Busn 221 : Organizational Behavior Assessment Answers

1.Funding Models    

Best Practice Pricing

Under this model, the price is based on the package of services which is provided by the hospitals. The way of services is provided which is suggested by experts and the cost of delivering the services is dependent on the treatment of people (Lim, Sensoy, & Weisbach, 2016). It is measured by the treatment of a patient which is specified by experts. The Australian government provides the compensation to the hospital for reducing the cost which is unavoidable. Australian public hospitals use this model to evaluate the cost with the help of Market Forces Factor. The health department of public hospitals tries to reduce the cost to gain the advantage of the incentive. It has been seen that 66 Australian public hospitals use this model to improve the quality and safety services (Hellsten, Chu, Crump, Yu, & Sutherland, 2016). They also used this to reducing the cost of delivering services and also for improving the quality of services.

Normative Pricing

In this model, the delivery of services is a factor which helps to set the incentives. Hospitals receive incentives on the appropriate services but it is also penalised at the time of inappropriate services (Eagar, et al., 2013). It has been seen that the Normative Obstetric delivery is more profitable for public hospitals.  Australian Public Hospitals used this model to improve the delivery services to take care of patients by creating the incentives. The main purpose of Australian public hospitals to use this strategy to developed the incentivise surgery procedure.  They also used this model at the time of agreement of constituting desirable and undesirable care (Dewilde, Annemans, Pincé, & Thijs, 2018).

Quality structure Pricing

Under this model, incentives are set on the basis of participation of hospitals in social activities and events. It is observed that the incentives are measurable as per the presence of the patients in the hospitals instead of getting feedback from the patient (Auer, Chaney, & Sauré, 2018). In this model, it is assumed that a large number of the patient means the outcomes is also good. This assumption has a logical reason that good quality of services attracts the number of patients and the feedback is also good of satisfying the patient. Australian public hospitals used this model to improve the safety structure and procedure of hospitals and it also use in encourages the hospitals to take care of the health of the patient (Nagle, & Müller, 2017). According to this model, incentives are provided by the Australian government to improve the services.

Paying for Performance

Under this model, hospitals are awarded on the basis of delivering the services. It has been seen that the good services are awarded and the poor quality of services are penalised. Australian Hospitals used this model to help to create the relation between the safety and quality. It also used to determine the incentives with the feedback of an individual satisfaction. This model is useful for Australian public hospitals in enhancing the quality of services of public hospitals (Hillman, Tandberg, & Gross, 2014).

2.National Efficient Price

National Efficient price has achieved success in promoting the quality of services in Australia and it also provides the incentives to public hospitals. The main focus of NEP is to provide the services to indigenous people of the Australia. National Efficient price is the source of determining the health services; the main purpose of introducing the NEP is to evaluate the services of public hospitals of every year. National Efficient Price was introduced by IHPA publishes to determine or improve health services. Activity Based Funding helps to promote the common health in public hospitals and this ABF fund is also included in the NEP. The main purpose of NEP is classified into two parts in which the first purpose of NEP is to determine the number of commonwealth funds of public hospitals services. The second main purpose of NEP is to deliver the services at the reasonable cost which is affordable by an individual.

It is agreed that NEP improves the health of Australian indigenous people. It has been seen that the national efficient price reduces the diseases and improve the health status of Australian indigenous people . The main priority of National Efficient price is ICU adjustment for patient. This facility helps to reduce the death rate just because of quality of care and instant facilities at the time of emergency. There are many facilities which are provided by the hospitals just because they earn incentives and awards. Incentives and awards encourage the hospitals to provide the good quality of services.

NEP is beneficial for the people to get the services at the reasonable prices which are affordable; this states that every step of NEP promotes the health services. It also determines the scope of hospitals services which is related to Commonwealth funding under the National Health Reform Agreement. The cost of delivering the service is also determined with the help of NEP which helps in reducing the cost by avoiding the unavoidable cost. The Australian government provides incentives on the quality of services and reducing the delivery of cost of services. It is observed that the quality of services is enhanced that is beneficial for the patient as well as for the society. Hospitals received incentives on reducing the cost which encourages the experts to reduce the cost. Each and every step of NEP promotes and improves the health services by providing incentives to public hospitals. From the analysis, it can be said that the NEP is developed in Australia by providing the incentives (Hu, Pan, & Wang, 2017).

From the above analysis, we agree that the National Efficient price improves the health status of Australian indigenous people by providing the incentives. National Efficient price determines the services of a public hospital of Australia in every year which helps to promote the health services. It is observed that the NEP improves the health of people by providing the incentives. From the analysis, it can be said that the Australian people come out from the diseases with the help of NEP in the next few years.

References:

Auer, R. A., Chaney, T., & Sauré, P. (2018). Quality pricing-to-market. Journal of International Economics, 110, 87-102.

Broome, M. E., Bowersox, D., & Relf, M. (2018). A new funding model for nursing education through business development initiatives. Journal of Professional Nursing, 34(2), 97-102.

Dewilde, S., Annemans, L., Pincé, H., & Thijs, V. (2018). Hospital financing of ischaemic stroke: determinants of funding and usefulness of DRG subcategories based on severity of illness. BMC health services research, 18(1), 356.

Eagar, K., Sansoni, J., Loggie, C., Elsworthy, A., McNamee, J., Cook, R., & Grootemaat, P. (2013). A literature review on integrating quality and safety into Hospital Pricing Systems. Retrieved from: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Literature-Review-on-Integrating-Quality-and-Safety-into-Hospital-Pricing-Systems1.pdf

Hellsten, E., Chu, S., Crump, R. T., Yu, K., & Sutherland, J. M. (2016). New pricing approaches for bundled payments: Leveraging clinical standards and regional variations to target avoidable utilization. Health Policy, 120(3), 316-326.

Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Gross, J. P. (2014). Performance funding in higher education: Do financial incentives impact college completions?. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 826-857.

Hu, G. X., Pan, J., & Wang, J. (2017). Early peek advantage? Efficient price discovery with tiered information disclosure. Journal of Financial Economics, 126(2), 399-421.

Lim, J., Sensoy, B. A., & Weisbach, M. S. (2016). Indirect incentives of hedge fund managers. The Journal of Finance, 71(2), 871-918.

Nagle, T. T., & Müller, G. (2017). The strategy and tactics of pricing: A guide to growing more profitably. Routledge.