Dataset Information

Nonprofit Hospital Community Benefit in the U.S.: A Scoping Review From 2010 to 2019.

ABSTRACT: Background: U.S. nonprofit hospital community benefit recently underwent significant regulatory revisions. Starting in 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) required hospitals to submit a new Schedule H that provided greater detail on community benefit activities. In addition, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became law in 2010, requires hospitals to conduct community health needs assessments (CHNA) and develop community health implementation plans (CHIP) as a response to priority needs every 3 years. These new requirements have led to greater transparency and accountability and this scoping review considers what has been learned about community benefit from 2010 to 2019. Methods: This review identified peer-reviewed literature published from 2010 to 2019 using three methods. First, an OvidSP MEDLINE search using terms suggested previously by community benefit researchers. Second, a PubMed search using keywords frequently found in community benefit literature. Third, a SCOPUS search of the most frequently cited articles in this topic area. Articles were then selected based on their relevance to the research question. Articles were organized into topic areas using a qualitative strategy similar to axial coding. Results: Literature appeared around several topic areas: governance; CHNA and CHIP process, content, and impact; community programs and their evaluation; spending patterns and spending influences; population health; and policy recommendations. The plurality of literature centered on spending and needs assessments, likely because they can draw upon publicly available data. The vast majority of articles in these areas use spending data from 2009 to 2012 and the first cycle of CHNAs in 2013. Policy recommendations focus on accountability for impact, enhancing collaboration, and incentivizing action in areas other than clinical care. Discussion: There are several areas of community benefit in need of further study. Longitudinal studies on needs assessments and spending patterns would help inform whether organizations have changed and improved operations over time. Governance, program evaluation, and collaboration are some of the consequential areas about which relatively little is known. Gaps in knowledge also exist related to the operational realities that drive community benefit activities. Shaping organizational action and public policy would benefit from additional research in these and other areas.

SUBMITTER: Rozier MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7078328 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nonprofit Hospital Community Benefit in the U.S.: A Scoping Review From 2010 to 2019.

Rozier Michael D MD

Frontiers in public health 20200311

<b>Background:</b> U.S. nonprofit hospital community benefit recently underwent significant regulatory revisions. Starting in 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) required hospitals to submit a new Schedule H that provided greater detail on community benefit activities. In addition, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became law in 2010, requires hospitals to conduct community health needs assessments (CHNA) and develop community health implementation plans (CHIP) as a response to priority ...[more]

PMID: 32219089

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextGiven the impact of environmental pollution on health and health inequity, there may be substantial value in integrating assessment and response to pollution into nonprofit hospital community benefit processes. Such hospital engagement has not yet been studied.ObjectivesWe take a preliminary step of inquiry in investigating if nonprofit hospitals in New York State (NYS) assess, identify, or respond to environmental pollution as part of community benefit processes.DesignThis study is of retrospective, observational design. Data were abstracted from community health needs reports (2015-2017), associated implementation plans, and related IRS (Internal Revenue Service) filings from a randomly geographically stratified selection of NYS nonprofit hospitals.ParticipantsThe sample includes 53 hospitals from 23 counties. The sampling frame consists of NYS nonspecialty private nonprofit hospitals.Main outcome measuresDichotomous findings for the following: (1) engagement of environmental pollution in the process of assessment of community health needs; (2) environmental pollution concern identified as a priority community health need; (3) strategic planning present to address pollution identified as community health need; and (4) action taken on same.ResultsWe found that 60.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.74) of hospitals evidenced some form of assessment of environmental pollution and 18.9% (95% CI, 0.09-0.32) identified pollution as a priority community health need. However, no hospital went on to take independent or collaborative planning or action to address pollution. In additional analysis, we found that social justice in hospital mission was a positive predictor of assessment of environmental pollution.ConclusionsFor NYS hospitals, we found a substantial presence of assessment and identification of pollution as a community health concern. Our finding of the absence of response to environmental pollution represents a gap in community benefit implementation. This indicates a yet untaken opportunity to address racial and economic environmental health injustices and to improve population health.

Project description:BackgroundIt is unknown to what extent cancer drugs approved in Switzerland by the Swissmedic fulfil criteria of clinical benefit according to the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF) and the Swiss OLUtool v2 (OLUtool).Patients and methodsAn electronic search identified studies that led to marketing authorisations in Switzerland 2010-2019. Studies were evaluated according to ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool. Substantial benefit for ESMO-MCBS, was defined as a grade A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. For ASCO-VF and OLUtool clinical benefit was defined as score ≥45 and A or B, respectively. Concordance between the frameworks was calculated with Cohen's Kappa (κ). Factors associated with clinical benefit were evaluated by logistic regression.ResultsIn the study period, 48 drugs were approved for 92 evaluable indications, based on 100 studies. Ratings for ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool could be performed for 100, 86, and 97 studies, respectively. Overall, 39 (39%), 44 (51%), 45 (46%) of the studies showed substantial clinical benefit according to ESMO-MCBS v1.1, ASCO-VF, OLUtool criteria, respectively. There was fair concordance between ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF in the palliative setting (κ = 0.31, P = 0.004) and moderate concordance between ESMO-MCBS and OLUtool (κ = 0.41, P<0.001). There was no significant concordance between ASCO-VF and OLUtool (κ = 0.18, P = 0.12). Factors associated with substantial clinical benefit in multivariable analysis were HRQoL benefit reported as secondary outcome for ESMO-MCBS and the ASCO-VF and blinded studies for OLUtool.ConclusionsAt the time of approval, only around half of the trials supporting marketing authorisation of recently approved cancer drugs in Switzerland meet the criteria for substantial clinical benefit when evaluated with ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF or OLUtool. There was at best only moderate concordance between the grading systems.

Project description:BackgroundHospital performance quality assessments inform patients, providers, payers, and purchasers in making healthcare decisions. These assessments have been developed by government, private and non-profit organizations, and academic institutions. Given the number and variability in available assessments, a knowledge gap exists regarding what assessments are available and how each assessment measures quality to identify top performing hospitals. This study aims to: (a) comprehensively identify current hospital performance assessments, (b) compare quality measures from each methodology in the context of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) six domains of STEEEP (safety, timeliness, effectiveness, efficiency, equitable, and patient-centeredness), and (c) formulate policy recommendations that improve value-based, patient-centered care to address identified gaps.MethodsA scoping review was conducted using a systematic search of MEDLINE and the grey literature along with handsearching to identify studies that provide assessments of US-based hospital performance whereby the study cohort examined a minimum of 250 hospitals in the last two years (2017-2019).ResultsFrom 3058 unique records screened, 19 hospital performance assessments met inclusion criteria. Methodologies were analyzed across each assessment and measures were mapped to STEEEP. While safety and effectiveness were commonly identified measures across assessments, efficiency, and patient-centeredness were less frequently represented. Equity measures were also limited to risk- and severity-adjustment methods to balance patient characteristics across populations, rather than stand-alone indicators to evaluate health disparities that may contribute to community-level inequities.ConclusionsTo further improve health and healthcare value-based decision-making, there remains a need for methodological transparency across assessments and the standardization of consensus-based measures that reflect the IOM's quality framework. Additionally, a large opportunity exists to improve the assessment of health equity in the communities that hospitals serve.

Project description:IntroductionCommunity paramedicine models have been developed around the world in response to demographic changes, healthcare system needs and reforms. The traditional role of the paramedic has primarily been to provide emergency medical response and transportation of patients to nearby medical facilities. As a response to healthcare service gaps in underserved communities and the growing professionalisation of the workforce, the role of community paramedicine has evolved as a new model of care. A community paramedicine model in one region might address other healthcare needs than a model in another region. Various terms are also in use for community paramedicine providers, with no consensus on the definition for community paramedics, although the definition used by the International Roundtable on Community Paramedicine has been widely accepted. We aimed to examine the current knowledge and possibly identify gaps in the research/knowledge base for cost-benefit analysis and safety concerning community paramedicine in rural areas using a scoping review methodology.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. In October 2020, we will search electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane and Embase) and the reference lists of key studies to identify studies for inclusion. The selection process is in two steps. First, two reviewers will independently screen identified articles for title and abstracts and, second, perform a full-text review of eligible studies for inclusion. Studies focusing on community paramedicine in rural areas, which include cost-benefit analysis or safety evaluation, will be included.Ethics and disseminationThe data used are available from publicly secondary sources, therefore this study will not require ethical review. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication.

Dataset Information

Nonprofit Hospital Community Benefit in the U.S.: A Scoping Review From 2010 to 2019.

Publications

Nonprofit Hospital Community Benefit in the U.S.: A Scoping Review From 2010 to 2019.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets