Cambridge Transplant Center Case Study

 

 

This case introduces you to the Cambridge Transplant Center, which is eager to expand its organ transplant services. As the case notes, the largest issue
facing Cambridge is determining reimbursement for Phase 4 of the transplant process with the specialized company that handles these services. Phase 4
costs are either hospital or physician costs, and physician costs are already agreed on. Thus, this case focuses on how Cambridge should attempt to
structure reimbursement for hospital costs associated with Phase 4 of transplant procedures.
Cost savings appeared to involve reducing the length of stay, but costs are not linear. In other words, shorter stays are not uniformly less expensive.
Imagine you are a consultant hired to analyze the situation and you recommend a fixed reimbursement amount for Phase 4 hospital services. The data
provided to you reveals that 60 percent of the costs are fixed and 40 percent are variable. Current payers are reimbursing Cambridge at about $140,000 for
Phase 4 services. Further, Cambridge wants to expand this service and has the capacity to deliver 30 more transplants per year; anything beyond 30
additional transplants would require additional fixed costs of 15–25 percent.
In addition to being asked to structure reimbursement for the Phase 4 of transplant procedures, you are also asked to come up with a method for handling
outliers—those patients that consume extraordinarily more resources than other patients. Other hospitals charge additional per diems after some length of
stay threshold is passed, while others charge some percentage of costs above the threshold.
Work through the case study and take notes based on the questions found in the Assignments section of this module.
View the 7.1 Activity: Cambridge Transplant Center Case Study next.

Sample Solution

ee will”. Leaving aside Locke’s own discourse on the state of nature, we try to make a new argument for “restricting free will” from our point of view. Locke believes that it is possible for people to restrict their own free will on the premise that family is the typical representative in an environment of undegraded benevolence. “In the early days of the establishment of the government, the number of the state was not much different from that of the family, nor was the number of laws much different from that of the family; since the rulers cared for them for their happiness like their fathers, the rule of the government was almost entirely privileged.” Locke introduced “privilege” here and linked privilege with benevolence. “Privilege is a kind of power to act for the benefit of the public according to discretion without legal provisions, sometimes even in violation of the law.” (The Treatise of Government (Part Two): P102) Kant believes that this kind of rule is absolute. “If a government is based on the principle of benevolence to the people as a father does to his children, that is to say, a father’s government, the subjects here are forced to adopt a passive attitude just as they can’t tell what is really good or bad for their children, so that they can only expect the head of state’s happiness. Judgment, and if the head of state is willing to do so, only his goodwill is expected; such a government is the greatest authoritarianism imaginable.” (Volume 8 of Kant’s Complete Works: Papers after 1781: P294) We do not quote Kant’s statement that Kant supports Locke, but that Kant also opposes Hobbes. Locke believes that human happiness can only be measured by external public welfare. Kant denies this, which is the fundamental difference between them. But the source of Kant’s refutation of Hobbes may be related to Locke. In short, when the benevolent family finally degenerates, it is necessary to restrict power, because the father-like leader is no longer the father, he has no inherent motive for benevolence to benefit the public, on the contrary, he may infringe on public welfare. Benevolence is the internal means of restricting power. Since this internal means has failed, it is necessary to restrict power through external means. Legislative power and law enforcement power should be separated. Locke himself logically disintegrated patriarchy by refuting the Theocracy of monarchy, which not only made the disintegration of patriarchy a historical process, but also a logical argument. So far, politics is only related to one kind of morality, that is, secular morality and public welfare, which is also the focus of Locke’s argument. But when he retains God, he also retains the morality of faith. Although God no longer exercises the power to punish those who violate secular morality, he still exercises the power to punish those who violate beliefs. It can be seen as Locke defending the church, or as Locke’s unwillingness to drive God out of People’s lives so easily.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.