Contract talks between hospital, county continue

On Tuesday Jackson County Commissioners rejected a proposed contract with Jackson Hospital regarding ambulance service for hospital-to-hospital transfers.

By By DEBORAH BUCKHALTER Floridan Staff Writer
Published: February 10, 2010

» 1 Comment | Post a Comment

Jackson County and Jackson Hospital don’t have a formal contract regarding the transport of patients from that hospital to another. Tuesday’s latest attempt to establish one failed.
The county rejected the hospital’s proposed agreement, in part on the advice of board attorney Frank Baker. He said he didn’t think it contained all the county needed, and he didn’t think it had been prepared by the hospital’s attorney.
There were other reasons for the rejection.
County Fire Rescue Chief Tony Wesley and county commissioners say the proposed contract is essentially unfair, when compared to the hospital’s existing contract with the county’s competitor, Dothan/Pilcher Ambulance Service.
Jackson Hospital entered the contract with Pilcher several months ago. The surprise move led to multiple discussions between the county and the hospital, in an attempt to determine why the county service was no longer the primary non-emergency, hospital-to-hospital provider of patient transport.
In the Pilcher contract, the hospital agrees to pay the transport service fee, if it is not paid within 90 days of the bill being presented. The Pilcher contract also states the hospital will pay the provider’s contract price.
Insurance companies are billed when that is deemed the appropriate responsible party. In cases where payment is due from patients or families, payment is expected “when service arrives,” according to the hospital-Pilcher contract presented to the board for comparison Tuesday.
In the hospital-county proposed contract, the hospital wants the county to bill the patient or insurance carriers — and be responsible for its own bill collections.
In cases where the hospital itself would be responsible for the bill, it wants to pay at lower Medicaid reimbursement rates, rather that the county’s standard price.
The county commission objects to the differences in dealing with the county service, as opposed to Pilcher. It would be essentially unfair, Wesley said, if Pilcher is guaranteed payment and the county is not.
He also objected to the proposal that the hospital pay the county at the lower Medicaid rate when it is responsible for the bill, but is paying Pilcher at its full contract price.
Commissioners said they want a different contract to consider, and they also want to maintain a good working relationship with the hospital.
They acknowledged that the hospital provides services to the county at Medicaid rates, when county jail inmates are treated there.
Discussions between the county and the hospital are expected to continue.