Bill Overview
Title: Promoting Health Care Quality Act of 2022
Description: This bill increases FY2023 funding for certain performance and quality measurement programs under Medicare.
Sponsors: Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-27]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on national healthcare systems for quality service
Estimated Size: 64000000
- The bill focuses on performance and quality measurement programs under Medicare.
- Medicare primarily serves individuals aged 65 and older, people under 65 with certain disabilities, and people of all ages with End-Stage Renal Disease.
- The population of Medicare beneficiaries includes older adults and those with disabilities, regardless of age.
- Globally, the concept of Medicare does not apply, but similar health care provisions and measures might affect health care quality for older adults.
Reasoning
- The Promoting Health Care Quality Act of 2022 increases funding for quality measurement under Medicare, likely affecting a significant number of older adults and individuals with disabilities in the U.S.
- Given the specified funding limits, the policy likely impacts mainly through enhanced monitoring and improvements in care standards, but might not lead to additional direct services or medication coverage.
- The population most affected includes Medicare beneficiaries—over 64 million people—especially older adults who typically manage chronic health issues.
- The impact on individuals will vary based on existing health conditions and the quality of care they currently receive from Medicare.
Simulated Interviews
retired teacher (Florida)
Age: 72 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved Medicare services could make my visits to the doctor more efficient and beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
retired engineer (California)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this improves coordination among my healthcare providers and reduces errors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
retired nurse (New York)
Age: 75 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect better monitoring of my treatments, which might lead to better pain management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
retired farmer (Texas)
Age: 80 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'll be satisfied if there's a reduction in waiting times at clinics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
retired administrative assistant (Pennsylvania)
Age: 66 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy leads to more reliable support systems and evaluations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
retired military (Ohio)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Upgrades in quality measures might lead to better managed rehab programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
disability retiree (Arizona)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope for better alignment between my neurologist and general practitioner. More collaboration could mean improved symptom management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
retired factory worker (Michigan)
Age: 77 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing the accuracy of my medical records will be beneficial. I worry about medication mix-ups.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
retired electrician (North Carolina)
Age: 83 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better metrics may improve my care during recovery.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
retired librarian (Illinois)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced quality controls could mean better pain management and less frequent visits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $750000000)
Year 2: $510000000 (Low: $255000000, High: $765000000)
Year 3: $520200000 (Low: $260100000, High: $780300000)
Year 5: $540808000 (Low: $270404000, High: $811212000)
Year 10: $594008880 (Low: $297004440, High: $891013320)
Year 100: $9934977559 (Low: $4967488779, High: $14902463339)
Key Considerations
- The impact on healthcare quality and efficiency of Medicare services could lead to significant indirect savings beyond direct funding costs.
- The potential increase in funding might necessitate reallocations from other federal budgets or increased deficit spending.
- The bill assumes that increased funding translates efficiently to tangible performance improvements without administrative waste.