Hospitals are on defense as Congress takes a serious look at site-neutral payments — but they’re not going to let the policy pass without a fight.
Why it matters: Hospitals are a powerful force and have a presence in congressional districts across the country. They argue they’re pushing back against cuts that would end up harming patient care.
Advocates, however, say they are simply trying to block any reduction in their payments.
What’s happening: The American Hospital Association held a briefing for congressional staff Monday to push back against site-neutral payment proposals.
Hospitals have also been making their case to individual offices. “We have been doing continued outreach to members of Congress, especially those on key committees of jurisdiction,” said Jason Kleinman, AHA’s senior associate director of federal relations.
“What we’re really doing now is over the next two weeks, you know, during the recess, using this as an opportunity for our local hospital CEOs … to weigh in with members back home,” said a hospital industry source.
“I don’t think we’re at DEFCON 1 yet, but we’re getting pretty close,” the source added.
Driving the news: The House Energy and Commerce Committee has taken the lead so far on exploring site-neutral payments, the idea of equalizing what Medicare pays for the same service between hospital outpatient departments and independent physician offices.
Hospital sources say they are also expecting the House Ways and Means Committee to take up site-neutral payments soon.
The Senate has been less active on this front and could be a bulwark for hospitals. At a Finance Committee hearing this month on health care consolidation, ranking member Mike Crapo touched on site-neutral payments, but Chairman Ron Wyden did not.
Asked by Axios last week if he is open to the idea, Wyden was noncommittal. “Certainly we’re going to look at all of the issues relating to consolidation,” he said.
What they’re saying: Hospitals argue that their outpatient departments treat sicker patients and are held to higher standards than independent physician offices.
“Site-neutral payments are cuts to Medicare,” AHA senior vice president for policy Ashley Thompson said at the congressional briefing Monday, disputing “the false belief by some that hospitals are overpaid.”
Targeting a prevalent argument in Congress that site-neutral payments are a way to fight consolidation in health care markets, the AHA also rolled out data showing that private equity and health insurers are acquiring more physician practices than hospitals are.
One of three hospital officials who flew in for the briefing from across the country, Carl Vaagenes, CEO of Alomere Health in rural Minnesota, said site-neutral payments would “cripple” his hospital.
The other side: An ideologically diverse array of groups, from Americans for Prosperity to Families USA, is supporting site-neutral payments. They point out the move would save money both for the government and patients, through lower premiums and cost-sharing.
Loren Adler, a Brookings Institution health policy expert, argued at an E&C hearing in April: “Lobbyists are pretty much the only opposition.”
Tony Shepard learned he had vocal cord cancer this spring, but he was encouraged when his doctor said he had an 88 percent chance at a cure with chemotherapy and radiation.
That outlook began to dim in recent weeks, though, after the oncology practice he goes to in Central California began to sporadically run out of the critical medication he needs.
Since Mr. Shepard’s doctor informed him of the shortage, each treatment session has felt like a game of “Russian roulette,” he said, knowing that failure would mean the removal of his vocal cords and the disappearing of his voice.
Older generic chemotherapy drugs remain scarce, forcing doctors to put a priority on the patients who have the best chance of survival.
The Senate is set to return Tuesday to debate Democrats’ election-overhaul legislation before a series of key procedural votes, but fresh opposition by Republicans and moderate Democrats to a potential rules change indicates the effort has faltered.
“The Senate will adjourn tonight,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor last night. “However, we will be postponing recess so the Senate can vote on voting rights. We will return on Tuesday to take up the House-passed message containing voting rights.”
The first procedural vote to take up the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act (H.R. 5746) won’t occur until Tuesday at the earliest. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) announced yesterday he had tested positive early this week for Covid-19, temporarily sidelining him from votes. Democrats need all 50 members of their caucus present to officially take up the elections bill unless a corresponding number of Republicans are also absent.
A potential snowstorm expected to hit Washington Sunday into Monday also factored into the delay, Schumer said. The chamber now plans to recess for a state work period the week of Jan. 24.
Republicans are “ready to be on the floor talking about all of the issues” they see with the bill, including provisions related to “ballot harvesting” and photo identification requirements, Senate Republican Conference Chair John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said in an interview.
“We also want to talk a lot about the issues that the president is ignoring,” Barrasso said.
The House yesterday passed a NASA leasing bill (H.R. 5746) amended to carry text of the Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747) and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (S. 4). That gambit allows Democrats to circumvent the first 60-vote hurdle, the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. All 50 Senate Democrats are expected to provide the votes to adopt the motion to proceed.
After Democrats officially vote to take up the bill, Schumer can file cloture and move to force a vote to limit debate. Absent unanimous consent, the cloture vote would take place two days later with a 60-vote threshold. A maximum of 30 hours of debate would follow.
The cloture vote will likely fail on a party-line vote, given unanimous Republican opposition. Schumer at that juncture could raise a point of order and challenge the ruling from the chair in order to force a vote on a yet-undecided rules change. That reinterpretation and creation of new precedent would need a simple majority to be adopted.
But that point of order is expected to fail. Shortly before President Joe Biden spoke with the Senate Democratic caucus behind closed doors yesterday, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema(D-Ariz.) confirmed in a floor speech that while she supports the voting-rights bills, she “will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country” by weakening filibuster rules.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) a few hours later also reiterated that he “will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster.”
“I hope we get this done,” Biden told reporters on Capitol Hill yesterday. “The honest-to-God answer is: I don’t know if we get this done.”
House’s Role: House Democrats struck a positive note for their role advancing the voting rights measure on a party-line vote, 220-203. “The House has made clear, we stand with the people in the fight for voting rights,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on the floor.
Lawmakers defended their decision to focus on the legislation, despite the seeming impossibility of it passing in the Senate.
Forcing floor debate requires Republican senators to explain their opposition to the voting rights legislation, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) told reporters yesterday. “If we have to go back to people and try to explain why we don’t have voting rights, it’s important they hear from Republicans themselves why they are blocking this critical legislation,” she said.
The Senate meets Tuesday and plans to take up H.R. 5746. Voting options, election procedures, and campaign finance rules would be modified by a House amendment to the Senate-passed bill, which would also require federal approval before voting changes can be implemented in states and localities with a recent history of discrimination.
The amendment would combine text drawn from two separate voting-focused measures: S. 2747, the “Freedom to Vote Act”; and S. 4, the “John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act”.
The House returns on Tuesday and plans a light week of work as members continue to test positive for Covid-19 and avoid the House chamber via proxy voting. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the House will vote on legislation to automatically enroll veterans in the Veterans Affairs Department’s health care system (H.R. 4673) and a Senate-passed bill (S. 2959) that would, because of Covid-19, allow school districts to use a previous year’s data when applying for Impact Aid.
Lawmakers inched toward a government funding deal yesterday, aiming to reach agreement by the Feb. 18 shutdown deadline, though they’ve struggled with contentious policy debates that include federal funding for abortion.
The top House and Senate appropriators from each party talked for an hour yesterday, leaving without a deal. Republicans continue to demand that Democrats set aside new policy riders and include longstanding measures such as the Hyde amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortion, before discussing funding levels. Democrats say they should start with funding levels before negotiating policy riders. That months-old disagreement wasn’t settled yesterday, though negotiators said the conversation was productive.
“The four of us had constructive talks on where we go and how we get there, and how we start. And we haven’t worked that out yet,” Senate Appropriations Vice Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) told reporters. “But we’re going to continue to talk and meet.”
House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) called it a “good meeting” and said she still hopes to pass an omnibus 12-bill spending package by Feb. 18.
Shelby, DeLauro, Senate Appropriations Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and House Appropriations ranking member Kay Granger (R-Texas) are talking about holding future meetings but haven’t settled on when, DeLauro said.
Leahy called the meeting “a worthwhile discussion.”
Shelby followed up by talking to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over the phone about appropriations negotiations, said Blair Taylor, Shelby’s spokeswoman.
Shelby told reporters Republicans still could accept a stopgap measure for the rest of fiscal 2022 if Democrats don’t agree to stick to legacy policy riders. “If we don’t do it, if they want to stay there, we’re just going to get a CR,” Shelby told reporters yesterday. “And then we keep the legacy riders. We keep everything.”
Lawmakers have had initial discussions on attaching other measures to a spending package, including disaster aid for areas hit by tornadoes in December, Shelby said Tuesday. Discussions of a coronavirus response measure have “bubbled up, but it’s not crystallized yet,” he added.
Appropriations Ready With or Without BBB, Kaptur Says: The chairs of the House Appropriations subcommittees met Wednesday to update each other on how their work is going, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), chair of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, said ahead of the meeting. While Democrats’ main tax and spending bill has gotten the spotlight, lawmakers should understand that regular appropriations bills could also address some priorities, including funds for environmental programs, Kaptur said.
“Build Back Better isn’t ready yet. We are, and we need to get that done,” Kaptur said.
“Minibus” spending packages are a possible, in addition to a full, 12-bill omnibus, Kaptur said, though it’s not clear how the measures would be assembled. The Energy and Water would likely be “one of the trains pulling the others forward,” because it’s large and touches on important energy and climate provisions, Kaptur said.
A federal advisory commission will recommend to Congress that traditional Medicare lower payments by 5% to nursing homes, home health agencies, and inpatient rehabilitation facilities in 2023.
After assessing payment adequacy, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found that the three provider groups were receiving sufficient reimbursement for the services they provide.
MedPAC provides lawmakers with analysis and policy advice on the taxpayer-funded Medicare program. Its recommendations are nonbinding, but Congress utilizes commissioners’ expertise when making funding decisions.
Each year, the commission advises Congress about how to update payment rates for health providers that treat Medicare beneficiaries. All final recommendations for 2023 will be included in the commission’s March 2022 report to Congress on Medicare payment policy.
In 2020, traditional Medicare paid $28.1 billion to nursing homes on behalf of 1.2 million beneficiaries. A 5% pay cut would lower Medicare spending on nursing homes by more than $2 billion in fiscal year 2023 and more than $10 billion over five years, the commission reported. Nursing homes had a 16.5% aggregate profit margin on Medicare beneficiaries in 2020—19.2% for facilities that received federal provider relief funds, the commission reported. Next year, the commission projects a 14% margin.
In 2020, Medicare paid $17.1 billion for home health services for about 3.1 million beneficiaries, the commission reported. Home health providers are projected to see a 17% aggregate profit margin on Medicare beneficiaries in 2022, it reported. Inpatient rehab facilities are projected to have an aggregate profit margin of 14% on Medicare beneficiaries next year, the commission projected.
The panel voted to recommend hiking the 2022 Medicare base payment rate for acute care hospitals by 2% in 2023. That includes a .5% increase for inpatient rates.
The panel voted to recommend no payment update for physicians and other clinicians in 2023, but these providers could receive positive or negative payment adjustments for providing quality care under the Merit-based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS, which measures an eligible clinician’s performance against their peers.
They could also receive a 5% payment bonus for participation in an advanced alternative payment model in which they’re eligible for bonuses for providing high-quality care and risk payment reductions when they don’t.
Medicare paid $64.8 billion to 1.3 million physicians and clinicians in 2020, down $8.7 billion from 2019, the commission reported. Federal provider relief funds helped offset those lost payments, which were due mainly the Covid-19 pandemic.
The panel also adopted a second recommendation to require physicians and other health professionals to use a “claims modifier” to identify when they’ve provided audio-only telehealth services. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services already requires the modifier for audio-only telehealth services related to substance abuse disorder and mental health issues.
The commission also finalized a draft recommendation to eliminate a scheduled 2% rate increase for ambulatory surgical centers in 2023, citing adequate payments. In 2020, fee-for-service Medicare paid $4.9 billion to ambulatory surgical centers on behalf of about 3 million beneficiaries.
The commission also finalized a draft recommendation to require surgical centers to provide annual cost reports to the CMS. The commission has called on the Department of Health and Human Services to require such reports from surgical centers since 2009. Without the documentation of revenue and profit margins, the commission says it’s difficult to recommend payment rate adjustments for surgical centers.
Dialysis facilities would see a 1.2% payment hike under another final commission draft recommendation. In 2020, Medicare paid $12.3 billion to dialysis centers on behalf of 384,000 beneficiaries. About 7,800 dialysis centers are Medicare-certified. In 2022, the commission expects dialysis centers to have a projected 1.8% profit margin on Medicare beneficiaries, the panel noted.
Hospice providers would see no payment increase in 2023 under another commission final draft recommendation. In 2020, Medicare paid over $22.4 billion to hospice providers on behalf of over 1.7 million beneficiaries, the commission reported. Hospice providers are expected to have a 13% aggregate profit margin on Medicare beneficiaries in 2022, the commission reported.
The commission also finalized a draft recommendation calling for a 20% cut in Medicare’s annual per-patient payment limit, or “aggregate cap,” for hospice providers in 2023.
The hospice aggregate cap is $31,298 in 2022. If a hospice provider’s annual Medicare payments divided by the number of beneficiaries exceeds the cap amount, the facility must repay the excess payments. In 2019, 19% of hospices exceeded the cap.
The commission also passed a draft recommendation that would require adding a wage adjustment to the aggregate cap to reflect area pay differences.
BGOV CONGRESS 2022
Lawmakers have returned to Washington for the second session of the 117th Congress with much left on their to-do list, while facing election-year headwinds.
Key lawmakers expect a White House request for a spending measure to support the response to the Omicron variant of the coronavirus, though President Joe Biden has yet to send a proposal.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters yesterday he expects Biden to soon request “substantial sums” through a supplemental appropriations bill to combat the coronavirus, possibly including foreign aid. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee, also said there’d been discussion about the possibility of a supplemental request.
Lawmakers face a Feb. 18 deadline to fund the government, which could serve as a vehicle for other add-ons, such as a coronavirus bill or a disaster aid measure for areas hit by tornadoes last month.
The White House has yet to send a request, and White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki sidestepped a question Monday on if a request was coming, telling reporters the administration has “been in constant conversation with leaders and with the Hill and members about what may be needed.”
Senate Appropriations Vice Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) told reporters yesterday he would have questions for the administration on the disbursement of coronavirus funds.
“We are going to ask hard questions about where the money has been spent,” Shelby told reporters.
Shelby said the issue of a coronavirus spending bill has “bubbled up, but it’s not crystallized yet.”
Disaster relief measures, particularly for areas in western Kentucky hit by a tornado, could be attached to a spending measure, Shelby said.
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the House Appropriations Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee, said he hadn’t heard of a forthcoming coronavirus funding request, but that there may be additional measures attached to a funding deal, if lawmakers reach one. Cole said in December he’d expect some bipartisan support for a coronavirus bill if the White House requests one.
“The prevailing Republican view right now is that there’s probably enough money to take care of it,” Cole said yesterday on a possible coronavirus supplemental. “But if we get to a deal, I would expect other things, anything from disaster relief to other things attached to it. So it may be out there, but I have not heard anything specific.”
Join Bloomberg Government’s legislative analysts today at 11 a.m. for a deep dive into the policy areas, spending fights, and other activity to watch on Capitol Hill this year.
The analysts will discuss Democrats’ social spending package, fiscal 2022 spending negotiations, and legislation to address U.S. competition with China.
Military Warns Stopgap Would Squander Funds: The new U.S. Space Force would have to curtail space launches and the Marines would have to delay the arrival of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. These are a few of the scenarios that military leaders plan to describe to House lawmakers today as they press to avoid funding the Pentagon at last year’s levels for the rest of the fiscal 2022.
Under a full year of stopgap funding, the Navy also would lack sufficient resources for the first Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine. The Air Force would lose $3.5 billion in buying power. The Army would have $9.2 billion in “misaligned” funds.
Military service chiefs are poised to tell the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee that at least $26 billion could be wasted by not being allocated as planned in 2022, according to a Bloomberg Government tally from the prepared testimonies. All factions of the U.S. defense apparatus would operate at last year’s levels, which would put a stop to any additional funds or prevent the start of new programs.
Capitol Police Hiring, Fire Code Among CR Drawbacks: Police hiring, fires in the Capitol, and the Cannon House Office Building renovations are among the top concerns for Capitol Hill officials if lawmakers rely on further stopgap funding measures in fiscal 2022, they told lawmakers yesterday.
The U.S. Capitol Police will look to hire 288 new recruit officers in fiscal 2023, as the agency seeks to address a staffing shortage, Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger told lawmakers at a House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee hearing yesterday.
The Capitol Police are 440 to 450 officers “below where we need to be” Manger told lawmakers yesterday. Leaders will “have to nearly double the number of agents” who investigate threats against members, he said.
“We are investigating threats against Congress but I will tell you we’re barely keeping our head above water for those investigations,” Manger told lawmakers.
There were nearly 9,000 threats against members of Congress over the last year, roughly double the total from the previous year, Major General William J. Walker, sergeant-at-arms of the U.S. House of Representatives, told members. Those range from comments that were truly “menacing, or just somebody saying something reckless on the Internet or social media.”
A continuing resolution would put off needed funding increases for a Capitol sprinkler system “so that we actually have a fire-code approved building,” Architect of the Capitol J. Brett Blanton told members.
Cannon office building renovations are a major concern, Blanton said, because officials “need to have money this summer in order to award the next phase of the Cannon project.” A delay would mean officials would “be able to complete the project within the two-year timeframe that is required for each phase of the project,” Blanton said.
National telehealth utilization declined by 6.8% from September to October 2021 after two months of growth, according to FAIR Health’s Monthly Telehealth Regional Tracker.
In August and September 2021, telehealth usage rose by 2% each month, based on data including populations that are privately insured, including Medicare Advantage, and excluding Medicare fee-for-service and Medicaid.
Despite the national decrease, the Northeast did not see a decline in telehealth utilization during October, which was unchanged at 4.8% of medical claim lines. The South experienced the greatest decline, with an 11.4% decrease in telehealth utilization.
Mental health conditions remained the top-ranking telehealth diagnosis nationally and regionally and increased in the percentage share of telehealth claim lines. Specifically, 60-minute psychotherapy sessions increased as a share of all telehealth claim lines nationally and regionally by about 1%.
Covid-19 was no longer a top five telehealth diagnosis in the Midwest in October 2021, which eliminated the virus from the top five telehealth diagnoses nationally or in any region during the month. Substance use disorders entered the top five diagnoses in the Midwest at number four.
In the same month, the South joint/soft tissue diseases and issues dropped out of the top five while examination now ranks as number three in telehealth diagnoses for the region.
Telehealth stakeholders are gearing up for an extended push to cement telehealth’s role in American health care in the year ahead. Last year brought dramatic expansions of telehealth’s breadth and depth, and with pending bipartisan legislation including the Telehealth Extension Act — and a defined end to the COVID-19 public health emergency still uncertain — stakeholders agree the upcoming year promises to be similarly active.
Telehealth stakeholders are pushing for a significant extension of the PHE, which in turn would extend current telehealth regulatory flexibilities, particularly as an increasing number of telehealth studies conducted during the pandemic demonstrate providers’ success at providing remote care. While the conclusion of the PHE will eliminate waivers and undo current Medicare telehealth reimbursement rates, both Congress and CMS have expressed interest in continuing broad access to telehealth.
Extending the public health emergency would allow providers to continue utilizing the telehealth infrastructure implemented throughout the pandemic and would also give stakeholders time to push Congress to pass legislation allowing telehealth care on a more permanent basis, said Krista Drobac, executive director for the Alliance for Connected Care.
Drobac said several studies from the HHS Office of Inspector General documenting telehealth’s successes prove that most concerns with telehealth are unfounded. One study found that telehealth patient-provider relationships have largely remained the same; 84% of Medicare beneficiaries participating in telehealth care have received care from providers with which they had an established relationship prior to the pandemic.
“As demonstrated, beneficiaries and the community do not need arbitrary guardrails like established relationships and in-person requirements to ensure beneficiaries are getting the care they deserve,” Drobac said in an email. “Patients are maintaining their own providers when possible and appropriate. We believe this will continue but as telehealth models evolve, patients should have the choice to see other providers with whom they do not have a previous relationship.”
An additional HHS OIG study found there are still areas of telehealth that could permanently benefit from congressional input.
Statutory barriers including originating site limits and geographic boundaries have been temporarily waived as part of the PHE, meaning many beneficiaries were able to receive care from their homes. The study said that Congress would need to take steps to permanently revise originating site restrictions. It recommended instituting a licensure reciprocity system among providers, which OIG said would help streamline problem-solving.
“CMS plays an important role in facilitating the exchange of information among States to improve the use of telehealth for behavioral health services. Sharing information among States will help ensure that States realize the benefits of telehealth and make informed decisions about how to address challenges with using telehealth,” the study said.
OIG’s study is supported by a recent report from McDermott Will & Emery, which found that telemental treatment flourished during the PHE, particularly as a result of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which eliminated geographic care restrictions for mental health care. Post-PHE, however, CAA states telemental care must be accompanied by an in-person visit within six months before patients’ first telehealth appointment, a point of significant criticism from both providers and patients.
Stakeholders including the Healthcare Leadership Council and the American Medical Association said they will look to Congress to permanently expand eligibility — including removing geographic and site restrictions and in-person visit requirements — before the public health emergency ends.
“Fortunately, there is overwhelming bipartisan support on Capitol Hill to allow Medicare patients to maintain this benefit, although the potentially significant budget impact of the policy change is raising concerns,” Jack Deutsch, a spokesperson for AMA, said in an email. “Nevertheless, prospects are good for positive action on at least a temporary extension of the expanded benefit this year.”
Likewise, CMS has the capacity to cement certain new telehealth services by including them in HHS’ current statutory definition of telehealth services. Currently, CMS’ fee schedule includes provisions for over 100 new telehealth services, which were added as temporary items on the Medicare Telehealth List, through the end of 2023.
Some stakeholders say expanding telehealth may be the solution to ongoing workforce issues on the provider side. Kyle Zebley, vice president of public policy at the American Telemedicine Association, said many beneficiaries have moved from in-person to remote care for care needs that do not require in-person treatment. Zebley said this could be a mid-term or even long-term solution to an ongoing workforce shortage that is overwhelming existing providers.
“You’re not going to efficiently make use of a limited health care workforce — keep in mind, there’s a tremendous lag time, we’re talking about 15 years from now, if we wanted to expand our crop of doctors — you can’t solve the restraints of the system without telehealth,” Zebley said.
While bipartisan support for expanding telehealth remains strong among legislators, some stakeholders believe telehealth expansion will not be formalized unless provisions are included in larger “must-pass” packages. ATA hopes telehealth will be included in President Joe Biden’s budget for fiscal year 2023, which will be released in February, Zebley said.
Zebley said federal legislators must also be presented with a hard deadline to act; recurring deadlines like the 90-day PHE reauthorization process will not be enough to galvanize legislators into action, Zebley said.
“[Stakeholders] need to apply pressure to their Members of Congress, and other policymakers at the federal level, to make sure there’s no backsliding, to make sure they still have access to care where and when they need it,” Zebley said.
At the state level, however, Zebley said steps to expand telehealth are moving significantly more quickly. He said ATA is tracking more than 35 bills that have been introduced since the beginning of the year. He said this is a positive start to the new year, especially after 2021, a year where Zebley said 10 years of progress were made in one — “the most successful year in the history of telehealth,” he said.
Telehealth stakeholders are gearing up for an extended push to cement telehealth’s role in American health care in the year ahead.
Democratic and Republican lawmakers have held early discussions about another round of coronavirus stimulus spending as they seek to blunt the fast-spreading omicron variant and its threats to public health and economic recovery.
The efforts have focused primarily on authorizing billions of dollars to help an array of businesses — including restaurants, performance venues, gyms and even minor league sports teams — that face another potential blow to their already-battered balance sheets as a result of the evolving pandemic.
In recent weeks, the talks have been led by Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), according to four people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe their work, which is ongoing. The duo in mid-December cobbled together the outlines of a roughly $68 billion proposal, two of the people said, which could include a mix of new spending and a repurposing of some unused cash authorized under previous packages.
Cardin and Wicker have not yet finalized the business-focused measure, according to those familiar with their work, adding that the two lawmakers have huddled with members from both parties, including Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), in an attempt to build support. They may face an uphill battle in the narrowly divided chamber, where past attempts to provide aid for restaurants and other industries have faltered amid GOP concerns about adding to the federal deficit.
But the talks nonetheless reflect the nation’s growing fears about the omicron variant that has swept across the country with devastating speed. With coronavirus cases surging to record highs — and some hospitals once again under immense strain — lawmakers have started to worry that the pandemic could unleash fresh economic havoc.
For months, the United States appeared to be turning a corner. Coronavirus vaccines and boosters were readily available, new treatments were coming on the market and the economy showed signs of improvement, posting at one point in November the fewest number of new claims for unemployment benefits since the late 1960s. The progress came as a result of considerable investment from Congress, where lawmakers have spent nearly $6 trillion on relief since the start of the pandemic, including a roughly $1.9 trillion package known as the American Rescue Plan that counted as President Biden’s first legislative achievement.
But those hard-fought gains have appeared at risk as businesses and schools once again close and Americans hunker down against a highly transmissible variant of the virus. More than 15,000 flights have been canceled since Christmas Eve, with an additional 3,000 on Monday alone, as the pandemic continues to hurt the workers and businesses upon which the economy depends.
The White House has maintained that it has the resources to respond to any immediate economic disruption caused by the omicron wave. That includes money for public health as part of the American Rescue Plan, as well as billions of dollars provided under the law for states to use as needed, which Biden touted during an event at the White House on Tuesday.
“We’re going to see, as you all have been hearing, a continued rise in cases. Omicron is very transmissible,” the president warned.
On Wednesday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki pointed to additional spending that could help turn the tide, including $130 billion that Washington sent to states to try to mitigate the spread of the virus in schools. The money is significant, since school closures could add to the burden on parents, who might be forced to take time off work as a result.
But Psaki otherwise declined to say the White House has engaged in talks with Democrats and Republicans about another tranche of relief targeting businesses, including restaurants, emphasizing only that the Biden administration is in “constant discussions” with lawmakers.
In the meantime, other federal coronavirus stimulus programs have run out of money or reached the end of their planned lives, raising fresh concerns on Capitol Hill that more aid might be needed.
Democrats and Republicans have discussed setting aside billions to help restaurants, gyms and performance venues, though GOP concerns about spending could scuttle the effort
All Americans are protected as of Jan. 1 from unexpected out-of-network medical bills, thanks to the implementation of legislation to ban surprise medical billing, but many lawmakers want the Biden administration to make more changes to line up with what they argue was Congress’ intent in crafting the law.
“At this point, it’s another principle involved. Can you just really totally reject that which Congress has said because you don’t like it? Or because maybe a couple of members of Congress who didn’t get their way influence you?” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., told CQ Roll Call, expressing his frustration.
The issue is who pays for medical care when a patient receives a surprise medical bill, and how to decide how much they owe — an issue that has long divided lawmakers and the health care industry.
The surprise medical bills at issue include charges as a result of emergency care at an out-of-network hospital or when an out-of-network doctor treats a patient at an in-network facility. The law that took effect Saturday calls for an arbitration process that is based on the median in-network rate for a service.
Insurers argue this was Congress’ intent. But lobbyists for hospitals and physicians say it’s crucial the arbiter considers more factors than just whatever the median in-network insurance payment is for a service when determining final payments.
Some lawmakers agree with the insurers, while others agree with providers’ interpretation of congressional intent and want the agency to change the policy.
Surprise medical bills are extremely common among Americans with private insurance. Nearly 1 in 5 patients who go to the emergency room, have an elective surgery or give birth in a hospital receive a surprise bill, with an average cost of $750 to $2,600 per incident, according to a November report from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Cassidy and Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., along with 24 other Republican senators, last week asked the Biden administration to alter its interim final rule to ban surprise medical bills before the implementation date. The lawmakers said HHS’ interpretation of the law deviates from congressional intent when it comes to how payment disputes are settled. No Democrats signed the letter, however.
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., has said she supports the administration’s current plan to implement the law.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., followed Cassidy and Marshall’s letter with a Dec. 29 statement praising Biden for swiftly implementing the law, calling it “the most significant expansion of consumer protections since the Affordable Care Act” of 2010.
Back in November, Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, led 150 bipartisan lawmakers in a letterasking the secretaries of HHS, Treasury and Labor to change the rule’s arbitration process.
In some states, insurers requested to negotiate their contracted rates to providers in anticipation of the law’s implementation. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina requested cuts to contracted rates for 2022 for some providers, citing the surprise billing law as impetus, effectively acting as a cap to payments, according to a November letter from BCBSNC Vice President of Provider Networks Mark Werner that was obtained by CQ Roll Call.
Cassidy doesn’t anticipate the Biden administration taking any action to change the policy unless a court tells it to do so.
“I think we have to allow the courts to play out, and I think that the administration is going to lose,” Cassidy said. “The intent of the law is very clear. It’s very clear, and [the administration] very clearly violated it.”
Several lawsuits on the issue, mostly brought by hospitals and physicians, are moving through the courts at the moment. The suits are all narrowly focused and aim to change the arbitration mechanism of the law without preventing the surprise billing ban from going into effect.
The following groups have recently challenged the rule:
Court decisions could potentially come in the next few months, said Katie Keith, an associate research professor with the Georgetown University Center on Health Insurance Reforms. Plaintiffs are pushing for an expedited briefing and decision, with court arguments scheduled for February in several of the cases.
“Clearly, the tactic was to try to jam the administration by filing these [lawsuits] right before the holidays, in addition to the patient and consumer groups who normally would be filing amicus briefs in defense of the No Surprises Act and its rule-making,” said Loren Adler, associate director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy.
The groups suing are arguing for national injunctions against the administration’s arbitration guidance and asking the courts to rule by March. Even though the surprise billing ban is already in effect, the first instances of arbitration under the law may not occur until March at the earliest because of the law’s built-in waiting periods and policies.
Many experts anticipate that the longer the surprise billing ban is in place, the less often payment disputes will go to arbitration. Over time, insurers and providers will likely begin to rely on past payment precedent rather than going through a somewhat cumbersome arbitration process.
“It will take some time to form those expectations, and the current set of lawsuits may be particularly relevant to that process,” noted Ben Ippolito, an economist who focuses on health policy for the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.
The outcome of the cases will largely rely on how the courts interpret the Chevron doctrine, a Supreme Court precedent that says courts must defer to government agencies when a law’s language is unclear or ambiguous.
If the providers prevail in court, the Biden administration likely will have to rewrite the vacated part of the rule through the formal notice-and-comment rule-making process in compliance with the court’s ruling.
This process could take a long time, and the uncertainty over how disputed out-of-network charges are paid for could continue for several years, noted Spencer Perlman of Veda Partners, an investment advisory firm.
All Americans are protected as of Jan. 1 from unexpected out-of-network medical bills, but many lawmakers want the Biden administration to make more changes to line up with what they argue was Congress’ intent in crafting the law.
The lobbies for emergency room doctors, radiologists and anesthesiologists Wednesday (Dec. 22) challenged the Biden administration’s interpretation of the surprise billing law, alleging the arbitration instructions in the administration’s October interim final rule (IFR) clash with the statute and the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not conducting a full comment and review process.
The lobbies allege the administration is too narrowly interpreting what arbitrators should consider when they settle disputes under the 2020 No Surprises Act, which bans providers from balance billing patients for out-of-network emergency room care or for services done by out-of-network physicians in an in-network facility. The law creates a “baseball-style” independent dispute resolution (IDR) process to handle payment disagreements and lists six factors — including the “qualifying payment amount” or median in-network rate – which it says arbitrators shall consider when determining the winner.
In the IFR, the administration leaned into the QPA, saying that arbitrators should consider that first and weigh the other factors if needed. The latest lawsuit asks the court to strike that section of the rule.
Even before the rule was released, bipartisan groups of lawmakers and other stakeholders were butting heads over whether Congress intended arbitrators to primarily consider the QPA, as argued by insurers, or, as providers say, to equally weigh each listed factor, including patient acuity, provider training, market power and more.
Providers — who argue that the QPA is a de facto benchmark — were incensed by the rule and suits have been flowing in since November. The Texas Medical Association was the first out the gate with a suit filed in the Eastern District of Texas, followed by the Association of Air Medical Services — which filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — and then the American Hospital Association, American Medical Association and other providers also filed suit in the District of Colombia.
The American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Radiology, and American Society of Anesthesiologists filed their suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiffs ask for injunctive relief and want the courts to vacate the section of the rule that directs arbitrators to look primarily at the QPA.
“It is deeply troubling that the administration would upend the deliberately balanced mechanism to resolve billing disputes established by Congress as part of the No Surprises Act. We are left with a law that will tilt market forces in favor of insurers and they are already exploiting their newfound incentive to push emergency physicians out of network. Legal remedy is necessary so that the IFR does not undermine the entire dispute resolution process,” ACEP President Gillian Schmitz said of the case.
The plaintiffs say the suit will not stop the law’s consumer protections from going into effect on Jan. 1 as required.
The lobbies for emergency room doctors, radiologists and anesthesiologists Wednesday (Dec. 22) challenged the Biden administration’s interpretation of the surprise billing law, alleging the arbitration instructions clash with the statute and the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not conducting a full comment and review process.
A surge in emergency Covid-19 funds contributed to the largest increase in federal grants to U.S. states since 2009, when Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Federal grants to states rose 37% in fiscal 2020 from the prior year, outpacing the average annual increase of 4% in the prior half-decade, according to a report by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Relative to 2008, the grants climbed 93%, accounting for inflation.
The jump was mostly driven by pandemic-related grants, for needs such as coronavirus testing and housing assistance, but Medicaid and other health spending also contributed, and largely fueled the steady growth in funding to states for the past several years.
In a typical year, Medicaid accounts for about two thirds of states’ federal-grant funding, but the influx of Covid-19 money drove Medicaid’s share down to roughly half, according to the report.
Invalid Email Address