Lobbying and advocacy for the public's health: what are the limits for nonprofit organizations?
(1/128)
Nonprofit organizations play an important role in advocating for the public's health in the United States. This article describes the rules under US law for lobbying by nonprofit organizations. The 2 most common kinds of non-profits working to improve the public's health are "public charities" and "social welfare organizations." Although social welfare organizations may engage in relatively unlimited lobbying, public charities may not engage in "substantial" lobbying. Lobbying is divided into 2 main categories. Direct lobbying refers to communications with law-makers that take a position on specific legislation, and grassroots lobbying includes attempts to persuade members of the general public to take action regarding legislation. Even public charities may engage in some direct lobbying and a smaller amount of grassroots lobbying. Much public health advocacy, however, is not lobbying, since there are several important exceptions to the lobbying rules. These exceptions include "non-partisan analysis, study, or research" and discussions of broad social problems. Lobbying with federal or earmarked foundation funds is generally prohibited. (+info)
Who is enrolled in for-profit vs. nonprofit Medicare HMOs?
(2/128)
We compare the characteristics of enrollees in for-profit and nonprofit Medicare health plans using nationwide data from the 1996 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. We find few differences in overall health status, limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs), or history of chronic disease. However, older Americans enrolled in for-profit plans are substantially poorer and less educated than those enrolled in nonprofit plans, are more likely to have joined their plan recently, and are more likely to have joined a plan with the expectation of reducing their out-of-pocket health care costs. (+info)
HIV as a chronic disease: implications for long-term care at an AIDS-dedicated skilled nursing facility.
(3/128)
OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of the first 3 years of admissions to a dedicated skilled nursing facility for people with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). METHODS: Systematic chart review of consecutive admissions to a 30-bed, AIDS-designated long-term care facility in New Haven, Connecticut, from October 1995 through December 1998. RESULTS: The facility has remained filled to 90% or more of its bed capacity since opening. Of 180 patients (representing 222 admissions), 69% were male; mean age was 41 years; 57% were injection drug users; 71% were admitted directly from a hospital. Leading reasons for admission were (1) the need for 24-hour nursing/medical supervision, (2) completion of acute medical treatment, and (3) terminal care. On admission, the median Karnofsky score was 40, and median CD4+ cell count was 24/mm3; 48% were diagnosed with serious neurologic disease, 44% with psychiatric illness; patients were receiving a median of 11 medications on admission. Of 202 completed admissions, 44% of patients died, 48% were discharged to the community, 8% were discharged to a hospital. Median length of stay was 59 days (range 1 to 1,353). Early (< or = 6 months) mortality was predicted by lower admission CD4+ count, impairments in activities of daily living, and the absence of a psychiatric history; long-term stay (> 6 months) was predicted by total number of admission medications, neurologic disease, and dementia. Comparison of admissions from 1995 to 1996 to those in 1997 to 1998 indicated significantly decreased mortality rates and increased prevalence of psychiatric illness between the two periods (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated skilled nursing facility for people with AIDS can fill an important service need for patients with advanced disease, acute convalescence, long-term care, and terminal care. The need for long-term care may continue to grow for patients who do not respond fully to current antiretroviral therapies and/or have significant neuropsychiatric comorbidities. This level of care may be increasingly important not only in reducing lengths of stay in the hospital, but also as a bridge to community-based residential options in the emerging chronic disease phase of the AIDS epidemic. (+info)
A participatory approach to sanitation: experience of Bangladeshi NGOs.
(4/128)
This study assesses the role of participatory development programmes in improving sanitation in rural Bangladesh. Data for this study came from a health surveillance system of BRAC covering 70 villages in 10 regions of the country. In-depth interviews were conducted with one adult member of a total of 1556 randomly selected households that provided basic socioeconomic information on the households and their involvement with NGO-led development programmes in the community. The findings reveal that households involved with credit programmes were more likely to use safe latrines than others who were equally poor but not involved in such programmes. The study indicates that an unmet need to build or buy safe and hygienic latrines existed among those who did not own one. Such latent need could be raised further if health education at the grassroots level along with supervised credit supports were provided to them. Unlike conventional belief, the concept of community-managed jointly owned latrines did not seem a very attractive alternative. The study argues that social and behavioural aspects of the participatory development programmes can significantly improve environmental sanitation in a traditional community. (+info)
Accrediting organizations and quality improvement.
(5/128)
This paper reviews the various organizations in the United States that perform accreditation and establish standards for healthcare delivery. These agencies include the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), the American Medical Accreditation Program (AMAP), the American Accreditation HealthCare Commission/Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (AAHC/URAC), and the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory HealthCare (AAAHC). In addition, the Foundation for Accountability (FACCT) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) play important roles in ensuring the quality of healthcare. Each of the accrediting bodies is unique in terms of their mission, activities, compositions of their boards, and organizational histories, and each develops their own accreditation process and programs and sets their own accreditation standards. For this reason, certain accrediting organizations are better suited than others to perform accreditation for a specific area in the healthcare delivery system. The trend toward outcomes research is noted as a clear shift from the structural and process measures historically used by accrediting agencies. Accreditation has been generally viewed as a desirable process to establish standards and work toward achieving higher quality care, but it is not without limitations. Whether accrediting organizations are truly ensuring high quality healthcare across the United States is a question that remains to be answered. (+info)
For-profit and not-for-profit health plans participating in Medicaid.
(6/128)
The proliferation of for-profit health plans has heightened concerns about quality of care, particularly with respect to Medicaid. We undertook this study to compare for-profit and not-for-profit health plans that participate in Medicaid, examining processes of care and the organizational characteristics related to utilization management, financial incentives, and quality of care. Our findings demonstrate that for-profit and not-for-profit plans appear to be more similar than dissimilar in many areas of management, although for-profit plans are more likely to use aggressive utilization review and have slightly less developed quality management systems. On balance, these findings should reassure critics of for-profit health care. (+info)
Complementary and alternative medicine use among health plan members. A cross-sectional survey.
(7/128)
CONTEXT. Many health plans have started to cover the cost of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). National survey data indicate that CAM use is highly prevalent among adults. However, little is known about CAM use among health plan members. OBJECTIVE: To describe CAM users, the prevalence of CAM use, and how CAM use relates to utilization of conventional preventive services and health care satisfaction among health plan members. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mail survey in 1997. SETTING: Managed care organization in Minnesota. SAMPLE: Random sample of health plan members aged 40 and older stratified by number of chronic diseases; 4404 (86%) of the 5107 returned completed questionnaires. MEASURES: Use of CAM, patient characteristics (e.g., chronic diseases, health status), health behaviors (e.g., smoking, diet, exercise), and interaction with conventional health care (e.g., use of preventive services, having a primary care doctor, health care satisfaction). RESULTS: Overall, 42% reported the use of at least one CAM therapy; the most common were relaxation techniques (18%), massage (12%), herbal medicine (10%), and megavitamin therapy (9%). Perceived efficacy of CAM ranged from 76% (hypnosis) to 98% (energy healing). CAM users tended to be female, younger, better educated, and employed. Users of CAM reported more physical and emotional limitations, more pain, and more dysthymia but were not more likely to have a chronic condition. CAM users were slightly more likely to have a primary care provider (86% vs. 82% had chosen a primary care provider; P =0.014) and had more favorable health-related behaviors. CAM users and nonusers were equally likely to use conventional preventive services and were equally satisfied with their health plan. CONCLUSION: CAM use is highly prevalent among health plan members. CAM users report more physical and emotional limitations than do nonusers. CAM does not seem to be a substitute for conventional preventive health care. (+info)
Competitive behavior in the HMO marketplace.
(8/128)
Are health maintenance organizations (HMOs) less profitable in more competitive markets, and does competition erode unusually high profits over time? To answer these questions, we examined profit rates (as a proportion of revenues) in 1994 and 1997 for all HMOs in 259 metropolitan areas. We found that profits were significantly lower on average in 1994 in markets with more competition, measured alternatively by the number of HMOs or their market concentration. We also found that there was no relationship between a market's relative profit ranking in 1994 and its ranking in 1997; highly profitable markets were not able to preserve their relative standing. Neither the proportion of HMO enrollees in for-profit HMOs nor HMO market penetration was significantly related to profit rates. (+info)