The House of Representatives voted Tuesday to eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Board, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
The IPAB, created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is tasked with determining Medicare cuts if spending exceeds a certain threshold. It has faced criticism from both Republicans and Democrats.
Members of the IPAB have not yet been appointed. Its members require Senate confirmation, which would likely set off a fight. Additionally, the slowdown in healthcare spending growth means the spending thresholds have not yet been established, according to The Hill.
The vote was largely party-line: 244-154.
Republicans targeted the board since its inception, saying it would end up rationing care to Medicare beneficiaries and it would have too much power. Democrats argue that the statute deliberately forbids the board from rationing care, increasing beneficiaries' premiums or lowering their coverage, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Some Democrats agree that the board would be too powerful because its recommended cuts automatically take effect unless Congress votes to change or block them. However, most Democrats view the Republican repeal effort as an attempt to undermine the PPACA, and most Democratic support for abolishing the board disappeared when Republicans decided to pay the $7 billion, 10-year cost of eliminating it by cutting $8 billion from the PPACA's prevention and public health fund.
The White House has threatened to veto the House's repeal bill, saying a repeal would disallow for a way to "help reduce the rate of Medicare growth responsibly," according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
The American Medical Association released a statement supporting the House's vote to repeal the IPAB: "We believe that the IPAB policy would reduce access to care for millions of seniors and applaud Representative Phil Roe, MD, for his tremendous work and leadership on this issue. Similar to the Sustainable Growth Rate formula that was repealed in April, the IPAB would be a rigid and short-sighted system that relies solely on arbitrary payment cuts that would hinder efforts to improve quality and health outcomes and make Medicare more sustainable. Policymakers should, however, find another funding source besides the Prevention and Public Health Fund that is meant to improve the health of the nation. To that end, we look forward to working with policymakers in both the U.S. House and Senate to bring an end to the flawed policy in a way that doesn’t negatively impact prevention programs and public health."