Assessing the quality of public services: For-profits, chains, and concentration in the hospital market.

We examine variation in US hospital quality across ownership, chain membership, and market concentration. We propose a new measure of quality derived from penalties imposed on hospitals under the flagship Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and use regression models to risk-adjust for hospital characteristics and county demographics. While the overall association between for-profit ownership and quality is negative, there is evidence of substantial heterogeneity. The quality of for-profit relative to non-profit hospitals declines with increasing market concentration. Moreover, the quality gap is primarily driven by for-profit chains. While the competition result mirrors earlier findings in the literature, the chain result appears to be new: it suggests that any potential quality gains afforded by chains are mostly realized by not-for-profit hospitals.

Charity Care Characteristics and Expenditures Among US Tax-Exempt Hospitals in 2016.

Objectives. To examine content of financial assistance polices (FAPs) among US tax-exempt hospitals and determine whether restrictive policies were associated with reduced charity care spending.Methods. Using hospital tax filings with the Internal Revenue Service in 2016 and FAPs obtained from hospital Web sites, we examined characteristics of FAPs and associated expenditures for charity care in a representative sample of 170 tax-exempt hospitals. We identified common eligibility requirements and used them to define restrictiveness of FAPs.Results. FAPs were characterized by various ways to exclude patients, a patchwork of coverage for typical health care services, and wide-ranging discounts. FAP expenditures were lowest among restrictive hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act and highest among nonrestrictive hospitals in nonexpansion states. FAP expenses did not differ by hospital restrictiveness alone.Conclusions. Standardizing common eligibility requirements among FAPs carries potential benefits with regard to optimizing charity care for community benefit and achieving at least some level of equity; however, further policy efforts must account for additional restrictions, charges, and exclusions to be effective.

Threatening Nonprofit Hospital Tax Exemption: A Better Path Forward.

This Viewpoint discusses regulation of nonprofit hospitals in a way that will advance their charitable purposes without eliminating their tax exemption status.

The Growing Executive-Physician Wage Gap in Major US Nonprofit Hospitals and Burden of Nonclinical Workers on the US Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: In an era of increasing healthcare costs, the number and value of nonclinical workers, especially hospital management, has come under increased study. Compensation of hospital executives, especially at major nonprofit medical centers, and the "wage gap" with physicians and clinical staff has been highlighted in the national news. To our knowledge, a systematic analysis of this wage gap and its importance has not been investigated. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How do wage trends compare between physicians and executives at major nonprofit medical centers? (2) What are the national trends in the wages and the number of nonclinical workers in the healthcare industry? (3) What do nonclinical workers contribute to the growth in national cost of healthcare wages? (4) How much do wages contribute to the growth of national healthcare costs? (5) What are the trends in healthcare utilization? METHODS: We identified chief executive officer (CEO) compensation and chief financial officer (CFO) compensation at 22 major US nonprofit medical centers, which were selected from the US News & World Report 2016-2017 Hospital Honor Roll list and four health systems with notable orthopaedic departments, using publicly available Internal Revenue Service 990 forms for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015. Trends in executive compensation over time were assessed using Pearson product-moment correlation tests. As institution-specific compensation data is not available, national mean compensation of orthopaedic surgeons, pediatricians, and registered nurses was used as a surrogate. We chose orthopaedic surgeons and pediatricians for analysis because they represent the two ends of the physician-compensation spectrum. US healthcare industry worker numbers and wages from 2005 to 2015 were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and used to calculate the national cost of healthcare wages. Healthcare utilization trends were assessed using data from the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research, the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. All data were adjusted for inflation based on 2015 Consumer Price Index. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2015, the mean major nonprofit medical center CEO compensation increased from USD 1.6 ± 0.9 million to USD 3.1 ± 1.7 million, or a 93% increase (R = 0.112; p = 0.009). The wage gap increased from 3:1 to 5:1 with orthopaedic surgeons, from 7:1 to 12:1 with pediatricians, and from 23:1 to 44:1 with registered nurses. We saw a similar wage-gap trend in CFO compensation. From 2005 to 2015, mean healthcare worker wages increased 8%. Management worker wages increased 14%, nonclinical worker wages increased 7%, and physician salaries increased 10%. The number of healthcare workers rose 20%, from 13 million to 15 million. Management workers accounted for 3% of this growth, nonclinical workers accounted for 27%, and physicians accounted for 5% of the growth. From 2005 to 2015, the national cost-burden of healthcare worker wages grew from USD 663 billion to USD 865 billion (a 30% increase). Nonclinical workers accounted for 27% of this growth, management workers accounted for 7%, and physicians accounted for 18%. In 2015, there were 10 nonclinical workers for every one physician. The cost of healthcare worker wages accounted for 27% of the growth in national healthcare expenditures. From 2005 to 2015, the number of inpatient stays decreased from 38 million to 36 million (a 5% decrease), the number of physician office visits increased from 964 million to 991 million (a 3% increase), and the number of emergency department visits increased from 115 million to 137 million (a 19% increase). CONCLUSIONS: There is a fast-rising wage gap between the top executives of major nonprofit centers and physicians that reflects the substantial, and growing, cost of nonclinical worker wages to the US healthcare system. However, there does not appear to be a proportionate increase in healthcare utilization. These findings suggest a growing, substantial burden of nonclinical tasks in healthcare. Methods to reduce nonclinical work in healthcare may result in important cost-savings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE LEVEL: IV, economic and decision analysis.

State-Level Community Benefit Regulation and Nonprofit Hospitals' Provision of Community Benefits.

Do nonprofit hospitals provide enough community benefits to justify their tax exemptions? States have sought to enhance nonprofit hospitals' accountability and oversight through regulation, including requirements to report community benefits, conduct community health needs assessments, provide minimum levels of community benefits, and adhere to minimum income eligibility standards for charity care. However, little research has assessed these regulations' impact on community benefits. Using 2009-11 Internal Revenue Service data on community benefit spending for more than eighteen hundred hospitals and the Hilltop Institute's data on community benefit regulation, we investigated the relationship between these four types of regulation and the level and types of hospital-provided community benefits. Our multivariate regression analyses showed that only community health needs assessments were consistently associated with greater community benefit spending. The results for reporting and minimum spending requirements were mixed, while minimum income eligibility standards for charity care were unrelated to community benefit spending. State adoption of multiple types of regulation was consistently associated with higher levels of hospital-provided community benefits, possibly because regulatory intensity conveys a strong signal to the hospital community that more spending is expected. This study can inform efforts to design regulations that will encourage hospitals to provide community benefits consistent with policy makers' goals.

Analysis of the Community Benefit Standard in Texas Hospitals.

The federal government provides special tax-exemption status, known as the community benefit standard, to some nonprofit hospitals. It is not known if hospitals that claim the community benefit standard provide more or different services from those provided by hospitals that do not claim the community benefit status. Guided by the socioecological model, this quantitative study investigated 95 hospitals serving 52 counties in South Texas--43 that claimed a community benefit and 52 that did not. The independent variables were hospitals that claimed the community benefit standard versus hospitals that did not. The dependent variables were the three essential criteria and the 13 reported services used to meet the community benefit standard. The study results show that all hospitals that claimed the community benefit standard met two of the three required criteria. However, only 22 of 43 hospitals had a full-time emergency department (ED), the third criterion. Χ² analysis showed statistically significant differences for only two of the five common services: having an ED and community education for community benefit hospitals versus noncommunity benefit hospitals. On average, hospitals that claimed the community benefit spent 100 times more money on community services than hospitals that did not claim the community benefit. Further investigation is needed to determine the reasons for the gap in services pertaining to EDs, trauma care, neonatal intensive care, free-standing clinics, collaborative efforts, other medical services, education of patients, community health education, and other education services.

Proposed reporting model update creates dialogue between FASB and not-for-profits.

Seeing a need to refresh the current guidelines, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) proposed an update to the financial accounting and reporting model for not-for-profit entities. In a response to solicited feedback, the board is now revisiting its proposed update and has set forth a plan to finalize its new guidelines. The FASB continues to solicit and respond to feedback as the process progresses.

Tax-exempt hospitals and community benefit: new directions in policy and practice.

The current community benefit standard for nonprofit hospital tax exemption has been the subject of mounting criticism. Many different constituencies have advanced the view that in its present form it fails to ensure that nonprofit hospitals provide adequate benefits to their communities in exchange for their tax exemption. In contrast, hospitals have often expressed the concern that the community benefit standard in its current form is vague and therefore difficult to comply with. Various suggestions have been made regarding how the existing community benefit standard could be improved or even replaced. In this article, we first discuss the historical and legal development of the community benefit standard. We then present the key controversies that have emerged in recent years and the policy responses attempted thus far. Finally, we evaluate possible future policy directions, which reform efforts could follow.

Policy commercializing nonprofits in health: the history of a paradox from the 19th century to the ACA.

UNLABELLED: POLICY POINTS: Health policy in the United States has, for more than a century, simultaneously and paradoxically incentivized the growth as well as the commercialization of nonprofit organizations in the health sector. This policy paradox persists during the implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. CONTEXT: For more than a century, policy in the United States has incentivized both expansion in the number and size of tax-exempt nonprofit organizations in the health sector and their commercialization. The implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) began yet another chapter in the history of this policy paradox. METHODS: This article explores the origin and persistence of the paradox using what many scholars call "interpretive social science." This methodology prioritizes history and contingency over formal theory and methods in order to present coherent and plausible narratives of events and explanations for them. These narratives are grounded in documents generated by participants in particular events, as well as conversations with them, observing them in action, and analysis of pertinent secondary sources. The methodology achieves validity and reliability by gathering information from multiple sources and making disciplined judgments about its coherence and correspondence with reality. FINDINGS: A paradox with deep historical roots persists as a result of consensus about its value for both population health and the revenue of individuals and organizations in the health sector. Participants in this consensus include leaders of governance who have disagreed about many other issues. The paradox persists because of assumptions about the burden of disease and how to address it, as well as about the effects of biomedical science that is translated into professional education, practice, and the organization of services for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and management of illness. CONCLUSIONS: The policy paradox that has incentivized the growth and commercialization of nonprofits in the health sector since the late 19th century remains influential in health policy, especially for the allocation of resources. However, aspects of the implementation of the ACA may constrain some of the effects of the paradox.

Analysis of hospital community benefit expenditures' alignment with community health needs: evidence from a national investigation of tax-exempt hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether federally tax-exempt hospitals consider community health needs when deciding how much and what types of community benefits to provide. METHODS: Using 2009 data from hospital tax filings to the Internal Revenue Service and the 2010 County Health Rankings, we employed both univariate and multivariate analyses to examine the relationship between community health needs and the types and levels of hospitals' community benefit expenditures. The study sample included 1522 private, tax-exempt hospitals throughout the United States. RESULTS: We found some patterns between community health needs and hospitals' expenditures on community benefits. Hospitals located in communities with greater health needs spent more as a percentage of their operating budgets on benefits directly related to patient care. By contrast, spending on community health improvement initiatives was unrelated to community health needs. CONCLUSIONS: Important opportunities exist for tax-exempt hospitals to improve the alignment between their community benefit activities and the health needs of the community they serve. The Affordable Care Act requirement that hospitals conduct periodic community health needs assessments may be a first step in this direction.

The Relationship Between Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program Scores and Hospital Bond Ratings.

Tax-exempt hospitals and health systems often borrow long-term debt to fund capital investments. Lenders use bond ratings as a standard metric to assess whether to lend funds to a hospital. Credit rating agencies have historically relied on financial performance measures and a hospital's ability to service debt obligations to determine bond ratings. With the growth in pay-for-performance-based reimbursement models, rating agencies are expanding their hospital bond rating criteria to include hospital utilization and value-based purchasing (VBP) measures. In this study, we evaluated the relationship between the Hospital VBP domains--Clinical Process of Care, Patient Experience of Care, Outcome, and Medicare Spending per Beneficiary (MSPB)--and hospital bond ratings. Given the historical focus on financial performance, we hypothesized that hospital bond ratings are not associated with any of the Hospital VBP domains. This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study of all hospitals that were rated by Moody's for fiscal year 2012 and participated in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' VBP program as of January 2014 (N = 285). Of the 285 hospitals in the study, 15% had been assigned a bond rating of Aa, and 46% had been assigned an A rating. Using a binary logistic regression model, we found an association between MSPB only and bond ratings, after controlling for other VBP and financial performance scores; however, MSPB did not improve the overall predictive accuracy of the model. Inclusion of VBP scores in the methodology used to determine hospital bond ratings is likely to affect hospital bond ratings in the near term.

Organizational Characteristics Associated With Fundraising Performance of Nonprofit Hospitals.

Fundraising has become increasingly important to nonprofit hospitals as access to capital has grown more difficult and reimbursement for services more complex. This study analyzes the variation in organizational characteristics and fundraising performance among nonprofit acute care hospitals in the United States to identify and measure critical factors related to one key fundraising performance indicator: public support. Results indicate that the presence of an endowment, along with its value, investments in fundraising, and the geographic location of the organization, account for approximately 46% of variance in public support among nonprofit hospitals. The use of a separate foundation for the fundraising operation is not necessarily associated with measures of fundraising success; however, a majority of hospitals do use a foundation, signaling a strategic choice that may be made for numerous reasons. The study results and limitations are discussed and recommendations are made for maximizing the effectiveness of the fundraising enterprise within nonprofit hospitals. Increasing awareness of challenges associated with fundraising success will enhance the strategic management of fundraising operations by hospital executives and board members.

Distribution and sharing of palliative care costs in rural areas of Canada.

Few data are available on the costs occurring during the palliative phase of care and on the sharing of these costs in rural areas. This study aimed to evaluate the costs related to all resources used by rural palliative care patients and to examine how these costs were shared between the public healthcare system (PHCS), patients' families, and not-for-profit organizations (NFPOs). A prospective longitudinal study was undertaken of 82 palliative care patients and their main informal caregivers in rural areas of four Canadian provinces. Telephone interviews were completed at two-week intervals. The mean total cost per patient for a six-month participation in a palliative care program was CA$31,678 +/- 1,160. A large part of this cost was attributable to inpatient hospital stays and was assumed by the PHCS. The patient's family contributed less than a quarter of the mean total cost per patient, and this was mainly attributable to caregiving time.

Association between hospital conversions to for-profit status and clinical and economic outcomes.

IMPORTANCE: An increasing number of hospitals have converted to for-profit status, prompting concerns that these hospitals will focus on payer mix and profits, avoiding disadvantaged patients and paying less attention to quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To examine characteristics of US acute care hospitals associated with conversion to for-profit status and changes following conversion. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study conducted among 237 converting hospitals and 631 matched control hospitals. Participants were 1,843,764 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries at converting hospitals and 4,828,138 at control hospitals. EXPOSURES: Conversion to for-profit status, 2003-2010. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Financial performance measures, quality process measures, mortality rates, Medicare volume, and patient population for the 2 years prior and the 2 years after conversion, excluding the conversion year, assessed using difference-in-difference models. RESULTS: Hospitals that converted to for-profit status were more often small or medium in size, located in the south, in an urban or suburban location, and were less often teaching institutions. Converting hospitals improved their total margins (ratio of net income to net revenue plus other income) more than controls (2.2% vs 0.4% improvement; difference in differences, 1.8% [ 95% CI, 0.5% to 3.1%]; P = .007). Converting hospitals and controls both improved their process quality metrics (6.0% vs 5.6%; difference in differences, 0.4% [95% CI, -1.1% to 2.0%]; P = .59). Mortality rates did not change at converting hospitals relative to controls for Medicare patients overall (increase of 0.1% vs 0.2%; difference in differences, -0.2% [95% CI, -0.5% to 0.2%], P = .42) or for dual-eligible or disabled patients. There was no change in converting hospitals relative to controls in annual Medicare volume (-111 vs -74 patients; difference in differences, -37 [95% CI, -224 to 150]; P = .70), Disproportionate Share Hospital Index (1.7% vs 0.4%; difference in differences, 1.3% [95% CI, -0.9% to 3.4%], P = .26), the proportion of patients with Medicaid (-0.2% vs 0.4%; difference in differences, -0.6% [95% CI, -2.0% to 0.8%]; P = .38) or the proportion of patients who were black (-0.4% vs -0.1%; difference in differences, -0.3% [95% CI, -1.9% to 1.3%]; P = .72) or Hispanic (0.1% vs -0.1%; difference in differences, 0.2% [95% CI, -0.3% to 0.7%]; P = .50). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospital conversion to for-profit status was associated with improvements in financial margins but not associated with differences in quality or mortality rates or with the proportion of poor or minority patients receiving care.

Charity care in nonprofit urban hospitals: analysis of the role of size and ownership type in Washington State for 2011.

Nonprofit hospitals are expected to serve their communities as charitable organizations in exchange for the tax exemption benefits they receive. With the passage into law of the Affordable Care Act, additional guidelines were generated in 2010 to ensure nonprofit hospitals are compliant. Nonetheless, the debate continues on whether nonprofit hospitals provide adequate charity care to their patient population. In this study, charity care provided by 29 Washington State nonprofit urban hospitals was examined for 2011 using financial data from the Washington State Department of Health. Charity care levels were compared to both income tax savings and gross revenues to generate two financial ratios that were analyzed according to hospital bed size and nonprofit ownership type. For the first ratio, 97% of the hospitals (28 of 29) were providing charity care in greater amounts than the tax savings they accrued. The average ratio value using total charity care and total income tax savings of all the hospitals in the study was 6.10, and the median value was 3.46. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test results by bed size and nonprofit ownership type indicate that ownership type has a significant effect on charity care to gross revenue ratios (p = .020). Our analysis indicates that church-owned hospitals had higher ratios of charity care to gross revenues than did the other two ownership types--government and voluntary--in this sample. Policy implications are offered and further studies are recommended to analyze appropriate levels of charity care in nonprofit hospitals given new requirements for maintaining a hospital's tax-exempt status.

Preparing for section 501(r).

Steps hospitals should take to prepare for Section 501(r) requirements include the following: Prepare the board for its role in approving updated financial assistance, billing and collections, and emergency medical care policies. Revisit financial assistance policy eligibility requirements. Conduct a policy gap analysis. Review how the current financial assistance policy is publicized and make adjustments where necessary.

The determinants of nonprofit hospital CEO compensation.

Hospital CEO salaries have grown quickly over the past two decades. We investigate correlates of rising nonprofit hospital CEO pay between 2012 and 2019 by merging compensation data from Candid's IRS 990 forms with hospital data from the National Academy for State Health Policy Hospital Cost Tool. Almost half of the measured increase in CEO compensation (44.5%) accrued to a "base case" CEO, who was leading a non-teaching hospital system or independent hospital with fewer than 100 beds that earned 0 profits and provided no charity care. Another 28.5% of the measured salary increase resulted from changes in the generosity with which observable metrics were rewarded, particularly the reward for heading a system with 500 or more beds. The remaining 27% resulted mostly from hospital systems or single hospitals that increased their profits or bed size over time. The increase in CEO compensation associated with leading larger healthcare systems and earning greater profits may explain the increase in healthcare system consolidation which has occurred over the last several years.

Evaluating hospitals' provision of community benefit: an argument for an outcome-based approach to nonprofit hospital tax exemption.

Nonprofit hospitals are exempt from federal income taxation if they pass organizational and operational tests, including satisfying the community-benefit standard. Policymakers, however, have questioned the adequacy of the community benefits that nonprofit hospitals provide in exchange for these exemptions. The Internal Revenue Service recently responded to these concerns by redesigning its tax forms for nonprofit hospitals. The new Form 990 Schedule H requires nonprofit hospitals to provide additional information about their community-benefit activities. This new reporting requirement, however, places an undue focus on input-based community-benefit indicators, in particular expenditures. We argue that expanding the current input-based reporting requirement to include not only monetary inputs but also population health outcomes would achieve greater benefit for society.

Relationship between occurrence of surgical complications and hospital finances.

IMPORTANCE: The effect of surgical complications on hospital finances is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between major surgical complications and per-encounter hospital costs and revenues by payer type. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of administrative data for all inpatient surgical discharges during 2010 from a nonprofit 12-hospital system in the southern United States. Discharges were categorized by principal procedure and occurrence of 1 or more postsurgical complications, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, diagnosis and procedure codes. Nine common surgical procedures and 10 major complications across 4 payer types were analyzed. Hospital costs and revenue at discharge were obtained from hospital accounting systems and classified by payer type. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital costs, revenues, and contribution margin (defined as revenue minus variable expenses) were compared for patients with and without surgical complications according to payer type. RESULTS: Of 34,256 surgical discharges, 1820 patients (5.3%; 95% CI, 4.4%-6.4%) experienced 1 or more postsurgical complications. Compared with absence of complications, complications were associated with a $39,017 (95% CI, $20,069-$50,394; P < .001) higher contribution margin per patient with private insurance ($55,953 vs $16,936) and a $1749 (95% CI, $976-$3287; P < .001) higher contribution margin per patient with Medicare ($3629 vs $1880). For this hospital system in which private insurers covered 40% of patients (13,544), Medicare covered 45% (15,406), Medicaid covered 4% (1336), and self-payment covered 6% (2202), occurrence of complications was associated with an $8084 (95% CI, $4903-$9740; P < .001) higher contribution margin per patient ($15,726 vs $7642) and with a $7435 lower per-patient total margin (95% CI, $5103-$10,507; P < .001) ($1013 vs -$6422). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this hospital system, the occurrence of postsurgical complications was associated with a higher per-encounter hospital contribution margin for patients covered by Medicare and private insurance but a lower one for patients covered by Medicaid and who self-paid. Depending on payer mix, many hospitals have the potential for adverse near-term financial consequences for decreasing postsurgical complications.