J.K. Wall
January 6, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Mike Rinebold, director of government relations for the Indiana State Medical Association, discussed the national health reform effort of 2009 as well as the 2010 sessions of the Indiana Legislature that began Jan. 5.

IBJ: From the view of the physicians you represent, what's the biggest win and what's the biggest disappointment to come out of the health care reform bills passed in the Senate at year's end?

A: Pretty much, there is no winner. No one group walked away with everything they were asking for. There have been some positives that I think you could point to: providing access to insurance for everyone. Now, how that's going to be paid for is obviously still a question mark.

IBJ: There's a shortage of primary-care physicians in Indiana that's predicted to only get worse in future years. What's the most important thing the state could do to alleviate this problem?

A: With the cuts in Medicare combined with the lack of a fix to the sustainable growth formula (which calls for a 21-percent Medicare rate cut), it's severely going to impact access. If you have Medicare rates drop, the fear is so will private insurance. As you roll that out, it becomes more and more difficult for practices to keep their doors open when you have practice costs growing at double-digit rates. In Indiana, we want to acknowledge and thank the General Assembly for last year establishing the framework and the structure for a grant- and a loan-forgiveness program. It still needs to be funded, but that's a step in the right direction.

IBJ: What are ISMA's key issues for this coming legislative session?

A: We are asking the legislature to bar contract language [inserted by some health insurers] that would restrict [physicians] from having control of their patient panels. Also, allowing patients to direct their health insurer to pay their doctor directly, even if that doctor has no contract with the insurer. Physician shortage and recruitment—we want to build on the foundation laid last year. And anything that reduces administrative burden for physicians.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.