To that end, Obamacare directed the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) to recommend a plan for making seniors pay more for both Plans F and C, but a NAIC task force advised against increasing cost-sharing under those policies—arguing it would be a financial blow to some of the poorest beneficiaries who depend on them.

O’Brien nicely sums up the dilemma people will face if the cost-sharing options on the table become law. The proposed changes “would force them to weigh whether their needs justify the extra outlay.” How they do that is the productive thread for many future Medicare stories. Even if these proposals don’t go anywhere legislatively for now, “proposed changes to Medigap plans will remain under debate among policy experts and politicians,” O’Brien writes.

All the more reason to stay on top of the story.

Follow @USProjectCJR for more posts from this author and the rest of the United States Project team, including our work on healthcare issues and public health at The Second Opinion.

Related content:

Medicare Uncovered: the pain from skin in the game

Medicare Uncovered: parsing Sen. Corker’s big bill

Medicare Uncovered: What the president said, and didn’t say


 

More in The Second Opinion

The insanity of hospital pricing

Read More »

Trudy Lieberman is a fellow at the Center for Advancing Health and a longtime contributing editor to the Columbia Journalism Review. She is the lead writer for The Second Opinion, CJR’s healthcare desk, which is part of our United States Project on the coverage of politics and policy. Follow her on Twitter @Trudy_Lieberman.