Attached two examples how the American Medical Association advocates on behalf of physicians. I encourage you to renew your AMA membership to support those efforts which are helping us to practice medicine.
Have a great Memorial Day Weekend.
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
AMA Outreach Recruiter
FTC Delays Red Flags Rule
The Federal Trade Commission on May 28 announced it would delay enforcement of the Red Flags Rule from June 1 to Dec. 31, 2010.
The commission cited congressional consideration of legislation that would affect the scope of entities covered by the rule to require businesses to take specific steps to minimize identity theft. For instance, S. 3416, introduced on May 25 in the Senate, would exempt health care practices with 20 or fewer employees, as well as accounting and legal practices of similar size.
Covered health care professionals under the bill include physicians, dentists, podiatrists, chiropractors, physical therapists, occupational therapists, marriage or family therapists, optometrists, speech therapists, language therapists, hearing therapists and veterinarians.
The commission in its announcement urged Congress to quickly act "to pass legislation that will resolve any questions as to which entities are covered by the rule and obviate the need for further enforcement delays. If Congress passes legislation limiting the scope of the Red Flags Rule with an effective date earlier than December 31, 2010, the Commission will begin enforcement as of that effective date."
The American Medical Association, which on May 21 filed a lawsuit to prevent the FTC from applying the rule to physicians, applauded the delay. "We call on the FTC to exempt physicians from the rule completely."
The extension is a promising sign that the AMA lawsuit caught the attention of the FTC, the association says. "Last November, a federal court blocked the rule from being applied to attorneys after the FTC was found to be extending its regulatory power beyond that authorized by Congress. We hope this latest extension will be long enough for the FTC to take a good, hard look at the rule and finally exclude physicians from this unjustified and burdensome regulation of medicine."
AMA eVoice Logo
eVoice® Alert
May 28, 2010
Tell Congress enough is enough!
Congress failed to address this year’s Medicare physician payment cut before the June 1 deadline next week. Although the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation at the last minute to suspend cuts for another 19 months, the U.S. Senate left for a week-long Memorial Day recess without taking action. When Congress returns from their vacation on June 7, the Senate is expected to take up the House-passed bill.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services already issued instructions to its contractors to postpone processing claims for Medicare physician services provided on or after June 1 for 10 days to provide time for Congress to complete its action and overturn the scheduled cut retroactive to June 1.
The new proposal being considered by Congress would provide payment updates of 2.2 percent for the remainder of 2010 and an additional 1 percent increase in 2011. However, in 2012 the SGR formula will once again go into effect and payments will be cut by an estimated 33 percent!
Congress needs to hear from you! Call your representative and senators today using the AMA’s toll-free grassroots hotline at (800) 833-6354 or send them an e-mail. Urge them to end their mismanagement of these important health care programs, and honor their commitment to military families and older Americans.
It is long past time for Congress to find a long-term solution to the SGR that does not create an even bigger problem in the future. Enough is enough!
Friday, May 28, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
AMA Advocates For Fair Medicare Reimbursement
Attached an urgent appeal by our AMA to call upon legislators to finally address and resolve the flawed Medicare physicians formula.
Now its time to unite and support our AMA in its effort. I call upon the FMA leadership to stop all of its efforts to undermine our AMA and to focus on the pragmatic resolution of real and not imaginary problems. Physicians deserve our attention to their problems.
Yours
Bernd
AMA Outreach Recruiter
eVoice® Alert
May 18, 2010
AMA opposes SGR proposal
Based on conversations with policymakers, the AMA cannot support an emerging proposal to address the flawed Medicare physician payment formula. The result in five years would be steeper cuts for physician practices, making it much more difficult—if not impossible—to achieve the objective of permanently repealing the “sustainable growth rate” (SGR).
It is our understanding that a draft proposal developed by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate congressional leadership would provide for statutory updates of 2.2 percent for the remainder of 2010 and an additional 1 percent increase in 2011. Short-term positive updates are no doubt attractive. From 2012 through 2014, physician updates would be determined by two expenditure targets that were proposed by H.R. 3961. We believe updates during this period would likely produce modest increases for E&M services and no less than a freeze for other Medicare services. In 2015, physician payments would be scheduled to revert back to the current SGR formula with a projected cut of no more than 37 percent. While this cut would result in a 2015 conversion factor in line with that projected under current law, the update baseline will continue to fall during these five years as a result of the underlying SGR formula. By 2015, we believe that the price tag to permanently repeal the SGR, or even to extend the proposed 2012-2014 policy, could exceed $500 billion.
The AMA fully appreciates the fiscal challenges confronting Congress and our nation today. The cost of permanently eliminating the currently scheduled Medicare cuts is approximately $250 billion. For the last several years, Congress has chosen short-term remedies that have resulted in larger future physician payment cuts and made it much more expensive to scrap a formula that Democrats and Republicans have both said should be repealed. Five years ago, the price tag for repealing the SGR was $49 billion.
Twice this year, Congress has allowed 30-day extensions to expire, creating turmoil for patients and physicians because a 21 percent cut became the operative policy. On June 1, the current extension will expire again.
Failure by Congress and the Obama Administration to properly solve this issue will intensify access problems for seniors and military families enrolled in the TRICARE program, and severely undermine implementation of recently enacted health system reform legislation. An existing physician shortage will be magnified and steeper cuts will prevent practice and delivery innovations.
Everyone in the health care community and Congress would like to see this problem go away. However, the AMA believes that greater long-term insolvency is too steep a price to pay for a temporary solution. We believe that policymakers must once again go back to the drawing board and make the tough decisions necessary to provide the funding to fulfill the obligations made to Medicare patients and military families, without steep cuts for medical services.
Contact your members of Congress. Urge them to pass legislation to avert a 21 percent cut on June 1 without increasing the cost of a permanent solution, and preserve access to medical services for Medicare patients and military families. We should not mortgage the future of the private practice of medicine. Growing the problem is not the solution!
Now its time to unite and support our AMA in its effort. I call upon the FMA leadership to stop all of its efforts to undermine our AMA and to focus on the pragmatic resolution of real and not imaginary problems. Physicians deserve our attention to their problems.
Yours
Bernd
AMA Outreach Recruiter
eVoice® Alert
May 18, 2010
AMA opposes SGR proposal
Based on conversations with policymakers, the AMA cannot support an emerging proposal to address the flawed Medicare physician payment formula. The result in five years would be steeper cuts for physician practices, making it much more difficult—if not impossible—to achieve the objective of permanently repealing the “sustainable growth rate” (SGR).
It is our understanding that a draft proposal developed by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate congressional leadership would provide for statutory updates of 2.2 percent for the remainder of 2010 and an additional 1 percent increase in 2011. Short-term positive updates are no doubt attractive. From 2012 through 2014, physician updates would be determined by two expenditure targets that were proposed by H.R. 3961. We believe updates during this period would likely produce modest increases for E&M services and no less than a freeze for other Medicare services. In 2015, physician payments would be scheduled to revert back to the current SGR formula with a projected cut of no more than 37 percent. While this cut would result in a 2015 conversion factor in line with that projected under current law, the update baseline will continue to fall during these five years as a result of the underlying SGR formula. By 2015, we believe that the price tag to permanently repeal the SGR, or even to extend the proposed 2012-2014 policy, could exceed $500 billion.
The AMA fully appreciates the fiscal challenges confronting Congress and our nation today. The cost of permanently eliminating the currently scheduled Medicare cuts is approximately $250 billion. For the last several years, Congress has chosen short-term remedies that have resulted in larger future physician payment cuts and made it much more expensive to scrap a formula that Democrats and Republicans have both said should be repealed. Five years ago, the price tag for repealing the SGR was $49 billion.
Twice this year, Congress has allowed 30-day extensions to expire, creating turmoil for patients and physicians because a 21 percent cut became the operative policy. On June 1, the current extension will expire again.
Failure by Congress and the Obama Administration to properly solve this issue will intensify access problems for seniors and military families enrolled in the TRICARE program, and severely undermine implementation of recently enacted health system reform legislation. An existing physician shortage will be magnified and steeper cuts will prevent practice and delivery innovations.
Everyone in the health care community and Congress would like to see this problem go away. However, the AMA believes that greater long-term insolvency is too steep a price to pay for a temporary solution. We believe that policymakers must once again go back to the drawing board and make the tough decisions necessary to provide the funding to fulfill the obligations made to Medicare patients and military families, without steep cuts for medical services.
Contact your members of Congress. Urge them to pass legislation to avert a 21 percent cut on June 1 without increasing the cost of a permanent solution, and preserve access to medical services for Medicare patients and military families. We should not mortgage the future of the private practice of medicine. Growing the problem is not the solution!
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Health Insurance Companies
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
Attached you find an article from today's New York Times highlighting how health insurance companies are trying to (re) shape the rules of the new health care law thereby potentially mitigating its adverse impact on their profitable business model.
The impact of the new health care law depends on regulations needed to interpret it and more than 40 provisions of the law require or permit agencies to issue rules.
Two of these rules are at the heart of the new conflict fought by insurance lobbyists.
One bars insurers from carrying out an “unreasonable premium increase” unless they first submit justifications to federal and state officials. Congress did not say what is unreasonable, leaving that to rule writers. Another provision, effective Jan. 1, requires that a minimum percentage (85%) of premium dollars be spent on true medical costs related to patient care — not retained by insurers as profit or used to cover administrative expenses. Insurers must refund money to consumers if they do not meet the standards, known as minimum loss ratios.
Therefore, insurance companies will make every effort to reclassify ANY expenses as activities " that improve health care quality” for patients.
Thus, insurers are lobbying for a broad definition of quality improvement activities that would allow them to count spending on health information technology, nurse hot lines and efforts to prevent fraud. They also want to include the cost of reviewing care by doctors and hospitals, to determine if it was appropriate and followed clinical protocols.
As physicians we should SUPPORT narrowing these definitions of quality improvement activities, limited to those that produce measurable benefits to individual patients.
Otherwise, insurance companies will continue to pad their bottom lines, continue to find reasons to increase insurance premiums and make it more difficult for the average American to pay for health care.
Its time that physician organizations STOP criticizing the new law and point the finger at the real culprit: insurance companies!
Yours
Bernd
Health Insurance Companies Try to Shape Rules
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies are lobbying federal and state officials in an effort to ward off strict regulation of premiums and profits under the new health care law.
The effort is, in some ways, a continuation of the battle over health care that consumed Congress last year.
Insurance lobbyists are trying to shape regulations that will define “unreasonable” premium increases and require them to pay rebates to consumers if the companies do not spend enough on patient care.
For their part, consumer groups say they worry that their legislative victories could be undone or undercut by the rules being written by the federal government and the states.
The health care overhaul provides a classic example of how the impact of a law depends on regulations needed to interpret it. The rules deal with relatively technical questions but go to the heart of the law, pushed through Congress by President Obama and Democratic leaders with no Republican support.
More than 40 provisions of the law require or permit agencies to issue rules. Lobbyists are focusing on two whose stated purpose is to ensure that consumers “get value for their dollars.”
One bars insurers from carrying out an “unreasonable premium increase” unless they first submit justifications to federal and state officials. Congress did not say what is unreasonable, leaving that to rule writers.
Another provision, effective Jan. 1, requires that a minimum percentage of premium dollars be spent on true medical costs related to patient care — not retained by insurers as profit or used to cover administrative expenses. Insurers must refund money to consumers if they do not meet the standards, known as minimum loss ratios.
Michael W. Fedyna, vice president and chief actuary of Aetna, underlined the importance of this issue, saying no other aspect of the law would be so “influential in shaping the future of the health care marketplace in the United States.”
The definition of medical loss ratio will “determine the willingness of health plans to enter new markets and remain in existing markets,” he said.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, said the definition would be just as important for consumers and small businesses.
“The health insurance industry has shifted its focus from opposing health care reform to influencing how the new law will be implemented,” he said.
The law requires insurers to spend a minimum percentage of premiums on health care services and “activities that improve health care quality” for patients.
Insurers are eager to classify as many expenses as possible in these categories, so they can meet the new test and avoid paying rebates to policyholders.
Thus, insurers are lobbying for a broad definition of quality improvement activities that would allow them to count spending on health information technology, nurse hot lines and efforts to prevent fraud. They also want to include the cost of reviewing care by doctors and hospitals, to determine if it was appropriate and followed clinical protocols.
Some consumer advocates, like Carmen L. Balber of Consumer Watchdog, favor a strict, narrow definition of quality improvement activities, limited to those that produce measurable benefits to individual patients.
Alissa Fox, a senior vice president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said that if the definition is too narrow, “health plans will come under enormous pressure to cut back quality improvement activities, including highly effective programs to reduce hospital infection rates.”
But Charles N. Kahn III, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a trade group, said he feared that the quality improvement category would become a “catchall for a wide variety of expenses not directly related to patient care.”
Under the new law, insurers in the large group market are generally supposed to spend 85 percent of customers’ premiums on “clinical services” and quality-enhancing activities. The minimum is 80 percent for coverage sold to individuals and small groups.
Insurers and insurance regulators say that some companies will be unable or unwilling to meet the new standards.
Attached you find an article from today's New York Times highlighting how health insurance companies are trying to (re) shape the rules of the new health care law thereby potentially mitigating its adverse impact on their profitable business model.
The impact of the new health care law depends on regulations needed to interpret it and more than 40 provisions of the law require or permit agencies to issue rules.
Two of these rules are at the heart of the new conflict fought by insurance lobbyists.
One bars insurers from carrying out an “unreasonable premium increase” unless they first submit justifications to federal and state officials. Congress did not say what is unreasonable, leaving that to rule writers. Another provision, effective Jan. 1, requires that a minimum percentage (85%) of premium dollars be spent on true medical costs related to patient care — not retained by insurers as profit or used to cover administrative expenses. Insurers must refund money to consumers if they do not meet the standards, known as minimum loss ratios.
Therefore, insurance companies will make every effort to reclassify ANY expenses as activities " that improve health care quality” for patients.
Thus, insurers are lobbying for a broad definition of quality improvement activities that would allow them to count spending on health information technology, nurse hot lines and efforts to prevent fraud. They also want to include the cost of reviewing care by doctors and hospitals, to determine if it was appropriate and followed clinical protocols.
As physicians we should SUPPORT narrowing these definitions of quality improvement activities, limited to those that produce measurable benefits to individual patients.
Otherwise, insurance companies will continue to pad their bottom lines, continue to find reasons to increase insurance premiums and make it more difficult for the average American to pay for health care.
Its time that physician organizations STOP criticizing the new law and point the finger at the real culprit: insurance companies!
Yours
Bernd
Health Insurance Companies Try to Shape Rules
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies are lobbying federal and state officials in an effort to ward off strict regulation of premiums and profits under the new health care law.
The effort is, in some ways, a continuation of the battle over health care that consumed Congress last year.
Insurance lobbyists are trying to shape regulations that will define “unreasonable” premium increases and require them to pay rebates to consumers if the companies do not spend enough on patient care.
For their part, consumer groups say they worry that their legislative victories could be undone or undercut by the rules being written by the federal government and the states.
The health care overhaul provides a classic example of how the impact of a law depends on regulations needed to interpret it. The rules deal with relatively technical questions but go to the heart of the law, pushed through Congress by President Obama and Democratic leaders with no Republican support.
More than 40 provisions of the law require or permit agencies to issue rules. Lobbyists are focusing on two whose stated purpose is to ensure that consumers “get value for their dollars.”
One bars insurers from carrying out an “unreasonable premium increase” unless they first submit justifications to federal and state officials. Congress did not say what is unreasonable, leaving that to rule writers.
Another provision, effective Jan. 1, requires that a minimum percentage of premium dollars be spent on true medical costs related to patient care — not retained by insurers as profit or used to cover administrative expenses. Insurers must refund money to consumers if they do not meet the standards, known as minimum loss ratios.
Michael W. Fedyna, vice president and chief actuary of Aetna, underlined the importance of this issue, saying no other aspect of the law would be so “influential in shaping the future of the health care marketplace in the United States.”
The definition of medical loss ratio will “determine the willingness of health plans to enter new markets and remain in existing markets,” he said.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, said the definition would be just as important for consumers and small businesses.
“The health insurance industry has shifted its focus from opposing health care reform to influencing how the new law will be implemented,” he said.
The law requires insurers to spend a minimum percentage of premiums on health care services and “activities that improve health care quality” for patients.
Insurers are eager to classify as many expenses as possible in these categories, so they can meet the new test and avoid paying rebates to policyholders.
Thus, insurers are lobbying for a broad definition of quality improvement activities that would allow them to count spending on health information technology, nurse hot lines and efforts to prevent fraud. They also want to include the cost of reviewing care by doctors and hospitals, to determine if it was appropriate and followed clinical protocols.
Some consumer advocates, like Carmen L. Balber of Consumer Watchdog, favor a strict, narrow definition of quality improvement activities, limited to those that produce measurable benefits to individual patients.
Alissa Fox, a senior vice president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said that if the definition is too narrow, “health plans will come under enormous pressure to cut back quality improvement activities, including highly effective programs to reduce hospital infection rates.”
But Charles N. Kahn III, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a trade group, said he feared that the quality improvement category would become a “catchall for a wide variety of expenses not directly related to patient care.”
Under the new law, insurers in the large group market are generally supposed to spend 85 percent of customers’ premiums on “clinical services” and quality-enhancing activities. The minimum is 80 percent for coverage sold to individuals and small groups.
Insurers and insurance regulators say that some companies will be unable or unwilling to meet the new standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)