Frances Correa

WASHINGTON – The rate of ADHD among Latino youth is relatively low, but that percentage is misleading, according to an expert in cultural diversity and mental health.

Dr. Andres J. Pumariega, who has worked in this clinical area for 30 years, said a 2010 survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the percentage of Latinos who were diagnosed with ADHD is 5.6%, compared with 9.5% of whites and 10.1% of blacks (MMWR 2010;59:1439-43). ADHD is typically diagnosed through parental report. Dr. Pumariega, chairman of the psychiatry department at Cooper University Hospital in Camden, N.J., suspects that cultural misconceptions might prevent parents from recognizing or acknowledging the illness in their children.

Parents "often believe ADHD is misdiagnosed in Latino children, but they often think that it is being overdiagnosed, and our data from more objective studies actually point to it being underdiagnosed. That’s a big gap," said Dr. Pumariega, who presented the findings at the annual conference of the National Hispanic Medical Association.

Other data support Dr. Pumariega’s contention. For example, the 2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey revealed that Latino children were less likely to receive stimulant medication. Results were based on data from 26,000 office- and hospital-based primary care visits. In addition, a longitudinal study of 2,000 caregivers in Puerto Rico showed that only 3.6% of children with ADHD adhered to their medication after a year (J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2007;46:5-14).

In a related presentation, Dr. Eugenio M. Rothe cited an article he wrote suggesting that disparities in treatment between Latino youth and their white counterparts might be tied to several factors, including language barriers and a lack of parental understanding (J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2005;97[suppl. 10]:17S-23).

Dr. Rothe also cited a national survey conducted by Harris Interactive that found that Latinos were less likely to be familiar with ADHD and nearly 10% less likely to know where to get treatment. In addition, Dr. Rothe said, 23% of Latinos vs. 14% of whites thought that ADHD is misdiagnosed in Latino children. The survey was based on online and phone interviews with more than 3,300 parents or caregivers of children aged 6-17 years, said Dr. Rothe, professor of psychiatry and public health at Florida International University, Miami.

Another complicating factor is the acculturation gap between Latino youth and their parents. That gap can generate conflict that can be further aggravated by ADHD, according to Dr. Pumariega. "ADHD can add fuel to the fire in terms of more impulsivity and less adaptive capacity on the part of the youth," he said.

He also suggested that ADHD can contribute to some of the psychosocial problems of Latino youth, including the school dropout rate, the teen pregnancy rate, and substance abuse.

To bridge the gap in diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in Latinos, Dr. Rothe recommended practices aimed at increasing the availability of Spanish-translated ADHD patient education materials, as well as increasing the number of Spanish-speaking physicians, nurses, and health care providers.

The Latino value of strong personal relationships and attachment to family should be factored into care, Dr. Rothe suggested.

"Therefore, clinicians may increase rapport with patients by seeking the opinion of respected family members, decreasing personal space during interactions, using friendly gestures, and displaying a genuine interest in the life of the patient to increase the probability of patient adherence and earn the trust of the patient," Dr. Rothe said.

Dr. Pumariega has chaired the Latino ADHD Advisory Panel for Shire Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Rothe has no relevant disclosures.

WASHINGTON – The rate of ADHD among Latino youth is relatively low, but that percentage is misleading, according to an expert in cultural diversity and mental health.

Dr. Andres J. Pumariega, who has worked in this clinical area for 30 years, said a 2010 survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the percentage of Latinos who were diagnosed with ADHD is 5.6%, compared with 9.5% of whites and 10.1% of blacks (MMWR 2010;59:1439-43). ADHD is typically diagnosed through parental report. Dr. Pumariega, chairman of the psychiatry department at Cooper University Hospital in Camden, N.J., suspects that cultural misconceptions might prevent parents from recognizing or acknowledging the illness in their children.

Parents "often believe ADHD is misdiagnosed in Latino children, but they often think that it is being overdiagnosed, and our data from more objective studies actually point to it being underdiagnosed. That’s a big gap," said Dr. Pumariega, who presented the findings at the annual conference of the National Hispanic Medical Association.

Other data support Dr. Pumariega’s contention. For example, the 2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey revealed that Latino children were less likely to receive stimulant medication. Results were based on data from 26,000 office- and hospital-based primary care visits. In addition, a longitudinal study of 2,000 caregivers in Puerto Rico showed that only 3.6% of children with ADHD adhered to their medication after a year (J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2007;46:5-14).

In a related presentation, Dr. Eugenio M. Rothe cited an article he wrote suggesting that disparities in treatment between Latino youth and their white counterparts might be tied to several factors, including language barriers and a lack of parental understanding (J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2005;97[suppl. 10]:17S-23).

Dr. Rothe also cited a national survey conducted by Harris Interactive that found that Latinos were less likely to be familiar with ADHD and nearly 10% less likely to know where to get treatment. In addition, Dr. Rothe said, 23% of Latinos vs. 14% of whites thought that ADHD is misdiagnosed in Latino children. The survey was based on online and phone interviews with more than 3,300 parents or caregivers of children aged 6-17 years, said Dr. Rothe, professor of psychiatry and public health at Florida International University, Miami.

Another complicating factor is the acculturation gap between Latino youth and their parents. That gap can generate conflict that can be further aggravated by ADHD, according to Dr. Pumariega. "ADHD can add fuel to the fire in terms of more impulsivity and less adaptive capacity on the part of the youth," he said.

He also suggested that ADHD can contribute to some of the psychosocial problems of Latino youth, including the school dropout rate, the teen pregnancy rate, and substance abuse.

To bridge the gap in diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in Latinos, Dr. Rothe recommended practices aimed at increasing the availability of Spanish-translated ADHD patient education materials, as well as increasing the number of Spanish-speaking physicians, nurses, and health care providers.

The Latino value of strong personal relationships and attachment to family should be factored into care, Dr. Rothe suggested.

"Therefore, clinicians may increase rapport with patients by seeking the opinion of respected family members, decreasing personal space during interactions, using friendly gestures, and displaying a genuine interest in the life of the patient to increase the probability of patient adherence and earn the trust of the patient," Dr. Rothe said.

Dr. Pumariega has chaired the Latino ADHD Advisory Panel for Shire Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Rothe has no relevant disclosures.

WASHINGTON – The rate of ADHD among Latino youth is relatively low, but that percentage is misleading, according to an expert in cultural diversity and mental health.

Dr. Andres J. Pumariega, who has worked in this clinical area for 30 years, said a 2010 survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the percentage of Latinos who were diagnosed with ADHD is 5.6%, compared with 9.5% of whites and 10.1% of blacks (MMWR 2010;59:1439-43). ADHD is typically diagnosed through parental report. Dr. Pumariega, chairman of the psychiatry department at Cooper University Hospital in Camden, N.J., suspects that cultural misconceptions might prevent parents from recognizing or acknowledging the illness in their children.

Parents "often believe ADHD is misdiagnosed in Latino children, but they often think that it is being overdiagnosed, and our data from more objective studies actually point to it being underdiagnosed. That’s a big gap," said Dr. Pumariega, who presented the findings at the annual conference of the National Hispanic Medical Association.

Other data support Dr. Pumariega’s contention. For example, the 2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey revealed that Latino children were less likely to receive stimulant medication. Results were based on data from 26,000 office- and hospital-based primary care visits. In addition, a longitudinal study of 2,000 caregivers in Puerto Rico showed that only 3.6% of children with ADHD adhered to their medication after a year (J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2007;46:5-14).

In a related presentation, Dr. Eugenio M. Rothe cited an article he wrote suggesting that disparities in treatment between Latino youth and their white counterparts might be tied to several factors, including language barriers and a lack of parental understanding (J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2005;97[suppl. 10]:17S-23).

Dr. Rothe also cited a national survey conducted by Harris Interactive that found that Latinos were less likely to be familiar with ADHD and nearly 10% less likely to know where to get treatment. In addition, Dr. Rothe said, 23% of Latinos vs. 14% of whites thought that ADHD is misdiagnosed in Latino children. The survey was based on online and phone interviews with more than 3,300 parents or caregivers of children aged 6-17 years, said Dr. Rothe, professor of psychiatry and public health at Florida International University, Miami.

Another complicating factor is the acculturation gap between Latino youth and their parents. That gap can generate conflict that can be further aggravated by ADHD, according to Dr. Pumariega. "ADHD can add fuel to the fire in terms of more impulsivity and less adaptive capacity on the part of the youth," he said.

He also suggested that ADHD can contribute to some of the psychosocial problems of Latino youth, including the school dropout rate, the teen pregnancy rate, and substance abuse.

To bridge the gap in diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in Latinos, Dr. Rothe recommended practices aimed at increasing the availability of Spanish-translated ADHD patient education materials, as well as increasing the number of Spanish-speaking physicians, nurses, and health care providers.

The Latino value of strong personal relationships and attachment to family should be factored into care, Dr. Rothe suggested.

"Therefore, clinicians may increase rapport with patients by seeking the opinion of respected family members, decreasing personal space during interactions, using friendly gestures, and displaying a genuine interest in the life of the patient to increase the probability of patient adherence and earn the trust of the patient," Dr. Rothe said.

Dr. Pumariega has chaired the Latino ADHD Advisory Panel for Shire Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Rothe has no relevant disclosures.

WASHINGTON – The rate of ADHD among Latino youth is relatively low, but that percentage is misleading, according to an expert in cultural diversity and mental health.

Dr. Andres J. Pumariega, who has worked in this clinical area for 30 years, said a 2010 survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the percentage of Latinos who were diagnosed with ADHD is 5.6%, compared with 9.5% of whites and 10.1% of blacks (MMWR 2010;59:1439-43). ADHD is typically diagnosed through parental report. Dr. Pumariega, chairman of the psychiatry department at Cooper University Hospital in Camden, N.J., suspects that cultural misconceptions might prevent parents from recognizing or acknowledging the illness in their children.

Parents "often believe ADHD is misdiagnosed in Latino children, but they often think that it is being overdiagnosed, and our data from more objective studies actually point to it being underdiagnosed. That’s a big gap," said Dr. Pumariega, who presented the findings at the annual conference of the National Hispanic Medical Association.

Other data support Dr. Pumariega’s contention. For example, the 2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey revealed that Latino children were less likely to receive stimulant medication. Results were based on data from 26,000 office- and hospital-based primary care visits. In addition, a longitudinal study of 2,000 caregivers in Puerto Rico showed that only 3.6% of children with ADHD adhered to their medication after a year (J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2007;46:5-14).

In a related presentation, Dr. Eugenio M. Rothe cited an article he wrote suggesting that disparities in treatment between Latino youth and their white counterparts might be tied to several factors, including language barriers and a lack of parental understanding (J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2005;97[suppl. 10]:17S-23).

Dr. Rothe also cited a national survey conducted by Harris Interactive that found that Latinos were less likely to be familiar with ADHD and nearly 10% less likely to know where to get treatment. In addition, Dr. Rothe said, 23% of Latinos vs. 14% of whites thought that ADHD is misdiagnosed in Latino children. The survey was based on online and phone interviews with more than 3,300 parents or caregivers of children aged 6-17 years, said Dr. Rothe, professor of psychiatry and public health at Florida International University, Miami.

Another complicating factor is the acculturation gap between Latino youth and their parents. That gap can generate conflict that can be further aggravated by ADHD, according to Dr. Pumariega. "ADHD can add fuel to the fire in terms of more impulsivity and less adaptive capacity on the part of the youth," he said.

He also suggested that ADHD can contribute to some of the psychosocial problems of Latino youth, including the school dropout rate, the teen pregnancy rate, and substance abuse.

To bridge the gap in diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in Latinos, Dr. Rothe recommended practices aimed at increasing the availability of Spanish-translated ADHD patient education materials, as well as increasing the number of Spanish-speaking physicians, nurses, and health care providers.

The Latino value of strong personal relationships and attachment to family should be factored into care, Dr. Rothe suggested.

"Therefore, clinicians may increase rapport with patients by seeking the opinion of respected family members, decreasing personal space during interactions, using friendly gestures, and displaying a genuine interest in the life of the patient to increase the probability of patient adherence and earn the trust of the patient," Dr. Rothe said.

Dr. Pumariega has chaired the Latino ADHD Advisory Panel for Shire Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Rothe has no relevant disclosures.

WASHINGTON – The rate of ADHD among Latino youth is relatively low, but that percentage is misleading, according to an expert in cultural diversity and mental health.

Dr. Andres J. Pumariega, who has worked in this clinical area for 30 years, said a 2010 survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the percentage of Latinos who were diagnosed with ADHD is 5.6%, compared with 9.5% of whites and 10.1% of blacks (MMWR 2010;59:1439-43). ADHD is typically diagnosed through parental report. Dr. Pumariega, chairman of the psychiatry department at Cooper University Hospital in Camden, N.J., suspects that cultural misconceptions might prevent parents from recognizing or acknowledging the illness in their children.

Parents "often believe ADHD is misdiagnosed in Latino children, but they often think that it is being overdiagnosed, and our data from more objective studies actually point to it being underdiagnosed. That’s a big gap," said Dr. Pumariega, who presented the findings at the annual conference of the National Hispanic Medical Association.

Other data support Dr. Pumariega’s contention. For example, the 2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey revealed that Latino children were less likely to receive stimulant medication. Results were based on data from 26,000 office- and hospital-based primary care visits. In addition, a longitudinal study of 2,000 caregivers in Puerto Rico showed that only 3.6% of children with ADHD adhered to their medication after a year (J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2007;46:5-14).

In a related presentation, Dr. Eugenio M. Rothe cited an article he wrote suggesting that disparities in treatment between Latino youth and their white counterparts might be tied to several factors, including language barriers and a lack of parental understanding (J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2005;97[suppl. 10]:17S-23).

Dr. Rothe also cited a national survey conducted by Harris Interactive that found that Latinos were less likely to be familiar with ADHD and nearly 10% less likely to know where to get treatment. In addition, Dr. Rothe said, 23% of Latinos vs. 14% of whites thought that ADHD is misdiagnosed in Latino children. The survey was based on online and phone interviews with more than 3,300 parents or caregivers of children aged 6-17 years, said Dr. Rothe, professor of psychiatry and public health at Florida International University, Miami.

Another complicating factor is the acculturation gap between Latino youth and their parents. That gap can generate conflict that can be further aggravated by ADHD, according to Dr. Pumariega. "ADHD can add fuel to the fire in terms of more impulsivity and less adaptive capacity on the part of the youth," he said.

He also suggested that ADHD can contribute to some of the psychosocial problems of Latino youth, including the school dropout rate, the teen pregnancy rate, and substance abuse.

To bridge the gap in diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in Latinos, Dr. Rothe recommended practices aimed at increasing the availability of Spanish-translated ADHD patient education materials, as well as increasing the number of Spanish-speaking physicians, nurses, and health care providers.

The Latino value of strong personal relationships and attachment to family should be factored into care, Dr. Rothe suggested.

"Therefore, clinicians may increase rapport with patients by seeking the opinion of respected family members, decreasing personal space during interactions, using friendly gestures, and displaying a genuine interest in the life of the patient to increase the probability of patient adherence and earn the trust of the patient," Dr. Rothe said.

Dr. Pumariega has chaired the Latino ADHD Advisory Panel for Shire Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Rothe has no relevant disclosures.

WASHINGTON – The rate of ADHD among Latino youth is relatively low, but that percentage is misleading, according to an expert in cultural diversity and mental health.

Dr. Andres J. Pumariega, who has worked in this clinical area for 30 years, said a 2010 survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the percentage of Latinos who were diagnosed with ADHD is 5.6%, compared with 9.5% of whites and 10.1% of blacks (MMWR 2010;59:1439-43). ADHD is typically diagnosed through parental report. Dr. Pumariega, chairman of the psychiatry department at Cooper University Hospital in Camden, N.J., suspects that cultural misconceptions might prevent parents from recognizing or acknowledging the illness in their children.

Parents "often believe ADHD is misdiagnosed in Latino children, but they often think that it is being overdiagnosed, and our data from more objective studies actually point to it being underdiagnosed. That’s a big gap," said Dr. Pumariega, who presented the findings at the annual conference of the National Hispanic Medical Association.

Other data support Dr. Pumariega’s contention. For example, the 2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey revealed that Latino children were less likely to receive stimulant medication. Results were based on data from 26,000 office- and hospital-based primary care visits. In addition, a longitudinal study of 2,000 caregivers in Puerto Rico showed that only 3.6% of children with ADHD adhered to their medication after a year (J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2007;46:5-14).

In a related presentation, Dr. Eugenio M. Rothe cited an article he wrote suggesting that disparities in treatment between Latino youth and their white counterparts might be tied to several factors, including language barriers and a lack of parental understanding (J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2005;97[suppl. 10]:17S-23).

Dr. Rothe also cited a national survey conducted by Harris Interactive that found that Latinos were less likely to be familiar with ADHD and nearly 10% less likely to know where to get treatment. In addition, Dr. Rothe said, 23% of Latinos vs. 14% of whites thought that ADHD is misdiagnosed in Latino children. The survey was based on online and phone interviews with more than 3,300 parents or caregivers of children aged 6-17 years, said Dr. Rothe, professor of psychiatry and public health at Florida International University, Miami.

Another complicating factor is the acculturation gap between Latino youth and their parents. That gap can generate conflict that can be further aggravated by ADHD, according to Dr. Pumariega. "ADHD can add fuel to the fire in terms of more impulsivity and less adaptive capacity on the part of the youth," he said.

He also suggested that ADHD can contribute to some of the psychosocial problems of Latino youth, including the school dropout rate, the teen pregnancy rate, and substance abuse.

To bridge the gap in diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in Latinos, Dr. Rothe recommended practices aimed at increasing the availability of Spanish-translated ADHD patient education materials, as well as increasing the number of Spanish-speaking physicians, nurses, and health care providers.

The Latino value of strong personal relationships and attachment to family should be factored into care, Dr. Rothe suggested.

"Therefore, clinicians may increase rapport with patients by seeking the opinion of respected family members, decreasing personal space during interactions, using friendly gestures, and displaying a genuine interest in the life of the patient to increase the probability of patient adherence and earn the trust of the patient," Dr. Rothe said.

Dr. Pumariega has chaired the Latino ADHD Advisory Panel for Shire Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Rothe has no relevant disclosures.

A majority of Texas physicians see the current health care payment system as not economically viable, according to a survey that was conducted by the Texas Medical Association.

Sixty-nine percent of physicians who responded to the survey reported slow payment, nonpayment, or underpayment of Medicare and Medicaid claims. An additional 61% reported a significant decrease in their incomes over the past 2 years.

Dr. Steven Petak, a Houston-based endocrinologist, said that his practice nearly went bankrupt last year because of increased Medicare costs. Those low reimbursements, he said, are the reason his practice started phasing out Medicare patients over the past 2 years. Today, less than 10% of Dr. Petak's patients are covered by Medicare.

According to the Texas Medical Association, less than 42% of surveyed physicians currently accept Medicare patients; half of physician respondents said they are considering opting out of Medicare entirely.

As the immediate past president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, Dr. Petak was in Washington in early March representing the organization. He and his colleagues met with 80 members of the House and Senate to discuss a possible fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula.

“Economically, it's suicidal,” Dr. Petak said. In his meetings, he recommended alternative measures of estimating funding such as the Medicare Economic Index, which is a tool used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to annually calculate changes in practice cost.

In response to ongoing concerns, President Obama's 2012 budget proposal includes a 10-year, $370 billion plan to fix the SGR using funds from fraud reduction and adjustments to payments for pharmaceuticals and Medicaid.

In addition to Medicare and SGR woes, more than half (59%) of respondents to the TMA survey said that they are concerned about what the Affordable Care Act means for them and their patients. More than two-thirds (67%) said that they were concerned that the quality of health care would diminish and costs would increase under the law.

Further, 74% of respondents said they are disappointed with the proposed health reforms, 74% said that they're anxious, and 62% said that they're angry and confused.

The physician survey was conducted through monthly e-mails. Among those who responded, 95% were physicians; the rest were medical students, residents, and interns. Of the 29,764 TMA members who received the survey, 3,587 responded.

A majority of Texas physicians see the current health care payment system as not economically viable, according to a survey that was conducted by the Texas Medical Association.

Sixty-nine percent of physicians who responded to the survey reported slow payment, nonpayment, or underpayment of Medicare and Medicaid claims. An additional 61% reported a significant decrease in their incomes over the past 2 years.

Dr. Steven Petak, a Houston-based endocrinologist, said that his practice nearly went bankrupt last year because of increased Medicare costs. Those low reimbursements, he said, are the reason his practice started phasing out Medicare patients over the past 2 years. Today, less than 10% of Dr. Petak's patients are covered by Medicare.

According to the Texas Medical Association, less than 42% of surveyed physicians currently accept Medicare patients; half of physician respondents said they are considering opting out of Medicare entirely.

As the immediate past president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, Dr. Petak was in Washington in early March representing the organization. He and his colleagues met with 80 members of the House and Senate to discuss a possible fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula.

“Economically, it's suicidal,” Dr. Petak said. In his meetings, he recommended alternative measures of estimating funding such as the Medicare Economic Index, which is a tool used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to annually calculate changes in practice cost.

In response to ongoing concerns, President Obama's 2012 budget proposal includes a 10-year, $370 billion plan to fix the SGR using funds from fraud reduction and adjustments to payments for pharmaceuticals and Medicaid.

In addition to Medicare and SGR woes, more than half (59%) of respondents to the TMA survey said that they are concerned about what the Affordable Care Act means for them and their patients. More than two-thirds (67%) said that they were concerned that the quality of health care would diminish and costs would increase under the law.

Further, 74% of respondents said they are disappointed with the proposed health reforms, 74% said that they're anxious, and 62% said that they're angry and confused.

The physician survey was conducted through monthly e-mails. Among those who responded, 95% were physicians; the rest were medical students, residents, and interns. Of the 29,764 TMA members who received the survey, 3,587 responded.

A majority of Texas physicians see the current health care payment system as not economically viable, according to a survey that was conducted by the Texas Medical Association.

Sixty-nine percent of physicians who responded to the survey reported slow payment, nonpayment, or underpayment of Medicare and Medicaid claims. An additional 61% reported a significant decrease in their incomes over the past 2 years.

Dr. Steven Petak, a Houston-based endocrinologist, said that his practice nearly went bankrupt last year because of increased Medicare costs. Those low reimbursements, he said, are the reason his practice started phasing out Medicare patients over the past 2 years. Today, less than 10% of Dr. Petak's patients are covered by Medicare.

According to the Texas Medical Association, less than 42% of surveyed physicians currently accept Medicare patients; half of physician respondents said they are considering opting out of Medicare entirely.

As the immediate past president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, Dr. Petak was in Washington in early March representing the organization. He and his colleagues met with 80 members of the House and Senate to discuss a possible fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula.

“Economically, it's suicidal,” Dr. Petak said. In his meetings, he recommended alternative measures of estimating funding such as the Medicare Economic Index, which is a tool used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to annually calculate changes in practice cost.

In response to ongoing concerns, President Obama's 2012 budget proposal includes a 10-year, $370 billion plan to fix the SGR using funds from fraud reduction and adjustments to payments for pharmaceuticals and Medicaid.

In addition to Medicare and SGR woes, more than half (59%) of respondents to the TMA survey said that they are concerned about what the Affordable Care Act means for them and their patients. More than two-thirds (67%) said that they were concerned that the quality of health care would diminish and costs would increase under the law.

Further, 74% of respondents said they are disappointed with the proposed health reforms, 74% said that they're anxious, and 62% said that they're angry and confused.

The physician survey was conducted through monthly e-mails. Among those who responded, 95% were physicians; the rest were medical students, residents, and interns. Of the 29,764 TMA members who received the survey, 3,587 responded.

Efforts to derail the Independent Payment Advisory Board gained a bit of traction as two House Democrats joined their colleagues across the aisle in cosponsoring the Medicare Decisions Accountability Act.

Introduced by Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) in January, H.R. 452 would repeal the portions of the Affordable Care Act that would create the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

The 15-person board, to be appointed by the President, would be charged with recommending ways to reduce Medicare spending based on the Consumer Price Index and other economic indicators. The board would submit recommendations to Congress on how to limit Medicare expenditures each January, beginning in 2015. If Congress fails to act on those recommendations by August, the recommendations would go immediately into effect.

The IPAB's “sole purpose is to control Medicare costs – giving this board the authority to approve and deny funding for care,” Rep. Roe, who is an ob.gyn., said in a statement. “The IPAB will lack full Congressional oversight, compromising its accountability to the American people.”

The existence of the IPAB “permanently removes Congress from the decision-making process, and threatens the long-time, open, and important dialog between hospitals and their elected officials about the needs of local hospitals and how to provide the highest quality care to their patients and communities,” according to Rick Pollack, executive vice president of American Hospital Association.

The efforts of the IPAB also would be redundant to the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, which is used each year to adjust Medicare spending for physician services, according to its opponents.

“It makes no sense to subject physicians to two separate expenditure targets while at the same time exempting large segments of Medicare providers who are subject to no target at all,” Dr. Michael Maves, executive vice president of the American Medical Association, wrote in a letter to lawmakers. “We have already seen first-hand the ill effects of the flawed SGR physician target and the steep cuts that Congress has had to scramble each year to avoid, along with the exorbitant price tag required for a long-term SGR solution.”

H.R. 452 is supported by, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Association for Neurological Surgeons, the Alliance for Specialty Medicine, and other medical groups. It has been referred to several House committees for action and at press time had no Senate counterpart.

Efforts to derail the Independent Payment Advisory Board gained a bit of traction as two House Democrats joined their colleagues across the aisle in cosponsoring the Medicare Decisions Accountability Act.

Introduced by Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) in January, H.R. 452 would repeal the portions of the Affordable Care Act that would create the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

The 15-person board, to be appointed by the President, would be charged with recommending ways to reduce Medicare spending based on the Consumer Price Index and other economic indicators. The board would submit recommendations to Congress on how to limit Medicare expenditures each January, beginning in 2015. If Congress fails to act on those recommendations by August, the recommendations would go immediately into effect.

The IPAB's “sole purpose is to control Medicare costs – giving this board the authority to approve and deny funding for care,” Rep. Roe, who is an ob.gyn., said in a statement. “The IPAB will lack full Congressional oversight, compromising its accountability to the American people.”

The existence of the IPAB “permanently removes Congress from the decision-making process, and threatens the long-time, open, and important dialog between hospitals and their elected officials about the needs of local hospitals and how to provide the highest quality care to their patients and communities,” according to Rick Pollack, executive vice president of American Hospital Association.

The efforts of the IPAB also would be redundant to the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, which is used each year to adjust Medicare spending for physician services, according to its opponents.

“It makes no sense to subject physicians to two separate expenditure targets while at the same time exempting large segments of Medicare providers who are subject to no target at all,” Dr. Michael Maves, executive vice president of the American Medical Association, wrote in a letter to lawmakers. “We have already seen first-hand the ill effects of the flawed SGR physician target and the steep cuts that Congress has had to scramble each year to avoid, along with the exorbitant price tag required for a long-term SGR solution.”

H.R. 452 is supported by, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Association for Neurological Surgeons, the Alliance for Specialty Medicine, and other medical groups. It has been referred to several House committees for action and at press time had no Senate counterpart.

Efforts to derail the Independent Payment Advisory Board gained a bit of traction as two House Democrats joined their colleagues across the aisle in cosponsoring the Medicare Decisions Accountability Act.

Introduced by Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) in January, H.R. 452 would repeal the portions of the Affordable Care Act that would create the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

The 15-person board, to be appointed by the President, would be charged with recommending ways to reduce Medicare spending based on the Consumer Price Index and other economic indicators. The board would submit recommendations to Congress on how to limit Medicare expenditures each January, beginning in 2015. If Congress fails to act on those recommendations by August, the recommendations would go immediately into effect.

The IPAB's “sole purpose is to control Medicare costs – giving this board the authority to approve and deny funding for care,” Rep. Roe, who is an ob.gyn., said in a statement. “The IPAB will lack full Congressional oversight, compromising its accountability to the American people.”

The existence of the IPAB “permanently removes Congress from the decision-making process, and threatens the long-time, open, and important dialog between hospitals and their elected officials about the needs of local hospitals and how to provide the highest quality care to their patients and communities,” according to Rick Pollack, executive vice president of American Hospital Association.

The efforts of the IPAB also would be redundant to the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, which is used each year to adjust Medicare spending for physician services, according to its opponents.

“It makes no sense to subject physicians to two separate expenditure targets while at the same time exempting large segments of Medicare providers who are subject to no target at all,” Dr. Michael Maves, executive vice president of the American Medical Association, wrote in a letter to lawmakers. “We have already seen first-hand the ill effects of the flawed SGR physician target and the steep cuts that Congress has had to scramble each year to avoid, along with the exorbitant price tag required for a long-term SGR solution.”

H.R. 452 is supported by, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Association for Neurological Surgeons, the Alliance for Specialty Medicine, and other medical groups. It has been referred to several House committees for action and at press time had no Senate counterpart.

WASHINGTON – The new Center for Program Integrity and the Medicare Fraud Strike Force are among federal efforts aimed at combating fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, top federal officers testified at a hearing of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Subcommittee Chairman Charles W. Boustany (R-La.) said he called the hearing because “without action, the problem is only going to get worse. Every dollar lost to health care fraud is a dollar not spent on patient care.”

Among new federal efforts is the Center for Program Integrity (CPI). Created by the Affordable Care Act, CPI is now one of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Among CPI's first tasks is to implement risk-based screening for new Medicare- and Medicaid-participating providers, according to Peter Budetti, deputy administrator of the CMS's Center for Program Integrity and director of CPI.

The new rule holds high-risk providers and suppliers to a higher degree of scrutiny, based on their level of previous interaction with CMS and law enforcement agencies.

Certain characteristics, including exclusions by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, could bump a provider to the high-risk level, Mr. Budetti noted.

The subcommittee also heard from Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the HHS OIG. Mr. Morris discussed the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, also created by the ACA. The strike force is a collaboration of the CMS, the OIG, and the Department of Justice.

Since its inception in 2009, the strike force has brought charges against more than 1,000 defendants, recovering nearly $2.3 billion and shortening investigation time from up to a year to a few weeks, Mr. Morris testified.

The strike force is currently working toward securing legislation that would close the loophole in the current system that prevents charging executives with committing fraud if they leave the company.

“The amendment of our discretionary exclusion authority would give us the ability [to charge executives] and be able to say to that corporate executive: 'You're out of our program because you're not treating our [participants] the way we expect you to,' Mr. Morris said at the hearing.

The subcommittee also heard from Aghaegbuna “Ike” Odelugo, who pled guilty in August 2010 to fraudulently billing Medicare for close to $10 million. Mr. Odelugo worked in billing for 14 different health care companies and, from 2005 to 2008, ran the fraud scheme in conjunction with patients and physicians.

“This system has a number of weaknesses which are easily exploitable,” Mr. Odelugo said, adding that all he needed was a basic knowledge of data entry and people to recruit patients and falsify patient data.

“This is a nonviolent crime and is often committed by … business people, hospitals, doctors, and administrators,” Mr. Odelugo testified. “It reaches across all ethnic and racial lines. It relies on an often unsuspecting victim base of Medicare recipients.”

Mr. Odelugo testified that he volunteered to cooperate with authorities and testify before the subcommittee in an effort to help his case.

Members of the subcommittee noted that antifraud efforts must be protected from efforts to cut federal expenditures.

“It just seems intuitive then that this is an area where further budget cuts may end up costing us more in the long run, if we're taking away that enforcement capability or investigative capability,” Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said at the hearing.

According to Mr. Morris, the money spent on pursuing fraudsters yields a $6.80 return on the dollar. To capitalize on that return, President Obama has proposed a 10-year $370 billion plan using funds from fraud recovery as a 2-year fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula.

WASHINGTON – The new Center for Program Integrity and the Medicare Fraud Strike Force are among federal efforts aimed at combating fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, top federal officers testified at a hearing of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Subcommittee Chairman Charles W. Boustany (R-La.) said he called the hearing because “without action, the problem is only going to get worse. Every dollar lost to health care fraud is a dollar not spent on patient care.”

Among new federal efforts is the Center for Program Integrity (CPI). Created by the Affordable Care Act, CPI is now one of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Among CPI's first tasks is to implement risk-based screening for new Medicare- and Medicaid-participating providers, according to Peter Budetti, deputy administrator of the CMS's Center for Program Integrity and director of CPI.

The new rule holds high-risk providers and suppliers to a higher degree of scrutiny, based on their level of previous interaction with CMS and law enforcement agencies.

Certain characteristics, including exclusions by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, could bump a provider to the high-risk level, Mr. Budetti noted.

The subcommittee also heard from Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the HHS OIG. Mr. Morris discussed the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, also created by the ACA. The strike force is a collaboration of the CMS, the OIG, and the Department of Justice.

Since its inception in 2009, the strike force has brought charges against more than 1,000 defendants, recovering nearly $2.3 billion and shortening investigation time from up to a year to a few weeks, Mr. Morris testified.

The strike force is currently working toward securing legislation that would close the loophole in the current system that prevents charging executives with committing fraud if they leave the company.

“The amendment of our discretionary exclusion authority would give us the ability [to charge executives] and be able to say to that corporate executive: 'You're out of our program because you're not treating our [participants] the way we expect you to,' Mr. Morris said at the hearing.

The subcommittee also heard from Aghaegbuna “Ike” Odelugo, who pled guilty in August 2010 to fraudulently billing Medicare for close to $10 million. Mr. Odelugo worked in billing for 14 different health care companies and, from 2005 to 2008, ran the fraud scheme in conjunction with patients and physicians.

“This system has a number of weaknesses which are easily exploitable,” Mr. Odelugo said, adding that all he needed was a basic knowledge of data entry and people to recruit patients and falsify patient data.

“This is a nonviolent crime and is often committed by … business people, hospitals, doctors, and administrators,” Mr. Odelugo testified. “It reaches across all ethnic and racial lines. It relies on an often unsuspecting victim base of Medicare recipients.”

Mr. Odelugo testified that he volunteered to cooperate with authorities and testify before the subcommittee in an effort to help his case.

Members of the subcommittee noted that antifraud efforts must be protected from efforts to cut federal expenditures.

“It just seems intuitive then that this is an area where further budget cuts may end up costing us more in the long run, if we're taking away that enforcement capability or investigative capability,” Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said at the hearing.

According to Mr. Morris, the money spent on pursuing fraudsters yields a $6.80 return on the dollar. To capitalize on that return, President Obama has proposed a 10-year $370 billion plan using funds from fraud recovery as a 2-year fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula.

WASHINGTON – The new Center for Program Integrity and the Medicare Fraud Strike Force are among federal efforts aimed at combating fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, top federal officers testified at a hearing of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Subcommittee Chairman Charles W. Boustany (R-La.) said he called the hearing because “without action, the problem is only going to get worse. Every dollar lost to health care fraud is a dollar not spent on patient care.”

Among new federal efforts is the Center for Program Integrity (CPI). Created by the Affordable Care Act, CPI is now one of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Among CPI's first tasks is to implement risk-based screening for new Medicare- and Medicaid-participating providers, according to Peter Budetti, deputy administrator of the CMS's Center for Program Integrity and director of CPI.

The new rule holds high-risk providers and suppliers to a higher degree of scrutiny, based on their level of previous interaction with CMS and law enforcement agencies.

Certain characteristics, including exclusions by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, could bump a provider to the high-risk level, Mr. Budetti noted.

The subcommittee also heard from Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the HHS OIG. Mr. Morris discussed the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, also created by the ACA. The strike force is a collaboration of the CMS, the OIG, and the Department of Justice.

Since its inception in 2009, the strike force has brought charges against more than 1,000 defendants, recovering nearly $2.3 billion and shortening investigation time from up to a year to a few weeks, Mr. Morris testified.

The strike force is currently working toward securing legislation that would close the loophole in the current system that prevents charging executives with committing fraud if they leave the company.

“The amendment of our discretionary exclusion authority would give us the ability [to charge executives] and be able to say to that corporate executive: 'You're out of our program because you're not treating our [participants] the way we expect you to,' Mr. Morris said at the hearing.

The subcommittee also heard from Aghaegbuna “Ike” Odelugo, who pled guilty in August 2010 to fraudulently billing Medicare for close to $10 million. Mr. Odelugo worked in billing for 14 different health care companies and, from 2005 to 2008, ran the fraud scheme in conjunction with patients and physicians.

“This system has a number of weaknesses which are easily exploitable,” Mr. Odelugo said, adding that all he needed was a basic knowledge of data entry and people to recruit patients and falsify patient data.

“This is a nonviolent crime and is often committed by … business people, hospitals, doctors, and administrators,” Mr. Odelugo testified. “It reaches across all ethnic and racial lines. It relies on an often unsuspecting victim base of Medicare recipients.”

Mr. Odelugo testified that he volunteered to cooperate with authorities and testify before the subcommittee in an effort to help his case.

Members of the subcommittee noted that antifraud efforts must be protected from efforts to cut federal expenditures.

“It just seems intuitive then that this is an area where further budget cuts may end up costing us more in the long run, if we're taking away that enforcement capability or investigative capability,” Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said at the hearing.

According to Mr. Morris, the money spent on pursuing fraudsters yields a $6.80 return on the dollar. To capitalize on that return, President Obama has proposed a 10-year $370 billion plan using funds from fraud recovery as a 2-year fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula.

WASHINGTON – The new Center for Program Integrity and the Medicare Fraud Strike Force are among federal efforts aimed at combating fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, top federal officers testified at a hearing of the subcommittee.

Subcommittee Chairman Charles W. Boustany (R-La.) said that he called the hearing because “without action, the problem is only going to get worse. Every dollar lost to health care fraud is a dollar not spent on patient care.”

Key among new federal efforts is the Center for Program Integrity. Created by the Affordable Care Act, the Center for Program Integrity is now one of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Among the center's first tasks is to implement, risk-based screening for new Medicare- and Medicaid-participating providers, according to its deputy administrator and director, Peter Budetti.

The new rule holds high-risk providers and suppliers to a higher degree of scrutiny, based on their level of past interaction with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and law enforcement agencies. Certain characteristics, including exclusions by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, could bump a provider to the high-risk level, Mr. Budetti said.

The subcommittee also heard from Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General. Mr. Morris discussed the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, also created by the Affordable Care Act. The strike force is a collaboration of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Office of Inspector General, and the Department of Justice.

Since its inception in 2009, the strike force has brought charges against more than 1,000 defendants, recovering nearly $2.3 billion and shortening investigation time from up to a year to a few weeks, Mr. Morris testified.

The strike force is currently working toward securing legislation to close the current system loophole that prevents charging executives for committing fraud if they leave the company.

“The amendment of our discretionary exclusion authority would give us the ability [to charge executives] and be able to say to that corporate executive: 'You're out of our program because you're not treating our [participants] the way we expect you to,'” Mr. Morris said.

The subcommittee also listened to testimony delivered by Aghaegbuna “Ike” Odelugo, who pled guilty in August 2010 to fraudulently billing Medicare for close to $10 million. Mr. Ode-lugo worked in billing for 14 different health care companies and, from 2005 to 2008, ran the fraud scheme in conjunction with patients and doctors.

“This system has a number of weaknesses which are easily exploitable,” Mr. Odelugo said, adding that all he needed was a basic knowledge of data entry and people to recruit patients and falsify patient data.

“This is a nonviolent crime and is often committed by very educated people including business people, hospitals, doctors, and administrators,” Mr. Odelugo testified.

“It reaches across all ethnic and racial lines. It relies on an often unsuspecting victim base of Medicare recipients and other physicians who long for attention and care.”

Mr. Odelugo testified that he volunteered to cooperate with authorities and testify before the subcommittee in an effort to help his case.

Subcommittee members noted that antifraud efforts must be protected from efforts to cut federal expenditures.

“It just seems intuitive then that this is an area where further budget cuts may end up costing us more in the long run, if we're taking away that enforcement capability or investigative capability,” Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said at the hearing.

According to Mr. Morris, money spent on pursuing fraudsters yields a $6.80 return on the dollar.

To capitalize on that return, President Obama has proposed a 10-year $370 billion plan using funds from fraud recovery as a 2-year fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula.

WASHINGTON – The new Center for Program Integrity and the Medicare Fraud Strike Force are among federal efforts aimed at combating fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, top federal officers testified at a hearing of the subcommittee.

Subcommittee Chairman Charles W. Boustany (R-La.) said that he called the hearing because “without action, the problem is only going to get worse. Every dollar lost to health care fraud is a dollar not spent on patient care.”

Key among new federal efforts is the Center for Program Integrity. Created by the Affordable Care Act, the Center for Program Integrity is now one of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Among the center's first tasks is to implement, risk-based screening for new Medicare- and Medicaid-participating providers, according to its deputy administrator and director, Peter Budetti.

The new rule holds high-risk providers and suppliers to a higher degree of scrutiny, based on their level of past interaction with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and law enforcement agencies. Certain characteristics, including exclusions by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, could bump a provider to the high-risk level, Mr. Budetti said.

The subcommittee also heard from Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General. Mr. Morris discussed the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, also created by the Affordable Care Act. The strike force is a collaboration of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Office of Inspector General, and the Department of Justice.

Since its inception in 2009, the strike force has brought charges against more than 1,000 defendants, recovering nearly $2.3 billion and shortening investigation time from up to a year to a few weeks, Mr. Morris testified.

The strike force is currently working toward securing legislation to close the current system loophole that prevents charging executives for committing fraud if they leave the company.

“The amendment of our discretionary exclusion authority would give us the ability [to charge executives] and be able to say to that corporate executive: 'You're out of our program because you're not treating our [participants] the way we expect you to,'” Mr. Morris said.

The subcommittee also listened to testimony delivered by Aghaegbuna “Ike” Odelugo, who pled guilty in August 2010 to fraudulently billing Medicare for close to $10 million. Mr. Ode-lugo worked in billing for 14 different health care companies and, from 2005 to 2008, ran the fraud scheme in conjunction with patients and doctors.

“This system has a number of weaknesses which are easily exploitable,” Mr. Odelugo said, adding that all he needed was a basic knowledge of data entry and people to recruit patients and falsify patient data.

“This is a nonviolent crime and is often committed by very educated people including business people, hospitals, doctors, and administrators,” Mr. Odelugo testified.

“It reaches across all ethnic and racial lines. It relies on an often unsuspecting victim base of Medicare recipients and other physicians who long for attention and care.”

Mr. Odelugo testified that he volunteered to cooperate with authorities and testify before the subcommittee in an effort to help his case.

Subcommittee members noted that antifraud efforts must be protected from efforts to cut federal expenditures.

“It just seems intuitive then that this is an area where further budget cuts may end up costing us more in the long run, if we're taking away that enforcement capability or investigative capability,” Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said at the hearing.

According to Mr. Morris, money spent on pursuing fraudsters yields a $6.80 return on the dollar.

To capitalize on that return, President Obama has proposed a 10-year $370 billion plan using funds from fraud recovery as a 2-year fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula.

WASHINGTON – The new Center for Program Integrity and the Medicare Fraud Strike Force are among federal efforts aimed at combating fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, top federal officers testified at a hearing of the subcommittee.

Subcommittee Chairman Charles W. Boustany (R-La.) said that he called the hearing because “without action, the problem is only going to get worse. Every dollar lost to health care fraud is a dollar not spent on patient care.”

Key among new federal efforts is the Center for Program Integrity. Created by the Affordable Care Act, the Center for Program Integrity is now one of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Among the center's first tasks is to implement, risk-based screening for new Medicare- and Medicaid-participating providers, according to its deputy administrator and director, Peter Budetti.

The new rule holds high-risk providers and suppliers to a higher degree of scrutiny, based on their level of past interaction with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and law enforcement agencies. Certain characteristics, including exclusions by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, could bump a provider to the high-risk level, Mr. Budetti said.

The subcommittee also heard from Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General. Mr. Morris discussed the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, also created by the Affordable Care Act. The strike force is a collaboration of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Office of Inspector General, and the Department of Justice.

Since its inception in 2009, the strike force has brought charges against more than 1,000 defendants, recovering nearly $2.3 billion and shortening investigation time from up to a year to a few weeks, Mr. Morris testified.

The strike force is currently working toward securing legislation to close the current system loophole that prevents charging executives for committing fraud if they leave the company.

“The amendment of our discretionary exclusion authority would give us the ability [to charge executives] and be able to say to that corporate executive: 'You're out of our program because you're not treating our [participants] the way we expect you to,'” Mr. Morris said.

The subcommittee also listened to testimony delivered by Aghaegbuna “Ike” Odelugo, who pled guilty in August 2010 to fraudulently billing Medicare for close to $10 million. Mr. Ode-lugo worked in billing for 14 different health care companies and, from 2005 to 2008, ran the fraud scheme in conjunction with patients and doctors.

“This system has a number of weaknesses which are easily exploitable,” Mr. Odelugo said, adding that all he needed was a basic knowledge of data entry and people to recruit patients and falsify patient data.

“This is a nonviolent crime and is often committed by very educated people including business people, hospitals, doctors, and administrators,” Mr. Odelugo testified.

“It reaches across all ethnic and racial lines. It relies on an often unsuspecting victim base of Medicare recipients and other physicians who long for attention and care.”

Mr. Odelugo testified that he volunteered to cooperate with authorities and testify before the subcommittee in an effort to help his case.

Subcommittee members noted that antifraud efforts must be protected from efforts to cut federal expenditures.

“It just seems intuitive then that this is an area where further budget cuts may end up costing us more in the long run, if we're taking away that enforcement capability or investigative capability,” Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said at the hearing.

According to Mr. Morris, money spent on pursuing fraudsters yields a $6.80 return on the dollar.

To capitalize on that return, President Obama has proposed a 10-year $370 billion plan using funds from fraud recovery as a 2-year fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula.

Efforts to derail the Independent Payment Advisory Board gained a bit of traction as two House Democrats joined their colleagues across the aisle in cosponsoring the Medicare Decisions Accountability Act.

Introduced by Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) in January, H.R. 452 would repeal the portions of the Affordable Care Act that would create the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

The 15-person board, to be appointed by the President, would be charged with recommending ways to reduce Medicare spending based on the Consumer Price Index and other economic indicators. The board would submit recommendations to Congress on how to limit Medicare expenditures each January, beginning in 2015.

If Congress fails to act on those recommendations by August, the recommendations would go immediately into effect.

The IPAB's “sole purpose is to control Medicare costs – giving this board the authority to approve and deny funding for care,” Rep. Roe, who is an ob.gyn., said in a statement. “The IPAB will lack full Congressional oversight, compromising its accountability to the American people.”

The existence of the IPAB “permanently removes Congress from the decision-making process, and threatens the long-time, open, and important dialog between hospitals and their elected officials about the needs of local hospitals and how to provide the highest quality care to their patients and communities,” according to Rick Pollack, executive vice president of American Hospital Association.

The efforts of the IPAB also would be redundant to the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, which is used each year to adjust Medicare spending for physician services, according to its opponents.

“It makes no sense to subject physicians to two separate expenditure targets while at the same time exempting large segments of Medicare providers who are subject to no target at all,” Dr. Michael Maves, executive vice president of the American Medical Association, wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

“We have already seen first-hand the ill effects of the flawed SGR physician target and the steep cuts that Congress has had to scramble each year to avoid, along with the exorbitant price tag required for a long-term SGR solution,” he added.

H.R. 452 is supported by the American College of Cardiology, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Association for Neurological Surgeons, the Alliance for Specialty Medicine, and other medical groups.

The legislation has been referred to several House committees for action and at press time had no Senate counterpart.

Efforts to derail the Independent Payment Advisory Board gained a bit of traction as two House Democrats joined their colleagues across the aisle in cosponsoring the Medicare Decisions Accountability Act.

Introduced by Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) in January, H.R. 452 would repeal the portions of the Affordable Care Act that would create the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

The 15-person board, to be appointed by the President, would be charged with recommending ways to reduce Medicare spending based on the Consumer Price Index and other economic indicators. The board would submit recommendations to Congress on how to limit Medicare expenditures each January, beginning in 2015.

If Congress fails to act on those recommendations by August, the recommendations would go immediately into effect.

The IPAB's “sole purpose is to control Medicare costs – giving this board the authority to approve and deny funding for care,” Rep. Roe, who is an ob.gyn., said in a statement. “The IPAB will lack full Congressional oversight, compromising its accountability to the American people.”

The existence of the IPAB “permanently removes Congress from the decision-making process, and threatens the long-time, open, and important dialog between hospitals and their elected officials about the needs of local hospitals and how to provide the highest quality care to their patients and communities,” according to Rick Pollack, executive vice president of American Hospital Association.

The efforts of the IPAB also would be redundant to the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, which is used each year to adjust Medicare spending for physician services, according to its opponents.

“It makes no sense to subject physicians to two separate expenditure targets while at the same time exempting large segments of Medicare providers who are subject to no target at all,” Dr. Michael Maves, executive vice president of the American Medical Association, wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

“We have already seen first-hand the ill effects of the flawed SGR physician target and the steep cuts that Congress has had to scramble each year to avoid, along with the exorbitant price tag required for a long-term SGR solution,” he added.

H.R. 452 is supported by the American College of Cardiology, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Association for Neurological Surgeons, the Alliance for Specialty Medicine, and other medical groups.

The legislation has been referred to several House committees for action and at press time had no Senate counterpart.

Efforts to derail the Independent Payment Advisory Board gained a bit of traction as two House Democrats joined their colleagues across the aisle in cosponsoring the Medicare Decisions Accountability Act.

Introduced by Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) in January, H.R. 452 would repeal the portions of the Affordable Care Act that would create the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

The 15-person board, to be appointed by the President, would be charged with recommending ways to reduce Medicare spending based on the Consumer Price Index and other economic indicators. The board would submit recommendations to Congress on how to limit Medicare expenditures each January, beginning in 2015.

If Congress fails to act on those recommendations by August, the recommendations would go immediately into effect.

The IPAB's “sole purpose is to control Medicare costs – giving this board the authority to approve and deny funding for care,” Rep. Roe, who is an ob.gyn., said in a statement. “The IPAB will lack full Congressional oversight, compromising its accountability to the American people.”

The existence of the IPAB “permanently removes Congress from the decision-making process, and threatens the long-time, open, and important dialog between hospitals and their elected officials about the needs of local hospitals and how to provide the highest quality care to their patients and communities,” according to Rick Pollack, executive vice president of American Hospital Association.

The efforts of the IPAB also would be redundant to the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, which is used each year to adjust Medicare spending for physician services, according to its opponents.

“It makes no sense to subject physicians to two separate expenditure targets while at the same time exempting large segments of Medicare providers who are subject to no target at all,” Dr. Michael Maves, executive vice president of the American Medical Association, wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

“We have already seen first-hand the ill effects of the flawed SGR physician target and the steep cuts that Congress has had to scramble each year to avoid, along with the exorbitant price tag required for a long-term SGR solution,” he added.

H.R. 452 is supported by the American College of Cardiology, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Association for Neurological Surgeons, the Alliance for Specialty Medicine, and other medical groups.

The legislation has been referred to several House committees for action and at press time had no Senate counterpart.

WASHINGTON – The new Center for Program Integrity and the Medicare Fraud Strike Force are among federal efforts aimed at combating fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, top federal officers testified at a hearing of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Subcommittee Chairman Charles W. Boustany (R-La.) said that he called the hearing because “without action, the problem is only going to get worse. Every dollar lost to health care fraud is a dollar not spent on patient care.”

Key among new federal efforts is the Center for Program Integrity (CPI). Created by the Affordable Care Act, CPI is now one of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Among CPI's first tasks is to implement risk-based screening for new Medicare and Medicaid-participating providers, according to Peter Budetti, deputy administrator and director of CPI.

The new rule holds high-risk providers and suppliers to a higher degree of scrutiny, based on their level of past interaction with CMS and law enforcement agencies. Certain characteristics, including exclusions by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, could bump a provider to the high-risk level, Mr. Budetti said.

The subcommittee also heard from Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the HHS OIG. Mr. Morris discussed the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which was also created by the ACA. The strike force is a collaboration of the CMS, the OIG, and the Department of Justice. Since its inception in 2009, the strike force has brought charges against more than 1,000 defendants, recovering nearly $2.3 billion and shortening investigation time from up to a year to a few weeks, Mr. Morris testified.

The strike force is currently working toward securing legislation to close the current system loophole that prevents charging executives for committing fraud if they leave the company.

“The amendment of our discretionary exclusion authority would give us the ability [to charge executives] and be able to say to that corporate executive: 'You're out of our program because you're not treating our [participants] the way we expect you to,'” he said.

The subcommittee also heard from Aghaegbuna “Ike” Odelugo, who pled guilty in August 2010 to fraudulently billing Medicare for close to $10 million. Mr. Odelugo worked in billing for 14 different health care companies and, from 2005 to 2008, ran the fraud scheme in conjunction with patients and doctors.

“This system has a number of weaknesses which are easily exploitable,” Mr. Odelugo said, adding that all he needed was a basic knowledge of data entry and people to recruit patients and falsify patient data.

“This is a nonviolent crime and is often committed by very educated people including business people, hospitals, doctors, and administrators,” Mr. Odelugo testified. “It reaches across all ethnic and racial lines. It relies on an often unsuspecting victim base of Medicare recipients and other physicians who long for attention and care.”

Mr. Odelugo testified that he volunteered to cooperate with authorities and testify before the subcommittee in an effort to help his case.

Subcommittee members noted that antifraud efforts must be protected from efforts to cut federal expenditures.

“It just seems intuitive then that this is an area where further budget cuts may end up costing us more in the long run, if we're taking away that enforcement capability or investigative capability,” Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said at the hearing.

According to Mr. Morris, money spent on pursuing fraudsters yields a $6.80 return on the dollar. To capitalize on that return, President Obama has proposed a 10-year $370 billion plan using funds from fraud recovery as a 2-year fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula.

WASHINGTON – The new Center for Program Integrity and the Medicare Fraud Strike Force are among federal efforts aimed at combating fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, top federal officers testified at a hearing of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Subcommittee Chairman Charles W. Boustany (R-La.) said that he called the hearing because “without action, the problem is only going to get worse. Every dollar lost to health care fraud is a dollar not spent on patient care.”

Key among new federal efforts is the Center for Program Integrity (CPI). Created by the Affordable Care Act, CPI is now one of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Among CPI's first tasks is to implement risk-based screening for new Medicare and Medicaid-participating providers, according to Peter Budetti, deputy administrator and director of CPI.

The new rule holds high-risk providers and suppliers to a higher degree of scrutiny, based on their level of past interaction with CMS and law enforcement agencies. Certain characteristics, including exclusions by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, could bump a provider to the high-risk level, Mr. Budetti said.

The subcommittee also heard from Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the HHS OIG. Mr. Morris discussed the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which was also created by the ACA. The strike force is a collaboration of the CMS, the OIG, and the Department of Justice. Since its inception in 2009, the strike force has brought charges against more than 1,000 defendants, recovering nearly $2.3 billion and shortening investigation time from up to a year to a few weeks, Mr. Morris testified.

The strike force is currently working toward securing legislation to close the current system loophole that prevents charging executives for committing fraud if they leave the company.

“The amendment of our discretionary exclusion authority would give us the ability [to charge executives] and be able to say to that corporate executive: 'You're out of our program because you're not treating our [participants] the way we expect you to,'” he said.

The subcommittee also heard from Aghaegbuna “Ike” Odelugo, who pled guilty in August 2010 to fraudulently billing Medicare for close to $10 million. Mr. Odelugo worked in billing for 14 different health care companies and, from 2005 to 2008, ran the fraud scheme in conjunction with patients and doctors.

“This system has a number of weaknesses which are easily exploitable,” Mr. Odelugo said, adding that all he needed was a basic knowledge of data entry and people to recruit patients and falsify patient data.

“This is a nonviolent crime and is often committed by very educated people including business people, hospitals, doctors, and administrators,” Mr. Odelugo testified. “It reaches across all ethnic and racial lines. It relies on an often unsuspecting victim base of Medicare recipients and other physicians who long for attention and care.”

Mr. Odelugo testified that he volunteered to cooperate with authorities and testify before the subcommittee in an effort to help his case.

Subcommittee members noted that antifraud efforts must be protected from efforts to cut federal expenditures.

“It just seems intuitive then that this is an area where further budget cuts may end up costing us more in the long run, if we're taking away that enforcement capability or investigative capability,” Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said at the hearing.

According to Mr. Morris, money spent on pursuing fraudsters yields a $6.80 return on the dollar. To capitalize on that return, President Obama has proposed a 10-year $370 billion plan using funds from fraud recovery as a 2-year fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula.

WASHINGTON – The new Center for Program Integrity and the Medicare Fraud Strike Force are among federal efforts aimed at combating fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, top federal officers testified at a hearing of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Subcommittee Chairman Charles W. Boustany (R-La.) said that he called the hearing because “without action, the problem is only going to get worse. Every dollar lost to health care fraud is a dollar not spent on patient care.”

Key among new federal efforts is the Center for Program Integrity (CPI). Created by the Affordable Care Act, CPI is now one of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Among CPI's first tasks is to implement risk-based screening for new Medicare and Medicaid-participating providers, according to Peter Budetti, deputy administrator and director of CPI.

The new rule holds high-risk providers and suppliers to a higher degree of scrutiny, based on their level of past interaction with CMS and law enforcement agencies. Certain characteristics, including exclusions by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, could bump a provider to the high-risk level, Mr. Budetti said.

The subcommittee also heard from Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the HHS OIG. Mr. Morris discussed the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which was also created by the ACA. The strike force is a collaboration of the CMS, the OIG, and the Department of Justice. Since its inception in 2009, the strike force has brought charges against more than 1,000 defendants, recovering nearly $2.3 billion and shortening investigation time from up to a year to a few weeks, Mr. Morris testified.

The strike force is currently working toward securing legislation to close the current system loophole that prevents charging executives for committing fraud if they leave the company.

“The amendment of our discretionary exclusion authority would give us the ability [to charge executives] and be able to say to that corporate executive: 'You're out of our program because you're not treating our [participants] the way we expect you to,'” he said.

The subcommittee also heard from Aghaegbuna “Ike” Odelugo, who pled guilty in August 2010 to fraudulently billing Medicare for close to $10 million. Mr. Odelugo worked in billing for 14 different health care companies and, from 2005 to 2008, ran the fraud scheme in conjunction with patients and doctors.

“This system has a number of weaknesses which are easily exploitable,” Mr. Odelugo said, adding that all he needed was a basic knowledge of data entry and people to recruit patients and falsify patient data.

“This is a nonviolent crime and is often committed by very educated people including business people, hospitals, doctors, and administrators,” Mr. Odelugo testified. “It reaches across all ethnic and racial lines. It relies on an often unsuspecting victim base of Medicare recipients and other physicians who long for attention and care.”

Mr. Odelugo testified that he volunteered to cooperate with authorities and testify before the subcommittee in an effort to help his case.

Subcommittee members noted that antifraud efforts must be protected from efforts to cut federal expenditures.

“It just seems intuitive then that this is an area where further budget cuts may end up costing us more in the long run, if we're taking away that enforcement capability or investigative capability,” Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said at the hearing.

According to Mr. Morris, money spent on pursuing fraudsters yields a $6.80 return on the dollar. To capitalize on that return, President Obama has proposed a 10-year $370 billion plan using funds from fraud recovery as a 2-year fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula.

High consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages appeared to adversely affect blood pressure levels in a population-based study involving more than 2,600 people living in the United Kingdom and the United States.

The findings should help shore up the message to patients that consumption of soda and fruit juice needs to be limited for a healthy diet.

“If individuals want to drink sugar-sweetened beverages, we suggest they do so only in moderation [fewer than three 12-ounce cans per week],” the lead investigator of the study, Ian Brown, Ph.D., said in an interview.

The International Study of Macro/Micronutrients and Blood Pressure (INTERMAP) involved 2,696 people aged 40–59 years recruited from 10 population samples in the United Kingdom and United States. In addition to answering questions about the intake of beverages sweetened by fructose, glucose, and sucrose, participants were asked about their consumption of diet beverages and alcohol. Each subject also provided two 24-hour urine collection samples, according to Dr. Brown of the department of Eepidemiology and biostatistics at the Imperial College of London, and his colleagues.

Multiple regression analyses showed that for each serving of a sugar-sweetened beverage consumed per day, systolic blood pressure increased by 1.6 mm Hg. Diastolic blood pressure rose by 0.8 mm Hg, the investigators wrote.

A direct association also was observed between the intake of fructose-sweetened beverages and blood pressure. Fructose intake that was higher by 2 standard derivations was associated with a 3.4–mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure and a 2.5–mm Hg increase in diastolic blood pressure, according to the findings (J. Hypertens. 2011 Feb. 28 [doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSION AHA.110.165456]).

These associations between sugared beverage intake and blood pressure were strongest among individuals with higher urinary sodium excretion, the researchers added. The results remained statistically significant after the investigators accounted for differences in body mass.

The researchers concluded that higher blood pressure is associated with high consumption of glucose and fructose, as well as with higher levels of dietary sugar and sodium.

There was no significant correlation between diet soda intake and blood pressure levels.

The study was the first in people to suggest that there is an association between high sodium intake and high sugar-sweetened beverage intake and the overall effect on blood pressure, Dr. Brown said in an interview.

“It has been suggested by other scientists that consumption of high levels of sugars and salt may lead to sodium retention in the kidneys and/or volume expansion (i.e., an increased level of fluid in the body), which could lead to higher blood pressure,” Dr. Brown said.

The findings also suggest that people who consume more than one sugar-sweetened beverage daily tend to consume less of other types of nutrients including starch, fiber, protein (animal and vegetable), and polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids.

But critics of the study emphasized that the “level of blood pressure changes noted by the authors are inconsequential and well within standard measurement error,” according to a statement by the American Beverage Association.

In addition, “The results of [the analysis] obfuscate other important variables that are linked to high blood pressure,” the statement said.

The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brown's analysis was supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council studentship. The INTERMAP Study as a whole was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Chicago Health Resource Foundation; and national agencies in China, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

High consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages appeared to adversely affect blood pressure levels in a population-based study involving more than 2,600 people living in the United Kingdom and the United States.

The findings should help shore up the message to patients that consumption of soda and fruit juice needs to be limited for a healthy diet.

“If individuals want to drink sugar-sweetened beverages, we suggest they do so only in moderation [fewer than three 12-ounce cans per week],” the lead investigator of the study, Ian Brown, Ph.D., said in an interview.

The International Study of Macro/Micronutrients and Blood Pressure (INTERMAP) involved 2,696 people aged 40–59 years recruited from 10 population samples in the United Kingdom and United States. In addition to answering questions about the intake of beverages sweetened by fructose, glucose, and sucrose, participants were asked about their consumption of diet beverages and alcohol. Each subject also provided two 24-hour urine collection samples, according to Dr. Brown of the department of Eepidemiology and biostatistics at the Imperial College of London, and his colleagues.

Multiple regression analyses showed that for each serving of a sugar-sweetened beverage consumed per day, systolic blood pressure increased by 1.6 mm Hg. Diastolic blood pressure rose by 0.8 mm Hg, the investigators wrote.

A direct association also was observed between the intake of fructose-sweetened beverages and blood pressure. Fructose intake that was higher by 2 standard derivations was associated with a 3.4–mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure and a 2.5–mm Hg increase in diastolic blood pressure, according to the findings (J. Hypertens. 2011 Feb. 28 [doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSION AHA.110.165456]).

These associations between sugared beverage intake and blood pressure were strongest among individuals with higher urinary sodium excretion, the researchers added. The results remained statistically significant after the investigators accounted for differences in body mass.

The researchers concluded that higher blood pressure is associated with high consumption of glucose and fructose, as well as with higher levels of dietary sugar and sodium.

There was no significant correlation between diet soda intake and blood pressure levels.

The study was the first in people to suggest that there is an association between high sodium intake and high sugar-sweetened beverage intake and the overall effect on blood pressure, Dr. Brown said in an interview.

“It has been suggested by other scientists that consumption of high levels of sugars and salt may lead to sodium retention in the kidneys and/or volume expansion (i.e., an increased level of fluid in the body), which could lead to higher blood pressure,” Dr. Brown said.

The findings also suggest that people who consume more than one sugar-sweetened beverage daily tend to consume less of other types of nutrients including starch, fiber, protein (animal and vegetable), and polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids.

But critics of the study emphasized that the “level of blood pressure changes noted by the authors are inconsequential and well within standard measurement error,” according to a statement by the American Beverage Association.

In addition, “The results of [the analysis] obfuscate other important variables that are linked to high blood pressure,” the statement said.

The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brown's analysis was supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council studentship. The INTERMAP Study as a whole was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Chicago Health Resource Foundation; and national agencies in China, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

High consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages appeared to adversely affect blood pressure levels in a population-based study involving more than 2,600 people living in the United Kingdom and the United States.

The findings should help shore up the message to patients that consumption of soda and fruit juice needs to be limited for a healthy diet.

“If individuals want to drink sugar-sweetened beverages, we suggest they do so only in moderation [fewer than three 12-ounce cans per week],” the lead investigator of the study, Ian Brown, Ph.D., said in an interview.

The International Study of Macro/Micronutrients and Blood Pressure (INTERMAP) involved 2,696 people aged 40–59 years recruited from 10 population samples in the United Kingdom and United States. In addition to answering questions about the intake of beverages sweetened by fructose, glucose, and sucrose, participants were asked about their consumption of diet beverages and alcohol. Each subject also provided two 24-hour urine collection samples, according to Dr. Brown of the department of Eepidemiology and biostatistics at the Imperial College of London, and his colleagues.

Multiple regression analyses showed that for each serving of a sugar-sweetened beverage consumed per day, systolic blood pressure increased by 1.6 mm Hg. Diastolic blood pressure rose by 0.8 mm Hg, the investigators wrote.

A direct association also was observed between the intake of fructose-sweetened beverages and blood pressure. Fructose intake that was higher by 2 standard derivations was associated with a 3.4–mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure and a 2.5–mm Hg increase in diastolic blood pressure, according to the findings (J. Hypertens. 2011 Feb. 28 [doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSION AHA.110.165456]).

These associations between sugared beverage intake and blood pressure were strongest among individuals with higher urinary sodium excretion, the researchers added. The results remained statistically significant after the investigators accounted for differences in body mass.

The researchers concluded that higher blood pressure is associated with high consumption of glucose and fructose, as well as with higher levels of dietary sugar and sodium.

There was no significant correlation between diet soda intake and blood pressure levels.

The study was the first in people to suggest that there is an association between high sodium intake and high sugar-sweetened beverage intake and the overall effect on blood pressure, Dr. Brown said in an interview.

“It has been suggested by other scientists that consumption of high levels of sugars and salt may lead to sodium retention in the kidneys and/or volume expansion (i.e., an increased level of fluid in the body), which could lead to higher blood pressure,” Dr. Brown said.

The findings also suggest that people who consume more than one sugar-sweetened beverage daily tend to consume less of other types of nutrients including starch, fiber, protein (animal and vegetable), and polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids.

But critics of the study emphasized that the “level of blood pressure changes noted by the authors are inconsequential and well within standard measurement error,” according to a statement by the American Beverage Association.

In addition, “The results of [the analysis] obfuscate other important variables that are linked to high blood pressure,” the statement said.

The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brown's analysis was supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council studentship. The INTERMAP Study as a whole was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Chicago Health Resource Foundation; and national agencies in China, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

WASHINGTON – An investigation undertaken by members of the House Ways and Means Committee accuses AARP of abusing its tax-exempt, nonprofit status, according to the congressmen who issued the report March 30.

Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.) and Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) along with Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) said they were referring to their findings and their report (pdf) to the Internal Revenue Service.

"We believe that the information that’s been brought forward in this report is very troubling and calls into question that tax-exempt status," said Rep. Boustany, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight. "The bottom line now is we’re going to turn this over to the IRS and let them make that determination."

AARP maintains 501(c)(4) nonprofit status by virtue of its advocacy on behalf of senior citizens, but it also collects revenues through royalty agreements with a number organizations, including a company that is one of the largest insurers in the supplemental Medicare – or Medigap – insurance market.

In response to allegations, AARP leaders said the organization’s profits don’t differ from any other nonprofit organization. "We report to the IRS yearly and work closely with them and have had no negative response," said AARP president Lee Hammond.

The members of Congress did not say what prompted the investigation.

Rep. Reichert, who spent several decades in law enforcement before joining the House, said that politics played no role. "When I see something I think smells, I’m going to investigate," he said, adding, "This has nothing to do with trying to politicize the heath care bill." Rep. Herger, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Health, authored the report along with Rep. Reichert.

The congressmen did say their investigation found that AARP, which was a significant supporter of the Affordable Care Act, stood to gain financially from the law. They said that if the private Medicare Advantage program is reduced, millions of seniors might have to buy supplemental Medicare policies – policies that are sold by AARP’s partners.

"Seniors deserve to know where their dues are going and deserve to know what AARP is all about," said Rep. Boustany.

As a tax-exempt organization, AARP is required to promote social welfare. But, according to the congressional report, AARP’s royalty-related business is overshadowing the organization’s social welfare activities. Royalties from for-profit endeavors accounted for 46% of AARP’s revenue in 2009, while dues made up 17% of revenues. Those royalty payments have been rising at a faster rate than are dues, according to the report. AARP reported revenues of more than $1.4 billion in 2009.

AARP said royalties have allowed them to keep dues affordable and have funded social welfare programs including a campaign to end hunger, a tax-aid program, and its numerous publications. The organization posted documents outlining its finances in response to the congressional report.

The congressional report outlined what it called a pattern of excessive spending, such as a commitment by AARP to spend $14 million over the next 3 years to sponsor NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon. The report also called into question AARP’s executive compensation. For example, in 2009 then–AARP CEO William Novelli received a compensation package of $1,647,419 and a severance of $350,657.

The Oversight and Health subcommittees of the House Ways and Means Committee have called a joint hearing to examine the report in depth on April 1.

Alicia Ault, senior writer, also contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON – An investigation undertaken by members of the House Ways and Means Committee accuses AARP of abusing its tax-exempt, nonprofit status, according to the congressmen who issued the report March 30.

Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.) and Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) along with Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) said they were referring to their findings and their report (pdf) to the Internal Revenue Service.

"We believe that the information that’s been brought forward in this report is very troubling and calls into question that tax-exempt status," said Rep. Boustany, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight. "The bottom line now is we’re going to turn this over to the IRS and let them make that determination."

AARP maintains 501(c)(4) nonprofit status by virtue of its advocacy on behalf of senior citizens, but it also collects revenues through royalty agreements with a number organizations, including a company that is one of the largest insurers in the supplemental Medicare – or Medigap – insurance market.

In response to allegations, AARP leaders said the organization’s profits don’t differ from any other nonprofit organization. "We report to the IRS yearly and work closely with them and have had no negative response," said AARP president Lee Hammond.

The members of Congress did not say what prompted the investigation.

Rep. Reichert, who spent several decades in law enforcement before joining the House, said that politics played no role. "When I see something I think smells, I’m going to investigate," he said, adding, "This has nothing to do with trying to politicize the heath care bill." Rep. Herger, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Health, authored the report along with Rep. Reichert.

The congressmen did say their investigation found that AARP, which was a significant supporter of the Affordable Care Act, stood to gain financially from the law. They said that if the private Medicare Advantage program is reduced, millions of seniors might have to buy supplemental Medicare policies – policies that are sold by AARP’s partners.

"Seniors deserve to know where their dues are going and deserve to know what AARP is all about," said Rep. Boustany.

As a tax-exempt organization, AARP is required to promote social welfare. But, according to the congressional report, AARP’s royalty-related business is overshadowing the organization’s social welfare activities. Royalties from for-profit endeavors accounted for 46% of AARP’s revenue in 2009, while dues made up 17% of revenues. Those royalty payments have been rising at a faster rate than are dues, according to the report. AARP reported revenues of more than $1.4 billion in 2009.

AARP said royalties have allowed them to keep dues affordable and have funded social welfare programs including a campaign to end hunger, a tax-aid program, and its numerous publications. The organization posted documents outlining its finances in response to the congressional report.

The congressional report outlined what it called a pattern of excessive spending, such as a commitment by AARP to spend $14 million over the next 3 years to sponsor NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon. The report also called into question AARP’s executive compensation. For example, in 2009 then–AARP CEO William Novelli received a compensation package of $1,647,419 and a severance of $350,657.

The Oversight and Health subcommittees of the House Ways and Means Committee have called a joint hearing to examine the report in depth on April 1.

Alicia Ault, senior writer, also contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON – An investigation undertaken by members of the House Ways and Means Committee accuses AARP of abusing its tax-exempt, nonprofit status, according to the congressmen who issued the report March 30.

Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.) and Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) along with Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) said they were referring to their findings and their report (pdf) to the Internal Revenue Service.

"We believe that the information that’s been brought forward in this report is very troubling and calls into question that tax-exempt status," said Rep. Boustany, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight. "The bottom line now is we’re going to turn this over to the IRS and let them make that determination."

AARP maintains 501(c)(4) nonprofit status by virtue of its advocacy on behalf of senior citizens, but it also collects revenues through royalty agreements with a number organizations, including a company that is one of the largest insurers in the supplemental Medicare – or Medigap – insurance market.

In response to allegations, AARP leaders said the organization’s profits don’t differ from any other nonprofit organization. "We report to the IRS yearly and work closely with them and have had no negative response," said AARP president Lee Hammond.

The members of Congress did not say what prompted the investigation.

Rep. Reichert, who spent several decades in law enforcement before joining the House, said that politics played no role. "When I see something I think smells, I’m going to investigate," he said, adding, "This has nothing to do with trying to politicize the heath care bill." Rep. Herger, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Health, authored the report along with Rep. Reichert.

The congressmen did say their investigation found that AARP, which was a significant supporter of the Affordable Care Act, stood to gain financially from the law. They said that if the private Medicare Advantage program is reduced, millions of seniors might have to buy supplemental Medicare policies – policies that are sold by AARP’s partners.

"Seniors deserve to know where their dues are going and deserve to know what AARP is all about," said Rep. Boustany.

As a tax-exempt organization, AARP is required to promote social welfare. But, according to the congressional report, AARP’s royalty-related business is overshadowing the organization’s social welfare activities. Royalties from for-profit endeavors accounted for 46% of AARP’s revenue in 2009, while dues made up 17% of revenues. Those royalty payments have been rising at a faster rate than are dues, according to the report. AARP reported revenues of more than $1.4 billion in 2009.

AARP said royalties have allowed them to keep dues affordable and have funded social welfare programs including a campaign to end hunger, a tax-aid program, and its numerous publications. The organization posted documents outlining its finances in response to the congressional report.

The congressional report outlined what it called a pattern of excessive spending, such as a commitment by AARP to spend $14 million over the next 3 years to sponsor NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon. The report also called into question AARP’s executive compensation. For example, in 2009 then–AARP CEO William Novelli received a compensation package of $1,647,419 and a severance of $350,657.

The Oversight and Health subcommittees of the House Ways and Means Committee have called a joint hearing to examine the report in depth on April 1.

Alicia Ault, senior writer, also contributed to this report.