The effect of the shift from HMO to PPO plans on the prevalence of hospital bad debt in the insured population: A case study in two Houston-area hospitals

In spite of the dramatic increase and general concern with U.S. hospital bad debt expense (AMNews, January 12, 2004; Philadelphia Business Journal, April 30, 2004; WSJ, July 23, 2004), there appears to be little available analysis of the precise sources and causes of its growth. This is particularly true in terms of the potential contribution of insured patients to bad debt expense in light of the recent shift in managed care from health maintenance organization (HMO) plans to preferred provider organization (PPO) plans (Kaiser Annual Survey Report, 2003). This study examines and attempts to explain the recent dramatic growth in bad debt expense by focusing on and analyzing data from two Houston-area hospital providers within one healthcare system. In contrast to prior studies in which self-pay was found to be the primary source of hospital bad debt expense (Saywell, R. M., et al., 1989; Zollinger, T. W., 1991; Weissman, Joel S., et al., 1999), this study hypothesizes that the growing hospital bad debt expense is mainly due to the shifting trend away from HMOs to PPOs as a conscious decision by employers to share costs with employees. Compared to HMO plans, the structure of PPOs includes higher co-pays, coinsurance, and deductibles for the patient-pay portion of medical bills, creating the potential for an increase in bad debt for hospital providers (from a case study). This bad debt expense has a greater impact in the community hospital than in the Texas Medical Center hospital. ^

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.^

Investigating the effects of the 2007 Texas tobacco tax increase on the smoking behavior of adults

Smoking is major cause of premature mortality and morbidity in the United States. The health consequences of tobacco usage are increasingly concentrated in minority and lower socioeconomic groups. One of the most effective means of deterring tobacco consumption and generating revenue to fund prevention activities is the levying of excise taxes. In 2007 the state of Texas increased the excise tax on cigarettes by $1.00 per pack. This study sought to determine if there was a significant effect on smoking prevalence in the state by examining Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data for two years leading up to the tax increase-2005 and 2006- and two years post tax increase -2007 and 2008. Results were compared against a chi square distribution and three multiple logistic regression models were created to adjust for race/ethnicity, age, education and income. Results from this study show that there was not a significant decrease in smoking prevalence for most of the groups stratified by age, income and ethnicity. There was not a significant decrease in the younger adults aged 18-34 by income, ethnicity, or education. Smoking prevalence increased for some groups, e.g., Hispanic females. In the regression models, the tax effect was not significant. While overall prevalence decreased by 9%, there were not significant reductions among non-White or Hispanic survey participants. Taxed sales dropped by approximately 17% according to the Texas Comptroller. Without BRFSS data measuring daily cigarette consumption among current smokers, now not assessed, it is impossible to determine whether the discrepancy in reported prevalence and taxes sales is attributable to consumption of fewer cigarettes among smokers or tax avoidance.^