Thought for today from the Philadelphia Inquirer about a student protest (yes, really) at Independence Blue Cross:
Independence Blue Cross proved an easy villain, for its immensity, its proximity, and Frick's heart-stopping $2.7 million salary. The nonprofit giant often acts like a for-profit, wielding its monopolistic power to dictate prices and contracts.
There's another article in today's New York Times, which, while focused on legislator corruption, also talks about the salaries nonprofit health care administrators are making. And it's here where I'm conflicted. Clearly, the higher the executive's salaries, the higher the cost to the consumer or the government (depending on who is paying) thus contributing to further inaccessibility.
But, I've consistently argued in this blog that it's up to the nonprofit board (who determines worth/value) and the donor (who does the same) as to whether these salaries are acceptable. I do not get to complain about a salary just because I think it's unfair, or because so few people make this kind of money, or for any of a number of other reasons. On the other hand, some argue this kind of salary has an impact on the cost of care, which ultimately affects whether people get health care, but does it really?
Maybe an exec's salary is just an easy target but one which is really just an itty bitty slice of the costs of health care, and perhaps those making the highest salaries do so because they are excellent at what they do, attracting talent and donors and implementing efficenices, bringing benefits to thier institutions (and those they serve)far in excess of their salaries.