Discuss how you might leverage labor relations to improve the quality of health care provided by your organization. Outline a strategy for compensation practices tailored to your specific organization.
Help physicians manage patients with complex chronic conditions. Many analysts and policymakers believe that health IT is a necessary ingredient for improving the efficiency and quality of health care in the United States.
Despite the potential of health IT to increase efficiency and improve quality, though, very few providers—as ofabout 12 percent of physicians and 11 percent of hospitals—have adopted it. Other federal agencies that finance health care or provide it directly have also taken steps to encourage adoption or to use health IT in their own clinical operations.
Research indicates that in certain settings, health IT appears to make it easier to reduce health spending if other steps in the broader health care system are also taken to alter incentives to promote savings.
By itself, the adoption of more health IT is generally not sufficient to produce significant cost savings. The most auspicious examples involving health IT have tended to be connected to relatively integrated health systems.
For such a system, reducing the number of unnecessary office visits for patients" concerns or issues that could be handled to their satisfaction through telephone or e-mail consultationsfor example, benefits the providers, the health plan, and the patients: It may lower the plan"s costs for providing health care—and thus improve its "bottom line"—while minimizing inconvenience for patients.
Kaiser has implemented a systemwide EHR in its facilities in some regions. In those areas, physicians have used such consultations to reduce the number of unnecessary office visits compared with the number in regions without electronic systems.
A number of integrated delivery systems, including Inter mountain Healthcare, Geisinger Health System, and Partners HealthCare, have also implemented EHRs across their organizations, and officials believe that as a result the systems have improved the efficiency and quality of the care they provide.
Intermountain Healthcare and the Department of Veterans Affairs VAfor example, both began using computers to help manage clinical data in the s. According to the agency, its use of health IT has reduced its costs and greatly improved the quality of its care.
For providers and hospitals that are not part of integrated systems, however, the benefits of health IT are not as easy to capture, and perhaps not coincidentally, those physicians and facilities have adopted EHRs at a much slower rate.
Office-based physicians in particular may see no benefit if they purchase such a product—and may even suffer financial harm. For example, the use of health IT could reduce the num ber of duplicated diagnostic tests. However, that improvement in efficiency would be unlikely to increase the income of many physicians because laboratories and imaging centers typically perform such tests and are paid separately by health insurance plans.
In cases in which a physician performs certain diagnostic tests in the office, reducing the number of duplicated tests would reduce his or her income.
As a result, the capacity to avoid duplicating tests might not spur many physicians to invest in and implement a health IT system. Indeed, physicians might have a more powerful financial incentive to purchase additional office diagnostic equipment, for example, than to purchase a health IT system.
The search for improved efficiency in delivering health care has prompted numerous proposals for increasing the adoption of health IT. Those studies have received significant attention, but for a number of reasons they are not an appropriate guide to estimating the effects of legislative proposals aimed at boosting the use of health IT.
To take the RAND study as an example: For example, health care financing and delivery are now organized in such a way that the payment methods of many private and public health insurers do not reward providers for reducing costs—and may even penalize them for doing so.
The decision to ignore evidence of zero or negative net savings clearly biases any estimate of the actual impact of health IT on spending. That is, the researchers did not allow for growth in adoption rates that would occur without any changes in policy, as CBO would do in a cost estimate for a legislative proposal.
One significant potential benefit of health IT that has thus far gone relatively unexamined involves its role in research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments and practices. By making clinical data easier to collect and analyze, health IT systems could support rigorous studies to compare the effectiveness and cost of different treatments for a given disease or condition.
Such comparative effectiveness studies could lead to reductions in total spending for health care because of the tendency in the current health care system to adopt ever more expensive treatments despite the lack of solid evidence about their effectiveness.
If the federal government chose to intervene directly to promote the use of health IT, it could do so by subsidizing that use or by imposing a penalty for failing to use a health IT system.
From a budgetary perspective, the subsidization approach is less likely than a penalty to generate cost savings for the federal government because of the costs of the subsidies: Payments would end up going to those providers who would have adopted a health IT system even without a subsidy as well as those providers for whom the subsidy made the difference in their decision to adopt one.
However, providers may respond differentially to a subsidy or a penalty depending on how those interventions are presented. For example, consider a physician without a health IT system.
The nurse who takes the patient to the exam room records vital statistics pulse, blood pressure, and temperature in the paper chart. The physician writes out any needed prescriptions and gives them to the patient to fill at a pharmacy.
In many instances, however, the specialist does not receive a letter and has no information other than what might be noted in a referral form.Compensation and Benefits Due Week 10 and worth points Assuming the same role of HR VP as in the previous assignment,Discuss how you might leverage labor relations to improve the quality of health care provided by your organization.
attheheels.come a strategy for compensation practices tailored to your specific organization. attheheels.come guidelines. Jun 30, · Improving productivity and quality in any business can be difficult, because so many different solutions exist.
You can't always tell which solutions are right for you, and trying them out one at. **National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) Gave employees the right to from or join labor organizations (or to refuse to form or join); the right to collectively bargain with employers through elected union representatives; and the right to engage in labor activities such as strikes, picketing, and boycotts.
Compensation and Benefits 2 1. Discuss how you might leverage labor relations to improve the quality of health care provided by your organization. Labor relations is the study and practice of managing unionized employment situations%(2).
Hospital profitability, financial leverage, asset liquidity, operating efficiency, and costs appear to be important factors of health care quality.
In general, public hospitals provide lower quality care than their nonprofit counterparts, and urban hospitals report better quality score than those located in rural areas. Hsa Exam 1 Assuming the same role of HR VP as in the previous assignment, write a page paper in which you: Discuss how you might leverage labor relations to improve the quality of health care provided by your organization.