NASL Article Details



General Announcement

House Re-Introduces Bipartisan Bill Seeking Repeal of IPAB

NASL, 1/29/2013


A bipartisan group of House lawmakers has re-introduced legislation (H.R. 351) intended to repeal the Affordable Care Act's Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The group, led by Representatives Phil Roe (R-TN) and Allyson Schwartz (D-PA), said the proposed Protecting Seniors' Access to Medicare Act  (H.R. 351) would eliminate the threat of automatic cuts to Medicare spending that could be imposed by the panel.

 

The IPAB was created under the Affordable Care Act and is set to begin operating on April 30, 2013. Starting in 2014, if Medicare's costs grow faster than targeted rates, the 15 presidentially-appointed members of the board will set program reimbursement policy that would become law unless Congress chooses to intervene. Hospital payments are exempt from the recommendations until 2020. Healthcare stakeholders, including key physician and industry groups, have vowed to work with both Democrats and Republicans to repeal IPAB before it is fully implemented.

 

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Medicare spending per beneficiary is projected to grow at only about 3% over the next 10 years, a drop from the 7% average growth rate over the previous decade. As a result, CBO has stated that it is unlikely Medicare spending targets outlined in the ACA will be reached before 2022, which means IPAB recommendations would not be needed for nearly a decade. Original co-sponsors on H.R. 351 include Representatives Phil Gingrey (R-GA), H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Tom Price(R-GA), Bill Johnson (R-OH), Tim Huelskamp (R-KA) and Joe Courtney (D-CT).

 

The American Medical Association (AMA), which had backed the original Roe bill, also voiced support for this new legislation. IPAB supporters believe that the board will help save Medicare costs by removing congressional politics from decisions regarding reimbursements to Medicare providers. When the bill was debated during the last Congress, the White House opposed the bill, which it claimed “would eliminate an important safeguard that, under current law, will help reduce the rate of Medicare cost growth responsibly while protecting Medicare beneficiaries and the traditional program.”