Hospitals not neutral on ‘site-neutral’
Medicare’s site-neutral policy, which pays outpatient hospital sites like they’re independent doctors’ offices, is turning out to be as unpopular in practice as it was in theory—as least among hospitals.
A piece produced by Kaiser Health News and picked up by NPR looks into the cloud of discontent and finds names, faces and real-world consequences.
For example, the CEO of a 126-bed hospital in rural Washington State says the payment cuts have forced his organization to shelve its plans to build a primary-care clinic that would have served many patients close to where they live.
“If you’re well-to-do financially, these aren’t big problems,” said the executive, Eric Lewis of Olympic Medical Center. “But I think the poorest, elderly, sickest of our society will pay the price of this policy.”
Lewis anticipates a loss of $1.6 million for his hospital.
Of course, there are two sides to the story. Reporter Carmen Heredia Rodriguez points out that the change will save patients an average of $7 each time they visit a hospital-owned clinic. Plus CMS estimates site-neutral payments will save the agency $380 million this year alone.
Still, some hospital leaders and advocates remain unconvinced the tradeoff is worth the trouble, especially to patients.
“I think access trumps a couple extra dollars in copays every single time,” said Melinda Hatton, general counsel for the AHA.
Get the rest of the story:
Dave P. has worked in journalism, marketing and public relations for more than 30 years, frequently concentrating on hospitals, healthcare technology and Catholic communications. He has also specialized in fundraising communications, ghostwriting for CEOs of local, national and global charities, nonprofits and foundations.