Public views on religious and financial care restrictions in hospitals.

Background: Hospitals make decisions about which services to provide based on a variety of factors. However, decisions to provide services based on financial or religious considerations have increasingly drawn public scrutiny. We conducted a national survey to assess public attitudes toward hospitals' financial or religious motivations for offering certain types of care. Methods: We conducted a national, cross-sectional online survey of 1577 US adults. Respondents indicated on a 3-point, frequency-based Likert scale whether hospitals should "Never," "Sometimes," or "Always" be allowed to limit services for these reasons. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression analyses examined the demographic and experiential correlates of these attitudes. Results: Most respondents opposed financially motivated restrictions (62%), while a plurality opposed religiously motivated restrictions (48%). Opposition differed across subgroups, with Republicans, individuals with public insurance, and health care employees more accepting of both types of restrictions, while older respondents and those with higher health literacy were more likely to oppose them. Conclusion: Our findings reveal a notable divergence between how hospitals often operate and what the public believes hospitals should be permitted to do. Efforts to improve transparency around service limitations and ensure continuity of care may help maintain public trust when hospitals decline to provide certain services.