Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24567076›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2014

National hospice survey results: for-profit status, community engagement, and service.

Melissa D Aldridge, Mark Schlesinger, Colleen L Barry, R Sean Morrison, Ruth McCorkle, Rosemary Hürzeler, Elizabeth H Bradley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Live Hospice Discharge of Individuals with Cognitive Disabilities: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Patterns and predictors of palliative care use in acute heart failure hospitalizations.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Public Health and Palliative Care.Clinics in geriatric medicine · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Impact of Comorbid Dementia on Patterns of Hospice Use.Journal of palliative medicine · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Melissa D AldridgeDepartment of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Mark SchlesingerDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Colleen L BarryDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
R Sean MorrisonDepartment of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York4Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, New York.
Ruth McCorkleDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Rosemary HürzelerJohn D. Thompson Hospice Institute for Education, Training, and Research, Inc, Branford, Connecticut.
Elizabeth H BradleyDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

Residing in the Community with Dementia at the End of Life: Understanding Hospice Use and Residential SettingP30AG028741 · NIA · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI Claire Kathryn Ankuda · 2010 to 2026
$21.9M
For-Profit Ownership and End-of-Life CareR01CA116398 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI BRADLEY, ELIZABETH HOWE · 2007 to 2009
$1.3M
Understanding Access to Hospice CareK99NR010495 · NINR · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI ALDRIDGE, MELISSA DIANE · 2007 to 2008
$179k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA116398NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028741NINR NIH HHS K99 NR010495
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

IMPORTANCE The impact of the substantial growth in for-profit hospices in the United States on quality and hospice access has been intensely debated, yet little is known about how for-profit and nonprofit hospices differ in activities beyond service delivery. OBJECTIVE To determine the association between hospice ownership and (1) provision of community benefits, (2) setting and timing of the hospice population served, and (3) community outreach. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional survey (the National Hospice Survey), conducted from September 2008 through November 2009, of a national random sample of 591 Medicare-certified hospices operating throughout the United States. EXPOSURES For-profit or nonprofit hospice ownership. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Provision of community benefits; setting and timing of the hospice population served; and community outreach. RESULTS A total of 591 hospices completed our survey (84% response rate). For-profit hospices were less likely than nonprofit hospices to provide community benefits including serving as training sites (55% vs 82%; adjusted relative risk [ARR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.59-0.76]), conducting research (18% vs 23%; ARR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.46-0.99]), and providing charity care (80% vs 82%; ARR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.80-0.96]). For-profit compared with nonprofit hospices cared for a larger proportion of patients with longer expected hospice stays including those in nursing homes (30% vs 25%; P = .009). For-profit hospices were more likely to exceed Medicare's aggregate annual cap (22% vs 4%; ARR, 3.66 [95% CI, 2.02-6.63]) and had a higher patient disenrollment rate (10% vs 6%; P < .001). For-profit were more likely than nonprofit hospices to engage in outreach to low-income communities (61% vs 46%; ARR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44]) and minority communities (59% vs 48%; ARR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.02-1.38]) and less likely to partner with oncology centers (25% vs 33%; ARR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.44-0.80]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Ownership-related differences are apparent among hospices in community benefits, population served, and community outreach. Although Medicare's aggregate annual cap may curb the incentive to focus on long-stay hospice patients, additional regulatory measures such as public reporting of hospice disenrollment rates should be considered as the share of for-profit hospices in the United States continues to increase.

Indexed as

OwnershipCommunity-Institutional RelationsCross-Sectional StudiesHospicesHumansMedicareSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24567076
PMCPMC4315613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.