer hackers’ attack on Sony ‘merits an appropriate response,’ White House says
- New York move to ban fracking heartens critics
- Sen. McConnell wants to stop coal rules
- Colorado’s neighbors challenge legal pot sales
- Federal regulators pen rules for Cuba trade, tourism
- U.S. to open embassy in Cuba soon
- Feds to sue New York City over civil rights of teen inmates in Rikers jail
- Bondage ‘Master Bob’ Bashara convicted in wife’s slaying in Detroit area
- Feds design college ratings system