Sen. Jon Kyl: "What I'm proposing is using one budgetary gimmick to pay for another."
That's Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl's proposed method of "fixing" Medicare's physician reimbursement scheme, the sustainable growth rate (SGR), which has been causing multi-billion dollar budget headaches for roughly a decade. Sen. Kyl's idea is to use imaginary war spending that's currently included in the federal budget baseline to pay for the actual spending on Medicare's physician payments. Problem solved!
Kyl's revealing remark comes via The New York Times, which has a yet another lengthy report on the latest iteration of the long-running fight over what's become known as the "doc fix." The wonky details are there for those who want them, but the larger picture remains depressingly familiar.
As usual, it's total gridlock on Capitol Hill, even though both parties in Congress agree on what they want: Giving doctors a slight raise from their current temporary reimbursement rate, and permanently resetting Medicare's physician payments at a much higher level than the SGR formula calls for. (If no changes are made, physicians will take a 27 percent cut in March.) Doctors, of course, insist on being paid more too, and say they might not be able to take Medicare payments if the low rates go into effect. The hangup, as always, is how to pay for the increased rates.
But the larger problem that tends to go unmentioned is the technocratic mindset, shared by both parties, that assumes that Congress should control payment rates for Medicare, the single largest health payer in the country. As I reported in my January story, "Medicare Whac-a-mole," Congress has been fiddling with centrally set Medicare payment schemes for decades, only to find that each new plan produces a new and unexpected set of unintended consequences, which then have to be fixed through more technocratic tinkering. But surely "fixing" the SGR's problems through an obvious gimmick swap will work where previous attempts to control the system have failed.
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
I'm sure the Democratic Senate will address this in their next budget.
There's a bar in Truckee, CA with a sign:
"FREE BEER
tomorrow"
I presume well get a budget with that free beer.
I presume well get a budget with that free beer.
What a deal! oh, wait...
looking for the bilover?---datebi*cO'm--- is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.
"
It's budgetary gimmicks all the way down...
the search for the higgs boson will eventually discover that it is in fact a budgetary gimmick which endows mass to particles.
+10
"Congress has been fiddling with centrally set Medicare payment schemes for decades, only to find that each new plan produces a new and unexpected set of unintended consequences,"
Bad decisions are not the same as mistakes
I think you're mistakenly seeing this as an information problem, when it's actually a dishonesty problem.
Congress isn't "fiddling" with Medicare payments, in the sense that they're tinkering with them to see what works. They have actively chosen to pass one set of rates so that they can lie about the program's future projected costs. They deliberately set the payment rate low so they can "project" one set of costs. They then set about increasing that rate "temporarily" in each year's budget.
It's a good con too. The only one that I know of who is not playing is Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster.
From the 2011 report:
In past reports, and again this year, the Board of Trustees has emphasized the strong likelihood that actual Part B expenditures will exceed the projections under current law due to further legislative action to avoid substantial reductions in the Medicare physician fee schedule. While the Part B projections in this report are reasonable in their portrayal of future costs under current law, they are not reasonable as an indication of actual future costs. Current law would require a physician fee reduction of an estimated 29.4 percent on January 1, 2012?an implausible expectation"
This.
It is an exercise in knowing and willful fraud.
You could argue that they really believed it the first few times, but by now anyone with enough sense to walk and chew gum at the same time knows the truth.
And yet, they continue to pretend that the projections have some basis in reality.
How about putting a tax on Imaginary Friends?
It would result in a new agency to assign and track Imaginary Friend Tax Identification Numbers (IFTINs), and eventually require the appointment of a White House Imaginary Friends Tzar.
The hangup, as always, is how to pay for the increased rates.
We'll just get it from the money tree.
duh