It was fascinating to find out which areas of health care nonprofits dominate and which areas for-profit do, in this week’s chapter reading. In the breakdown between ambulatory or outpatient care versus nursing/residential care it was kind of surprising that the nonprofit sector dominates ambulatory, but nor residential care (94). It came as a surprise because I had held the bias in the opposite direction prior to this reading. I am not entirely sure where this thought originated, perhaps I thought that the work of residential care requires more compassion, time and effort, thus would make more sense to be predominantly nonprofit oriented. Biases aside, I think that nonprofits motivate people to do good work, and that no matter what the care is geared toward (inpatient or outpatient), they probably do a better job for reasons discussed in class and among our various blogs (i.e. more compassionate workers, serve the public, not aimed at making a buck, etc). Altogether I came away from the chapter with all other assumptions intact.
After reading the article about mergers (Mergers of For-profit, Nonprofit Hospitals: Who Does it Help?) of for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, I am left with the debate on my mind, would the benefits of a merger outweigh the costs? For the most part the answer appears to be yes. As long as these hospitals do not change the way they serve patients, then it seems like a win-win situation. The hospitals will receive renovations, the customers that have moved to peripheral locations because they desired different types of services can go back to the most convenient location, and most importantly people continue to receive care. My opinion was influenced once more when I finished the next two readings on 1) the Green Bay Packers, and 2) the dangers of mergers of for-profits and nonprofits (The Value of Nonprofit Healthcare).
This article’s outline of facts regarding the variety of care and the quality of that work, which often overshadows the performance of the for-profit sector, leaves the reader with an uplifting sense of the achievement for nonprofit healthcare. So, this is where I struggle a bit. Are these articles totally biased toward their respective stances on the topic (I can only assume they are), and what is the real truth here? How can they be both, lacking serious resources but putting out so much good work at the same time? Certainly, there are good examples and bad examples of both for-profit and nonprofit health institutions, so, what would be the overall gain of remaining separated? After reading these materials, I feel the overarching reason is service to the lower class, the fact that nonprofits do NOT turn anyone away is huge, not to mention the kinds of services they provide that, as mentioned in the Mergers article, were not offered from the for-profit hospitals. I kind of feel like I am jumping on a band wagon of painting the for-profit institutions as bad guys trying to buy up all our sweet hard working nonprofits, but I find it deeply sickening that in the name of profit, these places have implemented policies of turning away patients who have lost the ability to pay the exorbitant prices for health or recovery.
Some mixed media here for you, related to this weeks readings:
1) A short article about a nonprofit hospital in CO that is doing really well, both fiscally and with respect to quality care provided.
2) A video from ted.com (one of my favorites for videos) discussing some notes that nonprofits can be taking from for-profit corporations to boost support for and use of nonprofits.
Lastly, the ADD article assigned was nice because it sums up a lot of thoughts I hold toward the subject. Mostly, I think that this is something that is being over diagnosed and that it may actually be a variety of sources that are eliciting the same behavior in people who are diagnosed. Our culture is one that seeks out a “cure” for any stray from “normality”. We (as well as other cultures) have a long history of epidemics in the health world, especially within mental health. I think this is just another one. This is not to say that people suffering from symptoms/behaviors that are making daily life difficult on them do not deserve treatment, but to say that one treatment does not suit all.
If we cured all "abnormalities" then we would all be the same and that is boring. In one of my psych classes a good point was raised; would we have the art, science, and other radical things we have today if all of the people we consider today to be mentally ill were medicated to be "normal"? I think not.
ReplyDeleteI am also kind of confused about the hospital issues. I said in my blog that maybe the for-profit hospitals should pay more attention to the ways the non profit hospitals are operating. They operate with less overhead and better service. It seems that if they keep the non profit services while adding in some elective services into the same hospital they can serve the poor and the rich at the same time. That would be a win-win.
I agree with your thoughts on for profit hospitals. That reading reminded me of all the buzz about for profit colleges like the online University of Phoenix. Yes for profit schools and hospitals are painted in a negative light, and rightfully so, but it if wasn't for my financial aid, I wouldn't not be able to afford this nonprofit university. Nonprofit hospitals may not turn anyone away but these people are still being served with outrageous medical bills and people are going bankrupt trying to pay them down. So how much money are these non-profits really saving us?
ReplyDeleteI thought the readings on for profits and nonprofit hospitals were conflicting. This is where I really wish we had an updated text book. It was my take from the textbook that the profit vs nonprofit hospital ratio has stayed fairly consistent. Yet the article "Merger in Michigan" made it sound like there is a huge movement of nonprofit hospitals converting to for profits. I think your right in pointing out the bias of the article. We may have read a "sensationalistic" piece of reporting on the matter.
ReplyDeleteI think either type of hospital can provide decent care. The people running the nonprofits have better statistics due to the fact that they are there because they care and love what they do, not just to show up and get a paycheck or make a profit for their stockholders, as is the case in for-profits.
The article about the merger also raised questions for me and I'm still not sure who benefits more. I know that a for-profit hospital can provide excellent care from personal experience but at what cost to the employees. Everyone has made the point that people in the non-profit health care industry do what they do because they care, which may be true but what if those people also know that it's a growing, successful industry? And they're just making the right career move for themselves?
ReplyDelete