Health care delivery systems are mechanisms for offering health-related services aimed at meeting the health demands of individuals. Contrarily, health organizations are entities developed to meet the healthcare needs of individuals. This assignment compares and contrasts health care organizations and delivery systems using the Kaiser Permanente (KP) example.
The American healthcare delivery system constitutes of several models pegged on numerous structures and institutions. One of these models is the KP integrated healthcare delivery system. This system consists of three subdivisions including an insurance health risk plan, hospital networks, and physicians. The KP system looks into the provision of quality, manageable, and population-conscious healthcare. Further, the medical and insurance entities account for a budget that only offers a direct interconnection during medical service provision. Nonetheless, all three sections reflect KP’s payment system that optimizes usage, as shown through desirable health outcomes. The alignment is essential in the system’s effort to maintain affordability and quality for members and users (Pines, Selevan, McStay, George, and McClellan, 2015).
As a health care organization, KP establishes and promotes a system that improves the efficiency, safety, and reliability of healthcare. Kaiser Permanente operates as a patient-centered and staff-driven healthcare organization that uses in-house capabilities to offer services for its members. For instance, their in-house insurance plan and collaborative environment unite patients with an outstanding staff and financials. The organization’s objectives share a similar pattern as identified within the system. Eventually, KP shows the potential of resulting in numerous health benefits through integration. Currently, the model is available for use in other organizations that aim at following a similar path (McCarthy, Mueller, and Wrenn, 2009).
That said, the following are the similarities between KP as a healthcare organization and its delivery system. First, both entities acknowledge the need for information continuity between stakeholders. From KP’s perspective, nurses and physicians, hospitals, and insurance planners share relevant patient information through EHRs for continuity of care. Second, both the organization and delivery system display a clear care coordination strategy. In this case, multiple providers actively manage their individual sectors for appropriate patient care. Finally, in both cases, there exist the need for continuous innovation for quality and reliability in healthcare delivery (Mate and Compton-Phillips, 2014).
Contrarily, unlike the system, the organization focus on individual entities that act in tandem with objectives aimed at meeting health outcomes. That is, a system acts as a guide through which the organization runs its operations. The hospital segment of KP uses the overall integrated system to meet the medical needs of its members. In essence, the KP-associated organizations establish and implement policies that align to the KP model. They further follow policies stated at the state and federal levels to help in strengthening their operations (Hwang, Chang, LaClair, and Paz, 2013).
This discussion agrees with the idea that the US healthcare system is characteristic of inequitable, unaffordable, and uneven services. As reported by Naylor and Kurtzman (2011), there are increased cases of uninsured patients among the population. The KP model offers a solution to these issues through its organized integrated healthcare delivery system (Naylor and Kurtzman, 2011). From the medical perspective, KP uses groups of physicians and specialty nurses to offer specialized, reliable, and affordable services. In addition, the organization deviates from the rather unbalanced national insurance scheme by offering a controlled in-house health plan. Finally, the hospital’s network offers EHRs-oriented services to streamline patient care (Suter, Oelke, Adair, and Armitage, 2009).
In conclusion, the above healthcare delivery system commits to assisting in shaping the American health sector. The example presents one of the country’s leading providers in its quest to implement affordable health care. The system and organization aim at providing affordable care, high quality, and equitable healthcare to the community. They have a presence of about 9 million members spread across nine states. Their competence exists in the totality of care and guidance through specialized physicians, caregivers, and other specialists.
References
Hwang, W., Chang, J., LaClair, M., & Paz, H. (2013). Effects of Integrated Delivery System on Cost and Quality . The American Journal of Managed Care, 19 (5), 175-184.
Mate, K., & Compton-Phillips, A. (2014). The Antidote to Fragmented Health Care. Harvard Business Review .
McCarthy, D., Mueller, K., & Wrenn, J. (2009). Kaiser Permanente: Bridging the Quality Divide with Integrated Practice, Group Accountability, and Health Information Technology. New York, NY: The Common Wealth Fund .
Naylor, M. D., & Kurtzman, E. T. (2011). Transitional Care: Improving health outcomes and decreasing costs for at risk chronically ill older adults . In P. A. Grady, & A. S. Hinshaw, Shaping Health Policy through Nursing Research (pp. 201-213). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.
Pines, J., Selevan, J., McStay, F., George, M., & McClellan, M. (2015). Kaiser Permanente-California: A Model for Integrated care for the ill and injured. Washington, D.C: Center for Health Policy at Brookings.
Suter, E., Oelke, N., Adair, C., & Armitage, G. (2009). Ten Key Principles for Successful Health Systems Integration . Healthcare Quartely, 13, 16-23.
