Charity Care and Community Benefit in Non-Profit Hospitals: Definition and Requirements.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zare H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8246580 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Non-profit hospitals are facing greater pressure to address the social determinants of health. Since 2012, with new requirements for greater transparency and community health needs assessments, non-profit tax exemption requirements are believed to incentivize investments in the community, particularly for vulnerable populations. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of community benefit spending by private, acute care, non-profit hospitals from 2012-2014 to measure if hospitals have begun to address local community needs. We measured total community benefit spending and two subsets of spending-health care-related expenditures and community-directed contributions-as the proportion of their total expenditure. We obtained sociodemographic characteristics for their community, defined by ZIP code. In unadjusted and adjusted analyses using hospital-level and community-level covariates, community benefit spending has not varied and community-directed contribution amounts did not reflect local needs. Stronger incentives-tax-based or otherwise-are needed to steer non-profit hospitals to invest in community health.
| S-EPMC6425942 | biostudies-other
Project description:ContextCommunity 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).MethodsUsing 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.ResultsDuring 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.DiscussionCommunity 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.ImplicationsMore 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.ConclusionThe 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.
| S-EPMC5636059 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9836951 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A healthcare provider faces two decision problems. On the one hand, it chooses its organizational form: a hospital can be a for-profit institution providing compensated care only, or it can be a nonprofit organization whose mission is enhancing access to care for uninsured, low-income patients. On the other hand, the provider chooses which health professionals to hire, without observing their heterogeneous skills and their pro-social motivation. These decisions are related because an increase in the percentage of revenues, that the nonprofit hospital sacrifices for charity care, might enhance the motivation of its workers and induce some of them to donate their labor, that is, to volunteer. Accordingly, this article analyzes the provider's optimal screening contracts, which are contingent on workers' ability and satisfy limited liability, and relates them to the optimal choice of its mission-orientation. The results provide a new rationale for: a the emergence of different organizational forms for hospitals, such as for-profits and nonprofits, which complement public hospitals in the provision of health care, b the heterogeneity in the degree of charity care chosen by different nonprofit hospitals.
| S-EPMC9291797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:It has been shown that patients cared for at private for-profit hospitals have higher risk-adjusted mortality rates than those cared for at private not-for-profit hospitals. Uncertainty remains, however, about the economic implications of these forms of health care delivery. Since some policy-makers might still consider for-profit health care if expenditure savings were sufficiently large, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals. METHODS:We used 6 search strategies to identify published and unpublished observational studies that directly compared the payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals. We masked the study results before teams of 2 reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility of all studies. We confirmed data or obtained additional data from all but 1 author. For each study, we calculated the payments for care at private for-profit hospitals relative to private not-for-profit hospitals and pooled the results using a random effects model. RESULTS:Eight observational studies, involving more than 350 000 patients altogether and a median of 324 hospitals each, fulfilled our eligibility criteria. In 5 of 6 studies showing higher payments for care at private for-profit hospitals, the difference was statistically significant; in 1 of 2 studies showing higher payments for care at private not-for-profit hospitals, the difference was statistically significant. The pooled estimate demonstrated that private for-profit hospitals were associated with higher payments for care (relative payments for care 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.33, p = 0.001). INTERPRETATION:Private for-profit hospitals result in higher payments for care than private not-for-profit hospitals. Evidence strongly supports a policy of not-for-profit health care delivery at the hospital level.
| S-EPMC419772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the socioeconomic status (SES) and case-mix among day surgical patients treated at private for-profit hospitals (PFPs) and non-profit hospitals (NPs) in Norway, and to explore whether the use of PFPs in a universal health system has compromised the principle of equal access regardless of SES.DesignA retrospective, exploratory study comparing hospital types using the Norwegian Patient Register linked with socioeconomic data from Statistics Norway by using Norwegian citizens' personal identification numbers.SettingThe Norwegian healthcare system.PopulationAll publicly financed patients in five Norwegian metropolitan areas having day surgery for meniscus (34 100 patients), carpal tunnel syndrome (15 010), benign breast hypertrophy (6297) or hallux valgus (2135) from 2009 to 2014.Primary outcome measureHaving surgery at a PFP or NP.ResultsAcross four unique procedures, the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for using PFPs were generally lower for the lowest educational level (0.77-0.87) and the lowest income level (0.68-0.89), though aORs were not always significant. Likewise, comorbidity and previous hospitalisation had lower aORs (0.62-0.95; 0.44-0.97, respectively) for having surgery at PFPs across procedures, though again aORs were not always significant. No clear patterns emerged with respect to age, gender or higher levels of income and education.ConclusionsThe evidence from our study of four procedures suggests that equal access to PFPs compared with NPs for those patients at the lowest education and income levels may be compromised, though further investigations are needed to generalise these findings across more procedures and probe causal mechanisms and appropriate policy remedies. The finding that comorbidity and previous hospitalisation had lower odds of treatment at PFPs indicates that NPs play an essential role for more complex patients, but raises questions about patient preference and cream skimming.
| S-EPMC6009459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Literature suggests that human resources of non-profit hospitals (NPHs) present features that could potentially reach any expected organizational performance even when the attention to human resource management (HRM) are often low in non-profit organizations. Nowadays ambitious organizations strive to obtain a profitable performance that is also innovate and do it through building an organizational culture (OC), while for NPHs a positive culture is given by their human resources traits. However, there is not enough literature to understand how these three variables behave together. This study aims to explain the influence of HRM on IP mediated by OC. The research model was assessed through Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results support all the stated hypotheses. Both, HRM and OC are moderately strong predictors of IP, and OC mediates partially and in a complementary way the relationship between HRM on IP. An importance-performance map analysis (IPMA) was performed to expand the PLS-SEM results. The OC indicators show greater importance to explain IP, consequently, they are the most relevant indicators to initiate management actions by NPHs. The influence of HRM on IP represent an opportunity for NPH as it implies an affordable investment in comparison to the cost of technological solutions for enterprises.
| S-EPMC7318991 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAnnual influenza vaccinations are currently recommended for all health care personnel (HCP) to limit the spread of influenza to those at high risk of developing serious complications from the virus. Vaccination coverage has been shown to be significantly greater among employers requiring and encouraging HCP to receive the annual influenza vaccination.ObjectivesTo compare the proportion of respondent hospitals requiring HCP to receive annual influenza vaccination between 2013 and 2017 and to assess the degree to which these proportions differed between Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThis national survey study included responses from 1062 infection preventionists between 2013 and 2017 from nationally representative samples of all VA and non-VA hospitals in the United States. Data analysis was conducted from November 17, 2017, to March 26, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresSurvey response indicating hospital requirement for annual influenza vaccination of HCP.ResultsThe overall response rate for the 2013 survey was 69.3% (non-VA, 70.6% [403 of 571]; VA, 63.5% [80 of 126]) and in 2017 was 59.1% (non-VA, 59.1% [530 of 897]; VA, 58.9% [73 of 124]). Among all responding hospitals, mandatory influenza vaccination requirements for HCP increased from 37.1% in 2013 to 61.4% in 2017 (difference, 24.3%; 95% CI, 18.4%-30.2%; P < .001). This change was driven by non-VA hospitals, as requirement policies increased from 44.3% (171 of 386) in 2013 to 69.4% (365 of 526) in 2017 (difference, 25.1%; 95% CI, 18.8%-31.4%; P < .001). Conversely, there was no significant change during this period in the proportion of VA hospitals that required influenza vaccinations for HCP (1.3% [1 of 77] to 4.1% [3 of 73]; difference, 2.8%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 8.0%; P = .29).Conclusions and relevanceDespite a substantial increase in mandates among non-VA hospitals, we found that many non-VA hospitals and nearly all VA hospitals are still not currently mandating influenza vaccinations for HCP. In addition to implementing other well-described strategies to increase vaccination rates, health care organizations should consider mandating influenza vaccinations while appropriately weighing and managing the moral, ethical, and legal implications.
| S-EPMC6324418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo study the landscape of funding in intensive care research and assess whether the reported outcomes of industry-funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are more favorable.MethodsWe systematically assembled meta-analyses evaluating any type of intervention in the critical care setting and reporting the source of funding for each included RCT. Furthermore, when the intervention was a drug or biologic, we searched also the original RCT articles, when their funding information was unavailable in the meta-analysis. We then qualitatively summarized the sources of funding. For binary outcomes, separate summary odds ratios were calculated for trials with and without industry funding. We then calculated the ratio of odds ratios (RORs) and the summary ROR (sROR) across topics. ROR < 1 implies that the experimental intervention is relatively more favorable in trials with industry funding compared with trials without industry funding. For RCTs included in the ROR analysis, we also examined the conclusions of their abstract.ResultsAcross 67 topics with 568 RCTs, 88 were funded by industry and another 73 had both industry and non-profit funding. Across 33 topics with binary outcomes, the sROR was 1.10 [95% CI (0.96-1.26), I2 = 1%]. Conclusions were not significantly more commonly unfavorable for the experimental arm interventions in industry-funded trials (21.3%) compared with trials without industry funding (18.2%).ConclusionIndustry-funded RCTs are the minority in intensive care. We found no evidence that industry-funded trials in intensive care yield more favorable results or are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions.
| S-EPMC6182357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this evaluation is to explore the impact of the new hospital community engagement programme (comprised of a Young Persons Advisory Group and a Science Café) on community members and other stakeholders, with regard to their attitudes, skills and degree of engagement in a paediatric hospital in Cambodia.Data collection included feedback questionnaires and reflections produced after each YPAG and Science Café event. Further questionnaires and reflective interviews were conducted to gather the views of key stakeholders. Data were analysed by thematic content analysis and numerical data were expressed using descriptive statistics.The vast majority of participants expressed their enjoyment and satisfaction of the hospital community engagement programme. Delivering the programme in the right manner for the target audiences, by prioritising their needs was key to this. Participants valued the programmes in terms of the knowledge delivered around good health practices, the skills developed such as confidence and responsibility for their health, and the provision of opportunities to voice their opinions. All stakeholders recognised the importance of the programme in improving the quality of the healthcare service provided at the hospital.In order to have a successful hospital community engagement programme, understanding the target audience is essential. The engagement programme must be delivered in the right way to meet the needs of community members, including right communication, right setting, right people and right timing. This will ultimately result in a meaningful programme that is able to empower community members, potentially resulting in lasting change in healthcare practices. In conclusion, the gap between hospitals and the community could narrow, allowing everyone to interact and learn from each other.
| S-EPMC5542539 | biostudies-other