The following provides examples of current theories justifying tax exemption. As the wide variety of arguments demonstrates, this is an area of much debate. One justification of tax exemption is the quid pro quo theory that exemption is an exchange for a relief of a government burden. The Supreme Court embraced this theory in Bob Jones v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 591 (1983) (“Charitable exemptions are justified on the basis that the exempt entity confers a public benefit—a benefit that society or the community may not itself choose or be able to provide, or which supplements and advances the work of public institutions already supported by tax revenues.”). See also Utah County v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 709 P.2d 265, 267 (Utah 1985). The donative theory holds that tax exemption should be based on an institution's ability to attract voluntary private contributions. See Hall, M.A. Colombo, J.D., “The Charitable Status of Nonprofit Hospitals: Toward a Donative Theory of Tax-Exemption,” Washington Law Review, 66 (1991): At 390. The “virtues” nonprofits practice, such as diversity and pluralism, make nonprofits worth the price of their tax exemption. See Atkinson, R., “Altruism in Nonprofit Organizations,” Boston College Law Review, 31 (1990): At 605–06 n.266; and Falcone, D. Warren, D.G., “The Shadow Price of Pluralism: The Use of Tax Expenditures to Subsidize Hospital Care in the United States,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 13 (1988): At 735–36. Tax exemption exists to encourage the development of certain types of institutions. See, for example, Marmor, T.R., “A New Look at Nonprofits: Health Care Policy in a Competitive Age,” Yale Journal on Regulation, 3 (1986): At 323–24; Henry Hansmann's “capital subsidy” theory justifies tax exemption as a compensation for the nonprofit's inability to attract private investors due to their “non-distribution constraint.” See Hansmann, H., “The Rationale of Exempting Nonprofit Organizations from Corporate Income Tax,” Yale Law Journal, 91 (1981): at 59–61, 72–75; and Clark, R.C., “Does the Nonprofit Form Fit the Hospital Industry?,” Harvard Law Review, 93 (1980): at 1476 (suggesting repealing property tax exemption for hospitals).Google Scholar

See Kane, N.M. Wubbenhorst, W., “Alternative Funding Policies for the Uninsured: Exploring the Value of Hospital Tax Exemption” (forthcoming). Nancy Kane and William Wubbenhorst found that although hospitals in wealthier communities provide considerably less uncompensated care than the value of their tax exemption, hospitals in the poorest communities provide considerably more uncompensated care than the value of their tax exemption. However, even within this latter group, those hospitals with the greatest income-producing capabilities provide the least amount of uncompensated care relative to the value of their tax exemption.Google Scholar

See Starr, P., The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982): At 72; and Hall, Colombo, , supra note 1, at 318–19.Google Scholar

See Starr, , supra note 3, at 436–44; and Mancino, D.M., “Income Tax Exemption of the Contemporary Nonprofit Hospital,” St. Louis University Law Journal, 32 (1988): At 1027–28.Google Scholar

See generally, Mancino, , id. at 1028.Google Scholar

See Starr, , supra note 3, at 437.Google Scholar

See id.Google Scholar

See Potter, M.A. Longest, B.B., “The Divergence of Federal and State Policies on the Charitable Tax Exemption of Nonprofit Hospitals,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 19 (1994): At 408–09.Google Scholar

See id.Google Scholar

See Lewin, L.S. Lewin, M.E., “Financing Charity Care in an Era of Competition,” Health Affairs, 6, no. 1 (1987): At 48; Hall, Colombo, , supra note 1, at 408; and American Hospital Association, The State of the Nation's Access to Hospital Services (Chicago: American Hospital Association, 1988).Google Scholar

See Bloche, M.G., “Health Policy Below the Waterline: Medical Care and the Charitable Exemption,” Minnesota Law Review, 80 (1995): At 388–99. Gregg Bloche goes on to say that evidence indicates nonprofit hospital managers are more likely than their for-profit counterparts to use this residual discretion to offer outreach programs to low-income members of the community. According to a 1990 General Accounting Office report, 68 percent of nonprofit hospitals, as opposed to 39 percent of for-profits of similar size, targeted at least one outreach program to low-income people. See General Accounting Office, Nonprofit Hospitals: Better Standards Needed for Tax Exemption (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, GAO/HRD-90-84, 1990): At 40.Google Scholar

See Mann, J.M., Data Watch, “A Profile of Uncompensated Care 1985–1995,” Health Affairs, 16, no. 4 (1997): At 227.Google Scholar

See id. (citing the findings of an analysis of uncompensated care by Prospective Payment Assessment Commission (ProPAC). See Prospective Payment Assessment Commission, Medicare and the American Health Care System: Report to the Congress (Washington, D.C.: ProPAC, June 1996)).Google Scholar

See Lutz, S. Editorial, , “Pessimistic Execs Should Take a Closer Look at the Numbers,” Modern Healthcare, June 13, 1996, at 102.Google Scholar

See Potter, Longest, , supra note 8, at 409.Google Scholar

See Gaul, G.M. Borowski, N., Free Ride: The Tax-Exempt Economy (Kansas City: Andrews and McNeel, 1993). In 1993, Gilbert Gaul and Neill Borowski wrote, “At the local level, the exclusion of billions of dollars worth of property from the tax rolls of cash-starved school districts and municipalities is increasing budget woes and straining social services.” Id. at 3.Google Scholar

See id. at 2–3.Google Scholar

See Hall, Colombo, , supra note 1, at 312 n.9.Google Scholar

See Burda, D., “Hospital's Office Building Ignites Dispute,” Modern Healthcare, Oct. 24, 1994, at 22.Google Scholar

See GAO Report to the Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Private Insurance: Continued Erosion of Health Coverage Linked to Cost Pressures (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, GAO-HEHS-97-122, July 1997).Google Scholar

See Thorpe, K.E., “Incremental Strategies for Providing Health Insurance for the Uninsured: Projected Federal Costs and Number of Nearly Insured,” JAMA, 278 (1997): At 333. Ken Thorpe states, “This persistent increase in the number of uninsured is projected to occur even with continued robust growth in employment and continued expansions of Medicaid to all children younger than 19 years living in poverty by 2002.” Id. at 333. Recent Massachusetts statistics bear this out. Although tens of thousands of jobs were created in 1996, the number of Massachusetts residents without health insurance reached a ten-year high. According to U.S. Census data, one of eight people, or 766,000, in the state are uninsured. See “More in State Lack Health Insurance,” Boston Globe, Sept. 30, 1997, at A1.Google Scholar

See Thorpe, , id. at 333.Google Scholar

See Needleman, J., Data Watch, “Hospital Conversion Trends,” Health Affair, 16, no. 2 (1997): At 187–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See id. at 189.Google Scholar

See Hospital Charity Care and Tax Exempt Status, Restoring the Commitment and Fairness, Hearings Before the House of Representatives Select Comm. on Aging, 101st Cong. 84–86, 88–90 (1990) (statement of Boyle, Mary O., Commissioner, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, representing the National Association of Counties).Google Scholar

See id.Google Scholar

See Barnett, K., Community Benefit Law and California Hospitals: Opportunities and Challenges of SB 697 (Berkeley: Western Consortium for Public Health, 1995): At 16.Google Scholar

For example, consumer research performed by the American Hospital Association in 1997 revealed a public backlash against hospitals due to the perception that the health care industry is more concerned about making money than caring for patients. See Snow, C., “A Loss of Confidence: AHA Report: Public Believes Hospitals' Priorities Have Changed,” Modern Healthcare, Jan. 13, 1997, at 3. Similarly, the National Coalition on Health Care released a poll showing that 75 percent of those surveyed believed “hospitals have cut corners to save money.” See Snow, C., “Profits, PSOS, and Perceptions: PSOS Seen as Cure for Image Woes,” Modern Healthcare, Feb. 3, 1997, at 2.Google Scholar

See Potter, Longest, , supra note 8, at 394. Put into perspective, the early hospital generally operated in a deficit, thereby producing an insignificant loss of tax revenue. Today, the amount of tax revenue loss might have increased quite substantially, raising questions for taxpayers and governments alike as to the equity of the current situation. See Simpson, J.B. Strum, S.D., “How Good a Samaritan? Federal Income Tax Exemption for Charitable Hospitals Reconsidered,” University of Puget Sound Law Review, 14 (1991): At 656.Google Scholar

A nonprofit entity must meet both organizational and operational tests to satisfy the exclusivity requirement of section 501 (c)(3). The organizational test requires the charter to be limited to one or more exempt purposes and not to empower the organization to engage, other than as an insubstantial part of its activities, in activities not in furtherance of an exempt purpose, and requires the assets to be dedicated to exempt purposes. See Treas. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(b) (as amended in 1990). The operational test requires that the organization primarily engage in activities directed toward accomplishment of its exempt purpose. If more than an insubstantial part of its activities is not in furtherance of its exempt purpose or if the net earnings of the organization inure to private individuals, the organization will fail the operational test. See Treas. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(1) (as amended in 1990).Google Scholar

Rev. Rul. 56–185, 1956 C.B. 202.Google Scholar

See Bloche, , supra note 11, at 307; and Fox, D.M. Schaffer, D.C., “Tax Administration as Health Policy: Hospitals, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Courts,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 16 (1991): At 262.Google Scholar

See Rev. Rul. 69–545, 1969–2 C.B. 117.Google Scholar

The necessity of enacting the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (1998), in 1985 attests to the low level of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) enforcement of this requirement.Google Scholar

See Rev. Rul. 88–157, 1983–2 C.B. 94.Google Scholar

Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization v. Simon, 506 F.2d 1278, 1288–90 (D.C. Cir. 1974), vacated on other grounds, Simon v. Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26 (1976).Google Scholar

See id.Google Scholar

Interestingly, in support of its conclusion that the need for nonprofit hospitals to provide free care is decreasing, the court noted that “increasingly counties and other political subdivisions are providing nonemergency hospitalization and medical care for those unable to pay.” Id. at 1288.Google Scholar

Hall, Colombo, , supra note 1, at 323. Although this represents the federal approach, a number of state courts also adopt the “charity is what charity does” rationale. See, for example, Medical Center Hospital v. City of Burlington, 566 A.2d 1352, 1356 (Vt. 1989) (broadening the definition of charity to take into account the “immense sociological and economic changes that have taken place in the health care profession….”). Compare Intermountain, 709 P.2d 265 (noting that the very changes in health care delivery lead to disqualification of nonprofit hospitals as charities).Google Scholar

See H.R. 1374, 102d Cong. (1991).Google Scholar

See H.R. 790, 102d Cong. (1991) (originally introduced in 1990). For an in-depth discussion of the Brian Donnelly (D. Mass.) and Edward Roybal (D. Cal.) bills, see Colombo, J.D. Hall, M.A., “The Future of Tax-Exemption for Nonprofit Hospitals and Other Health Care Providers,” Health Matrix, 2 (1992): 1–34.Google Scholar

See H.R. 3600, 103d Cong. § 7601(a) (1993). A similar provision, which also required nonprofit hospitals to provide outreach services to address community needs, was included in the reform bills proposed by George Mitchell (D. Me.) and Richard Gephardt (D. Mo.) in 1994. See S. 2357, 103d Cong. § 7301(a)(n)(1)(b) (1994); and H.R. 3600, 103d Cong. § 3685(b)(4) (1994).Google Scholar

See Internal Revenue Service, “Audit Guidelines for Hospitals,” in Manual Transmittal 7(10) 60–38 for Exempt Organizations Examination Guidelines Handbook (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, Mar. 27, 1992).Google Scholar

See Gaul, Borowski, , supra note 16, at 47.Google Scholar

See id. at 98–99.Google Scholar

See id.; and Greene, J., “Tax Exempts Feeling the Heat,” Modern Healthcare, Nov. 20, 1995, at 47 (by 1995, forty audits had been completed).Google Scholar

Taxpayer Bill of Rights of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–168, 110 Stat. 1452 (1996) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C.).Google Scholar

See 26 U.S.C. § 4958 (1998).Google Scholar

See 26 U.S.C. § 6104 (1998).Google Scholar

See Burda, D., “New Tax Law Opens Books of Not-For-Profits,” Modern Healthcare, Aug. 5, 1996, at 3.Google Scholar

See Rev. Rul. 97–21, 1997–18 I.R.B. 8. See also Gold, L.J., “IRS Issues Final Revenue Ruling on Medical Staff Recruiting Incentives,” 6 Health Law Reporter (BNA), at 623 (Apr. 24, 1997) (citing text of Revenue Ruling 97–21, at 650).Google Scholar

See Burda, D., “IRS Finally Issues Loose Rules on Doc Recruitment,” Modern Healthcare, Apr. 28, 1997, at 2–3, 16.Google Scholar

Weissenstein, E., “For-Profit, Not-For-Profits in the Same Boat: Face Peril of Health Reform,” Modern Healthcare, Apr. 21, 1997, at 38–40.Google Scholar

See Weissenstein, E., “Not-For-Profits Victory: Plan to Raise For-Profits Medicare Payments Nixed,” Modern Healthcare, June 23, 1997, at 8.Google Scholar

Weissenstein, , supra note 53.Google Scholar

See id.Google Scholar

See id.Google Scholar

See Hall, Colombo, , supra note 1, at 324. Compare Simpson and Strum, supra note 29, at 647–49 (concluding that, for majority of state courts that have addressed the issue, charity care is an important, if not determinative, factor in entitlement to tax exemption).Google Scholar

An example of an area where federal and state/local interests diverge is hospital payrolls. As the various federal reimbursement programs work to trim hospital budgets, the number of employees needed decreases. Conversely, on a community level, hospitals are valued as a source of employment (even though local/state governments share a desire to cut costs). Hospitals that report community benefits often include wages paid as a community benefit. A 1996 California initiative, Proposition 216, called for a tax on nonprofit hospitals that reduced their workforce. The initiative did not pass. See “Election Preview '96: State Ballots Include Healthcare Issues,” Modern Healthcare, Oct. 28, 1996, at 32; and “Outliers,” Modern Healthcare, Nov. 11, 1996, at 100.Google Scholar

Falcone, Warren, , supra note 1, at 738–39.Google Scholar

See Hall, Colombo, , supra note 1, at 310–11. Mark Hall and John Colombo also note that, until relatively recently, the academic field of nonprofit enterprise has been neglected as a separate topic of serious inquiry.Google Scholar

See id. (citing Comment, “Judicial Restoration of the General Property Tax Base,” Yale Law Journal, 44 (1935): At 1087); and see Falcone, Warren, , supra note 1, at 738–39.Google Scholar

See Hall, Colombo, , supra note 1, at 311 (citing Hansmann, H., “The Two Independent Sectors,” Presented at the Independent Sector Spring Research Forum (May 17, 1988) (unpublished), at 5 (multiple citations omitted) (on file with Washington Law Review)). For an example of a circular definition, see Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 15, § 5 (Law Co-op. 1998) (exempting from taxation property of a “charitable organization,” defined as “a literary, benevolent, charitable or scientific institution … incorporated in the commonwealth” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

Scores of Pennsylvania hospitals, for example, have made such payments. See discussion infra note 82 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

Notable endeavors in this area include the Catholic Health Association Social Accountability Program, the Voluntary Hospitals of America Voluntary Standards Program, and the Hospital Community Benefits Standard Program (HCBSP). HCBSP was a demonstration project sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation and coordinated by the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University. For a description of each program, see Barnett, , supra note 27, at 14–22.Google Scholar

In a related matter, the American Association of Certified Public Accountants issued updated health care audit guidelines in 1990. These guidelines revise how hospitals report revenues and expenses, and are the first to be issued since the changes wrought by Medicare prospective payments and the rise in tax-exemption challenges of nonprofits. See Pallarito, K., “Hospitals Must Get Specific on Bad Debt, Charity Care,” Modern Healthcare, Feb. 10, 1992, at 70–71; and Pallarito, K., “New Auditing Rules to Better Document Charity-Care Costs,” Modern Healthcare, May 28, 1990, at 43. Among other things, hospitals must now segregate bad debt from charity care on their financial statements. Bad debt is now reported as an expense. Charity care, considered services provided without expectation of payment, is reported as a footnote on the financial statement. See Pallarito (1992), id. These auditing guidelines fit within the movement toward heightened scrutiny now afforded nonprofit hospital behavior.Google Scholar

Medical Center Hospital, 566 A.2d 1352.Google Scholar

Id. at 1356.Google Scholar

Although these activities were found to be directly and reasonably connected to the hospital's operation, in another Vermont case, a nursing home, although closely affiliated with a hospital, was held to be subject to taxation. The court found the relationship between the hospital and nursing home “cooperative” rather than “integral.” Central Vermont Hospital, Inc. v. Town of Berlin, 672 A.2d 474 (Vt. 1995).Google Scholar

Intermountain, 709 P.2d at 272.Google Scholar

See id. at 269–70.Google Scholar

Id. at 274.Google Scholar

Although the Vermont Tax Commission has authority to develop such standards, each county is responsible for awarding or denying tax exemption to hospitals within its jurisdiction. See Barnett, , supra note 27, at 27.Google Scholar

See Memorandum from Hendrickson, K.L., Deputy County Attorney, Salt Lake County Attorney's Office Health Care Industry Property Tax Exemption, at 10 (undated) (on file with authors).Google Scholar

709 P.2d at 269 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

See Barnett, , supra note 27, at 27.Google Scholar

See Memorandum from Hendrickson, , supra note 74, at 8.Google Scholar

H.B. 55, Pa. 181st Gen. Assembly (1997).Google Scholar

The Pennsylvania Constitution authorizes the legislature to exempt an “institution of purely public charity” from taxation. Pa. Const. art. VIII, § 2(a)(v). The General County Assessment Law exempts from “all county, city, … and school tax … hospitals … founded, endowed, and maintained by public or private charity.” 72 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 5020–204(a)(3) (West 1997).Google Scholar

Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, 487 A.2d 1306 (Pa. 1985).Google Scholar

See Forde, G.L. Jr. Cummings, C.E., “Payments in Lieu of Taxes: The Philadelphia Experience,” Catholic Lawyer, 37 (Spring 1997): At 139.Google Scholar

See “Pa. Hospital Tax-Exemption Lost over Doctor Practices,” Modern Healthcare, Nov. 11, 1996, at 42.Google Scholar

See H.B. 55, Pa. 181st Gen. Assembly, at § 2(B) (1997).Google Scholar

Id. § 5(B)(4).Google Scholar

See id. § 5(C).Google Scholar

Id. § 5(C)(3).Google Scholar

See id. § 5(C)(4).Google Scholar

See id. § 5(D).Google Scholar

Id. § 5(D)(1).Google Scholar

See infra notes 111, 163–73 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

See H.B. 55, at § 5(D).Google Scholar

Id. § 5(D)(I)(A)–(C).Google Scholar

See id. § 5(D)(II)–(V).Google Scholar

See id. § 7. Agreements entered into prior to or after the statute's passage are treated similarly.Google Scholar

See id. § 7(C)(1)–(3). The amount multiplied depends on the size of the payment relative to overall revenues.Google Scholar

See id. § 5(E).Google Scholar

See id. § 5(F).Google Scholar

According to a recent public opinion poll of 718 Pennsylvania residents, two-thirds believed that Pennsylvania hospitals were run as for-profit businesses. See Bellandi, D., “AHA 100th Anniversary: Good Samaritan Business,” Modern Healthcare, Jan. 26, 1998, at 44.Google Scholar

See Mingledorff v. Vaughan Regional Medical Center, 682 So. 2d 415 (Ala. 1996); Medical Center Hospital, 566 A.2d 1352; Callaway Community Hospital Association v. Craighead, 759 S.W.2d 253 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988); Downtown Hospital Association v. Tennessee State Board of Equalization, 760 S.W.2d 954 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (specifically rejecting the Intermountain holding); Sebastian County Equity Board v. West Arkansas Counseling and Guidance Center, Inc., 752 S.W.2d 755 (Ark. 1988); Douglas County v. Anneewakee, Inc., 346 S.E.2d 368, 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986); Weslin Properties, Inc. v. Illinois Dep't of Revenue, 510 N.E.2d 564 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (“urgent care center” owned by exempt hospital where admission and collection policies make clear that free or reduced care cost is available to those patients who are financially unable to pay); compare Highland Park Hospital v. Dep't of Revenue, 507 N.E.2d 1331 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (“immediate care” center owned by nonexempt hospital where all patients are billed; no notice of the availability of free care is given in advertisement; and no evidence that general public knew of the availability of free care.)Google Scholar

Rideout Hospital Foundation v. Los Angeles County, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 141, 8 Cal. App. 4th 214 (1992).Google Scholar

Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code, § 214(a)(1) (Deering 1997).Google Scholar

St. Elizabeth Hospital v. City of Appleton, 416 N.W.2d 620 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).Google Scholar

Id. at 622. See also Weslin, 510 N.E.2d 564. In Weslin, the court considered the availability of tax exemption during construction of an urgent care facility. The facility was built as part of a hospital expansion and was not located near the hospital. On appeal, no challenge was made to the urgent care center's being “reasonably necessary” to the fulfillment of the exempt purpose.Google Scholar

St. Clare Hospital of Monroe v. City of Monroe, 563 N.W.2d 170 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).Google Scholar

Wisconsin specifically disallows tax exemption for doctors offices. See Wis. Stat. § 70.11(4m)(a) (1995–1996).Google Scholar

563 N.W.2d at 174–75.Google Scholar

Chisago Health Services v. Commissioner of Revenue, 462 N.W.2d 386, 391 (Minn. 1990).Google Scholar

See also St. Mary's Medical Center of Evansville, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 571 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. 1991) (medical office building owned by nearby nonprofit hospital and occupied and used by staff doctors and dentists for their private practices in order to “cluster” and concentrate these providers who admit their patients into their hospital not “reasonably necessary.”). As of 1995, Indiana statutory law requires that nonprofit health facilities owned by nonprofit hospitals must meet one part of a two-part test to qualify for a tax exemption. The acquisition must either support the provision of charity care or support the provision of community benefits. See Ind. Code § 6–1.1-10-18.5 (Michie 1998). Also, in North Shore Medical Center v. Bystrom, 461 So. 2d 167 (Fl. Dist. Ct. App. 1984), the court held that a medical arts building built by an adjacent hospital was not tax exempt because less than 50 percent of it was used for an exempt purpose. The court emphasized that it is the actual use of the medical arts building seeking an exemption, not that of the adjacent hospital, that determines its exempt status. Id. at 168. See also Highland Park, 507 N.E.2d 1331; In Re Tax Appeal of the Queen's Medical Center, 715 P.2d 349 (Haw. Ct. App. 1985) (even if physician offices and parking lot were reasonably necessary for the hospital's exempt purpose, they were not eligible for exemption because they were not used exclusively for exempt purposes).Google Scholar

See “Texas to Appeal Dismissal of Methodist Suit,” Modern Healthcare, Mar. 1, 1993, at 2.Google Scholar

The attorney general initially appealed the dismissal. The lawsuit was settled as moot with the passage of the subsequent legislation.Google Scholar

See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 311.031 et seq. (West 1997).Google Scholar

See Burda, D., “Are Hospitals Giving Their Fair Share?,” Modern Healthcare, June 15, 1992, at 28.Google Scholar

See Morrissey, J., “A Nudge, Not (Yet) an Order in Mass.,” Modern Healthcare, Mar. 28, 1997, at 22.Google Scholar

See Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 127340–127365 (Deering 1997).Google Scholar

See Ind. Code Ann. § 16-21-6-6 et seq. (Michie 1997).Google Scholar

See N.Y. Public Health Law § 2803–1 (Consol. 1998).Google Scholar

See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 311.031 et seq. (West 1997).Google Scholar

See “Benefits with Tax Exemptions,” Modern Healthcare, Nov. 20, 1995, at 22 (noting reporting law proposals in Florida, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania). See supra notes 78–97 and accompanying text for discussion of recent developments in Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

See Mont. Code Ann. § 50-4-601 et seq. (1997).Google Scholar

See Physician Cooperation Act of 1995, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 900–21.24 to −21.36 (1997).Google Scholar

See Health Care Cooperation Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 44-7-500 to −7–590 (Law Co-op. 1997).Google Scholar

See Snow, C., “S.C. Hospitals Latest to Win State Antitrust OK,” Modern Healthcare, May 12, 1997, at 4.Google Scholar

See Greene, J., “Miss. Links CON, Community Benefit,” Modern Healthcare, Mar. 28, 1994, at 22.Google Scholar

See id.Google Scholar

See Burda, D., “Charity Care: Are Hospitals Giving their Fair Share?,” Modern Healthcare, June 6, 1992, at 25 (noting District of Columbia regulation adopted as a means of requiring charity care as Hill-Burton commitments expire).Google Scholar

See Ind. Code § 6–1.1-10-18.5 (1997).Google Scholar

See “Florida Bill Sets Charity Care Minimum,” Modern Healthcare, Feb. 28, 1994, at 18.Google Scholar

See “Benefits with Tax Exemptions,” supra note 118.Google Scholar

See Regional News, “This Week in Healthcare,” Modern Healthcare, Jan. 3, 1994, at 22–23.Google Scholar

See “Kansas, Colorado Scale Back Efforts,” Modern Healthcare, Jan. 31, 1994, at 16. Interestingly, a voter referendum in Colorado in November, 1996 calling for the end of tax exemption for all nonprofits, was voted down by a large margin. See “Voters Overwhelmingly Defeat Measure to End Non-Profit Property Tax,” 6 Health Law Reporter (BNA), at D36 (Nov. 14, 1996).Google Scholar

See House Enrolled Act 1023, Ind. Code § 16-18-2-342.4 (1994).Google Scholar

See id. § 16-21-9.Google Scholar

See Japsen, B., “Ind. to Solicit Charity-Care Reports,” Modern Healthcare, Mar. 21, 1994, at 28.Google Scholar

Prior to passage, the legislature had debated tougher measures, such as mandating levels of charity care or even revoking hospitals' tax-exempt status. Hospitals must report:.Google Scholar

A statement includingGoogle Scholar

Medicare gross revenue;.Google Scholar

Medicaid gross revenue;.Google Scholar

other revenue from state programs;.Google Scholar

revenue from local government programs;.Google Scholar

local tax support;.Google Scholar

charitable contributions;.Google Scholar

other third party payments;.Google Scholar

gross inpatient revenue;.Google Scholar

gross outpatient revenue;.Google Scholar

contractual allowances;.Google Scholar

any other deductions from revenue;.Google Scholar

charity care provided;.Google Scholar

itemization of bad debt expense; and.Google Scholar

an estimation of the unreimbursed cost of subsidized health services.Google Scholar

A statement itemizing donations.Google Scholar

A statement describing the total cost of reimbursed and unreimbursed research.Google Scholar

A statement describing the total cost of reimbursed and unreimbursed education separated into the following categories:Google Scholar

Education of physicians, nurses, technicians, and other medical professionals and health care providers.Google Scholar

Scholarships and funding to medical schools, colleges, and universities for health professions education.Google Scholar

Education of patients concerning diseases and home care in response to community needs.Google Scholar

Community health education through informational programs, publications, and outreach activities in response to community needs.Google Scholar

Other educational services resulting in education and related costs.Google Scholar

The number of inpatient and outpatient admissions categorized by:Google Scholar

Medicare admissions;.Google Scholar

Medicaid admissions;.Google Scholar

Admissions under a local government program;.Google Scholar

Charity care admissions; and.Google Scholar

Any other type of admission.Google Scholar

Ind. Code §§ 16-21-6-3, −6 (1998).Google Scholar

Ind. Code § 16-21-9.Google Scholar

Telephone conversation with Molly Flooder, Vice President, Ball Memorial Hospital, Muncie, Indiana (Feb. 14, 1997).Google Scholar

See N.Y. Public Health Law § 2803–1 (Consol. 1998).Google Scholar

To protect this official, we withhold his/her identity.Google Scholar

See Memorandum from New York Department of Health 93–2, at 3 (Jan. 20, 1993) (on file with authors).Google Scholar

See Community Benefits Guidelines for Nonprofit Acute Care Hospitals (Boston: Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts, June 1994): § 1.Google Scholar

See id. at 18.Google Scholar

Id. at 18–19.Google Scholar

See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 66, § 10 (1998); and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4 § 7(26) (1998).Google Scholar

Interviews with Staff Personnel of the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, in Boston, Mass. (Feb. 28, 1997).Google Scholar

The Attorney General's 1997 Report on Hospital Community Benefits (Boston: Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Sept. 1997): At 7–8 (citing reports for fiscal year 1996).Google Scholar

Id. at 10.Google Scholar

See Burda, D., “Calif. Gets Tough on Charity Care,” Modern Healthcare, Oct. 10, 1994, at 22.Google Scholar

See Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 127340–127365 (Deering 1997).Google Scholar

Id. § 127355.Google Scholar

See id. § 127345. This section also defines “community” as “the service areas or patient populations for which the hospital provides health care services.”Google Scholar

Those examples are community-oriented wellness and health promotion; prevention services; adult day care; child care; medical research; medical education; nursing and other professional training; meals to the housebound; food, clothing, and shelter for the homeless; and clinics in socioeconomically depressed areas.Google Scholar

See California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Report to the Legislature, Not-for-Profit Hospital Community Benefit Legislation (Senate Bill 697) (Jan. 1998).Google Scholar

See id.Google Scholar

See id.Google Scholar

ACCESS is an acronym that stands for the various categories for reporting community benefits:Google Scholar

Access to financial assistance.Google Scholar

Community health status assessment.Google Scholar

Community health status improvement.Google Scholar

Educational support and quality improvement.Google Scholar

State and local economic benefits.Google Scholar

Social accountability and uncompensated care.Google Scholar

See Burda, , supra note 150.Google Scholar

Memorandum from Missouri Hospital Association to Members, The ACCESS Community Benefits Recognition Program: Background Information (undated) (on file with authors) (program description sent to Missouri Hospital Association members with ACCESS survey form).Google Scholar

See supra notes 109–11 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 311.403(b) (West 1997).Google Scholar

See id. § 311.044(a), (b).Google Scholar

Id. § 310.044(c).Google Scholar

See id. § 311.046, as amended by Tex. S. 788, 75th Leg. (1997).Google Scholar

Id. § 311.045(b)(1), as amended by Tex. S. 788. This amendment subsumes a former standard, requiring that 4 percent of net patient revenues be spent on charity care and government-sponsored indigent health care, into the 5 percent requirement, permitting 1 percent to be expended on other community benefits.Google Scholar

Id. § 311.042(9)(B)(12)(B).Google Scholar

See id. § 311.045(b)(1), as amended by Tex. S. 788.Google Scholar

See id. § 311.031(16).Google Scholar

Id. § 311.031(14) (unamended 1994).Google Scholar

A comparison may be difficult because the Medicare Cost Report worksheet has a separate due date from the April 30 filing date for community benefit reports.Google Scholar

See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 311.0455(D), as amended by Tex. S. 788.Google Scholar

Note that the income standards for eligibility for charity care vary from hospital to hospital and state to state. A nationally recommended standard would be helpful here.Google Scholar

In Community Benefit Inventory for Social Accountability, the Catholic Healthcare Association makes a distinction between what is expected of all health care organizations, regardless of ownership, and what is expected of voluntary, nonprofit health care organizations: “Voluntary, not-for-profit, tax-exempt health care organizations are held to a higher standard of community accountability.” Catholic Healthcare Association, “What Counts: Identifying True Community Benefits,” in Community Benefit Inventory for Social Accountability: A Comprehensive Guide to Reporting Community (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Healthcare Association, rev. 1985): At 3. The document goes on to define a “true” community benefit as one that meets at least one of the following:Google Scholar

financed through philanthropic contributions, volunteer efforts, or endowment.Google Scholar

respond[s] to a unique or particular health problem in the community.Google Scholar

generate[s] low or negative margin.Google Scholar

respond[s] to needs of special populations, such a minorities, frail elderly, poor persons with disabilities, the chronically mentally ill and persons with AIDS.Google Scholar

the service or program would likely be discontinued if the decision were made on a purely financial basis.Google Scholar

Id. at 4.Google Scholar

It further modifies what services should be quantified as those that “result in a financial loss to the organization, requiring subsidization of some sort”; are “best quantified in terms of dollars spent rather than hours spent or numbers of participants”; and “are not of a questionable nature that jeopardizes the credibility of the (benefit) inventory, [and] survives the laugh test.” Id. at 4. Another distinction they encourage is between services to the poor and services to the broader community, and it offers useful suggestions on how to determine which services are delivered to poor populations.Google Scholar

For instance, if the hospital subsidizes a rural physician's primary care practice, the “loss” should be offset by any gains the hospital realizes from patients referred by the practice to the hospital.Google Scholar

See Kane, Wubbenhorst, , supra note 2.Google Scholar

Individual states would have to decide whether to assign the unreimbursed cost of teaching and/or research under a priority status as a community benefit, based on health care manpower needs deemed important to the state, juxtaposed against the competitive value of being a teaching and referral hospital. It may also be worthwhile to examine the unreimbursed costs of research and to exclude, for instance, the unreimbursed costs associated with commercial efforts such a clinical trials of drugs.Google Scholar

Deposition of Larry Mathis, Chief Executive Officer of Methodist Hospital, Houston, Tex. (Nov. 23, 1992) (on file with authors). This hospital's admission policy denied services to uninsured Houstonians who could not afford to make large cash deposits to the hospital prior to receiving their care.Google Scholar