Dataset Information

Reexploring differences among for-profit and nonprofit dialysis providers.

ABSTRACT: To determine whether profit status is associated with differences in hospital days per patient, an outcome that may also be influenced by provider financial goals.United States Renal Data System Standard Analysis Files and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cost reports.We compared the number of hospital days per patient per year across for-profit and nonprofit dialysis facilities during 2003. To address possible referral bias in the assignment of patients to dialysis facilities, we used an instrumental variable regression method and adjusted for selected patient-specific factors, facility characteristics such as size and chain affiliation, as well as metrics of market competition.All patients who received in-center hemodialysis at any time in 2003 and for whom Medicare was the primary payer were included (N=170,130; roughly two-thirds of the U.S. hemodialysis population). Patients dialyzed at hospital-based facilities and patients with no dialysis facilities within 30 miles of their residence were excluded.Overall, adjusted hospital days per patient were 17+/-5 percent lower in nonprofit facilities. The difference between nonprofit and for-profit facilities persisted with the correction for referral bias. There was no association between hospital days per patient per year and chain affiliation, but larger facilities had inferior outcomes (facilities with 73 or more patients had a 14+/-1.7 percent increase in hospital days relative to facilities with 35 or fewer patients). Differences in outcomes among for-profit and nonprofit facilities translated to 1,600 patient-years in hospital that could be averted each year if the hospital utilization rates in for-profit facilities were to decrease to the level of their nonprofit counterparts.Hospital days per patient-year were statistically and clinically significantly lower among nonprofit dialysis providers. These findings suggest that the indirect incentives in Medicare's current payment system may provide insufficient incentive for for-profit providers to achieve optimal patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Lee DK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2875752 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reexploring differences among for-profit and nonprofit dialysis providers.

Lee Donald K K DK Chertow Glenn M GM Zenios Stefanos A SA

Health services research 20100409 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether profit status is associated with differences in hospital days per patient, an outcome that may also be influenced by provider financial goals.<h4>Data sources</h4>United States Renal Data System Standard Analysis Files and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cost reports.<h4>Design</h4>We compared the number of hospital days per patient per year across for-profit and nonprofit dialysis facilities during 2003. To address possible referral bias in the ...[more]

PMID: 20403066

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionUnderstanding 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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 recommendationsThe 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.

Project description:Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading cause of infectious disease deaths worldwide and is the leading cause of death among people with HIV. The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for collaboration between public and private healthcare providers to maximize integration of TB/HIV services and minimize costs. We systematically reviewed published models of public-private sector diagnostic and referral services for TB/HIV co-infected patients.We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Science Direct, CINAHL and Web of Science. We included studies that discussed programs that linked private and public providers for TB/HIV concurrent diagnostic and referral services and used Review Manager (Version 5.3, 2015) for meta-analysis.We found 1,218 unduplicated potentially relevant articles and abstracts; three met our eligibility criteria. All three described public-private TB/HIV diagnostic/referral services with varying degrees of integration. In Kenya private practitioners were able to test for both TB and HIV and offer state-subsidized TB medication, but they could not provide state-subsidized antiretroviral therapy (ART) to co-infected patients. In India private practitioners not contractually engaged with the public sector offered TB/HIV services inconsistently and on a subjective basis. Those partnered with the state, however, could test for both TB and HIV and offer state-subsidized medications. In Nigeria some private providers had access to both state-subsidized medications and diagnostic tests; others required patients to pay out-of-pocket for testing and/or treatment. In a meta-analysis of the two quantitative reports, TB patients who sought care in the public sector were almost twice as likely to have been tested for HIV than TB patients who sought care in the private sector (risk ratio [RR] 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88-2.08). However, HIV-infected TB patients who sought care in the public sector were marginally less likely to initiate ART than TB patients who sought care from private providers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.03).These three studies are examples of public-private TB/HIV service delivery and can potentially serve as models for integrated TB/HIV care systems. Successful public-private diagnostic and treatment services can both improve outcomes and decrease costs for patients co-infected with HIV and TB.

Dataset Information

Reexploring differences among for-profit and nonprofit dialysis providers.

Publications

Reexploring differences among for-profit and nonprofit dialysis providers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets