The Impact of IRS Tax Policy on Hospital Community Benefit Activities

Community Engagement in Nonprofit Hospital Community Health Needs Assessments and Implementation Plans

CONTEXT

Nonprofit hospitals are required to provide community benefits in exchange for their tax-exempt status. This includes a community health needs assessment (CHNA) to identify community needs and an implementation plan (IP) with strategies to address top needs every 3 years. In addition, hospitals are required to engage community members in these assessments.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore community engagement and representation in CHNAs and IPs.

DESIGN

The researchers conducted a content analysis of CHNAs and IPs from a nationally representative sample of 503 nonprofit hospitals between 2018 and 2021.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

For CHNAs, a coding sheet was used to record the types of community members engaged by hospitals. For IPs, the team coded whether community engagement was reported at all and then performed an in-depth analysis to identify categories of community members, engagement methods used, and roles of community input. Finally, frequencies of categories across IPs were quantified.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine percent of hospitals (n = 449) engaged community members in their CHNA, but only 14% (n = 71) engaged community members in their IP. An in-depth look at these IPs found that hospitals engaged underserved/minority populations, low-income populations, high school students, public health experts, and stakeholder organizations. Community members were involved in multiple steps, including brainstorming ideas, narrowing down needs, developing strategies, and reacting to proposed strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although IPs are intended to benefit the community, there is a lack of community involvement reported in IPs. Hospitals may need incentives, resources, and personnel support to ensure representation of community members throughout the entire CHNA and IP process.

Funding Community Health Activities: An Experiment Comparing Health Foundation's Priorities to Those of Public Health Agencies, Hospitals, and Nonprofit Organizations

CONTEXT

Health foundations provide significant financial resources for community health. Foundation priorities, therefore, can play a key role in setting community agenda, but little is known about the criteria foundations use to prioritize projects.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the priorities that guide decision makers in health foundations and compare those priorities with what is known about nonprofit hospitals, public health, and community-based nonprofits.

DESIGN

An online survey with a discrete choice experiment and open-ended questions, asking respondents to choose between different types of community health projects based on project characteristics.

SETTING

Survey respondents were employed by health foundations located in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Respondents were leaders at health foundations (n = 173), the majority of which (56.2%) worked at foundations with assets greater than $50 million. These respondents were compared with an earlier survey (n = 561) from nonprofit hospitals, public health, and community-based nonprofits.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A conditional logit model was used to estimate how various project characteristics led to greater or lesser support of a given health project. Open-ended questions aided interpretation. A two sample t test was used to compare groups.

RESULTS

Foundation decision makers placed the greatest value on programs with coalitions of community partners, programs with a growing or existing base of evidence for effectiveness, and programs that focus on social determinants of health. These priorities are similar to those of community nonprofits, public health departments, and health systems. However, foundation leaders are more willing to fund interventions with longer time horizons and interventions that are not yet fully evidence-based. Foundations are also less interested in clinical care and more interested in advocacy programs.

CONCLUSION

Cooperation in funding and implementation is essential to community health improvement, and major organizations could benefit from everyone clearly articulating their priorities. There are good reasons to intentionally foster both similarities and differences in priorities across organizations.

Institutional factors associated with hospital partnerships for population health: A pooled cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Hospitals are increasingly engaging in partnerships to address population health in response to national policies, such as value-based payment models. However, little is known about how institutional factors influence hospital partnerships for population health.

PURPOSE

Guided by institutional theory, we examine the association between institutional pressures (coercive, normative, and mimetic isomorphism) and hospital partnerships for population health.

METHODOLOGY

A pooled cross-sectional analysis used an unbalanced panel of 10,777 hospital-year observations representing respondents to a supplemental question of the American Hospital Association's annual survey (2015-2017). The analysis included descriptive and bivariate statistics, and regression models that adjusted for repeated observations to examine the relationship between key independent variables and partnerships over time.

FINDINGS

In regression analyses, we found the most support for measures of coercive (e.g., regulatory factors) isomorphism, with nonprofit status, participation in accountable care organizations, and acceptance of bundled payments, all being consistently and significantly associated with partnerships across all organization types. Modest increases were observed from 2015 to 2017 for hospital partnerships with public health organizations (+2.8% points, p < .001), governmental organizations (+2.0% points, p = .009), schools (+4.1% points, p < .001), and businesses (+2.2% points, p = .007).

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our results suggest that institutional factors, particularly those related to regulatory policies and programs, may influence hospital partnerships to support population health. Findings from this study can assist hospital leaders in assessing the factors that can support or impede the creation of partnerships to support their population health efforts.

Identifying Opportunities to Strengthen the Public Health Informatics Infrastructure: Exploring Hospitals' Challenges with Data Exchange

Policy Points Even though most hospitals have the technological ability to exchange data with public health agencies, the majority continue to experience challenges. Most challenges are attributable to the general resources of public health agencies, although workforce limitations, technology issues such as a lack of data standards, and policy uncertainty around reporting requirements also remain prominent issues. Ongoing funding to support the adoption of technology and strengthen the development of the health informatics workforce, combined with revising the promotion of the interoperability scoring approach, will likely help improve the exchange of electronic data between hospitals and public health agencies.

CONTEXT

The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted significant barriers in the exchange of essential information between hospitals and local public health agencies. Thus it remains important to clarify the specific issues that hospitals may face in reporting to public health agencies to inform focused approaches to improve the information exchange for the current pandemic as well as ongoing public health activities and population health management.

METHODS

This study uses cross-sectional data of acute-care, nonfederal hospitals from the 2017 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Information Technology supplement. Guided by the technology-organization-environment framework, we coded the responses to a question regarding the challenges that hospitals face in submitting data to public health agencies by using content analysis according to the type of challenge (i.e., technology, organization, or environment), responsible entity (i.e., hospital, public health agency, vendor, multiple), and the specific issue described. We used multivariable logistic and multinomial regression to identify characteristics of hospitals associated with experiencing the types of challenges.

FINDINGS

Our findings show that of the 2,794 hospitals in our analysis, 1,696 (61%) reported experiencing at least one challenge in reporting health data to a public health agency. Organizational issues were the most frequently reported type of challenge, noted by 1,455 hospitals. The most common specific issue, reported by 1,117 hospitals, was the general resources of public health agencies. An advanced EHR system and participation in a health information exchange both decreased the likelihood of not reporting experiencing a challenge and increased the likelihood of reporting an organizational challenge.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings inform policy recommendations such as improving data standards, increasing funding for public health agencies to improve their technological capabilities, offering workforce training programs, and increasing clarity of policy specifications and reporting. These approaches can improve the exchange of information between hospitals and public health agencies.

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

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.