Literature DB >> 21285424

Association of hospice agency profit status with patient diagnosis, location of care, and length of stay.

Melissa W Wachterman1, Edward R Marcantonio, Roger B Davis, Ellen P McCarthy.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Medicare's per diem payment structure may create financial incentives to select patients who require less resource-intensive care and have longer hospice stays. For-profit and nonprofit hospices may respond differently to financial incentives.
OBJECTIVE: To compare patient diagnosis and location of care between for-profit and nonprofit hospices and examine whether number of visits per day and length of stay vary by diagnosis and profit status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Cross-sectional study using data from the 2007 National Home and Hospice Care Survey. Nationally representative sample of 4705 patients discharged from hospice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnosis and location of care (home, nursing home, hospital, residential hospice, or other) by hospice profit status. Hospice length of stay and number of visits per day by various hospice personnel.
RESULTS: For-profit hospices (1087 discharges from 145 agencies), compared with nonprofit hospices (3618 discharges from 524 agencies), had a lower proportion of patients with cancer (34.1%; 95% CI, 29.9%-38.6%, vs 48.4%; 95% CI, 45.0%-51.8%) and a higher proportion of patients with dementia (17.2%; 95% CI, 14.1%-20.8%, vs 8.4%; 95% CI, 6.6%-10.6%) and other noncancer diagnoses (48.7%; 95% CI, 43.2%-54.1%, vs 43.2%; 95% CI, 40.0%-46.5%; adjusted P < .001). After adjustment for demographic, clinical, and agency characteristics, there was no significant difference in location of care by profit status. For-profit hospices compared with nonprofit hospices had a significantly longer length of stay (median, 20 days; interquartile range [IQR], 6-88, vs 16 days; IQR, 5-52 days; adjusted P = .01) and were more likely to have patients with stays longer than 365 days (6.9%; 95% CI, 5.0%-9.4%, vs 2.8%; 95% CI, 2.0%-4.0%) and less likely to have patients with stays of less than 7 days (28.1%; 95% CI, 23.9%-32.7%, vs 34.3%; 95% CI, 31.3%-37.3%; P = .005). Compared with cancer patients, those with dementia or other diagnoses had fewer visits per day from nurses (0.50 visits; IQR, 0.32-0.87, vs 0.37 visits; IQR, 0.20-0.78, and 0.41 visits; IQR, 0.26-0.79, respectively; adjusted P = .002) and social workers (0.15 visits; IQR, 0.07-0.31, vs 0.11 visits; IQR, 0.04-0.27, and 0.14 visits; IQR, 0.07-0.31, respectively; adjusted P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Compared with nonprofit hospice agencies, for-profit hospice agencies had a higher percentage of patients with diagnoses associated with lower-skilled needs and longer lengths of stay.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21285424      PMCID: PMC3142476          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.70

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  14 in total

1.  Providing care at the end of life: do Medicare rules impede good care?

Authors:  H A Huskamp; M B Buntin; V Wang; J P Newhouse
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Defining the "terminally ill": insights from SUPPORT.

Authors:  J Lynn; F E Harrell; F Cohn; M Hamel; N Dawson; A W Wu
Journal:  Duquesne Law Rev       Date:  1996

3.  Survival of Medicare patients after enrollment in hospice programs.

Authors:  N A Christakis; J J Escarce
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-07-18       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  Prognoses of seriously ill hospitalized patients on the days before death: implications for patient care and public policy.

Authors:  J Lynn; F Harrell; F Cohn; D Wagner; A F Connors
Journal:  New Horiz       Date:  1997-02

5.  Evaluation of prognostic criteria for determining hospice eligibility in patients with advanced lung, heart, or liver disease. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.

Authors:  E Fox; K Landrum-McNiff; Z Zhong; N V Dawson; A W Wu; J Lynn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-11-03       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Ownership status and patterns of care in hospice: results from the National Home and Hospice Care Survey.

Authors:  Melissa D A Carlson; William T Gallo; Elizabeth H Bradley
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Cash and compassion: profit status and the delivery of hospice services.

Authors:  Karl A Lorenz; Susan L Ettner; Kenneth E Rosenfeld; David M Carlisle; Barbara Leake; Steven M Asch
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.947

8.  Medicare program expenditures associated with hospice use.

Authors:  Diane E Campbell; Joanne Lynn; Tom A Louis; Lisa R Shugarman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-02-17       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 9.  Predicting patient survival before and after hospice enrollment.

Authors:  N A Christakis
Journal:  Hosp J       Date:  1998

10.  The Medicare hospice payment system: a consideration of potential refinements.

Authors:  Nancy Nicosia; Elaine Reardon; Karl Lorenz; Joanne Lynn; Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin
Journal:  Health Care Financ Rev       Date:  2009
View more
  21 in total

1.  Caring for grieving family members: results from a national hospice survey.

Authors:  Colleen L Barry; Melissa D A Carlson; Jennifer W Thompson; Mark Schlesinger; Ruth McCorkle; Stanislav V Kasl; Elizabeth H Bradley
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Effect of Hospice Use on Costs of Care for Long-Stay Nursing Home Decedents.

Authors:  Kathleen T Unroe; Greg A Sachs; M E Dennis; Susan E Hickman; Timothy E Stump; Wanzhu Tu; Christopher M Callahan
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 5.562

3.  National hospice survey results: for-profit status, community engagement, and service.

Authors:  Melissa D Aldridge; Mark Schlesinger; Colleen L Barry; R Sean Morrison; Ruth McCorkle; Rosemary Hürzeler; Elizabeth H Bradley
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  Nearly half of all Medicare hospice enrollees received care from agencies owned by regional or national chains.

Authors:  David G Stevenson; Jesse B Dalton; David C Grabowski; Haiden A Huskamp
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  Policy and the Re-Formation of Hospice: Lessons from the Past for the Future of Palliative Care.

Authors:  Joy Buck
Journal:  J Hosp Palliat Nurs       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.918

6.  Pain Assessment, Management, and Control Among Patients 65 Years or Older Receiving Hospice Care in the U.S.

Authors:  Meagan E Cea; M Cary Reid; Charles Inturrisi; Lisa R Witkin; Holly G Prigerson; Yuhua Bao
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 3.612

7.  Characteristics and outcomes of hospice enrollees with dementia discharged alive.

Authors:  Kimberly S Johnson; Katja Elbert-Avila; Maragatha Kuchibhatla; James A Tulsky
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2012-08-20       Impact factor: 5.562

8.  Risk Factors for Hospitalization of Home Hospice Enrollees Development and Validation of a Predictive Tool.

Authors:  Veerawat Phongtankuel; P Johnson; M C Reid; R D Adelman; Z Grinspan; M A Unruh; E Abramson
Journal:  Am J Hosp Palliat Care       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 2.500

9.  Effect of Ownership on Hospice Service Use: 2005-2011.

Authors:  David G Stevenson; David C Grabowski; Nancy L Keating; Haiden A Huskamp
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2016-04-30       Impact factor: 5.562

10.  Quality of end-of-life care of long-term nursing home residents with and without dementia.

Authors:  Qinghua Li; Nan Tracy Zheng; Helena Temkin-Greener
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2013-06-17       Impact factor: 5.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.