Discussion:
Stanford Medical Center has been approached by the government of Vietnam to develop an affiliation with its major national hospital in Saigon. The government would like Stanford to develop a co-branding arrangement whereby Stanford would manage the facility and send some of its clinicians over to train and educate the facility’s doctors and nursing staff, as well as to help improve and monitor its quality programs. Additionally, the government hopes it can continue to improve and develop more sophisticated business practices to develop as a medical tourism center, capitalizing on the country’s beauty. Stanford administrators are considering the venture, because Asia is a major growth opportunity and many other tertiary centers in the United States, such as the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, and Johns Hopkins, have similar models in other countries.
- What are the trade-offs that should be considered?
- Respond to at least two (2) of your classmates’ or your instructor’s post
- ALL citations and references needs to be APA 7th edition format. THANK YOU!
Peers#1
Perhaps the biggest marketing factor this expansion will have on Stanford is its international presence in the healthcare industry. According to the textbook, “growth” is part of the product life cycle (Berkowitz, 2010). To keep up with the competition, Stanford should accept this affiliation with Vietnam. If other competing centers have similar models, it makes sense for Stanford to improve their presence in other countries. Considering there is room for growth in Asia with this plan, it further makes sense to expand with Vietnam in particular.
Another smaller (but still important) factor to consider is Price. Price is the charge for the product when it is initially offered (Berkowitz, 2010). Depending on the impact this will have on Saigon’s facility can better determine the price that Stanford will “charge.” The form of payment doesn’t have to be a strict amount of money, either. Negotiations about the branding from both sides can be offered, for example. However, initially, the price—in whatever form—is presented after much analysis; “it is difficult to raise the price for a product after its introductory offering” (Berkowitz, 2010).
On the contrary, there are a lot of risks when having part of a company so far away from the hub. Having to communicate with anyone across countries can be difficult, but to then facilitate a whole medical center—not to mention the biggest national hospital in Saigon—will be tricky. Stanford will want to keep an extremely close eye on the developmental process, as their name will now be under a finer microscope. To avoid any compromises, the training staff from Stanford for the employees in Saigon will have to be extremely qualified. Any chance of tainting the “Stanford Medical Center” name will have to be minimal.
In addition, this new co-branded hospital will have to be maintained. That means developing a new branch that will be affiliated with ensuring anything international is at the same standard of excellence, if not better, as any local facility. In fact, Stanford should be prepared to expand this process, assuming the expansion goes well here. This may include expanding with other government-funded facilities in Vietnam for sure, but then also local facilities or hospitals in other countries.
I think politically, the healthcare industry will need to be cautious of their ties with other countries and the United States’ affiliations. For example, it wouldn’t be smart for Stanford to pursue this expansion with Vietnam if the government was having trouble with U.S. policy. Moreover, creating this affiliation with Vietnam could result in a positive tie with their government, assuming the end result goes smoothly.