iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Medicare 'Doc Fix': Congress Faces Decision Before Steep Cuts Take Effect Jan. 1

Medicare Doc Fix Congress

RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR   11/28/11 11:59 AM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Politicians of both parties outdo each other vying for the approval of seniors, but their inability to compromise on the federal budget has put Medicare in the crosshairs again.

Unless Congress acts before Jan. 1, doctors face a 27 percent cut in their fees for treating Medicare patients. That could undermine health care for millions of elderly and disabled beneficiaries.

Last year around the holidays doctors were looking at a cut of about 20 percent. It's become a recurring symbol of the government's budget dysfunction.

The cuts are the consequence of a 1990s budget law that failed to control spending but never got repealed. Congress passes a temporary fix each time, only to grow the size of reductions required next time around. The supercommittee's breakdown leaves the so-called "doc fix" unresolved with time running out.

A thousand miles away in Harlan, Iowa, Dr. Don Klitgaard is trying to contain his frustration.

"I don't see how primary care doctors could take anywhere near like a 27 percent pay cut and continue to function," said Klitgaard, a family physician at a local medical center. "I assume there's going to be a temporary fix, because the health care system is going to implode without it."

Medicare patients account for about 45 percent of the visits to his clinic. Klitgaard said the irony is that he and his colleagues have been making improvements, keeping closer tabs on those with chronic illnesses in the hopes of avoiding needless hospitalizations. While that can save money for Medicare, it requires considerable upfront investment from the medical practice.

"The threat of a huge cut makes it very difficult to continue down this road," said Klitgaard, adding "it's almost comical" lawmakers would let the situation get so far out of hand.

There's nothing to laugh about, says a senior Washington lobbyist closely involved with the secretive supercommittee deliberations. The health care industry lobbyist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to make public statements, said lawmakers of both parties wanted to deal with the cuts to doctors, but a fundamental partisan divide over tax increases blocked progress of any kind.

The main options now before Congress include a one-year or two-year fix.

The problem is the cost. Congress used to add it to the federal deficit, but lawmakers can't get away with that in these fiscally austere times. Instead, they must find about $22 billion in offsets for the one-year option, $35 billion for the two-year version. A permanent fix would cost about $300 billion over 10 years, making it much less likely.

"It's going to be a real challenge, and there's not a lot of time to play ping-pong," said the lobbyist. "It's entirely possible given past performance that Congress misses the deadline."

Congressional leaders of both parties have said that won't happen. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., says the Medicare fix is too important not to get done before the end of the year. His House counterpart, Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., agrees. But how? The endgame for a complex negotiation also involving expiring tax cuts, unemployment benefits and dozens of lesser issues remains unclear.

"They have to come up with a solution, and they will have to appear to pay for that solution, and that will be contentious," said economist Robert Reischauer, one of the public trustees who oversees Medicare and Social Security financing. One option: cut other parts of Medicare. Another: trim back spending under the health care overhaul law. Either of those approaches would mobilize opposition.

A nonpartisan panel advising lawmakers is recommending that doctors share the pain of a permanent fix with a 10-year freeze for primary care physicians and cuts followed by a freeze for specialists. Doctors aren't buying that.

The Obama administration says seniors and their doctors have nothing to fear.

But doctors are becoming increasingly irritated about dealing with Medicare. Surveys have shown that many physicians would consider not taking new Medicare patients if the cuts go through. Some primary care doctors are going into "concierge medicine," limiting their practice to patients able to pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, a trend that worries advocates for the elderly.

Ultimately, the solution is an overhaul of Medicare's payment system so that doctors are rewarded for providing quality, cost-effective care, said Mark McClellan, an economist and medical doctor who served as Medicare administrator for President George W. Bush. That continues to elude policymakers.

Instead, the threat of payment cuts has become a holiday tradition, said McClellan. "It's just not a very enjoyable one."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Politicians of both parties outdo each other vying for the approval of seniors, but their inability to compromise on the federal budget has put Medicare in the crosshairs again. Un...
WASHINGTON — Politicians of both parties outdo each other vying for the approval of seniors, but their inability to compromise on the federal budget has put Medicare in the crosshairs again. Un...
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,017
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (17 total)
04:32 PM on 11/29/2011
People who rely on Medicare benefits will ultimately suffer because I don’t see why primary care physicians will want to stay in the business, at least the ones who primarily see Medicare patients. The way I see it doctors will be left with two choices: 1. See less Medicare patients and more private pay patients (or) 2. Stop seeing Medicare patients altogether. If you can’t cover your overhead… right?

On the same token, I don’t see how we plan on balancing the budget unless cuts are made to healthcare spending as it accounts for 23% of the federal budget. It’s the most expensive in the world (Average expenditure per person is $7,960) and to top it off our healthcare system is ranked 37th out of the top 40 developed nations in the world (Source: Organization of Economic Cooperation) Somethings wrong. Wouldn’t you agree?

Also, has anyone else seen this video on the Medicare Crisis: http://www.signaturemd.com/the50cut
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles Queen
I am a disabled nam vet
04:28 PM on 11/29/2011
Medicare and a whole lot of other things could and would wok without nailing the tax payers at all if washington would cut out all of it's waste ful spending on stupid programs that are constant failure and cost mega ilions year.Legalise marijuana is one,thats mega billions totaly thrown out in the trash more or less as it is a continualy totaly failing prgram and has been for a very long time.There's huge list of government wase tht could be totaly discontued and would not hurt one single thing at all and would generate hundreds of millions a year,actually more than that considrering the fight against pot alone is mega billions as are many other tupid programs that acomplish nothing whatsoever not to mention that doing this would go a very long way in helping to get rid of the deficit.Just throwing out there
07:33 AM on 11/29/2011
How is it that a lobbyist was "closely involved" with the deliberations of the secretive "super-committee"?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
yellowdoggie
Level 1 Baggerese Translator
07:02 AM on 11/29/2011
Everyone will get hurt if the cuts fall across the board. Republicans wanted this. Just remember that when you go to the polls. Republicans want these deep cuts to your Social Security, to your medicare, to Veterans.

Oh, and too bad, military families. Republicans don't really care about you. It's all about their buddies with the big defense contracts.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
danninoonen
12:34 AM on 11/29/2011
BTW, the CBO assumed that these cuts will go through when it scored ObamaCare, so Obama either supports these cuts or was slightly misleading when talking about the costs of ObamaCare
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kamact
Market Observer
11:47 PM on 11/28/2011
Both parties are corrupted by moneyed politics,...the big difference is that the GOPers are actively destructive to most Americans,...
photo
demisfine
Often correct, NEVER right.
10:00 PM on 11/28/2011
What did Grover recommend?
Surely this came up when he was consulting with the other six republicans on the super committee.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fireart
I got mine the hard way.
07:20 PM on 11/28/2011
I hope they step in and renew all the handouts I get. They need to cut child care and raise SS. Wait, I need the young to pay my SS. Oh Dear , lets raise the taxes on everyone, then we can raise my SS. Oh yes Santa , and let them take the tax off my SS. and, and, and, have medicare pay for my Viagra also. And, And
06:52 PM on 11/28/2011
Here we go again. All those "Keep You Hands off my Medicarers". You really, really screwed up supporting the Tea Bags.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bluelyne
07:00 PM on 11/28/2011
Yep. I don't feel sorry for those who were scared by the Death Panel stupid talk and voted for the Baggers. Live with it now. We're stuck with them too and we didn't vote for them. Just because you're older, doesn't mean you have to be stupid and uninformed. As long as you are mentally sound, turn off Fox News and research what's going on in the world. As far as the docs, I work with docs and most of them are Republican. So sad, too bad.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sandan
I am a 80 yr old military retiree
11:33 PM on 11/28/2011
Reminds me of my ex-dermatologist, a very staunch Republican who had the audacity to have anti-Obama material in his office. A shame as he was good at his trade, but there is no place in a doctor's office for that kind of garbage.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
DANIELISTICALL
HISTORY IS BUT A FABLE AGREED UPON,,NAPOLEON
06:46 PM on 11/28/2011
France is often seen as the ideal system. It has universal health care, with few waiting lists. France has the highest level of satisfaction with their health care among all European countries. How can this be? What is their secret?
France provides a basic, universal health insurances through large occupation-based funds. The General National Health Insurance Scheme covers 83% of French workers, while other occupational specific (e.g.: for agricultural workers, for the self employed, for miners, etc.) cover the remainder. About 99% of individuals are covered by this universal health insurance system.

The French system's fragile solvency shows how tough it is to provide universal coverage while controlling costs, the professed twin goals of President Barack Obama's proposed overhaul.
French taxpayers fund a state health insurer, Assurance Maladie, proportionally to their income, and patients get treatment even if they can't pay for it. France spends 11% of national output on health services, compared with 17% in the U.S., and routinely outranks the U.S. in infant mortality and some other health measures.
NOSOCIALNETS
Facebook is EVIL
06:45 PM on 11/28/2011
Excuse me, but I PAID for my social security and medicare. I also paid taxes so that the gov. could bail out AIG and Goldman Slacks.......jus saying.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy E Pearson
A man in search of the right questions.
06:41 PM on 11/28/2011
Here is the deal. The only time it is safe to pay for insurance is when risk of loss is low and the cost of loss is high. In all cases to buy insurance is to bet against oneself.

Just as with Wall Street Speculation the only ones that "win" in the insurance game are those that set up the game.

I am 65, do not have medicare, nor will, except the basic that is free and I will probably not use that either. We want to live forever, but that is not possible.

I do not go to doctors. The first time I went to a Doctor was about four years ago and prior to that it had been about 30 years since I saw a doctor.

We spend large amounts of money trying to extend peoples lives after they are biologically over at the cost of young people who still have meaningful lives ahead of them. I am pretty darn health, but if I get a fatal disease, so be it. I had my go at life, now I need to step aside.

There is one reality of life, at any age, there is no real security or certainty, and paying some one to try to give you that is all an illusion, and a costly one at that.
AntiSocialSailor
Ain't no luggage racks on a hearse
06:58 PM on 11/28/2011
So, you've been lucky. Big deal. I have a friend who was diagnosed with cancer at age 40. Another one got MS at 28. If not for insurance, they'd both be dead. Is that o.k. with you? Hospitals are full of people in the prime of life, many of whom have dependents as well. If you think you've been some tough guy by not seeing a doctor in 30 years or by not having insurance, you're wrong. You've just been stewpid and irresponsible and you got lucky.

I anticipate you'll be singing a different tune if you're diagnosed with some fatal yet treatable disease. You tough guys always do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy E Pearson
A man in search of the right questions.
07:47 PM on 11/28/2011
I guess you have low reading comprehension. I am 65 and people 40 and 28 are not as I described.

You can dream up what ever scenario you want about what ifs. I am doing exactly what I said I would do. BUt this is not about me. I just used myself as an example.

Insurance is as I described it. Your friends are among the lucky taht can afford insurance, and that very act of having insurance that is not available to every one crowds out people who die of their cancer and MS.

That my be fine for you, but for me, I choose to live in a world where we do our best to work as a community that care about all the people and try to make personal decisions that do not put the individual above the community when life and quality of life are concerned. No Where did I suggest that we be made to do this.

Insurance, and the false illusion it gives, is one of the main factors of our escalating health care costs. Life is hard and the fact is that people die of diseases.

Also those people who are in the prime of life in all those hospitals are at a higher risk of dying from being in the hospital and picking up an infection because we use our Emergency rooms a default insurance.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bluelyne
07:04 PM on 11/28/2011
We do spend tons of money on people who have no quality of life due to old age and health problems. Plus, we spend tons of money because people CHOOSE to smoke, drink and overeat. Why should that group get most of the healthcare dollars? As a nurse, I see what happens when you deliberately abuse your body for decades, not caring about the future, then we have to pay for your medical bills from our tax dollars. I'm tired of it. Never, ever do I hear of anyone supposed to be taking any personal responsibility for their health or it coming out of their pocket when they don't. If you smoke, drink or are obese then I think you should pay more for your healthcare than the rest of us who don't.
07:11 PM on 11/28/2011
This is the Republican position. The Democrat/Progressive position is that all should pay the same for health insurance/care. I've read other posts of yours on this thread and am at a loss to reconcile the opposing positions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy E Pearson
A man in search of the right questions.
07:59 PM on 11/28/2011
How about we all pay the same and all have health care. How about we have preventative care available to help people understand the risks they are putting on their bodes.

How about we have wages that allow a diet that keeps you healthy. IT is expensive to eat healthy. Poor people do not eat at McDonald's because they want to, it is the cheapest way to feed a family when both parents work and one has two jobs.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
candycorn
Moving Foward
06:37 PM on 11/28/2011
Why does republicans and this republican Congress think so little of seniors. Seniors have held this country together and have paid into the system all their lives. Don't hurt our seniors, which could be your mother, father, grandmother and grandfather. I just can't imagine this country letting the hardship fall so heavily on our seniors and not on the rich fatcats that have also profit off of the seniors.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christina-Xena
That little Voice in your Head...is mine.
06:46 PM on 11/28/2011
I just wonder what program the Republicans are going to hold hostage to funding for seniors?

To them their're the next "rock and a hard place" to leverage their agenda.
photo
demisfine
Often correct, NEVER right.
10:03 PM on 11/28/2011
Easy - Education.
What else?
AntiSocialSailor
Ain't no luggage racks on a hearse
07:35 PM on 11/28/2011
Let them cut off seniors. Go back to the old days when your grandmother had to rotate between her children to keep a roof over her head. The good old "family values" days when three generations of people shared a home. Of course, you have to have a home. Otherwise the car gets a bit crowded.

Americans need to visit some third world countries to find out how old people survive. Take a lesson from Brazil or Mexico or India. That's our future. You'll find how fast a 75 year old can pick through garbage dumps for rags and cans. They can compete with the 9 year olds, most times. Anyway, it's good exercise and you'll be secure in the knowledge that our military is the best in the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mij13
They only call it class war when we fight back.
06:33 PM on 11/28/2011
"It's going to be a real challenge, and there's not a lot of time to play ping-pong," said the lobbyist. "It's entirely possible given past performance that Congress misses the deadline."

It's most likely they'll do everything in their power to do what's NOT in the American people's best interest.
photo
1oldhippie
yes, WE can again!
06:32 PM on 11/28/2011
Social Security and Medicare ARE NOT entitlements.
A "program" that people have paid into all their lives, designed to provide benefits in their senior years, is a Promissory Note. It was done as a mandate.
America has NEVER, not paid a bill, the Constitution forbids it ! As the bill comes due on SocSec/Medicare, it must be honored. IF these programs need an adjustment, it must come on the NEXT generation, so those folks have time to plan...
AntiSocialSailor
Ain't no luggage racks on a hearse
06:36 PM on 11/28/2011
They certainly ARE entitlements. Don't fall into the conservative doublespeak of trying to demonize the word entitlement as if it applies to a welfare program. They are entitlements because people who have paid into them are entitled to them. There's nothing wrong with that. They are insurance programs and you are entitled to the benefits just like you are entitled to having your car accident or health care bill paid.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
confuseddemocrat
06:39 PM on 11/28/2011
unfortunately the GOP has morphed entitlements into welfare and it has very negative connotations

I prefer to call them safety nets
photo
Footwarrior
Progressive Apparatchik
09:24 AM on 11/29/2011
SS and Medicare are both insurance programs. Someone who pays insurance premiums is entitled to the benefits.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
confuseddemocrat
06:37 PM on 11/28/2011
If they raise the cap on income as well as eliminate the Bush tax cuts, the cuts to the safety nets would not have to be so drastic

As it stands now, to ask people who will have to live on possibly on 12-20K per year in SS income to make adjustments is absurd.  Most who rely on SS or will in the future are barely making ends meet now.

 How can one save if your salary has been more or less stagnant for at least a decade  or so while cost of living  continues to rise?

It is not realistic or feasible..............