<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: AN SGR REFORM PROPOSAL: The Impact Of A Payment Update Alternative For Multi-Specialty Group Practices</title>
	<atom:link href="http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/02/19/an-sgr-reform-proposal-the-impact-of-a-payment-update-alternative-for-multi-specialty-group-practices/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/02/19/an-sgr-reform-proposal-the-impact-of-a-payment-update-alternative-for-multi-specialty-group-practices/</link>
	<description>The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:23:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: L Ozeran</title>
		<link>http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/02/19/an-sgr-reform-proposal-the-impact-of-a-payment-update-alternative-for-multi-specialty-group-practices/comment-page-1/#comment-16349</link>
		<dc:creator>L Ozeran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/02/19/an-sgr-reform-proposal-the-impact-of-a-payment-update-alternative-for-multi-specialty-group-practices/#comment-16349</guid>
		<description>Dr. Crosson has a well deserved reputation as an effective and visionary physician leader, but I am conflicted about his proposal. To minimize any potential misunderstandings, before responding I will first summarize what I see as the key points he makes.

1) volume of medical services per medicare beneficiary has averaged 5% increases annually
2) physicians may provide more services to increase inadequate reimbursement
3) the increased services decrease physician payments, probably unevenly
4) &quot;A total solution to the problem of inappropriate increases in the volume of physician services remains to be developed.&quot;
5) large physician groups implementing EHRs should be allowed to carve their populations out of the general SGR pool so that they can be incentivized to be more efficient with resources

In my opinion, finding #1 means little by itself. As medicine advances, we are able to offer more services to older and sicker patients. Unless there is some evidence of the &quot;inappropriate increases&quot; referenced in finding #4, I suspect their role in this 5% increase is limited. Finding #2 is speculative. It may be more common in larger groups than in solo and small group practices where that option is not even available to them. Finding #3 speaks to the core of the SGR problem, a flawed system which leads to inadequate payment.

On the one hand, Dr. Crosson&#039;s suggestion is a novel approach which should not be dismissed. If #2 is occurring and if it is more likely in large groups, then his solution may work. If successful, it would benefit Medicare and its beneficiaries by cutting costs and help solo and small group practices since their services would be separated from larger group practices. However, in the long run, even this change would be only a minimal improvement which ignores the much bigger problem with the SGR.

I would hate to see implementation of these pilots further delay significant reform of a flawed SGR system. As long as the SGR promotes a socialized system of payments for services which must pay costs under a capitalist system, then our entire healthcare system heads towards insolvency. We need to eliminate the SGR now while our system is still salvageable. If this problem of &quot;inappropriate increases&quot; still exists after eliminating the SGR, I would prefer to wait to implement Dr. Crosson&#039;s pilot then.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dr. Crosson has a well deserved reputation as an effective and visionary physician leader, but I am conflicted about his proposal. To minimize any potential misunderstandings, before responding I will first summarize what I see as the key points he makes.</p>
<p>1) volume of medical services per medicare beneficiary has averaged 5% increases annually<br />
2) physicians may provide more services to increase inadequate reimbursement<br />
3) the increased services decrease physician payments, probably unevenly<br />
4) &#8220;A total solution to the problem of inappropriate increases in the volume of physician services remains to be developed.&#8221;<br />
5) large physician groups implementing EHRs should be allowed to carve their populations out of the general SGR pool so that they can be incentivized to be more efficient with resources</p>
<p>In my opinion, finding #1 means little by itself. As medicine advances, we are able to offer more services to older and sicker patients. Unless there is some evidence of the &#8220;inappropriate increases&#8221; referenced in finding #4, I suspect their role in this 5% increase is limited. Finding #2 is speculative. It may be more common in larger groups than in solo and small group practices where that option is not even available to them. Finding #3 speaks to the core of the SGR problem, a flawed system which leads to inadequate payment.</p>
<p>On the one hand, Dr. Crosson&#8217;s suggestion is a novel approach which should not be dismissed. If #2 is occurring and if it is more likely in large groups, then his solution may work. If successful, it would benefit Medicare and its beneficiaries by cutting costs and help solo and small group practices since their services would be separated from larger group practices. However, in the long run, even this change would be only a minimal improvement which ignores the much bigger problem with the SGR.</p>
<p>I would hate to see implementation of these pilots further delay significant reform of a flawed SGR system. As long as the SGR promotes a socialized system of payments for services which must pay costs under a capitalist system, then our entire healthcare system heads towards insolvency. We need to eliminate the SGR now while our system is still salvageable. If this problem of &#8220;inappropriate increases&#8221; still exists after eliminating the SGR, I would prefer to wait to implement Dr. Crosson&#8217;s pilot then.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad F</title>
		<link>http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/02/19/an-sgr-reform-proposal-the-impact-of-a-payment-update-alternative-for-multi-specialty-group-practices/comment-page-1/#comment-15732</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad F</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:08:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/02/19/an-sgr-reform-proposal-the-impact-of-a-payment-update-alternative-for-multi-specialty-group-practices/#comment-15732</guid>
		<description>This model, as you pointed out, works with large groups.  However, given that a majority of physicians are in practices with less than 5-6 docs, many of whom admit to multiple hospitals, other than being an interesting pilot for ?? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This model, as you pointed out, works with large groups.  However, given that a majority of physicians are in practices with less than 5-6 docs, many of whom admit to multiple hospitals, other than being an interesting pilot for ??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Health Affairs Blog</title>
		<link>http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/02/19/an-sgr-reform-proposal-the-impact-of-a-payment-update-alternative-for-multi-specialty-group-practices/comment-page-1/#comment-15702</link>
		<dc:creator>Health Affairs Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:03:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/02/19/an-sgr-reform-proposal-the-impact-of-a-payment-update-alternative-for-multi-specialty-group-practices/#comment-15702</guid>
		<description>[...] Editor&#8217;s Note: In the post below, Paul Ginsburg, the president of the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC), begins a Health Affairs Blog series on Medicare physician compensation and the Sustainable Growth Rate mechanism. In the coming days, the series will feature posts by Robert Berenson, Jay Crosson, Mina Matin, Frank Opelka, Eugene Rich, and Gail Wilensky. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Editor&#8217;s Note: In the post below, Paul Ginsburg, the president of the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC), begins a Health Affairs Blog series on Medicare physician compensation and the Sustainable Growth Rate mechanism. In the coming days, the series will feature posts by Robert Berenson, Jay Crosson, Mina Matin, Frank Opelka, Eugene Rich, and Gail Wilensky. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Health Affairs Blog</title>
		<link>http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/02/19/an-sgr-reform-proposal-the-impact-of-a-payment-update-alternative-for-multi-specialty-group-practices/comment-page-1/#comment-15697</link>
		<dc:creator>Health Affairs Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:58:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/02/19/an-sgr-reform-proposal-the-impact-of-a-payment-update-alternative-for-multi-specialty-group-practices/#comment-15697</guid>
		<description>[...] Editor’s Note: This is the third post in a Health Affairs Blog series on Medicare physician compensation and the Sustainable Growth Rate mechanism. Paul Ginsburg and Robert Berenson have contributed earlier posts, and in the coming days the series will feature posts by Jay Crosson, Frank Opelka, Eugene Rich, and Gail Wilensky. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Editor’s Note: This is the third post in a Health Affairs Blog series on Medicare physician compensation and the Sustainable Growth Rate mechanism. Paul Ginsburg and Robert Berenson have contributed earlier posts, and in the coming days the series will feature posts by Jay Crosson, Frank Opelka, Eugene Rich, and Gail Wilensky. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Health Affairs Blog</title>
		<link>http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/02/19/an-sgr-reform-proposal-the-impact-of-a-payment-update-alternative-for-multi-specialty-group-practices/comment-page-1/#comment-15696</link>
		<dc:creator>Health Affairs Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:55:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/02/19/an-sgr-reform-proposal-the-impact-of-a-payment-update-alternative-for-multi-specialty-group-practices/#comment-15696</guid>
		<description>[...] &#171; AN SGR REFORM PROPOSAL: The Impact Of A Payment Update Alternative For Multi-Specialty Group Practices    Blog Home [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &laquo; AN SGR REFORM PROPOSAL: The Impact Of A Payment Update Alternative For Multi-Specialty Group Practices    Blog Home [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

