Analyzing Healthcare Trends: Statistics on Health Outcome Differences Between 2011 and 2012 Using Excel

Problem Description:

In this Excel assignment, we analyze data related to hospital characteristics, socio-economic variables, and health insurance market concentration to draw meaningful insights and make recommendations for improving hospital performance. The dataset contains information from multiple years, and we focus on comparisons between 2011 and 2012, as well as the impact of factors like ownership, membership in a system, and patient discharge ratios.

Sample Assignment Solution:

Part 1: Health Outcome Differences between 2011 and 2012

• The significant differences in hospital characteristics between 2011 and 2012 are observed in the "Number of paid employees" and "Interns and Residents." No significant differences were found in socio-economic variables in this time frame.
• When assessing hospital performance, based on the hospital net benefit, it's found that there is no significant difference between 2011 and 2012. However, 2012 has a slightly higher mean, indicating better performance. Hospital characteristics such as the number of paid employees and interns and residents show significant differences, while socio-economic variables do not.
• Notable movements between 2011 and 2012 include a decrease in the number of paid employees, interns and residents, and Medicaid discharges. These findings suggest that the healthcare landscape underwent changes during this period.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics between hospitals in 2011 & 2012

Part 2: For-Profit vs. Non-for-Profit Hospitals

• The main significant differences between for-profit and non-profit hospitals are in total hospital revenue, hospital benefit, and Medicaid discharge, with p-values below 0.05. The t-test is the best fit test for assessing these differences.

Table 2: Comparison of Hospital Characteristics between For-Profit and Non-For-Profit Hospitals

Part 3: Herfindahl–Hirschman Index for Health Insurance Market

• The Herfindahl–Hirschman Index is a widely accepted measure of market concentration. It is calculated by squaring the market share of each firm in the market and summing these values.
• Hospitals in different competitive health insurance markets show significant differences in various hospital characteristics and socio-economic variables. Notably, the hospital beds, number of paid employees, interns and residents, system membership, total hospital cost, total hospital revenue, available Medicare days, available Medicaid days, total hospital discharge, and median household income differ significantly.

Table 3: Comparing hospital characteristics and market

• Being in a high-competitive health insurance market is associated with lower hospital revenues and costs.
• Being in a high-competitive market does not necessarily have a positive impact on net hospital benefits. High-competitive markets may have the least net hospital benefit.
• Hospitals in higher competitive markets are not more likely to accept more Medicare and Medicaid patients.
• System membership has a significant impact on benefits, while other variables do not show significant associations.

Part 4: Recommendations for Hospital Performance

Based on the regression model, the following policies can improve hospital performance:

• Increasing hospital bed capacity.
• Joining a system membership to enhance revenue.
• Increasing Medicare discharge ratios to positively impact net hospital benefits.

Table 4: Regression model 1a

Table 5: Regression Model 2

Table 6: Regression Model 3

Part 5: Human Subject Research

• Research Question: Is it necessary to administer genetically engineered human growth hormone (hGH) to treat short children for research purposes?
• Research Process: Research involving human subjects entails direct interaction with living individuals. In contrast, research not involving human subjects may adhere to ethical standards but does not require direct interaction with humans, like laboratory or data-driven research (Kim, 2012).
• Ethical Implications: Ethical considerations in human subject research include privacy, anonymity, beneficence, informed consent, and ensuring the researcher's competence (Kim, 2012).
• Governance: Governance of human subject research involves oversight by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to protect research participants' interests. The system has faced criticism, like the Tuskegee study, and it may require adjustments to address modern research complexities (Fleischman, 2005).
• Consequences of Not Meeting IRB Requirements: Consequences may include suspension of the study, loss of research funding, and legal consequences, depending on the violation's severity (NIH, n.d.).

Part 6: Policies for Improving Hospital Performance

• Joining system memberships: Hospitals should consider collaborating with healthcare systems to enhance overall performance.
• Increasing hospital bed capacity: Expanding bed capacity can lead to improved patient care and increased revenue.
• Enhancing Medicare discharge ratios: Focusing on Medicare patient care can positively impact hospital benefits.

In conclusion, this assignment combines statistical analysis, ethical considerations in human subject research, and policy recommendations to provide a holistic approach to healthcare analysis and improvement. It emphasizes the importance of ethical research practices and informed decision-making in healthcare management.