PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14692075

Make versus buy: a financial perspective.

Abstract

Clinical laboratories are often faced with the decision to either perform a service in-house using their own assets or outsource the service to another vendor. This decision affects many aspects of the laboratory's business, from the macroeconomic perspective of outsourcing the laboratory service to a laboratory vendor, to the microeconomics of determining whether to refer a test out to their reference laboratory or perform the test in-house. The basis for decision making includes many variables, but a detailed financial analysis is usually the basis for the decision, especially when the decision only affects the laboratory and not the rest of the institution. Other factors often come into play, and depending on the magnitude, the "make versus buy" decision could be based more on strategic or political factors than economics. Even when noneconomic factors are involved, an effort usually is made to quantify those factors so that the make versus buy decision is reduced to financial terms. The previous article in this issue, "Effectively Managing Your Reference Laboratory Relationship" by Ronald L. Weiss, M.D., focused on the "buy" decision relating to managing the reference laboratory relationship. Although that article took a more clinical perspective through the eyes of the reference laboratory, this article looks at the make versus buy decision from a financial perspective through the eyes of the buying party.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Harold J Kisner. Make versus buy: a financial perspective.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14692075/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Predicting costs of mental health care: a critical literature review.

BACKGROUND: Cost evaluation research in the mental health field is being increasingly recognized as a way to achieve a more effective deployment of scarce resources. However, there is a paucity of studies that seek to identify predictors of psychiatric service utilization and costs. This paper aims to critically review the published research in the field of psychiatric service utilization and costs, and discusses current methodological developments in this field. METHOD: Sixteen studies were identified and are critically reviewed. RESULTS: No single variable alone can explain variations in costs between patients; instead, a range of different clinical and non-clinical variables provides a greater explanation of cost variations. Having a history of previous psychiatric service use is the most consistent predictor of higher psychiatric costs. Only one study considers indirect costs incurred by users, their families and friends and society as a whole, with the remaining 15 studies focusing on direct mental health care costs. There is a lack of studies that consider the future psychiatric service utilization and costs of care of children and older people. The cross-validation of predictive models is not yet routine, with only four of the studies including a cross-validation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive approach in mental health cost evaluation has relevance for both mental health policy and practice. However, there is a paucity of studies that focus on children, older people and indirect costs. Furthermore, there remain a number of methodological challenges to address.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗

The increasing cost of the basic foods required to promote health in Queensland.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the cost and availability of a standard basket of healthy food items (the Healthy Food Access Basket [HFAB]) in Queensland over time. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A series of four cross-sectional surveys (in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004) describing the cost and availability of foods in the HFAB over time. In the latest survey, 97 Queensland food stores across the five Australian Bureau of Statistics remoteness categories were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost comparisons for HFAB items by remoteness category for the 97 stores surveyed in 2004; changes in cost and availability of foods in the 81 stores surveyed since 2000; comparisons of food prices in the 56 stores surveyed in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004. RESULTS: In 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB was $395.28 a fortnight. The cost of the HFAB was 29.6% ($113.89) higher in "very remote" areas than in "major cities" (P < 0.001). Between 2001 and 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB increased by 14.0% ($48.45), while in very remote areas the cost increased by 18.0% ($76.93) (P < 0.001). Since 2000, the annualised per cent increase in cost of the HFAB has been higher than the increase in Consumer Price Index for food in Brisbane. The cost of healthy foods has risen more than the cost of some less nutritious foods, so that the latter are now relatively more affordable. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers, particularly those in very remote locations, need to pay substantially more for basic healthy foods than they did a few years ago. Higher prices are likely to be a barrier to good health among people of low socioeconomic status and other vulnerable groups. Interventions to make basic healthy food affordable and accessible to all would help reduce the high burden of chronic disease.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗