The 2016 HIP (Human Impact + Profit) Ratings for health care systems has been expanded to include 4,000 U.S.
hospitals, reflecting a significant portion of hospitals across the nation. Furthermore, additional quantitative metrics were included in the updated rating, to provide increased measurement of risk exposure and impact potential. The highest HIP Ratings are achieved when performance outcomes are positive, patients are satisfied, violations are avoided, leadership prioritizes equity, and the hospitals reduced their environmental impact – correlating to the HIP pillars of Health, Earth, Equality and Trust.
The data presents a strong correlation between hospital performance and patient satisfaction scores. Hospital
performance is measured through a blend of 9 medical metrics including hospital safety ratings, mortality rates, complication rates and effectiveness of care. Patient satisfaction scores are established from a blend of 12 different metrics, including overall ratings, recommendation rates and patient experiences with nurses and doctors in hospital surveys. In analyzing the distribution of ratings, there is a clear correlation between hospital performance and customer satisfaction. This shows that hospitals that have high performance also have better customer satisfaction rates, on average. It is also interesting to note that while the trend is statistically significant, there are still substantial outliers and high performance does not necessary mean that patients are satisfied. This demonstrates that in order to understand a hospital’s risk exposure and impact potential, the performance and satisfaction should both be considered to give deeper levels of insights.
The data reveals another opportunity for creating strategies to increase impact by analyzing HIP hospital Ratings in particular geographic regions, in this case analyzed by state. Some of the lowest performers are in the South-Western and East-Coast regions, including the states of New York, Florida, California, Nevada and New Mexico. In terms of top performers, the Mid-West states do very well, such as Wisconsin, South Dakota, Nebraska and Minnesota. This demonstrates a non-intuitive trend that the highest grossing and most populous states with the largest cities do not actually have the best performing hospitals. This provides insight that rural areas and less populated regions could actually be a prime geographic region for impact investing in municipal bonds offered by hospitals who perform well in serving the needs of their customers. Additionally, hospital systems in densely population regions have room for improving their impact and can be selectively targeted as regionally impactful opportunities.