ライフサイエンスコーパス: not-for-profit

1 InterVentional Advances Physicians (VIVA), a not-for-profit 501c(3) organization, convened the Vascul

2 rtions favoring newer treatments were 39.5%, not-for-profit; 54.4%, jointly funded; and 65.5%, for-pr

3 rtions favoring newer treatments were 50.0%, not-for-profit; 69.2%, jointly funded; and 82.4%, for-pr

4 osts per discharge ($8,115) than did private not-for-profit ($7,490) or public ($6,507) hospitals.

5 18 to 2022, including 1-year follow-up, at a not-for-profit academic health system serving more than

6 asis Working Group with representatives from not-for-profit, academic, government, industry and regul

7 om March 1, 2020, to August 25, 2023, from a not-for-profit, academically affiliated medical system i

8 s in the area were in for-profit hospitals), not-for-profit (all beds were in not-for-profit hospital

9 There were 906 not-for-profit and 1761 for-profit hospices with mean (S

10 e at death was 82.8 (2.3) years, similar for not-for-profit and for-profit hospices.

11 Trials jointly funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organizations appear to re

12 ill-Burton funds, the closings or mergers of not-for-profit and public hospitals, the dominance of co

13 R [aOR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.68) or private not-for-profit (aOR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.48) after adju

14 ding in for-profit areas was greater than in not-for-profit areas in each category of service examine

15 03 for the comparison between for-profit and not-for-profit areas) and home health care (an increase

16 ease of $457 in for-profit areas and $324 in not-for-profit areas, P<0.001).

17 ease of $395 in for-profit areas and $283 in not-for-profit areas, P=0.03 for the comparison between

18 anced Computing in Europe), an international not-for-profit association that brings together the five

19 search Institute (IDRI), which operates as a not-for-profit biotech company, may start to pay off dur

20 facilities and 17.1 for patients treated in not-for-profit centers (adjusted relative hazard, 1.20;

21 Nursing home ownership (for-profit or not-for-profit), chain affiliation, size, Centers for Me

22 ask: What is the effect of for-profit versus not-for-profit delivery of care on patient outcomes?

23 cilities operated by Dialysis Clinic Inc., a not-for-profit dialysis provider, between January 1, 199

24 r some 120 leaders from private, public, and not-for-profit entities, including cancer researchers an

25 it facilities respond more aggressively than not-for-profit facilities to these financial pressures.

26 OPOs are not-for-profit federal contractors with a geographic mon

27 t department ownership status (for-profit vs not-for-profit, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -17.4 [

28 ed the effect of hospital ownership (private not-for-profit, for-profit, and public) on administrativ

29 rican Heart Association (AHA) is the largest not-for-profit funder of cardiovascular and cerebrovascu

30 ween an academic health center and a private not-for-profit health center.

31 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC), a large not-for-profit health plan.

32 for-profit health plans are more likely than not-for-profit health plans to respond to financial ince

33 it health plans than among those enrolled in not-for-profit health plans.

34 in for-profit health plans than they were in not-for-profit health plans; the rates of use of other c

35 decrease affected for-profit HHAs more than not-for-profit HHAs (111-55 days [51% decrease, P =.002]

36 Compared with not-for-profit HMOs, investor-owned plans had lower rate

37 out the quality of these plans compared with not-for-profit HMOs.

38 nic, and White was 4.9%, 0.9%, and 91.4% for not-for-profit hospices and 9.0%, 2.2%, and 85.4% for fo

39 e experiences at for-profit hospices than at not-for-profit hospices for all measures.

40 In contrast, only 113 of 906 (12.5%) not-for-profit hospices scored 3 or more points below th

41 Prior research found that, in contrast to not-for-profit hospices, for-profit hospices focus on de

42 worse care experiences in for-profit than in not-for-profit hospices; however, there was variation in

43 ing in the Northeast or Midwest, and being a not-for-profit hospital.

44 among all households and public and private not-for-profit hospitals in Ghana.

45 hospitals), not-for-profit (all beds were in not-for-profit hospitals), or mixed in 1989, 1992, and 1

46 % +/- 15.9% vs 65.3% +/- 21.3% for community not-for-profit hospitals, p < 0.001).

47 for-profit hospitals than in areas served by not-for-profit hospitals.

48 e spending in areas served by for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals.

49 relative) increase as compared with private not-for-profit hospitals.

50 For-profit hospitals had higher scores than not-for-profit hospitals.

51 tals (145 [55%] with 100-399 beds; 205 [77%] not-for-profit hospitals; 185 [70%] teaching hospitals;

52 centage points, to 24.5 percent, for private not-for-profit hospitals; and by 0.6 percentage point, t

53 In partnership with Project Data Sphere, a not-for-profit initiative allowing data from cancer clin

54 ch 31, 2020, at 18 primary care clinics in a not-for-profit integrated health care delivery system.

55 Private, not-for-profit laboratories were associated with higher

56 rum (NQF) has been established as a private, not-for-profit, open membership, public benefit corporat

57 behavioural intervention designed by Ugandan not-for-profit organisation Raising Voices-could reduce

58 emplar of partnership between for-profit and not-for-profit organisations advancing health-care equit

59 The intervention was implemented by two not-for-profit organisations from September, 2013, to Ma

60 CHDI is a not-for-profit organization focused solely on HD.

61 f Miami and Project Medishare, an affiliated not-for-profit organization, provided a large-scale reli

62 ed by for-profit organizations compared with not-for-profit organizations (33 versus 41; P=0.048).

63 ations compared with 25 for trials funded by not-for-profit organizations (P=0.0006).

64 jointly funded, and 29 for trials funded by not-for-profit organizations (P=0.0007).

65 online platform companies, governments, and not-for-profit organizations when discussing hate speech

66 Of the 104 trials funded solely by not-for-profit organizations, 51 (49%) reported evidence

67 port positive findings than trials funded by not-for-profit organizations, as are trials using surrog

68 port positive findings than trials funded by not-for-profit organizations.

69 of clinical trial results that are funded by not-for-profit organizations.

70 eport positive findings than those funded by not-for-profit organizations.

71 led 1041 incident dialysis patients at 81 US not-for-profit outpatient dialysis clinics from October

72 860 areas where all hospitals remained under not-for-profit ownership ($1,295 vs. $866, P=0.03).

73 860 areas where all hospitals remained under not-for-profit ownership ($4,006 vs. $3,554 in 1989, $4,

74 hip of dialysis facilities, as compared with not-for-profit ownership, is associated with increased m

75 lans had significantly higher rates than the not-for-profit plans for 2 of the 12 procedures we studi

76 mellitus in investor-owned plans vs 47.9% in not-for-profit plans had annual eye examinations (P<.001

77 Investor-owned plans had lower rates than not-for-profit plans of immunization (63.9% vs 72.3%; P<

78 f members in investor-owned HMOs vs 70.6% in not-for-profit plans received a beta-blocker (P<.001); 3

79 lans during 1997, we compared for-profit and not-for-profit plans with respect to rates of cardiac ca

80 be lower in for-profit health plans than in not-for-profit plans.

81 wned HMOs deliver lower quality of care than not-for-profit plans.

82 r that serves poor people in many countries; not-for-profit providers that operate on a range of scal

83 ence were subsequently made available to the not-for-profit research community by Monsanto.

84 senting health, education, food service, and not-for-profit sectors.

85 funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

86 the pharmaceutical industry, government, and not-for-profit sectors; many new opportunities can be an

87 Not-for-profit small-scale production and distribution s

88 size, Medicaid proportion, and for-profit or not-for-profit status.

89 ving undergone OLTX at a single-center urban not-for-profit teaching hospital.

90 33 areas where all hospitals converted from not-for-profit to for-profit ownership grew more rapidly

91 ble as stand-alone programs for academic and not-for-profit users.

92 NMRbox is freely available to not-for-profit users.

93 ll, with shortages of radiologists higher in not-for-profit versus for-profit facilities (60% vs 28%

94 ource (United Kingdom vs non-United Kingdom, not for profit vs commercial), and appropriateness for s

95 Not-for-profit webpages were of significantly greater le