Previous Next

Health Care

February 2010
1

Nancy Pelosi and the Center for American Progress think so. During the recent health care summit, House Speaker Pelosi 's argued in favor of health care reform since it could create up to 4 million jobs in the health care industry and the private sector. Her reasoning is based on a Center For American Progress study that establishes that the cost of providing health insurance is a deterrent to hiring for many employers (especially small businesses), thus if insurance costs were lowered, more empoyers would be able to afford to provide health benefits and hire more employees.

 

Check out CAP's State by State Job Creation Estimates here and share your thoughts with the Policy 2.0 community.

0

I recently got into a heated debate about the necessity of health care reform with an old high school friend of mine. Like many Americans right now, my friend is weary from months and months of tireless partisan positioning and misinformation. To him and many others I know, the notion of investing trillions of dollars over the next decade to reforming health care does not appear on the surface as an economic necessity, but thats because they do not fully understand the choke hold health care spending has on our economy. To give him a better understanding, I recommended he watch I.O.U.S.A, a 2008 documentary that examines the rapidly growing national debt and its consequences for the United States. Particularly, the demonstration of how rising entitlements (such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security spending) by Alice Rivilin is quite compelling.

 

 

Check out the 30 minute byte-sized version of the movie here.

0

Primary Care Payment Reform

Posted by Diana Harris Feb 20, 2010

Over the last few weeks I have talked to several primary care physicans throughout the country about increased burdens associated with the field, and the one thing that comes up in every single conversation is the need for RVU payment reform.  Currently, physicans are paid or reimbursed for their services based on a Relative Value Unit (RVU) system, which assigns a service code and a unit value for hundreds of medical services that physicans perform.  Unfortunately, this system has been designed to undervalue or completely ignore an entire range of primary care services and care coordiation,

"Because patients tended to have insurance for many procedural services provided by surgeons and other specialists at that time, fees for these services were already much higher per time spent then fees for primary care visits, which were rarely covered by insurance. As a result a wide discrepancy between primary care payments and specialty payments was wired into the system from the beginning. For example, a brief follow-up visit in a primary care doctor’s office might have an RVU of 1, while a comprehensive hospital visit might have an RVU of 7. Payments would be based on these RVUs multiplied by a conversion factor (determined by the insurance company).

 

So let’s say you broke your arm and your insurance company gives that injury a conversion factor of five. You go to your GP’s office for the follow-up visit. Your GP would receive $5 (1RVU X $5) but if instead you decided to go back to the hospital for the same follow-up treatment the attending physician would receive $35 (7 RVU X $5)."

 

Interested in an indepth look and history of RVU's? Click here.

 

There is little hope at increasing primary care access if we are unable to attract quality physicans to the field. Reforming RVU payments to adequately reimburse primary care physicans for the care they provide is essential to decreasing the compensation gap and increasing the number of primary care phyiscans nationally.