Dataset Information

Defining hospital community benefit activities using Delphi technique: A comparison between China and the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Currently there is no expert consensus regarding what activities and programs constitute hospital community benefits. In China, the hospital community benefit movement started gaining attention after the recent health care system reform in 2009. In the United States, the Internal Revenue Service and the nonprofit hospital sector have struggled to define community benefit for many years. More recently, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s new "community benefit" requirements, nonprofit hospitals further developed these benefits to qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status.

Methods

The Delphi survey method was used to explore activities and/or programs that are considered to be hospital community benefits in China and the United States. Twenty Chinese and 19 American of academics, senior hospital managers and policy makers were recruited as experts and participated in two rounds of surveys. The survey questionnaire was first developed in China using the 5-point Likert scale to rate the support for certain hospital community benefits activities; it was then translated into English. The questionnaires were modified after the first round of Delphi. After two rounds of surveys, only responses with a minimum of 70 percent support rate were accepted by the research team.

Results

Delphi survey results show that experts from China and the U.S. agree on 68.75 percent of HCB activities and/ or programs, including emergency preparedness, social benefit activities, bad debt /Medicaid shortfall, disaster relief, environmental protection, health promotion and education, education and research, charity care, medical services with positive externality, provision of low profit services, and sliding scale fees.

Conclusions

In China, experts believe that healthcare is a "human right" and that the government has the main responsibility of ensuring affordable access to healthcare for its citizens. Meanwhile, healthcare is considered a commodity in the U.S., and many Americans, especially those who are vulnerable and low-income, are not able to afford and access needed healthcare services. Though the U.S. government recognized the importance of community benefit and included a section in the ACA that outlines new community benefit requirements for nonprofit hospitals, there is a need to issue specific policies regarding the amounts and types of community benefits non-profit hospitals should provide to receive tax exemption status.

SUBMITTER: Xu A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6867695 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining hospital community benefit activities using Delphi technique: A comparison between China and the United States.

Xu Aijun A Zare Hossein H Dai Xue X Xiang Yuanxi Y Gaskin Darrell J DJ

PloS one 20191120 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Currently there is no expert consensus regarding what activities and programs constitute hospital community benefits. In China, the hospital community benefit movement started gaining attention after the recent health care system reform in 2009. In the United States, the Internal Revenue Service and the nonprofit hospital sector have struggled to define community benefit for many years. More recently, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s new "community benefit" requirements ...[more]

PMID: 31747421

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the United States, sepsis is a major public health problem accounting for over 200,000 annual deaths. The aims of this study were to identify U.S. counties with high sepsis mortality and to assess the community characteristics associated with increased sepsis mortality.We performed a descriptive analysis of 2003 through 2012 Compressed Mortality File data. We defined sepsis deaths as deaths associated with an infection, classified according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Version.Three thousand one hundred and eight counties in the contiguous U.S. counties, excluding Hawaii and Alaska.Using geospatial autocorrelation methods, we defined county-level sepsis mortality as strongly clustered, moderately clustered, and nonclustered. We approximated the mean crude, age-adjusted, and community-adjusted sepsis mortality rates nationally and for clustering groups. We contrasted demographic and community characteristics between clustering groups. We performed logistic regression for the association between strongly clustered counties and community characteristics. Among 3,108 U.S. counties, the age-adjusted sepsis mortality rate was 59.6 deaths per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 58.9-60.4). Sepsis mortality was higher in the Southern U.S. and clustered in three major regions: Mississippi Valley, Middle Georgia, and Central Appalachia. Among 161 (5.2%) strongly clustered counties, age-adjusted sepsis mortality was 93.1 deaths per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 90.5-95.7). Strongly clustered sepsis counties were more likely to be located in the south (92.6%; p < 0.001), exhibit lower education, higher impoverished population, without medical insurance, higher medically uninsured rates, and had higher unemployment rates (p < 0.001).Sepsis mortality is higher in the Southern United States, with three regional clusters: "Mississippi Valley," "Middle Georgia," and "Central Appalachia": Regions of high sepsis mortality are characterized by lower education, income, employment, and insurance coverage.

Project description:ImportanceThe increased number of stroke centers in the United States may not be equitably distributed across all populations. Anecdotal reports suggest there may be differential proliferation in wealthier and urban communities.ObjectiveTo examine hospital characteristics and economic conditions of communities surrounding hospitals with and without stroke centers.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included all general, short-term, acute hospitals in the continental United States and used merged data from the Joint Commission, Det Norske Veritas, Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program, state health departments, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the American Hospital Association, the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, and the US Census Bureau from January 1, 2009, to September 30, 2017, to compare hospital and community characteristics of stroke-certified and non-stroke-certified hospitals and assessed characteristics of early and late adopters of stroke certification.Main outcomes and measuresStroke center certification was the primary outcome. Risk factors were grouped into 3 categories: economic and financial, hospital, and community characteristics. Survival analyses were performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model.ResultsThe study included 4546 US hospitals. During the study period, 1689 hospitals (37.2%) were stroke certified (961 adopted certification on or before January 1, 2009, 728 afterward). After controlling for other area and hospital characteristics, hospitals in low-income hospital service areas and the lower tertile of profit-margin distribution were less likely to adopt stroke certification (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52-0.74 and HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98, respectively). Urban hospitals had a higher likelihood of stroke certification than rural hospitals (HR, 12.79; 95% CI, 10.64-15.37).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that stroke centers have proliferated unevenly across geographic localities, where hospitals in high-income hospital service areas and with higher profit margins have a greater likelihood of being stroke certified. These findings suggest that market-driven factors may be associated with stroke center certification.

Project description:BackgroundPerceived delays in cancer drug approvals have been a major concern for policymakers in China. Policies have been implemented to accelerate the launch of new cancer drugs and indications. This study aimed to assess similarities and differences between China and the United States in the approvals, timing, and clinical benefit evidence of cancer drug indications between 2001 and 2020.MethodsThis study retrospectively identified all cancer drugs and indications approved in both China and the United States from January 1st, 2001 to December 31, 2020, and described differences in approval times as well as in submission and review times. Information on the availability of overall survival benefit evidence by December 31, 2020, was collected. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether evidence of benefit and other factors affected the propensity and timing of approvals of cancer drug indications in China.FindingsBetween 2001 and 2020, 229 indications corresponding to 145 cancer drugs approved in the United States were identified. Of those, 80 indications (34.9%) were also approved in China by the end of 2020. Cancer drug indications were approved in China at a median of 1273.5 days after approval in the United States. The median submission and review time differences for cancer drug indications in China were 1198.0 days and 180.0 days respectively. Submission time differences accounted for most of the approval time differences (p < 0.001). Indications supported by overall survival benefit evidence had shorter median review time differences (145.0 days) than those without such evidence (235.0 days, p = 0.008). Indications with overall survival benefit evidence were 3.94 times more likely to be approved in China compared to those without such evidence (p = 0.001), controlling for approval year, cancer type, and the prevalence of cancer by site.InterpretationFDA-approved cancer drug indications demonstrating a survival benefit were more likely to receive approvals in China with shorter regulatory review times compared to indications without such evidence. Given that manufacturer submission times were the main driver of cancer drug approval times in China, factors influencing submission timing should be explored.FundingNo funding.

Dataset Information

Defining hospital community benefit activities using Delphi technique: A comparison between China and the United States.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Defining hospital community benefit activities using Delphi technique: A comparison between China and the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets