Friday, September 10, 2010

Entries for the 'Health Care Reform' Category

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7009807.html

Texas doctors are opting out of Medicare at alarming rates, frustrated by reimbursement cuts they say make participation in government-funded care of seniors unaffordable.

Two years after a survey found nearly half of Texas doctors weren't taking some new Medicare patients, new data shows 100 to 200 a year are now ending all involvement with the program. Before 2007, the number of doctors opting out averaged less than a handful a year.

“This new data shows the Medicare system is beginning to implode,” said Dr. Susan Bailey, president of the Texas Medical Association. “If Congress doesn't fix Medicare soon, there'll be more and more doctors dropping out and Congress' promise to provide medical care to seniors will be broken.”

More than 300 doctors have dropped the program in the last two years, including 50 in the first three months of 2010, according to data compiled by the Houston Chronicle. Texas Medical Association officials, who conducted the 2008 survey, said the numbers far exceeded their assumptions.

The largest number of doctors opting out comes from primary care, a field already short of practitioners nationally and especially in Texas. Psychiatrists also make up a large share of the pie, causing one Texas leader to say, “God forbid that a senior has dementia.”

The opt-outs follow years of declining Medicare reimbursement that culminated in a looming 21 percent cut in 2010. Congress has voted three times to postpone the cut, which was originally to take effect Jan. 1. It is now set to take effect June 1.

Not cost-effective
The uncertainty proved too much for Dr. Guy Culpepper, a Dallas-area family practice doctor who says he wrestled with his decision for years before opting out in March. It was, he said, the only way “he could stop getting bullied and take control of his practice.”

“You do Medicare for God and country because you lose money on it,” said Culpepper, a graduate of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston. “The only way to provide cost-effective care is outside the Medicare system, a system without constant paperwork and headaches and inadequate reimbursement.”

Ending Medicare participation is just one consequence of the system's funding problems. In a new Texas Medical Association survey, opting out was one of the least common options doctors have taken or are planning as a result of declining Medicare funding — behind increasing fees, reducing staff wages and benefits, reducing charity care and not accepting new Medicare patients.

In 2008, 42 percent of Texas doctors participating in the survey said they were no longer accepting all new Medicare patients. Among primary-care doctors, the percentage was 62 percent.

The impact on doctors has not been lost on their patients. Kathy Sweeney, a Houston retiree, twice has been turned away by specialists because they weren't accepting new Medicare patients. She worries her doctors might have to drop her if Medicare cuts go through and they can't afford to continue in the program.

“I've talked to them about the possibility,” said Sweeney, who sent her legislators a letter calling on them to fix Medicare. “They're hanging in there as long as there's not a severe cut, but just thinking I couldn't continue doctor-patient relationships I built up over years is disturbing. Seniors should be able to see the doctors they want.”

The problem dates back to 1997, when Congress passed a balanced budget law that included a Medicare payment formula aimed at reining in spending. The formula, which assumed low growth rates, called for payment cuts if spending exceeded goals, a scenario that occurred year after year as health care costs grew. The scheduled cuts, expected to be modest, turned out to be large.

Congress would overturn the cuts, but their short-term fixes didn't keep up with inflation. The Texas Medical Association says the cumulative effect since 2001 already amounts to an inflation-adjusted cut of 20.9 percent. In 2001, doctors receiving a $1,000 Medicare payment made roughly $410, after taking out operating expenses. In 2010, they'll net $290. If the scheduled 21.2 percent cut goes through, they'd net $72, effectively an 83 percent cut since 2001.

The issue caused the Texas Medical Association to break ranks with the American Medical Association and oppose health care reform efforts throughout 2009. Then TMA President Dr. William Fleming said “reform is doomed to failure” without Medicare reform and called Congress' failure to devise a rational payment plan “an insult to seniors, people with disabilities and military families.”

No surprise to senator
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he isn't surprised by the new opt-out numbers, allowing that Congress' inability to reform Medicare is leaving “seniors without access and breaking the promise we made to them.”

“The problem has been how to eliminate the cuts without running up the deficit,” said Cornyn, responding to blame U.S. Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, placed on the Senate for not passing a House bill that would have provided a longer-term Medicare fix. “There hasn't been the political will, but we really have no choice but to fix it.”

Cornyn acknowledged the task is daunting. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that eliminating scheduled Medicare payment cuts through 2020 would cost $276 billion.

The growth in Texas Medicare opt-outs began in earnest in 2007, when 70 doctors notified Trailblazer Health Enterprises, the state's Medicare carrier, they would no longer participate, up from seven in 2006. The numbers jumped to 151 in 2008, fell back to 135 in 2009 and are on pace for 200 in 2010. From 1998 to 2002, by contrast, no more than three a year opted out.

Now, according to a Texas Medical Association new poll, more than four in 10 doctors are considering the move.

“I've been in practice 24 years, and a lot of my patients got old right along with me,” Culpepper said. “It's stressful to tell them you're leaving Medicare and they're responsible for payments if they want to stay with you. You feel like you're abandoning them.”

Many states in the country are currently facing Medicaid cuts, and South Carolina could potentially be included. We encourage you to read a few of the following stories to learn more about how Medicaid cuts are affecting those states involved. Staying active in the South Carolina Medical Association is key to avoiding such changes to our state's medical programs. We encourage you to listen to our calls to action and to stay involved. 

Nation's Medicaid programs cutting rates to make budget 
http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7985_ES.pdf 

Medicaid rates across the country could be cut as stimulus runs out
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/10/12/gvl11012.htm 

Is Medicaid a right? Are Medicaid rate cuts Constitutional? 
http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2010/04/21/is-access-to-medicaid-a-right/comment-page-1/ 

Dear Colleague:
A mention of the name "Scott Brown" a few months or even weeks ago in South Carolina's physician community would not have even garnered the slightest of reactions. But Scott Brown's recent victory in the Massachusetts United States Senate race has elicited such a thunder of loud cheers, broad smiles, and high fives around our offices that we've wondered whether we are practicing medicine in a football stadium. No matter your personal political persuasion, there is no denying last week's outcome in Massachusetts could prove to be a game changer with respect to federal healthcare reform. At the same time, there remains a very good likelihood that some form of the healthcare bill will pass, much of which could still prove to be fatal to the practice of medicine as we know it.

At the very least, there is hope that the national leadership will take the Massachusetts election as impetus to consider a divergent approach to addressing our national healthcare crisis. The SCMA opposes the current healthcare reform legislation, but we remain firmly committed to what we believe is true reform of our broken healthcare system. In order to cure the healthcare system, we must free it from unnecessary intrusion by the government and other third party payers. Tort reform must also be a significant part of any reform effort. Additionally, the following principles are essential to a patient-centered health care system:

1. Choice of Health Plan. Every person in the United States should have the ability to choose his or her health insurance plan. This goal is realistic and achievable by restructuring the tax code. Patients should not be required to enroll in and physicians should not be required to participate in any particular health plan.

2. Choice of Physician. Every person in America should have the ability to choose his or her physician. This goal can be achieved by assuring patients have the right to privately contract with the physicians of their choice.

3. The Right to Privately Contract. The right to privately contract is the touchstone of American freedom and liberty. Patients should have the right to choose their doctor and to enter into agreements as to the fees for services the doctor provides. Today, in some instances, it is illegal for a physician to waive or reduce his/her fee. By allowing patients to privately contract with their physicians, patients will have greater access to physicians and the government will have budget certainty.

4. Determination of Quality Care. The determination of quality care must be made by the medical profession, not by the government. Standards of care are currently developed, adopted and implemented by physicians through their specialty medical societies. Legislation allowing the government or other third party payers to make determinations of what constitutes quality medical care is rooted in cost containment. Provisions such as those that relate to Comparative Effectiveness Research that can be tied to payment or coverage determinations (i.e. payment for the most "effective" care) interfere in the patient-physician relationship and are not in the patient's best interest.

Let us take what will likely prove to be a short calm in the storm as our national leadership regroups to let our voices be heard. Please call your US House Representative and Senators to let them know there is a better way to reform.  

 

 
   
The following letter is the third in a series of letters detailing the SCMA's position on the current federal health care reform legislation.

Dear Colleague:

We physicians are already government employees. Currently, the percentage of South Carolina citizens over the age of 65, most of whom are enrolled in Medicare, is 13 percent. The Medicaid population is 18 percent and rapidly rising. Many of us work for federal or state hospitals. One way or another, most of us have at least some connection to a government payer. Nevertheless, with a still-strong private insurance market in the United States, government payers are kept in check from unreasonably reducing payment and gaining too much control. As we discussed last week, the federal health care reform legislation currently being negotiated behind closed doors will likely be an eventual death knell for the insurance industry.

Even if a remnant of the insurance industry survives, the legislation will create a virtual government monopoly. A recent study shows that under the House version of the bill, South Carolina's Medicaid population will balloon to 30 percent (the Senate version results in an increase to 28 percent). Coupled with this increase is more stringent oversight and additional mandates from the federal government. The state insurance exchanges created by the federal legislation will cover non-Medicaid patients up to 400 percent of federal poverty level (FPL). As in Medicaid, the insurance options in the exchange will be heavily regulated by the federal government. If we add the Medicaid population to those South Carolina citizens that would fall into the 400 percent of FPL, 71 percent of South Carolinians will be in these heavily regulated programs. Add to this number the 13 percent of our population over the age of 65 and it is clear how tightly squeezed any surviving private insurance market will be.

This virtual monopoly will give the government less motivation to keep payments to providers reasonable. Particularly with Medicaid, the extra billion dollar burden of the expansion South Carolina must cover will necessitate provider reimbursement cuts. Physicians getting paid less would probably not result in a public outcry, but the consequential access problems surely will. In the past, the real threat of reducing access has been important enough to stabilize provider rates. Now, we can foresee a federal law similar to one introduced in Massachusetts a few months ago that ties physician licensing to their acceptance of Massachusetts Affordable Health Plan participants (i.e., the entire patient population of Massachusetts). A federal government directly controlling 84 percent of our market could easily do this.

If unreasonably low payments were not enough, physicians will also be subjected to a bigger bureaucracy whose objective will be to dictate the practice of medicine:

  • The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation will test payment and service delivery models;
  • The Institute of Medicine will recommend strategies on administering care and payments that will become regulation unless Congress acts to stop implementation;
  • The Independent Payment Advisory Board will reduce Medicare provider payments. The Innovation Center at CMS will test, evaluate, and expand in Medicare and Medicaid different payment structures to reduce program expenditures;
  • The Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research will determine what health care services and procedures should be used.
In all, there are 111 new agencies, boards, commissions, and grant programs created at the federal government level to administer the unwieldy bureaucracy created by this legislation! This bill could become law, but the details are in the unwritten rules and regulations which may not have any resemblance to the bill and could be fraught with mischief that has not been debated in Congress.

Many of us already work for the federal or state government or serve large Medicaid/Medicare populations and it may be tempting to think not much will change. We must remember we still work in the midst of a relatively competitive environment. The federal government does not have a monopoly on health care. All indications suggest this will no longer be the case if health care reform legislation passes.

Let us continue to be vigilant in encouraging our fellow physicians to voice our concerns to our Congressional delegation. It is not too late, but we are nearing a precipice.

Sincerely,
 
 Contact your leaders today and voice your opinions.
Senator Jim DeMint
(202) 224-6121

Senator Lindsey Graham
(202) 224-5972 

Congressman Bob Inglis
(202) 225-6030 

Congressman Joe Wilson 
(202) 225-2452
Congressman John Spratt 
(202) 225-5501 

Congressman James Clyburn 
(202)225-3315 

Congressman Gresham Barrett 
(202) 225-5301 

Congressman Henry Brown 
(202) 225-3176
The following letter is the second in a series of letters detailing the SCMA's position on the current federal health care reform legislation.

Dear Colleague:
Insurance reform has been on the SCMA's political agenda for as long as insurance companies have attempted to assume control of the practice of medicine. The federal healthcare reform legislation currently being negotiated behind closed doors by the House and Senate addresses many issues that the SCMA has with the insurance industry. To begin with the positive aspects, the current reform bills would prevent insurance companies from denying patient's access to coverage due to pre-existing conditions as well as limit rescission of coverage. Further, they require insurance companies to devote, at a minimum, 80 to 85% of their revenue towards health benefits. Much of the reform, in addition to the subsidies and tax credits available for the purchase of health insurance, will mean some patients who have been previously denied health coverage or access to health insurance will be able to purchase coverage and access the quality care they need.

Although some of the insurance reform will be beneficial for our patients who have not been able to access or maintain coverage, the problems in the bill are glaring. This reform virtually insures skyrocketing insurance premium rates and the eventual collapse of the insurance industry. With weakened individual and employer mandates, in addition to new laws requiring insurers to accept any person at any time, it is probable many will pay the small fine and not purchase health insurance until they need a particular service. This combined with more stringent rating requirements and mandated policy benefits will result either in increased premiums or, more likely, the destruction of the insurance industry. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners recognized this in a January 6 letter to Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi in which they requested a higher penalty for failure to purchase health insurance coverage, forecasting that a weak mandate could "fatally undermine" all of health care reform.

As insurance premiums are rising, a novel 40% excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans will compel employers who have offered generous insurance coverage for decades to reduce these generous benefits. The argument suggesting that taxing Cadillac plans could slow healthcare spending has some merit, at least from a myopic perspective. Yet, additional out-of-pocket expenses for patients will result in the avoidance of seeking necessary treatment, which will lead to longer term costs in what could have been prevented with an earlier visit to a physician. With nearly 25% of insurance plans forecasted to come within the "Cadillac" provision by 2019, this excessive tax will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers, producing a middle class tax increase. Maybe instead of "Cadillac" plans these should be called "Sub-Compact Hatchback" plans.

Even after turning the insurance industry upside-down and investing $900 billion-plus in insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion, the healthcare reform bills will still leave either 18 or 23 million uninsured, depending on whether the House or Senate plan prevails. These numbers projected by the Congressional Budget Office, which probably underestimate the uninsured that will remain, combined with the anticipated higher insurance premiums and eventual destruction of the insurance industry suggest that insurance reform is not what Congress is trying to do. Congress is creating a system destined to fail. When it fails, a government-run public option for all health care consumers will be the order of the day. Unfortunately, Medicare for all is not salvation. It creates bondage for physicians as the government dictates the practice of medicine, and bondage for patients as they wait six months for a simple procedure that today they would get within a week that today would be available in a week's time. Redemption from this bondage is still possible. We must urge our leaders to start over.


Sincerely,
 
 Contact your leaders today and voice your opinions.
Senator Jim DeMint
(202) 224-6121

Senator Lindsey Graham
(202) 224-5972 

Congressman Bob Inglis
(202) 225-6030 

Congressman Joe Wilson 
(202) 225-2452
Congressman John Spratt  
(202) 225-5501 

Congressman James Clyburn 
(202)225-3315 

Congressman Gresham Barrett 
(202) 225-5301 

Congressman Henry Brown 
(202) 225-3176
Page 1 of 7First   Previous   [1]  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next   Last   
Current Articles
Minimize
Health Care Reform Archives
Minimize

Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2010 by SC Medical Assn