Skip to main content

The Battle Over Hospitals' Tax-Exempt Status Heats Up In Illinois

Chicago News Cooperative:  "State Challenges Hospitals' Tax Breaks."
“Hospitals think they should get tax exemptions for merely what they do in the community,” said John Colombo, a professor of law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has followed the issue of nonprofit hospital tax exemptions nationally. “It’s problematic: The overall number that each of these hospitals is reporting is abysmally low. Given the state of the economy, one would expect the charity services going up.”
“Hospitals aren’t poorhouses anymore,” (says Colombo.)  “Just because they were exempt in 1900 doesn’t mean they should be exempt in 2011. The world is different.”
Yes, the world is different in 2011, especially when for-profit Vanguard Health Systems can buy 4 hospitals in the Chicago area, pay taxes AND deliver charity care in amounts "not materially different" from their tax-exempt, not-for-profit competitors.

I don't think anybody (even Illinois' tax authorities) begrudges a "no margin, no mission" mindset.  But to my NFP brethren in Illinois, I'll simply say this: if you wish to be thought of as a charity, then act charitably. 

In case you're unclear on the concept, let's return to the source - Merriam-Webster:

Char-i-ty.  A noun, meaning (1) benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity, or (2) generosity and helpfulness, especially toward the needy or suffering.

The more you act like any other business (even one that just happens to deliver a social good like health care) the more you'll be treated like any other business.  That is to say rudely, at arms' length and  'just show me the money.'   But fair's fair since that's pretty much how indigent patients feel leaving your ER.

One percent of revenues devoted to charity care?  I'm not sure where lies the tipping point between business and charity, but c'mon.  That falls on the side of  'caught red-handed.'

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved