Regional not-for-profit systems: can they compete with national investor-owned firms?

The relative competitive advantages of regional and national systems are summarized in Figure One. As illustrated, each type of system has unique competitive advantages at the corporate level. While it is difficult to state that either system has distinct advantages that place it in a superior position relative to the other, it seems that in the short-run investor-owned systems have operating characteristics that may result in more efficient internal functioning because of more centralized control over resource allocation and performance systems, greater possibilities for economies of scale, and greater access to capital. However, it was previously noted that growing pressures from government and the business community will lead to tighter constraints on the profitability of investments in the health care sector. The possibility of this shift suggests that the access to capital advantage enjoyed by investor-owned systems may not continue. Additionally, regional systems that are part of larger affiliated organizations such as the Sun Alliance and the Voluntary Hospitals of America are developing means to pool their access to debt funds, thus reducing the cost of capital for member institutions. The group purchasing contracts developed by these large systems also have resulted in significant savings. The distinction between regional and national systems on centralized control are becoming less pronounced. Investor-owned systems are seeking to determine how they might best decentralize selected decisions to be more responsive to local markets while not-for-profit regional systems are recognizing that they must centralize selected decisions to obtain more efficient, rational operation. The long-run outlook suggests that the competitive advantages that have been identified will become less pronounced and that both systems will survive in the marketplace.