Insights^

Find our analysis on legislation, regulations, MedPAC meetings, and more. 

What Will Congress Do about Pending PAYGO Cuts?

The debt ceiling, appropriations, infrastructure, reconciliation – Congress has a lot on its plate right now.  On top of that, Congress has another item to address that health care stakeholders have been watching closely: an automatic 4% cut to Medicare starting on January 1, 2022.

What’s going on?  In March, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act passed and raised the deficit. This triggered automatic PAYGO cuts to Medicare and other programs because of a law signed in 2010, the Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Act, which prohibited new legislation from increasing the federal budget deficit.

What’s Congress doing?  Congress has always acted to waive PAYGO cuts, but not in March of 2021 when lawmakers failed to reach an agreement. At the time, the House overwhelmingly voted to waive PAYGO, but a similar proposal in the Senate failed to garner enough votes to override a filibuster.  So far, there has been little word from lawmakers about the plans to address PAYGO as the end of the year approaches.

Why does it matter?  The American Hospital Association (AHA) estimates that a 4% reduction in Medicare spending, or about $36 billion, would result in $9.4 billion in cuts to hospitals provider for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare reimbursement in calendar year 2022.  These losses would come at a time when hospitals and other providers are still grappling with revenue losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

It’s not just PAYGO: Health care providers are facing other cuts at the year’s end that, combined with PAYGO, could prove devastating.  These include:

  • Medicare sequestration.  Congress passed legislation back in April to extend the moratorium on 2% cuts to Medicare payments, known as sequestration, through the end of 2021.  The 2% cuts were initially postponed by Congress as a part of the CARES Act in 2020 to help providers struggling with the financial burden of the pandemic.
  • 2021 Physician Fee Schedule.  Finalized in July, the 2021 Physician Fee Schedule will cut payments to physicians next year by 3.75%.  The cut was initially set to go into effect in 2021, but Congress provided an extra $3 billion in funding in late 2020 to hold on the cuts until the beginning of 2022.

The bottom line: The combination of PAYGO, Medicare sequestration, and the Physician Fee Schedule could mean a 9% reduction in Medicare physician payments next year.

What’s being done?  Leading stakeholder organizations including the AHA and the American Medical Association (AMA) have sent letters to congressional leadership urging action to waive pending PAYGO cuts, as well as the coming Medicare sequester and Physician Fee Schedule cut.  Furthermore, on October 14, 245 bipartisan House members sent a letter to congressional leaders on the aforementioned Medicare cuts.  Congress has provided much assistance to health care providers over the course of the pandemic, and providers are urging Congress to take action once again to help the industry make it through what is hopefully the final stage of the pandemic.

online-marketing-hIgeoQjS_iE-unsplash-1920x1080

The Federal Government’s Spookiest Sites

Washington, DC is a historic city, and one of the ways that history manifests itself is though tales of ghosts and other unexplained phenomena.  With Halloween just around a corner, what better time to check in on all the federally owned buildings and well-known landmarks in the District of Columbia that have their own spooky histories?

The White House

One of the most well-known buildings in Washington, DC is also perhaps the most haunted.  Abraham Lincoln reportedly received visits from his son Willie, who passed away in the White House at age 11, while the former first lady Mary Todd Lincoln may have heard Thomas Jefferson playing the violin and Andrew Jackson swearing.  Following his assassination, President Lincoln himself purportedly became a ghost and allegedly appeared before British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands.

Smithsonian Castle

The Smithsonian’s namesake is English chemist and mineralogist James Smithson, and his remains were reinterred in the Castle in 1904.  Despite Smithson never setting foot in the Smithsonian Castle when alive, his ghost has appeared in the building many times. The ghost of Spencer Baird, the Smithsonian’s first curator, has also been spotted.

US Capitol Building

The Capitol building served as a makeshift infirmary during the Civil War, which would explain why staffers have spotted the ghost of an unknown Union Army soldier in the Hall of Statues.  Other ghosts purportedly include Congressman William Preston Taulbee (D-KY), who was shot in the Capitol building by a journalist who was the subject of Taulbee’s bullying, and John Lenthall, a construction superintendent who died in an accident during the building’s construction.  However, the Capitol’s most famous supernatural specter may be a so-called “demon cat” who has appeared just days before tragic events such as the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Headquarters

The location of the FAA headquarters is at 600 Independence Avenue SW, which was once the site of a slave market on the property of Robey’s Tavern.  The property consisted of a large wall where slaves were auctioned as well as a two-story home that housed slaves in the basement.  Some people have allegedly heard the clinking of chains at night near the headquarters.

Lafayette Square Park

Located just across from the White House, Lafayette Square is the site where Philip Barton Key II, the son of Francis Scott Key, was shot to death after having an affair with a married woman.  Key’s ghost has since been spotted in the park.

Library of Congress

Shortly after the end of World War I, visitors to the Library of Congress began noticing a ghost in the library’s main reading room.  The ghost was suspected to be Cecil Barda, a young man who visited the room almost daily for several years before enlisting in the Army in 1917.  Barda later died in a training accident before he could be deployed to Europe.  Since the Library of Congress was modernized shortly after World War II, there has been no sighting of Barda’s ghost in the main reading room.

saso-tusar-yP19KADwhEI-unsplash-1920x1920

What Happened, What You Missed: October 18-22

FDA Authorizes Moderna, J&J Boosters, Approves Mixed Booster Regimens

On October 20, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized “booster” shots for people who initially received vaccines from Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (J&J).  Moderna recipients will be eligible for a third dose six months after their second shot if they’re age 65 or older, between ages 18-64 and are at risk of severe complications from COVID-19, or have frequent “occupational exposure” to the virus.  However, all J&J vaccine recipients will be eligible for a booster at least two months after their initial shot, likely due to the J&J vaccine’s lower efficacy.  Of note, the FDA also authorized a “mix-and-match” approach that allows people to receive a vaccine as a booster dose that’s different from the vaccine used in their initial vaccination regimen.  On October 21, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory panel issued booster shot recommendations that were aligned with the FDA’s authorization.

Two Longtime House Dems Announce Retirement

Earlier this week, Reps. David Price (D-NC) and Mike Doyle (D-PA), both of whom have served in Congress for over 20 years, announced they will not seek an additional term in the 118th Congress.  Their announcements came just a week after House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-KY) announced that he will not be running for reelection.  While all three Democrats represent safe Democratic districts, their retirements are stoking fears that the party is facing an increasingly uphill battle to maintain its majority in the House in the next Congress.  Already, five Democrats who represent competitive districts have announced their retirement plans.

House Dems Inch Toward $2T Reconciliation Framework, but Questions Remain

Leading House Democrats left a closed-door meeting on Wednesday saying they’re optimistic that they could reach an agreement on a $2 trillion reconciliation package as soon as the end of the week.  Scaling down the package from its originally proposed $3.5 trillion level would require significant changes, and President Biden, suggested on Tuesday in meetings with House Democrats, that two years of free community college and lifting the cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction could be dropped from the final measure.  However, Democrats representing high cost-of-living districts in the Northeast have said they won’t support a broader reconciliation package without restoration of the SALT deduction. Also, centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), whose vote is essential for ensure passage in the Senate, is staying firm on his demand for no more than $1.5 trillion in new spending.

Senate, House Dems Differ on ARPA-H Funding Levels, Placement

The Biden administration’s proposal to create an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) to drive innovation in biomedical research is advancing in Congress, albeit under two different approaches.  On October 18, the Senate Appropriations Committee released a bill that would provide $2.4 billion to the new agency for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022.  However, there are two bills in the House that offer a different FY 2022 funding level for ARPA-H.  House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) just recently introduced a bill that would provide the new agency $3 billion for FY 2022, the same amount that the House included in its FY 2022 appropriations minibus it passed in July.  Additionally, both chambers differ on the placement of ARPA-H.  The Senate appropriations bill would house the new agency under the National Institutes of Health (NIH), while Eshoo’s bill would make ARPA-H an independent agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ICYMI: Paris Hilton Meets with Lawmakers on Capitol Hill

On Wednesday, actress and socialite Paris Hilton hosted a press conference on Capitol Hill, where she called on President Biden and Congress to take action against congregate care facilities that abuse children.  Hilton, who endured abuse as a teen in a psychiatric youth treatment center in Utah, appeared with other survivors in Washington to advocate for the Accountability for Congregate Care Act.  During her visit, Hilton met with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA).

parang-mehta-RjgmmiEPAR0-unsplash-1920x1080

Where Members of Congress Live These Days

A group of West Virginians had something to say to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) about the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, so they took their message directly to the Senator’s Washington, DC residence – by kayaking up to his houseboat on the Potomac River.  When legislators are conducting their business in our nation’s capital, just like anyone else, they need a place to stay.  And where members of Congress choose to stay has changed over the years, with potential consequences for how lawmakers do their job.

A Brief History

For much of the 19th century, members of Congress lived in boarding homes in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.  Senators and Representatives usually chose which house they lived in based on their political affiliation or state.  Known as “messes,” these groupings often included one or two members from a different state or party, allowing lawmakers the chance to build relationships across state or party lines.

As the US entered the 20th century, a growing federal government required members of Congress to be present more regularly in Washington.  Soon, it became the norm for legislators to have their homes and their families in the Washington, DC area.  By living in the same metropolitan area for most of the year, Representatives and Senators hailing from different political affiliations naturally found ways to form connections outside of legislative business through activities and institutions like schools, playgrounds, sporting events, and places of worship.

1995 marked a major turning point, when then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) reduced the workweek in the House from five to three days in order to allow more days for members of his caucus to engage in fundraising.  As Congress entered the new millennium, it became increasingly rare for members to spend their time outside of the halls of Congress in DC.   Instead, many lawmakers now head right to the airport or hit the road once the workweek ends or recess begins to make the journey back to their home states or districts, where they meet with constituents and fend off potential challengers.

With so many legislators going back and forth, what kind of places do they call home when they’re in Washington?

  • Congressional offices.  In recent years, dozens of members including former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) have opted to live rent-free in their offices, opting to sleep on sofas or foldable mattresses.  While supporters say office living allows them to focus on their work and ignore the distractions of Washington, DC, detractors say the practice unfairly uses taxpayer-funded housekeeping services.  Members who live in their offices are most likely to travel frequently between Washington and their state/district.
  • Group homes or apartments.  Renting a room in a DC rowhouse or apartment isn’t only popular with staffers – members of Congress do it, too.  Similar to congressional offices, apartments are popular with members who travel routinely to and from Washington.  Echoing back to the days where lawmakers lived in boarding homes, some members opt for a group-home style set-up.  A notable example of this is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), and former Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who shared a Capitol Hill rowhome until 2014.
  • Property ownership in the DC area.  A smaller portion of Senators and Representatives reside on property they own in the Washington, DC area.  This can range from condominiums or rowhomes in the District to single family homes in the suburban communities of Maryland and northern Virginia.  Members in this category generally do not travel as frequently to their home district or state as their fellow legislators, and some even raise their families in the DC area.  Examples of current lawmakers who relocated their families to the DC area following their election to Congress include Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX).  A notable exception within this group is lawmakers from Maryland, Virginia, and other jurisdictions in the Mid-Atlantic who already reside withing commuting distance of Washington.

There are several factors that determine where members of Congress choose to live – and how often they travel to and from Washington.

  • Cost of living.  Real estate costs have soared in the Washington, DC area over the past decade, with the median price of a rowhouse in the District climbing from $420,000 in 2009 to $760,000 in 2020.
  • Competitiveness of seat.  Members who expect to face serious primary or general challenges from an opponent  are incentivized  to return more frequently to their home district or state to campaign or fundraise.  Due to frequent travel, they are more likely to keep their housing footprint in the District limited.  In contrast, members who hold a “safe” seat might opt to spend more time and put down roots in the District.
  • Personal preference.  Some members, regardless of their geographic proximity to Washington, choose to bring their families to the Washington, DC area to “keep them grounded” and maintain relationships with children and spouses.  These members more likely own property and spend more time in the National Capitol Region.

Why does a member’s housing situation matter?  The growing polarization in Congress over the last 20-plus years has coincided with the trend of members not putting down roots in the Washington, DC area.  When Representatives and Senators are constantly jetting out of DC, it limits the chances for them to bond, socialize, and see one another as peers.  If more members spent more time living in the DC area, could this shift the current political climate and contribute more to bipartisanship?

yeon-choi-7jWQJ-tUUmI-unsplash-1920x1280

What’s Going on with Booster Shots?

There’s been a lot of discussion about COVID-19 booster shots lately – so much so, that it’s hard to keep track of who can get booster shots and what kind of booster shots are available.  Here, we provide a lay of the land on booster shots.

Why are booster shots necessary?  Booster shots provide an extra “boost” to immunity through an additional dose that cues the immune system to produce a stronger antibody response.  While all three currently approved vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson are highly effective in protecting against hospitalization and death, a growing number of studies show that vaccine efficacy gradually wanes over time. 

Who can get booster shots now?  Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is the only vaccine that is currently authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be used as a booster dose.  The FDA formally amended the emergency authorization use (EUA) for the Pfizer vaccine on September 22.  According to the amended EUA, the following people are eligible for booster shots at least six months after their initial series of shots:

  • People over age 65.
  • People ages 18 to 64 at high risk of severe COVID-19 due to chronic medical conditions or compromised immune systems.
  • People with greater risk of workplace exposure, such as frontline medical workers, teachers, and emergency responders.

More booster shots are on the way.  The FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) voted during an October 14-15 public meeting to recommend booster doses from Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. The panel recommended the Moderna booster be administered under the same criteria as Pfizer’s – six months after the second dose for people over 65, individuals at risk for serious complication from COVID-19, and essential workers.  However, the panel recommended broader criteria for the Johnson & Johnson booster – it said anyone who received the single dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine should be eligible to receive a second booster dose at least two months later.

  • Why? Several studies have shown the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is less effective that other currently approved shots, particularly against new variants like Delta.

What happens next: The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet on October 20-21 to offer its recommendations on who should get the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson booster shots.  Its recommendations are subject to a final decision from the CDC director.  Afterwards, the FDA could officially authorize booster shots from both companies in the following days.

The conversation on booster shots hasn’t been without controversy.  Over the past few months, scientists, researchers, and public health officials within the federal government haven’t seen eye-to-eye on when booster shots should become available, and who should get them.

  • For example, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky partially overruled ACIP last month when the panel initially declined to offer booster shots for essential workers under 65 who do not have chronic medical conditions.  Some ACIP members said that without additional data, they weren’t comfortable automatically allowing younger people to get boosters just because of their jobs.  While Walensky acknowledged the panel’s uncertainty, she said in a statement that CDC must use “imperfect data” to “take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”
  • There are also ethical considerations as billions worldwide remain unvaccinated.  While many public health experts believe people with chronic health conditions should get additional shots, they feel extra doses should be allocated to countries with low vaccination rates first in order to prevent more dangerous variants from developing.

The administration’s internal disputes have been quite apparent to the public.  Back in August, President Biden announced a plan to start distributing booster shots to all eligible Americans as soon as September 20.  However, the health care agencies tasked with rolling out boosters have taken a more conservative approach, and one month later after Biden’s original deadline, only certain segments of the population have access to one vaccine booster.

With limited information and uncertainty about the future of the virus, administration officials are between a rock and a hard place.  On one hand, federal officials don’t have enough data to make definitive decisions on who needs a booster and how much a booster would improve efficacy.  On the other hand, the administration knows it can’t wait for definitive findings to become available, especially if case number surge once again in the next few months as colder temperatures drive more Americans indoors.

At the end of the day, COVID-19 is still a novel virus, and there are many unanswered questions on how long protection from vaccines last and how much that protection varies between different groups of people.  While new data on vaccines will continue to gradually become available, federal health officials will have to continue discussing and weighing the risks and benefits of authorizing vaccines in the US.

adam-gethin-ev9bJswLubk-unsplash-1920x1728

Subscribe to Us Now!

Be a DC insider by getting our updates straight to your inbox