- Texas man arrested for powder-letter hoax
- Islamic State opens ‘marriage bureau’ for single jihadists
- Drone almost blocks California firefighting planes
- Tornado rips off roofs, downs trees near Boston
- GOP: Environmental rules keeping agents from accessing border
- John Kerry: Millions displaced by religious fighting in 2013
- Federal appeals court rules against Virginia’s gay marriage ban
- White House says Russia ‘losing’ war in Ukraine
- Hamas turns to North Korea for weapons deal, Iran for money
- Syrian casualties surge as jihadis consolidate
Study adds fuel to fire in push for entitlement reform
Question of the Day
The push to reform federal payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients picked up steam Monday when physicians released a study arguing that halting unneeded services could save hundreds of billions of dollars.
A 19-page report released Monday by the National Commission on Physician Payment Reform adds a voice to the chorus of politicians in Washington who say entitlement reform is the key to restoring the nation’s fiscal footing, and that doctors should be paid for quality of care instead of the number of services they provide.
Among its dozen recommendations, the commission calls for the outright repeal of a 1997 Medicare payment formula, though Congress avoids it each year through the “doc fix,” a fiscal patch that maintains physicians’ payments from the government even when the formula calls for a cut.
Federal lawmakers, particularly select committees in the Republican-controlled House, have made the repeal of the formula, known as the sustainable growth rate, one of their key priorities in the new Congress.
Last month, the Congressional Budget Office significantly lowered its estimate of what it would cost to repeal the sustainable growth rate and pay doctors the current rate from $245 billion over the course of 10 years to $138 billion. While the drastic reduction in its price tag makes the goal more viable, the question of pinpointing the off-setting cuts is “a thorny one that has generated a wide variety of responses,” the commission said in its report.
Yet the 14-member panel co-led by former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a surgeon by trade, says it knows where to look, citing a 2011 Institute of Medicine report that found more than $750 billion in excess costs from six key issues: overuse of medical services, inefficient delivery of service, high administrative costs, missed prevention opportunities, fraud and prices that were simply too high.
Commission Chairman Steven Schroeder said he hopes people will look at their recommendation and “say it makes a lot of sense,” but he has realistic expectations about consensus on Capitol Hill.
“If I bet a lot of money on what would happen in politics,” he said, “I’d be a lot poorer than I am now.”
Reps. Allyson Y. Schwartz, Pennsylvania Democrat, and Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Republican, put forth the bill to replace the sustainable growth rate with more predictable payments based on quality of care. Their goal is generally supported by the commission’s new report, which calls for a five-year transition into a fixed-payment system after ample testing of various models.
Mr. Schroeder said his commission did not pay much attention to activity on the Hill when it crafted its proposals, but its report does find common ground with the bipartisan legislation and a proposal from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that was distributed last month.
Physicians’ groups have widely supported the legislative efforts, citing the uncertainty surrounding looming cuts each year ahead of the “doc fix” and the need for a permanent solution.
Jeremy A. Lazarus, president of the American Medical Association, said many of the commission’s ideas are consistent with the association’s policies, but noted that “much of this report reflects the view of only one specialty and does not reflect the broad, diverse field of medicine.”
The insinuation was that the report offers an internist’s point of view, since the commission was created by the Society of General Internal Medicine.
Mr. Schroeder said the likelihood of entitlement reform is greater than ever amid budget constraints and the public debate over spending.
Prominent Republicans have said entitlement reforms must be the precursor to any grand bargain that includes new revenues in the politically risky debate over the nation’s fiscal path. And President Obama, addressing across-the-board spending cuts that took effect last week, told reporters on Friday he is be willing to take on Medicare spending and “push my Democratic friends to do hard things.”
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Tom Howell Jr. covers politics for The Washington Times. He can be reached at email@example.com.
- Very religious still lean toward GOP, reflecting long-term patterns, Gallup poll shows
- Number-crunchers put GOP chances of retaking Senate at 60 percent: report
- Rep. Mike Rogers: Lock Israel-Palestine negotiators in a room
- Medicare trust fund to last 4 years longer: Obama administration
- Fla. voters' support for medical marijuana bodes well for ballot measure: poll
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
- White House says Russia 'losing' war in Ukraine
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Illegal immigrants demand representation in White House meetings
- Iraqi Christians rally at White House: 'Obama, Obama, where are you?'
- EPSTEIN: All IRS roads lead to the archivist
- Border surge puts Obama legacy on immigration at stake
- Inside the Beltway: Republican posse rides out to fire Harry Reid
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- KUHNER: Will Russia-Ukraine be Europe's next war?
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq