Posted on 10/10/2007 12:31:02 PM PDT by piytar
On July 25, 2007, Congress introduced The Childrens' Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act of 2007 (H.R. 3162) which attacks physician hospitals. Section 651 of the CHAMP bill has the effect of abolishing the right of physicians to own and operate hospitals. All referrals by physicians to hospitals in which they have an ownership interest would be banned under passages in the late pages of the initial draft. Additionally, all existing physician hospitals would be prevented from any growth or expansion, and would face severe curtailment in ownership, funding, and operating abilities.
(Excerpt) Read more at capwiz.com ...
Lawyers should be barred from running law firms!
Lawyers should be banned from congress or election as state, county or city lawmakers, using the same logic.
Politicians should be barred from running for public office.
I hope this gets shot down like an Iranian spy plane.
Why not just see if section 651 says what the spam says it says:
SEC. 651. LIMITATION ON EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PHYSICIAN REFERRALS FOR HOSPITALS.
(a) In General- Section 1877 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395) is amended—
(1) in subsection (d)(2)—
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and’ at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(C) if the entity is a hospital, the hospital meets the requirements of paragraph (3)(D).’;
(2) in subsection (d)(3)—
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking `and’ at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(D) the hospital meets the requirements described in subsection (i)(1) not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(i) Requirements for Hospitals to Qualify for Hospital Exception to Ownership or Investment Prohibition-
`(1) REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED- For purposes of paragraphs subsection (d)(3)(D), the requirements described in this paragraph for a hospital are as follows:
`(A) PROVIDER AGREEMENT- The hospital had a provider agreement under section 1866 in effect on July 24, 2007.
`(B) PROHIBITION OF EXPANSION OF FACILITY CAPACITY- The number of operating rooms and beds of the hospital at any time on or after the date of the enactment of this subsection are no greater than the number of operating rooms and beds as of such date.
`(C) PREVENTING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST-
`(i) The hospital submits to the Secretary an annual report containing a detailed description of—
`(I) the identity of each physician owner and any other owners of the hospital; and
`(II) the nature and extent of all ownership interests in the hospital.
`(ii) The hospital has procedures in place to require that any referring physician owner discloses to the patient being referred, by a time that permits the patient to make a meaningful decision regarding the receipt of care, as determined by the Secretary—
`(I) the ownership interest of such referring physician in the hospital; and
`(II) if applicable, any such ownership interest of the treating physician.
`(iii) The hospital does not condition any physician ownership interests either directly or indirectly on the physician owner making or influencing referrals to the hospital or otherwise generating business for the hospital.
`(D) ENSURING BONA FIDE INVESTMENT-
`(i) Physician owners in the aggregate do not own more than 40 percent of the total value of the investment interests held in the hospital or in an entity whose assets include the hospital.
`(ii) The investment interest of any individual physician owner does not exceed 2 percent of the total value of the investment interests held in the hospital or in an entity whose assets include the hospital.
`(iii) Any ownership or investment interests that the hospital offers to a physician owner are not offered on more favorable terms than the terms offered to a person who is not a physician owner.
`(iv) The hospital does not directly or indirectly provide loans or financing for any physician owner investments in the hospital.
`(v) The hospital does not directly or indirectly guarantee a loan, make a payment toward a loan, or otherwise subsidize a loan, for any individual physician owner or group of physician owners that is related to acquiring any ownership interest in the hospital.
`(vi) Investment returns are distributed to investors in the hospital in an amount that is directly proportional to the investment of capital by the physician owner in the hospital.
`(vii) Physician owners do not receive, directly or indirectly, any guaranteed receipt of or right to purchase other business interests related to the hospital, including the purchase or lease of any property under the control of other investors in the hospital or located near the premises of the hospital.
`(viii) The hospital does not offer a physician owner the opportunity to purchase or lease any property under the control of the hospital or any other investor in the hospital on more favorable terms than the terms offered to an individual who is not a physician owner.
`(E) PATIENT SAFETY-
`(i) Insofar as the hospital admits a patient and does not have any physician available on the premises to provide services during all hours in which the hospital is providing services to such patient, before admitting the patient—
`(I) the hospital discloses such fact to a patient; and
`(II) following such disclosure, the hospital receives from the patient a signed acknowledgment that the patient understands such fact.
`(ii) The hospital has the capacity to—
`(I) provide assessment and initial treatment for patients; and
`(II) refer and transfer patients to hospitals with the capability to treat the needs of the patient involved.
`(2) PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION REPORTED- The Secretary shall publish, and update on an annual basis, the information submitted by hospitals under paragraph (1)(C)(i) on the public Internet website of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
`(3) COLLECTION OF OWNERSHIP AND INVESTMENT INFORMATION- For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (1)(D), the Secretary shall collect physician ownership and investment information for each hospital as it existed on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
`(4) PHYSICIAN OWNER DEFINED- For purposes of this subsection, the term `physician owner’ means a physician (or an immediate family member of such physician) with a direct or an indirect ownership interest in the hospital.’.
(b) Enforcement-
(1) ENSURING COMPLIANCE- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements described in such section 1877(i)(1) of the Social Security Act, as added by subsection (a)(3), beginning on the date such requirements first apply. Such policies and procedures may include unannounced site reviews of hospitals.
(2) AUDITS- Beginning not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall conduct audits to determine if hospitals violate the requirements referred to in paragraph (1).
As a physician leader currently in the middle of one of these transactions, I can tell you it is not all that profitable for the doctors. We are getting into it in the hopes of stemming the inexorable slide in quality that has become the corporate hospital standard. Hillary and her ilk want us out not because of the money, but because we would blow the whistle on declining quality that will come with the socialization of medicine. Quality measures published by hospitals don’t begin to reveal the mess they have become in the last few years. Government standards are gamed and manipulated just like EPA mileage standards in cars. Almost meaningless in the real world experience of being in a modern hospital.
Doctor investors do expect a profit and return on investment, but are not willing to hurt people to do it. IMHO most for-profit hospital chains don’t give a tinker’s damn about the patients. I sit in meeting with them and it is all about numbers, not human beings in distress and need.
Good luck America. My medical career is on the backside and I just hope I can find someone to take care of me later on. Maybe I’ll head for Canada?
I hope your side wins. The idiots in Congress who push this kind of totalitarian communist crap need to be thrown out of office on their ear.
And then get back to us. Sheesh.
Here’s an explanation of real-world impact: http://mcmorris.house.gov/pressreleases/schip.html
Yup, I’m sure that’s spam, too. Sheesh.
Thank you for your insight. I am on the backside of my career as well. I am concerned about what form of medical care I will see as a retiree. Meanwhile, I have annual check-ups, exercise daily, eat right, and don’t take any unreasonable risks. I figure my best defense against Socialized Medicine is to minimize my exposure to it by making healthy lifestyle choices.
I would urge you to talk to people who work in not-for-profit hospitals today, before you make any long term moves.
The federal government and state governments have declared war on hospitals in an effort to get them them to essentially provide services for free. And make no mistake about it, that’s exactly what they are doing.
It is probably advisable to talk to people from California. They took it in the shorts about fifteen years ago, and it hasn’t let up since. In fact, the governmental agencies cut to the bone years ago, and are now asking that existing bone be submitted for review.
I would urge anyone who thinks they can do better where it comes to running hospitals, to rethink that idea. I’m sure there are some instances out there, but the governmental agencies are the ones driving this, not the greedy hospital administrators.
I have worked for a non-profit. I can tell you that I’ve seen the level of care ravaged. I can also tell you that in no small measure, our costs for covering indigent patients was a contributing factor that impacted us almost to the point of institution fatality.
“I am beginning to think that lawyers are jealous, vindictive people..”
Think POWER HUNGRY...they see 77 million baby boomers headed into the hospitals over the next 10-15 years...and they want “their” piece of the folks problems and misery....
Now there is a valid point that this is the sort of thing that would become near-universal under Hillarycare, but at least for now any physician owned hospital can do whatever they want as long as they stick to private patients and do not take the "King's shilling".
Don’t you think that the whole purpose of physician owned hospitals is to skim the well-reimbursed procedures/patients away from non profit general hospitals? If so, this proposed legislation might be a needed correction.
THIS one is the spam
http://www.capwiz.com/physicianhospitals/issues/alert/?alertid=10096776
do you agree with this?
President Bush has vetoed the House-Senate compromise bill
to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
The bill would have provided an additional $34.7 billion over
five years funded by federal tobacco tax money, and it would
have extended coverage to about 10 million children. The
measure cleared the Senate—but not the House—with
enough votes to override a presidential veto.
“The president’s veto is a slap in the face to America’s
children. For millions of children in working families, it says,
‘No healthcare for you,’ ” said Ron Pollack, executive director
of Families USA in a written statement.
Administration officials have argued that the bill would have
moved children from families earning up to $83,000 per year
into government insurance, and promoted socialized
medicine.
HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said last week that a compromise between the White House and Congress to reauthorize the
10-year-old program was still possible. Bush on Sept. 29 signed a budget resolution that would temporarily extend
funding for the program, specifically helping 13 states whose SCHIP allotments have dried up.
In a written statement, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) vowed that Congress would
continue to work on overriding the veto. “In the coming days, we will do what the president has not done: We will stand
up for American children in need,” Baucus said. —
(this is the news piece they linked on the same website.....just click “Bush Vetoes SCHIP” under “PHA NEWS” on the right side of their homepage)
http://www.physicianhospitals.org/home.php
These people are psychopaths.
We are doing our due diligence all over the country. We are in a rural area with reimbursement still well above urban levels. There is a bidding war for hospital beds outside with urban markets going on in this country. Venture capital knows what the industry knows, the baby-boom demand for healthcare is going to far exceed the capacity of the system. Hospital resale prices across the South have risen 35% in the last two years. Look at Signature hospital corp, Community Health systems, and Health Partners as examples. These companies are all paying prices for hospitals that are not sustainable at todays reimbursement rates. They are all betting that the baby-boom will vote to tax the later generations to give them the care they need and reimbursement will rise as demand exceeds capacity. I don’t know if I personally agree with that, but it has become the mantra in Hospital Management journals (always read the enemies literature too).
We are just hoping to take our local hospital off the open market and maintain what we have for the forseeable future. One of the adverse outcomes of overpayment for a facility is a rapacious desire to slash costs and services until the promised boom years next decade.
Any hospital that wants to function HAS to be able to take Medicare and Medicaid. For example, just about all private insurance for seniors (you know, people who spend a lot of our health care dollars) becomes Medicare plus type coverage (i.e., they pay what Medicare doesn’t) after the insured becomes Medicare eligible.
So yes, all the hospitals have to do is not take government money — which pretty much includes payment for all medical work done on just about all seniors. Yup, that’s a viable business option. NOT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.