This study applies meta-analytic methods to conduct a quantitative review of the empirical literature on hospital ownership since 1990. We examine four financial outcomes across 40 studies: cost, revenue, profit margin, and efficiency. We find that variation in the magnitudes of ownership effects can be explained by a study's research focus and methodology. Studies using empirical methods that control for few confounding factors tend to find larger differences between for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals than studies that control for a wider range of confounding factors. Functional form and sample size also matter. Failure to apply log transformation to highly skewed expenditure data yields misleadingly large estimated differences between for-profits and not-for-profits. Studies with fewer than 200 observations also produce larger point estimates and wide confidence intervals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shen et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: