Managerial Ownership in Nursing Homes: Staffing, Quality, and Financial Performance.

Purpose of the Study: Ownership of nursing homes (NHs) has primarily focused broadly on differences between for-profit (FP), nonprofit (NFP), and government-operated facilities. Yet, among FPs, the understanding of detailed ownership structures at individual NHs is rather limited. Particularly, NH administrators may hold significant equity interests in their facilities, leading to heterogeneous financial incentives and NH outcomes. Through the principal-agent theory, this article studies how managerial ownership of individual facilities affects NH outcomes. Design and Methods: We use a unique panel dataset of Ohio NHs (2005-2010) to empirically examine the relationship between managerial equity ownership and NH staffing, quality, and financial performance. We identify facility administrators as owner-managers if they have more than 5% of the equity stakes or are relatives of the owners. The statistical analysis is based on the pooled ordinary least squares and NH-fixed effect models. Results: We find that owner-managed NHs are associated with higher nursing staff levels compared to other FP NHs. Surprisingly, despite higher staffing levels, owner-managed NHs are not associated with better quality and we find no statistically significant difference in financial performance between owner-managed and nonowner-managed FP NHs. Our results do not support the principal-agent model and we offer alternative explanations for future research. Implications: Our findings provide empirical evidence that NH ownership structures are more nuanced than simply broadly categorizing facilities as FP or NFP, and our results do not fully align with the standard principal-agent model. The role of managerial ownership should be considered in future NH research and policy discussions.

The quasi-market for adult residential care in the UK: Do for-profit, not-for-profit or public sector residential care and nursing homes provide better quality care?

There has been a radical transformation in the provision of adult residential and nursing home care in England over the past four decades. Up to the 1980s, over 80% of adult residential care was provided by the public sector, but today public sector facilities account for only 8% of the available places, with the rest being provided by a mixture of for-profit firms (74%) and non-profit charities (18%). The public sector's role is often now that of purchaser (paying the fees of people unable to afford them) and regulator. While the idea that private companies may play a bigger role in the future provision of health care is highly contentious in the UK, the transformation of the residential and nursing home care has attracted little comment. Concerns about the quality of care do emerge from time to time, often stimulated by high profile media investigations, scandals or criminal prosecutions, but there is little or no evidence about whether or not the transformation of the sector from largely public to private provision has had a beneficial effect on those who need the service. This study asks whether there are differences in the quality of care provided by public, non-profit or for-profit facilities in England. We use data on care quality for over 15,000 homes that are provided by the industry regulator in England: the Care Quality Commission (CQC). These data are the results of inspections carried out between April 2011 and October 2015. Controlling for a range of facility characteristics such as age and size, proportional odds logistic regression showed that for-profit facilities have lower CQC quality ratings than public and non-profit providers over a range of measures, including safety, effectiveness, respect, meeting needs and leadership. We discuss the implications of these results for the ongoing debates about the role of for-profit providers of health and social care.

Observational Evidence of For-Profit Delivery and Inferior Nursing Home Care: When Is There Enough Evidence for Policy Change?

Margaret McGregor and colleagues consider Bradford Hill's framework for examining causation in observational research for the association between nursing home care quality and for-profit ownership.

Monitoring community mobilisation and organisational capacity among high-risk groups in a large-scale HIV prevention programme in India: selected findings using a Community Ownership and Preparedness Index.

BACKGROUND: In a participatory approach to health and development interventions, defining and measuring community mobilisation is important, but it is challenging to do this effectively, especially at scale. METHODS: A cross-sectional, participatory monitoring tool was administered in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 across a representative sample of 25 community-based groups (CBGs) formed under the Avahan India AIDS Initiative, to assess their progress in mobilisation, and to inform efforts to strengthen the groups and make them sustainable. The survey used a weighted index to capture both qualitative and quantitative data in numeric form. The index permitted broad, as well as highly detailed, analysis of community mobilisation, relevant at the level of individual groups, as well as state-wide and across the whole programme. RESULTS: The survey demonstrated that leadership and programme management were the strongest areas among the CBGs, confirming the programme's investment in these areas. Discussion of the Round 1 results led to efforts to strengthen governance and democratic decision making in the groups, and progress was reflected in the Round 2 survey results. CBG engagement with state authorities to gain rights and entitlements and securing the long-term financial stability of groups remain a challenge. CONCLUSION: The survey has proven useful for informing the managers of programmes about what is happening on the ground, and it has opened spaces for discussion within community groups about the nature of leadership, decision making and their goals, which is leading to accelerated progress. The tool provided useful data to manage community mobilisation in Avahan.

How should the benefits of bioprospecting be shared?

The search for valuable new products from among the world's stock of natural biological resources is mostly carried out by people from wealthy countries, and mostly takes place in developing countries that lack the research capacity to profit from it. Surely, the indigenous people should receive some compensation from it. But we must build a robust defense for this intuition, rooted in the Western moral traditions that are widely accepted in wealthy countries, if we are to put it into practice and enforce it.

Brand: a company's most valuable asset.

Brands have the potential to outlive all other forms of intellectual property. Awareness of the issues will maximise their value.

Quality of care in nursing homes: an analysis of relationships among profit, quality, and ownership.

BACKGROUND: Recent work has highlighted a negative correlation between proprietary status and nursing home quality of care. This relationship might be explained by the context in which proprietary homes operate. However, another possible explanation is that some proprietary homes take excessive profit to the detriment of care quality. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between profit levels and quality in proprietary and nonproprietary nursing homes (NHs), accounting for resident and market characteristics. METHODS: Data on 1098 free-standing NHs were taken from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, the On-line Survey Certification and Reporting System, and California licensing and statistical reports for 1998 and 1999. Tobit multivariate techniques were used to examine the relationship between deficiency citations and a range of explanatory variables, including profit. RESULTS: Proprietary homes in California had significantly lower quality of care than nonproprietary homes. A stratified analysis revealed that, controlling for resident, facility, and market characteristics, profits located within the highest 14% of the proprietary sector's profit distribution were associated with significantly more total deficiencies and serious deficiencies. This relationship was not found in nonproprietary facilities. Other factors related to deficiencies included the ethnic mix of residents and facility size. CONCLUSIONS: Within the context in which proprietary homes operate, profit above a given threshold is associated with a higher number of deficiencies. Given this and the role of the proprietary sector in NH care, careful monitoring of profit levels in this sector appears warranted.

Cost efficiency of US hospitals: a stochastic frontier approach.

This study examined the impact of managed care and other environmental factors on hospital inefficiency in 1631 US hospitals during the period 1990-1996. A panel, stochastic frontier regression model was used to estimate inefficiency parameters and inefficiency scores. The results suggest that mean estimated inefficiency decreased by about 28% during the study period. Inefficiency was negatively associated with health maintenance organization (HMO) penetration and industry concentration. It was positively related with Medicare share and for-profit ownership status.

The comparative performance of for-profit and nonprofit home health care services in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To determine, by way of an exhaustive, systematic, and comprehensive review and summary of all scientific published studies, whether or not there are any performance differences between private for-profit and private nonprofit home health care providers. The second objective is to discover the proportion of all research on this topic that is devoted to home health care services compared to all other health services providers. DATA SOURCES: Computerized bibliographic searches of relevant databases and published indexes and abstracts were undertaken. They included Medline (Ovid and Pubmed versions), Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index and Science Citation Index), ABI/Inform, and Sociological Abstracts. Follow-up searches of reference lists in each article obtained from the computerized search were then completed. STUDY DESIGN: This systematic review retained for analysis all published studies that compared the performance of for-profit and nonprofit health care providers on access, quality, cost/efficiency, and/or amount of charity care, based on data collected after 1980. As a quality control measure only studies published in peer reviewed journals were included. Studies were coded according to the article's stated conclusions: for-profit superiority, nonprofit superiority, or no difference/mixed results. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The comparative performance of for-profit and nonprofit home health service organizations is one of the most understudied areas of health care provider services in the US today. Only 6 of the over 1030 comparisons of the two concerned home health care. No data on this topic have been collected since 1991, and no articles about it have been published in a peer-reviewed journal since 1995. CONCLUSION: Research on the relative performance of for-profit and nonprofit home health care services is a research priority urgently in need of attention.

Who "owns" cells and tissues?

Opposition to 'ownership' of cells and tissues often depends on arguments about the special or sacred nature of human bodies and other living things. Such arguments are not very helpful in dealing with the patenting of DNA fragments. Two arguments undergird support for patenting: the notion that an author has a 'right' to an invention resulting from his/her labor, and the utilitarian argument that patents are needed to support medical inventiveness. The labor theory of ownership rights is subject to critique, thought it may still have enduring value. The more important argument is that deriving from the common good. If patents on DNA are supported on the basis of their contributions to the common good, then they can also be limited based on considerations of the common good.

Quality of care in investor-owned vs not-for-profit HMOs.

CONTEXT: The proportion of health maintenance organization (HMO) members enrolled in investor-owned plans has increased sharply, yet little is known about the quality of these plans compared with not-for-profit HMOs. OBJECTIVE: To compare quality-of-care measures for investor-owned and not-for-profit HMOs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) Version 3.0 from the National Committee for Quality Assurance's Quality Compass 1997, which included 1996 quality-of-care data for 329 HMO plans (248 investor-owned and 81 not-for-profit), representing 56% of the total HMO enrollment in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates for 14 HEDIS quality-of-care indicators. RESULTS: Compared with not-for-profit HMOs, investor-owned plans had lower rates for all 14 quality-of-care indicators. Among patients discharged from the hospital after myocardial infarction, 59.2% of members in investor-owned HMOs vs 70.6% in not-for-profit plans received a beta-blocker (P<.001); 35.1% of patients with diabetes mellitus in investor-owned plans vs 47.9% in not-for-profit plans had annual eye examinations (P<.001). Investor-owned plans had lower rates than not-for-profit plans of immunization (63.9% vs 72.3%; P<.001), mammography (69.4% vs 75.1%; P<.001), Papanicolaou tests (69.2% vs 77.1%; P<.001), and psychiatric hospitalization (70.5% vs 77.1%; P<.001). Quality scores were highest for staff- and group-model HMOs. In multivariate analyses, investor ownership was consistently associated with lower quality after controlling for model type, geographic region, and the method each HMO used to collect data. CONCLUSIONS: Investor-owned HMOs deliver lower quality of care than not-for-profit plans.

New HCFA regulations clarify PSO requirements.

In March and April of 1998, HCFA promulgated regulations regarding various requirements for provider-sponsored organizations (PSOs). These regulations define what constitutes an affiliated provider to a PSO, identify what percentage of services must be provided directly to beneficiaries by PSO affiliated providers, define what constitutes provider ownership in a PSO, and set minimum capitalization and liquidity standards for PSOs.