Lethbridge Globalization and Health 2011, 7:19 http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/content/7/1/19
Understanding multinational companies in public health systems, using a competitive advantage framework Jane Lethbridge
Background: This paper discusses the findings of a study which developed five case studies of five multinational health care companies involved in public health care systems. Strategies were analysed in terms of attitude to marketing, pricing and regulation. The company strategies have been subjected to an analysis using Porter’s Five Forces, a business strategy framework, which is unusual in health policy studies. Methods: This paper shows how analysing company strategy using a business tool can contribute to understanding the strategies of global capital in national health systems. It shows how social science methodologies can draw from business methods to explain company strategies. Results: The five companies considered in this paper demonstrate that their strategies have many dimensions, which fit into Porter’s Five Forces of comparative advantage. More importantly the Five Forces can be used to identify factors that influence company entry into public health care systems. Conclusions: The process of examining the strategic objectives of five health care companies shows that a business tool can help to explain the actions and motives of health care companies towards public health care systems, and so contribute to a better understanding of the strategies of global capital in national health systems. Health service commissioners need to understand this dynamic process, which will evolve as the nature of public health care systems change.
Background Multinational company involvement in public health care systems has been evolving since the late 1980s/ 1990s, with the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for services such as catering, cleaning and facilities management services. For some companies, this formed the springboard for involvement in formal public-private partnerships for capital projects . However in these two phases, the multinational companies were more likely to be service, property and finance companies, rather than health care companies. More recently, healthcare multinationals have started to become involved in public health care systems as providers of health care . This paper explore the processes involved in this development, which can be argued in Correspondence: email@example.com Principal Lecturer, Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), The Business School, University of Greenwich, UK
another variant of public-private partnerships-or even a further stage in a typology from marketisation to privatisation . This paper aims to explore how a group of health care multinational companies have become part of several national health care systems over the last decade. The characteristics of this group of new global players are varied and reflect the national origins of many companies. They include experience of delivering acute, mental health services, and care services for older people to public providers at national levels, vertical integration of renal care services, and high technology care. Much of the expansion has taken place in Europe, during the last decade. The expansion of renal care companies and high technology care is a more global expansion. Expansion into older care services is beginning to have a global impact in countries with an ageing population. Understanding this process of integration into public health systems will help to provide insights into the
© 2011 Lethbridge; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References: 1. Pollock A, NHS Plc: The Privatisation of Our Health Care. London: Verso; 2004. 2. Lethbridge J: Strategies of Multinational Health Care Companies in Europe and Asia. In Commercialization of health care-global and local dynamics and policy responses. Edited by: Mackintosh M, Koivusalo M. Basingstoke: Macmillan Palgrave; 2005:22-37. 3. Whitfield D: A Typology of Privatisation and Marketisation. European Services Strategy Unit; 2006. 4. Porter ME: Competitive strategy, technique for analysing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press; 1980. 5. Porter ME: The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review 1990, 68(2):73-93. 6. Stonehouse G, Snowdon B: Competitive advantage revisited Michael Porter on strategy and competitiveness. Journal of Management Enquiry 2007, 16(3):256-273. 7. Pines JM: The economic role of the emergency department in the health care continuum: applying Michael Porter’s five forces model to emergency medicine. Administration of Emergency Medicine 2006, 30(4):447-453. 8. Sheppard L: Analysis of the Physiotherapy industry: challenges for marketing. Health Marketing Quarterly 1996, 14(2):35-42. 9. Breedveld EJ, Meijboom BR, de Roo AA: Labour supply in the home care industry: a case study in a Dutch region. Health Policy 2006, 76:144-155. 10. Mikkola H, Keslimaki I, Hakkinen U: DRG-related prices applied in a public health care systems-can Finland learn from Norway and Sweden? Health Policy 2001, 59:37-51. 11. Serden L: DRGs as a quality indicator. Nordic Casemix conference Helsinki, Finland; 2010, Presentation to the 4th, 3-4th. 12. Audit Commission: The right result Payment by results 2003-07. oLondon: Audit Commission; 2008. 13. Dunn C, Tracey S: Payment by Results-German Lessons? CIPFA Healthcare Panel; 2005. 14. UNISON: Companies Update May. 2007, Issue no.3. 15. UNISON: Companies update June. 2007, Issue No.4. 16. Parkway: Annual Report. 2009, Singapore. 17. Khazanah Nasional Berhad: Khazanah and Integrated Healthcare Holdings Sdn Bhd, via its wholly owned subsidiary Integrated Healthcare Holdings Limited, announces the successful close of its Voluntary General Offer for Parkway Holdings Limited. Media statement 2010. 18. BUPA: Annual Report. 2009 [http://www.bupa.com], London. 19. Fresenius: Annual Report. 2006 [http://www.fresenius.com], Bad Homberg. 20. Mossialos E, McKee M, Palm W, Karl B, Marhold F: The influence of EU law on the social character of health care systems in the European Union. Brussels: Observatoire Social Européen; 2001 [http://www.ose.be/health/ files/corereport.pdf]. 21. Lamping W, Steffen M: European Union and Health Policy: the ‘Chaordic’ dynamics of integration. Social Science Quarterly 2009, 90(5):1361-1379. 22. Greer SL: On Thin Ice: European Union Health Policy and Its Futures. 2009 [http://ssrn.com/abstract = 1697351]. 23. Player S, Leys C: The Plot against the NHS. London: Merlin Press. 24. Fresenius: Annual Report. 2009 [http://www.fresenius.com], Bad Homberg. 25. Capio: 2010 [http://www.capio.com]. 26. Ribera Salud: Un modelo de salud. 2010 [http://www.riberasalud.com]. 27. BUPA: Sanitas wins government tender to build public hospital. Press release 2006 [http://www.bupa.co.uk/about/html/pr/250906_sanitas.html]. 28. Healthcare Europa: How the Alzira model works. 2010, April issue[http:// www.healthcareeuropa.com/]. 29. UNILABS: 2010 [http://www.unilabs.com].
30. Commission of the European Communities: Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees. 1994 [http://www.ec.europa.eu]. 31. BUPA: Introducing a new Collaborative Care Model for the UK’s NHS. 2010 [http://www.bupa.com]. 32. Aleris: 2010 [http://www.aleris.se].
doi:10.1186/1744-8603-7-19 Cite this article as: Lethbridge: Understanding multinational companies in public health systems, using a competitive advantage framework. Globalization and Health 2011 7:19.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission • Thorough peer review • No space constraints or color ﬁgure charges • Immediate publication on acceptance • Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar • Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit
BioMed Central publishes under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL). Under the CCAL, authors retain copyright to the article but users are allowed to download, reprint, distribute and /or copy articles in BioMed Central journals, as long as the original work is properly cited.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document