Physicians
PhysicianLeaders
e-Newsletter
Blogs
Industry Surveys
Breakthroughs Reports
Events
Sponsored
Departments Add News Widget

Why the New Public Option is Better for Physicians

Elyas Bakhtiari, for HealthLeaders Media, November 12, 2009

Physicians may have dodged a bullet with the House of Representatives' passage of healthcare reform legislation on Saturday. Instead of tying provider payments to Medicare rates, the public insurance option in HR 3962 requires the government to negotiate with physicians, which could have a big impact on the final levels of reimbursement.

Set aside for a moment the debate over whether or not a public option should be included in the first place. Even among proponents of the public option, there has been disagreement for months about how such a program should be structured and, specifically, how it should pay providers.

Some wanted to tie reimbursement levels to Medicare rates, which, as you already know, often don't cover the costs of care and are generally much lower than rates paid by private insurers. The idea was to keep premiums and costs for the plan low by paying providers a little less, but most physicians weren't too keen on the idea of having more of their payer mix affected by the Sustainable Growth Rate formula and annual payment cuts like the pending 21% reduction set to take effect in January. The AMA and some other physician groups lobbied against this method, and early on it looked like the only concession they had earned from the House was a promise to pay 5% higher than Medicare.

But the thing to keep in mind about the healthcare reform process is that most of the debate over healthcare from July until fairly recently has only been committee work. The public option that physicians thought they were getting in August has turned out different from the public option in the final House bill, and it may still change before all is said and done. The Senate still has to pass its own bill, and then the House and Senate versions will be merged into a final piece of legislation.

At this point, I would say the odds are good that if a public insurance option is included in a final bill, it will retain negotiated payment rates. The House was always expected to produce the more "robust" public option, which would then have to be pared down when it came time to merge with a Senate bill that was expected to contain a more watered-down version, if it included a public plan at all. Now that the House is entering into the final stages with a public plan based on negotiated rates, it's unlikely that the Senate will break character and pass some kind of plan that's tied to Medicare.

So physicians have not only avoided one of their worst fears related to reform, but they may also get a little boost. The bill is expected to cover 96% of the population. While some of the people who are currently showing up at the ED without insurance may end up on Medicaid, which pays even lower than Medicare, some may end up using a public insurance option that will now pay closer to rates established by private payers. Uncompensated care should become rare.

1 | 2
5 comments on "Why the New Public Option is Better for Physicians"


Cecil (2/28/2010 at 9:04 AM)
Give please. Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important. Help me! Please help find sites for: service plan. I found only this - grant. Debt reduction, these polls were affected as benefits before a flexible popes later. The bench's second wealth took to a rebranded culture after a significant system money against bolton wanderers, debt reduction. Waiting for a reply :cool:, Cecil from Malaysia.

rob (11/13/2009 at 3:52 PM)
It is incredibly naive to think that physicians will get a better deal under a public plan if they get to "negotiate" reimbursement. When have you had a successful negotiation with the federal government? A government run public option is guaranteed to drive reimbursement far lower than commercial plans pay. This administration is interested in redistributing wealth, not paying providers fairly.

Ken (11/13/2009 at 10:07 AM)

I am surprised at the naivety about Dr?s believing they are really going to negotiate rates with the government. You already do with Medicare. Since this is the model, what makes you think things will be different in the future? It will always be a take it or leave it type of negotiation.

Should there be the one in a million chance there is a potential negotiation?.have you ever talked with any companies that negotiate with the government? The government will burry you in reasons why their offer is reasonable. They will have all the data. In any negotiation the person with the most data usually comes out the best. Then there is the six months, nine months, years the government can wait before it decides to agree to your rate. Get the picture? Take it or leave it.

Where has anyone heard the Dr will be the one calling the shots in the new healthcare plan? I know, everyone is laughing at that one! Especially those in government.

Face it. A few trillion to the financial markets is OK, a few billion for peoples lives is real difficult. I hope someone can figure out why, other than cronyism, this is the case in the ruling class. Time for Dr?s to become financial manipulators if you want million dollar bonuses. Otherwise get ready for a big pay cut. Things have not turned out as I would have hoped.