Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
JAMA. 2011 Feb 2;305(5):472-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.70.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
医疗保险的按日付费结构可能会产生财务激励,选择需要资源密集度较低的护理且临终关怀时间较长的患者。营利性和非营利性临终关怀机构可能会对财务激励做出不同的反应。
比较营利性和非营利性临终关怀机构的患者诊断和护理地点,并检查每天就诊次数和住院时间是否因诊断和盈利状况而异。
设计、地点和患者:使用 2007 年全国家庭和临终关怀调查的数据进行的横断面研究。全国代表性样本为 4705 名从临终关怀机构出院的患者。
按临终关怀机构盈利状况划分的诊断和护理地点(家庭、疗养院、医院、住院临终关怀或其他)。各种临终关怀人员的临终关怀住院时间和每天就诊次数。
与非营利性临终关怀机构(3618 例出院,来自 524 家机构)相比,营利性临终关怀机构(1087 例出院,来自 145 家机构)的癌症患者比例较低(34.1%;95%置信区间,29.9%-38.6%,vs 48.4%;95%置信区间,45.0%-51.8%),痴呆症患者比例较高(17.2%;95%置信区间,14.1%-20.8%,vs 8.4%;95%置信区间,6.6%-10.6%)和其他非癌症诊断的比例较高(48.7%;95%置信区间,43.2%-54.1%,vs 43.2%;95%置信区间,40.0%-46.5%;调整后的 P <.001)。在调整人口统计学、临床和机构特征后,盈利状况对护理地点没有显著影响。与非营利性临终关怀机构相比,营利性临终关怀机构的住院时间明显更长(中位数为 20 天;四分位距[IQR],6-88,vs 16 天;IQR,5-52 天;调整后的 P =.01),且更有可能有住院时间超过 365 天的患者(6.9%;95%置信区间,5.0%-9.4%,vs 2.8%;95%置信区间,2.0%-4.0%),而不太可能有住院时间少于 7 天的患者(28.1%;95%置信区间,23.9%-32.7%,vs 34.3%;95%置信区间,31.3%-37.3%;P =.005)。与癌症患者相比,痴呆症或其他诊断患者的护士每日就诊次数较少(护士:0.50 次;IQR,0.32-0.87,vs 0.37 次;IQR,0.20-0.78,和 0.41 次;IQR,0.26-0.79,分别;调整后的 P =.002)和社会工作者(0.15 次;IQR,0.07-0.31,vs 0.11 次;IQR,0.04-0.27,和 0.14 次;IQR,0.07-0.31,分别;调整后的 P <.001)。
与非营利性临终关怀机构相比,营利性临终关怀机构的患者中,与低技能需求相关的诊断和住院时间较长的患者比例较高。