For-Profit Hospital Status and Rehospitalizations at Different Hospitals: An Analysis of Medicare Data (original) (raw)
Related papers
Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2004
S eparating issues of funding (i.e., who pays for health care) and delivery (i.e., who owns and administers the institutions providing care) helps to inform debates about health care systems. Funding for health care can come through private sources, primarily administered through insurance companies, or through public payment, by governments using tax dollars. Care can be delivered at private for-profit institutions that are owned by investors; private not-for-profit institutions that are owned by communities, religious organizations or philanthropic groups; or public health care institutions owned and administered by the government.
Hospital ownership and cost and quality of care: is there a dime's worth of difference?
1998
Nonprofit organizations may predominate when output quality is difficult to monitor. Hospital care has this characteristic. This study compared program cost and quality of care for Medicare patients hospitalized following onset of four common conditions by hospital ownership. Payments on behalf of Medicare patients admitted to for-profit hospitals during the first 6 months following a health shock were higher than for those admitted to other hospitals. With quality measured in terms of survival, changes in functional and cognitive status, and living arrangements, we found no differences in outcomes by hospital ownership.
For-Profit Hospitals Have a Unique Opportunity to Serve as Anchor Institutions in the U.S
2020
Background Hospitals serve as anchor institutions in many U.S. communities and make contributions to bolster population health and reduce preventable death. Most studies to date have focused on nonprofit hospitals, but there may be significant opportunity for for-profits to fill this role in both urban and rural communities. Methods We calculated descriptive statistics and a multivariate regression model to assess economic and health characteristics for all U.S. counties that contain for-profit as compared to nonprofit or public hospitals. Results For-profit hospitals are more likely to be located in counties with higher uninsurance rates and lower self-rated health. After controlling for hospital and county characteristics, we found a significant and positive relationship between for-profit hospital presence and higher county unemployment, higher uninsured rates, and the number of residents reporting poor/fair health. For-profit hospitals were also less likely to be located in stat...
Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2007
We sought to determine whether for-profit status influenced hospitals' care or outcomes among non-STsegment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients. Background While for-profit hospitals potentially have financial incentives to selectively care for younger, healthier patients, perform highly reimbursed procedures, reduce costs by limiting access to expensive medications, and encourage shorter in-patient length of stay, there are limited data available to investigate these issues objectively. Methods Using data from the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines) Initiative, we investigated whether for-profit status influenced hospitals' patient case mix, care, or outcomes among 145,357 patients with NSTEMI treated between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005, at 532 U.S. hospitals. Impact of for-profit status on care and outcomes was analyzed overall and after adjustment for clinical and facility factors using regression modeling. Results Patients (n ϭ 11,658) treated at 58 for-profit hospitals were of similar age and gender, but were more likely to be nonwhite (black, Asian, Hispanic, and other) and have health maintenance organization/private insurance, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and renal insufficiency compared with 133,699 patients treated at 474 nonprofit hospitals. For-profit hospitals were less likely to use discharge beta-blockers, but all other treatments were similar including the use of interventional procedures (cardiac catheterization and revascularization procedures) compared with nonprofit centers. In-hospital length of stay and mortality were also similar by hospital type. Conclusions We found no evidence that for-profit hospitals selectively treat less sick patients, provide less evidence-based care, limit in-hospital stays, or have patients with worse acute outcomes than nonprofit centers.
Background: Canadians are engaged in an intense debate about the relative merits of private for-profit versus private not-for-profit health care delivery. To inform this debate, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the mortality rates of private for-profit hospitals and those of private not-for-profit hospitals. Methods: We identified studies through an electronic search of 11 bibliographical databases, our own files, consultation with experts, reference lists, PubMed and SciSearch. We masked the study results before determining study eligibility. Our eligibility criteria included observational studies or randomized controlled trials that compared private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals. We excluded studies that evaluated mortality rates in hospitals with a particular profit status that subsequently converted to the other profit status. For each study, we calculated a relative risk of mortality for private for-profit hospitals relative to private not-for-profit hospitals and pooled the studies of adult populations that included adjustment for potential confounders (e.g., teaching status, severity of illness) using a random effects model. Results: Fifteen observational studies, involving more than 26 000 hospitals and 38 million patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In the studies of adult populations, with adjustment for potential confounders, private for-profit hospitals were associated with an increased risk of death (relative risk [RR] 1.020, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.003-1.038; p = 0.02). The one perinatal study with adjustment for potential confounders also showed an increased risk of death in private for-profit hospitals (RR 1.095, 95% CI 1.050-1.141; p < 0.0001). Interpretation: Our meta-analysis suggests that private for-profit ownership of hospitals, in comparison with private not-for-profit ownership, results in a higher risk of death for patients.
Multihospital System Membership and Patient Treatments, Expenditures, and Outcomes
Health Services Research, 2004
Objective. To determine the relationship between hospital membership in systems and the treatments, expenditures, and outcomes of patients. Data Sources. The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review dataset, for data on Medicare patients admitted to general medical-surgical hospitals between 1985 and 1998 with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI); the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, for data on hospitals. Study Design. A multivariate regression analysis. An observation is a fee-for-service Medicare AMI patient admitted to a study hospital. Dependent variables include patient transfers, catheterizations, angioplasties or bypass surgeries, 90-day mortality, and Medicare expenditures. Independent variables include system participation, other admission hospital and patient traits, and hospital and year fixed effects. The five-part system definition incorporates the size and location of the index admission hospital and the size and distance of its partners. Principal Findings. While the effects of multihospital system membership on patients are in general limited, patients initially admitted to small rural system hospitals that have big partners within 100 miles experience lower mortality rates than patients initially admitted to independent hospitals. Regression results show that to the extent system hospital patients experience differences in treatments and outcomes relative to patients of independent hospitals, these differences remain even after controlling for the admission hospital's capacity to provide cardiac services. Conclusions. Multihospital system participation may affect AMI patient treatment and outcomes through factors other than cardiac service offerings. Additional investigation into the nature of these factors is warranted.