CBO: Physician Payment Bill Would Cost Medicare Beneficiaries
Medicare beneficiaries would pay $49 billion in higher Part B premiums between 2011 and 2019 under a bill (HR 3961) the House will consider Thursday that raises fees for physicians treating Medicare patients, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates.
The bill, a companion to the healthcare reform bill (HR 3962) passed earlier this month by the House, calls for repealing the 21% fee reduction under the current sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula scheduled for January 2010. CBO said that enacting the bill would increase direct spending by about $210 billion over the next decade, but it would not affect federal revenues.
The changes to the SGR formula would increase the fees paid to physicians under Medicare by about $195 billion over the 10 year budget projection window, CBO said. The changes to the formula would also result in higher spending for both the Medicare Advantage (MA) program and the Department of Defense's TRICARE program, which uses Medicare's physician fee schedule to pay for physicians' services.
CBO estimates that changes under the bill would total about $64 billion over the budget window. The MA spending would rise because the benchmarks that Medicare uses to determine how much the program pays for those enrollees "are adjusted for changes in Medicare spending per beneficiary in the fee for service sector," CBO said. The benchmarks have been set for 2010 and will not be changed, so there would be no impact on MA spending until 2011.
In a joint letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), American Medical Association Executive Vice President Michael Maves and AARP CEO Barry Rand wrote that those "who are concerned about deficit spending must recognize that the past practice of 'temporary Band aids' on the SGR problem has only served to increase both the size of future cuts and the cost of subsequent interventions."
Under HR 3961, the SGR would be replaced with a new formula that:
- Removes items, such as drugs and laboratory services not paid directly to practitioners from spending targets
- Allows the volume of most services to grow at the rate of the gross domestic product (GDP) plus 1 percentage point per year (compared to GDP without any adjustment today)
- Allows the volume of primary and preventive care services to grow at GDP plus 2% per year
- Encourages coordinated care by allowing accountable care organizations to be responsible for their own growth paths, irrespective of reductions or increases that apply elsewhere in the system
Last month, in a 53-47 vote, the Senate turned down efforts to repeal SGR formula as proposed in a bill introduced by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). Forty Republicans and 13 Democrats voted against the motion.
Janice Simmons is a senior editor and Washington, DC, correspondent for HealthLeaders Media Online. She can be reached at jsimmons@healthleadersmedia.com.
- Sebelius Lashes Out at Anthem for Premium Increases
- 10 Ways to Improve Handoffs in Your Hospital
- Nurse Anesthetists Say They Practice Safely Without Physician Supervision
- There are Big Bucks in Better Patient Flow
- Doctors Sue To Stop Unsupervised Nurse Anesthetists from Administering Anesthesia
- Can Nurses Drive Health Reform?
- CT Hospital was Prepared for Power Plant Explosion
- Expectant Moms, The White House is Calling
- Texas nurse to stand trial for reporting doctor
- HIPAA Harm Threshold Works, Say Providers

John W (11/19/2009 at 1:56 PM)
The "defined benefit" concept for Part B makes sense to me too. It would give both physicians and patients more flexibility. Short of that, they should look at the premium share paid by higher income beneficiaries. Couples don't begin paying more than the standard 25% share until gross income reaches more than $160k and don't pay the upper range share (80%) until income is more than $430k. On the other hand, I have long wondered why Part B (office visit, non-hospital services) costs nearly $5,000 per beneficiary. I'm 63 and pay slightly more than that for an individual comprehensive plan (hospitalization, office visits, outpatient etc.) with Kaiser in Northern CA.
Ken (11/19/2009 at 10:57 AM)
Want to fix the problem once and for all?
Just have a defined benefit program for Medicare.
Let Dr?s charge what they want.
Specify what Medicare will pay and let the Dr balance bill the patient.
This will introduce some competition.
It will allow Dr?s to charge a reasonable, sustainable fee.
The Government does not need to worry about the sustainable growth rate.
This will lower the money pouring in to change the payment schedule?Oh, never mind.
Ronald Hirsch, MD (11/19/2009 at 10:48 AM)
How can you write an article about this without commenting on what a 21% reimbursement cut would do to physicians who are already accepting payments that barely cover their costs and to patient access to physicians when thousands of physicians stop accepting Medicare patients if this rate cut is allowed to go forward?