The study, published Oct. 22, found that critical-access hospitals received 40 percent lower funding than larger and wealthier facilities. It also found that more funding went to hospitals caring for the greatest number of COVID-19 patients, which typically were larger academic medical centers and bigger hospitals.
The AHA said that while the study authors correctly stated that small rural hospitals received less of funding for some of the distribution rounds, they “explicitly and seemingly arbitrarily excluded other targeted PRF payments to rural and so-called safety-net providers, without providing a rationale for this omission.”
In addition, the AHA said hospitals didn’t apply for the specific amount of funds they received and that if they received more funding than their COVID-19-related expenses and lost revenue, the excess funding will be returned.
The AHA also said it should not be a surprise that larger hospitals and health systems serving more COVID-19 patients received more relief, especially from the high-impact payment distribution.
“While we welcome transparency of the PRF and exploration of the realities faced by hospitals during the pandemic, this study falls short,” the AHA said.
Read more here.
At the Becker's 11th Annual IT + Revenue Cycle Conference: The Future of AI & Digital Health, taking place September 14–17 in Chicago, healthcare executives and digital leaders from across the country will come together to explore how AI, interoperability, cybersecurity, and revenue cycle innovation are transforming care delivery, strengthening financial performance, and driving the next era of digital health. Apply for complimentary registration now.
