AARP shares position on health reform
AARP lends its name to insurance polices that it brokers and nets millions of dollars from -- and it also supports health care reform. Kai Ryssdal talks to professor James Thurber about whether or not this demonstrates a conflict of interest.
AARP logo (AARP)
More on Health
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Kai Ryssdal: Whenever the public debate turns to something as consequential as health care, there are often more questions raised than there are answers given. Not surprisingly, those questions can be pointed. Earlier this week some Republicans in the House of Representatives posed one to the lobbying group AARP. That's the organization formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons. The AARP does a good deal more than just lobby, though. It lends its name to insurance polices that it brokers and nets hundreds of millions of dollars from. The AARP is also on the record supporting health-care reform. So the GOP wanted to know whether the group might have more than a passing conflict of interest.
James Thurber's a professor of government at American University. Good to have you with us.
JAMES THURBER: Good to here.
Ryssdal: This claim that is being made about the AARP that they are actually an insurance broker as well as a lobbying group, is that accurate?
THURBER: Yes, it's accurate. They are an advocacy group, they are a group that helped the aged, but they also make money by selling insurance and other products.
Ryssdal: Conflict of interest there or no in your mind?
THURBER: I think there's a conflict of interest if it's not transparent to the American public about how much money they're making from the arrangements that they have with insurance companies. And I don't think it's been that clear.
Ryssdal: And the amount of money is substantial.
THURBER: Well, the AARP makes some estimates, they say they make about 60 percent of their income from those kinds of arrangements.
Ryssdal: They partner with some really well-known insurance companies. United Health is certainly one. I mean these are big names.
THURBER: They partner with some very major health companies. The health insurance companies would like to partner with them. They're eager, they're probably selling their products frequently to them coming by, to talk to them about that. They are the largest interest group in the history of the United States, and that is a very big market -- 40 million people for insurance.
Ryssdal: That's an amazing statistic.
THURBER: It is. And they are very powerful. They will be at the table; they have to be at the table when it comes to Medicare. And any kind of health-insurance reform. They have to be at the table for Social Security. And you know what, they're watching 38 percent of the entire budget of the United States that goes to the aged, and they want more, they don't want less for their members, and it's understandable.
Ryssdal: The group says that they are acting in their members' interest when they do things like come out and support health-reform bill, and also that these products that they license through their Web site and lend their name to, are also screened for being appropriate for their members. Do you find that to be believable?
THURBER: There are 40 million members. They do a lot of different things for all of them. They certainly give them good guides to health care. But I don't have an independent way of judging whether their screening of these organizations is thorough enough.
Ryssdal: When they support health-care reform, and they do, they are on the record as supporting some of these bills, is it, do you think, in the public interest, or in their private interest?
THURBER: Ah-ha. The public interest. The public interest is something in everyone's mind that is quite different. They say they are lobbying for the public interest, for the public interest of the aged, the retired, the people who can't help themselves that are sick. But, you know, they also have a private interest involved here with their affiliations with insurance companies and medical-device manufacturers, so it's a mix of both the public interest and the private interest, in my opinion.
Ryssdal: If they came out today and laid all this out on the table so that everybody was aware of it, would the problem disappear?
THURBER: I think the problem disappears when you have transparency in what you're doing. When you try to cover something up, you're in trouble. And I think that they should lay it out more clearly. And they may lose some members, but so be it.
Ryssdal: James Thurber. He's the director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in Washington D.C. Thanks so much for your time.
THURBER: Thank you.
Ryssdal: We called the AARP to confirm our characterization of their position -- that they offer only products and services they believe will be to the benefit of their members. They said we got that right. But they also said they've been facing this kind of criticism for more than 50 years. A spokesman said, and here I quote, "Our advocacy positions drive all of the work in our products and services, and we would gladly forego every dime of revenue we receive in exchange for a health-care system that works for everyone."
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Bethesda, MD, 10/31/2009
Why don't you go after the NFIB?
Unlike AARP, they are hardly in synch with their members on this issue and they too make lots of money peddling health insurance to their members.
But then the NFIB is not part of a coordinated attack by conservative political interests.
So you may have missed the whole story.
From NY, 10/28/2009
United Health Care, the nation's largest health insurer, and a major source of AARP's huge endorsement-branding revenue, supports reform, without the public option, because United Health Care will then have millions more potential customers, some coerced to buy health insurance by the reform law's provisions and some provided with government subsidies to buy. In essence United Health care loves the idea that the government will provide millions of potential new health insurance customers, particularly, if no public option is included thereby imposing no premium cost control or competition. So United Health Care runs adds supporting health care reform in general, without mentioning its opposition to the public option, and without endorsing a particular bill.
Mirroring United Health Care, AARP supports health care reform in general, without supporting any particular bill, and runs adds and advocacy activities accordingly.
AARP, in its adds and advocacy, ignores the fact that approximately $500 billion will be diverted from Medicare over a 10 year period to pay approximately half of the cost of health care reform, with a devastating effect upon Medicare beneficiaries. The 20% of Medicare Beneficiaries now in Medicare Advantage Plans (basically HMO's) will either lose their plans or see large premium increases when their plans lose their current subsidies, and all Medicare beneficiaries will suffer, as more and more providers refuse to accept Medicare patients due to lowered reimbursement rates, and as Medicare utilization reviews become stricter to save money by denying approval for a greater percentage of proposed treatments.
To take half of health care reform funding out of the Medicare program is the most regressive form of "taxation" I can think of, taking billions from persons who, for the most part, are retired or disabled and no longer work.
Because of its conflict of interest, AARP is not advocating for its members who are Medicare recipients, whom, I would venture a guess, make up the greater part of its membership.
AARP's excuse is that health care reform will benefit its members between 50 (the earliest age to join) and 65, and it has chosen, in this health care debate, to aggressively advocate for their interests rather than aggressively support the interests of those AARP members on Medicare.
I don't buy that rationale one bit. Do you?
In my opinion, those of you who believe you are AARP Members, are viewed by AARP as AARP-Affiliate Customers, and in this case, the "customer", if you are on Medicare, "is NOT always right".
From Tinley Park, IL, 10/27/2009
I've been a AARP member since 1998. They not only "sell" health insurance, they also sell auto and homeowners insurance. While some might assume they get revenue from all of these sales, I have never seen any report disclosing the extent. And, just as info, to my knowledge they do not ask member opinions on issues about which they take a position. Nonetheless, the discounts are worthwhile.
From Tampa, FL, 10/27/2009
The AARP needs to exercise far more transparency. While presenting itself as a champion for retirees, the AARP receives millions from corporate donors who derive obscene profits from the very population the AARP purports to serve. Their own magazine is nothing but one big brochure for big pharma.
Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.
From Carmichael, CA, 10/27/2009
RE: Thurber's gentle revelations about AARP double-dipping in its messaging and functions:
It's in the What-Took-Everyone-So-Long? department. This story has been under our noses for years. AARP is in the insurance business, period. Its lobbying arm double-crossed seniors with Part D. It continues to espouse an archaic employer-based system of health insurance for 50- to 65-year-olds and still has no answer for the real aliens in this country -- the self-employed. I'd like more pursuit of the inner workings of AARP. Is this the friend I should look forward to having as I age?
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.