Literature DB >> 7651771

Perinatal regionalization versus hospital competition: the Hartford example.

D K Richardson1, K Reed, J C Cutler, R C Boardman, K Goodman, T Moynihan, J Driscoll, J R Raye.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The increasingly competitive health care environment may undermine effective traditional regional organizations. It is urgent to document the benefits of perinatal regionalization for the emerging health care system. We present a case study that illustrates many of the challenges to and benefits of perinatal regionalization in the 1990s.
BACKGROUND: The controversy in Hartford was sparked by a proposed merger of two major pediatric services into a full-service children's hospital. Community hospitals reacted with plans to upgrade their obstetrics/neonatal facilities toward level II (intermediate) or II+ (intensive) neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). The fear that unrestricted competition would drive up overall health care costs prompted the hospital association and Chamber of Commerce to retain consultants to evaluate the number and location of regional NICU beds.
METHODS: The consultant team interviewed stake-holders in area hospitals, health maintenance organizations, insurance companies, businesses, state agencies, and community groups, and analyzed quantitative data on newborn discharges.
RESULTS: The existing system worked remarkably well for clinical care, training, referrals, and provider and patient satisfaction. There was a high level of inter-hospital collaboration and regional leadership in obstetrics and pediatrics, but strong and growing competition between their hospitals. Hospital administrators enumerated the competitive threats that obligated them to compete and the financial disincentives to support the regional structures. Business leaders and insurance executives emphasized the need to control costs. Analysis of discharge data showed marginal adequacy of NICU beds but maldistribution between NICUs, particularly between level III and level II units. The consultants recommended no new beds based on population projections, declining lengths of stay nationally, and substantial gains available from aggressive back-transport of convalescing infants. The consultants emphasized the need for all stakeholders to support the regional infrastructure (referral, transport, education, evaluation, quality assurance) and to modify competition when it impaired effective regionalization.
CONCLUSIONS: Regionalization permits better care at lower cost, yet competition may disrupt this effective system. Active cooperation by stakeholders is vital. Substantial new research is required to define optimal regional organization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7651771

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  10 in total

1.  Deregionalization of neonatal intensive care in urban areas.

Authors:  Embry M Howell; Douglas Richardson; Paul Ginsburg; Barbara Foot
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Neonatal and pediatric regionalized systems in pediatric emergency mass critical care.

Authors:  Wanda D Barfield; Steven E Krug; Robert K Kanter; Marianne Gausche-Hill; Mary D Brantley; Sarita Chung; Niranjan Kissoon
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.624

3.  Neonatology departments under economic pressure.

Authors:  Klaus-Peter Zimmer
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2012-08-06       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Improving perinatal regionalization for preterm deliveries in a Medicaid covered population: initial impact of the Arkansas ANGELS intervention.

Authors:  Janet M Bronstein; Songthip Ounpraseuth; Jeffrey Jonkman; Curtis L Lowery; David Fletcher; Richard R Nugent; Richard W Hall
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Organisation of obstetric services for very preterm births in Europe: results from the MOSAIC project.

Authors:  B Blondel; E Papiernik; D Delmas; W Künzel; T Weber; R F Maier; L Kollée; J Zeitlin
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 6.531

Review 6.  United States and territory policies supporting maternal and neonatal transfer: review of transport and reimbursement.

Authors:  E M Okoroh; C D Kroelinger; S M Lasswell; D A Goodman; A M Williams; W D Barfield
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 2.521

7.  Predicting Successful Neonatal Retro-Transfer to a Lower Level of Care.

Authors:  Sarah N Kunz; Dmitry Dukhovny; Jochen Profit; Wenyang Mao; David Miedema; John A F Zupancic
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 4.406

8.  The impact of maternal characteristics on the moderately premature infant: an antenatal maternal transport clinical prediction rule.

Authors:  D Dukhovny; S Dukhovny; D M Pursley; G J Escobar; M C McCormick; W Y Mao; J A F Zupancic
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 2.521

9.  Trends in neonatal intensive care unit admissions by race/ethnicity in the United States, 2008-2018.

Authors:  Youngran Kim; Cecilia Ganduglia-Cazaban; Wenyaw Chan; MinJae Lee; David C Goodman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Outcomes of Hospital Transfers for Pediatric Abdominal Pain and Appendicitis.

Authors:  Urbano L França; Michael L McManus
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2018-10-05
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.