The Medigap Trap: How Medicare Beneficiaries Are Locked Into Premiums They Cannot Escape

On the second Tuesday of January 2026, Eleanor Vance — seventy-eight years old, a retired school librarian in Dayton, Ohio, who has lived alone since her husband died in 2019 — opened an envelope from her Medicare Supplement insurer. The letter was two pages. The first page was a form notification printed in a sans-serif typeface that her optometrist had told her, at her last appointment, was at the edge of what she could comfortably read. The second page was a table. The table had two columns. The first column read: Your Current Monthly Premium. The second column read: Your New Monthly Premium, Effective February 1, 2026. The numbers in the two columns were $218.44 and $319.10.

That is an increase of $100.66 per month. It is $1,207.92 per year. It is, for Eleanor Vance, whose monthly Social Security benefit is $1,847 and whose only other income is a small pension from the Dayton Public Schools, the difference between paying her property taxes and not paying her property taxes. She read the letter twice. She called the number on the letterhead. She waited on hold for forty-one minutes. When the representative came on the line, Eleanor asked the question that every Medigap beneficiary in forty-six states has been asking since the 2026 rate filings became effective: Can I switch to a cheaper plan?

The representative, whose name was Brandon, was polite. He said he could transfer her to the sales department, which could help her explore her options. The sales department, after another twenty-three minutes on hold, explained to Eleanor that she could certainly apply for a different Medigap plan — a Plan N, perhaps, rather than her current Plan G, with a lower premium — but that because she was outside her Medigap Open Enrollment Period, she would need to complete medical underwriting. The underwriting questionnaire would ask her about her health conditions. She had atrial fibrillation, controlled by medication. She had Type 2 diabetes, controlled by medication. She had been hospitalized in 2023 for a transient ischemic attack. The representative, whose name at the sales department was Megan, said that Eleanor was welcome to apply but that, based on the information Eleanor had provided, it was unlikely that her application would be approved.

Eleanor asked what her options were if the application was not approved.

Megan said that Eleanor could keep her current plan at the new premium.

Eleanor asked if there was anything else.

Megan said there was not.

This is the architecture of the trap. Eleanor Vance made a single decision in 2013, at the age of sixty-five, when she first enrolled in Medicare Part B and entered the six-month window during which Medigap plans are required to accept her regardless of her health. In that window, she chose Plan F from a carrier whose name was familiar to her because her husband had been insured by the same company through his employer. She did not know that the decision she was making was irrevocable. No one told her. The brochure did not say so. The agent who sold her the policy did not say so. The Medicare & You handbook, which runs to 120 pages, mentions the matter but does not emphasize it. She made the decision the way a person makes most decisions at sixty-five, which is to say: she made it once, and she assumed she could revisit it if her circumstances changed.

Her circumstances have changed. She cannot revisit it.

✦

The Six-Month Window

The Medigap Open Enrollment Period is a creature of federal statute. It is a six-month window that begins the month a beneficiary is both sixty-five or older and enrolled in Medicare Part B. During that window, Medicare Supplement insurers are required by federal law to sell any Medigap policy they offer to any applicant, at the standard rate, without regard to the applicant's health status. They cannot decline the application. They cannot charge a higher premium because of pre-existing conditions. They cannot impose waiting periods except in narrow circumstances involving recent hospitalization.

That window is the only moment in the American Medicare Supplement Insurance system at which the beneficiary has the advantage. Six months. After that, in forty-six of the fifty states, the advantage is permanently transferred to the insurer.

The transfer happens silently. There is no letter informing the beneficiary that their open enrollment period has ended. There is no notification that the protections have lapsed. The window closes the way most administrative windows close — by the simple passage of time, unremarked upon by any party whose interest it would serve to remark. The beneficiary, on the first day of the seventh month, is subject to medical underwriting if they wish to change plans. They do not know this. They will not know it until they try to change plans, which, for most beneficiaries, will be some years later, when a premium increase or a change in health or a change in circumstance has made the original choice untenable.

The insurer, of course, knows. The insurer has known since 1990, when the Medigap standardization framework was enacted under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. The insurer has built its entire actuarial model around the asymmetry. The premium it charges a sixty-five-year-old applicant during open enrollment reflects the possibility that the applicant is sick. The premium it charges that same applicant, five years later, if the applicant attempts to switch, is not a premium at all — it is a gate, with underwriting on the other side, and the gate is the point.

✦

What Underwriting Actually Is

Medical underwriting, in the Medigap context, is a questionnaire. The questionnaire is typically between four and eight pages. It asks about the applicant's current medications. It asks about the applicant's hospitalizations over the preceding two to five years, depending on the carrier. It asks about specific diagnoses — diabetes, congestive heart failure, COPD, cancer, stroke, kidney disease, Parkinson's, dementia — and it asks about them with specificity. Have you been diagnosed with, or treated for, or advised by a physician to seek treatment for, any of the following conditions in the past. The conditions are listed. The list is long. The list is exhaustive in the way that only a list designed by an actuary is exhaustive.

The questionnaire is not, strictly speaking, a medical examination. The carrier does not send a nurse to the applicant's home. The carrier does not require bloodwork. The carrier relies on the applicant's self-reporting, supplemented by the Medical Information Bureau database and, in some cases, prescription drug history pulled from pharmacy benefit manager records. The underwriting is paper underwriting. It is, therefore, fast and cheap for the carrier and devastating for the applicant.

The devastation is not in the process. It is in the outcome. An applicant who discloses atrial fibrillation will, in the overwhelming majority of carriers in the overwhelming majority of states, be declined. An applicant who discloses Type 2 diabetes managed by insulin will be declined. An applicant who discloses a stroke within the preceding five years will be declined. An applicant who discloses metastatic cancer — even cancer in remission — will be declined. The decline rates are not published. The carriers do not release them. They are, in the private estimations of the Medicare counselors who work at State Health Insurance Assistance Programs across the country, above fifty percent for any applicant over seventy and above eighty percent for any applicant over seventy-five.

This is the translation. Application subject to medical underwriting does not mean your application will be reviewed based on your health. It means if you have been alive long enough to need this coverage, you will not be allowed to change it. The language of underwriting is the language of neutrality. The function of underwriting is the language's opposite. It is a filter designed to ensure that the only applicants who successfully switch plans are the applicants the insurer would have preferred to insure in the first place — the healthy, the young-old, the ones who have not yet accumulated the chronic conditions that make insurance valuable.

The Medigap system, outside of four states, is therefore not an insurance market. It is a market at the point of entry and a closed book thereafter. The competition the statutory framework purports to create is competition for new enrollees only. Existing enrollees are not in the market. They are in the portfolio.

✦

The Four States

Connecticut. Maine. Massachusetts. New York.

These four states have enacted, through state insurance law, continuous open enrollment for Medigap policies — which is to say, they have required Medigap insurers operating in the state to offer guaranteed-issue coverage year-round, to any Medicare beneficiary, without medical underwriting. A beneficiary in Hartford or Bangor or Boston or Buffalo who receives a premium increase letter in January can, in February, apply for a different plan with a different carrier, and the carrier must accept the application at the standard rate.

The four states are not the result of a federal policy. They are the result of state legislatures and state insurance commissioners who, at various points over the past three decades, looked at the structural design of the Medigap market and concluded that the design was untenable. Connecticut enacted continuous open enrollment in 1990. New York followed in 1992. Massachusetts and Maine adopted variants over the subsequent two decades. Maine's framework is slightly more limited — continuous guaranteed issue applies only to Plan A, with a one-month window each year for switching to other plans — but it remains, in the national context, a meaningful departure from the underwriting regime that governs the rest of the country.

The four states are not uniformly low-premium states. Medigap premiums in Connecticut and New York are, in fact, among the highest in the nation — a fact that the insurance industry points to as evidence that continuous open enrollment raises costs for everyone. The claim is true as stated and misleading as implied. Premiums in continuous-open-enrollment states are higher because the risk pool is not systematically drained of the sick. The sick remain in the pool. The pool reflects the actual cost of insuring the actual Medicare population. The premiums in the other forty-six states are lower, in part, because the pool has been engineered to exclude the people who most need the coverage.

The forty-six states are the anomaly. The four states are the baseline. It is important to be clear about which is which.

✦

The 2026 Rate Filings

The premium increases that took effect in January and February of 2026 were not, in historical terms, unprecedented. Medigap premiums have increased every year for as long as anyone has kept records. The average annual increase, over the decade preceding 2026, was in the range of three to six percent, depending on the plan and the carrier and the state. Some years were higher. Some years were lower. The increases were, in general, manageable for beneficiaries who had budgeted for medical inflation.

2026 was not that year. The rate filings submitted to state insurance departments in the fall of 2025 and approved for implementation in early 2026 showed average premium increases, across the largest national carriers, of between fourteen and twenty-three percent. Some plans, in some states, for some age bands, saw increases of above thirty percent. A Plan G policyholder in Ohio aged seventy-eight, insured by one of the three largest Medigap carriers in the country, saw the kind of increase that Eleanor Vance saw — $218 to $319, a forty-six percent jump, year over year.

The carriers explained the increases by reference to medical cost inflation, to increased utilization in the post-pandemic period, to provider reimbursement pressures, to the phasing-out of Plan F for new enrollees and the resulting changes in the risk pools of closed blocks. The explanations were, in their technical specifics, defensible. They were also beside the point. The point is not whether the increases were actuarially justified. The point is that the beneficiaries who received them had no recourse.

In a functioning insurance market, a twenty-percent premium increase from one carrier would drive enrollees to a competing carrier offering a lower rate. The competing carrier would gain market share. The incumbent carrier would either match the competitor's pricing or lose the book of business. This is the mechanism by which competition restrains pricing. It is the mechanism the Medigap framework, as described in industry marketing materials and in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services consumer guidance, purports to provide.

The mechanism does not function. The mechanism cannot function. The underwriting gauntlet on the back end of the market ensures that enrollees with any meaningful health history cannot move between carriers. The competition the framework describes is a competition for the dwindling population of healthy seventy-year-olds who are willing to complete an underwriting questionnaire and roll the dice. For the other ninety percent of the Medigap-insured Medicare population, the rate increase is not a signal. It is a bill. They will pay it. They have no alternative to pay it.

This is what the carriers know. This is what their actuaries know. This is what the pricing models assume. The rate increases of 2026 are not a market failure. They are the market functioning exactly as designed — extracting maximum premium from a captive population whose exit has been closed by federal statute in forty-six states and whose entry to any alternative is guarded by an underwriting process that, for most of the affected population, cannot be passed.

✦

The Medicare Advantage Alternative

There is, in the marketing materials that arrived in Eleanor Vance's mailbox in the weeks following the premium increase letter, a second option. The option is Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage plans are required, under federal law, to accept any Medicare beneficiary during the Annual Election Period, which runs from October 15 to December 7 each year, without medical underwriting. A Medigap beneficiary facing a premium increase they cannot afford can, in theory, drop their Medigap policy, drop their Original Medicare Part B supplement, and enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan — often at a premium of zero dollars, with a prescription drug benefit included, with an out-of-pocket maximum that the Medigap plan does not provide.

The option is real. The option is also, for most Medigap beneficiaries who have been satisfied with their current coverage, a trap of a different kind.

Medicare Advantage is not a supplement to Original Medicare. It is a replacement for Original Medicare. A beneficiary who enrolls in a Medicare Advantage plan is no longer receiving care through the Original Medicare fee-for-service system. They are receiving care through a private insurance plan that has contracted with the federal government to administer their Medicare benefits. The private plan has a network of providers. It has prior authorization requirements. It has step therapy protocols. It has utilization review. It has all of the machinery of commercial insurance, applied to a population that is, on average, in the eighth decade of life.

The Medigap beneficiary who switches to Medicare Advantage to escape a premium increase surrenders, in that single enrollment, a set of protections that the Medigap framework was specifically designed to provide. They surrender the ability to see any provider in the United States who accepts Medicare, without referral, without prior authorization, without network restriction. They surrender the predictability of out-of-pocket costs that the Medigap plan provided. They acquire, in exchange, a set of exposures that the American health policy literature has spent the past decade documenting — denial rates that exceed commercial insurance norms, prior authorization requirements that delay care, post-acute care denials that have drawn repeated criticism from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.

They also acquire, crucially, a return path that is more apparent than real. A Medicare Advantage enrollee who decides, six months into the new plan, that the plan is not working for them — that the oncologist they have seen for ten years is out of network, that the skilled nursing facility their physician ordered has been denied, that the prior authorization process for their medication has become untenable — cannot simply switch back to Original Medicare with Medigap. They can switch back to Original Medicare. But the Medigap policy that will accompany that return is, in forty-six states, subject to medical underwriting. The same underwriting that prevented them from switching Medigap plans to begin with. The trap, having been escaped in one direction, closes in the other.

There are narrow exceptions. The federal Medigap guaranteed-issue rights include a trial right provision: a beneficiary who enrolls in Medicare Advantage for the first time, at the point of initial Medicare eligibility, and who disenrolls within twelve months, may purchase certain Medigap plans without underwriting. A beneficiary whose Medicare Advantage plan terminates its contract or leaves their service area may purchase certain Medigap plans without underwriting. These provisions exist. They cover, in the aggregate, a small fraction of the beneficiaries who attempt to return from Medicare Advantage to Original Medicare each year. For the Medigap beneficiary who switched to Medicare Advantage at age seventy-eight to escape a premium increase, the trial right does not apply. The termination-of-contract right applies only if the plan terminates. The beneficiary who simply made a decision they now regret has no guaranteed-issue right at all.

This is the second translation. You can always switch to Medicare Advantage does not mean you have an alternative to the premium increase. It means you have the option of surrendering the Medigap protections you currently have, in exchange for a different set of protections, with no mechanism to return to your current coverage if the new coverage proves inadequate. The option is offered. The offer is not neutral. The offer is a one-way door, and the parties offering it know that it is a one-way door, and the marketing materials that describe the option do not mention the door.

✦

The Original Purchase Decision

Return, for a moment, to Eleanor Vance in 2013. She is sixty-five. She is newly enrolled in Medicare Part B. She is sitting at her kitchen table in Dayton, Ohio, with a stack of brochures from three Medigap carriers, a Medicare & You handbook, and the business card of an insurance agent who has come to her home at her invitation to explain her options.

The agent explains Plan F, Plan G, Plan N. He explains the premium differentials. He explains the coverage differentials. He does not explain — because the brochure does not emphasize it and the agent's commission structure does not incentivize it — that the decision she is making today will, in all practical likelihood, be the last Medigap decision she ever makes. He does not explain that the six-month window she is currently in is the only window in which she will have the legal right to change plans without underwriting. He does not explain that the premium she is choosing today, $142 per month for Plan F, will be subject to annual increases for the rest of her life, and that at no point in the subsequent decades will she have a realistic ability to switch to a different carrier offering a lower rate.

Eleanor Vance, at sixty-five, in good health, with a husband still living and a household income that comfortably accommodates the premium, chooses Plan F. The choice is reasonable. The choice is, given the information she has been provided, optimal.

The choice is also, in a sense that no one has adequately explained to her, a thirty-year commitment. It is a commitment that will bind her through her husband's death in 2019, through her own TIA in 2023, through the progression of her diabetes, through the accumulation of diagnoses that will, by 2026, make her uninsurable in the Medigap market of every state except four. It is a commitment that will determine, in 2026, whether she can pay her property taxes.

The decision a sixty-five-year-old makes in the Medigap Open Enrollment Period is, in the forty-six states that permit backend underwriting, an irrevocable decision. It is presented as a consumer choice. It is not a consumer choice in any meaningful sense. It is the single opportunity the beneficiary will ever have to enter the Medigap market on terms that favor the beneficiary. The disclosure framework surrounding that opportunity does not convey this. The consumer education materials do not convey this. The agents who sell the policies do not convey this. The carriers that issue the policies have no incentive to convey it.

The horror is not that Eleanor Vance made a bad decision. She did not make a bad decision. She made the decision the system asked her to make, with the information the system provided her, at the time the system identified as the appropriate time for the decision. The horror is that the system was designed, from the beginning, to make her decision irrevocable in exactly the circumstances in which she would most need to revisit it.

✦

The Structural Design

It is worth being explicit about what the Medigap underwriting framework accomplishes, because the accomplishment is not accidental.

First, it segments the risk pool by age of entry. Beneficiaries who enter the market at sixty-five, during their open enrollment period, are pooled with other sixty-five-year-old entrants. As that cohort ages, its members cannot exit to other carriers without underwriting, and they cannot be joined by older entrants except through underwriting. The cohort is, therefore, a closed book. The carrier can price the closed book with actuarial precision, because the carrier knows the cohort will not meaningfully change composition over time. The cohort ages in place. The premiums rise to match the rising claims. The beneficiaries pay or they surrender their coverage.

Second, it protects each carrier from competition for its existing enrollees. A carrier that has written a book of business at age sixty-five does not need to worry that a competitor will offer a lower rate to those enrollees at seventy or seventy-five. The competitor cannot write the business, because the underwriting process will decline most of the applicants. The carrier can, therefore, raise rates on its existing book without losing market share. The rate increases are constrained only by state insurance department review, which is, in most states, a rate-adequacy review rather than a rate-reasonableness review.

Third, it channels dissatisfied Medigap enrollees into Medicare Advantage, where the economics for the insurance industry are — for reasons related to federal risk-adjustment payments and supplemental benefit structures — significantly more favorable than Medigap. The largest national Medigap carriers are, with few exceptions, the same carriers operating the largest national Medicare Advantage plans. The Medigap premium increase is, from a corporate perspective, not a loss but a conversion event. The enrollee who drops Medigap and enters Medicare Advantage is not lost to the insurer. The enrollee has simply been moved from one line of business to another, more profitable, line.

Fourth, and most importantly, it ensures that the consumer information asymmetry that exists at the moment of initial enrollment — when a sixty-five-year-old is making a complex decision about lifetime coverage, often with the assistance of a commissioned agent — is never corrected by subsequent market interaction. In a functioning market, consumers learn over time. They observe the behavior of their insurers. They compare. They switch. The learning informs future decisions, both their own and those of their peers. In the Medigap market, there is no switching, and therefore no learning, and therefore no correction. The seventy-eight-year-old who now understands, in a way she did not understand at sixty-five, what it means to be locked into a plan cannot act on her understanding. She cannot warn her peers in any way that matters, because her peers are locked in too. The market does not self-correct because the market has been engineered not to.

✦

What Could Be Done

The remedies, in their broadest outlines, are not obscure. Four states have demonstrated, over a combined century of accumulated policy experience, that continuous open enrollment is administratively feasible, actuarially sustainable, and consistent with a functioning private insurance market. The Medigap market in Connecticut has not collapsed. New Yorkers are not uninsured. Maine and Massachusetts have not experienced the adverse-selection death spiral that the industry's opposition to continuous open enrollment perennially predicts. The four-state experience is the counterfactual, and the counterfactual is available to any state legislature willing to examine it.

At the federal level, the remedies are also clear. Congress could extend the Medigap guaranteed-issue rights to include any beneficiary facing a premium increase above a statutory threshold. Congress could establish an annual Medigap open enrollment period comparable to the Medicare Advantage Annual Election Period, during which switching would be permitted without underwriting. Congress could prohibit medical underwriting in the Medigap market entirely, which is the approach the four states have taken at the state level. Any of these remedies would disrupt the current pricing model of the national Medigap carriers. All of these remedies would transfer significant financial benefit from the carriers to the beneficiaries. None of these remedies has moved, in any serious way, in the legislative process over the past two decades.

The reason none of these remedies has moved is not a mystery. The Medigap carriers are among the largest political donors in the health insurance industry. The AARP, which endorses a Medigap product line marketed under its name by a major national carrier, has not been a vocal advocate for federal guaranteed-issue expansion. The state insurance departments that review Medigap rate filings are, in most states, regulatory bodies with close institutional relationships to the industries they regulate. The Medicare beneficiary population is politically significant but has not, on this issue, organized.

The people who receive the premium increase letters are isolated. They receive the letter in January. They call the customer service line. They are told, politely, that they have no options. They hang up. They pay the new premium, or they drop their coverage, or they enter Medicare Advantage and hope for the best. They do not, in general, call their congressional representative. They do not organize. They are, by the time they understand what has happened to them, seventy-five or eighty or eighty-five years old, and the organization of a political movement is not within their practical reach.

Eleanor Vance did not call her congressional representative. Eleanor Vance called her daughter, who lives in Columbus. Eleanor Vance's daughter spent an afternoon on the phone with the insurer, with the Ohio Department of Insurance, with the State Health Insurance Assistance Program. Eleanor Vance's daughter learned, over the course of that afternoon, what her mother had already learned: that there was nothing to be done. That the decision made in 2013 had been final. That the premium would be paid or the coverage would be surrendered. That the architecture of the system did not contemplate an exit.

✦

The Letter

Return, one final time, to the letter. Two pages. First page: form notification. Second page: the table with two columns.

The letter is not a horror because of the numbers in the columns. The numbers are the product of an actuarial calculation that can be defended, plausibly, by reference to medical trend, utilization, reimbursement, and the demographic aging of a closed block of business. The carrier can justify the numbers. The state insurance department approved the numbers. The numbers are, within the framework they exist in, not the horror.

The horror is that the letter exists at all in the form it exists in. The horror is that there is no third page. The horror is that the letter does not include a list of alternative carriers Eleanor Vance could switch to. It does not include a comparison of Medigap plans available to her under guaranteed-issue protections. It does not include a notice that her six-month Medigap Open Enrollment Period ended twelve years, seven months, and four days ago. It does not include the information that would allow her to evaluate her options, because the letter is not a letter about her options. The letter is a bill. The letter is a demand for payment. The form of the letter — its politeness, its table, its sans-serif typeface, its signature line bearing the name of a customer service vice president she will never meet — is the form of a document that has been designed to appear to offer a choice while offering none.

She will pay the new premium. Most of the beneficiaries who received the letter in January 2026 will pay the new premium. A smaller number will drop their coverage entirely and absorb the catastrophic risk of Original Medicare without supplemental insurance. A smaller number still will enter Medicare Advantage and surrender the protections they have relied on for a decade or more. A vanishingly small number will successfully switch to a different Medigap plan, and that number will consist almost entirely of the healthiest members of the affected population — the ones who have been fortunate enough, so far, to avoid the accumulation of diagnoses that the underwriting questionnaire will ask about.

The rest of them — the Eleanor Vances, numbering in the millions, distributed across forty-six states, in their seventies and eighties, with their atrial fibrillations and their Type 2 diabetes and their prior strokes and their managed chronic conditions that would have been, in the era before Medigap existed, the reason they died at sixty-eight — will pay. They will pay because the system was built so that they would pay. They will pay because the alternative, at every step of the architecture, was foreclosed to them, in advance, by a framework that they did not design and could not see and would not have understood at the moment they could have done anything about it.

The premium increase is not the horror. The horror is the architecture of the trap. The architecture was designed in 1990. The architecture has been refined every year since. The architecture is still there, in every Medigap rate filing, in every underwriting questionnaire, in every letter that begins Your Current Monthly Premium and ends Your New Monthly Premium, Effective February 1, 2026.

The house has been built around them. They did not know they had entered it. They cannot, now, leave.