lobbying_activities: 1874434
Data license: Public Domain (U.S. Government data) · Data source: Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API
This data as json
| id | filing_uuid | filing_type | registrant_name | registrant_id | client_name | filing_year | filing_period | issue_code | specific_issues | government_entities | income_amount | expense_amount | is_no_activity | is_termination | received_date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1874434 | 8088d00f-23b8-4219-82b4-f55cdcfc8534 | Q3 | MARSHFIELD CLINIC HEALTH SYSTEM | 57830 | MARSHFIELD CLINIC HEALTH SYSTEM | 2016 | third_quarter | MMM | Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act With passage of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), Congress has put to rest the constant threat of massive cuts to Medicare physician fees. Going forward Medicare physician payments will transition to an incentive-based system based on value and accountability. Starting in 2019, Medicare physician payment will be based on the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Physicians who perform well on quality, value and IT metrics will be rewarded with higher pay rates and those who perform poorly will face penalties. Participants in Alternative Payment Systems (APMs) such as accountable care organizations that assume financial risk will receive 5% bonuses between 2019 and 2024. Because the language of the statute is not specific, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is developing metrics that will be used to determine the bonus payments and penalties that will start in 2019 in a public rulemaking currently underway. The proposed metrics simplify and consolidate the existing measurements employed under the Meaningful Use Incentive Program, the Physician Reporting System (PQRS), and the Value-Based Modifier (VBM) to streamline the reporting burden for physician practices. MIPS will then pay physicians based on four weighted performance categories: Quality (50% of total score in year 1), Advancing Care Information (25% of total score in year 1); Clinical Practice Improvement Activities (15% of total score in year 1): Resource Use (10% of total score in year 1, but growing to 30% in subsequent years). Having a source of credible data as the foundation of CMS metrics is critical both to fair payment and maintaining access to medical services in rural areas. CMS will be refining the metrics perpetually throughout the lifespan of this program. Challenges to fair reimbursement persist under the current Medicare fee schedule, which remains the foundation of the reimbursement system, particularly in regard to the valuation of primary care and the geographic adjustment of physician wages. These challenges must be addressed. Adequate funding for CMS to implement and maintain this new system is critical to patient care, provider education and acceptance of the new program and its long term success. Congress must ensure that CMS has adequate funding to provide oversight of its many programs, including its measurement of resource and input costs and full implementation of the Affordable Care Act and MACRA. Accountable Care Organizations Marshfield Clinic has benefitted substantially from its 9 + years of experience with CMS in the development and implementation of the Physician Group Practice Demonstration, and the Medicare Shared Savings Program. The mission of the Clinic and the objectives of the PGP and MSSP programs are closely paralleled in that it is our mission and objective to make compassionate care more affordable, improve outcomes and enrich the care experience of our patients. It is in our organizational self-interest that these programs succeed, so we have committed substantial resources and energy to the understanding and improvement of the programs. By both objective and subjective criteria Marshfield Clinic has performed successfully. In a recent letter to CMS we focused on the CMS program objective of encouraging ACOs to transition into full risk arrangements. In the proposed regulations codifying the terms and definitions of the Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, (MACRA) we find that we must become a risk-bearing MSSP ACO before 2017 to become a qualified Alternative Payment Model (APM). This is a primary strategic objective for MCHS. Unfortunately, CMS has not allowed for a pathway for Track 1 ACOs in their second three year term to transition to a full risk Track until 2019, which forecloses our opportunities to become an APM. We believe that it is in our own and our patients best interests that we take whatever steps are necessary to move into risk-bearing arrangements, and we have requested support from CMS to make this necessary transition. Medicare Advantage The Medicare Advantage program provides a full risk, capitated reimbursement to health plans for all Medicare benefits provided to enrolled beneficiaries. We believe that mechanisms for rewarding value in the Medicare Advantage program should offer incentives for those plans that demonstrate superior patient care performance. We recommend that performance bonuses should be provided for plans that: Achieve predetermined quality performance targets; Adopt health information technology; Meet standards for care coordination; and Provide data on comparative effectiveness. The Medicare Advantage Benchmark Cap - ACA SEC. 3201. (b) (4) By authorizing Quality Incentive Payments for MA plans with star ratings of 4 stars and above, Congress made a significant policy change towards value-based purchasing in the MA program. If a plan is eligible for a Quality Incentive Payment, it receives it in the form of a 5 percent increase to its benchmark. However, Congress also authorized a new methodology for calculating benchmarks, and mandated that benchmarks under the new methodology cannot be greater than what they would have been under the old benchmark methodology. This is the benchmark cap. The benchmark cap reduces or even eliminates Quality Incentive Payments. The policy issue is that the cap weakens the incentive for plans to attain higher star ratings and undermines the shift towards paying for performance in the MA program. We do not think that Congress intended to take away with one provision (the cap) the significant policy change towards paying for value that it enacted in the ACA. This change will have a significant negative impact on Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. CMS has indicated that it wants to remove the cap administratively, and we believe that Secretary Burwell and CMS have the authority under law to make the necessary changes. If HHS and CMS do not make the change, then a statutory change will be necessary. Medicare Advantage benchmark cap legislation was introduced in December. We urge you to cosponsor H.R. 4275, the Medicare Advantage Quality Payment Relief Act of 2015, introduced by Reps. Mike Kelly (R-PA), Ron Kind (D-WI), Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Mike Doyle (D-PA) that would remove the quality incentive payments from the calculation of the benchmark cap. Graduate Medical Education MCHS is concerned about having a sufficient supply of primary care physicians to meet the demands of an expanding and aging population. This is doubly true for patients and health systems in rural settings. Currently only about 10% of physicians practice in rural areas while 25% of the population resides there. While 36% allopathic residents and 50% osteopathic residents who are trained in a rural residency end up practicing in a rural area, only 4% of the residency training actually occurs in rural areas. Currently there are more US medical students graduating from medical school than there are GME slots. An increase in GME primary care training positions is essential to maintaining high-quality, accessible, and cost efficient care. Teaching hospitals in rural locations provide an environment for residents to learn and faculty to serve as educators, providers and researchers. These roles advance the broad mission of preparing each generation of physicians, provide critical patient care and specialized services, often to the disadvantaged, facilitate the discovery of new therapies and treatments, and enable residents to acclimate to the rural setting. As new payment and delivery models emphasize primary care to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs, and as more care shifts to outpatient settings, teaching faculty and residency programs must increase access to ambulatory residency rotations to serve Americans who live in areas with an under-supply of primary care physicians including Psychiatry. The purpose and value of residency training in clinical settings and the financial support needed to sustain physician education will only increase as the U.S. population lives longer with more complex health conditions. To ensure GME can meet the future needs of the newly insured and aging population, Congress must commit to the consistent GME funding and lift Medicares limit on funded residency positions. We support the Teaching Health Center funding in MACRA for Community Health Centers but request you extend funding beyond 2017. Geographic Adjustment of Physician Payments Recent findings by the Institute of Medicine and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission have demonstrated significant shortcomings in the data utilized to geographically adjust physician payments. The IOM and MedPAC studies have confirmed that the data sources currently relied upon for geographic adjustment bear no correlation to physician earnings. CMS officials have admitted that the proxies utilized for the purpose of geographic adjustment have never been validated, and there never has been a new data source utilized in the twenty years since the fee schedule was implemented. MedPAC data show that the geographic adjustment reference occupations predict earnings of rural physicians to be 25-30% less than physicians in metropolitan areas. MedPAC data show that earnings of primary care physicians in rural areas are, in fact, 13% higher than physicians in metropolitan areas. Since there is no statistical basis of support for disparities in payment we strongly recommend that Congress require CMS to correct this inequity immediately. These corrections are necessary to assure the credibility of the changes enacted in MACRA. Telemedicine in Medicare Changes to Medicare law and regulation are needed to improve equity in access for Medicare beneficiaries to services delivered via TeleHealth. Medicare beneficiaries should be allowed to receive services in telemedicine sites located in urban areas. The necessary changes would remove restrictions on originating sites by removing the rural requirement and the list of originating sites and allowing any certified Medicare facility to provide the services; current requirements that physician must bill for services from the originating site should be removed; restrictions on eligible practitioners should be removed to allow all Medicare approved practitioners to provide telemedicine services; and there should be no restrictions on which Medicare services may be provided through telemedicine. We recommend that the Medicare requirement for non-MSA geographic location of the patient be expanded to allow all Medicare certified organizations as originating sites regardless of rural or metropolitan statistical area designation. Part B Drug Payment Model CMS proposed a new Medicare Part B Drug Payment Model in the Federal Register on March 11, 2016. This model proposes to test alternative payment methodologies for separately payable Part B drugs to determine whether alternative drug payment designs will lead to a reduction in Medicare expenditures while preserving or enhancing quality of care. MCHS supports CMS efforts to address the rising cost of Medicare Part B drugs, but has concerns about the proposed demonstration of a new Average Sales Price (ASP) payment methodology. Specifically we believe that CMS should utilize its rule making authority to de-link physician payment entirely from the drugs they prescribe for patients. MCHS believes that the major responsibility for unsustainable drug spending remains with pharmaceutical manufacturers. The rising costs of drugs and biologics is a system-wide concern. A major contributing factor to those costs is the price set by manufacturers. The fact that there are no regulations on pricing of new anticancer drugs is disturbing. Pharmaceutical companies have the freedom to price their drug liberally at whatever price they deem appropriate, on the basis of what they presume the market will bear. The fact that the largest purchaser of drugs, the US Government, via Medicare and VA, is obligated to purchase the drug at that price and is barred by law from negotiating price, is illogical, disturbing, and unfortunate for public beneficiaries throughout the country. We believe manufacturers should be transparent about their research and development, marketing, advertising and other costs in getting a drug to market and setting prices that reasonably reflect the true costs. MCHS encourages CMS to work further with stakeholders to address the pricing side of the ledger with the expectation that this will enable it to move beyond shortsighted modifications in the Average Sales Price (ASP)-based payment methodology. To be very explicit we are not recommending that this proposal be withdrawn, but we do believe it is a long way from perfect policy. We believe that some necessary preconditions should be met before this program is implemented. The first of which must be to de-link physician payment entirely from the drugs they prescribe for patients. In addition, we believe manufacturers should be transparent about their research and development, marketing, advertising and other costs in getting a drug to market and setting prices that reasonably reflect the true costs. Advance Care Planning MCHS supports S. 1549 Care Planning Act of 2015, introduced by Senators Mark Warner, Johnny Isakson and Tammy Baldwin which Amends titles XVIII of Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSAct) to cover advanced illness planning and coordination services furnished to an eligible individual with progressive illness, including Alzheimer's disease, by a hospice or other provider through an interdisciplinary team. | Centers For Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS),Health & Human Services, Dept of (HHS),HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,Natl Institutes of Health (NIH),SENATE,Veterans Affairs, Dept of (VA) | 90000 | 0 | 0 | 2016-10-10T16:23:12.330000-04:00 |