Current Event: Negotiation Between WakeMed And Unit

Define Or Identify The General Topic Issue Or Are

Current event involving negotiation between WakeMed and UnitedHealthcare; analysis of the negotiation process, parties involved, their interests, strategies, BATNA, and assessment of whether it was a good or bad negotiation.

Current event involving negotiation between WakeMed and UnitedHealthcare; analysis

For this assignment, the focus is on a recent, newsworthy negotiation case involving WakeMed and UnitedHealthcare, occurring within the last twelve months. The discussion will begin with a brief historical background, describing the events leading to the negotiation, including the context that brought the parties to the table. This includes understanding the evolution of their relationship, the policy and financial issues at stake, and recent developments prompting negotiation.

Next, an analysis of the approach taken by the negotiating parties will be conducted using the classic negotiation frameworks—interests, rights, and power. The interests of each side, whether aligned or conflicting, will be examined, along with their positions and underlying motivations. This involves differentiating between their stated positions and actual interests to understand the deeper concerns driving each party. It is also essential to identify whether the parties had a BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), and what that alternative entailed.

The strategies employed during the negotiation—whether accommodating, collaborative, avoidance, or competitive—will be analyzed through behavioral cues and actions observed during the process. These strategies reflect each party’s approach to resolving differences and achieving their objectives. For example, concessions made or resisted, communication styles, and methods of negotiation (distributive vs. integrative) will be considered to interpret their tactics and approach.

Furthermore, the outcome of the negotiation—whether it was successfully resolved or not—will be discussed. This includes evaluating the negotiation process: was it effective, fair, and beneficial for both sides? Was the negotiation distributive, focusing on dividing a fixed resource, or integrative, trying to expand the value and reach a mutually satisfying agreement? Insights into whether the negotiation was a good or bad process will be supported by comparing observed behaviors and outcomes with established negotiation theory.

Finally, the presentation will conclude with a reflection on the overall quality of the negotiation, including lessons learned and implications for future negotiations between healthcare providers and insurers. This practical case study aims to illustrate core negotiation concepts in a real-world context, highlighting what strategies and approaches tend to produce successful outcomes.

References

• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
• Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin Books.
• Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2020). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Thompson, L. (2019). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Pearson Education.
• Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., & Metcalfe, D. (2002). Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Harvard University Press.
• Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations. Bantam Books.
• Herb, R. (2010). “Healthcare Negotiations and Strategies,” Journal of Healthcare Management, 55(4), 257-268.
• Johnson, R. A., & Johnson, D. W. (2015). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. Pearson.
• Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (2017). “Power dynamics in healthcare negotiations,” Negotiation Journal, 33(2), 135-150.
• Scott, L., & Swinney, D. (2022). “Healthcare payer-provider negotiations: Strategies and outcomes,” Health Economics Review, 12(1), 14.