Health Beat: The AMA Would Make Health Care Unaffordable for Many Americans:
"The American Medical Association has announced its opposition to a public-sector health plan that would compete with private insurers. Why? Because the AMA fears that Medicare E (for everyone) might not pay some specialists as handsomely as private insurers do now.
"Why do private insurers pay more? Because they can pass the cost along to you and I in the form of higher premiums. Medicare E has no one to pass costs on to—except taxpayers. And taxpayers will already be helping to subsidize those who cannot afford insurance.
"Everyone agrees that primary care physicians are underpaid. Democrats in both the House and the Senate propose raising their fees, as does the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac)---the group that might take over setting fees for Medicare. Moreover, the House, the Senate, President Obama and MedPac have made it clear that they do not favor the across-the-board-cuts called for under the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula. Congress has consistently refused to make those cuts and President Obama did not include them in the 2010 budget that he originally sent to Congress. On that score, the AMA has nothing to worry about.
"Protecting Excessive Fees for Some Specialists’ Services
"So what does the AMA fear? That either MedPac or Medicare will trim fees for certain specialists’ services. Keep in mind that Medicare’s fee schedule has traditionally been set –and adjusted on a regular basis, by the RUC-- a committee dominated by specialists.( Private insurers then follow that fee schedule, usually paying somewhat more for each service.) I have described this group in the past: They meet behind closed doors. No minutes are kept of their meetings. They rarely suggest lowering fees—even though as technology advances, some services become easier to perform. MedPac has pointed out that a less biased group should be involved in determining fees—perhaps physicians who work on salary, and are not affected by Medicare’s fee schedule.
"There is good reason to suspect that the RUC has over-rated the value of some services.. MedPac has suggested taking a look at particularly lucrative tests or treatments that are being done in large volume. Often, this may mean that patients who don’t need the service are receiving it; if the procedure isn’t necessary, then, by definition, they are being exposed to risks without benefits. And in fact, experience shows that when high fees are trimmed, volume falls, suggesting that rich fees were, in fact, driving overtreatment."
There is more here about using medicare to "bend the curve," or reduce over-utilization, improve use of preventive services, as well as a discussion of how a Public Plan might besubsidezed, etc. well worth reading, particularly about subsidization.
I would only add that the title falls a bit short: The AMA, or rather, conservative physicians, are hardly the only group fighting significant change. The Health Insurance industry, despite conciliatroy noise, will be the big guns or long knives as this goes forward. And behind them will be Pharma, other device and equipment manufacturers, probably home health servicers, ambulatory care centers, and, for purely ideological reasons, all conservatives.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Health Beat: The AMA Would Make Health Care Unaffordable for Many Americans
Posted by Christopher M. Hughes, MD at 3:39 PM
Labels: AMA, Health Insurance Cost, practice variation, Public Option, RUC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Read about something the AMA wishes we had forgotten at http://mdwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2009/06/ama-opposes-obama-health-care-plan.html. Doctors are pragmatists.
I know a lot of people view the AMA as simply a physician advocacy organization, but I know within my state organization, the PA Medcial Society, we make patient advocacy one of the 3 main pillars of advocacy. Whether we are exemplary at it or not is another matter, but at least we recognize it as part of our professional responsibility and strive to keep it high on our list of priorities.
The ACP, at least seems to feel likewise:
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2008/11/medical-professionalism-in-new.html
Chris
Post a Comment