First in wave of healthcare policy proposals debuts
WASHINGTON -- The first pieces of what will become sweeping legislation to overhaul the nation's healthcare system have arrived at last.
The proposals float a new payment system for doctors and a new focus on primary care and care coordination for patients.
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Senator Charles Grassley, the committee's ranking Republican, released the first of three sets of policy "options" for reforming the healthcare system this afternoon, a day before the full committee meets to begin discussing them.
This first set of "options" focus on many of the less contentious aspects of the healthcare legislation -- improving quality of care and controlling soaring healthcare costs.
The big themes include changing the way doctors are paid by Medicare to reward quality care instead of quantity of care; providing bonuses for primary care doctors and general surgeons, who are in short supply; a major push for "care coordination" in Medicare by encouraging providers to work together in caring for patients; establishing quality performance measures and a national quality improvement plan; and reducing Medicare fraud.
The proposals also call for making a stronger committment to comparative effectiveness research -- a systematic effort to discover through coordinated scientific research which treatments work best for which patients. This was a hot-button issue in the stimulus package, which set aside $1 billion for such research; the new proposals leave open the contentious question of whether the body guiding that research would be within government or a separate non-profit entity.
These will be preliminary talks -- the Finance Committee will begin shaping the bill in earnest in early June. Still, after nearly a year of hearings and meetings behind closed doors, it's a big moment.
Also yesterday, Senator Edward M. Kennedy's Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing on what lessons policymakers could learn from reform efforts in other states, including Massachusetts, Vermont, Utah and California. Witnesses from Massachusetts included Jon Kingsdale, executive director of the Massachusetts Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, and Eileen McAnneny, senior VPof the Associated Industries of Massachusetts.
At the hearing, Kennedy said the federal government must learn from efforts going on in the various states and "constantly work so the states themselves have an opportunity for success."
Kennedy's committee, which also has jurisdiction over many healthcare issues, is working on what is expected to be separate but closely related healthcare legislation; Democrats hope to eventually merge the two bills.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
About Political Intelligence

News from the Washington Bureau








This is a massively complex proposal that promises to ensnarl doctors and nurses in a morass of bureaucracy that will not save money and will negatively impact patient care. The fine print must be read and understood in Talmudic fashion. It promotes managed care concepts which have failed for the past 30 years. It is a full employment act for the consultants, management gurus, and Inside the Beltway lobbyists who have gotten rich off telling doctors and nurses the right way to practice medicine - while patient care has suffered. It is probably a full employment act for health care lawyers like me.
It's become clear that the staus quo is no longer sustainable. The traditional model of relying solely on individual performance is no longer adequate. Improving care coordination from the patients perspective should a goal for all of us. Measuring our own outcomes creates a feedback loop from which we and others can learn. We must become a professional team not a group of professionals on a team. Rewarding excellence is basic to our value system. In the end the government needs us in healthcare to be creative in achieving these goals. Objecting only is not the solution.. . .
Does the "soaring costs" of healthcare include the soaring costs of delivering care, or just of buying it? Are any efforts expended in bringing down the costs to the health care provider of his/her costs of rising malpractice insurance premiums, the costs of renting space, the costs of electricity, fuel, equipment, salaries for staff (who expect at least a cost of living increase every year) , the costs of education (medical schools now cost a minimum of 40-50k/yearx4years for each student, excluding living costs), of training and retraining, the costs of upgrading equipment and treatments, etc., etc.? Or do people want less medical care, or care at the level of the 1960's , when the "costs" for all were far less?