Search

Background Anchor institutions, by definition, have a long-term presence within their local communities, but it is uncertain as to whether for-profit hospitals meet this definition; most research on anchor institutions to date has been limited to nonprofit organizations such as hospitals and universities. Accordingly, this study aims to determine whether for-profit hospitals are stable enough to fulfill the role of anchor institutions through a long-term presence in communities which may help to stabilize local economies. Methods This longitudinal study analyzes national, secondary data between 2008 and 2017 compiled from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, and County Health Rankings. We use descriptive statistics to calculate the number of closures and mergers of hospitals of different ownership type, as well as staffing levels. Using logistic regression, we also assessed whether for-profit hospitals had higher odds of closing and merging, controlling for both organization and community factors. Results We found for-profit hospitals to be less stable than their public and nonprofit hospital counterparts, experiencing disproportionately more closures and mergers over time, with a multivariable analysis indicating a statistically significant difference. Furthermore, for-profit hospitals have fewer full-time employees relative to their size than hospitals of other ownership types, as well as lower total payroll expenditures. Conclusions Study findings suggest that for-profit hospitals operate more efficiently in terms of expenses, but this also may translate into a lower level of economic contributions to the surrounding community through employment and purchasing initiatives. For-profit hospitals may also not have the stability required to serve as long-standing anchor institutions. Future studies should consider whether for-profit hospitals make other types of community investments to offset these deficits and whether policy changes can be employed to encourage anchor activities from local businesses such as hospitals.

Objectives This study is a follow-up to previous research regarding buprenorphine medication-assisted therapy (MAT) in Johnson City, Tennessee. For-profit MAT clinics were surveyed to determine changes in tapering practice patterns and insurance coverage during the last 3 years. Methods Johnson City for-profit MAT clinics; also called office based opioid treatment centers, were surveyed by telephone. Clinic representatives were asked questions regarding patient costs for therapy, insurance coverage, counseling offered onsite, and opportunities for tapering while pregnant. Results All of the MAT clinics representatives indicated that tapering in pregnancy could be considered even though tapering in pregnancy is contrary to current national guidelines. Forty-three percent of the clinics now accept insurance as compared with 0% in the 2016 study. The average weekly cost per visit remained consistent. Conclusions The concept of tapering buprenorphine during pregnancy appears to have become a standard of care for this community, as representatives state it is offered at all of the clinics that were contacted. Representatives from three clinics stated the clinics require tapering, even though national organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society of Addiction Medicine do not recommend this approach. Although patients who have government or other insurance are now able to obtain buprenorphine with no expense at numerous clinics, the high cost for uninsured patients continues to create an environment conducive to buprenorphine diversion.

Background Lumbar Spine MRI Use for Low Back Pain (OP-8) is calculated by dividing the number of patients who received lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI-L) before receiving alternative treatments (e.g., physical therapy) by the total number of patients receiving MRI-L in the outpatient setting at a given institution. Since the passage of the Post-Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), OP-8 scores became tied to hospital finances. This study aims to determine how MACRA has impacted OP-8 scores since its implementation. We also aim to investigate how regional designation, profit status (for-profit, government, and nonprofit), and hospital setting (critical access, non-critical access) affect OP-8 scores. Methods Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare database were used to extract information on the national trends in OP-8 scores from 2014 to 2020. A multivariable linear regression model was fit to isolate the impact of hospital characteristics on OP-8 scores. Results After a decrease from 2015 to 2016, the mean national OP-8 score plateaued, staying around 40% from 2017 through 2020. A critical access setting increased OP-8 scores by 5.41 (95% confidence interval, 3.51–6.77; P ≤ 0.001), compared with a non-critical access setting. Governmental status increased scores by 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.28–2.27; P = 0.012), compared with a nonprofit status. Conclusions The implementation of MACRA seems to have been unsuccessful in altering practice patterns, given the minimal change in OP-8 scores over the last 4 years. Furthermore, institutional factors are clearly correlated with a lack of adherence to magnetic resonance imaging guidelines. Given these findings, there is a need to modify health policies.

This case series examines the increase in acquisitions of hospice agencies by private equity firms and publicly traded corporations from 2011 to 2019.

Key Points Question What hospital characteristics are associated with overuse of health care services in the US? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 1 325 256 services performed at 3351 hospitals, we found that hospitals in the South, for-profit hospitals, and nonteaching hospitals were associated with the highest rates of overuse. Meaning Variation within specific hospital types and regions may uncover opportunities for targeted interventions to address overuse., This cross-sectional study uses Medicare fee-for-service claims data to assess overuse of medical tests and treatments in US hospitals., Importance Overuse of health care services exposes patients to unnecessary risk of harm and costs. Distinguishing patterns of overuse among hospitals requires hospital-level measures across multiple services. Objective To describe characteristics of hospitals associated with overuse of health care services in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cross-sectional analysis used Medicare fee-for-service claims data for beneficiaries older than 65 years from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, with a lookback of 1 year. Inpatient and outpatient services were included, and services offered at specialty and federal hospitals were excluded. Patients were from hospitals with the capacity (based on a claims filter developed for this study) to perform at least 7 of 12 investigated services. Statistical analyses were performed from July 1, 2020, to December 20, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes of interest were a composite overuse score ranging from 0 (no overuse of services) to 1 (relatively high overuse of services) and characteristics of hospitals clustered by overuse rates. Twelve published low-value service algorithms were applied to the data to find overuse rates for each hospital, normalized and aggregated to a composite score and then compared across 6 hospital characteristics using multivariable regression. A k-means cluster analysis was used on normalized overuse rates to identify hospital clusters. Results The primary analysis was performed on 2415 cohort A hospitals (ie, hospitals with capacity for 7 or more services), which included 1 263 592 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [14] years; 678 549 women [53.7%]; 101 017 191 White patients [80.5%]). Head imaging for syncope was the highest-volume low-value service (377 745 patients [29.9%]), followed by coronary artery stenting for stable coronary disease (199 579 [15.8%]). The mean (SD) composite overuse score was 0.40 (0.10) points. Southern hospitals had a higher mean score than midwestern (difference in means: 0.06 [95% CI, 0.05-0.07] points; P

Trauma patients are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). One in four trauma readmissions occur at a different hospital. There are no national studies measuring readmissions to different hospitals with VTE after trauma. Thus, the true national burden in trauma patients readmitted with VTE is unknown and can provide a benchmark to improve quality of care.The Nationwide Readmission Database (2010-2014) was queried for patients ≥18 years non-electively admitted for trauma. Patients with VTE or inferior vena cava filter placement on index admission were excluded. Outcomes included 30-day and 1-year readmission to both index and different hospitals with a new diagnosis of VTE. Multivariable logistic regression identified risk factors. Results were weighted for national estimates.Of the 5,151,617 patients admitted for trauma, 1.2% (n = 61,800) were readmitted within 1 year with VTE. Of those, 29.6% (n = 18,296) were readmitted to a different hospital. Risk factors for readmission to a different hospital included index admission to a for-profit hospital (OR 1.33 [1.27-1.40], p0.001), skull fracture (OR 1.20 [1.08-1.35], p0.001), Medicaid (OR 1.16 [1.06-1.26], p0.001), hospitalization7 days (OR 1.12 [1.07-1.18], p0.001), and the lowest quartile of median household income for patient ZIP code (OR 1.13 [1.07-1.19], p0.01). The yearly cost of 1-year readmission for VTE was $256.9 million, with $90.4 million (35.2%) as a result of different hospital readmission.Previously unreported, over one in three patients readmitted with VTE a year after hospitalization for trauma, accounting for over a third of the cost, present to another hospital and are not captured by current metrics. Risk factors are unique. This has significant implications for benchmarking, outcomes, prevention, and policy.Epidemiological study, level II.

This work analyzes the demand subsidies to access health care and their relationship with large private corporations in Chile, through the transfer of public funds through the modality of freedom of choice (MLE) from 2000 to 2018. Therefore, we analyzed the expansion of the health market and the strengthening of health care corporations, identifying the distribution of resources according to type of health provider. We reviewed the annual reports of private health care corporations. We also analyzed billing data according to the provider through the freedom of choice modality from the year 2000 to the year 2018. We identified an increasing transformation of medical work from free exercise to become dependent on private health corporations, and an increase in public dependence on private providers to meet health demands. There is a growing capture of public funds by these holdings, using the strategy of increasing provider property concentration and a trans nationalization of the health market in Chile.

Purpose Changing market forces increasingly are leading academic medical centers (AMCs) to form or join health systems. But it is unclear how this shift is affecting the tripartite academic mission of education, research, and high-quality patient care. To explore this topic, the authors identified and characterized the types of health systems that owned or managed AMCs in the United States in 2016. Method The authors identified AMCs as any general acute care hospitals that had a resident-to-bed ratio of at least 0.25 and that were affiliated with at least one MD- or DO-granting medical school. Using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2016 Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, the authors also identified academic-affiliated health systems (AHSs) as those health systems that owned or managed at least one AMC. They compared AMCs and other general acute care hospitals, AHSs and non-AHSs, and AHSs by type of medical school relationship, using health system size, hospital characteristics, undergraduate and graduate medical education characteristics, services provided, and ownership. Results Health systems owned or managed nearly all AMCs (361, 95.8%). Of the 626 health systems, 230 (36.7%) met the definition of an AHS. Compared with other health systems, AHSs included more hospitals, provided more services, and had a lower ratio of primary care doctors to specialists. Most AHSs (136, 59.1%) had a single, shared medical school relationship, whereas 38 (16.5%) had an exclusive medical school relationship and 56 (24.3%) had multiple medical school relationships. Conclusions These findings suggest that several distinct types of relationships between AHSs and medical schools exist. The traditional vision of a medical school having an exclusive relationship with a single AHS is no longer prominent.

We evaluate the relationship between hospital ownership and responses to a policy providing large financial incentives for vaginal deliveries and financial disincentives for C-sections. We compare for-profit, nonprofit, and public hospitals operating in a public health care system organized according to the quasi-market model. We first theoretically show that hospital ownership matters insofar different hospitals are characterized by different ethical preferences. We also show that competition makes ownership less important. We then consider the case study of Lombardy in Italy. We exploit spatial variation in hospital ownership and in market concentration at the local level to evaluate the relationship between ownership and the probability of C-section. According to theory, empirical results strongly suggest that competitive pressures from alternative providers tend to homogenize behaviors. However, in local monopolies, in presence of a strong monetary incentive toward vaginal deliveries, we do observe less C-section from private for-profit hospitals than from public and private nonprofit hospitals, especially when C-sections are medically appropriate.

Background The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act established the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) to penalize hospitals with excessive 30-day hospital readmissions of Medicare enrollees for specific conditions. This policy was aimed at increasing the quality of care delivered to patients and decreasing the amount of money paid for potentially preventable hospital readmissions. While it has been established that the number of 30-day hospital readmissions decreased after program implementation, it is unknown whether this effect occurred equally between not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals. The aim of this study was to determine whether or not the HRRP decreased readmission rates equally between not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals between 2010 and 2012. Methods Data on readmissions came from the Dartmouth Atlas and hospital ownership data came from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Data were joined using the Medicare provider number. Using a difference-in-differences approach, bivariate and regression analyses were conducted to compare readmission rates between not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals between 2010 and 2012 and were adjusted for hospital characteristics. Results In 2010, prior to program implementation, unadjusted readmission rates for proprietary and not-for-profit hospitals were 16.16% and 15.78%, respectively. In 2012, following program implementation, 30-day readmission rates dropped to 15.76% and 15.29% for proprietary and not-for-profit hospitals. The data suggest that the implementation of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program had similar effects on not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals with respect to readmission rates, even after adjusting for confounders. Conclusions Although not-for-profit hospitals had lower 30-day readmission rates than proprietary hospitals in both 2010 and 2012, they both decreased after the implementation of the HRRP and the decreases were not statistically significantly different. Thus, this study suggests that the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program was equally effective in reducing readmission rates, despite ownership status.

Losing Hahnemann The announcement that Hahnemann Hospital would soon close came as a shock to many people. Is the hospital a casualty of the push to optimize the distribution of limited resources —...

About 60% of the US hospitals are not-for-profit and it is not clear how traditional theories of capital structure should be adapted to understand the borrowing behavior of not-for-profit hospitals. This paper identifies important determinants of capital structure taken from theories describing for-profit firms as well as prior literature on not-for-profit hospitals. We examine the differential effects these factors have on the capital structure of for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals. Specifically, we use a difference-in-differences regression framework to study how differences in leverage between for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals change in response to key explanatory variables (i.e. tax rates and bankruptcy costs). The sample in this study includes most US short-term general acute hospitals from 2000 to 2012. We find that personal and corporate income taxes and bankruptcy costs have significant and distinct effects on the capital structure of for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals. Specifically, relative to not-for-profit hospitals: (1) higher corporate income tax encourages for-profit hospitals to increase their debt usage; (2) higher personal income tax discourages for-profit hospitals to use debt; and (3) higher expected bankruptcy costs lead for-profit hospitals to use less debt. Over the past decade, the capital structure of for-profit hospitals has been more flexible as compared to that of not-for-profit hospitals. This may suggest that not-for-profit hospitals are more constrained by external financing resources. Particularly, our analysis suggests that not-for-profit hospitals operating in states with high corporate taxes but low personal income taxes may face particular challenges of borrowing funds relative to their for-profit competitors.

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.