This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-167 
entitled 'Specialty Hospitals: Geographic Location, Services Provided, 
and Financial Performance' which was released on October 22, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

October 2003:

Specialty Hospitals:

Geographic Location, Services Provided, and Financial Performance:

Specialty Hospitals:

GAO-04-167:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-167, a report to the Honorable Bill Thomas, 
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, and 
the Honorable Jerry Kleczka, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study:

The recent growth in specialty hospitals that are largely for-profit 
and owned, in part, by physicians, has been controversial. 

Advocates of these hospitals contend that the focused mission and 
dedicated resources of specialty hospitals both improve quality and 
reduce costs. Critics contend that specialty hospitals siphon off the 
most profitable procedures and patient cases, thus eroding the 
financial health of neighboring general hospitals and impairing their 
ability to provide emergency care and other essential community 
services. Critics also contend that physician ownership of specialty 
hospitals creates financial incentives that may inappropriately affect 
physicians’ clinical and referral behavior. In April 2003, GAO 
reported on certain aspects of specialty hospitals, including the 
extent of physician ownership and the relative severity of patients 
treated (GAO-03-683R).

For this report, GAO was asked to examine (1) state policies and local 
conditions associated with the location of specialty hospitals, (2) 
how specialty hospitals differ from general hospitals in providing 
emergency care and serving a community’s other medical needs, and (3) 
how specialty and general hospitals in the same communities compare in 
terms of market share and financial health.

What GAO Found:

The 100 existing specialty hospitals identified by GAO—hospitals that 
focus on cardiac, orthopedic, or women’s medicine or on surgical 
procedures—are geographically concentrated in areas where state policy 
facilitates hospital growth. Although 28 states have at least 1 
specialty hospital, approximately two-thirds of the 100 specialty 
hospitals are located in 7 states. At least an additional 26 specialty 
hospitals were under development in 2003 and will tend to reinforce 
the existing pattern of geographic concentration. Specialty hospitals 
are much more likely to be found in states where hospitals are 
permitted to add beds or build new facilities without first obtaining 
state approval for such health care capacity increases. 

Relative to general hospitals, specialty hospitals, as a group, were 
much less likely to have emergency departments, treated smaller 
percentages of Medicaid patients, and derived a smaller share of their 
revenues from inpatient services. For example, 45 percent of specialty 
hospitals, but 92 percent of general hospitals, had emergency 
departments. There were, however, important differences among the four 
specialty hospital types in these and other service indicators. 

Although general hospitals typically have more beds than specialty 
hospitals, the focused mission of specialty hospitals often resulted 
in their treating more patients in their given fields of 
specialization. Financially, specialty hospitals tended to perform 
about as well as general hospitals did on their Medicare inpatient 
business. However, specialty hospitals tended to outperform general 
hospitals when the costs from all lines of business and the revenues 
from all payers were considered.

Officials from three specialty hospital organizations commented on a 
draft of this report. They generally agreed with the report’s 
information and commented on key differences between specialty and 
general hospitals.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-167.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click 
on the link above. For more information, contact A. Bruce Steinwald at 
(202) 512-7101.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Specialty Hospitals Clustered in Areas Where State Policy and Local 
Demographic Conditions Favor Growth:

The Four Specialty Hospital Types Differed from General Hospitals in 
Size and Scope but Also Differed from One Another:

Specialty Hospitals Rivaled General Hospitals in Certain Market Share 
Measures and Financial Performance:

Comments from Organizations Representing Specialty Hospitals and Our 
Evaluation:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Specialty Hospital Definition and Identification:

2003 Specialty Hospital Survey:

Data Sources and Methodological Approach by Topic:

Tables:

Table 1: Percentage of For-profit and Nonprofit Hospitals, 2003:

Table 2: Medicare Inpatient Spending at Specialty and General 
Hospitals, by Hospital Type, Fiscal Year 2001:

Table 3: Percentage of Hospitals and Population, by State CON 
Requirement Status, June 2003:

Table 4: Emergency Department Utilization at Specialty and General 
Hospitals:

Table 5: Physician Staffing in Emergency Departments at Specialty 
Hospitals, 2003:

Table 6: Medicare Inpatient and Total Facility Margins at Specialty and 
General Hospitals, Fiscal Year 2001:

Figures:

Figure 1: Median Percentage of Admitting Physicians with Ownership in 
Specialty Hospitals, by Specialty Hospital Type, 2003:

Figure 2: Specialty Hospitals by State, June 2003:

Figure 3: Specialty Hospitals under Development by State, June 2003:

Figure 4: Percentage of Specialty and General Hospitals with Emergency 
Departments, 2003:

Figure 5: Percentage of Patients Covered by Medicaid at Specialty and 
Area General Hospitals for Services in the Same Field of 
Specialization, 2000:

Figure 6: Percentage of Patients Covered by Medicare at Specialty and 
General Hospitals for Services in the Same Field of Specialization, 
2000:

Figure 7: Average Percentage of Inpatient and Outpatient Revenues at 
Specialty and General Hospitals, 2003:

Figure 8: Median Percentage of Local Market Share, 2000:

Abbreviations:

AHA: American Hospital Association:  

AHPA: American Health Planning Association:  

ASHA: American Surgical Hospital Association:  

CMS: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services:  

CON: certificate of need:  

DRG: diagnosis-related group:  

HCR: hospital cost report:  

HCUP: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project:  

HRR: hospital referral region: 

MDC: major diagnosis category:  

MedPAC: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission:  

MedPAR: Medicare Provider Analysis and Review:  

MSA: metropolitan statistical area:  

NSH: National Surgical Hospitals:  

OB/GYN: obstetric and gynecological:  

POS: Provider of Services File:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

October 22, 2003:

The Honorable Bill Thomas 
Chairman 
Committee on Ways and Means 
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Jerry Kleczka 
House of Representatives:

Specialty hospitals, which tend to focus on patients with specific 
medical conditions or who need surgical procedures, represent a small 
but growing segment of the health care industry. Such hospitals are not 
an entirely new phenomenon, as children's and other types of specialty 
hospitals have existed for decades. However, the recent growth in 
specialty hospitals has been controversial because it has involved a 
new genre of hospitals. In contrast to earlier forms of specialty 
hospitals, this new genre is characterized by hospitals that are often 
for-profit and frequently owned, in part, by some of the physicians who 
work in them.

Advocates of these newer specialty hospitals contend that the focused 
mission and dedicated resources of specialty hospitals allow physicians 
to treat more patients needing the same specialty services than they 
could in general hospitals and that, through such specialization and 
economies of scale, the potential exists to improve quality and reduce 
costs.[Footnote 1] In contrast, critics are concerned that specialty 
hospitals may concentrate on the most profitable procedures and serve 
patients that have fewer complicating conditions--leaving general 
hospitals with a sicker, higher-cost patient population. They contend 
that this practice of drawing away a more favorable selection of 
patients makes it more financially difficult for general hospitals to 
fulfill their broad mission to serve all of a community's needs, 
including charity care, emergency services, and stand-by capacity to 
respond to communitywide disasters. Critics have also raised concerns 
that physician ownership of specialty hospitals creates financial 
incentives that could inappropriately affect physicians' clinical and 
referral behavior.

In light of these concerns, you asked us to provide information about 
the newer genre of specialty hospitals. In response, we issued a report 
in April 2003[Footnote 2] that provided information on four specialty 
hospital types--cardiac, orthopedic, surgical, and women's--regarding 
their share of the national hospital market, the extent to which 
physicians have ownership interests in these hospitals, and the 
patients served by these hospitals compared with those served by 
general hospitals, in terms of illness severity. This report provides 
additional information related to your request. Specifically, it 
examines (1) what state policies and local market conditions are 
associated with the location of specialty hospitals, (2) how specialty 
hospitals differ from general hospitals in providing emergency care and 
serving a community's other medical needs, and (3) how specialty and 
general hospitals in the same communities compare in terms of market 
share and financial health.

Our work focused on acute care hospitals that tended to treat patients 
for a limited group of diseases or conditions or that tended to perform 
surgical procedures. Specifically, we considered a hospital to be a 
specialty hospital if the diagnosis-related group (DRG) classification 
for two-thirds of its Medicare patients (or two-thirds of all of its 
patients where such data were available) fell into no more than two 
major diagnosis categories, such as diseases of the circulatory system 
(cardiac), or if at least two-thirds of its patients were classified in 
surgical DRGs. We excluded hospitals that specialized in providing 
long-term care or otherwise had missions that were largely distinct 
from the missions of short-term, acute care general hospitals.[Footnote 
3] We classified the hospitals that fit these criteria into five 
specialty types--cardiac, orthopedic, surgical, women's, and other 
specialty. The other-specialty category contained six hospitals that 
specialized in a variety of areas, such as eye and ear, nose, and 
throat procedures. Because summary statistics for such a diverse group 
would not be meaningful, we excluded these six hospitals from our 
analysis.

The information in this report is derived from our analysis of hospital 
inpatient discharge data, responses to our 2003 survey of specialty 
hospitals, responses to our 2002 survey of general hospitals, and other 
data. We analyzed Medicare inpatient discharge data from all hospitals 
nationwide to help identify specialty hospitals. We also used 
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) data on all patient 
discharges in 2000 from hospitals located in six states to help 
identify specialty hospitals.[Footnote 4] These six states contained 
slightly more than one-fourth of the existing specialty hospitals that 
we identified nationwide. Our findings related to the percentage of 
each hospital's patients covered by Medicaid or Medicare, and 
hospitals' market shares are based on an analysis of HCUP data from 
urban specialty and general hospitals in these six states. Our findings 
related to hospitals' financial performance are based on fiscal year 
2001 data that hospitals nationwide submitted to Medicare. These data 
include 55 of the 100 specialty hospitals we identified. (Although the 
2001 data are the most recent available, many specialty hospitals were 
too new to be included.) Other findings in this report are based on 
hospitals' responses to the survey that we sent to all of the specialty 
hospitals that we identified or information that hospitals provided to 
Medicare or the American Hospital Association (AHA).[Footnote 5] For 
more detail regarding our specialty hospital criteria and analysis 
methodology, see appendix I. Our work was performed from September 2002 
through October 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

Hospitals that specialize in treating cardiac, orthopedic, or women's 
conditions or in performing surgery tended to be concentrated in 
certain geographic areas where state policy or local demographic 
conditions were favorable to hospital growth. Although 28 states had at 
least one specialty hospital, approximately two-thirds of the 100 
specialty hospitals that we identified were located in seven states: 
Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and 
Texas. The specialty hospitals that are planned to open over the next 
few months or years will reinforce this pattern of concentration. 
Approximately 60 percent of the 26 specialty hospitals under 
development that we identified as of June 2003 were located in 
California, Louisiana, and Texas. Of the 10 states that had one or more 
specialty hospitals under development, 9 already had at least 1 
existing specialty hospital. All of the specialty hospitals under 
development, and 96 percent of those that opened in 1990 or later, are 
located in states where hospitals may add beds or build new facilities 
without first obtaining state approval for the hospital bed capacity 
increase.[Footnote 6] Counties with populations that grew the fastest 
from 1990 through 2000 were somewhat more likely than slower growing 
counties to have had a specialty hospital open since 1990. However, 
there did not appear to be a consistent relationship between specialty 
hospital location and a relative abundance or shortage of local health 
care resources, as measured by physicians per capita or hospital beds 
per capita.

Relative to general hospitals, specialty hospitals, as a group, were 
much less likely to have emergency departments, treated smaller 
percentages of Medicaid patients, and derived a smaller share of their 
revenues from inpatient services. However, there were important 
differences among the four specialty hospital types in these and other 
service indicators. Seventy-two percent of the cardiac hospitals, 50 
percent of the women's hospitals, 39 percent of the surgical hospitals, 
and 33 percent of the orthopedic hospitals reported having emergency 
departments. In contrast, 92 percent of general hospitals had emergency 
departments. Among specialty hospital types, there were substantial 
emergency department differences in terms of numbers of patients 
served, variety of conditions treated, and physician staffing. For 
example, of the hospitals that responded to our survey question on 
emergency department staffing, all of the cardiac hospitals--but only 
about one-third of the orthopedic and surgical hospitals--reported 
having a physician in the emergency department around the clock. 
Compared to general hospitals in the same urban areas, specialty 
hospitals in our HCUP sample tended to treat a lower percentage of 
Medicaid patients among all patients with the same types of conditions. 
For example, Medicaid patients constituted 3 percent of the cardiac 
patients at cardiac hospitals, but 6 percent of the cardiac patients at 
area general hospitals. The results were more mixed for Medicare 
patients. Cardiac hospitals in our HCUP sample treated a higher 
percentage of Medicare patients relative to area general hospitals, 
while the percentage of Medicare patients at other specialty hospital 
types was lower or about the same relative to area general hospitals. 
Differences also appeared in the mix of inpatient and outpatient 
services. Cardiac and women's hospitals derived the majority of their 
revenues from inpatient services, while orthopedic and surgical 
hospitals derived the majority of their revenues from outpatient 
services. Overall, inpatient services accounted for about 46 percent of 
revenues at specialty hospitals and about 57 percent of revenues at 
general hospitals.

In many cases, specialty hospitals in our HCUP sample treated more 
patients than the comparable departments at many area general 
hospitals. For example, one cardiac hospital treated 4,000 cardiac 
patients in 2000, approximately double the median number of cardiac 
patients treated at the 26 general hospitals in the same urban area. 
Each of the other 6 cardiac hospitals also treated more cardiac 
patients than were treated at the median general hospital in its area. 
The vast majority of orthopedic and women's hospitals in the HCUP 
sample were also larger than at least half of the relevant general 
hospitals' departments in the same urban areas. However, two of the 
three surgical hospitals in our HCUP sample treated relatively few 
cases. Although there was substantial variation in the market share of 
individual specialty hospitals, the median cardiac hospital was 
responsible for 15 percent of the cardiac cases treated in its urban 
area. Orthopedic, surgical, and women's hospitals had median market 
shares that ranged from 4 percent (surgical hospitals) to 8 percent 
(women's hospitals). The financial performance of specialty hospitals 
tended to equal or exceed that of general hospitals in fiscal year 
2001. The 55 specialty hospitals with available financial data tended 
to perform better than general hospitals when revenues and costs from 
all lines of business and all payers were included. When the focus was 
limited to Medicare inpatient business only, specialty hospitals 
appeared to perform about as well as general hospitals.

We obtained comments from officials representing the American Surgical 
Hospital Association (ASHA)--a specialty hospital association--and 
from officials representing the MedCath Corporation and National 
Surgical Hospitals (NSH)--two major specialty hospital chains. The 
officials generally agreed with the information in our report and 
offered their views on reasons for key differences between specialty 
and general hospitals. Their comments largely pertained to our findings 
regarding hospital location, presence and utilization of emergency 
departments, and hospitals' financial performance.

Background:

Specialty hospitals have become a subject of debate among health care 
policymakers. One issue concerns physician ownership of specialty 
hospitals and whether such ownership might inappropriately affect 
physicians' clinical decision-making and referral behavior. A related 
issue concerns the potential for specialty hospitals to benefit 
financially by treating patients who are less severely ill, and 
therefore less costly, while leaving general hospitals responsible for 
a mix of patients who need more care and are more expensive to treat. 
Our April 2003 report provided information on both issues: the extent 
of physician ownership at specialty hospitals and the relative severity 
of patients' illnesses at specialty and general hospitals.[Footnote 7]

Physician Self-Referral Law and Hospital Payment Rules Provide Context 
for Issues Regarding Specialty Hospitals:

Much of the concern about specialty hospitals centers on physician 
ownership issues. Federal law generally prohibits physicians from 
referring Medicare patients for specific health care services to 
facilities in which they (or their immediate family members) have 
financial interests.[Footnote 8] This prohibition, a key component of 
the Medicare self-referral or Stark law (named after its chief sponsor 
in the House of Representatives, Representative Pete Stark) was enacted 
after several studies found that physicians with ownership interests in 
separate clinical laboratories, diagnostic imaging centers, or physical 
therapy providers tended to make more referrals to them and order 
substantially more services at higher costs.[Footnote 9]

The Stark law contains an exception that is relevant in the case of 
referrals to specialty hospitals. The law includes an exception that 
permits physicians who have an ownership interest in an entire hospital 
and who also are authorized to perform services there to refer patients 
to that hospital.[Footnote 10] The premise is that any referral or 
decision made by a physician who has a stake in an entire hospital 
would produce little personal economic gain because hospitals tend to 
provide a diverse and large group of services. However, the Stark law 
does prohibit physicians who have ownership interest only in a hospital 
subdivision from referring patients to that subdivision. With respect 
to specialty hospitals, the concern exists that, as these hospitals are 
usually much smaller in size and scope than general hospitals and 
closer in size to hospital departments, the exception to Stark could 
allow physician owners to influence their hospitals'--and therefore 
their own--financial gain through practice patterns and referrals.

The question of favorable patient selection--the contention that 
specialty hospitals treat a more financially favorable selection of 
patients as compared to general hospitals--has added to the debate 
about the advantages and drawbacks of specialty hospitals. This issue 
is linked to the way hospitals are paid. The fixed-rate, lump-sum 
payments that Medicare and many other health care payers typically make 
to hospitals for inpatient care for patients with a given diagnosis, 
regardless of the costs of serving particular patients, are designed to 
promote efficiency by discouraging hospitals from providing unnecessary 
services as a way to boost revenues. However, these lump-sum payments 
foster undesirable incentives, as hospitals may gain financially by 
serving a disproportionate share of lower-cost patients with the same 
diagnoses. Medicare's hospital payment system rules illustrate this 
principle.

Under its system of prospective payments, Medicare pays a predetermined 
rate for each hospital discharge, based on the patient's diagnosis and 
whether the patient received surgery. In other words, the payments 
reflect an average bundle of services that the beneficiary is expected 
to receive as an inpatient for a particular diagnosis. Discharges are 
classified according to a list of DRGs. DRG payment rates are based on 
the expected cost of the diagnosis group's typical case compared with 
the cost for all Medicare inpatient cases. The DRG payment is not 
adjusted for within-DRG differences in severity of illness.[Footnote 
11] Therefore, hospitals have a financial incentive to treat as many 
patients as possible whose costs are low relative to the costs of the 
average patient in each DRG.

Our April 2003 study found that 21 out of 25 specialty hospitals 
treated a lower percentage of patients who were severely ill compared 
with patients in the same diagnosis categories treated at general 
hospitals in the same urban areas. For example, in an urban area in 
Texas, 3 percent of an orthopedic hospital's patients with that 
hospital's most common diagnoses were classified as severely ill, as 
compared with 8 percent of patients with the same diagnoses treated by 
the area's more than four dozen general hospitals. In an urban area in 
Arizona, about 17 percent of a cardiac hospital's patients with that 
hospital's most common diagnoses were classified as severely ill, as 
compared to 22 percent of patients with the same diagnoses treated by 
the area's more than two dozen general hospitals. Not all specialty 
hospitals treated patients who were, by comparison, less sick. Two of 
the 25 specialty hospitals treated a higher percentage of severely ill 
patients and two others treated about the same percentage as area 
general hospitals. In examining the illness severity differences 
between specialty and general hospitals, we did not determine the 
clinical or economic importance of these differences.

Specialty Hospital Types Vary in Ownership Arrangements and Medicare 
Spending:

For-profit status is a salient characteristic of specialty hospitals we 
identified. More than 90 percent of the specialty hospitals that have 
opened since 1990 were for-profit. Overall, 74 percent of specialty 
hospitals are for-profit, as compared to about 20 percent of all 
general hospitals. (See table 1.) For-profit status varied somewhat by 
specialty type, ranging from 78 percent of orthopedic hospitals to 65 
percent of women's hospitals.

Table 1: Percentage of For-profit and Nonprofit Hospitals, 2003:

For-profit; Specialty hospitals: 74.0; Specialty hospitals opened 
1990-2003: 92.8; General hospitals: 20.1.

Nonprofit; Specialty hospitals: 26.0; Specialty hospitals opened 
1990-2003: 7.2; General hospitals: 79.9.

Sources: AHA, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and GAO.

Note: We determined each hospital's profit status from AHA's Annual 
Survey (2001) and the CMS Provider of Services File (POS) (2003). If 
these sources did not include information on a specialty hospital's 
profit status, we contacted that hospital's administrator.

[End of table]

In our April 2003 report, we found that 70 percent of the more than 100 
specialty hospitals in existence or under development had some degree 
of physician ownership.[Footnote 12] Among specialty hospitals with any 
degree of physician ownership, physicians' combined ownership shares 
averaged slightly more than 50 percent of the hospital. Physicians' 
combined ownership tended to be somewhat smaller at cardiac hospitals 
(31 percent) and larger at surgical hospitals (70 percent). The degree 
of individual physician ownership varied by hospital, but was generally 
low. At approximately half of all specialty hospitals with physician 
ownership, the average share owned by an individual physician was less 
than 2 percent. The share of a specialty hospital owned in the 
aggregate by the physicians in a revenue-sharing group practice could 
be much higher. At more than half of the specialty hospitals with 
physician owners, physicians in a single group practice owned more than 
25 percent of the hospital.

The majority of physicians who worked in specialty hospitals had no 
ownership interest in the facilities. Overall, approximately 73 percent 
of physicians with admitting privileges to specialty hospitals were not 
investors in their hospitals.[Footnote 13] (See fig. 1.) The percentage 
of admitting physicians who were investors varied by specialty hospital 
type, ranging from about 7 percent at women's hospitals to about 44 
percent at surgical hospitals.

Figure 1: Median Percentage of Admitting Physicians with Ownership in 
Specialty Hospitals, by Specialty Hospital Type, 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Data are from GAO's specialty hospital survey (2003).

[End of figure]

We identified three basic business structures for specialty hospitals. 
Our survey results indicated that about one-third of specialty 
hospitals were independent. Most of these hospitals were orthopedic or 
surgical and 76 percent had some degree of physician ownership. 
Approximately one-third of specialty hospitals were owned in part by a 
specialty hospital chain. Among this group, most hospitals were cardiac 
or orthopedic and 76 percent had some degree of physician ownership. 
The remaining one-third of specialty hospitals were owned or operated 
in part by local general hospitals. Almost half (48 percent) of the 
hospitals in this last group, which varied in specialty type, had some 
degree of physician ownership.

In 2001, specialty hospitals accounted for approximately $871 million, 
or 1 percent, of Medicare's spending on hospital inpatient services. 
Nearly two-thirds of this amount went to cardiac hospitals. (See table 
2.):

Table 2: Medicare Inpatient Spending at Specialty and General 
Hospitals, by Hospital Type, Fiscal Year 2001:

Specialty hospitals; Number of hospitals: 78; Total Medicare inpatient 
spending (millions): $870.8; Distribution of Medicare inpatient 
spending at specialty hospitals (percentage): 100.0.

Cardiac; Number of hospitals: 15; Total Medicare inpatient spending 
(millions): 540.5; Distribution of Medicare inpatient spending at 
specialty hospitals (percentage): 62.1.

Orthopedic; Number of hospitals: 31; Total Medicare inpatient spending 
(millions): 159.3; Distribution of Medicare inpatient spending at 
specialty hospitals (percentage): 18.3.

Surgical; Number of hospitals: 16; Total Medicare inpatient spending 
(millions): 76.2; Distribution of Medicare inpatient spending at 
specialty hospitals (percentage): 8.7.

Women's; Number of hospitals: 16; Total Medicare inpatient spending 
(millions): 94.8; Distribution of Medicare inpatient spending at 
specialty hospitals (percentage): 10.9.

General hospitals; Number of hospitals: 4,908; Total Medicare inpatient 
spending (millions): 88,507.2; Distribution of Medicare inpatient 
spending at specialty hospitals (percentage): NA.

Source: CMS.

Notes: Medicare spending data are from the CMS Medicare Provider 
Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file for fiscal year 2001. Some of the 100 
specialty hospitals that we identified opened too recently to be 
included in this data file.

[End of table]

Specialty Hospitals Clustered in Areas Where State Policy and Local 
Demographic Conditions Favor Growth:

Although 28 states had at least one existing specialty hospital, about 
two-thirds of the 100 specialty hospitals we identified were located in 
7 states. The specialty hospitals that are planned to open over the 
next few months or years will reinforce this pattern of concentration. 
Specialty hospital location was associated with regulatory and 
demographic conditions that may facilitate or encourage hospital 
development.

Specialty Hospitals Exist in Particular States:

Specialty hospitals are concentrated in seven states: Arizona, 
California, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. 
Texas, with 20 specialty hospitals, had almost twice as many specialty 
hospitals as the state with the second highest number of specialty 
hospitals, California, with 11. States such as Oklahoma (9), Kansas 
(8), and South Dakota (7), although smaller in area and population than 
California, had nearly as many specialty hospitals. The remaining 21 
states with specialty hospitals had between 1 and 4 specialty hospitals 
each. (See fig. 2.):

Figure 2: Specialty Hospitals by State, June 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Data are from HCUP (2000), the CMS MedPAR file for fiscal year 
2001, and GAO contacts with industry groups and specialty hospital 
chains.

[End of figure]

The specialty hospitals that are planned to open over the next few 
months or years will tend to reinforce the existing pattern of 
geographic concentration. In June 2003, at least 26 specialty hospitals 
were under development in 10 states. (See fig. 3.) Nine of the 10 
states that had one or more specialty hospitals under development 
already had at least 1 existing specialty hospital. About 60 percent of 
specialty hospitals under development were located in three states: 
Texas had 7; California, 5; and Louisiana, 4. Seven other states had 1 
or 2 specialty hospitals that were under development as of June 2003. 
Based on the specialty hospitals known to be under development, the 
number of surgical hospitals will increase by 65 percent and the number 
of cardiac hospitals will increase by approximately 40 percent in the 
next few months or years. Seven cardiac hospitals, 2 orthopedic 
hospitals, and 17 surgical hospitals are under development.[Footnote 
14]

Figure 3: Specialty Hospitals under Development by State, June 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Data are from GAO contacts with industry groups and specialty 
hospital chains.

[End of figure]

Specialty Hospitals Tend to Locate in States That Do Not Restrict 
Hospital Growth:

The location of specialty hospitals is strongly correlated to whether 
states allow hospitals to add beds or build new facilities without 
first obtaining state approval for such health care capacity increases. 
All of the specialty hospitals that are under development and 96 
percent of the specialty hospitals that opened from 1990 to June 2003 
are located in such states. (See table 3.) State requirements for prior 
approval to increase health care capacity are commonly referred to as 
certificate of need (CON) laws or requirements. Federal legislation 
enacted in 1975 to promote comprehensive planning and development of 
hospitals and other health care resources conditioned funding to states 
on their establishment of CON requirements.[Footnote 15] At that time, 
many policymakers contended that CON requirements could prevent the 
construction of unnecessary capacity and help control health care 
costs. CON opponents argued that such requirements could stifle 
competition and lead to higher health care costs. Whether CON 
requirements achieved their objectives was inconclusive,[Footnote 16] 
and in 1986 the federal legislation was repealed.[Footnote 17] 
Subsequently, several states dropped their CON requirements.[Footnote 
18] In 2002, 37 states maintained CON requirements to varying 
degrees.[Footnote 19] Overall, 83 percent of all specialty hospitals, 
55 percent of general hospitals, and 50 percent of the U.S. population 
are located in states without CON requirements.[Footnote 20]

Table 3: Percentage of Hospitals and Population, by State CON 
Requirement Status, June 2003:

Non-CON states; Specialty hospitals: 83; Specialty hospitals opened 
1990-June 2003: 96; Specialty hospitals under development: 100; General 
hospitals: 55; U.S. population: 50.

CON states; Specialty hospitals: 17; Specialty hospitals opened 
1990-June 2003: 4; Specialty hospitals under development: 0; General 
hospitals: 45; U.S. population: 50.

Sources: American Health Planning Association (AHPA), AHA, GAO, and the 
U.S. Census Bureau.

[End of table]

Specialty Hospital Location Associated with Population Density and 
Growth:

Eighty-five percent of specialty hospitals are located in urban 
areas,[Footnote 21] a distribution that is roughly proportional to that 
of the U.S. population. An urban location was slightly more prevalent 
among women's hospitals (90 percent) and slightly less prevalent among 
cardiac hospitals (78 percent).

Specialty hospitals also tended to locate in counties where the 
population growth rate from April 1990 through April 2000 far exceeded 
the national average of 11.1 percent. About 43 percent of specialty 
hospitals that opened in 1990 or later are located in counties where 
the population grew by 20 percent or more between the 1990 and 2000 
decennial censuses.[Footnote 22] There did not appear to be a 
consistent relationship between specialty hospital location and a 
relative abundance or shortage of local health care resources, as 
measured by physicians per capita or hospital beds per capita.[Footnote 
23]

The Four Specialty Hospital Types Differed from General Hospitals in 
Size and Scope but Also Differed from One Another:

Relative to general hospitals, specialty hospitals, as a group, were 
much less likely to have emergency departments, saw fewer patients in 
their emergency departments, treated smaller percentages of Medicaid 
patients, and derived a smaller share of their revenues from inpatient 
services. However, there were important differences among the four 
specialty hospital types in these and other service indicators, such as 
the extent to which hospitals' emergency departments focused on certain 
medical conditions or procedures.

Hospitals Differed in the Provision of Emergency Care:

Several differences with respect to emergency departments highlight the 
contrast between specialty hospitals and general hospitals and also the 
contrast among the four types of specialty hospitals. The four 
specialty hospital types were less likely than general hospitals to 
have emergency departments, but the prevalence of emergency departments 
varied by specialty hospital type.[Footnote 24] Overall, 45 percent of 
specialty hospitals had emergency departments, compared with 92 percent 
of general hospitals. (See fig. 4.) The prevalence of emergency 
departments in specialty hospitals ranged from 72 percent of the 
cardiac hospitals to 33 percent of the orthopedic hospitals.

Figure 4: Percentage of Specialty and General Hospitals with Emergency 
Departments, 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Data for general hospitals are from AHA's Annual Survey (2001). 
Specialty hospital data are from GAO's specialty hospital survey 
(2003), GAO's contacts with hospital administrators, and the CMS POS 
file (2003).

[End of figure]

The emergency departments at specialty hospitals treated less than one-
tenth the median number of patients treated at the emergency 
departments of general hospitals. (See table 4.) The number of patients 
treated at general hospitals' emergency departments remained greater 
when hospital size was accounted for: the median number of patients 
treated per bed per month was about 12 at general hospitals' emergency 
departments and slightly less than 3 at specialty hospitals' emergency 
departments.

Table 4: Emergency Department Utilization at Specialty and General 
Hospitals:

Specialty hospitals; Median number of patients per month: 225.0; Median 
number of patients per bed per month: 2.9; Median percentage of 
emergency department visits in field of specialization: 75.

Cardiac; Median number of patients per month: 329.0; Median number of 
patients per bed per month: 4.8; Median percentage of emergency 
department visits in field of specialization: 57.

Orthopedic; Median number of patients per month: 87.0; Median number of 
patients per bed per month: 1.4; Median percentage of emergency 
department visits in field of specialization: 95.

Surgical; Median number of patients per month: 15.0; Median number of 
patients per bed per month: 1.4; Median percentage of emergency 
department visits in field of specialization: 93.

General hospitals; Median number of patients per month: 2,636.1[A]; 
Median number of patients per bed per month: 12.3[B]; Median percentage 
of emergency department visits in field of specialization: NA.

Source: GAO.

Notes: Data for specialty hospitals are from GAO's specialty hospital 
survey (2003). Data for general hospitals are from GAO's general 
hospital survey (2002), conducted for Hospital Emergency Departments: 
Crowded Conditions Vary Among Hospitals and Communities, GAO-03-460 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003), which included general hospitals in 
MSAs that had emergency departments in 2000. Of the 45 specialty 
hospitals that reported having emergency departments, 28 (62 percent) 
provided information on the number of patients treated. Because of the 
low response rate among women's hospitals (30 percent), the table 
reports the median number of emergency department patients only for 11 
cardiac hospitals (85 percent responded), 6 orthopedic hospitals (50 
percent responded), and 8 surgical hospitals (80 percent responded). 
The percentage of emergency department visits in the hospital's field 
of specialization is based on responses from 10 cardiac hospitals (77 
percent responded), 6 orthopedic hospitals (50 percent responded), and 
6 surgical hospitals (60 percent responded).

[A] Based on responses from 1,471 general hospitals.

[B] Based on responses from 1,271 general hospitals.

[End of table]

Based on the responses to our 2003 survey, the emergency departments at 
specialty hospitals often appeared to have missions that were focused 
on certain medical conditions or procedures. For example, 95 percent of 
the patients at orthopedic hospitals' emergency departments were 
orthopedic patients, and 93 percent of the patients at surgical 
hospitals' emergency departments were surgical patients. The median 
percentage of emergency department patients who fit within the 
hospital's field of specialization was lower at cardiac hospitals (57 
percent).

Specialty hospital types varied in how many had a physician around-the-
clock in their emergency departments. Overall, 63 percent of specialty 
hospitals that had emergency departments, and that responded to our 
staffing questions, reported having a physician staffing the department 
24 hours a day. (See table 5.) Cardiac hospitals were the most likely 
to have 24-hour physician staffing. Eleven of the 13 cardiac hospitals 
responded to our survey question. All 11--100 percent--indicated that 
they had 24-hour physician staffing of their emergency departments. 
Response rates to the staffing question were far lower among other 
specialty hospital types--approximately 60 percent of the orthopedic 
and surgical hospitals with emergency departments, and 30 percent of 
the women's hospitals with emergency departments, answered the staffing 
question. Among the surgical and orthopedic hospitals with emergency 
departments that did respond, one-third or less reported having a 
physician in the department 24 hours per day. Two of the three women's 
hospitals that provided staffing information reported having a 
physician in their emergency departments 24 hours per day.

Table 5: Physician Staffing in Emergency Departments at Specialty 
Hospitals, 2003:

Specialty hospitals; Number of hospitals with emergency departments: 
45; Number of hospitals that provided emergency department staffing 
information: 27; Number of hospitals with physicians in the emergency 
department 24 hours per day: 17.

Cardiac; Number of hospitals with emergency departments: 13; Number 
of hospitals that provided emergency department staffing information: 
11; Number of hospitals with physicians in the emergency department 24 
hours per day: 11.

Orthopedic; Number of hospitals with emergency departments: 12; 
Number of hospitals that provided emergency department staffing 
information: 7; Number of hospitals with physicians in the emergency 
department 24 hours per day: 2.

Surgical; Number of hospitals with emergency departments: 10; Number 
of hospitals that provided emergency department staffing information: 
6; Number of hospitals with physicians in the emergency department 24 
hours per day: 2.

Women's; Number of hospitals with emergency departments: 10; Number 
of hospitals that provided emergency department staffing information: 
3; Number of hospitals with physicians in the emergency department 24 
hours per day: 2.

Source: GAO.

Note: Data are from GAO's specialty hospital survey (2003). Twenty-
seven of the 45 specialty hospitals that reported having emergency 
departments answered the survey questions pertaining to emergency 
department staffing.

[End of table]

Hospitals Differed in Share of Public Patients Served and Revenue 
Generated from Inpatient Services:

The contrast between specialty and general hospitals was also marked 
with respect to the share of public program inpatients treated and 
inpatient services provided. Relative to general hospitals in the same 
urban areas, specialty hospitals in our HCUP sample tended to treat a 
lower percentage of Medicaid inpatients among all patients with the 
same types of conditions. (See fig 5.) For example, Medicaid 
beneficiaries constituted 28 percent of obstetric and gynecological 
(OB/GYN) patients at women's hospitals, but 37 percent of the OB/GYN 
patients at area general hospitals.

Figure 5: Percentage of Patients Covered by Medicaid at Specialty and 
Area General Hospitals for Services in the Same Field of 
Specialization, 2000:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Analysis based on HCUP data from six states. General hospitals in 
the same market areas as each type of specialty hospital were the basis 
for comparison.

[End of figure]

The pattern for Medicare inpatients served differed somewhat from that 
for Medicaid patients. Relative to area general hospitals, cardiac 
hospitals tended to have larger shares of Medicare cardiac patients. 
(See fig. 6.) Medicare patients constituted similar shares of surgical 
patients at surgical specialty and area general hospitals and of 
gynecological patients at women's specialty and area general hospitals. 
In contrast, orthopedic hospitals served a lower percentage of Medicare 
orthopedic inpatients than did area general hospitals.

Figure 6: Percentage of Patients Covered by Medicare at Specialty and 
General Hospitals for Services in the Same Field of Specialization, 
2000:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Analysis based on HCUP data from six states. General hospitals in 
the same market areas as each type of specialty hospital were the basis 
for comparison.

[End of figure]

Dissimilarity between specialty and general hospitals was noticeable in 
the mix of inpatient and outpatient revenues. For the four specialty 
hospital types, hospitals that responded to our survey reported that 
inpatient revenues accounted for about 46 percent of their total 
revenues, compared with about 57 percent of total revenues for general 
hospitals. (See fig. 7.) However, percentage of inpatient business 
varied substantially by specialty hospital type. For example, about 25 
percent of surgical hospitals' revenues were derived from their 
inpatient business. Their mix of services may, in part, reflect the 
fact that some of these hospitals started as ambulatory surgical 
centers--distinct facilities that perform outpatient surgery 
exclusively--and later added inpatient capacity. The percentage of 
inpatient revenues at orthopedic hospitals (approximately 37 percent) 
was somewhat higher than the percentage at surgical hospitals. 
Inpatient revenues made up about 58 percent of total revenues at the 
women's hospitals, which was similar to the proportion at area general 
hospitals (57 percent). In contrast, cardiac hospitals derived 85 
percent of their revenues from their inpatient business.

Figure 7: Average Percentage of Inpatient and Outpatient Revenues at 
Specialty and General Hospitals, 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Data are from AHA's Annual Survey (2001) and GAO's survey of 
specialty hospitals (2003).

[End of figure]

Specialty Hospitals Rivaled General Hospitals in Certain Market Share 
Measures and Financial Performance:

Although a general hospital typically had more beds than a specialty 
hospital had, the focused mission of a specialty hospital often 
resulted in its treating more patients with a given condition. 
Financially, specialty hospitals overall tended to perform about as 
well as general hospitals did on their Medicare inpatient business. 
However, for-profit specialty hospitals did not do as well, on average, 
as for-profit general hospitals. When the costs from all lines of 
business and the revenues from all payers were considered, specialty 
hospitals tended to outperform general hospitals.

Within Their Fields of Expertise, Specialty Hospitals Often Treated 
More Patients Than Many General Hospitals:

Specialty hospitals in our HCUP sample were generally not small 
relative to general hospitals when the comparison was based upon the 
number of patients treated for specific conditions. For example, 1 
cardiac hospital treated nearly 4,000 cardiac patients in 2000. Among 
the 26 general hospitals that also treated cardiac patients in the same 
urban area, the median number treated was approximately 2,000. Each of 
the 7 cardiac hospitals in our HCUP sample treated more patients than 
the median general hospital's cardiac practice in the specialty 
hospitals' market areas. A similar relationship to general hospitals 
existed among the HCUP orthopedic and women's hospitals. Six of the 8 
orthopedic hospitals and 6 of the 7 women's hospitals treated more 
patients than were treated in the comparable departments of the median 
general hospitals in their markets. In contrast, 2 of the 3 surgical 
hospitals performed fewer inpatient surgical procedures relative to the 
general hospitals in their markets.

In some cases, a specialty hospital treated far more patients with 
certain conditions than did any of the general hospitals in the same 
urban area. For example, 1 orthopedic hospital in our HCUP sample 
treated approximately 7,400 orthopedic patients in 2000. In contrast, 
the largest number of orthopedic patients treated at any of the 73 
general hospitals in the same urban area was just over 3,000. In all, 4 
of the 25 HCUP specialty hospitals--1 cardiac, 2 orthopedic, and 1 
women's--had higher patient volumes than did the comparable departments 
at all of the general hospitals in their markets. These hospitals 
represent the extreme end of the relative size spectrum. The median 
cardiac and orthopedic hospitals treated somewhat more than twice the 
number of patients treated in the comparable departments of the median 
general hospital in their markets. The median women's hospital was 
about 80 percent larger in patient volume than the median comparable 
department at general hospitals in the area.

Specialty hospitals' market shares, measured as the percentage of 
inpatient claims in an urban area, were much higher when only claims 
within a particular specialty field were included instead of all 
inpatient claims. (See fig. 8.) In markets that had from 5 to 26 
general hospitals that treated cardiac patients, cardiac hospitals had 
a median market share of 15 percent of the cardiac patients. The median 
market share was 8 percent among women's hospitals, in markets that 
contained from 7 to 86 general hospitals, and 5 percent among 
orthopedic hospitals, in markets that contained from 10 to 86 general 
hospitals. Surgical hospitals' median market share of 4 percent was the 
smallest among the four specialty hospital types. However, there was 
wide variation in the market shares of individual hospitals--especially 
among women's hospitals. For example, 1 women's hospital had a 2 
percent market share while another had a 47 percent market share.

Figure 8: Median Percentage of Local Market Share, 2000:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: Analysis based on HCUP data from six states. The percentage of 
all claims at orthopedic hospitals was less than 0.5.

[End of figure]

Financial Performance of Specialty Hospitals Tended to Equal or Exceed 
That of General Hospitals:

Financially, specialty hospitals tended to perform about as well as 
general hospitals did on their Medicare inpatient business in fiscal 
year 2001--the most recent year for which this information is 
available. Medicare inpatient margins--which are used to gauge a 
hospital's financial performance on Medicare inpatient business--
averaged 9.4 percent at specialty hospitals and 8.9 percent at general 
hospitals.[Footnote 25] (See table 6.) Among for-profit hospitals--both 
specialty and general hospitals--average Medicare inpatient margins 
were higher. However, for-profit general hospitals had average Medicare 
inpatient margins (14.6 percent) that exceeded those at for-profit 
specialty hospitals (12.4 percent).

Table 6: Medicare Inpatient and Total Facility Margins at Specialty and 
General Hospitals, Fiscal Year 2001:

All hospitals; Medicare inpatient margins: Specialty hospitals : 9.4; 
Medicare inpatient margins: General hospitals: 8.9; Total 
facility all payer margins: Specialty hospitals: 6.4; Total facility 
all payer margins: General hospitals: 3.1.

For-profit hospitals; Medicare inpatient margins: Specialty 
hospitals : 12.4; Medicare inpatient margins: General hospitals: 14.6; 
Total facility all payer margins: Specialty hospitals: 9.7; 
Total facility all payer margins: General hospitals: 9.2.

Source: CMS.

Note: Data are from CMS's Hospital Cost Report file, fiscal year 2001.

[End of table]

When revenues and costs from all lines of business and all payers were 
included, the average financial performance of specialty hospitals 
exceeded that of general hospitals. Total facility margins--constructed 
similarly to Medicare inpatient margins--averaged 6.4 percent among all 
specialty hospitals and 3.1 percent among all general hospitals. Among 
both specialty hospitals and general hospitals, the average total 
margin at for-profit hospitals was higher than the total margin among 
all hospitals.

Comments from Organizations Representing Specialty Hospitals and Our 
Evaluation:

We obtained comments from officials representing ASHA--a specialty 
hospital association--and from officials representing the MedCath 
Corporation and NSH--two major specialty hospital chains. The officials 
generally agreed with the information in our report and offered their 
views on reasons for key differences between specialty and general 
hospitals. Their comments, summarized below, largely pertained to our 
findings regarding hospital location, presence and utilization of 
emergency departments, and hospitals' financial performance. Unless 
otherwise noted, the following comments reflect the positions of all 
three organizations.

In response to our finding that, on average, the number of physicians 
per capita and the number of hospital inpatient beds per capita are the 
same in communities with and without specialty hospitals, MedCath 
officials said that they have a national strategy in which they project 
communities' health care needs several years into the future and use 
the results to help them choose potential locations for new cardiac 
hospitals. MedCath officials said that this explains why specialty 
hospitals tend to locate in areas experiencing rapid population growth. 
An ASHA official said that, among the association's members, the 
decision to build a specialty hospital begins with physicians in a 
community and their perception of the community's health care needs.

Specialty hospital representatives stressed that the existence and 
utilization of an emergency department is primarily a function of the 
mission of a particular hospital. They said that a specialty hospital 
might not include an emergency department if the hospital's intended 
role in a community does not call for one. NSH officials noted that 
nonprofit general hospitals receive tax advantages in return for 
providing certain community services, including emergency care. MedCath 
officials said that, because nonprofit hospitals are required to 
fulfill certain social needs, our comparisons involving emergency 
departments and treatment of Medicaid patients should have been made 
between for-profit specialty hospitals and for-profit general 
hospitals. ASHA officials added that state law may dictate whether a 
hospital has an emergency department.

MedCath officials noted that our results showed that, on average, 
specialty hospitals' margins are similar to for-profit general 
hospitals' margins. They said that this financial performance was the 
result of a business model that emphasizes efficiency and cost control 
in the delivery of quality health care.

Overall, MedCath officials said that our findings showed that specialty 
hospitals should be no cause for concern. Specifically, the officials 
said that there are relatively few specialty hospitals, specialty 
hospitals account for a very small fraction of total Medicare inpatient 
hospital spending, such hospitals are concentrated in a few states and 
in areas where there is a need for such hospitals, and their business 
model leads to profits that are similar to the profits earned by for-
profit general hospitals. Representatives from all three organizations, 
while generally agreeing with the information in our report, emphasized 
the important role that specialty hospitals play in efficiently 
providing quality health care.

We agree that, on a national level, specialty hospitals have a small 
presence. However, in the communities in which they locate, specialty 
hospitals may treat a relatively large share of patients who have 
specific medical conditions or need specific medical procedures. For 
the share of the market that those patients represent, specialty 
hospitals are often among the larger competitors that general hospitals 
face. In addition, the number of specialty hospitals is growing 
rapidly. In the next few months or years, the number of specialty 
hospitals that we identified is expected to increase by at least 25 
percent.

The policy issue regarding emergency care may be one that is focused 
more on access to such care and less on whether every specialty 
hospital should have an emergency department. Although some specialty 
hospitals--especially cardiac hospitals--provide at least a limited 
amount of emergency care, individuals who need emergency care typically 
must obtain treatment at general hospitals. Critics of specialty 
hospitals are concerned that such facilities may erode the financial 
health of general hospitals and impair their ability to provide 
emergency care and meet other basic community needs, such as stand-by 
capacity to respond to communitywide disasters. In this report, we did 
not attempt to determine the financial effect that specialty hospitals 
may have on neighboring general hospitals.

Finally, we previously reported that the 25 urban specialty hospitals 
that we studied in six states tended to treat patients who were less 
severely ill relative to patients treated at neighboring general 
hospitals. Because we did not analyze the economic impact of such a 
pattern, we cannot determine the extent to which the financial 
performance of specialty hospitals may be due to patient mix, the 
efficient delivery of health care, or other factors.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 
committees and other interested parties. We will also make copies 
available to others upon request. This report will be available at no 
charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
7101 or James Cosgrove at (202) 512-7029. Other contributors to this 
report include Hannah Fein, Zachary Gaumer, and Ariel Hill.

A. Bruce Steinwald 
Director, Health Care--Economic and Payment Issues:

Signed by A. Bruce Steinwald: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

This appendix provides additional information on the key aspects of our 
analysis. First, it lists the criteria we used to define specialty 
hospitals and the process we followed to identify them. Second, it 
discusses the survey used to collect a variety of information from the 
universe of specialty hospitals. Third, it describes key data sources 
and methodological approaches used in each subanalysis. Finally, it 
address issues related to data reliability and limitations.

Specialty Hospital Definition and Identification:

Although a standard definition for a specialty hospital does not exist, 
a reasonable approach is to define specialty hospitals as those that 
predominately treat certain diagnoses or perform certain procedures. 
For this report, we classified a hospital as a specialty hospital if 
the data indicated that:

* two-thirds or more of its inpatient claims were in one or two major 
diagnosis categories (MDC) or:

* two-thirds or more of its inpatient claims were for surgical 
diagnosis-related groups (DRG).

Because our study focused on private, short-term acute care hospitals, 
we eliminated from consideration hospitals that were government-owned 
and those that tended to provide long-term care or otherwise had 
missions very different from those of short-term, acute care general 
hospitals. Thus, we excluded:

* government-owned hospitals;

* hospitals for which the majority of inpatient claims were for MDCs 
that related to rehabilitation, psychiatry, alcohol and drug treatment, 
children, or newborns; and:

* hospitals with fewer than 10 claims per bed per year.

Of the hospitals that met our criteria, 100 could be classified into 
four specialization categories: cardiac, orthopedic, surgical, and 
women's.[Footnote 26] Twenty-six specialty hospitals were also 
identified as under development and scheduled to open in the next few 
months or years.[Footnote 27] An additional 6 hospitals specialized in 
a variety of other areas--such as eye or ear, nose, and throat 
procedures--but were not included in this analysis. For this report, we 
focused on the specialty hospitals in the four major categories listed 
above.

We applied our criteria to inpatient discharge data from two different 
data sources: the 2001 Medicare Provider Analysis Review (MedPAR) file 
and the 2000 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) state 
inpatient data from six states.[Footnote 28] Medicare and HCUP data 
both have distinct advantages and disadvantages. The MedPAR file 
contains patient information from virtually all of the nation's 
hospitals, but only for Medicare patients. Patients covered by Medicare 
are predominately age 65 or older. Consequently, some conditions--such 
as those that affect women of childbearing age--may be 
underrepresented, or not represented at all, in the MedPAR file. Thus, 
it is likely that an identification based on the MedPAR file undercount 
the number of hospitals that specialize in treating such conditions.

In contrast to Medicare data, HCUP data provide information on all of a 
hospital's patients. However, HCUP data are available for hospitals in 
only 29 states, and each state's data must be purchased separately. We 
obtained HCUP data from the following six states: Arizona, California, 
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Texas.[Footnote 29] These 
states were selected because Medicare data identified them as having 
potentially large concentrations of specialty hospitals.

To identify specialty hospitals that opened too recently to be included 
in the Medicare or HCUP data, we obtained information from the American 
Surgical Hospital Association, the American Federation of Hospitals, 
and two national specialty hospital chains: National Surgical Hospitals 
and MedCath Corporation. These organizations also provided information 
on the 26 specialty hospitals that are under development.

2003 Specialty Hospital Survey:

From January 2003 through March 2003, we conducted a survey of 100 
cardiac, orthopedic, surgical, and women's hospitals that we identified 
as being operational. The survey gathered basic hospital address 
information and posed questions pertaining to the types of services 
offered at each hospital, hospital size, physician ownership, 
partnership structure, and the extent of emergency department services. 
Eighty percent of the specialty hospitals that received our survey 
responded.

Data Sources and Methodological Approach by Topic:

Physician Ownership Information:

Information pertaining to physician ownership of specialty hospitals 
was drawn from hospital responses to our 2003 specialty hospital 
survey. Among the questions related to physician ownership, hospital 
representatives were asked about the number of physician owners, the 
overall percentage of the hospital owned by physicians, the largest 
share owned by a single physician, the overall number of admitting 
physicians, and the largest combined percentage of the hospital owned 
by physicians in a single revenue-sharing group practice.

Business Structures:

Information pertaining to the business structure of each specialty 
hospital was drawn from responses to our 2003 specialty hospital 
survey. Hospitals were grouped into one of three categories-independent 
freestanding hospitals, hospitals associated with a hospital chain, or 
hospitals associated with a local general hospital--based on their 
responses to questions regarding hospital affiliation.

Hospital Location:

We identified state, county, and zip code location of existing 
specialty hospitals and those under development through a four-part 
process. First, we identified the name and identification number of 
each specialty hospital by using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Service's (CMS) MedPAR file or the HCUP dataset. Second, we located 
these names and identification numbers in CMS's Medicare Provide of 
Services File (POS), because it contains the most current location 
information available. If these hospitals were not found in POS , we 
used the American Hospital Association's (AHA) 2003 Annual Survey for 
the same purpose. Third, when specialty hospitals were not found in the 
CMS or AHA databases, we located as much information as possible using 
the Internet or direct telephone contact. Fourth, our specialty 
hospital survey (2003) provided county location information and other 
missing address or location information.

Certificate of Need Requirements:

Data from the American Health Planning Association (AHPA) were used to 
determine which states require hospitals to obtain state approval 
before they may add beds or build new facilities. State regulations 
that require prior approval for state health care capacity increases 
are commonly referred to as certificate of need (CON) requirements. 
AHPA's document, "2002 Relative Scope and Review Thresholds of CON 
Regulated Services," listed 37 states that have one or more of the 
approximately 30 different types of CON requirements. For the purposes 
of this report, we considered a state to have CON requirements if it 
required prior approval for new acute care beds.[Footnote 30]

Health Care System Resources:

We used data from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care to determine the 
number of available beds per capita and physicians per capita in a 
hospital referral region (HRR).[Footnote 31] HRRs represent regional 
health care markets for tertiary medical care. Each HRR contains at 
least one hospital that performed major cardiovascular procedures or 
neurosurgery. We analyzed the overall relationship between specialty 
hospital location and health system resources by comparing the average 
number of beds and physicians per 1,000 people in HRRs with and without 
specialty hospitals.

Provision of Emergency Care:

We relied on several data sources to obtain information pertaining to 
the provision of emergency care at specialty and general hospitals. To 
determine whether a specialty hospital had an emergency department, we 
primarily relied upon the hospital's response to our specialty hospital 
survey. When that information was missing, we used the information 
contained in CMS's POS file or contacted the hospital's administrator. 
As a result, our finding regarding the percentage of specialty 
hospitals with emergency departments is based on data from all of the 
100 specialty hospitals that we identified. The information pertaining 
to the existence of emergency departments at general hospitals was 
drawn from AHA's 2003 Annual Survey of Hospitals. Emergency department 
utilization data for specialty hospitals were obtained from hospital 
responses to the specialty hospital survey, while utilization data for 
general hospitals were drawn from our 2002 general hospital 
survey.[Footnote 32] We obtained information on specialty hospitals' 
staffing of emergency departments from our specialty hospital survey. 
Comparable staffing information for general hospitals was not readily 
available.

Payer Sources:

To determine the mean percentage of Medicare and Medicaid patients at 
specialty and general hospitals, we analyzed 2000 HCUP data from 
Arizona, California, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and three of 
five regions in Texas. Our analysis of HCUP data for these six states 
identified 25 specialty hospitals and 396 general hospitals in 18 urban 
areas.[Footnote 33] For each specialty hospital type, we first computed 
the percentage of specialty hospital claims within that type's field of 
specialization that were paid by Medicaid. For example, we calculated 
the percentage of cardiac hospitals' cardiac claims that were paid by 
Medicaid. We then computed the percentage of general hospital claims in 
the same field of specialization that were paid by Medicaid. Only 
general hospitals located in urban areas with a relevant specialty 
hospital were included. Continuing the previous example, we calculated 
the percentage of cardiac claims paid by Medicaid at general hospitals 
located in urban areas with a cardiac hospital. We followed a similar 
process for computing the percentage of Medicare claims at specialty 
and general hospitals.

Market Share:

Using 2000 HCUP data, we computed a local inpatient market share for 
each of the 25 urban specialty hospitals in our six HCUP states. The 
number of inpatient claims at each specialty hospital was divided by 
the total number of inpatient claims at all hospitals--both specialty 
and general--in the same metropolitan statistical area (MSA) . We then 
determined the median market share for specialty hospitals, by 
specialty type. We followed a similar process to determine the local 
market shares of specialty hospitals within their fields of 
specialization. For example, we compared the number of cardiac claims 
at a cardiac hospital to the total number of cardiac claims at all 
hospitals within the same MSA.

Hospital Margins:

We used data from CMS's 2001 Hospital Cost Report (HCR) to calculate 
Medicare and total margins for specialty and general hospitals. 
Although not yet complete, the 2001 HCR file includes information from 
55 specialty hospitals and approximately 84 percent (5,166) of the 
individual hospital records contained in the 1999 HCR file. To 
calculate the profit margins of specialty and general hospitals, we 
utilized a formula created by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission 
(MedPAC).[Footnote 34]

Data Reliability:

We used a variety of data sources in our analysis; the three primary 
sources were our 2003 specialty hospital survey, 2000 HCUP data for six 
states, and CMS's 2001 HCR file. In each case, we determined that the 
data were sufficiently reliable to address the report's objectives.

Overall, 80 percent of specialty hospitals responded to GAO's 2003 
survey, although response rates for certain questions were sometimes 
lower. In cases where question responses were unclear, we contacted the 
hospital administrators to resolve any ambiguity. Because we did not 
independently verify the information, the report identifies data from 
the survey as self-reported. HCUP data are widely used for research 
purposes. Although the HCUP data we used represent a subset of the 
available HCUP data, the subset contains one-quarter of all of the 
specialty hospitals that we identified nationwide. HCR data are 
routinely used by the MedPAC to estimate hospital margins and recommend 
updates to Medicare's hospital payment rates. We followed the same 
procedures used by the MedPAC to estimate hospital margins from these 
data. The 2001 file we used was 84 percent complete at the time of our 
analysis. We compared these data to data from prior years and consulted 
with MedPAC experts to determine that this degree of completeness would 
produce reliable margin estimates.

FOOTNOTES

[1] For the purposes of this report, general hospitals refer to those 
that are acute care, short-term, and nongovernmental. 

[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Specialty Hospitals: Information on 
National Market Share, Physician Ownership, and Patients Served, 
GAO-03-683R (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 18, 2003). 

[3] Thus, we excluded hospitals that specialized in providing 
rehabilitation or in treating mental disorders, alcohol or drug 
problems, respiratory conditions, or newborns and children. 

[4] HCUP is a federal-state-industry partnership sponsored by the 
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. We used HCUP's state 
inpatient databases from six states to include all hospitals in 
Arizona, California, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina and from 
hospitals located in three regions in Texas. 

[5] Eight existing specialty hospitals were not included in our survey 
either because they were not identified as specialty hospitals or 
because they were not identified as being among the type of specialty 
hospitals under consideration until after April 2003. However, we did 
contact these eight hospitals and the specialty hospitals that did not 
respond to our survey to obtain certain information, such as whether 
they had an emergency department.

[6] About half of all states did not have such regulations.

[7] GAO-03-683R. 

[8] 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a)(1)(A) (2000). 

[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Medicare: Referrals to Physician-
Owned Imaging Facilities Warrant HCFA's Scrutiny, GAO/HEHS-95-2 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 1994). Jean Mitchell and Elton Scott, 
"Physician Ownership of Physical Therapy Services," Journal of the 
American Medical Association, vol. 268, issue 15 (Oct. 21, 1992). 

[10] 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(d)(3) (2000). 

[11] An "outlier" policy exists to make additional payments to 
hospitals when their costs for a particular patient are extraordinarily 
high compared with the DRG rate for that patient's diagnosis group.

[12] Physician ownership information was self-reported by hospitals and 
does not reflect ownership by physician family members.

[13] Available data did not provide information on the proportion of 
patients admitted by owners compared with those admitted by nonowners. 

[14] We did not have access to information that would enable us to 
determine the number of women's hospitals under development, if any. 

[15] National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974, 
Pub. L. No. 93-641, 88 Stat. 2225 (1975). 

[16] Joshua M. Weiner, The Urban Institute, Controlling the Supply of 
Long-Term Care Providers at the State Level (Washington, D.C.: 
December, 1998). 

[17] Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, § 
701(a), 100 Stat. 3784, 3799.

[18] Maine Department of Human Services, Certificate of Need Project 
Report (Augusta, Maine, March 2001). http://www.state.me.us/dhs/ 
(downloaded July 1, 2003).

[19] Includes the District of Columbia. Approximately 30 different 
types of CON requirements were present in state regulations in 2002, 
such as those for acute-care beds, nursing homes, and magnetic 
resonance imaging scanners. In 2002, 27 states had CON requirements for 
acute-care beds.

[20] Population data are from the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census.

[21] Areas within federally designated metropolitan statistical areas 
(MSA) were considered urban; areas outside of MSAs were considered 
rural. 

[22] These rapid-growth counties account for 25 percent of the U.S. 
population.

[23] The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, "Chapter Two Table: Acute Care 
Hospital Resources and the Physician Workforce by Hospital Referral 
Region," (Hanover, N.H.: Center for Evaluative Clinical Sciences, 
Dartmouth Medical School, 1996), http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/tables/
99table2.xls (downloaded June 1, 2003).

[24] Whether a hospital has an emergency department may depend, in 
part, on whether a facility is obliged to have an emergency department 
under state hospital licensing requirements, which vary by state.

[25] Medicare inpatient margins are computed as the ratio of Medicare 
inpatient revenue in excess of the cost of treating Medicare patients 
to Medicare inpatient revenue.

[26] We eliminated hospitals that initially appeared to be specialty 
hospitals, but informed us through our survey that they did not meet 
our criteria for a specialty hospital.

[27] The total number of identified specialty hospitals--both existing 
hospitals and those under development--is somewhat higher that the 
number we reported in April 2003. New industry information identified 
an additional 12 specialty hospitals--6 in existence and 6 under 
development. Also, 2 of the 18 hospitals originally classified as 
"other specialty" were reclassified as women's hospitals and included 
in our universe of existing hospitals. Specialty hospitals identified 
after April 2003 were not included in our survey, but we did obtain 
information on their location, profit status, and whether they had 
emergency departments.

[28] HCUP is a federal-state-industry partnership sponsored by the 
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 

[29] We obtained HCUP data on hospitals in three of Texas's five 
regions. 

[30] Examples of other types of CON regulated services include magnetic 
resonance imaging scanners, long-term care services, and organ 
transplant centers.

[31] Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, "Chapter Two Table: Acute Care 
Hospital Resources and the Physician Workforce by Hospital Referral 
Region" (Hanover, N.H.: Center for Evaluative Clinical Sciences, 
Dartmouth Medical School, 1996), http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/tables/
99table2.xls (downloaded June 1, 2003).

[32] U.S. General Accounting Office, Hospital Emergency Departments: 
Crowded Conditions Vary Among Hospitals and Communities, GAO-03-460 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).

[33] One specialty hospital was excluded because it was located in a 
rural area and we could not readily identify a set of general hospitals 
that could serve as the comparison group.

[34] A margin is calculated by dividing the difference between revenues 
and costs by revenues. Medicare margins are based on Medicare-allowed 
costs and revenues. 

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: