Bill Overview
Title: Dr. Joanne Smith Memorial Rehabilitation Innovation Centers Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill directs the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to publish and biennially update a list of all rehabilitation innovation centers. The bill defines rehabilitation innovation centers as rehabilitation facilities that (1) hold specified federal research and training designations for traumatic brain injury or spinal cord injury research, and (2) serve at least a certain number of Medicare patients. The CMS may waive such criteria as it deems appropriate.
Sponsors: Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who are Medicare beneficiaries with traumatic brain or spinal cord injuries.
Estimated Size: 2000000
- Rehabilitation innovation centers focus on providing advanced rehabilitation services, often involving research and treatment for injuries such as traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries.
- The bill's emphasis on Medicare patients implies that the primary affected population will be individuals who are eligible for Medicare, typically seniors and some younger people with disabilities.
- The incorporation of innovation centers suggests an improvement in the quality and possibly the scope of services provided, affecting patients directly utilizing these services.
- The bill may indirectly affect researchers and healthcare workers involved at these centers as it may include funding or mandates that change their working conditions or the State of available research facilities.
Reasoning
- The budget constraints and policy focus suggest a limited but targeted impact, prioritizing centers that already serve Medicare patients with specific kinds of injuries.
- Since the target population includes those with traumatic brain or spinal cord injuries who are often on Medicare, the immediate direct beneficiaries are likely a small subset of the broader Medicare population.
- Indirect effects may include benefits to healthcare workers and researchers at these centers due to potential changes in funding allocation and work conditions, potentially impacting their wellbeing as well.
- The implementation of the policy may lead to improvements in service delivery and patient care in these centers, which could result in better self-reported wellbeing for those directly involved.
- Considering the expenditure and estimated target population, the policy might have a medium impact on direct beneficiaries, with varying durations depending on individual circumstances.
Simulated Interviews
Retired teacher (California)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy will mean faster access to cutting-edge treatments.
- I'm concerned about how quickly these changes can be implemented.
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 | 6 | 4 |
Healthcare researcher (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanded funding might enhance our research capabilities.
- This policy will potentially allow us to better showcase our research findings.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Physical therapist (Florida)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could provide us more resources to help our patients.
- I am cautiously optimistic about lasting improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired engineer (New York)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this bill will make therapies more accessible.
- I worry about how long these changes will take to reach my region.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Nurse (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should improve our facility's resource allocation.
- We might see an increase in patient volumes and care quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Orthopedic surgeon (Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We could advance treatment protocols faster with more funding.
- The policy could also boost morale among medical staff.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired nurse (Pennsylvania)
Age: 64 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 9.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to innovative centers could improve my ongoing recovery.
- I have some concerns about the availability in my area.
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 | 6 | 4 |
Data analyst (Colorado)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could provide valuable data sources for research.
- The long-term tracking of impacts may be beneficial for policymaking.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Spinal rehabilitation technician (Georgia)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could usher in new technologies to improve patient outcomes.
- However, budget constraints may limit the extent of the impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Rehabilitation center admin (Virginia)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy might streamline systemic operations.
- Increased focus on research could improve our service quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $4500000 (Low: $4000000, High: $5000000)
Year 2: $4600000 (Low: $4100000, High: $5100000)
Year 3: $4700000 (Low: $4200000, High: $5200000)
Year 5: $4900000 (Low: $4400000, High: $5400000)
Year 10: $5500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $6000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $11000000)
Key Considerations
- The precise number of centers receiving designation might affect costs and benefits.
- Regional variations in implementation of technology and protocols could influence outcomes.
- The increase in research and advanced rehabilitation techniques could shift market landscapes.