Mary Agnes Carey

Department of Health and Human Services officials on October 15 predicted that about an additional 1 million Americans would sign up for coverage under the federal health law next year and acknowledged that prospective enrollees are worried about the cost of health insurance, even with the law’s financial help.

“We know the remaining uninsured have a lot of concerns about whether they can afford coverage,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell told reporters. According to an HHS analysis, nearly eight in 10 of the approximately 10.5 million uninsured individuals likely to qualify for coverage on the health law’s online marketplaces, or exchanges, may be eligible for the financial assistance that helps people pay their monthly premiums and pay out-of-pocket costs.

Burwell said the agency is aiming to have about 10 million people enrolled and paying for coverage by the end of 2016. That’s about a million more than expected by the end of this year. She said the 2016 target is “a strong and realistic goal.”

The HHS goal of 10 million paid enrollees in 2016 is half of the June Congressional Budget Office estimate of 20 million health law enrollees. Many of those potential enrollees for 2016 are from hard-to-reach groups that have yet to sign up despite two previous enrollment campaigns. It is unclear if even 2016’s tougher tax fines — $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater — will spur the remaining eligible uninsured to sign up in large numbers. Another hurdle is that almost 60 percent of this group either doesn’t know that financial help paying for premiums is available or they are confused about how those tax credits work, according to survey data.

The HHS analysis gives a snapshot of this eligible group. Nearly half are between the ages of 18 and 34, about 19 percent are Hispanic, 14 percent are African-American and 2 percent are Asian. And more than half are men.

Almost 40 percent are living between 139 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level, approximately $30,000 to $60,000 for a family of four, according to the HHS analysis.

HHS officials estimate that 7.3 million to 8.8 million people currently enrolled in a marketplace plan will re-enroll for 2016. They also think they’ll sign up between 2.8 million and 3.9 million of the estimated 10.5 million people eligible to enroll in coverage. About 900,000 to 1.5 million people currently covered by plans they bought outside the exchange may switch to marketplace plans, according to HHS predictions.

Varying assumptions explain the difference between the CBO estimate and the HHS target, said Richard Frank, HHS assistant secretary for planning and evaluation. The CBO assumes that more people will lose their employer-sponsored coverage and that more individuals will move from the individual market to exchange coverage, shifts that have not occurred in numbers as large as CBO predicted, Frank said.

HHS officials said the agency plans to make a series of improvements to healthcare.gov, the federal website where people can enroll in coverage, including a new “Under 30?” tab where individuals in that highly sought after demographic group can get more information about coverage.

“While our audiences may be harder to reach, we’re working smarter to reach them,” Burwell said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service that is part of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Department of Health and Human Services officials on October 15 predicted that about an additional 1 million Americans would sign up for coverage under the federal health law next year and acknowledged that prospective enrollees are worried about the cost of health insurance, even with the law’s financial help.

“We know the remaining uninsured have a lot of concerns about whether they can afford coverage,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell told reporters. According to an HHS analysis, nearly eight in 10 of the approximately 10.5 million uninsured individuals likely to qualify for coverage on the health law’s online marketplaces, or exchanges, may be eligible for the financial assistance that helps people pay their monthly premiums and pay out-of-pocket costs.

Burwell said the agency is aiming to have about 10 million people enrolled and paying for coverage by the end of 2016. That’s about a million more than expected by the end of this year. She said the 2016 target is “a strong and realistic goal.”

The HHS goal of 10 million paid enrollees in 2016 is half of the June Congressional Budget Office estimate of 20 million health law enrollees. Many of those potential enrollees for 2016 are from hard-to-reach groups that have yet to sign up despite two previous enrollment campaigns. It is unclear if even 2016’s tougher tax fines — $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater — will spur the remaining eligible uninsured to sign up in large numbers. Another hurdle is that almost 60 percent of this group either doesn’t know that financial help paying for premiums is available or they are confused about how those tax credits work, according to survey data.

The HHS analysis gives a snapshot of this eligible group. Nearly half are between the ages of 18 and 34, about 19 percent are Hispanic, 14 percent are African-American and 2 percent are Asian. And more than half are men.

Almost 40 percent are living between 139 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level, approximately $30,000 to $60,000 for a family of four, according to the HHS analysis.

HHS officials estimate that 7.3 million to 8.8 million people currently enrolled in a marketplace plan will re-enroll for 2016. They also think they’ll sign up between 2.8 million and 3.9 million of the estimated 10.5 million people eligible to enroll in coverage. About 900,000 to 1.5 million people currently covered by plans they bought outside the exchange may switch to marketplace plans, according to HHS predictions.

Varying assumptions explain the difference between the CBO estimate and the HHS target, said Richard Frank, HHS assistant secretary for planning and evaluation. The CBO assumes that more people will lose their employer-sponsored coverage and that more individuals will move from the individual market to exchange coverage, shifts that have not occurred in numbers as large as CBO predicted, Frank said.

HHS officials said the agency plans to make a series of improvements to healthcare.gov, the federal website where people can enroll in coverage, including a new “Under 30?” tab where individuals in that highly sought after demographic group can get more information about coverage.

“While our audiences may be harder to reach, we’re working smarter to reach them,” Burwell said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service that is part of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Department of Health and Human Services officials on October 15 predicted that about an additional 1 million Americans would sign up for coverage under the federal health law next year and acknowledged that prospective enrollees are worried about the cost of health insurance, even with the law’s financial help.

“We know the remaining uninsured have a lot of concerns about whether they can afford coverage,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell told reporters. According to an HHS analysis, nearly eight in 10 of the approximately 10.5 million uninsured individuals likely to qualify for coverage on the health law’s online marketplaces, or exchanges, may be eligible for the financial assistance that helps people pay their monthly premiums and pay out-of-pocket costs.

Burwell said the agency is aiming to have about 10 million people enrolled and paying for coverage by the end of 2016. That’s about a million more than expected by the end of this year. She said the 2016 target is “a strong and realistic goal.”

The HHS goal of 10 million paid enrollees in 2016 is half of the June Congressional Budget Office estimate of 20 million health law enrollees. Many of those potential enrollees for 2016 are from hard-to-reach groups that have yet to sign up despite two previous enrollment campaigns. It is unclear if even 2016’s tougher tax fines — $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater — will spur the remaining eligible uninsured to sign up in large numbers. Another hurdle is that almost 60 percent of this group either doesn’t know that financial help paying for premiums is available or they are confused about how those tax credits work, according to survey data.

The HHS analysis gives a snapshot of this eligible group. Nearly half are between the ages of 18 and 34, about 19 percent are Hispanic, 14 percent are African-American and 2 percent are Asian. And more than half are men.

Almost 40 percent are living between 139 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level, approximately $30,000 to $60,000 for a family of four, according to the HHS analysis.

HHS officials estimate that 7.3 million to 8.8 million people currently enrolled in a marketplace plan will re-enroll for 2016. They also think they’ll sign up between 2.8 million and 3.9 million of the estimated 10.5 million people eligible to enroll in coverage. About 900,000 to 1.5 million people currently covered by plans they bought outside the exchange may switch to marketplace plans, according to HHS predictions.

Varying assumptions explain the difference between the CBO estimate and the HHS target, said Richard Frank, HHS assistant secretary for planning and evaluation. The CBO assumes that more people will lose their employer-sponsored coverage and that more individuals will move from the individual market to exchange coverage, shifts that have not occurred in numbers as large as CBO predicted, Frank said.

HHS officials said the agency plans to make a series of improvements to healthcare.gov, the federal website where people can enroll in coverage, including a new “Under 30?” tab where individuals in that highly sought after demographic group can get more information about coverage.

“While our audiences may be harder to reach, we’re working smarter to reach them,” Burwell said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service that is part of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

It’s make-or-break time for a Medicare “doc fix” replacement.

The House is likely to vote the week of March 23 on a proposal to scrap Medicare’s troubled physician payment formula, just days before a March 31 deadline when doctors who treat Medicare patients will see a 21% payment cut. Senate action could come this week as well, but probably not until the chamber completes a lengthy series of votes on the GOP’s fiscal 2016 budget package.

Alicia Ault/Frontline Medical News

After negotiating behind closed doors for more than a week, Republican and Democratic leaders of two key House committees that handle Medicare unveiled details of the package late Friday. According to a summary of the deal, the current system would be scrapped and replaced with payment increases for doctors for the next 5 years as Medicare transitions to a new system focused “on quality, value and accountability.”

There’s enough in the wide-ranging deal for both sides to love or hate.

Senate Democrats have pressed to add to the proposal 4 years of funding for an unrelated program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The House package extends CHIP for 2 years. In a statement Saturday, Senate Finance Democrats said they were “united by the necessity of extending CHIP funding for another 4 years.”

Their statement also signaled other potential problems for the package in the Senate, including concerns about asking Medicare beneficiaries to pay for more of their medical care, the impact of the package on women’s health services, and cuts to Medicare providers.

Still, some Democratic allies said the CHIP disagreement should not undermine the proposal. Shortly after the package was unveiled Friday, Ron Pollack, executive director of the consumers group Families USA, said in a statement that “while we would have preferred a 4-year extension, the House bill has our full support.”

Some GOP conservatives and Democrats will balk that the package isn’t fully paid for, with policy changes governing Medicare beneficiaries and providers paying for only about $70 billion of the approximately $200 billion package.

For doctors, the package offers an end to a familiar but frustrating rite. Lawmakers have invariably deferred the cuts prescribed by a 1997 reimbursement formula, which everyone agrees is broken beyond repair. But the deferrals have always been temporary because Congress has not agreed to offsetting cuts to pay for a permanent fix. In 2010, Congress delayed scheduled cuts five times. In a statement Sunday, the American Medical Association urged Congress “to seize the moment” to enact the changes.

Here are some answers to frequently asked questions about the proposal and the congressional ritual known as the doc fix.

Q: What are the options that Congress is looking at?

The House package would scrap the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula and give doctors a 0.5% bump for each of the next 5 years as Medicare transitions to a payment system designed to reward physicians based on the quality of care provided, rather than the quantity of procedures performed, as the current payment formula does.

The measure, which builds upon last year’s legislation from the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees and the Senate Finance Committee, would encourage better care coordination and chronic care management, ideas that experts have said are needed in the Medicare program. It would give a 5% payment bonus to providers who receive a “significant portion” of their revenue from an “alternative payment model” or patient-centered medical home. It would also allow broader use of Medicare data for “transparency and quality improvement” purposes.

“The SGR has generated repeated crises for nearly 2 decades,” Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), one of the bill’s drafters, said in a statement. “We have a historic opportunity to finally move to a system that promotes quality over quantity and begins the important work of addressing Medicare’s structural issues.”

The package, which House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) began negotiating weeks ago, also includes an additional $7.2 billion for community health centers over the next 2 years. NARAL Pro-Choice America denounced the deal because the health center funding would be subject to the Hyde Amendment, a common legislative provision that says federal money can be used for abortions only when a pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

In a letter to Democratic colleagues, Rep. Pelosi said the funding would occur “under the same terms that Members have previously supported and voted on almost every year since 1979.” In a statement, the National Association of Community Health Centers said the proposal “represents no change in current policy for Health Centers, and would not change anything about how Health Centers operate today.”

The “working summary” of the House plan says the package also includes other health measures – known as extenders – that Congress has renewed each year during the SGR debate. The list includes funding for therapy services, ambulance services, and rural hospitals, as well as for continuing a program that allows low-income people to keep their Medicaid coverage as they transition into employment and earn more money. The deal also would permanently extend the Qualifying Individual, or QI, program, which helps low-income seniors pay their Medicare premiums.

Q. What is the plan for CHIP?

The House plan would add 2 years of funding for CHIP, a federal-state program that provides insurance for low-income children whose families earned too much money to qualify for Medicaid. While the health law continues CHIP authorization through 2019, funding for the program has not been extended beyond the end of September.

The length of the proposed extension could cause strains with Senate Democrats beyond those on the Finance panel who have raised objections to the House package. Last month, the Senate Democratic caucus signed on to legislation from Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) calling for a 4-year extension of the current CHIP program.

Q: How would Congress pay for all of that?

It might not. That would be a major departure from the GOP’s mantra that all legislation must be financed. Tired of the yearly SGR battle, veteran members in both chambers may be willing to repeal the SGR on the basis that it’s a budget gimmick – the cuts are never made – and therefore financing is unnecessary. But that strategy could run into stiff opposition from Republican lawmakers and some Democrats

Most lawmakers are expected to feel the need to find financing for the Medicare extenders, the CHIP extension, and any increase in physician payments over the current pay schedule. Those items would account for about $70 billion of financing in an approximately $200 billion package.

Conservative groups are urging Republicans to fully finance any SGR repeal. “Americans didn’t hand Republicans a historic House majority to engage in more deficit spending and budget gimmickry,” Dan Holler, communications director of Heritage Action for America, said earlier this month.

Q. Will seniors and Medicare providers have to help pay for the plan?

Starting in 2018, wealthier Medicare beneficiaries (individuals with incomes between $133,500 and $214,000, with thresholds likely higher for couples) would pay more for their Medicare coverage, a provision impacting just 2% of beneficiaries, according to the summary.

Starting in 2020, “first-dollar” supplemental Medicare insurance known as “Medigap” would not be able to cover the Part B deductible for new beneficiaries, which is currently $147 per year but has increased in past years.

But the effect of that change may be mitigated, according to one analysis.

“Because Medigap policies would no longer pay the Part B deductible, Medigap premiums for the affected policies would go down. Most affected beneficiaries would come out ahead – the drop in their Medigap premiums would exceed the increase in their cost sharing for health services,” according to an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank. “Some others would come out behind. In both cases, the effect would be small – generally no more than $100 a year.”

Experts contend that the “first-dollar” plans, which cover nearly all deductibles and copayments, keep beneficiaries from being judicious when making medical decisions. According to lobbyists and aides, an earlier version of the doc fix legislation that negotiators considered would have prohibited first-dollar plans from covering the first $250 in costs for new beneficiaries.

Postacute providers, such as long-term care and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health and hospice organizations, would help finance the repeal, receiving base pay increases of 1% in 2018, about half of what was previously expected.

Other changes include phasing in a one-time 3.2 percentage-point boost in the base payment rate for hospitals currently scheduled to take effect in fiscal 2018. The number of years of the phase-in isn’t specified in the bill summary.

Scheduled reductions in Medicaid “disproportionate share” payments to hospitals that care for large numbers of people who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid would be delayed by 1 year to fiscal 2018 but extended for an additional year to fiscal 2025.

Q. How quickly could Congress act?

Legislation to repeal the SGR is expected to move in the House this week. The House is scheduled to begin a 2-week recess March 27.

Senate Democrats and Republicans may want to offer amendments to the emerging House package, which could mean that the chamber does not resolve the SGR issue before the Senate’s 2-week break, which is scheduled to begin starting March 30.

If the SGR issue can’t be resolved by March 31, Congress could pass a temporary patch as negotiations continue or ask the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees Medicare, to hold the claims in order to avoid physicians seeing their payments cut 21%.

This article is adapted from content created by and first published by Kaiser Health News (KHN), a nonprofit national health policy news service.

It’s make-or-break time for a Medicare “doc fix” replacement.

The House is likely to vote the week of March 23 on a proposal to scrap Medicare’s troubled physician payment formula, just days before a March 31 deadline when doctors who treat Medicare patients will see a 21% payment cut. Senate action could come this week as well, but probably not until the chamber completes a lengthy series of votes on the GOP’s fiscal 2016 budget package.

Alicia Ault/Frontline Medical News

After negotiating behind closed doors for more than a week, Republican and Democratic leaders of two key House committees that handle Medicare unveiled details of the package late Friday. According to a summary of the deal, the current system would be scrapped and replaced with payment increases for doctors for the next 5 years as Medicare transitions to a new system focused “on quality, value and accountability.”

There’s enough in the wide-ranging deal for both sides to love or hate.

Senate Democrats have pressed to add to the proposal 4 years of funding for an unrelated program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The House package extends CHIP for 2 years. In a statement Saturday, Senate Finance Democrats said they were “united by the necessity of extending CHIP funding for another 4 years.”

Their statement also signaled other potential problems for the package in the Senate, including concerns about asking Medicare beneficiaries to pay for more of their medical care, the impact of the package on women’s health services, and cuts to Medicare providers.

Still, some Democratic allies said the CHIP disagreement should not undermine the proposal. Shortly after the package was unveiled Friday, Ron Pollack, executive director of the consumers group Families USA, said in a statement that “while we would have preferred a 4-year extension, the House bill has our full support.”

Some GOP conservatives and Democrats will balk that the package isn’t fully paid for, with policy changes governing Medicare beneficiaries and providers paying for only about $70 billion of the approximately $200 billion package.

For doctors, the package offers an end to a familiar but frustrating rite. Lawmakers have invariably deferred the cuts prescribed by a 1997 reimbursement formula, which everyone agrees is broken beyond repair. But the deferrals have always been temporary because Congress has not agreed to offsetting cuts to pay for a permanent fix. In 2010, Congress delayed scheduled cuts five times. In a statement Sunday, the American Medical Association urged Congress “to seize the moment” to enact the changes.

Here are some answers to frequently asked questions about the proposal and the congressional ritual known as the doc fix.

Q: What are the options that Congress is looking at?

The House package would scrap the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula and give doctors a 0.5% bump for each of the next 5 years as Medicare transitions to a payment system designed to reward physicians based on the quality of care provided, rather than the quantity of procedures performed, as the current payment formula does.

The measure, which builds upon last year’s legislation from the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees and the Senate Finance Committee, would encourage better care coordination and chronic care management, ideas that experts have said are needed in the Medicare program. It would give a 5% payment bonus to providers who receive a “significant portion” of their revenue from an “alternative payment model” or patient-centered medical home. It would also allow broader use of Medicare data for “transparency and quality improvement” purposes.

“The SGR has generated repeated crises for nearly 2 decades,” Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), one of the bill’s drafters, said in a statement. “We have a historic opportunity to finally move to a system that promotes quality over quantity and begins the important work of addressing Medicare’s structural issues.”

The package, which House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) began negotiating weeks ago, also includes an additional $7.2 billion for community health centers over the next 2 years. NARAL Pro-Choice America denounced the deal because the health center funding would be subject to the Hyde Amendment, a common legislative provision that says federal money can be used for abortions only when a pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

In a letter to Democratic colleagues, Rep. Pelosi said the funding would occur “under the same terms that Members have previously supported and voted on almost every year since 1979.” In a statement, the National Association of Community Health Centers said the proposal “represents no change in current policy for Health Centers, and would not change anything about how Health Centers operate today.”

The “working summary” of the House plan says the package also includes other health measures – known as extenders – that Congress has renewed each year during the SGR debate. The list includes funding for therapy services, ambulance services, and rural hospitals, as well as for continuing a program that allows low-income people to keep their Medicaid coverage as they transition into employment and earn more money. The deal also would permanently extend the Qualifying Individual, or QI, program, which helps low-income seniors pay their Medicare premiums.

Q. What is the plan for CHIP?

The House plan would add 2 years of funding for CHIP, a federal-state program that provides insurance for low-income children whose families earned too much money to qualify for Medicaid. While the health law continues CHIP authorization through 2019, funding for the program has not been extended beyond the end of September.

The length of the proposed extension could cause strains with Senate Democrats beyond those on the Finance panel who have raised objections to the House package. Last month, the Senate Democratic caucus signed on to legislation from Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) calling for a 4-year extension of the current CHIP program.

Q: How would Congress pay for all of that?

It might not. That would be a major departure from the GOP’s mantra that all legislation must be financed. Tired of the yearly SGR battle, veteran members in both chambers may be willing to repeal the SGR on the basis that it’s a budget gimmick – the cuts are never made – and therefore financing is unnecessary. But that strategy could run into stiff opposition from Republican lawmakers and some Democrats

Most lawmakers are expected to feel the need to find financing for the Medicare extenders, the CHIP extension, and any increase in physician payments over the current pay schedule. Those items would account for about $70 billion of financing in an approximately $200 billion package.

Conservative groups are urging Republicans to fully finance any SGR repeal. “Americans didn’t hand Republicans a historic House majority to engage in more deficit spending and budget gimmickry,” Dan Holler, communications director of Heritage Action for America, said earlier this month.

Q. Will seniors and Medicare providers have to help pay for the plan?

Starting in 2018, wealthier Medicare beneficiaries (individuals with incomes between $133,500 and $214,000, with thresholds likely higher for couples) would pay more for their Medicare coverage, a provision impacting just 2% of beneficiaries, according to the summary.

Starting in 2020, “first-dollar” supplemental Medicare insurance known as “Medigap” would not be able to cover the Part B deductible for new beneficiaries, which is currently $147 per year but has increased in past years.

But the effect of that change may be mitigated, according to one analysis.

“Because Medigap policies would no longer pay the Part B deductible, Medigap premiums for the affected policies would go down. Most affected beneficiaries would come out ahead – the drop in their Medigap premiums would exceed the increase in their cost sharing for health services,” according to an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank. “Some others would come out behind. In both cases, the effect would be small – generally no more than $100 a year.”

Experts contend that the “first-dollar” plans, which cover nearly all deductibles and copayments, keep beneficiaries from being judicious when making medical decisions. According to lobbyists and aides, an earlier version of the doc fix legislation that negotiators considered would have prohibited first-dollar plans from covering the first $250 in costs for new beneficiaries.

Postacute providers, such as long-term care and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health and hospice organizations, would help finance the repeal, receiving base pay increases of 1% in 2018, about half of what was previously expected.

Other changes include phasing in a one-time 3.2 percentage-point boost in the base payment rate for hospitals currently scheduled to take effect in fiscal 2018. The number of years of the phase-in isn’t specified in the bill summary.

Scheduled reductions in Medicaid “disproportionate share” payments to hospitals that care for large numbers of people who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid would be delayed by 1 year to fiscal 2018 but extended for an additional year to fiscal 2025.

Q. How quickly could Congress act?

Legislation to repeal the SGR is expected to move in the House this week. The House is scheduled to begin a 2-week recess March 27.

Senate Democrats and Republicans may want to offer amendments to the emerging House package, which could mean that the chamber does not resolve the SGR issue before the Senate’s 2-week break, which is scheduled to begin starting March 30.

If the SGR issue can’t be resolved by March 31, Congress could pass a temporary patch as negotiations continue or ask the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees Medicare, to hold the claims in order to avoid physicians seeing their payments cut 21%.

This article is adapted from content created by and first published by Kaiser Health News (KHN), a nonprofit national health policy news service.

It’s make-or-break time for a Medicare “doc fix” replacement.

The House is likely to vote the week of March 23 on a proposal to scrap Medicare’s troubled physician payment formula, just days before a March 31 deadline when doctors who treat Medicare patients will see a 21% payment cut. Senate action could come this week as well, but probably not until the chamber completes a lengthy series of votes on the GOP’s fiscal 2016 budget package.

Alicia Ault/Frontline Medical News

After negotiating behind closed doors for more than a week, Republican and Democratic leaders of two key House committees that handle Medicare unveiled details of the package late Friday. According to a summary of the deal, the current system would be scrapped and replaced with payment increases for doctors for the next 5 years as Medicare transitions to a new system focused “on quality, value and accountability.”

There’s enough in the wide-ranging deal for both sides to love or hate.

Senate Democrats have pressed to add to the proposal 4 years of funding for an unrelated program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The House package extends CHIP for 2 years. In a statement Saturday, Senate Finance Democrats said they were “united by the necessity of extending CHIP funding for another 4 years.”

Their statement also signaled other potential problems for the package in the Senate, including concerns about asking Medicare beneficiaries to pay for more of their medical care, the impact of the package on women’s health services, and cuts to Medicare providers.

Still, some Democratic allies said the CHIP disagreement should not undermine the proposal. Shortly after the package was unveiled Friday, Ron Pollack, executive director of the consumers group Families USA, said in a statement that “while we would have preferred a 4-year extension, the House bill has our full support.”

Some GOP conservatives and Democrats will balk that the package isn’t fully paid for, with policy changes governing Medicare beneficiaries and providers paying for only about $70 billion of the approximately $200 billion package.

For doctors, the package offers an end to a familiar but frustrating rite. Lawmakers have invariably deferred the cuts prescribed by a 1997 reimbursement formula, which everyone agrees is broken beyond repair. But the deferrals have always been temporary because Congress has not agreed to offsetting cuts to pay for a permanent fix. In 2010, Congress delayed scheduled cuts five times. In a statement Sunday, the American Medical Association urged Congress “to seize the moment” to enact the changes.

Here are some answers to frequently asked questions about the proposal and the congressional ritual known as the doc fix.

Q: What are the options that Congress is looking at?

The House package would scrap the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula and give doctors a 0.5% bump for each of the next 5 years as Medicare transitions to a payment system designed to reward physicians based on the quality of care provided, rather than the quantity of procedures performed, as the current payment formula does.

The measure, which builds upon last year’s legislation from the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees and the Senate Finance Committee, would encourage better care coordination and chronic care management, ideas that experts have said are needed in the Medicare program. It would give a 5% payment bonus to providers who receive a “significant portion” of their revenue from an “alternative payment model” or patient-centered medical home. It would also allow broader use of Medicare data for “transparency and quality improvement” purposes.

“The SGR has generated repeated crises for nearly 2 decades,” Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), one of the bill’s drafters, said in a statement. “We have a historic opportunity to finally move to a system that promotes quality over quantity and begins the important work of addressing Medicare’s structural issues.”

The package, which House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) began negotiating weeks ago, also includes an additional $7.2 billion for community health centers over the next 2 years. NARAL Pro-Choice America denounced the deal because the health center funding would be subject to the Hyde Amendment, a common legislative provision that says federal money can be used for abortions only when a pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

In a letter to Democratic colleagues, Rep. Pelosi said the funding would occur “under the same terms that Members have previously supported and voted on almost every year since 1979.” In a statement, the National Association of Community Health Centers said the proposal “represents no change in current policy for Health Centers, and would not change anything about how Health Centers operate today.”

The “working summary” of the House plan says the package also includes other health measures – known as extenders – that Congress has renewed each year during the SGR debate. The list includes funding for therapy services, ambulance services, and rural hospitals, as well as for continuing a program that allows low-income people to keep their Medicaid coverage as they transition into employment and earn more money. The deal also would permanently extend the Qualifying Individual, or QI, program, which helps low-income seniors pay their Medicare premiums.

Q. What is the plan for CHIP?

The House plan would add 2 years of funding for CHIP, a federal-state program that provides insurance for low-income children whose families earned too much money to qualify for Medicaid. While the health law continues CHIP authorization through 2019, funding for the program has not been extended beyond the end of September.

The length of the proposed extension could cause strains with Senate Democrats beyond those on the Finance panel who have raised objections to the House package. Last month, the Senate Democratic caucus signed on to legislation from Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) calling for a 4-year extension of the current CHIP program.

Q: How would Congress pay for all of that?

It might not. That would be a major departure from the GOP’s mantra that all legislation must be financed. Tired of the yearly SGR battle, veteran members in both chambers may be willing to repeal the SGR on the basis that it’s a budget gimmick – the cuts are never made – and therefore financing is unnecessary. But that strategy could run into stiff opposition from Republican lawmakers and some Democrats

Most lawmakers are expected to feel the need to find financing for the Medicare extenders, the CHIP extension, and any increase in physician payments over the current pay schedule. Those items would account for about $70 billion of financing in an approximately $200 billion package.

Conservative groups are urging Republicans to fully finance any SGR repeal. “Americans didn’t hand Republicans a historic House majority to engage in more deficit spending and budget gimmickry,” Dan Holler, communications director of Heritage Action for America, said earlier this month.

Q. Will seniors and Medicare providers have to help pay for the plan?

Starting in 2018, wealthier Medicare beneficiaries (individuals with incomes between $133,500 and $214,000, with thresholds likely higher for couples) would pay more for their Medicare coverage, a provision impacting just 2% of beneficiaries, according to the summary.

Starting in 2020, “first-dollar” supplemental Medicare insurance known as “Medigap” would not be able to cover the Part B deductible for new beneficiaries, which is currently $147 per year but has increased in past years.

But the effect of that change may be mitigated, according to one analysis.

“Because Medigap policies would no longer pay the Part B deductible, Medigap premiums for the affected policies would go down. Most affected beneficiaries would come out ahead – the drop in their Medigap premiums would exceed the increase in their cost sharing for health services,” according to an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank. “Some others would come out behind. In both cases, the effect would be small – generally no more than $100 a year.”

Experts contend that the “first-dollar” plans, which cover nearly all deductibles and copayments, keep beneficiaries from being judicious when making medical decisions. According to lobbyists and aides, an earlier version of the doc fix legislation that negotiators considered would have prohibited first-dollar plans from covering the first $250 in costs for new beneficiaries.

Postacute providers, such as long-term care and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health and hospice organizations, would help finance the repeal, receiving base pay increases of 1% in 2018, about half of what was previously expected.

Other changes include phasing in a one-time 3.2 percentage-point boost in the base payment rate for hospitals currently scheduled to take effect in fiscal 2018. The number of years of the phase-in isn’t specified in the bill summary.

Scheduled reductions in Medicaid “disproportionate share” payments to hospitals that care for large numbers of people who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid would be delayed by 1 year to fiscal 2018 but extended for an additional year to fiscal 2025.

Q. How quickly could Congress act?

Legislation to repeal the SGR is expected to move in the House this week. The House is scheduled to begin a 2-week recess March 27.

Senate Democrats and Republicans may want to offer amendments to the emerging House package, which could mean that the chamber does not resolve the SGR issue before the Senate’s 2-week break, which is scheduled to begin starting March 30.

If the SGR issue can’t be resolved by March 31, Congress could pass a temporary patch as negotiations continue or ask the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees Medicare, to hold the claims in order to avoid physicians seeing their payments cut 21%.

This article is adapted from content created by and first published by Kaiser Health News (KHN), a nonprofit national health policy news service.