U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–473 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–508 

STRENGTHENING MEDICARE FOR TODAY 

AND THE FUTURE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

Serial No. 113–1 

Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 
(II) 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

ROBERT P. CASEY JR, Pennsylvania 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOE DONNELLY Indiana 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ORRIN HATCH, Utah 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

KIM LIPSKY, Majority Staff Director 

PRISCILLA HANLEY, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Bill Nelson ........................................................... 1 

Statement of Ranking Member Susan M. Collins ................................................. 2 

Statement of Senator Warren ................................................................................. 4 

Statement of Senator Ayotte ................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Flake .................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Baldwin ................................................................................ 5 

Statement of Senator Whitehouse .......................................................................... 6 

Statement of Senator Donnelly .............................................................................. 7 

PANEL OF WITNESSES 

Juliette Cubanski, Ph.D., Associate Director, Medicare Policy Project, Henry 

J. Kaiser Family Foundation .............................................................................. 8 

David Goodman, MD, Director, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and 

Clinical Practice and Co-Principal Investigator, Dartmouth Atlas of Health 

Care ....................................................................................................................... 26 

Kenneth Thorpe, Ph.D., Robert W. Woodruff Professor and Chair, Department 

of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory 

University ............................................................................................................. 44 

David Blumenthal, MD, President, The Commonwealth Fund ........................... 71 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED WITNESS STATEMENTS AND QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Juliette Cubanski, Ph.D., Associate Director, Medicare Policy Project, Henry 

J. Kaiser Family Foundation .............................................................................. 11 

Questions submitted for Dr. Cubanski ........................................................... 124 

David Goodman, MD, Director, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and 

Clinical Practice and Co-Principal Investigator, Dartmouth Atlas of Health 

Care ....................................................................................................................... 28 

Questions submitted for Dr. Goodman ........................................................... 129 

Kenneth Thorpe, Ph.D., Robert W. Woodruff Professor and Chair, Department 

of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory 

University ............................................................................................................. 46 

Questions submitted for Dr. Thorpe ............................................................... 133 

David Blumenthal, MD, President, The Commonwealth Fund ........................... 73 

Questions submitted for Dr. Blumenthal ....................................................... 148 

(1) 

STRENGTHENING MEDICARE FOR TODAY 

AND THE FUTURE 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:02 p.m., in Room 

106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Nelson, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Baldwin, 

Donnelly, Warren, Collins, Flake, and Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL NELSON, CHAIRMAN 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon. A long time ago, this committee 

was formed when our Nation was facing a crisis of our uninsured 

elderly. At that time, the panel played a key role in the expiration 

of health insurance coverage for older Americans. Ultimately, what 

happened in 1965 was the enactment of Medicare. This committee 

has an incredible legacy and it is certainly a privilege for Senator 

Collins and me to lead this committee at this particular time. 

Last week, during the recess, I went to an elderly research facility called the Institute of Aging at the University of Florida in 

Gainesville, and then I went on to the Claude Pepper Center in 

Tallahassee at Florida State University in preparation for this 

hearing and I listened to some of our State’s foremost experts on 

matters involving the elderly. 

And so now we are literally at the point of facing another budget 

crisis, much of which focuses on the debate about the exploding 

health care cost, and therefore, by inference, the Medicare program, and it is front and center. 

Now, there is a bit of good news and that came from the Congressional Budget Office. Federal spending, in their recalculations, 

Federal spending on Medicare has actually been lower than what 

they predicted three years ago. Medicare spending in fiscal year 

2012 grew by three percent to $551 billion—that is according to 

CBO—and that represents the slowest growth since 2000. And 

while that is progress, we know that there are many financial challenges ahead. More of the baby boomers are retiring. Health care 

costs continue to rise. There is still a lack of efficiency in the use 

of the system. And Medicare could end up reaching a spending of 

$1 trillion by 2023. 

So although we have seen some progress, we can do better, and 

that is what the two of us believe that this committee has a role 

to play in discussing the options that will strengthen Medicare, try 
2 

to reduce the cost, and to improve upon the care that seniors receive without reducing benefits or shifting all of the cost to consumers. 

For example, care coordination has more to do than just saving 

in dollars. It means hours of time and a Medicare beneficiary’s life. 

Reducing hospital readmissions will not only save the Medicare 

program billions, it will save beneficiaries from potential infection 

and further out-of-pocket expense. 

And with that in mind, I look forward to hearing from the panel 

today on how we can better reimburse providers for prevention, engage consumers through price transparency, which is a hearing I 

just came from that Senator Rockefeller is having in the Commerce 

Committee, and in the various drugs, devices, and medical services, 

how we can better deliver that to our seniors, and, of course, to 

simplify administrative burdens. 

I am delighted that Senator Collins is a co-leader of this committee and I welcome the opportunity to lead this committee with 

you and would ask for your opening comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN M. COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first say that I am absolutely delighted to be working 

with you. We have worked together in the past, but this will give 

us an opportunity for a whole new level of collaboration and cooperation and I look forward to your leadership of this committee 

and being your partner. 

Florida has the highest percentage of Americans age 65 or older, 

but it is actually the State of Maine that is the oldest State in the 

Nation if you measure by median age. A lot of people are surprised 

to learn that. But I think that the combination of those two facts 

makes it entirely appropriate that the two of us are leading this 

committee. 

I also want to welcome all of our committee members. There are 

a few of them who have joined us. I am sure others are on their 

way. 

Throughout its history, this committee has spurred Congress to 

action through hearings, investigations, and reports. I look forward 

to forging a strong partnership as we work together to shine a spotlight on issues of vital importance to older Americans, such as 

health care, retirement security, long-term care, elder fraud and 

abuse, and research on diseases like Alzheimer’s and diabetes that 

take a devastating toll on Americans and their families as well as 

on the Federal budget. 

I would point out that it has been since the 1990s that a Mainer 

had a leadership role on this committee, but my predecessor and 

good friend, Senator Bill Cohen, served as the Ranking Member 

and as Chairman of this committee back in the 1990s. So I look forward to following in his formidable footsteps. 

Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, Medicare is a critically important program that provides essential health coverage for more than 

50 million of our Nation’s seniors and disabled citizens. It is, therefore, appropriate that our very first hearing in the 113th Congress 

will focus on ways to strengthen and sustain Medicare into the future. 
3 

Medicare has made an invaluable contribution to the lives of 

more than 130 million older Americans and individuals with disabilities since its creation in 1965. As the Chairman has pointed 

out in his opening statement, prior to Medicare, more than half of 

all Americans over age 65 were uninsured and nearly a third lived 

in poverty. Today, virtually all seniors have access to health care 

coverage through Medicare, and the official poverty rate among 

seniors is less than nine percent. Medicare has provided both 

health and economic security to our Nation’s seniors for almost 50 

years, and by any measure, the program has been a great success. 

It is, however, time for our country to have a serious debate 

about how to secure the future of Medicare. This is particularly 

true in light of the most recent Medicare Trustees Report that projected that the Part A Trust Fund will be exhausted in just 11 

years and unable to pay benefits in full or on time. 

Rapid increases in health care spending, coupled with the demographics associated with an aging baby boom population, pose serious challenges to Medicare in the 21st century. The number of people eligible for Medicare is projected to soar from a little more than 

50 million today to nearly 90 million in 2040, and the retirement 

of the baby boom generation not only means millions of more 

Americans on Medicare, but also fewer workers paying into Medicare. This is the combination of the perfect storm. We, therefore, 

face a major challenge as we look for ways to slow Medicare spending growth while continuing to provide quality health care for an 

aging population. 

I am also mindful of the mounting deficits and towering National 

debt our country has accumulated and its impact on our seniors 

and, indeed, on all Americans, including future generations. Today, 

Medicare accounts for about 15 percent of total Federal spending, 

a percentage that is certain to increase. It is inevitable that the 

program will be part of the ongoing discussions over how to reduce 

Federal deficits and the National debt. 

The importance of Medicare and the magnitude of the fiscal challenges we face as a Nation underscore how important it is that we 

reach a bipartisan consensus on the way forward. I have opposed 

past efforts to restructure Medicare in ways that I believe could be 

harmful to the 50 million American seniors and disabled individuals who rely on the program. I believe, however, that there are 

changes that could be made without jeopardizing access to affordable quality health care for our Nation’s seniors. 

The real key to getting Medicare costs under control is to get 

health care costs under control. Today, the United States spends 18 

percent of its Gross Domestic Product on health care, more than 

any other industrialized nation, yet we lag behind many other nations on many measures of quality. In health care, quantity does 

not always equal quality, and clearly, there is more that we can do 

to reward value rather than volume, quality rather than quantity. 

So today’s hearing will discuss some of the options for delivery 

system reforms that have the potential not just to slow the growth 

in health care spending, but also to improve health care quality. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. 
4 

While I am blessed to have 20/15 vision, I can hardly see you all 

down there—— 

[Laughter.] 

And so on future hearings, I want to invite you not to spread out 

like this, regardless of seniority. 

But we need to take care of some business before I turn to you 

all for your statements. 

[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the committee proceeded to Executive 

Session and reconvened at 3:16 p.m.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And so let me turn to Senator Warren for your 

statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN 

Senator WARREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you, Ranking Member Collins. As the newest member, I am 

delighted to be here and hope to learn from you and eager to work 

under your leadership. 

I think we all agree that we need to find the way to cut the rate 

of increase in health care costs, and there are two very different 

visions for how to do that. We hear a lot of talk about the best way 

to do that is to cut Medicare benefits so that fewer people receive 

assistance. But the way I see that, people will still get sick, however you design Medicare benefits. People will still have heart attacks. They will still have strokes. They will still have diabetes. 

And they will still need care. And many of them will still go for 

care, only they will go to emergency rooms and be unfunded patients. We will find other ways to give care that is more expensive 

and less expensive and I just think that is the wrong approach to 

think about. 

The alternative is that we describe this problem, I think, very 

much as Senator Collins does, and I am very much in agreement 

with her. The problem we have, I would describe much less as a 

Medicare problem and much more as a problem of health care overall and that our goal has to be how to deliver better outcomes at 

lower costs. And I believe that a big part of that means funding the 

research to figure out how to do that. Sometimes it is about funding health care research directly, how we get better treatment of 

diabetes, how we get better treatment of strokes that helps bring 

down costs and at the same time increases the quality of life of our 

patients. 

I think this is the approach that we should be using. I hope this 

is part of what we will be talking about here. And I look forward 

to learning from our panelists today, and again, thank you for your 

leadership on this, Senator Collins and Senator Nelson. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KELLY AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member. I look forward to being part of this committee, as well. 

I also want to welcome all the panelists, particularly Dr. Goodman, and I appreciate the excellent work being done at the Dartmouth Atlas program. I had the chance to visit Dartmouth in 2011 

and hear about the important work that you are doing there and 
5 

so I am very honored that you are here talking about that work 

before this important committee today, so thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Blumenthal. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

having this hearing on this very, very important topic. Thank you 

to all of our witnesses for being here today. 

I have to disclose in the interests of full disclosure, Mr. Chairman, that David Blumenthal is my brother. I always knew he was 

a Nationally recognized expert, I just did not know in what. 

[Laughter.] 

And I am going to spare him the withering, relentless cross-examination that I spent last night preparing. 

[Laughter.] 

But I want to say how strongly I agree with you and Senator Collins, Senator Warren, that this kind of inquiry provides a profoundly significant and historic opportunity, not only to examine 

improving the Medicare program, but really the entire health care 

delivery system for our country, which is desperately in need of reform and re-engineering and, in fact, can produce better outcomes 

by making them less expensive, in other words, reducing the kinds 

of readmission that Dr. Goodman so aptly describes, following some 

of the examples that are set forth in Dr. Blumenthal’s testimony 

from elsewhere in the country, and supporting the efforts of the 

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, which right now is 

undertaking initiatives that offer great promise for reaching our 

common goal, which is better outcomes at less cost. The two are not 

only compatible, they are mutually supportive. 

So I want to thank, also, particularly Senator Whitehouse, who 

has spoken about this issue, as I have, for some time. And my hope 

is that health care reductions in cost will be re-engineered around 

the system and can be measured and scored so that we can include 

them in deficit reduction, because they are real means of reducing 

the deficit. They ought to be counted and scored. And Senator 

Whitehouse and I have been talking about this issue for some time. 

Thank you all for being here today. This testimony is profoundly 

important and valuable to us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Flake. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF FLAKE 

Senator FLAKE. I am just glad to be here. Thanks. I look forward 

to the witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Baldwin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TAMMY BALDWIN 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Collins. 

I am really excited to join this committee and I wanted to start 

out by recognizing the person I have succeeded to the Senate and 

the person you have succeeded to the Chair of the Aging Committee, Herb Kohl, who chaired this committee for six years and 

spent his entire career in the United States Senate as an incredible 

champion for Wisconsin’s seniors and, in fact, all seniors in Amer-
6 

ica. So I was thrilled to find out that I could become a member of 

the Aging Committee. 

And I am delighted with the topic of this first hearing. Aging 

issues and Medicare, in particular, are also important to me, near 

and dear to my heart, especially because I was raised by my grandparents, my maternal grandparents, and got a chance as a much 

younger person than most to become more familiar with the issues 

that affect people as they age and the Medicare program, in particular. My grandmother was 56 when I was born, so it was in my 

teens and early 20s that I had my first exposure to Medicare. 

My grandparents were my heroes for what they did for me. No 

matter what happened, they were there for me as I was growing 

up. So when my grandmother became older and more frail, it was 

my deep honor to be able to return the favor and make sure that 

she received quality health care. Medicare was there for her. And, 

I would say, because Medicare was there for her and I could depend on the fact that she was getting affordable, quality, competent 

care, in a way, as her caregiver, Medicare was also there for me. 

I did not have to worry that a medical emergency would exhaust 

all of her resources or all of mine. And Medicare allowed me to remain as a caregiver, also focused on building a new career as an 

attorney at first and public servant after that. 

Medicare has served my family and millions of others very well 

for decades, and it is why hearings like this are so important. I am 

delighted to have this panel of witnesses here today to help us talk 

about how we can make sure that Medicare remains strong for decades and generations to come and I appreciate the fact that you are 

taking the time with us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman Nelson. 

I am delighted that for the first hearing of the Aging Committee 

under your chairmanship, we are focusing on this issue. I think 

that for all the public attention that is being devoted to the sequester and the row that we are having over the sequester here in 

Washington, the most important hearing going on is this one, because our health care expense is an enormous fiscal, even National 

security, problem for our country. 

And I think our Ranking Member, Senator Collins, said it exactly 

right when she said the way to address Medicare costs is to address health care costs and we have such an opportunity, whether 

you look at the 18 percent of GDP we burn compared to the least 

efficient of our international industrialized competitors only using 

12 percent of their GDP to actually provide better health care results for the population, or whether you look at very well established and well regarded organizations like the President’s Council 

on Economic Advisors, the Institutes of Medicine, the New England 

Health Care Institute, the Lewin Group, former Bush Treasury 

Secretary O’Neill, who put the savings out of our health care system between $700 billion and $1 trillion a year, all by making the 

system work better for patients and provide better outcomes. 
7 

This is not a zero sum game in which you have to take something away in order to make the system more efficient. This is one 

of those happy win-wins where better care produces lower costs. 

And so I think you are in exactly the right spot, and I think the 

more this incredibly valuable and relied on essential Medicare program is pushed into the spotlight of benefit reductions, or out of 

the gunsight, I should say, of benefit reductions, the more we have 

to remind everybody that that is the wrong way to go about the 

business of solving this problem. 

I will close by reminiscing about the former CEO of Kaiser 

Health, George Halvorson. Kaiser is a pretty darn big health care 

operator in this country and CEO Halvorson was no fool. I can remember him at one point saying to a group—he was introducing 

me to a group that I was about to speak to, and he said, ‘‘This business of going after health care savings with cuts and rationing is 

the wrong way to go at the health care problem.’’ He said, ‘‘It is 

so wrong, it is criminal.’’ He went on to say, ‘‘It is an inept way 

of thinking about our health care problem.’’ But those ideas keep 

popping up, even if they are so wrong as to be nearly criminal, 

even though they are inept. 

And you could not have, I do not think, much of a better panel 

to point us out the right path and to show us that not only is this 

the right path in principle, but that out in the real world, in virtually every single one of our States, CEOs who run health care 

companies are actually doing this and actually showing the improved outcomes and the savings. This is not hypothetical any 

longer. It is actually starting to result in real savings and real improvements. 

So I am very grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, that you have chosen this as your opening salvo and I look forward to being a loyal 

ally to you and to your Ranking Member as you continue to press 

this issue forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. And soon, Senator Collins and I are anticipating 

that we will have a hearing on some of the scams that are being 

perpetrated against seniors. So that is coming down the line very 

soon. 

Senator Donnelly. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOE DONNELLY 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

you and Ranking Member Collins for the opportunity to be on this 

committee. 

This work is critically important. It is to preserve the health and 

dignity of our seniors, to enable them to get quality medical care 

while still meeting the financial challenges that our Nation faces. 

So we will continue to work to get it right. We will work to change 

the financial trajectory for our country and also still deliver extraordinary medical care for our seniors. 

It is an honor to be here. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senators, and thank you to our 

panel. 

First, we are going to hear from Dr. Juliette Cubanski from the 

Kaiser Family Foundation, and we want her to put our conversation in the context of the Medicare senior. Dr. Cubanski is the As-
8 

sociate Director for the Program on Medicare Policy with the Foundation here in Washington. She focuses on Medicare options among 

seniors and has been heavily involved in the Foundation’s efforts 

to monitor the implementation of Medicare provisions in the health 

care reform bill and also assessing the implications of that bill. 

Let me just introduce each of you and then we will go down the 

line so we know all that are on this very renowned panel. 

Next, we will have Dr. Ken Thorpe, the Chair of the Department 

of Health Policy and Management at Emory. Dr. Thorpe is a renowned expert on the measurement of cost savings through care 

coordination and disease management, maximizing both the cost 

and the quality value of an intervention. Dr. Thorpe also leads the 

Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, working with a coalition of 

patients, providers, and organizations to reform care to patients affected by multiple serious maladies. 

Dr. David Goodman is a Professor of Pediatrics and of Health 

Policy, Director of the Center for Health Policy Research, and a CoPrincipal Investigator of the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. 

Many of you have seen Dr. Goodman’s report on unnecessary hospital readmissions. Dr. Goodman will be presenting his latest reports and the lessons to be learned from the study. 

And Dr. David Blumenthal, the much younger brother of the 

Senator—— 

[Laughter.] 

A nationally renowned health care delivery system reform expert 

and President of The Commonwealth Fund. Dr. Blumenthal will 

explain The Commonwealth Fund’s newest proposals aimed at stabilizing American health care spending while producing lower cost 

and better value, not just Medicare. This proposal has the potential 

to save, Senator Collins, $2 trillion over ten years. 

So I will introduce you, but in the reverse order, with you after 

Dr. Cubanski. 

Dr. Cubanski. 

STATEMENT OF JULIETTE CUBANSKI, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, MEDICARE POLICY PROJECT, HENRY J. KAISER 

FAMILY FOUNDATION 

Ms. CUBANSKI. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Nelson, 

Ranking Member Collins, and distinguished members of the committee. I am Juliette Cubanski, Associate Director of the Program 

on Medicare Policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. I 

appreciate the opportunity to be with you here today to discuss 

Medicare and the Foundation’s recent polling on proposed Medicare 

program changes. 

Medicare was established in 1965 to provide health insurance to 

people ages 65 and older and was expanded in 1972 to cover younger people with permanent disabilities. Medicare provides the same 

set of benefits to everyone who is covered, regardless of their income or medical history. Today, Medicare covers one in six Americans, or 50 million people. 

The vast majority of seniors say Medicare is working well for 

them, and various surveys indicate that beneficiaries generally 

have reliable access to physicians, hospitals, and other providers. 
9 

People with Medicare tend to have significant health needs and 

modest financial resources. Four in ten beneficiaries have three or 

more chronic conditions, and half of beneficiaries have annual incomes less than $22,500, which is about 200 percent of poverty for 

a single person. 

Benefits covered by Medicare include hospitalizations, physician 

visits, preventive services, post-acute care, and prescription drugs. 

Under the traditional Medicare program, benefits are divided into 

three parts, A, B, and D. Part A benefits include hospital and 

skilled nursing facility stays, home health care, and hospice care. 

Part B benefits include physician visits, outpatient services, lab 

work, and preventive services. Part D is a voluntary prescription 

drug benefit delivered either through stand-alone prescription drug 

plans to supplement traditional Medicare or through Medicare Advantage plans. 

Medicare Advantage, or Part C, is an alternative to traditional 

Medicare where beneficiaries can enroll in a private health plan for 

all Medicare covered benefits most often including prescription 

drugs. Today, more than a quarter of all beneficiaries are enrolled 

in Medicare Advantage plans. 

Most Medicare beneficiaries report using one or more Medicare 

covered services each year. In 2009, 77 percent of people with 

Medicare had at least one physician visit, and nearly one in five 

was admitted to a hospital. While most beneficiaries use some medical care in any given year, a majority of Medicare spending is concentrated among a small share of beneficiaries with significant 

medical needs. 

While Medicare helps pay for many important medical benefits, 

it does not cover all the costs of care. Medicare coverage requires 

premiums, deductibles, and cost sharing. For example, beneficiaries 

are subject to a deductible of nearly $1,200 this year when they are 

hospitalized, and most beneficiaries pay a monthly premium for 

Part B services of about $105 this year, while those with higher incomes pay a higher monthly premium. Medicare Advantage and 

Part D plans also have premiums and cost sharing for this coverage and these costs vary widely across plans. 

And unlike most private health insurance policies, Medicare does 

not limit beneficiaries’ annual out-of-pocket spending. And Medicare does not cover some services that the Medicare population is 

likely to need, most notably long-term services and supports and 

dental and vision services. 

Most beneficiaries have some form of additional insurance to 

help pay their medical expenses, such as retiree health benefits, 

Medigap policies, or Medicaid for those with low incomes. Nevertheless, many beneficiaries face considerable and growing out-ofpocket costs to meet their medical and long-term care needs. 

Looking to the future, Medicare is expected to face financing 

challenges due to rising health care costs and an aging population, 

and as you are all well aware, Medicare also is playing a major role 

in discussions about reducing the Federal budget deficit. Yet, the 

Foundation’s recent polling shows that a majority of the public believes that deficit reduction can occur without major reductions in 

Medicare spending. 
10 

When asked about specific proposals to reduce Medicare spending, a majority of Americans support requiring drug companies to 

give Medicare a better deal on medications for low-income beneficiaries and requiring high-income seniors to pay higher Medicare 

premiums. Other proposals, however, are opposed by a majority of 

the public, including requiring all seniors to pay higher Medicare 

premiums, increasing the Medicare payroll tax, reducing Medicare 

payments to hospitals and other providers, and raising the age of 

Medicare eligibility. 

While Medicare faces long-term financial challenges, it is important to remember that Medicare is a vital source of economic and 

health security for 50 million people today and millions more in the 

future. Moving forward, it will be important to assess the implications of proposed changes to the Medicare program for current and 

future beneficiaries, including effects on costs, quality, and access. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cubanski follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Cubanski. 

We are going to go right down the line and then I am going to 

defer asking questions so that you all can get your questions in, 

and then I will just do clean-up toward the end. 

Dr. Goodman. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GOODMAN, M.D., DIRECTOR, DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL 

PRACTICE AND CO–PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, DARTMOUTH 

ATLAS OF HEALTH CARE 

Dr. GOODMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to 

testify about hospital readmissions. 

Readmissions are a case study of what is right and what is 

wrong in health care improvement efforts. At Dartmouth, we have 

studied variation in the care of Medicare beneficiaries and unnecessary readmissions stand out as a $15 billion a year problem. Readmissions, however, should not be viewed as a discrete problem 

in quality, but connected to larger structural deficits in care delivery and financing. 

No Medicare patient should have to be readmitted to the hospital 

because of poor quality of care during the initial hospitalization, inadequate discharge planning, or lack of care coordination with community providers. What is often ignored in the focus on improving 

coordination in the care of patients after they leave the hospital is 

that patients often experience similar problems in fragmented care 

before they are initially admitted. 

Interest in readmissions has been longstanding, but has increased recently because rates are now publicly reported, and many 

sections of the ACA are concerned with reducing rehospitalization. 

The ACA also mandates penalties, as much as one percent of a 

total hospital’s base operating DRG payments. 

Through funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the 

Dartmouth Atlas released a report this month, the Revolving Door 

Report on U.S. Hospital Readmissions. For common causes of medical hospitalization, such as congestive heart failure, almost one in 

five Medicare patients is rehospitalized in 30 days. Despite the 

high rates of readmissions Nationally, there is marked variation 

across hospitals. Patient factors explain only about ten percent of 

these differences. 

While some hospitals have high rates, there are many with relatively low rates. For example, while the National rate for 30-day 

readmissions for medical discharges was 15.9 percent in 2010, the 

NCH Health System in Naples, Florida, had a rate of 14.2 percent 

and the three largest hospitals in Maine had rates below the National average, including only 13.9 percent of patients readmitted 

at Maine General in Augusta. And New Hampshire did very well, 

as well. 

Overall readmission rates were virtually unchanged, however, 

from 2004 to 2010, although some hospitals again demonstrated 

notable reductions. 

Our failure to address high rates of rehospitalizations Nationally 

is rooted in improvement efforts that are too narrowly focused and 

are unconnected with the larger problems in Medicare. Efforts to 

reduce unnecessary rehospitalizations are concentrated on care im-
27 

provements around the time of discharge, again with little attention to the care of the patients before the first hospitalization or 

after the 30th day. 

The chances that patients are readmitted to the hospital in a 

given location are closely linked to the chances that they are initially hospitalized. We have known for almost 40 years that hospitalization rates vary markedly across areas, even after controlling for patient differences. This dramatic variation in the care of 

patients is strongly affected by long-embedded practice styles coupled with financial incentives to fill hospital beds. 

What can we do about it? First is to pay for good care, not more 

care. Incentives to improve community-based care that keep patients healthy and out of the hospital whenever possible need to replace fee-for-service payments that reward higher volumes of care. 

The specific penalty for excessive readmissions ignores the pervasive incentives in the Medicare program for the initial hospitalization. Accountable Care Organizations and other forms of shared 

savings and population-based payments are promising innovations 

in the way that we pay and organize health care. The incentives 

in these models encourage integrated delivery systems that tie together the fragmented set of providers found in many communities. 

These and other new payment models need to be coupled with an 

expanded set of indicators that guide providers and patients in 

their search for quality. 

Second is this issue of indicators. Readmission rate is an indicator, but the focus on 30-day readmission rate is useful only when 

accompanied by a full set of indicators that track the actual experiences of Medicare patients, particularly those with chronic illness. 

At present, ACOs are monitored on 33 quality metrics, or will be 

monitored on 33 quality metrics, but this is a list that everyone 

agrees needs to evolve as there is better understanding of the short 

list, of the most important measures. These need to be in the direction of patient reported outcomes, like health status, not just readmission rates. If we do not continue to expand the breadth and 

depth of quality indicators, but not the number, we will not recognize the most important opportunities to improve care and save 

needless expenditures. The coupling of robust health care measures 

with broad population-based payment models will help ensure that 

the quality of care every day is as good as the care 30 days after 

hospital discharge. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Goodman follows:] 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Goodman. 

Of course, all of your prepared remarks will be inserted as a part 

of the record, and thank you for your verbal remarks. 

Dr. Thorpe. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH E. THORPE, PH.D., ROBERT W. 

WOODRUFF PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, ROLLINS SCHOOL OF 

PUBLIC HEALTH, EMORY UNIVERSITY 

Mr. THORPE. Thank you, Senator Nelson, Ranking Member Collins, for inviting me here today. I want to focus on some solutions 

to Medicare that will make it sustainable over the long term and 

reduce costs in the system, not simply just cutting provider payments and shifting costs around the system. 

To do this, though, I think you have to start out by having a 

clear understanding of where the dollars are spent and what is 

driving the growth in spending. Let me give you a couple of facts. 

In Medicare today, 95 percent of the spending is linked to chronically ill patients. 

Second, over half the Medicare population is currently being 

managed for five or more chronic conditions. It accounts for nearly 

80 percent of the costs. Most of the increase in Medicare spending 

is due to rising rates of largely preventable chronic health care conditions. 

And finally, about 27 percent of Medicare patients are diabetics, 

and about half of them are pre-diabetic. 

So if you just think about those statistics in terms of the growth, 

in terms of incidence, where all the money is in terms of chronic 

disease, that really should be the focus of our discussion. 

Medicare currently provides a personalized health risk assessment to identify at-risk patients, but it does not cover any solutions 

to actually allow people to act on those. So if you are an overweight 

pre-diabetic adult or seriously obese, the only treatment option you 

really have is bariatric surgery. It does not cover intensive lifestyle 

programs. It does not cover these new class of FDA-approved 

weight loss drugs, and so on. 

In addition, while Medicare started this year to move down the 

path a little bit to allow physicians a code for transitional care, it 

does not provide comprehensive care coordination at all, and my 

concern about this path is that it may continue to promote silobased and not team-based care. 

So in the remaining part of my testimony, I want to outline a 

three-part reform to Medicare that I think will reduce costs and 

improve quality. 

Point one. We need to continue to transition away from fee-forservice Medicare, fee-for-service payments. It is a system that promotes volume. It runs counter to the incentives that we need to do 

care coordination. We need to initially start to accelerate the transition towards using bundled payments that really combine and integrate incentives for caring for patients, both in-hospital and postacute. 

Two, we need to make evidence-based programs like the Diabetes 

Prevention Program a part of the Medicare program. This is a program that we now have a decade of randomized control trial data 
45 

that shows that we can have a dramatic reduction in the incidence 

of diabetes and other chronic conditions in the program if it was 

a covered benefit. For seniors that are at risk for diabetes, this program reduced the incidence of diabetes by 71 percent. If it was included, it would save Medicare money and improve health care outcomes. 

Third, we need to add care coordination into Medicare, original 

Medicare, now. I think we need to pivot away from a pilot mentality and move much more into an implementation mentality of 

best practices we already know that work, and let me give you 

some examples. 

One is to focus on team-based care, the provision of care at home 

by nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, behavioral health 

workers, pharmacists, to work in close collaboration with physician 

practices to manage and engage these patients that have multiple 

conditions. What functions do they perform? Well, you would have 

a nurse care coordinator that is basically the quarterback of the 

team to work with that patient and the family. 

You would do comprehensive medication management. We need 

to broaden our current Part D program to include more patients. 

The current program is limited to very high-cost Part D patient. 

Only ten percent of people in Part D participate in this. We need 

to focus on the total cost, high total cost patients, and broaden 

what we do in terms of managing very complicated medications. 

That will save money. We have good data on that. 

Transitional care. This is best done by nurses, nurse practitioners, community health workers. We have good established models of how that could work and how that does work. We can cut 

readmission rates by 25 to 50 percent with similar reductions in 

hospital costs. 

We need to build health coaching and literacy into these teams 

so that when patients leave the physician’s office, they understand 

the care plan. They understand how to navigate and negotiate the 

system. 

And we need to include measures of quality that are similar to 

the rest of the program in order to keep these health care teams 

accountable. 

There are some fast ways I think we could do this. I would be 

happy to discuss that in the Q&A. But I think that in terms of the 

existing contracting authority that Medicare has, they could contract with health plans, home health agencies, population health 

managers, to provide team-based care that performs the functions 

that I just outlined in a very short period of time. Several States 

are already doing this as part of what they are doing in health care 

reform and they are expanding use of health teams very quickly. 

So I think our States and the private sector have already shown 

us the way. 

We always need to do targeted pilots. I guess, in closing, I am 

just saying that it is time, I think, to pivot and implement program-wide things that we already know that work from experience 

in the private sector and from what we have seen in the published 

research data. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thorpe follows:] 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Thorpe. 

You know, a lot of what you all have said is the goal of the Affordable Care Act, and so now the question is making it happen. 

Dr. Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BLUMENTHAL, M.D., PRESIDENT, THE 

COMMONWEALTH FUND 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, members of 

the committee, thank you for having me here today. 

I think it is fair to say that the future is upon us. We have been 

warned for decades about the consequences of relentlessly rising 

health care costs and now those consequences are coming home to 

roost. The result is that we face very, very difficult choices. 

To echo Senator Whitehouse’s remarks, quoting George 

Halvorson, George Halvorson also talks about having the choice 

now between rationing and re-engineering our health care system. 

Rationing involves taking things away, reducing benefits, reducing 

eligibility, increasing the payments from our senior citizens and 

others, and reducing payments to providers, all of which will result 

in a reduction in the quality of benefits and the quality of care ultimately provided to the elderly and violate in some way the contract 

that was made with them in 1965. 

Re-engineering involves fundamental changes to our health care 

system to make it work better, bending the cost curve down and 

the quality curve up simultaneously. It requires changes to the entire health care system because you cannot ask a doctor to treat 

a 64-year-old differently from a 65-year-old. And, as a matter of 

fact, in many of your States, there are great examples of that kind 

of re-engineering going on right now, showing the way for innovative, positive health care change. 

The Commission on a High Performance Health System, which 

I chaired and was sponsored by The Commonwealth Fund, put together a comprehensive synergistic set of programs, many of which 

have been mentioned by other members of this panel or by you in 

your comments. They involve three pillars, three basic reforms. 

First of all, changing payment to providers to promote value and 

quality and release innovation in our health care system at the 

grassroots. 

Secondly, activating consumers by rewarding them with giving 

them better information and rewarding them for making good 

choices for themselves and for the health care system by choosing 

high-performing providers. 

And thirdly, reforms in the health care market that would reduce 

administrative waste, change our broken malpractice system, and 

set National targets for total health care spending that would not 

rise faster than GDP. 

The savings for this combination of programs, as estimated by 

the Actuarial Research Corporation, would indeed be $2 trillion 

over ten years, with $761 billion of those dollars accruing to the 

Medicare program. 

Some specific examples of reforms contained in this package. One 

involves repealing the SGR, freezing current rates of payment at 

2013 levels, but providing extra payments for physicians who are 

members of and deliver care in patient-centered medical homes, Ac-
72 

countable Care Organizations, high-cost control teams of the type 

that Professor Thorpe has suggested, and also better payments and 

higher payments for patient-centered medical homes, Accountable 

Care Organizations, and those high-cost teams. 

Secondly, for consumers, providing them much better information 

about the quality and cost of care that they face and rewarding 

them for making good health care choices by reducing their copayments for proven, effective care provided in high-value settings. 

And also giving them the tools that they need, in general, to make 

better choices. 

And thirdly, market reforms that would involve reducing administrative costs, which are a huge burden on a health care system, 

as I mentioned, changing malpractice, and setting health care cost 

targets by region that are consistent with our National health care 

cost aspirations. 

We have the knowledge and the means to improve health care, 

not just to ration it, and history will judge us harshly if we go the 

route of hollowing out our key Federal programs and our National 

health care programs without taking advantage of these enormous 

opportunities to make care more efficient and higher in quality. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Blumenthal follows:] 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Blumenthal. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have 

to say that I cannot think of another Chairman who would be so 

gracious as to allow other members of the committee to question 

first, so you get high marks from all of us for your graciousness. 

I want to start my questions with Dr. Thorpe because I am the 

Chair and the founder of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, and I am 

well aware of the fact that, I think the figure is, that we spend 

more than one out of every four Medicare dollars treating people 

who have diabetes. I am an original cosponsor of the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act that we will be reintroducing shortly that 

would require Medicare to provide coverage for community-based 

intervention that is offered through hospitals such as the YMCA to 

help pre-diabetic adults avoid becoming full-fledged, having fullfledged diabetes. 

Now, there are some private health care plans like United 

Health that cover these kinds of services, but Medicare does not, 

and yet we know that research has proven that these kinds of lifestyle programs can reduce a pre-diabetic patient’s risk of getting diabetes by 58 percent overall and 71 percent in adults over age 60. 

In the process, we would literally save billions of dollars in addition 

to improving the quality of life. 

Why do you think it is so difficult to get changes in the Medicare 

program that seem to me to be no-brainers in terms of improving 

quality and saving literally billions of dollars? 

Mr. THORPE. Senator, thank you for that question, and certainly, 

thanks for your leadership in the Diabetes Caucus. 

I think you hit the nail on the head. Unless we tackle this issue 

of the rising rates of things we can prevent, these chronic diseases 

like diabetes, high blood pressure, bad cholesterol, all of which are 

related, we will not really be able to ever get at this issue of slowing the growth in spending. So if you think about these proposals 

I put on the table, we have to think about how does it affect the 

patients in the Medicare program and what can we do to clinically 

intervene. 

We can make an enormous difference in improving health care 

outcomes of seniors and save Medicare money. I think, conservatively, even low participation rates, you would save over the next 

decade $7 billion by having the Diabetes Prevention Program included as a part of the Medicare benefit. If you think about it, we 

have a ‘‘Welcome to Medicare’’ physical. We tell you you are at risk. 

We give you a personalized care plan. And then we send you home. 

But we do not have anything that is covered that would actually 

allow a physician to refer a patient to something that would make 

a difference. 

This program would make an enormous difference, and you are 

right, the private sector has seen the value in it. Some Blue Cross 

plans, United Health Group are including it in partnership with 

the YMCAs and other community-based organizations to run it. So 

that was my second recommendation, is that we should just include 

this as a covered benefit. It would make an enormous difference in 

slowing the incidence and prevalence of diabetes in the program, 
102 

which has doubled in the last 20 years. We could have made a difference had we had this program built into Medicare a decade ago. 

Senator COLLINS. I also think this is another example of the 

flaws in the reimbursement system that you alluded to. If an individual with diabetes has these terrible consequences of diabetes 

that is not well controlled and, for example, needs to have a leg 

amputated, Medicare is going to pay for that. But Medicare will not 

pay for a nurse practitioner to call that individual three times a 

week and check on what the blood sugar levels are, whether they 

are following their nutritional plan, whether they are exercising. 

It seems to me we are not paying for the right things, which is 

not to say that we should not pay for the person who gets in trouble. But if we change the fee-for-service program so that there was 

more of an emphasis on helping to monitor a person with chronic 

disease between appointments, do you believe that that, too, would 

realize savings? 

Mr. THORPE. Oh, without question. Again, if you look at where 

the growth in the spending is in the program, in 1987, half of the 

spending was linked to patients with five or more chronic conditions. Today, it is almost 80 percent. That is where all of the 

growth is happening. And we do not provide any type of prevention 

or care coordination at all for those patients. 

So if we did have a system that focused much more proactively 

on preventing disease, engaging patients with multiple chronic 

health care conditions, rather than a reactive system that just pays 

after the fact, that is where we could make an enormous difference 

in quality. 

So I think that we should just build both this prevention initiative, and we know enough about care coordination with respect to 

what works. We have decades of randomized trials and experience 

from Medicare Advantage programs that are really best practice 

and what goes on in the private sector about how to construct really clinically effective care coordination. We could just do that and 

build that into the original Medicare and have that as a focus over 

the next couple of years. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

To Dr. Goodman, before I yield to my colleagues, I want to particularly welcome you here. I have been fascinated by the work 

that the Dartmouth Medical Atlas has done over the years. I am 

very familiar with it because one of your colleagues, or former colleagues, Jack Wennberg, did a project in the State of Maine with 

Dr. Bob Keller and the Maine Medical Assessment Foundation 

where they identified outliers among physicians who were performing hysterectomies, and by going to the outlier with data, they 

were able to change his practice patterns. And it just showed to me 

how a peer review system backed by good data could make a real 

difference. 

And as you discussed in your opening statement, Maine has very 

good quality care at a low cost. In fact, my physicians and hospitals 

are constantly complaining about the low costs because they do not 

get rewarded for that high-quality medical care in many cases. 

I am also very interested in your study on readmissions. As part 

of the Affordable Care Act, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who was very 

familiar with your work, as well, and I joined together to put in 
103 

some of the readmissions language with the penalties and try to 

have a transitional care manager, usually a nurse, a home health 

visit for the first 30 days. 

But you made a really interesting point and that is the problem 

is not just the fragmentation of care after hospitalization. It is the 

fragmentation of care before hospitalization, as well. 

In the State of Maine, increasingly, physician practices and home 

health agencies are being purchased by our hospitals or are joining 

our hospitals, and I am interested in your assessment of whether 

that is going to help to reduce the fragmentation of care or do you 

see that as a less desirable development? 

Dr. GOODMAN. Well, thank you for your comments, and let me 

say that when I was preparing this testimony, I had a chat with 

Jack Wennberg, whose office is a couple doors down from mine, and 

once again, he reminded me of what he learned, what we all 

learned from the work that was done in Maine, truly a fascinating 

story. It is also a story about examining the experience of the total 

population, because, as you know, he was not focused exclusively 

on the Medicare population. 

And what started up in Maine was systematic collection of data, 

of all-payer data, and now has the finest system in the country of 

all-payer data that includes commercial data, Medicaid data, and, 

of course, Medicare data is available, as well, that has allowed everybody from the business community to the providers and patients 

to see what is actually going on in health care systems. 

What you are referring to is, I think, the grand partly hidden experiment that is occurring in health care, which is an aggregation 

of providers occurring both between—of hospitals aggregating, but 

also, of course, of physicians joining with hospitals and forming de 

facto, although not in all dimensions, integrated delivery systems. 

And the question is, will that, in fact, drive quality? Does it have 

the potential of reducing competition or increasing provider power, 

which then strengthen the hands of the providers in the negotiations, particularly in commercial markets, less so in Medicare, of 

course. 

And we do not know the answer to that, but we do know that 

both in that sort of organic growth as well as the more systematic 

fostered integration that will occur under Accountable Care Organizations, that the public protection, if you will, is through robust 

publicly reported measures that are relevant to patients, so not just 

process measures about what percentage of patients had Hemoglobin A1c level, but functional health status measures, patient 

satisfaction measures, so that it is very clear the experience and 

the outcomes of patients across these delivery systems. 

That is our—it is the information for the providers that helps 

guide their improvement. It is the check on what is a natural behavior of organizations, which is to strengthen themselves first and 

foremost, to be robust. And so I think that there is increasing attention to taking a close reexamination about what are the most 

important measures of health care, and this will allow, I think, 

good public monitoring on what occurs in places like Maine as well 

as Los Angeles, as well as Boston. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 
104 

Let me just close by saying that my uncle, Doug Collins, was one 

of the first Directors of the Maine Dartmouth Family Residency 

Program in the State of Maine. He has since passed on. But it was 

a wonderful collaboration and still is. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. 

It is Senator Warren. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

want to join Ranking Member Collins in saying it is very gracious 

and very generous of you to permit others to take on the questioning first, and to say I feel much safer asking my questions 

knowing you will be in the clean-up position there at the end for 

what we leave out. 

But I wanted to ask a question around the great public debate 

that is going on about entitlement reform. We keep hearing the 

warning that we must make substantial changes to Medicare or 

face bankruptcy of the Medicare system, and yet I am reminded 

that in 2010, we passed substantial Medicare reform. We did not 

give it that name, but we passed the Affordable Care Act and it 

resulted in powerful changes, both in how we deliver medical care, 

how we bill for medical care, and indeed research on medical care. 

And we note now that in 2012, that the increase in medical 

spending for Medicare is now the slowest it has been in 15 years, 

that the Congressional Budget Office has revised its estimates, as 

the Chairman noted earlier, in just two years has revised its estimates for spending over the next ten years, saying it is going to 

be about 15 percent less than originally estimated, and that that 

is a savings well in excess of $100 billion. So we are in a system 

that is substantially changing. 

So I want to frame my question this way. I invite you to talk 

about how the Affordable Care Act changes the delivery of health 

care, any part of it, to reduce costs and what paths, what opportunities it shows us for making changes in costs in the future. And 

I know that you have really addressed that, Dr. Goodman, in part, 

when you talk about your hospital readmission study. You did it 

specifically. Dr. Blumenthal, I think you were hitting at it a little 

bit indirectly, so maybe if I just start with you on that question. 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator Warren. You are absolutely right. The Affordable Care Act was really two pieces of legislation, one that extended coverage to many uninsured Americans, 

another that attempted to initiate very important reforms in the 

delivery of health care. 

It is true that we are seeing slowdowns in the overall cost of 

care, the rate of increase in the overall cost of care and in Medicare. I think it is a little premature to declare victory. 

Senator WARREN. Fair enough. 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. We have seen repeated cycles of rapid increase 

and then slow down in health care costs over the last 20 to 30 

years and they often coincide with insurance cycles rather than 

fundamental change in health care. Nevertheless, the Affordable 

Care Act does provide fundamental new tools. One of them is— 

among them are the penalties for readmission, the penalties for 

hospital-acquired infections that are above average, pay for value 

programs, and programs that have been initiated through the Cen-
105 

ter for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, which includes the pioneer ACO program, a version of the Affordable Care Act, and so on. 

What I think we need most at this point is to bring all those different threads together in a comprehensive and synergistic program of health care reform. The Secretary has new authority to do 

that, but each of these initiatives is currently being implemented 

in a very particular way on its own basis, and without bringing 

them together in a comprehensive approach, and that is really 

what our Commonwealth Commission was about, taking these authorities, taking these ideas and saying, let us put them together 

in a comprehensive package. Let us cost them out and let us see 

what we can get if we really push them to their full advantage. 

Senator WARREN. And because I take this suggestion very seriously, just make sure I am following all the way through. This is 

something that is within the capacity of our current structure. It 

is just an opportunity we have not yet seized, is that right? It does 

not require new legislation, for example? 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. I think it would require some changes in legislation. The kinds of reforms that we are proposing would require 

some changes in the legislation. Just as an example, changing the 

SGR formula, which is now quite toxic, and the fee-for-service approach to Medicare payment, though it is moving toward pay for 

value, it is doing it in a very kind of staccato, short, incremental 

way. We cannot afford to wait until all these different programs 

have been allowed to continue to prove themselves. They need to 

be knit together and pushed home to prevent us from rationing 

away critical benefits. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. I am going to be mindful of my 

time, because I am now out of time, but I will put this in the questions for the record to everyone and ask for more details on that 

one, as well. Thank you very much, and thank you all for being 

here. 

Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you need some more time? Go ahead. 

Senator WARREN. If—thank you. If the other three panelists 

would be willing to spend a little time on that question, I would 

be delighted. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, in case Senator Baldwin has to go someplace—— 

Senator WARREN. But I do not—— 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Let us go on with you, and then depending on Senator Whitehouse, if you can hold on—— 

Senator WARREN. You bet. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Go ahead. 

Senator BALDWIN. Fabulous, another round. And I do have to 

run, so I very much appreciate that. 

I made my opening comments somewhat personal about my own 

experience, being raised by my grandparents. As I hear the larger 

dialogue, I never want to forget the impact that some of these reforms have, not only on the immediate Medicare beneficiary and 

the quality improvements that we will have in our health care system, but the way it affects family members and caregivers. And I 

think in particular of the reform that is bundling. 
106 

A loved one in my family—not my grandmother—was hospitalized in another State—not Wisconsin, not a State represented at 

this dias right now—and in helping coordinate or understanding 

care needed, I talked with three specialists, a hospitalist, and a primary care physician not associated with the hospital of the hospitalization. I think of what difference that reform would make to 

our bottom line money-wise, this loved one’s care, but also most 

Medicare beneficiaries have a support structure outside and it affects their lives, too. 

I want to thank our witnesses for highlighting the many promising Federal, State, and private delivery reforms that are underway, and I really appreciate getting a chance to follow up on Senator Warren’s questions about the Affordable Care Act. I know 

some incredible things are happening in my State around delivery 

reform, around Accountable Care Organizations, around data sharing, in particular quality and pricing transparency. But those 

promising developments are not evenly available throughout the 

State, and so the comments you have made about how do we ramp 

up the things that we know are working and have them fairly and 

abundantly available across the United States is such a key question and I really appreciate your bringing it up. 

To that end, I want to ask Dr. Blumenthal, the Commonwealth 

Commission, one of the proposals that caught my eye was the creation of a new Medicare Essential plan with more comprehensive 

benefits as well as provider and enrollee incentives to achieve better care, better health, at lower cost. I am curious to know how 

many of these reforms that could drive, and in particular, what 

benefits should such a benefit package have that are not currently 

available in Medicare? 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you for that question, Senator Baldwin. 

The Commission did propose that a new Essential health benefit, 

Essential Health Plan, be available to Medicare beneficiaries. You 

know, in 1965, when Medicare was enacted, it was modeled and 

meant to be equivalent to the employer-based insurance of the day, 

which was actually an Aetna plan. And in those days, Aetna had 

a hospital plan and a physician plan and they were different and 

you could buy them differently. 

Well, employer-based insurance has changed a lot. We now, like 

you in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, you buy one 

plan and it gives you the full range of benefits that you get. In 

Medicare, you have to buy A and then B and then D unless you 

are part of a Medicare Advantage plan. In other words, Medicare 

has become diverged markedly from the employer-based form of insurance that it was supposed to emulate and it has become much 

more complicated, and though still efficient administratively, it is 

extremely hard for some of our elderly folks to navigate because of 

its complexity. 

We are advocating that you bring all those together into a plan 

that resembles an employer-based plan, where you make one purchasing decision, not necessarily Medicare Advantage but in the 

traditional health care system, and that you get A, B, and D. You 

get physician services, hospital services, and drug services together. The benefits would be comparable to what the current 

Medicare benefits are. 
107 

One thing that we would do is have a single coinsurance rate and 

a single deductible for all three of those, so you would not have a 

separate hospital deductible, a separate physician deductible, a 

separate drug deductible, which are incredibly confusing. 

And the other thing that this plan would do is provide generous 

enough insurance so that Medigap plans would no longer be required. And that would save an enormous amount of money in administrative expenses, because Medigap plans have very, very high 

administrative expenses. 

So the other thing that we envision for this is that it would have 

what is called a value-based insurance design, and what that 

means is it would encourage beneficiaries to make choices that are 

good for their health. It would do things like not have deductibles 

and coinsurance for diabetes drugs, for anti-hypertensives, for 

lipid-lowering drugs, for things that we know reduce disease burden and ultimately reduce costs. So that—and it would also reward, by the way, choosing high-performing health plans. 

So in that combination of things, we do not really think it would 

be more expensive. We think it would be less expensive and a lot 

simpler and a much better choice than the current fee-for-service 

option. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate all the witnesses who are here today. 

You know, when I look at the issue with respect to Medicare, the 

challenges that we face with it, the Ranking Member mentioned, 

Senator Collins, in her opening statement, the fact that the Trustees have said that it will go bankrupt in terms of—in 2024. And 

one number that has always struck me is that your average family 

pays in roughly $114,000 through payroll taxes and then, on average, takes out about $355,000 in benefits. So just looking at the 

sheer numbers of the challenges that we face, we certainly need to 

do things differently if we are going to sustain these programs for 

people like my grandparents, that I am blessed to still have and 

around. 

So some of the ideas that have been out there, and I know, Dr. 

Cubanski, that you had talked about them and I know there was 

lots of polling done on it, but ideas where we have looked at perhaps means testing further Medicare for those who are more fortunate later on in life so that they could afford even greater percentages of what they would pay for their health care to make sure 

that it truly remains a vibrant safety net as we think about the 

financial challenges I just laid out. 

So I just wanted to get your thoughts on proposals that have 

been out there and what your thoughts are on them, on the eligibility end, meaning it is not so much an eligibility thing if we are 

going to means test but allow people who have been more fortunate, for example, in life—probably—hopefully me, later in life—to 

pay more or to perhaps even, if you get to a certain income level, 

not be provided—receiving your health insurance through some 

other means. 

Ms. CUBANSKI. Thank you, Senator Ayotte, for your question. 

Yes, as you noted, we did do some polling on the question and this 
108 

was one of the areas where there was majority support for requiring higher-income seniors to pay more. Of course, seniors already 

do—and other Medicare beneficiaries already do pay more if they 

have higher incomes. So if you are making, as an individual, more 

than $85,000 a year or a married couple more than $170,000 a 

year, you pay a higher monthly Part B premium. And if you are 

enrolled in a Part D plan, you also pay a higher Part D premium. 

About five percent of the Medicare population today are paying 

those higher premiums. 

One concern, of course, is that, as I noted in my testimony, half 

of the Medicare population has incomes of about 200 percent of the 

Federal poverty level and five percent of Medicare beneficiaries 

have incomes above around $95,000 a year. So in order to really 

achieve significant savings from increasing means testing in the 

Medicare program, you have to go relatively far down the income 

scale in order to get larger percentages of Medicare beneficiaries 

paying higher premiums and higher costs, and that really does, I 

think, call into question the ability of those individuals to afford to 

pay higher premiums and higher cost sharing amounts than they 

are currently paying. 

Senator AYOTTE. But assuming that we were able to make those 

changes at an income level that would still allow people, obviously, 

thinking about it—I do not think that any one change is going to 

get us to a point where, when you look in the gaps we have, to get 

where we need to be. And so I think we need to look at a variety 

of options and, obviously, take reasonable ways in which we implement those options to take into account people’s ability to pay on 

these things. So I appreciate your thoughts on it. 

And I wanted to also ask Dr. Goodman, the work that is being 

done at the Atlas program, you have clearly said that some hospitals—and I remember when I went to see the work being done 

by Dartmouth on the Atlas work that you are doing there, you 

showed me a map, or the people at Dartmouth showed me a map, 

and one thing that really struck me was the fact that there was 

such a geographical difference in terms of this readmission rate, 

but also there was a difference in reimbursement rate, as I recall, 

too, and that the difference in reimbursement rate did not necessarily equate to a better outcome in terms of the readmission 

rate. 

And so looking at this challenge, what—taking account, I believe, 

the ten percent you said which would account for the condition, the 

health condition of the patient, what is the other 90 percent, and 

as this panel tries to tackle the challenges to make sure that this 

important program is there for future generations, what would you 

recommend to us the best steps to take? 

Dr. GOODMAN. Well, thank you, Senator Ayotte, for asking the 

hardest question, because I think that this—and I think you have 

touched upon what are some of the difficult facts that are out 

there, which is that although we would like to think about improving the Medicare program and quality and in terms of the efficiency in a way that involves no pain to anybody, the fact is, is that 

this is a process that is going to involve tremendous change, including differences in the way providers behave and differences in the 

way that we invest our National wealth. And that has on the 
109 

ground implications for health care labor markets, for capital investments, and so forth. 

You know, the revelation in terms of variation in Medicare 

spending per capita, even when doing the most stringent sort of 

risk adjustment for differences in population, is a reflection of differences in practice style and differences in the way that communities and health systems have, over very long periods of time, invisibly built their system. And sometimes—all the sort of successes 

in health care are attributed to design and the ills are always attributed to accident, and with geographic variation, much of this is 

by accident, that there are places that, for one reason or another, 

have a legacy, for example, a very high number of hospital beds per 

capita, very high supply of specialist physicians per capita, and in 

the fee-for-service environment, and in a culture of health care of 

which I am part of as a physician, where we are very much trained 

to be active and believing that more aggressive or specialist or procedurally oriented care is better, this is sort of the perfect storm 

for providing care that sometimes is very helpful but sometimes is 

of marginal benefit. 

And so that variation in spending—the reason why more spending on the Medicare program in aggregate per beneficiary is not 

necessarily related to better outcomes or better quality is because 

of this large domain of marginal care that is delivered. 

Now, how do you attack that problem? You could mandate particular structures of health care systems. That would then restrain 

the capacity to deliver care, which is not particularly beneficial to 

populations. I mean, we know that you could reduce readmission 

rates by having lower bed supply in certain regions. That is, in 

fact, what has happened. It is one of the reasons why certain parts 

of the country do so well on some of these metrics by accident. 

They grew a modest supply of beds. The health system evolved invisibly to care for patients in ways that they only needed to use 

that sort of bed supply. 

I think that a more sort of reasonable approach is to align these 

incentives so that the incentives to providing good care are the incentives that lead to institutional health, organizational health. Organizations—health systems who have this ill-advised capacity now 

are really caught in a bind in what is a rapidly changing system 

of financing. So imagine places that have, in a well-intentioned 

way, have over-built their inpatient capacity and that gets filled up 

with admissions and readmissions. Not that they are putting patients in inappropriately, but it is just a practice style that evolves, 

and there are always many patients that, you know, on a given day 

could go in or out. In some places, they get cared for in the community. In other places, they come in. 

These are—— 

The CHAIRMAN. We need to wrap up, Dr. Goodman. 

Dr. GOODMAN. Very, very quickly. So these are the places that 

will, I think, benefit the most from these population-based shared 

savings plans like Accountable Care Organizations, where they 

have something to gain from reinvesting into community-based 

care, where there are no longer the incentives for more patients 

with DRG payments. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Doctor. 
110 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

I think we have all noticed that there is a huge overlay between 

our budget discussions and our health care cost discussions. Everybody from Paul Ryan to Barack Obama says that if you really look 

at the budget problem and the deficit problem, it is a health care 

problem. 

And yet when we try to connect those dots, we have a hard time 

for, I think, the very practical reason that so few of the delivery 

system reform savings are scorable by CBO, which actually makes 

logical sense because a lot of these reforms are going to require innovation, they are going to require finding a sweet spot with incentives that direct doctors to the best treatment and patients to the 

best self-care, and we are going to have to kind of work our way 

to finding that. It is sort of, to me, a little bit like the early days 

of aviation, as people worked out the bugs, even though principles 

were clear, to the kind of fast, safe aircraft travel that we have 

now. 

So I would like your thoughts first on how close we are getting 

to be able to put some meaningful scoring metrics behind delivery 

system reform. 

Two, whether you think it would be helpful if the administration 

would quit talking vaguely about bending health care cost curves 

and actually put down a hard target with a date and a number for 

delivery system reform savings that people could then argue about 

and maybe discount if they felt it was improbable, but at least it 

was out there instead of just mush, basically, right now—a lot of 

hard working people, but no specific target. 

And third, are there ways to take advantage, particularly Dr. 

Goodman, of that broad array of performance levels that States exhibit, as shown by the Dartmouth Atlas project, to posit into the 

out years, that certain States that exhibit very poor quality and 

very high cost are not going to be able to continue on that path, 

that there will be a time when, if you are more than a certain percent of an outlier away from the mean, we are just not going to 

fund that any longer. You are going to have to come into what 

other States have demonstrated they can do, because they are 

doing it. 

So there is an array of options for either improving the 

scorability of this stuff, or developing it to the point where it is 

more scorable, or having the administration be more responsible 

about setting a hard, fixed target, or actually starting to carve out 

outliers for poor performance and high cost in a way that could 

generate a score, and I would like to have your comment on that. 

And it is a long question in a short period of time, so I would really 

like to ask you to actually think about that as a question for the 

record and so I can get an answer from each of you. This is a very 

talented panel, and I have left you a minute and 40 seconds for the 

four of you to share that complicated answer. Typical Whitehouse, 

says the Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Since I mentioned you specifically, Dr. Goodman, why do you not 

take a quick bite at it and then we will let the others answer it 

as a question for the record. 
111 

Dr. GOODMAN. And I will be brief, which is that I honestly think 

that the only hope of changing the ship is to change the financial 

incentives. And the push-back of providers is going to be so great 

from potential dislocation that would occur in fixed targets, so we 

leave targets with expectation that those savings will occur, that 

there has to be financing systems that it is very much in the organization’s interest to improve care and improve efficiency. 

And there are different models on this. They share many common features. I think the Accountable Care Organization is one of 

the more global models that has been articulated. It is in the ACA. 

We certainly know that that will evolve further. But get the incentives right. Behavior will follow. As long as there is good information, transparent information about performance for consumers and 

providers alike, we will do very well. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I eagerly look forward to answers 

from the other witnesses. This has real repercussions for us because even though cutting benefits and rationing care are the inept 

way of looking at health care, and even though they are so wrong 

it is almost criminal, according to George Halvorson, to go back to 

my original quotes, they are scorable. They are scorable. And if we 

come to a real crunch on this, that is going to give them an advantage. They will be wrong. They will be inept. But they will be 

scorable. 

And so it is really important that we work on trying to find ways 

to press the delivery system reform savings into some mechanism 

that allows us to treat them in our budget discussions. And I would 

look forward to your thoughts for that very reason. Thank you. 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. Senator Whitehouse, just a brief comment. I 

did not emphasize it sufficiently, but the Commission did recommend that we set a National target for rates of increase in 

health care costs at GDP and that policies be adjusted to achieve 

that growth rate. So it was a part of our package of recommendations. 

Also, as Senator Warren knows, my home State of Massachusetts 

has set such a target for the State as a whole and it is going to 

be very interesting to see how that plays out. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It will be. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Warren. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to give an opportunity to Dr. Cubanski, Dr. Goodman, and Dr. Thorpe, if they wanted to comment on the question 

I had earlier about how the Affordable Care Act changes have reduced costs and show paths for future savings that we should note, 

and I just wanted to give you a chance to do that on the record 

here. 

Dr. Cubanski. 

Ms. CUBANSKI. Thank you, Senator Warren. I would echo Dr. 

Blumenthal’s remark that it is still a bit of a mystery about why 

cost growth has slowed. But, of course, it is a promising early indicator, since in the past three years now, we have seen Medicare 

cost growth at a really historically slow rate. 

I would suggest that one of the important provisions in the Affordable Care Act is the creation of the Center for Medicare and 

Medicaid Innovation, which has authority to test, implement, and 
112 

expand some of these delivery system reform ideas that we may 

have seen in the private sector, but have not really seen in Medicare and certainly not in the traditional Medicare program. I think 

that is where, since, you know, 75 percent of the Medicare population is currently in the traditional Medicare system today, that 

is really where we have, I think, a lot of opportunity to achieve a 

lot more savings moving forward. 

And I know that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is rolling out very quickly a lot of these ideas, the Accountable 

Care Organizations, bundled payments, medical home. So it is really testing a lot of ideas, and those that do show promise for reducing costs and either increasing quality or not reducing quality can 

be expanded. The HHS Secretary has the authority to do that without needing to go back to Congress for legislative authority. So I 

think that is a positive step. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. Very valuable. Thank you. 

Dr. Goodman. 

Dr. GOODMAN. Just, again, very quickly, I mean, I think it has 

been a remarkable revolution in that we have gone from being the 

country that did the very best job of measuring and studying 

health care of any country in the world to now a country that is 

engaged in tremendous innovation. And the question, of course, is 

the sum total of that innovation, particularly if it is separate pieces 

of innovation, will they knit together to actually, aside from improving quality in parts, will it improve quality as a whole and efficiency as a whole, particularly if capacity is fixed and health care 

systems have this legacy of what they have been doing for 50 

years. 

And on this point, we do not know. We do not know, for example, 

whether the Accountable Care Organizations will deliver on their 

hope and promise. I certainly hope they do. It is unknown. It is still 

very worrisome. I am not comforted, either, by the recent slowdown 

in the growth of expenditures. We saw that before, in the 1980s. 

That was one of the effects of the Clinton health care reform plan 

that was not passed. We actually saw a slowing down of health 

care expenditures for a period of time and then a rapid acceleration. So we are not out of the woods yet and it may, indeed, require 

more Congressional action to pull us along. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. 

Dr. Thorpe. 

Mr. THORPE. Well, I certainly think the Act moved us in the 

right direction. It brings in, really, sort of limited, and in some 

cases pilots on payment reforms that I think are moving in the 

right direction. It provided funding for prevention in public health, 

moving us in the right direction. It has an Innovation Center, 

which is testing and trying out a variety of new models. 

I think that my suggestion was to really take a two-part strategy, because I am just concerned with the remaining, I do not know 

if it is mentality or focus, that somehow, we are a pilot project 

away from a miracle. We are not. I mean, we need to act on what 

we know already that works, and we have an enormous amount of 

experience with randomized trials in the Medicare population that 

shows the components of care coordination that are effective. Medicaid programs are doing this. The private sector is doing this, as 
113 

well. We can scale and replicate best practice, things that we already know that work, and we just need to implement them. 

So we need to do a two-part strategy. We need to implement 

what we know that works and do it program-wide, but do it in a 

way that we are getting feedback and constantly improving it, as 

Senator Whitehouse talked about. That feedback loop is critical 

and we need to learn from our experiences. And we need to continue to do targeted pilots in areas where we need selected new information. 

But I think we need to make that transition. We do not have a 

decade to wait to find out what is coming out of these pilot projects. 

As Senator Whitehouse mentioned, unless we give the Congress 

more tools to generate cost savings, we are going to be in a persistent state of getting savings in Medicare and Medicaid over the 

next decade, of cutting benefits, cutting provider payments, cutting 

payments to health plans, shifting costs to States and to seniors, 

none of which solve anything with respect to the long-term cost of 

the program. They are simply a budget exercise. 

So I think until we switch this mentality of having the budget 

drive health policy to one where we have health policy driving the 

budget outcomes, that is the transition we need to make. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, and thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. I appreciate it. This is an extraordinary panel and I am 

delighted to have the chance to get you all on the record on this. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to make one final comment on my part, and that 

is when I look at the slowdown in the rate of health care spending, 

I, like at least one of our panelists said, am not comforted by that 

fact at all. I think it is largely due to the recession, to the downturn in the economy and people delaying getting health care, people not being able to afford health care, people losing their health 

insurance. And I think the other factor are the cuts to providers, 

the reduced reimbursements that we have seen, the cuts in home 

health care. 

So I do not think we have seen a transformation. I see it very 

differently from my colleague from Massachusetts. I do not think 

this is a result of some transformation. I think this is a result of 

the recession and the result of cuts to providers. 

And one of my concerns is that if we keep cutting providers’ reimbursements under the same system and do not reform the delivery of health care, we eventually are going to affect access and that 

concerns me greatly. 

So since I am dealing with two Ph.D.s and two M.D.s, I am not 

going to ask for a response to my comments on whether they agree 

with that analysis or not. But I just wanted to say that for the 

record and again to thank all of our witnesses for truly excellent 

commentary today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we can do better. At least it is going in the right direction with CBO’s reestimate is $400 billion less over the 

next decade of estimated spending in Medicare. Now, it seems to 

me that we can do better. Clearly, the Accountable Care Organizations are one area, but they are just being implemented. 
114 

I had great hope for the co-ops, which is the acronym for the 

Community Oriented Insurance Company. It was going to serve 

consumers. And yet at the 11th hour on December the 31st, that 

was given away in the negotiations because of misinformation that 

was occurring. I asked HHS and the Finance Committee. I said, 

why did you give it away? They said, we did not. I said, well, I 

have talked to people in the room, including the Finance Committee staff, and said that to the question, are there any co-op applications in the pipeline, after 24 States had already been granted 

applications, they said, no, when, in fact, there were a bunch of additional States in the pipeline. Now we have got to go back and try 

to get it back. So we can do better. 

Now, one of the things that I know Senator Rockefeller has great 

hopes for is this Independent Advisory Board. But it, of course, has 

been characterized in the political cauldron as a rationing board. 

Does anybody have any comments about that? 

Ms. CUBANSKI. Sure, I will take a stab at this one. Senator Nelson, as you know, the Independent Payment Advisory Board has 

been subject to a great deal of controversy, and, in fact, none of the 

members have been nominated or appointed. But I think perhaps 

a bit of good news in the fact that CBO’s Medicare spending projections are quite low over the coming decade, they have suggested 

that, in fact, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, if it is convened, would not actually be charged with making any recommendations because they would not—the spending would not exceed the targets that were spelled out in the Affordable Care Act. 

I think, obviously, the verdict is still out on the establishment of 

the IPAB, but we are not likely to see it in action, at least over 

the coming decade, assuming CBO’s projections hold true. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, this Friday, we are going to face another 

challenge, and although Medicare benefits are protected in the sequestration, Medicare providers, health plans, and drug plans will 

be reduced by two percent. So what is going to be the impact of 

this across-the-board reduction? 

Mr. THORPE. I will take a cut at this. Certainly, if you look at, 

again, just this continued focus on cutting provider payments, I 

think to Senator Collins’ point, is it over time just does have an 

erosive and corrosive effect on not only the payment rates, obviously, but in terms of access—potentially, access to care. 

And in particular, if you look in the Medicare Advantage program, if the sequestration does come into place, since the Affordable Care Act has been put into place, again, between now and 

2014, you would have about a cumulative reduction in payments of 

around ten percent. And given the way the program is structured, 

for better or for worse, that ten percent does come out of potentially efforts to do innovation and coordinating care, but it also 

comes out of the additional benefits that those plans are providing. 

So, again, I just think that, and getting back to the IPAB discussion, I think until we get to these issues of structural reforms in 

the program, and I understand that they take time and they are 

long-term, but we have got to make them. We are not going to get 

this program under control until we do something about the growth 

in the incidence of chronic disease. We are not going to get the program under control until we do a better job of managing and gaug-
115 

ing chronically ill patients, those patients that have five or more 

conditions that account for 80 percent of the spending. Those are 

the two challenges. Until we really take those problems head on, 

we are not, over the long term, really going to get control over 

spending in the program. 

The CHAIRMAN. And several of you have mentioned diabetes as 

an example, creating overweight conditions which, as you get older, 

is going to be so much more of a diminution of somebody’s good 

health. 

Now, Senator Collins and I are also interested in Medicare fraud. 

Do you have any comments about sequestration on our ability to 

go after fraud? And we are only scratching the surface now. Do you 

have any suggestions of how we can do a better job of it? And I 

say this as someone who has to own up to it, because there is a 

lot of it in Miami. Comments? 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. Senator, I am not an expert on Medicare 

fraud. I do know that the new legislation, the Affordable Care Act, 

provided the Secretary with substantial new authorities and tools 

to take on Medicare fraud using pre-screening, looking at a predisposition to be involved with fraud rather than just a kind of 

catching after to the fact. 

To the extent that sequestration reduces the resources that are 

available for that activity, it will be certainly counterproductive. It 

will reduce trust in the program. It will increase the cost of the 

program. And it will be penny wise and pound foolish. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I am told that for every dollar that we spend in going after it, fraud, that we realize back a $7 return for a dollar 

spent. And so I am concerned about that. And that is dollars that 

otherwise would not go into the system or dollars that would not 

be utilized to reduce the deficit. And we are going to highlight that 

in this committee. 

One of the things we have not talked about is Medicare Advantage. Now, one of the thrusts of the health care bill was to lean out 

the excesses into Medicare Advantage. You will recall in 2003, in 

what was called the prescription drug bill, that also set up Medicare Advantage and that set up a 14 percent bonus per senior citizen over and above Medicare fee-for-service. That was going to 

drive Medicare into bankruptcy even quicker. So we had to lean 

that out in the health care bill. And we are just seeing the results 

of that, what is anticipated, coming this year, and some of the insurance companies being cut back on that bonus. 

But there was an incentive put in it that the higher quality rating you had with stars as an insurance company, which is what offers Medicare Advantage, you were going to be able to, in fact, have 

more reimbursement for your per beneficiary reimbursement. 

Any comments from you all about Medicare Advantage and its 

implementation as we are trying to lean it out? 

Dr. GOODMAN. Just the—I mean, the difficulty that Medicare Advantage is, first, based upon average fee-for-service payments of a 

particular area perpetuates what is already irrational and unfair 

spending and transfer of funds, actually, from one group of citizens 

to the other for no demonstrable benefit. So it—and that is the 

larger problem. I mean, the larger problem is the tremendous geographic variation in per capita spending, which Medicare Advan-
116 

tage was never really designed to provide the incentives to try to 

encourage the less efficient places to become more efficient. So I 

think there is unfinished business there besides reducing the 14 

percent. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Blumenthal. 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. There are a couple of points that the Commission made and that I would like to emphasize. One is that Medicare Advantage—the new quality ratings that Medicare Advantage 

has put in place, this star rating which enables the high-quality 

plans to get rewarded extra, is a terrific idea. It is a little too generous. So you can get extra payments for being a two- or three-star 

plan. The Commission felt that there should be a sharper gradation, with more rewards for the four- and five-star and fewer rewards for the programs that are kind of average. So that was point 

number one. 

Point number two is once you understand which of those programs really is delivering high value, that has good cost profiles 

and good value profiles, quality profiles, we should provide beneficiaries a reward for enrolling in those to encourage them to be at 

the high end of value, and that could involve payments that are 

modest but influential. 

So I think those are the two points that I would make about the 

Medicare Advantage program. 

The CHAIRMAN. And this is where I give credit to HHS, that I 

think they have implemented it in a way that it is now set to 

achieve the savings that it needs, and by comparing the quality 

rating of Medicare Advantage plans, allow seniors to vote with 

their feet by going to the higher-rated plans, which presumably 

then, with less reimbursement because they do not get a bonus if 

they are not quality higher rated, is going to have them to either 

change and get higher quality or else fall by the wayside. And, 

theoretically, the seniors go to the better-rated plans and there is 

an incentive for the insurance company to have that better-rated 

plan. I commend HHS, that I think they are doing it right, whereas 

you know I ding them when I think they are doing it wrong. 

You know, another thing that we have not talked about is in the 

health bill, we provided for annual wellness exams for seniors, and 

lo and behold, in this first year and a half of experience, they are 

not taking much advantage of it. Why is that? 

Mr. THORPE. I think it is a combination of probably two things. 

One is lack of knowledge about the benefit is a piece of it. It is an 

additional visit, perhaps, to your physician. It is not integrated in 

any type of comprehensive approach to dealing with wellness that 

would include an action—not only action plan, but something that 

you can have to act on. 

So I would rather see these things more bundled comprehensively, combined with the care coordination component, work with 

nurse practitioners that could really manage people in terms of 

wellness benefits and prevention more coherently and more comprehensively. It is just a very fragmented approach, I think, to 

dealing with prevention, where we are focusing on identifying atrisk patients with separate types of benefits and separate types of 

visits, but not really doing it in an integrated, coherent way that 
117 

actually has physicians working with nurses, nurse educators, dieticians, and others to help them execute a personalized care plan. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, presumably, if you are an insured, a beneficiary, and in one of the Medicare Advantage plans, that the insurance company is going to insist that you do it for the obvious reasons. But if you are Medicare fee-for-service, what is the mechanism to achieve what you just said? 

Mr. THORPE. Well, again, that is the problem, is that I think if 

you look at what goes on in having a care coordination nurse that 

is working with you to say that, did you get the care plan? Did you 

get the physical? Where is the care plan? Let us work on executing 

it. Somebody that, if you think about it, for a typical Medicare patient may be seeing a physician three or four times a year and they 

have multiple chronic conditions, well, what happens the other 361 

days a year? They either have to rely on a friend, family member, 

and so on. 

That is the real challenge, is how can you continue to engage and 

work with people when they are not in the provider’s office to actually stay healthy, keep on track with your care plan, and that is 

the missing part of original Medicare. It does not have those components. And I was suggesting that we could build those components in, I think somewhat seamlessly, based on a whole host of 

experience we have with best practice MA plans, but also what different types of integrated group practices do to really do teambased care. We need to do this as a team. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what was planned in the private sector ACOs, 

more implementing in Medicare fee-for-service. 

Mr. THORPE. Yes, and I think ACOs are certainly a good model 

of that as long as they have this care coordination component built 

into it. I mean, if we are just stringing organizationally providers 

together and they are not changing their practice patterns, that 

does not bring us very far. We really have to change the way that 

we do prevention and care coordination as part of an ACO, but I 

think it is a step in the right direction. 

But everybody is not going to be in an ACO. There is going to 

be a whole bunch of people who live in parts of the country that 

will never be enrolled in an ACO. So, again, I just think that we 

need to get on the business of making these structural changes in 

the program that really attack where the spending growth is and 

where the money is and where the real challenges are in terms of 

providing quality health care. 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. Senator, if I could tell a story that I think illustrates how we might get to where we need to be on prevention—— 

The CHAIRMAN. And also tell us why we need more primary care 

physicians. 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. Well, as a primary care physician in practice 

for 35 years, I am all for more primary care physicians. 

I visited a practice outside of London not too long ago and I was 

taken to see it because I was told they had a great electronic 

health record, and that was my concern at the time. But what I 

discovered was that they had 100 percent compliance among their 

population with a series of 50 or 60 quality metrics, most of which 

included all the preventive measures that we think are valuable. 
118 

And the way they did that is that they had three things. First 

of all, they got paid more as a practice if they achieved those targets. 

Secondly, they had an electronic health record which made readily apparent those—when people were not meeting their preventive 

goals, when the patients were not. 

And third, they had a system. The system was a health care 

worker, an employee of the practice, whose job it was on every patient’s birthday to go through, to look at their electronic health 

record and see if they had realized their preventive goals, and if 

not, to contact the patient and have them come in. And they would 

do anything that was required to get that patient there. They 

would send a car for them, a taxi. They would send someone to the 

home, whatever was required. And the reason was they had the 

knowledge and they had the incentive. 

I do not think this is very complicated. We do not have the 

knowledge because we do not have good health care records in most 

practices, and we do not have the incentives because people are 

paid to see patients, not to prevent illness. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thus, the reason for the Accountable Care Organization, so that you follow the patient and you are following up 

on them. Of course, that is what an insurance ought to do in a 

Medicare Advantage plan, follow up, pester them, make them take 

their medicine, et cetera. 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. Well, I think the insurance plan has limited 

influence. I think you have to get the patient’s personal physician, 

because those are the people who influence the behavior of their 

patients. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that was a reason of why the reimbursement in Medicare for primary care physicians and outside of Medicare was raised. Is that working? 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. I think it is way too soon to tell, and I also 

do not think that the increases will be sufficient unless we find a 

way to make the lifestyle more rewarding and get past this sort of 

gerbil-like, hamster-like process that now dominates primary care, 

the volume and fee-for-service process. So there is a lot to do in 

changing primary care. The patient-centered medical home is an 

aspiration in that direction. We need to think about how this accountable care process and the primary care infrastructure will 

come together, which is still something we need to explore. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Cubanski, in your Foundation’s research on 

the prescription drug benefit, you found that seniors are overwhelmed when they are picking a drug plan. I looked at one of 

them and I was overwhelmed. And what you found in your report 

was that they pay $300, on average, more than they need to pay 

for their coverage. Can you share more with us? 

Ms. CUBANSKI. Sure. So as you may know, we have been tracking 

the Part D program since its inception in 2006, looking at the number of plans that participate in the marketplace, the plans that 

beneficiaries are enrolled in, and the costs of those plans. And research that we and others have done has shown that beneficiaries 

do not necessarily make the best choice in terms of picking plans 

that offer them the best value for the prescription drugs that they 

are taking. 
119 

A lot of people choose plans because their friends told them to 

sign up for a particular plan or because they are familiar with the 

name of the insurance company and it is a name that they trust, 

and so they will enroll in that plan and pay a higher premium than 

they need to in order to get the medications that they are taking. 

So this is, I think, an ongoing concern with the Part D program, 

although we have seen the number of plans in Part D fall from the 

high levels in the early years of the program as CMS has imposed 

increasing restrictions and some regulations that have helped, I 

think, weed out a lot of the duplicative offerings in the Part D marketplace. But I think it still is a concern that beneficiaries do not 

necessarily have the tools that they need to make good choices. 

There is, as you probably know, the Medicare Compare website 

that lets people type in all the drugs that they are taking and the 

pharmacy that they go to and will actually give them the list of the 

plans that offer the drugs that they are taking and will give them 

the lowest total annual cost. But I think people just still make decisions not necessarily based on cost, but they have other reasons 

that might not be factored in, such as, as I mentioned earlier, recommendations from family or friends or where they can still go to 

their local neighborhood pharmacy. 

So I think it is an ongoing concern and it is not entirely clear 

how we can steer beneficiaries to better choices. You cannot necessarily force them into the lowest-cost plan, but I think perhaps 

we can do better providing them with more information about those 

low-cost options in their area. 

The CHAIRMAN. By 2020, when all of the prescription drug costs 

for Medicare Part D are covered, what is the incentive to hold 

down the cost? 

Ms. CUBANSKI. Well, I think plans still bear responsibility for the 

cost of the drugs that their enrollees are taking, and I think there 

is more that can be done to encourage beneficiaries to take lowercost drugs, to switch from more expensive brand name drugs to generic drugs, because beneficiaries face out-of-pocket costs. It is the 

case that when the coverage gap is closed by 2020, beneficiaries 

will still have to pay 25 percent, on average, of the cost of their 

medication. So there is still expense involved for beneficiaries, even 

after the coverage gap is closed. 

So I think there is incentive both for the plans to make sure that 

people who are enrolled are not over-utilizing really expensive 

medications and they can do some of that through the design of the 

formularies, but also from a beneficiary’s perspective, if there are 

opportunities for them to take less expensive medications, including generics or cheaper brand name medications than the really expensive ones, the incentive will still be there, I think, in the financial structure and the cost sharing associated with benefit designs. 

The CHAIRMAN. Should those who get their drugs in Medicaid, 

and, therefore, get their drugs from the government at a discount, 

but when they turn 65, under the law, get their drugs through 

Medicare where there is no discount, should there be a discount? 

That is called dual eligibles. 

Ms. CUBANSKI. Right. I cannot answer the question of whether 

there should be a discount, but you are right to point out the disparity that now exists. Prior to 2006, when the dual eligibles re-
120 

ceived their drug coverage through the Medicaid program and they 

were transitioned automatically to Medicare Part D coverage when 

Part D began in 2006, the rebate that was provided through the 

Medicaid program is not through Medicare. The HHS Office of Inspector General has suggested that Part D plans are not achieving 

the same low level of discounts as the Medicaid programs and so 

CBO has indicated that there is significant potential for savings, 

I think, of $137 billion over ten years, if the Medicaid rebate was 

extended to dual eligibles in Part D plans. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. I do not have anything. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Warren. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does any of the staff have any questions? 

A final question. You all have been very patient. Time Magazine 

just did the cover story on how all the costs are run up in hospitals. 

Is there any rhyme or reason to the way costs are set in hospitals, 

and then the disparity on who gets billed and what the final payments are? Does anybody want to comment on this rather convoluted system? 

Dr. Goodman. 

Dr. GOODMAN. It is—you characterized it well. It is a convoluted 

system. Price is opaque to those who bear risk, the cost of the care, 

the patients themselves, their families. You know, whether the 

pricing is rational or not, I think what would be a tremendous help 

is if transparency were mandated. I mean, it is reasonable. It is the 

most basic expectation that a patient entering care should easily 

know what the price will be of their care if they ask. There should 

be no threshold for getting that information. It is incomprehensible. 

Eighteen percent of GDP, the services, the prices invisible to the 

consumer. How does that work? It does not work. It is remediable 

by making prices transparent. It needs to be a requirement that 

price be transparent. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Blumenthal. 

Dr. BLUMENTHAL. Senator, the world of health care is an ‘‘Alice 

in Wonderland’’ world, and things that seem obvious and intuitive 

and right in health care can sometimes be more complicated. And 

by every common sense standard, it makes sense in health care to 

have price transparency, certainly to inform the consumer, as a respect for the consumer, and all that. 

But there is some pretty good research that shows that people 

do funny things when they know the price of health care. If there 

is no good quality data that they understand that is paired with 

the pricing data, a substantial minority of individuals will choose 

a high-cost provider because they think it is equivalent to quality. 

So I do not think we should assume without good study and 

without working on comparative and linked quality metrics that 

people will make good choices just because we give them the information. And this is not my work. It is work that has been published and well studied in randomized trials. It is just a funny 

world. 
121 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, all of you have been terrific. We will leave 

the record open for a week for Senators to ask additional questions 

in writing. Thank you. 

Senator Collins, anything else? 

Senator COLLINS. I just want to join you in thanking this excellent panel and also to reiterate how much I am looking forward to 

our partnership on this committee. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(123) 

APPENDIX 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 

Æ