Funding legislation omits provision to prevent reductions in physician compensation, disappointing the GOP Doctors Caucus
A prominent Republican stated that incorporating the language would represent a “line in the sand” essential for securing his backing.
TroibNews 
The funding bill released by House Republican leaders on Saturday fails to prevent cuts for doctors treating Medicare patients—a significant setback for Republicans advocating for these changes, potentially jeopardizing support from essential members needed to pass the legislation.
Rep. Greg Murphy, co-chair of the GOP Doctors’ Caucus, stated in recent months that Republican leadership was receptive to including this policy in the bill aimed at keeping the government funded through September, with assurances from Trump administration officials that it would be addressed. Five health industry lobbyists, who requested anonymity to discuss private negotiations, were also expecting this provision to be part of the funding measure to avert a shutdown after March 14.
Murphy emphasized in an interview that including this provision would be a “line in the sand” necessary for his support. A spokesperson for Murphy did not respond immediately to inquiries about whether he was still committed to that stance.
Speaker Mike Johnson can only afford to lose two votes within his party if all Democrats unite against the government funding bill, a stance the minority party might ultimately adopt.
Two lobbyists familiar with the closed-door discussions indicated that the provision for doctors was ultimately omitted due to broader concerns among Republican leaders that incorporating additional policies beyond standard extensions could invite more demands for other attachments.
However, the legislation unveiled on Saturday, which aims to maintain most current spending levels through the end of the fiscal year, is not without complications: it would increase spending for deportations of illegal immigrants while significantly cutting or completely eliminating funding for various non-defense programs. It remains uncertain how leadership will explain the exclusion of a specific policy when other priorities are being addressed.
The proposed fix for doctors' pay would have stopped further cuts based on an outdated formula, which would severely impact salaries for those providing Medicare services. This measure was part of a comprehensive healthcare overhaul that was initially included in a larger year-end government funding bill in December. That bill was abandoned after criticism from then-President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk for being too broad.
Members from both parties caution that the stakes are high for swift action on this issue: Decades of payment reductions in Medicare have placed physician practices in precarious financial situations, according to doctors' groups, potentially leading to closures and reduced access to care.
Although there is no relief for doctors, the stopgap funding bill would include, as anticipated, an extension of relaxed telehealth rules until September, mitigating possible disruptions in care access if passed.
These telehealth provisions were first initiated by the Center for Medicaid Services during the Covid-19 pandemic when many doctor offices were closed. Congress has repeatedly extended these telehealth rules, but a permanent resolution has yet to be established.
Additionally, the stopgap bill would extend hospital-at-home waivers, allowing facilities to provide increased care at home, as well as continue funding for community health centers and delay funding cuts for safety-net hospitals.
The Affordable Care Act mandated such cuts, anticipating that safety-net hospitals would not need to provide less care once millions became insured through the law, yet Congress has never permitted those cuts to be implemented.
Navid Kalantari for TROIB News
Rep. Greg Murphy, co-chair of the GOP Doctors’ Caucus, stated in recent months that Republican leadership was receptive to including this policy in the bill aimed at keeping the government funded through September, with assurances from Trump administration officials that it would be addressed. Five health industry lobbyists, who requested anonymity to discuss private negotiations, were also expecting this provision to be part of the funding measure to avert a shutdown after March 14.
Murphy emphasized in an interview that including this provision would be a “line in the sand” necessary for his support. A spokesperson for Murphy did not respond immediately to inquiries about whether he was still committed to that stance.
Speaker Mike Johnson can only afford to lose two votes within his party if all Democrats unite against the government funding bill, a stance the minority party might ultimately adopt.
Two lobbyists familiar with the closed-door discussions indicated that the provision for doctors was ultimately omitted due to broader concerns among Republican leaders that incorporating additional policies beyond standard extensions could invite more demands for other attachments.
However, the legislation unveiled on Saturday, which aims to maintain most current spending levels through the end of the fiscal year, is not without complications: it would increase spending for deportations of illegal immigrants while significantly cutting or completely eliminating funding for various non-defense programs. It remains uncertain how leadership will explain the exclusion of a specific policy when other priorities are being addressed.
The proposed fix for doctors' pay would have stopped further cuts based on an outdated formula, which would severely impact salaries for those providing Medicare services. This measure was part of a comprehensive healthcare overhaul that was initially included in a larger year-end government funding bill in December. That bill was abandoned after criticism from then-President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk for being too broad.
Members from both parties caution that the stakes are high for swift action on this issue: Decades of payment reductions in Medicare have placed physician practices in precarious financial situations, according to doctors' groups, potentially leading to closures and reduced access to care.
Although there is no relief for doctors, the stopgap funding bill would include, as anticipated, an extension of relaxed telehealth rules until September, mitigating possible disruptions in care access if passed.
These telehealth provisions were first initiated by the Center for Medicaid Services during the Covid-19 pandemic when many doctor offices were closed. Congress has repeatedly extended these telehealth rules, but a permanent resolution has yet to be established.
Additionally, the stopgap bill would extend hospital-at-home waivers, allowing facilities to provide increased care at home, as well as continue funding for community health centers and delay funding cuts for safety-net hospitals.
The Affordable Care Act mandated such cuts, anticipating that safety-net hospitals would not need to provide less care once millions became insured through the law, yet Congress has never permitted those cuts to be implemented.
Navid Kalantari for TROIB News
