Even Critics of ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board Miss Its Worst Rationing

Recently there has been a fair amount of press coverage of the effort to repeal a central aspect of the Obama Health Care Law—the unelected 18-member Independent Payment Advisory Board given sweeping powers to limit what people are allowed to spend for health care. Strangely, however, most critics focus only on its impact on Medicare spending, and at least one of its defenders appears ignorant of the authority it will exercise to limit Americans’ use of their own private funds.

Democratic representatives are increasingly joining Republicans in co-sponsoring H.R. 452, a bill to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. As noted in an April 19 New York Times article by Robert Pear,

Democrats and Republicans are joining to oppose one of the most important features of President Obama’s new deficit reduction plan, a powerful independent board that could make sweeping cuts in the growth of Medicare spending. Mr. Obama wants to expand the power of the 15-member [sic] panel, which was created by the new health care law, to rein in Medicare costs. But not only do Republicans and some Democrats oppose increasing the power of the board, they also want to eliminate it altogether. Opponents fear that the panel, known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, would usurp Congressional spending power over one of the government’s most important and expensive social programs. Under the law, spending cuts recommended by the presidentially appointed panel would take effect automatically unless Congress voted to block or change them. In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations.

In an April 21 piece defending the board, Paul Krugman, one of the paper’s op-ed columnists, wrote, “Before you start yelling about ‘rationing’ and ‘death panels,’ bear in mind that we’re not talking about limits on what health care you’re allowed to buy with your own (or your insurance company’s) money. We’re talking only about what will be paid for with taxpayers’ money.”

Yet Krugman’s statement is flatly wrong.

As documented with specific quotes from the legislation at http://bit.ly/itblQZ, the Obama Health Care Law specifically directs the board to make “recommendations to slow the growth in national health expenditures” for private—not just governmentally funded—dollars devoted to health care. These recommendations are supposed to limit what ordinary citizens and their health insurance coverage can pay for medical treatment to force it below the rate of medical inflation.

To implement these recommendations, the federal Department of Health and Human Services is empowered to impose so-called “quality” and “efficiency” measures on health care providers. Doctors who violate a “quality” standard by prescribing more lifesaving medical treatment than it permits will be disqualified from contracting with any of the health insurance plans that individual Americans, under the Obama Health Care Law, will be mandated to purchase. Few doctors would be able to remain in practice if subjected to that penalty.

This means that treatment that a doctor and patient deem advisable to save that patient’s life or preserve or improve the patient’s health, but which exceeds the standard imposed by the government, will be denied even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it.

“It is truly astounding that this extreme form of rationing has gone almost unremarked even by critics of the Independent Payment Advisory Board,” said National Right to Life Executive Director David N. O’Steen, Ph.D. “That means it is up to grassroots pro-lifers to make both their elected representatives and media outlets aware of the facts, and of how important it is that the Independent Payment Advisory Board be repealed.”

More details on the rationing in the Obama Health Care Law are available at http://bit.ly/161yrt.

OBAMA PROPOSES TO LIMIT AMERICANS’ HEALTH CARE EVEN MORE THAN UNDER OBAMACARE

In the much ballyhooed debt-reduction “framework” President Obama revealed this week in a speech at George Washington University, the President proposed a dramatically graver limit on what Americans will be allowed to spend for our own healthcare than that which will be imposed by the Obama Health Care Law if it is not repealed before 2015.

As now enacted, the Obama Health Care Law directs an unelected 18-member panel called the “Independent Payment Advisory Board” to limit what Americans are permitted to spend on health care out of their own, nongovernment, funds to less than enough to keep up with medical inflation. However, Obama is now proposing what the White House framework calls “a more ambitious target of holding . . . cost growth . . . to GDP [gross domestic product] plus 0.5 percent beginning in 2018, through strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).”

Suppose this proposal had been in effect in 2009, the most recent year for which statistics are available. In 2009, because of the recession the overall real GDP per capita, as reported by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, actually shrank by 2.1 percent. If you use President Obama’s formula for that period of time, after adding .5% , Americans would have been forced to decrease what we would be allowed to spend to save our lives and preserve our health by 1.6 percent.

In 2009, the actual rate of medical inflation was 2.7%. Had the Obama Health Care Law (ObamaCare) been in effect, Americans would have been able to increase their medical spending, but not enough to keep up with the 2.7% medical inflation rate.

But under the Obama proposal announced this week, what Americans of all ages would be permitted to spend for health care, taking into account the increased cost of medical goods and services, would in real terms be 3.3% less than in the previous year.

While there has been increasingly widespread opposition to the Independent Medical Payment Advisory Board from physician groups, Republicans, and an increasing number of Democrats, the public focus has been on its mission to make cuts in government Medicare spending. Far too little attention has been given to the rationing it would impose through limits on the resources Americans will be allowed to devote to our own health care.

Under the Obama Health Care Law, these limits will be subject to enforcement by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, which will be empowered to impose so-called “quality” and “efficiency” measures on health care providers. Any doctor who dares to provide life-saving treatment in excess of these limits will be disqualified from contracting with any of the insurance plans which, under the individual mandate, Americans will be required to purchase.

The Obama Health Care Law must be repealed, and his still more draconian proposals defeated. If not, as is now true of Canadians who must often come to the United States to obtain life-saving health care, Americans will increasingly have to find locations abroad if we want to be able to use our own money effectively to save their own lives.

HOUSE TO VOTE ON OBAMA HEALTHCARE LAW REPEAL NEXT WEEK

Last night, H.R. 2, to repeal the Obama Healthcare Law, was introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill is scheduled to come up for a vote on Wednesday, January 12th. Repeal would protect Americans from the rationing that would deny or limit life-saving health care. Unless the Obama Healthcare Law is repealed or dramatically altered, the following will occur:

1. Bureaucrats in Washington (the Department of Health and Human Services, based on recommendations by the Independent Payment Advisory Board) will be able to dictate what treatment your doctor or hospital can – and can’t – give you through so-called “quality and efficiency measures.”

2. As Medicare is slashed by billions of dollars, federal bureaucrats will be empowered to deny or limit older Americans' choice of adding their own money, if they wish, to get unrationed insurance.

3. Consumers will be denied the choice of plans offered by insurers who allow their customers to spend what state bureaucrats deem an “excessive or unjustified” amount for their health insurance.

Full documentation of these and other rationing elements can be found here.

How the new Health Care Law Limits Senior Citizens’ Right to Use Their Own Money to Save Their Own Lives

Section 3209 of the health care bill signed into law on March 23, 2010 effectively allows federal bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to bar senior citizens from adding their own money, if they choose, to the government contribution in order to get private-fee-for-service Medicare Advantage (MA) plans less likely to ration life-saving treatment.

Medicare—the government program that provides health insurance to older people in the United States—faces grave fiscal problems as the baby boom generation ages. Medicare is financed by payroll taxes, which means that those now working are paying for the health care of those now retired. As the baby boom generation moves from middle into old age, the proportion of the retired population will increase, while the proportion of the working population will decrease. The consequence is that the amount of money available for each Medicare beneficiary, when adjusted for health care inflation, will shrink.

In theory, taxes could be increased dramatically to make up the shortfall – an unlikely and politically difficult proposition. The second alternative—to put it bluntly but accurately—is rationing. Less money available per senior citizen would mean less treatment, including less of the treatments necessary to prevent death. For want of treatment, many people whose lives could have been saved by medical treatment would perish against their will. The third alternative is that, as the government contribution decreases, the shortfall could be made up by payments from older people themselves, so that their Medicare health insurance premium could voluntarily be financed partly by the government and partly from their own income and savings.

It is not widely understood that, as a result of legislative changes in 1997 and 2003 undertaken at the behest of the National Right to Life Committee, this third alternative had become law. Under the title of “private fee-for-service plans,” there is an option in Medicare under which senior citizens can choose health insurance whose value, under the law in effect through 2010 [endnote 1], was not limited by what the government may pay toward it. These plans could set premiums and reimbursement rates for providers without upward limits imposed by government regulation.

This means that such plans would not have been forced to limit treatment, as long as senior citizens were left free to choose to pay more for them. Medicare covers everyone of retirement age, regardless of income or assets. Yet, because of budget constraints, the Medicare reimbursement rates for health care providers tend to be below the cost of giving the care—a deficit that can only accelerate as cost pressures on Medicare increase with the retirement of the baby boomers. To cope with this, providers engage in “cost shifting” by using funds they receive in payment for treating privately insured working people to help make up for what the providers lose when treating retirees under Medicare. Thus, comparatively low-income workers often effectively subsidize higher-income retirees.

However, when middle-income retirees are free voluntarily to add their own money on top of the government contribution, through a private fee-for-service plan, they stop being the beneficiaries of cost-shifting and become contributors to it. Thus, preserving this option without premium price controls would not only have allowed retirees who could afford it to reduce the danger of being denied treatment; it also would have resulted in the ability of providers to provide more treatment to those who cannot afford to add additional funds on top of the government contribution. See generally the Powell Center's webinar on affording health care without rationing.

Section 3209 of the new law indirectly amends the section in the Medicare law as it previously existed that allowed private fee-for-service plans to set their premiums without approval by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) by adding, “Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept any or every bid submitted by an MA organization under this subsection.”[endnote 2] This gives statutorily unlimited discretion to refuse to permit private-fee-for-service plans to charge premiums sufficient to offset the reductions in the Medicare government contribution.

Theoretically, of course, the federal bureaucrats given this new authority could choose not to exercise it. That seems highly unlikely during the Obama Administration, however, since on February 22, 2010 the President specifically proposed that the health bill include a provision under which Medicare Advantage plans (which, as noted, include the private-fee-for-service plans) would explicitly "be prohibited from charging seniors more than they would pay for services delivered under the traditional Medicare program."[endnote 3] While this explicit prohibition was not included in the final law (presumably because rules governing the “reconciliation” procedure did not permit it), it clearly demonstrates the policy stance of the Administration, which under Section 3209 it will now have authority to implement.

TECHNICAL EXPLANATION
Understanding how the health care bill that became law on March 23, 2010 gave power to the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to limit senior citizens' right to add their own money requires following a complex trail within the bill and existing law to understand the effect of Section 3209. Under pre-existing law [42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B)(i) & (ii)] [endnote 4], the Secretary of Health and Human Services has authority to “negotiate” the premiums to be charged by private Medicare plans (“Medicare Advantage” health insurance plans) – meaning that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in HHS can keep a Medicare Advantage plan from participating unless it agrees to charge a premium acceptable to CMS– , but this authority did not apply to private fee-for-service plans [42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B)(iv)] [endnote 5] – meaning that CMS had no power to impose a premium price control as a condition of participation for private fee-for-service plans, which could be excluded only if they failed to meet other applicable standards.

Section 3209 effectively trumps this crucial exemption by giving CMS the absolute and standardless discretion to reject premium “bids” by any Medicare Advantage plan, including a private fee-for-service plan. Specifically, it would add this subparagraph:

( c) Rejection of Bids.–
( i ) In general.–Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept any or every bid submitted by an MA organization under this subsection.[endnote 6]

This means that the previous law that effectively forbade the Secretary to exclude a private fee-for-service plan on the basis that CMS considered its premiums to be too high has been trumped by the new ability of the Secretary to reject “any or every” premium bid submitted by a private fee-for-service plan.

ENDNOTES

[1] Section 3209 takes effect with regard to plans that will be in operation in 2011. See Section 3209( c).

[2] Section 3209 is found on page 904-905 of the engrossed Senate-passed bill.

[3] The proposal appears under the heading, "Title III . . . Guaranteeing Benefits for Seniors by Ending Overpayments to Insurance Companies."

[4] 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B) reads, in relevant part (emphasis supplied):

(B) Acceptance and negotiation of bid amounts.
(i) Authority. Subject to clauses (iii) and (iv), the Secretary has the authority to negotiate regarding monthly bid amounts submitted under subparagraph (A) . . . in exercising such authority the Secretary shall have authority similar to the authority of the Director of the Office of Personnel Management with respect to health benefits plans under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code [5 USCS §§ 8901 et seq.].
(ii) Application of FEHBP standard. Subject to clause (iv), the Secretary may only accept such a bid amount or proportion if the Secretary determines that such amount and proportions are supported by the actuarial bases provided under subparagraph (A) and reasonably and equitably reflects the revenue requirements (as used for purposes of section 1302(8) of the Public Health Service Act [42 USCS § 300e-1(8)] [relating to the standards for setting different rates for individuals and families and for individuals, small groups, and large groups]) of benefits provided under that plan.

[5] 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B)(iv) provides:

(iv) Exception. In the case of a [private fee-for-service] plan described in section 1851(a)(2)(C) [42 USCS § 1395w-21(a)(2)(C)], the provisions of clauses (i) and (ii) shall not apply and the provisions of paragraph (5)(B), prohibiting the review, approval, or disapproval of amounts described in such paragraph, shall apply to the negotiation and rejection of the monthly bid amounts and the proportions referred to in subparagraph (A).

The “provisions of paragraph (5)(B)” incorporated by reference are:

(B) Exception. The Secretary shall not review, approve, or disapprove the amounts submitted under paragraph (3) or, in the case of an MA private fee-for-service plan, subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (B) of paragraph (4).

Paragraph (4), subparagraph (A)(ii) reads "the amount of the Medicare + Choice [now called Medicare Advantage] monthly basic beneficiary premium”; paragraph (4), subparagraph (B) reads “Supplemental benefits. For benefits described in section 1852(a)(3) [42 USCS § 1395w-22(a)(3)], the amount of the Medicare + Choice monthly supplemental beneficiary premium (as defined in subsection (b)(2)(B)). "

[6] The new subparagraph ( C ) has been added to 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(5). Since the language of subparagraph (a)(6)(B) that prevents the Secretary from “negotiating” private fee-for-service plan premiums is based on incorporating by reference subparagraph (a)( 5)(B), as explained in the previous note, and because clause ( i ) of (a)(5)’s new subparagraph ( C ) prevents subparagraph (B) from being construed to limit the Secretary’s authority to reject bids, it effectively makes meaningless the premium negotiation prohibition of subparagraph (a)(6)(B).

OBAMA PROPOSAL THREATENS TO DENY SENIOR CITIZENS ABILITY TO USE OWN MONEY TO SAVE THEIR OWN LIVES

The Obama health care proposal issued this morning would take away from America’s senior citizens their current right to add their own money on top of the government Medicare contribution to get health insurance less likely to deny treatment through tightly controlled managed care. (See http://www.nrlc.org/MedEthics/PLPositionMedicare.html ). It would do so even as it cuts the government contribution to Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Under "Title III . . . Guaranteeing Benefits for Seniors by Ending Overpayments to Insurance Companies," the Obama proposal states that Medicare Advantage plans – the alternative that now allows older Americans, if they wish, to pay more to get insurance less likely to ration treatment– will "be prohibited from charging seniors more than they would pay for services delivered under the traditional Medicare program."

Thus, older Americans would be prohibited by law from making up the Medicare shortfall by using their own money to save their own lives. (See http://www.nrlc.org/MedEthics/JusticeArgument.html )
This means that, even as more and more doctors and other health care providers are leaving the Medicare program because of low government reimbursement rates – rates that under the Obama bill will decline still more in comparison to medical inflation– senior citizens will have nowhere to turn. Their only option will be tightly managed plans that provide less and less treatment.

In a case of genuine chutzpah, the Obama proposal then goes on to claim that "all ideas that ration care . . . will be banned" – even as it imposes what will be ever-increasing rationing on senior citizens.

MANAGER’S AMENDMENT INTENSIFIES RATIONING

The Manager’s Amendment to the Senate health care restructuring bill offered by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on December 19 contains two provisions that intensify the rationing already present in the Reid Substitute.

– Taking a significant step closer to the powerful Federal-Reserve-Board-like Federal Health Board envisioned by former Senator Tom Daschle, Obama’s original nominee for health czar, the Manager’s Amendment renames and expands the authority of what the Reid Substitute called the "Independent Medicare Advisory Board." Its new title is the "Independent Payment Advisory Board" [Section 10320(b), p. 189] and it is directed to make recommendations to "slow the growth" in PRIVATE (non-federal) "health expenditures . . . that the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] or other Federal agencies can implement administratively." Section 10320(a)(5), adding Section 1899A (o)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act, p. 188. To the extent these are effective, they will limit the ability of private citizens to spend their own money to protect their own lives, by obtaining health care or health insurance that is not rationed.

– Section 10304 (p. 152) empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services to impose "efficiency measures," in addition to the "quality measures" already provided for under the Reid Substitute, on health care providers. Much of the professional literature advocates the use of "quality of life" standards that devalue the lives of older people and people with disabilities in such measures. While there are limits on the use of comparative effectiveness research to justify denial of treatment based on quality of life criteria under Section 6301( c) of the Reid Substitute, the quality and efficiency measures are not made subject to these critically important anti-discrimination protections.

A more detailed analysis of these rationing-promoting elements of the Manager’s Amendment follows:

INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD AUTHORITY TO RECOMMEND, AND HHS SECRETARY TO LIMIT, RIGHT TO USE ONE’S OWN MONEY TO SAVE ONE’S OWN LIFE

Under the Reid Substitute’s Section 3403 (pp. 1000- 1053) as modified by the Manager’s Amendment Section 10320 (pp. 180-90), the "Independent Payment Advisory Board" will have sweeping powers.

As originally set forth in the Reid Substitute, the Board was called the "Medicare" Advisory Board, and its mission was focused on cutting Medicare reimbursement rates (see below) – a duty it retains. However, the Manager’s Amendment dramatically expands its authority, so as to work to limit nonfederal health care spending, as well. Starting in 2014, "and at least once every two years thereafter," the Board is to make recommendations "to slow the growth in national health expenditures" other than Federal health care programs – recommendations "that the Secretary or other Federal agencies can implement administratively," as well as recommendations for legislative action. To the extent these are effective, they will limit the ability of private citizens to spend their own money to protect their own lives, by obtaining health care, or health insurance, that is not rationed.

For 2015, unless Medicare spending is projected NOT to keep up with the rate of medical inflation (specifically, unless it is projected to come in at or below a "target" set at the midway point between medical inflation and the average inflation rate for all goods and services , the "Consumer Price Index-Urban"), the Board is to specify how to cut Medicare payments by either the difference from the target or half a percent, whichever is less.

For 2016, the Board is to specify how to cut Medicare by the lesser of the difference from the target for that year or 1 percent, and for 2017 by the lesser of the difference from the target for that year or 1.25 percent.

For 2018 and subsequent years, the target shifts to the growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, and the Board must specify how to cut Medicare payments by the lesser of the difference from that target and 1.5 percent.

Each year, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must implement the Board’s directives unless Congress, within a given deadline, legislates an alternative set of restrictions to accomplish the same result. However, Congress could not reduce the net of the targeted cuts unless three-fifths of both chambers voted to do so. The bill goes so far as to forbid a future Congress from repealing these provisions, except for a one-time opportunity in 2017! Section 3403, adding Social Security Act Section 1899A(d)(3)( C), p. 1020.

How is the Board to bring about these Medicare reductions? On its face the bill instructs the Board not "to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums . . . , increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing . . . , or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria." Section 3403, creating Social Security Act Section 1899A(c)(2)(A)(ii) , p. 1004. Predominately, the reductions will have to come in reimbursement rates for health care providers.

This is likely to have either – or, more likely, both– of two rationing effects. First, an increasing number of Medicare providers, being paid further and further below their costs of providing care, would stop accepting new Medicare patients. Second, the Board could change the way reimbursement rates are structured, away from a fee-for-service model toward a "capitated" model, for example, under which practitioners are paid a set annual amount per patient, or toward an "episode" model somewhat similar to the DRG payment system for hospitals, under which a set amount is paid per illness or injury. In either of these cases, the physician or other health care provider would have a strong financial incentive to limit treatment, especially if it is costly. So, in compliance with the statute, the Board itself would not be "rationing" treatment – instead, it would be compelling health care providers to do so.

"EFFICIENCY" MEASURES THAT MAY LEAD TO DISCRIMINATORY DENIAL OF TREATMENT BASED ON DISABILITY, AGE, AND OTHER QUALITY OF LIFE CRITERIA

Section 10304 (p. 152) empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services to impose "efficiency measures," in addition to the "quality measures" provided for under the Reid Substitute, on health care providers. These measures are to be incorporated "in workforce programs, training curricula, and any other means of dissemination determined appropriate by the Secretary." Section 3014(b) adding Social Security Act Section 1890A(b)(1)(A) (p. 709). They are to be used in the calculation of value-based purchasing from hospitals, and renal dialysis services must abide by them or be penalized. Health care providers, including hospices, ambulatory surgical centers, rehabilitation facilities, home health agencies, physicians and hospitals must provide reports, generally made publicly available, based on these measures. Consequently, they exercise considerable influence on how health care providers practice medicine, and consequently on what treatment patients do – and do not – receive.
In the medical and bioethical literature, quality and efficiency measures are often based on "quality of life" standards that discriminate on the basis of age and disability.

Accordingly, during the period when the group of six Senators were negotiating in an attempt to achieve a bipartisan health care bill, agreement was reached to make anti-discrimination language applicable to the results of comparative effectiveness research. See note 1. This language remains in the Reid Substitute, Section 6301( c), adding Social Security Act Section 1182 ( c), (d) and (e) , pp. 1685-87. However, the quality and efficiency measures are NOT made subject to the same limits on employment of quality of life criteria that are applied to the use of comparative effectiveness research under Section 6301( c) of the Reid Substitute. Consequently, the Secretary is free to formulate such measures in a way that has the effect of rationing treatment on the basis of disability, age, or other "quality of life" criteria, as advocated by many mainstream bioethicists.

“PUBLIC OPTION” COMPROMISE – WILL IT REALLY BREAK THE DEADLOCK?

Multiple sources this morning are reporting that Senate Democrats, behind closed doors, have reached agreement on several key matters associated with the “public option” debate – getting them closer to the necessary 60 votes. It will be sent for a Congressional Budget Office score today, which is expected to take two days, and the details will not be released until after the score is completed, so the compromise can be “tweaked” if deemed desirable at that time.

One reported agreement has come on a proposal to expand eligibility for Medicare to those 55 or older (currently one must normally be 65).

The American Medical Association (AMA), American Hospital Association, and Federation of American Hospitals (FAH) quickly charged that the proposal would harm the availability of treatment because Medicare reimbursement rates to health care providers are significantly below the cost to them of treating Medicare beneficiaries, something that is possible only because providers “cost shift” by charging privately insured individuals more than it costs to treat them and using the resulting surplus to make up for what they lose when treating Medicare patients.

AMA President Dr. J. James Rohack, noting that “the AMA has longstanding policy opposing the expansion of Medicare given the financial projections for the future. Currently, . . . 28% of Medicare patients looking for a new primary care physician are having trouble finding one.”

The American Hospital Association noted, “Medicare pays hospitals just 91 cents for each dollar of care provided, yet the proposal being considered would allow people 55-65 to enroll in Medicare instead of the insurance exchange . . . “

According to InsideHealthPolicy.com, FAH says that “[t]he buy-in policy would „crowd-out‟ private insurance, would be controlled by CMS [the federal government‟s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] and would only pay Medicare rates. The FAH also suggested that members point to MedPAC, which has “„documented negative and declining Medicare hospital margins for seven years.’”

The agreement also reportedly incorporates a provision from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) which would require insurers to spend at least 90 percent of premium money on medical care, rather than on administrative costs or profits. This is known as a medical loss ratio.

Although no language from Sen. Rockefeller‟s proposal has emerged, generally speaking, a medical loss ratio is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims or medical services and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting, taxes, and other administrative expenses and profits.

This would occur at the same time as other provisions in the health care bill impose significant additional administrative expenses on insurers involving reporting on quality and efficiency as well as “managing” care to achieve greater “value” for the funds expended. With a narrower margin for administrative expenses, this restriction could lead to is the inability of insurers to operate in the black and have the effect of driving many of them out of the market.

Despite press reports describing a “breakthrough,” these consequences and the opposition they stir may mean that the end of the Senate‟s battle over health care restructuring may not be as imminent as Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would hope.

RATIONING IN THE REID BILL - ISSUE BY ISSUE - Medicare Commission

Rationing Issues with the Reid Senate Bill:
With the various concerns related to rationing and euthanasia, we will post a series of concerns - the following analysis being one among several.

The Medicare Commission

The Reid bill provides for an “Independent Medicare Advisory Board,” given the task of ensuring senior's Medicare meets budget goals (that will tighten each year).

For fiscal years 2015 through 2019, the bill sets a target rate of growth for Medicare midway between medical inflation and average inflation; for subsequent years the target is the growth in Gross Domestic Product per capita plus 1%.[1]

To the extent the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services project that Medicare growth rates would exceed these targets, the Board would have to act to reduce the gap by specified percentages varying by year. This gap-reducing would likely come at the expense of reduction of Medicare Advantage benefits, and reductions in payments to doctors and so forth.

The Congressional Budget Office notes, “The provision would place a number of limitations on the actions available to the board, including a prohibition against modifying eligibility or benefits, so its recommendations probably would focus on [r]eductions in subsidies for non-Medicare benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans; and [c]hanges to payment rates or methodologies for services furnished in the fee-for-service sector by providers other than hospitals [but hospitals would be included beginning in 2020], physicians, hospices [but hospices would be included beginning in 2020], and suppliers of durable medical equipment that is offered through competitive bidding.[2]

The recommendations of the Board would automatically go into effect unless Congress, through an expedited procedure, adopted another means resulting in the same reductions; to waive this would require a 3/5 vote. It would also require a 3/5 vote to repeal or amend the provisions of the Reid bill establishing the Board and its duties and authority; in 2017 there would be an expedited procedure essentially guaranteeing a vote on a proposal to repeal the Board, but this vote would require 3/5 of each House to pass.

[1] Section 3403, beginning on page 1000.
[2] Letter from Douglas Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (November 18, 2009), p. 11.

REVEALING NEW REPORT EXPOSES DANGERS OF MEDICARE RATIONING

An article from today’s Washington Post, titled “Report: Bill would reduce senior care” details a new report which warns that Medicare cuts approved by House Health Restructuring bill are not only insufficient to provide needed funding for reform, but also may affect access to health care providers. The full Washington Post article is available here. The CMS report is available here.

The article (in part) explains, “A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether. Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade....

The report offers the clearest and most authoritative assessment to date of the effect that Democratic health reform proposals would have on Medicare and Medicaid, the nation's largest public health programs. It analyzes the House bill, but the Senate is also expected to rely on hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts to finance the package that Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to take to the floor this week.”

------
This report makes clear what many predict - that the insufficient funding of the proposals under consideration will lead to rationing. A substantial part of health care subsidies, under any current proposal, would be paid for by “robbing Peter to pay Paul” – reducing Medicare funding for older people in order to cover the uninsured. Over-promising while under-funding health insurance for the uninsured will almost surely lead to rationing.

MEDICARE DOCTORS, PATIENTS AFFECTED BY HEALTH BILL PROVISION PENALIZING 1 IN 10 DOCTORS ANNUALLY

[Revised October 23, 2009]

Under the Senate Finance Committee health care restructuring bill, doctors who authorize treatments for their Medicare patients that wind up in the top 10% of per capita cost for a year will lose 5% of their total Medicare reimbursements for that year.[1] In the game of musical chairs, there is always one chair less than the number of players – so no matter how fast the contestants run, someone will always be the loser when the music stops. Similarly, under the penalty provision, a moving target is created – by definition, there will ALWAYS be a top 10%, no matter how far down the total amount of money spent on Medicare is driven.

As one editorial puts it:

Forget results. This provision makes no account for the results of care, its quality or even its efficiency. It just says that if a doctor authorizes expensive care, no matter how successfully, the government will punish him by scrimping on what already is a low reimbursement rate for treating Medicare patients. The incentive, therefore, is for the doctor always to provide less care for his patients for fear of having his payments docked. And because no doctor will know who falls in the top 10 percent until year's end, or what total average costs will break the 10 percent threshold, the pressure will be intense to withhold care, and withhold care again, and then withhold it some more. Or at least to prescribe cheaper care, no matter how much less effective, in order to avoid the penalties.[2]

In committee debate, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) said,

"As I try to put my feet in the shoes of a doctor, I don’t know how you separate out overutilization that is really overutilization. There is no way of knowing when you go through the year, what you are going to do at the end of the year."

He expressed concern there could be unintended consequences, adding that the penalty “leaves me cold.”

In a September 21, 2009 letter to Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), the American Medical Association attacked its wisdom, noting, "Private and state insurance programs have experienced serious problems with the accuracy and validity of episode grouper methodologies to ‘profile’ physicians."

Civil libertarian columnist Nat Hentoff has written,

"Medicare doctors will not be the only losers. As the doctors struggle to keep abreast of the continually falling limit of the money they can authorize for their contingent of patients, consider what those patients will lose in the quality of their treatment."[3]

Senator Jon Kyl (R-Az) is expected to offer an amendment after the bill comes to the Senate floor (presently expected during November 2009) to strike the penalty provision, similar to one he unsuccessfully offered in the Senate Finance Committee, which was endorsed by the Alliance of Specialty Medicine. The Alliance is a coalition of 11 national medical specialty societies representing more than 200,000 physicians.

NOTES:
[1] The provision is (from language available at the Senate Finance Committee website) in "SEC. 3003. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PHYSICIAN FEEDBACK PROGRAM." Beginning on page 683, the bill reads:

“(b) INCENTIVES FOR AVOIDING EXCESS UTILIZATION.—Section 1848(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(a)), as amended by section 3002(b), is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

9) INCENTIVE FOR AVOIDING EXCESS UTILZATION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to physicians’ services furnished by an applicable physician on or after January 1, 2014, the fee schedule amount for such services furnished by the applicable physician during the year (including the fee schedule amount for purposes of determining a payment based on such amount) shall be 95 percent of the fee schedule amount that would otherwise apply to such services under this subsection (determined after application of paragraphs (3), (5), (7),
and (8), but without regard to this paragraph).

(B) APPLICABLE PHYSICIAN.—In this paragraph: (i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable physician’ means a physician which the Secretary determines is at or above the 90th percentile of resource use (or, if applicable, the standard measure
of utilization specified under subparagraph (C))with respect to a composite measure per individual, such as the composite measure under the methodology established under subsection (n)(9)(C)(iii).

While these adjustments may reduce the degree to which physicians are disproportionately penalized if they have sicker patients or work in high-cost areas, they do not change the fundamental danger of this provision, which (as explained above) is to create continual pressure on doctors to make ever-increasing reductions in the treatments and tests they order for their
patients so as to avoid being in the penalized top 10%. The Congressional Budget Office rates this as taking almost $1 billion from Medicare payments over a period of 6 years. See CBO 10/07/09 letter to Chairman Baucus, Table, page 3 of 9.

[2] Washington Times, September 25.

[3] Nat Hentoff column.

SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE AFFIRMS DEATH SPIRAL IN PARTY LINE VOTE; CONRAD SUGGESTS HE MAY VOTE AGAINST IT ON FLOOR WITH DIFFERENT OFFSET

September 30. An amendment proposed by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) to get rid of a 5% penalty for Medicare doctors who order treatments and tests for their patients that wind up in the 10% most expensive per patient over a year was defeated 13-10 in the Senate Finance Committee this evening, with all committee Republicans voting to end the penalty and all committee Democrats voting to keep it.

Before the vote, however, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), said, "We’d be well advised ... to drop the penalty. I want to commit to working with Senator Kyl to find [another] offset before we go to the floor." This was in line with Conrad’s remarks on September 29 when Senator Kyl first brought up the amendment and temporarily withdrew it in order try to work out an alternative way of paying for the elimination of the penalty, which is scored by the Congressional Budget Office as cutting Medicare payments by $1 billion over ten years. The senators and their staffs were unable to agree on such an alternative during the intervening 24 hours, but, as Senator Conrad’s remarks indicate, will continue to try to agree on one so as to be able to support a jointly acceptable amendment by the time the measure goes before the full Senate for a vote.

Of course, even if Senators Conrad and Kyl agree, that is no guarantee that an amendment they both support will in fact be adopted when offered on the Senate floor. "Those concerned with the grave danger that Medicare doctors will be induced to ration more and more each year by this ‘musical chair’ penalty need to redouble their efforts to convince their Senators in the short weeks before the Senate votes on health care restructuring," said Burke J. Balch, director of National Right to Life’s Powell Center for Medical Ethics.

“DEATH SPIRAL” IN TROUBLE? NEGOTIATIONS BEHIND THE SCENES CONTEMPLATED

September 29. This evening in the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) offered his amendment to strike from the health care restructuring bill a provision imposing a 5 % penalty on one in ten Medicare physicians yearly, those whose costs per senior citizen wind up in the top 10%. However, he agreed temporarily to withdraw it at the request of Senator Kent Conrad (D - ND), who spoke out strongly against the penalty provision but sought modifications in the offset originally proposed by Senator Kyl. The temporary withdrawal raises the prospect that an agreed method might be worked out to strike the penalty provision.

The National Right to Life Committee strongly supports the Kyl Amendment and opposes the penalty provision. Senator Kyl quoted Executive Director David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., "This provision creates a cruel death spiral. By financially penalizing Medicare providers, the Baucus bill sets up the cruelest and most effective way to ensure that doctors are forced to ration care for their senior citizen patients. Instead of bureaucrats directly specifying the treatment denials that will mean death and poorer health care for older people, it compels individual doctors to do the dirty work."

Under the bill as it stands, any physician treating Medicare patients who ordered treatments and tests whose cost turned out to be in the highest ten percent per capita would have to pay back to the federal government five percent of all the Medicare reimbursements the physician had received for that year. Senator Kyl warned this would force a "race to the bottom." He said, "If we’re focused on evidence-based criteria, how can we in good conscience simply take an arbitrary number? Ten percent will take a hit regardless of results." He warned that it would create a "conflict of interest" for doctors who would be deterred from ordering what is in the best interests of their patients for fear that they might end up among the 10% of doctors who would face a hefty financial penalty each year. Kyl noted that the Alliance of Specialty Medicine, a coalition of 11 medical organizations representing 200,000 doctors, has endorsed his amendment.

Senator Conrad remarked, "As I try to think about putting … my feet in the shoes, of a doctor who might be treating Medicare patients facing this construct, it is one thing to have the feedback, I think we should absolutely… I think we should do that. But I think this putting in a penalty, that really leaves me cold. I don’t know how you separate out overutilization that is really overutilization from those doctors who may have a group of patients who require more treatment than another group of patients and when you’re put in the position of, there is no way of knowing as you go through the year what is going to happen at the end of the year. And so what do any doctor who wants to avoid being in this penalty box have to do? …I think this is one part of this that I think we should think long and hard about. There is no way of knowing when you go through the year, what you are going to do at the end of the year. . . . I think this is something we would get down the road and we’d regret."

Committee Chairman Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), although he emphasized what he saw as the need to reduce "overutilization," said, "Maybe Senator Kyl has a point here" and offered to "see what modification we can make to address his concern."

Under the rules regulating amendments in the committee, any amendment that strikes a provision "scored" by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as cutting costs must include a measure that cuts the same amount in some other way. The CBO scored the penalty provision as cutting Medicare by $ 1 billion over ten years, and as proffered Senator Kyl’s amendment offset that by taking a corresponding amount from funding for the cooperative plans designed by Senator Conrad, and included in the bill proposed by Chairman Baucus, as a replacement for the much-debated "public plan."

Whether the Kyl Amendment to strike the "death spiral" provision, with a different offset, will be brought back with broad support, or whether it will face a closely divided vote, the next day or so is likely to show. Chairman Baucus has expressed his hope that the Senate Finance Committee will complete its consideration of amendments and take a final vote on approving the bill as amended by the end of the week.

ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL – FUNDING THE SENATE FINANCE BILL BY CUTTING HEALTH CARE FUNDING FOR OLDER AMERICANS

[Updated October 8, 2009]

The $829 billion (over ten years) bill for expanding health insurance coverage under the Senate Finance Committee bill as it now stands would be funded (roughly) 50% by cuts in Medicare and also 24% by a 40% tax on health insurance premiums over certain thresholds.

Thus, over half of the cost of covering the uninsured would come from “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” Older Americans, in particular, would be targeted, facing Medicare cuts of over $410 billion over the ten years from 2010 through 2019.

The one source of funding that would keep pace with the rising resources devoted to health care would be the 40% levy on health insurance premiums. Initially, this would apply (with some exceptions) to insurance plans that cost over $8000 annually for an individual or $21,000 annually for a family. These threshold amounts would increase each year by the average rate of inflation plus one percent. Since what is spent on health care consistently rises substantially more each year than the average inflation rate, the effect would be that, over time, larger and larger proportions of those with health insurance would begin to pay the tax on gradually rising portions of their premiums. [Compare NRLC's plan to extend healthcare without rationing here and an explanatory webinar here.]

DETAILS AND DOCUMENTATION

It is important to understand that the precise figures are in a state of flux, as the bill has not yet been converted to legislative language.[1] The objective here is solely to give a “big picture” rough analysis.

The total cost of expanding coverage (the subsidies for the uninsured, outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program and credits for small business) was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at $829 billion.[2]

The total cuts to Medicare are over $410 billion dollars. [3]

The 40% excise tax on health care plans with annual premiums of more than $8000 for an individual or $21,000 for a family (with this threshold rising annually at the average rate of general inflation plus 1%), and with exceptions for over-55 retirees and those in certain high-risk professions is estimated to produce $201 billion over 10 years. [4]

NOTES
[1] The Senate Finance Bill as amended is available here.

[2] Based on tables entitled “Preliminary Estimate for Title I, Subtitle F Through Title V of the Chairman's Mark as Amended...” attached to Letter of Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf to Chairman Max Baucus of October 7, 2009, available here. The figure of $829 billion is derived from adding back in the offsets in that table for penalty payments and the excise tax on high premium insurance plans.

[3] Letter, from Doug Elmendorf and CBO to Chairman Max Baucus of October 7, 2009, available here. For a breakdown of Medicare spending see here.

[4] Joint Committee on Taxation, “Estimated Revenue Effects of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Title Vi Of Fiscal Years 2010 – 2019 as Amended Through October 2, 2009, And Under Consideration By The Committee On Finance" available here.