Published on December 15, 2023, 2:31 am

The Medicare Advantage annual open enrollment period drew to a close recently, and it was noticeable when an organization known as the Center for Economic Policy and Research published a rather unfavorable review about Medicare Advantage. This intriguing dynamic raises questions, as this report surfaced after most people had made their enrollment decisions despite being produced before the open period began.

What piques interest even further is understanding who funds the Center for Economic Policy and Research, especially given their stance on Medicare Advantage. Despite its vast popularity among seniors and the appreciable cost-saving advantage it holds over traditional Medicare—features that should ideally be praised—the center appears vehemently against it.

In contrast, they show firm support for traditional fee-for-service Medicare, a model many progressives are keen on implementing across America. The underlying reason appears when one looks at the donor list for the Center: it’s a veritable roll call of major leftist foundations.

Foremost among these donors is the National Education Association, America’s largest teachers’ union. Other significant contributors include the Tides Foundation – famous for its left-wing donors including Barbra Streisandan with amassed assets exceeding $1.4 billion in 2022 – as well as George Soros, who has also directly contributed to the Center.

A less renowned but equally significant contributor is the Bernard & Anne Spitzer Family Charitable Trust—a family trust set up by Elliot Spitzer’s parents.

Upon examining these contributors, a pattern emerges explaining why the Center advocates shutting down private alternatives to Medicare like Medicare Advantage. Progressives aim to transition more Americans into dependent upon Medicare and short-term targets involve achieving nationwide enactment of either “Medicare-for-All” or at least a “public option.” Such aspirations remain out of reach as long as most seniors continue choosing more taxpayer-friendly options like Medicare Advantage.

This tendency towards scrutinizing private healthcare alternates funded by leftist is not likely to cease soon; however, what bears monitoring is an apparent alliance between healthcare providers—especially large hospital networks—and the left.

During the recent open enrollment period, there was a notable spike in articles revealing hospital systems’ dissatisfaction with Medicare Advantage. These healthcare providers seem discontent with their perceived underpayment by Medicare Advantage plans compared to traditional fee-for-service Medicare, despite thriving financially during the pandemic.

What this possibly implies is that these providers prefer traditional Medicare due to its higher payouts—even though these are entirely taxpayer-funded and scarcely suppress costs, which partly explains why they prefer it.

As things stand, Traditional Medicare is contributing significantly to debt and deficits, and from a financial sustainability standpoint seems questionable. The Part A program itself is predicted to start incurring deficits again in 2025, exhausting its trust fund by 2031 after which point it will fail to fully cover Part A benefits.

Against this backdrop, Medicare Advantage offers seniors—and taxpayers—an option that not only maintains access to healthcare but also adds benefits absent in traditional Medicare. It achieves affordability by engaging healthcare provider networks—a measure unwelcomed by both hospital systems and the left despite being common practice in more socialized healthcare jurisdictions like the UK essentially for cost containment reasons.

An unsettling trend among Republicans lately has been an openness towards considering arguments against Medicare Advantage over traditional fee-for-service Medicare—propagated through intellectual sounding pitches by outfits like the Center for Economic Policy and Research. This trend marks a distinct reversal from their staunch opposition to Obamacare on grounds of its cuts to Medicare Advantage affecting numerous beneficiaries. In light of these developments, more caution should be taken particularly considering the formidable leftist philosophical fundamentals coupled with hardened financial motives at play.