SAN FRANCISCO (AP) The battle for medical benefits has become a personal one for a handful of medical providers and a few politicians, who are working to decide how to pay doctors, nurses and other health care providers for their services.
Some lawmakers are asking for more funding to pay more for care, while others are pushing for more regulation and tighter restrictions on the industry.
But the debate has brought into focus how different the issues are for different medical providers.
The California Public Employees Retirement System is the biggest provider of health care in the state, providing health benefits to about 2 million California residents.
Its $2.5 billion annual budget accounts for nearly 90 percent of total health care spending in the Golden State.
But a separate California hospital is also a big employer of health professionals, such as pediatricians and psychiatrists.
And the largest health care provider in Texas, Texas Health Presbyterian, has been criticized for its high prices and high out-of-pocket costs.
And the hospital in Washington state that is the second-largest provider of medical care there, which provides about 8,000 patients a year, is in the middle of a contentious battle with the state Legislature over how much it should pay its nurses.
The debate over whether hospitals should be required to pay medical providers raises a number of thorny issues, including whether it is fair to pay hospital providers more than other types of employers.
And while hospitals are often the first to go when a medical crisis strikes, they can be the last to provide the care they are contracted to.
So what’s the best approach for paying for the medical care of the most important members of our society?
And how much is too much?
In California, where a hospital is more important than any other employer, it has become increasingly important to decide where to pay, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation report on the state’s health care system.
The report said it would be “irresponsible” to pay providers more money than they need to, because of the financial burden that such an arrangement would place on patients.
In California’s case, hospitals spend millions on staff and supplies, and the system pays about a quarter of their salaries.
In Washington, which is the state with the third-largest hospital population, about a third of its doctors are hospital employees.
In the case of Texas Health, which has more than a million doctors and nurses, hospitals can charge about $20,000 a year more than the state requires, the report found.
And while that is a small amount of money compared to the cost of the medical services that physicians provide, it’s more than enough to pay the full cost of treating patients.
In California, that’s about $7,500.
Texas Health also has a high-deductible health plan, but that does not cover the full costs of treatment for most patients.
And even though the hospital spends about $60 million a year on medical equipment, the state only reimburses it about $5,000.
The high-cost of care in Texas also limits the number of patients that can be treated there.
In San Francisco, for example, only about 2,000 residents receive emergency care per year.
But California is not the only state with a problem.
The number of people who are uninsured has jumped sharply in the past five years, making it more difficult for the state to meet its financial obligations, said Larry Levitt, the executive director of the Kaiser Family Foundations health care program.
The state’s medical care needs have become a national issue, with states like New York, Massachusetts, and California having seen their public health budgets strained.
A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office, an independent government body, found that about 10 million Americans are uninsured.
More than half of those uninsured people are children, and about half of them are under the age of 35, according a Kaiser Family study.
The federal government is helping the states, which have some of the strictest insurance requirements in the country, reduce the number and costs of uninsured people.
The Kaiser study found that if Congress had approved funding for California’s Medicaid expansion program in 2018, the cost for the expansion would have gone up by $2 billion, and premiums would have risen by $5 a month.
California also has one of the nation’s strictest Medicaid programs, with coverage of nearly half of the population.
But the Kaiser report found that premiums for the coverage would have increased by $3,800 a year.
That would have been $6,000 more than California would have needed to cover the expansion.
The problem is that it’s not clear how much of that increase would be due to higher costs of coverage, and how much could be due simply to higher rates for the uninsured.
Even with some savings, a number are worried that they could be pushed to the edge of the safety net.
“What happens if we have a recession?
We’ve got a big hole in the system,” said Robert B. Litt,