The U.S. Senate's health-care bill, which is expected to receive final approval late this week, would set aside $100-million that U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, hopes will be used to replace an aging teaching hospital at the University of Connecticut.
Mr. Dodd, who faces a tough re-election fight next year, asked that the money be inserted in the giant bill, a spokesman for the senator told reporters. But the spokesman pointed out that about a dozen other academic medical centers in a variety of states would be able to compete for the funds, if the legislation is approved.
According to the bill, the $100-million must be used for "a health-care facility that provides research, inpatient tertiary care, or outpatient clinical services." The facility has to be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States "that contains a state's sole public academic medical and dental school," the legislation says.
Atul Grover, the chief lobbyist for the Association of American Medical Colleges, said he would rather have seen money dedicated to increasing the number of working physicians. "While we would certainly support broad financial support for medical education and training, nothing in the bill substantially increases the number of physicians" who would be trained in the United States, he said in an interview on Monday. "If you fund the health-care infrastructure and say you're going to build a lot of buildings but don't have professionals to work in them, you're not going to accomplish very much."
Lifting a cap on Medicare-supported residencies that has been in place since 1996 was one of the priorities for the medical colleges' association as it lobbied lawmakers considering health-care legislation. Neither the House's version of the legislation nor the Senate's bill would expand the number of residencies available for a growing number of medical-school graduates. A residency is the final step in a physician's training.
A projected shortage of physicians will only worsen as baby boomers age and more people are covered by health insurance, the association has warned.
Comments
1. wepstein - December 30, 2009 at 04:39 pm
Roosevelt had one hell of a time getting Social Security through. It was not much of program when it was passed and still does not provide a decent benefit to about fifty percent of recipients. We seem to be doing the same with health care. The most unfortunate interpretation is that the impediments are erected by the American people not by the leadership.
2. greenhills73 - December 30, 2009 at 05:18 pm
My understanding of the purpose of Social Security was that it was to be an emergency safety net, not a retirement program; that Americans were supposed to invest for their own retirements, but that SS would provide for gaps when private investments for one reason or another failed to yield an adequate return to cover the necessities of life. It has somehow grown into an entitlement far beyond the original intent.