Great article that does justice to the complexity and nuances of the system. From the underlying report that's cited [0]: >> We include uncorrected coding int

Great article that does justice to the complexity and nuances of the system. From the underlying report that's cited [0]: >> We include uncorrected coding intensity and favorable selection in our analysis so that the MA and FFS populations are comparable. Because benchmarks do not account for these adjustments, it is also unlikely that plan bids assume the effects of uncorrected coding and favorable selection. With these adjustments, we project that benchmarks in 2024 are 132 percent of [traditional Medicare fee-for-service / FFS] spending (i.e., the amount that would have been spent on MA enrollees if they were in FFS). >> Overall, plan bids — 14 percent of which are projected to be nonmedical expenses for administration and profit — in 2024 are an estimated 101 percent of FFS spending. >> Thus, though MA plans have lower medical costs than FFS, these projected efficiencies are offset by plans’ projected administration costs and profits. >> In total, we project that plans will offer the standard Medicare benefit at about the same cost as FFS in 2024, which implies that the majority of extra benefits for MA enrollees are not financed by plans offering the benefit at lower costs than FFS, but rather by the taxpayers and beneficiaries who fund the program. Overall, we estimate that coding and selection cause MA payments to be 22 percentage points above FFS spending in 2024. That difference translates into MA payments that are a projected $83 billion above FFS spending in 2024. [0] p373 https://www.medpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Mar24_Ch12_MedPAC_Report_To_Congress_SEC-1.pdf https://www.medpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Mar24_Ch12...