Consider how benchmarking could be useful to you in decision making.
The Process of Benchmarking
In order to be competitive in health care markets, organizations must ensure that the services they provide are consistent in pricing and quality with other comparable organizations. In this Discussion, you will examine how the process of benchmarking, or comparing organizations, is important in financial decision making.
To prepare:
Review the information on benchmarking found in this week’s Learning Resources.
Search the Walden Library or other reliable resources on the Internet and locate a journal article discussing how a health care organization has used the principle of benchmarking.
How could the concept of benchmarking be used in your own organization (or one with which you are familiar), regardless of size?
Consider how benchmarking could be useful to you in decision making.
Analyze the potential risks of making a faulty comparison.
Post a summary of the article you found (including the APA reference) and explain how it informed your understanding of benchmarking. Discuss how benchmarking could be used for financial decision making in your own organization (or one with which you are familiar). Also analyze the potential risks of making comparisons with an organization that is not a credible match with your own.
And
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days. Comment on a colleague with different options than your own. Describe what you like about their options and if you agree with their rankings. Justify your answers.
(I will send the responses soon)
Required Readings
Baker, J., & Baker, R. W. (2014). Health care finance: Basic tools for nonfinancial managers (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Chapter 13, “Trend Analysis, Common Sizing, and Forecasted Data” (pp. 143–155)
The focus of this chapter is the use of trend analysis and forecasting to develop future budgets and make financial decisions about capital purchases, programs, and personnel.
Chapter 14, “Using Comparative Data” (pp. 157–169)
In this chapter, you are introduced to the criteria for identifying other health care organizations that are comparable to your own. Data from these organizations can then be used to evaluate your own organizational performance.
Chapter 18, “Estimates, Benchmarking, and Other Measurement Tools” (pp. 215–224)
In this chapter, you continue exploring the concept of financial benchmarking. The chapter focuses on the importance of benchmarking for identifying performance gaps.
Zelman, W., McCue, M., & Glick, N. (2009). Financial management of health care organizations: An introduction to fundamental tools, concepts, and applications (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Chapter 5, “Working Capital Management” (pp. 187–231)
This chapter examines the concept of working capital. The authors explore the specifics of current assets and the management of the working capital cycle.
Chapter 11, “Responsibility Accounting” (pp. 468–497)
Review: This chapter explores the trend toward the decentralization of health care organizations and the challenges this presents. This chapter also describes responsibility centers, or organizational units intended to achieve specific tasks.
Mulva, S., & Dai, J. (2009) Health care facility benchmarking. HERD, 3(1), 28–37.
Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications via the Copyright Clearance Center.
This article describes a national health care facility’s benchmarking program. It is designed to compare measures of capital project performance.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2013). Measuring and benchmarking clinical performance. Retrieved from www.ahrq.gov
Ettorchi-Tardy, A., Levif, M., & Michel, P. (2012). Benchmarking: A Method for Continuous Quality Improvement in Health. Healthcare Policy, e101-e119. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359088/
Document: Week 10 Application Assignment Template (Excell Spreadsheet)
Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2012). Expense forecasting. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 5 minutes.
In this video, Dr. William Ward discusses expense forecasting and demonstrates how to perform trend analysis, staff forecasting, comparative data analysis, and capacity forecasting.
Accessible player
Laureate Education (Producer). (2015). Week 10 Application Assignment Tutorial: Benefit Cost Ratio. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2015). Week 10 Application Assignment Tutorial: Breakeven Analysis. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2015). Week 10 Application Assignment Tutorial: Expense Forecasting. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2015). Week 10 Application Assignment Tutorial: Profit and Loss Scenario. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Optional Resources
Hurlock J. (2012). Get to know Excel 2010: Create your first spreadsheet. Retrieved from http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/get-to-know-excel-2010-create-your-first-spreadsheet-RZ101773335.aspx
Goodwill Community Foundation, Inc. (n.d.). Excel 2010. Retrieved from http://www.gcflearnfree.org/excel2010
MSN Discussion Rubric
| Criteria | Levels of Achievement | ||||
| Outstanding Performance | Excellent Performance | Competent Performance | Room for Improvement | Poor Performance | |
| Content-Main Posting | 30 to 30 points
-Main posting addresses all criteria with 75% of post exceptional depth and breadth supported by credible references. |
27 to 29 points
-Main posting addresses all criteria with 75% of post exceptional depth and breadth supported by credible references. |
24 to 26 points
Main posting meets expectations. All criteria are addressed with 50% containing good breadth and depth. |
21 to 23 points
Main posting addresses most of the criteria. One to two criterion are not addressed or superficially addressed. |
0 to 20 points
Main posting does not address all of criteria, superficially addresses criteria. Two or more criteria are not addressed. |
| Course Requirements and Attendance | 20 to 20 points
-Responds to two colleagues’ with posts that are reflective, are justified with credible sources, and ask questions that extend the Discussion. |
18 to 19 points
-Responds to two colleagues’ with posts that are reflective, are justified with credible sources, and ask questions that extend the Discussion. |
16 to 17 points
Responds to a minimum of two colleagues’ posts, are reflective, and ask questions that extend the Discussion. One post is justified by a credible source. |
14 to 15 points
Responds to less than two colleagues’ posts. Posts are on topic, may have some depth, or questions. May extend the Discussion. No credible sources are cited. |
0 to 13 points
Responds to less than two colleagues’ posts. Posts may not be on topic, lack depth, do not pose questions that extend the Discussion. |
| Scholarly Writing Quality | 30 to 30 points
-The main posting clearly addresses the Discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with more than two credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors. ***The use of scholarly sources or real life experiences needs to be included to deepen the Discussion and earn points in reply to fellow students. |
27 to 29 points
-The main posting clearly addresses the Discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with more than two credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors. |
24 to 26 points
-The main posting clearly addresses the Discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with a minimum of two current credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. Contains one to two spelling or grammatical errors. |
21 to 23 points
-The main posting is not clearly addressing the Discussion criteria and is not written concisely. The main posting is cited with less than two credible references that may lack credibility and/or do not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. |
0 to 20 points
-The main posting is disorganized and has one reference that may lack credibility and does not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition or has zero credible references. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. |
| Professional Communication Effectiveness | 20 to 20 points
-Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues and response to faculty questions are answered if posed. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly Discussion topic. |
18 to 19 points
-Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are cited with at least one credible reference per post and a probing question that extends the Discussion. Adheres to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors. |
16 to 17 points
-Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are cited with at least one credible and/or contain probing questions that extends the Discussion. Adheres to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have one to two spelling or grammatical errors. |
14 to 15 points
-Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides opinions that may not be concise or ideas not effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication that does not extend the Discussion, leads to an exchange of ideas and/or not focused on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are not cited and/or do not contain a probing question. May not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have more than two spelling or grammatical errors. |
0 to 13 points
-Communication may lack professional tone or be disrespectful to colleagues. -Provides opinions that may not be concise or ideas not effectively written in Standard Edited English -Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication through discussion that does not extend the Discussion, do not lead to an exchange of ideas and/or not focused on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are not cited and do not contain a probing question. May not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have multiple spelling or grammatical errors. |
| Timely Submission | 0 to 0 points
All criteria met: Initial post submitted on time. Response to two peer initial posts. Response on 3 separate days. |
-5 to 0 points
5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers or 5 points deducted for responding less than three days. |
-10 to -5 points
5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers and 5 points deducted for responding less than three days. |
-10 to -10 points
10 points deducted for Initial post submitted late. |
-20 to -15 points
Initial post submitted late and 5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers and/ or 5 points deducted for responding less than three days. |