Christie Clinic was mentioned on the 2nd page of this on-line Business Week article about a new attempts by finance companies to collect medical debts from the uninsured.
This article merits our discussion.
http://www.investorguide.com/browse2.cgi?id=17549
While I can understand that hospitals are just trying to ensure they get paid in an area where they typically suffer losses... this solution is purely the hospital dealing with a societal symptom of underlying problem. It doesn't address the root problem at all, which is that the working poor are often totally screwed on being able to afford their medical needs.
My initial reaction to this article was how unfair the hospitals were being... but what's the alternative? Charging others more to make up for the losses? The real unfair situation started before these people even walked into the hospital door. In need of medical care they can't afford. A need. Not a want. Not some consumer choice, a need. Though I'm against a government run national health program to replace private coverage, I think these situations make a strong case for subsidizing insurance costs for lower income workers on a progressive scale and better coverage for others who fall through the cracks. Some of this could be paid for by reforming current programs... but would that be enough? If not it starts getting into the debate at what level of taxation begins to be so detrimental to the economy that it actually results in less tax revenue in the long run. It also gets into the debate of how absurd it is for SS funds being "invested" by the gov't borrowing from it instead of investing it in something that could have real returns, not just overall losses. It probably gets into a lot of debates... but it doesn't change the fact that health care costs are out of reach for too many people who need it.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
The cynic notes: at least she hasn't been sent to jail for her medical debt (yet).
And when did Christie move to Urbana?
What I would like to know, is: When did Christie start doing this,and are all patients who are being impacted by this policy being informed of it? In other words, is this applying to all medical debts incurred as of (insert particular date here), or is Christie going back and selling old debts to this company too?
To one who...:
According to the article, for certain uninsured patients, Christie and some of the other health care providers mentioned, would, prior to treatment, require uninsured lacking other means to pay to fill out what essentially was a credit card agreement providing that charges for immediate and subsequent services will be debited against the card. Then the health care provider would immediately sell the obligation at a discount to that third party credit card issuer. Apparently Christie has since made this less opaque (but not necessarily truly transparent).
On the other hand people perceiving they are in dire need of medical care might sign anything.
The collection companies, ill-concerned about the level of distress in this case, might argue that this is not much different from people signing cell phone contracts without fully reading them.
Michael Fuerst
"On the other hand people perceiving they are in dire need of medical care might sign anything."
Indeed. Sign this or you/your son/your daughter/your spouse doesn't get needed medical attention. Not really an issue of free-market forces at work there. More like having a gun to your head and, "sign the dotted line to see tomorrow."
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
You have to make a mental difference between Doctor Groups (clinics) which are 'for profit" entities and hospitals (which frequently claim to be charitable institutions) that are exempt from federal taxes. They are not the same sort of corporate structure and they can't be treated the same way.
While I personally agree with Glock on a lot of what he says, I will tell you that the law is pretty specific about making the difference between private for profit entities and non-profit tax exempt entities. Docs and their clinics are mostly a private business subject to taxation. A lot of (but not all!) hospitals are incorporated as non-profits under the IRS 501(c)(3) category.
Without going into a lot of cites that you probably all could care less about (just let me know!) the 501(c)(3) designation is supposed to be for institutions of a religious, scientific, or charitable nature or for something that will somehow lessen the burden on government. There can be no political component to the organization (under this particular designation) and the organization can't enrich a individual (and this is a BIGGIE!)
In the last few years, the guys on Ways and Means have been asking some questions about just WHAT exactly hospitals are giving in return for the tax exempt status they enjoy. The American Hospital Association is a lobby for the interests of hospitals and they are doing all they can to protect the interests of their membership.
Now you understand who some of the players are in this national debate, and you can see why this article is not completely right, but it isn't exactly wrong either.
Doctors' Groups (in most cases) are paying taxes like any other business. The popular opinion on here has always been that business owners need to be left alone to run a business however they choose to. Hospitals (that are not paying taxes) are subject to a higher level of scrutiny, and maybe to a greater public claim to charity if the legislature wants to make it happen.
Payment plans and collection methods are most certainly the domain of business owners, and I sincerely doubt that most of you would presume to instruct your mechanic or plumber on how to manage accounts receivable. You might, however, feel like it is ok to tell your church how to spend the proceeds of the collection plate. IF the local ministers' association is calling your house and leaning on you to allow a specific expenditure you might be less vocal on the whole mess--and THAT is going on in Congress too...
Just my two cents.
Laura