Hospitals in Illinois, Ohio, and Washington Face Criticism Over Insufficient Charity Care
In Illinois, the Chicago Tribune reports that a study by the Massachusetts-based Lown Institute found that Advocate Aurora Health and Northwestern Medicine were among the bottom 25 hospital systems in the country when it comes to spending as much on charitable care and their communities as compared to the savings they receive from tax exemptions. The article provide the following summary of the report:
The Lown Institute produced the rankings by looking at how much money 275 private, nonprofit hospital systems reported spending on charity care and community investments. The institute then looked into whether that number matched 5.9% of a system’s overall spending, which, based on research, would likely be about the amount a hospital system is saving through tax exemptions. But the report counted only certain activities toward the amount spent on charity care and community investment while excluding others.
As noted in the article, both hospital systems criticized the report as flawed. The American Hospital Association has also criticized the report.
In Ohio, an opinion piece published on Cincinnati.com relies on a study by the Pacific Research Institute that focuses on how charity care provided by two Ohio hospitals (Good Samaritan Hospital and Miami Valley Hospital) compares to savings the hospitals enjoyed because of the federal government’s drug discount program for nonprofit hospitals. According to the author of the piece, “[b]oth hospitals generated hundreds of millions in net patient revenue over the two recent years that the study covered, but gave away tiny amounts of this revenue (0.66% and 1.36% respectively) to charity care.”
And in Washington, HeraldNet reports that the state Attorney General has filed a lawsuit against the Providence health care system for allegedly deceiving low-income patients who were eligible for free or discounted hospital care under a longstanding state charity care law. The complaint alleges that the system “engages in practices that obscure the availability of charity care and that convey the deceptive net impression that patients have no option but to pay for their care regardless of their income level.” As noted in the article, the system is contesting these allegations.
Lloyd Mayer