{"id":275,"date":"2015-08-03T20:07:48","date_gmt":"2015-08-04T00:07:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/?p=275"},"modified":"2015-08-03T20:07:48","modified_gmt":"2015-08-04T00:07:48","slug":"medicare-part-b-premiums-may-increase-52-percent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/?p=275","title":{"rendered":"Medicare Part B premiums may increase 52 percent"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>(By &#8211;\u00a0Dori Zweig,\u00a0www.fiercehealthpayer.com)<\/p>\n<p>Nearly a third of Medicare beneficiaries may face a 52 percent increase in Part B premiums unless the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) steps in.\u00a0The projected increase stems from Social Security and Medicare rules, reports the <i><em>Wall Street Journal<\/em><\/i>. Due to low inflation, Social Security isn&#8217;t expected to pay a cost-of-living increase in 2016. So Medicare must evenly spread the projected premium increase across the 30 percent of individuals who don&#8217;t qualify for the Social Security provision known as &#8220;hold harmless.&#8221; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fiercehealthpayer.com\/story\/medicare-part-b-premiums-may-increase-52-percent\/2015-08-03\" target=\"_blank\">Read more&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Notice<\/strong>: The \u201c<strong>Read more<\/strong>\u2026\u201d link provided above connects readers to the full content of the posted article. The URL (internet address) for this link is valid on the posted date; socialsecurityreport.org cannot guarantee the duration of the link\u2019s validity. Also, the opinions expressed in these postings are the viewpoints of the original source and are not explicitly endorsed by AMAC, Inc.; the AMAC Foundation, Inc.; or medicarereport.org.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>(By &#8211;\u00a0Dori Zweig,\u00a0www.fiercehealthpayer.com) Nearly a third of Medicare beneficiaries may face a 52 percent increase in Part B premiums unless<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-275","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-medicare-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/275","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=275"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/275\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":276,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/275\/revisions\/276"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=275"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=275"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=275"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}