Update: Financial Assistance Policies for Nonprofit Hospitals that Seek Federal Tax-Exempt Status

Posted on July 9, 2012 | No Comments

PDF Version
Details
Key Developments
Library
Implementation Briefs

By Sara Rosenbaum

Introduction

On June 22, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department released for public view a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the obligations of nonprofit hospitals seeking federal tax-exempt status. The NPRM deals with that portion of the ACA related to the obligation of nonprofit hospitals to maintain financial assistance and emergency medical care policies, as well as certain billing and collection policies, as a condition of federal tax exemption. The NPRM comment period will be for 90 days following Federal Register publication. The agencies have identified certain aspects of the NPRM on which they explicitly seek comment, specifically, on information collection requirements and agency assumptions regarding the burden of information collection in relation to its utility.

Background

The ACA expands the duties of nonprofit hospitals that seek federal tax-exempt status. Hospital organizations (including each hospital facility within a multi-facility organization) must separately satisfy these expanded requirements. Under these expanded duties, hospitals must maintain certain practices:

  • First, hospitals must conduct a community health needs assessment (CHNA) once every three years.[1] In 2011 the agencies issued guidance on hospitals’ CHNA obligations but have not issued formal proposed rules, which are expected later in 2012.
  • Second, hospitals must establish a written financial assistance policy (FAP) and a written policy related to emergency care.[2] The FAP must include (1) financial assistance eligibility criteria and whether the assistance includes free or discounted care; (2) the basis for calculating patient obligations; (3) the method for applying for financial assistance; (4) in the case of an organization without a separate billings and collections policy, the actions that the hospital may take in the event of nonpayment; and (5) measures to widely publicize the FAP within the community served by the hospital. A hospital’s emergency care policy must require the hospital to provide care for emergency medical conditions, within the meaning of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) without discrimination.
  • Third, hospitals must limit their charges for emergency or other medically necessary care for individuals eligible for financial assistance to not more than the amounts generally billed (AGB) to persons who are insured for such care.[3]
  • Fourth, hospitals must make reasonable efforts to determine whether individuals are eligible under their FAPs before engaging in extraordinary collection efforts.[4]

The NPRM deals with the second, third, and fourth matters addressed by the ACA, by defining the elements and processes that must be included in hospitals’ FAPs, explaining how hospitals will be expected to demonstrate compliance with EMTALA, interpreting and applying the law’s new limitations on hospital charges, and defining what constitutes “extraordinary” in terms of the collection actions that cannot be undertaken before hospitals assess patient eligibility for financial assistance.

Elements of the NPRM

Written financial assistance and emergency medical care policies (FAPs) (proposed 26 C.F.R. §501(r)-4 and (5))

In order to satisfy the law, hospitals’ FAPs would be required to apply to “all emergency and other medically necessary care” provided by the hospital. The FAP must include (i) eligibility criteria for financial assistance and whether the assistance includes free or discounted care; (ii) the basis for calculating the amount a patient will be charged; (iii) the method for applying for assistance; (iv) for hospitals that do not have separate billing and collections policies, the actions that they will take in the event of nonpayment; and (v) measures to widely publicize the policy.

The agencies emphasize that the law establishes no particular eligibility criteria and instead requires only that hospitals specify their criteria. The agencies note that they are “considering” the possibility of linking hospitals’ FAP obligations to their CHNA obligations, meaning that the design of the FAP would be expected to be responsive to the needs identified in a hospital’s most recent CHNA.[5] The agencies also emphasize that once an individual is determined eligible for financial assistance, a hospital is limited to billing the individual only the AGB (i.e., the amount generally billed the insurer).

The proposed regulation contains no specifications regarding the application process (i.e., whether the application must be in writing; whether an application prior to the receipt of care must be allowed; whether an application must be permitted before any bill is generated; whether assistance will be provided in completing the application; whether the individual must be given a copy of the application). Instead, the FAP must specify the financial assistance that is available, including both discounts and free care, and must specify “all of the eligibility criteria that an individual must satisfy to receive . . . such discount, free, care, or other level of assistance.”[6]

In setting eligibility criteria and the basis for calculating the amounts that can be charged to eligible patients, the NPRM provides that the FAP must specify what types of financial assistance that will be available to eligible patients, how an application is to be made,[7] and the eligibility criteria that must be satisfied for whatever assistance is made available. In so doing, the NPRM implies, but does not explicitly require, a written application form, but the rule does specify that a hospital cannot deny assistance “based on an applicant’s failure to provide information or documentation that the hospital facility’s FAP or FAP application form does not require an individual to submit as part of an application.”[8]

The FAP also must explain how the hospital calculates the AGB, using one of two permissible methodologies allowed under the NPRM (either a look-back methodology that calculates the AGB in relation to what the hospital was paid for such care by insurers over the past year, or a methodology that uses Medicare payments or Medicare payments in combination with insurance payments).[9] The NPRM does not specify that charges for FAP-eligible persons must be limited to the lowest charge and does not discuss the role, if any, that Medicaid payments (which generally are far lower) play in calculating the AGB.

The NPRM also specifies that the FAP must also make clear that once a patient is determined eligible for financial assistance, the hospital is precluded from charging more than the AGB.[10]

The NPRM also must specify that the FAP also must specify the actions (including “extraordinary” actions) that the hospital may take in the event of nonpayment, and the “process and time frames the hospital facility (or other authorized party) uses in taking [extraordinary] collection actions, including . . . the reasonable efforts it will make to determine whether an individual is FAP-eligible before engaging in any extraordinary collection actions.” The hospital’s FAP also must identify “the office. . . or other body with the final authority or responsibility for determining that the hospital . . . has made reasonable efforts to determine whether an individual is FAP eligible and may therefore engage in extraordinary collection actions.”[11]

In sum, the NPRM allows hospitals considerable discretion in fashioning their FAPs while barring the use of extraordinary collection actions, as defined in the rule, prior to making a reasonable effort to determine whether the patient may be FAP eligible. As a general matter, the NPRM extensively addresses what is meant by “widely available” in terms of dissemination of an FAP; its requirements focus on broad dissemination of information regarding the existence of an FAP (e.g., websites and postings), as well as an explanation that the concept of wide availability means in availability in manner that can reach the public, including members of the community most likely to need financial assistance.[12]

Furthermore, the NPRM requires that hospitals provide information about their FAP during a “notification period”, which is defined as beginning on the first day that care is provided and ending on the 120th day after the hospital facility provides the notification with the first billing statement for care.[13] Thus, the rule allows hospitals to bill at their full charge rates prior to applying their FAPs; however, the first bill must be accompanied by the FAP, which in turn must explain not only the FAP that is available and the process of applying, but also the hospital’s obligation to adjust the bill to the allowed AGB in the event that the individual is found eligible. A hospital is considered to have made reasonable efforts to notify individuals of its FAP if the hospital “[d]istributes a plain language summary of the FAP and offers a FAP application . . . before discharge…”[14] The hospital also must inform the individual about the FAP in “all oral communications with the individual regarding the amount due for the care” that has been furnished during the notification period and provides “at least one written notice” about the FAP prior to the end of the hospital’s deadline for completing an application (which may be the end of the notification period or another period (up to 30 days following the written notice).[15]

If no application is forthcoming during the remainder of the application period (i.e., the time period between the first day of care and the 120th day following the first billing statement with its notice), hospitals may proceed with an extraordinary collection action (defined below).

With respect to hospitals’ obligation to establish an emergency care policy, the NPRM requires that a hospital “establish a written policy that requires the hospital facility to provide, without discrimination, care for emergency medical conditions to individuals regardless of whether they are FAP eligible” (emphasis added).[16] The rule further prohibits a hospital “from engaging in actions that discourage individuals from seeking emergency medical care, such as by demanding that emergency department patients pay before receiving treatment for emergency medical conditions or by permitting debt collection activities in the emergency department or in other areas of the hospital facility where such activities could interfere with the provision, without discrimination, of emergency medical care.”[17] A hospital’s policy is deemed to comply with the NPRM if it requires “the hospital facility to provide the care for emergency medical conditions that the hospital facility is required to provide under [HHS EMTALA regulations].”[18]

The NPRM provides that the FAP is not considered established unless adopted by the hospital’s authorized body and “implemented.”[19]

Extraordinary collection efforts (26 C.F.R. §1.501(r)-6)

The NPRM provides that hospitals are not considered compliant with the law if they undertake extraordinary collection actions (ECAs) “before the hospital. . . has made reasonable efforts to determine whether the individual is eligible for assistance under its. . . FAP.[20] An ECA against the individual includes ECAs against “any other individual who has accepted or is required to accept responsibility for the individual’s hospital bills.”[21] A hospital is deemed to have engaged in an ECA if “any purchaser of the individual’s debt or any debt collection agency or other party to which the hospital facility has referred the individual’s debt has engaged in an ECA against the individual.”[22]

An ECA is defined as “actions taken by a hospital . . . that require a legal or judicial process or involve selling an individual’s debt to another party or reporting adverse information about the individual to consumer credit reporting agencies or credit bureaus.”[23] Legal and judicial processes include liens, foreclosures, attachments or seizures of property or bank accounts, commencement of a civil action, arrest, subjecting an individual to a writ of body attachment, and garnishment.[24]

In the case of individuals who apply within the application period, a hospital is considered to have acted reasonably only if it suspends ECAs, makes and documents its FAP determination, provides a written notification, corrects its billing statement to the AGB amount along with an explanation of how much the individual owes, and refunds any excess payments that may have been made.[25] The hospital also must take “all reasonably available measures to reverse any ECA (with the exception of a sale of debt)”[26] including vacating any judgment, lifting a lien or levy, or removing adverse information from any credit report.[27]

The rule further specifies that a hospital’s efforts to determine FAP eligibility will not be considered reasonable if the hospital bases a determination on information that it “has reason to believe is unreliable or incorrect or on information obtained from the individual under duress or through the use of coercive practices.”[28]

Finally, the NPRM provides that the reasonable effort standard also requires a hospital to suspend an ECA while an application is pending or in the completion stages. The hospital may resume ECAs once it has made a determination of ineligibility or the individual fails to complete the application.[29] Waivers of the right to apply for assistance do not allow the hospital to be treated as having made a reasonable effort to apply its FAP and to proceed with an ECA.

The NPRM does not address the question of what process is due in cases in which an individual is found ineligible for assistance or is erroneously found to have filed an incomplete or untimely application, or in any case in which the FAP decision is adverse to the individual. Nor does the NPRM address the question of private remedies in cases in which a hospital fails to adhere to the reasonable conduct standards outlined in the rule and/or attempts an erroneous ECA.

Implementation Issues

Time limits. Hospitals are given the power to establish a reasonable time limit for the FAP process, after which ECAs are permissible. Should the rule be modified to allow the individual to apply for assistance at any time following initiation of the ECA, at least in certain hardship instances?

Fair process. The NPRM does not provide for any process for appealing an adverse determination or the hospital’s failure to make a FAP determination. Should an appeals process be added to the rule?

Emergency and other medically necessary care. The FAP applies under the NPRM to all emergency and “medically necessary care.” How is the determination of what constitutes medically necessary care to be made? On what evidence will such a determination rest? Is this determination reviewable?

CHNA. The agencies are considering linking the FAP development phase to the CHNA process, thereby making FAP policy development effectively part of the CHNA process. Since FAPs effectively commit the hospital to use resources to underwrite the cost of care and have implications for other potential community health needs, should the development of the FAP be considered part of the CHNA process?



[1] 26 U.S.C. §501(r)(3), as added by PPACA §9007.
[2] 26 U.S.C. §501(r)(4), as added by PPACA §9007.
[3] 26 U.S.C. §501(r)(5)(A), as added by PPACA §9007.
[4] 26 U.S.C. §501(r)(6), as added by PPACA §9007.
[5] Preamble, Public View version, p. 17.
[6] Proposed 1.501(r)-4(b)(2).
[7] Proposed 1.501(r)-4(b)(3).
[8] Id.
[9] Proposed 1.501(r)-5.
[10] Proposed 1.501(r)-4(b)(2).
[11] Proposed 1.501(r)-4(b)(4).
[12] Proposed 1.501(r)-4(b)(5).
[13] Proposed 1.501(r)-1(18).
[14] Proposed 1.501(r)-6(c).
[15] Id.
[16] Proposed 1.501(r)-4(c).
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Proposed 1.501(4)-4(d).
[20] Proposed 1.501(r)-6.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
26 U.S.C. §501(r)(3), as added by PPACA §9007.
26 U.S.C. §501(r)(4), as added by PPACA §9007.
26 U.S.C. §501(r)(5)(A), as added by PPACA §9007.
26 U.S.C. §501(r)(6), as added by PPACA §9007.
Preamble, Public View version, p. 17.
Proposed 1.501(r)-4(b)(2).
Proposed 1.501(r)-4(b)(3).
Id.
Proposed 1.501(r)-5.
Proposed 1.501(r)-4(b)(2).
Proposed 1.501(r)-4(b)(4)
Proposed 1.501(r)-4(b)(5).
Proposed 1.501(r)-1(18).
Proposed 1.501(r)-6(c).
Id.
Proposed 1.501(r)-4(c).
Id.
Id.
Proposed 1.501(4)-4(d).
Proposed 1.501(r)-6.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.

No Comments

Public comments are closed.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) posted a set of draft instructions to accompany the employer mandate and exchange filing forms released last month. The instructions are directed at marketplaces that have to report enrollees in qualified health plans, as well as employers and others that provide minimum essential coverage or are subject to the employer mandate.
A new rule released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) states that nonprofit hospitals failing to satisfy many of the new standards under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will not lose their tax-exempt status, as long as the shortcomings were not "willful" or "egregious." Under the ACA, nonprofit hospitals are expected to perform Community Health Needs Assessments, and then work towards implementing these findings in their communities. This proposed rule permits a nonprofit hospital failing to meet these and other standards to discuss the situation with the IRS and therefore not immediately lose tax-exempt status.
In a rule released yesterday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) outlined the timeline expected for non-profit hospitals to complete their community health needs assessment (CHNA) requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). If a non-profit hospital fails to satisfy the CHNA, then the hospital will be responsible for completing a tax form 4270 and paying a fine of $50,000 by May 15th of the following year in which the tax occurred. As described in the ACA 501(3), non-profit hospitals are expected to complete a CHNA every three years, meaning that if a non-profit hospital did not complete a CHNA by December 2013, and did not perform one in 2011 or 2012, the hospital must pay the fee and fill out the form by May 15th, 2014.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposal to collect data on licenses and other information to register and monitor health insurance brokers and agents for the federal health insurance exchange. Health insurance brokers and agents would enter basic identifying information on the exchange portal during initial registration and when registration is complete, brokers and agents would be routed to CMS's Learning Management System to complete required training and exams. CMS would use broker and agent usernames and ZIP codes to record training history and to communicate the results with the federally facilitated exchange (FFE). Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), open enrollment in all exchanges begins Oct. 1 for plans that take effect in 2014. Comments on the proposal are due April 8.
In a recent Health Affairs blog, GWU Health Policy Researchers used studies commissioned by both the hospital and academic industries to assess community benefit spending by nonprofit hospitals. The blog discusses the pivotal role of Schedule H, a form required to be completed by all nonprofit hospitals, in standardizing what is considered a community benefit. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expands upon the requirements of Schedule H by mandating nonprofit hospitals to complete the Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA). The cumulative effect of Schedule H and CHNA provides a much needed insight into a hospital's decision on community benefit spending and the rationale used to make said decisions. After examining both studies, the GWU researchers concluded that nonprofit hospitals, especially those located in states that do not mandate community benefit expenditure reporting, spend very little on community benefit.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) revises the federal tax exemption standards for nonprofit hospitals by clarifying and augmenting their community benefit obligations. The ACA's amendments followed the 2009 launch of Schedule H (the form on which hospital community benefit, financial, and institutional activities are reported and which must be appended to each facility’s annual Form 990 nonprofit institution information return). Schedule H creates a reporting system covering the nation’s more than 2,900 nonprofit hospitals, delineates financial assistance and bad debt, and requires identification of community health improvement and community building. A report recently released by Sara Rosenbaum, et al., analyzes state statutes and reporting systems for a sample of 24 states. The report concludes that, in general, state laws lack the clarity of the IRS approach in terms of how community benefit is defined, categorized and reported. In contrast to Schedule H, state laws tend to be broadly drawn, with considerable variability in terms, less delineation among bad debt and financial assistance, and variability in treatment of community health improvement and community building.
Safety-net hospitals play a vital role in serving uninsured and low-income populations, especially in large urban communities, but little is known about the factors that influence their financial viability. To identify these factors, the authors of a new Commonwealth Fund–supported study compared the financial performance of 150 safety-net hospitals, examining governance type, financial performance, and market concentration, among other variables. To further clarify their findings, the authors conducted site visits at nine hospitals. The researchers segmented...
For thirty years, the Medicare and Medicaid programs have furnished additional payments to hospitals that furnish a disproportionate share of services to low income populations. Despite the fact that the two disproportionate share hospital (DSH) programs share a common mission, they function differently in terms of how the funds actually move to hospitals and in the formulas used to make DSH payments. The Affordable Care Act makes significant adjustments in both DSH programs beginning in 2014 in anticipation of a significant expansion in the proportion of people who have health insurance coverage. With the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 2012 in NFIB v Sebelius, which permits states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion without risking the loss of federal funding for their existing Medicaid programs, the downward DSH payment adjustments become an even more significant matter for hospitals that treat large volumes of low income patients...
Prior to 1969, nonprofit hospitals, as a condition of their tax-exempt status, were expected to furnish uncompensated care to persons unable to pay. In 1969, the Nixon Administration broadened this obligation to encompass “community benefits,” which could take the form of not only free or reduced-cost care, but also other activities that hospitals determined would benefit their communities, such as health promotion activities, research, and education and training. This more amorphous concept of community benefit went unenforced for decades. However, following years of government reports and news stories focusing on the limited level of uncompensated care furnished by many nonprofit hospitals, as well as the imposition of excessive charges and use of harsh billing practices on the uninsured, Congress moved to address the issue...
Beginning January 1, 2014, millions of previously uninsured individuals will gain access to health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). On November 20, 2012, the Obama Administration proposed a series of regulations that move the nation significantly toward full implementation. These proposed rules will be analyzed at greater length in coming GPS Implementation Brief updates. In the meantime, this overview summarizes the major federal implementation matters that the Administration has recently released or is expected to address in policy or program implementation in the coming weeks and months as the 2014 full implementation date approaches. Together, these matters address...