| Literature DB >> 33113924 |
Bichaka Fayissa1, Saleh Alsaif2, Fady Mansour3, Tesa E Leonce3, Franklin G Mixon3.
Abstract
This quantitative study investigates the effect of certificate-of-need (CON) regulation on the quality of care in the nursing home industry. It uses county-level demographic data from the 48 contiguous US states that are extracted from the American Community Survey (ACS) and cover the years 2012, 2013, and 2014. In doing so, it employs a new set of service quality variables captured from a variety of county-level data sources. Instrumental variables results indicate that health survey scores for nursing homes that are computed by healthcare professionals are about 18-24% lower, depending on the type of nursing home under consideration, in states with CON regulation. We also find that the presence of CON regulation leads to a substitution of lower-quality certified nursing assistant care for higher-quality licensed practical nurse care, regardless of the type of nursing home under consideration.Entities:
Keywords: certificate-of-need regulation; health economics; nursing homes; service quality; theory of economic regulation
Year: 2020 PMID: 33113924 PMCID: PMC7711714 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare8040423
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Summary statistics for service quality variables.
| Service Quality Variables | CON States | Non-CON States | Mann-Whitney U Test |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 51.61 | 81.35 | *** |
|
| 0.53 | 0.53 | *** |
|
| 2.39 | 2.42 | |
|
| 1.06 | 1.08 | * |
|
| 3.84 | 3.88 | |
|
| 3.26 | 3.21 | *** |
|
| 3.04 | 3.02 | * |
|
| 2.72 | 2.63 | * |
|
| 1.81 | 2.43 | ** |
|
| 10,281 | 6702 | *** |
|
| 38,674 | 26,159 | |
| Median of | 31.33 | 49.67 | |
| Median of | 10,433 | 8651 | |
| Average Number of Nursing Homes per County | 8.61 | 7.56 | |
| Number of Nursing Homes | 9295 | 5320 | |
| Number of States | 34 | 14 |
Notes: The numbers in parentheses are standard errors. Data were reported for each nursing home, after which the averages were calculated for certificate-of-need (CON) and non-CON states. RN is adjusted RN staffing hours per resident per day. CNA is adjusted CNA staffing per resident per day. LPN is adjusted LPN staffing hours per resident per day. Nurse is adjusted total nurse staffing hours per resident per day. ***(**)[*] indicates the 0.001(0.01)[0.05] level of significance for the Mann–Whitney U test.
Summary Statistics for the Covariates.
| Covariates | CON States | Non-CON States | Mann–Whitney U Test |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 81% | 79% | *** |
|
| 485,000 | 1,740,358 | *** |
|
| 22,054 | 23,490 | *** |
|
| 79,100 | 83,840 | *** |
|
| 87.0% | 83.6% | ** |
|
| 6.0% | 5.7% | *** |
|
| 13.6% | 11.7% | *** |
|
| 170,500 | 223,677 | *** |
|
| 60% | 57% | * |
|
| 15.0% | 13.3% | ** |
|
| 2.0% | 1.7% | *** |
|
| 75.7% | 75.0% | *** |
|
| 15.0% | 7.7% | *** |
|
| 9.3% | 17.5% | *** |
|
| 58.5% | 58.7% | |
| Number of States | 34 | 14 |
Notes: Data were reported for each nursing home, after which the averages were calculated for CON and non-CON states. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors. ***(**)[*] indicates the 0.001(0.01)[0.05] level of significance for the Mann–Whitney U test.
The impact of CON on service quality in for-profit nursing homes.
| Dependent Variables | Coefficient Estimates for CON | Number of Observations | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | ||
|
| −13.72 *** | −9.469 *** | −9.849 *** | −9.935 *** | 8322 |
|
| 0.025 | 0.002 | −0.001 | −0.008 | 8255 |
|
| 0.105 *** | 0.096 *** | 0.089 *** | 0.103 *** | 8255 |
|
| −0.038 *** | −0.025 ** | −0.023 * | −0.033 ** | 8255 |
|
| 0.175 *** | 0.043 | 0.025 | −0.012 | 8255 |
|
| 0.248 *** | 0.146 *** | 0.126 *** | 0.107 *** | 8255 |
|
| 0.105 *** | 0.075 * | 0.080 * | 0.094 ** | 8322 |
|
| −0.213 ** | −0.116 | −0.146 * | −0.180 ** | 8244 |
|
| 0.052 | 0.103 | 0.081 | 0.019 | 2073 |
| Variables Included: | |||||
|
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
|
| no | yes | yes | yes | |
|
| no | no | yes | yes | |
|
| no | no | no | yes | |
Notes: Ordinary least squares (OLS) was used to estimate the reported coefficients. The first model in the table includes the socio-demographics covariates only, while the fourth model includes all of the covariates. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors. ***(**)[*] indicates the 0.001(0.01)[0.05] level of significance.
The impact of CON on service quality in for-profit nursing homes.
| Dependent Variables | Coefficient Estimates for CON | Number of Observations | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | ||
|
| −12.65 *** | −10.35 *** | −10.24 *** | −10.71 *** | 8322 |
|
| 0.018 | 0.026 | −0.007 | −0.099 | 2073 |
| Variables Included: | |||||
|
| yes | yes | yes | yes | |
|
| no | yes | yes | yes | |
|
| no | no | yes | yes | |
|
| no | no | no | yes | |
Notes: Ordinary least squares (OLS) was used to estimate the reported coefficients. The first model in the table includes the socio-demographics covariates only, while the fourth model includes all of the covariates. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors. *** indicates the 0.001 level of significance.
The impact of other covariates on service quality by nursing home type.
| For-Profit Nursing Homes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON States | Non-CON States | |||||
| Covariates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.971 *** | −0.001 | 0.012 *** | 1.636 *** | 0.001 | −0.004 |
|
| −0.402 *** | −0.002 *** | −0.002 *** | −0.421 *** | −0.004 *** | −0.001 |
|
| 5621 | 5567 | 5567 | 2701 | 2658 | 2658 |
|
| ||||||
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1.000 *** | 0.001 | 0.010 *** | 0.564 | −0.002 | −0.006 * |
|
| −0.389 *** | −0.003 *** | −0.003 *** | −0.369 *** | −0.003 *** | 0.002 *** |
|
| 9219 | 9059 | 9059 | 5267 | 5165 | 5165 |
Notes: The upper half of the table pertains to for-profit nursing homes, while the lower half includes all nursing homes. The right side of the table displays the effect on nursing homes in CON states, while the left side of the table displays the effect on nursing homes in the non-CON states. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors. ***[*] indicates the 0.001[0.05] level of significance.
The impact of other covariates on service quality by nursing home type.
| For-Profit Nursing Homes | ||
|---|---|---|
| CON States | Non-CON States | |
|
|
| |
|
| 0.261 * | 0.106 * |
|
| −0.297 *** | −0.291 *** |
|
| 5621 | 2701 |
|
| ||
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| 0.191 * | −0.006 |
|
| −0.266 *** | −0.180 *** |
|
| 9219 | 5267 |
Notes: The upper half of the table pertains to for-profit nursing homes, while the lower half includes all nursing homes. The right side of the table displays the effect on nursing homes in CON states, while the left side of the table displays the effect on nursing homes in the non-CON states. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors. ***[*] indicates the 0.001[0.05] level of significance.
The impact of CON on service quality in for-profit nursing homes, instrumental variable (IV) estimates.
| Coefficient Estimates for CON | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variables | For-Profit Nursing Homes |
|
|
| −19.70 *** | 8322 |
|
| −0.010 | 8255 |
|
| 0.312 *** | 8255 |
|
| −0.088 *** | 8255 |
|
| 0.155 | 8255 |
|
| 0.207 ** | 8255 |
|
| 0.488 *** | 8322 |
|
| 0.373 | 8244 |
|
| 0.060 | 2073 |
Notes: The numbers in parentheses are standard errors. ***(**) indicates the 0.001(0.01) level of significance.