Dissertation (Ph.D)--The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2008. / Directed by A.F. Salam; submitted to the School of Business & Economics. Title from PDF t.p. (viewed Jul. 31, 2009). Includes bibliographical references (p. 331-346).

In 1969, President Richard Nixon declared that the “spiraling costs” of medical care constituted a “crisis.” Medicare and Medicaid had been passed only four years previously, and had dramatically changed the way Americans accessed and paid for medical care. The ensuing three decades ushered in a renewed period of advocacy for health care reform with costs remaining a consistent focus. Proponents for national health insurance framed health as a human right emphasizing equitable access. Those advocating for private health insurance touted the power of the marketplace to contain costs through competition and freedom of choice. Throughout the debates, health reform advocates, insurance industry representatives, medical providers, and legislators repeatedly referred to the “health consumer” as the potential benefactor of such reforms. But this ubiquitous term remained ambiguous. Who exactly was the “health consumer”? The contests over the rhetoric of the health consumer as an identity, its uses and political alignments, were engaged through print, in research, in organized campaigns, and in discrete individual interactions with health insurance and the health care system. These interconnected systems of power informed and were informed by the language used to describe them, in the sense of “structuring structures,” extending to economics and the consumer movement, social movements and civil rights. Thus the ideological orientations of the terms of the debate, focused on the “health consumer,” have shifted often and have continued to be contested in a dialectic relationship. This analysis therefore takes place at those intersections where health consumers as individuals have confronted the private, for-profit sphere by making claims for health consumer rights. The utility and ethical implications of commodification versus rights language have consistently been at the center of these opposing views. This dissertation examines the evolution of the dialectic dynamic of these two approaches to better understand how health consumer rights advocates have confronted challenges to include their voices in health care debates from the 1970s to the late 1980s at the local, state, and national levels. Specific sites include the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance and the Center for Public Representation, both located in Wisconsin, as well as the national grassroots organization Citizen Action and the local chapter Massachusetts Fair Share. Moving beyond binary understandings such as "patients" and "non-patients," or even the "patient/consumer," the health consumer identity blurs distinctions of inclusion and exclusion and dramatically expands the framing of "who counts" in health social movements. The health consumer thereby has remained a locus of contestation and potential rhetorical power that can inform the more political use of the term for making rights claims, as well as the more economic approach that advocates for free market principles. As such, it is readily co-opted in movement/counter-movement shifts in language and political alignment. Such contests and co-optation frame each chapter in this dissertation. Ultimately, health social movements and the dynamic, even equivocal orientation of the “health consumer” identity may play a determinative role in how to move forward with health care policy reform that seeks to provide all Americans with equitable access to wellness, rather than vying to purchase health.

This dissertation examines the effects of physician ownership of hospitals on the quality of patient-centric care in the U.S. The health care sector in the U.S. is becoming more aligned with markets and in turn, with consumers’ preferences. In consumer driven service industries, consumer satisfaction is considered a key criterion to judge quality. In the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient satisfaction surveys, physician-owned hospitals (POHs) get more top 5-Star ratings than other hospitals. However, it is not known whether higher perceived patient satisfaction is because of better inpatient experience or due to better health related outcomes. Ratings also do not clarify variations between specialty and general service POHs. The study compares the quality of care in POHs with that in other major forms of hospitals (corporate-owned, and not-for-profit). The Affordable Care Act (ACA) regulated physician ownership of hospitals due to concerns that physicians’ profit motive might negatively affect the quality of care. This non-experimental study used bivariate and multivariate analyses to examine variation in the quality of care among types of hospitals in 2017 and 2018 using patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes as indicators of quality. This study used two samples, a full and a restricted sample. Full sample compared all POHs (specialty and general service) with other hospitals. Restricted sample included only general service hospitals. Patients in POHs were found to have higher perceived satisfaction, and viewed providers’ practices more favorably in the full sample. In the restricted sample, however, not-for-profit (NFP) hospitals provided relatively better care. Corporate-owned hospitals had lowest patient satisfaction and poorest outcomes. Results indicate POHs are competitive with not-for-profit hospitals on patient satisfaction dimension of quality care. Multivariate analyses suggest that the effects of physician ownership go away when mediation by providers’ practices is considered. NFP hospitals, however, continue to provide better overall value of care. The results do not support reconsideration of the ACA restrictions on POHs. Patient satisfaction may be contingent upon patient-centric practices than type of hospital, but hospital ownership may affect preference for some practices over others. Outcomes may not matter when patients’ perceptions measure quality. / Ph. D. / The health care sector is becoming more closely linked to markets, and consumer experience and satisfaction, like any other consumer services industry due to growing influence of for-profit hospitals and hospital forms. Physician-owned hospitals are a relatively new form of hospitals in the U.S. Along with more traditional not-for-profit and corporate-owned hospitals; physician-owned hospitals compete for patients and patient dollars. Many physician-owned hospitals are specialty and surgical hospitals, in addition to general service hospitals. According to federal government surveys, patients usually perceive medical care provided by physician-owned hospitals to be of superior quality to that of other kinds of hospital. However, physician-owned hospitals are a type of for-profit hospital, and it is not clearly known if general service physician owned hospitals provide similar care as specialty hospitals. This research compared possible quality differences between specialty and general service physician-owned hospitals as well as with corporate-owned and not-for-profit hospitals. The results indicate that patients’ perceptions of quality of care are not consistent for physician-owned specialty and general service hospitals; the higher patient perception ratings for physician-owned hospitals reflect the better performance of specialty hospitals. In comparison with other hospitals, not-for-profit hospitals seem to provide better quality of care (tapped by both patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes) than for-profit hospitals. Corporate-owned hospitals were found to have lowest quality of care. Patients should consider tradeoffs between having better inpatient experiences and better outcomes of care.