The research question asked by Coyne et al. (2009) study was whether the size and ownership type of

This article compares the magnitude of economies and 14 non-scale producing cost centers in hospital.

In 1997 University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) merged its two public hospitals with Stanford’s two private hospitals. The two separate entities merged together to create a not-for-profit organization titled UCSF Stanford Health Care. The merger between the health systems at UCSF and Stanford seemed like a good idea due to the similar missions, proximity of institutions, increased financial pressure with cutbacks in Medicare reimbursements followed by a dramatic increase in managed care organizations. The first year UCSF Stanford Health Care produced a profit of $22 million, however three years later the health system had lost a total of $176 million (“UCSF-Stanford Merger,” n.d.). The first part of this paper will address reasons

While these studies provide positive results the draw back to them are that the sample groups for each were considerably small which means that there is insufficient evidence to support

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a comparative analysis between for-profit hospitals and not-for-profit hospital. It will discuss the characteristics of each as well as factors affecting the operations of both systems. Additionally, it discusses potential areas of improvement and some of the challenges associated with each relative to finance and operations.

A challenge that the healthcare nation is facing is to provide the quality of care that is expected and obtain low healthcare cost. Working hand in hand with the private sector and government is in hopes of improving the quality of care that each patient deserves and maintaining the cost so that research can continue. The purpose of this paper is to look into relationships between healthcare cost and quality healthcare.

The results of the study were not useful to the population over a months’ time but over the years the study many show signs of progress (Rolleri, Wilson, Paluzzi, and Sedivy, 2008).

High quality of service is being provided to patients at low cost. The cost comparisons between Shouldice and other hospitals in Table 1

From 1991 going forward, the health care environment again experienced fundamental changes as a result of the deregulation of hospitals which according to Ingols and Brem (as cited in Swayne, Duncan, and Ginter, 2006) was occurring for the first time in a decade. According to the authors, the impact of the move was immediate. Following the deregulation, the financial viability of most hospitals was

The authors relied heavily on two studies to create their argument. The first study mentioned was the Pinto et al article. In this study, "Pinto and colleagues (5) assessed the

The problems with their work begins almost immediately in the initial literature review. The literature review is plagued by Ill-defined, or simply

This study was limited due to the small sample size. Although the conclusions are valid, more research with a

There are many financial ratios used in evaluation of a healthcare organization’s performance but for purpose of this study, it will be limited to activity, leverage investment, liquidity and profitability.

With each passing day the health care industry is experiencing an increase in participants due to its perfect competition nature. Due to this increase the industry participants, the industry has vicious competition which in effect leads to an increased in the cost of doing business. Smaller companies within the industry are hard hit by this competition due to their limited resources and therefore find it hard to remain relevant within the industry. Due to the looming threat of closure and liquidation, small companies must explore various strategies they may use to remain in operation. On the other hand large hospitals that are looking to eliminate competition and at the same time improve on their market share and in effect their revenues, merge with those that are struggling with low profitability. These mergers are beneficial to the smaller struggling companies since they provide increased savings on company overheads and availability of specialized machinery. Growth is also expected due to the increased market share as well as the good will already established by the large company. Contrary to popular opinion, mergers are not always between a large and a small company. In the healthcare industry two small companies may come together in order to pool their resources together and be in a position to compete against the large companies.

Hospitals and health systems in the U.S. are experiencing a remarkable transformation in their business models directed from numerous influences that are projected to ultimately turn the industry around. Pressures include providers troubled with the quantity of services they are responsible for, to providers who concentrate on presenting high-cost services that give emphasis to sustaining healthy populations (Dunn & Becker, 2013).

The problem at Memorial Hospital is the focus on costs instead of health care. When a health care provider does not take the primary business as the core value of the operation and make strategic and tactical decisions based primary on costs, it decreases the consumers’ (patients) satisfaction in long run. As consumers reduce or stop purchasing goods and services from the hospital, hospital may make more cost oriented decisions and falls into a negative cycle. Eventually the hospital may face the fate of loosing business to competitors and the possibility of closing the door.