Marketwatch: Pooled purchasing: who are the players?

Long, Sharon K.; Marquis, M. Susan

doi:10.1377/hlthaff.18.4.105

Cited by 24 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This makes it difficult to compare the research findings of different researchers and to conduct reliable research. In an article by Long and Marquis (1999), an example is described of a lack of distinction between different forms of cooperative purchasing. Long and Marquis found that some of the studied effects fell short of their expectations.…”

Section: Sociology (2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a typology of organisational forms of cooperative purchasing

Schotanus

Telgen

2007

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a typology for purchasing groups. In the typology, five ideal forms of cooperative purchasing are distinguished based on seven main dimensions. The forms are positioned in a matrix according to two distinguishing dimensions. These two dimensions are the 'influence by all members on the group activities' and the 'number of different group activities'. Underlying the two-dimensional matrix, there are five other dimensions that do not distinguish all forms from each other, but further detail the forms of cooperative purchasing. The typology can serve as a guideline for purchasing groups when a suitable organisational form needs to be chosen. In a suitable form, the dimensions of a group fit the circumstances. For all groups, it is recommended to find this best fit. This is something in which the typology may help. The paper concludes by emphasising the importance of clearly defining and positioning studied forms, because different forms imply different research models and have different advantages, disadvantages, and critical success factors.

show abstract

Section: Sociology (2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a typology of organisational forms of cooperative purchasing

Schotanus

Telgen

2007

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…44 Some employers have pooled their buying power by forming or joining purchasing coalitions. 45 Whether these coalitions use information about quality is not clear. Among employers that were members of health care purchasing coalitions, most stated that they were responsible for the quality of health plans oVered to employees, but the primary factors considered were the geographical coverage oVered by health plans and access of members to services.…”

Section: Role Of Corporate Purchasers In Selecting High Quality Provimentioning

confidence: 99%

Publicly disclosed information about the quality of health care: response of the US public

Schneider

Lieberman²

2001

Quality in Health Care

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public disclosure of information about the quality of health plans, hospitals, and doctors continues to be controversial. The US experience of the past decade suggests that sophisticated quality measures and reporting systems that disclose information on quality have improved the process and outcomes of care in limited ways in some settings, but these eVorts have not led to the "consumer choice" market envisaged. Important reasons for this failure include limited salience of objective measures to consumers, the complexity of the task of interpretation, and insuYcient use of quality results by organised purchasers and insurers to inform contracting and pricing decisions. Nevertheless, public disclosure may motivate quality managers and providers to undertake changes that improve the delivery of care. EVorts to measure and report information about quality should remain public, but may be most eVective if they are targeted to the needs of institutional and individual providers of care. (Quality in Health Care 2001;10:96-103) Keywords: public disclosure; quality of health care; quality improvement BackgroundSince the first publication of hospital mortality rates in 1986 by the federal agency that administers the US Medicare insurance programme, public disclosure of information about the quality of health plans, hospitals, and doctors has provoked controversy.1 Publicly disclosed performance reports, sometimes called "report cards", are one manifestation of a health care marketplace in which competing providers would measure and report information about the quality of care they oVer.2 According to the proponents of market theory, US employers, who pay a major share of health care costs in the USA, would purchase prepaid comprehensive care through health plans rather than reimbursing providers for each service.3 Employers would use report cards to choose high quality health plans at a reasonable cost. Insured employees would select health plans, hospitals, and doctors using report card information about providers' quality, price, and accessibility. As a result, health plans, hospitals, and doctors with the best performance records

show abstract

“…One recent national analysis found no cost advantage to employers participating in pooled purchasing arrangements but did not control for differences in benefit levels. 16 Similarly, two reports on the potential benefits and costs of HealthMarts and association health plans conclude that the economies of scale from such purchasing pools are likely to be small if they exist at all. 17 Although a dearth of suitable data precludes a formal quantitative analysis, an examination of the HIPC's experience also raises doubts as to whether pooled purchasing has yielded significant savings relative to options available in the small-group market.…”

Section: Purchasing Alliances and The Cost Of Insurancementioning

confidence: 99%

The Health Insurance Plan Of California: The First Five Years

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purchasing alliance model holds promise, based on the experience of the nation's first and largest state-run purchasing group.b y Jil l M a t h e w s Y e g i a n , T h o m a s C . B u c h m u e l l e r , M a r k D. S m i t h , a n d A n n F. M o n r o e C o m m e n t i n g o n t h e r o l l o u t of the Health Insurance Plan of California (HIPC) in 1993, Governor Pete Wilson said, "The promise is of a new way, a better way, a less expensive way for small business to buy health insurance." 1The HIPC was the nation's first and largest state-run purchasing alliance for small firms. Since its creation in 1993, the HIPC has established itself as a stable and experienced player in the competitive market for small-group insurance. Although its existence does not appear to have made a noticeable impact on the number of Californians with insurance, the alliance offers something that previously was quite rare in the small-group market: the freedom for employees to choose their own health plans. In addition, competition from the HIPC appears to have spurred other health plans to innovate in ways that increase the degree of choice available to employees of small firms and to constrain the growth in premiums.Purchasing alliances continue to be at the forefront of health policy, in California and elsewhere. President Bill Clinton's budget for 1998-1999 included $100 million over five years to aid states in developing alliances for firms with one to fifty employees. The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act of 1999 (H.R. 2990) called for the creation of "HealthMarts," to provide multiple options from which employees of small firms could choose; similar programs have been endorsed by presidential candidates from both parties during the 2000 election cycle. 2In 1999 the Pacific Business Group on Health (PBGH) took over the HIPC and renamed it Pacific Health Advantage. Here we focus primarily on the HIPC's first five years of operation, prior to its transition to the PBGH. Our analysis is qualitative in nature, based largely on a series of in-depth interviews with key HIPC players-program administrators, health plan representatives, and insurance brokers and consultants. Background On The HIPCThe HIPC was established in 1992 as part of broader small-group reform legislation, which included guaranteed issue and renewal of coverage for small firms, limits on preexisting condition exclusions, and restrictions on how premiums could vary across small groups. 3Whereas other reform components were designed to address problems of accessibility, the main goals for the HIPC were to increase coverage by improving affordability and enhancing consumer choice. 4 Understanding the relationship between the HIPC and the broader market reforms is important both for evaluating the HIPC's performance and for extrapolating from its expe-

show abstract

Marketwatch: Pooled purchasing: who are the players?

Cited by 24 publications

References 2 publications

Developing a typology of organisational forms of cooperative purchasing

Developing a typology of organisational forms of cooperative purchasing

Publicly disclosed information about the quality of health care: response of the US public

The Health Insurance Plan Of California: The First Five Years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About