SGR - what does it mean for GME's future?

[Optoed]

With the failure of the super committee, the SGR is automatically kicked in. It seems like the 27.4% cut in Medicare effective Jan. 1. 2012 (with more cuts expected in 2013) is really drastic and will probably be postponed (just my gut feeling..). Well, I suppose this is better than the 60% GME funding cut that caused quite a stir on SDN. However, IF the cuts go through, what will it mean for GME?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted310399]

So what does it mean exactly, would the number of residency spots for next year be affected or not ??

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

Any GME funding cut simply means residents will transition from being screwed with lube, to raw..

 

[deleted310399]

Well I agree but does this mean decrease in residency spots or pay cuts or what ? Decrease in residency spots seems ludicrous to me with the physician shortage and all. I guess the hospitals will find other ways to fund resident's training. What do you think ?

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

Well I agree but does this mean decrease in residency spots or pay cuts or what ? Decrease in residency spots seems ludicrous to me with the physician shortage and all. I guess the hospitals will find other ways to fund resident's training. What do you think ?

Or the residents will find a way to fund resident's training, AKA loans

 

[deleted310399]

More loans, really !! That sounds great .

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Hold on people. You're getting seriously off track here.

The SGR is a mechanism created to limit the growth of the cost of Medicare. SGR would affect the amount that Medicare reimburses to physicians for work done. It would not affect residency funding at all. If the SGR cut were allowed to go through, then hospitals/programs would clearly have less money / large budget holes to fix. Fixing those problems could certainly cause residents problems -- not because programs would decrease the number of residents, but because other support staff / services would likely be cut and residents might be required to "fill in the gaps".

I expect that GME cuts are in the future, but the SGR is a totally different issue.

 

[deleted310399]

Thanks for clearing that up. The panic I suppose was caused by the possible 60% cuts in medicare funding to GME which was a possibility until recently.

I had no idea that the SGR had nothing to do with residency funding.

 

[dragonfly99]

SGR has nothing to do DIRECTLY with residency funding.
However, as APD mentions, it won't be good for us if the SGR thing kicks in. Maybe you'll have fewer unit secretaries, nursing assistants, or just less money on your meal card when you are on call...

I think this will affect the poorer city hospitals more (as usual) if they cut Medicare. My old program could afford this because they had a crapload of NIH money, rich people donating money, and patients with good insurance. My current hospital, not so much. If our state Medicaid reimbursement gets any worse or we get any more uninsured people through our ER, I don't see how our hospital will make any money at all.

However, this happened before (where they were supposedly going to make a big Medicare growth rate cut) and the AARP flips out and the politicians always vote away the cuts in December, generally.

 

[Optoed]

Hold on people. You're getting seriously off track here.

The SGR is a mechanism created to limit the growth of the cost of Medicare. SGR would affect the amount that Medicare reimburses to physicians for work done. It would not affect residency funding at all. If the SGR cut were allowed to go through, then hospitals/programs would clearly have less money / large budget holes to fix. Fixing those problems could certainly cause residents problems -- not because programs would decrease the number of residents, but because other support staff / services would likely be cut and residents might be required to "fill in the gaps".

I expect that GME cuts are in the future, but the SGR is a totally different issue.

Thanks for clearing this up. I guess funding cuts across the board is still better than singling out GME.

The possibility of introducing more loans or reducing funding for residency is like starving anorexic chickens - robbing people who are already hugely in debt (financially and emotionally - with 80+ hours work week). It's a little inhumane.

I understand the need to reduce spending is very real. Why not impose stronger limits on the cost of commonly prescribed drugs? (albeit it'll be at the expense of pissing off big pharmas).

 

[NotAProgDirector]

However, this happened before (where they were supposedly going to make a big Medicare growth rate cut) and the AARP flips out and the politicians always vote away the cuts in December, generally.

If I remember correctly, the last time this happened the deadline passed, the cuts went into effect, and then Congress passed the "fix" and made it retroactive. It was a huge pain.

Why not impose stronger limits on the cost of commonly prescribed drugs? (albeit it'll be at the expense of pissing off big pharmas).

I believe you have answered your own question.

Everyone agrees that we need to cut health care costs. The problem is that no one wants their own costs cut, everyone points towards someone else.