There is legitimate concern in health care regarding whether for-profit providers deliver as good quality as non-profit ones do. Such companies may face conflicting incentives. On the one hand, cutting corners and stinting on care may improve margins; on the other hand delivering poor quality likely would lead to fewer patient visits and lower revenues. A Journal of the American Medical Association looked at about 237 hospitals that converted from non-profit to for-profit status in the period 2003 to 2010. (JAMA Article) These hospitals were compared to a cohort of 631 hospitals that stayed non-profit. The researchers measured financial performance, quality performance and any changes in patient population served. The converting hospitals were more likely to be small or medium, located in the south and in a metropolitan area than were non-converting ones. Hospitals that converted had lower total and operating margins before conversion than did the control hospitals, and after conversion, their margins improved more than did those for the controls. This suggests that conversion was driven by poor financial performance at least in part and that becoming for-profit did help hospitals become more financially stable. Based on standard Medicare process of care quality measures, the converting and non-converting hospitals had similar performance prior to conversion and after and showed similar rates of improvement over the study period. Nursing staffing ratios were also similar between the cohorts and over time. Thirty-day, risk-adjusted, all-cause mortality rates had no difference between the study groups at baseline and the rates of improvement for converting and non-converting hospitals were nearly identical. Patient volume remained similar after conversion. There were no differences after conversion in the proportion of patients who were Medicaid-eligible, black or hispanic. Prior to conversion, the converting hospitals had a higher proportion of care provided to the poor and they continued that trend after conversion. So whatever the explanation may be, it appears that converting to for-profit status was a positive event, with no adverse quality effects and greater financial stability, which likely meant more financial resources to provide better care for patients.
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
Research
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Headlines
Tags
Access
ACO
Care Management
Chronic Disease
Comparative Effectiveness
Consumer Directed Health
Consumers
Devices
Disease Management
Drugs
EHRs
Elder Care
End-of-Life Care
FDA
Financings
Genomics
Government
Health Care Costs
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Insurance
Health Insurance Exchange
HIT
HomeCare
Hospital
Hospital Readmissions
Legislation
M&A
Malpractice
Meaningful Use
Medicaid
Medical Care
Medicare
Medicare Advantage
Mobile
Pay For Performance
Pharmaceutical
Physicians
Providers
Regulation
Repealing Reform
Telehealth
Telemedicine
Wellness and Prevention
Workplace
Related Posts
Commentary
October 2, 2023
Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 226
Once more into the research breach, lockdowns, masks, et al.
Commentary
October 1, 2023
More Climate Research that the Hysterics Won’t Like
A few climate notes as the truth-tellers somehow manage to penetrate that attempted censorship of…
Commentary
October 1, 2023
Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 225
Interesting research continues to appear and I will keep summarizing it for you.