Pharma Strategy Blog

Commentary on Pharma & Biotech Oncology / Hematology New Product Development

Posts tagged ‘health care’

With Medicare reimbursement rates to physicians set to drop by more than 20 percent Monday, Vicksburg physician Randy Easterling, president of the Mississippi State Medical Association, is warning that elderly patients could find themselves with no doctor able to afford to treat them.

Easterling said the 21.2 percent decrease in Medicare reimbursements to doctors will automatically go into effect Monday unless Congress votes to stop it.

“They didn’t vote to stop it last night (Thursday night),” Easterling said Friday. “Maybe they’ll do it this weekend, but if they don’t, doctors won’t be able to see these patients.”

The U.S. House passed H.R. 4691, a “Temporary Extension Act,” Thursday, postponing the reimbursement cuts until the end of the month, but the measure, tied to other legislation, did not pass in the Senate. The Senate adjourned just before noon Friday and wasn’t expected to reconvene until Monday afternoon, according to a floor schedule on the Senate’s Web page. The site indicated no votes had been cast.

A domino-effect could also impact the state’s low-income patients on Medicaid, because Mississippi Medicaid reimbursement is a percentage of Medicare, Easterling said. If one goes down, so does the other.

via vicksburgpost.com

Impact of Medicare reductions:

In the past, AMA surveys have shown that the threat of reducing the reimbursement for Medicare can have several impacts:

  • Physicians have seen their profits from treating Medicare patients fall to just covering their costs, and in some cases where treatment or required tests are expensive, it would mean treating those patients at a loss.
  • Some physicians have limited the number of Medicare patients they would be willing to treat and this may increase.
  • Other physicians stopped taking Medicare patients altogether and referred them to other doctors or clinics able to take them. This too, may also increase, unless the reimbursement system is fixed rather than patched.

Of course, the AMA always threaten these actions annually and thus significant lobbying takes place to pressure lawmakers to provide a solution, yet the system remains flawed and broken. The current Government appears to recognise this, but has been unable to broker a solution and is mired in partisan bickering.

Ultimately, a new plan may emerge in 2010 as part of the ongoing health care reform, but so far, a bipartisan agreement has not been possible to attain. Any proposals being reviewed now may not be the final form that is eventually enacted as law.

The next 10 days may well determine what happens with Medicare reimbursement this year and are likely to have a significant impact on areas such as cardiology and oncology.

Posted via web from sally church's posterous

1 Comment


The rising costs of health care have left many families facing huge bills if they do not have medical insurance. Often, people lose their jobs and have to make harsh choices about what they can afford to pay for; rent, utilities and food will often have a higher priority than medical insurance, as this article in the Clarion Ledger clearly showed. 

That's fine if you or a family member doesn't get sick with cancer or need ER care for a major accident, for example, but if you do then be warned paying for treatment as an individual may cost you significantly more than if you had the expensive insurance because the plans negotiate the best prices based on large volume discounts. 

My own small business health plan costs almost as much as the mortgage payments, which is a shocking amount; not everyone can afford to pay that.  In a society that claims to offer one of the best health care systems in the world, it essentially creates a two-tier system – those that can afford it and those that can't.  Forty to 50 million Americans don't have health insurance, putting their own health at risk and increasing the tax burden on those that do.  In the recent Presidential debates, the issue of whether basic health care is a right or a responsibility came up.  Either way, the system is broke and badly needs fixing.

The National Brain Tumor Foundation issued a white paper last year entitled 'No one can afford a brain tumor' and looks at the financial impact on patients and their families.  This is a useful document and easily apply to any type of cancer.

Treatment for common cancers such as breast and colorectal tumours can set you back $100-250K with multiple treatments.  The NY Times reported on the spiralling costs of chemotherapy and new targeted tretaments for cancer in 2005.  The cost is now more than many people in the US pay for a house and if you don't have coverage you have stark choices – risk going bankrupt, pay up or decline treatment.  What kind of humane society is that?  In these tough economic times, it may not be your fault if you get made redundant. 

My conclusion?  If you don't have health care coverage in the US and get cancer, it will potentially wipe you out.  No one wants to have their precious savings and house lost to save a life.  That's unconscionable in this day and age.  


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
4 Comments
error: Content is protected !!