PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10106703

Testing the water.

Abstract

For the past several decades mergers have been an attractive option for systems looking to diversify and for small hospitals trying to find a way to survive. Before entering into a merger agreement, each of the parties involved should carefully assess whether the move is in its best interests. Chief executive officers of small hospitals should determine whether a merger will improve their facility's ability to provide needed programs and services to their community. They should also evaluate their and their partner's current fiscal status to assess whether the timing is right for a merger. Another important consideration is whether or to what extent the new governance structure will provide each partner with appropriate representation. For healthcare systems looking to acquire a smaller hospital, two key concerns are whether the facility is in a favorable location to gain increased market penetration and whether resources are, or can be made, available to consummate the merger. Systems should also ask if the smaller hospital will at least be a break-even operation and if political opposition might undermine a merger attempt. Finally, although merger proposals are likely to disturb some members of the community they affect, a well-planned and credibly negotiated merger is usually in the region's best interests.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T P Weil. 1990. Testing the water.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10106703/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Values in science and risk assessment.

It is a widely accepted claim that scientific practice contains value judgments, i.e. decisions made on the basis of values. This paper clarifies the concepts involved in this claim and explains its implications for risk assessment. It is explained why values are necessarily a part of science and of risk assessment. A certain type of values that contribute to the aim of science, so-called epistemic values, are identified as rationally justified as basis for judgment in science. It is argued that the aims of pure science and risk assessment differ in some aspects and that consequently pure science's epistemic values are not sufficient for risk assessment. I suggest how the epistemic values may be supplemented in order to align better with the aim of risk assessment. It is concluded that since risk assessment is no less value-laden than pure science, it is important (a) that risk assessors become aware of what values they are (often implicitly) relying on, (b) that the values are justifiable, and (c) that transparency is ensured, i.e. that the values and value-based assumptions applied in particular risk assessments are explicitly acknowledged.

Decision Making↗