Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8508

Bill Overview

Title: Rural Physician Workforce Production Act of 2022

Description: 2022 This bill allows certain hospitals to receive additional payment under Medicare for full-time equivalent residents who receive training in rural areas. Specifically, hospitals, critical access hospitals, sole community hospitals, and rural emergency hospitals may elect to receive payment for time spent by a resident in a rural training location if the resident trains for at least eight weeks in the location and the hospital pays the salary and benefits of the resident during this time. Additionally, hospitals may receive payment for all time spent by residents in a residency program in which 50% of all training is in rural locations, regardless of where the training occurs or specialty. Payments are based on the difference between the total amount of eligible payments (as determined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) and the amount of graduate medical education payments received (if applicable).

Sponsors: Rep. O'Halleran, Tom [D-AZ-1]

Target Audience

Population: People living in rural areas with limited access to healthcare

Estimated Size: 60000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Family Physician (Macon, Georgia)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful that this policy will help increase the number of healthcare workers in our area.
  • It's often difficult to retain residents once they complete their training since they tend to move to urban centers.

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 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Medical Resident (Lincoln, Nebraska)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy provides more opportunities for residents like me to work in rural settings.
  • It could help solve the resource shortage experienced in these areas.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 9 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 8 6

Healthcare Administrator (Boise, Idaho)

Age: 58 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We need more incentives like these to bring skilled physicians to rural areas.
  • This policy is a step in the right direction, but budget constraints may limit its effectiveness.

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 8 5
Year 20 8 4

Hospital Administrator (Redding, California)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could help reduce turnover by attracting residents who may decide to settle here after training.
  • The financial aspect is good, but we must also focus on creating a supportive environment for healthcare workers.

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 9 6
Year 20 9 5

Retired School Teacher (Hickory, North Carolina)

Age: 65 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried about accessing specialists near me.
  • If this policy brings more doctors to our area, it will definitely be a big help.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 8 4

General Surgeon (Springfield, Colorado)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy may encourage more young doctors to choose rural settings for their careers.
  • Having more residents trained here could alleviate some of the pressure on our current team.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 5

Nurse Practitioner (Fargo, North Dakota)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is promising, but implementation in existing medical setups will be crucial.
  • Efforts like this make a real difference in improving community health.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 4

Public Health Official (Great Falls, Montana)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • These types of policies are essential but need to be coupled with other community initiatives to be effective.
  • We have to look at long-term solutions for healthcare access.

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 7 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Medical Student (Alpena, Michigan)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This bill increases my interest in rural specialties, knowing there are support programs available.
  • I hope it truly helps address some health disparities.

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 7 6
Year 20 7 5

Rural Clinic Manager (Overton, Nevada)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Bringing more residents to rural clinics is beneficial but must be supported with adequate facilities and staff.
  • Sustainability of these programs is key to long-term health improvements.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $180000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $210000000)

Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $230000000)

Year 3: $220000000 (Low: $190000000, High: $250000000)

Year 5: $260000000 (Low: $230000000, High: $290000000)

Year 10: $350000000 (Low: $310000000, High: $390000000)

Year 100: $1100000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1300000000)

Key Considerations