SEIU goes to the ballot to change hospital rates

Somewhat new to the issue, the SEIU has decided that it is unfair for non-Partners hospitals to get paid less than those affiliated with Partners Healthcare System. Priyanka Dayal McKluskey reports in the Boston Globe that the union "is pushing a ballot initiative that would divert millions of dollars from Partners HealthCare to lower-paid competitors in an effort to boost community hospitals and preserve union jobs."

My readers know that I am sympathetic to the cause of equalizing insurance payments to the hospitals and physicians in the state.  Now, they are set mainly on the basis of market power, something contrary to the public good. Some of us have been talking about this issue for over a decade.

But why is the union more recently interested in the topic?

My hypothesis is that they finally realized that the stated business strategy of Steward Health Care System to be the low-cost provider competing with Partners just doesn't hold water.  Steward has shown no ability to attract patients from the bigger system. The only thing that "lower costs"--read "lower rates"--has gotten the system is lower revenues and poorer earnings.

Years ago, the Steward CEO got the support of the SEIU when the Caritas Christi system was to be sold to Cerberus. Remember this story?

To steer the deal through, he orchestrated an unlikely alliance of the Boston Archdiocese, Democratic elected officials, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and community organizers in some of the state’s poorest cities – all to support turning the struggling nonprofit hospital chain into a for-profit operation owned by a group of high-flying financiers. In what may well be an example of the way de la Torre is always playing chess four moves ahead, the crucial SEIU support was an outgrowth of a nearly unprecedented overture he had made two years earlier, shortly after he joined Caritas, to invite the union to come into the hospitals and try to organize his workers.

Well, the deal starts to look vacuous if the hospital system can't earn enough money to cover those union contracts.

Can it be that the SEIU is actually a stalking horse for Steward on this proposed legislation?


The campaign seems to have started in earnest in 2013. Robert Weisman at the Globe reported on May 13, 2013: 

An unusual alliance led by the state’s fastest-growing health care company and its largest health care union will press for higher payments to community and safety net hospitals, saying Massachusetts faces a widening gulf between the quality of care in affluent and low-income areas.

The group, the Massachusetts Healthcare Equality and Affordability League, is being launched Thursday by Steward Health Care System, a for-profit cluster of community hospitals, and Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union, which represents about 47,000 workers in the state.

The follow-up was reported on March 14, 2014, by Rachel Zimmerman on Commonhealth: 

A report released today by the Healthcare Equality and Affordability League (H.E.A.L.) — a partnership between the for-profit Steward Health Care System and the union, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East — finds that disparities in hospital costs and financing across the state are driving “a vicious cycle” of inequality in health care.

It's hard to be sympathetic to the financial concerns of a union that spent millions of dollars on a corporate campaign to disparage my former hospital.  (More on that story here.)


It's also hard to find sympathy for a union that, even in 2014, supported the gubernatorial candidacy of the former Attorney General who affirmatively acted to enhance Partner's market power.

And it's hard to be sympathetic to a hospital system owned by a private equity firm.

But the issue raised in the ballot proposition is a real one, and one that was aggravated--not reduced--by state legislation in 2012.

Referenda, as noted by the state hospital association's executive vice president in McCluskey's story, are not the best way to resolve complicated policy issues.  Instead, it's time for the legislature to revisit the matter.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Serendipity is allowed

Yes, even surgeons can learn

The story from Consorci Sanitari del Garraf