The American Medical Association was positively gleeful after the House bill passed, quickly issuing a statement on its Web site that gave the group’s spin on the legislation. “The AMA hails the passage of the House health reform bill,” the statement began. “Passage of the House health reform bill is a big step forward as we work for comprehensive health reform this year.” But it was the last graph that was most telling.
As Congress considers new coverage commitments to the American people through health reform, it must ensure that commitments already made are fulfilled through passage of the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). This bill will permanently repeal the broken physician payment formula and preserve access to care for seniors, baby boomers and military families.The docs agreed to support health reform—no negative ads, no obstructionism this time—as long as Congress agreed to cancel the fee cuts that it had originally enacted a decade ago to begin slowing the growth in Medicare. Real cost containment, not the faux stuff that’s in the bill. Over time, those cuts would mean less money for the docs, many of whom are already near the top of the income ladder. A few weeks, ago the Senate killed a bill that would have blocked the Medicare fee cuts once and for all. The AMA’s message Saturday night was: The House had better not do the same.
Last week, as the crucial House vote approached, the AMA issued a press release that “announced support for concurrent passage of H.R. 3962 and H.R. 3961, U.S. House of Representatives health system reform bills.” Concurrent was the operative word, wrote blogger Robert Laszewski on Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review. In other words, the docs were happy to support the House Democrats if the fee cuts were banished for good. Eliminating the fee cuts means that the U.S. Treasury will give higher fees to the doctors to the tune of $210 billion over ten years, according to the latest CBO estimates. That’s nearly twice as much as it would cost to provide coverage for the disabled without the current Medicare waiting period.
Some, but not all, in the media understood that the doctors’ endorsement came with qualifications. The Wall Street Journal reported that AMA president J. James Rohack noted that Congress can’t fix the health care system without also passing a bill that stops the fee cuts. A twenty-one percent cut goes into effect next year. and the docs are bound and determined to stop it. Forbes.com said the AMA supported the House bill, “but with a big blinking asterisk.” Forbes reported that, on a conference call last week, Rohack said that the bill deserves support only if Congress also passes a separate bill that increases Medicare reimbursements to doctors. But so far the media haven’t explored other uses for the taxpayers’ money—like allowing poor, disabled people to get Medicare coverage right away.
Here we have a story of a powerful and influential organization with money to spread around competing with a grassroots advocacy coalition representing people who don’t have a voice in the political process. This is one time where the adage “follow the money” leads away from the real story.
Now, let's look at this. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median income for a family practice physician is $156,010, a pediatrician $161,331, a surgeon $282,504. This is a demanding profession with minimum requirement of 8 years of very, very expensive and rigorous education beyond high school and a minimum 3 additional years of internship and residency. Beyond that, in order to practice medicine, an MD must pass exams and certifications and are subject to lifelong requirements for continuing education and recertifications. 80% or more leave medical school with crushing educational debt. Now I'm not saying it's not a good profession, it is, and that was their choice to follow.
By contrast, a political reporter at the Washington Post earns in the neighborhood of $125,000. The requirement there is the ability to read and write on deadline. TV reporters have an additional requirement for good hair but less ability to write; but they earn minimum three times what the Postie earns. It is said that Mike Allen at Politico earns in the neighborhood of $300,000 per year. David Gregory, a man of very little talent, knowledge or analytical ability earns millions of dollars per year. And that's fine, that's the so-called market.
But let's not begrudge the family physician fair compensation for rendering services., Trudy. I really object to the tone of your piece and the snide insinuations that the medical community is trying to rip off the poor and the disabled. I'm not the biggest fan of the AMA and I think they have been a destructive force in health care delivery for at least 50 years. Most of the docs I know feel the same way.
Instead of insinuations based upon outdated stereotypes, how about you do a piece with actual facts on compensation and earnings, maybe a comparative study with your own bloated and overpaid profession, accounting for additional costs such as malpractice insurance, repayment of debt, and the like. Why not look at actual dollars of compensation for rendering patient services, taking into account on-call status, uncompensated time such as calling, counseling, administrative work and the like. And how there is virtually no comparable requirements or burdens borne by people in, say, your profession. That way, your readings will be able to make a better judgment about whether the AMA's glee is warrented or not.
SOURCE: Physicians and Surgeons
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 9 Nov 2009 at 10:36 PM
There was never going to be an across-the-board 21 percent fee cut--and everyone knew that.
That is why President Obama did not include the savings from those cuts in the budget that he announced at the beginning of the year.
President Bush consistently put the savings in his budgets--to make his budgets look better.
But each year during his administration Congress refused to implement the SGR formula because across-the-board cuts are a crude solution. We don't want to cut fees to primary care docs, geriatricians etc.. We have a huge shortage today becuase med students graudating with $150,000 in loans cannot afford to become primary care docs. The reimbursements are just too low.
Doctors' fees need to be adjusted with a scalpel--not an axe.
And that is what Medicare is porposing. Medicare recently announced that it plan to cut cardiologists fees by 6% next year, while raising fees for primary care by 4%.
Congress has just 60 days to oppose these changes; otherwise they automatically go into effect Jan. 1
Medicare also is slashing fees for some diagnostic tests.
#2 Posted by Maggie Mahar, CJR on Tue 10 Nov 2009 at 12:37 PM
Reuters ran a fine report by Chris Baltimore on data showing that doctors cluster in high-paying areas, not in areas where they are needed, and that the health outcomes in the high-paying, doctor-dense areas aren't necessarily better. The data analysis was by Dartmouth Medical School.
Here's the Nov. 6 story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0514384520091106
#3 Posted by Suzanne B., CJR on Tue 10 Nov 2009 at 01:18 PM