International data suggest that for-profit nursing homes tend to provide lower quality than not-for-profit nursing homes. In Germany, the relationships between profit orientation, price and quality of nursing homes have not been investigated. We performed an observational study using secondary data from statutory quality audits of all nursing homes in Germany. The relationships were analyzed bivariately via Mann-Whitney U-Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test respectively, followed by a multivariate variance analysis which also covered the interaction effect between quality, price and type of ownership. 41 % of 10,168 German nursing homes were for-profit charging on average about 10 % less than not-for-profit homes. In five out of six quality categories under study, for-profit nursing homes provided lower quality than not-for-profit homes. Quality of care in all quality categories improved with increasing prices per day. However, for four out of six quality categories examined, the quality difference between for-profit and non-profit nursing homes existed independent of the price charged. When selecting a nursing home it is therefore advisable to consider the profit orientation of the institution. German legislation should require that statutory public quality reports contain details on the profit orientation of nursing homes.

Objectives

To explore effects of disease prevalence adjustment on ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalization (ACSH) rates used for quality comparisons.

Data sources/study setting

County-level hospital administrative data on adults discharged from German hospitals in 2011 and prevalence estimates based on administrative ambulatory diagnosis data were used.

Study design

A retrospective cross-sectional study using in- and outpatient secondary data was performed.

Data collection

Hospitalization data for hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma were obtained from the German Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) database. Prevalence estimates were obtained from the German Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care.

Principal findings

Crude hospitalization rates varied substantially across counties (coefficients of variation [CV] 28-37 percent across conditions); this variation was reduced by prevalence adjustment (CV 21-28 percent). Prevalence explained 40-50 percent of the observed variation (r = 0.65-0.70) in ACSH rates for all conditions except asthma (r = 0.07). Between 30 percent and 38 percent of areas moved into or outside condition-specific control limits with prevalence adjustment.

Conclusions

Unadjusted ACSH rates should be used with caution for high-stakes public reporting as differences in prevalence may have a marked impact. Prevalence adjustment should be considered in models analyzing ACSH.