March 2009
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Legal Disclaimer

Your use of this Blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. Your e-mail or comments do not create an attorney-client relationship. We have no duty to keep confidential the information that is submitted to this blog. This blog is not a substitute for, nor does it constitute legal advice. Only an attorney who knows the details of your particular situation and is properly licensed in the applicable state (or states) is able to appropriately and properly address any legal issues you may have.

Blog Categories

Medicare Physician “Fix” May Result in More Fundamental Reform

The House Budget Committee’s budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2010 includes a reserve fund for reforming the Medicare payment system for physicians. Included in the Reserve Fund for Medicare Improvements is more than $87 billion of additional Medicare spending for a five-year period starting in 2010. The additional spending over a ten-year period is almost $285 billion. The budget resolution anticipates that Medicare physician payment reform will require additional funding to:

·         encourage efficiency and higher quality care;

·         improve payment accuracy to ensure that primary care is compensated appropriately;

·         coordinate care across all appropriate settings; and

·         hold providers accountable for their utilization patterns and quality of care.

 

While the Reserve Fund for Medicare Improvements represents a significant amount of additional spending, it is 40 percent less than the amount included in the President’s budget for the same five year period and  it is about half of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) five-year estimate of the cost of replacing the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) system. CBO estimated that, over a ten-year period, an additional $556 billion would be needed to update Medicare physician rates based on the Medicare Economic Index (MEI).  

The five-year amount of reserve funds in the House budget resolution is similar to the CBO’s five-year estimate for a proposal which would use the MEI to update rates for evaluation and management (E&M) services, while maintaining the SGR for the other four categories of services, including those related to major and minor procedures, anesthesia, and imaging and testing.  CBO estimates that this approach would result in a reduction in payments for minor procedures and imaging and testing procedures. 

The budget resolution language makes it clear that the Medicare physician “fix” is likely to be linked to payment reforms which are designed to change how healthcare services are delivered and will, by necessity, encourage the formation and diffusion of new organizations such as patient-centered medical homes, bonus eligible organizations and accountable care organizations or systems.  

                       

Budget Reconciliation: A Path to Reform?

Things are heating up for those of us following, participating in, and blogging on the process to enact comprehensive health reform. Hearings over the past few days, including those in the Senate Finance and HELP Committees, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, focused on topics critical to any reform package: improving access to care, reforming the insurance market, and long term care issues. However, it was the House Budget Committee’s passage of its annual budget resolution that really lit up the debate.

As the FY 2010 budget process continues to unfold, a parliamentary argument involving the use of budget reconciliation instructions has imploded in both bodies of Congress. While President Obama met with Senate leaders to defend his top budget priorities, comprehensive health reform being chief among these, Democrats on the other side of Capitol Hill were laying their own set of rules for passage of health reform legislation. 

Both the House and Senate budgets contain a deficit neutral reserve fund, or placeholder, to enact health reform. However, only the House budget blueprint, which passed out of the House Budget Committee on Wednesday night, contains reconciliation instructions. The use of this parliamentary procedure would enable passage of health reform in the Senate with only a majority of votes (as opposed to the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture). Chairman Conrad’s mark did not contain reconciliation instructions on health reform, but Majority Leader Reid has not ruled out employing reconciliation to enact reform.   

Also, with the introduction of the new coalition of 15 moderates in the Senate led by Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and created to “work with the Senate leadership and the new administration to craft common-sense solutions to urgent national problems,” it appears that enactment of meaningful health reform is increasingly dependent on the Democratic leadership’s ability to heed the concerns of those in their own party, not just those of their Republican colleagues on the other side. In fact, Senator Ben Nelson, a member of the moderate coalition, called the use of reconciliation to enact health reform “a deal-breaker.”

The stakes are high and the need for reform is very real. But as the political maneuvering continues, we are left asking what the prospects for true reform – reform which includes consensus building on polarizing key issues such as an individual mandate, the availability of a public plan, paths to expanded coverage, and the all-important sources of revenue and savings– really are.

Improve the web with Nofollow Reciprocity.