Investors Business Daily posted this story online August 13 that suggests “If a charitable hospital treats a homeless person who staggers into the emergency room without insurance, it may be punished with taxes and fines."
IBD explains this is because a federal law known as EMTALA requires charitable hospitals to treat a minimum number of patients who can't pay. If a hospital does not comply the EMTALA penalty is loss of tax-exempt status. Yet ObamaCare requires everyone to have health coverage so in theory, after January 1, 2014 there won’t be any more patients who can’t pay. This means charitable hospitals may have a hard time avoiding an EMTALA violation after January 1, 2014. How will they keep their tax-exempt status?
The obvious way is for Congress to amend EMTALA. But as a practical matter, I don’t think the federales will enforce the EMTALA penalty even if it’s not amended.
Why not?
Because if a charitable hospital treated only “a homeless person” i.e., some meaningless handful of non-paying patients, is it reasonable to believe IRS would act? I think not.
On the other hand, I also doubt IRS would act if a charitable hospital treated a meaningful number of non-paying persons. A public dispute over this puts IRS squarely on the side of denying treatment. That would embarrass the IRS and the administration. Even worse, it would reveal the continuing existence of a large number of uninsured people. That of course would (1) discredit Obamacare, and (2) politically embarrass Obama . . . because he has promised America for years that his signature health plan will fix the uninsured problem.
So I doubt the conflict between EMTALA and Obamacare will have any material affect on any particular charitable hospital.
One other observation about the information reported by IBD:
Obamacare requires each charitable hospital to file a report to IRS once every 3 years "to prove that the charitable hospital is still needed in their geographical area." And if IRS deems the hospital not needed? Will it be forced to close? As a matter of fact, no. It will be forced to convert to a for-profit status. That;s because it's not needed as a not-for-profit but still very much needed as a for-profit. See?
Jumat, 16 Agustus 2013
Langganan:
Posting Komentar (Atom)
Recent Posts
Popular Posts
-
For those in the path of Hurricane/TS Sandy (and/or for those who may face other severe weather conditions) the Insurance Information Instit...
-
So it appears that women "of a certain age" may well benefit from not one, but two shots of the good stuff: " A glass or two...
-
I've always subscribed to the conventional wisdom that emptying a full bladder as soon as (practically) possible was always the "wa...
-
HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious may be relaxing some privacy rules: " The Department of Health and Human Services says patients should h...
-
Nina Kallen hosts this week's outstanding collection of risk-related posts , with a twist: she's nicknamed this edition "the...
-
■ First the bad news. From the Annals of the Much Vaunted National Health System© comes this alarming development: " Almost half of Bri...
-
HHS is spending $700 million of YOUR money to teach you something your parents did not. In an effort to save Obamacare the government is hop...
-
An overarching theme here at IB has been that health care costs drive health insurance costs. While this may seem obvious to us, it bears ...
-
FoIB Michael Cannon , the Cato Institute's Director of Health Policy Studies, alerts us to this outstanding video that perfectly illustr...
-
It amazes me how often I see comments like this from Jodi Kantor of the NY Times: " By summer 2009, with the country still stunned by e...
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar