Â鶹ŮÓÅ

House members spent a lot of time last week congratulating themselves for passing a permanent "doc fix" -- that is, an end to the yearly ritual of readjusting the rates Medicare pays to health care providers in order to avoid drastic cuts that could cause them to stop treating elderly patients. One problem: The "doc fix" isn't actually fixed. While the House overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan deal that permanently changed the formula ahead of the April 1 deadline while also reauthorizing key health programs supported by Democrats, the Senate did not act on the House bill after completing budget votes in the wee hours Friday morning -- postponing action until senators return from recess on April 13. (DeBonis, 4/2)

Doctors across the country will face a 21 percent cut in government payments for treating Medicare patients if Congress does not act to prevent it before April 15, an official with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services warned Wednesday. (Miller, 4/2)

Just about everyone agrees the Sustainable Growth Rate formula is flawed, but once upon a time it was seen as a great new way for Medicare to pay doctors. Few are predicting that its likely successor will be a comparable disaster — but there are still plenty of things that could go wrong with the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, which has already been dubbed MIPS. (Pradhan, 4/2)

The House-passed package to replace Medicare's physician payment formula doesn't include a permanent repeal of caps on how much the program spends on rehabilitation therapy, but proponents say the issue could resurface as an amendment and throw a new wrinkle into the debate when the Senate takes up the measure after recess. Maryland Democrat Benjamin L. Cardin, who has introduced introduced legislation to scrap the caps with Maine Republican Susan Collins, is hoping for an opportunity to offer a repeal amendment, according to spokeswoman Sue Walitsky. (Attias, 4/2)

A few small lines of a new bill meant to permanently fix the way Medicare pays doctors are grabbing attention among those who work on medical malpractice issues. They're not likely to change much about malpractice suits against doctors, but they do touch on a larger debate over how it should be decided in such cases if doctors acted appropriately, some legal experts caution. (Schencker, 4/2)