Posts Tagged ‘incentives’

The Obligation is Real

September 21st, 2010

On Saturday night a group of people will gather at a restaurant  for a celebration of life since graduation from high school. I won’t be there. Neither will Joe, Butch, Tommy and half a dozen others,  but their absence is for a very different reason: they have passed away. I, on the other hand, will just be passing. So, why not go this year?

Nick Jacobs, FACHE at the beach with his grandchildrenWell, it’s a kid thing. You see, part of my birthday present to each of my kids was an overnight stay at a resort with their spouses, and, low and behold, there is no one to watch three of the grandkids and the brand new chocolate lab; no one, that is, but me. Why would I sacrifice the opportunity to hang with my old buddies for the chance to change diapers, mop up housebreaking accidents, and argue over bathing and bedtime issues?  Why?  Because it was part of the commitment, that kid commitment.  They will be my kids until either I die or they do, and with that come certain obligations that are real.

Why bother you with all of this personal blog stuff?  It’s about obligations.

The other day, a bright young man met with me at lunch to ask me questions about the American Healthcare System. Interestingly enough, I don’t believe that  my answers were what he had expected. You see, we have certain beliefs about our rights to generate, earn, and receive money in this country. What is missing, however, is a realistic reward system that aligns the appropriate reimbursements with the actual needs of the country. When he asked me how many hospitals would invest in purchasing his product, one that might help to eliminate hospital infections, my response was “Not many.”

You see, with obligatory bottom line orientations, many of the hospital CEO’s and CFO’s are not anxious to spend money on a  product that might work.  More importantly, with a lack of transparency, the public exposure that most organizations have relative to this infection problem is still somewhat limited.  It was easy to explain that if “St. Elsewhere” was exposed for having a 24% infection rate, not unlike a five star hotel having bed bugs, you can darn well bet that something would be done and done quickly, but the issue is not so pressing when it is under the basket.

Over the last few years, I have lost some wonderful friends who have had fantastic surgeries at highly respected hospitals.  These surgeries would have been impossible to have in a “normal” hospital, but, having said that, two of them died and one lingered near death for two years due to the infections they acquired there.

If this was widely publicized public knowledge, might he be able to sell more product?  The question was rhetorical and the answer is absolutely, positively, yes. So, back to obligations. Why is it that we must be exposed in order to become aggressive about serious problems in our systems?  The answer is simple: It costs money, and resource allocation is the number one challenge of most hospitals.  Hence my point about our financial incentives.  If we were reimbursed, rewarded and paid, not in an unconnected, cottage industry manner, our treatment regimes and protocols would change.  If we knew that it would be our financial responsibility to amputate limbs for advanced diabetes, would we be more eager to spend money on wellness initiatives?

Truthfully, it’s our obligation, and, as our fellow human beings suffer, we are currently seeing a movement toward political groups intent upon repealing reform measures. That is a backward view of an already complex challenge. It is our obligation to help our fellow man. “Do unto others …or pray you don’t lose your health insurance.”

Share

In My Opinion, It’s Tinker Bell Dust!

June 4th, 2009

Everyone has seen the media reports on the $1.7 trillion of cost cuts being projected by health care leaders over the next decade, but does anyone really believe it? According to this group, the premises embraced that will lead to these cuts are based upon improving care for chronic diseases, reducing unnecessary care, and streamlining administrative costs. Included in this wish/promise list are cutbacks, commitments to permit fewer Caesarean sections, better back pain management, less use of antibiotics and a reduction in diagnostic imaging tests.

U.S. President Obama meets with health care executives at the White House on May 11 (Pete Souza)
U.S. President Barack Obama meets with healthcare executives at the White House on May 11 (Photo credit: Pete Souza)

The groups involved have made commitments to try to reduce medical errors, begin the use of common insurance forms, to initiate a reduction in patient re-admissions, to improve the efficiency of drug development, and to promote the expansion of in-home care. (The majority of the preceding information comes from an article by Janet Adamy entitled “Health Groups Detail Plans to Reduce Costs,” in the June 2nd Wall Street Journal. )

If you are reading this, and you are a health care professional, it may be reminiscent of listening to your three hundred fifty pound, five foot tall neighbor describing how he is going to get back into his size 34 Levi’s. It also reminds me of a conversation that I had about 22 years ago when a hospital vice president said to me, “We are going to begin putting  computers into the hospital, and they will reduce costs, lower the need for staff, and contribute to much higher efficiencies.” What part of this equation didn’t happen? Even at the little hospital from which I just retired, we went from two, to three, to four… to about a dozen experts in every aspect of computer technology, and IT has been a dominant part of the capital budget for over a dozen years. So, what’s wrong with this scenario? As the equipment became more sophisticated, more well trained experts were needed. The higher the cost of the equipment, the greater the overhead required for maintenance, and the larger the demand became for everyone in the facility to be computerized.

It is not my intention to be a complete cynic, but isn’t it true that tens of thousands of people who have become used to a certain standard of living will be controlling these cuts? If we could have improved chronic disease care, why wouldn’t we have done that already? It’s all about the reimbursement system. We are still reimbursing for sickness rather than wellness. How do we line up the incentives so that statements like “we will permit fewer Caesarean sections or we will initiate better back pain management” will not ring hollow as words directed toward placating the new President? Nowhere in the equation is there any reference to initiating tort reform. As long as doctors, hospitals, and other clinicians have to practice defensive medicine, we will not be able to reduce tests. We will not be able to reduce unnecessary costs.

pixie-dustl1Yes, of course a reduction in medical errors would be great. So would common insurance forms, and fewer re-admissions. I’m sure we will see our peers work diligently toward those ends, but, unless or until incentives are aligned, the system will continue to roll along pretty much as is. I’m not sure why the President hasn’t called me yet. Maybe it’s because he knows how I feel about tort reform. Maybe it’s because he knows that I’ll say that the list articulated in the opening paragraph is filled with smoke, or maybe it’s because, like all government-touted initiatives, it’s not supposed to actually come completely into play until two and possibly six years after he leaves office. That philosophy certainly didn’t work for our former Presidents, and, unless someone gets really serious about changing the way healthcare is delivered in the United States, these pledges will be just what they appear to be, “Tinker Bell dust!”

Share