3 ms·

> by bed count and revenue Someone please back me up here, it is fundamentally sick to rank hospitals by revenue, right?

adwww 10y ago
That shocked me a bit too, but then... 'murica.
dogma1138 10y ago
That's a pretty standard practice even in countries with single payer systems. Some hospitals do get higher funding, raise considerably more donations, and since even in the most "socialist" EU and other SPS countries state hospitals are still allowed to provide private healthcare services some also higher revenue through the private route simply by having better administration and more prestigious alumni and or patrons. There is nothing sick about it, a hospital with better funding and revenue usually can provide better treatment, even the most bureaucratic healthcare systems are not immune to market forces, if nothing else than some hospitals will be better at attracting higher ranking doctors and surgeons and every country, region or large city has the "best" hospital for a specific condition. At the end even the most equalized healthcare systems are still operating in a finite resource environment, even if the only finite resource is the availability of the best doctor in the country or region, this means that some will be better than the rest, ranking them by revenue usually is an easy way to find out which one it is simply because it's usually directly tied to the quality of the medical staff they can employ.
- NTripleOne 10y ago
  Standard practice or not, it still just seems wrong to me - maybe that's just the part of me that believes that healthcare shouldn't be treated as a business.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Healthcare should very much be treated as a business since we have limited resources, you need to focus your resources where they would do the most good if not you will not like the results as everyone will walk around with perfect boobs and teeth but will die at 40. You are more than welcomed to go and check into the lowest ranked hospitals in your country when you'll get ill, if not then it's a pointless argument at the end regardless of how well you think you equalize your system it will always have better and lesser hospitals. In fact centralization of talent and resources has a positive outcome rather than a negative one since it doesn't have a major downside but a huge upside. It's considerably better to have 90 average hospitals and 10 great ones than to have 100 average hospitals since in the 10% of the cases when a great hospital, doctor or surgeon is needed you will still have a place to go. There is no real way of assembling an all star surgical team in every hospital in the city, not to mention a nation, so even if you would want to forcibly spread doctors (and there were a few countries that tried) and prevent private funds the only thing you get is a worse healthcare system not a better one.
jonwachob91 10y ago
I don't think so... It's a pretty good indicator of operational efficiency. But to be fair, Becker's has a list for almost everything in a hospital [1]. Also, FH Orlando and most of the other hospitals that dominate the list by revenue/bed size/etc are all Not-For-Profit institutions. [1] http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists.html http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists.html

adwww 10y ago

That shocked me a bit too, but then... 'murica.

dogma1138 10y ago

That's a pretty standard practice even in countries with single payer systems. Some hospitals do get higher funding, raise considerably more donations, and since even in the most "socialist" EU and other SPS countries state hospitals are still allowed to provide private healthcare services some also higher revenue through the private route simply by having better administration and more prestigious alumni and or patrons. There is nothing sick about it, a hospital with better funding and revenue usually can provide better treatment, even the most bureaucratic healthcare systems are not immune to market forces, if nothing else than some hospitals will be better at attracting higher ranking doctors and surgeons and every country, region or large city has the "best" hospital for a specific condition. At the end even the most equalized healthcare systems are still operating in a finite resource environment, even if the only finite resource is the availability of the best doctor in the country or region, this means that some will be better than the rest, ranking them by revenue usually is an easy way to find out which one it is simply because it's usually directly tied to the quality of the medical staff they can employ.

NTripleOne 10y ago
Standard practice or not, it still just seems wrong to me - maybe that's just the part of me that believes that healthcare shouldn't be treated as a business.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Healthcare should very much be treated as a business since we have limited resources, you need to focus your resources where they would do the most good if not you will not like the results as everyone will walk around with perfect boobs and teeth but will die at 40. You are more than welcomed to go and check into the lowest ranked hospitals in your country when you'll get ill, if not then it's a pointless argument at the end regardless of how well you think you equalize your system it will always have better and lesser hospitals. In fact centralization of talent and resources has a positive outcome rather than a negative one since it doesn't have a major downside but a huge upside. It's considerably better to have 90 average hospitals and 10 great ones than to have 100 average hospitals since in the 10% of the cases when a great hospital, doctor or surgeon is needed you will still have a place to go. There is no real way of assembling an all star surgical team in every hospital in the city, not to mention a nation, so even if you would want to forcibly spread doctors (and there were a few countries that tried) and prevent private funds the only thing you get is a worse healthcare system not a better one.

jonwachob91 10y ago

I don't think so... It's a pretty good indicator of operational efficiency. But to be fair, Becker's has a list for almost everything in a hospital [1]. Also, FH Orlando and most of the other hospitals that dominate the list by revenue/bed size/etc are all Not-For-Profit institutions. [1] http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists.html http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists.html