How Congress failed to curb medical spending

Tom Curry National affairs writer • Profile • E-mail

Health care spending in the United States has been growing at more than 7 percent a year, far faster than the economy itself has been growing.

President Barack Obama has called growth in medical spending “a ticking time bomb for the federal budget.”

In his press conference Tuesday, Obama pledged that the health insurance overhaul that he is proposing “brings down the crushing cost of health care. We simply can't have a system where we throw good money after bad habits. We need to control the skyrocketing costs that are driving families, businesses and our government into greater and greater debt.”

But as Congress designs the massive insurance overhaul, there’s reason to doubt that it will find the willpower to control this spending.

It has tried — and failed — in the past.

In the 1997 balanced budget law, Congress aimed to cut future spending on the Medicare program, which pays for medical care for Americans age 65 and older.

But it has proven that it won’t fully enforce the cost controls mandated by that law.

Great expectations in 1997
The story starts on July 30, 1997, a day of bipartisan jubilation in Washington.

By huge margins, Congress passed a bill to cut taxes, extend health insurance to five million uninsured children, and in its key cost-control measure, to cut future Medicare spending by nearly $400 billion over ten years.

“We have put America’s fiscal house in order again,” exulted President Bill Clinton who signed the bill into law.

House Budget committee chairman Rep. John Kasich, R-Ohio, said, “This is the dawn of new era,” calling the future Medicare spending cuts “amazing.”

The mechanism Congress designed to curb spending on doctors’ services was called the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, or SGR.

The idea was that Medicare’s payments to doctors would be kept in line with the growth rate of the overall economy, or growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

If Medicare spending on doctors’ services exceeded the SGR target, a pay cut would automatically take effect the following year.

Health reform hits doctor deficit reality   Health-care reform hits small-town reality: Even with insurance, patients need somewhere to go. Surgeon general wants more minority docs Medicare cuts stay in Senate's health care bill Poll: Most in U.S. want public health option AARP backs Dems in Senate health care fight

Using GDP growth as guide post
“It’s an example of an enforcement mechanism that, on the face of it, looks like it ought to be effective — because there’s no mystery about how you do it,” said Joseph Antos, a former official at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) who is a health care analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.

“There was this feeling that growth in GDP could be used as a guide post for what might be affordable under Medicare,” said Stephen Zuckerman, a health care economist at the Urban Institute in Washington.

Since 2002, Medicare spending on physicians’ services has exceeded the targets set by the SGR formula. In 2002, Medicare cut the payment rates for doctors by 4.8 percent, as the budget balanced law required.

The following year, under the SGR formula, payment rates were scheduled to be cut again by 4.4 percent. But this time Congress blinked.

It decided the cuts were too painful and postponed them, partly out of concern that cutting doctors’ pay would lead some of them to stop treating Medicare patients.

In each of the years since 2003, as each year’s moment of decision approached for the SGR cuts, Congress has called them off, simply adding them — in theory — to the reductions that would need to be made the following year.

Congress defers cost cuts
Last year Congress cancelled the 10.6 percent cut in payments mandated by the SGR. Instead it raised Medicare reimbursement rates by 1.1 percent.

INTERACTIVE Who's who in the health care debate A look at the key players shaping the national debate over health care — including the legislators and policymakers at the center of it all.

As a result of the accumulated cuts that have been deferred since 2003, payment rates are due to be cut by 21 percent next year, and by 5 percent a year for several years after that, according to the CBO.

Experts doubt these cuts will be made, at least not in full.

But Congress faces a dilemma: It can't afford to junk the SGR entirely. The CBO estimates if the SGR were eliminated, it would cost the Treasury more than $500 billion in lost revenue over the next ten years.

Were members of Congress deluding themselves in 1997 that they’d cut future Medicare outlays?

“You can’t assume that they actually understood what the Sustainable Growth Rate formula really meant,” said Antos. “The general principle that we ought to have some control over Medicare spending is different from the reality.” 

He asked, “Did they ever believe it [the SGR] would work? I don’t know. It’s never clear to me that most members of Congress really think that far ahead on something like that.”

So what went wrong with the SGR?

“Congress designed a system that they believed was going to be on automatic pilot. There would be updated targets each year and that would automatically control spending,” Zuckerman explained. “The problem is that spending was racing ahead so much more rapidly than the targets.” That in turn led to the prospect of very large fee cuts for Medicare doctors.

This is not what Congress had expected back in 1997.

MORE FROM HEALTH CARE

Health care Section Front

Health reform hits doctor deficit reality Surgeon general wants more minority docs Medicare cuts stay in Senate's health care bill Poll: Most in U.S. want public health option AARP backs Dems in Senate health care fight Breast-screening debate splits along party lines Orszag: Health efficiencies could take 'decades' 7 items you didn’t know were in the Senate bill Will you pay more for insurance after reform? When doctors give patients the power Health care Section Front   Add Health care headlines to your news reader: