Curie Brief
Turn on cookies to sign in
Signing in saves your progress to your Curie account. We can only do that with cookies on — turn them on to continue.
News
Reforming Medicare Advantage is complicated — and a new RAND study proves it. Researchers surveyed 52 experts across industry, policy, and patient advocacy groups and couldn't find a single reform proposal out of 14 that all three groups supported. Three near-term ideas — standardizing supplemental benefits, reforming agent commissions, and limiting plan offerings — emerged as the most promising starting points.
Reforming Medicare Advantage (MA) is a hot topic on both sides of the aisle, but a new RAND study shows just how thorny the path forward really is. Using the Delphi method, researchers surveyed 52 experts — spanning researchers, MA insurers, patient advocates, and policymakers — across 14 policy proposals. The result? Not a single idea earned unanimous support from all three stakeholder groups.
The tension is real: proposals that most benefit enrollees (like enhancing traditional Medicare with supplemental benefits and an out-of-pocket cap) tend to hurt insurers' bottom lines, while changes that generate government savings often require major market disruption — a tough political sell. Still, three near-term reforms rose to the surface as relatively low-disruption options: standardizing supplemental benefits, reforming broker/agent commissions, and capping the number of plans an insurer can offer. These could likely be implemented through rule-making — no act of Congress required.
Key Takeaways:
Why it matters: With MA covering a significant share of Medicare beneficiaries, getting reform right is critical. This study underscores that policymakers must be transparent about who a given change is designed to help — because in MA reform, there's no free lunch.
