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).

REPEALING OBAMA’S DEATH CARE LAW

The health care restructuring bill approved 219 to 212 by the House of Representatives on Sunday, March 21, 2010 and sent for President Obama’s signature (having been adopted by the Senate in December 2009) will, if not repealed before its most dangerous provisions come into effect, result in the rationing denial of lifesaving medical treatment, and consequent premature and involuntary death, of an unknown but immense number of Americans.

Americans will effectively be limited in spending their own money to save their own lives, unless they are able to travel abroad for life-preserving measures which will be denied them in this country.

These effects will occur regardless of whether the separate "reconciliation" bill also approved by the House is passed by the Senate, since its contents will in no way diminish, although they may exacerbate, the rationing in the bill about to be signed.

The Obama Health Care Rationing Law: The Commission That Will Develop Standards the Administration Will Impose to Limit Private Sector Medical Care

An 18-member "Independent Payment Advisory Board" [Sec. 10320(b)] is given the duty, on January 15, 2015 and every two years thereafter, with regard to private health care, to make "recommendations to slow the growth in national health expenditures . . . that the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] or other Federal agencies can implement administratively" [Section 10320(a)(5)(o)(1)(A)]. In turn, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is empowered to impose "quality" AND "efficiency" measures [Section 10304] on health care providers (including hospices, ambulatory surgical centers, rehabilitation facilities, home health agencies, physicians and hospitals) [Section 3014(a) adding Social Security Act Section 1890(b)(7)(B)(I)] which must report on their compliance.

In complex gobbledegook, what this amounts to is that doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers will be told by Washington just what diagnostic tests and medical care is considered to meet "quality" and "efficiency" standards – not only for federally funded health care programs like Medicare, but also for health care paid for by private citizens and their nongovernmental health insurance. And these will be "quality and efficiency" standards specifically designed to limit what ordinary Americans spend on health care. Treatment that a doctor and patient in consultation deem needed or advisable to save that patient’s life or preserve or improve the patient’s health but which the government decides is too costly – even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it – will run afoul of the imposed standards. In effect, there will be one uniform national standard of care, established by Washington bureaucrats and set with a view to limiting what private citizens are allowed to spend on saving their own lives.

Detailed analysis of other provisions that will impose rationing.

The Prospect of Repeal

The silver lining to this very dark cloud is that the most onerous rationing elements of the Obama health care law will not go into effect until 2015– well after the next Presidential election. For repeal to be a realistic prospect, three things are essential:

–The President who takes office in 2013 would have to be someone who would sign a repeal. (Theoretically, a two-thirds majority of both Houses committed to repeal could accomplish it even over a presidential veto, but achieving such numbers would be extremely difficult.)

– As a result of the 2010 and 2012 Congressional elections, a majority of those in the 2013 House of Representatives must support repeal.

– Also as a result of the 2010 and 2012 Congressional elections, the 2013 Senate must have an adequate majority committed to repeal. Full confidence of repeal would come from 60 of the 100 Senators supporting repeal – enough to impose cloture so as to overcome a filibuster. However, it is possible that, if the elections were clearly seen to have been greatly influenced by popular rejection of the Obama Health Care Rationing Law, then even if there were 41 or more Senators who had supported its adoption, some of them might prefer not to obstruct repeal, especially those soon up for re-election. It is also conceivable that the "reconciliation" process used to secure enactment of the health care law could be used by pro-repeal Senators to gut it with 51 votes.

While most observers expect gains by opponents of Obamacare in the election of Senators in 2010, a shift to a majority in support of repeal may not be achieved. However, in 2012, only 10 or 11 opponents of the law will beup for re-election, compared to either 23 or 24 Senators who voted for it standing for re-election. (This number depends on who wins the 2010 special election to fill Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate seat – its winner will have to face the voters again in 2012.) With these odds, the chance for pro-repeal Senators to emerge in control of the Senate in 2013 is a decent one.

In short, horrific as the enactment of the Obama Health Care Rationing Law is, now is not the time to despair. Rather, the pro-life movement must devote itself over these critical years – 2010 through 2012– to ensuring that the American people are given the facts needed to counter the placating misinformation the Obama Administration and its apologists in Congress and the press are already spreading, confident that with a spoon full of sugar we will swallow their deadly recipe. We must maintain and expand the current majority that, according to most public opinion polls, rejects the Obama Health Care Rationing Law.

LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE TUESDAY

The actual language for the reconciliation bill on which the House of Representatives is expected to vote as early as Friday or Saturday is to be posted online, on the House Rules Committee website, Tuesday morning. The Robert Powell Center will evaluate the bill for rationing components and post its analysis on this blog. Because of the likely length and complexity of the bill, this analysis may take until sometime Wednesday fully to complete, although every attempt will be made to provide information as quickly as accurately possible.

Inside Health Policy has reported that according to a DC-based lobbying firm, Health Policy Source, a whip count seen by one of its lobbyists indicates that as of Friday morning there were 204 House Democrats committed to or leaning in favor of the bill. If accurate, this would mean that the House leadership had an even dozen to go before achieving the 216 needed for passage.

The House Budget Committee meets this afternoon (Monday, March 15, 2010) to pass a “shell” bill composed of the original language from the relevant House committees before the full House passed its version last November. The Rules Committee would substitute its version for that shell before the legislation came to the House floor. The terms of the substitute, incorporating the agreed changes to the Senate-passed bill negotiated behind the scenes among President Obama and Senate and House leaders, are expected to "deem" the Senate version to be passed. That bill would then apparently go to President Obama for his signature, while the Senate took up the House-passed reconciliation vehicle.

NRLC PRESS CONFERENCE 1/21/2010 STATEMENT ON HEALTH CARE RATIONING

STATEMENT BY BURKE J. BALCH, J.D.
DIRECTOR, ROBERT POWELL CENTER FOR MEDICAL ETHICS
National Right to Life Committee Press Conference
Zenger Room, National Press Building, Washington, D.C.
January 21, 2010
　
Since its inception, the pro-life movement has been just as concerned with protecting the lives of people with disabilities and older people from euthanasia as it has been with protecting unborn children from abortion, and we have regarded government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical treatment, food and fluids as an unacceptable form of involuntary euthanasia.

Therefore, the pro-life movement has grave concerns about rationing elements in the pending health care legislation. This morning’s Washington Post quotes Harvard health policy professor Robert Blendon as saying that what Massachusetts voters heard was now Senator-elect Scott Brown’s message that the national health care bills would require Medicare cuts. Indeed, a great deal of the backlash, not just in Massachusetts but also nationally, comes from those with insurance realizing that their health care will be endangered if the proposed legislation is enacted.

That legislation is based upon a widely held but fundamentally fallacious assumption – that it is necessary to "bend the cost curve" of health care spending because America cannot afford to continue to increase health care spending in the future as it has in the past.

As it happens, foremost among the economists who have debunked this fallacy is the Obama Administration’s nominee for Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the Department of Health and Human Services, Columbia University health care economist Sherry Glied, in her 1997 book "Chronic Condition: Why Health Reform Fails." The first two of these charts are based on data from that book, updated.

The percent of the average family budget devoted to health care (including what employers pay for employees’ health insurance) has steadily grown from 3% in 1940 to 17% in 2006. This trend, and fear that it will continue unless "the cost curve is bent," lies behind the increasingly widespread view that rationing, however unpalatable, is essential. But as Glied’s book demonstrates, the trend must be seen in context.

During that same period, the percent of the average family budget devoted to food declined from almost 30% to under 15%, because of ever-increasing improvements in agricultural productivity. We can look further at the three essentials of food, clothing, and shelter combined. From 1940 to 2006, the percent of the average family budget devoted to these necessities fell from about 53% to about 33%. Consequently, the percent for health care plus food, clothing, and shelter actually dropped from 56% in 1940 to 50% in 2006. Productivity improvements in such areas as agriculture, transportation, and the assembly of clothing freed up resources enabling Americans, on average, to put significantly more resources into obtaining better health care.
While we are presently coping with severe economic downturn, research by health care economists across the ideological spectrum, from David Cutler[1] to Robert Hall and Charles Jones, shows that there is no reason, so long as productivity growth continues, why we cannot indefinitely continue to increase the proportion of our incomes that is spent to keep us alive and healthy.

The pending health legislation contains numerous mechanisms to hold down the amount of their funds Americans are allowed to use to save their own lives. As documented on our website, both the House and Senate bills would not just limit government health care spending; they would empower bureaucrats to limit what private citizens can spend to get unrationed health insurance. Senior citizens, faced with massive Medicare cuts, could be prevented by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from exercising the choice current law allows them to add their own money on top of the diminishing government Medicare contribution in order to get Medicare Advantage private fee-for-service plans less likely to deny treatments and diagnostic tests. Those participating in the health insurance exchanges could see their insurance choices limited to those plans most likely to deny care if government bureaucrats exclude plans less likely to ration care on the claim that they cost too much.

Under the Senate bill, an almost omnipotent commission would be directed not only to hold Medicare increases below the rate of medical inflation, but also to recommend to the HHS Secretary measures to keep increases private health care spending below medical inflation as well. The HHS Secretary would be empowered to impose so-called "quality" and "efficiency" standards on ALL health care providers governing the health care they provide not only under government programs but also under private insurance.

We don’t need this U.K.-style rationing, and the National Right to Life Committee will be working to prevent or repeal it. Last night, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, the President suggested the possibility of a stripped-down bill, but one of the three items he mentioned as being in such a bill was "cost-containment." We will be carefully watching any such stripped-down measure to determine whether it includes provisions that, like the pending bills, would ration health care, and will be quick to publicize and oppose them.

[1] David M Cutler, Your Money or Your Life: Strong Medicine for America's Healthcare System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

NEW YORK TIMES STORY SHOWS HOW HEALTH BILL'S EFFORTS TO CUT DOWN WHAT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS ARE ALLOWED TO DO CAN RESULT IN LIVES LOST

December 22. The health care bill which the Senate is about to adopt authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to impose "efficiency" measures on doctors and hospitals throughout the country, [1] and it changes the way health care providers treating senior citizens under Medicare will be paid – instead of getting a set amount for each test or procedure, their reimbursement will be changed depending on what "value" the government believes will come from it.

However, an article in this morning’s New York Times challenges the idea that this approach will save money without denying needed and effective lifesaving care.

The Obama Administration’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orzag, has attacked the fact that the Ronald Reagan University of California at Los Angelos [UCLA] Medical Center spends more than Rochester, Minnesota's Mayo Clinic. "One of them costs twice as much as the other, and I can tell you that we have no idea what we’re getting in exchange for the extra $25,000 a year at U.C.L.A. Medical. We can no longer afford an overall health care system in which the thought is more is always better, because it’s not."

But the Times article cites recent research showing that "[T]he hospital that spent the most on heart failure patients had one-third fewer deaths after six months of an initial hospital stay."

The Times reports:

Take the case of Salah Putrus, who at age 71 had a long history of heart failure After repeated visits to his local hospital near Burbank, Calif., Mr. Putrus was referred to U.C.L.A. this year to be evaluated for a heart transplant.

Some other medical centers might have considered Mr. Putrus too old for the surgery. But U.C.L.A.’s attitude was "let’s see what we can do for
him," said his physician there, Dr. Tamara Horwich.

Indeed, Mr. Putrus recalled, Dr. Horwich and her colleagues "did every test." They changed his medicines to reduce the amount of water he was retaining. They even removed some teeth that could be a potential source of infection.

His condition improved so much that more than six months later, Mr. Putrus has remained out of the hospital and is no longer considered in active need of a transplant.

The Obama Administration and Congressional architects of the health care bill have relied heavily on a series of studies by researchers at Dartmouth which seem to show that the greater amounts of money spent on health care in some regions of the country don’t produce better outcomes and hence are wasted. This conclusion is the basis for much of the health care bill’s efforts to use the power of the federal government to force doctors and hospitals to spend less per patient.

But, as the Times story points out, "Because Dartmouth’s analysis focuses solely on patients who have died, a case like Mr. Putrus’s would not show up in its data. That is why critics say Dartmouth’s approach takes an overly pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend more on one case than another."
　

Dr.[J. Thomas] Rosenthal [, chief medical officer of the U.C.L.A. Health System,] and his U.C.L.A. colleagues . . . say that unless the distinction can be clearly drawn between excellence and excess in medical care, efforts to cut wasteful spending could be little more than blunt rationing.

"There’s a real risk of doing harm here — real harm," he said.

NRLC WRITES SENATORS LISTING ABORTION, RATIONING ELEMENTS OF SENATE HEALTH BILL

The National Right to Life Committee has sent a letter to Senators setting forth the abortion and summarizing the rationing elements in the Senate health care restructuring bill, avaliable here.

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.

RATIONING IN SENATE BILL LIKELY TO INTENSIFY

An amendment likely to be added to the Senate health care restructuring bill by Majority Leader Harry Reid would empower federal bureaucrats to impose requirements on private insurance plans with the explicit intent of limiting Americans’ right to spend their own money, if they choose, to save their own lives.

On Wednesday, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced an amendment (# 3240) to the Senate health care restructuring bill, which it is widely reported Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) will include in the mammoth “Manager’s Amendment” he will introduce just in advance of the key “cloture” votes designed to end debate preparatory to adopting the bill. Amendment 3240, which the sponsors went to the Senate floor Thursday to advocate, expands the powers of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (the Board) so that it will cover not only Medicare, but also all the private insurance plans in the “exchanges” the bill establishes for people annually to choose their health insurance.

The Board would be directed to make recommendations that the Secretary of Health and Human Services could then impose that, in the sweeping and vague language of the amendment, would in their opinion promote “integrated care, care coordination, prevention and wellness, and quality and efficiency[,] ... decrease health care spending, and [bring about] other appropriate improvements.” In addition to the elements characteristic of managed care plans that would be required, note the explicit directive to “decrease health care spending.” All of the requirements presumably are aimed at forcing the privately insured to spend less on healthcare, and the list of requirements is open-ended. Plans deemed to spend too much money on health care would be evicted from the exchange.

Instead of allowing Americans themselves to balance cost, benefits, and quality when choosing among competing health plans in the exchanges, their choice would be subject to potentially drastic restrictions. Americans’ choice to spend their own money for health insurance they judge will be less likely to deny treatments and otherwise ration care would be limited.

SENATE VOTE BEFORE CHRISTMAS -- WILL THEY OR WON'T THEY?

It is presently unclear whether a vote to adopt the Senate heath care restructuring bill will occur before Christmas or not.

According to InsideHealthPolicy.com, at a meeting with "key stakeholders" late last week, senior staff from the majority leadership sketched out a scenario for a vote on Tuesday, December 22 or Wednesday, December 23. The end game would be triggered by the filing of cloture motions -- to cut off debate and proceed to a vote-- on 3 items. One would be the so-called "manager's amendment" which is expected to contain all the compromises necessary to get 60 votes. A second would be on the Reid Substitute, as amended by adoption of the manager's amendment. The third would be on the adoption of the bill itself, a House-passed revenue measure,as replaced by the amended Reid Substitute. Once cloture is voted on each of these, there would still be 30 hours of debate permitted under the Senate rules before it could come to a vote. During that period any "germane", that is to say, related, amendments could be offered, but each could be subject to an undebatable motion to "lay on the table," which has the effect of killing it. (This, for example, is the mechanism that was used to defeat the Nelson-Hatch amendment against abortion funding in the bill.)

This scenario would require that the cloture motions be filed no later than Tuesday or Wednesday of this week. In order for that to occur, Majority Leader Reid would presumably have to be sure of his 60 votes by then, meaning that the Congressional Budget Office score on the "public option" compromise would have be delivered soon, and that it would have to satisfy the relevant Senators or else lead to quick "tweaks" that do.

It has been observed that while this schedule is technically possible, any complication, such as an inability to reach quick agreement yielding 60 votes, would scuttle it. In that case, the vote would have to be deferred until after Christmas. There have been different predictions concerning what the schedule would be in that case. One possibility is that the Senate could take only what has been called a "long lunch break," recessing, for example, only for Christmas Eve through the following weekend, and returning for the week between Christmas and New Year's Day. Others have speculated that there would be so much resistance to such a schedule that if the Senate cannot get to a final vote by Christmas, it might recess until after New Year's Day.

If there is a final Senate vote on the pending health care legislation, the differences between the Senate and House versions would still have to be resolved before a bill could be sent to President Obama for signature. One option that has been discussed would be to send the Senate-passed version directly to the House for a vote, but according to InsideHealthPolicy.com, at the stakeholders' meeting last week the senior Congressional staff suggested that would be impossible -- that there would need to be negotiations among the leaders of the two houses, even if a formal conference committee were not convened.

The White House and its allies have long sought to avoid the health care debate going over into next year, both because they want to get the public's attention focused on planned efforts to address the high unemployment rate and other effects of a poor economy and because it is widely believed that votes to adopt the measure will become more and more difficult to achieve the farther they are pushed into a Congressional election year. December polls have consistently shown majority opposition to the health care bill: by 51 to 41 percent in a December 4/5 Rasmussen poll, by 52 to 38 percent in a December 1/6 Quinnipiac poll, by 61 to 36 percent in a December 2/3 CNN/Opinion Research poll, and by 57 to 34 percent in a December 8/9 Fox News poll.

Nevertheless, the White House and key Democratic leaders remain convinced that failure to pass a health care bill in some form will be more disadvantageous politically than passing even an unpopular one -- in addition to their strong conviction that such legislation is a critically important public policy objective.