The Doc Fix: A Lesson in How Government Doesn't Work
Here's what happens when the U.S. Congress decides to indulge its technocratic tendencies on a major aspect of the American health care system, physicians' Medicare payments, which since 1997 have been governed by the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Via The Washington Post:
It was adopted by Congress in 1997 almost as an afterthought — a new formula to keep Medicare spending on doctors from growing faster than the economy as a whole.
But like a snowball that swells in size as it rolls down a mountain, the rate-setting formula has transformed into a budget-busting juggernaut that will hit doctors with a 27.4 percent pay cut for their Medicare patients in January unless legislators step in.
The cost of congressional intervention has ballooned just as formidably: Postponing the cuts — the solution Congress has turned to every year since 2003 — would cost $21?billion for a one-year delay and $38.6?billion for two years. Fully repealing the formula would add nearly $300?billion to the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The formula has given us one of Washington's most enduring budget rituals, the "doc fix," in which Congress, despite being well aware that physicians are set for large cuts to their Medicare reimbursement rates, and despite having no intention of letting those cuts go through, waits until the very, very, very last minute, talks about the need to get rid of the SGR…and then passes yet another temporary override.
Despite widespread agreement between Republicans, Democrats, and health providers that the system needs a permanent fix, Congress sticks to temporary patches because the total cost of a permanent fix would, at this point, run somewhere in the neighborhood of $300-400 billion dollars—money that no one in Congress wants to commit. Even when Democrats in Congress did manage to raise a trillion bucks to put toward health care (sort of), they spent it on expanding coverage through ObamaCare rather than on unbreaking the obviously cracked system we already had.
Indeed, the delays just break the system further; every temporary override makes a permanent fix even more expensive. By 2014, it won't cost $300-400 billion. It'll cost closer to $600 billion. So each time Team Red and Team Blue team up to pass a temporary patch in order to avoid the pain of paying for a permanent fix, they end up making it even harder to pass a permanently paid-for solution down the road. It's a bipartisan feedback loop of fiscal stupidity.
The doc fix is an object lesson in the ways that Washington does not work: Congress passes poorly designed plans—a complex payment formula that no one expected would ever cause physician payments to drop—and then when it dawns on legislators that their latest technocratic scheme isn't working as expected, they take half-measures to "fix" the problem that actually make it worse.
This isn't an isolated case, either; it's not like Medicare was A-OK until Congress came along and screwed it up with the unsustainable growth rate. As I document in "Medicare Whac-a-Mole," my feature in Reason's latest print edition, the history of Medicare payment fixes, each intended to control exploding system costs by somehow fixing its payment system, is a history of technocratic folly, in which Congress and assorted health bureaucrats—not all of whom even knew much about the health care system they were tasked with managing—passed payment reform after payment reform, only to watch spending continue to grow faster than expected. This is why I'm even skeptical of the permanent fix proposals put forth by Medicare's resident bureauwonks, which would tweak the payment system to cut specialist payments and freeze primary care pay. Maybe the wonks and bureaucrats will get it right this time! Or, you know, maybe not.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
$300-400 billion dollars?money that no one in Congress wants to commit.
Oh, c'mon. You could count on the fingers of one hand the members of Congress who don't want to spend that much money. They do it All. The. Time.
They just don't want to be seen spending that much money.
The doc fix is an object lesson in the ways that Washington does not work
I think you mean "abject".
Is it just me, or does the patient look like Rod Blagojevich?
One clarification: The temporary patch of the "doc fix" is exactly identical in cost and effect to a permanent fix. The only difference is in the accounting for those out years. By pretending that the rate caps will go into effect after the temporary fix expires, they can claim that future outlays will be hundreds of billions less than they actually will be. The language Suderman uses (which echos the language of the Hill) implies that there is some difference between a permanent doc fix, a temporary doc fix and repeal of the reimbursement formula. There isn't. The cuts proscribed by the formula are unrealistic and untenable and would never be enacted (you'd have no physicians available for medicare patients).
In the business world you have to sign off on your financial statements and risk personal criminal charges and jail time for this sort of fiction.
Yes, the only sense in that it "costs more" is if you believe that the "starve the beast" theory is basically correct, and if the larger accurate deficits were in the forecast, that would restrain other spending more. The fix itself costs the same.
"The cuts proscribed by the formula are unrealistic and untenable and would never be enacted "
And yet, as you point out, Congress pretneds they will happen so as to make future outlays seem less than they actually will be.
Which is a good reason why the temporary "doc fix" is a more attractive political solution than revising or repealing the formula.
By passing "temporary" fixes every year they can both spend the extra money AND have the rosier budget projections.
Peter Suderman,
When are you going to cover this study about public VS. private care?
Or, is it xnay fitay the libertarian agenda?
Fuck you, you blog pimp!
Link the 'study' or stuff it up your ass.
On November 31, CMS issued a directive that will allow nearly 15 million obese Medicare patients to see their primary care doctor for "free" up to 20 times in one year for face to face obesity counseling. CMS will pay doctors $34 for this office visit.
That's potentially 300 million doctor visits which is 100 million more office visits then Medicare patients see their primary doctor now for all reasons. (There are nearly 50 million Medicare patients who see their primary care doctor an average four times a year)
Do the math and that's potentially $10 billion in unbudgeted benefits in a system that will be bankrupt in three years.
Before CMS issued this ruling, they did no actual cost benefit analysis; no estimate of the total cost of the program or whether this new service can even be delivered. (There is a well known projected shortage of primary care doctors)
The Affordable Care Act gave CMS the power to do this which rivals anything Soviet era central planning ever tried to accomplish.
I defy anyone to explain how this directive is any different that when the central committee set wheat production quotas by fiat; then set the price of bread with no thought as to whether it could pay for the cost of production.
I have not read a single news story or commentary that point out any of these small issues.
Meanwhile, if Congress can't get its act together, physicians are going to take a 27.4% cut in Medicare reimbursements on January 1st. Where's Alice? I think I'm in a rabbit hole.
Why not just split the difference? Give half.
www surprisefirms com
By the way... The "doc fix" was included in todays payroll tax cut extension deal.