Home

Addressing the Bacterial Infection Threat That Can Complicate Covid-19 Cases

March 31, 2020
9:52 am

Dr. Julie Gerberding, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and today an executive vice president for Merck for strategic communications, global public policy, and population health wrote an op-ed for STAT News on the high mortality rate associated with COVID-19 patients who develop a secondary bacterial infection.  She said this underscores the need for research and development into new antibiotics.  The op-ed is found below and here.

Antibiotic resistance: the hidden threat lurking behind Covid-19

By Julie L. Gerberding

March 23, 2020

The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic highlights the critical need for rapid development of vaccines and antiviral treatments to reduce the number of hospitalizations and deaths caused by this dangerous new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. The biopharmaceutical industry has quickly responded and at least 80 candidates are already in development. With good luck, we will eventually have some of the tools we need to fight this new global threat.

But there is an even larger threat lurking behind the current outbreak, one that is already killing hundreds of thousands of people around the world and that will complicate the care of many Covid-19 patients. It is the hidden threat from antibiotic resistance — bacteria that are not killed by standard antibiotics. Unfortunately, the pipeline of drugs to manage these deadly infections is nearly dry.

Although antibiotic resistance hasn’t gotten our attention in the same way that SARS-CoV-2 has, antibiotic-resistant bacteria present a growing global menace. In the U.S. alone, we see 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections each year and more than 35,000 deaths, though experts fear that the real number is much higher. The so-called superbugs that cause these infections thrive in hospitals and medical facilities, putting all patients — whether they’re getting care for a minor illness or major surgery — at risk.

The patients at greatest risk from superbugs are the ones who are already more vulnerable to illness from viral lung infections like influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Covid-19. The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, for example, claimed nearly 300,000 lives around the world. Many of those deaths — between 29% and 55% — were actually caused by secondary bacterial pneumonia, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s a one-two punch: A virus can weaken the body, making it easier for complex, hard-to-treat bacteria to take hold.

The new coronavirus is no exception. Already, some studies have found that 1 in 7 patients hospitalized with Covid-19 has acquired a dangerous secondary bacterial infection, and 50% of patients who have died had such infections. The challenge of antibiotic resistance could become an enormous force of additional sickness and death across our health system as the toll of coronavirus pneumonia stretches critical care units beyond their capacity.

Seventeen years ago, when I was leading the CDC, we worried about antibiotic resistance complicating the care of SARS patients. We knew then that America’s arsenal of antibiotics was not sufficient to guarantee we could manage a large outbreak of drug-resistant bacteria. Since then, these bacteria have only become more widespread, more deadly, and far more difficult to treat, yet our stable of antibiotics to manage them has barely increased. In fact, the gap between the superbug threats we face and the antibiotics we have to combat them is rapidly growing wider.

We can’t predict when or where the next pandemic-triggering virus will emerge, but we can predict that secondary bacterial infections will follow. To fight these superbugs, we desperately need new antibiotics. An important question policymakers should be asking themselves is this: Why don’t we have powerful antibiotics on hand when we need them the most?

In a perfect world, we would always have new antibiotics to fight emerging antibiotic-resistant infections, ready to use when a crisis like the Covid-19 pandemic strikes. But developing new antibiotics takes time and can cost more than $1 billion and that investment cannot be recovered by wide use of new antibiotics because they must be used as sparingly as possible to preserve their effectiveness for as long as possible.

Current hospital reimbursement systems generally discourage use of new antibiotics, even when patients clearly need them, because they are more expensive than older antibiotics. Understandably, hospitals that are already challenged to cover the rising costs of care find it hard to justify the inclusion of more expensive drugs on their formularies.

As a result of this unique market dynamic — low reimbursement and low-volume use — many of our country’s most promising antibiotic developers have gone out of business or suffered severe financial losses, including three biotechnology companies within the last year.

This market failure must be corrected as if lives depend on it because they do — as we may soon see as cases of Covid-19 increase. Reimbursement reform will both improve appropriate access to novel antibiotics and encourage private investment in the pipeline. While other proposals have been discussed, including stockpiling and further grant funding for research, these measures do not address the underlying issues.

Recognizing this need is critical, Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Reps. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) and Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) have introduced the Developing an Innovative Strategy for Antimicrobial Resistant Microorganisms (DISARM) Act, a bipartisan bill that would reform Medicare reimbursement to make it easier for hospitals to use the antibiotic that is most appropriate for a patient. Right now, there’s a strict cap on how much hospitals are reimbursed by Medicare for inpatient services, which deters use of new targeted antibiotics that might be the best course of therapy for patients with superbug infections.

Passing the DISARM Act is a first step we can take to help ensure that hospitals are not financially penalized when providing patients the lifesaving antibiotics they need. This is good for patients and will, in turn, sustain the confidence investors need to support companies developing new antibiotics. Policymakers must also create incentives, like market entry rewards and other “pull” mechanisms, that clearly signal to biopharmaceutical companies that the antibiotic pipeline merits ongoing research and development investment.

As we come together to fight today’s Covid-19 crisis, we must also look ahead to the next one. We cannot be short-sighted, and we cannot be complacent, especially about antibiotic resistance. We must put measures in place to ensure that we have the antibiotics we need — today and in the future. The time to act is now.

Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., is chief patient officer and executive vice president for strategic communications, global public policy, and population health at Merck. She was director of the CDC from 2002 to 2009.

Leading Hospital CEO Addresses Data Interoperability

February 25, 2020
11:51 am

Massive amounts of healthcare data are collected across the nation, and as technology advances the question of how to use it has continued to be a discussion.  There have been hearings on Capitol Hill about interoperability and data privacy and security, and the Healthcare Leadership Council (HLC) recently hosted a congressional briefing on the subject of health data.  The resources of the private sector have been focused on utilizing data for innovation in the treatment of patients.  There has been open dialogue between healthcare organizations and government agencies regarding the best way to approach regulations surrounding the use of health data.  Joseph Impicciche, the president and CEO of Ascension, in his Morning Consult op-ed supports proposed rules by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on advancing nationwide interoperability and encourages additional work be done to ensure continuous improvement in patient outcomes.

HHS Policies to Promote Secure Exchange of Data Will Lead to Better Health Care

By Joseph Impicciche February 10, 2020

Health care is undergoing dramatic transformation, and the entities accountable for delivering compassionate care to patients are being challenged to meet these new and evolving needs. The dimensions of this transformation are deep and wide, and the complexities of providing care extend far beyond those traditionally involved in managing patients’ health and wellness.

Health care providers are focused on the same goal: improving health and health care for patients and consumers. This requires coordination across an expanding number of constituencies who must have access to greater clinical insight, leveraged to accelerate the delivery of novel care models and therapies. Essential to these requirements is access to robust clinical datasets and tools that facilitate real-time clinical workflow integration so that comprehensive care coordination is available to and benefits all those we serve, while maintaining patient data privacy and security.

With the future of health care dependent on the ability to make data-driven decisions, we applaud the Department of Health and Human Services’ continuous efforts and leadership through the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on advancing nationwide interoperability. The proposed new policies have the potential to take an important next step in granting consumers seamless and secure access to data and increase the vehicles for the exchange of electronic health information across providers and systems. They should be used as the starting point for further discussions and potentially thoughtful modification, led by the spectrum of stakeholders involved in the delivery and receipt of care.

Every day, providers, patients and consumers find themselves trying to piece together the health information they need from siloed systems across the care delivery continuum. Within each of these systems, information is entombed in proprietary data models that effectively create dependency on a single electronic health record vendor’s platform.

Exchanging health information from disparate platforms has proven cumbersome. It can be difficult to positively confirm a patient’s identity, as no unique national identifier exists. And even when records can be accurately matched, the scope of data exchanged is often limited and not fully supportive of integrated care delivery across the continuum.

It recently has been suggested that these gaps are not significant impediments to the delivery of coordinated, whole-person care. Some argue that closing these gaps will create unsupportable fiscal and administrative burdens for health systems and providers, as well as untenable privacy and security risks for patients and consumers.

New policies must acknowledge and seek to ease the cost and administrative burden on providers; appropriate timelines should be afforded, and privacy and security risks should be mitigated. However, a properly considered rule should ultimately be finalized because of the overall benefit it will provide to patients and providers alike. We believe the cost of doing nothing is too high; the persistence of current approaches will not be economically sustainable and will not support the more sophisticated approaches to privacy and security that will be required to adequately serve patients, consumers and providers across the continuum.

Today, after incredible focus and expenditure by federal agencies and tireless work at technology adoption by numerous stakeholder groups, we’re still very far from realizing our shared goal: a robust, standards-based, cloud-enabled health care information architecture that will support broad health care data interoperability and benefit patients across the continuum of care.

The failure is multidimensional and includes the lack of common data model implementation at scale, the lack of a national health care information identifier at the individual level, and the absence of a meaningful scope of application program interfaces across health care technology platforms — both legacy and newly emerging platforms outside the traditional health care ecosystem.

The solution lies in applying new technologies — some developed in other industries — to accelerate the democratization of commoditized health care data housed in modern cloud-based architectures. Accordingly, we applaud the work of HHS, ONC and CMS in tackling what is admittedly a complex issue. They are seeking to develop a forward-looking policy that drives common health care data model development, supports accelerated development of APIs and promotes the development of software applications that support provider, patient and consumer choice in health care technology to enable true multiparty health care process integration.

Without a doubt, the pursuit of democratized health care information must be approached carefully and in parallel to the evolution of more sophisticated privacy and security frameworks. Multi-stakeholder input will be required to ensure that next-generation privacy and security policies account for the technological capabilities, increasing cybersecurity threats and greatly expanded scope of health care constituencies that now exist.

Recognition of the importance of these capabilities is not new. Foundational support for their achievement rests with a sweeping series of federal legislation enacted over the last 20 years, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Health Information Technology for Economics and Clinical Health Act, the Affordable Care Act and others. The broad goal underpinning each of these policies was to create the framework necessary for the efficient and effective creation, distribution and utilization of digital health care information to benefit patients.

The work to build on these foundational policies must continue. HHS’ proposed rule warrants careful consideration and thoughtful modification to minimize burden, ensure data privacy and security and provide appropriate time for implementation. With such changes, HHS’ new rules will help advance the progression toward a framework that allows data to be optimally available to improve patient care while providing robust privacy protections and data security.

 

Joseph R. Impicciche, JD, MHA, is president and chief executive officer of Ascension.

Congress Poised to Step Up for Medical Innovation

April 12, 2019
1:30 pm

In a city as divided along partisan lines as Washington, D.C. is these days, you don’t often come across a legislative idea that wins broad support from both sides of the aisle.  The fact that a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives is sponsoring legislation to repeal the medical device excise tax is a strong indicator that it’s time to act to take this counterproductive tax off the books.

This week, a House bill to repeal the medical device tax was introduced by a quartet of lawmakers, Representatives Ron Kind (D-WI), Jackie Walorski (R-IN), Scott Peters (D-CA) and Richard Hudson (R-NC).  This legislation has 227 original cosponsors and follows the introduction of a companion bill in the U.S. Senate by Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

Congress has previously acknowledged the inherent flaws in this tax by suspending its implementation.  The next logical step is full repeal.  A 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device company revenues – not profits – is extraordinarily punitive and disproportionately harmful to innovators still trying to establish themselves in the marketplace.  The tax has had a negative effect on investment and job creation and undermines medical innovation at a time in which we need to be incentivizing it.

Chronic disease continues to be the greatest driver of healthcare cost escalation.  By continuing to develop more effective treatments and technology, we can enable patients and their healthcare providers to better manage these conditions and reduce the frequency of emergency room visits and acute care episodes.  An excise tax on the tools needed to improve quality of life and achieve greater health system sustainability makes no sense.  A bipartisan majority of Congress wants to do away with this tax.  They should move expeditiously to do so.

An Expert Look at 2018 Healthcare Trends and Their Potential Impact

February 08, 2018
6:05 pm

President and CEO of Premier healthcare alliance, Susan DeVore, discusses her predictions of what 2018 will bring in a Health Affairs article.  Ms. DeVore, a member and former chair of the Healthcare Leadership Council, shares her optimism regarding the commitment to innovation and competition that is driving the industry towards value-based care and the increased utilization of actionable data.  Her assessment of current trends focuses on how growth and changes in all healthcare sectors have an impact on providers, and further solidifies the importance of the work being done to improve access to care as well as outcomes.

The article is copied below and the original publication can be found here.


What To Watch In Health Care In 2018: Six Key Trends

At the start of 2018, the health care industry is on the cusp of more significant change. The GOP Congress has moved health care away from the center of their public policy agenda, creating more certainty and a clearer view. Of course greater certainty doesn’t mean total certainty, especially as market trends and business realities continue to shift. As providers move into 2018, we still feel confident in making some predictions as to what the future holds.

Clearer Skies Ahead, Pockets Of Turbulence

Uncertainty is expected during any major political transition, but it reached an all-time high for health care leaders in 2017. The fog has largely cleared, and 2018 will be a year of health care leaders starting to place their bets. Here’s what health care leaders see.

Instead of a sweeping set of legislative changes to the Affordable Care Act, the elimination of the individual insurance mandate is now the symbolic emblem of “repeal.” While some project that the mandate’s demise will lead to a decline in the private insurance market, it remains to be seen how the elimination will ultimately play out given the mandate’s relatively weak incentive for individuals to purchase coverage. The strong economy is causing employers to offer health coverage to compete for talent, and the probable enactment of the exchange market stabilization legislation should serve to calm the exchange market, potentially lowering premiums. Going forward, focusing on states will likely become the “replace” strategy for Republicans in 2018, with a larger number of waivers granted to experiment with programs, giving states greater control and reason to consider expanding Medicaid coverage. Health care leaders are viewing 2018 as a year of greater insurance market stability, with the number of insured Americans holding steady or possibly increasing over the latest numbers.

There is also more certainty around the movement to value-based care. Last year’s raging health care debate caused health care leaders to question the movement to alternative payment models (APMs). That momentum, however, is returning, and the experienced and more transparent leadership in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by Alex Azar should provide significant reassurance to providers on both insurance market certainty and the movement to value-based care.

Health care leaders still face major financial threats. Bad debt continues to grow, reaching $38.3 billion in large part due to the rise of high-deductible health plans. Hospitals have taken $148 billion in Medicare payment cutssince 2010, and these cuts are scheduled to continue. Some states are cutting Medicaid reimbursement. 82 rural hospitals, as well as many urban hospitals, have closed since 2010. This year’s $1.6 billion cut in 340B payments will crush some of the most financially challenged hospitals treating the most vulnerable patient populations. Hospitals continue to be disadvantaged in the design of many of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS)’s pay for performance and alternative payment models. As a result, hospital margins remain in low single digits, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission projects that the Medicare margin will fall to negative 11 percent in 2018.

Attention, Value Shoppers: The New Health Care Market

2018 will be a year of a renewed focus by CMS on paying for value, particularly with the continued ramp up of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 that incents clinicians to take risk, and new APMs that create attractive alternatives for fence sitting providers.

Perhaps more notable today are private sector actions to expand and accelerate the value-based payment movement and disrupt the status quo. Given the clear signals, health care leaders are focused on gaining scale and/or vertical integration to position themselves favorably for an expansion of value-based care. Unlike past merger efforts to command greater market power, today’s consolidation is often more driven by the goal to integrate care delivery and achieve savings.

There is a new form of competition emerging. Providers and payers are organizing themselves into vertically-integrated, high-value care and financing networks. Health care leaders are actively exploring commercial, employer, and Medicare Advantage risk-based programs through either ownership models or partnerships. The most recent mega-deals by CVS and Aetna, Humana and Kindred, Ascension Health and Providence Health, Aurora Health Care and Advocate Health Care, as well as the ongoing provider acquisitions by insurance goliath UnitedHealthcare, all send a clear message: insurers, physician groups, health systems, and even retail organizations are each seeking to compete as high value care and financing networks.

The CVS/Aetna merger, for instance, is based on a strategy that they will be able to disrupt the system with a retail pharmacy and e-enabled high value provider network. The Advocate/Aurora merger is seeking to achieve regional scale by combining two of the nation’s leading clinically integrated physician networks, hospitals and other provider settings, and pharmacy capabilities in the greater Chicago-Milwaukee region. UnitedHealthcare appears to acquire more physician practices each day. We anticipate more mergers and acquisitions in 2018. As the merger and acquisition activity heats up, the question remains: Who will be best at capturing and engaging patients and customers?

Washington must be careful not to undermine this movement by confusing integration to deliver efficient, high-quality care with consolidation to reduce competition. This emerging model needs to be supported by continuing the movement by public payers to APMs and careful thought by anti-trust regulators.

Episode 2018: The Consumer Strikes Back

For providers to succeed as stewards of new care delivery networks, they need to play the game differently. This means a number of new capabilities, including creating clinically integrated physician networks, collecting and integrating data, and applying analytics to find cost, work flow, and quality improvement opportunities. It also means providing more outpatient clinics and offering additional access points, establishing preferred post-acute care networks, creating new incentive and payment arrangements, building physician measurement systems to assess performance, and negotiating successful alternative payment models with public and private payers.

To ultimately succeed, however, health leaders realize that they need to, above all else, excel at attracting and engaging patients, families, caregivers, and consumers. 2018 will be the year of focus on patient capture and engagement. Providers will work with their patients, families, and caregivers to develop approaches so they more actively manage their health and health care.

This means engaging the patient in their health and health care outcomes from the beginning. This involves providing prevention, diagnosis, and monitoring services that support the total care experience. Done well, it creates stickiness to a high value care network. Organizations are focusing more on this from a human resources training and measurement vantage point. They are also establishing patient portals, providing wearable devices, implementing patient educational programs, screenings, and pushing targeted materials to patients based on their current and anticipated needs.

For example, one of our members is providing home monitoring tools as well as tablets for video consults to help patients meet their health goals. The program focuses on total patient care from prevention to recovery. Few people leave the program, and the organization has reduced overall costs by 34 percent per year and hospitalizations by nearly 50 percent.

Financial Imperative, Meet Actionable Data

A certainty for health system leaders is the need to improve productivity and efficiency. The approach, however, is going beyond the past’s focus on reducing head count and cost of supplies.

After years of avoiding care efficiency and standardization initiatives due to the difficulty of persuading clinicians to embrace them, health care leaders now have a larger and more urgent financial imperative to identify and isolate wasteful practices, cost outliers, and the root causes for the inefficiencies. The keys to success are a strong case for change and a prioritization of efficiencies that yield both cost and quality improvements. This is, therefore, all about data and analytics.

Recent cost containment efforts we have pursued with our members provides a sense of scale.  These health care systems range in size from 6 to 19 hospitals and their care transformation work has achieved savings ranging from $180 to $250 million over two years. Another specific example is a health system member of ours that realized $13 million in savings by driving care process standardization across their departments that touch just ICU and blood utilization. In addition to the savings they also improved their quality scores and reduced patient complications and readmissions. Premier data found a lot of opportunity for other hospitals around ICU stays, potentially reducing expensive ICU stays by 200,000 days across 786 hospitals. This is precisely where providers are now focusing their efforts.

2018 will be the year of delivering efficient, highly reliable care. With today’s financial imperative and actionable data, health care leaders are achieving a new level of efficiency and productivity.

America’s Other Drug Problems: Cost And Competition

Rising drug prices continue to be a dominant concern to health care leaders. Pharmaceutical innovation holds great promise for helping providers achieve their mission to improve and sustain patient lives, but it’s also a Catch-22. As providers are increasingly assuming accountability for the health outcomes of a population, six figure drug price tags and unpredictable price increases threaten financial planning and cool the enthusiasm for taking risk. 2018 will be a year of increased legislative and regulatory policymaking to foster increased drug market competition.

The FDA has and will continue to step up its game with new initiatives designed to unleash more competition that can moderate drug price trends. These include encouraging new market entrants to rapidly start developing generics in classes where there is no competition, streamlining the generic drug approval process, promoting biosimilars and taking steps to prevent branded drug makers from exploiting programs like the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy and citizens’ petitions.

Congress will also be getting into the act this year. We expect the Fair Access for Safe and Timely (FAST) Generics Act and the Creating, Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples (CREATES) Act, among other legislation, will help eliminate loopholes that can slow the introductions of competitor products.

Finally, manufacturers are developing new ways to demonstrate product return on investment in response to provider demands. There is increasing use of real-world evidence to demonstrate value as well as use of outcomes measures to quantify results. While value-based contracting is still in the early stages, manufacturers are looking to measure and launch these programs.

Emerging And Converging Digital Health

In every single aspect of health care, the digital revolution is making itself felt: new apps are getting patients more engaged; health sensors and wearables are creating terabytes of new, granular data, and machine learning, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence techniques and tools are all emerging new technologies. What’s more, precision medicine, telehealth, blockchain technology, and new personalized digital devices are being infused into all parts of the workflow and consumer experience.

The biggest impediment to effective use of data continues to be the lack of interoperability, especially among the electronic health records, which impedes care coordination and efficiency. While providers are waiting on HHS to implement the interoperability provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act, they are wasting no time in building data warehouses that assemble the multiple sources of data necessary to provide quality care and make informed decisions across the continuum of care. Growth of data warehouse systems and data analytics is one of the fastest growing technology areas as health systems seek actionable information to help them manage the total cost of care at a site and across sites of care.

Consequently, there is a growing and acute need for a trained workforce able to deploy, implement, and maintain health information technologies and systems and increasingly complex medical devices.  Today’s electronically connected, data-and evidence-driven health care system requires staff with data science and data analysis skills. These skills are essential in gathering, interpreting, protecting, and analyzing large and complex data sets. Data management, cyber security, and governance is essential to precision medicine, value-based care and payment and population health.

These are the big trends we see impacting health care providers in 2018.

We are encouraged by the outlook. We are hopeful Congress and the Trump administration will encourage and not impede this progress to high value networks, increased competition among pharmaceutical manufacturers, and increased access to health information.

Calls to Repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board Persist

October 04, 2017
1:08 pm

Amidst the uncertain healthcare environment Americans face, there is a threat that has remained constant: the implementation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).  IPAB, once triggered, will impose significant cuts in the Medicare program that will affect beneficiaries’ access to healthcare. The efforts to repeal IPAB have involved almost 800 organizations across the United States that recognize the dangers of having a single entity with such unprecedented and unchecked authority.

One of the partner organizations taking a stand against this board is the Better Medicare Alliance (BMA).  The BMA mission is to create a healthy future for the nation’s seniors, and ensure innovative, quality healthcare.  Allyson P. Schwartz, President and Chief Executive Officer of BMA and former U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania, wrote an op-ed in The Hill that highlights the bipartisan support of IPAB repeal.

The op-ed is shared below, and the link is provided here.


Congress needs to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board

By Former Rep. Allyson Y. Schwartz (D-Pa.), opinion contributor

Now is a particularly difficult time to enter into any debate on health care in our country without the expectation of strong partisan divide. However, there is an opportunity that has bipartisan support and a need for action right now.

When I served in Congress, I was actively involved in the development and passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I fought to be sure it met a number of goals, one of which was to reduce costs in health care through improving access to coverage, focusing on primary care, early treatment of disease, and numerous ways to encourage care to more cost effective for government and affordable for consumers.

I am proud of the important work that is the result, bringing changes right now across the country in doctors offices, hospitals, and community care to improve quality and bring down costs in Medicare.

However, not everyone was convinced that all the efforts underway now would happen or happen fast enough. To be sure costs could not grow faster than inflation, the Senate added a provision in the ACA hat many of us thought, even at the time, was the wrong way to bring down costs.

In fact, I was one of the first Democrats to publicly oppose the creation of what is called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and I supported Republican legislation to repeal it. IPAB repeal is now a bipartisan effort, but it has not been taken up or passed. And time is running out on a chance to stop it.

Here is how IPAB is supposed to work and why it is a bad idea.

IPAB is a board appointed by the president, with the sole authority and responsibility to cut Medicare. They are accountable to no one. If costs in Medicare rise above a certain level of inflation, cuts to bring those costs have to be made and implemented in one year. The law also says that if the President does not appoint this Board, then the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the sole discretion to make these cuts. New revenues or other actions to cover costs are not an option.

Why is this a problem for Medicare and the 55 million beneficiaries who rely on it?

Neither IPAB nor the Secretary of HHS is accountable to the voters. Given the importance of Medicare and the potential impact, our elected representatives should be involved in making this kind of major decision about Medicare. Second, the cuts have to be made in all in one year. Estimates of potentially as much as $1 billion in cuts in 2019 would mean everyone could be affected. Third, there is no requirement that the cuts be done in a way that improves care or targets waste or inefficiencies. If these cuts are across-the-board cuts, they cut important services including new innovations happening to reduce costs in the right way.

While beneficiaries are not supposed to be hurt, there could be cuts to payment to doctors or to innovative programs like telemedicine, nurse care managers, or care in the home —all of which could have a negative impact on Medicare beneficiaries.

This is not only unwise, it is unnecessary. Medicare is in the process of transitioning from the outdated and inefficient fee-for-service payment structure to one that pays for value. New payment systems are underway that focus on high-value treatments, therapies, and interventions that promote better outcomes. We should be doing all we can to drive these positive changes in Medicare, particularly for those with chronic conditions.

The success of this kind of care is evident in the achievements in Medicare Advantage, which is a public-private partnership that is driving innovations and tailored services for millions of beneficiaries through care coordination, supplemental benefits, and patient engagement.

IPAB won’t help any of this important work and is potentially destructive both to these positive efforts and to Medicare.

Congress needs to act and repeal IPAB this year.

I am proud to have built a strong bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill to oppose IPAB. Now, as I work to strengthen the innovations in payment and care delivery that bring the promise of better, cost effective care for Medicare beneficiaries, I ask Republicans and Democrats to act on their bipartisan agreement that IPAB should not be implemented. Millions of Medicare beneficiaries will be grateful that you took action to stop this harmful and unnecessary idea from being a reality.

Allyson P. Schwartz is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Better Medicare Alliance and is a former U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania.