At the end of the 1990s, based on data from two major studies of end-of-life (EOL) care, the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment (SUPPORT), and the Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project (HELP), a consensus panel report documented the problems and needs of patients with cancer and other life-limiting diagnoses at end-of-life. A national program of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), Promoting Excellence in End-of-Life Care, attempted to address these needs by funding demonstration projects to test various approaches to improve identified deficits. In 1998, Project ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise Before Life Ends), one of four RWJF-funded cancer center/hospice collaborations of the Promoting Excellence program, began to address these issues. The jointly sponsored Norris Cotton Cancer Center (NCCC)/Hospice of Vermont and New Hampshire (Hospice VNH) program provided an integrated approach to the management of life-limiting cancer. Project ENABLE was aimed at alleviating the symptoms of disease and treatment, enhancing clinician and patient/family communication, offering support for families, friends and other caregivers, addressing emotional and spiritual needs of dying people and providing conceptual and administrative structure to provide EOL care consistent with patients' values and preferences. Although patient symptom data is not yet available, other measures of success included improved access to hospice and palliative care services from the time of diagnosis and a sustained palliative care program at two of the three sites in which the program was implemented.

Health policy makers, legislators, providers, payers, and a broad range of other players in the health care market routinely seek information on hospital financial performance. Yet the data at their disposal are limited, especially since hospitals' audited financial statements--the "gold standard" in hospital financial reporting--are not publicly available in many states. As a result, the Medicare Cost Report (MCR), filed annually by most U.S. hospitals in order to receive payment for treating Medicare patients, has become the primary public source of hospital financial information. However, financial accounting elements in the MCR are unreliable, poorly defined, and lacking in critical detail. Comparative analyses of MCRs and matched, audited financial statements reveal long-standing problems with the MCR's data, including major differences in reported profits; variations in the reporting of both revenues and expenses; an absence of relevant details, such as charity care, bad debt, operating versus nonoperating income, and affiliate transactions; an inconsistent classification of changes in net assets; and a failure to provide cash flow statements. Because of these problems, MCR financial data give only a limited and often inaccurate picture of the financial position of hospitals. Audited financial statements provide a more complete perspective, enabling analysts to address important questions left unanswered by the MCR data. Regulatory action is needed to create a national database of financial information based upon audited statements.

Many countries with universal health systems have relied primarily on publicly-owned hospitals to provide acute care services to covered populations; however, many policymakers have experimented with expansion of the private sector for what they hope will yield more cost-effective care. The study provides new insight into the effects of hospital privatization in three American states (California, Florida, and Massachusetts) in the period 1994 to 2003, focusing on three aspects: 1) profitability; 2) productivity and efficiency; and 3) benefits to the community (particularly, scope of services offered, price level, and impact on charity care). For each variable analyzed, we compared the 3-year mean values pre- and postconversion. Pre- and postconversion changes in hospitals' performance were then compared with a nonequivalent comparison group of American public hospitals. The results of our study indicate that following privatization, hospitals increased operating margins, reduced their length of stay, and enjoyed higher occupancy, but at some possible cost to access to care for their communities in terms of higher price markups and loss of beneficial but unprofitable services.

The tax exemption accorded private, nonprofit hospitals is being subjected to more scrutiny as the numbers of uninsured grow; meanwhile, charity care competes with market-driven priorities. Current public policies tie hospital tax exemption to the provision of charity care, but there is a gap in the size and distribution of values between tax exemption and the charity care that is provided. Most hospitals, in a study reported here, provided free care at a level below the value of their tax exemption, even when 50 percent of bad debt was included in the care value. However, hospitals in the poorest communities offered considerably more care than the value of their tax exemption, whereas those in wealthier communities offered considerably less. Policies at local, state, and federal levels should be designed to exert leverage on hospitals to provide free care at a level commensurate with the value of their tax exemptions.