Following the Money, Doctors Ration Care

New York Times
Business Day
Following the Money, Doctors Ration Care
By TYLER COWEN

Published: December 11, 2010

Doctors are already rationing health care and are likely to further discriminate based on whether a patient has private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid.

Understanding Insurance: Will a Public Option or Co-op Get US Where We Want?

Today's commentary comes from an article I'd written for the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association and published today. Please click here.

Medicare SGR Update

The Senate passed HR 4851, the Continuing Expansion Act of 2010, this evening preventing the scheduled Medicare cut until June 1, 2010. The bill was passed in the House before the Spring recess with an effective date through  May 1, 2010. The Senate bill is being sent back to the House for approval to reconcile of the dates. It is expected to pass this week.

Opportunity Forfeited by National Physician Groups

Today, the Senate is expected to vote on HR 4851, the Continuing Expansion Act of 2010. It will maintain Medicare payments on the level prior to the 21.3% cut which occurred April 1, 2010 because Congress has not yet permanently fixed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. Until now, CMS has been holding claims payments hoping for another Congressional fix; but the agency can only hold claims for 10 business days and must begin payments on April 15. If Congress approves this billl, it will kick the proverbial can down the road for another month, with another fix needed on May 1, 2010.

The question is why would our national physician organizations endorse a supposed comprehensive health reform plan that did not assure that physicians would be able to afford to continue to provide services to their patients? Did they not understand who their members are and that this is not a fiscally feasible business model for physicians? Why would such powerful organizations, with lawyers on staff, give up their leverage in bargaining for a permanent SGR fix for a politician's promise to take care of it at a later date? Did they all fail Negotiations 101?

At first, I too, believed that might have been the case, but that is perhaps too easy an answer. In hearing the coments of some of Democratic politicians (who eventually voted again the bill) regarding the arm twisting that went on behind the scenes, I heard one congressman say they were effectively told how lucky they were to even be invited to the table, otherwise they would have been the main course. Funny, I heard the same words from the leadership of one of our national physician organizations at the end of November. Coincidence?

Physicians representing national physician organizations may have been invited to the photo-ops, but at best, they were only give a crumb or two that fell on the floor with offers to study solutions to the malpractice problem. They were cleasrly not invited to the table to find solutions for healthcare delivery. Were they tricked into believing attendence was participation?

Given the Chicago-style politics in Washington today and the Chicago roots of our largest organizations, were they also strong armed? Did they willingly let the wool be pulled over their eyes? Was it Stockholm syndrome? Or perhaps the did fail Negotiations 101...

The Real Arithmetic of Health Reform

Below are excerpts from a former director of the CBO who lays out the math in a NYTimes Op-Ed:

THE REAL ARITHMETIC OF HEALTH REFORM

"On Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion.  In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line. Could this really be true? [Not according to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and president of the American Action Forum.]

How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years? The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges:

The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits by $562 billion," says Holtz-Eakin.

"...The bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending...(meaning) the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending."

"...To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending, but this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the CBO's tabulation."

"...In perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies, but Medicare is already bleeding red ink and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future..."

"The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less," says Holtz-Eakin.

Excerpted from: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, "The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform," New York Times, March 20, 2010.
For full text of article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html

House Passes Sentate Health Bill

Last evening the House passed the Senate's health bill, H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Over 38 states are now stating they are in process and will file suit regarding the procedures and processes, as well as substance and constitutionality issues once the bill is signed into law. This law, along with H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act which follows, will greatly expand Medicaid. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid requires states to chip in a percentage of the costs as well as administer the program. As mentioned in the January 4th posting, 43 states are facing financial deficits. Not every state was fortunate enough to get the nearly $600 million each in supplemental Medicaid deals to which Vermont and Massachusetts were privy, let alone the cornhusker kickback that Nebraska did which covered the state's required Medicaid contributions in perpetuity. (This provision for Nebraska will supposedly be eliminated in the yet to be passed by the Senate reconciliation bill.)

Last Thursday, Arizona's new budget signed by the governor dropped coverage for childless adults and the child health insurance program (CHIP) instate, leaving 357,000 Arizonans without coverage. The governor stated the "budget is a vivid reflection of how the fiscal crisis affecting state governments is cutting deeply into healthcare."

Politicians may choose to ignore the will of the people and pass legislation, but ultimately someone must pay for it. Given the present economic crisis, tax revenues are falling for both state and federal governments. It seems Washington has forgotten the fiscal realities of those outside of the Beltway. If the checks and balances built into our Constitution do not cause this legislation to be rethought, the financial realities will.

CBO Report Released Today on Cost of ObamaCare is Incomplete

The CBO Report is out on ObamaCare [H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010 combined with H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as passed by the Senate], stating that it will cost $940 billion over 10 years. Whether this forecast is realistic is for another day’s discussion. Never mind that it uses 10 years of premiums to pay for 6 years of claims.

What is not included is “the doctor fix” for Medicare, which is estimated to be $247 billion. This means that the present health bill is NOT budget neutral, but ADDS to the deficit.

Last evening on Special Report, Bret Baier interviewed the President [transcript]:

“BAIER: And you call this deficit neutral, but you also set aside the doctor fix, more than $200 billion. People look at this and say, how can it be deficit neutral?

OBAMA: But the — as you well know, the doctors problem, as you mentioned, the "doctors fix," is one that has been there for years now. That wasn't of our making, and that has nothing to do with my health care bill. If I was not proposing a health care bill, right — let's assume that I had never proposed health care.

BAIER: But you wanted to change Washington, Mr. President. And now you're doing it the same way.

OBAMA: Bret, let me finish my — my answers here. Now, if suddenly, you've got, over the last decade, a problem that's been built up. And the suggestion is somehow that, because that's not fixed within this bill, that that's a reason to vote against the bill, that doesn't make any sense. That's a problem that I inherited. That was a problem that should have been solved a long time ago. It's a problem that needs to be solved, but it's not created by my bill. And I don't think you would dispute that.”

This bill was to be a comprehensive bill. We were told it could not be done piecemeal. We had to have one bill. Suddenly, paying doctors for their services is somehow irrelevant to providing care for our elderly citizens.

Ignoring the facts, failing address the real access to care issues and failing to add up ALL the costs of in one bill because it isn’t convenient seems more than a little disingenuous, doesn’t it?

Social Safety Nets with Growing Holes

After much hoopla, Congress finally began its Christmas vacation last week.

House or Senate plan, public or private, it really doesn't matter - what the politicians seem to have forgotten is that any plan must be underwritten correctly and with the appropriate safeguards or it won't be solvent. For some reason, beneficiaries tend to get upset there is no money to pay claims.

The CBO takes a snapshot in time approach to financial analysis. This static accounting approach does not account for the way human beings react in the real world, a fact they readily admit with multiple disclaimer footnotes in all their reports. Rather, what is needed is an underwriting analysis of the proposals. Underwriters try to predict the future given past behavior, human nature, changing market conditions and nature of the risk pool. The fact that accountants rather than underwriters are determining the feasibility of our social welfare programs may explain why Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are projected to have a combined deficit of well over $100 Trillion into the future.

Underwriting isn't sexy enough for the politicians, which is no doubt why they ignore it entirely. Underwriting is risk assessment, and sometimes risk management; the very words convey dullness and boredom. No, it's much more exciting for Democrats to accuse Republicans of wanting you to die, and die quickly, and for Republicans to say that Democrats want to kill Granny. But where does this leave the American people? Don't we deserve better?

Senator Reid makes the Doctors Pay for Medicare under Senate Bill 3590

The politicians are claiming that Senator Reid's bill will save the country money according to the latest CBO report. Physicians were scheduled to have a 21% pay cut caring for Medicare patients as of January 1, 2010. However, under Section 3101, this bill provides for .5% increase for physicians in 2010 but assumes no further increases or change to the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula which is used to compute physician payment rates. It is known to be a flawed formula requiring an act of Congress to "fix" each year. Politicians have always provided some nominal increase in physician payments, even if it has not kept pace with inflation. According to the Alliance of Specialty Medicine, "If the SGR formula is not fixed, physicians will receive negative updates of approximately five percent each year from 2006 until 2013 and rates will not return to their 2002 level until well after 2013. In other words, physicians will receive less reimbursement in 2013 than they did in 2002 for the exact same procedure, regardless of inflation and increases in practice costs." This unrealistically assumes doctors will bear the cost burden for the Medicare population. More likely physicians will have to stop Medicare participation (stop caring for Medicare patients) under these conditions. It seems disingenuous to claim "savings," when not all the costs have been realistically accounted for in this bill. This bill will surely go over the CBO estimates if real world historical political behavior of annual "fixes" are assumed as opposed to the static assumptions of the CBO.

A Duty to Warn: Healthcare Win or Financial Ruin

Just when we are convinced our politicians couldn't possibly do anything more ridiculous, they manage to exceed our expectations. Last night, the Senate reached a "compromise" on the healthcare bill. The plan includes lowering the age for Medicare to 55 for the uninsured and subsidizing it. There is also a proposed private plan option overseen by the OPM Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. It is unclear from the details released yesterday exactly who this private plan is supposed to cover. We will have to wait to for the details to be released. However, should it not work as planned, these enrollees will become part of some yet to be determined government plan.

According to a speech given by Richard W. Fisher president & CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Medicare already is projected to have $86 trillion in unfunded liabilities given those alive today. Last year, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Medicare Part A (hospitalization) benefits began to exceed program tax in their revenues. The difference was made up by Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund by redeeming trust fund assets. According to the 2009 Annual Reports on Social Security and Medicare, “Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2017…In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time.” [Note: This is 2 years earlier than projected last year.] We already have a program the Medicare trustees reported is "unsustainable," whose eligibility age should have been raised over the years to 69 or 70 given that Americans are living over 4 years longer than they were when the program started in 1965. This is a pay as you go program. The percentage of the eligible population in 1965 was 9%; today it's 13% and in 20 years it will be 19%. As you can see, less people are working to support a greater percentage of retirees. Adding more potential beneficiaries will only help to dramatically speed up the destabilization of healthcare benefits for current beneficiaries. There will be no choice but to ration care for our elderly.

Despite this, our politicians have decided to expand the program. This is outrageously fiscally irresponsible and catastrophically stupid. Did not one of our elected officials in Washington listen to the business news yesterday morning, when Moody's reported the US Government was in danger of losing its AAA credit rating in 2013?!?! Remember, this is the same group that has often been late to the corporate bankruptcy parties, only downgrading companies after the fact. This time Moody's sounded the alarm in time to warn us, yet Congress continues the spending unabated. Given this continuing pattern and the latest bill, count on it happening sooner rather than later. If our country loses its AAA credit rating, paying for healthcare will be the least of our worries. The dollar will instantly, irrevocably lose its world reserve currency status. That would create a worldwide panic, economic collapse and chaos. Make no mistake, the US would cease to be the economic power we know today. Our lives will be changed...just not the way any of us wants.

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.

Medicare, Medicare Supplemental & Medicare Advantage: Part III - Who enrolls in what plan?

A 2005 report by Emory University researchers and commissioned by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association of America found the following:

Of eligible retirees, 18% percent only have Medicare coverage. It is important to note that 49% of African-Americans and 31% of Hispanics and 33% of Whites fall into this category. Over 30% of retirees have primary or supplemental coverage through employer or union retirement plans. Another 25% of those who are Medicare eligible purchase MedSup (Medigap) policies on their own. Another 13% are Medicare beneficiaries who are also on Medicaid or other public assistance plans. Medicare Advantage covers 13% of retirees (Today, this represents 10 million people.)
Of retirees without employer/union plans or Medicaid, 53% of Hispanics, 40% of African- Americans and 33% of whites are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

Medicare Advantage plans are required to offer at minimum the same benefits as traditional Medicare. Many offer more coverage, including vision, dental and drug benefits. As a result, those with lower incomes (<$20,000) are quick to see the value in joining such programs. In fact, 18% of Medicaid eligible retirees join a Medicare Advantage program instead of Medicaid. [One wonders if this is because of the challenges in signing up for public assistance or because Medicare Advantage is preferred.] It was determined that Medicare Advantage plans provided a $1,128 per person savings to the state and federal government over Medicaid. According to the study, if Medicare Advantage was ended, 39% would join a MedSup plan. Another 39% would be left with only basic Medicare and 22% would join Medicaid. As discussed in the October 29th post, Congress is subsidizing benefits for Medicare Advantage enrollees. Poor and minority groups are disproportionately affected if these are eliminated. Since Medicare Advantage is more cost-efficient than Medicaid and has a 90+% satisfaction rate, perhaps there ought to be some means testing to qualify for these private sector programs. From a cost standpoint, perhaps would it be reasonable for government to encourage elderly Medicaid enrollees, in geographic areas where plans exist, to enroll in Medicaid Advantage programs.

Medicare, Medicare Supplemental & Medicare Advantage: Part II

Congress is planning on making big cuts to the Medicare Advantage program claiming that it is subsidizing the private insurers for this program. Is this true? The answer is yes, it is subsidizing the health plan; but it is really subsidizing the beneficiaries, not the insurers. People saw value and as a result the number of people in these plans has grown. The payments/expenditures for beneficiaries are higher on average than traditional Medicare.

The reason lies in how Medicare Advantage plans are paid. The Medicare Modernization act of 2003 set into place the present system of payment. A private insurer places a bid for what price per person it is willing to offer Part A and Part B services in a given geographic area. If it is under the government’s benchmark rate that it is willing to pay in that geographic area, they split the difference. Under the rules, the government keeps 25% of the savings, and the insurer must provide the beneficiary with additional benefits or a rebate equivalent to 75% of the difference. For example, if Medicare is willing to pay $500 per person per month to the insurer and the insurer has bid $400 per person per month, there is a $100 difference. Of that amount $25 in savings goes back to the government and $75 goes to the beneficiary in the form of a Part B or D premium rebate or additional services. Medicare pays out $475 in benefits. As you can see, the amount of additional benefits or rebates enrollees are offered makes one plan more attractive than another.

The heart of the problem is the benchmark rate calculation. By law, it must be at least as high as high as what the government would pay on average per person in the traditional Medicare fee for service (FFS) arena. Remember, Medicare pays 80% of the allowable payment rates. There are risk adjustments fir areas of the country where patients are “sicker.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, for 2007 the “benchmarks are 17% higher, on average than projected per capita FFS expenditures nationwide.” [Note: This CBO report was released in 2007, yet proposals to fix the problem are just now coming forth.]

These benchmarks are determined by statutory rules. It requires an act of Congress to make any changes. This is the similar to the way the Medicare physician payment formula [SGR] is set. Do you see a pattern here? There is a problem anytime an act of Congress is required to make should be a common sense business decision - namely to fix the formula. Government bureaucracy seems to preclude it from making the necessary adaptations to respond in a timely manner to save money or prevent potential disruptions in service.

The next question is what will happen to current Medicare Advantage enrollees? Who will be most affected? We will try to tackle that tomorrow -

Medicare, Medicare Supplemental and Medicare Advantage: Part I

What’s the difference?

Traditional Medicare covers 80% of allowable medical expenses for the elderly. In general, it covers hospitalizations (Part A) for free for those over the age of 65 who are also eligible for social security. The elderly who want part B coverage, which covers things like doctor visits, labs, etc., must pay monthly premiums which are deducted from the social security checks. Since it does not cover all medical expenses, many enrollees also buy a Medicare Supplemental [MedSup or Medigap] policy. There are about a dozen MedSup plan options from which to choose. Plan benefits are government-defined, but privately-insured. There is no medical underwriting for the plans, and thus, no pre-existing conditions. While there may be a dollar or two discount per month for enrollees who buy coverage through a union, trade organization or AARP, there is no need to join such an organization as the plan prices are competitive.

Medicare Advantage, previously known as Medicare+Choice or Part C, is a different animal. It was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. People with Medicare A and B can choose to receive their Medicare healthcare services through an Advantage plan. It is a cheaper alternative that negates the need for a MedSup plan, as it provides many of the same benefits without having to buy additional coverage, and may also provide Part D coverage. Enrollees agree to receive their care through the plan’s network of providers. “Medicare Advantage plans include (1) Medicare Managed Care plans (like HMOs), (2) Medicare Preferred Provider Organization plans (PPOs), (3) Private Fee-for-Service plans(PFFS), and (4) Medicare Specialty plans (available in some areas to provide Medicare benefits for certain people with special needs, such as beneficiaries in institutions).” [SSA website]. It was supposedly an attempt to privatize Medicare. But since there are no specific eligibility requirements for this lower cost program, it is not too surprising that this program is growing in popularity, particularly the PFFS plans. Of the 45 million Medicare recipients, 9 million are Medicare Advantage members.

Congress has Medicare Advantage, in particular, in its sites to cut costs. Tomorrow we will look at why.

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.

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.

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.