Christopher Reading
Analyst · Barrington Research. Your line is now open.
Yes. No, I think it depends on the question. So if you're asking me to handicap and to give you feedback on a permanent fix to the physician fee schedule, we know it's a $100 billion spend, the way it gets scored. And I think the chance of that happening without really significant offset, like a full-scale EQIP program, which is not ready to – for prime time yet necessarily. I think that's dead in the water. The – and again, the longer we go this year, any kind of a fix, which would be a part year fix this year and maybe relief next year to roll back the 2.9% that we're hit with this year. I give that a small chance, but Washington is pretty dysfunctional right now. There's a lot going on. There is a bias toward the cost side. But I think that aside, there's an appreciation for the fact that the system that we've been in, which requires budget neutrality, particularly overlaid in, call it, broadly medical technology, which is advancing rapidly, where there are breakthroughs in certain areas, which are not cheap. In fact, they're very, very expensive, robotics and other breakthroughs across, lots of different specialties. Those have to be paid for. So to continually take from people in order to do the thing that's going to provide the best outcome, is not sustainable. You're going to get providers just like we have in many of our other companies, who said Medicare Advantage doesn't – isn't going to work for us. You can't pass $0.60, $0.70, $0.80 on the dollar. We're not going to lose money on every patient. And so there's going to – there's an understanding that a lot of the stuff has to be retooled. I just don't think, given the nature of our hits, that we'll be in the crosshairs in the coming period. I can't even imagine that, that's going to happen. So longer term, there's a lot of stuff to figure out and none of it's easy.