Healthcare Organizations Are Complex Bureaucracies

¶ … healthcare organizations are complex bureaucracies that have one overall goal, but several different interpretations on how that goal is to be met. Within the modern hospital, there are competing stakeholders, three important influences being medical staff, board of trustees, and administration. Typically, despite their best intentions, these groups are often fraught with tension because their view of the goal of the organization is somewhat different. The medical staff, for instance, is interested in quality of care, modern technology and superior staffing -- all which are costs to the organization. The administration is interested in keeping profits up and costs down -- and tends to look at the paradigm in a fiscal way, sometimes removing the human element or the intellectual/research issue of cutting edge medical care. The board, however, is sometimes the public face of the hospital -- dealing with the larger role of the community, and the politics of the organization (Driving for Quality in Acute Care, 2009; (Sultz & Young, 2011).

Part 2- The Leapfrog Group, and other consumer advocacy groups, are designed to advocate for healthcare safety and quality by monitoring, rating, and producing information to inform the public about the quality of healthcare institutions. The point is to reduce preventable medical mistakes and improve the quality and affordability of health care by encouraging health providers to publicly report their quality and outcomes so that consumers may make informed choices. If we think logically about our modern society we have organizations in place that rate our appliances, monitor the safety of our food, housing, and magazines and publications that rate automobiles, etc. This allows the consumer, as well as society at large, to become more informed about issues. Certainly, there are potential negatives within such a litigious society, and in some cases, consumers may opt to change facilities for certain procedures -- but this is personal healthcare, and a consumer has the right to make informed choices. On a more optimistic side, though, if there is more public disclosure then there will be impetus for excellence within the field. Certainly, everyone understands that medical science is also an art -- and there are times when patients die. However, statistics can only strengthen the industry (Partnership for Patients, 2011).

Part 3- One of the seminal economic institutions in the 20th and 21st centuries is a more mature version of capitalism. Part of the reason that capitalism provides greater choice for the consumer is that there is fervent competition and therefore choice. There is impetus for the market to provide products and services that the consumer wants, that are of such quality that they are coveted. Thus, the market regulates itself -- if products and services are subpar, they go out of business. Why should this not be the same for medical care? There are really only two ways to control rising health care costs. Either the government steps in and regulates prices and moves towards a more socialized form of medicine (which seems anathema to so many), or the market is opened to more competition. Competition for the healthcare dollar is not bad -- and as long as the consumer has choices it will drive to keep prices reasonable for appropriate care (Control Health Costs With Competition, 2010).