The Washington Post reports that the Affordable Care Act’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, intended to constrain Medicare spending increases, is under increasing pressure from Republicans, health care lobbyists—and a significant number of Democrats.
As specified by the ACA, the IPAB will consist of fifteen health care “experts” to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, with authority to make cuts to Medicare if spending exceeds specified targets, starting in 2015. Congress could overrule the panel, but only by mustering a super-majority in the Senate or by creating an alternate plan to save the same amount.
The ACA imposes narrow limits on the IPAB. By law it cannot ration care, cut benefits, change eligibility rules, or raise revenue by increasing beneficiary premiums or cost-sharing, nor can it—until 2020—reduce payments to hospitals. This means that the brunt of any IPAB-proposed savings will fall on physicians and drug and medical device companies.
Not surprisingly, the targeted provider groups are lobbying fiercely against the IPAB’s powers. As the Post reports, the AMA and dozens of other industry groups are actively fighting the IPAB in Washington, while a series of national TV ads denouncing it is to air starting this week. Congressional Republicans—eager to attack any part of the ACA—have jumped on the bandwagon and, with the support of a handful of Democratic House members dependent on provider financial contributions, have introduced a bill to eliminate the IPAB.
There are some ironies in all of this frantic activity—along with indications that everyone involved may be wasting their energies:
1. The IPAB is likely to have far less impact on Medicare physician payments than any possible reworking of the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, and be considerably less broad than anything the newly-named bipartisan deficit super-committee may propose.
2. Given that its fifteen members are subject to Senate confirmation, Republicans can probably prevent the IPAB from ever convening.
3. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in March that, in part due to other cuts to Medicare in the health-care law, spending will be within the ACA’s targets for the next 10 years, thereby eliminating the need for the IPAB to make any recommendations at all.
Roger Collier was formerly CEO of a national health care consulting firm. His experience includes the design and implementation of innovative health care programs for HMOs, health insurers, and state and federal agencies. He is editor of Health Care REFORM UPDATE.
Categories: Uncategorized
The broken Medicare physician payment formula known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR) is a prime example of why the IPAB – another arbitrary formula imposed on the Medicare system – must be repealed. The SGR has led to the threat of a nearly 30 percent cut for physicians who care for Medicare patients on January 1, compromising access to care for seniors. Adding additional overall cuts through IPAB would increase this problem and create a double jeopardy situation where physicians face two sets of cuts – further threatening access to care just as millions of baby boomers enter Medicare. We cannot continue to implement the same arbitrary formulas and expect different results. To reduce growth in Medicare spending Congress should work in a bipartisan manner on payment and delivery system design changes that improve quality, promote care coordination, preserve access and ensure physicians can provide patients with the right care at the right time.
I’ll believe the attacks on the IPAB are wasted energy when the defenders of IPAB appear to believe it. The enemy’s most valuable resource is usually right behind his guns.
come on Roger you have to be joking.
“Given that its fifteen members are subject to Senate confirmation, Republicans can probably prevent the IPAB from ever convening.”
Obama would never resort to a recess appointment right, Berwick isn’t head of CMS?
“The ACA imposes narrow limits on the IPAB. By law it cannot ration care, cut benefits, change eligibility rules, or raise revenue by increasing beneficiary premiums or cost-sharing, nor can it—until 2020—reduce payments to hospitals.”
As written now. Medicare use to require by law providers be paid billed charges, all the way until it got in the way then they just rewrote the law and took that part out.