Future pandemic influenza control (FPIC) related strategic management plan based on the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza review of health policy decisions, their practice and implications

This cross-sectional study is based on the qualitative and quantitative research design to review health policy decisions, their practice and implications during 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in the United States and globally. The “Future Pandemic Influenza Control (FPIC) related Strategic Management Plan” was developed based on the incorporation of the “National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza (2005)” for the United States from the U.S. Homeland Security Council and “The Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector (2006)” from the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Committee for use by the public health agencies in the United States as well as globally. The “global influenza experts’ survey” was primarily designed and administered via email through the “Survey Monkey” system to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic experts as the study respondents. The effectiveness of this plan was confirmed and the approach of the study questionnaire was validated to be convenient and the excellent quality of the questions provided an efficient opportunity to the study respondents to evaluate the effectiveness of predefined strategies/interventions for future pandemic influenza control.^ The quantitative analysis of the responses to the Likert-scale based questions in the survey about predefined strategies/interventions, addressing five strategic issues to control future pandemic influenza. The effectiveness of strategies defined as pertinent interventions in this plan was evaluated by targeting five strategic issues regarding pandemic influenza control. For the first strategic issue pertaining influenza prevention and pre pandemic planning; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for strategy (1a) 87.5%, strategy (1b) 91.7% and strategy (1c) 83.3%. The assessment of the priority level for strategies to address the strategic issue no. (1); (1b (High Priority) > 1a (Medium Priority) > 1c (Low Priority) based on the available resources of the developing and developed countries. For the second Strategic Issue encompassing the preparedness and communication regarding pandemic influenza control; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (2a) 95.6%, strategy (2b) 82.6%, strategy (2c) 91.3% and Strategy (2d) 87.0%. The assessment of the priority level for these strategies to address the strategic issue no. (2); (2a (highest priority) > 2c (high priority) >2d (medium priority) > 2b (low priority). For the third strategic issue encompassing the surveillance and detection of pandemic influenza; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (3a) 90.9% and strategy (3b) 77.3%. The assessment of the priority level for theses strategies to address the strategic Issue No. (3) (3a (high priority) > 3b (medium/low priority). For the fourth strategic issue pertaining the response and containment of pandemic influenza; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (4a) 63.6%, strategy (4b) 81.8%, strategy (4c) 86.3%, and strategy (4d) 86.4%. The assessment of the priority level for these strategies to address the strategic issue no. (4); (4d (highest priority) > 4c (high priority) > 4b (medium priority) > 4a (low priority). The fifth strategic issue about recovery from influenza and post pandemic planning; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (5a) 68.2%, strategy (5b) 36.3% and strategy (5c) 40.9%. The assessment of the priority level for strategies to address the strategic issue no. (5); (5a (high priority) > 5c (medium priority) > 5b (low priority).^ The qualitative analysis of responses to the open-ended questions in the study questionnaire was performed by means of thematic content analysis. The following recurrent or common “themes” were determined for the future implementation of various predefined strategies to address five strategic issues from the “FPIC related Strategic Management Plan” to control future influenza pandemics. (1) Pre Pandemic Influenza Prevention, (2) Seasonal Influenza Control, (3) Cost Effectiveness of Non Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPI), (4) Raising Global Public Awareness, (5) Global Influenza Vaccination Campaigns, (6)Priority for High Risk Population, (7) Prompt Accessibility and Distribution of Influenza Vaccines and Antiviral Drugs, (8) The Vital Role of Private Sector, (9) School Based Influenza Containment, (10) Efficient Global Risk Communication, (11) Global Research Collaboration, (12) The Critical Role of Global Public Health Organizations, (13) Global Syndromic Surveillance and Surge Capacity and (14) Post Pandemic Recovery and Lessons Learned. The future implementation of these strategies with confirmed effectiveness to primarily “reduce the overall response time’ in the process of ‘early detection’, ‘strategies (interventions) formulation’ and their ‘implementation’ to eventually ensure the following health outcomes: (a) reduced influenza transmission, (b) prompt and effective influenza treatment and control, (c) reduced influenza related morbidity and mortality.^

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. ^

The cost effective management of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSIs) comparing the central line bundle to antimicrobialcoated central venous catheters: A systematic review

Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSIs) are one of the most costly and preventable cases of morbidity and mortality among intensive care units (ICUs) in health care today. In 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Program, under the Deficit Reduction Act, announced it will no longer reimburse hospitals for such adverse events among those related to CLABSIs. This reveals the financial burden shift onto the hospital rather than the health care payer who can now withhold reimbursements. With this weighing more heavily on hospital management, decision makers will need to find a way to completely prevent cases of CLABSI or simply pay for the financial consequences. ^ To reduce the risk of CLABSIs, several clinical, preventive interventions have been studied and even instituted including the Central Line (CL) Bundle and Antimicrobial Coated Central Venous Catheters (AM-CVCs). I carried out a formal systematic review on the topic to compare the cost-effectiveness of the Central Line (CL) Bundle to the commercially available antimicrobial coated central venous catheters (AM-CVCs) in preventing CLABSIs among critically and chronically ill patients in the U.S. Evidence was assessed for inclusion against predefined criteria. I, myself, conducted the data extraction. Ten studies were included in the review. Efficacy in reducing the mean incidence rate of CLABSI by the CL Bundle and AM-CVC interventions were compared with one another including costs. ^ The AM-CVC impregnated with antibiotics, rifampin-minocycline (AI-RM) is more clinically effective than the CL Bundle in reducing the mean rate of CLABSI per 1,000 catheter days. The lowest mean incidence rate of CLABSI per 1,000 catheter days among the AM-CVC studies was as low as zero in favor of the AI-RM. Moreover, the review revealed that the AI-RM appears to be more cost-effective than the CL Bundle. Results showed the adjusted incremental cost of the CL Bundle per ICU patient requiring a CVC to be approximately $196 while the AI-RM at only an additional cost of $48 per ICU patient requiring a CVC. ^ Limited data regarding the cost of the CL Bundle made it difficult to make a true comparison to the direct cost of the AM-CVCs. However, using the result I did have from this review, I concluded that the AM-CVCs do appear to be more cost-effective in decreasing the mean rate of CLABSI while also minimizing incremental costs per CVC than the CL Bundle. This review calls for further research addressing the cost of the CL Bundle and compliance and more effective study designs such as randomized control trials comparing the efficacy and cost of the CL Bundle to the AM-CVCs. Barriers that may face health care managers when implementing the CL Bundle or AM-CVCs include additional costs associated with the intervention, educational training and ongoing reinforcement as well as creating a new culture of understanding.^