Bill Overview
Title: Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022
Description: This bill extends a payment increase under Medicare's physician fee schedule through the end of 2023 (currently set to expire at the end of 2022).
Sponsors: Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-7]
Target Audience
Population: People enrolled in Medicare and healthcare providers paid by Medicare in the US
Estimated Size: 67000000
- Medicare is a federal program that provides health coverage if you are 65 or older or under 65 and have a disability, regardless of income.
- Medicare serves approximately 65 million people in the United States.
- The Medicare physician fee schedule is used to pay providers, so this bill primarily affects the healthcare providers receiving payments from Medicare.
- Indirectly, Medicare beneficiaries could be impacted as the payment rates to their providers might influence the availability and quality of care.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily benefits healthcare providers by extending a payment increase, which could lead to better quality care for Medicare patients if providers are encouraged to continue accepting Medicare patients. However, the direct financial benefit is to providers rather than patients.
- Medicare enrollees might experience indirect benefits such as improved access and quality of care, as providers may be more willing to accept Medicare patients with the pay rate increase sustained.
- The impact on Cantril scores for most Medicare beneficiaries may be modest directly, given that the payment increase targets providers.
- Different groups within the Medicare system, such as those needing extensive medical care or living in areas with fewer healthcare providers, might experience varying impacts.
- The scale of the policy is significant in dollar terms, but because it's distributed across the large population of Medicare providers, individual impacts might be reduced.
- Some people may not notice a direct impact on their wellbeing unless the policy substantially changes their access to care.
- Those who are not enrolled in Medicare or not directly receiving healthcare have no expected change in wellbeing scores.
- Most interviewees will likely have low to medium impact unless their situation uniquely positions them to benefit from the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Retired nurse (Miami, FL)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy helps my doctors get paid better so they can keep focusing on my care.
- I'm concerned about what happens when the payments revert back.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Primary care physician (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The payment increase is essential in maintaining my practice's viability.
- It's a short-term relief but doesn't solve longstanding payment issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Healthcare administrator (Detroit, MI)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This helps us to keep offering services without cutting back immediately.
- I worry it won't be enough for long-term stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Retired teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 80 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this means I won't lose any of my doctors.
- I've seen what happens when doctors refuse Medicare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Healthcare policy analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a reactive approach to a structural problem.
- The policy is a temporary fix rather than a solution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Specialist physician (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This payment schedule extension is important for sustaining the practice.
- More changes are needed for long-term feasibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Retired engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this helps doctor availability, I'm in favor.
- Healthcare access is crucial at my age.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired librarian (Seattle, WA)
Age: 73 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope my doctors don't reduce hours or places they accept Medicare patients if payments go back down.
- I'm cautiously optimistic about this change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Clinic manager (Austin, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a step in the right direction for keeping clinics operational with Medicare patients.
- Long-term policies are needed for clinic viability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Medicare consultant (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see minor changes like this as temporary relief to a giant issue.
- Systemic reform is necessary, despite these incremental changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 2: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 3: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 5: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 10: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Key Considerations
- The act maintains stability in the Medicare healthcare provider market by avoiding payment declines that might affect service availability.
- Limited duration of one-year extension means impacts are short-term, and future policy decisions will be critical.
- This bill directly affects federal expenditure due to increased outlays for Medicare payments, but any long-term effects are tied to subsequent legislative action.