Doctors, Sums, & Money

I have posted below on the billions that the Democrats are willing to spend to protect lawyers. The Washington Post raises the alarm on something else I have posted about: billions more spent to protect doctor's fees. The WaPo focuses on the right issue, as it seems to me: the Democrat's fiscal shenanigans.

HAVING PASSED a health reform bill that is, at least theoretically, paid for, the House of Representatives is poised this week to blow a quarter-trillion-dollar hole in the federal budget involving, you guessed it, health care. This is the so-called doc fix, to prevent scheduled cuts in Medicare reimbursements to physicians from taking effect.

A "quarter-trillion-dollar hole"! Since the new "expensive" is a cool trillion, that's a quarter expensive at least. Here's the trick: the House counted on scheduled reductions in doctor's fees as part of its cost control measures, thus making the House healthcare reform bill look less expensive. But they are about to restore the cuts in a separate bill. Mendacity, as Big Daddy says, is the rule we live by.

Don't be fooled by the incredible shrinking "cost" of the fix. The official Congressional Budget Office estimate used to be $245 billion over 10 years. Now it's $210 billion. In fact, the real hit to the budget will be closer to $300 billion. The lower CBO numbers stem primarily from the administration's move to change the rules about which physician payments are subject to the cuts. The administration proposed a regulation to exempt drugs administered in doctor's offices, such as chemotherapy, from the spending ceiling. That has the effect of making the cost of the fix look smaller, but it doesn't change the ultimate drain on the treasury: Medicare will end up paying out the same amount of money.

The House bill is a fiscal con job. Meanwhile, there is this from the WaPo:

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

That is another half-expensive thing in the bill. It depends on a massive cut in Medicare spending, which is something that Congress has never had the courage to do before. They ain't gonna suddenly get starch.

Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade.

Now it is reasonable to point out, as Ezra Klein does, that Medicare costs are, sooner or later, going to be cut. But the question right now is whether the House Bill or anything likely to come out of Congress is going to be not just expensive but ruinously expensive. To make the House bill look merely expensive requires a lot of sleight of hand. We have to believe that they are going to cut Medicare substantially in the near future.

But can a Congress that can't say no to the Trial Lawyers or the American Medical Association say no to the most powerful voting bloc in America? Guess.

Comments

[okyoudoitthen]

Ok- lets attack the doctors again. Medicare pay is lousy compared to what the trial lawyers make.
Read this old Mike Royko article from the early Clinton days, then you might be qualified to talk about doctor salaries.
http://www.bizbag.com/Misc%20articles/Royko%20on%20MD%20earnings.htm

[Johnathan Jones]

I just wanted to say, about Medicare costs for seniors: I was paying $240 a month for my Plan F medicare supplement because my company (unmentioned) raised my premiums 18% in just one year.

My neighbor referred me to www.nationalmedicareservicecenter.com and they compared 14 different plans. They all have the same (F) benefits but charge different rates. They put me with a VERY big company at $140 a month for the SAME plan (F).

So, as we need every dime we get nowadays, I thought I would pass it along.

[KB]

okyoudoitthen: This is a free republic. The only qualification one needs to talke about doctor's salaries or anything else is not being mute. Besides, I was not attacking doctors. I was attacking the mendacity in the House healthcare bill.

Thanks for the info JJ.

[George Mason]

JJ; Now if the government would just let us do that with all medical insurance.

[George Mason]

The WSJ has an article this morning from the Dean of the Harvard School of Medicine that provides much illumination:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539581994054014.html

This article addresses the economics, the practice of medicine and the public policy implications of the current bill in the senate.