Gingrey RSS Articles

Gingrey: Bipartisan Passage of FDA Reform Act of 2012 ‘Encouraging’

Thu, 10 May 2012 04:00:00 GMT

The House Energy and Commerce Committee today unanimously approved the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Reform Act of 2012. The bipartisan legislation includes the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN) Act, introduced by Rep. Gingrey, which encourages development of new medicines and streamlines the regulatory process in order to treat the growing number of antibiotic-resistant infections. The GAIN Act’s Senate companion, sponsored by Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), was passed out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in April.

"As a physician Member of Congress, I understand the critical need for innovative new medicines to combat these ‘superbugs,’" said Rep. Gingrey. "In order to prevent a future public health crisis, my Senate and Committee colleagues have passed the bipartisan GAIN Act to ensure patients have access to life-saving treatments and to decrease the risk of a nationwide, drug-resistant epidemic. In addition to protecting public health, this legislation also seeks to stem the tide of drug developers, investors, and clinical trials from moving overseas."

"Strong support for the GAIN Act among both parties and numerous health care stakeholders reflects the urgent need for development of new drugs to address this growing public health threat," Senator Corker said. "While I will carefully consider the overall FDA bill on its own merits, I’m hopeful the GAIN Act becomes law so we can help restore the pipeline for effective antibiotics without putting additional federal dollars at stake."

"This effort is key to fighting superbugs, a health menace in Connecticut and across the country," said Senator Blumenthal. "Incentives for research and development, and fast track FDA review, are needed to stop these antibiotic-resistant bacteria and infections from spreading. Bipartisan approval by the House Energy and Commerce Committee is a tremendous step toward saving lives through further antibiotic development."

Rep. Gingrey, along with Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), urge House and Senate leadership to send the GAIN Act to the President.

Gingrey: To safeguard military funding, Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act “critical”

Thu, 10 May 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Rep. Gingrey voted today in support of H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act. This critical legislation, led by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, prevents devastating across-the-board cuts to the Department of Defense by identifying and implementing measures to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in existing government programs. If left in place, sequestration would deal a massive blow to our military, shrinking it to its smallest size since before World War II, and would hamper our ability to respond to national security threats.

"Preserving funding for our servicemen and women is of paramount importance," said Rep. Gingrey. This legislation achieves that goal while simultaneously enacting necessary and strategic reforms to a number of mandatory programs. These measures will better ensure those most in need of government assistance receive it, instead of individuals who game the system."

Two provisions authored by Rep. Gingrey are included in H.R. 5652. The first, H.R. 5 the HEALTH Act, seeks to address the rising cost of health care through meaningful medical liability reform. The other provision, H.R. 1683, the State Flexibility Act, aims to correct a problem created by Obamacare and the failed stimulus by giving states the flexibility they need to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicaid program.

The Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act provides $328 billion in savings over ten years. It will also offset the first year of indiscriminate sequestration cuts—$78 billion—to the Department of Defense.

An Invisible Threat

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Imagine a world where a simple cut, or common cold, can routinely lead to hospitalization and even death. Sixty years ago, that world was a reality. The advent of penicillin along with 40 years of medical innovation changed all that, resulting in a host of new antibiotic drugs that literally transformed public health in the United States.

However, as with many other forms of life, living micro organisms will adapt and build defenses to outside threats over time. For bacteria, that defense mechanism is evolution: the more often a drug is used to treat a certain type of bacteria, the more that bacteria will respond by developing resistant strains.

To counterbalance this progression, patients need access to newer and stronger forms of antibiotics when resistance occurs. Unfortunately, drug development has not kept up with the pace of bacterial evolution in recent years.

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the approval of new antibiotics has decreased by 70 percent since the mid-1980s. A combination of factors – including the high cost of drug development and small profit margins – have helped to drive companies out of the anti-infective space for markets where the return on investment is much higher. The result, quite simply, is a stagnant research and development pipeline for antibiotics that is ill equipped to keep up with evolving bacterium. Without fresh and complex medical treatments available, the American people face a potentially catastrophic situation.

Today, antibiotic-resistant infections cause more deaths annually than AIDS, traffic accidents, or the flu - and those numbers will only get worse if nothing is done. The discovery of the "New Delhi" gene, which can create drug-resistance to nearly any bacteria it comes in contact with, is a threat that remains particularly worrisome as it makes these infections virtually untreatable. Americans from all walks of life are at risk to bugs like the "New Delhi" gene, but patients with chronic illnesses, children, and wounded soldiers on foreign battlefields are especially vulnerable populations.

Without new policies and market mechanisms that encourage companies back into the antibiotic business, we are simply ignoring the looming public threat that compromises the health and welfare of the United States – and the world. Given the fact that it takes years to create and get a new drug approved by the FDA, it is imperative that we address this problem now before we are faced with a deadly bug for which no treatment is available.

Therefore, I joined with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to introduce H.R. 2182, the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN) Act, now included in broader health care legislation known as the FDA User Fee Authorization Act. Among other things, the legislation creates more value for new antibiotic companies by increasing FDA data exclusivity protections for new products, while at the same time encouraging greater collaboration between regulators and companies that seek approval for new treatments.

As both a physician and a Member of Congress, I recognize that the threat posed to public health by bacterial infections is not a political issue, but rather a serious health problem facing all Americans. People from all walks of life – and on both sides of the aisle – are at risk. It is my hope that this legislation – crafted on a bipartisan basis for the benefit of patients in all 50 states – will spur innovation and encourage the development of new antibiotics to the superbugs of tomorrow.

This article was originally published by Physicians News Digest.

Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D., was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2002.　 He is a graduate of the Medical College of Georgia and practiced for 26 years as an OB/GYN.

Gingrey, Corker, Blumenthal Praise Senate Committee Passage of GAIN Act in FDA User Fee Reauthorization Bill

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representative Phil Gingrey, M.D., (R-GA) and U.S. Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) praised committee passage of the GAIN Act (S.1734) as part of the Food and Drug Administration User Fee reauthorization bill, which was reported out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee today. The GAIN Act, introduced by Corker and Blumenthal in October, and its companion, introduced by Representatives Gingrey and Diana DeGette (D-CO) in the House of Representatives, aim to spur development of new drugs to treat increasing cases of bacterial infections resistant to conventional antibiotics.

“While I will carefully consider the overall FDA bill on its own merits, I’m pleased the GAIN Act is building momentum and has moved one step closer to hopefully becoming law thanks to growing support among both parties in Congress,” Senator Corker said. “Drug-resistant infections pose an increasing threat to public health in Tennessee and throughout the country. The GAIN Act, without putting additional federal dollars at stake, provides meaningful incentives to aid development of new antibiotics in a diminishing segment of the drug market that will help save lives and reduce health care costs.”

“This effort is key to fighting superbugs, a health menace in Connecticut and across the country. Incentives for research and development, and fast track FDA review, are needed to stop these antibiotic-resistant bacteria and infections from spreading. I applaud the progress of the GAIN Act and will continue the fight for full passage.” Senator Blumenthal said.

“As a physician Member of Congress, I understand firsthand how the lack of innovation in developing new medicines could result in a public health crisis. The GAIN Act is an important step toward ensuring patients have access to life-saving antibiotics,” Representative Gingrey said. “I am pleased to see the Senate take action and commend Sens. Corker and Blumenthal for their leadership on this issue.”

The GAIN Act provides incentives to increase the commercial value of innovative antibiotic drugs and streamlines the regulatory process so that pioneering infectious disease products can reach patients. Antibiotic-resistant infections are on the rise, causing nearly 90,000 deaths each year, disproportionately affecting children and the elderly and leading to $26 billion in extra costs annually to the U.S. health care system.

Antibiotic resistant “superbugs” have been increasing over the last decade, with the rate of antibiotic-resistant Staph infections approaching 50 percent. Currently, antibiotic-resistant MRSA infections are responsible for over 17,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, and between 1999 and 2005, MRSA infection-related hospitalizations double from around 127,000 to 278,000. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that late-onset MRSA infections increased 300 percent in neonatal intensive care units ICUs from 1995-2004, increasing average stay by 40 days at an increased cost of $160,000 per patient.

Drug-resistant infections have increasingly affected troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, as many of them have been exposed to a new, highly-resistant and contagious strain of Acinetobacter (Iraqibacter) bacteria. Approximately 3,300 service members were treated for drug-resistant Acinetobacter between 2004 and 2009. Among these cases, 89 percent are resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics and 15 percent are resistant to all forms of treatment.

The GAIN Act has been endorsed by 53 groups, including the National Military Vets Alliance, American Medical Association, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and Children’s National Medical Center.

Cosponsors of the GAIN Act in the Senate, in addition to Senators Blumenthal and Corker, include Senators Alexander (R-TN), Begich (D-AK), Bennet (D-CO), Casey (D-PA), Chambliss (R-GA), Coons (D-DE), Hatch (R-UT), Isakson (R-GA), Kerry (D-MA), Roberts (R-KS) and Tester (D-MT).

###

GOP Doctors Caucus: Medicare Trustee Report reinforces urgent need for reform

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Members of the GOP Doctors Caucus today reacted to the release of the 2012 Medicare Trustee Report with calls for the program’s reform. For the second time,
the report concludes that Medicare will go bankrupt by 2024, if not earlier. The annual study also warns, for the third year in a row, that President Obama’s health care law will adversely affect patients’ access to Medicare services.

Despite the administration’s claims, these findings underscore the need for changes to Medicare to ensure its survival. The GOP Doctors Caucus has repeatedly called for politicians and special interests groups to acknowledge the crisis and work together now to save the Medicare program.

Rep. Phil Gingrey, M.D., Co-Chair (GA-11): “Today’s report reinforces the danger that seniors face in the coming decade. Without reform, this program will cease to exist not only for future generations, but for millions of Americans who are paying into it, and relying on it, today. While the Medicare Trustees announced a 2024 bankruptcy date, my physician colleagues and I released a report last week that found Medicare Hospital Insurance could become insolvent as early as 2016. Neither of these projections are good news for America’s seniors, who deserve more from President Obama and Congress. We are running out of time; enacting reforms to save Medicare, rather than politicizing it, is critical.”

Rep. Paul Broun, M.D. (GA-10): “Today’s report simply reinforced what we as physician Members of Congress already knew – Medicare will go completely broke in just twelve years,” said Congressman Paul Broun, M.D. (GA-10). “However, the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress have made it clear that their only plans for saving our seniors’ health care is to do nothing. The numbers released today are a clear sign that we cannot afford to keep the fate of Medicare in fiscal limbo any longer.”

Rep. Larry Bucshon, M.D. (IN-08): “The Medicare Trustees report makes it clear that we need action now to preserve and protect this vital program for current beneficiaries and future retirees. The aging population and rising costs in healthcare are contributing to the approaching date of insolvency. Furthermore, the attempt to mask these issues by cutting $575 billion through Obamacare is more proof that this Administration has no plan to keep our promises to our nation’s seniors. As a physician that mostly treated the Medicare population, it is unimaginable to continue ignoring this issue. Those that choose to do so should get their heads out of the sand.”

Rep. John Fleming, M.D. (LA-04): “The idea that Obamacare will save Medicare would be laughable if the health care of millions of seniors was not at stake. The president used Medicare savings to foot some of the bill for Obamacare. The administration may spin today's report to justify its do-nothing approach to Medicare reform, but the fact is Medicare remains on an unsustainable path and Democrats need to stop the political games and join House Republicans in working to save Medicare.”

House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Tom Price, M.D. (R-GA): “Washington must not continue to stand in the way of reforms to our vital Medicare program. Unfortunately, instead of coming to the table with solutions, President Obama and Democrats in Congress have chosen to demagogue the good-faith efforts of House Republicans to improve and strengthen this program. The Republican plan ensures that no changes are made for those in or near retirement and guarantees coverage choices for future seniors. So long as Democrats continue to make the political decision to avoid the tough decisions, seniors will face an uncertain future. We need to act sooner rather than later to ensure Medicare is fiscally sound and providing quality care for today’s seniors and future generations.”

Rep. Phil Roe, M.D. (TN-01): “The demand for Medicare services is expanding at a very high rate, making future costs unaffordable, and putting our health care security at risk. In fact, according to the Medicare Trustees the program could go broke as soon as 2024. As a physician and a lawmaker, I believe our common goal should be to save, protect and preserve Medicare. President Obama’s solution is to cut Medicare costs through the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a board that will ultimately limit seniors’ access to care and compromise the quality of care they receive. However, I believe personalized Medicare helps solve a problem that affects everyone—the problem of relentlessly rising health care costs in America. Unless the government acts, the bankruptcy of our Medicare system remains a threat for current seniors and will not be there for younger families and future generations.”

The GOP Doctors Caucus is composed of 21 medical providers in Congress who utilize medical expertise to develop patient-centered health care reforms focused on quality, access, affordability, portability, and choice.

Gingrey announces Congressional Art Competition winners

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D., (GA-11) today announced the winners of the annual Congressional Art Competition during a ceremony at the Rome Area History Museum.

The winners are:

First place — Mattie Stubbs of Darlington
Second place — Avani Reddy of Darlington
Third place — Seohi Song of Kennesaw Mountain

Honorable Mentions:

Larae Krouse — Armuchee
Kelsey Ann Williams — Darlington
Luuly Nguyen — Kennesaw Mountain

“Because we receive so many exceptional entries, reviewing the artwork submitted for the Congressional Art Competition is difficult every year, and this time was no different. The depth of talent and creativity displayed by this year’s entrants is exceptional. I extend my sincere congratulations to all of our winners and honorable mentions. I am proud that the artwork of our District’s first place winner, Mattie Stubbs, will be displayed in our nation’s Capitol for the next year.”

The annual Congressional Art Competition is an opportunity for high school artists to showcase their talent around the district and at the U.S. Capitol. The winner is eligible to receive a $3,000 scholarship to the Savannah College of Art and Design and will be featured alongside entries from other congressional districts in the U.S. Capitol Building.

Each high school may submit up to five entries. The following high schools participated in the Congressional Art Competition: Armuchee, Gordon Central, Darlington, Cedartown, Rome, Shiloh Hills, North Paulding, and Kennesaw Mountain.

For more information on the Congressional Art Competition, contact Janet Byington (706) 290-1776.

Report: What Happens to Payments to Health Care Providers Participating in Medicare When the Medicare HI Trust Fund Reaches Exhaustion?

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:00:00 GMT

The projected exhaustion of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (HI) raises a question regarding whether that possibility would affect the right of providers to receive full payment for services rendered, because Section 1815(a) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1395g(a), states that "... the provider of services shall be paid ... from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund…"

According to nonpartisan experts, the Trust Fund could be insolvent in the near future.

 The Chief Actuary of the Medicare program has warned insolvency could hit the HI Trust Fund as soon as 2016.1

 The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects the Medicare HI Trust Fund will be insolvent in 2022.2

1 https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2011.pdf

2 Congressional Budget Office’s January 2012 Budget and Economic Outlook: FY 2012-2022, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42905.

3 2011 Report of the Medicare Trustees, Table II.B1, and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Note that totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

4 Davis, Patricia. “Medicare: History of Insolvency Projections,” Congressional Research Service, June 1, 2011 (RS20946)

How does Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Fund Work?

The Medicare HI Trust Fund is an account maintained on the books of the U.S. Treasury. The system operates on a "pay-as-you-go" basis; current workers and their employers pay taxes on wages, and the self-employed pay taxes on self-employment income. Taxes paid into the HI Trust Fund – along with General Revenue and Medicare enrollee premiums in SMI Trust Fund -- now finance benefits and services for today's beneficiaries.

Table from the Congressional Research Service.3

What Would Happen If the Trust Fund Became Insolvent?

According to legal analysis from the Congressional Research Service:4

“The practical function of the HI trust fund is that it permits the continued payment of bills in the event of a temporary financial strain (e.g., lower income or higher costs than expected) without requiring legislative action. As long as the HI trust fund has a balance (i.e., there are securities credited to the fund), the Treasury Department is authorized to make payments for Medicare Part A services. If the trust fund is not able to pay all of current expenses out of current income and accumulated trust fund assets, it is considered to be insolvent.

“To date, the HI trust fund has never become insolvent, and there are no provisions in the Social Security Act that govern what would happen if that were to occur. For example, there is no authority in law for the program to use general revenue to fund Part A services in the event of such a shortfall.

“In their 2011 report, the Medicare trustees project that the HI trust fund will be exhausted in 2024. At that time, HI would continue to receive tax income from which some reimbursements for health services could be paid; however, there would be insufficient funds to pay for all Part A reimbursements to providers. Unless action is taken prior to that date to increase revenue or decrease expenditures (or some combination of the two), Congress would need to pass legislation that would provide for another source of funding (e.g., general revenues or increased taxes) to make up for these deficits.”

Because Medicare is An Entitlement, Will the Program Still Pay Providers, Even if Insolvent?

The Medicare program is a statutory entitlement program. Entitlement authority has been defined as "authority to make payments (including loans and grants) for which budget authority is not provided in advance by appropriation acts to any person or government if, under the provisions of the law containing such authority, the government is obligated to make the payments to persons or governments who meet the requirements established by law."5 Budget authority is the authority provided by law to enter into obligations that will result in immediate or future outlays involving federal government funds.6

5 2 U.S.C. §§ 622(9) and 651(c)(2)(C).

6 2 U.S.C. § 622(2).

7 Government Accountability Office, Office of the General Counsel, I Principles of Appropriations Law 3-49 (3d ed. 2004), available at http://www.gao.gov.special.pubs/d04261sp.pdf.

8 Id. at 3-49, n. 40.

9 Swendiman, Kathleen. “Social Security Reform: Legal Analysis of Social Security Benefit Entitlement Issues,” Congressional Research Service, June 13, 2011.

According to a publication of the Government Accountability Office, formerly the General Accounting Office:

Congress occasionally legislates in such a manner as to restrict its own subsequent funding options.... An example ... is entitlement legislation not contingent upon the availability of appropriations. A well known example here is Social Security benefits. Where legislation creates, or authorizes the administrative creation of, binding legal obligations without regard to the availability of appropriations, a funding shortfall may delay actual payment but does not authorize the administering agency to alter or reduce the "entitlement."7

Even under an entitlement program, an agency could presumably meet a funding shortfall by such measures as making prorated payments, but such actions would be only temporary pending receipt of sufficient funds to honor the underlying obligation. An otherwise eligible, legitimate provider would remain legally entitled to the balance.8 An entitlement by definition legally obligates the United States to make payments to any entity who meets the eligibility requirements established in the statute that creates the entitlement.

Antideficiency Act May Prohibit Administration From Taking Actions To Keep Paying Providers

As a legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service notes:9

“A provision of the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, however, prevents an agency—in this case the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—from paying more in reimbursements for health care services than the amount available in the source of funds available to pay the reimbursements for health care services, in this case from the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. Section 1341, in relevant part, provides that:

An officer or employee of the United States government or of the District of Columbia government may not—

(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;

(B) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law; ....”

The Antideficiency Act prohibits making expenditures either in excess of an amount available in a fund or before an appropriation is made. Therefore, it appears to bar paying more money in reimbursements to providers than the amount of the balance in the Medicare HI Trust Fund primarily because, as noted earlier, payments shall be made to providers from the HI Trust Fund.

Again, the Congressional Research Service explains:10

10 Swendiman, Kathleen. “Social Security Reform: Legal Analysis of Social Security Benefit Entitlement Issues,” Congressional Research Service, June 13, 2011.

11 31 U.S.C. § 1349.

12 31 U.S.C. § 1350.

13 53 U.S. (11 How. ) 272, 275 (1850).

14 496 U.S. 414, 424-426 (1990).

15 363 U.S. 603 (1960).

16 Swendiman, Kathleen. “Social Security Reform: Legal Analysis of Social Security Benefit Entitlement Issues,” Congressional Research Service, June 13, 2011.

“Violations of the Antideficiency Act are punishable by administrative and criminal penalties. An officer or employee who violates the act's prohibitions is subject to appropriate administrative discipline, including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office.11 An officer or employee who knowingly and willfully violates the act can be fined not more than $5000, imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.”12

Could Legal Action From Providers Force Medicare to Pay Them?

If the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund should become insolvent (i.e., unable to pay scheduled payments to providers in full on a timely basis), it appears that providers who should file suit to be paid the difference between the amount that receipts allow paying and the full reimbursement amount to which they are entitled would not be likely to succeed in getting the difference. CRS notes:

“The Supreme Court in Reeside v. Walker,13 held that no officer of the government is authorized to pay any debt due from the United States, whether reduced to a court judgment or not, unless an appropriation has been made for that purpose. To support its holding, the Court cited Article I, § 9, clause 7 of the Constitution, which states that, ‘No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. The Court reaffirmed this principle in Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond.”14

Consequently, unless Congress amends applicable laws, it appears that Medicare enrollees would have to wait until the Trust Funds receive an amount sufficient to pay full reimbursement for health services to receive the difference between the amount that can be paid from the Trust Funds and the full reimbursement amount.

So What Does This All Mean for Providers If Insolvency Actually Occurs?

Medicare’s Hospital Insurance program is a statutory entitlement program. Part A Medicare enrollees have a legal right to receive health insurance services if they meet the Medicare Part A eligibility requirements and providers must be paid.

Congress, however, has reserved the "right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the Social Security Act (which includes Title 18 which created the Medicare programs) and the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed Congress's power to modify provisions of the Social Security Act in Flemming v. Nestor15 and subsequent court decisions. 16 Congress may modify provisions of Medicare law as it exercises its constitutional power to provide for the general welfare. For example, Congress could raise the age of eligibility for enrollees for Medicare coverage.

When the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is exhausted (i.e., unable to pay full reimbursements for health services on time), the Medicare program (CMS/HHS) would not be able to pay providers their full payments at that time because the Social Security Act states that providers shall be paid only from the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.

CMS officials are bound by the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits paying amounts that exceed the amount available in the source of funds available to pay them. Although the legal right of providers to receive full payments would not be extinguished by the insufficient amount of funds in the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, a court suit to obtain the difference between the amount in them available to pay partial reimbursements for health services and the full reimbursement amount would not be likely to succeed in getting the difference.

The Supreme Court has held that no officer of the government may pay a debt whether reduced to a court judgment or not unless Congress has appropriated funds to pay it. Consequently, unless Congress amends applicable laws, it appears that hospital providers would have to wait until the HI Trust Fund receives an amount sufficient to pay full reimbursement for Medicare Part A services to receive the difference."

Opposing view: IPAB is not the solution

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Imagine that your loved one required surgery, yet you were told by the government that the procedure was unnecessary and wouldn't be covered by Medicare. A Medicare program with the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) crafted by President Obama ensures that this dilemma will become reality for countless seniors.

Since "ObamaCare" was passed into law, the American people have taken former House speaker Nancy Pelosi's advice and looked into the bill — and they don't like what they see. Broken promises and an enormous price tag merely scratch the surface. Like an onion peeling back, ObamaCare continues revealing new and dangerous layers.

Besides costing our economy $1.8 trillion, raiding the Medicare program and violating our constitutional rights with the individual mandate, ObamaCare's "cost-cutting" IPAB panel has the power to ration Medicare services for millions of seniors. Unless Congress can find equivalent savings, this 15-member board will mandate automatic Medicare cuts.

As a physician with more than 30 years of experience, I consider the doctor-patient relationship sacrosanct. IPAB is dangerous for many reasons, but above all, it drives a wedge between physicians and their patients. Health care decisions should be weighed carefully by patients, their family members and their doctor — not by Washington bureaucrats.

Without full repeal, this unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic denial-of-care board will shift decisions away from physicians and patients, bypass congressional oversight and focus on slashing Medicare costs instead of improving quality of care.

If that's not worrisome enough, IPAB board members aren't required to be doctors, or have any medical experience at all. In fact, the health care law even gives IPAB the authority to operate in secret and accept unlimited donations of services or even property from lobbyists. Cash, meals, cars, vacations and even homes will all be fair game under the current law. The potential for corruption is limitless.

With the Medicare trust fund set to go broke as early as 2016, improvements must be made to ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare — but IPAB is not the solution. Implementing meaningful medical liability reform, while preserving the current system for those 55 years of age and up, and allowing the private sector to compete for younger generations will be critical.

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., is a medical doctor and chairman of the House Republican Doctors Caucus.

GOP Doctors Caucus: A Birthday We Aren't Celebrating

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Today marks the two-year anniversary of President Obama’s overreaching federal health care law—a law that has looted Medicare, raised taxes, increased regulations, and caused health care costs to spiral. With this week’s passage of the Medicare rationing panel known as IPAB, health care decisions are one step closer to returning from unelected bureaucrats to patients and their physicians. On the eve of the Supreme Court hearing to determine its constitutionality, the GOP Doctors Caucus continues to fight for patient-centered-health reforms.

Rep. Phil Gingrey, M.D., Co-Chair (GA-11): "Obamacare has proven nothing more than an unmitigated disaster for patients and physicians and a fiscal nightmare for American taxpayers. On the two-year anniversary of this law, Americans have finally ‘learned’ what it contains—broken promises and an enormous price tag. We were told if we liked our plan we could keep it. We were told if we liked our doctor, we would not have to change plans. We were told it would save the country nearly $1 trillion. Now, patients are finding they may not be able to keep either and that—instead of saving us nearly $1 trillion—it may cost us $1.8 trillion instead. I will continue to work to repeal this administration’s failed health policies and implement meaningful, sustainable reforms instead."

Rep. Tim Murphy, Ph.D., Co-Chair (PA-18): "The day the President signed into law the healthcare bill he said it would "change the lives of tens of millions." There’s been ‘change’ but the American people sure don’t ‘believe in’ it. In the past two years, family premiums have risen by $2,500. Small businesses aren’t hiring because of Obamacare’s new mandates, costs, and taxes. Religious employers are being forced to violate their conscience in order to comply with the law. And just this week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says twenty million Americans could lose their health insurance – twice as many as the CBO originally predicted – because of Obamacare."

Rep. Dan Benishek M.D. (MI-01): "Today marks two years to the day since President Obama’s health care bill was rammed through the Congress. As someone who treated patients for 28 years, I know firsthand that a one-size-fits-all approach is no solution to America’s health care problems. As the Obama Administration is celebrating the Heath Care Law’s birthday, the bill to all American taxpayers is rising, regulations are increasing, and equally troubling, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is now reporting millions may lose their employer sponsored insurance plan. Since I began serving Michigan’s First Congressional District, I have continually advocated for health care reforms that put patients first, not federal bureaucrats. I firmly believe we need to focus on increasing health care access, competition among providers, and innovation in medical technologies."

Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr., M.D. (LA-07): "Obamacare was a short-sighted and ill-advised piece of legislation forced down the throat of America by Washington Democrats. Without the majority of public support or an explanation on how to pay for it, this Administration jeopardized the quality of care Americans have access to today. Two years later, we are seeing the full repercussions of this bill in the form of bloated government growth and terribly misleading figures that underestimated the true costs associated with implementation. Obamacare stunts job growth, fails to promote the doctor-patient relationship, and serves as a colossal reminder of the failures of this Administration."

Rep. Paul Broun, M.D. (GA-10): "In two short years, Democrats have managed to destroy every promise they made to the American people about healthcare reform," said Congressman Broun. "They promised Obamacare would create jobs, lower costs of insurance, and expand health care coverage to those who need it most. Yet on the two year anniversary of Obamacare, we have only seen abject failure in this massive government takeover of our healthcare system. We must repeal and replace this bill before it further devastates our prosperity and more importantly – our liberty."

Rep. Larry Bucshon, M.D. (IN-08): "The president’s policies have failed us over the past three years, most specifically with Obamacare. This government takeover of one-sixth of our nation’s economy must be fully repealed and replaced with common sense, private sector solutions that lower costs while increasing access to quality care for all Americans. The truth is finally coming out. The estimated cost is nearly double the President’s initial projection, citizens are not allowed to keep their current insurance, and premiums are increasing on working families. We can see why the law is more unpopular now that it was two years ago. I am committed to repealing the entire law and replacing it with true health care reform. Over the past year I have voted twice to fully repeal the law and 24 times to repeal parts of the law."

Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R.N. (NY-25): "Two years ago today President Obama signed his health care bill into law. This egregious government takeover of health care has done much more harm than good. The bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion and takes health care decisions out of the hands of patients, their family, and their doctor and places it into the hands of the government. I am pleased that the House has worked to repeal harmful measures of the health care law and will continue to fight alongside my colleagues for the bill’s full repeal."

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX-26): "Along with many excesses and constrictions in the law, IPAB represents the worst of what is envisioned under the health care law. As a physician, as a Member of Congress and as a patient in my 60’s, I am offended by the Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB is not accountable to any constituency, and only exists to cut provider payments to fit a mathematically created ‘target.’"

Rep. Bill Cassidy M.D. (LA-06): "Two years ago, Democrats said Americans would know what is in the health care law when it passed. They were right, two years later Americans know the health care law is bad for seniors, bad for doctors and bad for our economy. The President’s health care law has three particularly bad elements. First, it endangers seniors’ access to care by cutting $575 billion from Medicare, secondly it puts bureaucrats between patients and doctors and thirdly, it costs the American taxpayer trillions. Just this month, the Congressional Budget Office stated that the law will cost $1.76 trillion dollars over the next ten years. Hopefully by this time next year, all of the President’s health care will have been repealed and replaced with real reform."

Rep. Scott DesJarlais, M.D. (TN-04): "As a physician I’m appalled by the idea of a panel of 15 unelected Washington bureaucrats determining what procedures doctors can provide to Medicare patients. IPAB takes away the ability for seniors and their doctors to decide on how best to meet their health care needs. This unaccountable board’s sole objective is to control Medicare costs by imposing price controls that will restrict seniors’ access to doctors and ultimately lead to the rationing of care. The repeal of IPAB, coupled with much needed tort reform, should be a top priority."

Rep. Renee Ellmers, R.N. (NC-02): "Today marks the second anniversary of President Obama's assault on our nation's health care system - a mandated takeover of 1/6th of our nation's economy. The president's overhaul did nothing to make our citizens healthier and protect them from harm. Rather, Obamacare is and remains a redistribution of control. Its primary objective is to take healthcare decisions away from physicians and hospitals and place them in the hands of bureaucrats within the federal government."

"I ran for office in order to defund, dismantle, repeal, and replace Obamacare. By repealing the Independent Patient Advisory Board (IPAB) yesterday, we have dealt another blow to the president's takeover of our healthcare system. But this is only one battle in the fight to reclaim our freedoms. I will not rest until the entire law is repealed and today we are one step closer to fulfilling this promise."

Rep. John Fleming, M.D. (LA-04): "Obamacare is a bad law because it was based on a terrible premise: giving government more control over the doctor-patient relationship. We must repeal Obamacare in its entirety, save and strengthen Medicare, and pass common sense healthcare reforms that actually address the problem of rising costs."

Rep. Paul Gosar, D.D.S. (AZ-01): "On the two year anniversary of Obamacare, Americans stand resolved that this legislation if left in place, will spell the ruin of health care in this country. As a healthcare provider, I am confident that the best solution is a full repeal of this costly burdensome legislation which will hurt patients by undermining access to quality care while adding billions to our deficit. I will continue to advocate for stronger, smarter and more cost effective measures to solve our nation’s healthcare crisis without government interference."

Rep. Andy Harris, M.D. (MD-01): "Two years ago, President Obama and Nancy Pelosi claimed that Obamacare would lower health care costs and immediately create 400,000 jobs," said Rep. Andy Harris, M.D. "All it has actually done is raise health care premiums by over $2,000 and, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, potentially reduce the labor supply by 800,000 jobs, as a result of additional new taxes on business. The House voted to repeal the President’s Medicare rationing board –the IPAB- this week, but we must continue to be committed to repealing all of the dangerous and costly Obamacare law."

House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Tom Price, M.D. (R-GA): "Over the course of the past two years, the American people have learned more about the president’s health care law and the empty promises he and Democrats in Washington made while they worked behind closed doors to force this law through Congress. We were told that individuals would see their premiums go down and that folks could keep the coverage they had. These empty promises are turning into broken promises, and right now the American people are stuck with a law shamelessly built on budget gimmicks, expanded Washington power, and higher taxes that will take health care choices away from Americans. House Republicans stand with the American people when we say this law should be repealed. We believe there are positive, patient-centered solutions to our nation’s health care challenges. Rather than putting Uncle Sam in the driver’s seat, our solutions put patients in control. Full repeal of the president’s health care law is the first step in bringing those solutions to the American people."

Rep. Phil Roe, M.D. (TN-01): "As we reflect on the two year anniversary of passage of the president’s health care law, the American people see its failure to address the cost crisis in our health care system and have a better understanding of the long-lasting negative impact it will have on our federal budget. The health care law has created uncertainty for families, seniors and small businesses through new burdensome regulations, rising premiums, and the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). This anniversary is a reminder that Congress must repeal the health care law at the request of the American people, and pass meaningful health care reform that will bring down the high costs in our health care system and get rid of waste, without costing jobs and compromising care."

The GOP Doctors Caucus is comprised of 21 medical providers in Congress who utilize medical expertise to develop patient-centered health care reforms focused on quality, access, affordability, portability, and choice.

###

Gingrey: PATH Act passage protects seniors, provides ‘desperately-needed’ reforms

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:00:00 GMT

The House of Representatives voted today to pass the bipartisan Protecting Access to Healthcare (PATH) Act. The PATH Act repeals the 15-member Medicare rationing board mandated by President Obama’s health care law. It also enacts frivolous lawsuit abuse reforms, which were authored by Rep. Gingrey.

“On the eve of the two-year anniversary of Obamacare, the passage of the PATH Act reflects the glaring reality of this law—the federal government cannot afford it, and the majority of Americans don’t want it,” Rep. Gingrey said. “Not only does the PATH Act protect our seniors enrolled in Medicare, it provides for meaningful medical liability reforms that will reduce the deficit, prevent more physicians from being driven out of practice, and stem the tide of spiraling health care costs. This is an example of the type of patient-centered reforms that our health care system desperately needs.”

The PATH Act now moves to the Senate for consideration. To read the legislation in full, click here.

For more information contact Jen Talaber (202)225-6063 or Amy Larkin (202)225-2931

###