The demise of hospital based work?

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

wamcp

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
730
Reaction score
4,654

Are pediatric and adult hospitalist, critical care, ER etc (all hospital based jobs) all going to face dramatically increased work burden combined with slashed, lower compensation?

Like, none of the new tax bill changes are good for hospitals. It’s going to be horrific.


“Hospitals say they are big losers under the new legislation. More uninsured people will mean more uncompensated healthcare costs, they say. And many hospitals now face reductions in some supplemental payments that most states have come to rely on to augment low Medicaid payment rates.
Over the next decade, Medicaid payments to hospitals will be reduced by nearly $665 billion, an 18.2% reduction, according to analysis by Manatt. Meanwhile, hospitals’ uncompensated care costs are projected to increase by upward of $84 billion in 2034, according to an analysis of the bill by America’s Essential Hospitals, which represents some 350 hospitals nationwide. That number takes into account lower Medicaid payments and Medicaid payment shortfalls, as well as costs from caring for the uninsured.

“It is a double-whammy. We’re going to have many millions more uninsured individuals showing up needing care,” said Beth Feldpush, the group’s senior vice president of advocacy and policy. “But at the same time, hospitals won’t be able to backfill financial holes.”

Medicaid payment rates are notoriously low compared with other types of insurance. States have increasingly boosted these rates in recent years through so-called state-directed payments, which can raise Medicaid payment rates to levels comparable with Medicare or even average commercial insurance rates.

The bill clamps down on these payments. States that have expanded their Medicaid programs under Obamacare to include more low-income adults would have state-directed payment rates capped at 100% of Medicare rates; states that haven’t adopted expansion would be capped at 110% of Medicare rates. The change will reduce federal spending by $149.4 billion over a decade, according to a CBO analysis.

Hospitals in about 30 states will likely see reductions in the state-directed payments they receive once cuts go into effect, according to an analysis by KFF, a health-policy nonprofit.
State hospital associations said these payments are lifelines for hospitals, many of which operate at or near a loss. Even before the bill’s passage, several hospitals across the country laid off employees, froze hiring and tightened spending, citing the impending cuts to Medicaid as a factor. Providence, one of the country’s largest health systems, said last month that it had implemented a restructuring plan that would lead to 600 employees losing their jobs.

Other hospitals say they are bracing for the changes to come. Our Lady of the Angels Hospital, a safety-net hospital in Bogalusa, La., said it would have to consider closing its doors, and the University of Kentucky said it might have to pause construction on a new building dedicated to caring for cancer patients if state-directed payment cuts go into effect.

The cuts may also eat into the earnings of for-profit hospitals like HCA Healthcare and Tenet Healthcare that have enjoyed lucrative boosts to their bottom lines from state-directed payments.
The National Rural Health Association said it was worried that the bill’s provisions would significantly hamper healthcare access in rural areas. Senate Republicans added a $50 billion relief fund to the bill at the last minute for rural hospitals, but Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine), who voted against the bill, said it wouldn’t be enough to offset the other changes.”
 

Are pediatric and adult hospitalist, critical care, ER etc (all hospital based jobs) all going to face dramatically increased work burden combined with slashed, lower compensation?

Like, none of the new tax bill changes are good for hospitals. It’s going to be horrific.


“Hospitals say they are big losers

Yeah, pretty much. Hospitals are already big losers.

Either physician pay is going to get cut, or the amount of physician involvement (# of jobs, # or roles) will decrease dramatically.

I bet the latter. With mid-level encroachment, AI, nurse-driven protocols . . .most of the hospital runs without physician involvement. Not hard to cut jobs.
 
I mean to play the other side of things… does anyone think healthcare in the US can be fixed without some sort of slashing of hospital spending?

The bloat admin / Csuite budget has to go. So, so many nurse managers or business school grads running around contributing nothing to the bedside and pushing vague “metrics”

There’s tons of stuff being done in hospitals (outpatient surgeries, almost all of outpatient cancer care, imaging) that should be done more efficiently in an ASC or outpatient PP. You can probably get your colon cancer treated in my office for 1/3 the cost of the big hospital system in town.

We either need to accept that things need to change or that our healthcare system, much like our military industrial complex is really a large government-sponsored jobs program.
 
Gosh, I need a break… it’s exhausting to think about these issues. I already take care of a sizable Medicaid population and don’t need more brainstorming sessions from admin about cutting costs and steering the ship. No bandwidth for that right now.
 
Doubtful any serious financial pain ever comes to fruition for hospitals (the medicare part B cute will however). They will use their new 5T debt ceiling increase to undo these which were only in there to cheat the bill through reconciliation. If the Democrats refuse to play ball in fixing the problem the Republicans created it will be used as political ammo.
 
I mean to play the other side of things… does anyone think healthcare in the US can be fixed without some sort of slashing of hospital spending?

The bloat admin / Csuite budget has to go. So, so many nurse managers or business school grads running around contributing nothing to the bedside and pushing vague “metrics”

There’s tons of stuff being done in hospitals (outpatient surgeries, almost all of outpatient cancer care, imaging) that should be done more efficiently in an ASC or outpatient PP. You can probably get your colon cancer treated in my office for 1/3 the cost of the big hospital system in town.

We either need to accept that things need to change or that our healthcare system, much like our military industrial complex is really a large government-sponsored jobs program.
The only thing that would actually push care away from hospitals into more cost efficient venues is moving to site neutral payments.

Cutting of public payer reimbursement would only make private practice all the less viable.
 
The only thing that would actually push care away from hospitals into more cost efficient venues is moving to site neutral payments.

Cutting of public payer reimbursement would only make private practice all the less viable.
You could do site neutral payments but also have reimbursement set somewhere in between where outpatient PP and hospital based are now. Overall costs go down and push care back to more efficient PP groups.

Problem is that many hospital employees (voters) would lose their jobs in a very large number of congressional districts all over the country.
 
do you think that this would affect residency program slots in any way?

If so - what fields would be most impacted?
 
Gosh, I need a break… it’s exhausting to think about these issues. I already take care of a sizable Medicaid population and don’t need more brainstorming sessions from admin about cutting costs and steering the ship. No bandwidth for that right now.
Your admin conferences about cost cutting in USA healthcare system reminded me of a Gilded Age quote.
Although I have read that this quote may be from an unknown Tycoon source, it appears to be nonetheless well known, or at least revealing.

John D. Rockefeller, the founder of the Standard Oil Company, the first billionaire of the United States of America and once the richest man on Earth was asked by a reporter, “How much money is enough?”
He calmly replied, “Just a little bit more”.
 
John D. Rockefeller, the founder of the Standard Oil Company, the first billionaire of the United States of America and once the richest man on Earth was asked by a reporter, “How much money is enough?”
He calmly replied, “Just a little bit more”.
Hmm.., I wasn’t aware—thank you. There are certainly many parallels to the Gilded Age of the past. That “just a little bit more” mentality is driving hospitals to build massive insurance arms—mostly dependent on Medicaid and other government payers—expand across state lines and set up shop, and absorb every private practice in sight.
No real experience in running organizations—but my advice to them: the searchlight must be trained on the searchlight operators. 🙂
 
I have not reviewed all of the cuts to Medicaid, but one of them was honestly a boondoggle / loophole that needed to be closed.

Medicaid is a state/federal shared program. In order to encourage states to increase spending, the feds match (at some percentage) how much states spend on Medicaid. What many states did (including my own) is create a "Hospital Tax" to pay for Medicaid. Which of course makes no sense at all. But basically the hospital gets "taxed" $100M (or whatever amount). The state collects this, and says it's going to spend it on Medicaid. The Feds then match that amount. The state then gives the $100M back to the hospital for Medicaid costs. It's recycling money through a budget process simply to create a federal match. It's a "free money machine". Interestingly (yet not surprising) when this was created the state promised to return all the funds to the hospital that they taxed in order to get the hospital to support it. Then, later on, they decided to keep at least some of it.

Regardless of what's done to fund Medicaid, this process was highly abused.
 
I have not reviewed all of the cuts to Medicaid, but one of them was honestly a boondoggle / loophole that needed to be closed.

Medicaid is a state/federal shared program. In order to encourage states to increase spending, the feds match (at some percentage) how much states spend on Medicaid. What many states did (including my own) is create a "Hospital Tax" to pay for Medicaid. Which of course makes no sense at all. But basically the hospital gets "taxed" $100M (or whatever amount). The state collects this, and says it's going to spend it on Medicaid. The Feds then match that amount. The state then gives the $100M back to the hospital for Medicaid costs. It's recycling money through a budget process simply to create a federal match. It's a "free money machine". Interestingly (yet not surprising) when this was created the state promised to return all the funds to the hospital that they taxed in order to get the hospital to support it. Then, later on, they decided to keep at least some of it.

Regardless of what's done to fund Medicaid, this process was highly abused.
Is it better for the states to just start shutting the programs down instead of this? Because that is what is going to happen. A lot of red states don't have the money to actually fund a real medicaid program and are going to restrict/strangle the programs to control costs that have been shifted to them. This in turn balloons the number of uninsured who, as I am sure you know, show up with advanced disease having avoided preventative care when symptoms first started resulting in enormous unpaid costs shifted on to the hospitals who are forced to provide this care under law. They in turn cut payments to physicians and increase rates to private insurances (assuming they don't lose via the no surprises act) to stay alive or, more likely, just shut down and die.

The circular budget math sounds like a better idea than what we get to have now.
 
Last edited:
Top