I want to urge my colleagues to vote for the part of this legislation that would update the SGR, which is the payment for physicians under the Medicare program. It's absolutely critical to do this if we are going to keep doctors in Medicare and keep the promise to Medicare beneficiaries that they will have access to physicians' services. This provision will provide a moderate increase in physician fees, 2.2 percent for the rest of this year, another 1 percent next year. If we don't act, doctors' fees will be cut by 21 percent from where they are today. This would be unconscionable. The truth is we should be doing a lot more than this. We should have had a permanent fix of the SGR issue. We need to ensure stability for the Medicare patients and their doctors. After we pass this, we will go back and address that issue, but it is important that we adopt the SGR part. Finally, I want to express my deep regret that we are not including two provisions that are essential to the fiscal security of those hardest hit by the recession: an extension of COBRA coverage and a 6-month extension of the Medicaid matching increase that helps States cope with the effects of this recession. Failing to do this will cost jobs and hurt vulnerable people. I hope this is not our final action on this subject. At least let's do what we can today. Support the physician payment improvement and support the bill.
Editor's note · Context
Speaker Waxman urges support for legislation updating physician payments under Medicare and addressing recession-related provisions.
Share
More from Henry Waxman
We need to make sure that companies and regulators can keep pace with innovation.
Subsection 3(b) creates a loophole in the Clean Air Act that allows new facilities to meet old air quality standards. This means more pollution will enter the air, and it will be harder to clean up. When one facility is allowed to pollute…
But yesterday Takata responded that, quote, 'the currently available reliable information does not support a nationwide determination of a safety defect,' end quote.
So what we are seeing is something that sounds good from a party that has no credibility to say that they are for more science information. What they would do is limit what EPA would be able to use to determine, based on the science, what…





