Within the field of healthcare, there are three main viewpoints related to the use of financial information. They are the: Discuss the main areas of overlap within the three viewpoints. Does this overlap create potential areas of conflict? If so, as a manager, how would we proactively address these areas before they negatively impacted our department or organization? Be sure to support your statements with logic and argument, citing all sources referenced. Requirements: – 2 pages -Citation through the text


Within the healthcare industry, the use of financial information is integral for decision-making and resource allocation. However, different viewpoints exist regarding the utilization of financial information in healthcare settings. This paper explores three main viewpoints and their areas of overlap, as well as potential conflicts that may arise. Additionally, proactive strategies for addressing these conflicts will be discussed.

Main areas of overlap

The three main viewpoints related to the use of financial information in healthcare are the financial perspective, the clinical perspective, and the patient perspective. Although these perspectives approach financial information from different angles, they intersect in several key areas.

One area of overlap is the assessment of cost-effectiveness. The financial perspective seeks to maximize efficiency and cost-effectiveness, aiming to minimize costs while maintaining quality of care. The clinical perspective, on the other hand, focuses on the effectiveness of medical treatments and interventions in improving patient outcomes. The patient perspective considers the value and impact of healthcare expenditures on individual patients, taking into account factors such as quality of life and patient satisfaction. Despite their varying focus, all three perspectives intersect in their consideration of cost-effectiveness. Determining the optimal allocation of resources requires weighing the financial impact, clinical effectiveness, and patient preferences.

Another area of overlap is quality measurement and improvement. The financial perspective recognizes that providing high-quality care is crucial for achieving financial sustainability and reimbursement. The clinical perspective emphasizes evidence-based practices and quality measures to ensure the best possible outcomes for patients. Similarly, the patient perspective places importance on receiving high-quality care that is safe, effective, and patient-centered. As a result, all three perspectives converge in their emphasis on quality measurement and improvement to drive positive patient outcomes and financial success.

Conflicts arising from overlap

While there are areas of overlap, potential conflicts between these perspectives can arise due to differences in primary focus and priorities. One potential conflict is the tension between cost containment and clinical effectiveness. The financial perspective may exert pressure to cut costs and reduce expenditures to ensure financial sustainability. However, this can conflict with the clinical perspective, which prioritizes providing the most effective treatments and interventions for patients, regardless of cost. This conflict becomes particularly evident when expensive, innovative treatments are introduced. Balancing cost containment with clinical effectiveness is a challenge that requires careful consideration and negotiation to avoid compromising patient care.

Another potential conflict arises from the tension between financial considerations and patient preferences. The financial perspective prioritizes efficiency and cost-effectiveness, which may not always align with patients’ desires and values. For example, a cost-effective treatment option might not be aligned with a patient’s individual preferences or cultural beliefs. In such cases, a conflict may occur between the financial perspective and the patient perspective. Effectively addressing this conflict requires an understanding of patient preferences and values, as well as consideration of ethical implications.

Proactive strategies for addressing conflicts

To proactively address potential conflicts arising from the overlap of viewpoints, managers should adopt several strategies. Firstly, establishing clear communication channels and fostering collaboration between financial, clinical, and patient stakeholders is crucial. This enables a shared understanding of goals and priorities, as well as an opportunity to openly discuss and address conflicts.

Another proactive strategy is the integration of financial and clinical data. By combining financial and clinical information, managers can assess the cost-effectiveness and value of different interventions, taking into account both clinical outcomes and financial considerations. This integration supports evidence-based decision-making and facilitates the examination of costs in relation to clinical effectiveness.

Furthermore, incorporating patient perspectives in decision-making is essential for mitigating conflicts. Engaging patients in the decision-making process through shared decision-making and patient-centered approaches can help align financial goals with patient preferences. This ensures that decisions not only consider financial implications but also prioritize patient-centered care.


In conclusion, the use of financial information in healthcare is shaped by three main viewpoints: the financial perspective, the clinical perspective, and the patient perspective. While these viewpoints overlap in areas such as cost-effectiveness and quality improvement, conflicts may arise due to differing priorities and focuses. Proactive strategies, such as promoting collaboration, integrating financial and clinical data, and incorporating patient perspectives, can help address potential conflicts and promote effective decision-making in healthcare organizations. By recognizing these overlaps and addressing potential conflicts in a proactive manner, managers can navigate the complex landscape of healthcare finance while prioritizing patient outcomes.