• Revenue Cycle Management
  • COVID-19
  • Reimbursement
  • Diabetes Awareness Month
  • Risk Management
  • Patient Retention
  • Staffing
  • Medical Economics® 100th Anniversary
  • Coding and documentation
  • Business of Endocrinology
  • Telehealth
  • Physicians Financial News
  • Cybersecurity
  • Cardiovascular Clinical Consult
  • Locum Tenens, brought to you by LocumLife®
  • Weight Management
  • Business of Women's Health
  • Practice Efficiency
  • Finance and Wealth
  • EHRs
  • Remote Patient Monitoring
  • Sponsored Webinars
  • Medical Technology
  • Billing and collections
  • Acute Pain Management
  • Exclusive Content
  • Value-based Care
  • Business of Pediatrics
  • Concierge Medicine 2.0 by Castle Connolly Private Health Partners
  • Practice Growth
  • Concierge Medicine
  • Business of Cardiology
  • Implementing the Topcon Ocular Telehealth Platform
  • Malpractice
  • Influenza
  • Sexual Health
  • Chronic Conditions
  • Technology
  • Legal and Policy
  • Money
  • Opinion
  • Vaccines
  • Practice Management
  • Patient Relations
  • Careers

High costs of repealing SGR slow progress

Article

Progress on repealing the sustainable growth rate formula has stalled in Congress due to disagreement over how to pay for it.

A U.S. House of Representatives Committee voted to abolish the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, but the abolition’s progress stalled after lawmakers failed to address how to pay for it, reports the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). Estimates of SGR’s repeal costs vary between $139 billion and $200 billion.

The AAFP and the American College of Physicians have lobbied Congress to repeal SGR this year and replace it with a system that recognizes the complexity of primary care office visits and strengthens the role of primary care in the healthcare system. Without the SGR repeal, physicians face the continued threat of 25% reductions to Medicare payments.

In a June letter, the AAFP told Congress that performance measures should  be only one component of payment reform.

“You need to include payment for the coordination of care across delivery settings and for complex conditions,” the letter stated. “Finally, the system should include payment for services rendered, which fee-for-service does. But the AAFP believes (and the evidence shows) the balance of these three elements-namely, fee- for-service, care coordination and performance improvement-should be focused on primary care.”

Related Videos
© National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
© National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
© National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
© National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health