California Lawmakers OK Emergency Loans to Failing Hospitals

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Alarmed by the closure of a rural hospital earlier this year, California lawmakers on Thursday voted to loan $150 million to struggling medical centers in the hope of preventing a cascade of similar failures across the state.

The only hospital in Madera County closed in December, leaving the community of nearly 160,000 people with no medical center within a 30-minute drive. The closure was a startling reminder of the plight of many community hospitals in mostly rural areas of the country that have struggled to stay open during the coronavirus pandemic.

Since then, hospitals in El Centro, Montebello, Hawkins and Visalia have all teetered on the brink of collapse, with one declaring bankruptcy and another being taken over by a state university to prevent its closure. A report last month paid for by the California Hospital Association warned that 20% of the state’s more than 400 hospitals were at risk of closing.

California lawmakers typically don’t approve new spending until June following months of debate and negotiations with the governor’s office. But the crisis is so severe that legislative leaders and Gov. Gavin Newsom agreed to go ahead and spend this money now, pledging to do more later in the year when the budget is finished.

“I don’t think people are appreciating what’s going on out there. I am very worried,” said Carmela Coyle, president and CEO of the California Hospital Association, an industry trade group.

The pandemic upended hospitals across the country. While many were inundated with COVID-19 cases, patients for other things — like elective surgeries — dried up. Since then, rising inflation and labor costs have made it difficult for hospitals to recover.

In California, the problem has been compounded by an increase in the number of people who get their health care costs paid for by the government. The state’s Medicaid rolls increased dramatically during the pandemic, a combination of emergency rules to make the program more accessible and a decision by Democrats to make all low-income adults eligible for the program regardless of their immigration status.

While more people are on Medicaid, how much Medicaid pays hospitals has stayed the same. On average, for every dollar a hospital spends to care for someone, Medicaid gives it 74 cents back, Coyle said.

That’s a problem for hospitals like Kaweah Medical Center in Visalia, where most of its patients are on either Medicaid or Medicare. Nestled in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, the hospital serves a mostly agricultural community made up of low-income farmworkers.

Before the pandemic, the hospital would turn a modest profit of 3% or so each year, according to CEO Gary Herbst. But since 2020, Herbst said the hospital has lost $138 million. It has about $218 million in debt that a credit ratings agency recently downgraded to “junk” status.

The hospital is supposed to have at least 90 days of operating cash on hand at any time. Before the pandemic, the lowest it ever got was 110 days. At the end of March, it dropped to just 62 days. Herbst said the hospital has lost $39 million through the first nine months of the fiscal year, or more than it lost in all of last year combined.

Herbst said he hopes the hospital will break even next year because of various cost-cutting measures, including laying off about 200 people and cutting back on services. That includes cutting the number of elective procedures for Medicaid patients by 35% because, he said, on “every one of those procedures we lose money.”

“If you were an outpatient surgeon who did 10 elective (Medicaid) surgeries a month, you can only do six now. And you have to put your other patients on a waiting list,” Herbst said.

The state will give out the $150 million in the form of interest-free loans to nonprofit or public hospitals that meet certain conditions. The state will prioritize loans for medical centers in rural areas and those that have a disproportionate number of patients on Medicaid, the joint state and federal government health insurance program for the poor and the disabled.

The $150 million likely won’t be enough to fix the problem. Herbst, CEO of Kaweah Health Medical Center in Visalia, said his hospital needs $50 million — one-third of the money available — to give it “some breathing room.”

During legislative hearings this week, lawmakers pledged their intent to offer more money in June when the state budget is finished.

“This is just a beginning. It’s antiseptic ointment on the cut. We haven’t even started with the Band-Aid,” said state Sen. Anna Caballero, a Democrat whose district includes the Madera Community Hospital that closed.

But it’s unclear how much more the state could pay. The California Hospital Association has asked for a one-time payment of $1.5 billion. But California has a projected $22.5 billion budget deficit, limiting the state’s ability to approve new spending.

One idea is to bring back a tax on managed care organizations, private companies that administer the state’s Medicaid program. The tax triggers more Medicaid payments from the federal government. The last time it was in place, it saved the state $1.5 billion. The tax expired in 2020, but Newsom and some lawmakers want to bring it back.

The Newsom administration says it plans to use some of that new tax money to increase payments to hospitals for Medicaid patients. But those increases wouldn’t happen until next year at the earliest.

Click here to read the full article at AP News

Hospitals Spending Millions to Inflict More Pain On Taxpayers

NHS-nurse-hospital_2519626bIn 2012, those of us who opposed Proposition 30 were told that the measure, which was the largest state tax hike in American history, was just a “temporary” fix to address the emergency of a severe budget shortfall. But just as Milton Friedman noted that “nothing is so permanent as a temporary government measure,” here in California it appears that nothing is so permanent as a temporary tax increase.

However, in their journey to extend the Prop. 30 tax hikes, the tax raisers started tripping over their own greed. Even the public sector union bosses weren’t reading off the same page and different proposals began to emerge, each targeting billions of dollars of tax revenue to their respective constituencies. And compounding the problem was the fact that the “emergency,” which was the entire justification for Prop. 30 in the first place, disappeared. California now has a budget surplus.

But greed being a powerful motivator, the special interests worked out a compromise that focused on extending only the income tax portion of Prop. 30 and jettisoning the sales tax. This move was politically expedient given that only the income tax portion targeted “evil” rich people while the sales tax extension would have been an almost impossible sell. (If the version of the Prop. 30 extension currently gathering signature passes, California’s highest in the nation tax rate of 13.3 percent would be extended until 2030).

In Sacramento, the normal political dichotomy is between those interests seeking to preserve what they have (i.e., businesses and taxpayers) and those interests seeking to take resources from, or impose regulations on, the former. For example, homeowners want to keep their tax dollars and thus are supportive of Proposition 13 while public sector labor interests and local governments want more of those dollars and thus loath Proposition 13 as it impedes their tax raising ability.

But the dichotomy sometimes breaks down because the line between private interests and public interests isn’t always clear. For example, California has both private and public hospitals with private institutions outnumbering the public by a factor of six. So one would think that the interests of hospitals would be more aligned with seeking lower taxes. But because hospitals get billions in public revenue for Medi-Cal, they have no problem seeking higher revenues for themselves at the expense of others.

And that is why the California Hospital Association has donated $12.5 million to the effort to extend California’s sky high income tax rate. Apparently, they remain unconcerned about the economic damage that comes from excessive taxes.

But the hospitals’ doubling down on the Prop. 30 extension may not have been well thought out. That is because they want desperately to have voters approve another measure that has already qualified for the ballot in November. Originally intended for the 2014 ballot (but they missed the deadline) this proposal requires high procedural requirements (two-thirds vote of the Legislature and voter approval) before some of the existing Medi-Cal reimbursements to hospitals can be reduced.

So the question that voters must now ask themselves is why should we support the hospital industry in its effort to protect what it currently gets from government while it is also trying to force a $6 billion to $11 billion annual tax hike on Californians?

Good question.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

Originally published at HJTA.org.