Connect with us

North Carolina

How looming NC health policy decisions could change what you pay for care

Published

on

How looming NC health policy decisions could change what you pay for care


Language in the state budget that lawmakers are hammering out now would help some of the state’s largest hospital systems grow, fueling concerns of monopoly.

One would grant UNC Health, as well as ECU Health in eastern North Carolina, antitrust exemptions that some lawmakers say the systems need to partner with struggling rural medical facilities.

But long-simmering suspicions Down East have some worried the language is a precursor to a UNC takeover at ECU Health. Top lawmakers say takeover concerns are unfounded, and the state Senate voted unanimously earlier this year on antitrust language.

One expert on the industry calls the proposal “idiotic.”

The Federal Trade Commission, which reviews hospital mergers to preserve competition in the sector, has weighed in against the change, saying it would likely increase health care costs and lower the quality of care as competition is reduced.

Advertisement

Another proposal — essentially one sentence in nearly 400 pages of budget text — would end a long-standing rule that limits in-state expansion for Charlotte-based Atrium Health, a 40-hospital system that’s part of one of the biggest hospital companies in the country.

Atrium is forbidden most expansion in North Carolina outside its home in Mecklenburg County because it’s organized as a local hospital authority, a throwback to its earlier days that comes with limitations but also with quasi-government powers, including eminent domain and its own antitrust protections.

The hospital’s competitors have opposed the changes, fearing a massive expansion. They say these changes would give UNC Health and Atrium unfair advantages in the marketplace and a legal edge that would make it extremely difficult for other hospital groups to compete.

Spokespeople for Atrium didn’t respond to multiple interview requests about the proposal. UNC Health officials say they need the antitrust change to thrive in an industry marked by hospital systems gobbling up private physician practices and growing ever larger, including through out-of-state partnerships that are unavailable to a university hospital.

They also promised an ongoing commitment to healthcare in rural North Carolina.

Advertisement

“We’ve run to the rural parts of the state when no one else has,” UNC Health spokesman Alan Wolf said. “Name one other health care system outside of ECU that is serving rural North Carolina. There are none.”

Lawmakers who are supporting the effort say the changes will strengthen the systems’ role as a provider of last resort, particularly in rural areas. In addition to the antitrust language and other regulatory shifts, the state Senate’s budget proposal includes hundreds of millions of dollars for new facilities where UNC Health and ECU Health would partner.

“I’m trying to create more options out there across the state for individuals to receive their healthcare,” said Sen. Ralph Hise, R-Mitchell, who is a Senate budget-writer.

ECU Health leaders declined an interview request and didn’t respond to specific questions about the legislation.

“In general, ECU Health is grateful for legislators’ commitment to exploring ways to strengthen rural health care,” spokeswoman Ashlin Elliott said in an email.

Advertisement

FTC criticism

After the UNC antitrust language emerged at the statehouse, Federal Trade Commission officials sent Hise and other key health care leaders a letter blasting the proposal.

The regulator said UNC Health doesn’t need an antitrust carve out to collaborate with other entities and that the measure’s main effect “would be to shield mergers and conduct that would violate the antitrust laws by depriving patients and workers of the benefits of competition.”

The change would likely increase healthcare costs and could reduce wages and benefits for healthcare workers as UNC colludes with one-time competitors, the letter states.

“Experience has taught us that antitrust exemptions threaten broad harm to many while benefiting only a select few,” it states.

Advertisement

UNC Health said it has never had an expansion blocked by FTC review. But every major transaction goes through that review, they said, and in some cases the system has made decisions meant to avoid federal roadblocks. In some cases, they said, the system might want to own a location, but it ends up simply managing it to avoid antitrust concerns, which limits its ability to make capital investments.

UNC Health officials also noted that the antitrust language is but one change is a much broader rewrite of the system’s bylaws contained in Senate Bill 743, as well as tucked into the Senate budget. UNC Health worked for nearly two years on the full package, which represents a restructuring of an entity created in 1998 that has since grown to a multibillion-dollar healthcare company operating statewide.

The changes would make UNC Health a more unified system, as opposed to a federation, system executives said. It also changes the way UNC Health and entities that it owns, including UNC Rex, a separate private nonprofit hospital owned by UNC Health, issue debt, saving the system money, they said.

Outside experts say antitrust exemptions are dangerous. Barak Richman, a Duke Law professor who researches healthcare policy and antitrust issues, said it would be “idiotic” to give a large system antitrust immunity.

“The whole health policy world is demanding more antitrust enforcement against hospitals,” Richman said in an email. “Hospital consolidation is the primary cause of price inflation, and it’s one of the biggest problems with the current U.S. healthcare system. It’s just an incredibly foolish policy.”

As for the Atrium language, Richman said the company is “all about expansion.”

Advertisement

“And expansion isn’t a bad thing, per se,” he said. “It’s just a problem when it creates market concentration, which is exactly what they want to do.”

Eastern merger concerns

Before the Senate budget emerged with antitrust exemptions for UNC Health and ECU Health, a standalone bill just dealing with UNC Health passed the state Senate.

Some of that support has faded since the vote, and long-standing worries in eastern North Carolina that UNC Health might one day absorb ECU Health fuel some of the opposition.

The Senate budget also includes hundreds of millions of dollars for new facilities that UNC Health and ECU Health would operate together, as well as an edict that they collaborate in rural North Carolina in a project called “NC Care.”

Advertisement

The money, combined with the antitrust language and some of ECU Health’s recent financial struggles, have some thinking a forced merger would be next. The hospital in January announced the closure of several ambulatory clinics following a $46 million loss in the 2022 fiscal year.

“In my humblest opinion, it’s a set up,” Sen. Kandie Smith, D-Pitt, said.

“It looks like it’s almost preparing for a larger takeover,” Smith said. “Wouldn’t you want to get things right before you take over?”

UNC Health officials say that’s not their plan at all, and top lawmakers say nothing like it would be forced.

“Anything that happens between UNC and ECU will be as a result of collaboration, of partnership, of those entities,” Speaker of the House Tim Moore said. “Nothing that is forced from this General Assembly.”

Advertisement

Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger said he doesn’t see a merger in the offing, just “more cooperation, working together, maybe some combination of some back office stuff.”

Berger, and other Senate Republicans, have repeatedly said they want the two hospital systems to have the tools they need to be the state’s provider of last resort, and to step in in rural areas when community hospitals have financial trouble.

Richman, the Duke University professor, said the issue isn’t whether the two merge, it’s that the antitrust language is bad policy, period.

“A monopolist with a light blue color on its front will not be much different from a monopolist with a purple color on its front,” he said, referring to the UNC and ECU hospital groups’ logos.

Advertisement

High level talks

Key health policy and budget writers in the House said in recent weeks that they didn’t know much about the UNC antitrust provision or the Atrium expansion language, and that these issues would likely be decided by the legislature’s “corner offices.”

That means Moore and Berger, the General Assembly’s top leaders who handle the final big-picture budget negotiations each year. That process is ongoing now, and both men have indicated the UNC and Atrium language will likely be among the last issues decided in a budget process that also includes fights over tax rates, teacher salaries and a wealth of other issues.

Berger said last week that he and Moore hadn’t even discussed these issues yet.

Both changes are Senate priorities, embedded in the Senate budget proposal and not the House’s. Moore was non-committal when asked about them recently.

Those talks, which lawmakers once hoped to conclude in June, have extended into July.

Advertisement

Moore also noted the FTC letter as a strike against UNC’s antitrust exemption.

“I have, certainly, concerns with it,” he said. “I think if there’s a way to allow a greater partnership between ECU and UNC on the hospital side, that’s something certainly to look at, but there’s a lot of discussion to look at.”

Healthcare session

The cumulative impact of these proposed changes and others working their way through the North Carolina General Assembly is wide-ranging. Even lawmakers typically involved in health policy, and hospital executives themselves, struggle to describe the overall vision of a legislative session unusually focused on foundational health care policy.

Last month lawmakers finalized changes — with broad bipartisan support despite vigorous criticism from the company’s chief state regulator, Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey — that will let Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina reorganize, giving the state’s largest health insurer more freedom to expand by purchasing other companies.
The legislature also agreed this session to expand Medicaid, though that’s contingent on the state budget passing. Once it does, expansion will pour billions of dollars from the federal government into the state’s hospitals and doctor’s office as hundreds of thousands of people become newly eligible for government health insurance.
There’s also an ongoing fight over hospital regulations that limit competition — so-called certificate-of-need laws that Senate Republicans successfully rolled back as part of the Medicaid expansion deal. Senate leaders hope to rein those in further during ongoing budget talks with Republican leaders in the House, though it may prove a difficult lift.

Medicaid expansion could bring the biggest immediate impact, but with the Atrium language, the antitrust language and a potential second rollback on certificate-of-need competition limits, lawmakers are mulling changes that would shift the playing field for hospital mergers and operations for decades to come.

Advertisement

“I think this session will have dealt with health policy in a substantive way that we’ve not seen for a very long time,” Berger said.



Source link

North Carolina

Former North Carolina, Arkansas QB Jacolby Criswell signs with surprising school

Published

on

Former North Carolina, Arkansas QB Jacolby Criswell signs with surprising school


North Carolina transfer quarterback Jacolby Criswell has signed to play for East Tennessee State in 2025, On3’s Pete Nakos confirmed. He spent four total seasons in Chapel Hill and will have one year of eligibility remaining.

Criswell played the first three seasons of his college career with the Tar Heels before transferring to Arkansas ahead of 2023. He played one year in Fayetteville before deciding to come back to North Carolina ahead of this season.

Criswell didn’t begin as the starter this past season but took over after Max Johnson went down with injury. He finished the year with 2,459 yards and 15 touchdowns to six interceptions.

This story will be updated.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

North Carolina

North Carolina among 18 states suing to stop Trump’s order blocking birthright citizenship

Published

on

North Carolina among 18 states suing to stop Trump’s order blocking birthright citizenship


WASHINGTON, D.C. (WITN) – Attorneys general from 18 states sued Tuesday to block President Donald Trump’s move to end a decades-old immigration policy known as birthright citizenship guaranteeing that U.S.-born children are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.

Trump’s roughly 700-word executive order, issued late Monday, amounts to a fulfillment of something he’s talked about during the presidential campaign. But whether it succeeds is far from certain amid what is likely to be a lengthy legal battle over the president’s immigration policies.

North Carolina is one of the 18 states challenging the executive order. Attorney General Jeff Jackson is asking the court to invalidate the executive order and stop it from being implemented.

“This executive order is a straightforward violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all people born on U.S. soil. For over a century, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court and remains a bedrock of our constitutional framework,” said Jackson.

Advertisement

Attorney General Jackson says the Constitution leaves no room for reinterpreting this matter.

“As Attorney General, my role is straightforward as well: to defend the Constitution. That’s why I’ve joined this lawsuit, to uphold the rule of law and preserve the rights that have defined our nation for generations,” said Jackson.

Here’s a closer look at birthright citizenship, Trump’s executive order and reaction to it:

What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. People, for instance, in the United States on a tourist or other visa or in the country illegally can become the parents of a citizen if their child is born here.

It’s been in place for decades and enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, supporters say. But Trump and allies dispute the reading of the amendment and say there need to be tougher standards on becoming a citizen.

Advertisement

What does Trump’s order say?

The order questions that the 14th Amendment extends citizenship automatically to anyone born in the United States.

The 14th Amendment was born in the aftermath of the Civil War and ratified in 1868. It says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Trump’s order excludes the following people from automatic citizenship: those whose mothers were not legally in the United States and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents; people whose mothers were in the country legally but on a temporary basis and whose fathers were not citizens or legal permanent residents.

It goes on to bar federal agencies from recognizing the citizenship of people in those categories. It takes effect 30 days from Tuesday, on Feb. 19.

What is the history of the issue?

The 14th Amendment did not always guarantee birthright citizenship to all U.S.-born people. Congress did not authorize citizenship for all Native Americans born in the United States, for instance, until 1924.

Advertisement

In 1898 an important birthright citizenship case unfolded in the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he had faced denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that while the case clearly applied to children born to parents who are both legal immigrants, it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status.

What has the reaction to Trump’s order been?

Eighteen states, plus the District of Columbia and San Francisco sued in federal court to block Trump’s order.

New Jersey Democratic Attorney General Matt Platkin said Tuesday that presidents might have broad authority but they are not kings.

“The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period,” he said.

Advertisement

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a U.S. citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him.

“The 14th Amendment says what it means, and it means what it says —- if you are born on American soil, you are an American. Period. Full stop,” he said. “There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own.”

Not long after Trump signed the order, immigrant rights groups filed suit to stop it.

Chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts along with other immigrant rights advocates filed a suit in New Hampshire federal court.

The suit asks the court to find the order to be unconstitutional. It highlights the case of a woman identified as “Carmen,” who is pregnant but is not a citizen. The lawsuit says she has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent status. She has no other immigration status, and the father of her expected child has no immigration status either, the suit says.

Advertisement

“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit said. “It denies them the full membership in U.S. society to which they are entitled.”

In addition to North Carolina, New Jersey and the two cities, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin joined the lawsuit to stop the order.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

North Carolina

Tropical Storm Helene destroyed nearly 1,000 homes in NC, FEMA maps show

Published

on

Tropical Storm Helene destroyed nearly 1,000 homes in NC, FEMA maps show


play

Tropical Storm Helene destroyed nearly 1,000 homes when it tore through Western North Carolina Sept. 27, maps from the Federal Emergency Management Agency show.

The maps, which show verified damage to homes as of Jan. 7, were presented to the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners at its Jan. 16 budget retreat.

Advertisement

In Buncombe County, Helene destroyed 340 homes, according to the maps. More than 170 were owner-occupied, while the remaining were rental properties.

The maps also show how many homes across the state sustained major damage and how many require repairs so residents can move back in.

According to the maps, 2,360 homes suffered major damage. Nearly one-third were rentals. Additionally, nearly 30,000 homes require habitability repairs, according to the maps. More than 6,000 of those homes were occupied by renters.

The number of damaged homes verified by FEMA is significantly lower than initial estimates from the state. According to a Dec. 13 damage needs assessment compiled by the N.C. Office of State Budget and Management, more than 73,000 homes were projected to be damaged, the majority of which were expected to be single-family and manufactured homes, and duplexes. In total, the state is estimating nearly $13 billion in residential damage alone.

Advertisement

The Citizen Times requested updated damage maps from FEMA on Jan. 17.

How did homes in Buncombe, Henderson, McDowell, Madison and Yancey counties fare?

Destroyed homes:

Buncombe: 340

Advertisement

Henderson: 89

McDowell: 92

Yancey: 100

Madison:11+

Major damage:

Advertisement

Buncombe: 640

Henderson: 354

McDowell: 128

Yancey: 166

Madison: 56

Advertisement

Homes requiring habitability repairs:

Buncombe: 8,920

Henderson: 3,988

McDowell: 1,442

Yancey: 1,767

Advertisement

Madison: 302

Jacob Biba is the county watchdog reporter at the Asheville Citizen Times, part of the USA TODAY Network. Email him at jbiba@citizentimes.com.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending