ライフサイエンスコーパス: not-for-profit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 03 for the comparison between for-profit and not-for-profit areas) and home health care (an increase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 % +/- 15.9% vs 65.3% +/- 21.3% for community not-for-profit hospitals, p < 0.001).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

48 860 areas where all hospitals remained under not-for-profit ownership ($1,295 vs. $866, P=0.03).

49 860 areas where all hospitals remained under not-for-profit ownership ($4,006 vs. $3,554 in 1989, $4,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63 33 areas where all hospitals converted from not-for-profit to for-profit ownership grew more rapidly

64 e EagleView software is freely available for not-for-profit use at http://bioinformatics.bc.edu/marth

65 e to the GeneMachine server for academic and not-for-profit users is available at http://genemachine.

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

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

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

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

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