Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Apr;174(4):500-6.
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3.

National hospice survey results: for-profit status, community engagement, and service

Affiliations

National hospice survey results: for-profit status, community engagement, and service

Melissa D Aldridge et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Apr.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Setting and Timing of Hospice Population Served, by Hospice Ownership
aBars represent the percentage of hospices exceeding Medicare’s aggregate annual cap.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percentage of Patients Disenrolled From Hospice by Hospice Ownership and Exceeding the Medicare Aggregate Annual Cap

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. [Accessed February 2012];NHPCO Facts and Figures: Hospice Care in America. 2011 http://www.nhpco.org/sites/default/files/public/Statistics_Research/2011....
    1. Thompson JW, Carlson MD, Bradley EH. US hospice industry experienced considerable turbulence from changes in ownership, growth, and shift to for-profit status. Health Aff (Millwood) 2012;31(6):1286–1293. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to the Congress: Medicare Beneficiaries’ Access to Hospice. Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; 2002.
    1. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to the Congress: Reforming the Delivery System. Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; 2008. pp. 203–240.
    1. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to the Congress: Medicare’s Payment Policy: Reforming Medicare’s Hospice Benefit. Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; 2009.