Connecticut Insurance

United States Supreme Court confirmed today, New York State’s practice of increasing revenues by tacking surcharges on hospital bills, saving the state health financing system potential collapse.

Several other countries use increases or fees, using financial resources of health care, higher revenue hospital and even to close state budget gaps, such as New York in 1992. The principle behind the practice - subsidizing health care funding for the hospital in the imposition of payments by the insured - was at the centre of debate on the Federal Constitution, the health legislation in the years 1993 and 1994 .

The precedent by unanimous decision today, including a number of decisions by lower courts seem to give wide powers United States, hospital and maintaining the status quo. In the near future, it is likely that the governors to save hundreds of millions of dollars and avoid a number of tax increases.

In Connecticut, for example, John G. Rowland Dir expected to earn $ 150 million, it would not have anticipated when the system profit margin was impressed. Now he can prevent a polarising debate on an alternative tax on hospital revenues, he had proposed to offset a potential loss of revenue.

In New York, a negative decision would not be on State costs have any this year because the state has obtained a grace period of temporary congress last month in the form of a specific exemption. But it would have cost public hospitals $ 200 million this year and the status of $ 60 million over the next year, according to the State Commissioner of Health, Barbara A. DeBuono.

Still important, another decision could have cost the state more than $ 1 billion per year, if the judgement is made later in a supplement, which is used to compensate New York hospitals for care home financial resources of patients. The margin which, on average, 5.5 per cent, was not directly out of the procedure in question case, the Supreme Court.

Helps Dir George E. Pataki, said Pataki may be taken up at the end of the deregulation of the health sector rates. But she welcomes today that the courts do not force it to a timetable that could cost the state huge sums, if that is the least likely.

The exercise now aged 26 days, Mr. Pataki is still negotiating with lawmakers about his plan to close a budget hole of more than $ 4 billion and $ 720 million in tax cuts.

The decision resulted from a dispute, originally known as travellers vs Cuomo, insurance companies, which increases against the Federal Republic of Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The applicants consider that the 1974 US ERISA prohibits laws on workers’ benefits, including health insurance, that plans are more costly hospital supplements.

But Justice David Souter wrote that the premiums, because they affect all commercial insurance plans in the same way, does not exceed a direct impact on how these business plans or face.

“Like others have learned the disturbing results of blocking any state regulation of hospital cost of the theory that all laws that indirect economic effects on ERISA plans are pre-empted,” Justice Souter wrote.

Pataki said the administrative officer of the decision, they determine the space to breathe, as they wish speech Sign New York huge and highly regulated medical system.

Mr. DeBuono said she wants to study the possibility of a reduction of state power for the hospital rate, although she said she has not yet decided to focus as deregulation. The threat of loss of billions of dollars in revenue of Health has conducted a thorough study would have been impossible, “she said.

“I am pleased that this symbol of the Supreme Court decision is to avoid disruption of health care and allow New York at the time, a good assessment of the current hospital system financing, “said Dr. DeBuono.” The decision also has New York State’s flexibility in the reorganization of a system of reimbursement for the achievement of our objectives for the development of access to quality medical services at affordable prices .