Posts Tagged ‘House of Representatives’
Wednesday, March 9th, 2011
Defying the odds – and facing President Barack Obama’s veto pen – the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA); a move that was DOA in the Senate.
Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, approximately 50 percent of Americans are convinced that the healthcare law has been successfully repealed. A poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found widespread public confusion about the law, with 22 percent of Americans incorrectly believing it has been repealed and another 26 percent unsure or unwilling to say. Even after extensive media coverage of the repeal effort, only 52 percent of Americans accurately responded that the healthcare law remained intact. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “There remains no consensus about whether to keep, expand, replace or repeal the law. Forty-eight percent are opposed to the law, while 43 percent favor it. Sixty-one percent of those polled oppose Congress cutting off funding of the law in order to block it, as many Republican lawmakers are considering.”
The Republican-sponsored repeal bill, curiously named the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act,” passed 245 – 189 with assistance from three Democrats. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has refused to bring repeal to the Senate floor for a vote. President Obama has vowed to veto any repeal effort. Republicans have not introduced an alternative bill, although Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) said Republicans will ask congressional committees to make “common-sense reforms” to expand coverage and cut costs, but told reporters no “artificial deadlines” were needed.
“As has been true since early in the debate, individual provisions of the new law are more popular than the law itself, complicating the debate over repeal,” the study notes. “So while the public in general is divided over whether to keep or repeal the legislation, if they could pick and choose, the large majority (roughly eight in 10 Americans) would keep the provisions providing tax credits to small businesses, and upward of seven in 10 would keep the provisions that close the Medicare doughnut hole, provide coverage subsidies to those of low and moderate income, institute the new voluntary long-term care insurance program known as the CLASS Act, and prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.”
According to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 32 percent of Americans would like to see the law repealed; 13 percent want to see the bill left as it stands. The poll found that 29 percent of Americans want to see minor changes and that 24 percent want major changes. Representative Ben Chandler, (D-KY), who voted against the law last year, said he voted against repeal because he thinks the law’s “bad” parts should be repealed piece by piece. “I will not vote to repeal parts of the law that protect central Kentuckians by preventing insurance companies from dropping people if they get sick, ending lifetime caps on coverage and eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions,” Chandler said.
Implementation of the law is continuing as planned, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “I want the people who are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act — including families, seniors and small business owners — to know that this vote does not change the law and that this department will continue to work every day to implement this vital law.”
Tags: "Repealing The Job-Killing Health Care Law Act", CLASS Act, Democrats, Department of Health and Human Services, Healthcare law, House of Representatives, Kaiser Family Foundation, Kaiser Health News, Kathleen Sebelius, Medicare doughnut hole, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, pre-existing conditions, President Barack Obama, repeal, Representative Ben Chandler, Representative John Boehner, Republicans, Senate, Senator Harry Reid, Speaker of the House, USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, Veto
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 8th, 2011
President Barack Obama is calling the states’ bluff on implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) by allowing them to opt out of its most onerous requirements three years earlier than currently permitted. Speaking at a meeting of the National Governors Association, Obama specifically pointed to a proposal from Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Scott Brown (R-MA) which he endorsed as a flexible approach. “If you can come up with a better system for your state to provide coverage of the same quality and affordability as the Affordable Care Act, you can take that route instead,” Obama said, noting that, “If your state can create a plan that covers as many people as affordably and comprehensively as the Affordable Care Act does, without increasing the deficit, you can implement that plan and we’ll work with you to do it.”
The president endorsed the proposal to allow states to apply for “innovation waivers” beginning in 2014, three years earlier than originally scheduled. Under the terms of these waivers, states would be exempt from several of the law’s requirements if they set up their own method of adequately expanding coverage. The “individual mandate” is the focus of multiple state lawsuits by states that contend it is unconstitutional.
The Obama administration has posted a detailed fact sheet on the proposal on the White House website. Additionally, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has blogged about it.
Despite lingering opposition to the healthcare reform law, the Obama administration is moving ahead with its implementation. Over the last 10 months, HHS has made $2.8 billion available to states to help them start reforming their healthcare systems. These funds let the states invest in improvements. These investments are showing signs of progress thanks to more comprehensive oversight of insurance premium increases, new rights and protections for consumers, additional choices for people living with medical conditions, and the elimination of some of the worst insurance industry practices.
The bipartisan proposal’s future is uncertain, with both Democrats and Republicans casting wary eyes at it. Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA), the House majority leader, said the healthcare law is “an impediment to job growth” and that he is still committed to repealing the ACA. “I was disappointed,” said Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) and chairman of the Republican Governors Association. “Pretty much all he did was to reset the clock on what many of us consider a ticking time bomb that is absolutely going to crash our state budgets. The states need more than that.” Even some Democrats are cautious because they believe that it is impossible to expand healthcare coverage and reduce the deficit without the federal mandate. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) said “We want to give states as much flexibility as possible, but that flexibility shouldn’t fail to ensure that Americans in every state have access to quality, affordable healthcare.”
Writing in the Washington Monthly, Steve Benen asks “So, how big a deal is this? It marks a fairly significant departure from the administration’s status quo, but at its root, what we’re seeing is the White House call Republicans’ bluff. The GOP is convinced it can offer comparable coverage at comparable prices using Republican-friendly policies. Today, in effect, the president said, ‘Be my guest.’ Why? Because Obama knows it’ll take more than tort reform and HSAs to make the system work, and he sees a political upside to watching GOP officials scramble to actually craft their own plans, rather than bash his.”
President Obama also made it clear that the federal government is moving forward with healthcare reform. “I am not open to refighting the battles of the past two years or undoing the progress that we have made, but I am willing to work with anyone, governors or members of Congress, to make this law better…and fix what needs fixing,” Obama said.
Tags: 1099 problem, Department of Health and Human Services, Federal mandate, Flexibility, GOP, Governor Rick Perry, Governors, Healthcare law, healthcare reform law, House of Representatives, Innovation waivers, Kathleen Sebelius, National Governors Association, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama, repeal, Representative Eric Cantor, Republican Governors Association, Senator Max Baucus, Senator Ron Wyden, Senator Scott Brown, Steve Benen, Unconstitutional, Washington Monthly, White House website, “Innovation waivers”
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011
In a move that builds on the healthcare reforms contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – and one that will make physicians very happy — President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2012 budget includes $250 million in grants over the next three years to subsidize efforts to help the states overhaul their medical liability laws. If the budget passes, the grants will be administered by the Justice Department in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As much as $100 million will be disbursed in fiscal 2012, with $50 million in each of the succeeding three years. According to the Justice Department’s budget outline, the grants will fuel reforms that “fairly compensate patients who are harmed by negligence, reduce providers’ insurance premiums, weed out frivolous lawsuits, improve the quality of healthcare, and reduce medical costs associated with defensive medicine.” The grants build upon $25 million in grants HHS awarded last June through the Agency for HealthCare Research and Quality safety and medical liability demonstration projects by states and health systems.
“I think the president is very serious about following up on this,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, whose agency would advise the Justice Department on awarding the grants, told the Senate Finance Committee. Specific reforms might exclude caps on jury awards that the American Medical Association and Republican lawmakers have wanted for years. At the same time, they include measures unacceptable to trial lawyers, a group that contributes heavily to Democratic candidates.
Philip K. Howard, chairman of Common Good, described the budget item as “A very significant moment for controlling healthcare costs.” Based in New York, Common Good has taken the lead in supporting special courts in which judges with healthcare backgrounds would resolve medical liability cases. “With this budget item, President Obama is moving beyond bipartisanship and, in effect, saying that the country can no longer afford the rising healthcare costs that defensive medicine unnecessarily fuels,” Howard said. President Obama also called for tort reform legislation in his 2011 State of the Union address.
The cost of defensive medicine to American healthcare consumers is not easy to estimate. Conservative estimates place the cost at approximately $50 billion a year. The Obama debt commission estimated that its recommendations could save government programs $17 billion through 2020, calling for an aggressive effort to rewrite malpractice laws.
Gibson Vance, president of the American Association for Justice, described the proposal as “bad policy and bad for patients.” The president’s proposal also got a chilly reception from congressional Republicans, who contend that he has promised more on malpractice than he has been able to deliver. Obama initially voiced an interest in the issue during the lengthy healthcare reform debate. He has opposed another malpractice alternative: capping the amount a patient can receive in a medical liability case. This alternative is favored by many physicians and Republicans, but opposed by the majority of Democrats.
“These grants will help states reform their laws to pursue innovative approaches that will improve the quality of healthcare, fairly compensate patients who are harmed by negligence, reduce medical costs and liability, and protect patient safety,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.
Tags: 2012 budget, Agency for HealthCare Research and Quality, American Association for Justice, American Medical Association, Bipartisanship, Common Good, Defensive medicine, Democrats, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, Frivolous lawsuits, House of Representatives, Kathleen Sebelius, Medical liability laws, medical malpractice, Obama debt commission, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama, Republicans, Senate Finance Committee, State of the Union Address, tort reform
Posted in General, Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »
Monday, February 14th, 2011
The Republican House of Representatives’ attempt to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was DOA — as expected — in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Voting along strict party lines, all 50 Democratic Senators who were present and one Independent gave the repeal a thumbs down. All 47 Republican Senators voted in favor of repeal. Two Senators – one a Democrat and the other an Independent – were not present to vote.
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) delivered a scornful speech during the heated debate, saying the Republicans are offering “one more hollow, symbolic pander-to-the-masses amendment. If you want to rewrite the bill, keep your promise, Republican Party, that if you want to repeal, then let’s go replace. I want to hear their ideas for replacement. I challenge them right here, right now, today on this amendment.” Not surprisingly, Republican Senate leaders disagree with Senator Mikulski’s stance. “We think it is just the beginning,” Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KR-KY) said Wednesday after the Senate voted to reject an amendment he offered to repeal the law. “This issue is still ahead of us and we will be going back at it in a variety of ways,” McConnell noted. “We’ll be looking at it in every different way to revisit it.”
The Republicans can claim a small victory as the Senate voted to repeal the 1099 requirement that was a highly unpopular inclusion in the healthcare reform law. Many perceived this as a tax on healthcare consumers and small businesses because it required anyone performing a transaction equaling $600 or more to file a 1099 form with the IRS. The cost of the requirement had the potential to add up to 40 percent for some small businesses, which could have resulted in closures or layoffs. The amendment passed the Senate by an 81 – 19 vote and has President Barack Obama’s support. Opponents of the amendment, such as Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), said that Congress, not the White House, should wield the budget-cutting ax.
The Senate’s actions come on the heels of a decision by Florida Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson that it is unconstitutional for Congress to pass a healthcare law that requires Americans to obtain insurance coverage. Judge Vinson’s decision created a 2 – 2 tie in lower courts. According to Judge Vinson’s decision, “The act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.”
Judge Vinson’s decision increases the likelihood that the Affordable Care Act will end up in front of a Republican-dominated Supreme Court. “A year ago, it was a long shot,” said Randy Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University. “Now, it’s seen as a 5 to 4 case. And nobody’s sure which way the 5 – 4 will come down.” The stakes are enormous for the defining achievement of the Obama presidency. The decision also has the potential to define the limits of federal power for generations. “This case could define federalism for the next 100 years,” said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University constitutional law professor. “This is a very difficult case for the Supreme Court as an institution. You have a slight majority of the states opposing it. You have a national law that’s affecting hundreds of billions of dollars and services. This is the type of case the justices do not relish.”
Additionally, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has asked the Supreme Court to fast track his state’s challenge to the healthcare law, saying he thinks the legal dispute has become so important that the nation’s highest court should take it up immediately. “We want to eliminate the uncertainty in both our governmental budgets and in the private sector,” he said. “We want to eliminate at least the uncertainty associated with health care.” The Obama administration opposed the move, saying the case should follow the regular process. This would put off until 2012 a Supreme Court ruling on the law that aims to provide more than 30 million uninsured Americans with medical coverage and cracks down on unpopular insurance industry practices.
Tags: 1099 requirement, Democrats, Federalism, Florida, Florida Federal District Court, George Washington University, Georgetown University, House of Representatives, Judge Roger Vinson, Ken Cuccinelli, Layoffs, Obamacare, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama, repeal, Republicans, Senate, Senator Barbara Mikulski, Senator Carl Levin, Senator Mitch McConnell, small business, Tax, Unconstitutional, uninsured Americans, United States Supreme Court
Posted in Hospital Systems, Hospitals | No Comments »
Wednesday, February 9th, 2011
A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) study reveals that as many as half of all Americans under the age of 65 have pre-existing medical conditions, which could mean rejection by insurance companies or having to pay more for coverage. According to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, that totals approximately 169 million people. The report says that, of those Americans who are uninsured, 17 to 46 percent have pre-existing medical conditions, depending on the definition used. Such health problems are particularly common among adults aged 55 to 64 – a group long recognized as a problem spot in the healthcare system, because people of that age tend to have higher medical expenses but are too young to qualify for Medicare.
A Democratic analysis, released last fall by Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), then the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said that between 2007 and 2009, the nation’s four largest private health insurers denied coverage to about 650,000 people based on their medical history.
“Not surprisingly, as people age, their likelihood of having – or having had – a health condition increases,” according to Sebelius. “Looking only at pre-existing conditions used in determining eligibility for high-risk pools, the percentage of Americans with these health conditions ranges from five percent of children to 48 percent of people ages 55 to 64. Adding in common conditions that major insurers generally use in medical underwriting raises the risk to 24 percent for children, increasing to 86 percent for people ages 55 to 64.”
Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry’s lobbying group, offers a different opinion, noting that “We’ve long supported reforming the individual insurance market so that everybody can have access to health-care coverage, regardless of their preexisting medical conditions. But this report exaggerates the number of people who are impacted.”
Rick Ungar, who writes for Forbes, offers another perspective and asks if pre-existing conditions are an indication that the American Dream is dead. According to Ungar — who is an attorney in Southern California, and a frequent writer, speaker and consultant on healthcare policy and politics – his initial reaction to the government report was “Yeah…it made me suspicious too. Go figure that this extraordinary government revelation would surface on the very day the House is taking up debate on the repeal of healthcare reform.”
Ungar’s suspicion eased when he read this additional quote from Zirkelbach. “Most of the Americans included in the figures currently have insurance. They would be at risk,” he said, “only if they needed to change coverage and buy it on their own. People who get insurance through their jobs are guaranteed coverage.” Alter+Care Inspire notes that an additional reason might be people losing their jobs – something to consider at a time when the private sector has been so sluggish.
“And there it was,” according to Ungar. “This spokesman for the nation’s pre-eminent health insurance lobby was not only acknowledging that there are millions upon millions of people with pre-existing conditions who could be denied healthcare coverage, he was actually telling us that we need not worry about them because – so long as they continue to get their insurance through their job – it’s all good. But what if they want to leave their job to engage in some good, old-fashioned American entrepreneurialism? Did Mr. Zirkelbach inadvertently direct our attention to the depressing reality that up to one-half of all Americans may not be free to pursue their futures and fortunes as they see fit because they are trapped in their jobs by their healthcare benefits? You bet he did.”
Tags: American Dream, America’s Health Insurance Plans, Democrats, Department of Health and Human Services, Entrepreneurialism, Forbes, healthcare coverage, healthcare reform, Henry A. Waxman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Kathleen Sebelius, Medicare, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, pre-existing conditions, President Barack Obama, Republicans, Rick Ungar, Senate
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »
Tuesday, February 8th, 2011
With Democrats in control of the Senate and Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, a battle royal is shaping up on Capitol Hill over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – aka the healthcare reform law. The house has already passed a bill that symbolically repeals the law, and each chamber is holding hearings – the Senate Democrats to sing the praises of healthcare reform and the House Republicans to point out what is wrong with it. Named “Repealing The Job-Killing Health Care Law Act”, the legislation passed the House and is expected to be dead on arrival in the Senate. “The ‘job killing’ charge is ‘demonstrably ridiculous’: The GOP’s ‘farcical’ claim that healthcare reform will cause job losses is ‘transparently false,’” according to Steve Benen, writing in a Washington Monthly article.
Although polls show little change in Americans’ understanding of the law, Democrats see the GOP-driven debate as giving them another opportunity to tout the bill’s benefits. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research, says that strategy could be particularly effective with women, a critical voting group. “They’re the healthcare voters and the healthcare decision makers,” she said. Lake warns that Democrats need to shift the dialogue from how the law impacts the federal budget to stories about real people and how the new law has helped them. “You win women back by telling them that if their kids have asthma and it’s a pre-existing condition, they won’t be covered anymore,” she said. The law’s symbolic repeal, according to Lake, is “the first sign of tension that Republicans face of how do you keep the tea party base and still appeal to independent women who were the key swing voters in 2010 and will be again in 2012.”
President Barack Obama suggested in his State of the Union speech that he is open to fixing some parts of the Affordable Care Act. “President Obama outlined a vision for our nation’s future that includes key American Medical Association priorities, such as lowering healthcare costs through medical liability reform, improvements to the new health reform law and investments in biomedical research,” said AMA president Dr. Cecil Wilson. Additionally, Wilson is pleased that the president acknowledged that certain improvements should be made, such as eliminating the 1099 filing requirement that requires businesses to file a form with the Internal Revenue Service for every vendor with which they have had at least $600 in transactions. The president stressed that he will not turn back the clock completely. “What I’m not willing to do…is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a preexisting condition,” he said.
One group that is applauding the symbolic repeal of the healthcare law is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and has pledged to fight government regulations that it believes will challenge American competitiveness.
In the recent “State of American Business”, Chamber president Thomas Donahue said “Workers who have been banking on employer-based coverage when they retire are being told not to count on it. And as premiums rise, thanks in part to the law’s new mandates, many companies are thinking about ending their employer-based plans, and moving workers into government-run exchanges. By mid-December, HHS had already granted 222 waivers to the law—a revealing acknowledgement that the law is unworkable. And, with key provisions under challenge in the courts by states and others, it’s time to go back to the drawing board.”
Tags: "Repealing The Job-Killing Health Care Law Act", 1099 filing requirement, American Medical Association, Biomedical research, Democrats, Department of Health and Human Services, Government regulations, healthcare reform law, House of Representatives, Internal Revenue Service, Lake Research, Medical liability reform, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama, repeal, Republicans, Senate, State of the Union speech, Steve Benen, Tea Party, U. S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington Monthly
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »
Monday, January 17th, 2011
If the Republicans who now control the House of Representatives succeed in repealing the Affordable Care Act – and it’s likely that the Senate will quickly squelch that effort — their action has the potential to increase the federal deficit by $230 billion, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO’s analysis says that repeal of President Barack Obama’s signature legislative victory also will leave 32 million Americans without healthcare coverage. While some health insurance premiums would be less costly, the CBO analysts estimates that if the law is repealed, consumers will have less coverage and will end up paying more if they lose the subsidies that the new law mandates.
Republicans — who are trying to characterize themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility – quickly dismissed the CBO’s analysis as unrealistic. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), said “CBO is entitled to their opinion. I do not believe that repealing the job-killing healthcare law will increase the deficit.”
Although the repeal may survive a vote in the Republican-controlled House, It is unlikely to make any headway in the Senate. Even conservative Democratic Senators like Ben Nelson (D-NE) oppose repeal. Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) said “The majority of the Senate still believes in healthcare reform. We also believe that the only perfect bill ever enacted was carried down the mountain by Senator Moses. Every other effort has needed some visitation, reconsideration, and this will too.”
Republican members of the House Rules Committee said a resounding “no” to attempts by Democrats to amend the repeal resolution to protect parts of the law, such as expanding access to mammograms for women and putting new restrictions on insurance companies. Democrats reacted derisively, noting “You’re saying, ‘Let’s repeal this bill. We don’t have a replacement. Trust us,’” said Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA). “So much for the open process. There is none.”
Tags: Affordable Care Act, Congressional Budget Office, Democrats, Federal deficit, Fiscal responsibility, Healthcare reform repeal, House of Representatives, House Rules Committee, Open process, President Barack Obama, Representative Jim McGovern, Representative John Boehner, Representative John Kline, Republicans, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Dick Durbin
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »
Wednesday, December 8th, 2010
The Senate recently passed landmark legislation to make food safer and prevent deadly outbreaks of E. coli and salmonella. The law – if the House of Representatives also gives its blessing – gives the federal government broad powers to step up inspections of food processing facilities and compel firms to recall bad food. The $1.4 billion legislation – which will impose stricter standards on imported foods – sailed through the Senate on a bipartisan 73 – 25 vote. Outbreaks of food-related diseases have strained the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) resources in its efforts to trace the contaminated products and take them off the market.
The legislation emphasizes prevention so the FDA can halt outbreaks before they start. Farmers and food processors will be required to tell the FDA how they are working to keep food safe throughout every stage of production. President Barack Obama hailed the bill’s passage, noting that “We are one step closer to having critically important new tools to protect our nation’s food supply and keep consumers safe.” Despite broad support, the bill had stalled in the Senate because some feared it would harm small-scale farmers. Senator Jon Tester (R-MT) added an amendment that will exempt some of those operations from expensive food safety plans required by bigger producers.
Although the House of Representatives approved the legislation in July of 2009, that bill does not include the same exemption. With little time left in the current lame-duck session of Congress, the question is whether the Senate and House can reconcile the two versions of the bill. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), a sponsor of the legislation, said there is support in the House to pass the Senate version of the bill. If Senator Harkin is correct, the bill could be on its way to the White House for President Obama’s signature before the 111th Congress goes into recess.
Tags: E. coli, Food and Drug Administration, food safety, House of Representatives, Lame-duck Congress, Pew Health Group, President Barack Obama, public health, reconciliation, salmonella, Senate, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Tom Harkin
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »
Monday, December 6th, 2010
Even though Republicans will control the House of Representatives and have a larger presence in the Senate come January, they still are likely to hit some formidable roadblocks in their attempt to repeal the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act. Those roadblocks are such lobbying giants as the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Hospital Association (AHA) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PRMA). The groups are on board with the new healthcare reform law because they will gain an estimated 30 million (or more) new paying customers in the next few years. The reform law is expected to increase payments to physicians and hospitals who have felt squeezed in recent years. Additionally, analysts believe the new law is a major force for job creation in the healthcare sector.
“These guys were onboard for a reason,” said David Dranove, a professor of health enterprise management at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. “Very few employers will drop private health insurance, and you will expand private insurance to 15 million people. If this legislation stands, we are not likely to see new reforms for a generation.”
Primary-care physicians, who are likely to benefit significantly from the healthcare reform law, will see their reimbursements from government insurance programs rise – although many believe the reform law is only the beginning. According to Dr. Cecil Wilson, AMA president, “While the 111th Congress made important improvements to our nation’s healthcare system, more work needs to be done.” Hospitals – which have been hard hit by patients unable to pay their medical bills because of unemployment – will be in better financial shape once more Americans get health insurance subsidies in 2014.
Pharmaceutical companies, which were among reform’s earliest supporters, oppose repeal, even though analysts say it will cost them $100 billion in government rebates. The upside is that the industry will obtain new customers who were previously uninsured and unable to afford the latest brand-name medications. Even the much-maligned insurance companies – who will have more than 15 million new customers – oppose repeal.
Tags: 111th Congress, Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, GOP, Health insurers, healthcare reform law, House of Representatives, Independent Payment Advisory Board, Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, President Barack Obama, primary-care physicians, private insurance, Republicans, Senate
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010
The Senate is on the verge of passing emergency legislation to postpone the 25 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements until January 1, 2011, according to leaders on the Senate Finance Committee. Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) said “Working together, this agreement makes certain that seniors and military families can be confident they will be able to see a doctor and get the medicines they need. It is our hope the Senate will pass this package as soon as possible to give doctors, seniors and military families the care and the certainty they deserve.” The House of Representatives next must pass the bill and send it to President Obama for his signature by December 1. According to the Senators’ statement, the extra funds required to extend the cut will come from the Physician Payment and Therapy Relief Act of 2010.
“Once signed into law by the President, it will mean that seniors and military families are spared the threat of a lapse in care. The next step is moving onto finding a yearlong extension before this fix runs out,” according to Baucus
The American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician groups applauded the Senate’s action. “The Senate’s action to stop the Medicare cut for one month will help avert a healthcare crisis for seniors that would have begun in just two weeks,” said Cecil Wilson, M.D., the AMA’s president. “This is a short-term reprieve and the AMA is urging Congress to pass a one-year fix. Delaying the 25 percent cut to the end of 2011 will inject some stability into the Medicare program for patients and physicians and provide lawmakers with time to develop a long-term solution to the broken physician payment system.”
Tags: American Medical Association, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Congress, House of Representatives, Medicare, Physician Payment and Therapy Relief Act of 2010, President Barack Obama, Senate, Senate Finance Committee, Senator Charles Grassley, Senator Max Baucus, SGR, Sustainable Growth Rate formula, Tricare
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »
