Hospital and environmental variation in Texas nonprofit hospital organizational policies regarding charity care

The 2005 Annual Statement of Community Benefits Standard (ASCBS) and the annual report of the Community Benefits Plan, Summary of Current Hospital Charity Care Policy and Community Benefits, were used to identify various environmental and policy relationships with regard to eligibility for charity care requirements, a component for meeting the nonprofit requirements established by the Texas Legislature for nonprofit tax exemption (Texas Health and Safety Code, §311.04610). ^ Charity care policies are established by the individual hospital (or systems) and are generally defined as rules concerning care provided by the institution without the expectation of payment. This study has been undertaken to provide specific information about the charity care eligibility requirement policies of nonprofit hospitals. These hospitals are the part of the safety net for those persons who are indigent, low-income and uninsured. This study examines nonprofit hospitals by physical location, bed size, religious affiliation, trauma level, disproportionate share, and teaching designations. County information includes population, percentage of residents eligible for Medicaid benefits, ethnic makeup of county residents, poverty level, designation of a hospital district or operators of a public hospital, and the number of nonprofit and for-profit hospitals located in the county. Although this information has been collected by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), no other analysis has been conducted. ^

Charity care and community benefits by hospital type in Texas

Hospital care is the largest component of the health care sector. This industry is made up of for profit hospital (FPH) organizations, not for profit (NFP) hospitals, and government (GOV) run hospital facilities. Objectives of this analysis were: (a) to conduct a literature review on NFP hospital legislation at the state level in Texas and at the federal level in the broader U.S.; and (b) to describe the types of charity care and community benefits currently being provided: by NFP hospitals compared to FPH hospitals and GOV hospitals; by hospitals geographic proximity to the Texas-Mexico border; and by hospital community type (rural, suburban, and urban); and (c) propose specific policy changes that may be needed to improve the current Texas State statute. Methods. In describing the historical and current policy context of NFP hospital legislation in the United States, federal legislation was reviewed from 1913 to the present and Texas State legislation was reviewed from 1980 to the present. In describing the provision of charity care, data from the 2008 Annual Cooperative Hospital Survey were examined by hospital organizational type, size, proximity to the border, and community type using linear regression and chi-squared tests to assess differences in charity care and community benefits. Results. The data included 123 NFP hospitals, 114 GOV hospitals, and 123 FPH. Results. Small sized (p<0.001) and medium sized (p<0.001) NFP hospitals provide a greater percent of total charity care when compared to FPH hospitals and to both GOV and FPH hospitals respectively; however, no significant difference in total charity care was found among large sized NFP hospitals when compared to FPH hospitals alone (p=.345) and both GOV and FPH facilities (p=.214). The amount of charity care provided was not found to be different based on proximity to the border or community type. Community benefit planning and budgeting was found to be similar regardless of community type and proximity to the border. Conclusion. No differences in charity care in Texas were found for large sized NFP hospitals compared to FPH and GOV hospitals. Contrary to widely held beliefs, this study did not find the border region to provide a greater amount of charity care or bad debt. Charity care also did not vary by community type. These findings underscore the need for continued collection of transparent data from all hospitals in order to provide policy makers and consumers with information on utilization trends to ensure benefits are being provided to the community. Policy changes or revoking tax-benefits may occur as charity care utilization declines with the implementation of health reform in the next few years.^

Outcomes assessment of a pediatric practice guideline

Objective. This study examines the structure, processes, and data necessary to assess the outcome variables, length of stay and total cost, for a pediatric practice guideline. The guideline was developed by a group of physicians and ancillary staff members representing the services that most commonly provide treatment for asthma patients at Texas Children's Hospital, as a means of standardizing care. Outcomes have needed to be assessed to determine the practice guideline's effectiveness.^ Data sources and study design. Data for the study were collected retrospectively from multiple hospital data bases and from inpatient chart reviews. All patients in this quasi-experimental study had a diagnosis of Asthma (ICD-9-CM Code 493.91) at the time of admission.^ The study examined data for 100 patients admitted between September 15, 1995 and November 15, 1995, whose physician had elected to apply the asthma practice guideline at the time of the patient's admission. The study examined data for 66 inpatients admitted between September 15, 1995 and November 15, 1995, whose physician elected not to apply the asthma practice guideline. The principal outcome variables were identified as "Length of Stay" and "Cost".^ Principal findings. The mean length of stay for the group in which the practice guideline was applied was 2.3 days, and 3.1 days for the comparison group, who did not receive care directed by the practice guideline. The difference was statistically significant (p value = 0.008). There was not a demonstrable difference in risk factors, health status, or quality of care between the groups. Although not showing statistical significance in the univariate analysis, private insurance showed a significant difference in the logistic regression model presenting an elevated odds ratio (odds ratio = 2.2 for a hospital stay $\le$2 days to an odds ratio = 4.7 for a hospital stay $\le$3 days) showing that patients with private insurance experienced greater risk of a shorter hospital stay than the patients with public insurance in each of the logistic regression models. Public insurance included; Medicaid, Medicare, and charity cases. Private insurance included; private insurance policies whether group, individual, or managed care. The cost of an admission was significantly less for the group in which the practice guideline was applied, with a mean difference between the two groups of $1307 per patient.^ Conclusion. The implementation and utilization of a pediatric practice guideline for asthma inpatients at Texas Children's Hospital has a significant impact in terms of reducing the total cost of the hospital stay and length of the hospital stay for asthma patients admitted to Texas Children's Hospital. ^

Exploring the use of pharmaceutical patient assistance programs as an option to improve access to and affordability of prescription drugs

Background. Pharmaceutical-sponsored patient assistance programs (PAPs) are charity programs that provide free or reduced-priced medications to eligible patients. PAPs have the potential to improve prescription drug accessibility for patients but currently there is limited information about their use and effectiveness. ^ Objectives and methods. This dissertation described the use of PAPs in the U.S. through the conduct of two studies: (1) a systematic review of primary studies of PAPs from commercially-published and “grey” literature sources; and (2) a retrospective, cross-sectional study of cancer patients' use of PAPs at a tertiary care cancer outpatient center. ^ Results. (1) The systematic review identified 33 studies: 15 evaluated the impact of PAP enrollment assistance programs on patient healthcare outcomes; 7 assessed institutional costs of providing enrollment assistance; 7 surveyed stakeholders; 4 examined other aspects. Standardized mean differences calculated for disease indicator outcomes (most of which were single group, pre-posttest designs) showed significant decreases in glycemic and lipid control, and inconsistent results for blood pressure. Grey literature abstracts reported insufficient statistics for calculations. Study heterogeneity made weighted summary estimates inappropriate. Economic analyses indicated positive financial benefits to institutions providing enrollment assistance (cost) compared to the wholesale value of the medications provided (benefit); analyses did not value health outcomes. Mean quality of reporting scores were higher for observational studies in commercially-published articles versus full text, grey literature reports. (2) The cross-sectional study found that PAP outpatients were significantly more likely to be uninsured, indigent, and < 65 years old than non-PAP patients. Nearly all non-PAP and PAP prescriptions were for non-cancer conditions, either for co-morbidities (e.g., hypertension) or the management of treatment side effects (e.g., pain). Oral chemotherapies from PAPs were significantly more likely to be for breast versus other cancers, and be a newer, targeted versus traditional chemotherapy.^ Conclusions. In outpatient settings, PAP enrollment assistance plus additional medication services (e.g., counseling, reminders, and free samples) is associated with improved disease indicators for patients. Healthcare institutions, including cancer centers, can offset financial losses from uncompensated drug costs and recoup costs invested in enrollment assistance programs by procuring free PAP medications. Cancer patients who are indigent and uninsured may be able to access more outpatient medications for their supportive care needs through PAPs, than for cancer treatment options like oral chemotherapies. Because of the selective availability of drugs through PAPs, there may be more options for newer, oral, targeted chemotherapies for the treatment breast cancer versus other for other cancers.^