Medical Care Research and Review

This study reviews and synthesizes empirical research literature focusing on the relationship between boards of directors and organizational effectiveness of U.S. hospitals. The study examines literature published in scholarly journals during the period of 1991-2017. Fifty-one empirical articles were identified that met the study’s inclusion criteria. A framework from the corporate governance and nonprofit governance literature is used to classify the articles according to level of analysis (individual actors, governing bodies, organizations, and networks, alliances and multiorganizational initiatives) and focus of research (formal structure and behavioral dynamics—including informal structures and processes). Results are discussed, emerging trends are identified, and recommendations are made for future research.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently introduced tax code revisions requiring stricter oversight of community benefit activities (CBAs) conducted by tax-exempt, not-for-profit hospitals. We examine the impact of this tax requirement on CBAs among these hospitals relative to for-profit and government hospitals that were not subject to the new policy. We employed a quasi-experimental, difference-in-difference study design using a longitudinal observational approach and used secondary data collected by the American Hospital Association (years 2006-2010 including 20,538 hospital year observations). Findings show a significant increase in the reporting of 7 of the 13 CBAs among tax-exempt, not-for-profit hospitals compared with other hospitals after the policy change. Examples include partnering to conduct community health assessments (b = 0.035, p = .002) and using capacity assessments to identify unmet community health needs (b = 0.041, p = .001). Recent tax revisions are associated with increases in reported CBAs among tax-exempt, not-for-profit hospitals. As the debate continues regarding tax exemption status for not-for-profit hospitals, policy makers should expand efforts for enhanced accountability.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publicizes comparative performance data on Hospital Compare, a website maintained to support consumer decision making. Given the agency’s goal, this study investigates the relationship between public reporting and hospital choices of hip replacement patients in Texas. Estimating individual-level valuations of provider characteristics allowing for heterogeneity across patients, we find consumer selections and hospitals’ displayed performance vary together in time. Comparing associations involving public reporting with those associated with more readily observable hospital attributes, we conclude relationships coinciding with release of comparative performance data are modest, but not inconsequential. Our use of an empirical strategy novel for evaluation of public reporting has methodological implications, while the study’s affirmative result is of potential interest to policy makers and administrators.

This randomized controlled trial tested an intervention to increase uptake of hospital-level maternity care quality reports among 245 pregnant women in North Carolina (123 treatment; 122 control). The intervention included three enhancements to the quality report offered to the control: (a) biweekly text messages or e-mails directing women to the website, (b) videos and materials describing the relevance of quality measures to pregnant women’s interests, and (c) tools to support discussions with clinicians. Compared with controls, intervention participants were significantly more likely to visit the website and report adopting behaviors to inform care, such as thinking through preferences, talking with their doctor, or creating a birth plan. Reports designed to put quality information into the larger context of what consumers want and need to know, along with targeted and timely communications, can increase consumer use of quality information and prompt them to talk with providers about care preferences and evidence-based practices.

Policy and financial pressures have driven up use of observation stays for patients in traditional Medicare and the Veterans’ Affairs Healthcare System. Using claims data (2004-2014) from OptumLabs™ Data Warehouse, we examined whether people in private Medicare Advantage (MA) and commercial plans experienced similar changes. We found that use of observation increased rapidly for patients in MA plans—even though MA plans were not subject to the same pressures as government-run programs. In contrast, use of observation remained constant for people in commercial plans—except for enrollees 65 and older, for whom it increased somewhat. Privately insured patients returning to the hospital after an inpatient stay were increasingly likely to be placed under observation. Our results suggest that observation is rapidly replacing inpatient admissions and readmissions for many older patients in MA and commercial plans, while younger patients continue to be admitted as inpatients at relatively constant rates.

The purpose of this article is to shed light on hospital supply expenses, which form the second largest expense category after payroll and hold more promise for improving cost-efficiency compared to payroll. However, limited research has rigorously scrutinized this cost category, and it is rarely given specific consideration across cost-focused studies in health services publications. After reviewing previously cited estimates, we examine and independently validate supply expense data (collected by the American Hospital Association) for over 3,500 U.S. hospitals. We find supply expenses to make up 15% of total hospital expenses, on average, but as high as 30% or 40% in hospitals with a high case-mix index, such as surgery-intensive hospitals. Future research can use supply expense data to better understand hospital strategies that aim to manage costs, such as systemization, physician–hospital arrangements, and value-based purchasing.