Fate of Medicare Pay Raise Hinges on
Contentious SCHIP Negotiations
By David Glendinning,
American Medical News
August 2007
Just before leaving
Washington
for their August break, House lawmakers passed a measure that would
prevent Medicare physician pay cuts for the next two years. But final
approval is far from certain.
The move is part of legislation to reauthorize and
expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Children's
Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007, passed by the House on Aug. 1,
would turn the 9.9% and 5% Medicare payment reductions expected in 2008
and 2009 into 0.5% increases for each year.
The next day the Senate passed the Children's Health
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, which would renew and boost
SCHIP but not change Medicare physician pay.
When Congress reconvenes in September, a conference
committee will try to craft a compromise between the two substantially
different bills. Because SCHIP will expire Sept. 30 without congressional
intervention, lawmakers are under a tight timetable.
"America
's doctors urge Congress to expedite the conference process," said
American Medical Association Board of Trustees Chair Edward L. Langston,
MD. "Working together, we are confident that members of Congress from
both chambers and both sides of the aisle can find common ground so that
children and seniors will continue to have access to needed health care
services."
But survival of the Medicare physician piece in the
House legislation is not a sure thing, say Senate leadership aides. Key
Republican senators are seeking assurances that the conference committee
will not broaden the scope of the Senate measure in crafting a final bill.
If negotiators agree, this would necessitate jettisoning the physician pay
boost and other Medicare provisions in the House bill and trying to pass
them separately.
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D, Mont.),
who was instrumental in hammering out a bipartisan compromise on the SCHIP
bill, has said he would prefer to address the Medicare issues separately.
Other major stumbling blocks are the veto threats that
President Bush issued against both measures. He argued that they would
usher in too large an expansion of government-run health care. The Senate
bill passed by a vote of 68-31 -- enough to override a presidential veto
if all of the measure's supporters remain on board. But the House bill
passed only by a largely party-line vote of 225-204, not a veto-proof
margin.
Senate Republicans have voiced concern about the size
of the House bill's SCHIP expansion and the inclusion of the Medicare
provisions. While none have publicly come out against doctor pay relief,
several have blasted the proposed elimination of Medicare subsidies to
private health plans. The House bill includes this provision as a way to
provide some of the additional dollars for physicians.
Supporters of the House Medicare provisions, including
the AMA and AARP, have counted on the popularity of SCHIP to help give the
Medicare priorities some momentum on Capitol Hill. But the Senate bill may
very well lose its veto-proof majority if the conference committee starts
heading in the direction laid out by the House bill, said Senate Minority
Whip Trent Lott (R, Miss.).
Some lawmakers are predicting that the substantial gulf
between the two bills could force Congress to take interim action to
protect SCHIP beyond the end of September while it battles over the rest
of the details. "We may end up having to pass a short-term extension
of current law for a few months before work is finished on
reauthorization," said Senate Finance Committee Ranking Republican
Charles Grassley (Iowa).
Other Medicare
enhancements
Medicare physician payment increases in 2008 and 2009
are not the only Medicare provisions in the House bill that would affect
doctors.
The measure aims to improve spending targets that are
written into the payment formula by establishing separate conversion
factors for different types of physician services, such as preventive care
and imaging.
Spending on doctor-administered medicines would be
removed from the formula, and expenditure targets would account for the
increased spending associated with Medicare coverage expansions -- two
moves favored by the AMA that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services has not adopted administratively.
The legislation would eliminate a $1.35 billion
physician payment and quality improvement fund established by Congress
last year and use the money to help prevent the next two years of cuts.
CMS recently said it would tap that fund to pay for quality bonuses for
physicians participating in a voluntary reporting program, rather than to
reduce the size of the pay reductions for all doctors.
The legislation also would extend for another two years
a number of rural health provisions set to expire. These include a floor
on geographic adjustments to the relative value of physician services, as
well as incentive payments for physicians who work in underserved areas.
In addition, the House bill offers a large-scale
demonstration of Medicare payment for care coordination through the
patient-centered "medical home" model. This pilot project is
strongly supported by the
American
College
of Physicians, said ACP President David C. Dale, MD.
Another proposed change could threaten specialty
hospitals and other health facilities that have a large degree of
physician ownership. A provision in the House bill would prevent
physicians from referring Medicare patients to such facilities if they are
more than 40% physician-owned or if any one doctor has more than a 2%
share. The resulting loss of Medicare income could force some specialty
hospitals to close their doors.
"The AMA continues to support physician-owned
hospitals as one way to provide patients with high-quality care, and we
are concerned about restrictions on them in the legislation," Dr.
Langston said. "We will continue to work with members of Congress on
the physician provisions of the legislation during the conference process,
including working to keep the doors open at physician-owned
hospitals."
But specialty hospitals -- which typically focus on
surgical, cardiac or orthopedic care -- would not be the only ones
affected. Any hospital offering general medical care that is owned by
enough doctors also could be forced to close under the referral
prohibition, said David L. Weber, MD, CEO of Wenatchee (Wash.) Valley
Medical Center, which is not a specialty hospital but is 100%
physician-owned.
House leadership aides would not say who added the
Medicare referral language to the children's health and Medicare bill.
Several lawmakers in both houses have said that physician-owned specialty
hospitals create a dangerous conflict of interest for doctors and threaten
the stability of community hospitals in their areas.
More Information on US Health Issues