Now I understand most of them enjoy "non-profit" status, but that isn't the issue. Why are they expected to be self-supporting? Or run "in the black?" I understand Seton Medical Care filed for bankruptcy protection in 2018, affecting several locations. Residents of Daly City are concerned about their Seton Medical Center closing. And this is nothing new. Hospitals around the state have been encountering all sorts of financial hurdles. (Then again, a lot of them have just rebuilt amazing new campuses...)
Which begs the general question, why would be expect a hospital to be a "profit center?" Or at least be self-sustaining?
Do we ask other vital public services to "operate in the black?"
Public Schools
Fire Departments
Police Departments
Libraries
Parks
So why are hospitals, a vital societal function, expected to operate in the black? Aren't we just setting ourselves up for failure by accepting this expectation? And aren't we doing same by approaching health care policy in general?
For example, being TRULY prepared for a pandemic means a LOT of cost. A lot of spending on all sorts of things that may or may not get used this year, this decade, or even this generation. But many would say it's prudent to spend these monies so IF the worst-case scenario happens, we're ready. Ebola probably will never cause an epidemic here, yet we've spent monies to reduce the risk.
But having an "overstaffed" or "over prepared" hospital is a luxury I think we can and should afford. That way when the unexpected happens, we can handle it and provide excellent care.
Higher public spending to bolster our health care infrastructure so we're more prepared for pandemics is a good idea. I understand there is still a nurse shortage in the state. Haven't we heard this for over a decade now? Well, if hospitals are forced to be "run like a business," we will NEVER get ample nurses. If we feel compelled to run hospitals "lean and mean," then we'll NEVER have happy nurses who aren't overworked and stressed out.
I don't think as much of our society needs to be run this way. Why does the American worker have to be "fully (or over) utilized to maximize return?" What's the point if we're all working under such stress? Is THAT supposed to be part of the American Dream? I don't think so. But this moves the discussion into other political minefields that I should probably avoid.
So to keep my post focused, why can't hospitals simply run at a loss, knowing they're providing a critical social function that's more than worth paying for? So what our hospitals run "at a loss." Their job is to provide medical care, not impress an accountant with its balance sheet. Sure, keep checks in place and make sure every hospital provides value, yet at the same time lucrative jobs. Both can exist at the same time.
PS I'll add that when my father entered medicine, he said there was no such thing as a hospital CEO. And I'm going to guess that hospitals didn't have business/administrative staff and positions that they do today. They DEFINITELY didn't have IT or website design departments! So why are we allowing a health care entity to balloon its "business services" departments when they simply are not providing actual health care? Sure, it's nice that your hospital has an impressive website, but is that really necessary? Stanford Medical care centers are looking more and more like high-end spas than medical clinics. Is this really necessary? Sure, it's nice, but shouldn't these amenities come AFTER the basic function of health care is met first?
Which begs the general question, why would be expect a hospital to be a "profit center?" Or at least be self-sustaining?
Do we ask other vital public services to "operate in the black?"
Public Schools
Fire Departments
Police Departments
Libraries
Parks
So why are hospitals, a vital societal function, expected to operate in the black? Aren't we just setting ourselves up for failure by accepting this expectation? And aren't we doing same by approaching health care policy in general?
For example, being TRULY prepared for a pandemic means a LOT of cost. A lot of spending on all sorts of things that may or may not get used this year, this decade, or even this generation. But many would say it's prudent to spend these monies so IF the worst-case scenario happens, we're ready. Ebola probably will never cause an epidemic here, yet we've spent monies to reduce the risk.
But having an "overstaffed" or "over prepared" hospital is a luxury I think we can and should afford. That way when the unexpected happens, we can handle it and provide excellent care.
Higher public spending to bolster our health care infrastructure so we're more prepared for pandemics is a good idea. I understand there is still a nurse shortage in the state. Haven't we heard this for over a decade now? Well, if hospitals are forced to be "run like a business," we will NEVER get ample nurses. If we feel compelled to run hospitals "lean and mean," then we'll NEVER have happy nurses who aren't overworked and stressed out.
I don't think as much of our society needs to be run this way. Why does the American worker have to be "fully (or over) utilized to maximize return?" What's the point if we're all working under such stress? Is THAT supposed to be part of the American Dream? I don't think so. But this moves the discussion into other political minefields that I should probably avoid.
So to keep my post focused, why can't hospitals simply run at a loss, knowing they're providing a critical social function that's more than worth paying for? So what our hospitals run "at a loss." Their job is to provide medical care, not impress an accountant with its balance sheet. Sure, keep checks in place and make sure every hospital provides value, yet at the same time lucrative jobs. Both can exist at the same time.
PS I'll add that when my father entered medicine, he said there was no such thing as a hospital CEO. And I'm going to guess that hospitals didn't have business/administrative staff and positions that they do today. They DEFINITELY didn't have IT or website design departments! So why are we allowing a health care entity to balloon its "business services" departments when they simply are not providing actual health care? Sure, it's nice that your hospital has an impressive website, but is that really necessary? Stanford Medical care centers are looking more and more like high-end spas than medical clinics. Is this really necessary? Sure, it's nice, but shouldn't these amenities come AFTER the basic function of health care is met first?