{"title":"非营利组织在美国能跟上步伐吗?老年人全包护理计划的未来及其对其他医疗弱势群体服务计划的影响。","authors":"Lori Gonzalez","doi":"10.1177/0020731420963946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) has provided, for more than 4 decades, high-quality, cost-effective medical and social care to older people in the United States under nonprofit ownership. Recent rulings by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, will fundamentally change the initial intent and operation of the program. CMS's final rule (4168-F) removes the provision that PACE operators be nonprofit. This article provides the legislative background for the final ruling and critiques the study that was used to justify the removal of the nonprofit provision. Although the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 listed a number of requirements for evaluating for-profit PACE programs, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services did not follow them before establishing for-profit PACE sites as permanent providers. It also argues that the ruling was made without much evidence that for-profit compared to nonprofit operators can provide a similar level of quality of care, access, and cost-effectiveness and urges policymakers to increase regulatory accountability, given what we know about other shifts in profit status and health care.</p>","PeriodicalId":54959,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Services","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0020731420963946","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Will For-Profits Keep Up the Pace in the United States? The Future of the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly and Implications for Other Programs Serving Medically Vulnerable Populations.\",\"authors\":\"Lori Gonzalez\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0020731420963946\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) has provided, for more than 4 decades, high-quality, cost-effective medical and social care to older people in the United States under nonprofit ownership. Recent rulings by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, will fundamentally change the initial intent and operation of the program. CMS's final rule (4168-F) removes the provision that PACE operators be nonprofit. This article provides the legislative background for the final ruling and critiques the study that was used to justify the removal of the nonprofit provision. Although the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 listed a number of requirements for evaluating for-profit PACE programs, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services did not follow them before establishing for-profit PACE sites as permanent providers. It also argues that the ruling was made without much evidence that for-profit compared to nonprofit operators can provide a similar level of quality of care, access, and cost-effectiveness and urges policymakers to increase regulatory accountability, given what we know about other shifts in profit status and health care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Health Services\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0020731420963946\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Health Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731420963946\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/10/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Services","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731420963946","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/10/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Will For-Profits Keep Up the Pace in the United States? The Future of the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly and Implications for Other Programs Serving Medically Vulnerable Populations.
The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) has provided, for more than 4 decades, high-quality, cost-effective medical and social care to older people in the United States under nonprofit ownership. Recent rulings by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, will fundamentally change the initial intent and operation of the program. CMS's final rule (4168-F) removes the provision that PACE operators be nonprofit. This article provides the legislative background for the final ruling and critiques the study that was used to justify the removal of the nonprofit provision. Although the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 listed a number of requirements for evaluating for-profit PACE programs, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services did not follow them before establishing for-profit PACE sites as permanent providers. It also argues that the ruling was made without much evidence that for-profit compared to nonprofit operators can provide a similar level of quality of care, access, and cost-effectiveness and urges policymakers to increase regulatory accountability, given what we know about other shifts in profit status and health care.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Health Services is a peer-reviewed journal that contains articles on health and social policy, political economy and sociology, history and philosophy, ethics and law in the areas of health and well-being. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).