The final timeline on the bill’s movement remains unclear, but the Bush administration has said that the bill will be vetoed due to other issues. Read more summary analysis of the anti-physician-owned hospital provisions.
In the meantime, congressional champions have been speaking out in favor of physician-owned hospitals.
Before the Senate passed the Supplemental Appropriations Bill, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) presented an eloquent and thoughtful argument on behalf of physician-owned hospitals in the context of the current debate over healthcare spending, specifically Medicaid and Medicare expenditures.
“It’s wrong to take away seniors’ choices in hospitals, and it’s wrong to do that on a war supplemental so it can’t be debated out in the open,” said Sen. Coburn. “Specialty hospitals have consistently offered high-quality healthcare with high-quality outcomes. Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates were significantly lower for specialty hospitals than for community hospitals … There are 200 specialty hospitals in the U.S. out of the 6,000 hospitals overall, often delivering better, safer services at lower costs.”
Sen. Coburn further pointed out that the federal government itself has not determined physician ownership in specialty hospitals to be problematic: “Some contend that physicians who invest in specialty hospitals have a conflict of interest that may lead to over-utilization. But a recent study published in Health Affairs found that most physicians refer patients to specialty hospitals for reasons totally unrelated to profits. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has also found no evidence that overall utilization rates in communities with specialty hospitals rise more rapidly than the utilization rates in other communities. MedPAC and [CMS] have found no evidence that physicians who have an ownership interest in a specialty hospital inappropriately refer patients to that hospital or have increased utilization.”
Download the full 18-page PDF of Sen. Coburn’s comments.
Earlier this week, Sen. Coburn, along with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz), Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) distributed a “Dear Colleague” letter explaining the provisions of the Appropriations Bill, identifying them as “earmarks” and encouraging Congress to ignore information being spread by opponents of physician ownership.
“Opponents of physician-owned hospitals have spread misinformation that may lead some members of Congress to think that any existing physician-owned hospitals in their states will be protected and allowed to grow in the future. This is simply not true,” they write. “Extensive analysis of the legislation and its requirements show that it appears only eight hospitals in four states receive any measure of protection at all, and even that protection is limited to the ability to petition the Department of Health and Human Services for permission to expand. ? This is simply a national certificate of need program and the purpose of including it is only to ensure that that growth would be controlled at a federal level and access to it would likely be denied to almost every physician-owned hospital.
“This language is a classic earmark ? written to look as if it applies to many, but cleverly designed to included only a few.”
Read the entire “Dear Colleague” letter (PDF).
The PHA reports that it appears that anti-physician hospital language will not be added to the upcoming Senate Finance Medicare Package bill. The organization says it has notified that one of the reasons physician hospitals were added to the currently pending Supplement Appropriations Bill was that Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) “understood he could not be successful pushing our issue through the Senate Finance Committee.” He has made his plans for a Medicare bill designed to primarily address the pending physician payment cuts ? which prevent a 10.1 percent reduction in Medicare physician payments otherwise scheduled for June 30 ? public. The reason he left physician hospitals out of the Medicare package? Sen. Baucus said this week that the issue is “too controversial.”
“Our controversial status has proven to be our best protection,” says Molly Sandvig, JD, executive director of the PHA. “This result certainly speaks to the overall effect of our grassroots efforts. The more Congress is educated regarding the true positives our industry represents, the more controversial challenges to physician ownership will become.”
To get involved with PHA efforts or to attend the organization’s Washington, D.C., Fly-In on June 24 and 25, go here.