If the website you're referencing is a separate non-profit organization associated with the hospital, the similarity in design may not necessarily cause issues, especially if the content is distinct. However, it's essential to ensure that there is no misleading information or confusion for users. Clear labeling and differentiation between the hospital's official site and the foundation's site can help avoid any potential confusion among visitors. Additionally, complying with any branding guidelines or regulations set by the hospital or relevant authorities is advisable.

In the scenario you described, where there is a sequence of redirects involving both HTTP redirects (301/302) and a JavaScript redirect, it can be considered a redirection chain. The key point is that each step in the sequence contributes to the final destination of the URL.

In your example:

1. URL1 redirects to URL2 using an HTTP 301/302 status code.
2. URL2, after an HTTP 200 response, triggers a JavaScript redirect to URL3.

From Google's perspective, if the JavaScript redirect is instantaneous and does not introduce a delay, it might treat it similarly to a traditional 301 permanent redirect. However, it's important to note that search engines may interpret JavaScript redirects differently, and their behavior may evolve over time.

Tools like Moz may sometimes focus on the initial HTTP redirect and not delve into subsequent steps, potentially overlooking the complete redirection chain. Therefore, discrepancies in what different tools report could occur.

For a more comprehensive understanding, you might consider using tools or methods that specifically analyze JavaScript-based redirects or inspect the network requests in a browser's developer tools to see the entire redirection sequence. This way, you can get a clearer picture of how search engines and various tools interpret the entire redirection chain, including both HTTP and JavaScript redirects.