7th Biennial ACSPRI Social Science Methodology Conference

Sunil Dixit

Sunil K Dixit is an Adjunct Professor in the Health Policy and Management Program of the Mount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles, California. His research interests include organization theory, multitheoretical public organization design, game theoretic modeling, evolutionary optimization, patient-centered healthcare, value in healthcare, bundled payments, healthcare systems, health policy, bureaucracy, public and nonprofit hospitals. The author is also a doctoral candidate at the Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic Studies (VISES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. He is a member of the Indian Institute of Public Administration, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the Institute of Cost Accountants of India, the Institute of Management Accountants in the U.S.A., and the California Society of CPAs. He is an Ex-Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce in the U.K.


Talks

Healthcare Services Delivery by Public Organizations: Theoretical and Methodological Dynamism of Game Theory

In this paper, by using a step-by-step approach, the authors demonstrate the theoretical and methodological dynamism of game theory by proposing integration of the underpinnings of classical organization theory, neoclassical organization theory, systems theory and game theory to develop a conceptual framework for the organization of healthcare services delivery. It also underlines that game theoretical modeling could operationalize the conceptual framework by using public hospital performance data. The methodology presented in this paper can not only be used for the organization of healthcare services delivery, but also has the potential for developing game theoretic and multitheoretical organizations in other sectors as well to solve a wide variety of organizational problems. Researchers and practitioners could use other theories along with game theory to address the problems identified from the gaps in the literature review of their research studies.