Tag Archives: Finance

The “Budget Busting Baby Boomer Hypothesis:” Bogus Theories and Misguided Bioethicists

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Yes We Can Afford to Care for Babies and the Elderly

    A mere thirty years ago, babies born at 24 weeks weighing 750 grams rarely survived.  Today, 70% of these children survive, thrive, and go home to continue their development as healthy human beings.[1] That is the wonderful side of medical technology.  Keeping pre-term babies alive is expensive – these are the rare multi-million-dollar hospital cases. No doubt, the 0- to 5-year age category includes a large proportion of the highest cost acute care patients.[2] But I believe it is fantastic that medical technology can accomplish that.  I also believe that it is the moral and medically ethical thing to do.

    The 65 to 70 age cohort is the other group with the most expensive hospital charges.  Most of the exceedingly high charges for this age-group are related to heart disease.  Charges drop precipitously for patients past the age of 70.  I discovered this phenomenon while doing research and teaching at Kansas University Medical School and discussed it with famed cardiologist Caldwell Esselstyne at the Cleveland Clinic.  Dr. Esselstyne explained that we were seeing the natural history of a disease – namely atherosclerosis.  Autopsies on soldiers during the Korean War revealed that this disease was well developed in a large number of young adults, which was a revelation to the U.S. medical profession.  Typically, it progresses untreated and results in a crisis by a person’s mid to late 60s. [3]

    The question that has arisen in treating patients with costly medical care is “should we provide or withhold care based on age?” Treating complicated diseases with advanced medical technologies is expensive, but the United States with the most abundant financial resources in the world can easily afford to save pre-term babies and 65- to 70-year-old patients with heart disease. If provided with necessary information regarding the realities of public finance and medical necessity and outcomes, the American people, would, I believe, want to spend whatever is possible, reasonable, and feasible to save and extend life regardless of disease and age.

The Dominant Bioethicist View in Scholarly Debate about Healthcare Justice: Depriving the Elderly of Beneficial Care is Justified

    In the past few decades, a consensus has formed among the most influential American bioethicists that the escalating cost of healthcare in the United States is unsustainable and, therefore, bioethics demands rationing of beneficial medical care.   Rationing of medical care could, in their view, be justified primarily by an individual’s years of future economic productivity and contributions to society. This is a chilling and horrifying mantra within a constricted context of neoliberal economics, erroneous conventional wisdom about public finance, and medical-industrial (Wall Street) narratives.

    Not surprisingly, in the grand theories and scheme of the poohbahs of bioethics, the elderly and Medicare are primarily blamed for running up the cost of cost of medical care.  In an article titled “Rationing Just Medical Care,” [4] Lawrence Schneiderman, a proponent of medical care rationing, has incorporated and summarized the rationale of the rationing movement. Schneiderman states that a “decent minimum of care” would be at a level that “enables a person to acquire an education, seek or hold a job, or raise a family.” [5]

    In Schneiderman’s proposed system, age and productivity are criteria for providing or withholding care rather than individual medical diagnoses and prognoses.  The nature of care for persons with impaired health, unable to meet the three goals for qualifying for expensive, lifesaving, life extending care should, in his view, include “a reasonable level of comfort, whether it be from pain or other forms of suffering.”[6] A person not acquiring an education, seeking or holding a job, or raising a family would be accorded just enough health to ensure “a reasonable level of function within the person’s limits that is respectful of the person’s dignity, as well as a reasonable level of comfort, whether it be from pain or other forms of suffering.[7]

    Schneiderman is speaking for America’s preeminent bioethicists such as Peter Singer, Daniel Callahan, Zeke Emmanuel, and Norman Daniels – to name the top few.  Their utilitarian philosophy is compatible with neoliberal economics and Wall Street claims that Medicare plus an aging population is a major threat to the economic wellbeing of the United States.  Utilitarian ethicists consider individuals and their treatment in the medical system as “means to an end” – a perceived economic “greatest good for the greatest number” – rather than ends in themselves. This philosophical position is illustrated by the quote Schneiderman borrows from economist Paul Krugman:

“America has a long-run budget problem. Dealing with this problem will require, first and foremost, a real effort to bring healthcare costs under control – without that, nothing will work.”[8]

    This is an accurate quote, but one taken out of context.  Krugman also emphasized a flawed tax code, which has become even more obscenely tilted in favor of the wealthy and against the working classes since 2010 when he wrote the opinion piece in the New York Times.  He also refrained from blaming Medicare and the elderly for excessive healthcare spending.  If Krugman were engaged in a serious budget discussion today, he would probably agree that waste, fraud, and inefficiencies in privatized healthcare, defense, and other government programs turned over to industrial complexes are major contributors to federal deficits and debt.

Cruel Capitalism and Wall Street Hegemony over the U.S. Healthcare System:  The Elderly Can be Sacrificed for the Sake of Money

    The bioethics enterprise is dominated by a handful of white male neoconservatives. As their theoretical framework and publications make clear, their views are compatible with the mostly wealthy male financiers on Wall Street.[9] These doyens of neoliberal economic bioethics attack Medicare and fall in line with superrich financiers’ misinformation regarding “entitlements caused” deficits and debt white at the same time they ignore the ravages of privatization on the U.S.  healthcare system.

    Financiers at the top of the wealth pyramid want to distract attention from an obscene tax code, which is fueling deficit spending and draining resources from public health, education, and other major institutions that enhance the quality of a society.  Mainstream bioethicists are a perfect ancillary to their strategy.  The real out of control costs in the U.S. healthcare system is due to the amount of the public treasure funneled into dividends, stock buybacks, and executive/board compensation. Nevertheless, this incontrovertible fact is nowhere to be found in writings of the leaders in the bioethics enterprise.

    Bioethicists like Peter Singer,[10] Zeke Emmanuel,[11] Norman Daniels,[12] and Daniel Callahan [13] have shown a shocking disregard for scientific thinking and science in general.  They have failed to seriously examine their basic assumptions, nor have they engaged in serious data analysis based on medical care data and public finance – they accept the Wall Street narrative at face value. 

    One would think that the role of ethicists is philosophical and moral rather than budgetary and macroeconomic.  But that is not the role they are playing.  They have joined forces with conservative deficit and debt hawks by taking up the invalid argument that Medicare is not affordable; that given the continuing growth of the elderly population and costs of medical technology, the only means of sustaining the healthcare system is rationing – essentially shortening human life for the purpose of reducing costs.

     Daniels, Emanual, Singer, Callahan, and other economic-oriented bioethicists have no original scientific studies of their own to support their claim that a condition of growing elderly cohorts (65+ and 80+), advancing medical technology, and the constraints of limited U.S. wealth on government expenditures is unsustainable.  They rely solely on the Wall Street generated budget busting Medicare myth to make the case that beneficial medical care should be withheld from frail older Americans. Hence, their one solution and primary proposal are buttressed through confirmation bias.

    Callahan, founder of the prestigious and powerful Hastings Center on Bioethics, has stated that he believes the “only reasonable approaches are to concede the greater importance of children and younger age groups for the future than for the elderly and to make certain the economic imbalance does not increase.” [14] This arbitrary ingroup-outgroup construction typifies ordinary prejudice, stereotyping, scapegoating and discrimination that it generates. [15]

We cannot ignore the relationship between the cavalier attitude toward medical ethics in the warehousing and neglect of elderly and disabled “nursing home” patients and the ageism/physicalism of the bioethicists.

    There is no scientific evidence that the elderly are responsible for causing budget deficits and debts.  Conversely, considerable evidence is available to debunk the baby boomer budget busting narrative,[16] which has been ignored by policymakers, the media, and advocacy groups.

    Right wing narratives and political strategies for reducing Medicare and Social Security benefits have been effective and harmful to the well-being of older age groups in the United States.  The harm extends beyond Medicare and Social Security.  It is difficult to claim that patients in so-called “nursing homes” should receive better care than the pervasive neglect, abuse, and warehousing characteristic of the current profit-oriented system when the leading bioethicists are pushing Wall Street narratives.  The elderly have no powerful lobby with the mission of pushing back on the reduction of healthcare to dollars and care for the deserving.

    Unfortunately, the public is led to believe that the AARP is an advocacy group for “retirees,” when in fact over $1 billion of their revenue is from royalties for selling their brand to corporations preying on the elderly while $2 hundred million is from selling memberships.  They need to walk that fine line by burnishing their false image as a pro-senior organization.

    Other aging enterprises such as the National Council on Aging, National Institute of Aging, Area Agencies on Aging, and a plethora of other advocacy groups and organizations spawned by the Older Americans Act have been tepid at best in the fight against excess extraction of Medicare funds by mammoth insurance corporations, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and a host of financial intermediaries.

    Commissions and think tanks on nursing homes have shown no interest in a public discussion regarding medical ethics or the lack thereof in the outrageously poor care of patients.  Instead, I see an implicit sympathy with industry financial hardship disinformation. Consequently, the elderly are vulnerable to euthanasia by neglect – not just in nursing homes but throughout the healthcare system. Indeed, the categorization of human beings as more or less worthy of medical care is eerily similar to the 1930s eugenics movement in the United States – adopted and utilized in Nazi-era Germany as justification for extermination of seriously frail and physically limited people.

[1] Sandra Lane (2015) Why are Our Babies Dying. New York:  Imprint Routledge.

[2] David Kingsley (2015) “Aging & Healthcare Costs:  Narrative Versus Reality,” Poverty & Public Policy, 7:1, 9-15.

[3] Jack P. Strong (1986) “Coronary Atherosclerosis in Solders: A Clue to the Natural History of Atherosclerosis in the Young.”  JAMA, 256(20) 2863-2866; Young Mi Hong (2010) “Atherosclerosis Cardiovascular Disease Beginning in Childhood,” Korean Circ J 40, 1-9.It may very well be that playgrounds and “happy meals” along with double patty, cheese, bacon, hamburgers are a bigger threat to healthcare expenditures than health per se at any age.

[4] Lawrence Schneiderman (2011), “Rationing Just Medical Care,” American Journal of Bioethics, 11-7, pp. 7-14.

[5] Ibid., page 8.

[6] Ibid., page 8.

[7] Ibid., page 9.

[8] Opinion | Budget Deficits: Spend Now, Save Later – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[9] The late Peter G. Peterson, multi-billionaire co-founder of Blackstone committed over a billion dollars to funding an anti-Medicare and anti-Social Security lobby in Washington, which includes the Concord Coalition, the Committee for a Responsible Budget, and other projects for providing disinformation and misinformation about programs for the elderly.  His lobbying organizations have been effective in injecting a political narrative into the mainstream media.  In his book Running on Empty (2004, New York: Picador), he states that, “whatever reforms talked about – be they more use of information technology or medical malpractice reform – we are going to have to give up some medical care that may be of some benefit,” p. xvii.

[10]Peter Singer,  “Why We Must Ration Health Care” New York Times, July 19, 2009.

[11] Zeke Emmanuel, “Why I Hope to Die at 75,” The Atlantic, October 2014.

[12] Norman Daniels (2013) “Global Aging and the Allocation of Health Care Across the Life Span,” American Journal of Bioethics. 13(8): 1-2.

[13] Daniel Callahan (2009) Taming the Beloved Beast: How Medical Technology Costs are Destroying Our Health Care System.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[14] Callahan, Ibid., p. 218.

[15] On prejudice, discrimination, & scapegoating, see:  Gordon Allport (1989),  The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley, 243-260.

[16] Kingsley, (2015), Op. Cit.

Stereotyping & Scapegoating Older Americans: A Worsening Tragedy

Gallery

Posted on by

This gallery contains 5 photos.

By: Dave Kingsley  Blaming the Elderly for U.S. Economic & Fiscal Problems As the first Baby Boomers hit retirement age in 2011, propaganda and misinformation regarding the impact of older Americans on federal spending began to accelerate. Some of the … Continue reading →

How the Health Insurance Industry is Using Disinformation to Take Over and Defraud Medicare

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Corporate Greed in the Post-Truth Age

    Most Americans have never heard of the Better Medicare Alliance[1] – a Washington, D.C. think tank and front group for big health insurers such as UnitedHealth, Aetna, and Humana.  Also, the 2023 Super Bowl TV audience didn’t know who paid for a commercial at halftime claiming that President Biden had plans to “cut Medicare.” The ad included a message urging viewers to call the White House and “tell President Biden not to cut Medicare,”[2] but they – the TV viewers – didn’t know who was asking them to do it. Football fans had to be perplexed.  Medicare beneficiaries were most likely upset and worried by what they saw and heard.

    The ad, funded by Better Medicare Alliance, was a lie.  The truth is that President Biden had no intention and no plan to cut Medicare.  Contrary to what the ad claimed, he was planning to claw back $4.7 billion from UnitedHealth and other insurers for defrauding the program through false billing practices.  One illegal practice health insurers utilize to add unearned value to their Medicare Advantage (MA) reimbursement is called “upcoding.” Because sicker patients are reimbursed at a higher rate, the trick is to find ways to lie about how sick a patient is – to make them look sicker than they are.[3]

    MA beneficiaries tend to be healthier than Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries.  Nevertheless, research indicates that when individuals move from TM to MA, their costs to the program increase.  The important point is that “total Medicare payments to MA plans in 2024 (including rebates that finance extra benefits) are projected to be $83 billion higher than if MA enrollees were enrolled in FFS Medicare.”  Furthermore, payments to MA plans average an estimated 122 percent of what Medicare would have expected to spend on MA enrollees if they were in FFS Medicare.”[4]

    After the Biden Administration’s proposal to recoup stolen money from MA insurers and prevent further fraud, the health insurance industry threw a conniption fit and went into overdrive.  The Super Bowl ad was only one tactic (costing eight figures, it was super expensive).  In addition, they sent their army of lobbyists crawling all over the Washington, D.C. beltway threatening and bribing legislators.  HHS backed down.  The cheating continues and costs the seniors of America – indeed all wage earners – hundreds of billions from their payroll deductions, premiums, co-pays, and nearly $200 out of every Social Security check.

Pulling Back the Curtain on the Washington D.C. Policy Planning Network:  What is the Better Medicare Alliance & Who is Behind It?

    The insidious thing about think tanks set up inside the Washington, D.C. beltway is that they enlist the aid of seemingly legitimate advocates and scholars.  It is hard to know if the advocates and scholars are merely naïve or whether they are self-serving. Perhaps unwitting would be a kinder word. For instance, the Better Medicare Alliance board consists of Dennis Borel, Executive Director of Texans with Disabilities, Caroline Coats, Humana, Inc., Daniel Dawes, Meharry Medical College, Mary Beth Dawes, Former Congresswoman (President & CEO), Joneigh Kaldhun, CVS Health, Dan Lowenstein, Visiting Nurse Service, NY, Richard Migliori, UnitedHealth, Elena Rios, National Hispanic Medical Association, and Kenneth Thorpe, Emory University.

    The organizational structure of these industry front groups is a form of disinformation itself. On the board are big players in the MA industry – Humana, CVS, and UnitedHealth.  Interspersed with the representatives of these health insurance behemoths are executives and professionals from organizations with an ostensible mission to improve society in some manner.

    By placing their imprimatur on an industry lobbying group, NGOs, nonprofits with a stated humanitarian cause, and universities  are participating in a duplicitous tactic to confuse the public about the real purpose of nefarious industry think tanks like Better Medicare Alliance. Their support for various entities with a mission to preserve and strengthen the medical-industrial complex helps divert funds needed for care into the coffers of executives and shareholders.

Privatizing Medicare was Supposed to Reduce Costs and Give Beneficiaries More Choice:  It Hasn’t Worked Out that Way.

    MA is a creature of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. The right-wing of American politics accomplished a coup by setting Medicare on the road to privatization.  Currently over 50% of all beneficiaries have selected it over Traditional Medicare ™.  Federal policy is unfortunately driving Seniors into MA by allowing manipulative practices such as low premiums and a few benefits not available to TA beneficiaries.  Seniors are being led like lemmings into the arms of the insurance industry by disinformation and deceit. Organizations like the AARP in partnership with health insurers like UnitedHealth are the Pied Pipers.  

    MA is one of the most serious threats to the health and well-being of American seniors.  It robs money from care and transfers it into the pockets of investors and executives.  Many beneficiaries are happy with low premiums and add-ons not available under traditional Medicare such as Silver Sneakers plus some dental and vision care.  I can understand why many people who have it are pleased with their coverage.  It works for healthier beneficiaries until it doesn’t.      

    If MA beneficiaries should incur a costly service that is not in network, their assets could be wiped out.  Some retirees have no choice in the matter.  If their company or institution includes health insurance as a retirement benefit, it is most likely MA. Furthermore, I can’t blame anyone who is trying to avoid the premiums for supplemental coverage under traditional Medicare.  Avoiding bankruptcy and depletion of assets through a catastrophic sickness makes perfect sense for TA beneficiaries. But the supplemental insurance is a heavy burden that could be avoided if the Medicare program weren’t diverting so much funding to MA (see discussion below).

Seniors and People with Disabilities Would not be Struggling as Much If Big Health Insurance were not Stealing from Them.

    For seniors and disabled Americans to lose nearly $200 per month of their Social Security and choose between a large payout for supplemental or the risk of bankruptcy, is an injustice when privatized healthcare is stealing hundreds of billions of Americans’ tax dollars, payroll deductions, and hard-earned money through out-of-pocket expenses. The Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) has estimated that MA overcharged taxpayers by a minimum of 22% or $88 billion and potentially up to 35% for a total of $131 billion in 2022. If the high end of the estimate were correct, all of Part B premiums ($131 billion in 2022) or Part D premiums ($126 billion in 2022) could be covered by excessive corporate extraction of funds from Medicare.[5]  

    UnitedHealth is noting $25 billion in cash and cash equivalents on its 2023 balance sheet, CVS has noted $12 billion, and Humana is noting $5 billion. They have multiples of these amounts in long-term and short-term investments; they spend hundreds of billions on stock buybacks, dividends, and board and executive compensation. By digging into their assets, the cash rich health insurance business would be able to charge fair prices and stop their criminal behavior without much of a dent in a reasonable return on their investments.

In this Dark Age of Plutocracy, the Superrich & Corporations are Lying and Blaming Government & Ordinary Americans for Poor Healthcare and Excess Expenditures

     Americans earning wages and salaries are being subjected to a corporate network of disinformation and gaslighting.  President Biden is blamed for cutting Medicare when he is in fact attempting to protect the program.  The growing elderly population is blamed for federal debt and deficits when Medicare and Social Security have little impact on the federal budget (SS has none and over half of MC is paid through payroll deductions, premiums, and co-pays).  The nursing home industry blames taxpayers for failing to provide them with enough money to adequately care for the elderly and disabled patients in their beds while they spin a false hardship narrative.

    The Medical-Industrial Complex has established a network of front groups with a duplicitous message of doing good for Americans and has enlisted the aid of do-gooder nonprofits, universities, and individuals. This system and its apparatchiks aren’t all that clever.  Their organizational tactics are rather easy to discern.  The problem is that it is happening stealthily behind the scenes in Washington, D.C. and the 50 state capitals. The media is ignoring it. We intend to expose it and encourage everyone we can to join us in that endeavor.

[1] https://bettermedicarealliance.org/

[2] You can see the ad here: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/2UHG/better-medicare-alliance-cutting-medicare-thats-nuts.

[3] Reed Abelson & Margot Sanger-Katz (2023), “Biden Plan to Cut Billions in Medicaid Fraud Ignites Lobbying Frenzy,” https://w.w.w.nytimes.com/2023/03/22/health/medicare-insurance-fraud.html?searchResultPosition=1.

[4] Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MDPAC), 2024, p. March 2024 Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy – MedPAC

[5] Physicians for a National Health Program, (2023), Our Payments their Profits: Quantifying Overpayments in the Medicare Advantage Program. MA Overpayment Report (pnhp.org)

WHY DO THE  AMERICAN PEOPLE TOLERATE A POOR PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM ALONG WITH BAD HEALTHCARE THAT COSTS SO MUCH?

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Unchecked Bigness is One Factor Threatening our Democracy & Our Health

    Big corporations and big unions can be and indeed are in many cases bad for our health.  For instance, UnitedHealth, Centene, Cigna, CVS, and other healthcare-related corporations in the top 30 of the Fortune 500 have interjected themselves into our publicly funded medical care system as financial intermediaries and major influencers of government policy.[1]  Their motivation is protecting and enhancing shareholder value in the uniquely privatized, taxpayer funded U.S medical delivery structure.  They make money from sickness not wellness.  Prevention does not add to their bottom line, but treatment is quite lucrative – never mind the public interest.

    Big unions, which initially have laudable missions and continue to do much good, sometimes tend to degenerate into self-serving actors without concern for the health and well-being of the public.  This is particularly the case when our federal, state, and local governments attempt to protect our health from the dangers of fossil fuel.  Public efforts to stop irrational projects such as the Keystone pipeline often fail due to the power of the building trade unions in concert with industrial interests.[2]  The United Auto Workers and the big three auto manufacturers have successfully tapped the brakes on the Biden Administration’s planned transition to electric vehicles. Air quality and the threat to humanity from climate system meltdown are secondary to the short-term interests of big unions and gas engine manufacturers.

Indoctrination, Manipulation & Conditioning of the American People

   Why are we, the American people, passive and compliant in the face of an assault by special interests on our dignity and well-being?  The deterioration of service and quality at excessive prices is not only happening in healthcare.  We see it in airline travel, brick and mortar and online retail, technology (computers, software, and apps) – you name it.  Predatory economics have become the name of the game, which is simply this: “How can we lower quality and squeeze more out of customers/patients through lying and deceitful propaganda?”

    Customers and patients are not at fault. The dystopian part of the U.S. economy did not come about as the result of a revolution.  The wealth and political power of investors, owners of vast amount of assets, and corporations have been able to move economic behaviors incrementally and deceitfully from the unthinkable to the normal.  Propaganda and duplicity by forces with the resources to falsely convince the public that they are living in the best there is in the best of all possible worlds have been effective.  People tend to trust officious and authoritative, i.e. powerful organizations and individuals.  So, they hunker down and take it as they get fleeced through small incremental price increases and lower quality of goods and services.

    The primary healthcare industry business model can be compared to the air travel industry.  They incrementally lower quality and add value to revenue for investors at the expense of patients and consumers of medical goods.

    Through dissemination of false advertising and stories promoted by industry PR, the mainstream media – perhaps unwittingly – is helpful to corporate predators. As airlines herd passengers around like cattle and stuff them into increasingly uncomfortable flying tubes at ungodly prices, the media takes up the airlines’ cause by spreading the image of travelers as “unruly.”  The poor airlines are forced to put up with all those bad people.  Should I believe that or my lying eyes? I have traveled on the airlines extensively over the past 60 years.  I used to love it.  Now I hate it.  Furthermore, mostly what I see are cooperative, well-behaved people trying to adapt and endure the indignities, discomfort, and stresses heaped on them by extremely profitable, oligopolistic, and deregulated airlines.   

     Industries have leveraged highly sophisticated techniques of mass psychology for the purpose of pacifying the traveler, nursing home patients and their families, customers of health insurance corporations, users of computer applications, and so forth.  You probably don’t know that A Place for Mom is owned by private equity, that they don’t choose the best place, rather they choose the place that will pay them.  Did you know that the ostensibly pro-retiree-AARP’s deal with UnitedHealth is designed to lead the elderly down a primrose path into the waiting arms of the health insurance industry while the pro-beneficiary-Medicare program is destroyed?

    When you don’t see that the fine print included autorenewal, too bad. That’s your problem.  You have a serious glitch and need help.  That’s been outsourced to the Philippines.  Good luck with that. You didn’t know that the 5-minute life flight from Taos to Albuquerque cost $70,000 and was out of network? Now you’re stuck with the bill and will never find out what a reasonable price would be and why it’s not covered by your Medicare Advantage plan. You hear that those unfortunate, underpaid nursing home corporations are not making enough money to treat us and family members humanely. You could check their finances and verify what they are saying but the government allows them to operate behind a veil of secrecy. 

Big Government is Not Always Bad

    As the bottom ninety percent of Americans in income and wealth make their slow descent into economic serfdom, government agencies that are supposed to protect us have been neutered and checked by the politics of self interest and pseudoscientific economic theory.  Nonsense from major university economic departments, indeed from the overwhelming majority of economists, has been adopted as gospel by politicians and the media. Despite of the obvious failure and detriment from this proto-religious canon, it continues unabated and is as strong as ever.  The EPA, FTC, and other major government regulators have been reduced to going along to get along. This all while the ecosystem is collapsing, public health is deteriorating, and wealth and power is increasingly concentrated in fewer entities and individuals.

    The free-market, trickle down, government-busting theories of faux libertarians such as Hayek and Friedman have proven to be a chimera.  But that has become the underpinnings of U.S. government and economics.  Political power resides in the so-called center right to center left.    The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are both responsible for deregulation of corporations and privatization of government services.  It was President Carter that deregulated air travel, trucking, and banking industries. He kicked off a deregulation craze that has left the American people in an extremely vulnerable position.  President Reagan was a fanatical government hater and adopted the right-wing worship of corporations along with a cynical view of people that our-constitutional government is designed to serve.  The Democrats have made a little noise about the dismantling of government but have for the most part gone along with it and have even participated in it.

What Can the American People Do About Their Economic Plight?

    The first step in changing a corrupt system is exposing it.  The first step in exposure is to stop believing propaganda.  The AARP is not a friend of retirees – they are selling us out with their UnitedHealth partner.  A Place for Mom is not interested in your mom – they are looking to turn a quick buck.  Prevagen is snake oil.  Balance of Nature is a worthless capsule.  The FEC is allowing false advertising and consequently you can be robbed of your hard earned money at CVS and Walgreens. All the available evidence we can amass tells us that the nursing home industry is quite lucrative for investors. But the investors’ narrative of financial hardship is dominating the conversation.  Let’s put a stop to that.

    The second step in systems change is changing the narrative. Government is not bad – it is good.  Regulation is important.  Not long ago, I confronted some state legislators at a hearing about weak oversight of nursing homes and their finances.  That hadn’t been done before in that particular legislative committee.  Advocates need to take a strong stand in exposing fraud. 

The status quo is not OK.  Believe it. Demand change. Pick up the phone. Send emails and get your friends, neighbors and relatives to call and write.  Politicians respond to volume.  So, learn about an issue and organize people to confront  senators, congresspersons, and state legislators.  Get people to pressure the media to stop selling lies.  Learned helplessness is our enemy.  If you think that Medicare Advantage is a good deal, it may be for you, but down the road all Medicare will be controlled by a few insurance conglomerates. They will continue to create financial intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers for the purpose of adding value to their revenue at the expense of our care.

    Support those think tanks in Washington that you know are on our side.  The Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare is fighting for us.  The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Concord Coalition are working to reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits. I know these organizations well and have dealt with all of them.  The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Concord Coalition were organized with the backing of the late multi-billionaire Peter G. Petersen who was on a crusade to privatize Social Security & Medicare.[3]  If you think that his legacy is not a major negative influence in your life, you would be wrong.  Furthermore, politicians and the media are treating the Washington network he left behind with deference and respect it doesn’t deserve.  Believe it! Fight it!

[1] In 2000, none of these companies were in the Fortune 500 top 30.  Now UnitedHealth is the 5th largest corporation in the U.S. and 10th largest in the world.  CVS is the 6th largest U.S. corporation and healthcare related corporations make up one-third of the top 30 U.S. companies in the Fortune 500. 

[2] I spent a career in labor relations on management’s side of the table.  Most of the unions with which I negotiated were building trades unions such as sheet metal workers, operating engineers, laborers, pipe fitters, boiler makers, and electricians in mining, construction, and heavy manufacturing.  I believe that unions are good thing until they aren’t.  The companies I worked for believed in good faith bargaining, but we took strikes and work stoppages that were counterproductive for the union members, companies, and the public. At this stage of our economic system, I don’t think that we can leave the plight of workers to the unlikely event that they will organize and improve their standard of living.  Politicians need to step up. I do not want to overlook the good that labor unions have contributed to the working classes.  They have fought for health & safety, an end to child labor, better pay and benefits so richly deserved by the people without whose labor corporations would not exist.  I think that they still fight hard for social justice.  We have much more good from the labor movement than bad.

[3] Working with the Committee to Preserves Social Security, the Gray Panthers, and other groups I have spent countless hours over the decades in Washington, D.C. fighting the duplicitous cabal of Peter G. Petersen funded think tanks and other Wall Street back entities trying to grab off the $trillions in tax-funded programs for investors.  It’s a tough fight and one that is undermined by organizations that appear to be do-gooders but are really representing the other side.

The Nursing Home Industry’s Accounting Firm is Providing Propaganda for Low Staffing Standards

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

    What’s in a Number?

    The major accounting firm of Clifton, Larson, & Allen (CLA) has concluded that CMS proposed nursing home staffing standards will cost the industry $6.8 billion in additional labor costs.[1]  Without the proper context, a big number like $6.8 billion has a big impact on legislators, the media, and the public in general. In the proper context, this is not a big number.  It is in fact a de minimus increase in overall costs to the industry – mere noise in the data.

    By the time the standards are implemented, total spending on Medicaid will have reached $1 trillion.  Approximately 20% or $200 billion of total Medicaid dollars will be allocated to long-term care. Medicare will expend an additional $100 billion for skilled nursing care.[2] These are conservative estimates, but even low-ball statistics reduce the impact of $6.8 billion to insignificance.   Based on CLA’s estimate, nursing home operating expenses will increase by around 2% of revenue derived from taxpayers.  Given waste from overpayment, widespread mismanagement, and weak government oversight in the taxpayer funded nursing home system, there will be little to no impact on providers’ bottom line because of CMS weak standards.

    Furthermore, overall industry revenue from reimbursement for direct care is enhanced by a host of tax subsidies for depreciation, interest, and other write downs on taxable income.  Money owed and not paid to the government is cash flow – it is money that can be used to make more money or to pass along to investors and executives. 

Guns for Hire:  How A Major Accounting Firm Serves as a Propaganda Arm of the Nursing Home Industry

   One would expect  ethical, competent accountants to provide an objective report on returns to nursing home investors. But that is not what CLA is doing for the nursing home industry. Typically, they base their claims about industry hardships on facility cost reports – specifically on net operating income.  This is laughable for several reasons. 

    The practice of separating facility specific net income from parent corporation financial reports, i.e., income statements, cash flow statements, and balance sheets, suggests that CLA is intentionally distorting the financial picture of the industry. Expenses at the facility level include related parties and home office allocations.  I suggested to a legislative committee a couple of weeks ago that they look at transfer pricing rather than the usually low or negative net operating income reported by facilities, which lease their property from another subsidiary of their parent corporation.  Triple net leases are standard in the industry.  Hence, facilities pay maintenance, taxes, and insurance on property they don’t own.  This makes the net operating income for the property subsidiary quite robust.

    As corporate finance has evolved with tax policy, net income is not a measure of “profitability” or return on investment.  This is especially the case in asset intensive industries.  The nursing home industry is not merely a healthcare industry.  Rather it is primarily a real estate and finance business.  With large amounts of write downs for, among other things, depreciation and interest, direct care revenue is greatly enhanced by tax subsidies.

    Real estate alone results in huge federal and state tax expenditures. For instance, in 2014, Amazon’s net profit was -$241 million –note: that is negative $241 million.  It would appear to nonfinanciers that Amazon was losing a lot of money.  Harvard finance professor Mihir Desai pointed out that “Amazon’s EBIT, however, was $178 million, and the difference of $419 million represents taxes, interest, and currency adjustments.”  Professor Desai asked, “What about EBITDA?”  Amazon had $4.746 billion in depreciation and amortization.  Consequently, their EBITDA of $4.924 billion was “a far cry from the net loss of $278 million. So Amazon generated lots of cash, as measured by EBITDA, but had losses according to profitability measures.”[3]

    Of course, Amazon is not in the nursing home business.  But the same principles apply.  Perhaps Amazon is more asset intensive than we find in the LTC/SKN industry, but real property is a major factor in providers’ cash flow. 

    With the entry a couple of decades ago of limited liability corporations (LLC), real estate investment trusts (REITs) and private equity firms (PE) the ground shifted under the feet of regulators and advocates.  The industry has become financialized through ancillary subsidiaries providing labor, insurance, therapy, and other goods and services, which has resulted in increasing extraction of cash without a correlative increase in quality of care.  None of this enters the CLA picture of the industry.  There appears to be no focus on what facilities are paying related parties for goods and services.  Nor do we know how to evaluate the quality of care based on pricing.  This is astounding but is nevertheless overlooked by legislatures, government agencies, and many of the largest advocacy organizations such as the AARP, NCOA, NIH, the so-called Moving Forward Coalition. 

    It is time that advocates step up and demand that we get a thorough, objective, financial analysis of the industry rather than a continued reliance on the AHCA/NCAL and their paid accounting firm. The nursing home lobby has no compunction about putting out ridiculous financial information because they know they can get away with it. That is a shameful, disgraceful situation.  It will do us no good to argue about the minutia of reimbursement (think RUGs versus PDPM) and ignore the bigger issue of nonfeasance, misfeasance on the part of CMS, state agencies, and legislatures.

CLA Propaganda Serves as a Barrier to Quality of Care

    CLA is paid to support the nursing industry’s hardship claims and to help further a very effective narrative of low net income, financially struggling owners/investors, and stifling over regulation. Legislative hearings attended by industry lobbyists, government representatives, and advocates often seem like a gathering for singing kumbaya and exuding effusive niceness.  Legislators and most other speakers and attendees are willing to sit through hours of mind-numbing rate setting minutia, e.g., complex incentives paid to facilities willing to provide a minimal amount of care.  Hours pass without anyone addressing highly questionable financial practices and faulty cost report data.

    Furthermore, legislators don’t understand that the nursing home industry has been transformed in a mere two decades.  The mom-and-pop nursing home is far gone.  A few nonprofit facilities that are not part of a chain still exist, but we are uncovering serious grifting in even some of those places.  In the for-profit sector, sophisticated financiers are leveraging a variety of legal and financial innovations such as the limited liability corporation (LLC) Umbrella Partnership Real Estate Investment Trust (UPREIT), private equity, and other legal, financial structures  to extract optimal cash flow with minimal expenses for care.

    The nursing home system is about money.  It has become fully financialized.  Real estate and finance override healthcare.  The only way that the industry can maintain such a disgusting and pathetic system is to hide the truth from “we the people,” and create a propagandistic narrative for protecting the interests of financiers and realtors.  The AHCA is very good at deception.  But one of their most effective tactics is to hire a large accounting firm to do their dirty work for them.

[1] CLA (2023) “CMS Proposed Staffing Mandate:  In-Depth Analysis on Minimum Nurse Staffing Standards.

[2]https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10343#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20Medicare%20spent%20%2492.6%20billion%20on%20SNF,payments%20attributable%20to%20SNF%20and%20home%20health%20care.

[3] Mihir A. Desai (2019) How Finance Works: The HBR Guide to Thinking Smart about the Numbers.

Kansas City Public Television & the Damaging Consequences of Nursing Home Misinformation

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Cavalier Distribution of Unsupportable Financial Information Causes Physical Harm and Shorter Lives

     Kansas City Public Television (KCPT) is presenting an upcoming program entitled “The State of Aging in Kansas City.”  The program as advertised includes a panel discussion and a documentary film. I was shocked to see false claims by the American Health Care Association –  the industry lobby – included in the promotional material for the program.  For instance, the promo repeats AHCA falsehoods that “nearly 60% of nursing homes are operating at a financial loss” and that “Nearly three of every four facilities are concerned about closure due to staffing shortages.” 

    This is blatantly false information and serves to shield the industry from responsibility for widespread neglectful care of patients while investors are earning robust returns. It is obvious that KCPT has given the for-profit nursing home industry a major amount of influence in the development of their promotional material without fact checking the industry’s financial claims or consulting with credible scholars and advocates engaged in nursing home research. 

    Any widespread distribution of nursing home financial misinformation is a devastating blow to efforts at significant reform of the Medicaid and Medicare funded skilled nursing business. Therefore, patients in poorly run nursing homes continue to experience unnecessary pain, discomfort, and shortened lives because of lobbyists’ propaganda.

    The industry’s bogus hardship claim is a primary barrier to changing the despicable way elderly and disabled patients are treated in so many long-term care facilities.  The AHCA has immense resources to spread a false narrative –– with $128 million in 2021 revenue (https://www.aha.org/system/files/media/file/2022/11/2021-aha-form-990.pdf) and affiliates in all 50 states.  Hence, the “we can’t afford to do better” defense serves to undermine serious demands by advocates for stricter regulation and an increase in the quality of care.

    Public television has unwittingly placed its imprimatur on industry propaganda.  There is scant evidence that the nursing home industry is experiencing widespread loss.  Conversely, an abundance of available evidence suggests that historically and during COVID, the nursing home business has been and remains highly lucrative.

Responsible Journalism and Integrity Requires a Correction by KCPT

    Apparently, “The State of Aging in Kansas City” will kick off with a town hall & panel discussion on September 5th.  The town hall and a documentary will be shown on KCPT on September 14th.  Although I was consulted by the independent filmmaker about a year ago who asked that I meet with him to discuss nursing home finance.  I did that on a couple of occasions, but I did not know exactly what his project was about.  He did say that he was working on a documentary for public television.  I didn’t think much about it until I saw the promo and his name attached to the documentary.

       The filmmaker told me he had nothing to do with the promotional material and directed me to the person who was responsible for it.  I sent that person – who will also MC the townhall meeting –  a lengthy email explaining the problems with the information in his promo to which I attached couple of articles that I had authored with my colleague Charlene Harrington, Professor Emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco.  His response was, in my view, terse and dismissive.

    I have not seen the documentary and cannot speak to its contents.  Hopefully, it will help the public with an understanding of the issues facing patients, families, advocates, scholars, and legislators in understanding how we can arrive at a fair return to investors for an acceptable level of care.  At this time, we cannot do that because of the raw, rank, political power of the nursing home, hospital, real estate, and finance industries (i.e., medical industrial complex) inside the Washington, D.C. beltway and the 50 state capitols.

    For those of us who spend a good proportion of our waking hours in an attempt to counter industry propaganda and provide objective, scientific information, public television misinformation, dispensed to its widespread viewing audience, is like a kick in the solar plexus. It is very difficult to overcome corporate falsehoods in this post-truth era, but it is psychologically devastating when the hard work in attempting to do that is undermined by local public television.

Government Oversight of Medicaid: The Shift of Power from Federal Agencies to State Agencies has Been a Disaster for Poor Americans’ Health

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Dismantling of the Federal Administrative State

    President Ronald Reagan said this at a press conference in 1986: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” This might have seemed funny at the time but by 2008 when lax federal governmental oversight of the financial services industry led to economic collapse or when in 2020 a deteriorated public health system led to a raging COVID epidemic, the people of America were screaming back to the government these five desperate words: “For God’s sake help us!”

    President Reagan’s quip was a continuation and acceleration of devolution of power from the federal government to the states that began during the Nixon administration. Consequently, the far-right dream of dismantling the federal administrative state has led to funneling federal grants to states as block grants rather than grants-in-aid, which meant less federal control over how states regulated federal-state funded programs such as Medicaid and welfare in general.   

    Some states are more enlightened than other states in how they administer welfare programs.  But during the Clinton Administration, the mistaken notion that people needing assistance for their daily needs – including medical care – would benefit from some tough love like denial of any services after a few years of receiving it.  Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC a grant-in-aid program) became Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF – a block granted program with a much more stigmatizing moniker).  By the late 1990s, President Clinton was declaring that “the era of big government is over” – seven very unfortunate words.

    The idea that poor people down on their luck needed some federal assistance for survival was warped into a philosophy that help from the government would induce dependency and that administrative barriers to assistance and forcing people off of aid would somehow be character building.  As has happened since the era of industrialization began, poor people were more intently looked at as irresponsible and the cause of their own plight.  By the turn of the Century, this philosophy had become de rigueur – even in states given to a more empathetic and compassionate approach to the less fortunate (which could be any of us).

How Have States Handled their Increasing Power?

    So, how have states done with the power devolved to them?  Not well.  As an example, consider the prior authorization of Medicaid that I wrote about in my last blog post.  The HHS, OIG had this to say in their recently released report:  “most State Medicaid agencies reported that they did not routinely review the appropriateness of a sample of MCO denials of prior authorization requests, and many did not collect and monitor data on these decisions.”  This seems like very familiar state regulatory behavior to me.  Having reviewed thousands of nursing home cost reports, I have yet to see one properly filled out (in accordance with GAAP/FSAB accounting principles and federal regulations).  Indeed, they are loaded with deceit, misinformation, and what is either profound ignorance or fraud.  And yet auditing at the state level appears to be practically nonexistent.

    There is no point in using nursing home cost reports for research except to raise issues of state incompetence, lack of oversight capacity, and corporate ability to game the system. The same can be said about the giant insurance corporations contracting with states as MCOs.  Indeed, Anthem’s highest MCO denial rate was 34%.  Molina, one of the largest providers had denial rates that ranged from 17% to 41%.  Aetna, Centene, and UnitedHealth denial rates were 5% to 29%, 3% to 23%,  and 7% to 27% respectively.

    The States with the highest rates of denial are Georgia (34%), Michigan (32%), California (29%), Mississippi (27%), New Jersey (27%), Virginia (26%), and Wisconsin (25%).  One can only imagine how difficult and frustrating it is for physicians and Medicaid patients in these states to obtain needed medical care.  None of these states used denial data for oversight.

There is Nothing Funny about Government Help:  We Need it Badly!

    My colleagues and I spend our working hours attempting to ferret out information from states regarding Medicaid outcomes data.  To quote Warren Buffet, “It’s like getting red meat out of a tiger cage.”  But we have been communicating with staff – including auditors – in the OIG’s office and will continue that communication.  Our mission is to fight the state/federal barriers to public information.

    The Medicaid program is nominally a $900 billion federal/state expenditure.  But with tax expenditures (i.e., tax subsidies) for corporations in the business, it is a much larger expenditure in federal and state budgets combined than that. Furthermore, nursing home corporations and the giant insurance corporations contracting as MCOs are extracting immense amount of tax dollars without a correlative investment in a loyal, career-oriented work force, and a medical services infrastructure that welcomes and benefits the people eligible to receive it. 

    Centene, UnitedHealth, and the other large providers are lavishing obscene compensation packages on executives and board members (CEOs are usually receiving about $20 to $24 million per year); they have billions of dollars sitting on their balance sheets, they are paying robust dividends to their shareholders (most of which are asset managers such as Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street, handling pension, insurance, and sovereign wealth funds); and they have devoted billions to capturing government through lax lobbying and election financing.

    No matter how objective and scientific researchers like to be, this is all about politics.  It’s about what goes on inside the D.C. beltway and in state capitols.  Anyone who thinks they can be politically neutral, purely professional, and outside of politics is sadly mistaken.  Making CMS do its job is a political task and will take political organizing.  The same can be said about making state agencies do their job.  You cannot work within the system and change it that way. 

Gray Panthers’ Statement on the American Nursing Home System: “Restructure the Industry and Defund the Existing System.”

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Reissuing an Important & Elegantly Written Document by the National Council of Gray Panthers Networks.

    A couple of years ago, the Gray Panthers issued a statement on the nursing home industry in the United States.  Entitled “Restructure the Industry and Defund the Existing System,” it was elegantly written and to the point of what we need in public discourse regarding the suffering of institutionalized disabled and elderly Americans in long-term care – suffering due to the precedence of shareholder value over humane care.  Hence, the document is well worth reading today since recognized reform movements in Washington, D.C. over the past couple of years have been sympathetic to the industry and unwilling to confront the truth.

    The authors were too modest to take credit and list their names on the statement.  I assume that Jan Bendor, Art Persyko, Lydia Nunez, and Clint Smith had a hand in writing it.  But perhaps it involved more members or perhaps all of the GP Senior Housing Committee.

    The following are excerpts from the summary:

    “The ‘enemy’ is a monster created by federal policy, allowing for-profit corporations to own chains of long-term care facilities, and lavishing on the owners the incentives and benefits in our tax laws regardless of their performance in caregiving.”

    “These corporations are engaged in buying and selling of real estate with very favorable tax rewards.  The corporations can practice medicine and also profit from Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs that can be hijacked for the corporation’s benefit rather than for the benefit of those in their care.”

Problems & Recommendations

    In stating the problems on page 2, focus of the statement was on lack of accountability for the massive loss of life due to COVID, weak regulation by government agencies, underpaid staff in understaffed facilities, and the political clout of the industry through lobbying.  Recommendation appropriately included accounting of Medicare length of stay fraud, wrongful discharges that occur, accountability for misreporting of data regarding harm and finances, overuse of antipsychotics.

   Download the Gray Panther Statement on Nursing Homes Here:

2021-08-09-Nursing-Home-Crisis-Action-to-Restructure-NHI-3Download

If the U.S. Moved in the Direction the Gray Panthers are Suggesting, Americans May Not Hate the Thought of Needing Long-Term Care in a “Nursing Home.”

Inside the Washington, D.C. beltway reform efforts are beset with influence from the powerful forces that have a vested interest in keep the nursing home system the way it is. It is time for some honest discussion about why the status quo is only gaining strength with a small tweak here and there that serve as appearances and nothing more.

THE STATE OF NURSING HOME FINANCIAL REPORTING IN POST TRUTH-AMERICA.

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

American Tolerance of Corporate Deceit & Predatory Economics is Perplexing

    Misinformation can be harmful and even deadly. We have seen evidence of this maxim during the COVID crisis. We have seen it in the debate over climate change and in so many other critical issues confronting society. In post-truth America, it has become acceptable to put forth any mistruth or unverified and unverifiable claim and escape embarrassing denunciation, excoriation and censure. In no case is this more apparent than in the mistruths spread by for profit corporations in the nursing home business.

    It isn’t difficult to compile objective evidence that nursing home industry hardship pleas of low profits, thin margins, and other such claims are false and misleading.  The American Health Care Association/National Center for Independent Living, the industry’s lavishly funded propaganda organ, consistently spreads the narrative that corporations in the Medicaid and Medicare funded long-term care business are struggling financially and need a significant increase in reimbursements.

    A highly qualified financial sleuth isn’t needed for debunking the industry’s financial narrative of low profits and struggling investors.  Therefore, it may be difficult to understand how nursing home reform commissions and politicians escape public opprobrium for ignoring the patently obvious. However, it should be understandable that the finer points of nursing home finance isn’t on most peoples’ radar. We need to put it on everyone’s radar.

The Nursing Home Industry is Lying to the American People and Getting by with It

    The truth is that the federal and state governments allow for a charade in which facility-specific costs are submitted without any clarity about cash flowing to holding companies and parent corporations. We don’t really know how much Medicaid and Medicare revenue in the privatized nursing home system is extracted for dividends, and executive pay. ONE BIG EXCEPTION, HOWEVER, IS THE ENSIGN GROUP.

    With an annual revenue in 2022 of over $3 billion, the Ensign Group is the largest single provider of nursing home care in the United States.  It is also the only publicly listed company that earns revenue solely from Medicaid and Medicare funded long-term care.  More importantly for understanding the financial realities of the nursing home business, it is a publicly listed corporation and therefore must file financial reports with the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC).

    The Ensign Group annual 2021 10-K report submitted to SEC notes a net income of 8.5 percent and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) of 13.7 percent.  However, an examination of their six facilities in Kansas reveal a combined net revenue of $55,567,680 and a combined operating negative net of -3,201,123 (-5.7%).  Five of the six facilities reported a negative net income.

Facility-Specific Cost Reports:  How the Big Lie Works.

     A review of Ensign Group cost reports in one state, i.e., Kansas, provides insight into how the misleading state-specific and facility-specific financial  system works.  Ensign operates six facilities in the state of Kansas.  Comparing the facility-specific cost reports to the consolidated financial report submitted by Ensign to the SEC is instructive in demonstrating the inadequacy of the cost reports as a measure of financial performance.

    For instance, Table 1 contains cost report data from an Ensign owned facility known as Riverbend Nursing Home in Kansas City, Kansas (incorporated and licensed as Big Blue, LLC). The data indicates that the facility, with a slight negative net operating income, lost money (this is 2021 data). It is typical for facility cost reports to show a very low or negative income but that doesn’t reflect what parent corporations are earning from the operations.

Table 1:  Net Operating Margin

Form CMS 2540-10:  Home Office Allocation & Related Parties

    Parent Corporations with a chain of facilities incorporated as LLCs can claim an allocation to their home office based on corporate expenses for operating each facility.  The “home office allocation” appears to be a large allowance for expenditures that are not fully clarified, not decipherable by the public, and, I believe, not understood by state auditors.  For instance, Table 2, includes claims for Ensign home office allocation and payments to their subsidiaries paid for insurance and real estate.

Table 2: Part I, Riverbend Form CMS 2540-10

Corporate Hubris:  They Don’t Need to Answer Questions Required by Law

    A state auditor with whom I had a conversation recently asked me if I had any insight into the home office allocation that might be helpful for auditing purposes.  This person knew that I had been looking at cost reports across the U.S. and thought practices in other states might be something of a guide.  That the auditor wasn’t sure about how to evaluate funds extracted from revenue and sent up the chain of LLCs (often shell companies) to home offices tells us much.

    The auditor is in fact not the problem.  Statutes governing Part I of Form CMS-2540-10 (42 CFR 413.17) states that “such cost must not exceed the amount a prudent and cost conscious buyer would pay for comparable services, facilities, or supplies that could be purchased elsewhere.”  Commonsense suggests that pricing goods and services sold to related parties requires some sophisticated and extensive analyses. Do states have the regulatory capacity to do that?  Advocates and scholars need to raise that issue with legislators and demand to see any evidence supporting decisions to approve claimed expenditures to related parties.

Part II of Form CMS 2540-10:  How Vague Can They Be?

    Part II of Form CMS 2540-10 requires far more detail than shown in Table 2, which reflects the exact data submitted by the Ensign Group for its facilities. For instance, the statute requires that an entity listed in Column 4 “enter a percent of ownership in the provider.”  That may not be a logical question because Ensign corporate owns everything.  Gateway Healthcare is a shell company that merely hides the flow of capital, avoids taxes, and protects the facility from liability.  Theoretically, Gateway owns 100% of Riverbend, but Ensign owns 100% of Gateway (an LLC incorporated in Nevada).

Therefore, Ensign’s facility-specific cost reports merely ignore statutory reporting requirements. That appears to be acceptable to state auditors. This kind of “catch us if you can” hubris is typical when an industry has an extraordinary amount of money to spread around in Washington and the 50 state legislatures.

Table 3: Part II, Riverbend Form CMS 2540-10

Summary:  CMS Allows States to Regulate Nursing Homes & Looks the Other Way

    CMS is not likely to fix the corrupt and inadequate nursing home financial reporting system. They will noodle with advocates and mull over all sorts of well-founded and sensible proposals but without pressure from legislators to counter the industry’s power in Washington and in the 50 states, the status quo will prevail. 

The political will just isn’t there at the national level. We need to change that.  Advocates are likely to make more progress at the state level by compiling cost reports in their respective states and take their analyses to the media and state representatives.     The critical – life and death – nature of this problem should lead the public to revolt if they understand it and have the evidence to clearly see that the industry narrative is false.

  Lack of staff and poor quality of care leads to shortened lives and considerable suffering.  That could be fixed by stopping the excessive extraction of cash sent up the line to investors and executives. That will only be stopped by a narrative based on verifiable fact and a coordinated effort to spread that narrative in the media and among state legislators. Financial data may not seem interesting on the evening television news or in the print media.  But we are obligated to make it understandable, interesting.

THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY:  CONCENTRATED WEALTH INEVITABLY TRANSFORMS INTO CONCENTRATED POWER

Posted on by

It is estimated that healthcare expenditures in the United States have grown to twenty percent of GDP.  In 2022, the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicated that U.S. GDP had grown to $25.46 trillion (https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/gross-domestic-product-fourth-quarter-and-year-2022).  Hence, we can assume that in 2022, approximately $5 trillion was expended for U.S. healthcare.

In the taxpayer funded, privatized, medical care system in the United States, the growth of corporations with revenues from Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and other tax subsidized healthcare (e.g., employer provided health insurance) has been astounding. The size and number of healthcare related corporations listed on the Fortune 500 top 30 in 2020 compared to 2000 is a reflection of the dominance and power of companies such as UnitedHealth, CVS, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and others appearing in the 2022 Fortune 500 top 30.

As the table below indicates, absolutely no healthcare related corporation was ranked among the top 30 corporations in revenue in 2000. In a mere two decades, nine of the 30 largest U.S. companies were in some facet of the medical/healthcare sector. Note the following corporations in the table and their Fortune 500 2022 ranking: CVS Health (4), UnitedHealth Group (5), McKesson (9), Amerisource Bergen (10), Cigna (12), Cardinal Health (15), Walgreen/Boots Alliance (18), Elevance Health (20), Centene Corporation (26).

Given the money in politics and decreasing capacity of government agencies to monitor and hold corporate behemoths accountable, the growth of health/medical related enterprises should be alarming. These are not capitalist enterprises. Rather, they are government sponsored enterprises much like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and should be regulated as such.

Furthermore, money is power and much of the “inside the Washington, D.C. beltway” activity related to studies, commissions, and general policymaking involving academics and other professionals has been rigged through power politics to insure the perpetuation and preservation of the participants – hence, preservation of the status quo. Let’s take the nonprofit Better Medicare Alliance as an example. This front group has roped in scholars, professional associations, and other duped entities in a cooperative effort to sell Medicare Advantage to the public on behalf of the industry.

Currently, the Biden Administration is attempting to reduce Medicare Advantage billing fraud that will save the Medicare Trust Fund billions. That legitimate and laudable effort on the President’s part was attacked in an ad during the last Super Bowl. The ad was paid for by Better Medicare Alliance. Check out this outfit’s “ally list” and its list of “scholars.” Conflicts of interest involving scholarship, corporate board service, and coopting of scientific institutions by superrich foundations with Wall Street leaning board members should be exposed along with a network of think tanks presenting a charade for the purpose of enhancing revenue from government programs.

FORTUNE 500 RANKINGS:  2000 & 2022
RANK
(2000)		CORPORATIONREVENUE*RANK (2022)CORPORATIONREVENUE*
1General Motors18.91Walmart572.8
2Walmart16.72Amazon469.8
3Exxon Mobile16.43Apple366.8
4Ford Motor Co16.34CVS Health292.1
5General Electric11.25UnitedHealth Group287.6
6IBM8.86Exxon-Mobile285.6
7Citigroup Inc8.27Berkshire Hathaway276.1
8AT&T6.28Alphabet257.6
9Phillip Morris Inc6.29McKesson238.2
10The Boeing Company5.810AmerisourceBergen214.0
11Bank of America5.111Costco195.9
12SBC Communications4.912Cigna174.1
13** 13AT&T168.9
14The Kroger Co4.514Microsoft168.1
15State Farm Insurance4.415Cardinal Health162.5
16Sears, Roebuck, & Co4.116Chevron162.5
17AIG4.117Home Depot151.2
18Enron4.018Walgreens/Boots Allian.148.6
19Teachers Insurance & Annuity3.919Marathon Petroleum141.0
20Compaq Computers3.820Elevance Health138.6
21Home Depot3.821Kroger137.9
22Lucent3.822Ford Motor Co136.3
23Procter & Gamble3.723Verizon133.6
24Hewlett-Packard3.724J.P. Morgan Chase127.2
25MCI World Com3.725General Motors127.0
26Fannie Mae3.726Centene126.0
27K Mart3.627Meta118.0
28Texaco3.628ComCast116.4
29Merrill-Lynch3.529Phillips 66114.9
30Mogan Stanley Dean Witter3.430Valero Energy108.3
* In Billions of dollars. **#Number 13 not noted on Fortune 500 list.