Bigger hospitals can afford to have a modest administrative cost because there are fixed (as opposed to variable costs that scale with patients served and departments funded) that scale and amortize in huge organizations. Small hospitals (let's say somewhere in Iceland) either have to do without fancy tech/better staff that usually command more $$$, or have to spend more, increasing their overhead. In reality and to be fair, it's better to compare their patient outcomes and financials in-depth rather than looking at the overhead percentages only.
I worked for one of those "non-profit" hospitals / higher-ed institutions. The one I was at was "non-profit" in name, but just as profit-hungry as upscale hospitals. There's a 2-D continuum of patient care quality and profit-motivated care (cost to patient and cost to insurance).
I was only talking about insurance administrative costs. Well aware of how easily the label "non-profit" can be played with. In particular the case of UPMC somewhat holding the city hostage to keep their status.
Jesus H. I ran into a gal with stage iv cancer and a nasal infusion pump who was on her way to a bankruptcy hearing. That's just insane and inhumane how insurance companies and hospitals in the US suck all the money they can out of dying people like proverbial vampires, until patients are fighting to keep a house, a car and the clothes on their back.
It's a code smell whenever a function doesn't fit on a page or has more than 2 levels of indentation. Smaller functions are easier to test, easier to read and easier to debug. Leviathan kitchen-sink functions are a sign of slap-dash engineering.
Far be it from me to recommend CoC's, as they don't seem to add anything more than ostensible aspirations, but has anyone seen the social rules (guidelines) from NYC's Recurse.com?
Certainly there are people who seem like there's no one home or that they're innately antisocial, but I'd say that a sizable fraction of sociopathic behavior stems from the rich/affluent who are more isolated from other people and from the consequences of their behavior. The rigged Monopoly game study seems to indicate that having more changes people, that resources emboldens some people with self-important hubris over others.
It's interesting that delusions of grandeur or persecution seem to be common among people who haven't accomplished very much or who are in bad circumstances. I used to talk to this relatively-sane, non-drug-using older homeless guy who repeatedly claimed the FBI has a file on him. IMHO, losers make wild, unsubstantiated claims while successful achievers point out minor, trivial flaws and shortcomings about themselves (if you're small, act big; if you're big, act small.)
