Senate Aims To Raise the Bar for Not-for-Profit Status in Health Care

Senate Aims To Raise the Bar for Not-for-Profit Status in Health Care

Not-for-profit BlueCross BlueShield plans, including Blue Shield of California, would have to meet new standards for spending on health benefits under the Senate's health care reform bill.  Another provision of the bill would limit what not-for-profit hospitals could charge some patients for emergency care or other medically necessary services.

It’s not uncommon for hospitals and health insurers to enjoy not-for-profit status under the federal tax code, exempting them from a number of taxes.  But the Senate is taking a closer look at those organizations, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has included provisions in the chamber’s health care reform bill (HR 3590) that would impose new requirements for hospitals and health plans to retain their not-for-profit status.

For example, Section 9016 of the bill would require not-for-profit BlueCross BlueShield plans to spend at least 85% of patient premiums on patient care, in effect capping administration expenses at 15%.  The measure would take effect in the tax year after Dec. 31, 2009.

Insurers that didn’t meet the threshold would lose special federal tax exemptions.  The Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the loss of such exemptions would generate $400 billion in new federal tax revenue from 2010 to 2019.

There currently are 24 not-for-profit BCBS plans in the U.S., including Blue Shield of California. 

Data on Blue Shield’s Web site indicate that the insurer would have met the standard in 2006, 2007 and 2008, but the data also suggest that the proposed requirement would exert added pressure on the health plan to keep a close eye on administrative and general costs, which have risen in recent years.  In 2006, Blue Shield’s general and administrative costs amounted to about 11.8% of operating revenue. By 2006, general and administrative costs accounted for 13.2% of operating revenue. 

Another provision of the Senate bill is reminiscent of a California law (AB 774) that took effect in 2007, prohibiting hospitals from billing underinsured or uninsured patients more for services than they bill Medicare, workers’ compensation or other government programs. Patients whose annual incomes do not exceed 350% of the federal poverty level are eligible for California’s cap on charges for hospital services.

Language in the Senate bill (Section 9007) would bar hospitals from charging patients who qualify for financial assistance more for emergency care or other medically necessary services than they would charge insured patients.

The California law bars hospitals from using some bill collection practices, and the Senate bill includes a language that would bar “extraordinary collection practices” until a hospital has worked to determine if a consumer meets the facility’s financial assistance policy. 

Given that a key priority of the legislation is to expand health insurance coverage, hospitals likely would face fewer cases in which the proposed rules would apply.  That said, the provision leaves it to HHS to write rules determining how the requirements would be enforced, including who would be eligible for the expanded federal consumer protections.  And that detail opens the door to the possibility of a federal policy that is weaker than the policy currently in place in California.

More details on proposed amendments to the Senate bill and other developments in the reform debate appear below.

Rundown on Senate Amendments

Prior to the start of debate, Democrats and Republicans agreed that all amendments to the bill must have 60 votes to be approved.  Highlights of news on proposed amendments to the Senate Health care reform bill (HR 3590) appear below.

Timeline for Action

Shaping the Debate

 

Exit mobile version