Not-for-profit versus for-profit health care providers--Part II: Comparing and contrasting their records.

The debate over which health care providers are most capably meeting their responsibilities in serving the public's interest continues unabated, and the comparisons of not-for-profit (NFP) versus for-profit (FP) hospitals remain at the epicenter of the discussion. From the perspective of available factual information, which of the two sides to this debate is correct? This article is part II of a 2-part series on comparing and contrasting the performance records of NFP health care providers with their FP counterparts. Although it is demonstrated that both NFP and FP providers perform virtuous and selfless feats on behalf of America's public, it is also shown that both camps have been accused of being involved in potentially willful clinical and administrative missteps. Part I provided the background information (eg, legal differences, perspectives on social responsibility, and types of questionable and fraudulent behavior) required to adequately understand the scope of the comparison issue. Part II offers actual comparisons of the 2 organizational structures using several disparate factors such as specific organizational behaviors, approach to the health care priorities of cost and quality, and business-focused goals of profits, efficiency, and community benefit.