As provider groups dig into the details of the struck over the weekend, some arenāt too happy.
Photo by Karl Eisenhower/KHN
āWe could not be for this legislation, because it as an arbitrary, automatic reduction ā¦ that is for fiscal reasons that have nothing to do with health policy. And we canāt support that,ā, president and chief executive officer of the , said in an interview.
Among its provisions, the dealĀ would protect Medicare from cuts greater thanĀ 2 percent if a bipartisan commission created in the legislation fails to produce a $1.5 Ā package of spending cuts or if Congress fails to enactĀ them. In addition, those cuts would have to come from provider reimbursements and not enrolleesā coverage.
Limiting any automatic spending cuts in Medicare to 2 percent wonāt help, says Kahn. āFrom our view, thereās no separation between these kinds of provider cuts and something that will affect beneficiaries. It will affect the way providers operate and at some point this artificial separation between things that affect beneficiaries and provider cuts has got to be identified for what it is ā an artificial break. If it affects providers, it affects beneficiaries.ā
In a statement, Rich Umbdenstock, the president and chief executive, said cutting hospitals willĀ meanĀ decreased access for seniors. āThatās why the Ā total Medicare program ā including caregivers ā should be exemptā from cuts that he said could overload emergency rooms, shut trauma units and reduce patient access to the latest treatments.
The 170,000 member is urging Congress to vote against the deal, which ākicks the can further down the road on real solutions that are needed to promise genuine recovery,ā says Rose Ann DeMoro, the groupās executive director.