Roanoke, Va.-based Carilion Clinic is suing its insurance provider, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., after the insurer allegedly refused to cover the system’s losses tied to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to WSLS.
Carilion Clinic says it has lost more than $150 million because of the pandemic. American Guarantee allegedly refused to provide coverage or properly investigate Carilion Clinic’s losses, according to the complaint filed March 18.
“To cushion the impact of the coronavirus and COVID-19, Carilion Clinic turned to its property insurer, AGLIC, to whom Carilion Clinic had paid nearly $1 million in premiums in exchange for $1.3 billion in property damage and time element (also known as business interruption) coverage effective June 1, 2019 to June 1, 2020,” the lawsuit states. “AGLIC, however, declined to fulfill its obligations to Carilion Clinic under the policy.”
Carilion is seeking damages for breach of contract and a judgement declaring the scope of American Guarantee’s obligation to cover the losses under the policy.
As of March 24, American Guarantee had not filed a response to the complaint.
Glenview Capital Management, the hedge fund run by Larry Robbins, has a 12.9 percent stake in Tenet Healthcare after recently selling shares of the Dallas-based company, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
Glenview sold 2.5 million shares of Tenet, a 65-hospital system, on March 22 for $53.3 per share, bringing in a total of $133.25 million.
Tenet shares closed March 24 at $50.03 per share, down from $50.49 a day earlier, according to Yahoo Finance.
Tenet ended 2020 with net income of $399 million on revenue of $17.64 billion, compared to a net loss of $215 million on revenue of $18.48 billion a year earlier.
Marc Harrison, M.D., is president and CEO of Intermountain Healthcare.
We are better served by a system that seeks to keep people healthy, not wait until they get sick.
If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that there’s a much better way to keep people healthy while reducing stress on our health care system at the same time. This will not only help mitigate risks from any future public health crisis, but also improve the well being and health of people in our community.
Utah’s Intermountain Healthcare, along with our community and health care colleagues, are leading a movement to do just that.
We greatly value and appreciate all our government, community and health care partners that coordinate closely with us to address the pandemic and provide care for our communities. It’s been a statewide team effort and will continue to be a team effort.
The roots of a deeply flawed national health care model that had taken hold long ago proved to create both systemic and personal health risks. According to a recent study, the U.S. had far more people hospitalized, more people with chronic conditions, double the obesity rates and the highest rate of preventable deaths among comparable nations. This was before the pandemic ever started. Our national health system was perfectly designed to be overwhelmed under the COVID-19 stress.
Moreover, many people who have died from COVID-19 were in poor health to begin with or were managing preventable chronic conditions.The flawed national health care system was never designed to support their goal to stay healthy. Instead, it was designed to wait until they got sick and then treat them.
Utah has one of the lowest death rates from COVID-19 in the nation. It’s at least partly true that this can be attributed to the superb care by medical providers in the state. But the data show a more interesting story. People in our state are in better health compared to those in other states.
We play outside more, drink less and smoke less than people in other states. Our rate of obesity is far lower than most other states. It’s no surprise that our recorded COVID-19 death rate is among the lowest in the nation. In fact, three of the top five healthiest states also have the three of the top six lowest recordable death rates from COVID-19. We don’t believe that’s a coincidence.
Over the last several years, Intermountain has focused more resources on keeping people healthy and out of hospitals. Vaccines have long been a critical part of this strategy. And while that garners most of the immediate headlines, we’ve geared our entire system’s strategy to focus on keeping people and communities well.
For example, Intermountain is a world leader in precision genomics medicine that aims to better treat and prevent genetic diseases. The opportunity to participate in the biggest, voluntary research of its kind is available for anyone in our community at no cost. With our community’s help, we can eventually share what we learn with others across the country and the world to help keep everyone healthier.
We are investing in addressing social determinants of health to keep people out of emergency rooms or other clinical settings for unneeded visits. Social determinants of health are influences that affect people’s long-term health, such as stable housing, joblessness, hunger, unsafe neighborhoods and access to transportation.
We’ve been working with and providing funding to multiple local nonprofit agencies that address these issues, and have provided financial support for a three-year pilot in Utah to see how community partnerships can address those influences in low-income ZIP codes. Often, simple and affordable changes can help prevent unnecessary health issues.
We’ve integrated mental health care with primary care because we know that mental health is essential to a person’s overall health. Long before the pandemic hit our shores, we deployed telehealth services that helps care for people closer to their homes and families. It’s not simply a matter of convenience for those we serve, but can lead to better health outcomes for less money.
All of us can’t wait to get back to some sense of normal. But for the nation’s health system, going back to normal shouldn’t be an option. We must do better. And Intermountain is determined to partner with Utahns and do what we all do best – lead the nation and the world by setting a better example.
A new piece in the Atlantic sparked debate this week about the risk of ongoing COVID exposure to children as the country navigates toward the end of the pandemic. Brown University economist Emily Oster equated a child’s risk of serious illness from the coronavirus to that of their vaccinated grandmother. If grandma receives the Pfizer vaccine, her risk of serious illness is decreased by 95 percent. According to Oster, the condition of “being a child” aged 0-17 is 98 percent protective against hospitalization—so go ahead, plan that family summer vacation!
Oster cites no clinical or scientific experts in her piece, but some doctors were quick to respond that the comparisons are not equivalent (and also provide ready-made scripting for the “anti-vaxx” movement, which could claim that kids are already “basically vaccinated”).
But the article does bring up a real question that millions of families will soon face: what can we do when grandma and grandpa (and hopefully mom and dad) are vaccinated, but the kids are not? Given the pace of clinical trials, teens could be eligible for vaccination as soon as late summer, but COVID vaccines might not be approved for younger children until months later—and this generational vaccine divide will likely linger into 2022.
Undoubtedly children are at lower risk from COVID than adults, and likely transmit the disease less frequently (although much of the data supporting the latter comes from studies in schools, where social distancing and masking are enforced). And we’re not out of the woods yet: as COVID cases surge again in Michigan, schools there have seen a spike in outbreaks as well.
As families look at conflicting data and messages in the media, they need clear, coordinated guidance from state and federal officials to help them gauge safety as they navigate their second “pandemic summer”.
It’s long been accepted as a truism that “moms” make most of a family’s healthcare choices. This has led many health systems to invest in high-end women’s services, especially labor and delivery facilities, with the hope of winning the entire family’s long-term healthcare loyalty.
This conventional wisdom has existed since the middle of the last century, when the postwar Baby Boom coincided with the rise of commercial insurance. But it’s hard to find real evidence that these investments deliver on their intent—and we think the argument deserves to be reexamined.
An expectant mother is likely years away from her family’s major healthcare spending events. Giving her a fantastic virtual care experience, or taking great care of her teenager who blows out a knee playing soccer, is likely to engender greater loyalty to the health system when she’s looking for her first mammogram, than her labor and delivery experience from a decade earlier. That’s not to say that top-notch obstetrics isn’t important—but market-leading labor and delivery facilities are likely more critical for wholesale purchasers, such as an employer considering a narrow network, or for physicians choosing where to build an OB practice.
Direct-to-consumer strategies should be built on more sophisticated consumer research that takes into account the preferences of a new generation of consumers, for whom not all healthcare choices are equal—that same consumer will be in different “segments” and make different choices for different problems over time, not all pre-determined by one memorable birthing experience.
HENRY KOTULA 