Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Leider JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5636059 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov/Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Leider Jonathon P JP Tung Greg J GJ Lindrooth Richard C RC Johnson Emily K EK Hardy Rose R Castrucci Brian C BC

Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP 20171101 6

<h4>Context</h4>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).<h4>Methods</h4>Using data from 2009 to 2012 hospital tax and other governmental filings, we constructed national, hospital-referral-region, and fa ...[more]

PMID: 27997478

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was associated with a reduced number of Americans who reported being unable to afford medical care, but changes in actual health spending by households are not known. Objectives:To estimate changes in household spending on health care nationwide after implementation of the ACA. Design, Setting, and Participants:Population-based data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2015, and multivariable regression were used to examine changes in out-of-pocket spending, premium contributions, and total health spending (out-of-pocket plus premiums) after the ACA's coverage expansions on January 1, 2014. The study population included a nationally representative sample of US adults aged 18 to 64 years (n = 83 431). In addition, changes were assessed in the likelihood of exceeding affordability thresholds for each outcome and spending changes for income subgroups defined under the ACA to determine program eligibility at 138% or less, 139% to 250%, 251% to 400%, and greater than 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL). Exposure:Implementation of the ACA's major insurance programs on January 1, 2014. Main Outcomes and Measures:Mean individual-level out-of-pocket spending and premium payments and the percentage of persons experiencing high-burden spending, defined as more than 10% of family income for out-of-pocket expenses, more than 9.5% for premium payments, and more than 19.5% for out-of-pocket plus premium payments. Results:In this nationally representative survey of 83 431 adults (weighted frequency, 49.1% men and 50.9% women; median age, 40.3 years; interquartile range, 28.6-52.4 years), ACA implementation was associated with an 11.9% decrease (95% CI, -17.1% to -6.4%; P < .001) in mean out-of-pocket spending in the full sample, a 21.4% decrease (95% CI, -30.1% to -11.5%; P < .001) in the lowest-income group (≤138% of the FPL), an 18.5% decrease (95% CI, -27.0% to -9.0%; P < .001) in the low-income group (139%-250% of the FPL), and a 12.8% decrease (95% CI, -22.1% to -2.4%; P = .02) in the middle-income group (251%-400% of the FPL). Mean premium spending increased in the full sample (12.1%; 95% CI, 1.9%-23.3%) and the higher-income group (22.9%; 95% CI, 5.5%-43.1%). Combined out-of-pocket plus premium spending decreased in the lowest-income group only (-16.0%; 95% CI, -27.6% to -2.6%). The odds of household out-of-pocket spending exceeding 10% of family income decreased in the full sample (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.90) and in the lowest-income group (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.97). The odds of high-burden premium spending increased in the middle-income group (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.03-1.59). Conclusions and Relevance:Implementation of the ACA was associated with reduced out-of-pocket spending, particularly for low-income persons. However, many of these individuals continue to experience high-burden out-of-pocket and premium spending. Repeal or substantial reversal of the ACA would especially harm poor and low-income Americans.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if greater non-profit hospital spending for community benefits is associated with better health outcomes in the county where they are located.Data sources and study settingCommunity benefit data from IRS Form 990/Schedule H was linked to health outcome data from Area Health Resource Files, Map the Meal Gap, and Medicare claims from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the county level. Counties with at least one non-profit hospital in the United States from 2015 to 2019 (N = 5469 across the 5 years) were included.Study designWe ran multiple regressions on community benefit expenditures linked with the number of health professionals, food insecurity, and adherence to diabetes and hypertension medication for each county.Data collectionThe three outcomes were chosen based on prior studies of community benefit and a recent survey sent to 12 health care executives across four regions of the U.S. Data on community benefit expenditures and health outcomes were aggregated at the county level.Principal findingsAverage hospital community benefit spending in 2019 was $63.6 million per county ($255 per capita). Multivariable regression results did not demonstrate significant associations of total community benefit spending with food insecurity or medication adherence for diabetes. Statistically significant associations with the number of health professionals per 1000 (coefficient, 12.10; SE, 0.32; p < 0.001) and medication adherence for hypertension (marginal effect, 0.27; SE, 0.09; p = 0.003) were identified, but both would require very large increases in community benefit spending to meaningfully improve outcomes.ConclusionsDespite varying levels of non-profit hospital community benefit investment across counties, higher community benefit expenditures are not associated with an improvement in the selected health outcomes at the county level. Hospitals can use this information to reassess community benefit strategies, while federal, state, and local governments can use these findings to redefine the measures of community benefit they use to monitor and grant tax exemption.

Project description:Study objectiveThe 2010 provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) extended eligibility for health insurance for young adults aged 19 to 25 years. It is unclear, however, how expanded coverage changes health care behavior and promotes efficient use of emergency department (ED) services. Our objective was to use population-level emergency department data to characterize any changes in diagnoses seen in ED among young adults since the implementation of the ACA dependent coverage expansion.MethodsWe performed a difference-in-differences analysis of 2009 to 2011 ED visits from California, Florida, and New York, using all-capture administrative data to determine how the use of ED services changed for clinical categories after the ACA provision among young adults aged 19 to 25 years compared with slightly older adults unaffected by the provision, aged 26 to 31 years.ResultsWe analyzed a total of 10,158,254 ED visits made by 4,734,409 patients. After the implementation of the 2010 ACA provision, young adults had a relative decrease of 0.5% ED visits per 1,000 people compared with the older group. For the majority of diagnostic categories, young adults' rates and risk of visit did not change relative to that of slightly older adults after the implementation of the ACA. However, although young adults' ED visits significantly increased for mental illnesses (2.6%) and diseases of the circulatory system (eg, nonspecific chest pain) (4.8%), visits decreased for pregnancy-related diagnoses and diseases of the skin (eg, cellulitis, abscess) compared with that of the older group (3.7% and 3.1%, respectively).ConclusionOur results indicate that increased coverage has kept young adults out of the ED for specific conditions that can be cared for through access to other channels. As EDs face capacity challenges, these results are encouraging and offer insight into what could be expected under further insurance expansions from health care reform.

Project description:ImportanceUnder the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), US hospitals were exposed to a number of reforms intended to reduce spending, many of which, beginning in 2012, targeted acute care hospitals and often focused on specific diagnoses (eg, acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia) for Medicare patients. Other provisions enacted in the ACA and under budget sequestration (beginning in 2013) mandated Medicare fee cuts.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between the enactment of ACA reforms and 30-day price-standardized hospital episode spending.Design, setting, and participantsThis policy evaluation included index discharges between January 1, 2008, and August 31, 2015, from a national random 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Data analysis was performed from February 1, 2019 to July 8, 2020.ExposurePayment reforms after passage of the ACA.Main outcomes and measures30-day price-standardized episode payments. Three alternative estimation approaches were used to evaluate the association between reforms following the ACA and episode spending: (1) a difference-in-difference (DID) analysis among acute care hospitals, comparing spending for diagnoses commonly targeted by ACA programs with nontargeted diagnoses; (2) a DID analysis comparing acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals (not exposed to reforms); and (3) a generalized synthetic control analysis, comparing acute care and critical access hospitals. Supplemental analysis examined the degree to which Medicare fee cuts contributed to spending reductions.ResultsA total of 7 634 242 index discharges (4 525 630 [59.2%] female patients; mean [SD] age, 79.31 [8.02] years) were included. All 3 approaches found that reforms following the ACA were associated with a significant reduction in episode spending. The DID estimate comparing targeted and untargeted diagnoses suggested that reforms following the ACA were associated with a -$431 (95% CI, -$492 to -$369; -2.87%) change in total spending, while the generalized synthetic control analysis suggested that reforms were associated with a -$1232 (95% CI, -$1488 to -$965; -10.12%) change in total episode spending, amounting in a total annual savings of $5.68 billion. Cuts to Medicare fees accounted for most of these savings.Conclusions and relevanceIn this policy evaluation, the ACA was associated with large reductions in US hospital episode spending.

Project description:ImportanceThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) individual marketplaces are a source of insurance for millions of residents in the US. However, the association between enrollee risk, health spending, and metal tier selection remains unclear.ObjectivesTo describe individual marketplace enrollees' metal tier selections by risk score and assess enrollees' health spending by metal tier, risk score, and spending type.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, cross-sectional study analyzed claims data from the Wakely Consulting Group ACA database, a deidentified claims database built on data voluntarily submitted by insurers. Enrollees with continuous, full-year enrollment in on-exchange or off-exchange ACA-qualified health plans during the 2019 contract year were included. Data analysis was conducted from March 2021 to January 2023.Main outcomes and measuresEnrollment totals, total spending, and out-of-pocket cost were calculated, stratified by metal tier and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) risk score for 2019.ResultsEnrollment and claims data were obtained for 1 317 707 enrollees (53.5% female; mean [SD] age, 46.35 [13.43] years) across all census areas, age groups, and sexes. Of these, 34.6% were on plans with cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), 75.5% did not have an assigned HCC, and 84.0% submitted at least 1 claim. Compared with enrollees in bronze plans (17.2%), enrollees were more likely to be classified in the top HHS-HCC risk quartile if they selected platinum (42.0%), gold (34.4%), or silver (29.7%) plans. The highest share of enrollees with $0 total spending was noted with the catastrophic (26.4%) and bronze (22.7%) plans, while gold plans had the lowest share (8.1%). Median total spending was lower among bronze plan enrollees ($593; IQR, $28-$2100) vs platinum ($4111; IQR, $992-$15 821) or gold ($2675; IQR, $728-$9070). Within the top risk score decile, CSR enrollees had less average total spending than any other metal tier by more than 10%.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of the ACA individual marketplace, enrollees who selected plans with higher actuarial value also had greater mean HHS-HCC risk scores and health spending. The findings suggest these differences may be associated with variation in benefit generosity by metal tier, enrollee's perceptions of future health needs, or other barriers to care access.

Dataset Information

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

Context

Methods

Results

Discussion

Implications

Conclusion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets