Posts Tagged Senate Finance Committee
From The Washington Post: A $300 Billion Deception
Posted by Hal Andrews in Healthcare Reform on November 16th, 2009
I think the November 15 Editorial Page at The Washington Post has it exactly right. In the “if you can’t beat’em, join’em” category, I quote:
HAVING PASSED a health reform bill that is, at least theoretically, paid for, the House of Representatives is poised this week to blow a quarter-trillion-dollar hole in the federal budget involving, you guessed it, health care. This is the so-called doc fix, to prevent scheduled cuts in Medicare reimbursements to physicians from taking effect.
Say you are a member of Congress who agrees that the cuts should be rescinded — that physician payments shouldn’t be reduced, that is — but also believes that the payments should not add to the national debt? Under the rule governing the House debate, you won’t be allowed to suggest any offsetting savings. Either you go for the doc fix and add massively to the deficit, or you torpedo the fix and wreak havoc in the Medicare program, with a 21 percent cut set to take effect Jan 1. Nice choice. It puts those who believe in both fiscal responsibility and averting these draconian cuts in an impossible situation.
By the way, don’t be fooled by the incredible shrinking “cost” of the fix. The official Congressional Budget Office estimate used to be $245 billion over 10 years. Now it’s $210 billion. In fact, the real hit to the budget will be closer to $300 billion. The lower CBO numbers stem primarily from the administration’s move to change the rules about which physician payments are subject to the cuts. The administration proposed a regulation to exempt drugs administered in doctor’s offices, such as chemotherapy, from the spending ceiling. That has the effect of making the cost of the fix look smaller, but it doesn’t change the ultimate drain on the treasury: Medicare will end up paying out the same amount of money.
All of this is, to some degree, Medicare kabuki to placate the American Medical Association. The Senate doesn’t have the votes to pass a permanent fix without paying for it — though, of course, it also doesn’t have the votes actually to pay for it. So while the House might pass the unpaid-for fix, it will likely die there. The result will be another year-long, or possible two-year, patch slapped on this mess. Finding the money to pay for the fix and, more to the point, cobbling together the political coalition to support it, is difficult. Which is why Congress and the administration have joined hands in the pretense that the doc fix has nothing whatsoever to do with health reform.
The Chairman’s Mark – America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 – Sen. Baucus
Posted by Editor in Healthcare Financing, Healthcare News, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on September 16th, 2009
Framework for Comprehensive Health Reform – Senator Baucus
Posted by Editor in For Consumers, Healthcare News, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform, Value-Based Purchasing on September 8th, 2009
House Committees Release Preliminary CBO Estimate on the Medicare Portion of the Tri-Committee Discussion Draft
Posted by Editor in Healthcare News, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on July 8th, 2009
House Committees Release Preliminary CBO Estimate on the Medicare Portion of the Tri-Committee Discussion Draft
- July 8, 2009
Preliminary CBO Estimate on the Medicare Portion of the Tri-Committee Discussion Draft
Value-Based Purchasing and the House Tri-Committee Bill
Posted by Hal Andrews in Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on June 27th, 2009
Unlike the Senate Finance Committee, whose ideas on Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) are very clear and consistently focused on payment incentives to providers, the House Tri-Committee takes a more roundabout way to integrating value concepts into healthcare reform. The House Tri-Committee draft broadly implements VBP concepts in three initiatives: health insurance, quality-based reductions in payment, and additional provider quality reporting initiatives.
VBP and Health Insurance Option. The House plan authorizes the Secretary of HHS to “utilize innovative payment mechanisms and policies to determine payments for items and services under the public health insurance option. The payment mechanisms and policies under this section may include patient-centered medical home and other care management payments, accountable care organizations, value-based purchasing, bundling of services, differential payment rates, performance or utilization based payments, partial capitation, and direct contracting with providers.”
In addition, the Secretary is required to “design and implement the payment mechanisms and policies under this section in a manner that…promotes care that is integrated, patient centered, quality, and efficient.” In the Data Advantage Hospital Value Index™, we evaluate care on the axes of quality, affordability, efficiency, and patient satisfaction.
The House plan also introduces the concept of value and quality based payments for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. By ranking MA plans based on the quality and value that the MA plans deliver on behalf of their members, MA plans will effectively be forced to be more selective in establishing provider networks, which will in turn reinforce other value-based purchasing reforms.
Finally, the House plan explicitly encourages the public health insurance option to use “high value services” through the implementation of “cost sharing and payment rates to encourage the use of services that promote health and value.”
Quality-Based Reductions in Payment. The House plan contains provisions to adjust payments to hospitals for excess readmissions beginning October 1, 2010. In addition, the House plan contemplates comprehensive payment reform, i.e. bundling, for post-acute care service providers (SNF, LTAC, IRF, hospital-based outpatient rehabilitation facilities and home health)
Additional Provider Quality Initiatives. The House plan contains numerous initiatives to increase quality measurement and reporting, including:
- Integration of physician quality reporting and EHR reporting
- New requirements for ASCs to submit cost reports and data on quality and health care associated infections
- Establishment of National Priorities for Performance Improvement – goal is to develop national consensus standard for measuring the performance and improvement of population health or of institutional providers of services, physicians and other practitioners
Under the National Priorities for Performance Improvement, the AHRQ is instructed to enter into agreements with “qualified entities” to develop quality measures for delivery of health care services. Among other things, the quality measures must be designed to assess patient experience and patient engagement, the safety, effectiveness and timeliness of care, and efficiency and resource use. In other words, what the Hospital Value Index™ measures.
Another proposal is to establish the Center for Quality Improvement headed by the Director of AHRQ. Until the Center is fully operational, the Director of the AHRQ is instructed to focus in on healthcare-associated infections, including nursing homes and outpatient settings; hospital and outpatient perioperative safety; improved quality in hospital ED, especially in identification of sepsis.
Finally, the House plan proposes the establishment of an Assistant Secretary for Health Information to collect, report and publish statistics on key health indicators.
In summary, the House Tri-Committee plan proposes to introduce VBP concepts in both health insurance coverage and healthcare services. While not as obvious as the Senate Finance Committee initiatives, the House initiatives may effectively be more far-reaching.
Winners and Losers in the House Tri-Committee Draft Bill
Posted by Hal Andrews in Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on June 27th, 2009
The 850-page House Tri-Committee Draft Bill is the product of the House Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor. The Tri-Committee approach is a luxury afforded by the Democratic power in the House, and Chairmen Rangel, Waxman, and Miller did not squander the opportunity to deliver a comprehensive healthcare reform bill.
Several portions of the bill are significant enough to deserve individual focus, but I will start with my view of the winners and losers in the draft.
Winners:
- Primary care providers, broadly defined, especially rural providers (whose constituency is more important to the House than the Senate), through new programs and improved reimbursement
- Accountable care organizations
- Medicare beneficiaries, through expansion of covered services and waivers of co-payments, co-insurance and deductibles
- Mental health providers, through payment for marriage and family therapy and the elimination of the 190-day lifetime limit on psychiatric hospital stays
- Starbucks, where a $4 cup of coffee just skirts the proposed $5 limit on monetary relationships between physicians and vendors
- Attorneys for nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities
Losers:
- Private insurers, both through the introduction of both Health Insurance Exchanges and a “public option” plan
- Hospitals dependent on small employers, who will find the “public option” irresistible
- For-profit owners (especially private equity firms) of nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities
- Any vendor of drugs, devices, biologics or supplies accustomed to using an expense account to transact business with a physician
- Physician-owned hospitals
Overall, the House has delivered a more polished draft than the Senate HELP Committee, whose bill is thematically closer to the House version than the Senate Finance Committee. However, I think it is unlikely that the CBO can score the House Tri-Committee draft at less than $1.2T. Unless the House changes course and realizes that taxing the employer health benefit is the only way to pay for a plan that exceeds $900B, some reduction in these initiatives will be necessary.
Senate Finance Committee: Healthcare Description of Policy Options
Posted by Editor in Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Reform on April 29th, 2009

