Comparison of financial trends in small rural and urban hospitals in Texas, 1983--1985

The purpose of this study was to compare the financial performance of small rural hospitals to that of small urban hospitals in Texas. Hospital-specific and environmental factors were studied as control variables.^ Small rural hospitals were found to be financially stronger on measures of liquidity but weaker on measures of profitability. Small urban hospitals performed better on measures of profitability and long-range solvency. When all measures in the five dimensions of financial performance were analyzed, no significant difference was found between the two groups of hospitals. None of the control variables included in the study was significantly associated with financial performance both for rural and urban hospitals. Conclusions were that small rural hospitals in Texas are experiencing a deterioration in financial condition but small, rural hospitals are not doing any worse than small urban hospitals; and that the financial hardship which rural hospitals suffer may be inherent in the nature of the institutions themselves, and not as a result of their smallness nor their rural settings. ^

Differences in performance for quality of care indicators for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) across various hospital categories in Texas

The study analyzed Hospital Compare data for Medicare Fee-for-service patients at least 65 years of age to determine whether hospital performance for AMI outcome and processes of care measures differ amongst Texas hospitals with respect to ownership status (for profit vs. not-for-profit), academic status (teaching vs. non-teaching) and geographical setting (rural vs. urban). ^ The study found a statistically significant difference between for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals in four process-of-care measures (aspirin at discharge, P=0.028; ACE or ARB inhibitor for LSVD, P=0.048; Smoking cessation advice: P=0.034; outpatients who got aspirin with 24 hours of arrival in the ED, P=0.044). No significant difference in performance was found between COTH-member teaching and non-teaching hospitals for any of the eight process-of-care measures or the two outcome measures for AMI. The study was unable to compare performance based on geographic setting of hospitals due to lack of sufficient data for rural hospitals. ^ The results of the study suggest that for-profit Texas hospitals might be slightly better than not-for –profit hospitals at providing possible heart attack patients with certain processes of care.^