Search

The objective of this study is to determine whether key hospital-level financial and market characteristics are associated with whether rural hospitals merge. Hospital merger status was derived from proprietary Irving Levin Associates data for 2005 through 2016 and hospital-level characteristics from HCRIS, CMS Impact File Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System, Hospital MSA file, AHRF, and U.S. Census data for 2004 through 2016. A discrete-time hazard analysis using generalized estimating equations was used to determine whether factors were associated with merging between 2005 and 2016. Factors included measures of profitability, operational efficiency, capital structure, utilization, and market competitiveness. Between 2005 and 2016, 11% (n = 326) of rural hospitals were involved in at least one merger. Rural hospital mergers have increased in recent years, with more than two-thirds (n = 261) occurring after 2011. The types of rural hospitals that merged during the sample period differed from nonmerged rural hospitals. Rural hospitals with higher odds of merging were less profitable, for-profit, larger, and were less likely to be able to cover current debt. Additional factors associated with higher odds of merging were reporting older plant age, not providing obstetrics, being closer to the nearest large hospital, and not being in the West region. By quantifying the hazard of characteristics associated with whether rural hospitals merged between 2005 and 2016, these findings suggest it is possible to determine leading indicators of rural mergers. This work may serve as a foundation for future research to determine the impact of mergers on rural hospitals.

Background: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are responsible for outcomes that are only partially under their control because patients may choose to self-refer outside the ACO, overuse resource-intensive services, or underuse evidence-based care. ACOs must devise boundary-spanning practices to manage these interdependencies related to patient choice., Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify, conceptualize, and categorize ACO efforts to cope with interdependencies related to patient choice., Approach: We conducted qualitative organizational case studies of four ACOs. We interviewed 89 executives, mid-level managers, and physicians and analyzed the data through multiple rounds of inductive coding., Results: We identified 15 boundary-spanning practices, in which two or more ACOs engaged in efforts to understand, cope with, or alter interdependencies related to patient choice. Analysis of these practices revealed five categories of factors that appeared to shape patient choices in ways that may impact ACO performance: the availability of services, interactions with patients, system complexities, care provided to ACO patients by non-ACO providers, and uncertainties related to the environment. Our findings provide a process theory of ACO boundary-spanning: Each individual boundary-spanning practice contributes to a broader strategic goal, through which it may impact a particular aspect of interdependence and thereby reduce underuse, overuse, or leakage (i.e., provision of services outside the ACO)., Practice Implications: In identifying ACO boundary-spanning practices and proposing how they may impact interdependence, our theory highlights conceptual relationships that researchers can study and test. Similarly, in identifying key aspects of interdependencies related to patient choice and a broad assortment of ACO boundary-spanning practices, our findings provide managers with a tool for evaluating and developing their own boundary-spanning efforts.

Executive Summary: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are emerging across the healthcare marketplace and now include Medicare, Medicaid, and private sector payers covering more than 24 million lives. However, little is known about the process of organizational change required to achieve cost savings and quality improvements from the ACO model. This study applies the complex innovation implementation framework to understand the challenges and facilitators associated with the ACO implementation process. We conducted four case studies of private sector ACOs, selected to achieve variation in terms of geography and organizational maturity. Across sites, we used semistructured interviews with 68 key informants to elicit information regarding ACO implementation. Our analysis found challenges and facilitators across all domains in the conceptual framework. Notably, our findings deviated from the framework in two ways. First, findings from the financial resource availability domain revealed both financial and nonfinancial (i.e., labor) resources that contributed to implementation effectiveness. Second, a new domain, patient engagement, emerged as an important factor in implementation effectiveness. We present these deviations in an adapted framework. As the ACO model proliferates, these findings can support implementation efforts, and they highlight the importance of focusing on patients throughout the process. Importantly, this study extends the complex innovation implementation framework to incorporate consumers into the implementation framework, making it more patient centered and aiding future efforts.

Background: Alignment within accountable care organizations (ACOs) is crucial if these new entities are to achieve their lofty goals. However, the concept of alignment remains underexamined, and we know little about the work entailed in creating alignment., Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop the concept of aligning by identifying and describing the strategic practices administrators use to align the structures, processes, and behaviors of their organizations and individual providers in pursuit of accountable care., Approach: We conducted 2-year qualitative case studies of four ACOs that have assumed full risk for the costs and quality of care for defined populations., Findings: Five strategic aligning practices were used by all four ACOs. Informing both aligns providers' understandings with the goals and value proposition of the ACO and aligns the providers' attention with the drivers of performance. Involving both aligns ACO leaders' understandings with the realities facing providers and aligns the policies of the ACO with the needs of providers. Enhancing both aligns the operations of individual provider practices with the operations of the ACO and aligns the trust of providers with the ACO. Motivating aligns what providers value with the goals of the ACO. Finally, evolving is a metapractice of learning and adapting that guides the execution of the other four practices., Practice Implications: Our findings suggest that there are second-order cognitive (e.g., understandings and attention) and cultural (e.g., trust and values) levels of alignment, as well as a first-order operational level (organizational structures, processes, and incentives). A well-aligned organization may require ongoing repositioning at each of these levels, as well as attention to both cooperative and coordinative dimensions of alignment. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Executive Summary: The recent release by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of hospital charge and payment data to the public has renewed a national dialogue on hospital costs and prices. However, to better understand the driving force of hospital pricing and to develop strategies for controlling expenditures, it is important to understand the underlying costs of providing hospital services. We use Medicare Provider and Analysis Review inpatient claims data and Medicare cost report data for fiscal years 2008 and 2012 to examine variations in the contribution of "high-tech" resources (i.e., technology/medical device-intensive resources) versus "high-touch" resources (i.e., labor-intensive resources) to the total costs of providing two common services, as well as assess how these costs have changed over time. We found that high-tech inputs accounted for a greater proportion of the total costs of surgical service, whereas medical service costs were primarily attributable to high-touch inputs. Although the total costs of services did not change significantly over time, the distribution of high-tech, high-touch, and other costs for each service varied considerably across hospitals. Understanding resource inputs and the varying contribution of these inputs by clinical condition is an important first step in developing effective cost control strategies.

Background: Provider-based research networks (PBRNs) make clinical trials available in community-based practice settings, where most people receive their care, but provider participation requires both financial and in-kind contributions., Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore whether providers believe there is a business case for participating in PBRNs and what factors contribute to the business case., Methodology/approach: We use a multiple case study methodology approach to examine the National Cancer Institute's community clinical oncology program, a long-standing federally funded PBRN. Interviews with 41 key informants across five sites, selected on the basis of organizational maturity, were conducted using a semistructured interview guide. We analyzed interview transcripts using an iterative, deductive process to identify themes and subthemes in the data., Findings: We found that a business case for provider participation in PBRNs may exist if both direct and indirect financial benefits are identified and included in the analysis and if the time horizon is long enough to allow those benefits to be realized. We identified specific direct and indirect financial benefits that were perceived as important contributors to the business case and the perceived length of time required for a positive return to accrue., Practice Implications: As the lack of a business case may result in provider reluctance to participate in PBRNs, knowledge of the benefits we identified may be crucial to encouraging and sustaining participation, thereby preserving patient access to innovative community-based treatments. The results are also relevant to federally funded PBRNs outside of oncology or to providers considering participation in any clinical trials research.