John Baer

Jul. 14, 2008 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- BECAUSE I've often bashed members of Congress and our Legislature for failure to act on health-care issues while they live under a taxpayer-provided blanket of full coverage, I feel duty bound to note a small step forward.

If you missed it -- and I'm pretty sure most of you did -- the U.S. Senate last week passed something called the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act and sent it to President Bush.

The bill rescinds cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. It passed the Senate by a 69-30 veto-proof margin after passing the House last month 355-59, also veto-proof.

It got some attention only because Sen. Ted Kennedy, who underwent brain surgery June 2 to remove a malignant tumor, returned to the Senate floor to vote for the measure.

I mention the margins because the White House signals displeasure with the legislation and threatens a veto.

But even a veto appears unlikely to prevent it from becoming law.

When that happens, Philly Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz will have won a battle she started more than a year and a half ago.

The act includes a Schwartz amendment, her E-MEDS Act of 2007, requiring docs to prescribe medication electronically to cut costs and minimize mistakes.

"There are 1.5 million prescription errors a year across the country," Schwartz tells me. "Some lead to further office visits, some require hospitalization, a few even cause death; and they all cost money."

She adds: "Those errors are most often because of a doctor's handwriting, and sending electronically eliminates those errors."

It also allows pharmacies to better track patients' drugs and avoid conflicting meds that can cause adverse side effects.

The bill applies to physicians treating Medicare patients -- more than 95 percent of all docs in practice -- and, initially, offers one-time grants of up to $2,000 to encourage buying whatever equipment they might need to file prescriptions electronically.

Not sure why docs need a government grant. Not sure how many docs are without computers. But I understand, since they obviously aren't doing this voluntarily (and, OK, maybe there are some rural offices without computers), why incentives might be needed.

But the act also offers 1 percent Medicare bonuses for each electronically sent prescription, so you'd think that'd be enough.

(Medicare is government health insurance for those age 65 or older and for younger people with disabilities. It is the nation's largest health-insurance program, covering close to 40 million Americans -- which, ironically, is fewer than the number of Americans without insurance, currently estimated at 47 million.)

The act also provides that, by 2011, all docs accepting Medicare must file e-prescriptions or face financial penalties.

"This is a very significant first step," says Schwartz, "and it speaks to what I hope to be doing, moving toward universal electronic medical records (another way to save money and improve care)."

Schwartz, in her second term, also served 14 years in the state Senate and long advocated health-care reforms and expanded health insurance, especially for children.

It is outrageous how little is done to extend insurance to those without and to improve health-care access and costs for all Americans.

The National Coalition on Health Care, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group, says that government spends $100 billion a year on medical services for those without insurance who could have been treated less expensively and more effectively with earlier diagnoses.

Congress is nearing its summer break (with a Gallup Poll approval rating of 19 percent), and the Legislature just slunk out of Harrisburg without acting on health care.

It is shameful. But any progress is welcome, and Schwartz has made some progress.

Send e-mail to baerj@phillynews.com.

For recent columns, go to

http://go.philly.com/baer.

Newstex ID: KRTB-0156-26634361