Many will be stuck without a lot of options. In some cases, no other companies in their area may offer Medicare Advantage plans to replace them. This isn’t the first time this has happened. Last year, almost 3 million seniors found themselves in similar situations.

An Arm and a Leg host Dan Weissmann and producer Emily Pisacreta looked into what happened when those cancellations hit Minnesota. The collapse of a major Medicare Advantage carrier there led to “total chaos,” according to the director of the state’s Medicare assistance agency. Everyday people stepped up to help one another in the fallout.

Plus, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ senior correspondent Julie Appleby joins to discuss the role of private health insurance companies in Medicare. She explains how these companies shape seniors’ choices, including in Medicare supplemental plans, whose premiums have skyrocketed.

Credits

An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and Public Road Productions.

For more from the team at An Arm and a Leg, subscribe to its weekly newsletter, . You can also follow the show on , , , and . And if you’ve got stories to tell about the healthcare system, the producers would love to .

To hear all ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to An Arm and a Leg on , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

By the end of the month, she was in a hospital bed.

Hvatum, a part-time computer science professor, has a weakened immune system due to a rare condition known as primary immunodeficiency, which makes it difficult for her body to fight infections. Prior to her 2005 diagnosis, she had four bouts of shingles, a painful rash caused by a virus.

For more than a decade she relied on an expensive medicine to treat her chronic condition — and relied on her insurance to pay for it.

Then the denial letters came.

The Medical Service

To give her weakened immune system a boost, she relies on Hizentra, which is made up of antibodies collected from donated blood plasma.

At her home, near St. Louis, Hvatum can administer the complex medicine herself. She uses a large syringe to draw the medicine from a vial and loads the syringe into a plastic apparatus that looks like a toy Nerf gun. She cranks a blue plastic dial that triggers a steady drip of the medicine, and it snakes through plastic tubing until it enters her leg through a needle.

The Bill

$8,141.94: The full charges for a 28-day supply of Hizentra without insurance coverage.

After her Medicare Advantage plan through Humana denied payment for the drug in January, she missed several weekly doses.

The Billing Problem: Prior Authorization

Hvatum got tangled up in the controversial process known as prior authorization, which often requires patients or their medical team to get an insurance company’s approval before obtaining medicines or treatment. 

At the start of the year, after Hvatum switched Medicare Advantage plans, she received a letter saying that Humana, her new carrier, had denied her “prior authorization prescription request” for Hizentra. The authorization from her previous insurer didn’t carry over. 

Without the medicine, Hvatum developed a urinary tract infection that sent her to the emergency room on Jan. 30. Though it is a common infection, her doctor advised her to go there because people with her condition can get sick and deteriorate quickly, she said. 

That ER visit turned into an overnight hospital stay. That turned into hospital charges of more than $18,000, and again her insurance denied payment, saying this time that she wasn’t sick enough to require hospital care.

Hvatum’s experience with prior authorization is not unique.

Medicare Advantage plans reviewed nearly 53 million prior authorization requests in 2024, . That’s equivalent to nearly two reviews for every person enrolled in the program.

It’s common for Medicare Advantage plans to deny payment for care — which helps them make a profit, said Carrie Graham, director of the Medicare Policy Initiative at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms.

The government pays a monthly sum to Medicare Advantage insurers to cover care for each member. “They make a profit if the care that person receives in that year is less than the amount they receive,” Graham said.

More than half of eligible Medicare beneficiaries choose Medicare Advantage insurance coverage. In 2026, roughly 35 million selected one of these private policies offered by insurance companies.

Humana is a dominant player in the space. Nearly half of all Medicare Advantage enrollees nationwide are covered by UnitedHealth Group or Humana, according to KFF.

The killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson prompted renewed scrutiny of prior authorization. Last summer, months after his death, the nation’s largest insurers, including Humana, signed a pledge that outlined a handful of commitments to ease the burden on patients.

For example, insurers vowed to reduce the number of services that would require prior authorization approval. They also promised to reduce delays by honoring existing prior authorizations for a 90-day period when patients switched plans.

That’s not what happened in Hvatum’s case.

Humana said this pledge to honor existing approvals comes with limitations. “These commitments are for medical services only and do not apply to prescription medications,” spokesperson Mark Taylor said.  

Humana declined to comment on the specifics of Hvatum’s case, even though she agreed to waive her privacy rights, giving the insurer permission to comment.

While acknowledging that the prior authorization process can be deeply frustrating for patients, Humana said it “builds important checks and balances into the healthcare system by verifying that treatments and care delivery are in the best interest of patient safety and quality of care, while safeguarding taxpayer dollars.”

In July 2025, it would remove one-third of prior authorization requirements for outpatient services.

“We are committed to making the process faster and more seamless for patients and providers,” Humana said in a statement Taylor provided to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

The Resolution

Hvatum appealed, and Humana in late January reversed its initial payment denial for Hizentra, enabling her to afford her medicine again.

But the approval came with a catch: It expires at the end of the year, after which she would need to obtain approval all over again.

Hvatum has since switched to a different drug — and she might not stick around for any more medical-bill fights like this one. She and her husband are considering a move to Norway, a place with universal healthcare. He is a citizen there, which could give her a path to public health coverage.

The industry’s promises to change are too little, too late for Hvatum. 

By her account, she has done her part. Running is her outlet, maybe an obsession, and it keeps her healthy. Scores of medals and trophies are tucked about her home. Some sit on a white wicker end table, next to family photos, candles, and framed St. Louis Cardinals memorabilia. Above a large bay window in the kitchen, medals hang from ribbons of all colors, made to look almost like custom window drapery.

“I have done everything I possibly can to be healthy,” Hvatum said, sitting at her dining room table in her running gear. Her printed T-shirt read, “If found on ground, please drag across the finish line.”

The Takeaway

Data shows patients should appeal prior authorizations, because those who do often get their denials reversed, Graham said. In fact, 81% of Medicare Advantage appeals were partially or fully overturned in 2024, according to KFF.

Relatively few people appeal, because “it’s an exhausting process,” Graham said. It puts the onus on patients — and doctors get frustrated, too.

It’s not just Medicare Advantage plans that subject enrollees to prior authorization approvals. It’s prevalent in other types of coverage, and it has prompted blowback from the public. Graham believes the public outcry instigated the industry’s pledge to change.

Hvatum is well versed in filing appeals. She submitted another appeal to Humana after the insurer denied payment for her January hospital stay. Humana again reversed its denial of payment in her case.

Hvatum blames Humana for her January trip to the hospital. Had Humana approved her Hizentra, she said, she could have avoided hospital care altogether.

In March, she had a stroke. Humana denied coverage of that hospital stay, too.

Humana determined that it was not reasonable for the physician who admitted Hvatum to think she would need to stay at least two nights, the threshold for approval. “You had a small stroke,” Humana’s denial letter stated.

Hvatum noted the letter was dated March 25, two days after she was hospitalized. Humana reversed its denial two weeks after Hvatum appealed.

“They love to send you the denials fast,” Hvatum said. “Approvals take longer.”

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? !

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Elevance Health, which covers about 2 million people on Medicare, sent the money to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services via wire transfer on May 27, court records show. Government lawyers disclosed the payment in a June 22 court filing.

In an email to CMS staff, Elevance described the money as a “remittance of the total overpayment amount” estimated by government audits, court records show. Company spokesperson Leslie Porras told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ in a statement that Elevance Health “continues to engage in constructive dialogue” with CMS. “We remain optimistic that a resolution can be reached and value our longstanding relationship with CMS,” she said.

The payment was made in response to a , in which the agency threatened to halt enrollments in Elevance Medicare Advantage plans unless the company corrected what CMS called “substantial and persistent noncompliance” with federal regulations that require health plans to submit accurate billing data and return any overpayments when they are discovered.

It appears to be the first time CMS has successfully pressured a Medicare Advantage health plan to pay back tens of millions of dollars in alleged overpayments — even though agency officials have known for years that many health plans have overbilled the program, according to audits by government staff.

“I’ve never heard of something like this before,” said David Lipschutz, an attorney with the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a nonprofit public interest law firm. “Usually plans seem to tie everything up and try to delay any repayment of anything for years.”

David Meyers, an associate professor at the Brown University School of Public Health, called the payment “substantial” and “a step in the right direction” toward holding the industry accountable.

“It’s a big win for CMS to get that much,” he said.

More than , about 55% of people on Medicare, have signed up for the private Advantage health insurance plans, which offer extra benefits, such as hearing aids and dental coverage, that traditional Medicare doesn’t cover.

Joining the plans may also prove cheaper for patients than purchasing a supplemental insurance policy that covers gaps in traditional Medicare.

Whether Medicare Advantage is a good deal for taxpayers is hotly debated, however.

The health plans have been the target of dozens of and government investigations alleging they often exaggerate how sick patients are to improperly boost their payments, claims the industry disputes. Medicare pays health plans higher rates for sicker patients but requires that the plans bill only for conditions that are properly documented in a patient’s medical records.

Researchers also have concluded that Medicare overpays the health plans by billions of dollars every year because of medical coding flaws that generate higher bills than are justified.

The whistleblower suits, mostly filed by former employees of healthcare companies, have long served as the primary tool for clawing back alleged overpayments. In January, Kaiser Permanente to settle Justice Department allegations that it billed the government for medical conditions patients didn’t have, the largest such penalty to date. In a on its website, the company said it settled the case “to avoid the delay, uncertainty, and cost of prolonged litigation.”

By contrast, CMS’ efforts to prevent Medicare Advantage plans from overcharging have largely foundered.

In 2014, for instance, CMS backed off a proposed regulation that would have cracked down on overbilling amid an “uproar” of opposition from the industry. And even when CMS audits uncovered tens of millions of dollars in overpayments, agency officials of that amount.

The CMS threat to bar Elevance from enrolling new members may open a new approach.

“The payment Elevance is making here is not trivial,” said Matthew Fiedler, a health policy researcher at the Brookings Institution.

But he noted that it represents a very small fraction of the total the company receives from Medicare. He said that making a big dent in the overpayment problem would require CMS to collect “many similar payments” — from “every” Medicare Advantage insurer.

“I don’t think there’s a clear reason to believe that at this stage,” Fiedler said.

Richard Kronick, a former federal health policy official and a professor at the University of California-San Diego, agreed that the payment reflects a small portion of the company’s revenue. But he said it was “still a sizable check to write.”

Kronick said the action reflects “perhaps a bit of muscle flexing” by CMS to tighten up enforcement.

CMS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It’s not clear from court records whether the payment will end the CMS threat to ban Elevance from signing up new members.

If so, it might prove to be a relative bargain. In with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company noted that its “current best estimate” of the “potential exposure” in the case was approximately $935 million.

Elevance has been at odds with the federal government over its billing practices since 2020, when the Justice Department filed a against the company, then known as Anthem. That case is pending.

Court filings in that case disclosed the company’s payment to CMS. In an email made part of the court file, a company official confirmed it had sent the wire transfer in the amount of $342,209,085.30 on May 27 and said the payment was related to the threatened enrollment ban. The company also stated that it was challenging the CMS enforcement action and called it “unprecedented.”

In defending against the Justice Department suit, Elevance has denied wrongdoing and argued that CMS knew about its billing practices for years and took no action.

Meyers, the Brown University professor, said CMS’ success in collecting payment from Elevance may encourage more enforcement.

“It remains to be seen whether this is a sea change,” he said.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Even the bill’s backers say securing passage this year is a long shot. But the effort is one more opportunity for Democrats to highlight voters’ frustration about healthcare costs leading into the November election.

Polls show Americans are very concerned about affordability, with finding fewer than half of Americans say they can consistently afford healthcare.

Wyden’s bill would focus on what many consider a critical pocketbook issue in traditional Medicare: There’s no limit on what a beneficiary could pay in cost sharing.

“Everyone else in the health insurance neighborhood has one — employer coverage, the Affordable Care Act, all of them have a cap,” the Oregon Democrat told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. “There’s no good, common-sense reason why the flagship health program doesn’t have the same protection.”

Critics of a cap, meanwhile, are likely to pounce on the cost to the federal budget, which could be significant.

Wyden, already making the battle lines clear, added, “I suspect it will come up on the floor of the Senate that Democrats want to give a fair shake to people on traditional Medicare and Republicans want to help billionaires.”

Policy, Political Dynamics at Work

The underlying issue is the 20% share of have to pay for medical services after they’ve met any deductibles. Without a ceiling or upper limit, an expensive condition such as cancer or a long hospital stay could result in beneficiaries paying thousands of dollars in costs.

That concern leads enrolled in traditional Medicare to purchase separate insurance, often called Medigap. (Others get such coverage through job-based retiree plans.)

Medigap insurance plans have seen rapid premium increases and can cost thousands of dollars a year, especially for couples. That price tag can be unaffordable for some beneficiaries, who may instead turn to private-sector Medicare Advantage plans offered by commercial insurers, or go without.

The Wyden proposal would set a $5,000 cap in traditional Medicare. Any amounts paid by a Medigap plan or a retiree health plan toward beneficiaries’ care would count toward that cap. It also includes other provisions to help older people with lower incomes, including eliminating an asset test to qualify for special programs that help reduce costs.

Medicare would pick up any amounts over that $5,000 limit, which is lower than the one Congress set for the rival Advantage plans — , although insurers can set smaller amounts.

Setting a cap in the traditional program, proponents argue, would help level the playing field between traditional Medicare and Advantage plans, which often cost consumers far less than traditional Medicare with a Medigap supplement. Premiums for these policies would probably be lower, they say, because the insurers’ financial exposure would be limited.

The Medicare Advantage program has historically had strong support from Republicans, who like its private-sector aspect and note that it can potentially do more to control costs, such as by using specific networks of doctors and hospitals, or requiring preapproval for some services, which the traditional program cannot do.

The plans also offer enrollees additional benefits, such as eyeglasses, hearing aids, and prescription drug coverage, and have now attracted more than .

Along with that growth, however, has also come increased scrutiny over concerns about denials of patient services and the to the traditional program. Recently, some health systems have , citing concerns about tardy payments or prior authorization requirements, while insurers where they offer Advantage coverage.

The bill has not yet been analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, so there is no official estimate of increased costs to taxpayers for Medicare. Still, it would raise those costs — at a time when other health programs are being cut, the Medicare trust fund is scheduled to of funding in 2033, and the .

That is likely to draw sharp rebukes from fiscal hawks and other conservatives who question whether billions in tax dollars should be used to pick up costs that would otherwise be paid by enrollees or by the supplemental insurance plans many purchase to do so. They are likely to note that beneficiaries could also choose to join private sector Advantage plans, which eliminate the need for supplementary insurance coverage such as Medigap.

Key Questions: Who Benefits? Who Pays?

A cap’s cost to taxpayers, while not officially scored yet, is likely to be significant, although adding one could also save individual consumers money. A recent study from Brown University gives some clues.

A $5,000 cap could save enrollees , the study says, both in direct savings and reductions in their Medigap supplemental premiums. Just over 11% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries, about 3.2 million, would directly benefit from such a cap if it was implemented in 2028, said the study, which did not receive outside funding.

Over the next 10 years, it estimates, just over 52% of all traditional beneficiaries would exceed the $5,000 cap at least once.

Still, lead author Andrew Ryan, a professor at Brown’s School of Public Health, said analysts estimated such a cap “could cost over $50 billion annually, which is a lot of money” to add to the federal balance sheet.

Critics are likely to focus on the cap’s expense and the number of people who might benefit.

“How many people are hitting a level of cost they can’t afford on Medicare? “asked Jackson Hammond, a senior policy analyst with the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank influential with the GOP.

Any cap “is generally going to increase expenses for the program without adding a lot of benefits to enrollees,” said Hammond, who spoke with ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ before the legislation was introduced.

Supporters, though, have a different view.

Certainly, with “any policy that’s going to cost money, there will be an argument over where the money is coming from,” said Brian Keyser, a research associate at the liberal Center for American Progress who also spoke with ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ before the Wyden measure was introduced.

Keyser co-authored that suggested lawmakers could pay for changes in traditional Medicare, such as an out-of-pocket cap, if they reduced the amount the government pays Medicare Advantage insurers, pointing to government estimates that Advantage would cost the government $76 billion more this year than if the same number of people were in the traditional program.

Finding a way to add a cap “is right and fair because without it, people who become seriously ill can spend their life savings on cost-sharing Medicare,” Keyser said.

Such an idea, however, on and off for years. Knowing that, the bill’s backers acknowledge that passage is unlikely — but they say they’re playing the long game for now.

“We’re going to push for it in the next Congress, when we believe we will be in the majority,” Wyden said.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

More than 80 of his customers who were enrolled in the same Medicare supplemental plan from the insurer Chubb got hit last August with a 45% increase.

“In my 49 years of doing biz as a broker, I’ve never seen a premium increase be effective immediately on everyone, instead of on their policy anniversary,” said Jaggi, whose brokerage scrambled to find more affordable options for clients. The policies pick up deductibles and other costs not covered in traditional Medicare, and without one there is no upper limit on how much a consumer might owe each year.

While 45% was an unusually big jump, Jaggi and other brokers say double-digit premium increases for Medicare supplemental, or Medigap, policies are becoming the norm.

A Chubb spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment on the increase.

More than 12 million people — of those in traditional Medicare — buy a Medigap policy. Others rely on some sort of retiree employer coverage or a different backup. About 13% of people in traditional Medicare don’t have supplemental coverage, according to KFF, meaning they could be vulnerable to large costs if they have a serious illness.

In the supplemental market, following big increases last year, rates appear to be rising again. In early 2026 filings with state insurance commissioners from Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, Mutual of Omaha, and UnitedHealthcare, rate increases for Plan G policies — the most commonly purchased supplement type — ranged from just in the first quarter, according to Nebraska-based consulting firm Telos Actuarial.

“While this is a small dataset across a select number of states, it’s an indication that carriers are looking to correct their premium rates in light of upward pressure on their claims experience,” said Brett Mushett, a consulting actuary with Telos.

Climbing Numbers

Premium rates vary based on the type of coverage chosen, where a beneficiary lives, and their age. For Plan G coverage, beneficiaries paid an in 2023, according to KFF. That amount has likely risen since.

“In some states, like Ohio, Medicare supplements for years would have a 3% to 5% year-over-year increase. Now it’s 10% to 15%,” said Amanda Brewton, owner of Medicare Answers Now, a marketing organization whose clients are sales agents.

In Alaska, Premera Blue Cross raised the premiums on its Plan G policies by nearly 12% for this year, according to rate sheets provided to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ by insurance agent Patricia Mack, who said another insurer raised rates by nearly 13%.

For example, a 65-year-old woman who last year would have been charged $172 a month for a Plan G policy would now face a monthly rate of $192, said Mack, who owns Alaska Insurance Benefits in Wasilla.

Premera spokesperson Courtney Wallace said in an email that Medicare makes changes to deductible and copayment rates each year, which affects supplemental plans that cover those increasing amounts.

Wallace also noted that the insurer saw higher medical service use among its members, “which further drove claims costs and ultimately impacted premiums.”

Agents and policy experts blame a range of factors for rising premiums: an increase in the use of medical services by beneficiaries; the aging of the population; increases in labor and medical costs; rules in some states governing Medigap plans; and people’s enrolling in — or getting out of — private Medicare Advantage plans.

“Five years ago, it was exceedingly uncommon to have a carrier with a rate increase of more than 10%. Now it’s very uncommon to see a rate increase below 10%, and it’s not uncommon to see it over 20%,” said Chalen Jackson, vice president for government affairs at Integrity, a Dallas-based company that sells life and health insurance.

Jaggi, who co-owns Jaggi Petry Insurance & Investments in Forsyth, Illinois, along with his daughter, said he eventually found other options for many of those 80-plus clients with the large increase, which came from an insurer that had previously been the lowest-cost option. But it wasn’t easy — and continuing increases are expected.

“These are unbelievable increases,” said Jaggi, who said he is seeing premium hikes exceeding 15% this year across a range of insurers.

Policy experts have outlined possible solutions, including for Congress to cap out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries or subsidize the purchase of Medigap coverage.

“Traditional Medicare is the only federal health insurance program without an out-of-pocket cap,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote in an email, adding that the program “needs to be updated and strengthened to protect the Medicare guarantee for American seniors.”

But making changes to Medicare that require congressional approval is unlikely in the current legislative environment, especially because adding an out-of-pocket cap would add costs to the federal budget.

How This Plays Out

People generally qualify for Medicare when they turn 65. Beneficiaries after they initially enroll in the traditional fee-for-service program to purchase a Medigap plan at standard rates without having to answer health-related questions.

Strict rules then kick in around when beneficiaries can enroll in or switch Medigap coverage and options become much more limited, with each one generally involving trade-offs or tough choices.

have what’s known as a “birthday rule,” which requires insurers once a year to allow people enrolled in a Medigap plan to change to different supplemental coverage — usually around their birthdays — without being medically underwritten. Those rules can help consumers, including those with health conditions, to switch.

An additional — Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, and New York — require insurers to offer at least one Medigap policy to all applicants either year-round or during an annual enrollment period, depending on the state. Changes are allowed no matter the person’s health.

Another option for those facing high Medigap costs is to leave traditional Medicare and enroll in a private-sector Medicare Advantage plan, which have out-of-pocket caps. But joining one means beneficiaries must generally rely on a set of in-network doctors and hospitals. And if they change their mind and want to go back to traditional Medicare, they have only a 12-month window in which to purchase a Medigap plan without passing health questions. After that, it can be more difficult.

“A lot of people don’t know that if they are in Medicare Advantage for a year, they can get turned down by a Medigap plan or charged really high premiums because of a preexisting condition, which for many people effectively traps them in MA plans,” said , a research associate at the liberal Center for American Progress and co-author of a on the issue.

There are some exceptions. For example, if a Medicare Advantage plan withdraws from a market or leaves the Medicare program, its enrollees can qualify for a supplemental plan without being asked health questions or charged more for having preexisting conditions.

For this year alone, about 2.6 million people when their insurer pulled out of their markets, according to KFF, and more than a million lost coverage for 2025. Many switched to other MA plans, but “somewhere around 440,000 of those people did go to a Medicare supplement policy,” sometimes because there was no other MA plan in their area, said George Dippel, president of Deft Research, a Minneapolis-based market research organization focused on insurance for older people. Deft is part of Integrity, the Dallas company.

Some Medicare experts note that anytime insurers enroll people whose health status they can’t consider — whether because of birthday rules or because their Medicare Advantage plan left the market and thus qualified them for an exemption from medical underwriting — it potentially exposes them to more health care utilization and higher costs, making them more likely to increase premiums across the board to offset the possible financial hit.

Another option mentioned by brokers for people looking to lower their costs is to consider one of the two types of Medigap plans that come with a deductible, which is currently just under $3,000 for a year. Those plans charge far lower monthly premiums than Medigap plans that pick up a much larger portion of annual amounts people must pay toward their Medicare services.

Still, “a lot of people are not comfortable with a $3,000 deductible,” Mack said.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

But there’s a catch: If people want to move to original Medicare and buy a supplemental Medigap insurance plan to cover some out-of-pocket costs, they may not be able to. Medigap insurers can generally refuse coverage to applicants whose medical history or current health problems might make them expensive to cover, a process called medical underwriting.

“We really want people to factor that in,” said , managing policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy. “If someone is in a Medicare Advantage plan for several years and then wants to switch to original Medicare, they may find they can’t switch and also get a Medigap plan.”

There are many reasons people might want to trade their MA plan for traditional Medicare. Although MA managed-care plans are typically cheaper and offer benefits not available in original Medicare, such as coverage for vision and hearing services, they have smaller provider networks than the original program and, sometimes, extensive prior authorization requirements.

In addition, as Medicare Advantage plan in recent years, a growing number of plans are pulling out of areas they used to serve, leaving members with fewer options. This year, an estimated 1 in 10 MA plan members will be forced out of their plans for this reason, according to a in February.

“We saw some Medicare Advantage plans that just left the market completely and stopped issuing plans,” said Emily Whicheloe, education director at the Medicare Rights Center.

For those considering a switch to original Medicare, getting a Medigap plan can be tricky. Federal law provides a one-time, for people 65 or older and newly covered by Medicare Part B to sign up for any Medigap plan without underwriting. After that initial sign-up period ends, however, there are fewer coverage guarantees.

But some do exist. Here are a few key circumstances and time frames when people are guaranteed a Medigap plan without having to undergo underwriting:

• People who live in Connecticut, Massachusetts, or New York can sign up for a Medigap policy without underwriting. In Maine, there is a one-month window each year when Medigap insurers must offer Plan A to all comers without underwriting. (Plan A provides less comprehensive coverage than some of the other standardized plan types.)
• People who sign up for a Medicare Advantage plan when they are first eligible for Medicare Part A at age 65 can switch to original Medicare within the first year and buy a Medigap plan too. This is sometimes called the “.”
• If a Medicare Advantage plan leaves Medicare or in an area, affected enrollees can switch to original Medicare and buy a Medigap plan either 60 days before or up to 63 days after their MA coverage ends. During this special enrollment period, they can’t be turned down or charged more based on their health.
• If an individual and no longer has access to their Medicare Advantage plan providers, they can switch to original Medicare and apply for a Medigap policy either 60 days before or up to 63 days after their MA coverage ends. That typically happens when someone notifies the plan of their permanent move or the plan discovers it, said , a training, policy, and technical assistance consultant at California Health Advocates who specializes in Medicare and Medigap coverage.

There are other circumstances when someone might qualify for a special enrollment period under federal rules, and states may have additional qualifying events that are more generous than federal standards.

Patient advocates emphasize that it’s often useful to work with a counselor at the , or SHIP, for free, unbiased help figuring out Medigap coverage options. SHIP counselors can help applicants identify potential avenues to qualify for Medigap coverage without underwriting at both the federal and state levels.

People who don’t qualify for a guaranteed right to a Medigap plan without underwriting may still be approved for coverage. Premiums may be higher, however, and plans may impose a waiting period of up to six months for coverage of preexisting medical conditions in certain circumstances.

Beware: More Underwriting

In recent years, some Medigap insurers have spent a growing percentage of premiums on medical claims, putting pressure on profits, Burns said. “Medigap insurers’ underwriting has tightened up considerably recently,” she said.

The list of health conditions that Medigap insurers might deny coverage for is long, including Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, cancer, congestive heart disease, diabetes with complications, end-stage renal disease, high blood pressure, and stroke, among others, according to a of leading insurers’ applications.

When people apply for a Medigap plan that will be medically underwritten, they will typically be asked to fill out a health questionnaire, said , a principal and consulting actuary at Milliman who is a Society of Actuaries fellow. Increasingly, insurers are requesting that people agree to a prescription drug background check, Ortner said.

“Oftentimes, that prescription drug history may be the primary driver of a decision as it relates to underwriting,” he said, rather than a physical exam or medical records review.

Insurers don’t all have the same underwriting rules, however. Here again, a SHIP counselor may be useful for pointing people to specific companies that accept applicants with a particular medical diagnosis, or have different waiting periods or coverage exclusions.

“They have access to a Medigap comparison tool in addition to what is existing on that can give you a very good estimate of what you may pay for those Medigap plans,” said , associate director of health coverage and benefits at the National Council on Aging.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Yet about 82% of the comments are identical to a letter that appeared on the website of a secretive advocacy group called Medicare Advantage Majority, a data analysis by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ has found.

The “” group does not reveal its funders or much else — other than to say it is “dedicated to protecting and strengthening Medicare Advantage” and is “powered by hundreds of thousands of local advocates nationwide.”

“Our campaign provides information and offers tools for concerned Americans to use to reach decision makers,” spokesperson Darren Grubb said in an email. The group has spent more than $3.1 million on hundreds of Facebook ads since September 2024, according to , a database of the social media company’s online ads.

There’s no doubt health insurers are unhappy with a from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to keep Medicare Advantage reimbursement rates essentially flat in 2027 — far less than they expected from the Trump administration.

Medicare Advantage plans differ from traditional Medicare because private insurance companies administer them. The insurance plans enroll about members, more than half the people eligible for Medicare. The plans offer things like vision and drug coverage, but Medicare Advantage insurers restrict the hospitals and doctors that patients can use and require prior approval for various procedures.

CMS is set to announce a final decision by early next month on the rate proposal. The agency solicited on the proposal from Jan. 26 through Feb. 25 to give interested parties and the public a chance to air their views.

Medicare Advantage Majority, which says the rate proposal amounts to a “cut” in services and warns of dire consequences for seniors should it go through, accounted for at least 13,522 of the 16,422 comments published as of March 12.

The proposed rate plan “puts my access to care at risk,” the group’s template letter to policymakers reads in part. “If the investment made by Washington in the Medicare Advantage program is nearly flat year-over-year, I could lose benefits I rely on every day, including affordable prescriptions, capped out of pocket costs, and access to trusted doctors and specialists.”

“Medicare Advantage is not optional for me. The cost protections alone have saved me thousands of dollars and made my health care manageable. Without this program, I would face higher costs, fewer providers, and fewer benefits at a time when I can least afford it,” the letter states.

Critics warn that these sorts of campaigns may create a misleading impression of grassroots support, especially when it’s not clear who is financing them.

“It puts a different spin on a massive groundswell of comments to know all are being driven by one specific organization,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform for Issue One, a group that seeks to limit the influence of money on government policy and legislation.

“There’s no way for the public to know what wealthy donors or special interests are funding dark money groups like this,” he said. “That means there’s no scrutiny of who’s really calling the shots.”

Some health care policy experts, who have long argued that the government overpays Medicare Advantage plans by tens of billions of dollars every year, believe industry groups or their surrogates routinely overstate possible negative impacts of rate decisions they don’t like.

“The plans always say that the sky is falling,” said Matthew Fiedler, a health care policy expert with the Brookings Institution. “The industry has a lot of money at stake here. They try to exert pressure on policymakers any way they can.”

At the same time, even critics concede that some of the millions of people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans could face service cuts if insurance companies are not satisfied with government payments.

“It is legitimate for people to be worried,” said Julie Carter, counsel for federal policy at the Medicare Rights Center, a group that advocates for older adults and people with disabilities.

Her group argues that Medicare Advantage plans have never attained expected cost savings and instead have been overpaid for years at least partly due to “actions to maximize profits.” She said the health plans “are supposed to be saving money, not taking extra.”

People struggling to pay health care bills may have little use for the policy debate in Washington.

“If it wasn’t for being able to have this program, I really wouldn’t be able to afford any kind of medical services, to be honest,” said EsterAlicia Rose, 75, who works at the front desk of a hotel in Pagosa Springs, Colorado. She said she signed the Medicare Advantage Majority form letter to reach policymakers.

Kathy Lovely-Marshall, 66, a retired nurse who lives in Brookville, Ohio, did too. She said she receives “a lot of perks” from her plan, such as dental care, eyeglasses, and prescriptions.

“All those things are a big plus as far as I am concerned,” she said. “I’m very happy with the plan I have.”

But Corenia Branham, 90, a widow and cancer survivor who lives in Alum Creek, West Virginia, said she wants nothing to do with Medicare Advantage plans run by private health insurance companies. She said she didn’t turn in any of the four form letters under her name, which were posted online by CMS on Feb. 23 and signed, “Miss Corenia Branham Branham.” It’s not clear why her last name is signed twice.

Branham said she’s not on Medicare Advantage and doubts she could count on it for needed care.

“I wouldn’t recommend it to nobody,” she said. “I sure don’t want anything to do with it.”

Grubb, the Medicare Advantage Majority spokesperson, disputed that account. He said Branham responded to an ad on Facebook. On Feb. 6, she “completed the form with her information and chose to send her comment to CMS as well as to her representatives in Congress and the White House,” he said.

Other Medicare Advantage advocacy groups have stepped up ad campaigns as the rate decision looms.

The Better Medicare Alliance, whose “allies” include a range of health insurers, health care providers, and consumers, is urging seniors to “Tell Washington to Stand Up for Medicare Advantage.”

“We’ve mobilized beneficiaries to write letters and make phone calls, and we’ve run digital ads on streaming platforms,” spokesperson Susan Reilly said.

Reilly said that this year roughly 3 million seniors “were forced to find new coverage” because plans either shuttered operations or left some areas.

She also said Medicare Advantage plans have “scaled back” benefits such as offering transportation to medical appointments, nutrition support, and dental and vision coverage, while over the past two years beneficiaries have faced an average $900 increase in out-of-pocket maximums.

“We do view this as especially serious,” Reilly said. “This isn’t a single bad year; it’s the cumulative effect of years of underfunding and policy disruption from the previous administration that has left the program increasingly vulnerable.”

As of March 12, CMS said it had received 46,884 comments but had posted only 16,422 online.

CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden said the agency would make more comments public “as soon as practicable.”

“The agency focuses on reviewing the substance of timely submissions and does not speculate on volume, sentiment, or potential impact of comments while the comment period is open/under review,” she said in a statement.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

We Have Invested Too Much To Let Research Programs Die Quietly

I have dedicated my life to research, but now that work, along with the trust, data, and progress behind it, is at risk (“NIH Grant Disruptions Slow Down Breast Cancer Research,” Feb. 3).

As a rheumatologist and researcher, I have spent decades studying lupus — a chronic autoimmune disease that can affect nearly every organ system, producing symptoms that are often unpredictable and difficult to manage. Its impact on a patient’s quality of life is profound: Nearly 90% of people with lupus report being unable to maintain full-time work, while many also face interruptions in education or career progression.

But funding uncertainty from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other federal programs means that the thousands of patients involved in my research, along with millions of patients nationwide, are at risk. While I appreciate the increase in lupus research funding included in the recently passed congressional funding package, funding disruptions persist nationwide, and recovery takes time.

Increased funding is not like a light switch that we can just turn back on. It will take a lot of time to recruit back those we lost. That doesn’t include the young investigators who would have entered the field and are now lost. It takes time to build back the broken trust and infrastructure needed to keep participants engaged and ensure reliable data.

Medical research connects the bedside to the database to the policymaker’s desk. Without it, we are blind to the very problems we most urgently need to solve. The window to save these programs is closing. We must act now before it’s too late.

— S. Sam Lim, Atlanta

Knocking Down Barriers to Long-Term Hospital Care

For many Americans, being released from their initial hospital stay is just the beginning of their care journey. Depending on the complexity of one’s condition and the clinical need for more specialized post-acute services such as ventilation, long-term care hospitals, or LTCHs, offer highly personalized care to individuals recovering from a catastrophic illness or injury (Broken Rehab: “They Need a Ventilator To Stay Alive. Getting One Can Be a Nightmare,” Dec. 2).

LTCHs play a critical role in the nation’s health care system by providing complex, resource-intensive care to patients leaving acute-care hospitals but who still need sustained support and treatment. Not only do LTCHs help patients who are dependent on ventilation, have complex wounds, or have multiple organ failure, they also serve as a relief valve in our nation’s hospital system by helping free up beds and resources at general hospitals.

However, the ability to access this vital form of care is becoming increasingly difficult — underscoring the need for lawmakers in Washington to act. Since 2016, over 100 LTCHs have closed due to chronic underpayments amid higher costs. This has been exacerbated by Congress’ decision to implement changes to how it reimburses LTCHs for its beneficiaries. As a result, patients have fewer options, and the facilities that remain open are often far away from home for patients and families, particularly in rural areas. Furthermore, insurance company barriers — such as prior authorization requirements put in place by Medicare Advantage plans — are creating harmful delays and denials of necessary and time-sensitive patient care. Consequently, many patients are denied access to an LTCH setting — or transferred to other post-acute care settings like rehabilitation or skilled nursing facilities that aren’t equipped to care for patients with highly complex needs like ventilation.

America’s sickest patients deserve the right level of care at the right time. As this need becomes more urgent by the day, policymakers must work to address these challenges and strengthen access to LTCHs, which help patients get transferred out of the hospital quicker, reduce hospital overcrowding, and ultimately save lives.

— Jim Prister, Chicago; president and CEO of RML Specialty Hospital; chair of the American Hospital Association’s Post-Acute Care Steering Committee

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

The retiree, 70, was diagnosed with glaucoma in her right eye in 2019. She had a laser procedure to treat it in 2022, and she uses medicated drops in both eyes to prevent more damage. She is supposed to be checked regularly, she said.

During the May appointment, Tuszynski’s optometrist examined her eyes and reassured her that the glaucoma had not worsened.

Tuszynski, who lives in central Wisconsin, had looked up beforehand whether the clinic in nearby Madison participated in her insurance plan. The insurer’s website listed the optometrist’s name with a green check mark and the words “in-network.” She assumed that meant her policy would cover the appointment.

Then the bill came.

The Medical Procedure

An optometrist tested Tuszynski’s vision and took pictures of her optic nerves.

The Final Bill

$340, which included $120 for vision testing and $100 for optic nerve imaging.

The Billing Problem: Vision Coverage vs. Medical Coverage

Tuszynski’s UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage plan declined to pay for her eye appointment. “The member has no out of network benefits,” the company’s denial letter said.

Tuszynski felt like she was seeing double. How could an eye doctor be in-network and out-of-network at the same time? She said she sent the insurer a screenshot of its own webpage showing the clinic listed as in-network.

She said that after she complained, UnitedHealthcare representatives explained that the eye clinic was in-network under her vision plan, so her policy would cover the clinic’s services related to glasses or contact lenses. But they said the clinic was not in-network for her medical insurance plan, and glaucoma treatment is considered a medical issue.

Tuszynski was baffled that care for a patient’s eyes would not be covered by vision insurance. She said she didn’t realize that insurers can have contracts with eye clinics to provide some services but not others.

UnitedHealthcare spokesperson Meg Sergel said such arrangements are common, including with non-Medicare insurance provided by employers or purchased by individuals. “I looked up my eye doctor, and it’s the same thing,” she said in an interview with ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

Sergel said she understood how a customer could mistakenly think vision insurance would cover all care for the eyes. She said UnitedHealthcare recommends that before undergoing treatment, patients ask care providers whether they are in-network for specific services.

Otherwise, she said, to know whether a test or treatment is covered by vision insurance, “you’d have to read the nitty-gritty” of a policy.

Leaders at Steinhauer Family Eye Clinic, where Tuszynski saw the optometrist, declined to comment.

Casey Schwarz, senior counsel for education and federal policy at the nonprofit , said such complications frequently come up when Medicare Advantage members try to use their insurance at eye clinics or dental offices.

The federal government pays insurers to run Medicare Advantage plans for people who choose them instead of traditional Medicare. More than half of Medicare beneficiaries . Many offer routine vision and dental coverage that isn’t included with traditional Medicare.

“We hear from people who choose these plans because of those supplemental benefits, but there is not a lot of transparency around them,” Schwarz said.

The Resolution

After receiving the rejection letter, Tuszynski repeatedly contacted UnitedHealthcare to question the decision and filed an appeal with the company. Then, she said, she called to complain to federal officials. She also wrote to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, which asked the insurer about the case.

UnitedHealthcare eventually agreed to cover the bill as if the service had been in-network. “In good faith, we made an exception,” Sergel said. However, Tuszynski was warned that if she received medical care from the clinic again, it would not be covered, because the clinic remains out-of-network for such services, Sergel said. “It doesn’t sound like that pleased her.”

Tuszynski confirmed that she is not pleased.

She said she lost sleep over the dispute and felt that it shouldn’t have taken so much effort to obtain a fair outcome. “It’s just been a horrible, difficult whirlwind,” she said.

The Takeaway

Schwarz said regulators should require insurance companies to clearly explain to customers and care providers how different procedures and services will be covered under vision, dental, and health plans. “They’re tricky,” she said.

In an ideal world, Schwarz said, Medicare would consider things like dental cleanings, eye checkups, and hearing aids as basic health care that would be covered in the same way as other medical care. But until that happens, she said, patients with any doubt should call their insurers beforehand to check whether services will be covered.

Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president with KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, noted that Medicare’s website that can help people determine whether their doctors participate in a Medicare Advantage plan.

“This is helpful and a step forward, but information about provider networks is not always correct,” Neuman said. “Errors can come at a cost to enrollees, unless they are willing and able to take on their insurer.”

Tuszynski worked for 30 years as a secretary in hospitals and at doctors’ offices, so she’s familiar with billing issues, she said. “If I can’t sort through all this, how can anybody else do it?”

She knows her $340 bill was much smaller than the medical debts many other people face. But she said it was a serious amount of money to her, and she was glad she objected to the insurer’s contention that the bill shouldn’t be covered.

“I have a strong feeling about right and wrong — and this is just wrong,” she said.

For 2026, she decided to shift out of her Medicare Advantage plan. She now is enrolled in traditional Medicare, plus a supplemental plan to help with copays and other costs. She pays $184 a month for that plan, compared with paying no separate premium for her old Medicare Advantage plan.

Now she won’t have to worry about private insurers’ limited networks of contracted care providers, she said. Her glaucoma treatment will be covered at the Madison eye clinic.

However, she no longer has insurance coverage for eyeglasses, just a discount plan if she buys glasses from certain stores. She used her Medicare Advantage insurance to buy new glasses shortly before switching. “Hopefully, those will last me a while,” she said.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KFF Health NewÌý²¹²Ô»åÌý that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? !

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

But some health policy experts say the plan could help reduce billions of dollars in overcharges that have been common in the program for more than a decade.

On Jan. 26, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services officials announced they planned to raise rates paid to health plans by for 2027, far less than the industry expected. Some of the largest, publicly traded insurers, such as UnitedHealth Group and Humana, saw their as a result, while industry groups threatened that people 65 and older could see service cuts if the government didn’t kick in more money.

In Medicare Advantage, the federal government pays private insurance companies to manage health care for people who are 65 and older or disabled. But less noticed in the brouhaha over rates: CMS also proposed restricting plans from conducting what are called “chart reviews” of their customers. These reviews can result in new medical diagnoses, sometimes including conditions patients haven’t even asked their doctors to treat, that increase government payments to Medicare Advantage plans.

The practice has been criticized for more than a decade by government auditors who say it has triggered billions of dollars in overpayments to the health plans. Earlier this month, the Justice Department announced a record $556 million settlement with the nonprofit health system Kaiser Permanente over allegations the company added about half a million diagnoses to its Advantage patients’ charts from 2009 to 2018, generating about $1 billion in improper payments.

KP did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

“I do think the administration is serious about cracking down on overpayments,” said Spencer Perlman, a health care policy analyst in Bethesda, Maryland.

Perlman said that while the Trump administration strongly supports Medicare Advantage, officials are “troubled” by plans that rake in undue profits by using chart reviews to bill the government for medical conditions even when no treatment was provided.

In a , CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said curbing this practice would ensure more accurate payments to the plans while “protecting taxpayers from unnecessary spending that is not oriented towards addressing real health needs.”

“These proposed payment policies are about making sure Medicare Advantage works better for the people it serves,” Oz said.

Richard Kronick, a former federal health policy researcher and a professor at the University of California-San Diego, called the proposal “at least a mildly encouraging sign,” though he said he suspected health plans might eventually find a way around it.

Kronick has argued that switching seniors to Medicare Advantage plans has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars more than keeping them in the government-run Medicare program, because of unbridled medical coding excesses. The insurance plans have grown dramatically in recent years and now enroll , or more than half of people eligible for Medicare.

David Meyers, an associate professor at the Brown University School of Public Health, called the proposed restriction on chart reviews “a step in the right direction.”

“I think the administration has been signaling pretty strongly they want to cut back on inefficiencies,” he said.

The outcry from industry, mostly directed at the proposal to essentially hold Medicare Advantage payment rates flat, was quick and sharp.

“If finalized, this proposal could result in benefit cuts and higher costs for 35 million seniors and people with disabilities when they renew their Medicare Advantage coverage in October 2026,” said Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP, formerly known as America’s Health Insurance Plans.

CMS is accepting public comments on the proposal and says it will issue a final decision on the payment rates and other provisions by early April.

Meyers said health plans often claim they will be forced to slash benefits when they aren’t satisfied with CMS payments. But that rarely happens, he said.

“The plans can still make money,” he said. “They mostly are very profitable, just not as profitable as shareholders expected.”

The government pays Medicare Advantage plans higher rates to cover sicker patients. But over the past decade, dozens of whistleblower lawsuits, government audits, and have alleged that health plans exaggerate how sick their customers are to pocket payments they don’t deserve, a tactic known in the industry as “upcoding.”

Many Medicare Advantage health plans have hired medical coding and analytics consultants to review patients’ medical charts to find new diagnoses that they then bill to the government. Medicare rules require that health plans document — and treat — all medical conditions they bill.

Yet federal audits have shown for years that many health plans’ billing practices don’t hold up to scrutiny.

A by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general found that the health plans “almost always” used chart reviews to add, rather than delete, diagnoses. “Over 99 percent of chart reviews in our review added diagnoses,” investigators said.

The report found that diagnoses reported only on chart reviews — and not on any service records — resulted in an estimated $6.7 billion in payments for 2017.

This week’s proposal is not the first time CMS has tried to crack down on chart reviews.

In January 2014, federal officials drafted a plan to restrict the practice, only to abruptly back off a few months later amid what one agency official described as an “uproar” from the industry.

The health insurance industry has for years relied on aggressive lobbying and public relations campaigns to fight efforts to rein in overpayments or otherwise reduce taxpayers’ costs for Medicare Advantage.

What happens this time will say a lot about whether the Trump administration is serious about cracking down on controversial, long-standing payment practices in the program.

Perlman, the policy analyst, said it is “quite common” for CMS to partially backtrack when faced with opposition from the industry, such as by phasing in changes over several years to soften the blow on health plans.

David Lipschutz, an attorney with the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a nonprofit public interest law firm, said finalizing the chart review proposal “would be a meaningful step towards reining in overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans.”

But in the past, he said, even a minor change to Advantage payments has led the industry to protest that “the sky will fall as a result, and the proposal is usually dropped.”

“It’s hard to tell at this stage how this will play out,” Lipschutz said.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .