It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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...
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]
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]
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?
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."