Hospital bill stuns slain student's parents, $29,186.50 for 5 minutes of care Options

[J_dogg82]

Read this. Then talk to me about the finances at UC Davis.

Have you read me link yet? Did you respond to any of my questions? Or did you just go find a source to distract from your ignorance?

What? No laughing? Come on laugh.

[J_dogg82]

P.S. Was I supposed to marvel at their 4,000,000,000 in assets or something?

[chris in sacto]

Read this. Then talk to me about the finances at UC Davis.

What? UCD is for profit and their profit margin slipped in the last couple of years so now they've adopted "new accounting methods?"

[Col. Jessep]

P.S. Was I supposed to marvel at their 4,000,000,000 in assets or something?

And you call me ignorant?

[J_dogg82]

What? UCD is for profit and their profit margin slipped in the last couple of years so now they've adopted "new accounting methods?"

Their assets only went up from 3.666 Billion to 4.007 Billion from 2007 to 2008. WELL ABOVE "FAIR COMPENSATION" in economic terms. But highly inflationary costs with inefficient supply is what happens when the Demand Curve is vertical.

[J_dogg82]

And you call me ignorant?

Obviously you are since you can't answer any of the questions posed to you and can't even be troubled to read a simple link.

Still waiting. Do you know what a Demand Curve is? Or are you just arguing about something you know nothing about?

[chris in sacto]

Their assets only went up from 3.666 Billion to 4.007 Billion from 2007 to 2008. WELL ABOVE "FAIR COMPENSATION" in economic terms. But highly inflationary costs with inefficient supply is what happens when the Demand Curve is vertical.

This was from a year ago:

The academic medical center and network of 17 clinics reported net income of $45 million on operating revenue of $1 billion for the fiscal year ended June 30. That translates to a profit margin of 4.4 percent, down from 6.1 percent the previous year, when it reported net income of $57 million on revenue of $944 million.

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramen.../24/story3.html

[J_dogg82]

This was from a year ago:



http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramen.../24/story3.html

They are gaining assets through more than income it appears though. Their net assets increased 200 million over one years time which was a 20% increase in net assets over that same time.

[Col. Jessep]

This was from a year ago:



http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramen.../24/story3.html

That is also presented in the annual report which I linked (see the segment information in the 2008 annual report on page 29).

This tells you that the Medical Center portion of their business is making a reasonable margin which allows them to continue to opeate. Notice, too, that the vast majority of their operating costs are in the form of salaries, wages and benefits. This is the case with most health care providers.

Significant reimbursement cuts therefore mean staffing and benefit reductions assuming the entity will continue to maintain its margin (or avoid operating losses). Often, such cuts negatively impact care or place a larger burden on other potential funding sources (e.g., their charitable foundation).

This post has been edited by Col. Jessep: Nov 3 2009, 02:02 PM

[chris in sacto]

In 2005, private payers paid a total of $18 billion for services provided by the hospitals (see Report, Attachment A). It cost the hospitals about $13 billion toprovide these services. That is, on average, hospitals were recovering from private payers 40% more than their actual costs. In other words, on average, almost a third of what private payers and commercially insured individuals pay to hospitals is to cover both unreimbursed costs (incurred supplying services to those insured by Medicare, Medi-Cal and the uninsured) and profit. This fact highlights the need for greater hospital efficiency and/or more adequate coverage and reimbursement from government-funded programs.

Hospital costs and paid charges vary widely across and within the various regions of the state, even after accounting for teaching status and payer mix. For
example, the average cost to payers for hospitals in the Sacramento region was nearly 30% higher than the statewide average, after adjusting for regional wage differences. (See Report, Table H-1.)

The hospital with the highest supply costs has costs three times greater than the hospital with the lowest supply costs. And, across the state, 31 hospitals have supply costs that are more than 10% above the average supply costs. (See Report Attachment G-2 and Tables 1 and 2.) These variations cannot be
explained solely by regional differences in supply costs, such as labor, because the results accounted for these differences.

The hospital with the highest cost to buyers has a cost more than six times greater than the hospital with the lowest cost to buyers. (See Tables 3 and 4.)
And, across the state, 55 hospitals have a cost to buyers that is at least 10% greater than the average, even though most of them are neither major teaching hospitals nor major providers of indigent care. (See Attachment G-1.)

The cost to buyers is in many instances unrelated to the costs to the hospitals. The study shows there is a highly variable pattern of hospital pricing relative to internal costs that cannot be explained by payer mix, teaching status or even supply costs.

CalPers study.

[Col. Jessep]

Obviously you are since you can't answer any of the questions posed to you and can't even be troubled to read a simple link.

Still waiting. Do you know what a Demand Curve is? Or are you just arguing about something you know nothing about?

You are arguing general economic theory.

I am dealing with the real world.

You will know the difference after you finish school and join us out here...

This post has been edited by Col. Jessep: Nov 3 2009, 01:55 PM

[Col. Jessep]

Chris...

Your stats are a little misleading. Margin on private business does not equal operating margin. Far from it. It would come as no surprise to anyone to learn that private payers subsidize governmental payers.

According to California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, operating margins at the state's hospitals are less than 1% (see chart 1). As table 4 shows, California's hospitals rely heavily on county funding and investment returns on endowment funds, etc. to maintain their total margins, which were just over 3% in 2008. But even after those items are factored in, about 35% of hospitals in the state have a negative total margin (see chart 2).

http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/Products/Hospi...orm/Charts.html

This post has been edited by Col. Jessep: Nov 3 2009, 02:26 PM

[J_dogg82]

You are arguing general economic theory.

I am dealing with the real world.

You will know the difference after you finish school and join us out here...

I'm not arguing "general theory." I'm arguing what you ALREADY CONFIRMED. That even for you, cost is no object of concern in terms of health care.

This is first day economics. This is what all of your precious free market policy is based on. This is the real macroeconomic environment your party continues to support and the results are exactly what one would expect: out of control costs and poor product quality. Those results are well documented here in the real world.

This post has been edited by J_dogg82: Nov 3 2009, 02:19 PM

[chris in sacto]

Chris...

Your stats are a little misleading. Margin on private business does not equal operating margin. Far from it. It would come as no surprise to anyone that private payers subsidize governmental payers.

According to California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, operating margins at the state's hospitals are less than 1% (see chart 1). As table 4 shows, California's hospitals rely heavily on county funding to maintain their total margins (just over 3% in 2008). But even after that county support, nearly about 35% of hospitals in the state have a negative total margin (see chart 2).

http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/Products/Hospi...orm/Charts.html

Those aren't my stats those are CalPERS, the largest state retirement fund in the world, with assets that rival small countries. CalPERS found what many have found, hospital charges vary widely in the State of California with no explanation.

[cqsallie]

Good luck. Kaiser Permanente has a phobia about having their patients in non-pars. They even go so far as to disallow their professional staff to call 911 for Kaiser members because ambulances will take people to the closest hospital, not necessarily a Kaiser hospital. I've heard the figure $30,000 repeated several times. Apparently, that's the price they put on your head.

I can tell you're naive.

Finally! We're getting back to the fact that this student WAS insured; his insurance "provider" only pays for care supplied by one of their "approved" emergency rooms.
We're not talking about a kid whose parents didn't care enough about him to pay premiums to Kaiser Permanente. Am I the only one who sees what happened here?
The victim was transported to the nearest trauma center, which happened to be the UCD facility, but he wasn't covered for treatment at the UCD trauma center, he was only covered if he was transported to a Kaiser facility.
The victim and his parents broke their contract with Kaiser, so their insurance provider won't pay UCD's bill for services.
Of course the bill is ludicrous - and the parents shouldn't be expected to pay it. That's what they pay insurance premiums for - at least the expectation that their bill will be 20% of the total.
How anyone can weave this exorbitant bill into a claim that the University of California at Davis medical facilities are overwhelmed by the cost of treating illegals is totally beyond me. Could it be a case of a facilitiy charging as much as the traffic will allow - starting high, with the understanding that insurance providers will whittle it down?
There's a whole lot more about this case than what's being thrown around on this board....
Sallie

[mrpoparue]

Finally! We're getting back to the fact that this student WAS insured; his insurance "provider" only pays for care supplied by one of their "approved" emergency rooms.
We're not talking about a kid whose parents didn't care enough about him to pay premiums to Kaiser Permanente. Am I the only one who sees what happened here?
The victim was transported to the nearest trauma center, which happened to be the UCD facility, but he wasn't covered for treatment at the UCD trauma center, he was only covered if he was transported to a Kaiser facility.
The victim and his parents broke their contract with Kaiser, so their insurance provider won't pay UCD's bill for services.
Of course the bill is ludicrous - and the parents shouldn't be expected to pay it. That's what they pay insurance premiums for - at least the expectation that their bill will be 20% of the total.
How anyone can weave this exorbitant bill into a claim that the University of California at Davis medical facilities are overwhelmed by the cost of treating illegals is totally beyond me. Could it be a case of a facilitiy charging as much as the traffic will allow - starting high, with the understanding that insurance providers will whittle it down?
There's a whole lot more about this case than what's being thrown around on this board....
Sallie

I used to be covered by kaiser and we had emergency coverage at any hospital if we were transported by ambulance to the nearest hospital. Kaiser would then transport to their hospital after patient was stablized. I didnt know that Kaiser changed their practice.

[chris in sacto]

Finally! We're getting back to the fact that this student WAS insured; his insurance "provider" only pays for care supplied by one of their "approved" emergency rooms.
We're not talking about a kid whose parents didn't care enough about him to pay premiums to Kaiser Permanente. Am I the only one who sees what happened here?
The victim was transported to the nearest trauma center, which happened to be the UCD facility, but he wasn't covered for treatment at the UCD trauma center, he was only covered if he was transported to a Kaiser facility.
The victim and his parents broke their contract with Kaiser, so their insurance provider won't pay UCD's bill for services.
Of course the bill is ludicrous - and the parents shouldn't be expected to pay it. That's what they pay insurance premiums for - at least the expectation that their bill will be 20% of the total.
How anyone can weave this exorbitant bill into a claim that the University of California at Davis medical facilities are overwhelmed by the cost of treating illegals is totally beyond me. Could it be a case of a facilitiy charging as much as the traffic will allow - starting high, with the understanding that insurance providers will whittle it down?
There's a whole lot more about this case than what's being thrown around on this board....
Sallie

My guess, Kaiser will pay the bill. . .reluctantly. The letter demanding payment should have gone to Kaiser, not the parents.

Health care systems are victims of a system they control. Kasier doesn't want their patients in non-Kaiser facilities because it costs Kaiser more money. . .obviously a lot more money if a member winds up at UCD. If a UCD member winds up in a Kaiser emergency department. . .same thing, Kaiser will do every test known to man and beast and bill UCD. Would either system treat the same patient in the same way if we weren't operating in the current system of worrying about which facility you find yourself in and how those health care systems go about being reimbursed?

[Col. Jessep]

The victim was transported to the nearest trauma center, which happened to be the UCD facility, but he wasn't covered for treatment at the UCD trauma center, he was only covered if he was transported to a Kaiser facility.
The victim and his parents broke their contract with Kaiser, so their insurance provider won't pay UCD's bill for services.

What are you talking about?

From the article...

The hospital bill is dated Thursday. Gerald Hawkins said he was confident his insurance company would handle the matter.

But that did nothing to allay how disturbing he finds it that the hospital sent the mailing at all.

[cqsallie]

What are you talking about?

From the article...

So, Kaiser will pay this bill. An incredibly high bill for the amount of time spent with the patient. How much do things cost? Am I living in a fool's paradise?
If 911 had been called and an ambulance dispatched from the local fire department, there wouldn't have been this type of bill. But that's just my take, because that's the way we do things in territories not controlled by Kaiser....
Sallie