Paying Their Way? Do Nonprofit Hospitals Justify Their Favorable Tax Treatment?

What do nonprofit hospitals reward? An examination of CEO compensation in nonprofit hospitals

Nonprofit hospital chief executive officer (CEO) compensation has received considerable attention in light of nonprofits’ tax-favored status as well as the high costs of hospital care. Past studies have found that hospital financial performance is a significant determinant of CEO pay but nonprofit performance, including quality and charity care, are not. Using post-ACA data, we re-examine whether a variety of hospital performance measures are important determinants of nonprofit hospital CEO compensation. We found mixed evidence with respect to the significance of the association between financial performance and uncompensated care and CEO compensation. Among the other nonprofit performance measures, patient satisfaction was significantly associated with CEO compensation, but other measures were not significant determinants of CEO compensation. Our results suggest nonprofit hospitals balance their financial health against their mission when setting CEO incentives. Additional policy targeting transparency in hospital CEO compensation may be warranted to help policymakers understand the specific factors used by hospital boards to incentivize CEOs.

Do Nonprofit Hospitals Evaluate Their Community Benefit Activities?

CONTEXT

Nonprofit hospitals in the United States are required to conduct a community health needs assessment (CHNA) every 3 years to identify the most pressing health issues in their community and then develop an implementation strategy for addressing these health issues. CHNA reports must include "evaluation of the impact of any actions that were taken to address the significant health needs identified in the immediately preceding CHNA."

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether and how nonprofit hospitals are responding to the requirement to evaluate their implementation strategies addressing their community's priority health needs.

DESIGN

Using content analysis, we reviewed CHNA reports of all Minnesota nonprofit hospitals (n = 96) since regulations were finalized in December 2014.

SETTING

Nonprofit hospitals in Minnesota.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reports were coded to determine whether hospitals are responding to the evaluation requirement and the types of evaluation measures (process vs outcome indicators) used to assess hospitals' activities.

RESULTS

Most of the reports (116 of 136 reports, or 85.3%) include narrative evaluating community benefit programs, showing widespread conformity with the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) mandate. All of the evaluations use process indicators, such as the number of individuals reached. More than half of the evaluations (64 of 116 reports, or 55.2%) also use outcome indicators, with many reporting short- and medium-term changes in health-related knowledge and behaviors. Use of outcome indicators increased substantially in CHNAs in the 2017-2020 period compared with 2015-2016.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, Minnesota hospitals are using program evaluation to assess their community benefit implementation strategies, although the extent to which they evaluate their strategies varies considerably between hospitals. While the use of outcome indicators of impact has increased over time, levels of use suggest the importance of incorporating public health expertise in CHNA work.

Comparison of Trends in Nonprofit Hospitals' Charity Care Eligibility Policies Between Medicaid Expansion States and Medicaid Nonexpansion States

Nonprofit hospitals provide charity care to financially disadvantaged patients according to their self-designed eligibility policies. The Affordable Care Act may have prompted nonprofit hospitals to adopt more generous eligibility policies, but no prior research has examined the longitudinal trend. The expansion of Medicaid coverage in many states has been found to reduce charity care provision, but it is unclear whether the change in charity care eligibility policies differed between Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states. Using mandatory tax filings, we found that both hospitals in Medicaid expansion states and hospital in nonexpansion states adopted more generous eligibility policies in 2018 than in 2010, but the change was greater in the former for discounted charity care; while the former provided less charity care regardless of their policy changes, the latter provided more when their policies became more generous. This study has implications for policy discussions on the justification of nonprofit hospitals' tax-exempt status.

Analysis Suggests Government And Nonprofit Hospitals' Charity Care Is Not Aligned With Their Favorable Tax Treatment

The different tax treatment of government, nonprofit, and for-profit hospitals implies different charity care obligations, with the greatest obligation for government hospitals and the least for for-profit hospitals. Prior research has not examined charity care provision among all three ownership types at the national level. Using 2018 Medicare Hospital Cost Reports, we compared charity care provision across 1,024 government, 2,709 nonprofit, and 930 for-profit hospitals. In aggregate, nonprofit hospitals spent $2.3 of every $100 in total expenses incurred on charity care, which was less than government ($4.1) or for-profit ($3.8) hospitals. No hospital ownership type outperformed the other two types with respect to charity care provision in a majority of hospital service areas containing all three types. Using different kinds of analyses, we also found wide variation in charity care provision within ownership types and a lack of a consistent pattern across ownership types. These results suggest that many government and nonprofit hospitals' charity care provision was not aligned with their charity care obligations arising from their favorable tax treatment. Policy makers may consider initiatives to enhance hospitals' charity care provision, particularly hospitals with government and nonprofit ownership.

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.

Establishing a Baseline: Community Benefit Spending by Not-for-Profit Hospitals Prior to Implementation of the Affordable Care Act

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Context:

Community 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).

Methods:

Using 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.

Results:

During 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.

Discussion:

Community 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.

Implications:

More 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.

Conclusion:

The 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.

The Impact of IRS Tax Policy on Hospital Community Benefit Activities

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently introduced tax code revisions requiring stricter oversight of community benefit activities (CBAs) conducted by tax-exempt, not-for-profit hospitals. We examine the impact of this tax requirement on CBAs among these hospitals relative to for-profit and government hospitals that were not subject to the new policy. We employed a quasi-experimental, difference-in-difference study design using a longitudinal observational approach and used secondary data collected by the American Hospital Association (years 2006-2010 including 20,538 hospital year observations). Findings show a significant increase in the reporting of 7 of the 13 CBAs among tax-exempt, not-for-profit hospitals compared with other hospitals after the policy change. Examples include partnering to conduct community health assessments ( b = 0.035, p = .002) and using capacity assessments to identify unmet community health needs ( b = 0.041, p = .001). Recent tax revisions are associated with increases in reported CBAs among tax-exempt, not-for-profit hospitals. As the debate continues regarding tax exemption status for not-for-profit hospitals, policy makers should expand efforts for enhanced accountability.

In California, not-for-profit hospitals spent more operating expenses on charity care than for-profit hospitals spent

In exchange for sizable tax exemptions, not-for-profit hospitals must engage in activities that meet the Internal Revenue Service's community benefit standard. The provision of charity care-free care to those unable to pay-can help meet that standard. Bad debt, the other form of uncompensated care, cannot be used to meet the standard, although Medicaid shortfalls can. However, the ACA lacks guidelines for providing charity care, and federal law sets no minimum requirements for community benefit activities. Using data from California, we examined whether the levels of charity and uncompensated care provided differed across general acute care hospitals by profit status and other characteristics during 2011-13. The mean proportion of total operating expenses spent on charity care differed significantly between not-for-profit (1.9 percent) and for-profit hospitals (1.4 percent), in contrast to the mean proportion spent on uncompensated care. Both types of spending varied widely across hospitals. Policy makers should consider measures that remove disincentives to meeting the persistent considerable need for charity care-for example, increasing supports to offset rising Medicaid shortfalls resulting from program expansion-and facilitate the tracking of ACA impacts on the distribution of charity care and uncompensated care delivery.

Tax-exempt hospitals and community benefit: new directions in policy and practice

The current community benefit standard for nonprofit hospital tax exemption has been the subject of mounting criticism. Many different constituencies have advanced the view that in its present form it fails to ensure that nonprofit hospitals provide adequate benefits to their communities in exchange for their tax exemption. In contrast, hospitals have often expressed the concern that the community benefit standard in its current form is vague and therefore difficult to comply with. Various suggestions have been made regarding how the existing community benefit standard could be improved or even replaced. In this article, we first discuss the historical and legal development of the community benefit standard. We then present the key controversies that have emerged in recent years and the policy responses attempted thus far. Finally, we evaluate possible future policy directions, which reform efforts could follow.

Effects of Expanded California Health Coverage on Hospitals: Implications for ACA Medicaid Expansions

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects on hospitals of early California actions to expand insurance coverage for low-income uninsured adults after passage of the Affordable Care Act.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and the California Department of Health were merged with U.S. census data for 294 short-term general hospitals during the period 2009-2012.

STUDY DESIGN

A difference-in-difference analysis was conducted with hospitals in counties that did not implement insurance expansions used as a comparison group. Variables examined included payer mix, costs of unreimbursed care, and hospital operating margin. Sensitivity analyses were conducted as well as a triple difference analysis. Effects were estimated for hospitals overall and by ownership type.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

California insurance expansions primarily benefited for-profit hospitals, with these facilities experiencing significant decreases in self-pay patients, increases in county-covered patients, and reductions in charity care. Most models yielded no significant change in payer mix and conflicting changes in unreimbursed care for nonprofit hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

California hospitals that treated the most uninsured prior to insurance expansions did not as a group experience substantial benefit in terms of reduced uninsured burden or better financial performance after program expansions occurred.

What Should We Expect? A Comparison of the Community Benefit and Projected Government Support of Maryland Hospitals

Designation as a tax-exempt, not-for-profit entity carries with it specific tax benefits. In exchange for tax exemptions, not-for-profit entities are expected to provide benefits to their communities. To evaluate whether hospitals provide community benefits (CBs) equivalent to the financial subsidies and advantages extended to them, tax liabilities and financial support were projected for all Maryland acute care hospitals between 2010 and 2012 and in the aggregate over the 3 years of this study. A comparison was then made between the provision of CBs and the financial support that governments provide to the hospitals. The results indicate that hospitals provide significantly and substantially more CBs than the material financial support they receive. Even after modeling changes in CB activities and the associated tax liabilities that may result from transitioning to taxable status, the benefits that hospitals provide to the communities they serve continue to exceed the potential government tax revenues.

Community benefit activities of private, nonprofit hospitals

The definition of hospital community benefits has been intensely debated for many years. Recently, consensus has developed about one group of activities being central to community benefits because of its focus on care for the poor and on needed community services for which any payments received are low relative to costs. Disagreements continue, however, about the treatment of bad debt expense and Medicare shortfalls. A recent revision of the Internal Revenue Service's Form 990 Schedule H, which is required of all nonprofit hospitals, highlights the agreed-on set of activities but does not dismiss the disputed items. Our study is the first to apply definitions used in the new IRS form to assess how conclusions about the adequacy of nonprofit hospital community benefits could be affected if bad debt expenses and Medicare shortfalls are included or excluded. Specifically, we examine 2005 financial data for California and Florida hospitals. Overall, we find that conclusions about community benefit adequacy are very different depending on which definition of community benefits is used. We provide thoughts on new directions for the current policy debate about the treatment of bad debts and Medicare shortfalls in light of these findings.

Uncompensated care provided by for-profit, not-for-profit, and government owned hospitals

Background

There is growing concern certain not-for-profit hospitals are not providing enough uncompensated care to justify their tax exempt status. Our objective was to compare the amount of uncompensated care provided by not-for-profit (NFP), for-profit (FP) and government owned hospitals.

Methods

We used 2005 state inpatient data (SID) for 10 states to identify patients hospitalized for three common conditions: acute myocardial infarction (AMI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), or childbirth. Uncompensated care was measured as the proportion of each hospital's total admissions for each condition that were classified as being uninsured. Hospitals were categorized as NFP, FP, or government owned based upon data obtained from the American Hospital Association. We used bivariate methods to compare the proportion of uninsured patients admitted to NFP, FP and government hospitals for each diagnosis. We then used generalized linear mixed models to compare the percentage of uninsured in each category of hospital after adjusting for the socioeconomic status of the markets each hospital served.

Results

Our cohort consisted of 188,117 patients (1,054 hospitals) hospitalized for AMI, 82,261 patients (245 hospitals) for CABG, and 1,091,220 patients for childbirth (793 hospitals). The percentage of admissions classified as uninsured was lower in NFP hospitals than in FP or government hospitals for AMI (4.6% NFP; 6.0% FP; 9.5% government; P < .001), CABG (2.6% NFP; 3.3% FP; 7.0% government; P < .001), and childbirth (3.1% NFP; 4.2% FP; 11.8% government; P < .001). In adjusted analyses, the mean percentage of AMI patients classified as uninsured was similar in NFP and FP hospitals (4.4% vs. 4.3%; P = 0.71), and higher for government hospitals (6.0%; P < .001 for NFP vs. government). Likewise, results demonstrated similar proportions of uninsured patients in NFP and FP hospitals and higher levels of uninsured in government hospitals for both CABG and childbirth.

Conclusions

For the three conditions studied NFP and FP hospitals appear to provide a similar amount of uncompensated care while government hospitals provide significantly more. Concerns about the amount of uncompensated care provided by NFP hospitals appear warranted.

The contribution of hospitals and health care systems to community health

This article reviews evidence on hospitals' and health systems' impacts on community health improvement. We begin with an overview of the history of community benefit and then discuss the lack of a widely accepted definition and measurement of community benefit activities as well as the expectations and accountability of tax-exempt not-for-profit hospitals and health systems in community initiatives. We highlight the approaches of two systems and identify strategic, cultural, technical, and structural challenges associated with increasing community benefit and health-improvement activities. We conclude by offering recommendations for policy and practice.