Public Views on Religious and Financial Care Restrictions in Hospitals

Abstract Background Hospitals make decisions about which services to provide based on a variety of factors. However, decisions to provide services based on financial or religious considerations have increasingly drawn public scrutiny. We conducted a national survey to assess public attitudes towards hospitals’ financial or religious motivations for offering certain types of care. Methods We conducted a national, cross-sectional online survey of 1,577 U.S. adults. Respondents indicated on a 3-point, frequency-based Likert scale whether hospitals should “Never”, “Sometimes”, or “Always” be allowed to limit services for these reasons. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression analyses examined the demographic and experiential correlates of these attitudes. Results Most respondents opposed financially-motivated restrictions (62%), while a plurality opposed religiously-motivated restrictions (48%). Opposition differed across subgroups, with Republicans, individuals with public insurance, and health care employees more accepting of both types of restrictions, while older respondents and those with higher health literacy were more likely to oppose them. Conclusion Our findings reveal a notable divergence between how hospitals often operate and what the public believes hospitals should be permitted to do. Efforts to improve transparency around service limitations and ensure continuity of care may help maintain public trust when hospitals decline to provide certain services.