It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Health Law Bans New Doctor-Owned Hospitals, Blocks Expansion of Existing Ones

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
The aim of the HCR bill is to control costs of healthcare. physician-owned hospitals are profit driven and have a negative impact on health care costs.

source



That debate has been going on for years and is fueled by the AHA lobby groups. Currently there is no data to support that claim and no General Hospitals have gone out of business as a result of a Physician Owned Hospital competing for their business.

The argument actually contends that these smaller and much more efficient hospitals actually are able to keep the costs lower.

The HCR guidelines want to choke these Physician hospitals in red tape so that they cannot stand side by side with Public and Large Corp. Hospitals.

Last time I checked the Monster sized Corporate Hospitals are also driven by profit. Profit? Wow! What country do we live in?

[edit on 13-4-2010 by jibeho]




posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by haterproof
Two threads on this nonsense no less.


Section 6001 – Limitation on Medicare Exception to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referrals for Hospitals

Section 6001 modifies the Stark Law exception that allows physicians to hold an ownership interest in hospitals. This detailed section limits the expansion of physician owned hospitals, increases disclosure requirements related to physician ownership and provider agreements (including the names of the physicians and the extent of the ownership interest) to patients, on the hospital website, hospital advertising, and in annual statements to HHS, and expands requirements regarding physician ownership in the hospitals. omwhealthlaw.com...


starklaw.org...


Physician self-referral is the practice of a physician referring a patient to a medical facility in which he/she has a financial interest, be it ownership, investment, or a structured compensation arrangement. Critics of the practice allege an inherent conflict of interest, given the physician's position to benefit from the referral. They suggest that such arrangements may encourage over-utilization of services, in turn driving up health care costs. In addition, they believe that it would create a captive referral system, which limits competition by other providers. en.wikipedia.org...


Looking things up is fun for the whole family, even conservative puppets.

[edit on 12-4-2010 by haterproof]


Again, unsubstantiated claims fuel by the AHA lobby. Your wiki article is full of suggestions and beliefs but no facts. If all claims were true, so much for the Hippocratic Oath taken by these doctors who are providing excellent service in these smaller and more efficient facilities.

Please find a General Hospital that has suffered or closed due to a Physician Owned Hospital.

Freedom to Choose is an amazing RIGHT!



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


You are either purposely obfuscating or woefully misinformed. Stark Law was first signed by President George H. W. Bush from a Democratic congress in 1989 and it was done so to protect the public from conflicts of interest, self referrals, and kickbacks. It is legislation against fraud and abuse.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by haterproof]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by haterproof
reply to post by jibeho
 


You are either purposely obfuscating or woefully misinformed. Stark Law was first signed by President George H. W. Bush from a Democratic congress in 1989 and it was done so to protect the public from conflicts of interest, self referrals, and kickbacks. It is legislation against fraud and abuse.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by haterproof]


I am fully aware of the stark law. Prove that these Physician Owned Hospitals are violating it and why they should be singled out when they are simply extending care. The law applies to all doctors and facilities. How about applying it to Congress?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

I am fully aware of the stark law. .... The law applies to all doctors and facilities. How about applying it to Congress?


Perfect idea! I wonder what obfuscatory and obstructionist laws would then be enacted to protect their 'pursuit of happiness?'

As usual the partisan reviewers cherry pick their points in the matter, but the truth is that the medical industry is rife with monopolistic machinations. Doctor-owned hospitals was a simple extension of the partnership practices.

Unfortunately, money is a great corrupter of even the most well-meaning.

They don't prevent other corporate entities from funneling business to secondary corporations they own... but doctors can't... that wouldn't be fair...

I guess abuses were pointed out, and 'solved' by legislators... or were they?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
The whole concept of doctor owned hospitals which aim to cut the bureaucracy of large health insurance controlled hospitals sounds like a nice idea, but in practice apparently it isn't such a good thing for sick people.

www.businessweek.com...


One concern about specialty hospitals is that they selectively treat the most lucrative patients. A study of heart hospitals in Arizona found that about 21% of patients admitted to physician-owned hospitals undergo routine surgeries such as a heart bypass but are otherwise relatively healthy. Only 10% of patients fit that profile at facilities that aren't doctor-owned; the vast majority are more complicated and expensive to treat because they have serious problems, such as diabetes and other chronic conditions.

"THIS ISN'T FAIR COMPETITION"
When physician-owners focus on less complex cases, they still earn returns on ancillary services, such as X-rays. But they dodge having to dole out care that isn't adequately reimbursed, such as nursing costs for patients who linger for days after their surgeries, too sick to go home. "When you're an owner, you have an incentive to make sure every case is profitable," says Jean M. Mitchell, professor of public policy at Georgetown University and author of the Arizona study. "It's scary."

Some critics charge that specialty hospitals also slough off uninsured patients, who invariably end up in the emergency rooms of nonprofit hospitals. Those hospitals, facing an exodus of insured patients to specialized rivals, may find it hard to stay afloat since they can't balance the cost of treating the uninsured with profits from performing pricey procedures on the insured. A study by the Texas Hospital Assn. (THA) found that the year after a heart-imaging facility opened in one town, the cardiac care center at the nearby community hospital slid from a $524,646 net profit to a $20,786 net loss. "We're all for competition," says THA spokesman Gregg Knaupe. "Problem is, this isn't fair competition."


Personally, I think all health care should be non-profit. It seems that the only efficiency that profit creates is the efficiency of creating profit, and all too often that comes at the cost of quality and innovation.

It does sound like these restrictions might be too stiff. If the ownership were restricted to prevent phony doctor owned hospitals, and physician owned hospitals had restrictions against cherry picking patients, they might be a better way to go.

The whole bed number thing seems to be a ridiculous way of controlling things.




top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join