Administration should finish what it started on Medicare Advantage

Joe Hardy

Submitted photo/InsideSources.com

There is a reason more than half of Medicare-eligible Americans choose this program. Medicare Advantage delivers coordinated care, supplemental benefits that traditional Medicare does not offer and average savings of nearly $3,500 a year with satisfaction rates above 95%.”

Opinion

Glendale seniors deserve health care they can count on

Opinion

My thoughts on Medicare Advantage

Opinion

Reader prefers original Medicare to Medicare Advantage

things to do

Peoria expo brings out seniors from across northwest Valley

OPINION — Last year, the Trump administration delivered strong Medicare Advantage funding that began to undo years of cuts. It was the right call, a recognition that 35 million seniors who choose this program deserve stable, adequate coverage. 

 So the 2027 advance notice from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is difficult to square. CMS is proposing a 0.09%  payment increase — flat funding in all but name — at a time when medical costs are climbing well beyond that. When rates don’t keep pace with costs, flat funding is a cut. And seniors will be the ones who feel it. 

The consequences are predictable: higher premiums, reduced supplemental benefits, plan closures and fewer options in rural and underserved communities. 

This is not speculation. Medicare Advantage already absorbed $130 billion in funding reductions during the Biden administration, compounded by disruptive policy changes, such as the V28 risk-adjustment overhaul. Beneficiaries experienced the fallout firsthand: higher costs, stripped benefits, shrinking plan choice.

The 2026 funding correction was a welcome reset. Reverting to the previous trajectory would squander that progress. 

CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz has framed this as a way to make the program work better for beneficiaries. That’s a worthy objective and improving payment accuracy is broadly supported. However, reform and underfunding are not the same thing. Thoughtful modernization means refining payment methodology while ensuring that rates reflect real-world costs, implemented carefully with a clear picture of downstream effects on beneficiaries.  

What this advance notice proposes looks less like modernization and more like blunt fiscal pressure. The test should be simple: If a change pushes costs onto seniors or reduces the benefits they depend on, it needs to be reworked. 

There is a reason more than half of Medicare-eligible Americans choose this program. Medicare Advantage delivers coordinated care, supplemental benefits that traditional Medicare does not offer and average savings of nearly $3,500 a year with satisfaction rates above 95%. It is a market-based model that works for patients and taxpayers alike. That record deserves to be built upon, not undermined by rates that fail to keep pace. 

The political reality only sharpens the point. In battleground districts, 84% of voters support maintaining Medicare Advantage funding. Nearly nine in 10 expect cuts to mean higher premiums and fewer benefits. Seventy-three percent say cutting Medicare Advantage is no different from cutting Medicare. Candidates who back MA reductions face a 14-point net swing against them in competitive races. 

Seniors are the most reliable midterm voters in the country, and with the 2026 elections approaching and affordability already their top concern, weakening this program is a risk Republicans should not be taking. 

The final rate notice is expected this month. There is still time to fund Medicare Advantage at or above 2026 levels, ensure that the growth rate reflects actual costs and pursue reforms that genuinely strengthen the program.

The administration got this right once. It should finish what it started. 

Joe Hardy is an internal and family medicine practitioner in Nevada. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.