New IRS rules crack down on nonprofit hospitals
By Sarah Ferris – 12/29/14 05:01 PM EST
The federal government is cracking down on nonprofit hospitals under ObamaCare in an attempt to prevent harsh collection practices and steep charges for the uninsured.
Newly finalized regulations from the Internal Revenue Service, announced Monday, will require nonprofit hospitals to “take an active role in improving the health of the communities” by making payment methods more fair and making costs more transparent.
For example, nonprofit hospitals are banned from asking for money in patients’ rooms or selling debt to third-party companies unless they make a “reasonable effort” to offer financial assistance. Each hospital must also take steps to improve the health of its community, including a semi-annual evaluation of the area’s “health needs.”
“For hospitals to be tax-exempt, they should be held to a higher standard,” Emily McMahon, a deputy assistant secretary for tax policy at the Department of the Treasury, wrote in a blog post Monday announcing the rules.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/228211-new-irs-rules-crack-down-on-nonprofit-hospitals
This is long overdue, Hospitals should also pay local property taxes the hospitals service people from all over so it shouldn’t be incumbent on the local taxpayer to foot the bill for services rendered to the hospitals.
“take an active role in improving the health of the communities”
WOW What are they going to do give free proctology exams.
#2 it has been a multi-year exam
Yea and not even a reach around.
Valley needs to pay a PILOT to the Village of Ridgewood instead of paying Audrey $2mn a year to sue us. 10% of their “non-profits” would help. Otherwise, it won’t be a happy year in 2015 for Audrey and her board.
What would be their motivation for paying a voluntary “tax”?
Yes #6 people keep posts about PIOLT Program. Valley can not be forced into this program so you are spot on. They have had plenty of opportunities to do the right thing. just not giving to groups who they foresee as comrads for the expasion.
why not just use City of Boston PILOT guidelines here https://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/PILOTProgram.asp ?
In January 2011, the City adopted new guidelines for the PILOT program as recommended by the PILOT Task Force. The new guidelines call for voluntary payments based on an institution’s tax-exempt property value. Participants in the program include institutions from the educational, medical, and cultural sectors that own property valued in excess of $15 million. Each institution is eligible for a community benefits deduction generally limited to 50% of the PILOT contribution. The new guidelines also allow a deduction for any real estate taxes paid on property owned by the institution that is used for a tax-exempt purpose.
You actually have to go and ask nonprofits for a PILOT contribution, something that our Council and Village Manager so far haven’t done publicly. Valley should be ASKED to contribute BOTH cash as well as ongoing community benefits that uniquely benefit Village residents every year. If they can pay Audrey $2.18mn in 2012, they can pay the Village a cash payment in lieu of taxes. Not sure why Ms. Hauck can’t be the liaison to ask for this given her past involvement with Valley? Just tell them there is no quid pro quo for cash they give the Village to cover for Police & Fire services, snow plowing, sanitation & sewerage.
#9 – If I understand you
(a) they are financially able to make payments
(b) no one has yet asked
(c) there would be no quid pro
So what is their motivation?
As per the Boston example, their motivation should be to help offset their consumption of essential Village services (i.e. police & fire protection, snow removal, public works & sanitation) based on a public disclosure of what Village Hall estimates those services cost. Village Hall needs to set a standard level of contributions – in programs and payments – to be met by all major tax-exempt land owners in Ridgewood, not just Valley, as well as develop a methodology for valuing community partnerships made by tax-exempt institutions and a structure longer term, sustainable partnerships focused on improving services for Ridgewood’s residents. and lastly clarify the costs associated with providing Village services to tax- exempt institutions. Yes, its voluntary, but if it is transparent and consistent, and based on the value of their tax exempt real estate, then they should at least see what the Village views as the cost of public safety and public road/works assistance provided by the Village to nonprofits. Maybe the community benefits are large enough to avoid a cash payment, but until we define the value of services provided in a transparent and consistent way, we don’t know. The VM should be able to do this easily, and the results should be published for all to see.
Well presented, #11.
#11, how likely is it that the process you’ve described will be undertaken in Ridgewood in the near future?
The “do the right thing” dynamic in Ridgewood government, an outgrowth of the power of conscience, can be likened to a rarely-used but well-maintained municipal vehicle, the keys for which someone (conveniently?) lost years ago. Only after an anonymous resident has mischievously managed to hotwire the car and is currently taking it for a spin does the “right thing” actually happen. Not wanting to be singled out for (perverse) punishment for causing (or forcing) the “right thing” to happen, the joyriding resident tops off the tank and quietly and unobtrusively returns the (still keyless) vehicle, fully intact. The authorities, relieved that the spotlight on their actions, behaviors, and intentions is once again beginning to fade, take the welcome opportunity to fall back to sleep, ethically speaking, at least until the next collective crisis of conscience rears its (ugly or beautiful, depending on one’s perspective) head.
So the question could be phrased as follows: Who’s itching for this particular joyride?
#13, why not have the volunteer FAC prepare a framework which clarifies the costs associated with providing Village services to tax- exempt institutions? As per post #11, if it is transparent and consistent, and based on the value of their tax exempt real estate, then such institutions could at least see what the Village views as the cost of public safety and public road/works assistance provided by the Village to nonprofits. Until we define the value of services provided in a transparent and consistent way, we don’t know what their consumption of essential Village services (i.e. police & fire protection, snow removal, public works & sanitation) actually costs. Again, the results should be published for all to see.