The Big business of Mayo

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
drusso said:
There are two things pounded into you when you train at the WFMC:

1) The needs of the patient come first.
2) No money. No mission.
Click to expand...

Well looks they are following #2, #1 not so much
 
What about nominally-non-profit religious health systems masquerading as charities? Would you be surprised to learn that the Oregon company with the largest cash reserves is not Nike or Intel but a Catholic "Charity" hospital system?

At what point do we hold employed MD's accountable for their career choices and their employer's anti-competitive behavior? It's only the people on the inside who can change this. Why are tax payers and private business subsidizing these anti-competitive behemoths?

The Five Things Hospitals Don't Want You to Know About Obamacare

upload_2017-11-16_10-27-45.png
 
drusso said:
What about nominally-non-profit religious health systems masquerading as charities? Would you be surprised to learn that the Oregon company with the largest cash reserves is not Nike or Intel but a Catholic "Charity" hospital system?

At what point do we hold employed MD's accountable for their career choices and their employer's anti-competitive behavior? It's only the people on the inside who can change this. Why are tax payers and private business subsidizing these anti-competitive behemoths?

The Five Things Hospitals Don't Want You to Know About Obamacare

View attachment 225512
Click to expand...

Any of the SOS differential supporters care to rebut this article?

My observation is that some large health-systems have done well under ACA, while many small/rural hospitals (including those w/ tax exempt status) have closed down, or have been absorbed.
 
What is there to rebut?

I’m not in complete favor of SOS, but I understand the reasons, and hospitals not the employed physicians hold the power.

Blaming employed docs for the pricing policies of their systems is like blaming Walmart employees for the RollBack discounts of products - completely misplaced and fruitless.

Since the AMA and specialty organizations have abrogated any responsibility in exchange for $$, the only organization that can force hospitals to reduce their exhorbitant fees is the government, but that might lead to universal health care....... and we don’t go there, do we.
 
Ducttape said:
What is there to rebut?

I’m not in complete favor of SOS, but I understand the reasons, and hospitals not the employed physicians hold the power.

Blaming employed docs for the pricing policies of their systems is like blaming Walmart employees for the RollBack discounts of products - completely misplaced and fruitless.

Since the AMA and specialty organizations have abrogated any responsibility in exchange for $$, the only organization that can force hospitals to reduce their exhorbitant fees is the government, but that might lead to universal health care....... and we don’t go there, do we.
Click to expand...

I'll throw some gas on the fire...

Choosing your employer is no different than choosing where to shop (locally-owned versus big box retailer), where/how to invest your money (Phillip-Morris versus socially conscious enterprises), etc. If MD/DO's, a matter of principle and professional pride, made an effort to stay independent and refused to work for hospitals, then these large physician employers would have no one to hire...

Your action to "work for the man" speaks louder than words. Working for the man is an affirmative action in support of site-of-service differentials, phoney-baloney hospital accounting, "Big Hospital" politics, and only greases the skids toward a decline into socialized medicine.
 
drusso said:
I'll throw some gas on the fire...

Choosing your employer is no different than choosing where to shop (locally-owned versus big box retailer), where/how to invest your money (Phillip-Morris versus socially conscious enterprises), etc. If MD/DO's, a matter of principle and professional pride, made an effort to stay independent and refused to work for hospitals, then these large physician employers would have no one to hire...

Your action to "work for the man" speaks louder than words. Working for the man is an affirmative action in support of site-of-service differentials, phoney-baloney hospital accounting, "Big Hospital" politics, and only greases the skids toward a decline into socialized medicine.
Click to expand...
To a certain extent, it is the independent practitioner who is supporting SOS differentials. If independent docs stopped accepting Medicare and insurance that recognizes SOS, then there would be no more SOS...
 
1. yes, you can argue about the "benefits" of shopping local or not going to the Big Box stores, or Walmart. but the counter to your argument is that it is each individuals responsibility (in a global perspective, not actually me) to be fiscally responsible... thats why so many people shop at these discount merchants.

extrapolating that to physician practice - you would be asking financially strapped new grads who owe hundreds of thousands in financial debt - and it will get worse under the current tax bills for students - to not only defer making money, but to garner even greater financial debt as they try to set up and advance a private practice.


2. what about procedures at ASC? There is a SOS for doing procedures at ASC vs in-office. do you hold private practices to the same degree of disdain that you hold employed physicians? the difference in fees between the two are marginal at best.


3. finally, from my standpoint, i have a completely different concern - the medicaid patient. that is the core of my hospital practice, as it makes up probably 40%. imo SOS differential needs to exist for Medicaid. most PP do not take a significant amount of Medicaid to cover the number of patients in need, and rightfully so because of the poor reimbursement from Medicaid and the horrid no show rate. this population is at greatest risk for 1. pain 2. drug abuse 3. opioid misuse... (no they arent getting opioids from me)
 
Ducttape said:
3. finally, from my standpoint, i have a completely different concern - the medicaid patient. that is the core of my hospital practice, as it makes up probably 40%. imo SOS differential needs to exist for Medicaid. most PP do not take a significant amount of Medicaid to cover the number of patients in need, and rightfully so because of the poor reimbursement from Medicaid and the horrid no show rate. this population is at greatest risk for 1. pain 2. drug abuse 3. opioid misuse... (no they arent getting opioids from me)
Click to expand...
It's been pointed out but if the problem is low Medicaid rates, that could be increased, rather than propping up the whole hospital system with SOS.
 
Ducttape said:
1. yes, you can argue about the "benefits" of shopping local or not going to the Big Box stores, or Walmart. but the counter to your argument is that it is each individuals responsibility (in a global perspective, not actually me) to be fiscally responsible... thats why so many people shop at these discount merchants.

extrapolating that to physician practice - you would be asking financially strapped new grads who owe hundreds of thousands in financial debt - and it will get worse under the current tax bills for students - to not only defer making money, but to garner even greater financial debt as they try to set up and advance a private practice.


2. what about procedures at ASC? There is a SOS for doing procedures at ASC vs in-office. do you hold private practices to the same degree of disdain that you hold employed physicians? the difference in fees between the two are marginal at best.


3. finally, from my standpoint, i have a completely different concern - the medicaid patient. that is the core of my hospital practice, as it makes up probably 40%. imo SOS differential needs to exist for Medicaid. most PP do not take a significant amount of Medicaid to cover the number of patients in need, and rightfully so because of the poor reimbursement from Medicaid and the horrid no show rate. this population is at greatest risk for 1. pain 2. drug abuse 3. opioid misuse... (no they arent getting opioids from me)
Click to expand...

I thought SOS was primarily to compensate for care of uninsured patients, which, supposedly dropped significantly with the ACA.

Why the need for across the board SOS differential, tax exempt status w/ funny accounting, etc.?

“Block grants” have become a buzz word over the past year. Why not block grant a fixed amount to a hospital based on that hospital’s losses for the previous year (sans funny accounting)?
 
I don’t disagree with improving Medicaid pay rates, but when there are states that still will not expand Medicaid..... I don’t see it likely.

FYI 28 million Americans are still uninsured. That is down from 44 million. Most are in states of Texas, florida, Georgia and North Carolina.

The point is that there is still a sizable population of uninsured with the ACA. It is at the lowest level ever, however.

Block granting may actually serve to actually force states to cut services to Medicaid patients ents, from what I understand...
 
Disciple said:
I thought SOS was primarily to compensate for care of uninsured patients, which, supposedly dropped significantly with the ACA.

Why the need for across the board SOS differential, tax exempt status w/ funny accounting, etc.?

“Block grants” have become a buzz word over the past year. Why not block grant a fixed amount to a hospital based on that hospital’s losses for the previous year (sans funny accounting)?
Click to expand...

Why not global budgets, locally-elected boards of directors, and public accounting that conforms to GAAP for public entities?

But first: Get hospitals out of the MD-employment business...

An Emerging Approach to Payment Reform: All-Payer Global Budgets for Large Safety-Net Hospital Systems
 
why not indeed. im not sure it is reasonable to expect employed doctors - who have various reasons to practice medicine at a hospital - to be the primary driver for this change.
 
Ducttape said:
why not indeed. im not sure it is reasonable to expect employed doctors - who have various reasons to practice medicine at a hospital - to be the primary driver for this change.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...that puts the onus back in the private sector I suppose. If want anything done, just ask the busiest people to help as the old saying goes...
 
or ask the ones with the money and power.

that would boil down to hospital admin, unfortunately. or the government.

do you think that hospital based doctors should to sacrifice their career, or have the financial reserves to even do so, make PP physicians get richer?
 
Anyone know any pain doctors who work for Sutter?

Health giant Sutter destroys evidence in crucial antitrust case over high prices
By Chad Terhune | November 17, 2017
Sutter Health intentionally destroyed 192 boxes of documents that employers and labor unions were seeking in a lawsuit that accuses the giant Northern California health system of abusing its market power and charging inflated prices, according to a state judge.

In a ruling this week, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow said Sutter destroyed documents "knowing that the evidence was relevant to antitrust issues. … There is no good explanation for the specific and unusual destruction here."

Karnow cited an internal email by a Sutter employee who said she was "running and hiding" after ordering the records destroyed in 2015. "The most generous interpretation to Sutter is that it was grossly reckless," the judge wrote in his 12-page ruling.

Sutter, which has 24 hospitals and nearly $12 billion in annual revenue, said the destruction was a regrettable mistake.

Employers and policymakers across the country are closely watching this legal fight amid growing concern about the financial implications of industry consolidation. Large health systems are gaining market clout and the ability to raise prices by acquiring more hospitals, outpatient surgery centers and physician offices.

"It's stunning what Sutter did to cover up incriminating documents in this case," said Richard Grossman, the lead plaintiffs' lawyer representing a class of more than 1,500 employer-funded health plans.

In April 2014, a grocery workers' health plan sued Sutter and alleged it was violating antitrust and unfair competition laws. The plaintiffs began requesting documents related to contracting practices, such as "gag clauses" that prevent patients from seeing negotiated rates and choosing a cheaper provider and "all-or-nothing" terms that require every facility in a health system to be included in insurance networks.

Sutter disputes the broader allegations in the lawsuit over its market conduct and said its charges are in line with its competitors'.

The judge said that in 2015 Melissa Brendt, Sutter's chief contracting officer in the managed-care department, and an assistant general counsel, Daniela Almeida, authorized Brendt's executive assistant to destroy 10 years' worth of managed-care documents going back to 1995. The company earlier had scheduled the documents to be destroyed in 2035 — 20 years later.

The executive assistant, Sina Santagata, testified in a deposition she wasn't aware of any other time in her 17 years at Sutter when the managed-care department destroyed records held in storage.

In his Nov. 13 ruling against Sutter, the judge singled out an email by Santagata as "particularly noteworthy."

The executive assistant emailed Brendt, the chief contracting officer, on July 30, 2015, after sending the order to destroy the records. She wrote, "I've pushed the button … if someone is in need of a box between 3/15/95 & 11/23/05 … I'm running and hiding. … 'Fingers crossed' that I haven't authorized something the FTC will hunt me down for."

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces antitrust laws in health care to prevent hospitals, drugmakers and other industry players from engaging in anti-competitive behavior that could harm consumers.

Santagata testified that she was being "sarcastic" in her email, and Sutter told the judge that the FTC reference was just a "joke."

Karnow saw no humor in it. "There are infinite topics for jokes, and the choice of this one is strong evidence" in the plaintiffs' favor, he wrote in his order Monday.

As part of his sanctions against Sutter, the judge ordered the health system to examine email backup tapes covering 2002 through 2005 to search for documents on some of the same topics as the destroyed records. Also, Karnow said he will consider a plaintiffs' motion for issuing jury instructions that are adverse to Sutter in light of the document destruction. The trial is scheduled for June 2019.

"The record shows that Sutter's conduct was more than just an inadvertent error," Karnow wrote.

Sutter spokeswoman Karen Garner said the incident was a "mistake made as part of a routine destruction of old paper records" and the Sacramento-based health system disclosed the error as soon as it was discovered.

"We regret that as part of a routine archiving process we failed to preserve some boxes of decades-old hard-copy documents," Garner said.

The United Food and Commercial Workers and its Employers Benefit Trust initially filed the case against Sutter in 2014. The joint employer-union health plan represents more than 60,000 employees, dependents and retirees. The court certified the case as a class action in August, allowing hundreds of other employers and self-funded health plans to potentially benefit from the litigation.

In addition to its 24 hospitals, Sutter's nonprofit health system has 35 surgery centers and more than 5,000 physicians in its network. It reported $11.9 billion in revenue last year and income of $554 million.

Grossman, the plaintiffs' counsel, said he welcomed the judge's ruling. But he said much of the evidence is irreplaceable, particularly handwritten notes from negotiating sessions and meetings involving key Sutter executives.

He said those records covered a critical period in the early 2000s when there was a "sea change in Sutter's contracting strategy" and it implemented provisions that insulated the health system from price competition.

"This was groundbreaking in the industry," Grossman said. "Until we address the anti-competitive behavior of entities like Sutter, we will not solve the problem of high costs in health care."

The plaintiffs are seeking to recover hundreds of millions of dollars from Sutter from what it claims are illegally inflated prices. The lawsuit alleges that an overnight hospital stay at Sutter hospitals in San Francisco or Sacramento costs at least 38 percent more than a comparable stay in the more competitive Los Angeles market.

A study published last year found that hospital prices at Sutter and Dignity Health, the two biggest hospital chains in California, were 25 percent higher than at other hospitals around the state. Researchers at the University of Southern California said the giant health systems used their market power to drive up prices — making the average patient admission at both chains nearly $4,000 more expensive.

"Sutter is a pretty extreme case of market power, but health care consolidation has become a really important issue across the country," said Kathy Hempstead, a health care researcher at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "It's been on the back burner somewhat because of the debate over the Affordable Care Act, but there is bipartisan interest in tackling this."

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit health newsroom whose stories appear in news outlets nationwide, is an editorially independent part of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
 
Ducttape said:
or ask the ones with the money and power.

that would boil down to hospital admin, unfortunately. or the government.

do you think that hospital based doctors should to sacrifice their career, or have the financial reserves to even do so, make PP physicians get richer?
Click to expand...

Behind Walmart, Hospitals are the largest employers in most states. When will the employed MD's step up and hold their employers accountable for white collar crime?

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/walmart-nation-mapping-largest-employers-u-s/
 
drusso said:
Anyone know any pain doctors who work for Sutter?

Health giant Sutter destroys evidence in crucial antitrust case over high prices
By Chad Terhune | November 17, 2017
Sutter Health intentionally destroyed 192 boxes of documents that employers and labor unions were seeking in a lawsuit that accuses the giant Northern California health system of abusing its market power and charging inflated prices, according to a state judge.

In a ruling this week, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow said Sutter destroyed documents "knowing that the evidence was relevant to antitrust issues. … There is no good explanation for the specific and unusual destruction here."

Karnow cited an internal email by a Sutter employee who said she was "running and hiding" after ordering the records destroyed in 2015. "The most generous interpretation to Sutter is that it was grossly reckless," the judge wrote in his 12-page ruling.

Sutter, which has 24 hospitals and nearly $12 billion in annual revenue, said the destruction was a regrettable mistake.

Employers and policymakers across the country are closely watching this legal fight amid growing concern about the financial implications of industry consolidation. Large health systems are gaining market clout and the ability to raise prices by acquiring more hospitals, outpatient surgery centers and physician offices.

"It's stunning what Sutter did to cover up incriminating documents in this case," said Richard Grossman, the lead plaintiffs' lawyer representing a class of more than 1,500 employer-funded health plans.

In April 2014, a grocery workers' health plan sued Sutter and alleged it was violating antitrust and unfair competition laws. The plaintiffs began requesting documents related to contracting practices, such as "gag clauses" that prevent patients from seeing negotiated rates and choosing a cheaper provider and "all-or-nothing" terms that require every facility in a health system to be included in insurance networks.

Sutter disputes the broader allegations in the lawsuit over its market conduct and said its charges are in line with its competitors'.

The judge said that in 2015 Melissa Brendt, Sutter's chief contracting officer in the managed-care department, and an assistant general counsel, Daniela Almeida, authorized Brendt's executive assistant to destroy 10 years' worth of managed-care documents going back to 1995. The company earlier had scheduled the documents to be destroyed in 2035 — 20 years later.

The executive assistant, Sina Santagata, testified in a deposition she wasn't aware of any other time in her 17 years at Sutter when the managed-care department destroyed records held in storage.

In his Nov. 13 ruling against Sutter, the judge singled out an email by Santagata as "particularly noteworthy."

The executive assistant emailed Brendt, the chief contracting officer, on July 30, 2015, after sending the order to destroy the records. She wrote, "I've pushed the button … if someone is in need of a box between 3/15/95 & 11/23/05 … I'm running and hiding. … 'Fingers crossed' that I haven't authorized something the FTC will hunt me down for."

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces antitrust laws in health care to prevent hospitals, drugmakers and other industry players from engaging in anti-competitive behavior that could harm consumers.

Santagata testified that she was being "sarcastic" in her email, and Sutter told the judge that the FTC reference was just a "joke."

Karnow saw no humor in it. "There are infinite topics for jokes, and the choice of this one is strong evidence" in the plaintiffs' favor, he wrote in his order Monday.

As part of his sanctions against Sutter, the judge ordered the health system to examine email backup tapes covering 2002 through 2005 to search for documents on some of the same topics as the destroyed records. Also, Karnow said he will consider a plaintiffs' motion for issuing jury instructions that are adverse to Sutter in light of the document destruction. The trial is scheduled for June 2019.

"The record shows that Sutter's conduct was more than just an inadvertent error," Karnow wrote.

Sutter spokeswoman Karen Garner said the incident was a "mistake made as part of a routine destruction of old paper records" and the Sacramento-based health system disclosed the error as soon as it was discovered.

"We regret that as part of a routine archiving process we failed to preserve some boxes of decades-old hard-copy documents," Garner said.

The United Food and Commercial Workers and its Employers Benefit Trust initially filed the case against Sutter in 2014. The joint employer-union health plan represents more than 60,000 employees, dependents and retirees. The court certified the case as a class action in August, allowing hundreds of other employers and self-funded health plans to potentially benefit from the litigation.

In addition to its 24 hospitals, Sutter's nonprofit health system has 35 surgery centers and more than 5,000 physicians in its network. It reported $11.9 billion in revenue last year and income of $554 million.

Grossman, the plaintiffs' counsel, said he welcomed the judge's ruling. But he said much of the evidence is irreplaceable, particularly handwritten notes from negotiating sessions and meetings involving key Sutter executives.

He said those records covered a critical period in the early 2000s when there was a "sea change in Sutter's contracting strategy" and it implemented provisions that insulated the health system from price competition.

"This was groundbreaking in the industry," Grossman said. "Until we address the anti-competitive behavior of entities like Sutter, we will not solve the problem of high costs in health care."

The plaintiffs are seeking to recover hundreds of millions of dollars from Sutter from what it claims are illegally inflated prices. The lawsuit alleges that an overnight hospital stay at Sutter hospitals in San Francisco or Sacramento costs at least 38 percent more than a comparable stay in the more competitive Los Angeles market.

A study published last year found that hospital prices at Sutter and Dignity Health, the two biggest hospital chains in California, were 25 percent higher than at other hospitals around the state. Researchers at the University of Southern California said the giant health systems used their market power to drive up prices — making the average patient admission at both chains nearly $4,000 more expensive.

"Sutter is a pretty extreme case of market power, but health care consolidation has become a really important issue across the country," said Kathy Hempstead, a health care researcher at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "It's been on the back burner somewhat because of the debate over the Affordable Care Act, but there is bipartisan interest in tackling this."

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit health newsroom whose stories appear in news outlets nationwide, is an editorially independent part of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Click to expand...
The old govt "too big to fail" model...
 
drusso said:
Behind Walmart, Hospitals are the largest employers in most states. When will the employed MD's step up and hold their employers accountable for white collar crime?

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/walmart-nation-mapping-largest-employers-u-s/
Click to expand...
If I had evidence or suspicion of a crime being committed in my hospital, I would be the first to report/attack (whichever would bring more justice). I guess in most cases, executives keep their crooked ways hidden. But being a true "whistle blower" (not an opportunist), is on my bucket list.

As a private practice doc accepting private insurance, I would also gleefully attack an insurer/exec if I though a crime was being committed. But I'm also not struggling to make payments, etc. It allows me some liberty that others may not have.
 
drusso said:
Anyone know any pain doctors who work for Sutter?

Health giant Sutter destroys evidence in crucial antitrust case over high prices
By Chad Terhune | November 17, 2017
Sutter Health intentionally destroyed 192 boxes of documents that employers and labor unions were seeking in a lawsuit that accuses the giant Northern California health system of abusing its market power and charging inflated prices, according to a state judge.

In a ruling this week, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow said Sutter destroyed documents "knowing that the evidence was relevant to antitrust issues. … There is no good explanation for the specific and unusual destruction here."

Karnow cited an internal email by a Sutter employee who said she was "running and hiding" after ordering the records destroyed in 2015. "The most generous interpretation to Sutter is that it was grossly reckless," the judge wrote in his 12-page ruling.

Sutter, which has 24 hospitals and nearly $12 billion in annual revenue, said the destruction was a regrettable mistake.

Employers and policymakers across the country are closely watching this legal fight amid growing concern about the financial implications of industry consolidation. Large health systems are gaining market clout and the ability to raise prices by acquiring more hospitals, outpatient surgery centers and physician offices.

"It's stunning what Sutter did to cover up incriminating documents in this case," said Richard Grossman, the lead plaintiffs' lawyer representing a class of more than 1,500 employer-funded health plans.

In April 2014, a grocery workers' health plan sued Sutter and alleged it was violating antitrust and unfair competition laws. The plaintiffs began requesting documents related to contracting practices, such as "gag clauses" that prevent patients from seeing negotiated rates and choosing a cheaper provider and "all-or-nothing" terms that require every facility in a health system to be included in insurance networks.

Sutter disputes the broader allegations in the lawsuit over its market conduct and said its charges are in line with its competitors'.

The judge said that in 2015 Melissa Brendt, Sutter's chief contracting officer in the managed-care department, and an assistant general counsel, Daniela Almeida, authorized Brendt's executive assistant to destroy 10 years' worth of managed-care documents going back to 1995. The company earlier had scheduled the documents to be destroyed in 2035 — 20 years later.

The executive assistant, Sina Santagata, testified in a deposition she wasn't aware of any other time in her 17 years at Sutter when the managed-care department destroyed records held in storage.

In his Nov. 13 ruling against Sutter, the judge singled out an email by Santagata as "particularly noteworthy."

The executive assistant emailed Brendt, the chief contracting officer, on July 30, 2015, after sending the order to destroy the records. She wrote, "I've pushed the button … if someone is in need of a box between 3/15/95 & 11/23/05 … I'm running and hiding. … 'Fingers crossed' that I haven't authorized something the FTC will hunt me down for."

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces antitrust laws in health care to prevent hospitals, drugmakers and other industry players from engaging in anti-competitive behavior that could harm consumers.

Santagata testified that she was being "sarcastic" in her email, and Sutter told the judge that the FTC reference was just a "joke."

Karnow saw no humor in it. "There are infinite topics for jokes, and the choice of this one is strong evidence" in the plaintiffs' favor, he wrote in his order Monday.

As part of his sanctions against Sutter, the judge ordered the health system to examine email backup tapes covering 2002 through 2005 to search for documents on some of the same topics as the destroyed records. Also, Karnow said he will consider a plaintiffs' motion for issuing jury instructions that are adverse to Sutter in light of the document destruction. The trial is scheduled for June 2019.

"The record shows that Sutter's conduct was more than just an inadvertent error," Karnow wrote.

Sutter spokeswoman Karen Garner said the incident was a "mistake made as part of a routine destruction of old paper records" and the Sacramento-based health system disclosed the error as soon as it was discovered.

"We regret that as part of a routine archiving process we failed to preserve some boxes of decades-old hard-copy documents," Garner said.

The United Food and Commercial Workers and its Employers Benefit Trust initially filed the case against Sutter in 2014. The joint employer-union health plan represents more than 60,000 employees, dependents and retirees. The court certified the case as a class action in August, allowing hundreds of other employers and self-funded health plans to potentially benefit from the litigation.

In addition to its 24 hospitals, Sutter's nonprofit health system has 35 surgery centers and more than 5,000 physicians in its network. It reported $11.9 billion in revenue last year and income of $554 million.

Grossman, the plaintiffs' counsel, said he welcomed the judge's ruling. But he said much of the evidence is irreplaceable, particularly handwritten notes from negotiating sessions and meetings involving key Sutter executives.

He said those records covered a critical period in the early 2000s when there was a "sea change in Sutter's contracting strategy" and it implemented provisions that insulated the health system from price competition.

"This was groundbreaking in the industry," Grossman said. "Until we address the anti-competitive behavior of entities like Sutter, we will not solve the problem of high costs in health care."

The plaintiffs are seeking to recover hundreds of millions of dollars from Sutter from what it claims are illegally inflated prices. The lawsuit alleges that an overnight hospital stay at Sutter hospitals in San Francisco or Sacramento costs at least 38 percent more than a comparable stay in the more competitive Los Angeles market.

A study published last year found that hospital prices at Sutter and Dignity Health, the two biggest hospital chains in California, were 25 percent higher than at other hospitals around the state. Researchers at the University of Southern California said the giant health systems used their market power to drive up prices — making the average patient admission at both chains nearly $4,000 more expensive.

"Sutter is a pretty extreme case of market power, but health care consolidation has become a really important issue across the country," said Kathy Hempstead, a health care researcher at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "It's been on the back burner somewhat because of the debate over the Affordable Care Act, but there is bipartisan interest in tackling this."

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit health newsroom whose stories appear in news outlets nationwide, is an editorially independent part of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Click to expand...

Interesting Development last week:

https://www.bizjournals.com/sacrame...les-antitrust-suit-against-sutter-health.html

California Takes On Health Giant Over High Costs


Similarly:

Ballot initiative aimed at five Stanford Health facilities

"Price transparency". The buzzword for this year.
 
If I read that correctly it is the Stanford employee union spearheading the price limits.... do they not get that if less $$ for Stanford then less $$ for their bogus pensions and overtime? There is a subset of americans who truly believe there is a magic money tree to shake when they need the dough.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bedrock
The business of denying health care to Americans
Replies
39
Views
3K
Status Sciaticus
Status Sciaticus
drusso
Big Beautiful Bill: Implications for Pain...
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
493
Views
18K
Ducttape
D
TheLoneWolf
Steak Dinners, Sales Reps and Risky Procedures: Inside the Big Business of Clogged Arteries
Replies
6
Views
938
geauxg8rs
G
drusso
NEJM: The Broken Promise of Profit-Driven Medicine
Replies
17
Views
1K
cowboydoc
cowboydoc
drusso
Congratulations Kristen Klein Pain APP of the Year
Replies
12
Views
2K
clubdeac
clubdeac
Top