MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033945397 · doi:10.5430/jha.v3n3p7

Not-for-profit hospitals’ provision of community benefit during the 2008 recession: An analysis of hospitals in Maryland

2013· article· en· W2033945397 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecessionBusinessHealth careCommunity healthPopulationMedicineFinanceEnvironmental healthEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 2008 recession, many U.S. hospitals had to lay off staff and cut services to reduce costs, yet little is known about how these cuts affected hospitals’ provision of community benefits. While the need for charitable programs and services grew during this economically difficult time, financial pressures may have forced hospitals to cut back on their community benefit spending. Using data for not-for-profit hospitals in the state of Maryland for the years 2006 to 2010, this study explored whether, and if so how, hospitals changed their provision of community benefit during the 2008 recession. The findings showed that, on average, Maryland hospitals increased their charitable activities during the recent recession. Between 2006 and 2010, total spending on community benefits grew from an average of 5.6% to 7.7% of operating expenses with the most substantial growth in hospitals’ provision of charity care and mission-driven health services. Panel regression analysis showed that this increase in charitable activity was associated with increases in community need. Hospitals’ financial performance, on the other hand, was unrelated to their community benefit spending. These findings indicate that even in times of constrained budgets, Maryland hospitals provided substantial amounts of community benefit in response to the needs of the communities they serve. Hospital-based community benefit programs thus have the potential to play an important role in on-going community-wide efforts aimed at reducing the burden of illness and improving population health.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207