The Hypocritic Oath

by: Yana Kunichoff, t r u t h o u t | Report

The Hypocritic Oath
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: sbluerock, borman818 )

Critics call out Congress for choosing the good will of doctors over the good health of patients, as the House proposes to lower funding for unemployment health benefits while putting $22 billion toward a measure guaranteeing high doctor pay.

In an effort to garner votes on the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, which would extend tax cuts and lengthen unemployment benefits, Democrats are attempting to minimize the budget deficit impact of the bill by eliminating health care aid to states health insurance subsidies for the unemployed by $30 billion, while at the same time shoring up cash to subsidize freezes to planned cuts in Medicare payment rates for doctors for the next three years.

The proposals were bashed by Steven Pearlstein of The Washington Post, who placed the blame on fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the House who were willing to see people go without health care in order to "guarantee that American doctors don't suffer any significant declines in their incomes just because of a little thing like a recession or a government budget crisis."

Known as the "doctor fix," the subsidizing of Medicare payment rates for doctors has been a tool of federal lawmakers for years. Under the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate, a complex formula designed 13 years ago to rein in Medicare expenses and balance the federal budget, the government has the power to decide how much doctors were reimbursed for caring for patients 65 and older. The principle behind this was that doctors would rein in wasteful and unnecessary care because if they didn't, they risked reductions in fees from Medicare patients.

The doctor fix has effectively neutered this program on a number of occasions. Each deferral of cuts to Medicare rates leads to an annual budget shortfall of about $20 billion that must be paid by the government to maintain current payment rates to physicians under Medicare. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if lawmakers called in the tab today, it would cost physicians $276 billion.

An automatic 21.3 percent cut in Medicare physicians rates was expected to kick in June 1, but angry calls by the American Medical Association to scrap the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate altogether led to a compromise by Democratic leadership. Under the doctor fix compromise, the cuts will be frozen for three and a-half years. Instead, doctors will receive a 1.3 percent payment boost through the end of the year, an additional 1 percent increase in 2011 and may be offered additional increases in 2012 and 2013.

"Every time, Congress and the president have acceded to these un-Hippocratic ransoms," Pearlstein said of the power of the doctors' lobby in Congress. He went on to note that the high pay of American physicians and growing physician income from Medicare mean that doctors salaries should not be the spending priority of a legislature so worried about the federal deficit that it is cutting health care for the unemployed.

Pearlstein calculates that physicians actively participating in the Medicare program receive $20,000, and said that, although Medicare physicians fees have not entirely kept up with the other costs of running a doctor's office, the modest gap has been more than offset by the increased volume of services.

The high salaries of doctors in the United States puts them above any other Western country, with the average earnings  for an American general practitioner being more than $150,000 a year compared to about $110,000 in the United Kingdom. According to a 2008 report by the Society of General Internal Medicine, about 31 percent of the salary of American doctors comes from public funding, including Medicare.

The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loophole Act will add $50 billion to the deficit. Despite this, the proposed cut in aid to cash-strapped states to pay for Medicare will eliminate $24 billion. The Democrats' plan also removes $7 billion dollars meant to continue providing subsidies to help those who had been laid off to keep up with health insurance premiums under the COBRA health plan.

Premium payments for a family policy will consume about 80 percent or more of a worker's unemployment check without these subsidies, according to Families USA, a liberal advocacy group.

The provision, which will be voted on next week, also expands the list of services that are not eligible for reimbursement under Medicare.

"The irony" for Pearlstein is "that much of that money for Medicaid and COBRA would eventually have made its way into the hands of doctors and other health professionals. Instead, those clever Blue Dogs have found a way to get the docs the money to maintain their lifestyles, but without having to provide the extra care. That's a lousy set of policy trade-offs, one that a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic president, should have the wisdom to reject."
 

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.





     

»



Yana Kunichoff is an assistant editor at Truthout.


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



Not to mention that

Not to mention that physicians who specialize usually make more than $200K per year (cardiologists easily make $500K, for instance).



While specialists can easily

While specialists can easily afford pay cuts, as can the average and above average generalists, generalists who have large percentages of patients on Medicare cannot because they are so far below average.

Cut the pay of specialists. That's fine. But cutting the pay of generalists is not a sensible thing to do.



The reimbursement plan for

The reimbursement plan for doctors under Medicare has proven to be a failure, and if faithfully implemented would result in Medicare patients having a hard time finding doctors to care for them. That is the most important reason Congress has to keep adjusting the payment schedule. The entire plan should be changed into something more workable. However, Progressives fall into a trap if they pit (or allow conservatives to pit) doctor reimbursement against unemployment benefits. The two should not compete against each other. A just society requires a reasonable level for both.



Med ed is very expensive.

Med ed is very expensive. The ordinary guy is taxed to finance it and then he gets soaked when he needs the help which was the justification for taxing him.



There is tremendous waste in

There is tremendous waste in "medical care" -- and for the most part, Medicare doesn't discriminate between necessary and unnecessary. They claim to, but how can you really tell? Who is to say who needs what test or procedure? The doctor? The patient? A bureaucrat? Many schemes have tried, and most have failed.

Medicare is in trouble because it promises too much and has too little. Resources are restrictes, so someone must win, and someone must lose -- you can bet the losers will be those lowest on the totem pole: the patients and the generalist physicians, not the CEO's of insurance companies or hospitals or pharmaceutical companies or durable medical equipment manufacturers.



Of course, with single

Of course, with single payer, none of this would even be an issue. Golly, we'd even save enough to create a few jobs!



Hypocrisy is the most common

Hypocrisy is the most common sin of all.



When I graduate medical

When I graduate medical school I will have over $320,000 in school debt. I will be in my 30's after residency. SO, Yana, will you agree to pay back my medical school and undergraduate loans and pay me for the 4 years of lost wages? I'll give you a discount rate from my residency of $50k a year. That comes out to $520,000. If you could help that would be great!



Because of inherent problems

Because of inherent problems in the Sustainable Reimbursement Rate, physicians have already taken a 21% cut from 2000, taking inflation in account. Now we are cut another 23.3%. I work 60 hours a week as a family physician/geriatrician (not including being on call week nights and weekends), yet only make $100,000 a year because I practice mostly geriatric care. Is that excessive income for incurring what today would be $100,000 for medical school costs, working three years for less than minimum wage during residency, and effectively giving up my 20s?

The point is that primary care physicians are not the cause of our rising health care costs, and certainly don't deserve the smug criticism by Kunichoff and Pearlstein. Start looking at the 20+% profits taken by the health insurance companies and the exorbitant profits taken by the pharmaceutical firms. A Single Payer Health Plan would have resolved this mining of the middle class by mega-corporations, but Republicans declared it dead on arrival, and President Obama didn't have the leadership skills to get us around the road block.



Doctors in the UK do not

Doctors in the UK do not have to pay for medical school. If you make a comparison, take into account all variables.