Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Advocacy (CMS)—the federal agency that oversees the Medicare program—proposed changing the way Medicare pays physicians, in part by creating a flat fee per office visit. As Medicare Rights and other commenters noted, doing so could have devastating consequences for people with Medicare.

This week, lawmakers returned to Washington for the “lame duck” session, where they face a variety of issues to resolve before the end of the year. A lame duck session occurs when Congress reconvenes after an election, and is a reference to the outgoing members who still have voting powers.

The lame duck outlook for health care programs is somewhat uncertain, but lawmakers will have several opportunities to protect and strengthen programs for older adults and people with disabilities. In the coming days, we’ll be asking Congress to prioritize Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act.

The 2018 midterm elections mean big changes are coming to Washington. When the 116th Congress convenes in January, it will be a divided one: Republicans will continue to control the Senate, but Democrats will have a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in eight years.

With split-party control, any legislation will require bipartisan support in order to pass. The need for such consensus greatly decreases the likelihood that radical, disruptive bills will reach the President’s desk in the coming years, and effectively eliminates the acute threats to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that have dominated congressional conversations since 2017.

Last week, the Medicare Rights Center and the National Council on Aging (NCOA) released a new resource on the expansion Medicaid-to-Medicare transition process. Our Expansion Medicaid Transitions Guide is designed, in part, to help advocates learn about their state’s transition process and better assist clients when they need to switch from expansion Medicaid to Medicare. The guide includes terminology, an overview of select state processes, and some troubleshooting steps advocates can consider when encountering problems.

We told you so. Shortly after the passage of last year’s massive tax cut, our organizations stated that it would “result in a gaping revenue shortfall of $1.5 trillion or more, putting Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security directly in the cross-hairs of policy-makers seeking to pay for the tax cuts.” After driving up the deficit, it was clear that some policymakers would use the huge shortfall they created to justify cuts to programs like Medicare.

While most people newly eligible for Medicare are automatically enrolled in the program because they are receiving Social Security benefits at age 65, a growing number are not—and can face significant challenges in knowing how and when to do so. A recent article in The New York Times, “Why You Shouldn’t Wait to Sign Up for Medicare Part B,” highlights these complexities through the experience of Mr. Zeppenfeldt-Cestero, whose mistake in delaying Part B triggered punitive financial penalties and harmful coverage gaps.

The article also focuses the BENES Act (S.1909/H.R. 2575), in particular that it would help prevent enrollment mistakes by modernizing and simplifying the Part B enrollment process, and by sending notices to people who are approaching age 65 that clearly explain Part B enrollment.

Last week, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), the department of the federal government that oversees the Medicare program, previewed some changes it will be proposing for Medicare Part B prescription drug coverage. The administration claims these changes will lower the cost of Part B medications.

Most prescription drugs are covered under Medicare Part D, but a select number of drugs–usually ones that are administered by providers–are covered under Part B. These drugs tend to be very expensive and are generally used to treat serious conditions such as cancer, End-Stage Renal Disease, autoimmune disorders, or in the event of an organ transplant.

While Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are required to cover the same health services as Original Medicare, they are not required to offer the same level of provider access and can impose coverage restrictions—like prior authorization—that require enrollees to take additional steps before accessing prescribed care. If a service is covered “with prior authorization,” enrollees must get approval from the plan prior to receiving the service. If approval is not granted or sought, the plan generally will not cover it.

Pre-existing conditions have been prominent in the news lately and much of the discussion includes some misunderstandings about what it actually means to protect coverage of pre-existing conditions and why it matters. While Medicare and Medicaid cover pre-existing conditions and that coverage is not under threat, there are changes in laws and regulations, and even a pending court case, that do put coverage at-risk for millions of people in the United States who are covered by employer or individual insurance. Polling consistently finds that Americans want protections for pre-existing conditions, with 75% of the public saying it’s “very important” such protections remain law. But there is a lot of confusion about what this means.

Certain threats to health care seem to arise from the dead regularly, and this Halloween season features an assortment of such zombie threats to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As 2018 winds down, we must remain vigilant about attempts to cut or eliminate these vital programs that help older adults, people with disabilities, and their families and caregivers.