Search

The article discusses findings that trustee compensation was negatively linked to U.S. nonprofit hospitals' charity care provision, and its possible effect on trustee selection and the fulfillment of their fiduciary duties in 2019. Topics covered include the possible deviation of trustees' activities from hospitals' stated charitable missions, and whether these reflect organizational attributes like hospital executives' priorities. Also noted are trustees' expected mitigation of this risk.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The financial viability of rural hospitals has been a matter of serious concern, with ongoing closures affecting rural residents' access to medical services. We examined the financial viability of 1,004 US rural hospitals that had consistent rural status in 2011-17. The median overall profit margin improved for nonprofit critical access hospitals (from 2.5 percent to 3.2 percent) but declined for other hospitals (from 3.0 percent to 2.6 percent for nonprofit non-critical access hospitals, from 3.2 percent to 0.4 percent for for-profit critical access hospitals, and from 5.7 percent to 1.6 percent for for-profit non-critical access hospitals). Occupancy rate and charge markup were positively associated with overall margins: In 2017 hospitals with low versus high occupancy rates had median overall profit margins of 0.1 percent versus 4.7 percent, and hospitals with low versus high charge markups had median overall margins of 1.8 percent versus 3.5 percent. Rural hospital financial viability deteriorated in states that did not expand eligibility for Medicaid and was lower in the South. Rural hospitals that closed during the study period had a median overall profit margin of -3.2 percent in their final year before closure. Policy makers should compare the incremental cost of providing essential services between hospitals and other settings to balance access and efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many hospital executives and economists have suggested that since Medicare adopted a hospital prospective payment system in 1985, prices on the hospital chargemaster (an exhaustive list of the prices for all hospital procedures and supplies) have become irrelevant. However, using 2013 nationally representative hospital data from Medicare, we found that a one-unit increase in the charge-to-cost ratio (chargemaster price divided by Medicare-allowable cost) was associated with $64 higher patient care revenue per adjusted discharge. Furthermore, hospitals appeared to systematically adjust their charge-to-cost ratios: The average ratio ranged between 1.8 and 28.5 across patient care departments, and for-profit hospitals were associated with a 2.30 and a 2.07 higher charge-to-cost ratio than government and nonprofit hospitals, respectively. We also found correlation between the proportion of uninsured patients, a hospital's system affiliation, and its regional power with the charge-to-cost ratio. These findings suggest that hospitals still consider the chargemaster price to be an important way to enhance revenue. Policy makers might consider developing additional policy tools that improve markup transparency to protect patients from unexpectedly high charges for specific services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To identify the characteristics of the most profitable US hospitals, we examined the profitability of acute care hospitals in fiscal year 2013, measured as net income from patient care services per adjusted discharge. Based on Medicare Cost Reports and Final Rule Data, the median hospital lost $82 for each such discharge. Forty-five percent of hospitals were profitable, with 2.5 percent earning more than $2,475 per adjusted discharge. The ten most profitable hospitals, seven of which were nonprofit, each earned more than $163 million in total profits from patient care services. Hospitals with for-profit status, higher markups, system affiliation, or regional power, as well as those located in states with price regulation, tended to be more profitable than other hospitals. Hospitals that treated a higher proportion of Medicare patients, had higher expenditures per adjusted discharge, were located in counties with a high proportion of uninsured patients, or were located in states with a dominant insurer or greater health maintenance organization (HMO) penetration had lower profitability than hospitals that did not have these characteristics. These findings can inform policy reforms, while providing a baseline against which to measure the impact of any subsequent reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using Medicare cost reports, we examined the fifty US hospitals with the highest charge-to-cost ratios in 2012. These hospitals have markups (ratios of charges over Medicare-allowable costs) approximately ten times their Medicare-allowable costs compared to a national average of 3.4 and a mode of 2.4. Analysis of the fifty hospitals showed that forty-nine are for profit (98 percent), forty-six are owned by for-profit hospital systems (92 percent), and twenty (40 percent) operate in Florida. One for-profit hospital system owns half of these fifty hospitals. While most public and private health insurers do not use hospital charges to set their payment rates, uninsured patients are commonly asked to pay the full charges, and out-of-network patients and casualty and workers' compensation insurers are often expected to pay a large portion of the full charges. Because it is difficult for patients to compare prices, market forces fail to constrain hospital charges. Federal and state governments may want to consider limitations on the charge-to-cost ratio, some form of all-payer rate setting, or mandated price disclosure to regulate hospital markups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: Self-insured employers cover more people than Medicare, Medicaid, or direct purchasers of private insurance. This study examined the ability of self-insured employers to negotiate hospital prices and the relationship between hospital prices and employer market power in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated cross-section analysis of commercial claims. METHODS: We used the US Census Bureau County Business Patterns data to estimate employer market power at the metropolitan statistical area (MSA)--year level and used the Truven Health MarketScan commercial claims to estimate mean hospital prices and price ratios at the MSA-year level (2010-2016). We calculated descriptive statistics for employer market power, mean hospitalization prices, and a case mix--adjusted price ratio measure during the study period and analyzed the 10 most concentrated labor markets. We estimated MSA-year--level ordinary least squares regressions of hospitalization price and the price ratio measure on employer market power. RESULTS: Large self-insured employers had concentrated market power in very few MSAs in 2016. The mean value of our employer market power measure was 62 for 2016, compared with the mean value of 5410 for hospital market power in the United States. Regression analyses find a slight relationship: A 1-point increase in employer market power was associated with a $6.61 decrease in the hospitalization price (mean = $20,813), but this result becomes statistically insignificant once the models control for hospital wages. CONCLUSIONS: Employer market power is low in most MSAs. Self-insured employers may consider building purchase alliances with state and local government employee groups to enhance their market power and lower negotiated prices for hospital services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]