logo
We're cancer doctors. Here's why Medicare Advantage fails America's elderly.

We're cancer doctors. Here's why Medicare Advantage fails America's elderly.

The Hilla day ago

'It's nothing,' Tom, a retired firefighter from rural Texas, thought when he had persistent stomach pain.
After shedding 30 pounds in three weeks, his family physician ordered a CT scan. Tom was not concerned — after all, the 65-year-old had gotten Medicare Advantage earlier that year.
Like millions, Tom switched his insurance after he was solicited by a broker who promised low premiums and a gift card. Absent from the sales pitch was the fact that Medicare Advantage plans — privately run and separate from government-funded traditional Medicare — often delay and deny coverage.
One of us met Tom nearly three months after his CT scan, and his doctor discovered the abdominal mass. The job as the first oncologist he had been able to see after months of jumping through hoops was to get initial scans, identify an in-network provider, wait for further referral and approval processes and finally schedule and complete a biopsy.
The delays became a death knell. Tom was diagnosed with Stage 3 pancreatic cancer.
Tom's first question was, 'It's going to be fine, right?'
Despite the urge to reassure him, Tom's life and treatment options were not up to a doctor. They were up to his insurance. The same insurance that delayed urgent testing and care.
By definition, Medicare Advantage is meant to support elderly medical care and increase efficiencies; in function, it is a business model that allows the American government to decrease its liability for sick seniors.
Instead of absorbing and managing costs, the responsibility is outsourced to third-party operators, such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and CVS Health.
While Medicare Advantage provides excellent coverage if you never get sick, this insurance can quickly become a precursor to medical bankruptcy if the patient develops a deadly disease, a highly probable outcome when you consider that nearly 40 percent of Americans get cancer in their lifetime.
After nearly two decades of experimentation and $450 billion of taxpayer money, Medicare Advantage has proven porous in terms of corruption, fraud and abuse. Yet, 32.8 million elderly Americans (54 percent of the eligible Medicare population) are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage.
In 2023 alone, Medicare Advantage plans fully or partially denied 3.2 million prior authorization requests.
No one, especially among folks facing the daily drudgery of fighting cancer, truly understands how the cogs within the insurance machine work. Few of our elderly patients fight the goliath institution, and many succumb to poorer health outcomes in their quest for lifesaving treatment.
Last year, countrywide and across disease groups, 79 percent of patients who experienced a delay or denial of coverage paid out of pocket for medication at least sometimes. Unsurprisingly, more than 100 million Americans are in medical debt.
Of those who appealed between 2019 and 2023, over 80 percent were approved, implying that the initial claims were valid. This game of attrition directly contradicts Medicare Advantage's promise to provide efficient, patient-centered healthcare.
These denials are not just medically dangerous because they enable deadly diseases to progress unchecked. They are also emotionally erosive.
Daily, we see patients shrink in the face of denials, unable to emotionally navigate the complex Medicare system and the immense pain, isolation and depression resulting from this behemoth that stands between their disease and their hope to be free of it.
During one of Tom's chemo visits, with thousands of dollars worth of IVs in his veins, his skin pale and translucent, he realized he was begging his insurance at every turn to support him.
Stories like Tom's reveal the truth: Medicare Advantage is unapologetically failing its elderly cancer patients. Sick American seniors deserve more than insurance coverage in name only.
We advise our patients to avoid Medicare Advantage. The better choice is traditional Medicare, plus a secondary or supplemental insurance.
Often, people do not enroll in supplemental insurance because they do not understand its importance, believe they will never get sick, miss the deadline for approval without a medical exam (you must do this within three months before or after your 65th birthday), or think it is too expensive.
Although supplemental insurance costs nearly $500 a month (exact amounts vary based on age and income), choosing this add-on — and paying roughly $6,000 a year — is much more affordable than Medicare Advantage's yearly out-of-pocket (potentially adding up to $8,500) and fighting for approvals for basic treatment.
On Medicare Advantage, Tom quickly reached his maximum yearly out-of-pocket of $8,500, but then it reset on Jan. 1. After four months of treatment, he was responsible for paying $17,000 for 16 months of care, on top of his insurance premiums, simply to receive standard care.
Of course, if you are one of the fortunate few to have never experienced illness — and we hope you are — Medicare Advantage can be a cheaper option. The question is, how can we make Medicare Advantage advantageous for the vulnerable?
There is a bipartisan opportunity to change the narrative around this insurance model. During his confirmation hearing as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Mehmet Oz criticized Medicare Advantage insurers for some of their practices.
Strategic change — omitting out-of-pocket costs for cancer patients, curbing insurance companies' rights to deny claims submitted by doctors and speeding up the process — along with more rigorous oversight of the program are worthwhile goals the Trump administration and Congress should take on.
While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many issues, we believe we can all agree that people like Tom — and the millions of other Americans enrolled in Medicare Advantage — deserve comprehensive and just care.
Dr. Pramod Pinnamaneni, MD, MBA, and Dr. Nitya Thummalachetty, DrPH, are founders of the Nau Project, a start-up dedicated to helping everyday Americans navigate the complexities of our healthcare system.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Opinion - Would you hit a dog? Then why hit a child?
Opinion - Would you hit a dog? Then why hit a child?

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Would you hit a dog? Then why hit a child?

In much of the world, we have outlawed physical violence against adults, including the physical punishment of women, prisoners and military recruits. It is also illegal in many places to hit a dog. In the U.S., for example, kicking or hitting a dog can result in criminal charges. And yet, parents' spanking and hitting of children in the name of 'discipline' is legal in the U.S. and in more than 130 other countries around the world. A recent study found that American parents are significantly more likely to consider it acceptable to hit a child than to hit a dog. We are in a cultural moment where physically punishing a dog is viewed as more morally objectionable than doing the same to human children. Despite decades of research showing that physical punishment is harmful and ineffective, its use persists in households around the U.S. and the world. The question is not whether hitting children causes harm, rather, it's why society allows it, knowing that it does. My colleagues and I analyzed data from 195 studies in 92 countries and found no evidence that physical punishment has any benefits. On the contrary, our findings show that physical punishment of children is linked to exclusively negative consequences, including increased aggression, lower academic performance and a higher risk of depression, anxiety and other emotional difficulties later in life. Imagine for a moment that your boss, supervisor or teacher hits you for not meeting expectations. Your immediate response would likely include physical stress reactions such as sweating and a racing heart, as well as emotional responses such as anger, sadness, anxiety or fear. These responses are evolutionary and adaptive, designed to prepare us for fight or flight in the face of threats. When such violence is repeated, it can lead to a state of constant anxiety and fear that the next blow could come at any moment. The same happens to a child. Parents tend to use spanking and other forms of physical punishment with good intentions, hoping to correct or manage children's misbehavior. Yet, the physical stress and emotional responses from physical punishment can be particularly consequential early in life, when brains and biological systems are developing in response to experience. In a neuroscientific study, my team examined brain activity in a group of children who had been spanked in their first 10 years of life, compared to a similar group who had never been spanked. Using fMRI, we showed the children images of happy, neutral and fearful or threatening faces. The children who had been spanked exhibited heightened brain activation in response to fearful/threatening faces, specifically in regions associated with detecting and responding to environmental threats. Other studies have also found reduced cortex gray matter volume in adults who experienced corporal punishment during childhood. Many adults who were hit as children remember it as 'discipline,' not violence, and often insist they 'turned out fine.' But this reasoning overlooks the broader picture. Millions of people around the world smoke without visibly seeing lung damage, yet we widely accept the health risks of smoking because science has made them clear. Similarly, even if physical punishment doesn't leave visible marks, research shows that it significantly increases the risks to children's mental, emotional and developmental health. Some argue that the government shouldn't interfere in private family matters, such as how parents choose to discipline their children. But let's reconsider that argument, and apply it to women. We rightly find it unacceptable for a man to hit his wife, regardless of it being a 'private' matter. Why should it be acceptable to hit children, who are smaller, more vulnerable and entirely dependent on adults for their safety and well-being? Protecting children from harm is not government overreach; it is a fundamental moral and societal responsibility. The right to physical safety that is afforded to adults, including prisoners, soldiers, and even to dogs, should be extended to children. Simply put, all countries should prohibit the physical punishment of children in the home, school and all settings. Such legislation should not be punitive, but written into family codes instead of criminal codes, and paired with educational campaigns, similar to those that shifted social norms around smoking. Additionally, support for parents through initiatives like parenting programs is essential to promote non-violent discipline strategies. We've long stopped justifying hitting adults, and we recoil at hurting an animal. It's time we ensure the same standard applies to children, so we can one day say with pride that they, too, are fully protected from violence. Jorge Cuartas, assistant professor at NYU Steinhardt, is an internationally recognized expert on the health and developmental impacts of physical punishment in childhood. He has authored over 30 scientific articles on the subject, published in leading journals such as Nature Human Behaviour, The Lancet and Child Development. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Hundreds of laid-off CDC employees can return to work. But some won't be back
Hundreds of laid-off CDC employees can return to work. But some won't be back

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Hundreds of laid-off CDC employees can return to work. But some won't be back

Hundreds of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention employees are being allowed to return to work as of Wednesday. A fired CDC employee says she's happy for them, but she feels confused by the whole situation. 'It was always my dream to serve the public,' said Sarah Boim. She told Channel 2's Bryan Mims she worked as a health communications specialist for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for one year before she went on paid administrative leave in February. The government terminated her in May. Boim helped found Fired But Fighting, an organization working to have all CDC employees rehired and to remove Robert F. Kennedy as Health and Human Services secretary. She said she's grateful hundreds of laid-off employees can go back to their jobs at the CDC. 'I'm so happy for them, but I'm also a little confused because the government decided these people were doing critical work,' Boim said. She said these 460-plus employees couldn't do their critical work for more than 70 days. The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services confirmed that notices went out Wednesday to these 460 or so workers, saying they could return to the CDC. In April, about 2,400 CDC employees were laid off, about 18% of the CDC's staff. RELATED STORIES: Hundreds of laid-off CDC employees are being reinstated Protesters rally outside CDC offices in DeKalb County after advisory committee fired CDC official who oversaw COVID-19 vaccine recommendations has resigned following HHS rollback The Department of Health and Human Services confirms these rehired employees are part of four divisions. They include the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and Tuberculosis Prevention. Employees reinstated also include lab scientists who track lead poisoning. 'For every public health position that's lost, lives are at risk. So, multiply that by 2,000 just here at CDC. And you can see that we're really in a dire situation,' Boim said. [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter] Andrew Nixon, Health and Human Services spokesperson, responded with a written statement, saying the nation's critical health functions remain intact. 'HHS is streamlining operations without compromising mission-critical work. Enhancing the health and well-being of all Americans remains our top priority,' the statement said.

Dried Fruit Recall Map Shows 19 States With New Warning
Dried Fruit Recall Map Shows 19 States With New Warning

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

Dried Fruit Recall Map Shows 19 States With New Warning

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Turkana Food Inc. has issued a recall for their dried apricots because the package label does not disclose that the product contains sulfites. Newsweek reached out to the company via phone Thursday and left a voicemail. Why It Matters Numerous recalls have been initiated this year due to the potential for the following: damaged products, foodborne illness, contamination and undeclared food allergens. Millions of Americans experience food sensitivities or food allergies every year. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nine "major" food allergens in the U.S. are eggs, milk, fish, wheat, soybeans, Crustacean shellfish, sesame, tree nuts and peanuts. What To Know According to the FDA alert, the Floria brand dried apricots have an expiration date of November 2026. The impacted product has a LOT number of 440090478-15-333 that can be found at the bottom of the packaging. The product has a UPC Label of 2539560010 that can be seen on a sticker at the top of the package, the FDA says. The dried apricots were distributed in Florida, Kentucky, Virginia, New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Texas, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland, Ohio, Alabama, Missouri and California. There have been no reported illnesses as of Thursday, the FDA says. The alert also has pictures of the recalled product that potential customers can cross reference. Below is a map of the impacted states: What People Are Saying The FDA alert in part: "The recall was the result of a routine sampling performed by the New York State Department of Agriculture and markets which revealed that the finished products contained Sulfites that were not listed on the product labelling. The company has ceased production and distribution of the products as FDA and the company continue their investigation to correct the issue with the manufacturer." In an email to Newsweek in January, the FDA said: "Most recalls in the U.S. are carried out voluntarily by the product manufacturer and when a company issues a public warning, typically via news release, to inform the public of a voluntary product recall, the FDA shares that release on our website as a public service. "The FDA's role during a voluntary, firm-initiated, recall is to review the recall strategy, evaluate the health hazard presented by the product, monitor the recall, and as appropriate alert the public and other companies in the supply chain about the recall," the FDA continued. It added: "The FDA provides public access to information on recalls by posting a listing of recalls according to their classification in the FDA Enforcement Report, including the specific action taken by the recalling company. The FDA Enforcement Report is designed to provide a public listing of products in the marketplace that are being recalled." Additional information on recalls can be found via the FDA's Recalls, Market Withdrawals, & Safety Alerts. What Happens Next Customers who have purchased the recalled dried apricots are asked not to eat them and return them to the original place of purchase for a refund, the FDA says. People with additional questions may call Turkana Foods Inc. at 908-810-8800 on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store