Charity Care in Ophthalmology, 2024.

PURPOSE: To review changes in the provision of charity eye care in the past 50 years with hypothesized resulting effects on surgical training and patient outcomes. DESIGN: Perspective. METHODS: Case report, comparison of experience in community and training program settings, and selected literature review. RESULTS: The population to which charity care applies has shrunk as broader insurance coverage has been legislated, but in 2023 remains at approximately 7.3% of the US population. In areas with ophthalmology training programs, house staff supervised by faculty provide most of the charity care. In areas without training programs, a shrinking pool of willing private practitioners provides charity care. Because there is no organized financial support behind provision of charity, nonanecdotal data needed to assess the problem and guide decision making are lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Charity eye care in ophthalmology in 2024 is a patchwork of transient, local efforts that have a few common themes: absent material basis for sustainability, a narrowing base of support by clinicians, transfer of care to training programs, and financial vetting of applicants by nonclinicians. Unless universal health care legislation passes, which would eliminate the issue, suggestions for improvement include broader voluntary participation by private practice ophthalmologists in charity eye care, allocation of charity care spending by nonprofit hospitals to support this effort, and clinician-determined criteria for provision of charitable surgery supported by involved hospital systems.

Comparing the Affordable Care Act's Financial Impact on Safety-Net Hospitals in States That Expanded Medicaid and Those That Did Not.

Issue: Safety-net hospitals play a vital role in delivering health care to Medicaid enrollees, the uninsured, and other vulnerable patients. By reducing the number of uninsured Americans, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was also expected to lower these hospitals' significant uncompensated care costs and shore up their financial stability. Goal: To examine how the ACA's Medicaid expansion affected the financial status of safety-net hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid and in states that did not. Methods: Using Medicare hospital cost reports for federal fiscal years 2012 and 2015, the authors compared changes in Medicaid inpatient days as a percentage of total inpatient days, Medicaid revenues as a percentage of total net patient revenues, uncompensated care costs as a percentage of total operating costs, and hospital operating margins. Findings and Conclusions: Medicaid expansion had a significant, favorable financial impact on safety-net hospitals. From 2012 to 2015, safety-net hospitals in expansion states, compared to those in nonexpansion states, experienced larger increases in Medicaid inpatient days and Medicaid revenues as well as reduced uncompensated care costs. These changes improved operating margins for safety-net hospitals in expansion states. Margins for safety-net hospitals in nonexpansion states, meanwhile, declined.

The Impact of the ACA's Medicaid Expansion on Hospitals' Uncompensated Care Burden and the Potential Effects of Repeal.

ISSUE: By increasing health insurance coverage, the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid eligibility expansion was also expected to lessen the uncompensated care burden on hospitals. The expansion currently faces an uncertain future. GOAL: To compare the change in hospitals' uncompensated care burden in the 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) that chose to expand Medicaid to the changes in states that did not, and to estimate how these expenses would be affected by repeal or further expansion. METHODS: Analysis of uncompensated care data from Medicare Hospital Cost Reports from 2011 to 2015. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Uncompensated care burdens fell sharply in expansion states between 2013 and 2015, from 3.9 percent to 2.3 percent of operating costs. Estimated savings across all hospitals in Medicaid expansion states totaled $6.2 billion. The largest reductions in uncompensated care were found for hospitals in expansion states that care for the highest proportion of low-income and uninsured patients. Legislation that scales back or eliminates Medicaid expansion is likely to expose these safety-net hospitals to large cost increases. Conversely, if the 19 states that chose not to expand Medicaid were to adopt expansion, their uncompensated care costs also would decrease by an estimated $6.2 billion.

Medicaid Program; Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments--Treatment of Third Party Payers in Calculating Uncompensated Care Costs. Final rule.

This final rule addresses the hospital-specific limitation on Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments under section 1923(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (Act), and the application of such limitation in the annual DSH audits required under section 1923(j) of the Act, by clarifying that the hospital-specific DSH limit is based only on uncompensated care costs. Specifically, this rule makes explicit in the text of the regulation, an existing interpretation that uncompensated care costs include only those costs for Medicaid eligible individuals that remain after accounting for payments made to hospitals by or on behalf of Medicaid eligible individuals, including Medicare and other third party payments that compensate the hospitals for care furnished to such individuals. As a result, the hospital-specific limit calculation will reflect only the costs for Medicaid eligible individuals for which the hospital has not received payment from any source.

Linking Medicaid Expansion and Cuts to Disproportionate-Share Hospitals: Will Safety Nets Survive?

The predominant mechanism by which the health care reforms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 are to be financed is through the government's simultaneous defunding of major portions of Medicare and Medicaid, including the reduction of up to 75% of federal payments to disproportionate-share hospitals. The justification for curtailment of other public programs is that after Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, the decrease in the proportion of uninsured among the U.S. population will render disproportionate-share hospital payments extraneous and unnecessary. Such justification was reiterated in the recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion No. 627, entitled Health Care for Unauthorized Immigrants. Herein, the soundness of the Committee Opinion's proposed policy is evaluated by reviewing available literature on the potential effect of Medicaid disproportionate-share hospital cuts with and without concomitant Medicaid expansion. Limitations of Medicaid expansion efforts before and under the Affordable Care Act, the disproportionate-share hospital payment program, and other legislation providing safety net hospitals with (some) relief of financial burdens related to uncompensated care are explicated. Findings raise concern that acceptance of cuts of up to 75% of federal disproportionate-share hospital funds on the premise that nationwide state expansion of Medicaid will offset the difference may be overly optimistic. Indeed, foregoing disproportionate-share hospital payments undercuts the otherwise laudable intent of Committee Opinion No. 627, namely to advocate for universal health care for all women, including undocumented immigrants.

Medicaid program; disproportionate share hospital payments--uninsured definition. Final rule.

This final rule addresses the hospital-specific limitation on Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments under the Social Security Act (the Act). Under this limitation, DSH payments to a hospital cannot exceed the uncompensated costs of furnishing hospital services by the hospital to individuals who are Medicaid-eligible or "have no health insurance (or other source of third party coverage) for the services furnished during the year.'' This rule provides that, in auditing DSH payments, the quoted test will be applied on a service-specific basis; so that the calculation of uncompensated care for purposes of the hospital-specific DSH limit will include the cost of each service furnished to an individual by that hospital for which the individual had no health insurance or other source of third party coverage.

Medicare program; FY 2014 inpatient prospective payment systems: changes to certain cost reporting procedures related to disproportionate share hospital uncompensated care payments. Interim final rule with comment period.

: In the fiscal year (FY) 2014 inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS)/long-term care hospital (LTCH) PPS final rule, we established the methodology for determining the amount of uncompensated care payments made to hospitals eligible for the disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payment adjustment in FY 2014 and a process for making interim and final payments. This interim final rule with comment period revises certain operational considerations for hospitals with Medicare cost reporting periods that span more than one Federal fiscal year and also makes changes to the data that will be used in the uncompensated care payment calculation in order to ensure that data from Indian Health Service (IHS) hospitals are included in Factor 1 and Factor 3 of that calculation.

Medicaid program; state disproportionate share hospital allotment reductions. Final rule.

The statute, as amended by the Affordable Care Act, requires aggregate reductions to state Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) allotments annually from fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2020. This final rule delineates a methodology to implement the annual reductions for FY 2014 and FY 2015. The rule also includes additional DSH reporting requirements for use in implementing the DSH health reform methodology.