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
. 2016 May;64(5):1024-31.
doi: 10.1111/jgs.14093. Epub 2016 Apr 30.

Effect of Ownership on Hospice Service Use: 2005-2011

Affiliations

Effect of Ownership on Hospice Service Use: 2005-2011

David G Stevenson et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 May.

Abstract

Objectives: To assess differences in populations and service use according to hospice ownership, chain status, and agency size.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: United States.

Participants: Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older enrolled in hospice during 2005 to 2011 N = 5,405,526).

Measurements: Hospice use according to ownership category (for-profit nonchain and chain, not-for-profit nonchain and chain, government) and agency size (0-50, 51-200, 201-400, ≥401 individuals discharged each year). Mean length of use, stays of 3 days or fewer, stays ending with live discharge, and decedents receiving no general inpatient care (GIP)- or continuous home care (CHC)-level hospice in the last 7 days of life.

Results: After adjusting for individual and geographic differences, for-profit nonchain and chain agencies had longer mean length of use (84.5 and 91.2 days, respectively) than other agency types (66.3-72.5 days), higher rates of live discharge (21.0% and 20.2% vs 14.6-15.9%), and lower proportions of stays of 3 days or fewer (13.9% and 14.7% vs 16.6-17.5%) (all P < .001). The proportion of decedents not receiving GIP- or CHC-level care before death was highest in for-profit chains (75.9%) and lowest in not-for-profit nonchains (63.2%). Smaller agencies had longer mean length of use, higher live discharge rates, lower rates of stays of 3 days or fewer, and higher rates of individuals receiving no GIP- or CHC-level care. There were considerable differences in patient traits and unadjusted service use between the nation's largest chains.

Conclusion: In addition to for-profit and not-for-profit hospice agencies differing according to important dimensions, there is substantial heterogeneity within these ownership categories, highlighting the need to consider factors such as agency size and chain affiliation in understanding variations in Medicare beneficiaries' hospice care.

Keywords: Medicare; hospice; ownership; profit; quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None of the authors has any conflicts of interest to report.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1. Adjusted Hospice Use Outcomes by Ownership Type and Agency Size, 2005–2011
Adjusted Hospice Use Outcomes by Ownership Type and Agency Size, 2005–2011. Figure 1 shows adjusted service use results across ownership types, stratified by agency size categories (0–50; 51–200; 201–400; 401+). Includes first hospice stay only for Medicare beneficiaries aged 65+ ending in death or discharge during the 2005–2011 study period. Figures are based on adjusted regression models that include: age, gender, race/ethnicity, terminal diagnosis category, HMO enrollment status, region of service use, urban/rural status, year, and ownership status of hospice agency. Hospice agencies categorized into one of the size categories for each study year (2005–2011), based on the number of discharged patients in that particular year. Comparisons are made within size categories, across ownership types. Length of use modeled using ordinary least squares regression; other outcomes modeled using logistic regression. All outcomes were significantly different across hospice ownership types (p<0.0001). FP stands for “for-profit”; NFP stands for “not-for-profit”.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. IOM (Institute of Medicine) Dying in America: Improving quality and honoring individual preferences near the end of life. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press; 2014. - PubMed
    1. MedPAC. Hospice Services. Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy (March 2014) Washington, D.C: The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; 2014. pp. 299–320.
    1. Span P. The New Old Age: Caring and Coping [Internet] [Accessed October 12, 2014];New York Times. 2014 Oct 6; Available at: http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/extra-scrutiny-for-hospices/
    1. Aldridge Carlson MD, Barry CL, Cherlin EJ, et al. Hospices' enrollment policies may contribute to underuse of hospice care in the United States. Health Aff. 2012;31:2690–2698. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lindrooth RC, Weisbrod BA. Do religious nonprofit and for-profit organizations respond differently to financial incentives? The hospice industry. J Health Econ. 2007;26:342–357. - PubMed