Hospital-ownership status and cesareans in the United States: The effect of for-profit hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Given the increasing proportion of United States hospitals that are for-profit, we examined whether women who give birth in for-profit hospitals are more likely to have cesareans than women who give birth in not-for-profit hospitals. We hypothesized that cesareans are more likely to occur in for-profit hospitals because of the organizational emphasis on short-term financial indicators, including payment of shareholder dividends. METHODS: We used logistic regression and difference of means tests to analyze data from the Listening to Mothers III survey of women who gave birth in the United States in 2011 and 2012. RESULTS: Controlling for patient-level characteristics, we found that the odds of a woman's having a cesarean were two times higher in for-profit hospitals than in not-for-profit hospitals. We also found for-profit hospitals were significantly more likely to be members of multihospital systems and to have fewer full-time registered nurses and staff members per hospital bed. CONCLUSION: This research suggests that women who give birth in for-profit hospitals are more likely to have cesareans than women who give birth in not-for-profit hospitals. This information is important to women when deciding where to give birth. Knowing which hospital characteristics are associated with a greater likelihood of cesarean is helpful since hospital cesarean rates may be difficult to find. These findings are also informative for obstetric professionals, who can implement improvement initiatives to decrease cesarean rates and improve the overall quality of care for childbearing women in the United States.

Waiting times spillovers in a National Health Service hospital network: a little organizational diversity can go a long way.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to assess if waiting times for elective surgeries within the Portuguese National Health Service (NHS) are influenced by the waiting times at neighboring hospitals. Recognizing these interdependencies, and their extent, is crucial for understanding how hospital network dynamics affect healthcare delivery efficiency and patient access. METHODS: We utilized patient-level data from all elective surgeries conducted in Portuguese NHS hospitals to estimate a hospital-specific index for waiting times. This index served as the dependent variable in our analysis. We applied a spatial lag model to examine the potential strategic interactions between hospitals concerning their waiting times. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed a significant positive endogenous spatial dependence, indicating that waiting times in NHS hospitals are strategic complements. Furthermore, we found that NHS contracts with private not-for-profit hospitals not only reduce waiting times within these hospitals but also exert positive spillover effects on other NHS hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that diversifying the organization of the NHS hospital network, particularly through contracts with private entities for marginal patients, can significantly enhance competitive dynamics and reduce waiting times. This effect persists even when patient choice is confined to a small fraction of the patient population, highlighting a strategic avenue for policy optimization in healthcare service delivery.

For-profit hospitals could play a distinctive role as anchor institutions.

RATIONALE: Hospitals have a longstanding presence in United States communities and contribute to economic development and community well-being through widespread employment, purchasing and direct community engagement. Most of the data on anchor institutions to date, however, has focused on nonprofit organisations, especially nonprofit hospitals, colleges and universities. The aim of this study is to better understand if for-profit hospitals engage in explicit anchor activities, and whether these organisations adopt unique strategies in carrying out this study. METHODS: We used an inductive, qualitative approach to understand how for-profit hospitals perceive their anchoring efforts as distinct as compared to nonprofits. We conducted in-depth interviews with 23 hospital leaders, researchers and members of advocacy organisations, representing 11 different hospital organisations and 10 communities; and used thematic analysis to generate study findings. RESULTS: For-profit hospitals do see at least three primary differences that render them distinctive in their efforts to anchor themselves within their communities-namely, barriers that for-profits encounter that nonprofits may not; their emphasis on strategic and synergistic practices; and their status as hospitals that also support their communities economically as tax-paying entities. CONCLUSION: With a better understanding of their unique contributions as for-profit organisations, policymakers can identify ways to leverage these hospitals to support their communities through outreach and engagement.

Comparing Severely Injured Trauma Patients Admitted to Investor-Owned versus Public and Not-For-Profit Hospitals Reveals Opportunities for Improvement in the US.

BACKGROUND: Non-elderly trauma patients represent the largest portion of preventable years of life loss in the US. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes in patients admitted to investor-owned vs public and not-for-profit hospitals across the US. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Nationwide Readmissions Database 2018 was queried for trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score greater than 15 and age 18-65 years. The primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes were prolonged length of stay (LOS) greater than 30 days, readmission within 30 days, and readmission to a different hospital. Patients admitted to investor-owned hospitals were compared to public and not-for-profit hospitals. Univariable analysis was performed using chi-squared tests. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for each outcome. RESULTS: 157 945 patients were included with 11.0% (n = 17 346) admitted to investor-owned hospitals. The overall mortality rate and prolonged LOS were similar for both groups. The overall readmission rate was 9.2% (n = 13 895), with the rate in investor-owned hospitals at 10.5% (n = 1,739, P < .001). Multivariable logistic regression revealed investor-owned hospitals had an increased risk of readmission (OR 1.2 [1.1-1.3] P < .001) and readmission to a different hospital (OR 1.3 [1.2-1.5] P < .001). DISCUSSION: Severely injured trauma patients have similar rates of mortality and prolonged length of stay in investor-owned vs public and not-for-profit hospitals. However, patients admitted to investor-owned hospitals have an increased risk of readmission and readmission to different hospitals. Efforts to improve outcomes after trauma must consider hospital ownership and readmission to different hospitals.

Growth of for-profit involvement in emergency medicine graduate medical education and association between for-profit affiliation and resident salary.

Background: Following projections of an emergency medicine (EM) physician oversupply, the growth of EM residency programs affiliated with for-profit hospitals has been subject to increased attention and speculation. However, essentially no literature exists regarding these programs. Resident pay is one area where these programs could differ from nonprofit-affiliated programs, as investor obligations could make for-profit corporations more likely to reduce resident salaries to increase profit margins. Here, we aim to quantify the growth of EM for-profit affiliated residency programs from 2001-2021 and determine if PGY1 salaries differ between these program types. Methods: Medicare and ACGME accreditation data were used to determine the profit status of hospitals affiliated with EM residency programs. ACGME new accreditation data from 2001-2021 were used to quantify the growth of both for-profit and nonprofit affiliated programs over this period. We searched program websites and called programs to determine 2021-2022 PGY1 salary. Multiple regression was used to model the relationship between profit status and salary using program characteristic covariates to control for confounding variables. Results: The number of EM programs increased from 117 to 276 from 2001-2021 while the number of for-profit affiliated EM residency programs increased from 1 to 29 during this period. Most (85.7%, [24/29]) for-profit affiliated programs were accredited from 2016-2021. Mean for-profit affiliated program salary ($55,658, n  = 24) was $3840 lower than mean nonprofit affiliated program salary ($59,498, n  = 203). For-profit affiliation was a significant predictor of lower 2021-2022 PGY1 salary after controlling for other program characteristics using multiple regression ( ß  = -1919.88, P = 0.010). Conclusions: We found a substantial growth of newly ACGME accredited for-profit affiliated EM residency programs from 2016-2021. We also found for-profit affiliated programs pay lower PGY1 salaries than nonprofit-affiliated programs after controlling for potential confounding variables, which suggests more oversight over the salary determination process could be necessary to prevent resident underpayment.

Do Medicare and Medicaid Payer-Mix Change After the Privatization of Public Hospitals?

This study assessed the impact of public hospitals' privatization on payer-mix. We used a national sample of nonfederal, acute care, public hospitals in 1997 and followed them through 2013, resulting in a cohort of 492 hospitals (8,335 hospital-year observations). Privatization to for-profit (FP) status was associated with a greater increase in Medicare payer-mix (ß = 0.13; p ≤ .001), compared with a smaller increase for privatization to not-for-profit (NFP) status (ß = 0.02; p ≤ .05). FP privatization was associated with a greater decrease in Medicaid payer-mix (ß = -0.09; p ≤ .001), compared with NFP privatization (nonsignificant). There is a larger change in payer-mix after FP privatization than after NFP privatization.

For-Profit Hospitals Have Thrived Because of Generous Public Reimbursement Schemes, Not Greater Efficiency: A Multi-Country Case Study.

For-profit hospitals' market share has increased in many nations over recent decades. Previous studies suggest that their growth is not attributable to superior performance on access, quality of care, or efficiency. We analyzed other factors that we hypothesized may contribute to the increasing role of for-profit hospitals. We studied the historical development of the for-profit hospital sector across 4 nations with contrasting trends in for-profit hospital market share: the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. We focused on 3 factors that we believed might help explain why the role of for-profits grew in some nations but not in others: (1) the treatment of for-profits by public reimbursement plans, (2) physicians' financial interests, and (3) the effect of the political environment. We conclude that access to subsidies and reimbursement under favorable terms from public health care payors is an important factor in the rise of for-profit hospitals. Arrangements that aligned financial incentives of physicians with the interests of for-profit hospitals were important in stimulating for-profit growth in an earlier era, but they play little role at present. Remarkably, the environment for for-profit ownership seems to have been largely immune to political shifts.

For-Profit Hospitals Out of Business? Financial Sustainability During the COVID-19 Epidemic Emergency Response.

This perspective argues that for-profit hospitals will be heavily affected by epidemic crises, including the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Policy-makers should be aware that for-profit hospitals in particular are likely to face financial distress. The suspension of all non-urgent elective surgery and the relegation of market-based mechanisms that determines the allocation and compensation of care puts the financial state of these hospitals at serious risk. We identify three organisational factors that determine which hospitals might be most affected (ie, care-portfolio, size and whether it is private equity [PE]-owned). In addition, we analyse contextual factors that could explain the impact of financial distress among for-profit hospitals on the wider healthcare system.

The Impact of IRS Tax Policy on Hospital Community Benefit Activities.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently introduced tax code revisions requiring stricter oversight of community benefit activities (CBAs) conducted by tax-exempt, not-for-profit hospitals. We examine the impact of this tax requirement on CBAs among these hospitals relative to for-profit and government hospitals that were not subject to the new policy. We employed a quasi-experimental, difference-in-difference study design using a longitudinal observational approach and used secondary data collected by the American Hospital Association (years 2006-2010 including 20,538 hospital year observations). Findings show a significant increase in the reporting of 7 of the 13 CBAs among tax-exempt, not-for-profit hospitals compared with other hospitals after the policy change. Examples include partnering to conduct community health assessments ( b = 0.035, p = .002) and using capacity assessments to identify unmet community health needs ( b = 0.041, p = .001). Recent tax revisions are associated with increases in reported CBAs among tax-exempt, not-for-profit hospitals. As the debate continues regarding tax exemption status for not-for-profit hospitals, policy makers should expand efforts for enhanced accountability.

Gender Differences in Hospital CEO Compensation: A National Investigation of Not-for-Profit Hospitals.

Gender pay equity is a desirable social value and an important strategy to fill every organizational stratum with gender-diverse talent to fulfill an organization's goals and mission. This study used national, large-sample data to examine gender difference in CEO compensation among not-for-profit hospitals. Results showed the average unadjusted annual compensation for female CEOs in 2009 was $425,085 compared with $581,121 for male CEOs. With few exceptions, the difference existed across all types of not-for-profit hospitals. After controlling for hospital- and area-level characteristics, female CEOs of not-for-profit hospitals earned 22.6% less than male CEOs of not-for-profit hospitals. This translates into an earnings differential of $132,652 associated with gender. Explanations and implications of the results are discussed.

What Should We Expect? A Comparison of the Community Benefit and Projected Government Support of Maryland Hospitals.

Designation as a tax-exempt, not-for-profit entity carries with it specific tax benefits. In exchange for tax exemptions, not-for-profit entities are expected to provide benefits to their communities. To evaluate whether hospitals provide community benefits (CBs) equivalent to the financial subsidies and advantages extended to them, tax liabilities and financial support were projected for all Maryland acute care hospitals between 2010 and 2012 and in the aggregate over the 3 years of this study. A comparison was then made between the provision of CBs and the financial support that governments provide to the hospitals. The results indicate that hospitals provide significantly and substantially more CBs than the material financial support they receive. Even after modeling changes in CB activities and the associated tax liabilities that may result from transitioning to taxable status, the benefits that hospitals provide to the communities they serve continue to exceed the potential government tax revenues.

Operating Profitability of For-Profit and Not-for-Profit Florida Community Hospitals During Medicare Policy Changes, 2000 to 2010.

Medicare Advantage was implemented in 2004 and the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program was implemented in Florida during 2005. Both increase surveillance of medical necessity and deny payments for improper admissions. The purpose of the present study was to determine their potential impact on for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) hospital operating margins in Florida. FP hospitals were expected to be more adversely affected as admissions growth has been one strategy to improve stock performance, which is not a consideration at NFPs. This study analyzed Florida community hospitals from 2000 through 2010, assessing changes in pre-tax operating margin (PTOM). Florida Agency for Health Care Administration data were analyzed for 104 community hospitals (62 FPs and 42 NFPs). Academic, public, and small hospitals were excluded. A mixed-effects model was used to assess the association of RAC implementation, organizational and payer type variables, and ownership interaction effects on PTOM. FP hospitals began the period with a higher average PTOM, but converged with NFPs during the study period. The average Medicare Advantage effect was not significant for either ownership type. The magnitude of the RAC variable was significantly negative for average PTOM at FPs (-4.68) and positive at NFPs (0.08), meaning RAC was associated with decreasing PTOM at FP hospitals only. RAC complements other Medicare surveillance systems that detect medically unnecessary admissions, coding errors, fraud, and abuse. Since its implementation in Florida, average FP and NFP operating margins have been similar, such that the higher margins reported for FP hospitals in the 1990s are no longer evident.

Characteristics and patterns of elective admissions to for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals in France in 2009 and 2010.

In the mid 2000s, in an effort to increase competition among hospitals in France - and thereby reduce hospital care costs - policymakers implemented a prospective payment system and created incentives to promote use of for-profit hospitals. But such policies might incentivize 'upcoding' to higher-reimbursed procedures or overuse of preference-sensitive elective procedures, either of which would offset anticipated cost savings. To explore either possibility, we examined the relative use and costs of admissions for ten common preference-sensitive elective surgical procedures to French not-for profit and for-profit sector hospitals in 2009 and 2010. For each admission type, we compared sector-specific hospitalization characteristics and mean per-admission reimbursement and sector-specific relative rates of lower- and higher-reimbursed procedures. We found that, despite having substantially fewer beds, for-profit hospitals captured a large portion of market for these procedures; further, for-profit admissions were shorter and less expensive, even after adjustment for patient demographics, hospital characteristics, and patterns of admission to different reimbursement categories. While French for-profit hospitals appear to provide more efficient care, we found coding inconsistencies across for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals that may suggest supplier-induced demand and upcoding in for-profit hospitals. Future work should examine sector-specific changes in relative use and billing practices of for elective surgeries, the degree to which these elective surgeries are justified in either sector, and whether outcomes differ according to sector used.