|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 put a cap on the rehabilitation services available to patients with Medicare Part B as a cost control mechanism. Inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) were also affected by this act. IRFs are where patients who are medically stable, but not physically independent, go to receive three hours of therapy a day with the care of a full time nursing staff.
The act read, 'an annual per beneficiary limit of $1500 will apply to all outpatient physical therapy services (including speech-language pathology services).' This act caused a depression in the physical therapy job market leaving Medicare patients in IRFs without the full level of care needed.
The American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) has worked to repeal the act in the past without success. It is once again time for Congress to take action and repeal the Medicare therapy cap. In 34 days Congress will vote and the fate of many stroke, spinal cord injury and brain injury survivors, just to name a few, will be decided.
On October 19th more than 100 PTs, PTAs and students participated in a special one-day Therapy Cap Fly-In to lobby against the cap. Do tactics like those posted on APTA's website work or should consumers take another approach?
Star This to Save in Your Profile 
Add a Comment (4)
Email This
Message Author
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
0 Nerd-Its
health care as a right
This event wouldn't be the first time that health care providers have lobbied on behalf of their patients. Whether or not it will work this time remains to be seen. I would imagine consumers writing to their congressmen would have a stronger effect, but during this time of intense monetary struggle in the Congress, it's difficult to speculate. The success or failure of this effort really isn't the point of contention.
The real issue that this post presents is the role of government in the provision of health care in general. Is health care a right or a privilege? Should taxpayers pay for services such as IRFs for patients who can't pay at the expense of other governmental services?
I found an interesting editorial written during the Clinton administration when this debate was more in the public forum. Because the author more eloquently expresses his negation than I could, I'll just post the link here. In short, the author reviews the basic rights guaranteed in the Constitution. He then argues that health care is not one of those rights. He also elaborates on the possible legal and social consequences of universal health care.
The Right to Health Care is a lobby group which argues that health care should be provided for everyone. They conclude that citizens were not originally entitled to health care, but they weren't entitled to the right to vote or education either. These rights were enumerated at a later date. Other legal precedents support the addition of health care to the list of basic rights.
The question is a difficult one, especially from the standpoint of a physician. I would go to the wall for a patient who needed a service. I just am not sure if I would expect the same of the voting, taxpaying public. Perhaps health care providers would be acting more correctly if they were to focus their efforts on charitable funding for their patients.
This comment has 2 replies.
RSS
We hope these tactics work. by smcbride :: NR6 :: Show
The root problems always come back to the old dollar sign. Its a tough problem with baby boomers coming. To get better coverage these boomers are going to have to elect law makers that will support them, this is only half the battle. Where does the money come from? AARP is working on this dilemma as we speak. Congress and House have been debating this issue for years.CBO