Experts predict outcome of Supreme Court ruling on healthcare IT
With the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) expected by the end of this month, more and more policymakers, healthcare experts and stakeholders are becoming vocal about their predictions of the outcome.
Marilyn Tavenner, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), speaking at a June 7 session of the Accountable Care Organization Summit, said she was optimistic the ruling will support the ACA. As such, the agency is not making any plans to slow down on its implementation of current programs and pilots. "We are full steam ahead," she said. "We think the Supreme Court will make the right decision."
[See also: Supreme Court ruling will set the course for healthcare.]
Eric Zimmerman, a healthcare attorney and a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm McDermott Will & Emery, predicts that if the individual mandate and perhaps even the Medicaid portions of the law are struck down it will have a negative financial impact on healthcare providers.
There was a deal made with the Obama administration and with Democrats in Congress, who controlled Congress at that time the ACA was passed, Zimmerman noted. The deal was that the hospital community particularly, would absorb approximately $150 billion in reimbursement cuts – mostly Medicare reimbursement cuts – in exchange for the expectation that they would get $30 million new insured lives, insured lives that they are presently providing services to without any expectation of compensation.
"With these citizens now becoming insured whether it's through private insurance or through Medicaid, hospitals would expect starting in 2014 to start to be paid for these services," said Zimmerman. "So if the individual mandate and/or the Medicaid portions of the law are struck down, that is a violation of the deal, if you will, and all of a sudden hospitals and other service providers are providing these services, having absorbed the cuts without the expectation of the additional revenues."
Joel Michaels head of McDermott Will & Emery's health advisory practice, said states could move forward in a substantive way if parts or all of the law is struck down. "I think the states will take a crack at it," he said. "They could do that through the creation of exchanges. There are already some states that have done that."
Showing 2 Comments
Kimberlee Davis say: Made a deal? With the devil perhaps.......
So the Democrats went door to door, to every hospital in this nation, and made a bet that all the un-insureds would now have health insurance and hence, no more write-offs on bad debt? That's a huge gamble that I am hard pressed to believe hospitals would make with their diminishing dollars.
1)What happened to the farce of a study that "found" most people that over-utilized healthcare were insured? (dumbest fake research I've ever seen anyway)
2)Who are the employers that are guaranteeing the hiring of these folks in order to get the mandated health insurance?
3)What happens to co-pays and deductibles? If they didn't pay up before, they aren't going to pay now.
4)WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD HAVE BOUGHT THIS RIDICULOUSNESS?


Sue Ann Jantz say: Deal making
Well, I'm not suprised hospitals were willing to make such a deal -- they lose lots of money in the ER from uninsureds.
Another issue is that these ACOs are to "IT up" -- get themselves and all their providers on EHRs. Only, the bigger they are, the more server power they need, until the whole system just slooooowwwwwssss down, and providers can't access information fast enough.
And then there are the issues of how to "sync-up" the data, and how to get it into the system in a timely way, and how to get providers (MAs up to docs)to really LOOK at the chart ...
We really have a loooog way to go, baby.