A nonprofit hospital in Minnesota hired an aggressive collections agency known to even collect before services are delivered. The San Francisco Gate story made a point of noting that hospitals, or at least nonprofit hospitals, are obliged to give care regardless of ability to pay. Hmm to that.
But, is it unfair for a nonprofit to put income generation ahead of service delivery? That of course is the question introduced in the article, and I for one absolutely endorse the concept that quality health care should be accessible to everyone no matter their ability to pay, but until this reality is law, what should a nonprofit hospital do? Should it not be guided by its values and balance these two competing demands? What's your thought?