Hacker News Reader

Comment by galangalalgol | Hacker News Reader

What about the incentive for non profit hospitals to grow so that they can better compensate leadership, resulting in capital that must be spent on facilities and equipment to retain non profit status. Leading to a spiral?

It is hard to compare details of the systems and outcomes across countries, but surely we can find where the money apent ends up? Construction firms? Doctors? Equipment manufacturers? Hospital administration?

View on HN

Is there a rule that says a certain percentage of revenue must be spent on a facility to retain non-profit status? It can be spent on equipment and salaries, both of which would benefit much more than upgrading the building to no patient care benefit.

This is anecdotal but the number one complaint I've heard from physicians about patient care is facilities being run and and managed by non-clinical MPH/MHA "business types" whose primary focus is almost invariably cutting costs, increasing physician workloads, and fighting salary increases tooth and nail.

No, but there is a "rule of thumb" that a hospital will prefer private insurance patients to medicaid patients (due to reimbursement), and private insurance patients will go to hospitals with newer and nicer facilities. If you want the elective hip replacement patient, then having a newly remodeled orthopedic ward / office building is critical. Patients probably can't tell one doctor or nurse from another, and hospitals don't advertise on actual quality measurements like staffing ratios...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com