• linkedin
  • Increase Font
  • Sharebar

    Fate of IPAB may rest with Supreme Court

    Public interest group petition challenges panel’s constitutionality

    Bob GattyBob GattyWashingtonYou can expect the new Congress, now controlled in both the House and Senate by Republicans, to take a shot at repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

    But that’s not the only line of attack some lawmakers are taking against the IPAB, established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) specifically to control Medicare costs.

    On Dec. 4, 2014, Rep. Phil Roe, MD (R-TN), and 24 other members of Congress joined the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a conservative public interest legal group, in an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case filed by the Goldwater Institute challenging the constitutionality of the IPAB. Included as a co-signer of the brief was Sen. Tom Coburn, MD (R-OK).

    RELATED: Could GOP majority scuttle SGR reform?

    The AUA and other physician organizations have vehemently fought the IPAB, and the AUA has made its repeal one of the organization’s top political priorities. The AUA and other critics contend the ACA gives the panel virtually unfettered authority to control Medicare costs without appropriate congressional oversight.

    Dr. Roe pointed out that the IPAB would consist of 15 “unelected bureaucrats who are granted substantial power to reduce Medicare spending.” IPAB’s proposals, he said, could cut reimbursement for specific services that it determines not to be of high value.

    ‘Troubling mindset’

    “As a physician, I can tell you first-hand how troubling this mindset can be—every case is unique and must be treated that way. The IPAB is a serious threat to seniors’ access to medical care, and I will continue to fight it both in Congress and by supporting legal challenges like the one the Goldwater Institute filed [in November],” Dr. Roe said.

    Eric Novack, MD, an orthopedic surgeon who is one of the plaintiffs in the case, alleges in a petition filed with the Court that the IPAB violates the Constitution because it “blurs the boundaries between the three branches of government, usurping power from each and forsaking the corresponding constraints.”

    The Obama administration, however, contends that the provision does not limit the authority of Congress, which it says is free to amend the law or the rules governing consideration of the IPAB’s recommendations.

    Dr. Novack was unable to convince the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco to consider the case. The court said he had not suffered any harm as a result of the IPAB. The Supreme Court has not indicated yet if it will consider the matter.

    The lawmakers who filed the brief with the PLF contend that the issue before the court is whether the IPAB’s power to make law is constitutional, not about any particular act by the IPAB. The brief notes that the IPAB’s powers currently are in the hands of the secretary of Health and Human Services.

    “That’s an incredible amount of power for one person to have,” said Dr. Roe. “It takes it away from the 535 of us that are in the Senate and House of Representatives.”


    Next - Op-ed piece: IPAB 'dangerous'

    More from Bob Gatty

    Prostate cancer council bill earns AUA support

    'Open Payments’ moves forward despite snags

    Report questions doc shortage; AUA concerned

    Bob Gatty
    Bob Gatty, a former congressional aide, covers news from Washington for Urology Times.


    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Registering is fast and free!

    All comments must follow the ModernMedicine Network community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated. ModernMedicine reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part,in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

    • No comments available