Threatening Nonprofit Hospital Tax Exemption: A Better Path Forward.

This Viewpoint discusses regulation of nonprofit hospitals in a way that will advance their charitable purposes without eliminating their tax exemption status.

Association of Nonprofit Hospitals' Charitable Activities With Unreimbursed Medicaid Care After Medicaid Expansion.

Importance: In the United States, nonprofit hospitals receive tax-exempt status with the expectation that they provide a high level of benefit to local communities. Prior work has shown that Medicaid expansion reduced hospital spending on uncompensated care. Objective: To measure the association of tax-exempt hospital spending with community benefit and changes in uncompensated care after Medicaid expansion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was performed using a difference-in-differences analysis (ie, a pre-post treatment-control design) to estimate changes in reported charitable categories associated with Medicaid expansion. Data from Internal Revenue Service form 990, Schedule H, tax filings for 2253 tax-exempt hospitals in the United States from 2012 to 2016 were used. Data were analyzed from June to November 2019. Exposure: The proportion of the hospital's tax filing that spanned the period after Medicaid expansion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital-reported spending on uncompensated care, unreimbursed Medicaid expenses, and other community benefit spending categories. Results: Across 2253 hospitals, mean (SD) uncompensated care costs between 2012 and 2016 were $4.20 million ($8.80 million) and unreimbursed Medicaid expenses were $7.60 million ($18.62 million). Compared with tax-exempt hospitals in states that did not expand Medicaid, those in states that did expand Medicaid reported mean reductions in their provision of uncompensated care of $1.11 million (95% CI, $0.35 million to $1.87 million; P < .001), representing a mean change of -2% (95% CI, -6% to 2%; P < .001). These reductions have been offset by mean reported increases in the provision of unreimbursed Medicaid expenses of $1.63 million (95% CI, $0.31 million to $2.94 million; P = .02), representing a mean increase of 2% (95% CI, 1% to 4%; P = .01). Tax-exempt hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid reported no statistically significant mean increase in spending on other community benefit activities. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, large decreases in uncompensated care among tax-exempt hospitals associated with Medicaid expansion were not accompanied by increases in other reportable categories of community health benefit spending. Instead, they were accompanied by increased spending on unreimbursed Medicaid expenses.

Quantifying Overinsurance Tied to the Tax Exclusion for Employment-Based Health Insurance and Its Variation by Health Status.

The exclusion of employment-based health insurance from income and payroll taxes is thought to increase the generosity of insurance coverage and, in turn, increase the overutilization of low-value health care services. We examine this inefficiency of overinsurance by quantifying the change in expected utility across 4 benchmark plans varying in actuarial value (AV) and focus on the distribution of each of these estimates across different groups of people varying in health status. Specifically, we quantify the changes in health care spending due to moral hazard and the changes in uncertainty tied to risk aversion using data from the nationally representative sample of adults with employment-based coverage from the 2007-2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, and produce estimates of expected utility for 24 groups of people based on their age, gender, and preexisting conditions. Our model suggests an average preferred AV of 78% without the tax exclusion, with 29.0% of the population preferring a 60% AV, 6.5% preferring a 70% AV, 18.1% preferring an 80% AV, and 46.4% preferring a 90% AV. When incorporating the distortionary effect of the employment-based tax exclusion, the preferred plan increases to an 83% AV for low-income people (with 71.0% of the population preferring a 90% AV) and an 84% AV for high-income people (with 76.0% of the population preferring a 90% AV). We estimate that policy changes to make subsidies independent of a plan's AV could result in increases in utility equal to about 2.7% of total health care spending, but with those net gains concentrated among the healthy.

State Laws and Nonprofit Hospital Community Benefit Spending.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of state laws on nonprofit hospital community benefit spending. DESIGN: We used multivariate models to estimate the association between different types of state-level community benefit laws and nonprofit hospital community benefit spending from tax filings. SETTING: All 50 US states. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2421 nonprofit short-term acute care hospital organizations that filled an internal revenue service Form 990 and Schedule H for calendar during years 2009-2015. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2015, short-term acute care hospitals spent an average of $46 billion per year in total, or $20 million per hospital on community benefit activities. Exposure to a state-level community benefit law of any type was associated with an $8.42 (95% confidence interval: 1.20-15.64) per $1000 of total operating expense greater community benefit spending. Spending amounts and patterns varied on the basis of the type of community benefit law and hospital urbanicity. CONCLUSIONS: State laws are associated with nonprofit hospital community benefit spending. Policy makers can use community benefit laws to increase nonprofit hospital engagement with public health.

Community Benefit Spending By Tax-Exempt Hospitals Changed Little After ACA.

Provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) encouraged tax-exempt hospitals to invest broadly in community health benefits. Four years after the ACA's enactment, hospitals had increased their average spending for all community benefits by 0.5 percentage point, from 7.6 percent of their operating expenses in 2010 to 8.1 percent in 2014.

Establishing a Baseline: Community Benefit Spending by Not-for-Profit Hospitals Prior to Implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

CONTEXT: Community Benefit spending by not-for-profit hospitals has served as a critical, formalized part of the nation's safety net for almost 50 years. This has occurred mostly through charity care. This article examines how not-for-profit hospitals spent Community Benefit dollars prior to full implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). METHODS: Using data from 2009 to 2012 hospital tax and other governmental filings, we constructed national, hospital-referral-region, and facility-level estimates of Community Benefit spending. Data were collected in 2015 and analyzed in 2015 and 2016. Data were matched at the facility level for a non-profit hospital's IRS tax filings (Form 990, Schedule H) and CMS Hospital Cost Report Information System and Provider of Service data sets. RESULTS: During 2009, hospitals spent about 8% of total operating expenses on Community Benefit. This increased to between 8.3% and 8.5% in 2012. The majority of spending (>80%) went toward charity care, unreimbursed Medicaid, and subsidized health services, with approximately 6% going toward both community health improvement and health professionals' education. By 2012, national spending on Community Benefit likely exceeded $60 billion. The largest hospital systems spent the vast majority of the nation's Community Benefit; the top 25% of systems spent more than 80 cents of every Community Benefit dollar. DISCUSSION: Community Benefit spending has remained relatively steady as a proportion of total operating expenses and so has increased over time-although charity care remains the major focus of Community Benefit spending overall. IMPLICATIONS: More than $60 billion was spent on Community Benefit prior to implementation of the ACA. New reporting and spending requirements from the IRS, alongside changes by the ACA, are changing incentives for hospitals in how they spend Community Benefit dollars. In the short term, and especially the long term, hospital systems would do well to partner with public health, other social services, and even competing hospitals to invest in population-based activities. The mandated community health needs assessment process is a logical home for these sorts of collaborations. Relatively modest investments can improve the baseline level of health in their communities and make it easier to improve population health. Aside from a population health justification for a partnership model, a business case is necessary for widespread adoption of this approach. Because of their authorities, responsibilities, and centuries of expertise in community health, public health agencies are in a position to help hospitals form concrete, sustainable collaborations for the improvement of population health. CONCLUSION: The ACA will likely change the delivery of uncompensated and charity care in the United States in the years to come. How hospitals choose to spend those dollars may be influenced greatly by the financial and political environments, as well as the strength of community partnerships.

[Evaluation of the cancer co-pay fee exemption data source (048 code) to estimate cancer incidence]. / Valutazione del flusso delle esenzioni ticket per neoplasia (codice 048) per stimare l'incidenza dei tumori.

OBJECTIVES: to assess whether the data source of cancer exemption ticket (code 048) correctly estimate the cancer incidence produced by Cancer registries (CR). DESIGN: comparison between incidence estimates produced by cancer exemptions ticket and cases registered by CR. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: six CRs provided incidence data for one year in the five-year period from 2007 to 2011 and for the previous five years, the exemptions provided for the same year and for the previous five years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: incidence distribution by gender, age and tumour site, exemptions 048/incident cancers ratio, and trend estimates. RESULTS: out of 14,586 patients with 048 exemption, a first group was present in the CR database in the same reference year (No. 8,015) and a second group in the previous 6 months (No. 1,696). Of the remaining 4,875, only 2,771 were prevalent cases and 2,104 were manually re-valued: 514 non-cancer; 710 non-malignant/noninfiltrating tumours, 250 non-residents, 532 unknown, and 98 lost at CR. The exemption/ tumours ratio was 32%in males and 37% in females. Out of 27,632 cancer patients in CR, only 29% had a 048 exemption. Among linked cases, there is a case-mix problem: the exemptions overestimated the weight of some cancer sites (breast, prostate), but underestimate the weight of other sites (stomach, liver, lung) and the burden of tumours in the elderly.The trend estimated from the exemptions underestimates the true incidence of tumours and presents fluctuations, because of local administrative and organisational issues. CONCLUSIONS: the 048 codes are an accessory source for CRs, but when used as single flow they are not able to estimate the true incidence of tumours and, therefore, do not provide useful information on cancer trends.

The Value Of The Nonprofit Hospital Tax Exemption Was $24.6 Billion In 2011.

The federal government encourages public support for charitable activities by allowing people to deduct donations to tax-exempt organizations on their income tax returns. Tax-exempt hospitals are major beneficiaries of this policy because it encourages donations to the hospitals while shielding them from federal and state tax liability. In exchange, these hospitals must engage in community benefit activities, such as providing care to indigent patients and participating in Medicaid. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the value of the nonprofit hospital tax exemption at $12.6 billion in 2002--a number that included forgone taxes, public contributions, and the value of tax-exempt bond financing. In this article we estimate that the size of the exemption reached $24.6 billion in 2011. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) brings a new focus on community benefit activities by requiring tax-exempt hospitals to engage in communitywide planning efforts to improve community health. The magnitude of the tax exemption, coupled with ACA reforms, underscores the public's interest not only in community benefit spending generally but also in the extent to which nonprofit hospitals allocate funds for community benefit expenditures that improve the overall health of their communities.

Tax-exempt hospitals and community benefit: new directions in policy and practice.

The current community benefit standard for nonprofit hospital tax exemption has been the subject of mounting criticism. Many different constituencies have advanced the view that in its present form it fails to ensure that nonprofit hospitals provide adequate benefits to their communities in exchange for their tax exemption. In contrast, hospitals have often expressed the concern that the community benefit standard in its current form is vague and therefore difficult to comply with. Various suggestions have been made regarding how the existing community benefit standard could be improved or even replaced. In this article, we first discuss the historical and legal development of the community benefit standard. We then present the key controversies that have emerged in recent years and the policy responses attempted thus far. Finally, we evaluate possible future policy directions, which reform efforts could follow.

Characterizing customers at medical center farmers' markets.

Approximately 100 farmers' markets operate on medical center campuses. Although these venues can uniquely serve community health needs, little is known about customer characteristics and outreach efforts. Intercept survey of markets and market customers between August 2010 and October 2011 at three medical centers in different geographic regions of the US (Duke University Medical Center, Cleveland Clinic, and Penn State Hershey Medical Center) were conducted. Markets reported serving 180-2,000 customers per week and conducting preventive medicine education sessions and community health programs. Customers (n = 585) across markets were similar in sociodemographic characteristics--most were middle-aged, white, and female, who were employees of their respective medical center. Health behaviors of customers were similar to national data. The surveyed medical center farmers' markets currently serve mostly employees; however, markets have significant potential for community outreach efforts in preventive medicine. If farmers' markets can broaden their reach to more diverse populations, they may play an important role in contributing to community health.

Boon or bane: 401(k) loans and employee contributions.

Economic and behavioral theories arrive at different conclusions about the effect of being allowed to borrow from one's defined-contribution (DC) retirement plan on people's contributions to DC plans. Traditional life-cycle models unambiguously suggest that the borrowing option makes people better off than not being able to borrow. Households consequently contribute more to their DC plans than they would absent the borrowing option. Previous research finds that the ability to borrow from a DC plan increases contemporaneous contributions, consistent with traditional models. Behavioral finance, in contrast, suggests that some workers may operate with nonlinear time discounting. They plan on saving more in the future but change their mind and save less than initially planned as time passes. These workers may enjoy higher lifetime utility if they have no loan option because DC plans serve as commitment devices for retirement saving. The money cannot be used prior to retirement. Absent this commitment device, contributions may be lower for some households than would be the case without a DC loan option. We study DC plan contributions for households with heterogeneous preferences about discounting. We separate households into those that demonstrate inconsistent (or paradoxical) borrowing behavior, which may reflect nonlinear time discounting, and those with more consistent borrowing behavior. We find that a DC loan option raises current savings, but does so more for households with consistent borrowing behavior than for those with inconsistent borrowing behavior.

Proposed regs address new hospital tax-exemption requirements.

Proposed regulations set forth detailed rules for implementing the new tax-exemption requirements of Section 501(r) of the Internal Revenue Code for not-for-profit organizations operating hospital facilities. The proposed regulations provide guidance on the written financial assistance policies (FAPs) that hospital facilities are required to establish. The regulations propose methodologies for determining the amounts that a hospital facility can charge FAP-eligible individuals for emergency and other medically necessary care. They prescribe procedures that hospital facilities would be required to follow before engaging in extraordinary collection actions against an individual.

Tax subsidies for employer-sponsored health insurance: updated microsimulation estimates and sensitivity to alternative incidence assumptions.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate 2012 tax expenditures for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) in the United States and to explore the sensitivity of estimates to assumptions regarding the incidence of employer premium contributions. DATA SOURCES: Nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data from the 2005-2007 Household Component (MEPS-HC) and the 2009-2010 Insurance Component (MEPS IC). STUDY DESIGN: We use MEPS HC workers to construct synthetic workforces for MEPS IC establishments, applying the workers' marginal tax rates to the establishments' insurance premiums to compute the tax subsidy, in aggregate and by establishment characteristics. Simulation enables us to examine the sensitivity of ESI tax subsidy estimates to a range of scenarios for the within-firm incidence of employer premium contributions when workers have heterogeneous health risks and make heterogeneous plan choices. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We simulate the total ESI tax subsidy for all active, civilian U.S. workers to be $257.4 billion in 2012. In the private sector, the subsidy disproportionately flows to workers in large establishments and establishments with predominantly high wage or full-time workforces. The estimates are remarkably robust to alternative incidence assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: The aggregate value of the ESI tax subsidy and its distribution across firms can be reliably estimated using simplified incidence assumptions.

Evaluating hospitals' provision of community benefit: an argument for an outcome-based approach to nonprofit hospital tax exemption.

Nonprofit hospitals are exempt from federal income taxation if they pass organizational and operational tests, including satisfying the community-benefit standard. Policymakers, however, have questioned the adequacy of the community benefits that nonprofit hospitals provide in exchange for these exemptions. The Internal Revenue Service recently responded to these concerns by redesigning its tax forms for nonprofit hospitals. The new Form 990 Schedule H requires nonprofit hospitals to provide additional information about their community-benefit activities. This new reporting requirement, however, places an undue focus on input-based community-benefit indicators, in particular expenditures. We argue that expanding the current input-based reporting requirement to include not only monetary inputs but also population health outcomes would achieve greater benefit for society.