MEDPAC rec­om­men­da­tions are “too se­vere to providers.”

Modern Healthcare - - THE WEEK IN HEALTHCARE -

gress as a whole should act on it or for­ward it to the su­per­com­mit­tee for con­sid­er­a­tion. But tim­ing of the first-time rec­om­men­da­tions was not de­signed to co­in­cide with the work of the debt panel, he said.

The su­per­com­mit­tee is ex­pected to use such ex­ist­ing cost-sav­ings pro­pos­als in its fi­nal pack­age, ac­cord­ing to nu­mer­ous con­gres­sional sources in­ter­viewed in re­cent weeks, pri­mar­ily be­cause such op­tions al­ready have es­tab­lished sav­ings at­trib­uted to them.

But providers and their ad­vo­cates al­ready were ma­neu­ver­ing late last week to re­move the MedPAC off­sets as a vi­able op­tion, even as they con­tin­ued to push for SGR re­peal.

“If I were on the su­per­com­mit­tee, I would be look­ing for ideas that were vet­ted and had bi­par­ti­san sup­port,” Michael Regier, gen­eral coun­sel for VHA, told Modern Health­care af­ter the MedPAC vote.

What ideas would meet those cri­te­ria re­main un­clear, as two lead­ing hos­pi­tal­backed off­sets—rais­ing Medi­care’s el­i­gi­bil­ity age and med­i­cal li­a­bil­ity re­form—face sharp par­ti­san di­vi­sions.

Schwartz agreed in an in­ter­view that the MedPAC rec­om­men­da­tions are “too se­vere to providers.”

She plans to in­tro­duce leg­is­la­tion later this year to spec­ify a way to pay for per­ma­nent re­peal of the SGR but, for now, she and many provider groups lack any pop­u­lar al­ter­na­tives to pay for it.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.