HR 3961, HR 3962, the Medicare SGR & the Debt

We are still awaiting the CBO's scoring of the bill which came out of the Senate majority leader's closed door discussions. Similar to the "bill" sent to the CBO by the Senate Finance Committee, it is still in the conceptual stage and has yet to be officially written.

On the other hand, the bills in the House were merged to form H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, which was released October 29th. As mentioned in the analysis of the Baucus Bill, H.R. 3962 does not include fixing the physician reimbursement rate (Medicare SGR). While it claims to save the federal government $104 billion, it leaves in place the 21% SGR cut scheduled for 2010, and makes no further provisions to fix the formula. This is clearly unsustainable, as providers will have no choice but to opt out of the program, leaving seniors without care.

Interestingly a separate bill, H.R.3961, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009, was introduced the same day. It restructures the SGR formula, increasing physician payments for Medicare, Medicare Advantage and TRICARE. One quarter of that increase would come from premium increases paid by Medicare Part B enrollees. Ultimately, this bill is estimated to increase the direct spending of the Federal government by $210 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

According to the numbering system, it seems the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Bill was introduced first. It seems someone in the House was aware of the SGR problem. Since this wasn't an afterthought, wouldn't it have been logical to have “fixed” the problem in the comprehensive bill before introducing it? After all, for months politicians have been insisting that we must have ONE bill to reform healthcare. But without the "fix," House politicians could and did proceed to hold press conferences, claiming victory and “savings” for the American people all the while putting us $100+ billion further in debt. This behavior is disrespectful of the hardworking Americans who voted them into office and it does nothing to increase sustainability or affordability.

Senate Bill 1776: The Fix?

Yesterday, the press finally reported the whole story on the Baucus Bill, which you read here on October 13. Senate Bill 1776, which was supposed to fix the faulty Medicare physician reimbursement formula (Medicare SGR as continued under the Baucus Bill), failed to pass Wednesday. Congress somehow thought the American people would not figure out that paying doctors would be considered part of their supposed comprehensive healthcare “reform” if they put it in another bill. Instead, S. 1776 was an attempt to add $249 billion straight to the national debt. Let’s crunch the numbers: the $81 billion dollar savings of the Baucus bill minus the $249 billion appropriation to “fix” the physician payment formula equals +$168 billion to the national debt – not exactly budget neutral.

Senator Nelson of Florida was interviewed by Greta van Susteren last night saying he hoped this did not derail the Senate’s reform bill. He claimed perhaps we if we had a 5-year fix or even a 3-year fix, we should still push through “reform.” How does postponing the day of reckoning make it better? Certainly, physicians will be right back in the same position they are now, with further cuts threatening because the formula used is faulty; except by then healthcare reform fatigue will have set in with the American public and no one will want to hear about it.

Worse yet, with the current printing and spending spree in Washington, the present economic downturn is going to persist for a considerable period of time. Central banks around the world are warning us that our fiscal and monetary policies are “imprudent.” Given the current policies being pursued on an array of issues, there will be fewer small business starting up and more businesses laying off people. As a result, tax revenues will continue to go down, adding further to the annual deficit and ultimately the federal debt. If this continues, the country may not be able to fix the problem in 3 years. Americans voted for change. Our legislators must be responsible and get it right. If not the only change Americans may have is the change in their pockets.

Co-ops: Real or Phoney?

In addition page 4 of the October CBO letter to the Senate Finance Committee Chair states the Baucus Bill will “provide start-up funds to encourage the creation of cooperative exchange plans (co-ops) that could be offered through the exchanges; existing insurers could not be approved as co-ops.”

Let’s think about this for a minute. Present day insurers are entirely shut out of the game. (You can almost hear the politicians say, “We showed them.” ---but is it a pyrrhic victory?)

Whatever you think about insurers, these are the people who actually know how to do the job. They have the systems and processes in place to service the needs of their customers, send them insurance cards, provide a network of providers and pay claims. This little provision means a lot of “newbie” nonprofit companies will be popping up, by necessity.

Who are these companies? Are they reputable? Do you believe your claims will be paid in a timely manner? What is their track record? Will you get the service you expect? What assurances do we have that they will be there tomorrow to pay claims after giving them your premium dollars? Do you think this opens the public up to a lot of potential fraud? Are state regulators going to be able to handle the job, given the number of new entities that will no doubt arise due to the amount of money at stake?

Of course, we can rely on the government to protect us from the hucksters, can’t we?

Baucus Bill Part III: Will it really be cheaper?

The CBO believes that employer provided plans will be “more expensive that the low-cost plans available in the exchanges, because healthcare services in those exchange plans would be more tightly managed.” [September CBO letter, page 4]

Administrative costs for all health plans, both for-profit and nonprofit, have averaged about 11% of premiums. The BCBS family of companies average about 10%. In fact, Highmark BCBS, a nonprofit insurer, in PA specifically states that their goal is for 90% of premiums to go toward paying medical expenses (aka medical-loss ratio) for enrollees. To more tightly manage the plan requires higher administrative costs, not less. And what does more “tightly managed” mean to the doctor and patient? You can bet there will be stricter standards for ordering tests/procedures, more “red-tape” and more non-certifications of coverage. There is simply no other way to make up for the added administrative costs, pay claims and still be competitive with the private sector marketplace, let alone be more affordable for individuals or small businesses.

Key Issues Not Addressed by the Baucus Bill: Part I

Let’s take a closer look at what wasn’t included in the bill. Since there is no actual written version of the bill, we will look at the CBO Analyses of September 22, 2009 and October 7, 2009:

• The CBO bases its analyses on the low-cost “silver” plans which will be offered in the exchanges. It is reasonable to think if there are silver plans, there are also gold plans. It begs the question, what package of benefits will be covered under either plan? Apparently the bill does not enumerate them. Federal subsidies are tied to the premiums on the ‘silver’ plans. Unlike the Medicare program which covers 80% of approved charges, the Baucus silver plans will only cover 70% of those charges, with the rest still owed by the patient. It seems there will still be a need for supplemental plans to cover the difference, as with Medicare. This appears an incomplete solution. For those with incomes under 200% of the federal poverty level [$23,600(projected for 2016)] there would be a sliding scale to assist in payment. However, for individuals making $14,700 annually (pre-tax), the premiums plus cost-sharing payments the patient is expected to pay would equal $1,200. This burden still seems quite high for our poorest people. It seems likely they will forgo coverage to save what little they have.
• Premiums are still allowed to vary by age. This is problematic because it fails to address the 13% of those aged 55-64 who are uninsured. Because of their age, these people are the most likely to have accumulated chronic conditions and need insurance coverage to optimally manage their care.

Baucaus Plan's Impact on Insurance Premiums

The big controversy today is whether or not the Baucus Bill will actually be a solution to higher health insurance premiums. Politicians claim the Price Waterhouse Coopers report commissioned by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) is alarmist and self-serving in stating that insurance premiums will be higher in the proposed health insurance exchanges. However, it seems this report confirms the Congressional Budget Office’s letter to Senator Max Baucus dated September 22, 2009. It explicitly states on page 6 “…premiums in the new exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law individual market – again with all other factors held equal – because the new policies would have to cover pre-existing medical conditions and could not deny coverage to people with high expected cost of healthcare. (CBO has not analyzed the magnitude of that effect.)…People with low expected costs for healthcare, however, would generally pay higher premiums.” The CBO admits it has not analyzed the effect of the no-prexisting condition policy mandate. And, it seems the CBO agrees with the PWC report.

The plan is written to fail because healthy small employer groups and individuals will go to the private sector for insurance. When they are ill, they will switch to a relatively “lower” cost co-op plan. Since pre-existing condition exclusions are outlawed, this co-op will be a magnet for the high-risk individuals or employer groups, either because of sickness or age. Since there is not a mandate for continuous coverage to be maintained, some individuals may choose to “save” money, by paying the federal fine and purchasing coverage only when they are ill. From an underwriting standpoint, there is nothing to protect the financial integrity of the Baucus plan.

Senate Finance Committe Approves Baucus Bill

What exactly was voted on yesterday? The Senate Finance Committee refused to post a copy of the proposed bill online for Americans to read. It appears that the reason why may more likely be found in the CBO's October 7, 2009 letter to the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucas, page 8 which states that "The Chairman's mark, as amended, has not yet been converted into legislative language. The review of such language could lead to significant changes in the estimates of the proposals effects on the federal budget and insurance coverage."

The CBO goes on in that letter to state (page 9) that "Federal spending that would be funded by future appropriations is not reflected in these estimates. For example, implementation costs for operations of the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are not included." Any business must count the costs to implement an idea before it can determine whether or not there will be a positive return on the investment. How is government any different?

It seems the rules of order are now disregarded in the Senate, committees are now passing what is at best the notion of a bill/plan as opposed to a definitive plan. How can such a bill/plan be responsibly administered? A health plan requires a written contract to administer it. Apparently, Americans are now discovering not only is Congress too lazy to read the bills presented for a vote, Congress is now too lazy to even write the bills it passes! Are notions of legislation all we need now? Are we now making it all up, after the fact? This is a travesty of democracy. Americans work hard, pay their taxes and deserve far better treatment than this from their elected officials.

The Baucus Bill & Physician Reimbursement

The Baucas Bill [America's Healthy Future Act of 2009] does not eliminate the flawed physician reimbursement formula [Medicare SGR (sustainable growth rate)]. It allows for the .5% increase Congress appropriated for 2010; however, it does not eliminate the scheduled 25% cut in 2011. It is assumed that reimbursement rates will remain at current low levels (as specified by the SGR) for the subsequent years through 2019.

Historically, Congress has made adjustments annually to this "flawed" reimbursement formula which rises significantly slower than the rate of medical inflation. By cutting reimbursement rates in 2011 by 25% and keeping them there, there will be far fewer providers willing to provide services to Medicare patients. On the other hand, if Congress continues the annual adjustment process, the projected Congressional Budget Office "savings" in the bill begin to evaporate.

The bill does little to address the current high costs of providing actual care, which someone must pay. Physicians will not be able to sustain a 25% pay cut to provide care for Medicare patients. Those that do, will not be able to continue such services in subsequent years without any inflation adjustments. Apparently, a significant portion of the expense of providing care for the elderly in the future is expected to be born by physicians.

The projected "savings" of this bill are dubious at best; it is really cost-shifting. It seems a bit premature for the Senate Finance Committee to be patting itself on the back, given that this is not actually a viable solution.