Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

It is possible to do the right thing without the promise of a cookie.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

You cannot shame the shameless.

We still have time to mess this up!

Lick the third rail, it tastes like chocolate!

When you’re a Republican, they let you do it.

Fight for a just cause, love your fellow man, live a good life.

We will not go quietly into the night; we will not vanish without a fight.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

’Where will you hide, Roberts, the laws all being flat?’

The revolution will be supervised.

If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

People are complicated. Love is not.

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

These are not very smart people, and things got out of hand.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

“Facilitate” is an active verb, not a weasel word.

DeSantis transforming Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

When we show up, we win.

You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Data hunt bleg

Data hunt bleg

by | 13 Comments

This post is in: 

This is a research information bleg.

Martin Gaynor linked to a very interesting study from 1998.

 

It was an examination of Medicare data and how prices varied or not varied between ownership structures.

For a set of Medicare medical shock events, there was no statistically significant difference on costs for patients for six months at either private, for profit hospitals and non-profit hospitals.

This was very interesting to me as I have the same thoughts on insurance company ownership and surplus distribution structures.

My biggest problem with using this study to confirm my priors is that the data is old and the US hospital landscape has changed dramatically.

Does anyone know if there are similar types of studies with much more recent data?

Reader Interactions

13Comments

  3. 3.

    Eric U.

    my cynical take on this subject is that the so-called “non-profits” are just spending money on executive compensation, hookers and blow. The NFL is a non-profit

  7. 7.

    Doctor Science

    A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing mortality rates of private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals says “private for-profit hospitals were associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of death”. Their follow-up study says

    private for-profit hospitals employed less highly skilled health professionals, and there is a demonstrable association between health professionals’ skill level and patient mortality. Therefore, even if the private for-profit hospitals do not pressure their health professionals to balance their clinical judgement against the return to shareholders, the lower skill level provides one explanation for the largely consistent higher mortality rates in private for-profit hospitals.

  8. 8.

    elm

    I hate to break it to you, Richard, but you’re the best-informed and most sane person here.

  11. 11.

    jl

    California yanked the non-profit status of the Blues recently, or whatever it is named now. The state concluded that its behavior was indistinguishable from a for-profit enterprise. Probably some public analysis on that decision.

  12. 12.

    jl

    @jl: Edit button disappeared. I meant to type:

    ” California yanked the non-profit status of ONE of the Blues recently, “

Comments are closed.