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
-
A number of polibloggers have seized on this claim by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) regarding appeal of ObamaCare © ...
-
If you're a Utah health insurance agent, or a small employer in the Beehive State, we'd like to pick your brains regarding the Healt...
-
Unusual and Interesting Insurance News - Over the years , we've chronicled such things as virginity and alien abduction insurance (dif...
-
Jacob Irwin hosts next week's Cavalcade of Risk - Entries are due by Monday (the 15th). To submit your risk-related post, just click ...
-
Just when you thought you had heard it all, another Obamacare fine comes along. This one impacts employers with only 1 employee. If you own...
-
Is Obamacare actually reducing the cost of health insurance and health care? The short answer is no, and it never will. The folks at Consume...
-
Little did I realize when I recently posted about a client that I was on the bleeding edge of a potential revolution in life insurance unde...
-
Tinker Ready hosts this week's roundup of thoughtful posts on health care policy and wonkery.
-
" After three years of study , the state’s legislative leaders appear close to producing bills that would make Massachusetts the first ...
-
Obamacare. The master plan to deliver (almost) universal access to health care for everyone. Promises of lower premiums. Promises that you c...
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar