Premium
Effect of Ownership on Hospice Service Use: 2005–2011
Author(s) -
Stevenson David G.,
Grabowski David C.,
Keating Nancy L.,
Huskamp Haiden A.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of the american geriatrics society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.992
H-Index - 232
eISSN - 1532-5415
pISSN - 0002-8614
DOI - 10.1111/jgs.14093
Subject(s) - medicine , hospice care , demography , cohort , retrospective cohort study , for profit , gerontology , finance , nursing , palliative care , sociology , economics
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.