Bartlett Regional Hospital’s Finance Committee has started looking into areas where it could use fiscal improvement, and also discussed admissions concerns.
The first thing interim Chief Financial Officer Dennis Stillman reviewed with the committee Tuesday evening was the hospital’s accounts receivable and its “aging.”
The hospital has $10 million in money owed to them from patients or other entities for patients discharged 151 days or more.
Of that owed revenue, $6.7 million is from patients who’s remaining balance is self-pay. Stillman said $2.5 million of that is tied up in a payment arrangement — typically $50 per month. Stillman said there is no policy that actually allows for that, more of a practice that has been going on for at least a few years.
“We have some accounts where patients came in under other payment arrangements and converted from an insurance plan,” he said. “Some of those we may not ever collect on. Some may qualify for charity care.”
The other “aging” accounts payable categories are from Medicaid ($425,000), Medicare ($962,000), SEARHC (SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium) ($1 million), the state of Alaska ($336,000) and commercial balances ($632,000).
Stillman said he will bring back any policy the hospital does have on record for payment arrangements, along with recommendations to get that $10 million lump down to a more reasonable proportion. He explained the other categories as having a reasonable expectation of getting paid, even if the others do pay late. The only other category that may be difficult to get payment from is commercial, where typically cruise ship employees and passengers (and their insurance companies) either don’t pay or are very slow to pay at this point in the billing cycle. Stillman is going to look into what kinds of treatment are being sought for these cases. He isn’t sure if they are mostly emergency cases, which the hospital treats regardless, or if there is situation where the hospital may have to ask people to pay first before receiving services.
Stillman said some of the balance designated as owed by SEARHC may also never come.
“When we have patients treated for alcohol, that is not a covered payment for SEARHC,” Stillman explained. “It should have dropped into self-pay. If they are chemically dependent and on SEARHC, the odds of us collecting money are not great. We should have known that early on because it’s not a covered service.”
Board member Linda Thomas said the information was helpful because it’s useful in understanding why the hospital has had to write off so much bad debt in the past two years.
Stillman said one part of that problem is the rotation of employees in those departments. He said there is a new accounts manager he believes is diligently working to help solve the issue.
Stillman also talked assumptions for the next year and preliminary budget outlooks. He is projecting flat admissions numbers for emergency room visits, surgeries and other services. Stillman said that ER visits and surgeries are the driving force behind activity at the hospital, because those lead to use of ancillary services.
He is projecting ER admissions of 1,350 — back down to the numbers the hospital saw in 2009-10. Stillman said last year there were 1,475 ER visits. This year the hospital had projected a high end of 1,500 range of visits, which have not come.
“ER visits have been very flat,” he said. “My guess is we’ll probably be higher than this.”
Both in-patient and out-patient surgeries have also dropped by several hundred since 2009-10.
Stillman said he has received preliminary budget proposals from all of the departments. He has yet to go through them and remove duplications, as well as add in things department leaders may have forgotten. Stillman said if everything were approved, they would be looking at a $3 million deficit, however he said that is not how it will end.
Stillman expects labor costs to be up 3-4 percent, an increase in benefit prices and a 5-6 percent increase in pharmaceutical costs. He anticipates an overall 4 percent increase in inflationary costs.
“What we’re doing now is going through the budgets with the managers,” he said. “There are going to be some mistakes in there. ... It’s not a surprise where we are. I would be surprised if we were at break even right now. I would assume we’re missing something. Working on this next month, say OK, what can we clean up in submittals.”
Thomas asked to look into the effect of rate increases, expanding revenue sources and also taking a closer look at philanthropy.
Thomas also asked for investigation into a rumor.
“It is my understanding is insurance companies are changing, they’re actually advising people to go to different locations potentially for service, which may be impacting the reason why our visits have dropped and (patients are) going Outside for assistance,” she said. “It’s less expensive, supposedly, in areas where there is more access and more competition and more availability for services.”
Dr. Alex Malter said there are people who are going “down south” for medical care, but he didn’t know what the margins were.
Thomas said that also is a concern, because that kind of behavior could put Bartlett at risk in the long run.
“You can’t have your cake and eat it too, if you want to have a hospital for us here in Juneau and for emergencies,” she said. “For us as a board we need to decide what services we need to provide here.”
Thomas also asked for the hospital administration to get information on what other hospitals in Alaska and Southeast are experiencing. Thomas said she believes Sitka is struggling, but would like more information.
The committee expects to delve deeper into the admissions decline in March.
• Contact reporter Sarah Day at 523-2279 or at sarah.day@juneauempire.com.





Comments (13)
Add commentInevitable
What the board needs to study is the typical pattern of financial malaise that occurs to small city hospitals shortly before they become privatized or shut-down.
The problem is right before their eyes and nobody want to address the real problem. Labor costs are out of control and unmanageable. Raising the hospital rates only affects the uninsured because the big insurance companies don't pay more each time Bartlett chooses to raise its rates.
So the problem is very simple. Cut costs or privatize.
.
what I read...
I now think that asprin at BMH is going up to $30 a pill... about the 5% that he stated, right?
That potential patients are
That potential patients are fleeing south to avoid Bartlett prices is the least of the rumors affecting the hospital's bottom line.
Build...
...a cancer treatment clinic, an organ transplant center, a burn treatment wing, etc., etc., etc.... Bartlett follows the same path as CBJ, JSD, P&R. Build, build, build. A new school. A new pool. A new chairlift. A new wing. A new whale. The list goes on and on and on... Never mind the need. Don't worry about the cost. Just gouge the little guy. He can't afford a medivac and there's no road to hitchhike out on. In arrears? Squeeze harder. Raise the rates. Cut services. And wonder why people take their insurance and co-pay dollars south.
agree with most of the comments presented thus far...
This is NOT a private hospital. This is a government subsidized hospital. I suggest the $50/month payment arrangements are fair; but it could be raised to $100 per month. It is a simple fix - create a policy. Not everyone wants to be on welfare (medicaid, etc). Let them keep their dignity.
Like most other government
Like most other government run facilities - financially unsustainable unless there are tax increases for the citizens or higher "fees" for service.
You ain't seen nothin' yet, if BOCare becomes a reality...
Yes, Calypso, because
Yes, Calypso, because facilities run by the private sector don't require ANY money at all to sustain.
@p, exactly why we need a
@p, exactly why we need a flat tax.
No, your previous thought is
No, your previous thought is completely unrelated to a flat tax. You must need to defrag your hard drive--it appears you have some bad blocks.
Now, p, quit playing with me!
Now, p, quit playing with me!
You were complaining that private sector endeavors can't get along without government subsidies or tax breaks. Right?
Well, that's why I said a flat tax would be a good idea. It would level the playing field since subsidies are the boogeymen of the left (that would be you). Then you could quit whining about the 'evil' oil companies, for example, and the supposed exclusive tax breaks they receive.
Get it?
Local Bartlett tax is coming
Be prepared for the coming requests from the Assembly for the "critically" needed Bartlett Hospital tax. They will request a temporary, forever non-temporary, property tax levy to support the uncontrolled spending at Bartlett.
Just remember, you heard it here first.
tax?
No, instead they will raise their rates so that those who have insurance will pay for those who dont have it and for those who choose not to pay their bills, in turn making it worse for everyone. Which is why, to me, a public option, where insurance companies compete, creating a lower premium that people can afford is needed. I would like to think the reason for the lower revenues at Bartlett is due to people being healthier but I suspect its due to the living costs here, gas prices at $4.15 per gallon, grocery prices going through the roof, and people putting off going in with they are sick. There are plenty of jobs locally that pay low wages, dont provide any sort of health insurance and I think our younger people are really struggling if they dont have anything past a high school diploma. I would like to see the list of projects that Bartlett has undertaken in the last year and wonder if perhaps those should have been put off and money put into a rainy day account for times of economic downturn. As usual, its the employee costs that get blamed, why should their wages be lowered because other people arent paying their bills or because Bartlett has some poor financial planning going on.
@Calypso: um, no. This may
@Calypso: um, no. This may come as a shock to you, but a private organization has what is called "revenue," which comes from the fees it charges for the goods and services it provides. Your complaint is that publicly funded hospitals cost money. This is a silly complaint, because a privately funded hospital also costs money. Private firms can increase their revenue in a couple ways: increasing the cost to the consumer or increasing the volume of goods/services sold. Healthcare isn't the kind of good you can increase demand for (legally), so the only option is to increase costs.
Your flat tax idea has no bearing on this very rudimentary economic fact, and I think you are very confused about the role of taxation in the economy.
If you're for excluding some people from the healthcare system and making it very expensive for others, just say so.