Policy commercializing nonprofits in health: the history of a paradox from the 19th century to the ACA

Mortality Among the Dementia Population in Not-For-Profit Hospitals with Better Nursing Resources

The dementia population has higher rates of mortality during hospital stays than those without dementia. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between ownership status (i.e. for-profit vs. not-for-profit) and nursing resources (i.e. nurse work environment, nurse-to-patient staffing, and nurse education) on 30-day mortality among post-surgical older adults with dementia. A cross-sectional analysis of linked American Hospital Association, Medicare claims, and nurse survey data was conducted using multi-level logistic regression models. We examined these models to assess the relationship between ownership status and 30-day mortality after adjusting patient and hospital characteristics. We also analyzed the relationship between the hospital ownership status and the 30-day mortality, after considering the three nursing resources. Older adults with dementia who received care in hospitals with not-for-profit status were less likely to die within 30 days of admission following surgery compared to those treated in hospitals with for-profit hospital status (i.e. odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.92, p = <.001). In addition, the odds ratios estimating the association between ownership and mortality were similar across the different models of the three nursing resources with and without those controls (i.e. 0.88 vs. 0.83 vs. 0.82). Surgical patients with dementia had better outcomes when cared for in not-for-profit hospitals, particularly with greater levels of nurse education and nurse staffing. The relationship between profit status and mortality was partly explained by the lower levels of nurse staffing and education in for-profit vs. not-for-profit hospitals.

Financial Profit in Medicine: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

The steady growth of corporate interest and influence in the health care sector over the past few decades has created a more business-oriented health care system in the United States, helping to spur for-profit and private equity investment. Proponents say that this trend makes the health care system more efficient, encourages innovation, and provides financial stability to ensure access and improve care. Critics counter that such moves favor profit over care and erode the patient-physician relationship. American College of Physicians (ACP) underscores that physicians are permitted to earn a reasonable income as long as they are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to provide high-quality, appropriate care within the guardrails of medical professionalism and ethics. In this position paper, ACP considers the effect of mergers, integration, private equity investment, nonprofit hospital requirements, and conversions from nonprofit to for-profit status on patients, physicians, and the health care system.

For-Profit Hospitals Have Thrived Because of Generous Public Reimbursement Schemes, Not Greater Efficiency: A Multi-Country Case Study

For-profit hospitals' market share has increased in many nations over recent decades. Previous studies suggest that their growth is not attributable to superior performance on access, quality of care, or efficiency. We analyzed other factors that we hypothesized may contribute to the increasing role of for-profit hospitals. We studied the historical development of the for-profit hospital sector across 4 nations with contrasting trends in for-profit hospital market share: the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. We focused on 3 factors that we believed might help explain why the role of for-profits grew in some nations but not in others: (1) the treatment of for-profits by public reimbursement plans, (2) physicians' financial interests, and (3) the effect of the political environment. We conclude that access to subsidies and reimbursement under favorable terms from public health care payors is an important factor in the rise of for-profit hospitals. Arrangements that aligned financial incentives of physicians with the interests of for-profit hospitals were important in stimulating for-profit growth in an earlier era, but they play little role at present. Remarkably, the environment for for-profit ownership seems to have been largely immune to political shifts.

Association of for-profit hospital ownership status with intracranial hemorrhage outcomes and cost of care

OBJECTIVE

Much of the current discourse surrounding healthcare reform in the United States revolves around the role of the profit motive in medical care. However, there currently exists a paucity of literature evaluating the effect of for-profit hospital ownership status on neurological and neurosurgical care. The purpose of this study was to compare inpatient mortality, operation rates, length of stay, and hospital charges between private nonprofit and for-profit hospitals in the treatment of intracranial hemorrhage.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Primary outcomes, including all-cause inpatient mortality, operative status, patient disposition, hospital length of stay, total hospital charges, and per-day hospital charges, were assessed for patients discharged with a primary diagnosis of intracranial (epidural, subdural, subarachnoid, or intraparenchymal) hemorrhage, while controlling for baseline demographics, comorbidities, and interhospital differences via propensity score matching. Subgroup analyses by hemorrhage type were then performed, using the same methodology.

RESULTS

Of 155,977 unique hospital discharges included in this study, 133,518 originated from private nonprofit hospitals while the remaining 22,459 were from for-profit hospitals. After propensity score matching, mortality rates were higher in for-profit centers, at 14.50%, compared with 13.31% at nonprofit hospitals (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.18; p = 0.040). Surgical operation rates were also similar (25.38% vs 24.42%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91-1.02; p = 0.181). Of note, nonprofit hospitals appeared to be more intensive, with intracranial pressure monitor placement occurring in 2.13% of patients compared with 1.47% in for-profit centers (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.88; p < 0.001). Discharge disposition was also similar, except for higher rates of absconding at for-profit hospitals (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.12-2.27; p = 0.018). Length of stay was greater among for-profit hospitals (mean ± SD: 7.46 ± 11.91 vs 6.50 ± 8.74 days, p < 0.001), as were total hospital charges ($141,141.40 ± $218,364.40 vs $84,863.54 ± $136,874.71 [USD], p < 0.001). These findings remained similar even after segregating patients by subgroup analysis by hemorrhage type.

CONCLUSIONS

For-profit hospitals are associated with higher inpatient mortality, lengths of stay, and hospital charges compared with their nonprofit counterparts.