IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v84y2003i2p219-241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two Decades of Research Comparing For‐Profit and Nonprofit Health Provider Performance in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Pauline Vaillancourt Rosenau
  • Stephen H. Linder

Abstract

Objective. This article reports on a systematic review of data‐based, peer‐reviewed scientific assessments of performance differences between private for‐profit and private nonprofit U.S. health care providers published since 1980. Methods. Computerized bibliographic searches of all relevant databases yielded 149 studies (179 assessments) that compared the performance of for‐profit and nonprofit health care providers on four performance criteria (access, quality, cost/efficiency, and/or amount of charity care). Reported findings on performance were coded in one of three ways: for‐profit superiority, nonprofit superiority, or no difference/mixed results. Results. Overall, the nonprofits were judged superior 59 percent of the time, the for‐profits superior only 12 percent of the time, and for the rest (29 percent), no difference was found or results were mixed. Conclusions. Caution is warranted on policies that encourage private for‐profit entities to replace private nonprofit providers of health care services in the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Pauline Vaillancourt Rosenau & Stephen H. Linder, 2003. "Two Decades of Research Comparing For‐Profit and Nonprofit Health Provider Performance in the United States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(2), pages 219-241, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:84:y:2003:i:2:p:219-241
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-6237.8402001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402001
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-6237.8402001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karen Eggleston & Yu-Chu Shen & Joseph Lau & Christopher H. Schmid & Jia Chan, 2008. "Hospital ownership and quality of care: what explains the different results in the literature?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1345-1362.
    2. Karen Eggleston & Yu‐Chu Shen & Joseph Lau & Christopher H. Schmid & Jia Chan, 2008. "Hospital ownership and quality of care: what explains the different results in the literature?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1345-1362, December.
    3. Mati Dubrovinsky & Ralph A. Winter, 2015. "Organizational form and output quality," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 189-206, February.
    4. Haslam Alyson & Nesbit Rebecca & Christensen Robert K., 2019. "The Dynamic Impact of Nonprofit Organizations: Are Health-Related Nonprofit Organizations Associated with Improvements in Obesity at the Community Level?," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, October.
    5. Graddy-Reed, Alexandra, 2020. "Getting ahead in the race for a cure: How nonprofits are financing biomedical R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    6. Manish Mittal & Chih-Hsiung E Wang & Abigail H Goben & Andrew D Boyd, 2018. "Proprietary management and higher readmission rates: A correlation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-8, September.
    7. Ben-Ner Avner & Karaca-Mandic Pinar & Ren Ting, 2012. "Ownership and Quality in Markets with Asymmetric Information: Evidence from Nursing Homes," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-33, October.
    8. Cristian A Herrera & Gabriel Rada & Lucy Kuhn-Barrientos & Ximena Barrios, 2014. "Does Ownership Matter? An Overview of Systematic Reviews of the Performance of Private For-Profit, Private Not-For-Profit and Public Healthcare Providers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Ingrid Gould Ellen & Ioan Voicu, 2006. "Nonprofit housing and neighborhood spillovers," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(1), pages 31-52.
    10. Anderson, Stuart, 2012. "Public, private, neither, both? Publicness theory and the analysis of healthcare organisations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 313-322.
    11. Bayindir, Esra Eren, 2012. "Hospital ownership type and treatment choices," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 359-370.
    12. Youngju Kang & Minyoung Kim & Kwangho Jung, 2020. "The Equity of Health Care Spending in South Korea: Testing the Impact of Publicness," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-20, March.
    13. Jody Sindelar & Todd Olmstead, 2004. "Does the Impact of Managed Care on Substance Abuse Treatment Services Vary By Profit Status?," NBER Working Papers 10745, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Geoffrey M. Kistruck & Paul W. Beamish, 2010. "The Interplay of Form, Structure, and Embeddedness in Social Intrapreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 34(4), pages 735-761, July.
    15. Dewaelheyns, Nico & Eeckloo, Kristof & Van Herck, Gustaaf & Van Hulle, Cynthia & Vleugels, Arthur, 2009. "Do non-profit nursing homes separate governance roles?: The impact of size and ownership characteristics," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(2-3), pages 188-195, May.
    16. Germà Bel & Marc Esteve, 2018. "“Is Private Production of Hospital Services Cheaper than Public Production? A Meta-Regression of Public vs Private Costs and Efficiency for Hospitals”," IREA Working Papers 201824, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Oct 2018.
    17. Sverre Grepperud, 2015. "Is the hospital decision to seek accreditation an effective one?," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 56-68, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:84:y:2003:i:2:p:219-241. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.