The ICA National Medicare Fairness Campaign

NMFC_LOGOOn January 1, 2014 the non-discrimination provisions of Section 2706 of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) became effective.  The nondiscrimination provision of that act states:

 “A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not discriminate with respect to participation under the plan or coverage against any health care provider who is acting within the scope of that provider’s license or certification under applicable State law.

While this provision applies to private health insurance plans regulated at the state level, the Medicare Part B Program has no such provision.  The result has been that the Medicare Beneficiaries that choose to seek care from a chiropractor are required to pay for their exams, X-Rays and are reimbursed for only the chiropractic adjustment to correct a subluxation.

The basis for this is how chiropractors are defined as participating physicians under the Federal Medicare Statutes (Sec.1861(r)5: “a chiropractor who is licensed as such by the State (or in a State which does not license chiropractors as such, is legally authorized to perform the services of a chiropractor in the jurisdiction in which he performs such services), and who meets uniform minimum standards promulgated by the Secretary, but only for the purpose of sections 1861(s)(1) and 1861(s)(2)(A) and only with respect to treatment by means of manual manipulation of the spine (to correct a subluxation) which he is legally authorized to perform by the State or jurisdiction in which such treatment is provided.”

Isn’t it time to get rid of the “only”, and remove the current restriction which unfairly penalizes the patient that chooses a safer, less expensive form of care?

The chiropractic profession, united under the umbrella of the Chiropractic Summit, has decided to target the discriminatory language of the current law and to seek fairness for the chiropractic patients.  Don’t they deserve equal treatment under the law?

Comments are closed