Ask your Congressman to support site-neutral payment reform

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

drusso

Full Member
Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
Joined
Nov 21, 1998
Messages
12,566
Reaction score
6,959
http://www.bendbulletin.com/opinion...icare-should-have-site-neutral-payment-reform

"Under current Medicare policy, for example, a colonoscopy that costs $625 in the office setting is reimbursed more than double that amount — $1,383 — when performed in an HOPD. An MRI scan to diagnose or monitor a patient’s disease progression costs $600 at a community-based imaging facility but totals $900 or more when conducted by an identical scanner in a hospital.

It’s not just Medicare; this problem extends to private insurers as well. The National Institute for Health Reform studied private insurance claims of nearly 600,000 workers and found that increased HOPD spending is leading to overall spending growth among privately and publicly insured individuals because of higher prices charged by hospitals."

Members don't see this ad.
 
Don't hold your breath.....the AHA spends over $20 million in lobbying fees and is very powerful. Look what they did to physician owned hospitals --> prohibited via the ACA (Obamacare).

n.b. physician owned hospitals already established were grandfathered-in with additional restrictions.
 
Don't hold your breath.....the AHA spends over $20 million in lobbying fees and is very powerful. Look what they did to physician owned hospitals --> prohibited via the ACA (Obamacare).

n.b. physician owned hospitals already established were grandfathered-in with additional restrictions.

Insurances spend about as much or more in lobbying efforts, and will be the ones who would love to see some reduction in their expenditure for hospital owned (off site) spending.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
This is all about the cost of doing business. The increased cost is due to the increased expenses ASCs and Hospitals acrue. This includes the cost of building the facility, staff, and, in the case of hospitals, the cost of providing free care, since they are prohibited from turning away patients who come through the ER
 
This is all about the cost of doing business. The increased cost is due to the increased expenses ASCs and Hospitals acrue. This includes the cost of building the facility, staff, and, in the case of hospitals, the cost of providing free care, since they are prohibited from turning away patients who come through the ER

Why reward the increased cost of inefficiency and waste? Look at OR turnover times and the massive amounts of wasted items opened on cases. Free care is overstated, as documented in other threads, as a percentage of earnings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This is all about the cost of doing business. The increased cost is due to the increased expenses ASCs and Hospitals acrue. This includes the cost of building the facility, staff, and, in the case of hospitals, the cost of providing free care, since they are prohibited from turning away patients who come through the ER

the cost shifting you are referring to is an old tired excuse from the hospitals many of which now refuse indigent care
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is all about the cost of doing business. The increased cost is due to the increased expenses ASCs and Hospitals acrue. This includes the cost of building the facility, staff, and, in the case of hospitals, the cost of providing free care, since they are prohibited from turning away patients who come through the ER

As HCA and several other for-profit hospitals have shown, the amount of "charity" care has gone down considerably since implementation of the ACA. Moreover, prior to the ACA many of those "poor", "indigent", "free care"/"uninsured" patients were quickly hooked up with Emergency Medicaid coverage through the state; thus, insuring the hospital got paid (my wife used to do that for the hospital for a living). So, <SURPRISE!> we were all paying for these people anyways with our tax dollars. Now that pretense of them being "uninsured" has largely gone away hospitals have been reaping considerable financial benefit. HCA is actively lobbying in conservative states for the governors to accept the federal dollars and expand medicaid, since it helps boost HCA's profits considerably. For those non-profit hospitals, unless they're management is ****, they've also seen significant benefits... more so when you consider the favorable non-profit tax status they hold... many of these "non-profit" systems are posting profits in the $100-$250 million range annually. So, you'll understand my skepticism when a hospital CEO and their lobbying group tells me the "sky will fall if you eliminate site of service differentials". Cause more likely than not they're full of sh...tuff
 
Tell it to Interfaith Medical Center (NY), Long Island College Hospital (NY), St. Vincents Medical Center (NY), Long Beach Memorial Medical Center(NY), Essex County Hospital (NJ), Bayley Seton Hospital, Vidant Pungo Hospital (NC), Williamson Memorial Hospital (WV), Florala Memorial Hospital (AL), Lee Regional Medical Center (VA), Corcoran District Hospital (CA), Cozby-Germany Hospital (TX), Charlton Memorial Hospital (GA), Shelby Regional Medical Center (TX), Sacred Heart Hospital (IL), W.O.Moss Regional Medical Center (LA), Earl K. Long Medical Center (LA), Anaheim General Hospital (CA), Bellflower Medical Center (CA), Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center (and its Hawthorne campus) (CA), Newport Specialty Hospital (CA), Steward-Webster Hospital (GA), Renaissance Hospital Terrell (TX), and Calhoun Memorial Hospital (GA), all of which recently closed.
 
are you trying to say that hospitals and physicians can get rich on medicaid dollars (ignoring indigent care for the moment)?

if thats the case...

do all you private guys take a lot of medicaid?

who here takes more than 15% medicaid? how's your practice with >15% medicaid? booming?
 
are you trying to say that hospitals and physicians can get rich on medicaid dollars (ignoring indigent care for the moment)?

if thats the case...

do all you private guys take a lot of medicaid?

who here takes more than 15% medicaid? how's your practice with >15% medicaid? booming?

I guess it would be booming if I got paid what the hospitals got paid for the SAME service.

Having said that, my state's Medicaid program doesn't recognize pain of any sort as a "covered condition." No Joke. No payment for pain diagnoses...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Tell it to Interfaith Medical Center (NY), Long Island College Hospital (NY), St. Vincents Medical Center (NY), Long Beach Memorial Medical Center(NY), Essex County Hospital (NJ), Bayley Seton Hospital, Vidant Pungo Hospital (NC), Williamson Memorial Hospital (WV), Florala Memorial Hospital (AL), Lee Regional Medical Center (VA), Corcoran District Hospital (CA), Cozby-Germany Hospital (TX), Charlton Memorial Hospital (GA), Shelby Regional Medical Center (TX), Sacred Heart Hospital (IL), W.O.Moss Regional Medical Center (LA), Earl K. Long Medical Center (LA), Anaheim General Hospital (CA), Bellflower Medical Center (CA), Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center (and its Hawthorne campus) (CA), Newport Specialty Hospital (CA), Steward-Webster Hospital (GA), Renaissance Hospital Terrell (TX), and Calhoun Memorial Hospital (GA), all of which recently closed.

I can tell you many of those hospitals the problem wasn't indigent care, but crappy management. Heck Long Island College Hospital had a great endownment and they pissed it away. Check out this article from the Wall St Journal on them:


A Buffett Fortune Fades in Brooklyn
Case of Othmer Gift to Ailing Hospital Is Cautionary Tale for Wealthy Donors
By
Anupreeta Das
July 19, 2013 4:39 p.m. ET
As early investors with Warren Buffett, Donald and Mildred Othmer quietly amassed a fortune that they believed would sustain their favorite charities for generations.

Among those organizations: Long Island College Hospital in Brooklyn, N.Y., for which the Othmers created a $135 million endowment in the 1990s, "to be held in perpetuity," according to their wills.

ENLARGE
Less than 20 years later, much of their gift is gone. And the hospital's owners have been cleared by state regulators to close the money-losing nonprofit, which has sparked protests because the 155-year-old facility was one of Brooklyn's largest private employers.

In a series of court-approved transactions, hospital administrators repeatedly tapped the fund to serve as collateral for loans and to cover malpractice and other costs, according to court records. The transfers were permissible to keep the hospital going, the court ruled, saying that is what the Othmers would have wanted.

Doctors, nurses and community activists say the treatment of the Othmer gift illustrates a pattern of financial mismanagement on the hospital's part.

Mr. Buffett has even expressed concern. "This came as a huge surprise to me," said the billionaire investor, who learned of the situation earlier this year in an email from a Brooklyn resident. "I would think if [the Othmers] were alive they would feel betrayed."

A spokesman for the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, the hospital's owner since 2011, declined to comment.

A spokesman for Continuum Health Partners Inc., the previous owner, said, "we did everything possible to keep [Long Island College Hospital] financially solvent so that the hospital could continue its mission to meet the healthcare needs of all who turned to us for help."

New York's Department of Health on Friday approved Downstate's plan of closure for the hospital beginning July 22.

The Othmer case, experts say, shows how even the best-laid philanthropy plans can go awry—and provides a cautionary tale for wealthy individuals who hope their gifts will make a long-term impact.

Natives of Omaha, Neb., the Othmers married in New York in 1950. An accomplished chemical engineer and inventor, Mr. Othmer taught at Brooklyn's Polytechnic Institute, now a part of New York University. Mrs. Othmer taught English in the 1930s.

The couple had no children and lived modestly. They traveled to far-flung places like Burma and Japan and signed their letters "Midon," a combination of their nicknames, Mid and Don, according to a 1999 book about them.

BF-AF393_OTHMER_P_20130719165516.jpg
ENLARGE
Nurses and staff protest the closure of Long Island College Hospital. Peter Foley for The Wall Street Journal
In 1961, they each invested $25,000 in a partnership run by Mr. Buffett, who knew Mrs. Othmer's mother. When Mr. Buffett dissolved the partnership in 1969, the Othmers ended up with roughly 14,500 shares of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. stock valued at $42 a share, which they never sold.

"They just stuck with me," Mr. Buffett said, recalling lunches of ham sandwiches at the Othmers' Brooklyn home.

When the Othmers died, their Berkshire shares were valued at more than $780 million. At today's prices, they would have been worth $2.5 billion.

Between Mr. Othmer's death in 1995 at age 91 and Mrs. Othmer's death in 1998 at age 90, at least 12 institutions benefited from their generosity. The University of Nebraska at Lincoln, which the Othmers attended, and Polytechnic received more than $135 million apiece.

Long Island College Hospital was the other charity to receive a nine-figure gift. The hospital is roughly half a mile from the five-story townhouse where the Othmers lived. Mr. Othmer served on the hospital's board for 22 years. His wife was a member of the hospital's Women's Guild.

Theodore Wagner, a New York-based lawyer at Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP and executor of Mr. Othmer's will, said Mr. Othmer was a meticulous man. Mr. Othmer's 30-page will dictated such things as who should get his collection of 12 elephants, each carved of a different Burmese wood.

Mostly, their goal was to create permanent funds for the institutions they had loved, to ensure "they would survive and grow," Mr. Wagner said.

Such endowment funds are commonly used by universities, hospitals and other nonprofit organizations to hold donations. Only the income generated by investing the principal amount is meant to be used.

In the case of the hospital, the wills stipulated that most of the Othmer endowment was "to be held in perpetuity and the income only to be used for general purposes."

By the late 1990s, the hospital was in financial trouble, according to court records. In 1998, soon after Mrs. Othmer died, it handed over operations to Continuum, a private hospital operator which this week approved a plan to merge with New York's Mount Sinai Medical Center, in a bid to improve performance.

In 2000, the hospital sought court permission to use the principal from the Othmer endowment. It invoked the legal doctrine of "cy pres," which gives a court power to revise a will to save a charitable organization from failing if certain conditions are met.

In its petition, and subsequently, the hospital argued that the Othmers would have wanted to protect its existence.

The Kings County Surrogate's Court initially allowed the hospital to use about $89 million as collateral for loans and spend an additional $15 million to buy and renovate a building that was later sold off to developers.

Although cy pres, which means "as near as possible," is a standard part of the law governing charities, it is used infrequently because the process is stringent, lawyers say.

Starting in 2000, the hospital on at least three occasions requested—and received—permission from the court to borrow against the Othmer funds, use it as collateral or allocate it to short-term expenses. A portion of the money at one point was repaid to the fund but most wasn't, the records show.

In 2011, the hospital sought the release of the remaining money to pay off malpractice and other claims, citing a condition in its proposed merger with Downstate, a deal it pitched as essential to its survival.

The court allowed the hospital to take the last $26.8 million of "unencumbered" money as well as $63 million of Othmer money pledged as collateral since 2000. Also that year, $85.7 million of the endowment was put into a trust to pay medical-malpractice claims, according to public records.

The court also transferred control of the funds to Downstate and said it would be liable to repay all the Othmer money. In a January letter to state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, Downstate President John Williams wrote that the university would "replenish the Trust only when and if it is able to."

Barbara Gartner, a 73-year-old Brooklyn Heights resident, first heard about the Othmer funds at a citizens' forum in February. "People kept saying, 'nobody knows what happened to the Othmer funds,'" Ms. Gartner said. At first she was curious, then outraged.

Ms. Gartner pieced together the history from public records. She emailed Mr. Buffett, who said he wishes he had known sooner.

The Othmers "did not spend huge sums on themselves but instead wanted the money to go back to society," Mr. Buffett said. "And at least one institution couldn't wait to change the terms under which it received the money."

Write to Anupreeta Das at [email protected]
 
Look, I get it Ducttape and ampaphb... I know it's hard out there for a pim... I mean hospital executive.

Yachts get more expensive year in and year out and yet the average annual CASH compensation package for a NON-PROFIT hospital executive only INCREASES an AVERAGE OF 25% every year. How can any NON-PROFIT hospital executive expect to keep up with the rising costs of living if they are only getting a raise of 25% a year?!

Do you know the average NON-PROFIT hospital CEO's salary is ONLY $2.5 million?!

I mean sure, there are the bonuses, the deferred compensation packages, and the golden parachutes that are NOT included in that CASH compensation. And while those can add up to tens of millions of dollars (on average around $11 million in deferred compensation... NOT INCLUDING the semi-obligatory $2-$3 million annual "consultant" fee they get in their new semi-retired role for the NON-PROFIT hospital), how on Earth can they be expected to maintain their lifestyle up to that point?

I mean they are just scraping by on that $2.5 MILLION A YEAR salary. And with an average annual raise of only 25% a year, it will be 2019... TWENTY NINETEEN... before the average NON-PROFIT Hospital CEO is making $5 million a year!!!

As a nation how can we let this happen to our NON-PROFIT hospital CEOs?! I mean certainly site-neutral payment reform will wipe out the NON-PROFIT hospital industry because where will they find the money to fill the gap?
 
It's not a legit excuse to say we got charge more to offset the loss incurred with treating the poor. It's analogous of saying Walmart would charge more than Macy for the same pair of shoes because they got a larger percentage of the poor customers.

Com'on, it's outrageously irrational to use the same logic in private, free market world. what it causes is price-gauging, lack of transparency across the board in healthcare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Jumping in, but about 10 years ago there was a "non-profit" hospital near Pittsburgh that was losing about $10M/year and was probably about 2 years from bankruptcy. They "retired" the physician CEO and hired one of the health-care business gurus and now they are turning a profit of about $25M a year and rapidly expanding. (True story: The billing department claimed it was against the law to mail a patient's bill across state lines. Really cut down on their work and left about $10M in lost revenue. They also hadn't raised the rent in the physician office building since 1977. And hand't bothered to collect any rent since 1990. Plus paying overtime to have 3 RNs covering an empty ward. Etc., etc.)

Now I would prefer the facts to be reversed - ditch the MBA and hire the physician and everything gets better, but this is the perfect example that competent leadership matters. In this case, to the tune of about $30M/year.

Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of idiots running hospitals. The fact that some of them go bankrupt is probably a good thing for the country as a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So as I understand it, if they lose money, they are incompetent, and if they make money, they are thieves?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Look, I get it Ducttape and ampaphb... I know it's hard out there for a pim... I mean hospital executive.

Yachts get more expensive year in and year out and yet the average annual CASH compensation package for a NON-PROFIT hospital executive only INCREASES an AVERAGE OF 25% every year. How can any NON-PROFIT hospital executive expect to keep up with the rising costs of living if they are only getting a raise of 25% a year?!

Do you know the average NON-PROFIT hospital CEO's salary is ONLY $2.5 million?!

I mean sure, there are the bonuses, the deferred compensation packages, and the golden parachutes that are NOT included in that CASH compensation. And while those can add up to tens of millions of dollars (on average around $11 million in deferred compensation... NOT INCLUDING the semi-obligatory $2-$3 million annual "consultant" fee they get in their new semi-retired role for the NON-PROFIT hospital), how on Earth can they be expected to maintain their lifestyle up to that point?

I mean they are just scraping by on that $2.5 MILLION A YEAR salary. And with an average annual raise of only 25% a year, it will be 2019... TWENTY NINETEEN... before the average NON-PROFIT Hospital CEO is making $5 million a year!!!

As a nation how can we let this happen to our NON-PROFIT hospital CEOs?! I mean certainly site-neutral payment reform will wipe out the NON-PROFIT hospital industry because where will they find the money to fill the gap?
your note is also part confabulation. you are quoting information from an article that talks about the top 147 salaries, i believe. read the article below.

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/compensation-issues/the-great-pay-debate-5-hospital-executive-compensation-trends-for-2014.htm
yes they are being overpaid, but they are being paid based on the capitalistic free market economy that some here so desperately embrace.
JAMA article:http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1748832
Original Investigation | January 2014
Compensation of Chief Executive Officers at Nonprofit US Hospitals FREE
Karen E. Joynt, MD, MPH 1,3,5; Sidney T. Le, BA1,7; E. John Orav, PhD2,4; Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH1,4,6
[+] Author Affiliations
JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(1):61-67. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.11537.


ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT | METHODS | RESULTS | DISCUSSION | CONCLUSIONS | ARTICLE INFORMATION | REFERENCES

Importance Hospital chief executive officers (CEOs) can shape the priorities and performance of their organizations. The degree to which their compensation is based on their hospitals’ quality performance is not well known.

Objective To characterize CEO compensation and examine its relation with quality metrics.

Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective observational study. Participants included 1877 CEOs at 2681 private, nonprofit US hospitals.

Main Outcomes and Measures We used linear regression to identify hospital structural characteristics associated with CEO pay. We then determined the degree to which a hospital’s performance on financial metrics, technologic metrics, quality metrics, and community benefit in 2008 was associated with CEO pay in 2009.

Results The CEOs in our sample had a mean compensation of $595 781 (median, $404 938) in 2009. In multivariate analyses, CEO pay was associated with the number of hospital beds overseen ($550 for each additional bed; 95% CI, 429-671; P < .001), teaching status ($425 078 more at major teaching vs nonteaching hospitals; 95% CI, 315 238-534 918; P  < .001), and urban location. Hospitals with high levels of advanced technologic capabilities compensated their CEOs $135 862 more (95% CI, 80 744-190 990; P < .001) than did hospitals with low levels of technology. Hospitals with high performance on patient satisfaction compensated their CEOs $51 706 more than did those with low performance on patient satisfaction (95% CI, 15 166-88 247; P = .006). We found no association between CEO pay and hospitals’ margins, liquidity, capitalization, occupancy rates, process quality performance, mortality rates, readmission rates, or measures of community benefit.

Conclusions and Relevance Compensation of CEOs at nonprofit hospitals was highly variable across the country. Compensation was associated with technology and patient satisfaction but not with processes of care, patient outcomes, or community benefit.

on the other hand, the article in local paper noted that one of the insurance companies was bemoaning the fact that they were only able to pay their top 10 executives a combined 17 million dollars this past year.
 
Last edited:
your note is also part confabulation. you are quoting information from an article that talks about the top 147 salaries, i believe. read the article below.

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/compensation-issues/the-great-pay-debate-5-hospital-executive-compensation-trends-for-2014.htm
yes they are being overpaid, but they are being paid based on the capitalistic free market economy that some here so desperately embrace.
JAMA article:http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1748832

on the other hand, the article in local paper noted that one of the insurance companies was bemoaning the fact that they were only able to pay their top 10 executives a combined 17 million dollars this past year.

Healthcare and insurance executives' base pay outstrips physician salaries, according to an analysis for The New York Times by Compdata Surveys.
Hospital CEOs on average earn a base pay of $386,000 and hospital administrators make an average of $237,000, the analysis found. But even though physicians are the most highly trained professionals in the healthcare industry, surgeons earn an average of $306,000 and general doctors make $185,000, according to the Times.

But those salaries don't take into account that top hospital executives earn most of their income from non-salary compensation, according to the article. For example, in 2012, the year he retired, Ronald J. Del Mauro, former president of Barnabas Health in New Jersey, earned a salary of $28,000 but had a total compensation package of $21.7 million.

But the highest earners are top health insurance execs. Aetna CEO Mark T. Bertolini, for instance, earned a salary of $977,000 in 2012 but his total compensation package was more than $36 million.

"The pay for the top five or 10 executives at insurers is pretty astounding--way more than a highly trained surgeon," Cathy Schoen, senior vice president for policy, research and evaluation at the Commonwealth Fund, told the Times.

Doctors aren't pleased about the widening gap, especially given that the administrative costs result in inflated charges for medical services, according to the article. "Most doctors want to do well by their patients," said Abeel A. Mangi, M.D., a cardiothoracic surgeon at the Yale School of Medicine, in the article. "Other constituents, such as device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and even hospital administrators, may not necessarily have that perspective."

Last month Hans Rechsteiner, M.D., a surgeon in Wisconsin led a backlash against the prices after he discovered a brief outpatient appendectomy he performed for $1,700 generated a $12,000 hospital bill for the patient.

Although the healthcare industry boasts some of the highest paid professionals in any business, it also has staff that earn the lowest salaries, the Times noted. An emergency medical technician typically earns an annual salary of $27,000, the analysis found, while the average staff nurse receives $61,000 a year.
 
"Capitalism" is not a 4 letter word. As you can see it clearly has 10 letters in it.

Some people act like capitalism is a horrible thing. It's not. Is it perfect? No. But socialism, fascism, communism, heck every -ism has serious problems. For one, some will attest that certain -isms can burn your eyes or taste like ammonia... I'm looking at YOU Solipsism...

I believe in a fair shake and a level playing field, but that doesn't equate to socialism. I do believe in a free market, but with rules and regulations. No rules and regulations led to the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. We instituted rules which remained in place until the 1990's... and then 18 years after we got rid of the rules low and behold we get the Great Recession.

I support site neutral payments because it is a fair shake proposition that helps to slightly level the playing field between independent, privately owned physician practices and large hospital conglomerates. Even with site neutral payments, those of us who are independent will still be at a disadvantage due to our lack of scale in purchasing power and in negotiations with insurers. But, we'll have a better chance to still be around.

We independents are at a disadvantage because we can't incorporate as a non-profit, so we can't take advantage of the tax code. We are small and lack the size to purchase in large volumes and drive our per-unit costs down. We don't have lobbyists working for us at the federal, state, and municipal level. If we are lucky, our town may be small enough that we know our civic leaders, but for most of us we don't. Our small size puts us at a disadvantage at the negotiation table with insurers. In essence, we are the mom-and-pop locally owned and sourced businesses of the healthcare world, while hospitals are Walmart.

And like going to your local independent mom-and-pop store, most patients will tell you that we provide a better overall experience than your average Walmart.

The reasoning behind hospitals being paid 2-3 times more than a physician in the office is fallacious.

Moreover, the ACA has made the hospitals' argument largely moot, because it helped to level the playing field, some, for those who either couldn't afford or qualify for health insurance. Now that those people have coverage, hospitals are seeing their revenues grow to the point that "yes" the ones that are losing money are likely run by idiots. There are idiots running major corporations who don't know WTF they're doing, Virginia. Why just look up Chuck Conway/KMart, Jon Sculley/Apple, Kay Whitmore/Kodak, Julian Day/RadioShack, Jim Gooch/RadioShack, Joe Magnacca/RadioShack... jeez RadioShack has had some craptastic leadership). Those places that are run poorly will lose money, lose employee confidence, lose consumer/patient confidence, lose market share, and possibly even go out of business.

And that is good for the market. That is the market... that's how it works.. hell it's why it works.

If you are successful you should be rewarded. If you're smart, you choose not to reward yourself excessively, because profits can be reinvested to secure a brighter future for your company. Moreover, I would hope you would also reward the individuals throughout the organization... because no CEO does it alone and that would be the fair and level thing to do.

I support site neutral payments because its the right thing to do. Level the playing field. Pay the hospitals what you pay the physicians' offices. Paying them $3000 for a knee MRI that a patient can get done outpatient for $262 is ridiculous AND wasteful (I've priced that out for patients, btw, so those are real world numbers... and that's WITH insurance).

Quit wasting that $2.95 billion/year on hospitals and spend it on something... ANYTHING else that we as a nation need. Spend it on our roads. Replace our collapsing bridges. Invest in pre-k education. Renovate our decaying schools. **** hire more social workers for CPS so that no kid ever dies at the hands of their parents or in a foster home again. Level the playing field and quit flushing that money down the toilet and into the pockets of hospitals and hospital administrators. That's what I want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
"Capitalism" is not a 4 letter word. As you can see it clearly has 10 letters in it.

Some people act like capitalism is a horrible thing. It's not. Is it perfect? No. But socialism, fascism, communism, heck every -ism has serious problems. For one, some will attest that certain -isms can burn your eyes or taste like ammonia... I'm looking at YOU Solipsism...

I believe in a fair shake and a level playing field, but that doesn't equate to socialism. I do believe in a free market, but with rules and regulations. No rules and regulations led to the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. We instituted rules which remained in place until the 1990's... and then 18 years after we got rid of the rules low and behold we get the Great Recession.

I support site neutral payments because it is a fair shake proposition that helps to slightly level the playing field between independent, privately owned physician practices and large hospital conglomerates. Even with site neutral payments, those of us who are independent will still be at a disadvantage due to our lack of scale in purchasing power and in negotiations with insurers. But, we'll have a better chance to still be around.

We independents are at a disadvantage because we can't incorporate as a non-profit, so we can't take advantage of the tax code. We are small and lack the size to purchase in large volumes and drive our per-unit costs down. We don't have lobbyists working for us at the federal, state, and municipal level. If we are lucky, our town may be small enough that we know our civic leaders, but for most of us we don't. Our small size puts us at a disadvantage at the negotiation table with insurers. In essence, we are the mom-and-pop locally owned and sourced businesses of the healthcare world, while hospitals are Walmart.

And like going to your local independent mom-and-pop store, most patients will tell you that we provide a better overall experience than your average Walmart.

The reasoning behind hospitals being paid 2-3 times more than a physician in the office is fallacious.

Moreover, the ACA has made the hospitals' argument largely moot, because it helped to level the playing field, some, for those who either couldn't afford or qualify for health insurance. Now that those people have coverage, hospitals are seeing their revenues grow to the point that "yes" the ones that are losing money are likely run by idiots. There are idiots running major corporations who don't know WTF they're doing, Virginia. Why just look up Chuck Conway/KMart, Jon Sculley/Apple, Kay Whitmore/Kodak, Julian Day/RadioShack, Jim Gooch/RadioShack, Joe Magnacca/RadioShack... jeez RadioShack has had some craptastic leadership). Those places that are run poorly will lose money, lose employee confidence, lose consumer/patient confidence, lose market share, and possibly even go out of business.

And that is good for the market. That is the market... that's how it works.. hell it's why it works.

If you are successful you should be rewarded. If you're smart, you choose not to reward yourself excessively, because profits can be reinvested to secure a brighter future for your company. Moreover, I would hope you would also reward the individuals throughout the organization... because no CEO does it alone and that would be the fair and level thing to do.

I support site neutral payments because its the right thing to do. Level the playing field. Pay the hospitals what you pay the physicians' offices. Paying them $3000 for a knee MRI that a patient can get done outpatient for $262 is ridiculous AND wasteful (I've priced that out for patients, btw, so those are real world numbers... and that's WITH insurance).

Quit wasting that $2.95 billion/year on hospitals and spend it on something... ANYTHING else that we as a nation need. Spend it on our roads. Replace our collapsing bridges. Invest in pre-k education. Renovate our decaying schools. **** hire more social workers for CPS so that no kid ever dies at the hands of their parents or in a foster home again. Level the playing field and quit flushing that money down the toilet and into the pockets of hospitals and hospital administrators. That's what I want.

Preach brother, preach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
so if that is the case, then you as a capitalist have no qualms at all about hospital execs and insurance CEOs making more than physicians. their fruits come off of your back. i do not agree with that - that CEOs of any sort are making so much money, and they are making it off of our hard work. i also believe in honesty and ethics... even if it benefits those sharks individuals called administrators.

a level playing field in a free market economic system that we currently have doesnt exist. the little guy will always get pushed out. sorry to be rude and seemingly uncaring, but what makes you so different from the mom and pop shops that got shut out by Walmart? why should special rules be implemented for your store that were not/could not be done for those other shops?

look at our past history - the little steel, oil, electric companies were all forced out of existence before. this is how capitalism has worked in america, unless government gets involved. if you want capitalism, this is what you want.

attempting to "level" the playing field using government regulations and controls seems counterintuitive to a free market economy, or am i missing something?
 
Level playing field doesn't mean socialism, but it does mean creating rules for fairness in competition. The problem we currently face is hospitals get bigger and bigger with a long term goal of their being anywhere from 5-10 large healthcare "systems" providing the vast majority of healthcare nationally over their different "regions". This is what most consultants see the companies doing... hell it's what they are advising the hospitals to do and move towards. The laws in place don't adequately reign in hospitals and can effectively allow them to have a monopoly, which is good for NO ONE. Capitalism is a good thing, but it does require some element of regulation, otherwise it becomes a total clusterfork. The pushes towards socialism and communism that occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were the response to the unbridled capitalism of the industrial age. Child labor, 6 day/80-100 hour work weeks, no industrial safety standards, no job benefits, large monopolies controlling light, heat, and transportation all resulting in high prices for the consumers... these were the results of unbridled capitalism. Capitalism's failing is that without rules it is a brutal system for those not at the upper echelons. With rules and regulation, however, it becomes a very sane and excellent system. No market is truly ever free... because without rules you end up with economic anarchy/catastrophe. You need just enough rules to prevent chaos, but not so much to stifle innovation and growth. That's the delicate balance. All I'm advocating is for balance. Even, site neutral payments represent a balanced playing field. That's not too much to ask.
 
Top