A multilevel mixed-effects regression analysis of the association between hospital, community and state regulatory factors, and family income eligibility limits for free and discounted care among U.S. not-for-profit, 501(c)(3), hospitals, 2010 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: Not-for-profit hospitals are facing an uncertain financial future, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, they are legally obligated to provide free and discounted health care services to communities. This study investigates the hospital, community, and state regulatory factors and whether these factors are associated with family income eligibility levels for free and discounted care. METHODS: Data were sourced from Internal Revenue Service Form 990, several data files from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, demographic and community factors from the Census Bureau, supplemental files from The Hilltop Institute, Community Benefit Insight, and Kaiser Family Foundation. The study employs multilevel mixed-effects linear and ordered logit regressions to estimate the association between the hospital, community, state policies, and the hospital's family income eligibility limit for free and discounted care. RESULTS: A plurality of hospitals (49.96%) offered a medium level of family income eligibility limit (160-200% of the federal poverty level (FPL)) for free care. In comparison, about 53% (52.94%) offered a low level (0-300 of FPL) eligibility limit for discounted care. Holding all else equal, hospitals designated as critical access, safety net, those in rural areas or located in disadvantaged areas were associated with an increased probability of offering low eligibility limits for free and discounted care. Hospitals in a joint venture, located in highly concentrated markets or states with minimum community benefits requirements, were associated with an increased probability of offering high eligibility limits. CONCLUSION: State and community factors appear to be associated with the eligibility level for free and discounted care. Hospitals serving low-income or rural communities seem to offer the least relief. The federal and state policymakers might need to consider relief to these hospitals with a requirement for them to provide a specific set of minimum community benefits.

Did Performing Community Health Needs Assessments Increase Community Health Program Spending by North Carolina's Tax-Exempt Hospitals?

As of March 23, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires tax-exempt hospitals to conduct a Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) every 3 years. This study assessed whether the IRS CHNA mandate incentivized North Carolina's tax-exempt hospitals to increase investments in community health programs. The authors gathered the 2012-2016 community benefit reports of 53 North Carolina private, nonprofit hospitals from the North Carolina Hospital Association. Community benefit spending data from the year of the first CHNA were compared to that 2 years later using paired t tests among matched subjects. No significant increases were found in hospitals' community health programs spending (P = 0.6920) or in providing patient care financial assistance (charity or discounted care) (P = 0.0934). In fact, aggregate community health programs spending effectively decreased by 4%, from $393.3 million to $377.5 million. Among all community benefit items, only the unreimbursed cost for treating Medicare patients increased significantly (P = 0.0297). The proportion of spending on community health programs relative to patient care financial assistance decreased significantly (P = 0.0338). Performing CHNAs did not incentivize North Carolina's tax-exempt hospitals to progressively invest in community health programs. The hospitals continue to spend heavily on patient care financial assistance and little on disease prevention and community health improvement activities. These findings suggest that tax-exempt hospitals continue to function as a safety net for the poor and the uninsured rather than as active partners in population health management initiatives. At present, performing CHNAs may be more a demonstration of compliance than a tool to improve population health.

Tax-Exempt Hospitals' Investments in Community Health and Local Public Health Spending: Patterns and Relationships.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether tax-exempt hospitals' investments in community health are associated with patterns of governmental public health spending focusing specifically on the relationship between hospitals' community benefit expenditures and the spending patterns of local health departments (LHDs). STUDY DESIGN: We combined data on tax-exempt hospitals' community benefit spending with data on spending by the corresponding LHD that served the county in which a hospital was located. Data were available for 2 years, 2009 and 2013. Generalized linear regressions were estimated with indicators of hospital community benefit spending as the dependent variable and LHD spending as the key independent variable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Hospital community benefit spending was unrelated to how much local public health agencies spent, per capita, on public health in their communities. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of local public health spending do not appear to impact the investments of tax-exempt hospitals in community health activities. Opportunities may, however, exist for a more active engagement between the public and private sector to ensure that the expenditures of all stakeholders involved in community health improvement efforts complement one another.