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
-
The drug, a generic version of Lipitor), is being recalled by its manufacturer. From Medical Mutual email: " Ranbaxy... has announced a...
-
This just in from (a major health insurance carrier) and we are passing it along. I believe they want their agents to feel warm and fuzzy. ...
-
Next week, we're proud to once again host the Health Wonk Review , the bi-weekly roundup of health care policy and polity. Please submit...
-
Obamacare. The master plan to deliver (almost) universal access to health care for everyone. Promises of lower premiums. Promises that you c...
-
Unusual and Interesting Insurance News - Over the years , we've chronicled such things as virginity and alien abduction insurance (dif...
-
Nina Kallen makes her CavRisk hosting debut next Wednesday (December 1). Submissions are due this Monday (the 29th). Please remember to i...
-
■ First up, FoIB Jeff M tips us to this rather sorry Tar Heel State of affairs: " [North Carolina] one of the least competitive health...
-
From the Telegraph of London on 9/11: " Death rates in NHS hospitals are among the highest in the western world , shock figures reveal...
-
■ As Isaac continues to pound the Gulf region, at least one insurer has thrown out a lifeline: " Aetna is making it easier for members...
-
In Connecticut, "Navigators" have been designated in each county - after a nominally competitive bidding process - to manage ...
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar