David G Stevenson1, David C Grabowski2, Nancy L Keating2,3, Haiden A Huskamp2. 1. Department of Health Policy, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 2. Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess differences in populations and service use according to hospice ownership, chain status, and agency size. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older enrolled in hospice during 2005 to 2011 N = 5,405,526). MEASUREMENTS: Hospice use according to ownership category (for-profit nonchain and chain, not-for-profit nonchain and chain, government) and agency size (0-50, 51-200, 201-400, ≥401 individuals discharged each year). Mean length of use, stays of 3 days or fewer, stays ending with live discharge, and decedents receiving no general inpatient care (GIP)- or continuous home care (CHC)-level hospice in the last 7 days of life. RESULTS: After adjusting for individual and geographic differences, for-profit nonchain and chain agencies had longer mean length of use (84.5 and 91.2 days, respectively) than other agency types (66.3-72.5 days), higher rates of live discharge (21.0% and 20.2% vs 14.6-15.9%), and lower proportions of stays of 3 days or fewer (13.9% and 14.7% vs 16.6-17.5%) (all P < .001). The proportion of decedents not receiving GIP- or CHC-level care before death was highest in for-profit chains (75.9%) and lowest in not-for-profit nonchains (63.2%). Smaller agencies had longer mean length of use, higher live discharge rates, lower rates of stays of 3 days or fewer, and higher rates of individuals receiving no GIP- or CHC-level care. There were considerable differences in patient traits and unadjusted service use between the nation's largest chains. CONCLUSION: In addition to for-profit and not-for-profit hospice agencies differing according to important dimensions, there is substantial heterogeneity within these ownership categories, highlighting the need to consider factors such as agency size and chain affiliation in understanding variations in Medicare beneficiaries' hospice care.
OBJECTIVES: To assess differences in populations and service use according to hospice ownership, chain status, and agency size. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older enrolled in hospice during 2005 to 2011 N = 5,405,526). MEASUREMENTS: Hospice use according to ownership category (for-profit nonchain and chain, not-for-profit nonchain and chain, government) and agency size (0-50, 51-200, 201-400, ≥401 individuals discharged each year). Mean length of use, stays of 3 days or fewer, stays ending with live discharge, and decedents receiving no general inpatient care (GIP)- or continuous home care (CHC)-level hospice in the last 7 days of life. RESULTS: After adjusting for individual and geographic differences, for-profit nonchain and chain agencies had longer mean length of use (84.5 and 91.2 days, respectively) than other agency types (66.3-72.5 days), higher rates of live discharge (21.0% and 20.2% vs 14.6-15.9%), and lower proportions of stays of 3 days or fewer (13.9% and 14.7% vs 16.6-17.5%) (all P < .001). The proportion of decedents not receiving GIP- or CHC-level care before death was highest in for-profit chains (75.9%) and lowest in not-for-profit nonchains (63.2%). Smaller agencies had longer mean length of use, higher live discharge rates, lower rates of stays of 3 days or fewer, and higher rates of individuals receiving no GIP- or CHC-level care. There were considerable differences in patient traits and unadjusted service use between the nation's largest chains. CONCLUSION: In addition to for-profit and not-for-profit hospice agencies differing according to important dimensions, there is substantial heterogeneity within these ownership categories, highlighting the need to consider factors such as agency size and chain affiliation in understanding variations in Medicare beneficiaries' hospice care.
Authors: Joan M Teno; Janet E Shu; David Casarett; Carol Spence; Ramona Rhodes; Stephen Connor Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-06-21 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Emily J Cherlin; Melissa D A Carlson; Jeph Herrin; Dena Schulman-Green; Colleen L Barry; Ruth McCorkle; Rosemary Johnson-Hurzeler; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Melissa D A Carlson; Colleen Barry; Mark Schlesinger; Ruth McCorkle; R Sean Morrison; Emily Cherlin; Jeph Herrin; Jennifer Thompson; Martha L Twaddle; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.983
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
Authors: Melissa D A Carlson; Jeph Herrin; Qingling Du; Andrew J Epstein; Emily Cherlin; R Sean Morrison; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Kathleen T Unroe; Timothy E Stump; Shannon Effler; Wanzhu Tu; Christopher M Callahan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Vipul Bhatia; Yue Huang; James A Tulsky; Sarah H Cross; Arif H Kamal; Haider J Warraich Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Sulaiman Alshakhs; Elisabeth Sweet; Elizabeth Luth; M C Reid; Charles R Henderson; Veerawat Phongtankuel Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 2.090
Authors: Roberta I Jordan; Matthew J Allsop; Yousuf ElMokhallalati; Catriona E Jackson; Helen L Edwards; Emma J Chapman; Luc Deliens; Michael I Bennett Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 8.775