ライフサイエンスコーパス: for-profit

1 t is not a procedure that has been developed for profit.

2 Among the top 5% of MCCs, 14 of 18 were for-profit.

3 ns favoring newer treatments were 39.5%, not-for-profit; 54.4%, jointly funded; and 65.5%, for-profit

4 to have recently engaged in illegal activity for profit (64.0% versus 38.5%), and to have been incarc

5 ns favoring newer treatments were 50.0%, not-for-profit; 69.2%, jointly funded; and 82.4%, for-profit

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

7 rs, residents living in facilities that were for profit (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confiden

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

9 Trials jointly funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organizations appear to report

10 o compare practices between nephrologists at for-profit and nonprofit centers.

11 of medical care differ between enrollees in for-profit and nonprofit health maintenance organization

12 ssments of medical care between enrollees in for-profit and nonprofit HMOs, for-profit HMOs are rated

13 For-profit and nonprofit hospices may respond differentl

14 fit areas, P=0.03 for the comparison between for-profit and not-for-profit areas) and home health car

15 capita Medicare spending in areas served by for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals.

16 in 254 health plans during 1997, we compared for-profit and not-for-profit plans with respect to rate

17 Burton funds, the closings or mergers of not-for-profit and public hospitals, the dominance of compet

18 hospital ownership (private not-for-profit, for-profit, and public) on administrative costs, control

19 ospital services (a mean increase of $395 in for-profit areas and $283 in not-for-profit areas, P=0.0

20 and home health care (an increase of $457 in for-profit areas and $324 in not-for-profit areas, P<0.0

21 in for-profit areas was greater than in not-for-profit areas in each category of service examined: h

22 Spending in for-profit areas was greater than in not-for-profit area

23 or the comparison between for-profit and not-for-profit areas) and home health care (an increase of $

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

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

26 ch Institute (IDRI), which operates as a not-for-profit biotech company, may start to pay off during

27 transplant was lower for patients treated at for-profit centers (adjusted relative hazard, 0.74; 95 p

28 ilities and 17.1 for patients treated in not-for-profit centers (adjusted relative hazard, 1.20; 95 p

29 Disparities in quality of education at for-profit centers might partially explain previously do

30 nephrologists who spent </=20 min, those at for-profit centers more often cited lack of reimbursemen

31 uninsured, Medicaid-insured and patients at for-profit centers were more likely to be unassessed.

32 Providers at for-profit centers were significantly less likely to spe

33 United States each year, about two thirds in for-profit centers.

34 t epoetin dosing patterns suggest that large for-profit chain facilities used larger dose adjustments

35 Patients from for-profit chain facilities, compared to nonprofit chain

36 get of 33% to 36%, especially in the largest for-profit chain facilities.

37 % CI, 0.42 to 0.67) higher star ratings than for-profit contracts (P < 0.001) after controls were set

38 eived significantly higher star ratings than for-profit contracts.

39 The interaction between medical research and for-profit corporations is not new, but it has expanded

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

41 s facilities (n = 28,199), patients in large for-profit dialysis chain facilities (n = 106,116) were

42 The proliferation of multi-unit for-profit dialysis chains in the ESRD industry has rais

43 ties operated by Dialysis Clinic Inc., a not-for-profit dialysis provider, between January 1, 1998, a

44 l academic medical centers have been sold to for-profit entities, and many cardiology divisions have

45 me 120 leaders from private, public, and not-for-profit entities, including cancer researchers and cl

46 ings and engage in more green signaling than for-profit entities.

47 ractice but appears to be biased in favor of for-profit entities.

48 radiologists higher in not-for-profit versus for-profit facilities (60% vs 28% reported).

49 Compared with nonprofit facilities, for-profit facilities administered, on average, an addit

50 nal disease was 21.2 for patients treated in for-profit facilities and 17.1 for patients treated in n

51 average, compared with nonprofit facilities, for-profit facilities increased epoetin doses 3-fold for

52 It is unknown whether for-profit facilities respond more aggressively than not

53 acilities respond more aggressively than not-for-profit facilities to these financial pressures.

54 t level of 34.6%) to 24,986 U/wk at chain 2 (for-profit facilities with a mean hematocrit level of 36

55 he effect of hospital ownership (private not-for-profit, for-profit, and public) on administrative co

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

57 I, -6 to 2 points; P < .001), or enrolled in for-profit health plans (-4 points; 95% CI, -7 to 0 poin

58 It is widely believed that for-profit health plans are more likely than not-for-pro

59 re not lower among beneficiaries enrolled in for-profit health plans than among those enrolled in not

60 ommon high-cost procedures would be lower in for-profit health plans than in not-for-profit plans.

61 sluminal coronary angioplasty were higher in for-profit health plans than they were in not-for-profit

62 profit health plans are more likely than not-for-profit health plans to respond to financial incentiv

63 ealth plans than among those enrolled in not-for-profit health plans.

64 or-profit health plans than they were in not-for-profit health plans; the rates of use of other commo

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

66 The decrease affected for-profit HHAs more than not-for-profit HHAs (111-55 da

67 particularly among those receiving care from for-profit HHAs.

68 enrollees in for-profit and nonprofit HMOs, for-profit HMOs are rated less favorably than nonprofit

69 Compared with not-for-profit HMOs, investor-owned plans had lower rates fo

70 Among enrollees in for-profit HMOs, sick enrollees were more likely than he

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

72 Compared with nonprofit hospice agencies, for-profit hospice agencies had a higher percentage of p

73 For-profit hospices (1087 discharges from 145 agencies),

74 For-profit hospices compared with nonprofit hospices had

75 re likely to have their index operation at a for-profit hospital (34.6% vs 22.0%; P < .001).

76 0.97) and were higher after discharge from a for-profit hospital (IRR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.56).

77 extent to which this practice is related to for-profit hospital status and affects payments and mort

78 kely among those initially hospitalized at a for-profit hospital, and are related to increased overal

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

80 over an 18-year study interval (1990-2007), for-profit hospitals and those with low profit margins w

81 sease and for patients initially admitted to for-profit hospitals for the treatment of congestive hea

82 For-profit hospitals had greater increases than nonprofi

83 ng all households and public and private not-for-profit hospitals in Ghana.

84 While for-profit hospitals potentially have financial incentiv

85 We found no evidence that for-profit hospitals selectively treat less sick patient

86 ending rates were greater in areas served by for-profit hospitals than in areas served by not-for-pro

87 For-profit hospitals were less likely to use discharge b

88 Patients (n = 11,658) treated at 58 for-profit hospitals were of similar age and gender, but

89 ts at psychiatric hospitals (44.4 percent at for-profit hospitals) and 33.0 percent of total costs at

90 t (meaning that all beds in the area were in for-profit hospitals), not-for-profit (all beds were in

91 itals), not-for-profit (all beds were in not-for-profit hospitals), or mixed in 1989, 1992, and 1995.

92 at rehabilitation hospitals (37.7 percent at for-profit hospitals).

93 - 15.9% vs 65.3% +/- 21.3% for community not-for-profit hospitals, p < 0.001).

94 As compared with payments to for-profit hospitals, payments to major teaching hospita

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

96 rofit, government (i.e., public), or private for-profit hospitals.

97 ending in areas served by for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals.

98 Overall costs of care were also higher at for-profit hospitals.

99 igh costs, especially for administration, at for-profit hospitals.

100 ative) increase as compared with private not-for-profit hospitals.

101 1990 and 1994 and were particularly high at for-profit hospitals.

102 zard ratio for death, 0.75, as compared with for-profit hospitals; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.

103 ctures (hazard ratio, 0.54, as compared with for-profit hospitals; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.

104 age points, to 24.5 percent, for private not-for-profit hospitals; and by 0.6 percentage point, to 22

105 2.2 percentage points, to 34.0 percent, for for-profit hospitals; by 1.2 percentage points, to 24.5

106 partnership with Project Data Sphere, a not-for-profit initiative allowing data from cancer clinical

107 pitals (7.5% vs. 4.5%) and less likely to be for-profit institutions (8.8% vs. 19.9%) (all P values <

108 Among acute care hospitals, for-profit institutions had higher adjusted costs per di

109 investigators from academic, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions with relatively few and containe

110 Patients at for-profit, larger, outpatient, or newer hospices lived

111 nce with alcohol and tobacco suggests that a for-profit legal cannabis industry will increase use by

112 For-Profit: Submit request for for-profit license from the web-site.

113 hospital included index hospitalization at a for-profit, major medical school-affiliated, or low-volu

114 rtain whether these models can be adapted to for-profit managed care settings.

115 For-profit MCCs received 77% of funds (208 of 363).

116 to categorize U.S. hospital service areas as for-profit (meaning that all beds in the area were in fo

117 (NQF) has been established as a private, not-for-profit, open membership, public benefit corporation

118 by enrollment size, Medicaid proportion, and for-profit or not-for-profit status.

119 vioural intervention designed by Ugandan not-for-profit organisation Raising Voices-could reduce phys

120 The intervention was implemented by two not-for-profit organisations from September, 2013, to May, 2

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

122 ami and Project Medishare, an affiliated not-for-profit organization, provided a large-scale relief e

123 y for-profit organizations compared with not-for-profit organizations (33 versus 41; P=0.048).

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

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

126 Trials jointly funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organizations appear to report positive findi

127 ble prior to 2000, clinical trials funded by for-profit organizations appeared more likely to report

128 Recent cardiovascular trials funded by for-profit organizations are more likely to report posit

129 indicates that therapeutic trials funded by for-profit organizations are more likely to report posit

130 ication per year was 52 for trials funded by for-profit organizations compared with 25 for trials fun

131 er publication per year for trials funded by for-profit organizations compared with not-for-profit or

132 t, 92 (67.2%) of 137 trials funded solely by for-profit organizations favored newer treatments over s

133 Higher citation rates for trials funded by for-profit organizations were consistently observed in a

134 year was 46 for trials funded exclusively by for-profit organizations, 37 for trials jointly funded,

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

136 positive findings than trials funded by not-for-profit organizations, as are trials using surrogate

137 t positive findings than those funded by not-for-profit organizations.

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

139 linical trial results that are funded by not-for-profit organizations.

140 1041 incident dialysis patients at 81 US not-for-profit outpatient dialysis clinics from October 1995

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

142 areas where all hospitals remained under not-for-profit ownership ($4,006 vs. $3,554 in 1989, $4,243

143 208 areas where all hospitals remained under for-profit ownership during the study years was greater

144 l hospitals converted from not-for-profit to for-profit ownership grew more rapidly than in the 2860

145 For-profit ownership of dialysis chain facilities appear

146 Therefore, we examined the effect of for-profit ownership of dialysis facilities on patients'

147 In the United States, for-profit ownership of dialysis facilities, as compared

148 The rate of conversion to for-profit ownership of hospitals has recently increased

149 ciated with the following hospital features: for-profit ownership vs government owned (8.5 vs 5.5 ins

150 In a multivariate analysis, for-profit ownership was associated with a 7.9 percent a

151 Poorer quality was associated with for-profit ownership, a larger number of radiologists at

152 of dialysis facilities, as compared with not-for-profit ownership, is associated with increased morta

153 impairment admitted to acute care hospitals, for-profit ownership, larger hospital size, and greater

154 EDs in nonrural areas declined by 27%, with for-profit ownership, location in a competitive market,

155 iation between nursing home care quality and for-profit ownership.

156 ed with their overall care than enrollees in for-profit plans (adjusted means, 64.0 percent and 58.1

157 had significantly higher rates than the not-for-profit plans for 2 of the 12 procedures we studied a

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

159 and other characteristics of the plans, the for-profit plans had significantly higher rates than the

160 nvestor-owned plans had lower rates than not-for-profit plans of immunization (63.9% vs 72.3%; P<.001

161 mbers in investor-owned HMOs vs 70.6% in not-for-profit plans received a beta-blocker (P<.001); 35.1%

162 the CMS should give increasing attention to for-profit plans with lower quality ratings and consider

163 during 1997, we compared for-profit and not-for-profit plans with respect to rates of cardiac cathet

164 lower in for-profit health plans than in not-for-profit plans.

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

166 Any decision to further expand the for-profit private hospital market should not be made wi

167 at serves poor people in many countries; not-for-profit providers that operate on a range of scales;

168 of charge for educational, research, and not-for-profit purposes, and can be downloaded at http://www

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

170 s that operate 11% of the clinics, and 3 are for-profit retail chains that operate 73% of the clinics

171 ult equivalent dose were seen in the private for-profit sector in six pilots, ranging from US$1.28 to

172 The private for-profit sector's prominence in health-care delivery,

173 share of QAACTs, particularly in the private for-profit sector.

174 ts), driven mainly by changes in the private for-profit sector.

175 We sought to determine whether for-profit status influenced hospitals' care or outcomes

176 delines) Initiative, we investigated whether for-profit status influenced hospitals' patient case mix

177 Impact of for-profit status on care and outcomes was analyzed over

178 % confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.61]), and for-profit status was associated with a longer length of

179 Hospital conversion to for-profit status was associated with improvements in fi

180 Hospitals that converted to for-profit status were more often small or medium in siz

181 Conversion to for-profit status, 2003-2010.

182 .e., a high ratio of nurses to patient-days, for-profit status, and nonacademic status) were associat

183 le regression models included index hospital for-profit status, discharge counts, geographic region,

184 easing number of hospitals have converted to for-profit status, prompting concerns that these hospita

185 -day mortality, regardless of index hospital for-profit status.

186 , Medicaid proportion, and for-profit or not-for-profit status.

187 For-Profit: Submit request for for-profit license from t

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

189 areas where all hospitals converted from not-for-profit to for-profit ownership grew more rapidly tha

190 or-profit; 54.4%, jointly funded; and 65.5%, for-profit trials (P for trend across groups = .002).

191 or-profit; 69.2%, jointly funded; and 82.4%, for-profit trials (P for trend across groups = .07).

192 1991-1993, however, no-reuse, freestanding, for-profit units had higher risks (relative risk [RR] =

193 standing units (1989-1990) was identified in for-profit units only.

194 dehyde automatic reuse, and in freestanding, for-profit units using glutaraldehyde, which accounted f

195 No-reuse, hospital-based, for-profit units, in contrast, were associated with a lo

196 gleView software is freely available for not-for-profit use at http://bioinformatics.bc.edu/marthlab/

197 the GeneMachine server for academic and not-for-profit users is available at http://genemachine.nhgr

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

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

200 with shortages of radiologists higher in not-for-profit versus for-profit facilities (60% vs 28% repo

201 such reviews may ask: What is the effect of for-profit versus not-for-profit delivery of care on pat

202 e (United Kingdom vs non-United Kingdom, not for profit vs commercial), and appropriateness for sight

203 Not-for-profit webpages were of significantly greater length

204 s from authors affiliated with organizations for-profit were symmetrical without heterogeneity, where