Integration vs Collaborative Redesign Strategies of Health Systems' Supply Chains in the Post-COVID-19 New Normal: Cross-sectional Survey Across the United States.

BACKGROUND: Given the widespread disruptions to supply chains in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, questions such as how health systems are shaping strategies to restore the supply chain disruptions are essential to have confidence in health systems' supply chain model strategies. Plausibly, health systems have an opportunity for redesign, growth, and innovation by utilizing collaborative strategies now, compared to the usual strategies of integrating their existing supply chains to reduce inefficiencies. OBJECTIVE: This study focuses on teasing out the nuance of supply chain integration versus collaborative redesign strategies for health systems in the post-COVID-19 new normal. We focus on 2 research questions. First, we explore the impact of perceived supply chain challenges and disruptions on health systems' supply chain integration (SC-INTEGRATION) and collaborative redesign (SC-REDESIGN) strategies. Second, we examine the outcomes of integration and collaborative redesign strategic choices on growth and service outcomes. METHODS: We used data for this study collected through a consultant from a robust group of health system chief executive officers (CEOs) across the United States from February to March 2021. Among the 625 health system CEOs contacted, 135 (21.6%) responded to our survey. We considered supply chain-relevant strategy and outcome variables from the literature and ratified them via expert consensus. We collected secondary data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Compendium of the US Health Systems, leading to a matched data set from the 124 health systems. Next, we used ordered logit model estimation to examine CEO preferences for partnership strategies to address current supply disruptions and the outcomes of strategy choices. RESULTS: Health systems with higher disruptions would choose integration (positive, P<.001) over redesign, indicating that they still trust the existing partners. Integration strategy is perceived to result in better service outcomes (P<.01), while collaborations are perceived to lead to greater growth opportunities (P<.05); however, the role of integration in growth is not entirely ruled out (combined model, P<.001). Plausibly, some health systems would choose integration and collaborative redesign models, which have a significant relationship with both services (combined model, P<.01) and growth, establishing the importance of mixed strategies for health systems. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of health care continues to rise, and supply-related costs constitute a large portion of a hospital's expenditure. Understanding supply chain strategic choices are essential for a health system's success. Although collaboration is an option, focusing on and improving existing integration dynamics is helpful to foster both growth and services for health systems.

Valuing Diversity and Inclusion in Health Care to Equip the Workforce: Survey Study and Pathway Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic, with all its virus variants, remains a serious situation. Health systems across the United States are trying their best to respond. On average, the health care workforce is relatively homogenous, even though it cares for a highly diverse array of patients. This perennial problem in the US health care workforce has only been accentuated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical workers should reflect on the variety of patients they care for and strive to understand their mindsets within the larger contexts of culture, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and socioeconomic realities. Along with talent and skills, diversity and inclusion (D&I) are essential for maintaining a workforce that can treat the myriad needs and populations that health systems serve. Developing hiring strategies that will help achieve greater workforce diversity remains a challenge for health system leaders. OBJECTIVE: The primary aims of this study were to: (1) explore the characteristics of US health systems and their associations with D&I practices and benefits, (2) examine the associations between D&I practices and three pathways to equip workforces, and (3) examine the associations between the three pathways to better equip workforces and business and service benefits. The three pathways are: (1) improving D&I among existing employees (IMPROVE), (2) using multiple channels to find and recruit the workforce (RECRUIT), and (3) collaborating with universities to find new talent and establish plans to train students (COLLABORATE). METHODS: During February to March 2021, 625 health systems in the United States were surveyed with the help of a consultant, 135 (21.6%) of whom responded. We assessed workforce talent- and diversity-relevant factors. We collected secondary data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Compendium of the US Health Systems, leading to a matched data set of 124 health systems for analysis. We first explored differences in diversity practices and benefits across the health systems. We then examined the relationships among diversity practices, pathways, and benefits. RESULTS: Health system characteristics such as size, location, ownership, teaching, and revenue have varying associations with diversity practices and outcomes. D&I and talent strategies exhibited different associations with the three workforce pathways. Regarding the mediating effects, the IMPROVE pathway seems to be more effective than the RECRUIT and COLLABORATE pathways, enabling the diversity strategy to prompt business or service benefits. Moreover, these pathway effects go hand-in-hand with a talent strategy, indicating that both talent and diversity strategies need to be aligned to achieve the best results for a health system. CONCLUSIONS: Diversity and talent plans can be aligned to realize multiple desired benefits for health systems. However, a one-size-fits-all approach is not a viable strategy for improving D&I. Health systems need to follow a multipronged approach based on their characteristics. To get D&I right, proactive plans and genuine efforts are essential.

Competition and Integration of US Health Systems in the Post-COVID-19 New Normal: Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: How do health systems in the United States view the concept of merger and acquisition (M&A) in a post-COVID 19 "new normal"? How do new entrants to the market and incumbents influence horizontal and vertical integration of health systems? Traditionally, it has been argued that M&A activity is designed to reduce inequities in the market, shift toward value-based care, or enhance the number and quality of health care offerings in a given market. However, the recent history of M&A activity has yielded fewer noble results. As might be expected, the smaller the geographical region in which M&A activity is pursued, the higher the likelihood that monopolistic tendencies will result. OBJECTIVE: We focused on three types of competition perceptions, external environment uncertainty-related competition, technology disruption-driven competition, and customer service-driven competition, and two integration plans, vertical integration and horizontal integration. We examined (1) how health system characteristics help discern competition perceptions and integration decisions, and (2) how environment-, technology-, and service-driven competition aspects influence vertical and horizontal integration among US health systems in the post-COVID-19 new normal. METHODS: We used data for this study collected through a consultant from a robust group of health system chief executive officers (CEOs) across the United States from February to March 2021. Among the 625 CEOs, 135 (21.6%) responded to our survey. We considered competition and integration aspects from the literature and ratified them via expert consensus. We collected secondary data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Compendium of the US Health Systems, leading to a matched data set for 124 health systems. We used inferential statistical comparisons to assess differences across health systems regarding competition and integration, and we used ordered logit estimations to relate competition and integration. RESULTS: Health systems generally have a high level of the four types of competition perceptions, with the greatest concern being technology disruption-driven competition rather than environment uncertainty-related competition and customer service-driven competition. The first set of estimation results showed that size, teaching status, revenue, and uncompensated care burden are the main contingent factors influencing the three competition perceptions. The second set of estimation results revealed the relationships between different competition perceptions and integration plans. For vertical integration, environment uncertainty-related competition had a significant positive influence (P<.001), while the influence of technology disruption-driven competition was significant but negative (P<.001). The influence of customer service-driven competition on vertical integration was not evident. For horizontal integration, the results were similar for environment uncertainty-related competition and technology disruption-driven competition; however, the significance of technology disruption-driven competition was weak (P=.05). The influence of customer service-driven competition in the combined model was significant and negative (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Competition-driven integration has subtle influences across health systems. Environment uncertainty-related competition is a significant factor, with underlying contingent factors such as revenue concerns and leadership as the leading causes of integration plans. However, technology disruption may hinder integrations. Undoubtedly, small- and low-revenue health systems facing a high level of competition are likely to merge to navigate the health care business successfully. This trend should be a focus of policy to avoid monopolistic markets.

Impact of Remote and Virtual Care Models on the Sustainability of Small Health Care Businesses: Perceptual Analysis of Small Clinics, Physician Offices, and Pharmacies in Colorado.

BACKGROUND: Lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders during COVID-19 have accelerated the adoption of remote and virtual care (RVC) models, potentially including telehealth, telemedicine, and internet-based electronic physician visits (e-visits) for remote consultation, diagnosis, and care, deterring small health care businesses including clinics, physician offices, and pharmacies from aligning resources and operations to new RVC realities. Current perceptions of small health care businesses toward remote care, particularly perceptions of whether RVC adoption will synergistically improve business sustainability, would highlight the pros and cons of rapidly adopting RVC technology among policy makers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the perceptions of small health care businesses regarding the impact of RVC on their business sustainability during COVID-19, gauge their perceptions of their current levels of adoption of and satisfaction with RVC models and analyze how well that aligns with their perceptions of the current business scenario (SCBS), and determine whether these perceptions influence their view of their midterm sustainability (SUST). METHODS: We randomly sampled small clinics, physician offices, and pharmacies across Colorado and sought assistance from a consulting firm to collect survey data in July 2020. Focal estimated study effects were compared across the three groups of small businesses to draw several insights. RESULTS: In total, 270 respondents, including 82 clinics, 99 small physician offices, and 89 pharmacies, across Colorado were included. SRVC and SCBS had direct, significant, and positive effects on SUST. However, we investigated the effect of the interaction between SRVC and SCBS to determine whether RVC adoption aligns with their perceptions of the current business scenario and whether this interaction impacts their perception of business sustainability. Effects differed among the three groups. The interaction term SRVC×SCBS was significant and positive for clinics (P=.02), significant and negative for physician offices (P=.05), and not significant for pharmacies (P=.76). These variations indicate that while clinics positively perceived RVC alignment with the current business scenario, the opposite held true for small physician offices. CONCLUSIONS: As COVID-19 continues to spread worldwide and RVC adoption progresses rapidly, it is critical to understand the impact of RVC on small health care businesses and their perceptions of long-term survival. Small physician practices cannot harness RVC developments and, in contrast with clinics, consider it incompatible with business survival during and after COVID-19. If small health care firms cannot compete with RVC (or synergistically integrate RVC platforms into their current business practices) and eventually become nonoperational, the resulting damage to traditional health care services may be severe, particularly for critical care delivery and other important services that RVC cannot effectively replace. Our results have implications for public policy decisions such as incentive-aligned models, policy-initiated incentives, and payer-based strategies for improved alignment between RVC and existing models.

Digital Orientation of Health Systems in the Post-COVID-19 "New Normal" in the United States: Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Almost all health systems have developed some form of customer-facing digital technologies and have worked to align these systems to their existing electronic health records to accommodate the surge in remote and virtual care deliveries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Others have developed analytics-driven decision-making capabilities. However, it is not clear how health systems in the United States are embracing digital technologies and there is a gap in health systems' abilities to integrate workflows with expanding technologies to spur innovation and futuristic growth. There is a lack of reliable and reported estimates of the current and futuristic digital orientations of health systems. Periodic assessments will provide imperatives to policy formulation and align efforts to yield the transformative power of emerging digital technologies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore and examine differences in US health systems with respect to digital orientations in the post-COVID-19 "new normal" in 2021. Differences were assessed in four dimensions: (1) analytics-oriented digital technologies (AODT), (2) customer-oriented digital technologies (CODT), (3) growth and innovation-oriented digital technologies (GODT), and (4) futuristic and experimental digital technologies (FEDT). The former two dimensions are foundational to health systems' digital orientation, whereas the latter two will prepare for future disruptions. METHODS: We surveyed a robust group of health system chief executive officers (CEOs) across the United States from February to March 2021. Among the 625 CEOs, 135 (22%) responded to our survey. We considered the above four broad digital technology orientations, which were ratified with expert consensus. Secondary data were collected from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Compendium, leading to a matched usable dataset of 124 health systems for analysis. We examined the relationship of adopting the four digital orientations to specific hospital characteristics and earlier reported factors as barriers or facilitators to technology adoption. RESULTS: Health systems showed a lower level of CODT (mean 4.70) or GODT (mean 4.54) orientations compared with AODT (mean 5.03), and showed the lowest level of FEDT orientation (mean 4.31). The ordered logistic estimation results provided nuanced insights. Medium-sized (P<.001) health systems, major teaching health systems (P<.001), and systems with high-burden hospitals (P<.001) appear to be doing worse with respect to AODT orientations, raising some concerns. Health systems of medium (P<.001) and large (P=.02) sizes, major teaching health systems (P=.07), those with a high revenue (P=.05), and systems with high-burden hospitals (P<.001) have less CODT orientation. Health systems in the midwest (P=.05) and southern (P=.04) states are more likely to adopt GODT, whereas high-revenue (P=.004) and investor-ownership (P=.01) health systems are deterred from GODT. Health systems of a medium size, and those that are in the midwest (P<.001), south (P<.001), and west (P=.01) are more adept to FEDT, whereas medium (P<.001) and high-revenue (P<.001) health systems, and those with a high discharge rate (P=.04) or high burden (P=.003, P=.005) have subdued FEDT orientations. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all health systems have some current foundational digital technological orientations to glean intelligence or service delivery to customers, with some notable exceptions. Comparatively, fewer health systems have growth or futuristic digital orientations. The transformative power of digital technologies can only be leveraged by adopting futuristic digital technologies. Thus, the disparities across these orientations suggest that a holistic, consistent, and well-articulated direction across the United States remains elusive. Accordingly, we suggest that a policy strategy and financial incentives are necessary to spur a well-visioned and articulated digital orientation for all health systems across the United States. In the absence of such a policy to collectively leverage digital transformations, differences in care across the country will continue to be a concern.