A Well Placed Question by Professor Mirkay: “Should Medical-Related Charities Increase Disclosure of Their Donors?”
Filed under: Health Reform, Transparency
We’ve written a great deal here at HRW about the need for transparency in industry/profession interactions and the elimination of conflicts of interest–the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy here at Seton Hall Law has, in fact, over the course of the last two years, issued two White Papers on the subject–with another on the way. In the last, “Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trial Recruitment & Enrollment: A Call for Increased Oversight,” the Center proposed legal and policy changes to address conflicts of interest in the relationships between industry and doctors that can create unwarranted risks to trial participants and to the scientific integrity of research. In the Paper prior, ”Drug and Device Promotion: Charting a Course for Policy Reform,” The Center recommends: (1) making payments by drug and device companies to doctors transparent, with public disclosure by industry and physicians of their financial relationships; (2) adopting federal legislation to ban gifts, meals and other benefits provided to doctors as part of the current marketing model; (3) setting new policies to give FDA the authority to require studies of safety and efficacy of drugs and devices used off-label; and (4) undertaking a fundamental change in funding for continuing medical education to end industry support.
But over at Nonprofit Law Prof Blog, Professor Nicholas A. Mirkay of Widener University School of Law, has a post–and an additional question–well worth considering:
Professor Mirkay points to a recent Chronicle of Philanthropy article which raises the issue as the National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI) has begun disclosing the names of corps and foundations who (does Citizens United make that “who” correct? Never mind appropriate.) donate more than $5,000. NAMI is said to have done so on the heels of an investigation by Senator Chuck Grassley into their financial relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. Mirkay writes:
NAMI’s actions have given Grassley further impetus to force 33 other nonprofit medical associations to follow NAMI’s lead. In a related article, the Chronicle reports that Grassley’s inquiry into these other groups represents a “broader effort by the senator and others to expose and curtail corporate influence on the medical field.” Grassley commented that “[t]hese organizations have a lot of influence over public policy, and people rely on their leadership. There’s a strong case for disclosure and the accountability that results.”
Professor Mirkay also writes
In December 2009, Grassley sent a letter to 33 such nonprofit associations requesting information on the amount of funds received from pharmaceutical, medical-device and insurance companies from 2006 to 2009, the identity of the donors and how their money was spent by the medical group, and additional information on the outside income earned by the groups’ top executives and board members.
The (partial) results of those queries are not particularly heartening, but are certainly worth considering. Mirkay writes:
The Chronicle acquired more than half of the solicited groups’ responses to Grassley’s letter, finding that such groups receive aggregately more than $100 million annually from medical-related companies via “donations, advertising revenues, exhibit fees, corporate memberships, and support for continuing medical education.” For some groups, this can represent as much as 78% of their revenue, while for others it only represents a small percentage of their total receipts.
Despite the longings of Elvis Costello, it’s hard to bite the hand that feeds you–and 78% of revenue pretty much constitutes (in)visible means of support. In pushing further with our (or more accurately, the Supreme Court’s) Citizens United “who” conceit, one might think 78% sufficient in some sense to constitute dependent status under the tax code–at least for purposes of context. Having said that, in addition to not biting, it’s not hard to imagine the dependent regularly fed doing that which it may to help assure the continued regularity of that feeding. Especially if the feedings are invisible.
It should also be noted that Mirkay rightly points out that “This effort is further evidence of Grassley’s commitment to increased transparency of tax-exempt nonprofits.” He’s right. And being that Senator Grassley follows HRW on Twitter, and as I have at times been critical of some of his positions in the past regarding other issues, it’s worth noting that the Senator should be roundly applauded for his efforts.
[And if you haven't been over to the Nonprofit Law Prof Blog, you should. It's in our blog roll for good reason-- their work is informative, brief and well written.]
James J. Fishman’s Stealth Preemption: The I.R.S.’s Nonprofit Corporate Governance Initiative, recently posted on SSRN, joins the growing chorus of critics of the IRS’s preemption of state nonprofit corporate law via the addition of an entire “governance section” to Forms 1023 and 990. The underlying hypothesis is, of course, that by virtue of asking particularized questions regarding governance, the IRS will affect changes to facilitate the provision of the “right” answers on the respective forms; the IRS specifically acknowledges that no federal tax law addresses most of the issues about which it inquires. The article is a great survey of the bases of criticism of the IRS foray into governance reform, particularly as it applies to the medium to small nonprofit. It also catalogues examples of applicants being denied 501(c) (3) exemption as a result of concerns about, for example, conflicts of interest which, Fishman explains, the IRS appears to believe are per se bad, without an acknowledgement of why they may be necessary and appropriate for the small nonprofit, and can be managed, as is required by state law, to avoid foreseeable evils. An important theme of Fishman’s article is the lack of empirical data showing that the IRS’s structural governance preferences actually have a positive substantive impact on the operation of nfps.
John D. Columbo’s The NCAA, Tax Exemption, and College Athletics, 2010 U.Ill. L. Rev. 109 is simply fun for those academics who enjoy complaining about the outrageous salaries of coaches, or who flinch at the reference to the “scholar athlete.” More relevantly, however, Columbo’s article comprehensively outlines the doctrine relevant to analyzing the sparse legal guidance available regarding the assessment of the reasonableness of executive compensation, and whether it violates the prohibition on inurement or excess private benefit. This analysis is timely as well: the IRS may be on the verge of delving into the salaries of coaches as part of its college audits. The article also makes incredibly accessible UBIT analysis, also of importance in teaching health law. Like most of Columbo’s work, he makes hard concepts seem easy. As the IRS may be taking a closer look at coaches’ salaries.
James R. Hines, Jill Horwitz & Austin Nichols’ The Attack on Nonprofit Status: A Charitable Assessment, just posted on SSRN, forthcoming in 108 Mich L. Rev. 1179 responds to the literature advocating for tax benefits to any entity, including the for-profit, that engages in charitable activity, regardless of organizational status. Ultimately, the authors argue for the exclusive retention of tax exemption for the nonprofit firm, employing economic analysis and extant though limited empirical data to suggest the superior efficiency, higher quality and lower costs of nonprofits for at least some charitable activities. The article is rich with empirical data about the demographic differences between the for-profit and non-profit employee, from which it suggests employees of the two sectors may be differently motivated – by altruism as opposed to monetary incentives — thereby reducing costs and arguably increasing efficiency and quality. Professor Horwitz’s work always makes an important contribution to the literature, and she doesn’t disappoint in this article either.
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer and Brendan M. Wilson’s Regulating Charities in the 21st Century: An Institutional Choice Analysis, available on SSRN, forthcoming in Chicago-Kent Law Review, invokes institutional choice theory to determine the best locus for the regulation of the charitable sector. The article concludes that charity governance, comprising rulemaking and enforcement, best resides in a state agency independent of but related to the attorney general. This outcome respects the historic role of the state in regulating charities, takes advantage of the state’s expertise in nonprofit oversight, and enables the state to be nimble in its regulatory approach. The provision of sufficient funding remains a concern with this choice. Also of concern is inter-state consistency in regulating the multi-state nonprofit charity; inconsistency can foster regulatory arbitrage.
Miranda Perry Fleischer’s Theorizing the Charitable Tax Subsidies: The Role of Distributive Justice, just published at 877 Wash. U.L. Rev. 505 is a must-read for anyone asking what justifies hospitals’ tax-exemption in a post-reform world. The least that can be said for this incredibly thoughtful article, which is apparently the first in a series on the topic, is that it provides a superb overview of tax-exemption theory for those who do not regularly read this literature. It is perfect background reading for the non-tax teacher who introduces students to the topic in her health survey class, or the person who just wants a quick overview of the extant theoretical justifications for the charitable tax exemption. Fleischer makes two primary points. First, she chides tax theorists for their failure to acknowledge that tax exemptions for charities, and the attendant deductibility of charitable contributions, are redistributive. Second, she seeks a clearer justification for the determination for the charitable exemption, and convincingly enumerates disparate examples that prove the lack of coherence of current IRS policy, particularly with respect to the question as to whether charities are expected to serve the poor. Unsurprisingly, hospitals are but one example. She urges the adoption of a moral theory to facilitate the development of a coherent system of tax exemption, and starts the process of describing potential outcomes if we subscribed to a utilitarian, maximin, egalitarian or capabilities approach to defining charity. Apparently, this project will be further developed in future articles, which is just in time, at least for the health care sector.
Jessica Berg’s Putting the Community Back into the “Community Benefit” Standard, just published at 44 Ga. L. Rev. 375, represents one of the first articles of what can be expected to be a flurry of post-PPACA proposals to reform the criteria for hospitals’ tax-exempt status when charity care begins to decrease, at least in some markets (undocumented aliens will continue to be a significant burden in several states). Professor Berg seeks to shift the focus from the provision of individual charity care as a means to satisfy the community benefit standard, to the provision of population health care benefits, which can be measured by local, state and federal authorities to justify their respective tax exemptions. Berg seeks to avoid adopting a method for quantifying the value of the hospital’s community benefit that encourages hospitals to expend resources for the purpose of earning the tax exemption, rather than promotion of population health. Consequently, she proposes that tax authorities measure the value of the effect or outcome of the hospital’s population health programs, by analyzing participation, mind states, behavior, health status, sickness care utilization, sickness care expenditures, and community value, which can be accomplished by looking at statistical lives saved, lack of pain and suffering, gains in productivity, and risk reductions. Berg also proposes the administrative mechanism, which would include community participation, for identifying appropriate programs for hospitals’ implementation. As is generally the case with Professor Berg’s scholarship, this article proposes on-the-ground solutions to pressing problems of the day worthy of serious consideration.
A few weeks ago I wrote here about my unhappy experience of inadvertently mixing two different types of drain cleaners together. I learned then, and thought it useful to relate, a painful in-home science lesson: the combination of hydrochloric acid and hypochlorite (bleach) apparently forms chlorine gas, which was used as an agent of chemical warfare early in World War I. Serious lung damage and death are real possibilities. After a trip to the emergency room, a follow-up visit to my doctor and the passage of time– I’m ok.
But the other day I got the bill, or thankfully, as I am insured through my employer, the explanation of benefits. My present insurance company, CIGNA, detailed the claim in an easy to read and understandable manner. It is telling.
I was in the Emergency Room for about 4 hours (they had wanted to keep me overnight for observation but released me under the condition (and my pleading) that I return immediately if any number of things happened). I received oxygen and breathing treatments, x-rays, lab work, an electrocardiogram, and the care of a physician. The total billed was $2,270. But perhaps more importantly, the amount “discounted,” or the amount my insurance company did not pay through its negotiated pricing contract with the hospital, was $2007. Which is to say that my insurance company paid a total of only $263 of this bill. Thankfully, I owe nothing except a small co-pay.
The greatest single item of the billed amount is actually the charge for being in the Emergency Room itself. That charge, presumably triggered the moment I signed in, was $1,364.40. My insurance company, by agreement, paid only $158 of that charge.
But what if I weren’t insured?
Presumably, I would presently owe that hospital–which is a tax-exempt entity under 501(c)(3) with a concomitant mandate to deliver “community benefit” — a sum total of $2,270. This for services my insurance company paid a sum total of $263.
I understand robbing Peter to pay Paul, and quite frankly $263 seems a little cheap for the care and services I received (as $2,270 seems rather expensive). But if Peter is out of work and lacks insurance does it make sense to charge him 9x more than Paul? Does anyone wonder why uninsured Peter will do his best to avoid the hospital at almost any cost– even at great risk to his health?
I’ve written about this subject before. How seemingly no one except the uninsured pay “the chargemaster rate”; how many nonprofit hospitals in a recent IRS informational survey disclosed that they count the discounts they offer insurers and Medicare as “community benefit”; how even more nonprofit hospitals who bill greater amounts to the uninsured wind up counting the full amount billed, if collection efforts fail, as “a community benefit.” (e.g., if uninsured Peter above had received the care I received he would have been billed $2,270. If he failed to pay, not considering the harm to his credit record or the potential for being sued and a resultant judgment entered against him, the hospital then counts the unpaid $2,270 as “community benefit.”)
Thankfully, the reverse Robin Hood charging practice is about to change for at least some people. As Associate Dean Kathleen Boozang pointed out in her post last week, provisions in the new Health Reform law, PPACA, address the issue in part. Among other provisions aimed at tax exempt 501(c)(3) hospitals is the following:
Financial Assistance Policy. Hospitals must develop a financial assistance policy which enumerates a) eligibility criteria, b) an explanation of how hospital charges are calculated, c) the process for applying for financial assistance, and d) whether such assistance includes free or discounted care. If the hospital does not have a separate collections policy, the financial assistance policy must explain what happens if a hospital bill is not paid, including collections actions and reports to credit agencies. The financial assistance policy must be widely publicized throughout the entity’s service area.
Limitations on Patient Charges. Hospital charges for emergency or other medically necessary care provided to patients eligible for financial assistance may not exceed the lowest amounts charged to insured patients, and may not be based upon gross charges.
But of course, the Limitations on Patient Charges apply only to patients eligible for financial assistance, which may or may not apply to Peter who, if not eligible for financial assistance, may still be subjected to a $2,270 bill for services I paid $263 for. And seemingly, if Peter, ineligible for financial assistance, doesn’t pay that bill, hospitals are still able to claim as a “community benefit” the full amount of that non-payment of a bill 9x as high as an amount they were willing to accept for the same services from someone else.
In May of last year I wrote the following; it is worth considering again:
In recent posts we’ve pointed out some of the questionable characterizations of “community benefit” by nonprofit hospitals under 501(c)(3), a portion of the Internal Revenue Code which garners tax exemptions for those entities, such as nonprofit hospitals, which it harbors. In particular, we’ve focused on how matters such as “bad debt,” Medicare “shortfalls,” and even Private Insurer “shortfalls” have often been construed by nonprofit hospitals to constitute the conveyance of a community benefit. A “shortfall” may be deemed to have occurred when although the hospital receives the amount it had agreed to with a Private Insurer, or which was designated by the government through Medicare, that amount is less than the hospital’s “list price” for such services.
Despite this rather lax standard, Kaiser.org reports that an in-depth review by the Boston Globe determined that “the value of abundant tax exemptions extended to Massachusetts General Hospital, and other private non-profit hospitals, ‘far exceeds the amount the state’s leading hospitals spend on free care for the poor and other community benefits.’”
Kaiser reports that in Massachusetts
The ten biggest hospitals in the state benefited from $638 million in tax breaks in 2007, but reported only $265 million in “community benefits” provided that year, the Globe found.
Even if one accepts the questionable characterizations of community benefits, that still leaves an excess of $373 million in tax exemptions–for merely 10 hospitals–in only one state.