Home >Newsletters >August 1997
 
ASA NEWSLETTER
 
 
August 1997
Volume 61
Number 8
 
WASHINGTON REPORT

Balanced Budget Legislation Passes Both Chambers

Michael Scott, Director
Governmental and Legal Affairs



Prior to adjourning for a weeklong Fourth of July recess, the House and Senate both passed differing spending and tax packages as part of the overall budget reconciliation process. Republicans immediately hailed passage as a historic step toward balancing the federal budget, while detractors continued to express concerns about a number of provisions in the two bills.

The House took the first step, passing its version of the spending legislation on June 24. This package contained projected savings of $115 billion over the next five years from the Medicare program alone, with another $12.6 billion in savings coming from Medicaid. The Medicare savings would come from reduced payments to most providers, including physicians and hospitals; additional projected savings would come from increased enrollment in Medicare managed care plans. The legislation would allow expanded use of medical savings accounts for Medicare recipients as well. Also contained in this package were spending increases of $16 billion for children's health care programs and $13 billion for welfare aid to legal immigrants and children.

The Senate version of the spending bill, which passed later the same day, contains many similar provisions. The key difference between the House and Senate package is that the Senate's Medicare section contains three controversial provisions, one raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67, another increasing premiums on wealthier recipients, and a third that would require a $5 co-payment for home health care visits.

Important to ASA members is a provision in both bills dealing with physician reimbursement. Both proposals would do away with the current system of three conversion factors within the Medicare Fee Schedule; under the proposed single conversion factor, the 1998 anesthesiology Medicare conversion factor would be set at 46 percent of the new single conversion factor for all other specialties. This change had been strongly recommended by the Physician Payment Review Commission and ASA. This is a vast improvement over the President's initial proposal, which would have cut the anesthesiology conversion factor by 10 percent.

There are also a number of provisions in both bills that seek to control managed care excesses. ASA has supported this language, through its leading role in the Patient Access to Specialty Care Coalition, and hopes that the final legislation will retain these provisions.

Tax Bill Passes

The following day, the House adopted its version of a tax package that contained sweeping tax reductions for the first time since 1981. The Senate took action later, passing its version by an overwhelming 80-18 vote. Both bills include versions of the five main provisions included in the budget agreement between the President and congressional leaders: a child tax credit, a capital gains tax cut, a reduction in estate taxes, tax credits for higher education and an expansion in the tax-deferred individual retirement accounts (IRAs). Nonetheless, key differences remain between the two bills, and the upcoming conference is expected to be contentious; there are vast differences in the provisions dealing with the family tax credit, corporate tax cuts, the indexing of capital gains and the tobacco tax.

Hard work remains ahead, as the House and Senate leadership must iron out the differences in their bills throughout July. At this time, both sides are optimistic that a final spending bill will be on the President's desk when Congress leaves town for its annual August recess.

The ASA Washington Office wishes to thank all ASA Key Contacts who wrote, called or faxed their legislators over the past several months on a number of important issues pertaining to this legislation. Especially with respect to the conversion factor issue, the response has been tremendously helpful.


HCFA Issues Proposed Regulation on Resource-Based Practice Expenses

On June 18, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) issued its long-anticipated proposed rule by which resource-based practice expenses would be implemented as part of the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, effective January 1, 1998. Up until now, the practice expense component of procedures and services under the fee schedule has been derived from published socioeconomic data from the American Medical Association (AMA), and Congress four years ago instructed HCFA to convert to actual marketplace costs beginning next year.

For most anesthesiologists, the proposed rule brought modestly good news, in that HCFA estimated that under its preferred method of calculating resource-based expenses, overall payments for anesthesiology services would rise by 4 percent upon implementation of the rule. Accompanying this article is a table showing the estimated impact on several specialties. The preferred option I calculates indirect costs (rent, light, etc.) as a function of direct costs (equipment, supplies, personnel, etc.); option II derives indirect costs from AMA socioeconomic data.

The news is less favorable for anesthesiologists performing certain pain procedures. Most practice expense relative value units for these codes would drop 20-40 percent and even more in some cases, from the current values. These reductions will result in lower overall payment for various pain procedures; for example, implementation of the proposed rule would result in average reimbursement for CPT code 62278 (epidural, lumbar or caudal, single) dropping from $93.09 to $87.63.

Comments on the proposed rule are due on August 18. Abt Associates Inc. is currently completing its survey of anesthesiology practice expenses, commissioned by ASA, and undoubtedly many of ASA's comments will be based upon this study. ASA has also provided copies of the proposed rule to subspecialty physician organizations concerned with pain management and critical care and will work with these organizations to develop appropriate comments on procedures in these areas.

Whether or not comments will actually need to be filed on August 18 depends, however, on whether Congress mandates a one-year delay in implementation of the rule and further HCFA study of practice expense values in the interim. ASA is a member of the Practice Expense Coalition advocating such a delay. The House has approved the delay, followed by a four-year transition period; the Senate has approved only a transition. If the House view prevails in conference, then HCFA will need to decide whether to abandon the proposed rule (and withdraw its request for comments) and head back to the drawing board.

Table 1

Resource-Based Practice Expense Relative Value Units (RVUs) Impact on Total Allowed Charges by Specialty for the Two Indirect Allocation Options

Impact of RVU Changes by Option

Option I:
Direct costs, work and malpractice (percent change)
 Option II:
Pass through (percent change)
M.D./D.O. Physicians: Option I Option II
Dermatology +16 +16
Rheumatology +15 +11
Family Practice +12 +7
Hematology Oncology +11 +11
Radiation Oncology +10 +11
General Practice +9 +6
Otolaryngology +7 +9
Anesthesiology +4 -3
Other Physician +4 +2
Obstetrical/Gynecology +4 +2
Psychiatry +3 0
Internal Medicine +3 0
Urology +1 -1
Pathology +1 +2
Emergency Medicine -2 -3
Neurology -3 -3
Clinics -3 -3
Plastic Surgery -3 -2
Pulmonary -6 -7
General Surgery -9 -6
Radiology -9 -5
Orthopedic Surgery -11 -5
Ophthalmology -11 -6
Nephrology -13 -14
Vascular Surgery -17 -10
Cardiology -17 -11
Gastroenterology -20 -15
Neurosurgery -21 -13
Thoracic Surgery -28 -18
Cardiac Surgery -32 -21
Others:
Podiatry +24 +19
Optometry +15 +11
Chiropractic +14 +6
Suppliers +14 +25

Option I: Direct costs, work and malpractice (percent change)
Option II: Pass through (percent change)

 


return to top


 


FEATURES

Pain and Its Relief

ARTICLES


DEPARTMENTS


The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views, policies or actions of the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

NL Archives

Information for Authors