Ask someone what they think about the idea of “Medicare for All” — that is, one national health insurance plan for all Americans — and you’ll likely hear one of two opinions: One, that it sounds great and could potentially fix the country’s broken healthcare system. Or two, that it would be the downfall of our country’s (broken) healthcare system.
What you likely won’t hear? A succinct, fact-based explanation of what Medicare for All would actually entail and how it could affect you.
We asked healthcare experts to answer your most pressing questions.
What is the overall plan?
One of the biggest misconceptions about Medicare for All is that there’s just one proposal on the table.
“In fact, there are a number of different proposals out there,” explained Katie Keith, JD, MPH, a research faculty member for Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms.
“Most people tend to think of the most far-reaching Medicare for All proposals, which are outlined in bills sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Pramila Jayapal. But there are a number of proposals out there that would expand the role of public programs in healthcare,” she said.
Although all of these plans tend to get grouped together, “there are key differences among the various options,” Keith added, “and, as we know in healthcare, the differences and details really matter.”
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Sanders’ and Jayapals’ bills (S. 1129 and H.R. 1384, respectively) share many similarities, such as:
- comprehensive benefits
- tax financed
- a replacement for all private health insurance, as well as the current Medicare program
- lifetime enrollment
- no premiums
- all state-licensed, certified providers who meet eligible standards can apply
Other bills put a slightly different spin on single-payer health insurance. For instance, they may give you the right to opt out of the plan, offer this healthcare only to people who don’t qualify for Medicaid, or make it eligible to people who are only between the ages of 50 and 64.
How, exactly, would Medicare for All work?
As far as the Sanders and Jayapal bills go, "the simplest explanation is that these bills would move the United States from our current multi-payer healthcare system to what is known as a single-payer system,” explained Keith.
Right now, multiple groups pay for healthcare. That includes private health insurance companies, employers, and the government, through programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Under Medicare for All, we would have only a single entity — in this case, the federal government — paying for healthcare,” said Keith. “This would largely eliminate the role of private health insurance companies and employers in providing health insurance and paying for healthcare.”
The current Medicare program wouldn’t exactly vanish.
“It would be also expanded to cover everyone and would include much more robust benefits (such as long-term care) that is not currently covered by Medicare right now,” said Keith.
What might out-of-pocket costs look like for different income brackets?
Despite what some online conspiracy theories warn, “under the Sanders and Jayapal bills, there would be virtually no out-of-pocket costs for healthcare-related expenses,” Keith said. “The bills would prohibit deductibles, coinsurance, co-pays, and surprise medical bills for healthcare services and items covered under Medicare for All.”
You may have to pay some out-of-pocket costs for services that aren’t covered by the program, “but the benefits are expansive, so it’s not clear that this would happen often,” said Keith.
The Jayapal bill fully prohibits all cost-sharing. The Sanders bill allows for very limited out-of-pocket costs of up to $200 per year for prescription drugs, but that doesn’t apply to individuals or families with an income under 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
Other proposals, such as the Medicare for America Act from Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), would nix out-of-pocket costs for lower-income individuals, but people in higher-income brackets would pay more: up to $3,500 in annual out-of-pocket costs for individuals or $5,000 for a family.
Will you be able to keep your doctor?
This is a sticking point for many people — and why not? It can take time to find a doctor you trust, and once you do, you don’t want to walk away from that relationship.
The good news is that “the Medicare for All bills generally build on the current provider system, so doctors and hospitals that already accept Medicare could likely continue to do so,” Keith said.
What isn’t clear yet is whether all providers would choose to participate in the program since they currently won’t be required to do so.
“The bills include a ‘private pay’ option where providers and individuals could come up with their own arrangement to pay for healthcare, but this would be outside of the Medicare for All program, and they would have to follow certain requirements before doing so,” explained Keith.
Will private insurance still be available?
Neither the Sanders nor Jayapal bills would allow private health insurance to operate the way it does now.
In fact, “both bills would prohibit employers and insurance companies from offering insurance that covers the same benefits that would be provided under the Medicare for All program,” Keith said. “In other words, insurers couldn’t offer coverage that would duplicate the benefits and services of Medicare for All.”
Considering that in 2018, the average cost for employer-based family healthcare was up 5 percent to nearly $20,000 per year, maybe that’s not a bad thing.
Will preexisting conditions be covered?
Yes. Under the Affordable Care Act, a health insurer can’t refuse to give you coverage because of a health issue you already have. That includes cancer, diabetes, asthma, and even high blood pressure.
Before the ACA, private insurers were allowed to turn down prospective members, charge higher premiums, or limit benefits based on your health history.
Medicare for All plans will operate in the same way as the ACA.
Will Medicare for All solve all the problems of our healthcare system?
“The honest, although somewhat dissatisfying answer at this stage is ‘It depends,’” said Keith.
“This would be a brand new, very ambitious program that would require a lot of changes in the way healthcare is paid for in the United States. There are likely to be at least some unintended consequences and other costs in the form of higher taxes, at least for some people,” she said.
But if the bills work as well in real life as they look on paper? “People would be insulated from out-of-pocket costs like high prescription costs and surprise hospital bills,” Keith said.
Let’s say Medicare for All happens. How would the transition occur?
That depends on how disruptive of a model is adopted, said Alan Weil, JD, MPP, editor-in-chief of Health Affairs, a journal of healthy policy thought and research.
“If we literally eliminate all private insurance and give everyone a Medicare card, it would probably be implemented by age groups,” Weil said.
People would have a few years to transition, and once it’s your turn, “you’d move from private coverage and into this plan,” Weil said. “Because the vast majority of providers take Medicare now, conceptually, it’s not that complicated.”
Although the current Medicare program truly is. While it covers basic costs, many people still pay extra for Medicare Advantage, which is similar to a private health insurance plan.
If legislators decide to keep that around, open enrollment will be necessary.
“You’re not just being mailed a card, but you could also have a choice of five plans," said Weil. "Preserve that option and that offers a layer of complexity.”
Architects of a single-payer health system will also have to tweak Medicare to make it suitable for people who aren’t only 65 or over.
“You’d have to come up with billing codes and payment rates and enroll a bunch of pediatricians and providers who aren’t currently involved with Medicare,” Weil noted. “There’s a lot that would need to happen behind the scenes.”
How will Medicare for All be financed?
The specifics vary a bit plan to plan. In Jayapal’s bill, for instance, Medicare for All would be funded by the federal government, using money which otherwise would go to Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs that pay for health services.
But when you get right down to it, the funding for all the plans comes down to taxes.
That still might not be as awful as it sounds.
After all, “you won’t be paying [health insurance] premiums,” Weil pointed out.
Although you may be able to say right now that your employer pays part of your health benefits, “economists would say it comes out of your pocket,” Weil said. “You’re also paying office co-pays and deductibles.”
With Medicare for All proposals, some portion of the money you’re now paying toward health insurance would be shifted to taxes.
Will quality of care go down?
“The rhetorical response to single-payer health insurance is that it’s government-controlled healthcare. It’s then used to argue that the government would be making important decisions about the care you get and don’t get, and who you see,” Weil said.
But Medicare for All could actually give you more choice than private insurance.
“With Medicare, you can go to any doctor,” Weil said. “I have private insurance and have a lot more restrictions as to who I see.”
How likely is it that Medicare for All will happen?
Likely, but not any time soon, guesses Weil.
“I think we’re divided politically in lots of ways as a country,” he explained. “I don’t see our political process able to metabolize change on this scale.”
Plus, healthcare providers, legislators, policy makers, and insurance providers are still trying to wrap their heads around what this change would mean.
When people are polled on the subject, they agree that the concept of Medicare for All sounds good, said Weil. “But when you start to talk about disruption in coverage and the potential of taxes to go up, people’s support starts to weaken,” he said.
Although there's a growing sense that our current healthcare system isn't sustainable, “you learn to navigate what you have,” said Weil.
In other words, you may despise your health insurance, but at least you understand just how awful it is.
Weil thinks it’s likely that “elements of pressure” will start making the debate about Medicare for All less relevant. Healthcare systems will continue merging and buying up acute-care centers, for instance. Prices will keep rising.
Public outrage may force the government to step in and regulate the healthcare system over time.
“And once you have a consolidated, regulated industry, it’s not that different than single-payer,” he pointed out.
And it might not be as different as you feared — and much better for your health (and your wallet) — than you hoped.