MINNEAPOLIS, Updated 9:36 a.m. CDT August 24, 2006 -- Minnesota physicians have submitted approximately 60 resolutions for the MMA House of Delegates to consider at this year’s annual meeting September 14 and 15 in Minneapolis.

Reference committees will hear testimony on the resolutions on Thursday, September 14. The next day, the House will vote on each resolution, deciding whether to adopt, not adopt, amend, refer, or adopt a substitute for it.

This year’s resolutions touch on a wide range of topics, from pay for performance to safe driving. One hot topic will be a resolution from the MMA’s executive committee calling for the MMA to create an oversight committee to advise the Legislature on the use of the Health Care Access Fund (HCAF).

The goal is to ensure that the revenue from the HCAF is used to increase access to health care and improve the health of all Minnesotans.

The resolution came out of efforts of the 10-member Provider-Tax Work Group formed earlier this year.

The work group discussed whether the MMA should shift its lobbying focus from eliminating the tax to ensuring that the money is spent correctly. The MMA has fought the tax since it was passed in 1992 as a way to fund MinnesotaCare, the state’s subsidized health insurance program.

The work group conducted a nonscientific survey of members and found that the membership was somewhat divided on the question.

“The survey reaffirms the difficulty the association has had because membership doesn’t like the tax but values the MinnesotaCare program,” says Dave Renner, MMA director of state and federal legislation.

For example, 47 percent of surveyed members agreed that eliminating the tax should be the MMA’s top legislative priority, but 42 percent disagreed with that statement.

“One thing that was clear in the survey was that members didn’t think the program should be scrapped to get rid of the tax,” Renner says. Only 22 percent of members polled said they would support the elimination of MinnesotaCare to rid the state of the tax.

Another question the group asked was whether physicians had received any benefit from the tax. Research showed that in 2005, physicians paid about $87 million of the approximately $357 million collected from providers. That same year, MinnesotaCare spent an estimated $125 million on ambulatory services.

“These numbers show at least there are some benefits that come back to physicians from the tax,” Renner says.

In the end, the work group reaffirmed that the sick tax is misguided and that safety-net programs shouldn’t be funded on the backs of the sick. But it also recommended a shift in focus from repeal to how the money is used.

In response, the Executive Committee drafted R218, calling for the creation of an oversight committee of physicians, consumers, and others to advise the Legislature on HCAF expenditures.

Whether or not the resolution passes, the MMA will remain steadfast in opposition to the sick tax and seize any realistic opportunity to repeal it.