Policy adoption can be very challenging to healthcare leaders. Many
organizations employ consultants to assist with the implementation of
new policies. There have been significant changes to health policies
over the past few years that have forced providers to institute
implementation strategies, ensuring that they remain competitive and
profitable. Review the “Global Medical Coverage” case (Chapter 6 ), and
discuss the following questions in a minimum of 250 words:
- Does Blue Ridge Paper Products’ (BRPP) policy differ from a
traditional employee stock ownership plan (ESOP)? What are the
implications? - Are there any ethical concerns in the case? Why? Why not?
- Did the case present a buyer-dominant or a seller-dominant approach?
- What important lesson(s) are learned from this case study? How would you apply this to practice?
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
The case study “Global Medical Coverage” in Chapter 6 discusses the challenges of policy adoption in healthcare organizations and the strategies employed by providers to remain competitive and profitable. As a professor of medicine, the following answers provide an analysis of the case, addressing questions on the policy of Blue Ridge Paper Products, ethical concerns, dominant approaches, and the lessons learned.
Answer:
1. Blue Ridge Paper Products’ policy differs from a traditional employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) in that it is a cash-based employee benefit trust. Under this policy, the company contributes cash on behalf of the employees that is used to purchase shares of stock in the market rather than issuing new shares directly to the employees. The implications of this policy include increased liquidity, which allows employees to cash out their shares more easily. However, it may also decrease the level of employee ownership over time.
2. There are ethical concerns in the case, particularly regarding the potential conflicts of interest and the communication of information to employees. The company’s management may have had personal financial interests in the adoption of the policy, which could be a conflict of interest with the best interests of the employees. Additionally, there was limited communication with employees throughout the process, which could be seen as unethical.
3. The case presented a buyer-dominant approach, as the company’s management had significant control over the implementation of the policy and the decisions about the use of funds contributed to the trust. Employees had limited input or control over these decisions.
4. The important lessons learned from this case study include the importance of transparency and communication with employees, the need for clear delineation of responsibilities and potential conflicts of interest in policy adoption, and the potential trade-offs between liquidity and employee ownership in cash-based employee benefit trusts. As a healthcare leader, these lessons can be applied by involving employees in the decision-making process, ensuring ethical considerations are taken into account, and weighing the potential benefits and costs of different policies.
