Non-profit hospital community benefit spending based on local sociodemographics.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chaiyachati KH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6425942 | biostudies-other | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Non-profit hospital community benefit spending based on local sociodemographics.
Chaiyachati Krisda H KH Qi Mingyu M Werner Rachel M RM
Journal of health care for the poor and underserved 20180101 4
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 a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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:Addressing social determinants of health may help hospitals improve population health and outcomes that are tied to financial incentives, such as readmission rates. Whether this strategy is effective remains unknown. The authors measure the association between nonprofit hospital spending on their community's social needs and Medicare readmission rates. This is a retrospective cohort study (July 2013 to June 2014) that combines Internal Revenue Service tax reports of community benefit spending by private, acute care, nonprofit hospitals with Medicare readmissions data for residents of their surrounding community, the hospital's zip code. Total community benefit spending and 2 of the largest subsets of spending-health care-related and community-directed spending-were measured and normalized as the proportion of each hospital's total expenditure. Associations between quintiles of community benefit spending and Medicare readmission rates were measured using discharge-level multivariate linear regression, adjusting for patient, hospital, community characteristics, and local public health department spending. The sample consisted of 1405 nonprofit hospitals with 341,913 discharges. Associations between readmission rates and total community benefit spending and the health care-related subset were not statistically significant. Discharges from hospitals in the upper quintiles of community-directed spending were associated with lower readmission rates by 0.82 to 1.21 absolute percentage points (P?=?0.01 to <0.001) compared to the lowest quintile. The magnitude of associations between community-directed spending and readmissions was larger for preventable readmissions and smaller when including beneficiaries beyond the hospital's zip code. These associations suggest that community-directed spending may be associated with better health care outcomes.
| S-EPMC7041313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Medicaid expansion was widely expected to alleviate the financial stresses faced by hospitals by providing additional revenue in the form of Medicaid reimbursements from patients previously receiving uncompensated care. Among nonprofit hospitals, which receive tax-exempt status in part because of their provision of uncompensated care, Medicaid expansion could have released hospital funds toward other community benefit activities. Objective:To examine changes in nonprofit hospital spending on community benefit activities after Medicaid expansion. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study used difference-in-differences analysis of 1666 US nonprofit hospitals that filed Internal Revenue Service Form 990 Schedule H detailing their community benefit expenditures between 2011 and 2017. The analysis was conducted from February to September 2019. Exposures:State Medicaid expansion between 2011 and 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Percentage of hospital operating expenditures attributable to charity care and subsidized care, bad debt (ie, unreimbursed spending for care of patients who did not apply for charity care), unreimbursed Medicaid spending, noncare direct community spending, and total community benefit spending. Results:Of 1478 hospitals in the sample in 2011, nearly half (653 [44.2%]) were small hospitals with fewer than 100 beds, and nearly 70% of hospitals (1023 [69.2%]) were in urban areas. Among the 1666 nonprofit hospitals, Medicaid expansion was associated with a decrease in spending on charity care and subsidized care (-0.68 [95% CI, -0.99 to -0.37] percentage points from a baseline mean [SD] of 3.6% [4.0%] of total hospital expenditures; P?<?.001) and in bad debt (-0.17 [95% CI, -0.32 to -0.01] percentage points). There was an increase in unreimbursed spending attributable to caring for Medicaid patients (0.85 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.10] percentage points; P?=?.04), which canceled out uncompensated care savings from the expansion. Noncare direct community expenditures decreased overall (-0.24 [95% CI, -0.48 to 0.00] percentage points; P?=?.049). Direct community expenditures remained more stable in small hospitals (-0.07 [95% CI, -0.20 to 0.05] percentage points; P?=.26) compared with large hospitals (-0.37 [95% CI, -0.86 to 0.12] percentage points; P?=?.14) and in nonurban hospitals (0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.14] percentage points; P?=?.70) compared with urban hospitals (-0.36 [95% CI, -0.73 to 0.01] percentage points; P?=?.06). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, Medicaid expansion was associated with a decrease in nonprofit hospitals' burden of providing uncompensated care, but this financial relief was not redirected toward spending on other community benefits.
| S-EPMC7260619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Policymakers are using different ways to measure the community benefit provided by non-profit hospitals because different policy makers have different policy objectives. We compare 3 commonly used measures of community benefit; examine the correlation across the 3 measures; examine how the distribution of community benefits varies across non-profit hospitals; and compare the factors associated with the level of community benefit for each definition. The main dataset for this study is the Schedule H of IRS Form 990 data for 2017. We merged this data with the 2017 American Hospital Association (AHA), the 2017 CMS Hospital Cost Report, and the 2018 American Community Survey data. The final sample consists of 1904 non-profit hospitals. We define 3 measures of community benefit: (1) Total community benefits: combining all 17 possible measures in the 990 data; (2) Total community benefits less unreimbursed Medicaid care because it reflects a policy choice made by the state; and (3) only charity care. We also subdivided the community benefits into individual and service-based benefit. Gini Coefficients and descriptive analysis show the distribution of 3 types of community benefit measures. On average, hospitals spent 8.1% of their expenses on all community benefits; 4.3% on community benefits less unreimbursed Medicaid; and 1.7% on charity care. The provision of charity care showed more variation (Gini coefficient) than the other 2 measures. Different hospital and geographic characteristics were associated with each definition, suggesting that different types of hospitals place emphasis on different community benefits. When policy makers choose among different definitions of community benefit, they should consider what incentives they want to instill.
| S-EPMC8246580 | biostudies-literature
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: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
Project description:To investigate whether tax-exempt hospitals' investments in community health are associated with patterns of governmental public health spending focusing specifically on the relationship between hospitals' community benefit expenditures and the spending patterns of local health departments (LHDs).We combined data on tax-exempt hospitals' community benefit spending with data on spending by the corresponding LHD that served the county in which a hospital was located. Data were available for 2 years, 2009 and 2013. Generalized linear regressions were estimated with indicators of hospital community benefit spending as the dependent variable and LHD spending as the key independent variable.Hospital community benefit spending was unrelated to how much local public health agencies spent, per capita, on public health in their communities.Patterns of local public health spending do not appear to impact the investments of tax-exempt hospitals in community health activities. Opportunities may, however, exist for a more active engagement between the public and private sector to ensure that the expenditures of all stakeholders involved in community health improvement efforts complement one another.
| S-EPMC5682126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionReductions in local government spending may have impacts on diets and health which increase the risk of hospital admissions for nutritional anaemias. Mechanisms include potential impacts of changes to local authority (LA) services (eg, housing services) on personal resources and food access, availability and provision. We therefore investigated the association between changes in LA spending and nutritional anaemia-related hospital admissions. Specifically, we address whether greater cuts to LA spending were linked to increased hospital admissions for nutritional anaemias.DesignLongitudinal analysis of LA panel data using Poisson fixed effects regression models.Setting312 LAs in England (2005-2018).Main exposureTotal LA service expenditure per capita per year.Main outcomePrincipal and total nutritional anaemia hospital admissions, for all ages and stratified by age (0-14, 15-64, 65+ years).ResultsLA service expenditure increased by 9% between 2005 and 2009 then decreased by 20% between 2010 and 2018. Total nutritional anaemia hospital admissions increased between 2005 and 2018 from 173 to 633 admissions per 100 000 population. A £100 higher LA service spending was associated with a 1.9% decrease in total nutritional anaemia hospital admissions (adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR): 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96 to 0.99). When stratified by age, this was seen only in adults. A £100 higher LA service spending was associated with a 2.6% decrease in total nutritional anaemia hospital admissions in the most deprived LAs (aIRR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.0).ConclusionIncreased LA spending was associated with reduced hospital admissions for nutritional anaemia. Austerity-related reductions had the opposite effect, increasing admissions, with greater impacts in more deprived areas. This adds further evidence to the potential negative impacts of austerity policies on health and health inequalities. Among other impacts, re-investing in LA services may prevent hospital admissions associated with nutritional anaemias.
| S-EPMC9528630 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe BC Centre for Disease Control implemented the Facility Overdose Response Box (FORB) program December 1st, 2016 to train and support non-healthcare service providers who may respond to an overdose in the workplace. The program aims to support staff at non-profit community-based organizations by ensuring policy development, training, practice overdose response exercises, and post-overdose debriefing opportunities are established and implemented.Materials and methodsThree data sources were used in this descriptive cross-sectional study: FORB site registration data; naloxone administration forms; and a survey that was distributed to FORB sites in February 2019. FORB program site and naloxone administration data from December 1st, 2016 to December 31st, 2019 were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A Cochran-Armitage test was used to assess trends over time in naloxone administration event characteristics. Site coordinator survey results are reported to supplement findings from administrative data.ResultsAs of December 31st, 2019, FORB was implemented at 613 sites across BC and 1,758 naloxone administration events were reported. The majority (86.3%, n = 1,517) were indicated as overdose reversals. At registration, 43.6% of sites provided housing services, 26.3% offered harm reduction supplies, and 18.6% provided Take Home Naloxone. Refusal to be transported to hospital following overdose events when emergency services were called showed an increasing trend over time. Most respondents (81.3%) reported feeling confident in their ability to respond to the overdose and 59.6% were offered staff debrief. Based on the 89 site survey responses, supports most commonly made available following an overdose were debrief with a fellow staff member (91.0%), debrief with a supervisor (89.9%), and/or counselling services (84.3%).ConclusionsThe uptake of the FORB program has contributed to hundreds of overdose reversals in community settings in BC. Findings suggest that the FORB program supports developing staff preparedness and confidence in overdose response in community-based settings.
| S-EPMC8118334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Indonesian government has made some ambitious steps to achieve Universal Health Coverage through the newly formed National Health Insurance [Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional (JKN)], establishing a single-payer insurance agency and prospective provider payment mechanism. This study aims to assess the benefit incidence of healthcare funding in the JKN era, and its distribution by socio-economic status considering regional variation in unit costs. We evaluate whether the benefit incidence of funding is skewed towards urban and wealthier households. We also investigate whether standard benefit incidence analysis using national unit costs underestimates regional disparities in healthcare funding. Lastly, we examine whether the design of the JKN provider payment system exacerbates regional inequalities in healthcare funding and treatment intensity. The analysis relies on Indonesia's annual National Socio-economic Survey (Susenas) and administrative data on JKN provider payments from 2015 to 2017, combined at district level for 466 districts. We find that the benefit incidence of healthcare expenditure favours the wealthier groups. We also observe substantial variation in hospital unit costs across regions in Indonesia. As a result, standard benefit incidence analysis (using national average unit transfers) underestimates the inequality due to regional disparities in healthcare supply and intensity of treatment. The JKN provider payment seems to favour relatively wealthier regions that harbour more advanced healthcare services. Urban dwellers and people living in Java and Bali also enjoy greater healthcare benefit incidence compared to rural areas and the other islands.
| S-EPMC8359753 | biostudies-literature