Blog

Continuing on in the theme of questioning the appropriateness of the non-profit status of many hospitals, KFF Health News published a column highlighting some of the questionable facets of various healthcare systems in the US. The author called some of these systems "diversified businesses" and notes the lavish executive compensation at these institutions, with CEO salaries outpacing the CEO salaries of large philanthropic foundations. The author places at least some of the blame on the regulators who ought scrutinize whether these large health systems should continue to enjoy the benefits of a non-profit status. The author notes that these institutions spend large amounts of money on political lobbying, which likely allows them to avoid scrutiny.

Continuing on in the theme of questioning the appropriateness of the non-profit status of many hospitals, KFF Health News published a column highlighting some of the questionable facets of various healthcare systems in the US. The author called some of these systems "diversified businesses" and notes the lavish executive compensation at these institutions, with CEO salaries outpacing the CEO salaries of large philanthropic foundations. The author places at least some of the blame on the regulators who ought scrutinize whether these large health systems should continue to enjoy the benefits of a non-profit status. The author notes that these institutions spend large amounts of money on political lobbying, which likely allows them to avoid scrutiny.

For historical context, the article explains that hospitals "were accorded nonprofit status for doling out free care during an era in which fewer people had insurance and bills were modest." That arrangement reduces the transparency, both in terms of the benefit received, as well as the cost of that community benefit. An alternative would have been for hospitals to not be given non-profit status and to continue to charge to provide care, while the government could pay for medical care for the indigent. Under that alternative, hospitals would have a stronger incentive to attract and care for patients (even if the patients cannot pay the procedure costs), while the government would more clearly know how much it is spending on medical care. Despite the benefits of such an arrangement, however, it is likely that that visibility into actual costs makes the alternative less appealing politically.

For quite some time, non-profit hospitals have agreed to provide benefits to the community (e.g. free or reduced medical care for some patients) in exchange for not having to pay income tax. Over the last several years, however, members of the public have been arguing that the exchange no longer makes sense, primarily because the non-profit hospitals are not providing enough community benefit, and in some cases, are suing patients who are unable to pay. As healthcare prices have continued to escalate and some non-profit hospitals seem to provide less community benefit than taxes they would have been obligated to pay without the non-profit status, the industry has been receiving additional scrutiny. KFF Health News published an article about the state of Montana proposing new rules to oversee non-profit hospitals.

For quite some time, non-profit hospitals have agreed to provide benefits to the community (e.g. free or reduced medical care for some patients) in exchange for not having to pay income tax. Over the last several years, however, members of the public have been arguing that the exchange no longer makes sense, primarily because the non-profit hospitals are not providing enough community benefit, and in some cases, are suing patients who are unable to pay. As healthcare prices have continued to escalate and some non-profit hospitals seem to provide less community benefit than taxes they would have been obligated to pay without the non-profit status, the industry has been receiving additional scrutiny. KFF Health News published an article about the state of Montana proposing new rules to oversee non-profit hospitals.

Part of the context is that hospitals might have a financial assistance policy, but might make it difficult for eligible patients to find out what the details are. The current proposal appears to be mostly aimed at data collection (e.g. not yet mandating certain patient education policies). A researcher is quoted in the article as saying that the proposed rules are not meaningful. The article elsewhere explains that the Montana Hospital Association lobbied against "too many reporting rules" and that legislators responded by limiting the data requirements "to largely the information hospitals already provide to the federal government." Regardless, that there is more scrutiny in this area, following a 2020 report and a 2023 law, gives an indication of the extent to which people are looking for ways to push back on the overall cost of healthcare. The article also reports on some similar efforts in Oregon and California, demonstrating that the interest goes beyond a single state. Efforts will need to go far beyond merely collecting data, but having data is an important early step.

KFF Health News published an investigation detailing a patient's frustrating experience in getting a medical bill resolved. Despite obtaining prior authorization and checking that her providers were in-network, the patient still received a bill for almost $140,000. The payer denied the claim as insufficiently detailed, and the patient estimates that she spent over twelve hours following up with the hospital to get an appropriate bill. Apart from the time spent resolving the issue, having such a large bill must exact a psychological toll.

KFF Health News published an investigation detailing a patient's frustrating experience in getting a medical bill resolved. Despite obtaining prior authorization and checking that her providers were in-network, the patient still received a bill for almost $140,000. The payer denied the claim as insufficiently detailed, and the patient estimates that she spent over twelve hours following up with the hospital to get an appropriate bill. Apart from the time spent resolving the issue, having such a large bill must exact a psychological toll.

In this case, the provider seems to be mostly at fault, in that the hospital eventually did generate a bill that was accepted by the insurer. It is a little unclear whether the insurer's required level of detail for the bill is reasonable, but the requirement for an itemized bill appears to be an industry response to providers who might have overcharged as a general practice. Caught in the crossfire are the patients who face large bills, are unsure what to do, and are concerned about facing collections or bad credit reports. Perhaps there should be a clear industry standard for medical claims, and more of the onus should be on providers to meet that standard (or they forgo payment), instead of relying on patients to move the process along.

Kaiser Health News published a piece on how many patients with temporomandibular joint disorders (TMJ) pay for treatment out-of-pocket. The article highlights challenges that these patients face, starting with disagreement from medical providers about the most effective treatment for the condition. Beyond that, medical insurers apparently deny some treatment as dental work, while dental insurance view treatment as medical. Even when medical insurance does cover some treatment, the article reports that they might cover the more expensive surgical options but not cover the work of some specialists in this area.

Kaiser Health News published a piece on how many patients with temporomandibular joint disorders (TMJ) pay for treatment out-of-pocket. The article highlights challenges that these patients face, starting with disagreement from medical providers about the most effective treatment for the condition. Beyond that, medical insurers apparently deny some treatment as dental work, while dental insurance view treatment as medical. Even when medical insurance does cover some treatment, the article reports that they might cover the more expensive surgical options but not cover the work of some specialists in this area.

The article reports that the specialty of "orofacial pain" was established in 2020, perhaps explaining the reluctance of some insurers to cover their work. Some who were interviewed point out the irony that insurers are willing to cover more expensive treatment options that are less effective, rather than less invasive options that are supposedly more effective. Understandably, insurers want to avoid paying for ineffective treatment, but as the field of medicine progresses, keeping up with new procedures is likely a challenge.

The Supreme Court recently overturned a precedent that established what is known as the Chevron deference doctrine, which held that federal regulatory agencies have broad powers to interpret legislation, including specifying details not delineated in legislation. With the precedent overturned, KFF Family News points out that many facets of health policy might be reshaped. For example, the No Surprises Act, which tries to protect patients from unexpected medical bills, may need to be refined to be more explicit, or current regulation might need to be rolled back.

The Supreme Court recently overturned a precedent that established what is known as the Chevron deference doctrine, which held that federal regulatory agencies have broad powers to interpret legislation, including specifying details not delineated in legislation. With the precedent overturned, KFF Family News points out that many facets of health policy might be reshaped. For example, the No Surprises Act, which tries to protect patients from unexpected medical bills, may need to be refined to be more explicit, or current regulation might need to be rolled back.

Since the Supreme Court ruled that the judicial branch will exercise more oversight of federal regulation, policy can be awkward as different judges can rule differently on the same policy issue: "'You could have eight or nine of 11 different views of the courts,' said William Buzbee, a professor at Georgetown Law." It seems likely that many different parties will challenge various policies, potentially causing years -- if not decades -- of regulatory turmoil in health care and other industries.