PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9801956

Collaborating outside the box: three years later.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 1992, 15 employers in Minneapolis-St Paul, operating as the Business Health Care Action Group (BHCAG), combined their self-insured plans. To successfully bid for the BHCAG contract, three competing group practices and a health plan cooperated, operating like a fully integrated care system to measure outcomes, develop practice guidelines, and meet other BHCAG requirements. To accomplish this, a new organization, the Institute for Clinical Systems Integration (ICSI), was conceived. ICSI IN THE EVOLVING MINNEAPOLIS MARKETPLACE: From a business standpoint, ICSI members stood to gain market share by being members of ICSI and the "chosen" consortium. From a professional standpoint, they could realize the fulfillment and satisfaction of knowing that they were innovating, improving care, reducing waste, and sharing their knowledge with others. A NEW MARKET MODEL: To drive the same kind of change for the entire care delivery system in the region, not just for the subset that happened to win the original bid, BHCAG changed the purchase model in February 1995--enrollees could now choose among 16 to 20 discrete care delivery systems instead of preferentially channeling them to the ICSI-HealthPartners network of group practices. All the care systems had become competitors on every level, including quality of care. The "special" customer-supplier relationship between BHCAG and the ICSI medical groups was no longer present. LESSONS LEARNED: Despite major changes in the market dynamics, with the marked decline in the business reason for collaboration which had prompted ICSI to form in the first place, physicians, nurses, and administrative staff from participating medical groups continue to devote massive effort to the development and implementation of best practices.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J L Reinertsen, G Mosser. 1998. Collaborating outside the box: three years later.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1070-3241(16)30406-0

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 359: commercial enterprises in medical practice.

Increasing numbers of physicians sell and promote both medical and nonmedical products as part of their practices. Physicians always have rendered advice and treatment for a fee, and this practice is appropriate. It is unethical under most circumstances, however, for physicians to sell or promote medical or nonmedical products or services for their financial benefit. The following activities are considered unethical: sale of prescription drugs to be used at home, sale or promotion of nonprescription medicine, sale or promotion of presumptively therapeutic agents that generally are not accepted as part of standard medical practice, sale or promotion of non-health-related items, recruitment of patients or other health care professionals into multilevel marketing arrangements, and sale or promotion of any product in whose sale the physician has a significant financial interest. It is ethical and appropriate, however, to sell products to patients as follows: sale of devices or drugs that require professional administration in the office setting; sale of therapeutic agents, when no other facilities can provide them at reasonable convenience and at reasonable cost; sale of products that clearly are external to the patient-physician relationship, when such a sale would be considered appropriate in an external relationship; and sale of low-cost products for the benefit of community organizations. A rationale is provided for both the prohibited activities and exceptions.

Commerce↗