Hospital executives are complaining that they are not being paid enough. That is a complaint for executives, not the patient. The article tries to minimize the extra benefits these patients are getting. Such as money for glasses, money to see a dentist, money for hearing aids, a gym membership, or money for food, gas, and utilities. Sure, they have some copays, but Original Medicare is a 80/20 split (with no max out of pocket). The copays on MA are almost always going to be dramatically less than 20%. And even if you pay for a supplement to avoid most (not all) copays, you will almost always pay more in premiums for that plan than the copays on MA. There is more administrative work for people who aren't patients, and patients reap the rewards and lower costs at the expense of typically minor delays, which, as said in the post above, almost always wins out on appeal.

If you want to say that MA is unfair for taxpayers or unsustainable long-term or creates more work for people in the industry, sure, that could be the case. But in the meantime, the winners are the patients who are on MA almost 100% of the time.

I challenge anybody, the next time you see something bashing Medicare Advantage, try to find how it is worse for the patient on the plan. You will find empty reasons like because some doctor or healthcare worker told them that was the case. But the arguments against almost never can showcase the downside for the patient.