Rural nonprofit hospital community benefit and financial assistance spending: A call for greater reporting transparency

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Hannah MacDougall PhD, Melissa Latcham MSW, Erica Eliason PhD
{"title":"Rural nonprofit hospital community benefit and financial assistance spending: A call for greater reporting transparency","authors":"Hannah MacDougall PhD,&nbsp;Melissa Latcham MSW,&nbsp;Erica Eliason PhD","doi":"10.1111/jrh.12914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>US nonprofit hospitals must provide community benefits including financial assistance to be tax-exempt. Rural residents particularly benefit from financial assistance because they have higher medical debt on average. The Internal Revenue Service allows nonprofit hospitals that are members of health systems to report expenditures for their entire system (group returns) rather than for individual hospitals. Our study examined how (if at all) rural nonprofit hospitals filing group returns are different than those filing individual returns.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We used 2021 data extracted from Community Benefit Insight and the American Hospital Association for 100 rural nonprofit hospitals in Wisconsin and Minnesota. We conducted bivariate analyses examining differences in mean total community benefit spending and mean financial assistance spending as a percentage of total operating expenses for hospitals filing individual versus group returns. We conducted multivariable regression models examining the association of filing group returns and individual returns with community benefit spending and financial assistance spending.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>Bivariate analysis revealed significant differences between group return hospitals and individual return hospitals in spending on community benefits (5.81% vs. 9.49%, respectively) and on financial assistance (0.36% vs. 0.71% respectively). Multivariable regression demonstrated filing group returns is significantly negatively associated with community benefit expenditures (<i>β</i> = –2.90, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) and financial assistance expenditures (<i>β</i> = –0.31, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In our sample, filing group returns was associated with less spending on community benefits and financial assistance. To understand this finding, researchers need data on individual hospital spending to increase transparency and accountability.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11724223/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.12914","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

US nonprofit hospitals must provide community benefits including financial assistance to be tax-exempt. Rural residents particularly benefit from financial assistance because they have higher medical debt on average. The Internal Revenue Service allows nonprofit hospitals that are members of health systems to report expenditures for their entire system (group returns) rather than for individual hospitals. Our study examined how (if at all) rural nonprofit hospitals filing group returns are different than those filing individual returns.

Methods

We used 2021 data extracted from Community Benefit Insight and the American Hospital Association for 100 rural nonprofit hospitals in Wisconsin and Minnesota. We conducted bivariate analyses examining differences in mean total community benefit spending and mean financial assistance spending as a percentage of total operating expenses for hospitals filing individual versus group returns. We conducted multivariable regression models examining the association of filing group returns and individual returns with community benefit spending and financial assistance spending.

Findings

Bivariate analysis revealed significant differences between group return hospitals and individual return hospitals in spending on community benefits (5.81% vs. 9.49%, respectively) and on financial assistance (0.36% vs. 0.71% respectively). Multivariable regression demonstrated filing group returns is significantly negatively associated with community benefit expenditures (β = –2.90, p < 0.05) and financial assistance expenditures (β = –0.31, p < 0.01).

Conclusion

In our sample, filing group returns was associated with less spending on community benefits and financial assistance. To understand this finding, researchers need data on individual hospital spending to increase transparency and accountability.

农村非营利性医院社区福利和财政援助支出:呼吁提高报告透明度。
目的:美国非营利性医院必须提供包括财政援助在内的社区福利才能免税。农村居民尤其受益于财政援助,因为他们的平均医疗债务更高。美国国税局允许作为卫生系统成员的非营利性医院报告其整个系统的支出(集团回报),而不是单个医院的支出。我们的研究考察了(如果有的话)农村非营利医院提交集体申报与提交个人申报有何不同。方法:我们使用了从社区福利洞察和美国医院协会提取的2021年数据,用于威斯康星州和明尼苏达州的100家农村非营利医院。我们进行了双变量分析,检查了提交个人和团体回报的医院的平均总社区福利支出和平均财政援助支出占总运营支出的百分比的差异。我们进行了多变量回归模型,检验了团体报税和个人报税与社区福利支出和财政援助支出之间的关系。结果:双变量分析显示,团体返回医院和个体返回医院在社区福利支出(分别为5.81%对9.49%)和财政援助支出(分别为0.36%对0.71%)方面存在显著差异。多变量回归表明,申报组收益与社区福利支出(β = -2.90, p < 0.05)和财政援助支出(β = -0.31, p < 0.01)呈显著负相关。结论:在我们的样本中,提交团体申报表与较少的社区福利和财政援助支出有关。为了理解这一发现,研究人员需要有关个别医院支出的数据,以提高透明度和问责制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Rural Health
Journal of Rural Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信