Analysis of hospital community benefit expenditures' alignment with community health needs: evidence from a national investigation of tax-exempt hospitals

Racial Health Equity Plans in the 30 Largest US Cities

BACKGROUND

Racial inequities in life expectancy vary significantly across US cities, with city-level gaps ranging from zero to more than 10 years. Given that these inequities are rooted in racism and maintained through social structures and policies, population-level solutions are needed. Local health departments (LHD) are well-situated to lead these types of changes.

METHODS

We conducted an environmental scan and document review of formal health plans of the LHDs with jurisdictions covering the 30 most populous US cities. We assessed the inclusion of equity priorities and specific and measurable equity goals. Secondary outcomes related to organizational structures, data, formal declarations, and other practices were also assessed. Data were collected between January and August 2022.

RESULTS

The extent of focus on racial equity in the identified strategic health plans varied. Less than half of the cities with a formal public health plan (13 of 29) listed racial health equity as an area of focus. Only seven cities (all of which had a health plan focusing on racial health equity) had specific goals related to racial health equity. Twenty-five LHDs provided local data on racial health inequities. All but seven cities had declared racism a public health crisis. About half of the LHDs had positions or divisions focused on racial equity, or specified equity as an area of focus for Covid-19 efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings reveal that few large cities translate growing support for anti-racism into their formal planning. While most LHDs acknowledge (and provide data pointing to) gaps in racial health equity in their jurisdictions, more attention is needed to incorporate specific and measurable racial health equity goals into strategic plans, and provide adequate structure and resources to attain those goals.

Working with Hospital Administration: Strategies for Success

Organizational structure has evolved over the past several decades, with physicians assuming more or fewer leadership positions over time. Regardless of the role of physicians in health care organizational leadership, constant meaningful communication with the hospital, radiology group, or greater physician group administrative leadership is vital for any group of IR physicians to be successful. Understanding what is considered important to hospital administration and, in particular, being closely aligned with the C-suite leadership, is paramount to having successful communication with these stakeholders. Although each situation will obligatorily be unique, certain themes can be followed to optimize the working relationship between an interventional radiology service and organizational administration. This article provides guidelines and suggestions specifically in communicating with health care system leadership.

Hospital concentration and low-income populations: Evidence from New York State Medicaid

While a large body of evidence has examined hospital concentration, its effects on health care for low-income populations are less explored. We use comprehensive discharge data from New York State to measure the effects of changes in market concentration on hospital-level inpatient Medicaid volumes. Holding fixed hospital factors constant, a one percent increase in HHI leads to a 0.6% (s.e. = 0.28%) decrease in the number of Medicaid admissions for the average hospital. The strongest effects are on admissions for birth (-1.3%, s.e. = 0.58%). These average hospital-level decreases largely reflect redistribution of Medicaid patients across hospitals, rather than overall reductions in hospitalizations for Medicaid patients. In particular, hospital concentration leads to a redistribution of admissions from non-profit hospitals to public hospitals. We find evidence that for births, physicians serving high shares of Medicaid beneficiaries in particular experience reduced admissions as concentration increased. These reductions may reflect preferences among these physicians or reduced admitting privileges by hospitals as a means to screen out Medicaid patients.

Understanding the relationship between nonprofit hospital community benefit spending and system membership: An analysis of independent hospital acquisitions

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires nonprofit hospitals to report community benefit spending to justify their nonprofit tax exemption. We examined whether nonprofit hospital acquisitions influence the amount and type community benefit spending. We analyzed 2011-2018 data on urban, nonprofit hospitals. The analysis dataset included 57 hospitals that were acquired and a matched control group. We estimated difference-in-differences specifications to measure the effect of acquisitions on total community benefit spending, and three subcategories - clinical, population health, and other spending types. We found that acquisitions led to decreased population health spending (-$0.32 million, p < 0.01) and other spending categories (-$1.5 million, p < 0.05), but no significant change in total or clinical spending. If the acquirer was located out-of-state, total community benefit spending declined by $2.4 million (p < 0.10). Our findings support the need for community benefit spending to be considered, along with quality, efficiency, and prices, when evaluating the welfare impact of acquisitions.

Overview of the Most Commonly Identified Public Health Needs and Strategies in a Nationally Representative Sample of Nonprofit Hospitals

Nonprofit hospitals have been required to conduct Community Health Needs Assessments and develop implementation strategies for almost a decade, yet little is known about this process on the national level. Using a nationally representative dataset of 2019 to 2021 nonprofit hospital community benefit reports, we assessed patterns in hospital identification of community health needs and investments in corresponding programs. The five most common needs identified by hospitals were mental health (identified by 87% of hospitals), substance use (76%), access (73%), social determinants of health (69%), and chronic disease (67%). The five most common needs addressed were: mental health (87%), access (81%), substance use (77%), chronic disease (72%), and obesity (71%). Institutional and community-level factors were associated with whether hospitals identified and addressed health needs. Hospitals often addressed needs that they did not identify, particularly related to the provision of medical services—which has important implications for population health improvement.

Influence of Not-for-Profit Hospital Ownership Type on Community Benefit and Charity Care

Non-profit hospitals are expected to provide charity care and other community benefits to adjust their tax exemption status. Using the Medicare Hospital Cost Report, American Hospital Association Annual Survey, and the American Community Survey datasets, we examined if church-affiliated hospitals spent more on charity care and community benefit. For this analysis, we defined five main categories of community benefits were measured: total community benefit; charity care; Medicaid shortfall; unreimbursed other means-tested services; and the total of unreimbursed education and unfunded research. Multiple regression was used to examine the effect of church ownership, controlling for other factors, on the level of community benefit in 2644 general acute care non-profit hospitals. Descriptive analyses and multiple regression were used to show the relationship between the provision of community benefits and church affiliation including Catholic (CH), other church-affiliated hospitals (OCAH), and non-church affiliated hospitals (NCAH). The non-profit hospital on average spent 6.5% of its total expenses on community benefits. NCAH spent 6.09%, CH spent 7.5%, and OCAH spent 9.4%. Non-profits spent 2.8% of their total expenses on charity care, with the highest charity care spending for OCAH (5.2%), followed by CH (3.9%), and NCAH (2.4%). Regression results showed that CH and OCAH, on average, spent 1.08% and 2.16% more on community benefits than NCAHs. In addition, CH and OCAH spent more on other categories of community benefits except for education and research. Church-affiliated hospitals spend more on community benefits and charity care than non-church affiliated nonprofit hospitals.

Exploring the Role of Community Social Capital in Not-for-profit Hospitals’ Decision to Engage Community Partners in the Community Health Needs Assessment Process

Not-for-profit hospitals (NFPs) frequently partner with community organizations to conduct internal revenue service-mandated community health needs assessment (CHNA), yet little is known about the number of partnerships that hospitals enter into for this purpose. This article uses “American Hospital Associations’ 2020 Annual Survey” data to examine hospital-community partnerships around the CHNA and the role that community social capital defined as, “the networks that cross various professional, political and social boundaries to reflect community level trust needed to pursue shared objectives” plays in hospitals’ choices to partner with community organizations for the CHNA. After controlling for a set of hospital, community, and state characteristics, we found that hospitals present in communities with higher social capital were likely to partner with more community organizations to conduct CHNA. Greater social capital may thus promote community health by facilitating the partnerships NFPs develop with community organizations to conduct the CHNA.

The Impact of Financial Assistance Programs on Health Care Utilization: Evidence from Kaiser Permanente

Most hospitals have financial assistance programs for low-income patients. We use administrative data from Kaiser Permanente to study the effects of financial assistance on healthcare utilization. Using a regression discontinuity design based on an income threshold for program eligibility, we find that financial assistance increases the likelihood of an inpatient, ambulatory and emergency department encounter by 3.6 pp (59%), 13.4 pp (20%), and 6.7 pp (53%), respectively, though effects dissipate three quarters after program receipt. Financial assistance also increases the detection and management of treatment-sensitive conditions (e.g., drugs treating diabetes), suggesting financial assistance may increase receipt of high-value care.

Community social capital or health needs: What is driving hospital-community partnerships to address social determinants of health?

Social determinants of health (SDOH) are strongly linked to individual and population health outcomes. Hospitals and health systems are in a unique position to initiate or partner on community-wide efforts address SDOH. However, such efforts typically require collaboration with other healthcare and local community organizations since SDOH affect more than just medical care. Despite studies that have identified specific organizational and environmental factors associated with hospital-community partnerships, the role of social capital and community health needs as drivers of such partnerships remains unexplored. This study examines whether hospital partnerships with community organizations in the United States are driven predominantly by community social capital or the prevailing health needs of the community, and whether these drivers are similar for overall partnerships as well as for partnerships with individual organizations. We use 2020 data from the American Hospital Association, US County Health Rankings, and Social Capital Project and employ ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression and logit models to assess the relationship between social capital, community health needs and hospital-community partnerships to address SDOH. Our results indicate that for community social capital was significantly and positively associated with total hospital partnerships (β = 0.05, p = 0.01). We also found that community social capital was significantly more likely to be associated with hospitals’ partnerships with local/state public health agencies, schools, law enforcement agencies, other healthcare providers, and organizations that assist with food insecurity. On the other hand, community health needs were not associated with total partnerships and had limited associations with hospital partnerships with individual organizations. Overall, this research suggests that social capital is a critical determinant of hospital partnerships with community organizations, and hospitals may seek partnerships with organizations that allow them to address community health issues outside of their own expertise since such partnerships and collaborative efforts can help address SDOH and manage population health.

•

Addressing social determinants of health (SDOH) plays an important role in improving population health.

•

Hospital multi sector partnerships with local organizations in the community play a key role in addressing SDOH.

•

Role of community factors like social capital or health needs in driving hospital community partnerships is underexplored.

•

Higher community social capital is associated with hospital community partnerships.

What do nonprofit hospitals reward? An examination of CEO compensation in nonprofit hospitals

Nonprofit hospital chief executive officer (CEO) compensation has received considerable attention in light of nonprofits’ tax-favored status as well as the high costs of hospital care. Past studies have found that hospital financial performance is a significant determinant of CEO pay but nonprofit performance, including quality and charity care, are not. Using post-ACA data, we re-examine whether a variety of hospital performance measures are important determinants of nonprofit hospital CEO compensation. We found mixed evidence with respect to the significance of the association between financial performance and uncompensated care and CEO compensation. Among the other nonprofit performance measures, patient satisfaction was significantly associated with CEO compensation, but other measures were not significant determinants of CEO compensation. Our results suggest nonprofit hospitals balance their financial health against their mission when setting CEO incentives. Additional policy targeting transparency in hospital CEO compensation may be warranted to help policymakers understand the specific factors used by hospital boards to incentivize CEOs.

Assessing Concordance Across Nonprofit Hospitals' Public Reporting on Housing as a Community Health Need in the Era of the Affordable Care Act

Although the Affordable Care Act requires nonprofit hospital organizations to report how they identify and invest in community health needs, the utility of mandated reporting documents for tracking investments in the social determinants of health has been questioned. Using public reporting documents and focusing on housing as a social determinant of health, we describe how nonprofit hospital organizations in 5 communities with the highest rates of homelessness document needs and investments related to housing on their Community Health Needs Assessments, Implementation Strategies, and Schedule H (990H) tax forms. Of 47 organizations, 55% identified housing as a health need, 36% described housing-related implementation strategies, and 26% reported relevant 990H spending. Overall concordance among identified needs, strategies, and spending was low, with only 15% of organizations addressing housing across all 3 documents. Regulatory reform could help promote accountability and transparency in organizations' efforts to address housing and other health-related social needs.

Understanding the Aggressive Practices of Nonprofit Hospitals in Pursuit of Patient Debt

Nonprofit hospitals have attracted scrutiny for aggressive collection activities against patients, which persist despite the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's attempt to limit particularly egregious practices, called "extraordinary collection actions" (ECAs). This study examines the prevalence of ECAs and characteristics of nonprofit hospitals that reported this behavior as of 2016. Using Community Benefit Insight data, characteristics of hospitals that reported ECAs are compared with hospitals that did not report these practices. ECAs include reporting patient debt to credit agencies, filing lawsuits, placing liens on residences, and issuing civil arrest. Predictors of ECAs among nonprofit hospitals are identified using logistic regression analysis. The prevalence of ECAs is examined for the 2010-2016 time period, and nonprofit hospitals that reported ECAs are mapped to show the geographic distribution. Hospitals reporting ECAs significantly differed in total revenue, system membership, bed size, urban location, financial assistance policy use, and use of poverty guidelines for discounted care. In full logistic regression models, lower total hospital revenue was a significant predictor of ECAs. As social workers, it is vital to understand the landscape of nonprofit hospital collection actions to advocate for policy that protects patients from predatory practices while holding nonprofit hospitals accountable.

Can Collaboration Between Nonprofit Hospitals and Local Health Departments Influence Population Health Investments by Nonprofit Hospitals?

BACKGROUND

The patient protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to improve population health by requiring nonprofit hospitals (NFPs) to conduct triennial community health needs assessments and address the identified needs. In this context, some states have encouraged collaboration between hospitals and local health department (LHD) to increase the focus of community benefit spending onto population health.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to examine whether a 2012 state law that required NFPs to collaborate with LHDs in local health planning influenced hospital population health improvement spending.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We merged Internal Revenue Service data on NFP community benefit spending with data on hospital, county and state-level characteristics and estimated a difference-in-differences specification of hospital population health spending in 2009-2016 that compared the difference between hospitals that were required to collaborate with LHDs to those that were not, before and after the requirement.

MEASURES

The primary outcome was population health spending divided by operating expenses.

RESULTS

We found that the requirement for hospital-LHD collaboration was associated with increased mean population health spending of ∼$393,000-$786,000 (P=0.03). This association was significant in 2015-2016, perhaps reflecting the lag between assessments and implementation. Urban hospitals were responsible for most of the increased spending.

CONCLUSIONS

Policymakers have sought to encourage hospitals to increase their investment in population health; however, overall community benefit spending on population health has remained flat. We found that requiring hospital-LHD collaboration was associated with increased hospital investment in population health. It may be that hospitals increase population health spending because collaboration improves expected effectiveness or increases hospital accountability.

Building trust in American hospital-community development projects: a scoping review

Although it has become increasingly common for hospitals to engage in development projects aimed at improving the social determinants of health in surrounding communities, scholarly literature examining the establishment of trust between hospitals and communities is sparse. Because of an extensive and complex history of abuse suffered by marginalized populations at the hands of medical institutions, trust building is critical to the pursuit of equitable health outcomes in these communities. A scoping review was conducted to assess the current base of knowledge for building trust between hospital systems and community members. The review identified only 13 relevant articles addressing this topic, centered on six key themes: with whom to form partnerships; how to form partnerships; conceptualizing and defining trust; questions about investment and hiring; effective communication with communities; and, understanding communities.

Charity Care and Community Benefit in Non-Profit Hospitals: Definition and Requirements

Policymakers are using different ways to measure the community benefit provided by non-profit hospitals because different policy makers have different policy objectives. We compare 3 commonly used measures of community benefit; examine the correlation across the 3 measures; examine how the distribution of community benefits varies across non-profit hospitals; and compare the factors associated with the level of community benefit for each definition. The main dataset for this study is the Schedule H of IRS Form 990 data for 2017. We merged this data with the 2017 American Hospital Association (AHA), the 2017 CMS Hospital Cost Report, and the 2018 American Community Survey data. The final sample consists of 1904 non-profit hospitals. We define 3 measures of community benefit: (1) Total community benefits: combining all 17 possible measures in the 990 data; (2) Total community benefits less unreimbursed Medicaid care because it reflects a policy choice made by the state; and (3) only charity care. We also subdivided the community benefits into individual and service-based benefit. Gini Coefficients and descriptive analysis show the distribution of 3 types of community benefit measures. On average, hospitals spent 8.1% of their expenses on all community benefits; 4.3% on community benefits less unreimbursed Medicaid; and 1.7% on charity care. The provision of charity care showed more variation (Gini coefficient) than the other 2 measures. Different hospital and geographic characteristics were associated with each definition, suggesting that different types of hospitals place emphasis on different community benefits. When policy makers choose among different definitions of community benefit, they should consider what incentives they want to instill.

Community Benefit: Policies, Practices, and Opportunities at the Half-Century Mark

In the 50 years since the expansion of the legal definition of charity for tax-exempt hospitals, there have been periodic regulatory actions at the municipal, state, and federal level to quantify charitable contributions and justify the deferral of tax revenues. The movement toward risk-based reimbursement in the last decade creates an incentive for a shift in hospital leadership understanding and approach to community benefit programs and services. The historical interpretation of community benefit as an issue of compliance with legal obligations is being questioned by forward-thinking hospital leaders, in recognition that more strategic resource allocation offers the potential to reduce financial risk associated with preventable emergency department and inpatient utilization. Recent actions in the policy arena to strengthen community benefit practices, as well as policies in related areas such as homelessness and behavioral health, challenge hospitals to strengthen their focus on prevention. At the same time, increased availability of data on health care costs, mapping of health care utilization patterns, and parallel overlays of hospital location, jurisdictional boundaries, and the social determinants of health offer significant potential for informed public dialogue at the regional level that builds an ethic of shared ownership for health across sectors. Local public health agencies can play an important role by establishing baselines, goals, and objectives in communities where health inequities are concentrated within county and municipal jurisdictional boundaries to align and focus the assets of health, community development, and business sector stakeholders.

Determinants of Community-Related Expenses of US Tax-Exempt Hospitals, 2013

CONTEXT

Tax-exempt hospitals in the United States are required to report community benefit expenses on their federal tax forms. Two categories of expenses critical to the public health mission of hospitals are the "community health improvement" and "community-building" expense categories. The community health improvement expenses formally qualify as a community benefit, whereas community-building expenses do not. Increasing both types of spending would be consistent with the growing evidence on the effects of social determinants on population health.

OBJECTIVE

To identify characteristics associated with the level of community health improvement and community-building expenses reported by tax-exempt hospitals.

DESIGN

The general acute care hospital is the unit of analysis. We utilize secondary data for all US general acute care hospitals that filed their own Internal Revenue Service Form 990 Schedule H for 2013 (n = 1508). We apply linear regression analysis to an explanatory model with 8 independent variables.

MEASURES

The primary dependent variables are percentage of operating expenses devoted to community health improvement and to community building. The independent variables include 4 hospital-level measures, 3 county-level measures, and a measure of state requirements for community benefit.

RESULTS

The level of community health improvement expenses is positively associated with bed size, system membership, profit margin, and urban location. In states where tax-exempt hospitals are required to demonstrate community benefit to the state, there is lower community health improvement spending. Teaching hospitals also demonstrate lower community health improvement spending. Results for community-building expenses mirror those for community health improvement except that teaching hospital status and per capita income lose significance and hospital competition gains significance in the negative direction.

CONCLUSIONS

Leaders among tax-exempt hospitals in community-related spending are hospitals that are larger, more profitable, members of systems, and located in urban areas and in states that do not have community benefit requirements.

Community Benefit Spending Among North Carolina's Tax-Exempt Hospitals After Performing Community Health Needs Assessments

CONTEXT

As of March 23, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires tax-exempt hospitals to conduct Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) every 3 years to incentivize hospitals to provide programs responsive to the health needs of their communities.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the distribution and variation in community benefit spending among North Carolina's tax-exempt hospitals 2 years after completing their first IRS-mandated CHNA.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using secondary analysis of published community benefit reports. Community benefit was categorized on the basis of North Carolina Hospital Association's community benefit reporting guidelines. Multiple regression analysis using generalized linear model was used to examine the variation in community benefit spending among study hospitals considering differences in hospital-level and community characteristics.

SETTING

Fifty-three private, nonprofit hospitals across North Carolina.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Dollar expenditures as a percentage of operating expenses of the 2 categories of community benefit spending: patient care financial assistance and community health programs.

RESULTS

Study hospitals' aggregate community benefit spending was $2.6 billion, 85% of which was in the form of patient care financial assistance, with only 0.7% of total spending allocated to community-building activities such as affordable housing, economic development, and environmental improvements. On average, the study hospitals' community benefit spending was equivalent to 14.6% of operating expenses. Hospitals with 300 or more beds provided significantly higher investments in community health programs as a percentage of their operating expenses than hospitals with 101 to 299 beds (P = .03) or hospitals with 100 or fewer beds (P = .04). Access to care was not associated with patient care financial assistance (P = .81) or community health programs expenditures (P = .94).

CONCLUSIONS

The study hospitals direct most of their community benefit expenditures to patient care financial assistance (individual welfare) rather than population health improvement initiatives, with virtually no investments in community-building activities that address socioeconomic determinants of health.

Non-profit Hospital Targeted Health Priorities and Collaboration With Local Health Departments in the First Round Post-ACA: A National Descriptive Study

We examined the community health needs assessments (CHNA) and implementation strategies of a national sample of 785 non-profit hospitals (NFPs) from the first round after the ACA. We found that the priorities targeted in the implementation strategies were well-aligned with the top community health priorities identified in CHNAs as reported in previous studies. The top five targeted priorities included obesity, access to care, diabetes, cancer, and mental health. We also found that 34% of sample NFPs collaborated with their local health department (LHD) to produce a single CHNA for their jurisdiction. Non-profit hospitals that collaborated with a LHD on the CHNA had higher odds of selecting behavioral health community issues (i.e., substance abuse, alcohol, and mental health), while hospitals located in counties with high uninsurance rates had lower odds of targeting these community issues. Our contribution was 3-fold; first, we examined a large sample of implementation strategies to extend on previous work that examined CHNAs only. This gives a more complete picture of which community issues identified in the CHNA are actually targeted for implementation. Second, this study was the first to present information on the status of NPF collaboration with LHDs to produce a single CHNA (from the NFP perspective). Third, we examined the association between targeted priorities with NFP and county-level characteristics. The community benefit requirement and Section 9007 of the ACA present an opportunity to nudge NFPs to improve the conditions for health in the communities they serve. The ACA has also challenged institutions in the health care sector to approach health through the social determinants of health framework. This framework moves beyond the provision of acute health services and emphasizes other inputs that improve population health. In this context, NFPs are particularly well-positioned to shift their contribution to improve population health beyond their four walls. Section 9007 is one mechanism to achieve such shift and has shown some promising changes among NFPs since its passage as reflected in the findings of this study. This study can inform future research related to NPF community benefit and local health planning.

Relationship between initiation of 340B participation and hospital safety-net engagement

OBJECTIVE

The 340B program allows safety-net hospitals to acquire discounted outpatient drugs and charge payers full price. We examined whether 340B participation increases safety-net engagement.

DATA SOURCES

340B participation data, Medicare hospital cost reports, American Hospital Association Survey, and Schedule 990 nonprofit hospital tax returns.

STUDY DESIGN

Quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design comparing 340B hospitals (the "treatment" group) before and after participating to changes over time to three alternative "control" groups: all other nonprofit and public hospitals, hospitals that are not participating during our study, and hospitals that were not-yet-participating but started after 2015. Outcome measures include a range of safety-net care measures that are alternatives to the standard uncompensated care: charity care, community benefit spending, charity care policies, and low-profit service-line provision.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted data on all nonprofit and public hospitals from 2011 to 2015. We linked 340B participation data to Medicare hospital cost reports and American Hospital Association data using Medicare hospital identifiers. 990 Data was linked on name and address.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

New 340B participation was not associated with a change in uncompensated care, but was associated with a 28.9 percent increase in charity care spending (SE = 8.8), or about $880,000 per hospital. However, total community benefit spending (including charity care) did not change. 340B was associated with an increase in the probability of offering discounted care (4.3 percentage points, SE = 1.6) from 84 to 88 percent and an increase in the income eligibility limit for discounted care (18.9 percentage points, SE = 5.6) from 294 to 313 percent. Participation was not associated with the probability of offering low-profit medical care services.

CONCLUSIONS

Alternative measures show that newly participating hospitals may increase charity care, potentially through offering more patients discounted care. However, increases appear to be fully offset by reductions in other community benefit programs.

Nonprofit Hospital Community Benefit in the U.S.: A Scoping Review From 2010 to 2019

Background: U.S. nonprofit hospital community benefit recently underwent significant regulatory revisions. Starting in 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) required hospitals to submit a new Schedule H that provided greater detail on community benefit activities. In addition, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became law in 2010, requires hospitals to conduct community health needs assessments (CHNA) and develop community health implementation plans (CHIP) as a response to priority needs every 3 years. These new requirements have led to greater transparency and accountability and this scoping review considers what has been learned about community benefit from 2010 to 2019.

Methods: This review identified peer-reviewed literature published from 2010 to 2019 using three methods. First, an OvidSP MEDLINE search using terms suggested previously by community benefit researchers. Second, a PubMed search using keywords frequently found in community benefit literature. Third, a SCOPUS search of the most frequently cited articles in this topic area. Articles were then selected based on their relevance to the research question. Articles were organized into topic areas using a qualitative strategy similar to axial coding.

Results: Literature appeared around several topic areas: governance; CHNA and CHIP process, content, and impact; community programs and their evaluation; spending patterns and spending influences; population health; and policy recommendations. The plurality of literature centered on spending and needs assessments, likely because they can draw upon publicly available data. The vast majority of articles in these areas use spending data from 2009 to 2012 and the first cycle of CHNAs in 2013. Policy recommendations focus on accountability for impact, enhancing collaboration, and incentivizing action in areas other than clinical care.

Discussion: There are several areas of community benefit in need of further study. Longitudinal studies on needs assessments and spending patterns would help inform whether organizations have changed and improved operations over time. Governance, program evaluation, and collaboration are some of the consequential areas about which relatively little is known. Gaps in knowledge also exist related to the operational realities that drive community benefit activities. Shaping organizational action and public policy would benefit from additional research in these and other areas.

The Importance of Individual-Site and System-Wide Community Health Needs Assessments

In order to fulfill the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Community Health Needs Assessment requirements, hospital systems sometimes vary in detail between individual hospital sites or locations and performing an assessment for the entire system. This article examines needs assessments and their accompanying implementation plans across a large university hospital system and finds support for conducting assessments at the local site-level but evidence that system-wide approaches may also have significant benefits, especially at the implementation phase. It suggests a hybrid approach to the needs assessment process where systems and their individual hospitals work together to maximize health benefits to the communities served.

Measuring Subcounty Differences in Population Health Using Hospital and Census-Derived Data Sets: The Missouri ZIP Health Rankings Project

CONTEXT

Measures of population health at the subcounty level are needed to identify areas for focused interventions and to support local health improvement activities.

OBJECTIVE

To extend the County Health Rankings population health measurement model to the ZIP code level using widely available hospital and census-derived data sources.

DESIGN

Retrospective administrative data study.

SETTING

Missouri.

POPULATION

Missouri FY 2012-2014 hospital inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department discharge encounters (N = 36 176 377) and 2015 Nielsen data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

ZIP code-level health factors and health outcomes indices.

RESULTS

Statistically significant measures of association were observed between the ZIP code-level population health indices and published County Health Rankings indices. Variation within counties was observed in both urban and rural areas. Substantial variation of the derived measures was observed at the ZIP code level with 20 (17.4%) Missouri counties having ZIP codes in both the top and bottom quintiles of health factors and health outcomes. Thirty of the 46 (65.2%) counties in the top 2 county quintiles had ZIP codes in the bottom 2 quintiles.

CONCLUSIONS

This proof-of-concept analysis suggests that readily available hospital and census-derived data can be used to create measures of population health at the subcounty level. These widely available data sources could be used to identify areas of potential need within counties, engage community stakeholders, and target interventions.

Community Priorities for Hospital-Based Prevention Initiatives: Results From a Deliberating Public

CONTEXT

Internal revenue service provisions require not-for-profit hospitals to provide "community benefit." In addition, the Affordable Care Act requires these hospitals to conduct community health needs assessments that involve appropriate stakeholders. These requirements signal government interest in creating opportunities for developing programs that are well tailored and responsive to the needs of the communities served. Gaining meaningful input from residents is a critical aspect of these processes.

OBJECTIVE

To implement public deliberations that explore local resident priorities for use of a hospital's community benefit resources to prevent chronic disease.

METHODS

Public deliberation is a method of community engagement that can provide guidance to decision makers on value-laden issues when technical solutions alone are inadequate to provide direction or set priorities. Three deliberations featuring presentations by experts and discussions among participants were convened with a cross section of residents in Brooklyn, New York. Participants were asked whether new hospital initiatives should prioritize: clinical prevention, community-based interventions, or action on broader policies affecting population health. Pre- and postsurveys, as well as qualitative methods, were used to assess knowledge and attitudes.

RESULTS

Postdeliberation, participants had significant changes in knowledge, particularly on the impact of education on health. Participants prioritized community-based and policy interventions over expanding clinical prevention capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

Public deliberation offers a method to probe informed constituent views of how a hospital can best promote its community's health. Informed local residents felt that hospitals should frame health-promoting activities more broadly than is current practice. Not-for-profit hospitals gain significant tax advantages. Increased insurance rates suggest that some hospitals will experience savings in uncompensated care that can be used to promote health more broadly. Vetting priorities for the use of new resources with informed community members can be accomplished through public deliberation. These results suggest community support for nonclinical approaches to disease prevention.

Non-profit hospital community benefit spending based on local sociodemographics

Non-profit hospitals are facing greater pressure to address the social determinants of health. Since 2012, with new requirements for greater transparency and community health needs assessments, non-profit tax exemption requirements are believed to incentivize investments in the community, particularly for vulnerable populations. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of community benefit spending by private, acute care, non-profit hospitals from 2012-2014 to measure if hospitals have begun to address local community needs. We measured total community benefit spending and two subsets of spending-health care-related expenditures and community-directed contributions-as the proportion of their total expenditure. We obtained sociodemographic characteristics for their community, defined by ZIP code. In unadjusted and adjusted analyses using hospital-level and community-level covariates, community benefit spending has not varied and community-directed contribution amounts did not reflect local needs. Stronger incentives-tax-based or otherwise-are needed to steer non-profit hospitals to invest in community health.

Strengthening Linkages Between Public Health and Health Care in Nebraska

Introduction

Effective collaboration between public health and the health care system is essential for connecting medical and community health–related resources and improving population health. We investigated the linkages between local health departments and primary care clinics in Nebraska.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-method study by using semistructured in-person and telephone interviews and surveys in 2017 and 2018 with directors of 19 Nebraska local health departments. Interviews and surveys assessed activities and programs that health departments implemented or planned with clinics in their jurisdictions. Barriers, benefits, and opportunities for building the linkages were identified.

Results

Strong linkages existed between local health departments and primary care clinics. Linkages focused on the control and prevention of chronic diseases and on traditional public health programs, including screening for cancer and other chronic diseases, vaccinations, worksite wellness programs, home visits, clinic and medication assistance referrals, health message development, electronic health records data analyses, staff education, and improvements in policies and procedures. The most frequently reported barrier was funding, and the most frequently reported benefit was patient behavior change. The opportunity most frequently reported was chronic disease health coaching.

Conclusion

Extensive linkages exist between Nebraska local health departments and the health care systems in their areas. Additional funding, effective workforce management, community needs assessments, and program evaluation can support joint initiatives to address community health priorities.

Nonprofit Hospitals' Process for Community Health Improvement: A Qualitative Study of Leading Practices and Missing Links

Nonprofit hospitals and health systems spend more than $4 billion each year on community health improvement, yet little is known about the internal process that these organizations follow when implementing these efforts. Because of laws governing tax-exempt health care organizations, both the process these hospitals use to identify community health needs and their annual expenditure of community benefit dollars are known. Yet much else about the process of community health improvement is largely unknown. This study uses data from semi-structured interviews with 38 directors of community health efforts at nonprofit hospitals and health systems to describe the internal procedures that nonprofit hospitals and health systems follow when implementing community health efforts, with the goal of identifying both leading practices and areas in need of greater attention. Interviews were analyzed using open and axial coding. Results show hospitals' community health improvement efforts have 7 distinct stages: budgeting, assessing needs, developing strategy, allocating resources, implementing programs, evaluating, and communicating results. Two of these stages, assessing needs and communicating results, are similar across most organizations - most likely a result of federal regulations. Other stages, especially budgeting, allocating resources, and evaluating programs, show high variation across organizations and often lack a formal process. Several leading practices were identified for each stage, but community health efforts currently lack structure within many organizations and are not designed for improvement over time. To better leverage the resources available from nonprofit hospitals, the less public-facing aspects of community benefit will require more study and perhaps additional regulation.

The perceived importance of intersectoral collaboration by health care alliances

There is growing interest in the use of intersectoral collaboration (e.g., alliances, coalitions, partnerships) to address complex, health-related issues in local communities. Relatively little empirical research, however, has examined how to foster and sustain collaboration across sectors during later stages of development, despite a recognition that the needs and goals for collaboration may change over time. The purpose of this study was to address this gap by examining the perceptions of alliance participants regarding the importance of collaborating with different industry sectors as alliances transitioned from stable, prescriptive foundation support to a more uncertain future. Our findings suggest that, in addition to the contextual characteristics highlighted in previous research, the perceived importance of intersectoral collaboration varies for different types of alliances and participants. Moreover, the salience of these characteristics varied for different types of collaboration, in our case, collaboration with nonmedical health care sectors and nonhealth care sectors. Collectively, our findings point to the importance of thinking more comprehensively, across multiple levels of influence, when considering ways to foster or sustain intersectoral collaboration.

Did Performing Community Health Needs Assessments Increase Community Health Program Spending by North Carolina's Tax-Exempt Hospitals?

As of March 23, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires tax-exempt hospitals to conduct a Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) every 3 years. This study assessed whether the IRS CHNA mandate incentivized North Carolina's tax-exempt hospitals to increase investments in community health programs. The authors gathered the 2012-2016 community benefit reports of 53 North Carolina private, nonprofit hospitals from the North Carolina Hospital Association. Community benefit spending data from the year of the first CHNA were compared to that 2 years later using paired t tests among matched subjects. No significant increases were found in hospitals' community health programs spending (P = 0.6920) or in providing patient care financial assistance (charity or discounted care) (P = 0.0934). In fact, aggregate community health programs spending effectively decreased by 4%, from $393.3 million to $377.5 million. Among all community benefit items, only the unreimbursed cost for treating Medicare patients increased significantly (P = 0.0297). The proportion of spending on community health programs relative to patient care financial assistance decreased significantly (P = 0.0338). Performing CHNAs did not incentivize North Carolina's tax-exempt hospitals to progressively invest in community health programs. The hospitals continue to spend heavily on patient care financial assistance and little on disease prevention and community health improvement activities. These findings suggest that tax-exempt hospitals continue to function as a safety net for the poor and the uninsured rather than as active partners in population health management initiatives. At present, performing CHNAs may be more a demonstration of compliance than a tool to improve population health.

Developing Data to Support Effective Coordination of Nonprofit Hospital Community Benefit Investments

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nonprofit hospitals achieve tax exemption through community benefit investments. The objective of this study was to characterize urban and suburban nonprofit hospitals' community benefit expenditures and to estimate regional per capita community benefit spending relative to community need. Community benefit expenditures, both overall and by subtype, were compared for urban versus suburban nonprofit hospitals in a large metropolitan area, the greater Philadelphia region. Estimated zip code-level per capita expenditures were mapped in the urban core area. We found that urban hospitals report higher overall community benefit expenditures than suburban hospitals yet invest less in community health improvement services, both proportionally and absolutely, despite spending similar proportions on charity care. There is an overlap in hospital-identified community benefit service areas in the urban core, but the degree of overlap is not related to community poverty levels. There is significant variation in zip code-level per capita community benefit expenditures, which does not correlate with community need. Community benefit investments offer the potential to improve community health, yet without regional coordination, the ability to maximize the potential of these investments is limited. This study's findings highlight the need to implement policies that increase transparency, accountability, and regional coordination of community benefit spending.

Establishing a Baseline: Community Benefit Spending by Not-for-Profit Hospitals Prior to Implementation of the Affordable Care Act

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Context:

Community Benefit spending by not-for-profit hospitals has served as a critical, formalized part of the nation's safety net for almost 50 years. This has occurred mostly through charity care. This article examines how not-for-profit hospitals spent Community Benefit dollars prior to full implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Methods:

Using data from 2009 to 2012 hospital tax and other governmental filings, we constructed national, hospital-referral-region, and facility-level estimates of Community Benefit spending. Data were collected in 2015 and analyzed in 2015 and 2016. Data were matched at the facility level for a non-profit hospital's IRS tax filings (Form 990, Schedule H) and CMS Hospital Cost Report Information System and Provider of Service data sets.

Results:

During 2009, hospitals spent about 8% of total operating expenses on Community Benefit. This increased to between 8.3% and 8.5% in 2012. The majority of spending (>80%) went toward charity care, unreimbursed Medicaid, and subsidized health services, with approximately 6% going toward both community health improvement and health professionals' education. By 2012, national spending on Community Benefit likely exceeded $60 billion. The largest hospital systems spent the vast majority of the nation's Community Benefit; the top 25% of systems spent more than 80 cents of every Community Benefit dollar.

Discussion:

Community Benefit spending has remained relatively steady as a proportion of total operating expenses and so has increased over time—although charity care remains the major focus of Community Benefit spending overall.

Implications:

More than $60 billion was spent on Community Benefit prior to implementation of the ACA. New reporting and spending requirements from the IRS, alongside changes by the ACA, are changing incentives for hospitals in how they spend Community Benefit dollars. In the short term, and especially the long term, hospital systems would do well to partner with public health, other social services, and even competing hospitals to invest in population-based activities. The mandated community health needs assessment process is a logical home for these sorts of collaborations. Relatively modest investments can improve the baseline level of health in their communities and make it easier to improve population health. Aside from a population health justification for a partnership model, a business case is necessary for widespread adoption of this approach. Because of their authorities, responsibilities, and centuries of expertise in community health, public health agencies are in a position to help hospitals form concrete, sustainable collaborations for the improvement of population health.

Conclusion:

The ACA will likely change the delivery of uncompensated and charity care in the United States in the years to come. How hospitals choose to spend those dollars may be influenced greatly by the financial and political environments, as well as the strength of community partnerships.

State-Level Community Benefit Regulation and Nonprofit Hospitals' Provision of Community Benefits

Do nonprofit hospitals provide enough community benefits to justify their tax exemptions? States have sought to enhance nonprofit hospitals' accountability and oversight through regulation, including requirements to report community benefits, conduct community health needs assessments, provide minimum levels of community benefits, and adhere to minimum income eligibility standards for charity care. However, little research has assessed these regulations' impact on community benefits. Using 2009-11 Internal Revenue Service data on community benefit spending for more than eighteen hundred hospitals and the Hilltop Institute's data on community benefit regulation, we investigated the relationship between these four types of regulation and the level and types of hospital-provided community benefits. Our multivariate regression analyses showed that only community health needs assessments were consistently associated with greater community benefit spending. The results for reporting and minimum spending requirements were mixed, while minimum income eligibility standards for charity care were unrelated to community benefit spending. State adoption of multiple types of regulation was consistently associated with higher levels of hospital-provided community benefits, possibly because regulatory intensity conveys a strong signal to the hospital community that more spending is expected. This study can inform efforts to design regulations that will encourage hospitals to provide community benefits consistent with policy makers' goals.

Joint Community Health Needs Assessments as a Path for Coordinating Community-Wide Health Improvement Efforts Between Hospitals and Local Health Departments

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association between hospital-local health department (LHD) collaboration around community health needs assessments (CHNAs) and hospital investment in community health.

METHODS

We combined 2015 National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) Forces of Change, 2013 NACCHO Profile, and 2014-2015 Area Health Resource File data to identify a sample of LHDs (n = 439) across the United States. We included data on hospitals' community benefit from their 2014 tax filings (Internal Revenue Service Form 990, Schedule H). We used bivariate and multivariate regression analyses to examine LHDs' involvement in hospitals' CHNAs and implementation strategies and the relationship with hospital investment in community health.

RESULTS

The LHDs that collaborated with hospitals around CHNAs were significantly more likely to be involved in joint implementation planning activities than were those that did not. Importantly, LHD involvement in hospitals' implementation strategies was associated with greater hospital investment in community health improvement initiatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Joint CHNAs may improve coordination of community-wide health improvement efforts between hospitals and LHDs and encourage hospital investment in community health improvement activities. Public Health Implications. Policies that strengthen LHD-hospital collaboration around the CHNA may enhance hospital investments in community health.

The Magnitude of a Community's Health Needs and Nonprofit Hospitals' Progress in Meeting Those Needs: Are We Faced With a Paradox?

OBJECTIVES

Although most nonprofit hospitals are required to conduct periodic community health needs assessments (CHNAs), such assessments arguably are most critical for communities with substantial health needs. The objective of this study was to describe differences in progress in conducting CHNAs between hospitals located in communities with the greatest compared with the fewest health needs.

METHODS

We used data on CHNA activity from the 2013 tax filings of 1331 US hospitals combined with data on community health needs from the County Health Rankings. We used bivariate and multivariate analyses to examine differences in hospitals' progress in implementing comprehensive CHNAs using 4 activities: (1) strategies to address identified needs, (2) participation in developing community-wide plans, (3) including CHNA into a hospital's operational plan, and (4) developing a budget to address identified needs. We compared progress in communities with the greatest and the fewest health needs using a comprehensive indicator comprising a community's socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, access to medical care, and physical environment.

RESULTS

In 2013, nonprofit hospitals serving communities with the greatest health needs conducted an average of 2.5 of the 4 CHNA activities, whereas hospitals serving communities with the fewest health needs conducted an average of 2.7 activities. Multivariate analysis, however, showed a negative but not significant relationship between the magnitude of a community's health needs and a hospital's progress in implementing comprehensive CHNAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals serving communities with the greatest health needs face high demand for free and reduced-cost care, which may limit their ability to invest more of their community benefit dollars in initiatives aimed at improving the health of the community.

"Top Performing" US Hospitals and the Health Status of Counties they Serve

This study (a) examined the relationships between "top performing" US hospitals and the health status of counties they serve and (b) compared the health status of "top performing" US hospital counties versus that of remaining US counties. Statistical analyses considered US News and World Report Honor Roll ranking data, as a measure of hospital performance, and County Health Rankings (CHR) data, as a measure of county health status. "Top performing" hospital Honor Roll scores were correlated with measures of Clinical Care (p < 0.001). Counties with "top performing" US hospitals presented greater health status with regard to All Health Outcomes (p < 0.001), Length of Life (p < 0.001), Quality of Life (p < 0.001), All Health Factors (p < 0.001), Health Behaviors (p < 0.001), and Clinical Care (p < 0.001), than compared to remaining US counties. Hospital impact on county health status remains primarily recognized in clinical care and not in overall health. Also, counties that contain a "top performing" US hospital tend to present lower health risks to their citizens than compared to other US counties.

The impact of the Affordable Care Act on hospital-led community health evaluation in the U.S. Appalachian Ohio region

In recent years, policy developments in the United States have dramatically changed how nonprofit hospitals interact with surrounding communities. However, despite the importance of these changes encoded in Internal Revenue Service regulations, little is known about how these requirements have affected how nonprofit hospitals are approaching community health evaluation. We present qualitative findings from interviews with hospital employees and consultants overseeing preliminary rounds of community health needs assessments, as required by the Affordable Care Act. The sample comes from the Appalachian region of Ohio, an area targeted because of significant health challenges. Our findings suggest that the Affordable Care Act has led hospitals to formalize their processes, focus on developing an evidence base, cultivate local partnerships, and reflect on the role of the hospital in public health.

Does hospital ownership influence hospital referral region health rankings in the United States

Extensive evidence demonstrates that a hospital's organizational ownership structure impacts its overall performance, but little is known concerning the influence of hospital structure on the health of its community. This paper explores the association between US hospital referral region (HRR) health rankings and hospital ownership and performance. Data from the 2016 Commonwealth Fund Scorecard on Local Health System Performance, the American Hospital Association dataset, and the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing dataset are utilized to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of 36 quality measures across 306 HRRs. Multivariate regression analysis was used to estimate the association among hospital ownership, system performance measures-access and affordability, prevention and treatment, avoidable hospital use and cost, and healthy lives-and performance as measured by value-based purchasing total performance scores. We found that indicators of access and affordability, as well as prevention and treatment, were significantly associated across all 3 hospitals' organizational structures. Hospital referral regions with a greater number of not-for-profit hospitals demonstrated greater indications of access and affordability, as well as better prevention and treatment rankings than for-profit and government hospitals. Hospital referral regions with a greater number of government, nonfederal hospitals had worse scores for healthy lives. Furthermore, the greater the total performance scores score, the better the HRR score on prevention and treatment rankings. The greater the per capita income, the better the score across all 4 dimensions. As such, this inquiry supports the assertion that performance of a local health system is dependent on its community's resources of health care delivery entities and their structure.

Tax-Exempt Hospitals' Investments in Community Health and Local Public Health Spending: Patterns and Relationships

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether tax-exempt hospitals' investments in community health are associated with patterns of governmental public health spending focusing specifically on the relationship between hospitals' community benefit expenditures and the spending patterns of local health departments (LHDs).

STUDY DESIGN

We combined data on tax-exempt hospitals' community benefit spending with data on spending by the corresponding LHD that served the county in which a hospital was located. Data were available for 2 years, 2009 and 2013. Generalized linear regressions were estimated with indicators of hospital community benefit spending as the dependent variable and LHD spending as the key independent variable.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Hospital community benefit spending was unrelated to how much local public health agencies spent, per capita, on public health in their communities.

CONCLUSIONS

Patterns of local public health spending do not appear to impact the investments of tax-exempt hospitals in community health activities. Opportunities may, however, exist for a more active engagement between the public and private sector to ensure that the expenditures of all stakeholders involved in community health improvement efforts complement one another.

The Impact of IRS Tax Policy on Hospital Community Benefit Activities

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.

Managing Gestational Weight Gain: Obstetricians' Perceived Barriers and Interventions

To support optimal health outcomes during pregnancy, understanding obstetricians' (OBs) recommendations for and barriers to managing gestational weight gain (GWG) can benefit childbirth educators. This mailed survey examined OBs' practices (n = 63) for managing GWG along with perceived barriers. The most frequent recommendations were (a) increase activity (76.2%), (b) aerobic activity (63.5%), (c) patient education about weight management (61.9%), (d) increase fiber intake (61.3%), and (e) use of guidelines for weight gain (58.7%). Self-tracking weight gain charts were the least used. Greatest barriers to GWG management were (a) patients not interested in changing behavior (77.8%), (b) high relapse rates (66.7%), (c) lack of community resources (60.3%), (d) patients cannot afford referrals (58.7%), and (e) lack of time (53.9%).

The Progress of US Hospitals in Addressing Community Health Needs

OBJECTIVES

To identify how US tax-exempt hospitals are progressing in regard to community health needs assessment (CHNA) implementation following the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

METHODS

We analyzed data on more than 1500 tax-exempt hospitals in 2013 to assess patterns in CHNA implementation and to determine whether a hospital's institutional and community characteristics are associated with greater progress.

RESULTS

Our findings show wide variation among hospitals in CHNA implementation. Hospitals operating as part of a health system as well as hospitals participating in a Medicare accountable care organization showed greater progress in CHNA implementation whereas hospitals serving a greater proportion of uninsured showed less progress. We also found that hospitals reporting the highest level of CHNA implementation progress spent more on community health improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals widely embraced the regulations to perform a CHNA. Less is known about how hospitals are moving forward to improve population health through the implementation of programs to meet identified community needs.

Accountability for Community Benefit: A Reasonable Expectation for Canadian Hospitals

North American hospitals have historically struggled to engage in prevention and health promotion activities because they have not been incentivized or held accountable for doing so. However, in order to be exempt from federal taxes, 3,000 non-profit hospitals in the US must now regularly assess the health status of the communities they serve, and take action to address identified health needs. This is called "accountability for community benefit," and it is required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare). A modified version of accountability for community benefit warrants exploration in the Canadian context, as it may support Canadian hospitals to direct resources towards prevention and health promotion activities - something many Canadian hospitals want to do, but struggle with in the current accountability environment. This is an important health policy topic because even a small shift in focus by hospitals towards prevention and health promotion has the potential to improve population health and reduce healthcare demand.

Tax-exempt hospitals and community benefit: new directions in policy and practice

The current community benefit standard for nonprofit hospital tax exemption has been the subject of mounting criticism. Many different constituencies have advanced the view that in its present form it fails to ensure that nonprofit hospitals provide adequate benefits to their communities in exchange for their tax exemption. In contrast, hospitals have often expressed the concern that the community benefit standard in its current form is vague and therefore difficult to comply with. Various suggestions have been made regarding how the existing community benefit standard could be improved or even replaced. In this article, we first discuss the historical and legal development of the community benefit standard. We then present the key controversies that have emerged in recent years and the policy responses attempted thus far. Finally, we evaluate possible future policy directions, which reform efforts could follow.

Associations of Provider-to-Population Ratios and Population Health by County-Level Rurality

PURPOSE

To explore the relationship between provider-to-population ratios, rurality and population health in the United States using counties as the unit of analysis.

METHOD

Population ratios for registered nurses (RNs), primary care physicians, and dentists were included in multivariable regression analyses. Population health indices assessed were premature death rate, self-rated health, teen birth rate, and mammography screening rate.

FINDINGS

County levels of health and health care providers per capita declined as rurality increased. In adjusted regression models, the highest RN-to-population ratio was associated with significantly better health measures in most urban/rural categories, with the magnitude of these associations generally increasing as rurality increased. In the smallest rural counties, the highest RN-to-population quartile was associated with 1,655 fewer years of potential life lost (YPLL), 2% lower rates of poor or fair health, 11/1,000 fewer teen births, and 6% more mammography screening relative to the lowest quartile. For primary care physicians, more significant associations were found in medium and small rural counties where the highest quartile was associated with 1,482 fewer YPLL, 3% lower rates of poor or fair health, 7/1,000 fewer teen births, and 4% more mammography screening. The highest quartile of dentist-to-population ratio was generally associated with lower rates of premature death and poor or fair health in urban, large-, and medium-sized rural counties, but not in small rural counties.

CONCLUSIONS

The consistency of the results by provider type suggests that the supply of health care professionals, particularly in rural areas, positively impacts the health of the population.