Southern Cross Healthcare accelerates transformational change
Southern Cross says two new executive changes will help it accelerate change.
Friday, January 28th 2022, 2:59PM 
10 Comments
Dr Manoj Patel will join in the role of Chief Transformation Officer, while David Simpson will take up the role of Strategic Adviser to the chief executive.
Patel will be responsible for developing, implementing and managing Southern Cross’ entry into providing ‘value-based’ care. He trained and worked as a doctor before extending his career into commercial and clinical service delivery roles both at home and abroad.
He will join Southern Cross from Healthcare Holdings Limited where he has been Director of Medical Services, MercyAscot Private Hospitals and Director of Clinical Innovation.
Simpson will be responsible for providing external industry insights, experience and strategic advice to assist the chief executive and broader executive
team.
He has a wide-ranging health sector background in highly complex and commercial organisations. Simpson joins Southern Cross from Accenture where he was Head of New Zealand Healthcare Practice.
Southern Cross Healthcare interim chief executive Chris White says the skills and expertise the new appointees bring make them ideal choices for helping to deliver a private healthcare model that is more innovative and offers superior value care.
“These two new roles will bring additional capabilities and experience from the broader healthcare sectors here and overseas – particularly in value-based care. Both Manoj and David are highly regarded leaders and experts in their respective fields and we are delighted to have them join our executive leadership team.”
| « Suncorp refreshes senior leadership | AIA appoints high powered board member » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
Its a new buzzword/paradigm in the industry.
In the words of a website I looked at using "value based care" as the simple search
"What Is Value-Based Care?
Value-based care is a type of payment model that pays doctors and hospitals for treating patients in the right place, at the right time and with just the right amount of care.
You can look at it as a financial incentive to motivate healthcare providers to meet specific performance measures related to the quality and efficiency of the process. The same way, it penalizes weaker experiences, such as medical errors.
As healthcare costs continue to rise, value-based care has been growing in popularity compared to the traditional fee-for-service method."
"Value-based care is a type of payment model that pays doctors and hospitals for treating patients in the right place, at the right time and with just the right amount of care" - in whose judgement?
Sounds like a bunch of PC prose used by committees to justify their existence when they dont add any real value!
It looks to me that it is based in insurers wanting to reduce what they have to pay providers - paying them based on outcomes rather than reimbursing inputs.
Its another step on from affiliated providers - rather than paying a claim based on whatever the surgeon, anaesthetist and facility separately charged, the funder agrees on a fixed price for a procedure irrespective of who the surgeon, knockout man and facility are
My questions are: Who makes the judgement, and in whose best interests are they making such judgement?
Then in the second para of the definition, the reference to " it penalizes weaker experiences, such as medical errors" implies that the $$$ would be conditional on outcomes. Sounds grand, but I will watch for the implementation with interest.
One fee for procedure, another fee for remedy to his own stuff-up. How many times do these 'medical misadventures' occur throughout the hospital system and what's the annual bill the taxpayer has to fund for these 'weaker experiences' i.e. stuff-ups?
Muzza's point about rewarding outputs (successful procedures) - rather than inputs (arbitrary fees decided by the medics funded by PL, Southern X) might just help make our Health Services more sustainable.
So, thinking about firstborn's unfortunate experience.
1. Surgeon get's paid for the first job because that appears to have been OK.
2. He stuffs the removal so maybe shouldn't be paid for that.
3. Firstborn has every right to have stuff-up fixed. Surgeon should perhaps have been required to do the repair at no charge, and even been charged with the gas passer's fee, theatre fee, etc. In my mind, I'd have been less than enthusiastic at letting the stuff-up surgeon anywhere my body with anything sharp...
There is good logic at holding him/her responsible for correcting the stuff-up.
The problem with the logic is that it would require another (government?) authority to hold the stuff-up surgeon responsible, now that we have ACC and cannot sue for injury. Someone would need to administer the "payment model that pays doctors and hospitals for treating patients in the right place, at the right time and with just the right amount of care."
Another bureaucracy to be stuffed-up by our government...
You are grossly misleading calling it Muzza's "values based" model.
The little I know about it is the result of 20 minutes research on Ms Google.
But maybe the way many people operate in public debate in our brave new world, that is an impressive resume! (sarc)
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
