What Is the Difference? Public Funding of For-Profit, Not-For-Profit, and Public Institutions

Gender pay equity is a desirable social value and an important strategy to fill every organizational stratum with gender-diverse talent to fulfill an organization’s goals and mission. This study used national, large-sample data to examine gender difference in CEO compensation among not-for-profit hospitals. Results showed the average unadjusted annual compensation for female CEOs in 2009 was $425,085 compared with $581,121 for male CEOs. With few exceptions, the difference existed across all types of not-for-profit hospitals. After controlling for hospital- and area-level characteristics, female CEOs of not-for-profit hospitals earned 22.6% less than male CEOs of not-for-profit hospitals. This translates into an earnings differential of $132,652 associated with gender. Explanations and implications of the results are discussed.

Download Full-text

Medicaid Expansion and Not-For-Profit Hospitals’ Financial Status: National and State-Level Estimates Using IRS and CMS Data, 2011-2016

Medical Care Research and Review ◽

10.1177/10775587211009720 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 107755872110097

Author(s):

Tatiane Santos ◽

Simone Singh ◽

Gary J. Young

Keyword(s):

Hospital Costs ◽

State Level ◽

Medicaid Expansion ◽

Financial Status ◽

For Profit ◽

Not For Profit ◽

Percentage Points ◽

The Difference ◽

Using Data ◽

The Impact

Several studies have shown that Medicaid expansion has improved hospital financial performance. All of these studies have either used data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and none of them has examined the state-level impact of expansion on hospital finances. Using data for not-for-profit hospitals from both IRS and CMS for 2011-2016, we described the difference in costs related to uncompensated care and Medicaid shortfalls. We then estimated the impact of Medicaid expansion on hospitals’ financial status nationally and by state. Nationally, the estimated net effect of expansion reduced not-for-profit hospital costs by 2 percentage points based on IRS data and 0.83 percentage points based on CMS data. Across expansion states, the estimated net effects varied widely with approximately a 10-fold difference for hospitals based on IRS data and a 2-fold difference based on CMS data. Future studies should further explore the differences across IRS and CMS data.

Download Full-text

Project Risk Definition and Measurement in a Not-for-Profit Setting

Health Services Management Research ◽

10.1177/095148489200500306 ◽

1992 ◽

Vol 5 (3) ◽

pp. 216-224

Author(s):

Louis C. Gapenski

Keyword(s):

Capital Investment ◽

Investment Decisions ◽

Market Risk ◽

Shareholder Wealth ◽

Wealth Maximization ◽

For Profit ◽

Not For Profit ◽

Risk Definition ◽

Shareholder Wealth Maximization ◽

The Difference

The health care finance literature on capital investment decisions generally applies conventional market risk concepts without distinguishing between proprietary and not-for-profit forms of organization. Since proprietary firms have shareholder wealth maximization as their primary goal, a project's relevant risk is its contribution to the riskiness of the equity investors' well diversified stock portfolios, or its market risk. However, not-for-profit organizations do not have shareholder wealth maximization as their primary goal, and thus market risk concepts are not applicable. Rather, the relevant risk in a not-for-profit setting is a project's corporate risk; that is, the project's contribution to the riskiness of the organization. The difference in risk definition and measurement between proprietary and not-for-profit firms has two implications for managerial decisions: (1) in making capital investment decisions, a manager must define and measure a project's riskiness on the basis of the firm's organizational form; and (2) although diversification for the sole purpose of risk reduction is not a valid rationale for proprietary firms because stockholders can achieve the same result at less cost, risk-reducing diversification does make sense for not-for-profit firms.

Download Full-text

26. Boards of Not- for- Profit, Charitable, and Public Institutions

That Further Shore ◽

10.1515/9780823287376-029 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 208-212

Keyword(s):

Public Institutions ◽

For Profit ◽

Not For Profit

Download Full-text

Board renewal and rejuvenation

10.32920/ryerson.14639901 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Knud Jensen

Keyword(s):

Public Funding ◽

External Environment ◽

Economic Pressure ◽

Economic Changes ◽

For Profit ◽

Working Paper ◽

The Past ◽

Not For Profit ◽

The Social ◽

New Perspective

[First paragraph of Introduction]: Organizations change, sometimes incrementally and sometimes in a discontinuous manner that makes the past an irrelevant predictor of the future. Large, wrenching changes make past behaviour and governance less relevant and call for a new perspective and a new board leadership. Often these changes are brought about by the external environment, which may no longer value the services provided, or economic pressure may reduce the priority of funding. For example, public funding of broadcasting is being reduced across North America and the debate about public funding for broadcasting is beginning. The not-for-profit organization is caught up in the social and economic changes taking place around the world. This phenomenon is not exclusive to any particular country or province, but is part of a much wider change. Keywords: CVSS, Centre for Voluntary Sector Studies, Working Paper Series,TRSM, Ted Rogers School of Management Citation:

Download Full-text

Board renewal and rejuvenation

10.32920/ryerson.14639901.v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Knud Jensen

Keyword(s):

Public Funding ◽

External Environment ◽

Economic Pressure ◽

Economic Changes ◽

For Profit ◽

Working Paper ◽

The Past ◽

Not For Profit ◽

The Social ◽

New Perspective

[First paragraph of Introduction]: Organizations change, sometimes incrementally and sometimes in a discontinuous manner that makes the past an irrelevant predictor of the future. Large, wrenching changes make past behaviour and governance less relevant and call for a new perspective and a new board leadership. Often these changes are brought about by the external environment, which may no longer value the services provided, or economic pressure may reduce the priority of funding. For example, public funding of broadcasting is being reduced across North America and the debate about public funding for broadcasting is beginning. The not-for-profit organization is caught up in the social and economic changes taking place around the world. This phenomenon is not exclusive to any particular country or province, but is part of a much wider change. Keywords: CVSS, Centre for Voluntary Sector Studies, Working Paper Series,TRSM, Ted Rogers School of Management Citation:

Download Full-text