APMA News - January 2012 - (Page 30)

Federal Advocacy Forum By Phillip E. Ward, DPM Super Letdown and the Fallout The three-month special negotiations panel that was formally known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the Supercommittee) failed to come up with its mandate of at least $1.2 trillion in budget savings over the next decade, falling victim to a combination of divided motives and partisan mistrust. Its demise was widely lamented as a “missed opportunity” by lawmakers in both parties, but there were clear signs from the start that it was going to be enormously difficult to find consensus for a mega-budget deal. Despite public proclamations of optimism, the panel hadn’t formally met in weeks leading up to its November 23 deadline, and some of its members had already left town for Thanksgiving. APMA members will recall that the Supercommittee was created during last summer’s showdown over the federal debt limit, part of a two-stage strategy to restrain borrowing by at least $2.2 trillion over the next decade. About $1 trillion in savings were identified up front in the form of limits on spending that Congress appropriates annually. The committee was tasked with finding the rest, with the threat of $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts as an incentive to compromise. Appointed by the four congressional leaders, the 12-member panel was given extraordinarily broad power to act. Any part of the budget was fair game. And if a majority of Supercommittee members agreed on a plan, the House and the Senate would have to take it up for a vote without making changes. The failure of the panel’s effort to find a compromise on taxes and entitlement programs leaves a range of federal programs, including defense and Medicare, facing automatic spending cuts beginning in 2013 through a budgetary mechanism known as “sequester.” Even before the joint committee’s stalemate was official, a battle was underway over the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts scheduled to be imposed as a result of the panel’s inability to send deficit-reduction legislation to the House and Senate. APMA and other medical provider groups had hoped the Supercommittee could reach an agreement that included a permanent replacement of Medicare’s flawed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. Unfortunately, this resolution did not come to pass, and we continue to face short-term legislative patchwork proposals with no long-term solution in sight until likely after the 2012 elections. Thus, through the sequestration process, the Budget Control Act calls for federal spending to be lowered by $1.2 trillion, with $109.3 billion in cuts per year (beginning in FY 2013), half of which, $54.7 billion, comes from the Defense Department and the other half from the rest of the budget. 30 APMA News January 2012 These cuts affect both mandatory and discretionary spending with proportionate cuts to both, but Social Security and Medicaid are protected while Medicare providers would see, at most, a 2-percent reduction in payments. For APMA and other provider groups, it is important to note that this possible 2-percent reduction is separate and distinct from anything related to SGR payment issues. It is entirely possible that Congress could eventually reverse some or all of the scheduled sequestration cuts, and it wouldn’t be the first time. In the mid-1980s and early 1990s, several pieces of debt reduction legislation called for a sequester, but in most instances Congress either rescinded or reduced the cuts. It is entirely possible that Congress could eventually reverse some or all of the scheduled sequestration cuts, and it wouldn’t be the first time. So where does this leave us? We will redouble our efforts over the next 12 months to advocate for sustainable and equitable Medicare payments to providers, and to monitor and be ready to take action on any other spending reductions that might adversely affect our members or the patients we serve. We will also be focused like a laser beam on advancing our Title XIX legislation, “The Equity and Access for Podiatric Physicians Under Medicaid Act” (HR 3364/S 1309). It is critical that all APMA members urge their elected officials to sign on as cosponsors to this legislation. In agreeing to cosponsor a bill, our elected officials indicate that they support the legislation enough to lend their name to it. The more bipartisan cosponsorship support we can muster for our Title XIX/Medicaid coverage bill, the better its chances of being enacted into law. If you have not already done so, please contact your federal elected officials through APMA’s interactive advocacy website at www. apma.org/eadvocacy. Ask them to cosponsor this legislation. These are uncertain times in our health-care delivery system. Challenges to the new health-care law, deficit reduction, and a number of related issues are converging and posing unique obstacles and opportunities for podiatrists. With your help and continued involvement, APMA will be well-positioned to continue advocating strongly on behalf of its members. n APMA Trustee Phillip E. Ward, DPM, can be reached at peward@apma.org. http://www.apma.org/eadvocacy http://www.apma.org/eadvocacy

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of APMA News - January 2012

APMA News - January 2012
President’s Message
Contents
APMA Celebrates its Centennial
APMA by the Decade: 1912–1921
Updated List of Seal Holders
Paving the Path to Parity: A Look Back at 2011 State Advocacy Initiatives
2011 Podiatric Practice Survey: How Do Your Benefits Compare?
CAC-PIAC: The Only Constant in Health Care is Change
Reimbursement
Federal Advocacy Forum
APMAPAC Chair Report
IT Consultant
Can They Really Do That?
Website Wisdom
Technofile
Young Voices
Small Business 101
CPME Update
APMA All Stars
Awards Nominations
In Short
Worthy of Note
Resolutions Submissions
Affiliates Corner
List of Affiliated Organizations
Insurance Advisor
New Members
Death Notices
Annual Scientific Meeting Registration Form
Annual Scientific Meeting Sponsors
APMAPAC Update
Development Update
Classified Advertising
Dates to Remember
Advertising Index
10 Questions

APMA News - January 2012