Complaints About Hospice Care in the United States, 2005–2015

Associations Between Certificate of Need Policies and Hospice Quality Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Certificate of need (CON) laws are state-based regulations requiring approval of new healthcare entities and capital expenditures. Varying by state, these regulations impact hospices in 14 states and DC, with several states re-examining provisions.

AIM

This cross-sectional study examined the association of CON status on hospice quality outcomes using the hospice item set metric (HIS).

DESIGN

Data from the February 2022 Medicare Hospice Provider and General Information reports of 4870 US hospices were used to compare group means of the 8 HIS measures across CON status. Multiple regression analysis was used to predict HIS outcomes by CON status while controlling for ownership and size.

RESULTS

Approximately 86% of hospices are in states without a hospice CON provision. The unadjusted mean HIS scores for all measures were higher in CON states (M range 94.40-99.59) than Non-CON (M range 90.50-99.53) with significant differences in all except treatment preferences. In the adjusted model, linear regression analyses showed hospice CON states had significantly higher HIS ratings than those from Non-CON states for beliefs and values addressed (β = .05, P = .009), pain assessment (β = .05, P = .009), dyspnea treatment (β = .08, P < .001) and the composite measure (β = .09, P < .001). Treatment preferences, pain screening, dyspnea screening, and opioid bowel treatment were not statistically significant (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that CON regulations may have a modest, but beneficial impact on hospice-reported quality outcomes, particularly for small and medium-sized hospices. Further research is needed to explore other factors that contribute to HIS outcomes.

Caregiver and Employee Experience Among Big Hospices-Ranking of the Largest US Hospices by Three Quality Indicators

BACKGROUND

Several studies chronicle profit-making negatively impacting US hospice care quality. However, no study has reported on caregiver satisfaction expressed online by hospice.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the relationship between online caregiver sentiment, market share, profit status, and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) scores among the 50 largest US hospices.

METHODS

Retrospective mixed methods of sentiment and multivariate regression analysis. Data sources were online caregiver reviews, provider CAHPS hospice survey data.

RESULTS

Being a larger, for-profit predicted diminished caregiver and employee satisfaction. Caregiver Sentiment and CAHPS Composite were so highly associated (r = .862, P < .001), that they are converging on overall caregiver satisfaction. With large effect, CAHPS Star Rating was significantly higher than Review Star Rating. For-profits had significantly higher overall Emotional Intensity than non-profit hospices, again with large effect. Caregiver Sentiment, Review Star Rating, and Glassdoor Composite each predicted CAHPS Composite. Lack of staffing was more frequent among for-profits (13%) than non-profits (6%). Out-of-scope expectations prevalence was 9%.

CONCLUSION

Caregiver and employees had better experiences with non-profits than for-profits. Anger and frustration was expressed toward large, for-profit providers more focused on admissions, profiteering, and paying dividends than actual care. The CAHPS appears to draw more satisfied caregivers. Whereas, online reviewing provides open-ended, real-time voicing of care quality concerns. Even with distinct methods, CAHPS survey and review sentiment analysis converge on caregiver satisfaction, yet CAHPS paints a much rosier picture of hospice quality than online reviews. Future research should explore sentiments by topic and hospice to increase customer advocacy.

Access to High-Quality Hospice Care in a For-Profit World

Evidence supporting the relief of suffering and improved end-of-life care provided by hospice is in contrast with recent media reports of cases of poor-quality care driven by profit-motivated hospices. This commentary presents a brief history of hospice and potential solutions to address the current challenges affecting access to high-quality hospice care.

Core Roles and Responsibilities of Physicians in Hospice Care: A Statement by and for U.S. Hospice and Palliative Care Physicians

Physicians are integral members of hospice interdisciplinary teams (IDTs). This statement delineates the core roles and responsibilities of hospice medical directors (HMDs) and hospice physicians who are designated by the hospice program to fulfill core HMD responsibilities. In addition, we describe the basic elements of hospice programs' structure and function required for hospice physicians to fulfill their roles and responsibilities. Finally, we call attention to hospice program characteristics and circumstances of the work environment that should raise a hospice physician's concerns that hospice patients and families are at risk of receiving low-quality care. Such factors include lack of a functioning IDT, minimal physician involvement in direct patient care and clinical IDT meetings, inadequate responses to symptom emergencies in patients' homes, and no or limited access to general inpatient and continuous home hospice care. We write as individual physicians who are concerned about troubling variability in access to and quality of U.S. hospice care. This statement arises from the need to protect the safety and well-being of vulnerable seriously ill people with their families from low-quality hospice care. This statement is primarily intended to be a resource to hospice physicians in negotiating employment agreements and justifying staffing and programmatic resources necessary to perform their jobs well. This statement may also serve as a resource and reference for patient advocacy groups, hospice industry leaders, health services oversight organizations, accountability agencies, and legislatures in efforts to ensure the safety, quality, and reliability of hospice care in the United States.

Critical Age Theory: Institutional Abuse of Older People in Health Care

Theories of elder abuse focus on the characteristics of the victim, the perpetrator, and the context of abuse. Although all three factors play a role, we are biased to notice individual misbehavior as the primary and sole cause of abuse. We see individuals as responsible for abuse. By examining abuses across a spectrum of healthcare services, abuse is more likely to be due to the institutional culture that includes the use of medications, Assisted Living, Skilled Nursing Facilities/nursing homes, hospices, hospitals, and Medicare Advantage programs. This study highlights multiple and consistent institutional abuses that result in harm and death of older adults on a consistent basis. The results show that when profit is increased, standards of care are diminished, and abuse ensues. Assigning responsibility to the management of healthcare becomes a priority in reducing this level of abuse. However, there are biases that stop us from assigning blame to institutions. Individual healthcare workers adhere to work protocol and rationalize the negative outcomes as inevitable or due to the vulnerability and frailness of older people. This culture is socialized for new employees that develop a culture of diminishing the needs of the individual patient in favor of the priorities dictated by the management protocol. In addition, the public is focused on assigning blame to individuals. Once an individual is assigned blame then they do not look beyond that to understand the context of abuse. A context that is generated by healthcare facilities maximizing profit and denigrating patient care. Regulatory agencies such as the U.S. DHHS, CDC, State Public Health Agencies, State/City Elder Abuse units, and Ombudsmen Programs all collude, for multiple reasons, in diminishing institutional responsibility.

Trends in Contracting and Common Ownership Between Hospice Agencies and Nursing Homes

BACKGROUND

In recent years, policymakers have paid particular attention to the emergence of a robust for-profit hospice sector and increased hospice use by nursing home residents. Previous research has explored financial incentives for nursing home-hospice use, but there has been limited research on nursing home-hospice partnerships and none on the extent of nursing home-hospice common ownership.

OBJECTIVE

To describe trends in nursing home-hospice contracting and common ownership and to identify potential tradeoffs in care provided by nursing homes and hospice agencies that share common ownership.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of nursing home-hospice patients between 2005 and 2015.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2015, the number of hospice agencies and nursing homes with common ownership grew substantially, now representing almost 1-in-5 providers in each sector. Relative to individuals using hospice in nursing homes without common ownership, adjusted analyses found that individuals receiving hospice from a commonly owned agency had a greater likelihood of having stays of 90 days or more [odds ratio (OR)=1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.10], having a stay resulting in a live discharge (OR=1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), and having at least 1 registered nurse/licensed practical nurse visit during the last 3 days of life (OR=1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29); these individuals also had a lower mean visit hours per day (-0.07; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Common ownership between hospice agencies and nursing homes is an emerging trend that reflects a broader push toward consolidation in the health care sector. Our analyses highlight potential concerns relevant to Medicare payment policy and are a first step toward improving our understanding of these trends and their implications.

Content Analysis of Negative Online Reviews of Hospice Agencies in the United States

IMPORTANCE

As online reviews of health care become increasingly integral to patient decision-making, understanding their content can help health care practices identify and address patient concerns.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the most frequently cited complaints in negative (ie, 1-star) online reviews of hospice agencies across the United States.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study conducted a thematic analysis of online reviews of US hospice agencies posted between August 2011 and July 2019. The sample was selected from a Hospice Analytics database. For each state, 1 for-profit (n = 50) and 1 nonprofit (n = 50) hospice agency were randomly selected from the category of extra-large hospice agencies (ie, serving >200 patients/d) in the database. Data analysis was conducted from January 2019 to April 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Reviews were analyzed to identify the most prevalent concerns expressed by reviewers.

RESULTS

Of 100 hospice agencies in the study sample, 67 (67.0%) had 1-star reviews; 33 (49.3%) were for-profit facilities and 34 (50.7%) were nonprofit facilities. Of 137 unique reviews, 68 (49.6%) were for for-profit facilities and 69 (50.4%) were for nonprofit facilities. A total of 5 themes emerged during the coding and analytic process, as follows: discordant expectations, suboptimal communication, quality of care, misperceptions about the role of hospice, and the meaning of a good death. The first 3 themes were categorized as actionable criticisms, which are variables hospice organizations could change. The remaining 2 themes were categorized as unactionable criticisms, which are factors that would require larger systematic changes to address. For both for-profit and nonprofit hospice agencies, quality of care was the most frequently commented-on theme (117 of 212 comments [55.2%]). For-profit hospice agencies received more communication-related comments overall (34 of 130 [26.2%] vs 9 of 82 [11.0%]), while nonprofit hospice agencies received more comments about the role of hospice (23 of 33 [69.7%] vs 19 of 31 [61.3%]) and the quality of death (16 [48.5%] vs 12 [38.7%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Regarding actionable criticisms, hospice agencies could examine their current practices, given that reviewers described these issues as negatively affecting the already difficult experience of losing a loved one. The findings indicated that patients and their families, friends, and caregivers require in-depth instruction and guidance on what they can expect from hospice staff, hospice services, and the dying process. Several criticisms identified in this study may be mitigated through operationalized, explicit conversations about these topics during hospice enrollment.