Competitive bidding in Medicare: A response to the Bipartisan Policy Center's proposal

Bid by Shutterstock.com

Article Highlights

  • The BPC’s proposals for competitive bidding are critically flawed

    Tweet This

  • Under the BPC proposal, MA plans will feel that they are competing with themselves on an unlevel playing field

    Tweet This

  • There is a better alternative: a comprehensive competitive bidding system that includes both MA plans & FFS Medicare

    Tweet This

Editor's note: The full text of this post is available at the Health Affairs website here.

Competitive bidding underlies a growing body of proposals to control costs and increase the efficiency of the Medicare program.  One of the most recent proposals for competitive bidding was released by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a distinguished group that includes two former Senate Majority Leaders (Tom Daschle and Bill Frist), a former Chair of the Senate Budget Committee (Peter Dominici), and a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office (Alice Rivlin).

The interest in competitive bidding is a good sign.  In a review of competitive bidding efforts for Medicare, we found that competitive bidding was relatively straightforward to implement for many different parts of Medicare.  We also found that all of the competitive bidding demonstrations that reached the point of bid evaluation — even those using bidding models that were watered down under provider pressure — demonstrated that they would save substantial amounts of money.

Competitive bidding thus is a proven method for bringing efficient prices to Medicare.  Unfortunately, the BPC’s proposals for competitive bidding are critically flawed.  Most important, the BPC proposal proposes a limited form of competitive bidding, restricted to Medicare Advantage plans only — the traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) plan is not one of the bidders.  For reasons detailed below, that is a serious flaw.  There are other important flaws as well in the BPC proposal.

We propose a bidding arrangement for all Medicare plans, MA plans and the traditional FFS Plan.  In this post, we explain why.  We first review the BPC proposals and then describe the problems that would result from the particular form of competitive bidding BPC has proposed, and why a more comprehensive bidding arrangement would be a far more important reform for Medicare.

Read the full text of this Health Affairs Blog post here.

From: Robert Coulam, Roger Feldman, and Bryan Dowd “Competitive Bidding In Medicare: A Response To The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Proposal” Health Affairs Blog July 2, 2013 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/07/02/competitive-bidding-in-medicare-a-response-to-the-bipartisan-policy-centers-proposal/  Copyright ©2013 Health Affairs by Project HOPE – The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Roger
Feldman

 

Bryan E.
Dowd

What's new on AEI

Retirement crisis is hyped
image Why the Foley beheading will force Obama to continue US airstrikes
image How the New York Times misguides their readers on Internet regulation
image US still has time to stake out a position of strength on Ukraine
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 25
    MON
  • 26
    TUE
  • 27
    WED
  • 28
    THU
  • 29
    FRI
Wednesday, August 27, 2014 | 3:00 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
Teacher quality 2.0: Toward a new era in education reform

Please join AEI for a conversation among several contributors to the new volume “Teacher Quality 2.0: Toward a New Era in Education Reform” (Harvard Education Press, 2014), edited by Frederick M. Hess and Michael Q. McShane. Panelists will discuss the intersection of teacher-quality policy and innovation, exploring roadblocks and possibilities.

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.