Literature DB >> 24567076

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

Melissa D Aldridge1, Mark Schlesinger2, Colleen L Barry3, R Sean Morrison4, Ruth McCorkle2, Rosemary Hürzeler5, Elizabeth H Bradley2.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE The impact of the substantial growth in for-profit hospices in the United States on quality and hospice access has been intensely debated, yet little is known about how for-profit and nonprofit hospices differ in activities beyond service delivery. OBJECTIVE To determine the association between hospice ownership and (1) provision of community benefits, (2) setting and timing of the hospice population served, and (3) community outreach. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional survey (the National Hospice Survey), conducted from September 2008 through November 2009, of a national random sample of 591 Medicare-certified hospices operating throughout the United States. EXPOSURES For-profit or nonprofit hospice ownership. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Provision of community benefits; setting and timing of the hospice population served; and community outreach. RESULTS A total of 591 hospices completed our survey (84% response rate). For-profit hospices were less likely than nonprofit hospices to provide community benefits including serving as training sites (55% vs 82%; adjusted relative risk [ARR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.59-0.76]), conducting research (18% vs 23%; ARR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.46-0.99]), and providing charity care (80% vs 82%; ARR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.80-0.96]). For-profit compared with nonprofit hospices cared for a larger proportion of patients with longer expected hospice stays including those in nursing homes (30% vs 25%; P = .009). For-profit hospices were more likely to exceed Medicare's aggregate annual cap (22% vs 4%; ARR, 3.66 [95% CI, 2.02-6.63]) and had a higher patient disenrollment rate (10% vs 6%; P < .001). For-profit were more likely than nonprofit hospices to engage in outreach to low-income communities (61% vs 46%; ARR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44]) and minority communities (59% vs 48%; ARR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.02-1.38]) and less likely to partner with oncology centers (25% vs 33%; ARR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.44-0.80]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Ownership-related differences are apparent among hospices in community benefits, population served, and community outreach. Although Medicare's aggregate annual cap may curb the incentive to focus on long-stay hospice patients, additional regulatory measures such as public reporting of hospice disenrollment rates should be considered as the share of for-profit hospices in the United States continues to increase.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24567076      PMCID: PMC4315613          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  21 in total

1.  Families' perception of the added value of hospice in the nursing home.

Authors:  W M Baer; L C Hanson
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 5.562

2.  The routinization of hospice: charisma and bureaucratization.

Authors:  N James; D Field
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data.

Authors:  Guangyong Zou
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Improving access to hospice care: informing the debate.

Authors:  Melissa D A Carlson; R Sean Morrison; Elizabeth H Bradley
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.947

5.  The evolution of hospice in America toward organizational homogeneity.

Authors:  L F Paradis; S B Cummings
Journal:  J Health Soc Behav       Date:  1986-12

6.  Does receipt of hospice care in nursing homes improve the management of pain at the end of life?

Authors:  Susan C Miller; Vincent Mor; Ning Wu; Pedro Gozalo; Kate Lapane
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.562

7.  Do religious nonprofit and for-profit organizations respond differently to financial incentives? The hospice industry.

Authors:  Richard C Lindrooth; Burton A Weisbrod
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2006-11-13       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Hospice enrollment and evaluation of its causal effect on hospitalization of dying nursing home patients.

Authors:  Pedro L Gozalo; Susan C Miller
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.402

View more
  22 in total

1.  Geographic Variation of Hospice Use Patterns at the End of Life.

Authors:  Shi-Yi Wang; Melissa D Aldridge; Cary P Gross; Maureen Canavan; Emily Cherlin; Rosemary Johnson-Hurzeler; Elizabeth Bradley
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 2.947

2.  Racial Differences in Health Care Transitions and Hospice Use at the End of Life.

Authors:  Shi-Yi Wang; Sylvia H Hsu; Melissa D Aldridge; Emily Cherlin; Elizabeth Bradley
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 2.947

3.  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

4.  Organizational characteristics associated with the provision of cultural competency training in home and hospice care agencies.

Authors:  Azza AbuDagga; Robert Weech-Maldonado; Fang Tian
Journal:  Health Care Manage Rev       Date:  2018 Oct/Dec

5.  Looking Back, Moving Forward: A Retrospective Review of Care Trends in an Academic Palliative and Supportive Care Program from 2004 to 2016.

Authors:  Gulcan Bagcivan; Marie Bakitas; Jackie Palmore; Elizabeth Kvale; Ashley C Nichols; Stephen L Howell; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Gisella A Mancarella; Oladele Osisami; Jennifer Hicks; Chao-Hui Sylvia Huang; Rodney Tucker
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 2.947

6.  The Affordable Care Act and End-of-Life Care for Patients With Cancer.

Authors:  Ravi B Parikh; Alexi A Wright
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2017 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.360

7.  Racial Disparities in Hospice Outcomes: A Race or Hospice-Level Effect?

Authors:  Jessica Rizzuto; Melissa D Aldridge
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 5.562

8.  Massage, Music, and Art Therapy in Hospice: Results of a National Survey.

Authors:  Aleksandra S Dain; Elizabeth H Bradley; Rosemary Hurzeler; Melissa D Aldridge
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 3.612

9.  Continuous Home Care Reduces Hospice Disenrollment and Hospitalization After Hospice Enrollment.

Authors:  Shi-Yi Wang; Melissa D Aldridge; Maureen Canavan; Emily Cherlin; Elizabeth Bradley
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 3.612

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.