Mary Ellen Schneider

Congress is set to leave for the year without funding one of the biggest pieces of legislation passed in 2010 – the Affordable Care Act.

Democrats in the Senate had proposed allocating about $1 billion to implement ACA provisions in 2011, but their effort to pass the funding as part of an omnibus appropriations bill failed. With senators unable to agree on a number of appropriations issues, they scrapped the omnibus plan and on Dec. 21 passed a continuing resolution that will fund federal agencies at their 2010 levels through March 4. The short-term budget resolution also passed the House on Dec. 21.

The continuing resolution sets up a major budget battle between Democrats and Republicans in early 2011, when the GOP takes over the majority in the House. Many Republican lawmakers who opposed the Affordable Care Act have said they will vote not to fund implementation of the new law.

Congress is set to leave for the year without funding one of the biggest pieces of legislation passed in 2010 – the Affordable Care Act.

Democrats in the Senate had proposed allocating about $1 billion to implement ACA provisions in 2011, but their effort to pass the funding as part of an omnibus appropriations bill failed. With senators unable to agree on a number of appropriations issues, they scrapped the omnibus plan and on Dec. 21 passed a continuing resolution that will fund federal agencies at their 2010 levels through March 4. The short-term budget resolution also passed the House on Dec. 21.

The continuing resolution sets up a major budget battle between Democrats and Republicans in early 2011, when the GOP takes over the majority in the House. Many Republican lawmakers who opposed the Affordable Care Act have said they will vote not to fund implementation of the new law.

Congress is set to leave for the year without funding one of the biggest pieces of legislation passed in 2010 – the Affordable Care Act.

Democrats in the Senate had proposed allocating about $1 billion to implement ACA provisions in 2011, but their effort to pass the funding as part of an omnibus appropriations bill failed. With senators unable to agree on a number of appropriations issues, they scrapped the omnibus plan and on Dec. 21 passed a continuing resolution that will fund federal agencies at their 2010 levels through March 4. The short-term budget resolution also passed the House on Dec. 21.

The continuing resolution sets up a major budget battle between Democrats and Republicans in early 2011, when the GOP takes over the majority in the House. Many Republican lawmakers who opposed the Affordable Care Act have said they will vote not to fund implementation of the new law.

The federal government cannot require individuals to purchase health insurance under the recently passed Affordable Care Act, according to a Dec. 13 ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in Richmond, Va.

In his decision, Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that it is outside the constitutional powers of Congress to regulate whether a person purchases a product. As a result, his decision effectively severs section 1501 – the Minimum Essential Coverage provision – from the Affordable Care Act but leaves the remainder of the health reform law intact.

The case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius, was brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Mr. Cuccinelli was asking the court to grant an injunction against the implementation of the entire health reform law if the individual mandate was deemed to be unconstitutional.

The U.S. Department of Justice is expected appeal the decision, which could end up in the Supreme Court. However, if Judge Hudson’s ruling stands, the removal of the individual mandate could create serious problems for the overall implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In defending the law, lawyers for the federal government noted that the success of other portions of the law, such as the provision barring insurers from discriminating against people based on pre-existing medical conditions, depends on the ability to insure all Americans.

This is the first time that opponents of the law have been successful in challenging a portion of the Affordable Care Act. Other challenges to the law in Michigan and Virginia have been dismissed.

The federal government cannot require individuals to purchase health insurance under the recently passed Affordable Care Act, according to a Dec. 13 ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in Richmond, Va.

In his decision, Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that it is outside the constitutional powers of Congress to regulate whether a person purchases a product. As a result, his decision effectively severs section 1501 – the Minimum Essential Coverage provision – from the Affordable Care Act but leaves the remainder of the health reform law intact.

The case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius, was brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Mr. Cuccinelli was asking the court to grant an injunction against the implementation of the entire health reform law if the individual mandate was deemed to be unconstitutional.

The U.S. Department of Justice is expected appeal the decision, which could end up in the Supreme Court. However, if Judge Hudson’s ruling stands, the removal of the individual mandate could create serious problems for the overall implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In defending the law, lawyers for the federal government noted that the success of other portions of the law, such as the provision barring insurers from discriminating against people based on pre-existing medical conditions, depends on the ability to insure all Americans.

This is the first time that opponents of the law have been successful in challenging a portion of the Affordable Care Act. Other challenges to the law in Michigan and Virginia have been dismissed.

The federal government cannot require individuals to purchase health insurance under the recently passed Affordable Care Act, according to a Dec. 13 ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in Richmond, Va.

In his decision, Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that it is outside the constitutional powers of Congress to regulate whether a person purchases a product. As a result, his decision effectively severs section 1501 – the Minimum Essential Coverage provision – from the Affordable Care Act but leaves the remainder of the health reform law intact.

The case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius, was brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Mr. Cuccinelli was asking the court to grant an injunction against the implementation of the entire health reform law if the individual mandate was deemed to be unconstitutional.

The U.S. Department of Justice is expected appeal the decision, which could end up in the Supreme Court. However, if Judge Hudson’s ruling stands, the removal of the individual mandate could create serious problems for the overall implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In defending the law, lawyers for the federal government noted that the success of other portions of the law, such as the provision barring insurers from discriminating against people based on pre-existing medical conditions, depends on the ability to insure all Americans.

This is the first time that opponents of the law have been successful in challenging a portion of the Affordable Care Act. Other challenges to the law in Michigan and Virginia have been dismissed.

The federal government cannot require individuals to purchase health insurance under the recently passed Affordable Care Act, according to a Dec. 13 ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in Richmond, Va.

Photo credit: Official White House photo by Chuck Kennedy

In his decision, Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that it is outside the constitutional powers of Congress to regulate whether a person purchases a product. As a result, his decision effectively severs section 1501 – the Minimum Essential Coverage provision – from the Affordable Care Act but leaves the remainder of the health reform law intact.

The case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius, was brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Mr. Cuccinelli was asking the court to grant an injunction against the implementation of the entire health reform law if the individual mandate was deemed to be unconstitutional.

The U.S. Department of Justice is expected appeal the decision, which could end up in the Supreme Court. However, if Judge Hudson’s ruling stands, the removal of the individual mandate could create serious problems for the overall implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In defending the law, lawyers for the federal government noted that the success of other portions of the law, such as the provision barring insurers from discriminating against people based on pre-existing medical conditions, depends on the ability to insure all Americans.

This is the first time that opponents of the law have been successful in challenging a portion of the Affordable Care Act. Other challenges to the law in Michigan and Virginia have been dismissed.

The federal government cannot require individuals to purchase health insurance under the recently passed Affordable Care Act, according to a Dec. 13 ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in Richmond, Va.

Photo credit: Official White House photo by Chuck Kennedy

In his decision, Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that it is outside the constitutional powers of Congress to regulate whether a person purchases a product. As a result, his decision effectively severs section 1501 – the Minimum Essential Coverage provision – from the Affordable Care Act but leaves the remainder of the health reform law intact.

The case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius, was brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Mr. Cuccinelli was asking the court to grant an injunction against the implementation of the entire health reform law if the individual mandate was deemed to be unconstitutional.

The U.S. Department of Justice is expected appeal the decision, which could end up in the Supreme Court. However, if Judge Hudson’s ruling stands, the removal of the individual mandate could create serious problems for the overall implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In defending the law, lawyers for the federal government noted that the success of other portions of the law, such as the provision barring insurers from discriminating against people based on pre-existing medical conditions, depends on the ability to insure all Americans.

This is the first time that opponents of the law have been successful in challenging a portion of the Affordable Care Act. Other challenges to the law in Michigan and Virginia have been dismissed.

The federal government cannot require individuals to purchase health insurance under the recently passed Affordable Care Act, according to a Dec. 13 ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in Richmond, Va.

Photo credit: Official White House photo by Chuck Kennedy

In his decision, Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that it is outside the constitutional powers of Congress to regulate whether a person purchases a product. As a result, his decision effectively severs section 1501 – the Minimum Essential Coverage provision – from the Affordable Care Act but leaves the remainder of the health reform law intact.

The case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius, was brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Mr. Cuccinelli was asking the court to grant an injunction against the implementation of the entire health reform law if the individual mandate was deemed to be unconstitutional.

The U.S. Department of Justice is expected appeal the decision, which could end up in the Supreme Court. However, if Judge Hudson’s ruling stands, the removal of the individual mandate could create serious problems for the overall implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In defending the law, lawyers for the federal government noted that the success of other portions of the law, such as the provision barring insurers from discriminating against people based on pre-existing medical conditions, depends on the ability to insure all Americans.

This is the first time that opponents of the law have been successful in challenging a portion of the Affordable Care Act. Other challenges to the law in Michigan and Virginia have been dismissed.

The federal government cannot require individuals to purchase health insurance under the recently passed Affordable Care Act, according to a Dec. 13 ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in Richmond, Va.

Photo credit: Official White House photo by Chuck Kennedy

In his decision, Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that it is outside the constitutional powers of Congress to regulate whether a person purchases a product. As a result, his decision effectively severs section 1501 – the Minimum Essential Coverage provision – from the Affordable Care Act but leaves the remainder of the health reform law intact.

The case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius, was brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Mr. Cuccinelli was asking the court to grant an injunction against the implementation of the entire health reform law if the individual mandate was deemed to be unconstitutional.

The U.S. Department of Justice is expected appeal the decision, which could end up in the Supreme Court. However, if Judge Hudson’s ruling stands, the removal of the individual mandate could create serious problems for the overall implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In defending the law, lawyers for the federal government noted that the success of other portions of the law, such as the provision barring insurers from discriminating against people based on pre-existing medical conditions, depends on the ability to insure all Americans.

This is the first time that opponents of the law have been successful in challenging a portion of the Affordable Care Act. Other challenges to the law in Michigan and Virginia have been dismissed.

The federal government cannot require individuals to purchase health insurance under the recently passed Affordable Care Act, according to a Dec. 13 ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in Richmond, Va.

Photo credit: Official White House photo by Chuck Kennedy

In his decision, Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that it is outside the constitutional powers of Congress to regulate whether a person purchases a product. As a result, his decision effectively severs section 1501 – the Minimum Essential Coverage provision – from the Affordable Care Act but leaves the remainder of the health reform law intact.

The case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius, was brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Mr. Cuccinelli was asking the court to grant an injunction against the implementation of the entire health reform law if the individual mandate was deemed to be unconstitutional.

The U.S. Department of Justice is expected appeal the decision, which could end up in the Supreme Court. However, if Judge Hudson’s ruling stands, the removal of the individual mandate could create serious problems for the overall implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In defending the law, lawyers for the federal government noted that the success of other portions of the law, such as the provision barring insurers from discriminating against people based on pre-existing medical conditions, depends on the ability to insure all Americans.

This is the first time that opponents of the law have been successful in challenging a portion of the Affordable Care Act. Other challenges to the law in Michigan and Virginia have been dismissed.

The federal government cannot require individuals to purchase health insurance under the recently passed Affordable Care Act, according to a Dec. 13 ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in Richmond, Va.

Photo credit: Official White House photo by Chuck Kennedy

In his decision, Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that it is outside the constitutional powers of Congress to regulate whether a person purchases a product. As a result, his decision effectively severs section 1501 – the Minimum Essential Coverage provision – from the Affordable Care Act but leaves the remainder of the health reform law intact.

The case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius, was brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Mr. Cuccinelli was asking the court to grant an injunction against the implementation of the entire health reform law if the individual mandate was deemed to be unconstitutional.

The U.S. Department of Justice is expected appeal the decision, which could end up in the Supreme Court. However, if Judge Hudson’s ruling stands, the removal of the individual mandate could create serious problems for the overall implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In defending the law, lawyers for the federal government noted that the success of other portions of the law, such as the provision barring insurers from discriminating against people based on pre-existing medical conditions, depends on the ability to insure all Americans.

This is the first time that opponents of the law have been successful in challenging a portion of the Affordable Care Act. Other challenges to the law in Michigan and Virginia have been dismissed.

Congress has passed legislation to avert the looming 25% pay cut for physicians under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, clearing the way for a 1-year pay fix to be signed into law well ahead of the cuts’ effective date of Jan. 1.

The bill (H.R. 4994) would eliminate the scheduled deep fee-schedule cut and instead keep Medicare physician fees at their current rate throughout 2011. The bill would also extend several Medicare payment provisions throughout 2011, including the 5% increase in payments for certain mental health services.

The legislation was approved by the Senate on Dec. 8 and by the House on Dec. 9. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law soon.

The fee fix would be paid for by small changes to the Affordable Care Act. Under the ACA, if an individual who receives a tax credit to purchase health insurance has a higher income than what they originally reported, he or she must refund the tax credit, but only up to $250 for individuals and $400 for families who are at or below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Under HR. 4994, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, those amounts would be replaced by an income-based tiered repayment structure, saving the federal government about $19 billion over 10 years, according to the Senate Finance Committee.

In a statement issued Dec. 8 in advance of the Senate vote, President Obama urged Congress to act quickly on the issue and reiterated his desire to work out a permanent solution to the Medicare physician pay formula so that frequent legislative fixes aren’t necessary.

"This agreement is an important step forward to stabilize Medicare, but our work is far from finished," the president said. "For too long, we have confronted this reoccurring problem with temporary fixes and stop-gap measures. It’s time for a permanent solution that seniors and their doctors can depend on and I look forward to working with Congress to address this matter once and for all in the coming year."

The American Medical Association also praised Congress for averting the Medicare cuts and giving the Medicare program some stability by passing a 1-year fix, as opposed to the short-term approach Congress took throughout 2010. Like the president, the AMA is also pushing Congress for a long-term solution.

"This 1-year delay comes right as the oldest baby boomers reach age 65, adding urgency to the need for a long-term solution before this demographic tsunami swamps the Medicare program," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement.

Congress has passed legislation to avert the looming 25% pay cut for physicians under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, clearing the way for a 1-year pay fix to be signed into law well ahead of the cuts’ effective date of Jan. 1.

The bill (H.R. 4994) would eliminate the scheduled deep fee-schedule cut and instead keep Medicare physician fees at their current rate throughout 2011. The bill would also extend several Medicare payment provisions throughout 2011, including the 5% increase in payments for certain mental health services.

The legislation was approved by the Senate on Dec. 8 and by the House on Dec. 9. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law soon.

The fee fix would be paid for by small changes to the Affordable Care Act. Under the ACA, if an individual who receives a tax credit to purchase health insurance has a higher income than what they originally reported, he or she must refund the tax credit, but only up to $250 for individuals and $400 for families who are at or below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Under HR. 4994, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, those amounts would be replaced by an income-based tiered repayment structure, saving the federal government about $19 billion over 10 years, according to the Senate Finance Committee.

In a statement issued Dec. 8 in advance of the Senate vote, President Obama urged Congress to act quickly on the issue and reiterated his desire to work out a permanent solution to the Medicare physician pay formula so that frequent legislative fixes aren’t necessary.

"This agreement is an important step forward to stabilize Medicare, but our work is far from finished," the president said. "For too long, we have confronted this reoccurring problem with temporary fixes and stop-gap measures. It’s time for a permanent solution that seniors and their doctors can depend on and I look forward to working with Congress to address this matter once and for all in the coming year."

The American Medical Association also praised Congress for averting the Medicare cuts and giving the Medicare program some stability by passing a 1-year fix, as opposed to the short-term approach Congress took throughout 2010. Like the president, the AMA is also pushing Congress for a long-term solution.

"This 1-year delay comes right as the oldest baby boomers reach age 65, adding urgency to the need for a long-term solution before this demographic tsunami swamps the Medicare program," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement.

Congress has passed legislation to avert the looming 25% pay cut for physicians under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, clearing the way for a 1-year pay fix to be signed into law well ahead of the cuts’ effective date of Jan. 1.

The bill (H.R. 4994) would eliminate the scheduled deep fee-schedule cut and instead keep Medicare physician fees at their current rate throughout 2011. The bill would also extend several Medicare payment provisions throughout 2011, including the 5% increase in payments for certain mental health services.

The legislation was approved by the Senate on Dec. 8 and by the House on Dec. 9. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law soon.

The fee fix would be paid for by small changes to the Affordable Care Act. Under the ACA, if an individual who receives a tax credit to purchase health insurance has a higher income than what they originally reported, he or she must refund the tax credit, but only up to $250 for individuals and $400 for families who are at or below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Under HR. 4994, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, those amounts would be replaced by an income-based tiered repayment structure, saving the federal government about $19 billion over 10 years, according to the Senate Finance Committee.

In a statement issued Dec. 8 in advance of the Senate vote, President Obama urged Congress to act quickly on the issue and reiterated his desire to work out a permanent solution to the Medicare physician pay formula so that frequent legislative fixes aren’t necessary.

"This agreement is an important step forward to stabilize Medicare, but our work is far from finished," the president said. "For too long, we have confronted this reoccurring problem with temporary fixes and stop-gap measures. It’s time for a permanent solution that seniors and their doctors can depend on and I look forward to working with Congress to address this matter once and for all in the coming year."

The American Medical Association also praised Congress for averting the Medicare cuts and giving the Medicare program some stability by passing a 1-year fix, as opposed to the short-term approach Congress took throughout 2010. Like the president, the AMA is also pushing Congress for a long-term solution.

"This 1-year delay comes right as the oldest baby boomers reach age 65, adding urgency to the need for a long-term solution before this demographic tsunami swamps the Medicare program," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement.

Congress has passed legislation to avert the looming 25% pay cut for physicians under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, clearing the way for a 1-year pay fix to be signed into law well ahead of the cuts' effective date of Jan. 1.

The bill (H.R. 4994) would eliminate the scheduled deep fee-schedule cut and instead keep Medicare physician fees at their current rate throughout 2011. The bill would also extend several Medicare payment provisions throughout 2011, including the 5% increase in payments for certain mental health services.

The legislation was approved by the Senate on Dec. 8 and by the House on Dec. 9. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law soon.

The fee fix would be paid for by small changes to the Affordable Care Act. Under the ACA, if an individual who receives a tax credit to purchase health insurance has a higher income than what they originally reported, he or she must refund the tax credit, but only up to $250 for individuals and $400 for families who are at or below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Under HR. 4994, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, those amounts would be replaced by an income-based tiered repayment structure, saving the federal government about $19 billion over 10 years, according to the Senate Finance Committee.

In a statement issued Dec. 8 in advance of the Senate vote, President Obama urged Congress to act quickly on the issue and reiterated his desire to work out a permanent solution to the Medicare physician pay formula so that frequent legislative fixes aren’t necessary.

"This agreement is an important step forward to stabilize Medicare, but our work is far from finished," the president said. "For too long, we have confronted this reoccurring problem with temporary fixes and stop-gap measures. It’s time for a permanent solution that seniors and their doctors can depend on and I look forward to working with Congress to address this matter once and for all in the coming year."

The American Medical Association also praised Congress for averting the Medicare cuts and giving the Medicare program some stability by passing a 1-year fix, as opposed to the short-term approach Congress took throughout 2010. Like the president, the AMA is also pushing Congress for a long-term solution.

"This 1-year delay comes right as the oldest baby boomers reach age 65, adding urgency to the need for a long-term solution before this demographic tsunami swamps the Medicare program," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement.

Congress has passed legislation to avert the looming 25% pay cut for physicians under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, clearing the way for a 1-year pay fix to be signed into law well ahead of the cuts' effective date of Jan. 1.

The bill (H.R. 4994) would eliminate the scheduled deep fee-schedule cut and instead keep Medicare physician fees at their current rate throughout 2011. The bill would also extend several Medicare payment provisions throughout 2011, including the 5% increase in payments for certain mental health services.

The legislation was approved by the Senate on Dec. 8 and by the House on Dec. 9. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law soon.

The fee fix would be paid for by small changes to the Affordable Care Act. Under the ACA, if an individual who receives a tax credit to purchase health insurance has a higher income than what they originally reported, he or she must refund the tax credit, but only up to $250 for individuals and $400 for families who are at or below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Under HR. 4994, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, those amounts would be replaced by an income-based tiered repayment structure, saving the federal government about $19 billion over 10 years, according to the Senate Finance Committee.

In a statement issued Dec. 8 in advance of the Senate vote, President Obama urged Congress to act quickly on the issue and reiterated his desire to work out a permanent solution to the Medicare physician pay formula so that frequent legislative fixes aren’t necessary.

"This agreement is an important step forward to stabilize Medicare, but our work is far from finished," the president said. "For too long, we have confronted this reoccurring problem with temporary fixes and stop-gap measures. It’s time for a permanent solution that seniors and their doctors can depend on and I look forward to working with Congress to address this matter once and for all in the coming year."

The American Medical Association also praised Congress for averting the Medicare cuts and giving the Medicare program some stability by passing a 1-year fix, as opposed to the short-term approach Congress took throughout 2010. Like the president, the AMA is also pushing Congress for a long-term solution.

"This 1-year delay comes right as the oldest baby boomers reach age 65, adding urgency to the need for a long-term solution before this demographic tsunami swamps the Medicare program," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement.

Congress has passed legislation to avert the looming 25% pay cut for physicians under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, clearing the way for a 1-year pay fix to be signed into law well ahead of the cuts' effective date of Jan. 1.

The bill (H.R. 4994) would eliminate the scheduled deep fee-schedule cut and instead keep Medicare physician fees at their current rate throughout 2011. The bill would also extend several Medicare payment provisions throughout 2011, including the 5% increase in payments for certain mental health services.

The legislation was approved by the Senate on Dec. 8 and by the House on Dec. 9. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law soon.

The fee fix would be paid for by small changes to the Affordable Care Act. Under the ACA, if an individual who receives a tax credit to purchase health insurance has a higher income than what they originally reported, he or she must refund the tax credit, but only up to $250 for individuals and $400 for families who are at or below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Under HR. 4994, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, those amounts would be replaced by an income-based tiered repayment structure, saving the federal government about $19 billion over 10 years, according to the Senate Finance Committee.

In a statement issued Dec. 8 in advance of the Senate vote, President Obama urged Congress to act quickly on the issue and reiterated his desire to work out a permanent solution to the Medicare physician pay formula so that frequent legislative fixes aren’t necessary.

"This agreement is an important step forward to stabilize Medicare, but our work is far from finished," the president said. "For too long, we have confronted this reoccurring problem with temporary fixes and stop-gap measures. It’s time for a permanent solution that seniors and their doctors can depend on and I look forward to working with Congress to address this matter once and for all in the coming year."

The American Medical Association also praised Congress for averting the Medicare cuts and giving the Medicare program some stability by passing a 1-year fix, as opposed to the short-term approach Congress took throughout 2010. Like the president, the AMA is also pushing Congress for a long-term solution.

"This 1-year delay comes right as the oldest baby boomers reach age 65, adding urgency to the need for a long-term solution before this demographic tsunami swamps the Medicare program," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement.

Congress has passed legislation to avert the looming 25% pay cut for physicians under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, clearing the way for a 1-year pay fix to be signed into law well ahead of the cuts’ effective date of Jan. 1.

The bill (H.R. 4994) would eliminate the scheduled deep fee-schedule cut and instead keep Medicare physician fees at their current rate throughout 2011. The bill would also extend several Medicare payment provisions throughout 2011, including the 5% increase in payments for certain mental health services.

The legislation was approved by the Senate on Dec. 8 and by the House on Dec. 9. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law soon.

The fee fix would be paid for by small changes to the Affordable Care Act. Under the ACA, if an individual who receives a tax credit to purchase health insurance has a higher income than what they originally reported, he or she must refund the tax credit, but only up to $250 for individuals and $400 for families who are at or below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Under HR. 4994, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, those amounts would be replaced by an income-based tiered repayment structure, saving the federal government about $19 billion over 10 years, according to the Senate Finance Committee.

In a statement issued Dec. 8 in advance of the Senate vote, President Obama urged Congress to act quickly on the issue and reiterated his desire to work out a permanent solution to the Medicare physician pay formula so that frequent legislative fixes aren’t necessary.

"This agreement is an important step forward to stabilize Medicare, but our work is far from finished," the president said. "For too long, we have confronted this reoccurring problem with temporary fixes and stop-gap measures. It’s time for a permanent solution that seniors and their doctors can depend on and I look forward to working with Congress to address this matter once and for all in the coming year."

The American Medical Association also praised Congress for averting the Medicare cuts and giving the Medicare program some stability by passing a 1-year fix, as opposed to the short-term approach Congress took throughout 2010. Like the president, the AMA is also pushing Congress for a long-term solution.

"This 1-year delay comes right as the oldest baby boomers reach age 65, adding urgency to the need for a long-term solution before this demographic tsunami swamps the Medicare program," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement.

Congress has passed legislation to avert the looming 25% pay cut for physicians under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, clearing the way for a 1-year pay fix to be signed into law well ahead of the cuts’ effective date of Jan. 1.

The bill (H.R. 4994) would eliminate the scheduled deep fee-schedule cut and instead keep Medicare physician fees at their current rate throughout 2011. The bill would also extend several Medicare payment provisions throughout 2011, including the 5% increase in payments for certain mental health services.

The legislation was approved by the Senate on Dec. 8 and by the House on Dec. 9. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law soon.

The fee fix would be paid for by small changes to the Affordable Care Act. Under the ACA, if an individual who receives a tax credit to purchase health insurance has a higher income than what they originally reported, he or she must refund the tax credit, but only up to $250 for individuals and $400 for families who are at or below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Under HR. 4994, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, those amounts would be replaced by an income-based tiered repayment structure, saving the federal government about $19 billion over 10 years, according to the Senate Finance Committee.

In a statement issued Dec. 8 in advance of the Senate vote, President Obama urged Congress to act quickly on the issue and reiterated his desire to work out a permanent solution to the Medicare physician pay formula so that frequent legislative fixes aren’t necessary.

"This agreement is an important step forward to stabilize Medicare, but our work is far from finished," the president said. "For too long, we have confronted this reoccurring problem with temporary fixes and stop-gap measures. It’s time for a permanent solution that seniors and their doctors can depend on and I look forward to working with Congress to address this matter once and for all in the coming year."

The American Medical Association also praised Congress for averting the Medicare cuts and giving the Medicare program some stability by passing a 1-year fix, as opposed to the short-term approach Congress took throughout 2010. Like the president, the AMA is also pushing Congress for a long-term solution.

"This 1-year delay comes right as the oldest baby boomers reach age 65, adding urgency to the need for a long-term solution before this demographic tsunami swamps the Medicare program," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement.

Congress has passed legislation to avert the looming 25% pay cut for physicians under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, clearing the way for a 1-year pay fix to be signed into law well ahead of the cuts’ effective date of Jan. 1.

The bill (H.R. 4994) would eliminate the scheduled deep fee-schedule cut and instead keep Medicare physician fees at their current rate throughout 2011. The bill would also extend several Medicare payment provisions throughout 2011, including the 5% increase in payments for certain mental health services.

The legislation was approved by the Senate on Dec. 8 and by the House on Dec. 9. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law soon.

The fee fix would be paid for by small changes to the Affordable Care Act. Under the ACA, if an individual who receives a tax credit to purchase health insurance has a higher income than what they originally reported, he or she must refund the tax credit, but only up to $250 for individuals and $400 for families who are at or below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Under HR. 4994, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, those amounts would be replaced by an income-based tiered repayment structure, saving the federal government about $19 billion over 10 years, according to the Senate Finance Committee.

In a statement issued Dec. 8 in advance of the Senate vote, President Obama urged Congress to act quickly on the issue and reiterated his desire to work out a permanent solution to the Medicare physician pay formula so that frequent legislative fixes aren’t necessary.

"This agreement is an important step forward to stabilize Medicare, but our work is far from finished," the president said. "For too long, we have confronted this reoccurring problem with temporary fixes and stop-gap measures. It’s time for a permanent solution that seniors and their doctors can depend on and I look forward to working with Congress to address this matter once and for all in the coming year."

The American Medical Association also praised Congress for averting the Medicare cuts and giving the Medicare program some stability by passing a 1-year fix, as opposed to the short-term approach Congress took throughout 2010. Like the president, the AMA is also pushing Congress for a long-term solution.

"This 1-year delay comes right as the oldest baby boomers reach age 65, adding urgency to the need for a long-term solution before this demographic tsunami swamps the Medicare program," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement.

Congress on Dec. 7 passed legislation clarifying its definition of a "creditor" under the Red Flags rule, a move that could help bolster the case that physicians should not have to abide by the new identity theft safeguards.

Physicians currently have until Dec. 31 before the Federal Trade Commission is set to begin enforcing the Red Flags rule. The rule was written to implement provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which calls on creditors and financial institutions to address the risk of identity theft. The rule requires creditors to develop formal identity theft–prevention programs that would allow an organization to identify, detect, and respond to any suspicious practices ("red flags") that could indicate identity theft. However, physician groups have long asserted that they are not creditors and should be exempt from the requirements, which they consider overly burdensome.

Under the new legislation (S. 3987), which was passed by the House on Dec. 7 and by the Senate on Nov. 30, Congress clarifies that a creditor is not someone who simply "advances funds on behalf of a person for expenses" related to a service. The American Medical Association and other physician groups are hopeful that the clarification will be enough to convince officials at the Federal Trade Commission to exempt physicians from the Red Flags rule.

"The AMA is pleased that this legislation supports AMA’s long-standing argument to the FTC that physicians are not creditors. This bill will help eliminate the current confusion about the rule’s application to physicians," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement issued on Dec. 7. "We hope that the FTC will now withdraw its assertion that the red flags rule applies to physicians."

The Red Flags rule became effective on Jan. 1, 2008, with an original enforcement deadline of Nov. 1, 2008. However, the FTC has delayed enforcement of the rule five times, first to give organizations more time to become familiar with the requirements, and later at the request of members of Congress. The most recent enforcement delay is set to expire on Dec. 31.

In May 2010, the AMA joined the American Osteopathic Association and the Medical Society of the District Columbia in a federal lawsuit that seeks to prevent the FTC from applying the Red Flags rule to physicians.

Congress on Dec. 7 passed legislation clarifying its definition of a "creditor" under the Red Flags rule, a move that could help bolster the case that physicians should not have to abide by the new identity theft safeguards.

Physicians currently have until Dec. 31 before the Federal Trade Commission is set to begin enforcing the Red Flags rule. The rule was written to implement provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which calls on creditors and financial institutions to address the risk of identity theft. The rule requires creditors to develop formal identity theft–prevention programs that would allow an organization to identify, detect, and respond to any suspicious practices ("red flags") that could indicate identity theft. However, physician groups have long asserted that they are not creditors and should be exempt from the requirements, which they consider overly burdensome.

Under the new legislation (S. 3987), which was passed by the House on Dec. 7 and by the Senate on Nov. 30, Congress clarifies that a creditor is not someone who simply "advances funds on behalf of a person for expenses" related to a service. The American Medical Association and other physician groups are hopeful that the clarification will be enough to convince officials at the Federal Trade Commission to exempt physicians from the Red Flags rule.

"The AMA is pleased that this legislation supports AMA’s long-standing argument to the FTC that physicians are not creditors. This bill will help eliminate the current confusion about the rule’s application to physicians," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement issued on Dec. 7. "We hope that the FTC will now withdraw its assertion that the red flags rule applies to physicians."

The Red Flags rule became effective on Jan. 1, 2008, with an original enforcement deadline of Nov. 1, 2008. However, the FTC has delayed enforcement of the rule five times, first to give organizations more time to become familiar with the requirements, and later at the request of members of Congress. The most recent enforcement delay is set to expire on Dec. 31.

In May 2010, the AMA joined the American Osteopathic Association and the Medical Society of the District Columbia in a federal lawsuit that seeks to prevent the FTC from applying the Red Flags rule to physicians.

Congress on Dec. 7 passed legislation clarifying its definition of a "creditor" under the Red Flags rule, a move that could help bolster the case that physicians should not have to abide by the new identity theft safeguards.

Physicians currently have until Dec. 31 before the Federal Trade Commission is set to begin enforcing the Red Flags rule. The rule was written to implement provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which calls on creditors and financial institutions to address the risk of identity theft. The rule requires creditors to develop formal identity theft–prevention programs that would allow an organization to identify, detect, and respond to any suspicious practices ("red flags") that could indicate identity theft. However, physician groups have long asserted that they are not creditors and should be exempt from the requirements, which they consider overly burdensome.

Under the new legislation (S. 3987), which was passed by the House on Dec. 7 and by the Senate on Nov. 30, Congress clarifies that a creditor is not someone who simply "advances funds on behalf of a person for expenses" related to a service. The American Medical Association and other physician groups are hopeful that the clarification will be enough to convince officials at the Federal Trade Commission to exempt physicians from the Red Flags rule.

"The AMA is pleased that this legislation supports AMA’s long-standing argument to the FTC that physicians are not creditors. This bill will help eliminate the current confusion about the rule’s application to physicians," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement issued on Dec. 7. "We hope that the FTC will now withdraw its assertion that the red flags rule applies to physicians."

The Red Flags rule became effective on Jan. 1, 2008, with an original enforcement deadline of Nov. 1, 2008. However, the FTC has delayed enforcement of the rule five times, first to give organizations more time to become familiar with the requirements, and later at the request of members of Congress. The most recent enforcement delay is set to expire on Dec. 31.

In May 2010, the AMA joined the American Osteopathic Association and the Medical Society of the District Columbia in a federal lawsuit that seeks to prevent the FTC from applying the Red Flags rule to physicians.

Congress on Dec. 7 passed legislation clarifying its definition of a "creditor" under the Red Flags rule, a move that could help bolster the case that physicians should not have to abide by the new identity theft safeguards.

Physicians currently have until Dec. 31 before the Federal Trade Commission is set to begin enforcing the Red Flags rule. The rule was written to implement provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which calls on creditors and financial institutions to address the risk of identity theft. The rule requires creditors to develop formal identity theft–prevention programs that would allow an organization to identify, detect, and respond to any suspicious practices ("red flags") that could indicate identity theft. However, physician groups have long asserted that they are not creditors and should be exempt from the requirements, which they consider overly burdensome.

Under the new legislation (S. 3987), which was passed by the House on Dec. 7 and by the Senate on Nov. 30, Congress clarifies that a creditor is not someone who simply "advances funds on behalf of a person for expenses" related to a service. The American Medical Association and other physician groups are hopeful that the clarification will be enough to convince officials at the Federal Trade Commission to exempt physicians from the Red Flags rule.

"The AMA is pleased that this legislation supports AMA's long-standing argument to the FTC that physicians are not creditors. This bill will help eliminate the current confusion about the rule's application to physicians," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement issued on Dec. 7. "We hope that the FTC will now withdraw its assertion that the red flags rule applies to physicians."

The Red Flags rule became effective on Jan. 1, 2008, with an original enforcement deadline of Nov. 1, 2008. However, the FTC has delayed enforcement of the rule five times, first to give organizations more time to become familiar with the requirements, and later at the request of members of Congress. The most recent enforcement delay is set to expire on Dec. 31.

In May 2010, the AMA joined the American Osteopathic Association and the Medical Society of the District Columbia in a federal lawsuit that seeks to prevent the FTC from applying the Red Flags rule to physicians.

Congress on Dec. 7 passed legislation clarifying its definition of a "creditor" under the Red Flags rule, a move that could help bolster the case that physicians should not have to abide by the new identity theft safeguards.

Physicians currently have until Dec. 31 before the Federal Trade Commission is set to begin enforcing the Red Flags rule. The rule was written to implement provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which calls on creditors and financial institutions to address the risk of identity theft. The rule requires creditors to develop formal identity theft–prevention programs that would allow an organization to identify, detect, and respond to any suspicious practices ("red flags") that could indicate identity theft. However, physician groups have long asserted that they are not creditors and should be exempt from the requirements, which they consider overly burdensome.

Under the new legislation (S. 3987), which was passed by the House on Dec. 7 and by the Senate on Nov. 30, Congress clarifies that a creditor is not someone who simply "advances funds on behalf of a person for expenses" related to a service. The American Medical Association and other physician groups are hopeful that the clarification will be enough to convince officials at the Federal Trade Commission to exempt physicians from the Red Flags rule.

"The AMA is pleased that this legislation supports AMA's long-standing argument to the FTC that physicians are not creditors. This bill will help eliminate the current confusion about the rule's application to physicians," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement issued on Dec. 7. "We hope that the FTC will now withdraw its assertion that the red flags rule applies to physicians."

The Red Flags rule became effective on Jan. 1, 2008, with an original enforcement deadline of Nov. 1, 2008. However, the FTC has delayed enforcement of the rule five times, first to give organizations more time to become familiar with the requirements, and later at the request of members of Congress. The most recent enforcement delay is set to expire on Dec. 31.

In May 2010, the AMA joined the American Osteopathic Association and the Medical Society of the District Columbia in a federal lawsuit that seeks to prevent the FTC from applying the Red Flags rule to physicians.

Congress on Dec. 7 passed legislation clarifying its definition of a "creditor" under the Red Flags rule, a move that could help bolster the case that physicians should not have to abide by the new identity theft safeguards.

Physicians currently have until Dec. 31 before the Federal Trade Commission is set to begin enforcing the Red Flags rule. The rule was written to implement provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which calls on creditors and financial institutions to address the risk of identity theft. The rule requires creditors to develop formal identity theft–prevention programs that would allow an organization to identify, detect, and respond to any suspicious practices ("red flags") that could indicate identity theft. However, physician groups have long asserted that they are not creditors and should be exempt from the requirements, which they consider overly burdensome.

Under the new legislation (S. 3987), which was passed by the House on Dec. 7 and by the Senate on Nov. 30, Congress clarifies that a creditor is not someone who simply "advances funds on behalf of a person for expenses" related to a service. The American Medical Association and other physician groups are hopeful that the clarification will be enough to convince officials at the Federal Trade Commission to exempt physicians from the Red Flags rule.

"The AMA is pleased that this legislation supports AMA's long-standing argument to the FTC that physicians are not creditors. This bill will help eliminate the current confusion about the rule's application to physicians," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement issued on Dec. 7. "We hope that the FTC will now withdraw its assertion that the red flags rule applies to physicians."

The Red Flags rule became effective on Jan. 1, 2008, with an original enforcement deadline of Nov. 1, 2008. However, the FTC has delayed enforcement of the rule five times, first to give organizations more time to become familiar with the requirements, and later at the request of members of Congress. The most recent enforcement delay is set to expire on Dec. 31.

In May 2010, the AMA joined the American Osteopathic Association and the Medical Society of the District Columbia in a federal lawsuit that seeks to prevent the FTC from applying the Red Flags rule to physicians.

Congress on Dec. 7 passed legislation clarifying its definition of a "creditor" under the Red Flags rule, a move that could help bolster the case that physicians should not have to abide by the new identity theft safeguards.

Physicians currently have until Dec. 31 before the Federal Trade Commission is set to begin enforcing the Red Flags rule. The rule was written to implement provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which calls on creditors and financial institutions to address the risk of identity theft. The rule requires creditors to develop formal identity theft–prevention programs that would allow an organization to identify, detect, and respond to any suspicious practices ("red flags") that could indicate identity theft. However, physician groups have long asserted that they are not creditors and should be exempt from the requirements, which they consider overly burdensome.

Under the new legislation (S. 3987), which was passed by the House on Dec. 7 and by the Senate on Nov. 30, Congress clarifies that a creditor is not someone who simply "advances funds on behalf of a person for expenses" related to a service. The American Medical Association and other physician groups are hopeful that the clarification will be enough to convince officials at the Federal Trade Commission to exempt physicians from the Red Flags rule.

"The AMA is pleased that this legislation supports AMA’s long-standing argument to the FTC that physicians are not creditors. This bill will help eliminate the current confusion about the rule’s application to physicians," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement issued on Dec. 7. "We hope that the FTC will now withdraw its assertion that the red flags rule applies to physicians."

The Red Flags rule became effective on Jan. 1, 2008, with an original enforcement deadline of Nov. 1, 2008. However, the FTC has delayed enforcement of the rule five times, first to give organizations more time to become familiar with the requirements, and later at the request of members of Congress. The most recent enforcement delay is set to expire on Dec. 31.

In May 2010, the AMA joined the American Osteopathic Association and the Medical Society of the District Columbia in a federal lawsuit that seeks to prevent the FTC from applying the Red Flags rule to physicians.

Congress on Dec. 7 passed legislation clarifying its definition of a "creditor" under the Red Flags rule, a move that could help bolster the case that physicians should not have to abide by the new identity theft safeguards.

Physicians currently have until Dec. 31 before the Federal Trade Commission is set to begin enforcing the Red Flags rule. The rule was written to implement provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which calls on creditors and financial institutions to address the risk of identity theft. The rule requires creditors to develop formal identity theft–prevention programs that would allow an organization to identify, detect, and respond to any suspicious practices ("red flags") that could indicate identity theft. However, physician groups have long asserted that they are not creditors and should be exempt from the requirements, which they consider overly burdensome.

Under the new legislation (S. 3987), which was passed by the House on Dec. 7 and by the Senate on Nov. 30, Congress clarifies that a creditor is not someone who simply "advances funds on behalf of a person for expenses" related to a service. The American Medical Association and other physician groups are hopeful that the clarification will be enough to convince officials at the Federal Trade Commission to exempt physicians from the Red Flags rule.

"The AMA is pleased that this legislation supports AMA’s long-standing argument to the FTC that physicians are not creditors. This bill will help eliminate the current confusion about the rule’s application to physicians," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement issued on Dec. 7. "We hope that the FTC will now withdraw its assertion that the red flags rule applies to physicians."

The Red Flags rule became effective on Jan. 1, 2008, with an original enforcement deadline of Nov. 1, 2008. However, the FTC has delayed enforcement of the rule five times, first to give organizations more time to become familiar with the requirements, and later at the request of members of Congress. The most recent enforcement delay is set to expire on Dec. 31.

In May 2010, the AMA joined the American Osteopathic Association and the Medical Society of the District Columbia in a federal lawsuit that seeks to prevent the FTC from applying the Red Flags rule to physicians.

Congress on Dec. 7 passed legislation clarifying its definition of a "creditor" under the Red Flags rule, a move that could help bolster the case that physicians should not have to abide by the new identity theft safeguards.

Physicians currently have until Dec. 31 before the Federal Trade Commission is set to begin enforcing the Red Flags rule. The rule was written to implement provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which calls on creditors and financial institutions to address the risk of identity theft. The rule requires creditors to develop formal identity theft–prevention programs that would allow an organization to identify, detect, and respond to any suspicious practices ("red flags") that could indicate identity theft. However, physician groups have long asserted that they are not creditors and should be exempt from the requirements, which they consider overly burdensome.

Under the new legislation (S. 3987), which was passed by the House on Dec. 7 and by the Senate on Nov. 30, Congress clarifies that a creditor is not someone who simply "advances funds on behalf of a person for expenses" related to a service. The American Medical Association and other physician groups are hopeful that the clarification will be enough to convince officials at the Federal Trade Commission to exempt physicians from the Red Flags rule.

"The AMA is pleased that this legislation supports AMA’s long-standing argument to the FTC that physicians are not creditors. This bill will help eliminate the current confusion about the rule’s application to physicians," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement issued on Dec. 7. "We hope that the FTC will now withdraw its assertion that the red flags rule applies to physicians."

The Red Flags rule became effective on Jan. 1, 2008, with an original enforcement deadline of Nov. 1, 2008. However, the FTC has delayed enforcement of the rule five times, first to give organizations more time to become familiar with the requirements, and later at the request of members of Congress. The most recent enforcement delay is set to expire on Dec. 31.

In May 2010, the AMA joined the American Osteopathic Association and the Medical Society of the District Columbia in a federal lawsuit that seeks to prevent the FTC from applying the Red Flags rule to physicians.