Who Joins the Franchise, Affiliation Model of Hospital Networks? An Analysis of Hospital and Market Characteristics of Members

Health System Integration and Cancer Center Access for Rural Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Cancer centers provide superior care but are less accessible to rural populations. Health systems that integrate a cancer center may provide broader access to quality surgical care, but penetration to rural hospitals is unknown.

METHODS

Cancer center data were linked to health system data to describe health systems based on whether they included at least one accredited cancer center. Health systems with and without cancer centers were compared based on rural hospital presence. Bivariate tests and multivariable logistic regression were used with results reported as P-values and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Ninety percent of cancer centers are in a health system, and 72% of health systems (434/607) have a cancer center. Larger health systems (P = .03) with more trainees (P = .03) more often have cancer centers but are no more likely to include rural hospitals (11% vs 6%, P = .43; adjusted OR .69, 95% CI .28-1.70). The minority of cancer centers not in health systems (N = 95) more often serve low complexity patient populations (P = .02) in non-metropolitan areas (P = .03).

DISCUSSION

Health systems with rural hospitals are no more likely to have a cancer center. Ongoing health system integration will not necessarily expand rural patients' access to surgical care under existing health policy infrastructure and incentives.

Quality of breast surgery care at a comprehensive cancer center and its rural affiliate hospital

BACKGROUND

Cancer centers are increasingly affiliating with rural hospitals to perform surgery. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes for cancer center surgeons operating at rural hospitals are understudied.

METHODS

For patients with non-metastatic breast cancer from a rural catchment area who had oncologic surgery at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center (CC) or its rural affiliate (RA) from 2017 to 2022, we compared perioperative outcomes (composite of surgical site infection, seroma requiring drainage, and reoperation for margins) and receipt of guideline-concordant care (if patient received all applicable treatments) using descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Among 168 patients, 99 had surgery at RA, 60 CC. RA patients were older, higher stage, and more often had lumpectomy. There were no differences in perioperative outcomes (CC 10%, RA 14%, p ​= ​0.445) or guideline concordant care (RA 76%, CC 78%, p ​= ​0.846).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer center surgeons operating at a rural affiliate had comparable perioperative outcomes and guideline-concordant care.

Charting a Course: A Research Agenda for Studying the Governance of Health Care Networks

Networked forms of organizing in health care are increasingly viewed as an effective means of addressing "wicked", multifaceted health and societal challenges. This is because networks attempt to address these challenges via collaborative approaches in which diverse stakeholders together define the problem(s) and implement solutions. Consequently, there has been a sharp increase in the number and types of networks used in health care. Despite this growth, our understanding of how these networks are governed has not kept pace. The purpose of this chapter is to chart a research agenda for scholars who are interested in studying health care network governance (i.e., the systems of rules and decision-making within networks), which is of particular importance in deliberate networks between organizations. We do so based on our knowledge of the literature and interviews with subject matter experts, both of which are used to identify core network governance concepts that represent gaps in our current knowledge. Our analysis identified various conceptualizations of networks and of their governance, as well as four primary knowledge gaps: "bread and butter" studies of network governance in health care, the role of single organizations in managing health care networks, governance through the life-cycle stages of health care networks, and governing across the multiple levels of health care networks. We first seek to provide some conceptual clarity around networks and network governance. Subsequently, we describe some of the challenges that researchers may confront while addressing the associated knowledge gaps and potential ways to overcome these challenges.

Effects of affiliation network membership on hospital quality and financial performance

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of hospital membership in affiliation networks-franchise-like networks sponsored by high-quality health systems in which affiliate hospitals pay an annual fee for access to sponsor's operational and clinical resources-on clinical quality, patient experience ratings, and financial performance of affiliates and their competitors.

DATA SOURCES

Network membership data from press releases and websites of four sponsors (Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, MD Anderson, Memorial Sloan Kettering), American Hospital Association's Annual Survey, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare, and Healthcare Cost Report Information System, all for 2005-2016.

STUDY DESIGN

We used a quasi-experimental design and estimated hospital-level regressions with hospital-fixed effects. Dependent variables were measures of clinical quality, patient experience, and financial performance. Independent variables included an indicator for affiliate versus nonaffiliate and fixed effects for hospital characteristics and year. To analyze effects on competitors, we repeated analyses by comparing hospitals in the same county as an affiliate to nonaffiliated, noncompetitor hospitals.

DATA COLLECTION

Membership was obtained through press releases and network websites then linked across datasets by name and Medicare's identification number.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Across networks, affiliates (N = 199) experienced insignificant clinical quality changes but increased net income by $38,500 and operating margin by 6.6% (p values = 0.01-0.08) compared to nonaffiliates. Multispecialty affiliates improved on no measures. Cancer-specific affiliates improved their net income ($96,900) and operating margin (3.6%; p-values < 0.05). Affiliates' competitors experienced mixed changes in clinical measures relative to hospitals without affiliates in market (p-value < 0.05) but no financial effects. Affiliation was not associated with patient experience ratings for affiliates nor competitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite quality-focused missions, affiliation networks are not guaranteed to improve public measures of quality in affiliated hospitals, although hospitals in these communities improve financially. Future research should assess the conditions and mechanisms by which affiliation improves quality consistently and which forms of quality.