GEISINGER OFFERS DEBT-FREE PRIMARY CARE MEDICAL SCHOOL

Posted on by • Posted in Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medical School, Medical School Financing, Outcomes, Physician, Primary Care, Quality of Care • Leave a comment

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/clinical-care/geisinger-offers-debt-free-primary-care-medical-school?spMailingID=16548061&spUserID=MTg2ODM1MDE3NTU1S0&spJobID=1760517984&spReportId=MTc2MDUxNzk4NAS2

Program offered for medical students who’ll commit to primary care at the Pennsylvania-based health system after graduating.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The program will pick 40 first- and second-year students in each medical class through a competitive application process.

Selection criteria include  financial need, academic merit, diversity, and predictors of whether the applicant will stay in Geisinger’s service area.

The program will provide full coverage of tuition and fees plus a monthly $2,000 stipend through four years of medical school. 

Geisinger and Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine have created the Geisinger Primary Care Scholars Program that will offer debt-free medical school and living assistance to medical students who agree to work within primary care at the health system after they graduate.

Medical students often carry $200,000 or more in debt, which pushes them into higher-paying specialties. Geisinger President and CEO Jaewon Ryu, MD, says that removing the financial strain in exchange for a four-year commitment to practice at Geisinger will make it easier for more med students to pursue primary care.

“At Geisinger, we’ve been able to prove that by focusing on primary care we can improve outcomes, lower costs and improve satisfaction among patients and providers,” Ryu said.

“We’ve built some innovative programs that expand upon the notion of what is primary care and where it is delivered. With all of these different offerings, we are thrilled to welcome anyone who shares this passion around new and exciting ways to deliver this core care,” Ryu said.

“So, it’s only natural that we extend that commitment to training the next generation of physicians. These scholars have the opportunity to learn and later work in Geisinger’s innovative primary care environment without the worry of how they will pay for their education,” he said.

The program will pick 40 first- and second-year students in each incoming medical class through a competitive application process. Selection criteria include demonstrated financial need, academic merit, diversity, passion for serving their communities, and predictors of whether the applicant is likely to stay in Geisinger’s service area.

The program will provide full coverage of tuition and fees plus a monthly $2,000 stipend through the four years of medical school.

“I can’t think of a better opportunity for these scholars to pursue their commitment to primary care than by providing debt-free medical schooling,” said Steven J. Scheinman, MD, executive vice president and chief academic officer at Geisinger and Dean of the Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine.

Last year Geisinger started the Abigail Geisinger Scholars Program. Which gives 10 students in each class up to four years of tuition in the form of a loan, which is forgiven upon completion of a service commitment as a Geisinger physician in any specialty.

“I CAN’T THINK OF A BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE SCHOLARS TO PURSUE THEIR COMMITMENT TO PRIMARY CARE THAN BY PROVIDING DEBT-FREE MEDICAL SCHOOLING. ”

 

 

 

WHAT TO DO WHEN CONVERTING A HOSPITAL FROM NONPROFIT TO INVESTOR-OWNED

Posted on by • Posted in Charity Care, Culture, For-Profit, Governance, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Non-Profit Healthcare Industry, Tax Exempt Status, Tax Incentives, Tax Status • Leave a comment

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/strategy/what-do-when-converting-hospital-nonprofit-investor-owned

While perhaps not as controversial as it once was, the ‘conversion’ of a nonprofit hospital to a for-profit venture can raise questions and spark unhelpful rumors.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

There may be an opportunity to highlight increased revenues for the benefit of local government, since investor-owned hospitals pay taxes.

Remember: Every hospital, regardless of its tax status, must bring in more dollars than it spends in order to be financially healthy and reinvest.

In most communities, the conversion of a hospital from a not-for-profit to an investor-owned enterprise no longer stirs the heated debate that it did decades ago. Instead, you’re much more likely today to see not-for-profit and investor-owned hospital organizations working in partnership.

Renowned not-for-profit health systems such as Duke Health and the Cleveland Clinic have formed strong affiliations with investor-owned hospital companies. In these and other partnerships, not-for-profits and investor-owned organizations are working together to strengthen hospitals, invest in communities, and serve patients.

In fact, the issues facing investor-owned hospital systems during a partnership are the same as those faced by not-for-profit health systems during a partnership discussion: Local control and governance, cultural compatibility, charity care support, and commitment to local investment are leading hot buttons for both.

Still, the “conversion” of a not-for-profit to an investor-owned organization can represent a change that can raise questions and ignite unhelpful rumors.

To help you be prepared, start by answering these basic questions: What’s the difference? How are not-for-profit and for-profit (investor-owned) hospitals different from one another?

  • Taxes: First, a (very) broad definition: “Not-for-profit” and “for profit” are tax-related designations. A not-for-profit hospital does not pay certain taxes, including those on property used for care, income, and sales. How- ever, it usually does pay payroll and other federal employee taxes. A for- profit hospital pays property, sales, and income taxes as well as payroll taxes. Not-for-profits sometimes make payments in lieu of taxes to help offset the costs of providing important community services, such as police and fire coverage.
  • Capital: Not-for-profit and investor-owned hospitals are also differentiated by where they get capital to invest in their facilities for infrastructure improvements, new equipment, staff, and the like. Not-for-profit hospitals usually go to the bond market for capital. Investor-owned hospitals go to the public stock market, the bond market, or investment groups for capital.
  • Analysts: Now for a word about financial ratings. Both types of organizations have outsiders judging the hospital’s financial performance. To help investors monitor their portfolios and make buying and selling decisions, not-for-profits are graded by credit rating agencies, such as Moody’s Investors Services and Standard & Poor’s. Publicly traded, investor-owned hospital stocks are watched by analysts and valued daily in stock exchanges.
  • Ownership: Who “owns” the hospital after such a sale is an important question and can reflect a community’s concerns about having a future voice in the care provided at its hospital. The answer can be complicated and inconsistent from hospital to hospital and community to community.

Here’s an overview: Independent, not-for-profit hospitals are, in a sense, owned by the communities they serve. The boards are usually comprised of local leaders and physicians. Excess revenues—profits—are fully reinvested into the community’s care after debt payments, payroll, and other expenses. Hospitals that join a regional or national not-for-profit health system, however, may or may not have a local board with a say in the direction of the facility and may or may not share their profits with the system. (In fact, if your local hospital is in financial trouble, the money flows into your hospital, not out of it!)

Investor-owned hospitals are, as you might guess by the name, owned by investors, who can be private individuals or stockholders. Investors traditionally benefit as the value of the company’s hospitals increases over time, through effective operations and local investments, and as the company overall grows by adding more hospitals.

Adding to this complexity is the trend for hospitals to pursue joint venture partnerships where ownership is shared by two or more organizations, including the “seller.” These partnerships call for strong and trusting relationships by every party. Communications is key to success.

Familiarize yourselves with these terms and issues as you move through a partnership. Be prepared for some myth busting.

That’s where the fundamental structural differences end. The driving forces of both organizations, however, are precisely the same:

  • No matter your tax status, every hospital must take in more dollars than it spends to be financially healthy and to reinvest in the care it provides.
  • Every hospital must offer quality care, provide current medical equipment and facilities, and support a trained staff to attract (and keep) patients  and serve the needs of physicians, payers, and others.

Now, consider some specific questions you may hear related to the structure of a not-for-profit to investor-owned conversion.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE?

When there are funds left over from a sale, they are often referred to as the proceeds. These proceeds exist once the hospital’s debt and any other obligations (e.g., a pension fund) have been paid.

The answer as to what happens to those dollars depends on the ownership structure of the selling organization and the terms of the transaction. Here are a few scenarios:

  • The sale of a stand-alone, not-for-profit community hospital to an investor-owned company may lead to the creation of a community foundation. The creation of the foundation—including its board and mission—may be directed by your state attorney general’s office, and the proceeds from the sale will fund it.
  • When two not-for-profits merge, it is rare that there are proceeds. Instead, the common practice is for all assets from both organizations to combine for the good of the new system.
  • From the sale of a hospital owned by a religious organization, the remaining proceeds will likely return to that order or denomination.
  • When a government-owned hospital is sold, money left over may return to the city’s or county’s coffers, which may deposit it into the government’s general operating fund or create a new organization for meeting the charitable healthcare needs of the community.

WILL CHARITY CARE CONTINUE AT ITS CURRENT LEVEL?

This is really a question of community commitment and may be an indicator of how much the community-based culture is or is not going to change under the new ownership. In most cases, a commitment to either a specific level of charity care or a guarantee to continue the hospital’s existing charitable mission and policy is written into the deal documents. Expect the question and know the answer.

HOW MUCH MONEY IN LOCAL TAXES WILL THE NEW HOSPITAL OWNER PAY?

An investor-owned hospital pays taxes that benefit local government. This question is an opportunity to highlight the added contribution as a distinct benefit of investor-owned partnerships.

In many cases, the fire department, police force, schools, parks, and other community assets will benefit on an annual basis from an investor-owned partner paying state and local property and sales taxes.

One cautionary note: In some cases, new hospital owners may seek appropriate tax incentives when entering a new community and investing in a hospital. Be sure you understand the local government strategic thinking before you answer the tax question.

 

 

 

 

Strategists say Warren ‘Medicare for All’ plan could appeal to centrists

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Health Policy, Medicare, Medicare for All, Out of Pocket Expenses • Leave a comment

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/469707-strategists-say-warren-medicare-for-all-plan-could-appeal-to-centrists

Image result for Medicare for All

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s “Medicare for All” funding plan has come under fire from her rivals for the Democratic nomination, but some in her own party say her framing of the issue could ease the concerns of centrist voters.

The Massachusetts senator and leading Democratic presidential candidate said when she released her funding plan earlier this month that it “doesn’t raise middle-class taxes by one penny.”

She estimated that Medicare for All would require $20.5 trillion in federal spending and said that would be paid for with taxes that would directly fall on employers, corporations, wealthy individuals and financial institutions.

For Democratic strategists, Warren’s approach could be a way to soothe voters’ worries about Medicare for All while advancing key progressive ideas.

“The fact that she has devised a plan that would benefit middle class Americans without taxing [them] is certainly reassuring to a lot of people,” said Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist who isn’t working for any of the presidential campaigns.

“What Warren’s plan does is giving voters bold change without raising middle class taxes,” Bannon added.

The plan has stoked controversy, with some critics questioning Warren’s claims that it will avoid raising taxes on the middle class.

A key component is payments that employers would make to the federal government, estimated to raise $8.8 trillion.

Some policy experts say that Warren’s proposed employer contribution is a tax that would ultimately be paid by workers. But others argue that burdens on the middle class wouldn’t go up because employers would be shifting from making payments to private insurers to payments to the federal government.

Supporters of Warren’s plan also note that the plan makes clear that Warren would eliminate premiums, deductibles and copays, which should be a relief for voters with questions about Medicare for All.

Adam Green — co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which has endorsed Warren — said that “Warren’s Medicare for All financing plan is functionally like an $11 trillion tax cut for middle class families,” because it eliminates out-of-pocket health costs for workers and targets tax increases at the wealthy and corporations.

Warren is one of the leading candidates in the Democratic primary, and health care is one of the most prominent issues in the race. But her plan also came after she faced intense pressure to provide details on how she would fund Medicare For All.

She had avoided saying in debates whether she’d raise taxes on the middle class to pay for Medicare for All, leading to criticism from more moderate candidates such as former Vice President Joe Biden. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the other top-tier candidate with a Medicare for All plan that would do away with private insurance, has said he would directly raise taxes on the middle class to pay for his plan.

Because Warren’s plan claims it won’t raise taxes on the middle class, it “takes some of the starch” out of attacks she’ll receive from Biden, Bannon said. It also “puts her up as a great selling point in the battle against Sanders,” he added.

The release of Warren’s plan also allowed her to provide answers to a question that debate moderators had consistently pressed her on, even as she rose in the polls and voters viewed her debate performances favorably.

“In each of the last debates, while pundits were obsessing about magic words around taxes, voters were consistently saying Elizabeth Warren won,” Green said.

Strategists also said they see Warren’s Medicare for All plan as an effort to reinforce that she is the candidate with detailed policy solutions.

Michael Fraioli, a Democratic strategist who had worked on Rep. Tim Ryan‘s (D-Ohio) now-defunct presidential campaign and is unaffiliated, said that Warren — who has used the slogan “I have a plan for that” — needed to provide details on her “signature issue” of Medicare for All.

Warren’s Medicare for All funding plan isn’t the only area where she’s taken steps to make her proposals for big changes to the economy seem more palatable to moderate voters. For example, Warren stresses that she’s a capitalist, unlike Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist.

But it remains to be seen how effective Warren’s health care funding plan will be in easing the concerns of voters who have reservations about Medicare for All. 

Some of the fiercest critics of her plan have been her more centrist rivals in the Democratic primary, such as Biden.

The proposal also has drawn criticism from some Democratic-leaning economic policy experts, in addition to many tax experts on the right. For example, Larry Summers, a key player on economic policy in past Democratic presidents’ administrations, argued in a Washington Post op-ed on Tuesday that “the combined tax impact of Warren’s various plans is extreme.”

Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at the center-left think tank Third Way, said he thinks Warren tried to ease people’s concerns with her funding plan, but “there’s a lot of skepticism out there by reasonable people.”

“It needs to hold up to scrutiny and I’m not sure it can,” he said.

GOP politicians have also already started to attack Warren over her Medicare for All plan.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor Tuesday that Warren’s proposal was “breathtaking.”

“In order to take away employer-sponsored insurance from 180 million Americans, Democrats want to kill American jobs and bring the economy to a screeching halt,” McConnell said.

Democratic strategist Craig Varoga said that Republicans will likely ignore the fact that Warren’s funding mechanisms are targeted on businesses and wealthy people, and instead hone in on her proposing around $20 trillion in tax increases.

“Republicans will not discuss the specifics of Warren’s funding mechanism, only the size of it, and they will reduce it to bumper-sticker simplicity, that it’s the biggest tax increase in American history,” he said. “It doesn’t matter whether that’s accurate or not, or how it polls 12 months before the election, that’s what they will say, and Trump will say it louder than anyone.”

The Progressive Change Institute, also co-founded by Green, is planning in the coming days to make public the results of a poll, done in partnership with Public Citizen and Business for Medicare For All, that finds that a majority of registered voters support Medicare for All, both nationally and in battleground states.

However, a recent poll released by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) and the Cook Political Report found that most Democratic voters in four key battleground states think Medicare for All is a good idea, but that most swing voters in those states view it as a bad idea.

Both the Progressive Change Institute and the KFF surveys were conducted before Warren released her funding plan. 

Ashley Kirzinger, associate director for public opinion and survey research at KFF, said it is “yet to be determined” how the plan will resonate with the public, given that Republicans will use it against Warren but that people become more favorable toward Medicare for All when they learn it will eliminate their out-of-pocket costs.

“People are still learning how it works,” she said.