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...
-
A couple of days ago, we reported on Aetna's apparent change of heart regarding the sale of individual medical insurance here in Ohio. ...
-
Much has been made, at least in some circles, of the vulnerability of your personal information that will be filtered through the #Obamacare...
-
Unusual and Interesting Insurance News - Over the years , we've chronicled such things as virginity and alien abduction insurance (dif...
-
Obamacare navigators are supposed to be like guides for the blind. They will help you go through the maze of new health insurance options....
-
My better half has long cautioned me that " there are no coincidences ," but what am I to make of this? First, my office email bri...
-
As we've noted time and again , having a local expert to administer Flex Spending Accounts and Health Reimbursement Arrangements is idea...
-
Less than 6 months away from full implementation of Obamacare and desperation is setting in. In an attempt to continue selling the unpopular...
-
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