Where the AARP went wrong

The AARP has long been known as an advocacy service for older people in this country. I remember when my mother first received her AARP membership card in the mail; she was so excited about getting discounts. The AARP was the voice for the older generation, advocating for social change. Working in the health care advocacy field has since taught me a greater lesson. AARP should not be trusted.

When I coordinated older volunteers who counseled Medicare beneficiaries, I once had to reprimand (in a loving way) a volunteer who told someone “AARP are a bunch of con artists”. Obviously, this was unprofessional and not the best way to handle the call as a representative of the organization. But, she wasn’t wrong.

I had the amazing opportunity of working for a Medicare rights organization while simultaneously studying health care policy and law. I got to see how policies affecting Medicare were developed and implemented, and then how they affected people on the personal level. It was a great way to see the larger picture of the Medicare program and of health care in general.

What stuck out most in my mind about AARP was that they were quick to support a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit administered solely through private insurance companies. I guess this should not have been a surprise. AARP had already partnered with United Health Insurance to provide supplemental insurance plans for Medicare beneficiaries. Of course when the drug benefit was then implemented, AARP/United Health offered a drug plan as well. Hmm, advocating for a controversial drug benefit not supported by many of your members while selling health care insurance all in the same breath. Can you say conflict of interest?

And as far as drug plans went, the AARP plan was fairly decent. AARP stood out above many other companies because they offered a physical list of drugs they covered and for how much. This was particularly hard to get from most plans so people jumped on it. But mostly, I heard from people that they didn’t want to look at all 60 drug plans available to them so they would just enroll in the AARP plan because it was a name they recognized. Apparently it didn’t matter if the plan actually covered their drugs or if they could get their drugs cheaper through another plan. Nope, they knew of and respected AARP and that was enough. Then of course, there were the individuals who kept up with Medicare policy and resented AARP for the role they played in the drug benefit, my volunteer for example.

Well, it turns out that AARP is now under some severe scrutiny for “royalties and fees” built into insurance premiums (not just with Medicare or even health insurance, but their insurance plans in general). Apparently these royalties and fees have added up to 43% of the organization’s revenue last year. AARP defends this by saying that higher premiums come with better coverage. However, as the article illustrates, this can be debated by looking at their Medicare supplemental plans. Medicare supplemental plans (Medigaps) are standardized and so all plans must offer the same coverage. There is no way that the AARP Medigap can offer better coverage, yet they are still not the cheapest plan. So that theory goes out the window.

AARP’s enormous clout comes from the threat they could defeat people in Congress who don’t do what they want. They are the most powerful interest group in Washington.
-James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in Washington

The AARP can be a positive force for seniors in the U.S. For example, they fought and derailed Bush’s proposal for the privatization of social security. But when an organization uses its positive reputation to make money and take advantage of the individuals it’s claiming to help, that’s misuse of power. If AARP is to advocate for the health of older people, they need to be in a position where they do not benefit from charging people more money for benefits. Isn’t this what they’re trying to protect people from?