Everyone is; should healthcare? Outsourcing: Issues in strategic planning, organizational culture, and organizational ethics

Expenditures for personal health services in the United States have doubled over the last decade. They continue to outpace the growth rate of the gross national product. Costs for medical care have steadily increased at an annual rate well above the rate of inflation and have gradually outstripped payers' ability to meet their premiums. This limitation of resources justifies the ongoing healthcare reform strategies to maximize utilization and minimize costs. The majority of the cost-containment effort has focused on hospitals, as they account for about 40 percent of total health expenditures. Although good patient outcomes have long been identified as healthcare's central concern, continuing cost pressures from both regulatory reforms and the restructuring of healthcare financing have recently made improving fiscal performance an essential goal for healthcare organizations. ^ The search for financial performance, quality improvement, and fiscal accountability has led to outsourcing, which is the hiring of a third party to perform a task previously and traditionally done in-house. The incomparable nature and overwhelming dissimilarities between health and other commodities raise numerous administrative, organizational, policy and ethical issues for administrators who contemplate outsourcing. This evaluation of the outsourcing phenomenon, how it has developed and is currently practiced in healthcare, will explore the reasons that healthcare organizations gravitate toward outsourcing as a strategic management tool to cut costs in an environment of continuing escalating spending. ^ This dissertation has four major findings. First, it suggests that U.S. hospitals in FY2000 spent an estimated $61 billion in outsourcing. Second, it finds that the proportion of healthcare outsourcing highly correlates with several types of hospital controlling authorities and specialties. Third, it argues that healthcare outsourcing has implications in strategic organizational issues, professionalism, and organizational ethics that warrant further public policy discussions before expanding its limited use beyond hospital “hotel functions” and back office business processes. Finally, it devises an outsourcing suitability scale that organizations can utilize to ensure the most strategic option for outsourcing and concludes with some public policy implications and recommendations for its limited use. ^

From Caregiver to Computer Geek: The Design of a Web Resource for Novice Clinical Informaticians

Introduction: Throughout the United States, there are massive initiatives in place to reform healthcare through the implementation of electronic health records. The goals are to improve patient care through improved access to records, the improvement of business and reimbursement processes, streamlining of clinician workflows for increased efficiency, and reducing the variability in the delivery of patient care. [See PDF for complete abstract]

Physician adoption of a practice guideline: Effect on the cost of medical care for adult patients with diabetes

In the demanding environment of healthcare reform, reduction of unwanted physician practice variation is promoted, often through evidence-based guidelines. Guidelines represent innovations that direct change(s) in physician practice; however, compliance has been disappointing. Numerous studies have analyzed guideline development and dissemination, while few have evaluated the consequences of guideline adoption. The primary purpose of this study was to explore and analyze the relationship between physician adoption of the glycated hemoglobin test guideline for management of adult patients with diabetes, and the cost of medical care. The study also examined six personal and organizational characteristics of physicians and their association with innovativeness, or adoption of the guideline. ^ Cost was represented by approved charges from a managed care claims database. Total cost, and diabetes and related complications cost, first were compared for all patients of adopter physicians with those of non-adopter physicians. Then, data were analyzed controlling for disease severity based on insulin dependency, and for high cost cases. There was no statistically significant difference in any of eight cost categories analyzed. This study represented a twelve-month period, and did not reflect cost associated with future complications known to result from inadequate management of glycemia. Guideline compliance did not increase annual cost, which, combined with the future benefit of glycemic control, lends support to the cost effectiveness of the guideline in the long term. Physician adoption of the guideline was recommended to reduce the future personal and economic burden of this chronic disease. ^ Only half of physicians studied had adopted the glycated hemoglobin test guideline for at least 75% of their diabetic patients. No statistically significant relationship was found between any physician characteristic and guideline adoption. Instead, it was likely that the innovation-decision process and guideline dissemination methods were most influential. ^ A multidisciplinary, multi-faceted approach, including interventions for each stage of the innovation-decision process, was proposed to diffuse practice guidelines more effectively. Further, it was recommended that Organized Delivery Systems expand existing administrative databases to include clinical information, decision support systems, and reminder mechanisms, to promote and support physician compliance with this and other evidence-based guidelines. ^

International comparison of wait times and quality of care: A pilot study

During the healthcare reform debate in the United States in 2009/2010, many health policy experts expressed a concern that expanding coverage would increase waiting times for patients to obtain care. Many complained that delays in obtaining care in turn would compromise the quality of healthcare in the United States. Using data from The Commonwealth Fund 2010 International Health Policy Survey in Eleven Countries, this study explored the relationship between wait times and quality of care, employing a wait time scale and several quality of care indicators present in the dataset. The impact of wait times on quality was assessed. Increased wait time was expected to reduce quality of care. However, this study found that wait times correlated with better health outcomes for some measures, and had no association with others. Since this is a pilot study and statistical significance was not achieved for any of the correlations, further research is needed to confirm and deepen the findings. However, if future studies confirm this finding, an emphasis on reducing wait times at the expense of other health system level performance variables may be inappropriate. ^

The cost of insuring the uninsured in the U.S.

Objectives: This study included two overarching objectives. Through a systematic review of the literature published between 1990 and 2012, the first objective aimed to assess whether insuring the uninsured would result in higher costs compared to insuring the currently insured. Studies that quantified the actual costs associated with insuring the uninsured in the U.S. were included. Based upon 2009 data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), the second objective aimed to assess and compare the self-reported health of populations with four different insurance statuses. The second part of this study involved a secondary data analysis of both currently insured and currently uninsured individuals who participated in the MEPS in 2009. The null hypothesis was that there were no differences across the four categories of health insurance status for self-reported health status and healthcare service use. The alternative hypothesis was that were differences across the four categories of health insurance status for self-reported health status and healthcare service use. Methods: For the systematic review, three databases were searched using search terms to identify studies that actually quantified the cost of insuring the uninsured. Thirteen studies were selected, discussed, and summarized in tables. For the secondary data analysis of MEPS data, this study compared four categories of health insurance status: (1) currently uninsured persons who will become eligible for Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) healthcare reforms in 2014; (2) currently uninsured persons who will be required to buy private insurance through the PPACA health insurance exchanges in 2014; (3) persons currently insured under Medicaid or SCHIP; and (4) persons currently insured with private insurance. The four categories were compared on the basis of demographic information, health status information, and health conditions with relatively high prevalence. Chi-square tests were run to determine if there were differences between the four groups in regard to health insurance status and health status. With some exceptions, the two currently insured groups had worse self-reported health status compared to the two currently uninsured groups. Results: The thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review included: (1) three cost studies from 1993, 1995, and 1997; (2) four cost studies from 2001, 2003, and 2004; (3) one study of disabilities and one study of immigrants; (4) two state specific studies of uninsured status; and (5) two current studies of healthcare reform. Of the thirteen studies reviewed, four directly addressed the study question about whether insuring the uninsured was more or less expensive than insuring the currently insured. All four of the studies provided support for the study finding that the cost of insuring the uninsured would generally not be higher than insuring those already insured. One study indicated that the cost of insuring the uninsured would be less expensive than insuring the population currently covered by Medicaid, but more expensive to insure than the populations of those covered by employer-sponsored insurance and non-group private insurance. While the nine other studies included in the systematic review discussed the costs associated with insuring the uninsured population, they did not directly compare the costs of insuring the uninsured population with the costs associated with insuring the currently insured population. For the MEPS secondary data analysis, the results of the chi-square tests indicated that there were differences in the distribution of disease status by health insurance status. As anticipated, with some exceptions, the uninsured reported lower rates of disease and healthcare service use. However, for the variable attention deficit disorder, the uninsured reported higher disease rates than the two insured groups. Additionally, for the variables high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and joint pain, the currently insured under Medicaid or SCHIP group reported a lower rate of disease than the two currently insured groups. This result may be due to the lower mean age of the currently insured under Medicaid or SCHIP group. Conclusion: Based on this study, with some exceptions, the costs for insuring the uninsured should not exceed healthcare-related costs for insuring the currently uninsured. The results of the systematic review indicated that the U.S. is already paying some of the costs associated with insuring the uninsured. PPACA will expand health insurance coverage to millions of Americans who are currently uninsured, as the individual mandate and insurance market reforms will require. Because many of the currently uninsured are relatively healthy young persons, the costs associated with expanding insurance coverage to the uninsured are anticipated to be relatively modest. However, for the purposes of construing these results, it is important to note that once individuals obtain insurance, it is anticipated that they will use more healthcare services, which will increase costs. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)^

Campaign contributions to congressional candidates by the healthcare sector from 1990 to 2008

Stakeholder groups with special interests as donors to finance congressional campaigns have been a controversial issue in the United Sates. While previous studies concentrated on whether a connection existed between the campaign contributions provided by stakeholder groups and the voting behavior of congressional members, there is little evidence to show the trend of allocation of their campaign contributions to their favorite candidates during the elections. This issue has become increasingly important in the health sector since the health care reform bill was passed in early 2010.^ This study examined the long-term trend of campaign contributions offered by various top healthcare stakeholder groups to particular political parties (i.e. Democrat and Republican). The main focus of this paper was to observe and describe the financial donations provided by these healthcare stakeholder groups in the congressional election cycles from 1990 to 2008 in order to obtain an overview of their patterns of campaign contributions. Their contributing behaviors were characterized based on the campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Specifically, I answered the questions: (1) to which political party did specific healthcare stakeholder groups give money and (2) what was the pattern of their campaign contributions from 1990 to 2008?^ The findings of my study revealed that the healthcare stakeholder groups had different political party preferences and partisanship orientations regarding the Democratic or Republican Party. These differences were obvious throughout the election cycles from 1990 to 2008 and their distinct patterns of financial contribution were evident across industries in the health sector as well. Among all the healthcare stakeholder groups in this study, physicians were the top contributors in the congressional election. The pharmaceutical industry was the only group where the majority of contribution funds were allocated to Republicans in every election period studied. This study found that no interest group has succeeded in electing the preferred congressional candidate by giving the majority of its financial support to the winning party in every election. Chiropractors, hospitals/nursing homes, and health services/HMOs performed better than other healthcare stakeholder groups by supporting the electoral winner 8 out of 9 election cycles.^