Home » Blog » More Thoughts on the Hospital Fee

More Thoughts on the Hospital Fee

As we reported yesterday on the blog, California’s attempt to draw down more than $3 billion in new federal funds through a new “hospital quality assurance fee” looks to be on track.

The original plan was outlined in last year’s AB 1383 (Jones) and this year’s AB 1653 (Jones). I dug through our archives and found ITUP’s summary of the bill. Thanks, Adam!

I’d also like to link you to Lucien’s blog comment on the plan from a few weeks ago. In it, he offers not just an assessment of the possibilities of what California could and should do with the federal monies we stand to gain, but he also an analysis of the current system of hospital financing in general. Here’s a little snippet:

We would argue that the reimbursement incentives of Medi-Cal and Medicare for California facilities should at least be coordinated and complementary. The incentives and methodology should be roughly the same for public and private facilities. Hospital rates should have a good strong dose of pay for performance, as this is the best way to improve patient outcomes and hospital quality. There ought to be elements of capitation, all-inclusive rates and global budgeting as this gives facilities the flexibility to change their delivery systems that the traditional fee for service piecework and per diem payments do not. There should be elements of both bundling and ACOs, as these are vital to break down the silos and create the teamwork necessary to improve patient outcomes.

For more, read the entire post.

Also, I encourage you to learn more on ITUP’s thoughts on Reimbursement Reform and our other Priority Issue Workgroups in our recent blog announcement.

If you’d like to be involved in any of the Workgroups, contact me (cliff at itup.org) today!