CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

13 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

That was my concern, dude. I’m not a virologist but I immediately thought the opposite of her 

Yeah if so they really buried the lead there.  Weird

[Sawbonz 27580]

2 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Part of the HHS CARES ACT?? more than 39k...

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/07/17/hhs-begin-distributing-10-billion-additional-funding-hospitals-high-impact-covid-19-areas.html#:~:text=As COVID-19 continues to,and other healthcare providers%2C including

Government distributing $175B+ in funds to hospitals dealing with COVID

"On June 8, 2020, HHS sent communications to all hospitals about plans to distribute a second round of funding to high impact COVID-19 areas and asked them to submit data on their COVID-19 positive-inpatient admissions for the period January 1, 2020, through June 10, 2020. Their submissions were used to determine their eligibility and share of the second round of the funding being announced today to ensure hospitals are equitably supported in the battle against this pandemic."

"The first round of funding was based on a formula that distributed funds to hospitals with 100 or more COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and April 10, 2020 and paid $76,975 per eligible admission."

Second round "...Hospitals will be paid $50,000 per eligible admission."

 

Do you know what a hospital gets for a spine fusion? Total knee replacement? Not to mention all the outpatient surgeries and procedures that they do 100’s of combined in a week, 52 weeks a year. Fill every bed with a covid patient and you still lose money. 
 

BSW wouldn’t furlough/lay off 1200 if they were raking in covid money

[MonkeyDoughnut 10336]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Do you know what a hospital gets for a spine fusion? Total knee replacement? Not to mention all the outpatient surgeries and procedures that they do 100’s of combined in a week, 52 weeks a year. Fill every bed with a covid patient and you still lose money. 
 

BSW wouldn’t furlough/lay off 1200 if they were raking in covid money

No question they were losing money as they where forced to not do those surgeries. You saying hospitals wouldn't try and lessen their loses? Of course they would, and they should.

[GRHorn 105]

14 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Do you know what a hospital gets for a spine fusion? Total knee replacement? Not to mention all the outpatient surgeries and procedures that they do 100’s of combined in a week, 52 weeks a year. Fill every bed with a covid patient and you still lose money. 
 

BSW wouldn’t furlough/lay off 1200 if they were raking in covid money

From my local standpoint here, the hospital system that’s the most financially savvy was the one that had the most Covid patients. I’m not aware of all the finances of it but a few docs around here noticed that fact. 

[Sawbonz 27580]

1 minute ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

No question they were losing money as they where forced to not do those surgeries. You saying hospitals wouldn't try and lessen their loses? Of course they would, and they should.

Hmm let’s see for the hospitals to get the money, the docs signing off on these fake covid cases risk being fined by CMS, never being able to bill Medicare or any other federal payer again, getting fined and sanctioned by the TMB at a minimum. They likely lose their licenses, and possibly go to jail. I can’t imagine signing off on those charts but maybe you know more hospitalists than I do.  

[Sawbonz 27580]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

From my local standpoint here, the hospital system that’s the most financially savvy was the one that had the most Covid patients. I’m not aware of all the finances of it but a few docs around here noticed that fact. 

Legit covid cases? That makes sense to get as many as you can when everything else is shut down. I thought we were talking about fake covid cases

[MonkeyDoughnut 10336]

32 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Hmm let’s see for the hospitals to get the money, the docs signing off on these fake covid cases risk being fined by CMS, never being able to bill Medicare or any other federal payer again, getting fined and sanctioned by the TMB at a minimum. They likely lose their licenses, and possibly go to jail. I can’t imagine signing off on those charts but maybe you know more hospitalists than I do.  

Or.... Patient is assumed positive when they come in or have symptoms without test, doctor doesn't have to prove or not prove anything. Patient was admitted as possible positive discharged later now testing negative. There is no proven positive test result requirement for the funding reimbursement as the hospital still dealt with a COVID related (possible) situation and had to react and treat as such until they know otherwise.

[Sawbonz 27580]

7 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Or.... Patient is assumed positive when they come in or have symptoms without test, doctor doesn't have to prove or not prove anything. Patient was admitted as possible positive discharged later now testing negative. There is no proven positive test result requirement for the funding reimbursement as the hospital still dealt with a COVID related (possible) situation and had to react and treat as such until they know otherwise.

Are you saying that there are a substantial number of reported covid hospitalizations  that are not supported by positive covid tests? Do you have a link showing this?

 

You still need a doctor signing off on the admission diagnosis. You know what a qui tam lawsuit is?

Edited August 24, 2020 by Sawbonz

[Brisketexan 105189]

12 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you saying that there are a substantial number of reported covid hospitalizations  that are not supported by positive covid tests? Do you have a link showing this?

 

You still need a doctor signing off on the admission diagnosis. You know what a qui tam lawsuit is?

Look, here's what's happening.  It's what has happened consistently for years now -- every accusation is a confession.  They accuse hospitals all over the nation of committing huge and systemic medicare fraud.  Why?  Because it's what THEY would do if they were in charge of a hospital.  It's absolutely how that particular political class behaves (I mean, you've heard of Rick Scott, right?  He got a $300 million golden parachute from a company fined $1.7 BILLION (with a "B") for medicare fraud).  So, of COURSE they think that hospitals all over the country are committing nonchalant and rampant fraud, because that's exactly what they would do, given the chance.

[PsychMike 1552]

On 5/22/2020 at 9:39 PM, F250 said:

I saw Rebekah Jones on the news tonight discussing her refusal to cover up data. I've worked with a ton of data scientists and never seen one that looks like she does.

And now she's into Dynamic Meteorology, so I am sure your statement applies for that too. She may be cray, so use false names and have an exit strategy...

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Or.... Patient is assumed positive when they come in or have symptoms without test, doctor doesn't have to prove or not prove anything. Patient was admitted as possible positive discharged later now testing negative. There is no proven positive test result requirement for the funding reimbursement as the hospital still dealt with a COVID related (possible) situation and had to react and treat as such until they know otherwise.

You posting nonsense.

Your scenarios show you have no idea how hospital billing, documentation, insurance and Medicare documentation and billing, coding, and hospital costs work in the real world.

The actual cost to a hospital for a PUI that turns out negative and is this discharged is a fraction of what a positive Covid patient who spends 27 days in the ICU. Unless they’re are very sick with symptoms, we don’t even admit PUIs. We send them home to quarantine pending results. And if they are admitted, we get in house results back within 24 hours. Hospitals ain’t making bank on an 18 hour stay. For us that doesn’t even qualify as an actual inpatient admission.

Those 2 day PUI stays are not being reimbursed like the positive patient who spends weeks on a vent in the ICU.

Any “extra money” (lololololool) made from your mythical patient is quickly eliminated by the costs of the long term ICU stays of serious cases.

Show me a hospital CFO who would choose to have a building full of confirmed Covid cases in the ICU and a bunch of PUIs over a building full of normal inpatient surgical patients and outpatient procedures and I’ll show you a bad CFO.

They twisted facts and downright conspiracies that have developed around this issue are ridiculous. The average person has zero knowledge of the basic facts, so they hear this nonsense about hospitals being “incentivized” to inflate their Covid numbers to rake in more money and they just take it as fact.

There are shady physicians who manipulate situations for monetary reasons but this is not that. Those kinds of docs do that to line THEIR pockets - there’s not a doc alive who would risk their career or future or freedom to make a hospital more money lol.

The Medicare reimbursement rates are based on past guidelines for treatments of similar respiratory diseases and historical costs for ventilator care -

Medicare — the federal health insurance program for Americans 65 and older, a central at-risk population when it comes to COVID-19 — pays hospitals in part using fixed rates at discharge based off a grouping system known as diagnosis-related groups.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has classified COVID-19 cases with existing groups for respiratory infections and inflammations. A CMS spokesperson told us exact payments vary, depending on a patient’s principal diagnosis and severity, as well as treatments and procedures. There are also geographic variations.

An analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation looked at average Medicare payments for hospital admissions for the existing diagnosis-related groups and noted that the “average Medicare payment for respiratory infections and inflammations with major comorbidities or complications in 2017 … was $13,297. For more severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for a respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support for greater than 96 hours, which was $40,218.”

The numbers weren’t just pulled out of their ass.

As for the extra CARES money -

It is true, however, that the government will pay more to hospitals for COVID-19 cases in two senses: By paying an additional 20% on top of traditional Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients during the public health emergency, and by reimbursing hospitals for treating the uninsured patients with the disease (at that enhanced Medicare rate).

Both of those provisions stem from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act.

The CARES Act created the 20% add-on to be paid for Medicare patients with COVID-19. The act further created a $100 billion fund that is being used to financially assist hospitals — a “portion” of which will be “used to reimburse healthcare providers, at Medicare rates, for COVID-related treatment of the uninsured,” according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

As the Kaiser analysis noted, though, “it is unclear whether the new fund will be able to cover the costs of the uninsured in addition to other needs, such as the purchase of medical supplies and the construction of temporary facilities.”

That money is to help cover the treatment of the uninsured and to help cover the costs of purchasing extra supplies and equipment (thousands of extra PPE, cost of emergency staffing, extra vents, extra security, etc.).

And note the language - “a ’portion’ of which will be ‘used to reimburse healthcare providers, at Medicare rates, for COVID-related treatment of the uninsured’.” A PORTION - that’s a weasel word with no guarantee.

And, again, the “extra” money for classifying a Covid patient is peanuts compared to lost revenue elsewhere.

Berenson said revenues appear to be down for hospitals this quarter because many have suspended elective procedures, which are key to their revenue, forcing some hospitals to cut staff. He surmised that potential instances of patients being wrongly “upcoded” — or classified as COVID-19 when they’re not — are “trivial compared to these other forces that are affecting hospital finances.”

Berenson and others we spoke with also said that hospitals have profound disincentives for “upcoding,” which can result in criminal or civil liabilities, such as being susceptible to being kicked out of the Medicare program.

That juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

Finally, the fact that this claim originated from an interview with a Minnesota state Senator on Laura Ingraham’s show is worth noting.

The Senator, Scott Jensen, is a family practice physician who has also said the following about Covid -

-It’s no worse than the flu
-He’s been supportive of anti-vaxxers
-He’s currently under investigation by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice for his statements on Covid

[GRHorn 105]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Legit covid cases? That makes sense to get as many as you can when everything else is shut down. I thought we were talking about fake covid cases

Oh yes. I wasn’t saying fake. Just saying it seems like there’s some kind of money in it. Even if it’s just damage control from a big picture standpoint. 
 

And if there’s that incentive I guess there could be a small number inflating numbers somewhere but I wouldn’t think you’d see it at large scale. 

[Sawbonz 27580]

11 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Oh yes. I wasn’t saying fake. Just saying it seems like there’s some kind of money in it. Even if it’s just damage control from a big picture standpoint. 
 

And if there’s that incentive I guess there could be a small number inflating numbers somewhere but I wouldn’t think you’d see it at large scale. 

There is no incentive for any physician to go along with a fake diagnosis scam. There could be a whole lot of money for a doc to blow the whistle on a hospital trying to perpetrate a scam. The hospital isn’t going to make enough money off such a scam to risk that happening 

[HenryJames 66139]

 

[Anastasis 23481]

4 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

These fucking idiots don't know the difference between a relative risk reduction and an absolute risk reduction. 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10336]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

You posting nonsense.

Your scenarios show you have no idea how hospital billing, documentation, insurance and Medicare documentation and billing, coding, and hospital costs work in the real world.

The actual cost to a hospital for a PUI that turns out negative and is this discharged is a fraction of what a positive Covid patient who spends 27 days in the ICU. Unless they’re are very sick with symptoms, we don’t even admit PUIs. We send them home to quarantine pending results. And if they are admitted, we get in house results back within 24 hours. Hospitals ain’t making bank on an 18 hour stay. For us that doesn’t even qualify as an actual inpatient admission.

Those 2 day PUI stays are not being reimbursed like the positive patient who spends weeks on a vent in the ICU.

Any “extra money” (lololololool) made from your mythical patient is quickly eliminated by the costs of the long term ICU stays of serious cases.

Show me a hospital CFO who would choose to have a building full of confirmed Covid cases in the ICU and a bunch of PUIs over a building full of normal inpatient surgical patients and outpatient procedures and I’ll show you a bad CFO.

They twisted facts and downright conspiracies that have developed around this issue are ridiculous. The average person has zero knowledge of the basic facts, so they hear this nonsense about hospitals being “incentivized” to inflate their Covid numbers to rake in more money and they just take it as fact.

There are shady physicians who manipulate situations for monetary reasons but this is not that. Those kinds of docs do that to line THEIR pockets - there’s not a doc alive who would risk their career or future or freedom to make a hospital more money lol.

The Medicare reimbursement rates are based on past guidelines for treatments of similar respiratory diseases and historical costs for ventilator care -



The numbers weren’t just pulled out of their ass.

As for the extra CARES money -



That money is to help cover the treatment of the uninsured and to help cover the costs of purchasing extra supplies and equipment (thousands of extra PPE, cost of emergency staffing, extra vents, extra security, etc.).

And note the language - “a ’portion’ of which will be ‘used to reimburse healthcare providers, at Medicare rates, for COVID-related treatment of the uninsured’.” A PORTION - that’s a weasel word with no guarantee.

And, again, the “extra” money for classifying a Covid patient is peanuts compared to lost revenue elsewhere.



That juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

Finally, the fact that this claim originated from an interview with a Minnesota state Senator on Laura Ingraham’s show is worth noting.

The Senator, Scott Jensen, is a family practice physician who has also said the following about Covid -

-It’s no worse than the flu
-He’s been supportive of anti-vaxxers
-He’s currently under investigation by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice for his statements on Covid

The initial response was to one saying there was no financial benefit for a hospital to mark a patient as COVID possible (there is no positive finding required for funding).

There obviously is. And the funding is not reimbursement of expenses. It is a share of funds being disbursed for every single patient marked that way, right now at $50k plus.

[Neonmoon 38130]

7 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

The initial response was to one saying there was no financial benefit for a hospital to mark a patient as COVID possible (there is no positive finding required for funding).

There obviously is. And the funding is not reimbursement of expenses. It is a share of funds being disbursed for every single patient marked that way, right now at $50k plus.

Your opinion has been refuted with facts from doctors and medical professionals on this thread. You refused to accept these facts. You believe without evidence that doctors are willfully submitting false diagnosis and risking their medical licenses so the hospital can make negligible profits. 

You have proven nothing other than your belief in a conspiracy theory 

[jimmyjazz 46006]

43 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

These fucking idiots don't know the difference between a relative risk reduction and an absolute risk reduction. 

Well, Trump doesn't, but the asshats who are at the top of HHS and FDA most certainly do.  They're just going along with the message, and in my opinion, should lose their licenses over it, if not be subject to prosecution.  This is outrageous.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10336]

6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Your opinion has been refuted with facts from doctors and medical professionals on this thread. You refused to accept these facts. You believe without evidence that doctors are willfully submitting false diagnosis and risking their medical licenses so the hospital can make negligible profits. 

You have proven nothing other than your belief in a conspiracy theory 

Lol... Yeah all doctors are angels, no one has ever risked there license for money....

Seriously though, under the CARES guidelines they don't have to. There is no risk, there is no mis-diagnosis required. 

Adding... I would love to work in a place where an EXTRA 50k is negligible. Not in place of but on top of.

Edited August 25, 2020 by MonkeyDoughnut

[BradInATX 9208]

48 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

These fucking idiots don't know the difference between a relative risk reduction and an absolute risk reduction. 

I swear I have that conversation at least weekly with clients. It might astonish you how many people can't process the difference. "Reducing your 30% turnover rate to 20% is actually a 33% improvement, not a 10% improvement"... *heads explode*

[Sawbonz 27580]

29 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

The initial response was to one saying there was no financial benefit for a hospital to mark a patient as COVID possible (there is no positive finding required for funding).

There obviously is. And the funding is not reimbursement of expenses. It is a share of funds being disbursed for every single patient marked that way, right now at $50k plus.

Are you going to post a link to a hospital or hospitals getting money for marking a patient “possible covid”?

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Look, here's what's happening.  It's what has happened consistently for years now -- every accusation is a confession.  They accuse hospitals all over the nation of committing huge and systemic medicare fraud.  Why?  Because it's what THEY would do if they were in charge of a hospital.  It's absolutely how that particular political class behaves (I mean, you've heard of Rick Scott, right?  He got a $300 million golden parachute from a company fined $1.7 BILLION (with a "B") for medicare fraud).  So, of COURSE they think that hospitals all over the country are committing nonchalant and rampant fraud, because that's exactly what they would do, given the chance.

Just like rigging elections. 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10336]

21 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you going to post a link to a hospital or hospitals getting money for marking a patient “possible covid”?

I thought linking to the HHS.gov document spelling that out would be enough.

I don't have such a link from a specific hospital.

There does seem to be a bunch of conclusion jumping on the facts I just copied and pasted from the HHS site. I have no clue whether doctors or hospitals are abusing the system but to try and argue that there is no financial incentive for a hospital to mark a patient COVID is false.

[Sawbonz 27580]

1 minute ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I thought linking to the HHS.gov document spelling that out would be enough.

I don't have such a link from a specific hospital.

There does seem to be a bunch of conclusion jumping on the facts I just copied and pasted from the HHS site. I have no clue whether doctors or hospitals are abusing the system but to try and argue that there is no financial incentive for a hospital to mark a patient COVID is false.

It’s ok  you can just say you have no evidence

 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Lol... Yeah all doctors are angels, no one has ever risked there license for money....
Seriously though, under the CARES guidelines they don't have to. There is no risk, there is no mis-diagnosis required. 
Adding... I would love to work in a place where an EXTRA 50k is negligible. Not in place of but on top of.

Do..... you think individual doctors are getting this mythical money????!

Plenty of docs have risked their license for money, money that goes to THEM.

Ain’t no doc risking his license for money that goes to a hospital.

You need to catch up on your summer reading.

[SizzleChest 8284]

59 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, Trump doesn't, but the asshats who are at the top of HHS and FDA most certainly do.  They're just going along with the message, and in my opinion, should lose their licenses over it, if not be subject to prosecution.  This is outrageous.

It is.  But, in the broader view, perhaps guys like Hahn and Marks are also trying not to get fired just yet.  It's the Deborah Birx play, but she was disadvantaged by a longer timeline and I think, at times, she got overly seduced by the power of her position to influence Trump and policy.  These guys only have to hang in for a matter of weeks, and can hopefully obstruct signing off on a vaccine EUA under pressure for legal reasons.

Incomplete vaccines will become THE central issue for Trump in the next two months.  If Trump hasn't fired them by late October, it would be too late.

Edited August 25, 2020 by SizzleChest

[Nivek 16951]

I swear I have that conversation at least weekly with clients. It might astonish you how many people can't process the difference. "Reducing your 30% turnover rate to 20% is actually a 33% improvement, not a 10% improvement"... *heads explode*

33% improvement = sales
10% change = scientist/engineer

Both are correct.

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, Nivek said:

33% improvement = sales
10% change = scientist/engineer

Both are correct.

Thanks Kevin, that was enlightening.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10336]

23 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Do..... you think individual doctors are getting this mythical money????!

Plenty of docs have risked their license for money, money that goes to THEM.

Ain’t no doc risking his license for money that goes to a hospital.

You need to catch up on your summer reading.

Maybe resident doctors can chime in, I thought some doctors working in hospitals worked on a bonus structure that included some type of percentage of generated revenue?

I could totally be wrong.

Side note - I haven't, nor am I trying to imply doctors are actually falsely doing this (they can certainly assume COVID with any symptom until they rule it out and still qualify), all I've provided is that there is a financial incentive for a hospital to have a patient marked COVID.

[Bozo_Casanova 26518]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

These fucking idiots don't know the difference between a relative risk reduction and an absolute risk reduction. 

You’re the burn it down guy, you should be celebrating. 

[Anastasis 23481]

27 minutes ago, Nivek said:

33% improvement = sales
10% change = scientist/engineer

Both are correct.

It's more than just muddling the distinction between absolute risk and relative risk reduction, his comment was just nonsensical.

"Many of you know I was a cancer doctor before I became FDA commissioner. And a 35 percent improvement in survival is a pretty substantial clinical benefit. What that means is — and if the data continue to pan out — 100 people who are sick with covid-19, 35 would have been saved because of the admission of plasma.”

[Bozo_Casanova 26518]

Of course it’s nonsensical, they are juking the stats.

[TXSG8R 3362]

9 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Maybe resident doctors can chime in, I thought some doctors working in hospitals worked on a bonus structure that included some type of percentage of generated revenue?

I could totally be wrong.

Side note - I haven't, nor am I trying to imply doctors are actually falsely doing this (they can certainly assume COVID with any symptom until they rule it out and still qualify), all I've provided is that there is a financial incentive for a hospital to have a patient marked COVID.

You understand the payments were only for Medicare or uninsured patients, right?  And it’s a sliding scale based on care of a patient with COVID?  You can’t just mark someone positive and get a check. Hospitalization of a COVID patient on Medicare nets a hospital around $13k.  Extensive care with a ventilator gets a hospital around $40k.  That level of care isn’t easy for a hospital to slide by an auditor.  Hospitals aren’t going to claim they put 200 people on vents for a quick buck when an auditor can look and see they only have 5 ventilators and do the math in their head. Can it be exploited?  Sure, but it’s not some money maker for hospitals. It was part of the cares act to offset the burden of treating COVID patients. Your take is lame. 

[Sawbonz 27580]

7 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Maybe resident doctors can chime in, I thought some doctors working in hospitals worked on a bonus structure that included some type of percentage of generated revenue?

I could totally be wrong.

Side note - I haven't, nor am I trying to imply doctors are actually falsely doing this (they can certainly assume COVID with any symptom until they rule it out and still qualify), all I've provided is that there is a financial incentive for a hospital to have a patient marked COVID.

You are totally wrong. And hospitals cannot assign diagnoses. Only attending physicians can. And there is zero incentive for an attending physician to assign a wrong diagnosis, for reasons outlined above by multiple posters. Pressure from admin on physicians to assign a bogus diagnosis would lead to whistleblower lawsuits where the whistleblower gets a percentage of monetary penalties assessed against the institution, so in addition to the personal negative consequences of fraud by the docs, there is strong financial incentive for them to expose any fraud perpetrated by the hospital. Even if a few docs agreed to go along, it only takes one whistleblower to bring it all down
 

Edit — the whistleblower does not have to be a doc. Literally anyone with knowledge of the fraud can report it and get paid

Edited August 25, 2020 by Sawbonz

[MonkeyDoughnut 10336]

8 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

You understand the payments were only for Medicare or uninsured patients, right?  And it’s a sliding scale based on care of a patient with COVID?  You can’t just mark someone positive and get a check. Hospitalization of a COVID patient on Medicare nets a hospital around $13k.  Extensive care with a ventilator gets a hospital around $40k.  That level of care isn’t easy for a hospital to slide by an auditor.  Hospitals aren’t going to claim they put 200 people on vents for a quick buck when an auditor can look and see they only have 5 ventilators and do the math in their head. Can it be exploited?  Sure, but it’s not some money maker for hospitals. It was part of the cares act to offset the burden of treating COVID patients. Your take is lame. 

They why is there concern already that the majority of the disbursed money has gone to hospitals with majority private insurance patients?

Your theory doesn't match the documents and statements that HHS has put out. 

Please...please get off the train here that anyone is implying this is a money making racket. Far from it, but it is an expense reducing outlet.

Adding link since I know you like them:

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/distribution-of-cares-act-funding-among-hospitals/

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/press-release/hospitals-with-more-private-insurance-revenue-larger-operating-margins-and-less-uncompensated-care-received-more-federal-coronavirus-relief-funding-than-others/

Edited August 25, 2020 by MonkeyDoughnut
adding link

[MonkeyDoughnut 10336]

22 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You are totally wrong. And hospitals cannot assign diagnoses. Only attending physicians can. And there is zero incentive for an attending physician to assign a wrong diagnosis, for reasons outlined above by multiple posters. Pressure from admin on physicians to assign a bogus diagnosis would lead to whistleblower lawsuits where the whistleblower gets a percentage of monetary penalties assessed against the institution, so in addition to the personal negative consequences of fraud by the docs, there is strong financial incentive for them to expose any fraud perpetrated by the hospital. Even if a few docs agreed to go along, it only takes one whistleblower to bring it all down
 

Edit — the whistleblower does not have to be a doc. Literally anyone with knowledge of the fraud can report it and get paid

I'll own to being wrong then, I thought my hospital friends had implied they were bonused on revenue.

[lemonlime 5503]

I'll own to being wrong then, I thought my hospital friends had implied they were bonused on revenue.

Your friends are either lying to you or they are breaking federal law.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I'll own to being wrong then, I thought my hospital friends had implied they were bonused on revenue.

Maybe if your “friends” are employed by a hospital owned practice and have an RVU component in their contracts but that has absolutely no bearing on a hospital based provider (ED physician or hospitalist) who are the clinicians caring for Covid inpatients.

Listen, this whole conspiracy theory nonsense originated with a family practice doctor who is a Minnesota state senator who is a regular Fox News guest.

He’s dangerously claimed the flu is more deadly than Covid, given support to anti-vaxxers, and is currently under medical board investigation.

He was presented as an “expert” and lots of people fell for it.

This is a huge problem on Fox News. They count on people to trust their “expert reporting” and count on their viewers to repeat and amplify their specious stories without doing any basic research.

You fell for it. Next time you see something like this, do some research and don’t become a cog in the propaganda machine.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Sawbonz 27580]

Physician compensation can only be tied to a facility’s revenue if the physician is an investor in that facility. Also, if it can be shown that there is inappropriate practice of medicine designed to increase that facilitiy’s revenue, the physician will be in a lot of trouble.
 

No physician owned hospital I know of is caring for covid patients (pretty solid proof there’s no money in it). There is no way any physician would risk their livelihood and even freedom to increase the bottom line of a hospital they don’t own. 

[HenryJames 66139]

1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I'll own to being wrong then, I thought my hospital friends had implied they were bonused on revenue.

Negged for admitting you were wrong on the Politics board.

[HenryJames 66139]

 

[Anastasis 23481]

 

 

Good for him for at least acknowledging that.  But he is still wrong, the data don't show shit. 

[HenryJames 66139]

Too late. The deep state FDA is preventing a miracle cure for a fake disease so that Trump will lose the election.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

Good for him for at least acknowledging that.  But he is still wrong, the data don't show shit. 

It seems some are fearful that if emergency use can be authorized for plasma before the trials are completed, that Trump will authorize a vaccine as emergency use before the trials are completed.  I guarantee that’s what Trump wants to do, so he can take credit for getting the vaccine to the people before the election. We’ll see if career scientists at FDA will put their credibility on the line for politics in spite of risks to the population 

[lemonlime 5503]

34 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

It seems some are fearful that if emergency use can be authorized for plasma before the trials are completed, that Trump will authorize a vaccine as emergency use before the trials are completed.  I guarantee that’s what Trump wants to do, so he can take credit for getting the vaccine to the people before the election. We’ll see if career scientists at FDA will put their credibility on the line for politics in spite of risks to the population 

He's also creating real doubt on the safety of a real vaccine  when it could be administered in 2021, in the minds of reasonable people, not just anti-vaxxers, by rushing something through that may not be safe or effective.   It's almost like he's trying to prolong the pandemic.

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

Whatever happened to Putin's vaccine?

[Anastasis 23481]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Whatever happened to Putin's vaccine?

[Guest Lobo]

28 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Whatever happened to Putin's vaccine?

It's two weeks away.  It's easy to keep track of if you follow my Oligarchical Alt.Punk band:  Ural Fortnight 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Lobo

[Nivek 16951]

Two weeks/ total recall