An Examination of Florida Hospices: Does For-Profit or Nonprofit Status Impact the Quality of Patient Care?

An Examination of Florida Hospices: Does For-Profit or Nonprofit Status Impact the Quality of Patient Care?

Bettina Mrusek Ph.D.

Contact

Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University

An Examination of Florida Hospices: Does For-Profit or Nonprofit Status Impact the Quality of Patient Care?

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

Q3LLQ

An Examination of Florida Hospices: Does For-Profit or Nonprofit Status Impact the Quality of Patient Care? Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground

Abstract

When the Medicare Hospice Benefit program was initially introduced, the market was dominated by non-profit hospices. Today, however, this is no longer the case. Although nonprofits are often associated with a higher quality of care, the financial incentives created by the Medicare Hospice Benefit program have resulted with a for-profit dominated market. The specific problem examined was the impact of organizational constructs on the quality of patient care in the state of Florida. The purpose of this study was to determine whether any significant differences were present in the quality of hospice patient care resulting from differing ownership types utilizing a Contingency Theory approach. A quantitative comparative analysis was conducted utilizing descriptive statistics and ANOVA analyses. The participants for the study included all licensed Florida hospices that submitted the State of Florida Department of Elder Affairs Hospice Demographic and Outcome Measures Report between 2010 and 2015. The findings indicated an underrepresentation of for-profit hospices in the state of Florida, with no statistically significant differences between the quality of care in for-profit and nonprofit hospices. Both of these findings are inconsistent with previous research.

References

14 Cites in Article

Reference Format

T Black (1999). Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences: An Integrated Approach to Research Design, Measurement and Statistics.
Maureen Canavan,Melissa Aldridge Carlson,Heather Sipsma,Elizabeth Bradley (2013). Hospice for Nursing Home Residents: Does Ownership Type Matter?.
S Gandhi (2012). Differences between nonprofit and for-profit hospices: Patient selection and quality.
M Hughes,T Smith (2014). The growth of palliative care in the United States.
(2015). Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Fred Luthans,Todd Stewart (1977). A General Contingency Theory of Management.
(2015). Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).
Kelly Noe,Dana Forgione (2014). Economic incentives in the hospice care setting: A comparison of for-profit and nonprofit providers.
T Ricketts (2011). The health care workforce: Will it be ready as the boomers age? A review of how we can know (or not know) the answer.
Andy Sharma (2015). Appreciating migration flows for health/social services planning: A case study of older adults leaving from New York to Florida.
Donald Taylor (2013). Medicare as Insurance Innovator.
J Thompson,A Carlson,M Bradley,E (2012). US hospice industry experienced considerable turbulence from changes in ownership, growth, and shift to for-profit status.
P Vogt (2007). Quantitative Research Methods for Professionals.
Melissa Wachterman,Edward Marcantonio,Roger Davis,Ellen Mccarthy (2011). Association of Hospice Agency Profit Status With Patient Diagnosis, Location of Care, and Length of Stay.

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Bettina Mrusek. 2017. \u201cAn Examination of Florida Hospices: Does For-Profit or Nonprofit Status Impact the Quality of Patient Care?\u201d. Global Journal of Management and Business Research - A: Administration & Management GJMBR-A Volume 17 (GJMBR Volume 17 Issue A6).

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

GJMBR Volume 17 Issue A6

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJMBR

Print ISSN 0975-5853

e-ISSN 2249-4588

Keywords

Not Found

Classification

GJMBR-A Classification JEL Code: M10

Submission ReceivedDecember 13, 2016
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted January 3, 2017
Published January 15, 2017

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

October 23, 2017

Language

Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 131

Country: United States

Subject: Global Journal of Management and Business Research - A: Administration & Management

Authors: Bettina Mrusek (PhD/Dr. count: 0)

View Count (all-time): 169

Total Views (Real + Logic): 3123

Total Downloads (simulated): 1459

Publish Date: 2017 10, Mon

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 34 views
Month 2: 43 views
Month 3: 49 views
Month 4: 23 views
Month 5: 19 views
Month 6: 35 views
Month 7: 29 views
Month 8: 38 views
Month 9: 47 views
Month 10: 27 views
Month 11: 19 views
Month 12: 24 views
Month 13: 34 views
Month 14: 22 views
Month 15: 23 views
Month 16: 31 views
Month 17: 11 views
Month 18: 31 views
Month 19: 30 views
Month 20: 19 views
Month 21: 23 views
Month 22: 23 views
Month 23: 25 views
Month 24: 28 views
Month 25: 39 views
Month 26: 28 views
Month 27: 37 views
Month 28: 22 views
Month 29: 15 views
Month 30: 32 views
Month 31: 35 views
Month 32: 41 views
Month 33: 26 views
Month 34: 37 views
Month 35: 34 views
Month 36: 38 views
Month 37: 31 views
Month 38: 27 views
Month 39: 16 views
Month 40: 35 views
Month 41: 30 views
Month 42: 22 views
Month 43: 36 views
Month 44: 47 views
Month 45: 31 views
Month 46: 15 views
Month 47: 20 views
Month 48: 32 views
Month 49: 42 views
Month 50: 27 views
Month 51: 27 views
Month 52: 13 views
Month 53: 31 views
Month 54: 29 views
Month 55: 27 views
Month 56: 26 views
Month 57: 20 views
Month 58: 25 views
Month 59: 21 views
Month 60: 32 views
Month 61: 30 views
Month 62: 33 views
Month 63: 33 views
Month 64: 21 views
Month 65: 34 views
Month 66: 25 views
Month 67: 23 views
Month 68: 42 views
Month 69: 21 views
Month 70: 20 views
Month 71: 33 views
Month 72: 44 views
Month 73: 27 views
Month 74: 23 views
Month 75: 15 views
Month 76: 18 views
Month 77: 21 views
Month 78: 28 views
Month 79: 22 views
Month 80: 47 views
Month 81: 17 views
Month 82: 36 views
Month 83: 31 views
Month 84: 37 views
Month 85: 33 views
Month 86: 33 views
Month 87: 31 views
Month 88: 32 views
Month 89: 34 views
Month 90: 12 views
Month 91: 19 views
Month 92: 19 views
Month 93: 27 views
Month 94: 30 views
Month 95: 37 views
Month 96: 32 views
Month 97: 28 views
Month 98: 37 views
Month 99: 26 views
Month 100: 45 views
Month 101: 41 views
Month 102: 55 views
Month 103: 27 views

Total Views: 3123

Total Downloads: 1459

2026 Trends

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]