Attorney General Mike Hatch is turning his attention to the health care industry again. this time he's targeted Fairview Health Services. Specifically, a two year investigation by Hatch's office says the non-profit isn't doing enough to make sure needy patients get financial support. MPR's Tom Scheck has the story:

The audit listed dozens of people who complained of Fairview's debt collection practices. In some instances, patients were incorrectly told they had to pay a bill, even though it should have been sent to their insurers. Other patients said they were billed for procedures they didn't receive. Others were targeted by debt collectors, even when they agreed to a payment plan with a hospital.

In total, the audit says Fairview referred 77,000 patient accounts to debt collection agents for legal action since 2001. Of that total, 4,500 patients received a summons or complaint by mail, and the collection agency filed 1,700 lawsuits against patients.

Fairview CEO David Page says he hasn't read the entire audit but says the company intends to make changes as a result of the findings. Page says Fairview continues to monitor its charity care policies, but needs to be cautious that the program is used only for those who absolutely need it.

"There are some people who have care in our system who have the ability to pay the bills, and just don't pay them -- and there are others who really need our help," says Page. "Trying to make that distinction is a difficult process."

Hatch says Fairview scaled back executive perks in 2001, after another audit by the AG's office revealed similar perks at Allina. But Scheck has some interesting quotes from Hatch given the political fuss caused by Gov. Tim Pawlenty's proposed reductions in the MinnesotaCare program. Such as:

"You end up with this arms race, and you will see salaries escalate in health care far greater than any other sector," says Hatch.

And...

"The boards have unfortunately become more focused on the executive care than the charity care -- and that's wrong. This is industry-wide. It is clearly industry-wide."

Many people expect Hatch (and maybe a half dozen other DFLers) to launch a campaign against Pawlenty next year. The governor hasn't announced yet whether he's running for re-election, but this story from the Brian Bakst of the Associated Press makes it look like he'll be ready:

Tim Pawlenty has a half-million dollar head start on anyone who wants to challenge him for Minnesota's governorship in 2006, following a year when his campaign donations rolled in.

Pawlenty, a Republican elected governor in 2002, raised $731,520
in 2004, according to a required report filed Monday with the
Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. After subtracting
expenses, he entered 2005 with $490,000 in the bank.

By comparison, Pawlenty spent $2.2 million on his 2002 campaign,
the maximum allowed because he accepted a public subsidy payment of
$425,000. Pawlenty hasn't committed to accepting the public subsidy
in 2006. If he doesn't, he would be free to raise and spend as much
as he wants.

Pawlenty hasn't officially declared his intention to seek
another four-year term, but the fund-raising figures point to a
re-election campaign. The hefty amount he hauled in is noteworthy
in another respect: campaign law limits contributions to $500 for
gubernatorial candidates who aren't on that year's ballot. But in
2006, he'll be able to raise $2,000 a pop.

And speaking of the governor, he's got another plan to crack down on sex offenders. MPR's Laura McCallum has that story:

"Minnesota needs to do a better job as it relates to tracking down, prosecuting, convicting, incarcerating and confining and supervising sex offenders," Pawlenty says. His latest proposal is more exhaustive than the one he and others pursued in 2004, when legislative gridlock blocked the initiative.

Pawlenty says the most violent offenders should be sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole. He recommends that other violent offenders get open-ended sentences with the possibility of life in prison.

There's widespread support in the Legislature for open-ended sentences for sex offenders. That's a much cheaper option than using civil commitments to keep offenders in secure psychiatric facilities at the end of their prison sentences. Civil commitment costs more than $300 a day, while keeping an offender in prison costs $76 a day.

Still, longer sentences will require more prison beds. Pawlenty wants the Legislature to approve adding 850 beds at prisons in Faribault and Stillwater.

And of course that costs money. One of the places Pawlenty finds money in his budget is the aforementioned cutback in eligiblity for the MinnesotaCare program. But opponents of that plan say they're ready to fight. Patricia Lopez had this item in the Star Tribune:

"We are about to tell the struggling waitress juggling three jobs that her efforts are not enough for us to help with her health care," said Rev. John Estrem, CEO of Catholic Charities of Minnesota and a parish priest. "Where is our conscience?"

The leaders, all part of the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition (JRLC), said they will start a campaign through their congregations, which could reach more than 2 million Minnesotans, aimed at rejecting Pawlenty's proposal to scale back access to MinnesotaCare, the state's subsidized health insurance program for lower-income workers. The proposal would make childless adults ineligible, along with some parents who now qualify.

Brian Rusche, executive director of the coalition, said the churches had decided to take action because "the governor's budget fails the moral standards of decency, human rights and compassion" by cutting benefits for low-income Minnesotans.

Pawlenty points out that under his plan state spending on health care programs would still rise by 15 percent over the next two years instead of the 18 percent forecast. But the religious leaders say the state has a revenue problem, not a spending problem.

All this begs the question: why are health care costs rising at double-digit rates? And what can be done to contain costs other than cutting people off programs? Let's have that debate.