Legislators on Thursday unveiled a bicameral, bipartisan proposal to repeal and replace the sustainable growth rate formula, which determines Medicare payments for physicians. One expert called it “above and beyond” anything else he’s ever seen.
Julius Hobson, senior policy advisor at Polsinelli, a law firm in Washington, worked as a lobbyist for the American Medical Association in 1997.
“I didn’t like [the SGR] then, and I’ve been lobbying to fix it ever since,” Hobson said. “Until this year, Congress has never made a serious attempt to repeal SGR.”
Each year, Congress throws together last-minute, Band-Aid solutions to Medicare’s payment problem, popularly known as “doc-fix” bills.
“This year for the first time, there was a clear determination to do something about this,” Hobson said. “They started in January.”
The proposal carries the support of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees.
“For years, Medicare payments to doctors have been at risk of being slashed, limiting seniors’ access to high-quality care,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. “Enough with the quick fixes. Our proposal is for a new physician-payment system that rewards value over volume. It will go a long way in improving the efficiency and quality of care for America’s seniors.”
It proposes a 10-year freeze of current payment levels, but physicians are able to get performance payments above the payment freeze. It also authorizes Health and Human Services to develop alternate payment models.
There is no Congressional Budget Office cost estimate — the proposal is currently in discussion draft and will be turned into a bill mid-November — but there are concerns with how Congress will fund the solution.
Chip Kahn, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, said he thinks the ideas are good, but that the ideas aren’t what ultimately matters.
“The dark cloud that hangs over the legislation is the fiscal question,” Kahn said. “How do you make it budget-neutral?”
Kahn said the hospitals have faced $95 billion in cuts since health reform passed, and worries Congress will “rob Peter to pay Paul” in the effort to solve Medicare’s payment problem.
“My concern is that in order to achieve these laudable goals for physician payment reform, we may create a deeper fiscal cut for other providers,” he said.
If the proposal doesn’t gain traction, Congress would have to pass another short-term patch by the first of the year, or physician payments would be cut 24.4 percent.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."