Does increased provider effort improve quality of care? Evidence from a standardised patient study on correct and unnecessary treatment.

BACKGROUND: Poor quality of care, including overprovision (unnecessary care) is a global health concern. Greater provider effort has been shown to increase the likelihood of correct treatment, but its relationship with overprovision is less clear. Providers who make more effort may give more treatment overall, both correct and unnecessary, or may have lower rates of overprovision; we test which is true in the Tanzanian private health sector. METHODS: Standardised patients visited 227 private-for-profit and faith-based facilities in Tanzania, presenting with symptoms of asthma and TB. They recorded history questions asked and physical examinations carried out by the provider, as well as laboratory tests ordered, treatments prescribed, and fees paid. A measure of provider effort was constructed on the basis of a checklist of recommended history taking questions and physical exams. RESULTS: 15% of SPs received the correct care for their condition and 74% received unnecessary care. Increased provider effort was associated with increased likelihood of correct care, and decreased likelihood of giving unnecessary care. Providers who made more effort charged higher fees, through the mechanism of higher consultation fees, rather than increased fees for lab tests and drugs. CONCLUSION: Providers who made more effort were more likely to treat patients correctly. A novel finding of this study is that they were also less likely to provide unnecessary care, suggesting it is not simply a case of some providers doing "more of everything", but that those who do more in the consultation give more targeted care.

Effects of chain ownership and private equity financing on quality in the English care home sector: retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: the structure of care homes markets in England is changing with the emergence of for-profit homes organised in chains and financed by private equity. Previous literature shows for-profit homes were rated lower quality than not-for-profit homes when inspected by the national regulator, but has not considered new forms of financing. OBJECTIVES: to examine whether financing and organisation of care homes is associated with regulator assessments of quality. METHODS: retrospective observational study of the Care Quality Commission's ratings of 10,803 care homes providing services to older people as of January 2020. We used generalised ordered logistic models to assess whether ratings differed between not-for-profit and for-profit homes categorised into three groups: (i) chained ownership, financed by private equity; (ii) chained ownership, not financed by private equity and (iii) independent ownership. We compared Overall and domain (caring, effective, responsive, safe, well-led) ratings adjusted for care home size, age and location. RESULTS: all three for-profit ownership types had lower average overall ratings than not-for-profit homes, especially independent (6.8% points (p.p.) more likely rated as 'Requires Improvement/Inadequate', 95% CI: 4.7-8.9) and private equity chains (6.6 p.p. more likely rated as 'Requires Improvement/Inadequate', 95% CI: 2.9-10.2). Independent homes scored better than private equity chains in the safe, effective and responsive domains but worst in the well-led domain. DISCUSSION: private equity financing and independent for-profit ownership are associated with lower quality. The consequences of the changing care homes market structure for quality of services should be monitored.

Financial Profit in Medicine: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians.

The steady growth of corporate interest and influence in the health care sector over the past few decades has created a more business-oriented health care system in the United States, helping to spur for-profit and private equity investment. Proponents say that this trend makes the health care system more efficient, encourages innovation, and provides financial stability to ensure access and improve care. Critics counter that such moves favor profit over care and erode the patient-physician relationship. American College of Physicians (ACP) underscores that physicians are permitted to earn a reasonable income as long as they are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to provide high-quality, appropriate care within the guardrails of medical professionalism and ethics. In this position paper, ACP considers the effect of mergers, integration, private equity investment, nonprofit hospital requirements, and conversions from nonprofit to for-profit status on patients, physicians, and the health care system.

No mission? No motivation. On hospitals' organizational form and charity care provision.

A healthcare provider faces two decision problems. On the one hand, it chooses its organizational form: a hospital can be a for-profit institution providing compensated care only, or it can be a nonprofit organization whose mission is enhancing access to care for uninsured, low-income patients. On the other hand, the provider chooses which health professionals to hire, without observing their heterogeneous skills and their pro-social motivation. These decisions are related because an increase in the percentage of revenues, that the nonprofit hospital sacrifices for charity care, might enhance the motivation of its workers and induce some of them to donate their labor, that is, to volunteer. Accordingly, this article analyzes the provider's optimal screening contracts, which are contingent on workers' ability and satisfy limited liability, and relates them to the optimal choice of its mission-orientation. The results provide a new rationale for: a the emergence of different organizational forms for hospitals, such as for-profits and nonprofits, which complement public hospitals in the provision of health care, b the heterogeneity in the degree of charity care chosen by different nonprofit hospitals.

Comparing the average cost of outpatient care of public and for-profit private providers in India.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the cost of care associated with different kinds of healthcare providers is necessary for informing the policy debates in mixed health-systems like India's. Existing studies reporting Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE) per episode of outpatient care in public and private providers in India do not provide a fair comparison because they have not taken into account the government subsidies received by public facilities. Public and private health insurance in India do not cover outpatient care and for-profit providers have to meet all their costs out of the payments they take from patients. METHODS: The average direct cost per acute episode of outpatient care was compared for public providers, for-profit formal providers and informal private providers in Chhattisgarh state of India. For public facilities, government subsidies for various inputs were taken into account. Resources used were apportioned using Activity Based Costing. Land provided free to public facilities was counted at market prices. The study used two datasets: a) household survey on outpatient utilisation and OOPE b) facility survey of public providers to find the input costs borne by government per outpatient-episode. RESULTS: The average cost per episode of outpatient care was Indian Rupees (INR) 400 for public providers, INR 586 for informal private providers and INR 2643 for formal for-profit providers and they managed 39.3, 37.9 and 22.9% of episodes respectively. The average cost for government and households put together was greater for using formal for-profit providers than the public providers. The disease profile of care handled by different types of providers was similar. Volume of patients and human-resources were key cost drivers in public facilities. Close to community providers involved less cost than others. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The findings have implications for the desired mix of public and private providers in India's health-system. Poor regulation of for-profit providers was an important structural cost driver. Purchasing outpatient care from private providers may not reduce average cost. Policies to strengthen public provisioning of curative primary care close to communities can help in reducing cost.

Safety-Net Care for Maintenance Dialysis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although most American patients with ESKD become eligible for Medicare by their fourth month of dialysis, some never do. Information about where patients with limited health insurance receive maintenance dialysis has been lacking. METHODS: We identified patients initiating maintenance dialysis (2008-2015) from the US Renal Data System, defining patients as "safety-net reliant" if they were uninsured or had only Medicaid coverage at dialysis onset and had not qualified for Medicare by the fourth dialysis month. We examined four dialysis facility ownership categories according to for-profit/nonprofit status and ownership (chain versus independent). We assessed whether patients who were safety-net reliant were more likely to initiate dialysis at certain facility types. We also examined hospital-based affiliation. RESULTS: The proportion of patients <65 years initiating dialysis who were safety-net reliant increased significantly over time, from 11% to 14%; 73% of such patients started dialysis at for-profit/chain-owned facilities compared to 76% of all patients starting dialysis. Patients who were safety-net reliant had a 30% higher relative risk of initiating dialysis at nonprofit/independently owned versus for-profit/independently owned facilities (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.36); they had slightly lower relative risks of initiating dialysis at for-profit and non-profit chain-owned facilities, and were more likely to receive dialysis at hospital-based facilities. These findings primarily reflect increased likelihood of dialysis among patients without insurance at certain facility types. CONCLUSIONS: Although most patients who were safety-net reliant received care at for-profit/chain-owned facilities, they were disproportionately cared for at nonprofit/independently owned and hospital-based facilities. Ongoing loss of market share of nonprofit/independently owned outpatient dialysis facilities may affect safety net-reliant populations.

Preference for Private Sector for Vaccination of Under-Five Children in India and Its Associated Factors: Findings from a Nationally Representative Sample.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the factors associated with private sector preference for vaccination will help in understanding the barriers in seeking public facility and also the steps to improve public-private partnership (PPP) model. METHODS: We analysed the recent National Family Health Survey-4 data (NFHS-4; 2015-16) gathered from Demographic Health Survey programme. Stratification and clustering in the sample design was accounted using svyset command. RESULTS: Weighted proportion of children receiving private vaccination was 10.0% (95% CI: 9.7-10.3). Children belonging to highest wealth quantile (adjusted Prevalence ratio; aPR-1.58), male child (aPR-1.07) urban area (aPR-1.11), not receiving anganwadi/Integrated Childhood Development Services (aPR-1.71) and receiving antenatal care in private sector was significantly associated with higher proportion of private vaccination. CONCLUSION: Current study showed that 1 in 10 <5 years child in India received vaccination from private health facility. Preference for private health facility was found to be influenced by higher socio-economic strata, urban area residence and seeking private health facility for antenatal and delivery services.

Association Between Dialysis Facility Ownership and Access to Kidney Transplantation.

Importance: For-profit (vs nonprofit) dialysis facilities have historically had lower kidney transplantation rates, but it is unknown if the pattern holds for living donor and deceased donor kidney transplantation, varies by facility ownership, or has persisted over time in a nationally representative population. Objective: To determine the association between dialysis facility ownership and placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study that included 1 478 564 patients treated at 6511 US dialysis facilities. Adult patients with incident end-stage kidney disease from the US Renal Data System (2000-2016) were linked with facility ownership (Dialysis Facility Compare) and characteristics (Dialysis Facility Report). Exposures: The primary exposure was dialysis facility ownership, which was categorized as nonprofit small chains, nonprofit independent facilities, for-profit large chains (>1000 facilities), for-profit small chains (<1000 facilities), and for-profit independent facilities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Access to kidney transplantation was defined as time from initiation of dialysis to placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant. Cumulative incidence differences and multivariable Cox models assessed the association between dialysis facility ownership and each outcome. Results: Among 1 478 564 patients, the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 55-76 years), with 55.3% male, and 28.1% non-Hispanic black patients. Eighty-seven percent of patients received care at a for-profit dialysis facility. A total of 109 030 patients (7.4%) received care at 435 nonprofit small chain facilities; 78 287 (5.3%) at 324 nonprofit independent facilities; 483 988 (32.7%) at 2239 facilities of large for-profit chain 1; 482 689 (32.6%) at 2082 facilities of large for-profit chain 2; 225 890 (15.3%) at 997 for-profit small chain facilities; and 98 680 (6.7%) at 434 for-profit independent facilities. During the study period, 121 680 patients (8.2%) were placed on the deceased donor waiting list, 23 762 (1.6%) received a living donor kidney transplant, and 49 290 (3.3%) received a deceased donor kidney transplant. For-profit facilities had lower 5-year cumulative incidence differences for each outcome vs nonprofit facilities (deceased donor waiting list: -13.2% [95% CI, -13.4% to -13.0%]; receipt of a living donor kidney transplant: -2.3% [95% CI, -2.4% to -2.3%]; and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant: -4.3% [95% CI, -4.4% to -4.2%]). Adjusted Cox analyses showed lower relative rates for each outcome among patients treated at all for-profit vs all nonprofit dialysis facilities: deceased donor waiting list (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.36]); receipt of a living donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.54]); and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.45]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among US patients with end-stage kidney disease, receiving dialysis at for-profit facilities compared with nonprofit facilities was associated with a lower likelihood of accessing kidney transplantation. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind this association.

[Public, private or third sector management? Differences in the results in Primary Care in Catalonia]. / ¿Gestión pública, privada o por el tercer sector? Diferencias en los resultados en atención primaria de Cataluña.

GOAL: Compare the performance of primary health centers managed by the public sector (ICS), the third sector (Hospitals) or by small private organizations known as EBAs. DESIGN: Multidimensional comparative analysis. We follow a quasi-experimental logic comparing primary health centers managed by EBAs with other centers managed by the public sector (ICS) o by the third sector (hospitals). LOCALIZATION: Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. PARTICIPANTS: We have 368 observations (primary health centers) and 18 indicators measured in 2015. INTERVENTION: Different management models (public, third sector, private). MAIN MEASURES: We compare activity measures, measures of effectiveness in the process of medical assistance, and efficiency. We compare before and after controlling for the socio-economic level corresponding to the basic health area and the characteristics of the population and health region. We conduct a test of significant differences between the indicators corresponding to centers managed differently, after a process of matching using key variables and Propensity Score Matching. RESULTS: Significant differences in the measure of work load for family doctors, in five measures of effectiveness in the process of assistance and in the cost per user. CONCLUSIONS: The diversity in the management model through EBAs shows results that can be interpreted in favor of the maintenance or the expansion of this model of management. The majority of EBAs have been implanted in areas of a medium or high level, but their results are still significantly positive once the socio economic level of the area is controlled.

The principal-agent problem and owner-managers: An instrumental variables application to nursing home quality.

The literature on provider ownership has primarily focused broadly on for-profits compared with nonprofits and chains versus nonchains. However, the understanding of more nuanced ownership arrangements within individual facilities is limited. Utilizing the principal-agent and managerial control frameworks, we study the role of managerial ownership and its relationship to quality among for-profit nursing homes (NHs). We identify NH administrators with more than 5% ownership (owner-manager) from Ohio Medicaid Cost Reports (2005-2010) and link these data to long-stay resident records in the Minimum Data Set. Using differential distance to the nearest NHs with a salaried manager relative to an owner-manager, we address the differential selection into these two types of NHs. After instrumenting for admissions to owner-managed NHs, quality among long-stay residents at owner-managed NHs is generally better than NHs with salaried managers. We find suggestive evidence that the magnitudes of quality difference are larger when the principal-agent problem is likely more pronounced, such as when NHs that are part of a multifacility chain and located in more concentrated markets.

Do public nursing home care providers deliver higher quality than private providers? Evidence from Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Swedish nursing home care has undergone a transformation, where the previous virtual public monopoly on providing such services has been replaced by a system of mixed provision. This has led to a rapidly growing share of private actors, the majority of which are large, for-profit firms. In the wake of this development, concerns have been voiced regarding the implications for care quality. In this article, we investigate the relationship between ownership and care quality in nursing homes for the elderly by comparing quality levels between public, for-profit, and non-profit nursing home care providers. We also look at a special category of for-profit providers; private equity companies. METHODS: The source of data is a national survey conducted by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare in 2011 at 2710 nursing homes. Data from 14 quality indicators are analyzed, including structure and process measures such as staff levels, staff competence, resident participation, and screening for pressure ulcers, nutrition status, and risk of falling. The main statistical method employed is multiple OLS regression analysis. We differentiate in the analysis between structural and processual quality measures. RESULTS: The results indicate that public nursing homes have higher quality than privately operated homes with regard to two structural quality measures: staffing levels and individual accommodation. Privately operated nursing homes, on the other hand, tend to score higher on process-based quality indicators such as medication review and screening for falls and malnutrition. No significant differences were found between different ownership categories of privately operated nursing homes. CONCLUSIONS: Ownership does appear to be related to quality outcomes in Swedish nursing home care, but the results are mixed and inconclusive. That staffing levels, which has been regarded as a key quality indicator in previous research, are higher in publicly operated homes than private is consistent with earlier findings. The fact that privately operated homes, including those operated by for-profit companies, had higher processual quality is more unexpected, given previous research. Finally, no significant quality differences were found between private ownership types, i.e. for-profit, non-profit, and private equity companies, which indicates that profit motives are less important for determining quality in Swedish nursing home care than in other countries where similar studies have been carried out.

Alternative financing mechanisms for ART programs in health facilities in Uganda: a mixed-methods approach.

BACKGROUND: Sub-Saharan Africa is heavily dependent on global health initiatives (GHIs) for funding antiretroviral therapy (ART) scale-up. There are indications that global investments for ART scale-up are flattening. It is unclear what new funding channels can bridge the funding gap for ART service delivery. Many previous studies have focused on domestic government spending and international funding especially from GHIs. The objective of this study was to identify the funding strategies adopted by health facilities in Uganda to sustain ART programs between 2004 and 2014 and to explore variations in financing mechanisms by ownership of health facility. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was employed. A survey of health facilities (N = 195) across Uganda which commenced ART delivery between 2004 and 2009 was conducted. Six health facilities were purposively selected for in-depth examination. Semi-structured interviews (N = 18) were conducted with ART Clinic managers (three from each of the six health facilities). Statistical analyses were performed in STATA (Version 12.0) and qualitative data were analyzed by coding and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Multiple funding sources for ART programs were common with 140 (72%) of the health facilities indicating at least two concurrent grants supporting ART service delivery between 2009 and 2014. Private philanthropic aid emerged as an important source of supplemental funding for ART service delivery. ART financing strategies were differentiated by ownership of health facility. Private not-for-profit providers were more externally-focused (multiple grants, philanthropic aid). For-profit providers were more client-oriented (fee-for-service, insurance schemes). Public facilities sought additional funding streams not dissimilar to other health facility ownership-types. CONCLUSION: Over the 10-year study period, health facilities in Uganda diversified funding sources for ART service delivery. The identified alternative funding mechanisms could reduce dependence on GHI funding and increase local ownership of HIV programs. Further research evaluating the potential contribution of the identified alternative financing mechanisms in bridging the global HIV funding gap is recommended.

Financial performance, employee well-being, and client well-being in for-profit and not-for-profit nursing homes: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Expanding the opportunities for for-profit nursing home care is a central theme in the debate on the sustainable organization of the growing nursing home sector in Western countries. PURPOSES: We conducted a systematic review of the literature over the last 10 years in order to determine the broad impact of nursing home ownership in the United States. Our review has two main goals: (a) to find out which topics have been studied with regard to financial performance, employee well-being, and client well-being in relation to nursing home ownership and (b) to assess the conclusions related to these topics. The review results in two propositions on the interactions between financial performance, employee well-being, and client well-being as they relate to nursing home ownership. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Five search strategies plus inclusion and quality assessment criteria were applied to identify and select eligible studies. As a result, 50 studies were included in the review. Relevant findings were categorized as related to financial performance (profit margins, efficiency), employee well-being (staffing levels, turnover rates, job satisfaction, job benefits), or client well-being (care quality, hospitalization rates, lawsuits/complaints) and then analyzed based on common characteristics. FINDINGS: For-profit nursing homes tend to have better financial performance, but worse results with regard to employee well-being and client well-being, compared to not-for-profit sector homes. We argue that the better financial performance of for-profit nursing homes seems to be associated with worse employee and client well-being. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: For policy makers considering the expansion of the for-profit sector in the nursing home industry, our findings suggest the need for a broad perspective, simultaneously weighing the potential benefits and drawbacks for the organization, its employees, and its clients.

Is There a Trade-off Between Quality and Profitability in United States Nursing Homes?

Nursing home residents across the United States rely on quality care and effective services. Nursing homes provide skilled nurses and nursing aides who can provide services 24 hours a day for individuals who could not perform these tasks for themselves. Not-for-profit (NFP) versus for-profit (FP) nursing homes have been examined for utilization and efficacy; however, it has been shown that NFP nursing homes generally offer higher quality care and generate greater profit margins compared with FP nursing homes. The purpose of this research was to determine if NFP nursing homes provide enhanced quality care and a larger profit margin compared with FP nursing homes. Benefits and barriers in regard to financial stability and quality of care exist for both FP and NFP homes. Based on the findings of this review, it is suggested that NFP nursing homes have achieved higher quality of care because of a more effective balance of business aspects, as well as prioritizing resident well-being, and care quality over profit maximization in NFP homes.

Do Nursing Home Chain Size and Proprietary Status Affect Experiences With Care?

BACKGROUND: In 2012, over half of nursing homes were operated by corporate chains. Facilities owned by the largest for-profit chains were reported to have lower quality of care. However, it is unknown how nursing home chain ownerships are related with experiences of care. OBJECTIVES: To study the relationship between nursing home chain characteristics (chain size and profit status) with patients' family member reported ratings on experiences with care. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY DESIGN: Maryland nursing home care experience reports, the Online Survey, Certification, And Reporting (OSCAR) files, and Area Resource Files are used. Our sample consists of all nongovernmental nursing homes in Maryland from 2007 to 2010. Consumer ratings were reported for: overall care; recommendation of the facility; staff performance; care provided; food and meals; physical environment; and autonomy and personal rights. We identified chain characteristics from OSCAR, and estimated multivariate random effect linear models to test the effects of chain ownership on care experience ratings. RESULTS: Independent nonprofit nursing homes have the highest overall rating score of 8.9, followed by 8.6 for facilities in small nonprofit chains, and 8.5 for independent for-profit facilities. Facilities in small, medium, and large for-profit chains have even lower overall ratings of 8.2, 7.9, and 8.0, respectively. We find similar patterns of differences in terms of recommendation rate, and important areas such as staff communication and quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that Maryland nursing homes affiliated with large-for-profit and medium-for-profit chains had lower ratings of family reported experience with care.