4 ms·

From the article: > Ms. Grupp, 66, said she wasn’t rich, and was disturbed by the letter. “I kind of resent it,” she said. “I don’t think they need the money.”

From the article: > Ms. Grupp, 66, said she wasn’t rich, and was disturbed by the letter. “I kind of resent it,” she said. “I don’t think they need the money.” The hospital last year reported nearly $48 million in net income and paid its chief executive officer $1 million. This is where it goes. That said, if I could spare $200k, I would if I had the information about which % of that money went to actual equipment and patient services. I think that information is available for non-profits, but I am not sure about hospitals. There will always be admin waste, but the best way to decrease it is to reward more efficient hospitals.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> I would if I had the information about which % of that money went to actual equipment and patient services Money is fungible.
zanny 8y ago
I still wouldn't even if I had the money because if you get 500k in donations for equipment and staff salary thats 500k you can take out of your revenue to line the pockets of executives.
lithos 8y ago
You can get these ratios for many charities and nonprofits from the combined federal campaign: https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/offerings https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/offerings Some really popular charities go well above 25% towards non-cause expenses like administration/advertising.
- CompelTechnic 8y ago
  Advertising for charity has some funny game theory implications. A given charity often observes that every dollar of advertising increases contributions by 2 dollars. They the justifyably continue increasing their advertising budget until it reaches saturation, and every dollar of advertising only brings in $1.01 (more or less). If you assume that this advertising in net increases the size of the pie of charitable giving, it can be considered an overall good thing. If you assume that this advertising in net just redistributes the contributions that would go to one slice of the pie to another, it is wasteful. Data on which side is true is hard to come by.
bunderbunder 8y ago
> ... if I had the information about which % of that money went to actual equipment and patient services That wouldn't give you the whole picture on waste. A big chunk of high health care costs is hidden inside the equipment and patient services. American hospitals have a habit of doing things in much more expensive ways than is strictly necessary.
conanbatt 8y ago
A 1 million salary for a CEO of a hospital is nothing thogh. Any specialist doctor makes that much. Hospitals are pretty expensive and probably super inefficient: they are 30% of NHE spending.
- biotech 8y ago
  Specialist doctors do not make 1 million dollars (exceptions are generally those who run/manage their own business, or run a hospital - basically it's their business role that puts them at that salary range). You can easily look at job ads and see common salaries for different specialties, they very dependent on specialty but they do not even approach 1 million.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    You can also look at public incomes of physicians in for example, transparent california. Single phsyician practices with over 1mil in income is pretty common.
    - RightMillennial 8y ago
      Is that gross or net revenue or income?
      - bawana 8y ago
        the only way a specialist makes more than 200k is: 1)owns a significant interest in a surgicenter 2)is a dermatologist 3)is an administrator 4)works to death (>100 hrs a week and dont forget the on call) Reimbursement is set by the fed (medicare rates) and ins cos base their rates off of that.
        maxerickson 8y ago
        Mean pay for GPs in the US is over 200k... https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/physicians-and-surgeons.htm#tab-5 https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/physicians-and-surgeons.h... It would of course take a hell of a lot of variance for a significant percentage of doctors to be pulling in a million plus. With 713,000 working doctors, there will be a fair number pulling in lots more than average.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> I would if I had the information about which % of that money went to actual equipment and patient services Money is fungible.

zanny 8y ago

I still wouldn't even if I had the money because if you get 500k in donations for equipment and staff salary thats 500k you can take out of your revenue to line the pockets of executives.

lithos 8y ago

You can get these ratios for many charities and nonprofits from the combined federal campaign: https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/offerings https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/offerings Some really popular charities go well above 25% towards non-cause expenses like administration/advertising.

CompelTechnic 8y ago
Advertising for charity has some funny game theory implications. A given charity often observes that every dollar of advertising increases contributions by 2 dollars. They the justifyably continue increasing their advertising budget until it reaches saturation, and every dollar of advertising only brings in $1.01 (more or less). If you assume that this advertising in net increases the size of the pie of charitable giving, it can be considered an overall good thing. If you assume that this advertising in net just redistributes the contributions that would go to one slice of the pie to another, it is wasteful. Data on which side is true is hard to come by.

bunderbunder 8y ago

> ... if I had the information about which % of that money went to actual equipment and patient services That wouldn't give you the whole picture on waste. A big chunk of high health care costs is hidden inside the equipment and patient services. American hospitals have a habit of doing things in much more expensive ways than is strictly necessary.

conanbatt 8y ago

A 1 million salary for a CEO of a hospital is nothing thogh. Any specialist doctor makes that much. Hospitals are pretty expensive and probably super inefficient: they are 30% of NHE spending.

biotech 8y ago
Specialist doctors do not make 1 million dollars (exceptions are generally those who run/manage their own business, or run a hospital - basically it's their business role that puts them at that salary range). You can easily look at job ads and see common salaries for different specialties, they very dependent on specialty but they do not even approach 1 million.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  You can also look at public incomes of physicians in for example, transparent california. Single phsyician practices with over 1mil in income is pretty common.
  - RightMillennial 8y ago
    Is that gross or net revenue or income?
    - bawana 8y ago
      the only way a specialist makes more than 200k is: 1)owns a significant interest in a surgicenter 2)is a dermatologist 3)is an administrator 4)works to death (>100 hrs a week and dont forget the on call) Reimbursement is set by the fed (medicare rates) and ins cos base their rates off of that.
      - maxerickson 8y ago
        Mean pay for GPs in the US is over 200k... https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/physicians-and-surgeons.htm#tab-5 https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/physicians-and-surgeons.h... It would of course take a hell of a lot of variance for a significant percentage of doctors to be pulling in a million plus. With 713,000 working doctors, there will be a fair number pulling in lots more than average.