Urologists take their case to the Hill; link laws, outcomes

The urologists gathered as part of the Joint Advocacy Conference held by AUA and the American Association of Clinical Urologists, which featured briefings on key legislative issues, a White House briefing, and visits with members of Congress on Capitol Hill. (Also see, "States are battlegrounds for pivotal legislative issues".)

During those meetings, the physicians had a chance to do the following:

Physicians would have been forced to accept a 4.4% fee schedule reduction for 2006, but Congress approved budget legislation Feb. 1, 2006 that froze reimbursement rates at last year's levels. However, it took congressional action for that to happen, something that cannot be counted on in years ahead.

"Medicare payment rates are not keeping up with the cost of providing services," Robin Hudson, AUA manager of regulatory affairs, said during a briefing for participants before their congressional visits. "Fees are going to fall 31%, while costs are increasing by 19%."

Hudson said the current formula does not accurately reflect the cost of caring for Medicare beneficiaries, including changes and improvements in technology, shifts in point of service, and changing demographics of the Medicare population.

She pointed out that the cost of drugs delivered in physician offices is inappropriately included in the payment formula and should be removed.

"Physicians don't control the cost of drugs, and they are not paid for under the fee schedule," Hudson said. "They should not be included in the formula."

An important step advocated by AUA is elimination of the sustainable growth rate entirely, especially if a new pay for performance system is to be established.

"The SGR has to be fixed before we can play under P4P," Hudson said.

During their Hill visits, urologists urged House members to co-sponsor legislation sponsored by Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT) that would eliminate the SGR and "take a rational approach to P4P," according to Hudson.

Imaging services

When Congress prevented the 4.4% Medicare fee reduction at a cost of $7 billion, it turned to imaging procedures for the offsetting savings required by law. The result was a cap on the technical component of the Medicare fee schedule payment and a 25% reimbursement cut for imaging exams on contiguous body parts made during the same session in 2006, with an additional 25% reduction in reimbursement to take effect in 2007.