With Washington considering changes to Medicare to reduce the federal deficit, this video from the Kaiser Family Foundation highlights the Medicare program's evolution from its origins to the current day. It also discusses the program's impact on the 50 million elderly and disabled Americans it serves today, as well as the fiscal challenges it faces to ensure its long-term sustainability. For more information, please visit or check out www.kff.org/medicare for more of our Medicare-related resources.
The Story of Medicare: A Timeline
Kaiser Family Foundation does such great quality research and analysis. We
at Family Restoration and Healing Center appreciate all they have worked on
over the years.
thekkl..sigh You look like a kid. I was around during the beginning of this
program We didn’t have a 24/7 media noise machine; we read complex news
reports that took intelligence and patience to understand. In the 1980’s I
also lived & worked in Germany; paid tax credits & SAW how a decent health
care works..not because I was listening to politicians on the take with
everything to lose – but because I witnessed it first hand. You’re very
misinformed my young friend. That makes you dangerus
Socialism, Communism and helping poor through federal government insurances
is robbing us of personal relationships and responsibility of a family and
local community sticking together to help each other. We forget how to
love. We have no connection with those helping us or with those being
helped; there is no emotional attachment; there is only anger. Fraud and
abuse are normal. Goal is love. The additional cost of administering
federal helps etc. make it an unwise and inefficient process
It is wrong for present generations to be taxed for this.
Liked this video! This explains the history of healthcare in the United
States and why medicare is important. I’m glad to pay my taxes if it means
we’ll benefit from medicare and social security. :)
Actually this seems to be a nice review-from old times till date. Thanks
for this.
mark
http://entertainment.verizon.com/news/read/category/business/article/the_associated_press-apnewsbreak_medicare_bought_meds_for_dead_people-ap
Here is for you for up to date…Medicare paid for meds for dead people.
I remember the days before Medicare. My parents and grandparents worked so
I cared for my g grandmother her last few months, I was 6 yrs old home
alone all day on an isolated farm with a dear lady dying of cancer. Glad I
had that time with her but really wish she had been able to have more
comfort and someone who physically/mentally take care of her. I appreciate
all Medicare has done.
Medicare 202…. Update May 26, 2015… If the “item or service reasonable
or necessary and, therefore, covered by Medicare”…
See Case No. 13-CV-990 Whitcomb v Sylvia Burwell Secretary of Health &
Human Services. Item & service Cannot Be Denied…
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150601648/WHITCOMB%20v.%20BURWELL
A remand sentence-four 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) reverses the Medicare Appeals
Counsel’s decision and is a “victory for the Plaintiff and terminates the
litigation”.
Under Federal Law, a prevailing litigant in a case against the United
States Government is entitled to recover its attorney fees and costs, when
the position asserted by the government was not substantially justified. 28
U.S.C. § 2412. “In the present matter this Court ruling recognizes that the
government’s refusal to cover a medical device for the management of
Whitcomb’s diabetes was not supported in law or fact”.
Not only has a judge in the Medicare Office of Hearings and Appeals found
coverage for CGM was appropriate, but the District Court of Wisconsin has
ruled that claims cannot be denied based on the Article stating CGM is
precautionary and therefore not covered…
On May 26, 2015, the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
ruled that the Secretary of Health and Human Services cannot deny coverage
of a continuous glucose monitor based on a statement in an Article that
such monitors are “precautionary.” The case reflects the arduous path that
Type 1 diabetic Medicare beneficiaries endure while trying to secure
coverage for a medical device that is considered the standard of care for
Type 1 diabetics with hypoglycemic unawareness – a device widely deemed
necessary to prevent life-threatening hypoglycemic events. The Medicare
beneficiary had sought coverage from United Healthcare’s Secure Horizon’s
Medicare Advantage Plan. Although United Healthcare covers CGM on a limited
basis for non-Medicare beneficiaries, it does not cover CGM for Medicare
beneficiaries.
Through every phase of the multi-step Medicare administrative appeals
process, the Plaintiff appealed the denial of a CGM that she got in April
2011. Although statutory regulations provide that an administrative law
judge should issue a decision within 90 days of a request for an
administrative hearing, 231 days passed until the Plaintiff received a
favorable administrative law judge decision, i.e., February 2013. United
Healthcare appealed the favorable decision and the Medicare Appeals Council
reversed the decision asserting that the Medicare contractor’s local
coverage determination (“LCD”) incorporated a Medicare Article that deemed
CGM to be “precautionary.” Although Medicare regulations require the
Council to issue a decision within 90 days of a request for review, the
Council took approximately six months to render a decision, i.e., August
2013.
The District Court, however, found that the LCD did not incorporate the
Article by reference nor vise versa. Further, the Court noted the
distinction between LCDs (which indicate whether a device is reasonable and
necessary) and Articles (which address non-coverage information such as
coding and payment). The Court reasoned that if a Medicare contractor could
issue a coverage decision in an Article, it would subvert the LCD
development process and would undermine Medicare beneficiaries’ ability to
challenge a non-coverage policy as envisioned by Congress under Section 522
of BIPA.
The Court remanded the matter to the Medicare Appeals Council to determine
the Medicare beneficiary’s need for CGM based on her individual medical
condition, i.e., without reference to the Article. The case underscores the
challenges faced by Medicare beneficiaries seeking coverage of a device
that is the standard of care, and the Office of Medicare Hearings and
Appeals’ and Council’s failure to meet statutory deadlines, even for
Medicare beneficiaries.