Avocado_Amnesia t1_je0f550 wrote
Reply to comment by ahhhhhhhhyeah in Gainey is set to unveil plans to challenge the tax-exempt status of more than a dozen properties in the city, including UPMC and a Propel School on the North Side by sugarandspice85
That's based on the assumption that the money saved on taxes is going to reducing treatment cost, rather than paying out bonuses to executives and building fancy new facilities that don't meet the needs of the people working in them.
I've seen a couple studies over the years that suggest NFP hospitals have costs mostly in-line with those of for profits, but they are losses of absolutely massive tax sources for their cities, leaving local services devoid of huge opportunities they could have otherwise.
And that's not even regarding hospitals that are also the biggest name in insurance in their local areas as well.
ahhhhhhhhyeah t1_je0h0x4 wrote
This won’t stop the building of new facilities that don’t fit what people need, it won’t make a more equitable health care environment at all. It will just make the expense of running hospitals more stringent. What people also miss here is that UPMC operates hospitals that take people without insurance, which operate on huge losses. Tightening their bottom line is going to mean these are some of the first hospitals to close, and others are likely to follow for a system that was not setup for this kind of tax burden.
Having more hospitals isn’t the best thing but for some rural areas it is absolutely necessary.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments