An empirical examination of relative profitability in the nursing facility industry between ownership form and regionality in the state of Texas

The purpose of this research is to examine the relative profitability of the firm within the nursing facility industry in Texas. An examination is made of the variables expected to affect profitability and of importance to the design and implementation of regulatory policy. To facilitate this inquiry, specific questions addressed are: (1) Do differences in ownership form affect profitability (defined as operating income before fixed costs)? (2) What impact does regional location have on profitability? (3) Do patient case-mix and access to care by Medicaid patients differ between proprietary and non-profit firms and facilities located in urban versus rural regions, and what association exists between these variables and profitability? (4) Are economies of scale present in the nursing home industry? (5) Do nursing facilities operate in a competitive output market characterized by the inability of a single firm to exhibit influence over market price?^ Prior studies have principally employed a cost function to assess efficiency differences between classifications of nursing facilities. The inherent weakness in this approach is that it only considers technical efficiency. Not both technical and price efficiency which are the two components of overall economic efficiency. One firm is more technically efficient compared to another if it is able to produce a given quantity of output at the least possible costs. Price efficiency means that scarce resources are being directed towards their most valued use. Assuming similar prices in both input and output markets, differences in overall economic efficiency between firm classes are assessed through profitability, hence a profit function.^ Using the framework of the profit function, data from 1990 Medicaid Costs Reports for Texas, and the analytic technique of Ordinary Least Squares Regression, the findings of the study indicated (1) similar profitability between nursing facilities organized as for-profit versus non-profit and located in urban versus rural regions, (2) an inverse association between both payor-mix and patient case-mix with profitability, (3) strong evidence for the presence of scale economies, and (4) existence of a competitive market structure. The paper concludes with implications regarding reimbursement methodology and construction moratorium policies in Texas. ^

Prevalence and risk factors of asthma and work -related asthma among U.S. adults: Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988--1994

This cross-sectional analysis of the data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was conducted to determine the prevalence and determinants of asthma and wheezing among US adults, and to identify the occupations and industries at high risk of developing work-related asthma and work-related wheezing. Separate logistic models were developed for physician-diagnosed asthma (MD asthma), wheezing in the previous 12 months (wheezing), work-related asthma and work-related wheezing. Major risk factors including demographic, socioeconomic, indoor air quality, allergy, and other characteristics were analyzed. The prevalence of lifetime MD asthma was 7.7% and the prevalence of wheezing was 17.2%. Mexican-Americans exhibited the lowest prevalence of MD asthma (4.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.2, 5.4) when compared to other race-ethnic groups. The prevalence of MD asthma or wheezing did not vary by gender. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that Mexican-Americans were less likely to develop MD asthma (adjusted odds ratio (ORa) = 0.64, 95%CI: 0.45, 0.90) and wheezing (ORa = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.44, 0.69) when compared to non-Hispanic whites. Low education level, current and past smoking status, pet ownership, lifetime diagnosis of physician-diagnosed hay fever and obesity were all significantly associated with MD asthma and wheezing. No significant effect of indoor air pollutants on asthma and wheezing was observed in this study. The prevalence of work-related asthma was 3.70% (95%CI: 2.88, 4.52) and the prevalence of work-related wheezing was 11.46% (95%CI: 9.87, 13.05). The major occupations identified at risk of developing work-related asthma and wheezing were cleaners; farm and agriculture related occupations; entertainment related occupations; protective service occupations; construction; mechanics and repairers; textile; fabricators and assemblers; other transportation and material moving occupations; freight, stock and material movers; motor vehicle operators; and equipment cleaners. The population attributable risk for work-related asthma and wheeze were 26% and 27% respectively. The major industries identified at risk of work-related asthma and wheeze include entertainment related industry; agriculture, forestry and fishing; construction; electrical machinery; repair services; and lodging places. The population attributable risk for work-related asthma was 36.5% and work-related wheezing was 28.5% for industries. Asthma remains an important public health issue in the US and in the other regions of the world. ^