Thursday, July 17, 2008

Congress overrides Bush's Medicare veto

And I couldn't agree more with congress. Until recently, I had no idea that in the next couple years, physicians' reimbursement through medicare is set to drop 11%!!!! So, while primary care physicians are already underpaid, leading to the current situation where there is a huge shortage of primary care physicians and less and less medical students will consider the field, they want to lower reimbursements even more! If they want to make more primary care physicians, lowering reimbursements is certainly NOT the way to do it. How can they expect anyone to go through 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, and another 3 years of residency (for IM), when they may be able to make more money as a nurse!?

In any case, this bill fortunately will prevent the pay cut. Unfortunately, it does not provide an increase, which is really what is needed. But, MUCH better than the alternative. Instead of cutting doctor's compensation, they will be cutting payments to private insurance companies, who are already rolling in money. I sometimes wonder if most people are aware that insurance companies hire people specifically to find reasons to deny insurance claims, or that even if a doctor's office hires someone specifically to make sure insurance paperwork is in order, 30% of the claims will still probably be denied. Basically, they make money off of denying physicians the compensation they deserve, making patients pay more, and preventing access to necessary treatment. So, I don't think that anyone should feel bad that their pay is going to be cut a little.

But, Bush (in his infinite wisdom) did feel like he should cut physician pay, and continue to let private insurance companies make more money. He argued that he was doing it for the elderly, to give them more choices, despite the fact that the AARP was 100% behind the bill. Fortunately, congress disagreed, Republicans voted over party lines, and his veto was overturned. Score 1 for democracy. You can read more about it here: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1529466020080715?rpc=64&pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10179

No comments: