DDHA 8801 Week 11 Alliance Case Example

The Bayshore and Lakeshore Joint Care Alliance: A Case for Partnering With a Therapy Network, the Measures That Would Show It Working and the Conditions Under Which It Ends

Student Name

Walden University

DDHA 8801: Building Healthcare Brand and Alliances

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

The Bayshore and Lakeshore Joint Care Alliance: A Case for Partnering With a Therapy Network, the Measures That Would Show It Working and the Conditions Under Which It Ends

Executive Summary

Bayshore Health should enter a five-year alliance with Lakeshore Therapy Network so that the two can jointly run Bayshore Joint Care's model for the county's working adults whose hips or knees are failing them: a shared opening appointment with surgeon and therapist in the same room, hours that fit around a shift and a written plan for keeping the job. Lakeshore supplies what Bayshore cannot obtain quickly, enough therapists, working early hours, in towns across the county, and the alliance gives both partners a position no competitor holds. Three conditions attach to the recommendation: Bayshore's access to Lakeshore's outcome data before signing, the governance terms already drafted, and an annual financial review with a right to exit. The alliance ends automatically if it misses its access target for three consecutive quarters or if either partner's finances fall below agreed levels. Bayshore and Lakeshore are invented for teaching purposes, while every county figure comes from a public source.

The Market

The case uses only the figures its argument needs. Brown County has about 63,600 residents aged 55 to 74 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2025), and about one in four adults report diagnosed arthritis. Bayshore's audience work estimates roughly 9,000 to 10,000 county residents aged 50 to 64 with arthritis, employer coverage and a job, the segment the alliance is designed to serve. The county has a substantial supply of orthopedic surgeons, 56 Medicare-enrolled surgeons with Green Bay practice addresses, so access to a surgeon is not scarce. What the competitor review found missing was any program organized around working adults before surgery, with published access commitments.

The Fit Argument

The central question is what Lakeshore supplies that no vendor contract could. A contract could buy therapy hours. It could not buy a shared first-visit protocol developed jointly by surgeons and therapists, a common work-plan template used in both organizations' records, joint scheduling that books the surgeon and therapist into the same slot, and therapists who see themselves as part of the Joint Care team rather than as subcontractors. Those features depend on a relationship in which both partners share decisions about the model and both benefit from its success. Gulati (1998) describes alliances as suited to exactly this situation, where the resources needed are embedded in another organization and cannot simply be purchased.

The clinical rationale supports the fit. Trial evidence favors starting with therapy: in a randomized comparison, people with knee osteoarthritis who had physical therapy reported less pain and better function a year later than those given steroid injections (Deyle et al., 2020). A model in which therapy is part of the first conversation offers working adults a real alternative to surgery, or a better path to it. And the brand rationale is clear: Berry and Seltman (2007) describe strong service brands as built on the experience patients have, and the joint first visit is an experience no rival offers.

Bayshore could attempt the model alone, and the case should say what that would take, because a partnership is only worth its costs if the alternative is worse. It would need to hire eight to ten physical therapists, open early-morning capacity in several towns and build the therapy side of the protocol itself. At its current recruiting pace, that would take several years, by which time a competitor could occupy the position.

Governance in Brief

Each domain has one decider: therapy protocols sit with Lakeshore, surgical protocols and the Joint Care name with Bayshore, and the shared first-visit protocol with a council drawn from both. Lakeshore's therapists keep their clinical judgment and Bayshore keeps its brand as reserved powers. Disagreements move up a four-rung ladder with time limits, ending in a named neutral mediator, and either side can withdraw after six months' notice. The full governance section accompanies this case.

How We Will Know It Is Working

Table 1

Measures for the Alliance

The first three measures show whether the model is being delivered; the next two show whether it is helping patients and the brand; the last protects the partnership itself.

Conditions Under Which the Alliance Ends

The case ends the alliance on paper before anyone signs it, so that both partners know when to stop. The alliance will end, with the 180-day unwinding process, if any of four conditions occurs. First, the median time to a joint first visit exceeds seven business days for three consecutive quarters, since the alliance's central promise would then be false. Second, Lakeshore's cash on hand falls below 45 days and does not recover within two quarters, since a financially stressed partner cannot sustain early hours. Third, either partner breaches a reserved power, such as Lakeshore using the Joint Care name without approval or Bayshore requiring therapists to deliver care against their judgment. Fourth, after two years, the share of segment residents naming Bayshore for a joint problem has not risen, since the brand purpose of the alliance would then have failed. Burns and Pauly (2002) documented how many health care integration efforts persisted long after it was clear they were not delivering, and stating exit conditions in advance is the remedy.

Request

The strategy committee is asked to authorize negotiations with Lakeshore on these terms and to bring a final agreement to Bayshore's board within ninety days. The committee should also ask Bayshore's finance office to price the joint scheduling build and the first year of shared marketing, which this case has not costed, so that the board sees the alliance's full cost beside its expected benefits before it votes.

References

Berry, L. L., & Seltman, K. D. (2007). Building a strong services brand: Lessons from Mayo Clinic. Business Horizons, 50(3), 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.01.005

Burns, L. R., & Pauly, M. V. (2002). Integrated delivery networks: A detour on the road to integrated health care? Health Affairs, 21(4), 128-143. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.21.4.128

Deyle, G. D., Allen, C. S., Allison, S. C., Gill, N. W., Hando, B. R., Petersen, E. J., Dusenberry, D. I., & Rhon, D. I. (2020). Physical therapy versus glucocorticoid injection for osteoarthritis of the knee. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(15), 1420-1429. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1905877

Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293-317. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199804)19:4<293::AID-SMJ982>3.0.CO;2-M

U.S. Census Bureau. (2025). American Community Survey 1-year estimates, 2024: Tables B01001 and B27010, Brown County, Wisconsin [Data set]. https://data.census.gov/