
10 Common Medicare Myths Debunked
There is a lot of information about Medicare, which can lead to various misconceptions or 'myths' about the program. Debunking these myths can help you better understand your options and coverage.
Medicare is a federal health insurance program for people over 65 or who have certain illnesses or disabilities. There are many options when it comes to Medicare plans and coverage.
People may find the various options and enrollment confusing. Explaining some common misconceptions may help you make the best Medicare choices for your circumstances.
Glossary of common Medicare terms
Out-of-pocket cost: This is the amount you pay for care when Medicare doesn't pay the full cost or offer coverage. It includes premiums, deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments.
Premium: This is the monthly amount you pay for Medicare coverage.
Deductible: This is the annual amount you must spend out of pocket before Medicare begins to cover services and treatments.
Coinsurance: This is the percentage of treatment costs you're responsible for paying out of pocket. With Medicare Part B, you typically pay 20%.
Copayment: This is a fixed dollar amount you pay when receiving certain treatments or services. With Medicare, this often applies to prescription medications.
Myth 1: Medicare Part B is free
Medicare Part B helps cover outpatient services and treatments. However, there are out-of-pocket costs involved.
Everyone with Medicare is responsible for paying the Part B monthly premium, which starts at $185 and may be higher depending on your income.
You are also responsible for paying the $257 Part B deductible. Once you meet this deductible, Medicare will cover 80% of the approved costs for your care, leaving you responsible for the other 20% of the costs.
A note on Medicare Advantage
If you have a Medicare Advantage (Part C) plan, you are still required to pay the Part B premium, as well as your plan premium. However, your Medicare Advantage plan will set its own deductible.
Myth 2: I can enroll in Medicare whenever I want
You are eligible to enroll in Medicare when you turn 65 years old. You have an initial enrollment period that runs for 7 months, beginning 3 months before your birthday and ending 3 months after. During this time, you can enroll in any plan.
Medicare also has an open enrollment period from October 15 to December 7 each year. During this time, you can join, drop, or switch to a new plan.
If you do not sign up for Medicare parts A and B when you become eligible, you may be subject to late enrollment penalties.
Myth 3: Medicare plans are only available through the federal government
There are four parts to Medicare, and only two of them are available through the federal government.
The four parts are:
Part A
Part B
Part C (Medicare Advantage)
Part D
Part A and Part B make up Original Medicare, which is provided by the federal government. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) runs the Medicare program, while the Social Security Administration (SSA) processes your enrollment.
Medicare Advantage (Part C) and prescription drug coverage (Part D) are provided by Medicare-approved private insurance companies. The insurance providers and plans vary by area. You can find plans in your area using the Medicare online search tool.
Myth 4: Medicare covers all of my medical expenses
Medicare does have comprehensive coverage for healthcare. However, there are still out-of-pocket expenses involved.
Original Medicare (parts A and B) also does not include prescription drug coverage. You will need to purchase a Part D plan from a Medicare-approved private insurance company.
Each part of Medicare has its own costs that you are responsible for paying. These include:
premiums
deductibles
copayments
coinsurance
Medicare cost examples
Most people with Medicare Part A do not pay a premium. However, you are responsible for paying the inpatient deductible and the coinsurance for each day you are in the hospital.
$1,676 deductible per benefit period
Days 1 to 60: $0 after the deductible is met
Days 61 to 90: $419 per day
Days 91 to 150: $838 per day while using lifetime reserve days
After day 150: all costs
Everyone with Medicare must pay the Part B premium. The Part B costs include:
Premium: $185 or more, depending on income
Deductible: $257 annually
Coinsurance: 20% of Medicare-approved costs
Myth 5: I will be automatically enrolled in Medicare
The only time you will be automatically enrolled in Medicare is if you are already receiving Social Security benefits when you become eligible.
Otherwise, you will have to go to the SSA website and enroll in Medicare when you become eligible.
Medicare and SSDI
Anyone who is receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is eligible to receive Medicare after 24 months of receiving SSDI.
»Learn more: How to apply for Medicare
Myth 6: Medicare will notify me when it's time to enroll
Medicare won't notify you when you become eligible to enroll. It is up to you to sign up when you become eligible.
Generally, you become eligible to enroll 3 months before your 65th birthday. However, you have until 3 months after your birthday to sign up without late enrollment penalties.
Myth 7: Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplement plans are the same
While both Medicare Advantage (Part C) and Medicare Supplement Insurance (Medigap) are provided by Medicare-approved private insurance companies, they are separate coverage plans.
Medicare Advantage (Part C) is an alternative to Original Medicare (parts A and B), and the plans within the former offer the same coverage as the latter. However, they often come with prescription drug coverage (Part D) and additional benefits not covered by Original Medicare, like vision, dental, and hearing.
Medigap is extra insurance you can purchase from private insurance companies to help cover costs associated with Original Medicare, such as copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles.
You cannot have Medigap with a Medicare Advantage plan. You are only eligible to purchase a Medigap plan if you have Original Medicare.
Myth 8: Medicare and Medicaid are the same thing
Medicare is a federal health insurance program that is generally for people over 65 years old. If you have certain illnesses or disabilities, you may also qualify for Medicare coverage. Since this is a federal program, the coverage and costs are standard no matter where you live, except for Medicare Advantage plans.
Medicare is funded through your out-of-pocket costs and taxes as well as two government trust funds.
Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that helps pay for medical costs for people with limited incomes. The federal government has certain rules all Medicaid programs must follow. However, each state runs its own program, meaning benefits and eligibility requirements can vary from state to state.
People with Medicaid don't typically pay anything for covered medical expenses. However, they may owe a copayment for certain items or services.
Myth 9: Medicare costs the same for everyone
Many Medicare costs can vary. For example, most people do not pay a premium for Part A. However, if you have not earned enough work credits by working and paying Medicare taxes, you can purchase Part A. Depending on how long you have worked, you will pay either $285 or $518 per month.
You may also pay a higher premium for Part B if your income is above $106,000 as an individual or $212,000 as a married couple.
The costs of Medicare Advantage (Part C), Part D, and Medigap all vary based on the plan you choose and the area you live in.
Myth 10: I can't sign up for Medicare because of my health
Medicare will cover you even if you have preexisting conditions. You are eligible for Medicare when you turn 65 years old, even if you have current health issues.
You are also eligible for Medicare if you have certain illnesses or disabilities, like end stage renal disease (ESRD) or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
Takeaway
There are various misconceptions or 'myths' about Medicare, so it's easy to become overwhelmed and confused.
Understanding the difference between myth and fact can help you navigate Medicare easily and make informative decisions on your coverage.
The information on this website may assist you in making personal decisions about insurance, but it is not intended to provide advice regarding the purchase or use of any insurance or insurance products. Healthline Media does not transact the business of insurance in any manner and is not licensed as an insurance company or producer in any U.S. jurisdiction. Healthline Media does not recommend or endorse any third parties that may transact the business of insurance.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court gives DOGE access to millions of Americans' private Social Security data
The Brief The Supreme Court ruled DOGE can access personal data from the Social Security Administration. The case marks the first Supreme Court decision involving DOGE, once led by Elon Musk. The dissent warned the decision puts Americans' sensitive information at risk. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Friday gave the green light for the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access one of the country's most sensitive databases — the Social Security Administration's internal systems — which hold information on nearly every American. The 6–3 decision, split along ideological lines, marks the first major Supreme Court ruling involving DOGE, the controversial agency once led by Elon Musk. The Court's majority reversed a lower court's order that limited DOGE's access under federal privacy law, siding with the administration's argument that the restrictions were hampering its anti-fraud mission. Liberal justices dissented, warning the decision erodes vital privacy protections. The backstory The Department of Government Efficiency — or DOGE — was established during President Trump's second term and tasked with rooting out government waste and inefficiency. Its first director was Elon Musk, who called the Social Security program a "Ponzi scheme" and repeatedly targeted it as a key source of fraud. Although Musk has since stepped away from DOGE, the department has continued aggressive efforts to audit and investigate various federal programs. Social Security has remained a top priority. The administration argued that unfettered access to the SSA's internal systems was essential to detect abuse, duplication, and improper payouts — particularly in disability and survivor benefits. Dig deeper The case originated in Maryland, where U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander ruled that DOGE's demand for open access to Social Security data amounted to a "fishing expedition" based on limited evidence of wrongdoing. She blocked broad access but allowed DOGE staff with training and security clearance to view anonymized data, and permitted expanded access only if a specific need was documented. The Trump administration appealed, arguing the court was overstepping its role and interfering with executive branch operations. An appeals court upheld the partial block, but the Supreme Court has now lifted it entirely. Solicitor General John Sauer told the Court the restrictions "micromanaged" DOGE's work and undermined its mission. The other side Opponents of the ruling, including the plaintiffs represented by the advocacy group Democracy Forward, argue that the Social Security Administration contains deeply personal data: salary history, school records, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. They warned that handing this information to a politically driven agency without individualized review poses massive privacy risks. Labor unions and retiree groups joined the lawsuit, saying the system could be weaponized against vulnerable Americans. The dissenting justices agreed. "There is no meaningful check here on the breadth or use of the data," one wrote. "We risk turning privacy law into an empty promise." Why you should care This decision expands the Trump administration's ability to conduct sweeping audits across government agencies using personal data. While supporters frame it as a win for accountability and fraud reduction, critics say it weakens safeguards that prevent misuse of federal databases. It also sets a precedent for how much control the courts can — or cannot — exert over federal agency operations, a core issue as Trump's administration continues to consolidate executive power. What's next With the Supreme Court's backing, DOGE is expected to move quickly in analyzing Social Security data. Critics worry this could lead to mass denials of benefits or politically motivated reviews. Supporters say it could lead to cost-saving reforms. The agency, which has faced more than two dozen lawsuits, remains under scrutiny. Legal challenges are ongoing regarding its personnel decisions, data practices, and oversight authority. The Source This report is based on coverage from the Associated Press and court documents related to the Supreme Court decision in the DOGE v. Democracy Forward case. Additional background was gathered from statements by the U.S. Solicitor General, District Court Judge Ellen Hollander's original ruling, and legal filings from the plaintiff groups, including labor unions and the nonprofit Democracy Forward.


Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court allows DOGE team to access Social Security systems with data on millions of Americans
The DOGE victories come amid a messy breakup between the president and the world's richest man that started shortly after Musk's departure from the White House and has included threats to cut government contracts and a call for the president to be impeached. The future of DOGE's work isn't clear without Musk at the helm, but both men have previously said that it will continue its efforts. Advertisement In one case, the high court halted an order from a judge in Maryland that has restricted the team's access to the Social Security Administration under federal privacy laws. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in an unsigned order. Conservative lower-court judges have said there's no evidence at this point of DOGE mishandling personal information. The agency holds sensitive data on nearly everyone in the country, including school records, salary details and medical information. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court's action creates 'grave privacy risks' for millions of Americans by giving 'unfettered data access to DOGE regardless — despite its failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards, and all before we know for sure whether federal law countenances such access.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Jackson's opinion and Justice Elena Kagan said she also would have ruled against the administration. Advertisement The Trump administration But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE's efforts at Social Security amounted to a 'fishing expedition' based on 'little more than suspicion' of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans' private information at risk. Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need. The Trump administration has said DOGE can't work effectively with those restrictions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies. The plaintiffs say it's a narrow order that's urgently needed to protect personal information. An appeals court previously refused to immediately to lift the block on DOGE access, though it split along ideological lines. Conservative judges in the minority said there's no evidence that the team has done any 'targeted snooping' or exposed personal information. Advertisement The lawsuit was originally filed by a group of labor unions and retirees represented by the group Democracy Forward. It's one of more than two dozen lawsuits filed over DOGE's work, which has included deep cuts at federal agencies and large-scale layoffs. The plaintiffs called the high court's order 'a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people.' Liz Huston, a spokesperson for the White House, applauded the order. 'The Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law.' The nation's court system has been ground zero for pushback to President Donald Trump's sweeping conservative agenda, with hundreds of lawsuits filed challenging policies on everything from immigration to education to mass layoffs of federal workers. In the other DOGE order handed down Friday, the justices extended a pause on orders that would require the team to publicly disclose information about its operations, as part of a lawsuit filed by a government watchdog group. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argues that DOGE, which has been central to Trump's push to remake the government, is a federal agency and must be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But the Trump administration says DOGE is just a presidential advisory body aimed at government cost-cutting, which would make it exempt from requests for documents under FOIA. The justices did not decide that issue Friday, but the conservative majority held that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents be turned over to CREW. Advertisement Associated Press writers Mark Sherman and Chris Megerian contributed to this report.


Forbes
6 hours ago
- Forbes
Republicans Like Health Savings Accounts
Should the government allow HSAs to cover gym memberships? Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are a popular and important way many people pay for medical expenses. They are also a great way to save—better, for example, than an IRA or a 401(k) plan. Because of various quirks in the law, HSAs are not available to a large number of people—including people on Medicaid or Medicare and most people who buy their own insurance in the (Obamacare) exchanges. Under the reconciliation bill just passed in the House of Representatives, more people will have access to these accounts and there will be new opportunities to use them. Currently, individuals and their employers can make tax-free deposits to HSAs, provided the individual is also covered by third-party health insurance with a high deductible. Money can accumulate and grow tax-free. After age 65, the money can be withdrawn for non-health expenses without penalty, but it is subject to normal income taxes. As of 2023, there were 37.4 million accounts with $46.4 billion in assets. Industry experts think the House bill will lead to an additional 20 million people with an HSA. Here is a summary of the hits and misses in the Republican bill, as it faces a vote by the Senate. The Good. By far the best feature of the bill is a provision making all bronze and catastrophic insurance plans offered through the (Obamacare) exchanges automatically eligible for an HSA account. This is likely the main reason why the number of HSA accounts is likely to soar. Another provision would allow the use of HSAs to pay monthly fees for direct primary care (DPC). This used to be called 'concierge care' and in the past it was available only to the rich. But the price has come way down. Atlas MD in Wichita, for example, charges $50 a month for a mother and $10 for a child. In return, the family has 24/7 access to a physician's practice that provides all primary care. Often, the family has the doctor's personal phone number. DPC has become increasingly popular, and employers often pay the monthly fee for their employees. Under current law, however, the employer cannot put funds in an HSA account, let the employee choose a DPC doctor and pay that doctor from the account. The House bill will create that opportunity. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the ten-year cost of all of the HSA changes combined is almost $44 billion. Yet the cost of the two best provisions is less than $6 billion. More on that below. The Questionable. The bill allows annual withdrawals of $500 (individuals) or $1,000 (couples) for gym memberships and other physical activities. (No sailing or golfing expenses, however.) The problem is that these are not medical expenses. If we are going to allow gym memberships, why not hundreds of other nonmedical expenses – including sailing and golfing? The CBO says the cost of this provision is $10 billion. The bill also doubles the annual HSA contribution that is allowable for individuals with incomes up to $75,000 and couples who earn up to $150,000. The problem here is that only about one in ten account holders are contributing the maximum allowable right now. At a cost of more than $8 billion this is an expensive change that will only affect a small part of the market. Instead of these questionable measures, the Senate should consider making all Obamacare silver plans (the most popular choice) automatically eligible for an HSA. Missed opportunities. While the House should be congratulated for making many desirable improvements in the HSA law, it unfortunately failed to correct a fundamental flaw: an inflexible across-the-board deductible. Common sense would suggest that different medical expenses need different deductibles. The biggest problem with chronic illness, for example, is noncompliance with a drug regimen. That is why some Medicare Advantage plans make maintenance drugs for chronic patients (such as insulin for diabetics) available for free or at very low cost. In the first Trump administration, an IRS ruling waived the deductible requirement for 14 specific services and medications that serve as treatments for such conditions as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and depression. This was an executive branch decision to modify existing legislation, however. To make it permanent, Congress needs to codify it. Ideally, Congress should remove the deductible requirement altogether and let the role of deductibles be determined in the marketplace. One way to think about the combination of allowing gym memberships and failing to address the deductible issue is to see that the House risks being accused of creating benefits for the healthy while ignoring the sick. Another missed opportunity was the failure of House Republicans to give 80 million Medicaid enrollees access to what I will call a Roth HSA. Private companies managing Medicaid (or the state itself) should be able to make deposits to an account that would cover, say, all primary care. Enrollees could use the money for health care during an insurance year. Afterward, they could withdraw any unspent funds for any purpose. If there were no taxes or penalties on non-medical withdrawals, health care and non-health care would trade against each other on a level playing field under the tax law. People wouldn't spend a dollar on health care unless they got a dollar's worth of value. An early study by the RAND Corporation suggests that these accounts would reduce Medicaid spending by 30 percent. Aside from payments for the disabled and nursing home care, if Medicaid spending could be reduced by 30 percent, the savings would amount to almost $1 trillion over ten years. This saving would be shared by the beneficiaries and the taxpayers who fund Medicaid.