SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Nonprofit hospitals should be providing more charity care to those who desperately need it, not less," said the senator. "And if they refuse to do so, they should lose their tax-exempt status."
Nonprofit U.S. hospitals are legally required to provide affordable medical care for low-income patients, but many are failing to do so, while taking advantage of major tax benefits and enriching executives, according to a report released Tuesday by Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"In 2020, nonprofit hospitals received $28 billion in tax breaks for the purpose of providing affordable healthcare for low-income Americans," noted Sanders (I-Vt.), a Medicare for All advocate who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
The report explains that "in return for the tax benefits, the federal government requires those hospitals to operate for the public benefit by providing a set of community benefits, which includes ensuring low-income individuals receive medical care for free or at significantly reduced rates—a practice known as 'charity care.'"
However, as Sanders stressed, "despite these massive tax breaks, most nonprofit hospitals are actually reducing the amount of charity care they provide to low-income families even as CEO pay is soaring."
"In recent years, nonprofit hospitals have provided less charity care even as these hospitals saw a steady increase in their revenues and operating profits."
The report—which takes aim at 16 of the largest nonprofit hospital systems in the country—found that such hospitals "spent only an estimated $16 billion on charity care in 2020, or about 57% of the value of their tax breaks in the same year," and "have made information about their charity care programs difficult to access, leaving many patients unaware that they may qualify for free or discounted care."
Meanwhile, "in 2021, the most recent year for which data is available for all of the 16 hospital chains, those companies' CEOs averaged more than $8 million in compensation and collectively made over $140 million," according to the publication. "CommonSpirit Health led the way, with a combined $32 million compensation package for the outgoing and incoming CEOs. In the same year, the company spent only 1.5% of its revenue on charity care."
Of the chains examined, the Methodist Hospital led the group in terms of percent of revenue spent on charity care, at 8.05%. However, the report also begins with a story from a patient at one of those hospitals:
In 2007, Carrie Barrett needed a heart catherization after experiencing chest pain and shortness of breath. She went to a Methodist Le Bonheur (Methodist) hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, and walked out with the needed procedure completed and a $12,019 bill for her medical stay. Ms. Barrett made less than $12 an hour and had no hope of paying back that bill. But the hospital not only refused to help Barrett afford her bill, it instead piled on interest and sent the bill to collections. By June 2019, Ms. Barrett owed over $33,000, nearly three times the original cost of the procedure and more than twice what she earned in a year.
Stories like Ms. Barrett's are far too common. But they are even more egregious when the hospital is a nonprofit that is required to be "organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes."
"In recent years, nonprofit hospitals have provided less charity care even as these hospitals saw a steady increase in their revenues and operating profits," the report says. "One study found 86% of nonprofit hospitals spent less on charity care than they received in tax benefits between 2011 and 2018."
"Another recent study found that nonprofit hospitals increased their average operating profit by more than 36%, from about $43 million to almost $59 million, between 2012 and 2019," the document details. "In the same time period, the hospitals almost doubled the cash balances they held in reserve, from an average of about $133 million to more than $224 million."
As hospitals stash cash and line the pockets of executives, many patients are putting off care. The publication points out that "in 2022, about 1 in 7 Americans delayed or went without hospital services due to high costs," and that "those delays create much higher risks of more serious conditions, worse health outcomes, and higher costs for patients."
For those who initially go to the doctor, unpaid bills may prevent them from getting more care later, due to hospital policies. For example, Allina—which spent just 0.346% of its revenue on charity care—previously "blocked employees from scheduling future appointments for patients who had outstanding bills exceeding $4,500," according to the report.
"Even when patients entered into payment plans, Allina blocked them from making appointments until the entire debt was cleared. These practices result in patients being denied needed care, including children who could not receive the necessary medical forms to enroll in day care or school," the document adds. "Only after extensive reporting detailing Allina's practices did the hospital change its policies."
Current conditions are "absolutely unacceptable," declared Sanders.
"At a time when 85 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured, over 500,000 people go bankrupt because of medically related debt, and over 60,000 Americans die each year because they cannot afford to go to a doctor when they need to, nonprofit hospitals should be providing more charity care to those who desperately need it, not less," he argued. "And if they refuse to do so, they should lose their tax-exempt status."
The report calls on Congress and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to "hold nonprofit hospitals accountable for the benefits they reap and their moral obligation to serve as pillars of accessible healthcare in their communities," and offers some steps they both could take.
Federal lawmakers could ensure hospitals offer charity care at levels consistent with tax breaks, establish standards for financial assistance programs, and define the community engagement necessary to justify nonprofit status, the report says, while "the IRS could address the administrative gaps that allow nonprofit hospitals to benefit off of the people they are failing to help."
Workers at Tesla plants all labor without union contracts, earning per hour about one-third less than what workers at Detroit’s unionized auto makers are making.
Elon Musk, the world’s single richest individual, believes in sharing the wealth. Or so Tesla chief financial officer Zachary Kirkhorn can certainly attest.
Kirkhorn announced earlier this month that he’s stepping down after four years as Tesla’s CFO. Over those four years, Kirkhorn has pocketed some $590 million, a tidy sum that averages out to an annual take-home not all that far from $150 million.
But Musk’s share-the-wealth inclinations, Tesla workers can attest, don’t extend much beyond Tesla’s executive suites. Workers at Tesla plants all labor without union contracts. They earn per hour from Tesla about one-third less than what workers at Detroit’s unionized Big Three auto makers are making.
UAW President Shawn Fain has tagged this auto industry got-to-be-more-competitive pitch “nothing more” than a prescription for “a continued race to the bottom in a quest to follow the lowest bidder to pay poverty wages.”
Workers at those Big Three firms―General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, now part of the new auto group Stellantis―are now feeling Tesla’s low-wage pressure. Their union, the United Auto Workers, has begun bargaining a new Big Three contract, and those negotiations, a Reuters analysis noted last month, most definitely have Musk’s Tesla as a shadow participant.
Tesla’s shadow, adds Reuters, has essentially replaced the looming presence of the “Japanese automaker Toyota and its lean production system.”
That analogy between today’s Testa and yesterday’s Toyota only goes so far. The Tesla and Toyota shadows have impacted Detroit’s top auto execs in strikingly different ways. Toyota posed a personal threat to Detroit auto execs. Tesla offers those execs a personal opportunity.
Toyota’s threat came on the executive compensation front. Japanese corporate chiefs have over recent decades consistently made substantially less than their U.S. counterparts. In 2012, for instance, Toyota’s top exec pocketed $1.8 million. Ford’s CEO that same year took home nearly $21 million.
This past June, Toyota’s top-paid exec, Akio Toyoda, saw his annual compensation rise to an all-time Toyota executive pay record. His take-home: $6.9 million. The 2022 total take-home of GM’s CEO: $29 million.
The mega millions that go to Tesla’s top execs, by contrast, provide top execs at America’s unionized auto companies a much more personally useful payday benchmark. The UAW, these execs are now demanding, must allow their companies to be “competitive” with the likes of Tesla.
UAW President Shawn Fain has tagged this auto industry got-to-be-more-competitive pitch “nothing more” than a prescription for “a continued race to the bottom in a quest to follow the lowest bidder to pay poverty wages.”
The UAW has a counter proposal for this summer’s bargaining. Detroit’s auto CEOs, the union points out, have seen their compensation rise 40% over the past four years. The UAW is now calling for a 40% raise for Big Three auto workers over the next four years.
A new contract that incorporates that notion would bring significant gains for auto workers. But even more significant gains―for all U.S. workers―could start flowing if U.S. lawmakers started linking the massive subsidies currently flowing to Corporate America to the stunningly wide pay gaps between U.S. workers and corporate top execs.
Tesla’s exiting chief financial officer Zach Kirkhorn earlier this year told reporters his company was expecting federal tax credits ranging up to $250 million per quarter in 2023, as much as $1 billion for the entire year. All those subsidy dollars, as matters now stand, will be disproportionately enriching the already rich. That doesn’t have to be the case.
In the quarter-century after World War II, the vast majority of major U.S. corporations paid their top execs no more than 20 or 30 times what their workers were taking home. Today’s top corporate execs routinely make more in a day than their workers can make in a year.
We could help change that if we pressed our lawmakers―at all levels―to limit corporate eligibility for government subsidies to companies that maintained modest gaps between executive and worker compensation. Corporations that can afford to pay their top execs hundreds of times more than what they pay their workers, we need to make politically clear, can afford to do without our tax dollars.
Ordinary Americans across the political spectrum are tired of seeing highly paid executives walk away unscathed from crises they create.
It’s a rare day in Washington when progressive and conservative lawmakers actually find common ground. But that’s what happened when Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) teamed up recently to introduce a bill that would force leaders of failed banks to repay some of their compensation.
The Failed Bank Executives Clawback Act would require top brass to cough up all or some of the compensation they received during the three years preceding a big bank collapse. The clawback would apply to directors, officers, controlling shareholders, and other high-level decision-makers at banks with $10 billion or more in assets.
With five Republicans and eight Democrats already behind the bill, it stands a real chance of Senate passage.
It’s time for Washington officials to stand up to industry lobbyists and protect working families from the threat of Wall Street greed.
Ordinary Americans across the political spectrum are tired of seeing highly paid executives walk away unscathed from crises they create.
Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) CEO Greg Becker, for instance, had raked in tens of millions in incentive pay while pursuing high-risk strategies in the years leading up to the bank’s collapse. The most dangerous: his decision to invest funds from largely uninsured deposits in long-term bonds without preparing for inevitable interest rate increases.
According to a Public Citizen analysis, Becker exposed the bank to even greater interest rate risks by terminating a hedge against certain other securities. This maneuver helped boost the short-term value of SVB stock, and Becker made sure to get while the going was good. He even offloaded shares worth $3.6 million just days before the bank disclosed a large loss that triggered its stock slide and collapse.
The Warren-Vance bill responds to public outrage over such dangerous Wall Street greed. Hopefully it will sail through both chambers and become law.
But this Congressional action wouldn’t be necessary if regulators had done their jobs in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash.
In response to that national crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank financial reform. Section 956 of that law prohibits Wall Street pay which encourages excessive risk. But more than a dozen years later, regulators still have not put this part of the law into force.
If a strong regulation had been in place before the recent bank crises, executives at the failed banks would’ve had stronger incentives to focus on long-term stability and growth rather than taking short-term risks to maximize their personal gains.
For example, under Section 956, regulators could’ve required executives to set aside a significant share of their compensation every year for 10 years, an idea first proposed by former New York Federal Reserve Bank President William Dudley. This deferred pay would be used to help cover the cost of potential fines or bankruptcies.
With their own “skin in the game,” executives at SVB and Signature bank might’ve acted less recklessly and avoided collapse. If their banks had still failed, they would’ve had to automatically forfeit these deferred funds. A forfeiture action would be a lot easier than getting executives to pay back money they might’ve already spent on yachts or private jets.
The recent bank failures have provoked renewed pressure on regulators to enact this long overdue Wall Street pay restriction. In late March, 25 labor, consumer, and other groups sent a letter urging swift and rigorous action.
In Congressional hearings, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) both asked FDIC Chair Martin Gruenberg if he supported this Wall Street pay restriction and he indicated he did. This past week Gruenberg told reporters that the rule would be issued by the end of this year.
It’s time for Washington officials to stand up to industry lobbyists and protect working families from the threat of Wall Street greed.
Senator Warnock recently described this disparity well. “I pastor in communities where poor and marginalized people have the full weight of the law come down upon them for the smallest infractions,” he said. “When bankers made risky bets that endangered our whole economy, they got to cash in. They should be held accountable.”