Three RI hospitals to reject funding for treating undocumented aliens
Compliance Monitor, September 29, 2004
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
In response to requests from its local American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), at least three Rhode Island hospitals have decided to reject federal funding available to all hospitals starting October 1 for services to undocumented aliens.
To qualify for the funding, hospitals must ask uninsured patients for their citizenship status, according to a CMS proposal. But groups like the Rhode Island ACLU fear that some immigrants might postpone or forgo services because they could be identified as being an illegal resident.
Congress appropriated $1 billion last year to help hospitals and others with the emergency services they provide to undocumented and certain other classifications of aliens, according to the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA).
Rhode Island, Miriam, and Newport hospitals won't accept the money, according to a September 26 story in the The Providence Sunday Journal.
"We don't gather that information now and we don't intend to gather it," said Nicole Gustin, spokeswoman for Lifespan, the hospitals' parent company. "We wouldn't want to discourage people from seeking health care because of their immigrant status."
Hospitals would be compensated only for care given to illegal residents.
The Rhode Island chapter of ACLU sent out a letter to area hospitals in early September, urging them to reject the funding.
Other hospitals in the state are still evaluating the federal program, Edward Quinlan, president of the Hospital Association of Rhode Island, told the Journal.
"You've got this delicate balance between hospitals wanting to provide care, with the belief there should be some expectation of support from the government," he said. "It's a very difficult public policy issue and hospitals don't want to be placed in the middle here ... I do not disagree with the concerns the ACLU has. We're sensitive to them."
Roseanne Pawelec, a CMS spokeswoman, told the Associated Press the agency was reviewing comments about the program. Pawelec said there will be changes. "We're sensitive to some of the concerns that have been expressed," she said.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- Cohesive History and Physical Requirements
- Searched
