Study says "For Profit" hospitals cost more than non-profits

[Kuciwalker]

How so, exactly? Regulation that made such a venture unprofitable?

[Spiffor]

No idea, so here's a post consisting of maybes.

Maybe a regulation that made such a venture unprofitable (disappearance of subsidies + hefty taxes)
Maybe a regulation that made such a venture forbidden
Maybe a regulation that forced hospitals to be effectively non profit, such as regulation of the prices, and of the missions.

[KrazyHorse]

Maybe a regulation that forced hospitals to be effectively non profit, such as regulation of the prices, and of the missions.

Ding ding ding

[KrazyHorse]

Most importantly though is the federal government providing a large share of the costs incurred in public health care if provinces agree to sign the Canada Health Act. This health act means that there is a zero cost high quality option available to consumers through the single payer system.

In addition there are certain restrictions placed on whatever private health care facilities exist (such as what services they may provide).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich
What kept the same thing from happening to the Canadian hostpitals as the American?

Canada has state paid health care. I'm not positive, but my guess would be that the hospitals in Canada are government owned. I could be wrong though.

[Spiffor]

nice Avatar, Krazyhorse

[Spiffor]

BTW, I'm always in awe at the idea that Canada managed to be a civilized and sane country despite being located in North America

[KrazyHorse]

Not sure what the actual technicalities are. Some hospitals may be owned by the provincial government. Some may be owned by nonprofits. Either way almost all of their revenue (exceptions are for non-Canadian residents who do not have health cards and for certain services even for Canadian residents) comes from the provincial government (who is in turn compensated for a large portion of this expenditure by the federal government).

EDIT: in reality hospitals are basically the territory of the provinces, wherever the legal ownership resides.

[KrazyHorse]

I believe that if a Quebec resident is treated in an Albertan hospital the Quebec government pays the cost of the treatment to Alberta. Not 100% sure.

[Harry Tuttle]

While it is true in most cases in the US that for-profits are less efficient than non-profits, it is in a way comparing apples to oranges.

Non-profits benefit from a myriad of government programs, grant funding, and well-meaning donors. For-profits, on the other hand, have to raise their funding through private investors or through pure profit.

The article states that for-profits have higher death rates. Well, the problem with that fact is that it is more or less misleading. Higher death rates do not necessarily mean that the quality of care in a hospital is terrible. The fact is, because of the industry, where usually a large non-profit hospital system dominates a region, for-profits must scrounge for patients. Most notably this can be achieved by creating a patient base that consists of those using Medicare, Medicaid, or another low income health care program run by that home state. On average, those that can barely afford healthcare, usually are not in that great of health. Sad fact, but true.

The statement about the admin costs are true though. Because of the lack of a solid foundation for for-profits to thrive it is a bit riskier to work for a for-profit hospital. So, obviously, in order to lure doctors and specialists a for-profit has to offer higher salaries.

Basically, it all comes down to the fact that non-profits are better funded. For-profits that can be termed hospitals, as in "full on care facilities" just can't compete. Running a 500 bed facility and keeping it filled is not an easy task, especially when there is no endowment.

I'd like to see a report on preventive care facilties or on large specialty care facilities and see which is more efficient, non or for profit.

[KrazyHorse]

Non-profits benefit from a myriad of government programs, grant funding, and well-meaning donors. For-profits, on the other hand, have to raise their funding through private investors or through pure profit.

They don't measure cost efficiency from the revenue side; they measure it from the expenditure side, so this argument is irrelevant.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Aeson
Exactly Spiffor!

CostOfProduction = Price1
CostOfProduction + Profit = Price2

It's a bit more complicated than that.

CostOfProduction is a variable, one of the things it depends on is the condition of the market.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I believe that if a Quebec resident is treated in an Albertan hospital the Quebec government pays the cost of the treatment to Alberta. Not 100% sure.

No, this was a topic of controversy. Quebec residents are billed directly, and then the Quebec government pays them back. Some kind of technicality. Quebec is the exception.

[KrazyHorse]

Really? I'm assuming that the bill does not have to be paid out of the patient's pocket (i.e. you simply forward the bill to the Quebec government which then pays Alberta).

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
They don't measure cost efficiency from the revenue side; they measure it from the expenditure side, so this argument is irrelevant.

KrazyHorse, the funding pays the bills for the hospital supplies and the procedures. The funding pays the bills! The funding doesn't count as revenue, it's in the form of reimbursements!