Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Apr;174(4):500-6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3.
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.
美国营利性临终关怀机构的大量增长对质量和临终关怀服务的可及性产生了激烈的争论,但对于营利性和非营利性临终关怀机构在服务提供之外的活动方面有何不同,人们知之甚少。
确定临终关怀机构所有权与(1)提供社区福利,(2)所服务的临终关怀人群的设置和时间安排,以及(3)社区外展之间的关联。
设计、设置和参与者:横断面调查(全国临终关怀调查),于 2008 年 9 月至 2009 年 11 月期间对全美范围内运营的 591 家符合医疗保险认证的临终关怀机构进行了全国随机抽样调查。
营利性或非营利性临终关怀机构所有权。
提供社区福利;所服务的临终关怀人群的设置和时间安排;以及社区外展。
共有 591 家临终关怀机构完成了我们的调查(84%的回应率)。营利性临终关怀机构提供社区福利(包括作为培训基地、开展研究和提供慈善护理)的可能性低于非营利性临终关怀机构,包括服务(55%对 82%;调整后的相对风险 [ARR],0.67 [95% CI,0.59-0.76])、进行研究(18%对 23%;ARR,0.67 [95% CI,0.46-0.99])和提供慈善护理(80%对 82%;ARR,0.88 [95% CI,0.80-0.96])。与非营利性临终关怀机构相比,营利性临终关怀机构照顾的患者中,预计临终关怀时间较长的患者比例更大,包括在疗养院的患者(30%对 25%;P=0.009)。营利性临终关怀机构更有可能超过医疗保险的总年度上限(22%对 4%;ARR,3.66 [95% CI,2.02-6.63]),并且患者退出率更高(10%对 6%;P < 0.001)。营利性临终关怀机构比非营利性临终关怀机构更有可能开展针对低收入社区(61%对 46%;ARR,1.23 [95% CI,1.05-1.44])和少数族裔社区(59%对 48%;ARR,1.18 [95% CI,1.02-1.38])的外展活动,与肿瘤中心合作的可能性较小(25%对 33%;ARR,0.59 [95% CI,0.44-0.80])。
在社区福利、服务人群和社区外展方面,临终关怀机构的所有权相关差异明显。尽管医疗保险的总年度上限可能会抑制专注于长期临终关怀患者的积极性,但随着美国营利性临终关怀机构的份额继续增加,应考虑采取其他监管措施,如公开报告临终关怀退出率。