Provision of Social Care Services by US Hospitals.

Policy Points Hospitals address population health needs and patients' social determinants of health by offering social care services. Tax-exempt hospitals are required to invest in community benefits, including social care services programs, though most community benefits spending is toward unreimbursed health care services. Tax-exempt hospitals offer about 36% more social care services than for-profit hospitals. Among tax-exempt hospitals, those that allocate more resources to community benefits spending offer more types of social care services, but those in states with minimum community benefits spending requirements offer fewer social care services. Policymakers may consider specifically incentivizing community benefits expenditures toward particular social care services, including linking tax exemptions to implementation, utilization, and outcome targets, to more directly help patients. CONTEXT: Despite growing interest in identifying patients' social needs, little is known about hospitals' provision of services to address them. We identify social care services offered by US hospitals and determine whether hospital spending or state policies toward community benefits are associated with the provision of these services by tax-exempt hospitals. METHODS: National secondary data about hospitals were collected from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, with additional Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990 data on community benefits spending from CommunityBenefitInsight.org and state-level community benefits policies from HilltopInstitute.org. Descriptive statistics for types of social care services and hospital characteristics were calculated, with bivariate chi-square and t-tests comparing for-profit and tax-exempt hospitals. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to estimate associations between hospital characteristics and types of services offered and among tax-exempt hospitals to estimate associations between social care services and community benefits spending and policies. Multivariable logistic regressions modeled associations between community benefits spending/policies and each type of social care services. FINDINGS: Private US hospitals offered an average of 5.7 types of social care services in 2018. Tax-exempt hospitals offered about 36% more social care services than for-profit hospitals. Larger number of beds, health system affiliation, and having community partnerships are associated with more social care services, whereas rural hospitals and those managed under contract offered fewer social care services. Among tax-exempt hospitals, greater community benefits spending is associated with offering more total (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.10, p < 0.01) and patient-focused social care services (IRR = 1.16, p < 0.01). Hospitals in states with minimum community benefits spending requirements offered significantly fewer social care services. CONCLUSIONS: Although tax-exempt status and increased community benefits spending were associated with increased social care services provision, the observation that certain hospital characteristics and state minimum community benefits spending requirements were associated with fewer social care services suggests opportunities for policy reform to increase social care services implementation.

Influence of Not-for-Profit Hospital Ownership Type on Community Benefit and Charity Care.

Non-profit hospitals are expected to provide charity care and other community benefits to adjust their tax exemption status. Using the Medicare Hospital Cost Report, American Hospital Association Annual Survey, and the American Community Survey datasets, we examined if church-affiliated hospitals spent more on charity care and community benefit. For this analysis, we defined five main categories of community benefits were measured: total community benefit; charity care; Medicaid shortfall; unreimbursed other means-tested services; and the total of unreimbursed education and unfunded research. Multiple regression was used to examine the effect of church ownership, controlling for other factors, on the level of community benefit in 2644 general acute care non-profit hospitals. Descriptive analyses and multiple regression were used to show the relationship between the provision of community benefits and church affiliation including Catholic (CH), other church-affiliated hospitals (OCAH), and non-church affiliated hospitals (NCAH). The non-profit hospital on average spent 6.5% of its total expenses on community benefits. NCAH spent 6.09%, CH spent 7.5%, and OCAH spent 9.4%. Non-profits spent 2.8% of their total expenses on charity care, with the highest charity care spending for OCAH (5.2%), followed by CH (3.9%), and NCAH (2.4%). Regression results showed that CH and OCAH, on average, spent 1.08% and 2.16% more on community benefits than NCAHs. In addition, CH and OCAH spent more on other categories of community benefits except for education and research. Church-affiliated hospitals spend more on community benefits and charity care than non-church affiliated nonprofit hospitals.

When States Mandate Hospital Community Benefit Reports, Provision Increases.

GOAL: We examined the variation in community benefit and charity care reporting standards mandated by states to determine whether state-mandated community benefit and charity care reporting is associated with greater provision of these services. METHODS: We used 2011-2019 data from IRS Form 990 Schedule H for 1,423 nonprofit hospitals to create a sample of 12,807 total observations. Random effects regression models were used to examine the association between state reporting requirements and community benefit spending by nonprofit hospitals. Specific reporting requirements were analyzed to determine whether certain requirements were associated with increased spending on these services. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Nonprofit hospitals in states that required reports spent a higher percentage of total hospital expenditures on community benefits (9.1%, SD = 6.2%) compared to states without these requirements (7.2%, SD = 5.7%). A similar association between the percentage of charity care and total hospital expenditures (2.3% and 1.5%) was found. The greater number of reporting requirements was associated with lower levels of charity care provision, as hospitals allocated more resources to other community benefits. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Mandating the reporting of specific services is associated with greater provision of certain specific services, but not all. A concern is that when many services must be reported, the provision of charity care might be reduced as hospitals choose to allocate their community benefit dollars to other categories. As a result, policymakers may want to focus their attention on the services they most want to prioritize.

Trends in the Provision of Community-Building Activities by Nonprofit Hospitals, 2010-2019.

As part of their annual tax report, nonprofit hospitals are asked to report their community-building activities (CBAs); yet, little is known to date about hospitals' spending on such activities. CBAs are activities that improve community health by addressing the upstream factors and social determinants that impact health. Using data from Internal Revenue Service Form 990 Schedule H, this study used descriptive statistics to examine trends in the provision of CBAs by nonprofit hospitals between 2010 and 2019. While the number of hospitals reporting any CBA spending remained relatively stable at around 60%, the share of total operating expenditures that hospitals contributed to CBAs decreased from 0.04% in 2010 to 0.02% in 2019. Despite the increasing attention paid by policy makers and the public to the contributions that hospitals make to the health of their communities, nonprofit hospitals have not made corresponding efforts to increase their spending on CBAs.

One Decade Later: The Generalizability, Diversity, and Inclusion of Community Health Needs Assessments.

CONTEXT: The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aimed to reduce health disparities and change medicine to be more community-driven. To maintain tax-exempt status, hospitals must complete a Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) every 3 years. This assessment must ( a ) integrate input from individuals the community serves, ( b ) make the report publicly assessable, and ( c ) adopt an implementation strategy based on community health needs identified in the assessment. However, there is little information on how representative CHNAs are of the community. DESIGN: A content analysis was performed on a random sample of CHNA reports. SETTING: This investigation examined nonprofit hospitals across the United States. OBJECTIVES: This investigation analyzed the quality of CHNAs and described existing CHNA practices through 4 means: (1) identified the type of data included; (2) examined the frequency in the methods of data collection; (3) understood how representative those data are of the hospital's service region; and (4) explored to what extent the hospital addressed diversity and inclusion such as through recruitment. METHODS: A stratified random sample was drawn of CHNAs published in the past 3 years (n = 450 reports). The sample was stratified by the US Department of Agriculture's Rural-Urban Continuum codes to balance hospital representation from metro and nonmetro areas. RESULTS: A series of dependent t tests revealed that these hospitals' reports represented a significantly more female, White, college-educated, and older population than the service area. In addition, only 3.12% of hospitals collected primary youth data. Finally, results also found that survey recruitment was not inclusive of individuals who did not have Internet access, could not read, or did not speak English fluently.

Hospital Community Benefit Reporting: How Group Reporting Practices Limit Accountability.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the prevalence of group reporting of hospital community benefit efforts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and understand hospital and community characteristics associated with this practice. DESIGN: The study was based on data collected from publicly available community benefit reports from 2010 to 2019, as well as secondary data from the 2020 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey. The sample was drawn from the entire nonprofit US hospital population reporting community benefit activities. The analytic plan employed descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis. SETTING: The United States. PARTICIPANTS: All data are self-reported by US hospitals, either through the publication of community benefit reports (IRS Form 990 Schedule H) or a response to the AHA Annual Survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analyzed variables include whether a hospital reported its community benefit expenditures individually or as a group member; community benefit spending as a percentage of hospital operating expenses; and whether the hospital was part of a multihospital system, with consideration of hospital and community characteristics. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2019, more than 40% of hospitals participated in group reporting, with most doing so consistently. System membership and hospital size were significantly and positively tied to group reporting, with state community benefit policy tied to the lower prevalence of group reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of group reporting limits accountability to communities and restricts an accurate assessment of community benefit expenditures, counter to policy intentions. Stakeholders should consider what modifications to reporting rules could be made to promote transparency and to ensure that the effects of community benefit policies align with intentions.

Shifts in Community Benefits Spending Among Nonprofit Hospitals in Nebraska and 10 Proximate States, 2012 and 2015.

CONTEXT: Federal and state policy makers have debated the evolving concept of community benefit and the extent to which nonprofit hospitals are providing benefits to the community in exchange for the tax benefits they receive. OBJECTIVE: This study compares community benefits spending by nonprofit hospitals in Nebraska and other selected states in both 2012 and 2015. Expenditures are also examined by rural, regional, and urban hospitals within Nebraska. METHODS: Community benefit expenditure data were taken from Community Benefit Insight and consolidated into the categories of direct patient care, community health improvement initiatives, and health professions education and research. RESULTS: When community benefit expenditures were compared across 11 states, Nebraska had the highest percentage of expenditures for community health improvement initiatives in both 2012 and 2015. Although community benefit expenditures for the 44 nonprofit hospitals within Nebraska increased from 2012 to 2015, they remained flat as a share of total hospital expenditures. In 2015, 63% of community benefit expenditures were allocated to direct patient care, which represented a 7.3% decrease from 2012. This decline led to greater spending on community health improvement initiatives (3.1%) and health professions education and research (4.2%). Rural, regional, and urban hospitals spent more proportionately on community health improvement initiatives in 2015 than in 2012. CONCLUSIONS: The shift in community benefit expenditures from direct patient care to community health improvement initiatives and health professions education and research suggests that hospitals are investing in programs with broader community-wide benefits. Nebraska allocates a significantly larger share of its community benefits spending to community health improvement activities than other Great Plains and Midwestern states. Nebraska is in the process of implementing Medicaid expansion, which may shift future community benefits spending decisions.

Anchor Institutions: Best Practices to Address Social Needs and Social Determinants of Health.

"Anchor Institutions"-universities, hospitals, and other large, place-based organizations-invest in their communities as a way of doing business. Anchor "meds" (anchor institutions dedicated to health) that address social needs and social determinants of health have generated considerable community-based activity over the past several decades.Yet to date, virtually no research has analyzed their current status or effect on community health. To assess the current state and potential best practices of anchor meds, we conducted a search of the literature, a review of Web sites and related public documents of all declared anchor meds in the country, and interviews with 14 key informants.We identified potential best practices in adopting, operationalizing, and implementing an anchor mission and using specific social determinants of health strategies, noting early outcomes and lessons learned. Future dedicated research can bring heightened attention to this emerging force for community health.

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.

Measuring Nonprofit Hospitals' Provision of Charity Care Using IRS and CMS Data.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: We explore whether nonprofit hospitals report similar amounts of charity care to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). We use nonprofit hospitals' financial reports to the IRS and the CMS Medicare costs report for 2011 and 2012. In 2012, hospitals reported spending 7.6% more in charity care to the IRS than to CMS: 2.54% of revenues ($5.74 million per hospital) to the IRS versus 2.36% ($5.16 million) to CMS. While the averages are close, there are wide discrepancies for individual hospitals. For example, despite efforts for standardization, 80% of hospitals reported charity care to the CMS that was 40% greater in absolute value than what they reported to the IRS, and only 10% of hospitals reported charity care to CMS that was within 20% of what they reported to the IRS. Our findings suggest that individual hospitals routinely report different amounts of charity care to the IRS and CMS, yet we find relatively few hospital or market characteristics that may explain these differences.

State Laws and Nonprofit Hospital Community Benefit Spending.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of state laws on nonprofit hospital community benefit spending. DESIGN: We used multivariate models to estimate the association between different types of state-level community benefit laws and nonprofit hospital community benefit spending from tax filings. SETTING: All 50 US states. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2421 nonprofit short-term acute care hospital organizations that filled an internal revenue service Form 990 and Schedule H for calendar during years 2009-2015. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2015, short-term acute care hospitals spent an average of $46 billion per year in total, or $20 million per hospital on community benefit activities. Exposure to a state-level community benefit law of any type was associated with an $8.42 (95% confidence interval: 1.20-15.64) per $1000 of total operating expense greater community benefit spending. Spending amounts and patterns varied on the basis of the type of community benefit law and hospital urbanicity. CONCLUSIONS: State laws are associated with nonprofit hospital community benefit spending. Policy makers can use community benefit laws to increase nonprofit hospital engagement with public health.

Determinants of Community-Related Expenses of US Tax-Exempt Hospitals, 2013.

CONTEXT: Tax-exempt hospitals in the United States are required to report community benefit expenses on their federal tax forms. Two categories of expenses critical to the public health mission of hospitals are the "community health improvement" and "community-building" expense categories. The community health improvement expenses formally qualify as a community benefit, whereas community-building expenses do not. Increasing both types of spending would be consistent with the growing evidence on the effects of social determinants on population health. OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics associated with the level of community health improvement and community-building expenses reported by tax-exempt hospitals. DESIGN: The general acute care hospital is the unit of analysis. We utilize secondary data for all US general acute care hospitals that filed their own Internal Revenue Service Form 990 Schedule H for 2013 (n = 1508). We apply linear regression analysis to an explanatory model with 8 independent variables. MEASURES: The primary dependent variables are percentage of operating expenses devoted to community health improvement and to community building. The independent variables include 4 hospital-level measures, 3 county-level measures, and a measure of state requirements for community benefit. RESULTS: The level of community health improvement expenses is positively associated with bed size, system membership, profit margin, and urban location. In states where tax-exempt hospitals are required to demonstrate community benefit to the state, there is lower community health improvement spending. Teaching hospitals also demonstrate lower community health improvement spending. Results for community-building expenses mirror those for community health improvement except that teaching hospital status and per capita income lose significance and hospital competition gains significance in the negative direction. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders among tax-exempt hospitals in community-related spending are hospitals that are larger, more profitable, members of systems, and located in urban areas and in states that do not have community benefit requirements.

Priorities for Investing in Community Health Improvement: A Comparison of Decision Makers in Public Health, Nonprofit Hospitals, and Community Nonprofits.

CONTEXT: As a result of additional requirements for tax exemption, many nonprofit hospitals have become more actively involved in community health improvement. There is an open question, however, as to how decision makers in hospitals decide which kind of improvement projects should receive priority and how hospital managers' priorities compare with those of decision makers in public health agencies and community-based nonprofits. OBJECTIVE: To understand the priorities that guide decision makers in public health, nonprofit hospitals, and community nonprofits when allocating resources to community health projects. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey with a discrete choice experiment, asking respondents to choose between different types of community health projects, which varied along several project characteristics. Respondents included managers of community health and community benefit at nonprofit hospitals (n = 225), managers at local public health departments (n = 200), and leaders of community nonprofits (n = 136). Respondents were located in 47 of 50 US states. A conditional logit model was used to estimate how various project characteristics led to greater or lesser support of a given health project. Open-ended questions aided in interpretation of results. RESULTS: Respondents from all 3 groups showed strong agreement on community health priorities. Projects were more likely to be selected when they addressed a health issue identified on community health needs assessment, involved cross-sector collaboration, or were supported by evidence. Project characteristics that mattered less included the time needed to measure the project's impact and the project's target population. CONCLUSION: Elements often considered central to community health, such as long-term investment and prioritizing vulnerable populations, may not be considered by decision makers as important as other aspects of resource allocation. If we want greater priority for ideas such as health equity and social determinants of health, it will take a concerted effort from practitioners and policy makers to reshape expectations.

Community Benefit Spending Among North Carolina's Tax-Exempt Hospitals After Performing Community Health Needs Assessments.

CONTEXT: As of March 23, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires tax-exempt hospitals to conduct Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) every 3 years to incentivize hospitals to provide programs responsive to the health needs of their communities. OBJECTIVE: To examine the distribution and variation in community benefit spending among North Carolina's tax-exempt hospitals 2 years after completing their first IRS-mandated CHNA. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using secondary analysis of published community benefit reports. Community benefit was categorized on the basis of North Carolina Hospital Association's community benefit reporting guidelines. Multiple regression analysis using generalized linear model was used to examine the variation in community benefit spending among study hospitals considering differences in hospital-level and community characteristics. SETTING: Fifty-three private, nonprofit hospitals across North Carolina. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Dollar expenditures as a percentage of operating expenses of the 2 categories of community benefit spending: patient care financial assistance and community health programs. RESULTS: Study hospitals' aggregate community benefit spending was $2.6 billion, 85% of which was in the form of patient care financial assistance, with only 0.7% of total spending allocated to community-building activities such as affordable housing, economic development, and environmental improvements. On average, the study hospitals' community benefit spending was equivalent to 14.6% of operating expenses. Hospitals with 300 or more beds provided significantly higher investments in community health programs as a percentage of their operating expenses than hospitals with 101 to 299 beds (P = .03) or hospitals with 100 or fewer beds (P = .04). Access to care was not associated with patient care financial assistance (P = .81) or community health programs expenditures (P = .94). CONCLUSIONS: The study hospitals direct most of their community benefit expenditures to patient care financial assistance (individual welfare) rather than population health improvement initiatives, with virtually no investments in community-building activities that address socioeconomic determinants of health.

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.

Establishing a Baseline: Community Benefit Spending by Not-for-Profit Hospitals Prior to Implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

CONTEXT: Community Benefit spending by not-for-profit hospitals has served as a critical, formalized part of the nation's safety net for almost 50 years. This has occurred mostly through charity care. This article examines how not-for-profit hospitals spent Community Benefit dollars prior to full implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). METHODS: Using data from 2009 to 2012 hospital tax and other governmental filings, we constructed national, hospital-referral-region, and facility-level estimates of Community Benefit spending. Data were collected in 2015 and analyzed in 2015 and 2016. Data were matched at the facility level for a non-profit hospital's IRS tax filings (Form 990, Schedule H) and CMS Hospital Cost Report Information System and Provider of Service data sets. RESULTS: During 2009, hospitals spent about 8% of total operating expenses on Community Benefit. This increased to between 8.3% and 8.5% in 2012. The majority of spending (>80%) went toward charity care, unreimbursed Medicaid, and subsidized health services, with approximately 6% going toward both community health improvement and health professionals' education. By 2012, national spending on Community Benefit likely exceeded $60 billion. The largest hospital systems spent the vast majority of the nation's Community Benefit; the top 25% of systems spent more than 80 cents of every Community Benefit dollar. DISCUSSION: Community Benefit spending has remained relatively steady as a proportion of total operating expenses and so has increased over time-although charity care remains the major focus of Community Benefit spending overall. IMPLICATIONS: More than $60 billion was spent on Community Benefit prior to implementation of the ACA. New reporting and spending requirements from the IRS, alongside changes by the ACA, are changing incentives for hospitals in how they spend Community Benefit dollars. In the short term, and especially the long term, hospital systems would do well to partner with public health, other social services, and even competing hospitals to invest in population-based activities. The mandated community health needs assessment process is a logical home for these sorts of collaborations. Relatively modest investments can improve the baseline level of health in their communities and make it easier to improve population health. Aside from a population health justification for a partnership model, a business case is necessary for widespread adoption of this approach. Because of their authorities, responsibilities, and centuries of expertise in community health, public health agencies are in a position to help hospitals form concrete, sustainable collaborations for the improvement of population health. CONCLUSION: The ACA will likely change the delivery of uncompensated and charity care in the United States in the years to come. How hospitals choose to spend those dollars may be influenced greatly by the financial and political environments, as well as the strength of community partnerships.

Provision of community benefits by tax-exempt U.S. hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires tax-exempt hospitals to conduct assessments of community needs and address identified needs. Most tax-exempt hospitals will need to meet this requirement by the end of 2013. METHODS: We conducted a national study of the level and pattern of community benefits that tax-exempt hospitals provide. The study comprised more than 1800 tax-exempt hospitals, approximately two thirds of all such institutions. We used reports that hospitals filed with the Internal Revenue Service for fiscal year 2009 that provide expenditures for seven types of community benefits. We combined these reports with other data to examine whether institutional, community, and market characteristics are associated with the provision of community benefits by hospitals. RESULTS: Tax-exempt hospitals spent 7.5% of their operating expenses on community benefits during fiscal year 2009. More than 85% of these expenditures were devoted to charity care and other patient care services. Of the remaining community-benefit expenditures, approximately 5% were devoted to community health improvements that hospitals undertook directly. The rest went to education in health professions, research, and contributions to community groups. The level of benefits provided varied widely among the hospitals (hospitals in the top decile devoted approximately 20% of operating expenses to community benefits; hospitals in the bottom decile devoted approximately 1%). This variation was not accounted for by indicators of community need. CONCLUSIONS: In 2009, tax-exempt hospitals varied markedly in the level of community benefits provided, with most of their benefit-related expenditures allocated to patient care services. Little was spent on community health improvement.