He added that “we find nothing inherently negative” about a public insurance option, but stipulated that it must “compete in the free market,” provide for voluntary physician participation and negotiate reimbursement rates with providers.
Dr. Zuckerman agreed with some general aims of the bill — improved access, affordable healthcare and lower costs — but warned that it would:
* “bureaucratize” the Medicare system with a new, unaccountable 15-person ‘advisory board;
* prematurely institute “a mandatory and punitive” physician quality reporting system;
* decrease funding for patient access to specialty care, and
* impose “onerous restrictions” on physician-owned hospitals.
He added that a number of needed measures were missing from the bill:
* Medical liability reform;
* A complete fix of the sustainable growth rate, which automatically cuts Medicare reimbursements unless Congress acts each year;
* A “cost-effective way” to provide access to care as well as insurance coverage, and
* measures to address workforce shortages in specialty care.
Opposing the health reform bill is “not a decision that we took lightly and we fully realize that the full fellowship may not be pleased,” he wrote.
While some might mistakenly suspect the AAOS of only looking after members’ pocketbooks, “this is a decision based on preserving access to high quality specialty care, which is a cornerstone of healthcare in this country,” he wrote.
Read the AAOS release on healthcare reform.
