Health Plans
e-Newsletter
Intelligence Unit Special Reports Special Events Subscribe Sponsored Departments Follow Us

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

MedPAC Votes to Kill SGR

Margaret Dick Tocknell and John Commins, October 7, 2011
The remaining $235 billion would come from
  • Cuts to Medicare Part D drug plans (32%)
  • Post–acute care facilities (21%)
  • Medicare beneficiaries (14%)
  • Hospitals (11%), labs (9%)
  • Durable medical equipment (6%)
  • Medicare Advantage plans (5%)
  • Other providers (2%)

MedPac first unveiled the proposal in September and it was greeted with a resounding thud.

Industry Reaction

MedPAC's proposal brought howls of protests from the American Medical Association.

"The recommendation voted on today by MedPAC flies in the face of their previous recommendations to stop harmful physician cuts that threaten access to care for patients," AMA President Peter W. Carmel, MD, said in prepared remarks. 

"There is already a 20% gap between Medicare payment updates and the cost of providing healthcare to seniors. Many physicians may also face upcoming payment penalties related to electronic prescribing, health information technology and quality reporting programs. Adding additional physician payment cuts to this mix will leave many physicians unable to care for Medicare patients or make the investments needed to participate in new models of care that can increase coordination and reduce costs."

The American Hospital Association this week told MedPAC that it should stop punishing hospitals – which are already facings cuts of $155 billion in reimbursement cuts over 10 years under the Affordable Care Act.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

3 comments on "MedPAC Votes to Kill SGR"


carol (10/10/2011 at 3:26 PM)
If doctor's fees are capped for 7 years after they have been reduced by 5% or so a year for the previous 3, will the staff also be willing to have their salaries capped? Many physician practices are small business' that will be impacted by reduced income which will affect and their ability to provide benefits and salary increases to their staff. Additionally they are being asked to impliment many other levels of government regulation. What about the cost of real estate and utilities? Will all of those be capped too? I am wondering why the best and brightest will consider going into medicine?

steve (10/7/2011 at 2:07 PM)
Specialist rates are now exactly the same as primary care rates. If a cardiologist sees a new patient for a level 4 new patient visit the fee is exactly the same as it would be for a family practitioner who save a new level 4 case. So, three years from now, the cardiologist would get 18% less than the family practitioner for the same level of visit. Does that sound reasonable. I guess it will discourage specialization. But it also will discourage cardiologists from accepting any Medicare patients. Or, they will stop doing patient care altogether and just concentrate on procedures. But perhaps that's a good thing. I don't really know.

Michael Samms (10/7/2011 at 10:50 AM)
It is sad that the proposed MedPAC "Doc Fix" includes indiscriminate across-the-board reimbursement freeze for Primary Care Services and annual indiscriminate across-the-board reimbursement decrease in Specialist Services. Why do regulators continue to put forth reimbursement fixes that addresses over-served and under-served areas of the country equally. It's unfair and mind-numbing. What methodologies can healthcare payers utilize that will improve healthcare quality while simultaneously lowering costs? One method recently identified is a scoring process, (see www.sesscoring.com). In her book, Overtreated, Shannon Brownlee states, "...medicine does not function like other economic markets. If doctors found they weren't getting enough business, they didn't have to slash their fees in order to attract new patients; they could simply give more medical care to patients they already had..." The Scoring process: If a provider has not performed a diagnostic test within the previous 12-months, the provider must apply for a score. A score is issued using complex algorithms that are based upon existing supply and capacity within a defined geographic region. Payers will alter reimbursement based upon the score. This process does not interfere with the sacred physician-patient relationship and does not deny any patient any needed service. Once the scoring process is fully deployed and the reduction in artificial demand creation has subsided, fewer redundant and unnecessary diagnostic services will be provided. The overall U.S. healthcare system will benefit from reduced costs. The healthcare scoring innovation will save $944 billion over the next 10 years in the U.S. healthcare system.