Green Room

Obama’s Real Doc Fix

posted at 10:23 am on June 2, 2010 by

Conservatives were outraged by the chicanery of separating physician payment increases from the health care reform (that’s three lies for the price of one) bill Congress recently rammed through.  The “doc fix” was separate legislation so that physician payments could be increased without adding to the total cost of the main bill, so that Democrats could dishonestly claim the bill reduced the deficit.  Now, however, we are seeing the real “doc fix.”

Some Idaho orthopedists grew weary of the low reimbursement rates the government gave them for caring for worker’s comp patients.  So they got together and agreed not to treat those patients anymore.  They hoped that their boycott would force the Idaho Industrial Commission to increase the fee schedule – their payments.  While they were at it, they decided to stop working with Blue Cross of Idaho – also a notorious underpayer – until a better deal could be negotiated.  Unions behave this way all the time, and it’s often very effective.

In a similar case in Colorado last February, the Federal Trade Commission stepped in and charged the doctors with price-fixing.

The FTC charged Roaring Fork Valley Physicians I.P.A., Inc., which represents about 80 percent of the doctors in Garfield County, Colorado, with violating the FTC Act by orchestrating agreements among its members to set higher prices for medical services and to refuse to deal with insurers that did not meet its demands for higher rates.

Those doctors lost, and if they want to continue to work as physicians, they will do so at the prices set by the government.

Now the Obama administration has stepped it up a notch. The FTC only deals with civil complaints. In order to deal with the Idaho orthopedists, Obama sent in Eric Holder and the Justice Department, which is at liberty to file criminal charges.  You see, those Idaho orthopedists collectively agreeing that they had enough and weren’t going to take it anymore, were actually engaged in two antitrust conspiracies.

… the Justice Department has unambiguously stated that refusal to accept government price controls is a form of illegal “price fixing.”

The FTC has hinted at this when it’s said physicians must accept Medicare-based reimbursement schedules from insurance companies. But the DOJ has gone the final step and said, “Government prices are market prices,” in the form of the Idaho Industrial Commission’s fee schedule.

The Sherman Act, which is being used here against physicians, exempts trade unions.  Obama may have one boot on BP’s neck, but the other seems pretty firmly planted on that of America’s doctors.

h/t to Dr. Wes, who writes,

Given the 21% cut to Medicare payments that occurred today (but CMS is ‘holding claims’ for ten days to allow for another stop-gap measure to be implemented), ask yourself two questions: (1) “Where was the AMA?” and (2) Are you ready to be a government employee?”

Crossposted.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Following the Cuban model which makes Doctors/nurses slaves to the government.

Skandia Recluse on June 2, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Government price controls — isn’t that price fixing?

Daggett on June 2, 2010 at 11:31 AM

How many Idaho doctors will be left in the state after this?

EliTheBean on June 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM

It’s unlikely they’ll all pull up stakes, especially because where would they go? It’s already happening in other states. The FTC has been doing this for some time – as in Colorado – but as far as I know this is the first time they’ve brought the Justice Department in on it and threatened criminal charges. This is huge. It moves doctors to where they will have to make a decision to a)knuckle under and take whatever the government sees fit to give them, regardless of actual costs; b)refuse all forms of insurance… until that’s made illegal as well, and what are the odds it won’t be? or c)stop practicing medicine.

Laura Curtis on June 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Deciding on your own not to treat e.g. Medicare patients is one thing, and is perfectly legal (at least right now); organizing a large share of a region’s doctors (normally one another’s competitors) to refuse to do business with a particular payor is a conspiracy in restraint of trade. It’s really not that complicated.

So saying, as the article’s picture caption does, that “the Justice Department has unambiguously stated that refusal to accept government price controls is a form of illegal price fixing” is a little overwrought. Any doctor can still refuse to accept the fixed prices on her own…

DrSteve on June 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Deciding on your own not to treat e.g. Medicare patients is one thing, and is perfectly legal (at least right now); organizing a large share of a region’s doctors (normally one another’s competitors) to refuse to do business with a particular payor is a conspiracy in restraint of trade.

You could at least try to support that argument. But assuming you know what you’re talking about, they clearly need to unionize. Orthopedists Unite!

And what’s this about forbidding them to withdraw from Blue Cross? Isn’t the choice to engage in business or not engage in business at the heart of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”?

alwaysfiredup on June 2, 2010 at 4:42 PM

You could at least try to support that argument. But assuming you know what you’re talking about,

I taught industrial organization at the university level for quite a few years. I hope I understand antitrust law. How is this any different from a cartel?

they clearly need to unionize.

I think I agree with you that the exceptions on unions in American antitrust law have scant economic justification.

I’m all for these folks saying no thanks to the State rate schedule — it’s absolutely their right — but they need to do it on their own, not through some coordinated effort.

DrSteve on June 2, 2010 at 8:19 PM

It’s true that deciding on your own not to treat Medicare, workers comp, etc. patients is still legal. But now, as the government is enforcing the Sherman Act against doctors, according to the settlement, doctors enjoying a poker night together and griping about the high-burden, low-pay system, who subsequently drop out can be charged with criminal conspiracy. The judgment graciously allows some free speech: “advocating or discussing, in accordance with the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, legislative, judicial, or regulatory actions, or other governmental policies or actions;” but it prohibits a lot of conduct, including:

communicating with any competing physician or facilitating the exchange of information between or among competing physicians about:

the actual or possible view, intention, or position of any defendant or his or her medical practice group, or any competing physician concerning the negotiation or acceptability of any proposed or existing payer contract or contract term,

I don’t pretend to know the applicable law except in the most superficial, Wikipedia, way. But I find that absolutely shocking.

Laura Curtis on June 3, 2010 at 8:36 AM

But I find that absolutely shocking.

Laura Curtis on June 3, 2010 at 8:36 AM

There’s plenty to be troubled about, it’s true. I used to tell an old Soviet joke in my I/O classes regarding how these cases are prosecuted.

Three men languish in a gulag cell. They eventually strike up a conversation. The first says “I was always late to work, and I was thrown in jail for stealing labor from the state.”

The second says, “I was always early for work, and was denounced and imprisoned for currying favor with the factory manager.”

The third says, “I was always on time, and I was accused of owning a Western wristwatch.”

DrSteve on June 3, 2010 at 9:49 AM

This is why doctors are in an unfair position vis a vis insurance companies who can get together and decide how much they will pay for a procedure. Not to mention the government’s ability to set payments which most insurance companies peg their payments to.

txmomof6 on June 3, 2010 at 10:14 AM