http://blog.mcleodhealth.org/2009/07/teamwork-and-preparation-pay-off/ Messages from the President Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:00:03 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://blog.mcleodhealth.org/2009/07/teamwork-and-preparation-pay-off/comment-page-1/#comment-11 rob colones Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:29:26 +0000 http://blog.mcleodhealth.org/2009/07/teamwork-and-preparation-pay-off/#comment-11 Thanks for your feedback. This is the same thought we have about the proposed 'public plan' ... it will be a third government program (in addition to Medicare and Medicaid) that does not fully cover cost nor contain cost in the future. If the 'public plan' covers more than the indigent patients by encouraging employers to drop their coverage and move to the 'public plan' where cost is not covered, then the shortfalls will be greater than they are today. Thanks for your feedback. This is the same thought we have about the proposed ‘public plan’ … it will be a third government program (in addition to Medicare and Medicaid) that does not fully cover cost nor contain cost in the future. If the ‘public plan’ covers more than the indigent patients by encouraging employers to drop their coverage and move to the ‘public plan’ where cost is not covered, then the shortfalls will be greater than they are today.

]]> http://blog.mcleodhealth.org/2009/07/teamwork-and-preparation-pay-off/comment-page-1/#comment-8 lisa mc Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:33:57 +0000 http://blog.mcleodhealth.org/2009/07/teamwork-and-preparation-pay-off/#comment-8 I applaud Mr Kirby for his representation of the entire SCHA on this issue. I do have an elementary thought that needs clarification. While it is valid that hospitals loose money, aggregately, on medicare patients, it is important to note that the medicare population is 65 or older, or disabled. In theory, if others without coverage could opt into a plan such as this, one would think that such a concept may have the ability to even the playing feild, assuming that there would be younger, healthier patients enrolling in such a plan. But in reality, it seems that the majority of that population would already have healthcare benefits through private industry or policy. So, that leaves those who are indigent. Currently, we do receive disproportionate share consideration for caring for indigent patients. Under this plan, it seems that this consideration for indigent care would vanish, or be severely reduced, and provision of care for those who now have "medicare like coverage" would increase, thereby costing hospitals even more money, and increasing that negative aggregate even more. Not a smart move. I applaud Mr Kirby for his representation of the entire SCHA on this issue. I do have an elementary thought that needs clarification.
While it is valid that hospitals loose money, aggregately, on medicare patients, it is important to note that the medicare population is 65 or older, or disabled. In theory, if others without coverage could opt into a plan such as this, one would think that such a concept may have the ability to even the playing feild, assuming that there would be younger, healthier patients enrolling in such a plan. But in reality, it seems that the majority of that population would already have healthcare benefits through private industry or policy. So, that leaves those who are indigent. Currently, we do receive disproportionate share consideration for caring for indigent patients. Under this plan, it seems that this consideration for indigent care would vanish, or be severely reduced, and provision of care for those who now have “medicare like coverage” would increase, thereby costing hospitals even more money, and increasing that negative aggregate even more.
Not a smart move.

]]>