Healthcare Ideology – Premier Stirs Debate

Premier Brad Wall SaskatchewanTommy Douglas, father of Medicare, would have spit out his coffee.  The Saskatchewan Premier said,

“When it comes to a choice between prompt diagnostics, prompt surgery … and ideology, the people of this province will choose the diagnostics and the surgery.”

What irony coming from the province that started rationed medical services.

Here’s part of what Brad Wall said on  NewsTalk650, radio call-in:

UPDATE: Premier considers private MRI clinics to decrease wait times

Reported by News Talk Radio staff

Premier Brad Wall is floating the idea of allowing access to private MRI clinics in Saskatchewan to reduce wait times for diagnostic procedures.

On John Gormley Live Thursday, Wall said it’s something that deserves “serious consideration.”

“I will not rule it out. When it comes to a choice between prompt diagnostics, prompt surgery … and ideology, the people of this province will choose the diagnostics and the surgery,” Wall said.

Wall was responding to a question from a caller on the show who said the three-month wait list for an MRI scan through the public system, could have been avoided had he been allowed to pay for the procedure at a private clinic in Regina.

“We allow more private operators on the surgery side. That’s why we’ve seen wait times come down for surgeries … can it work on the diagnostic side? These are the questions we’re asking now and I think this is something that deserves consideration,” Wall said.

The government currently utilizes the private sector for some surgeries, but Wall said the province has built in a barrier that prevents private providers from robbing front line staff from the public system.

“If we can do that with diagnostics, with MRIs does it make sense that the wait list is going to shrink because those who want to pay will come off that public wait list. And thereby shortening the wait list for all, whether they wish to pay or not.”

The NDP responded with, “We want the government to build the capacity in a public system so that all people, regardless of how much money you make, gets the care necessary in a timely fashion.”  The NDP did not comment on people travelling out of country to purchase care right now. How equitable is that? (See more media coverage from CBC.)

Healthcare Ideology

Napoleon first criticized his opponents as ideologues: those who hold rigid, inflexible opinions resisting change.  (Merriam-Webster for more definitions)

You might be a healthcare ideologue if:

  • You defend the status quo as long as “all people” get the same service regardless of quality
  • You berate patients for accessing care (“Those patients should have treated their minor illness at home!”)
  • You support sending patients away from emergency and clinics if a nurse deems the symptoms trivial
  • You criticize patients as system abusers when worry drives them to seek reassurance
  • You believe it’s okay to mislead voters with sound bites so long as it increases support for ideology
  • You disparage physicians who question the status quo
  • You march, chant and fight to protect a system that makes you fat while letting patients languish on wait lists

Without ideology, our system might change and look like the – Gasp! – German, Swedish, British, or any other patient focused system.

Positive Ideology?

Is there nothing worth fighting for?

Of course: patients; access to care that meets their concerns; safe, timely care that provides an outstanding patient experience.  But this is vague; tough to make into ideology.  It requires patient input and opinion, innovation and creativity. It demands change to improve things for patients, not just more money to patch an over-capacity lifeboat.

Ideology grows much easier from rigid legislation and crisp social planning.

Safety in High Risk Environments

A parachute that fails only a few people is worthless.  Medicare cannot just be great most of the time. It must excel at meeting patient’s greatest needs 100%.  It needs a back up, maybe many levels of back-up.  Medicare needs safety systems that guarantee patients never wait beyond what’s safe, never need to endure an intolerable care experience.

Are you a healthcare ideologue? Are you focused on patients or legislation?

photocredit: newstalk650.com

Quality Care Requires Freedom

potted plantIn 1976, researchers manipulated a cohort of nursing home patients.  They split them into two groups.

The first group got choice, control and responsibility. They learned to take responsibility and make choices. Then, researchers gave them a plant to care for and nurture as they thought best.

The second group learned that staff would take care of everything; they were in good hands. They also got a plant, but staff cared for it.

Researchers found that the responsibility-induced group were more active, happy, alert and socially involved at the end of the study.

Even nursing home patients do better with autonomy, responsibility and choice.

Quality Care

Noise about quality care echoes into every nook of healthcare today. Most agree it includes: safe, effective, reliable, patient-centred, timely, efficient, equitable care:

Yes to Quality, but how?

No one campaigns for low-quality care. Everyone loves quality despite worries that some see it only as a way to cut costs.

Planners and progressives believe quality comes when strong leadership controls a system. Most ‘experts’ focus on data, decreasing variation and increasing adherence to guidelines. They allude to engaging physicians but generally assume physicians are just a tiny part of the flawed system (Brookings centre2012 Ontario’s action planHow to improve – IHI).

A great system should guarantee that physicians behave and patients do what they were told.

Quality & Productivity

Improving quality in healthcare requires people to behave differently. Policy can help.  But people determine quality. Quality needs more than rules and protocol.

In a way, quality care presents the same challenge as productivity in industry. Workers ultimately determine productivity. Figure out how to inspire workers and you’ve figured out how to drive productivity.   Great systems alone do not guarantee great businesses.

Productivity & Autonomy

Freedom for workers means productivity for companies (Forbes).

Workers in routine jobs do not increase productivity with more autonomy, but satisfaction increases.  However, in evolving work environments, autonomy is “more important than ever” at improving productivity (BusinessNewsDaily).

Quality Care Requires Freedom

The business world knows that passionate, free, innovative workers produce higher quality work with less effort. See “Increase productivity through passion and freedom“.

Highly trained professionals fill Canadian healthcare at all levels.  Patients need the best from their caregivers.  Systems should provide structure that promotes freedom, creativity, innovation and critical thinking. Command and control will not deliver the highest quality care. It might achieve cost cutting through limited variation. It will never inspire providers to drive quality beyond basic standards.

Inspired individuals driven to achieve outstanding results deliver quality care. Regulation and control cannot produce quality in an evolving environment. We need providers who are passionate, autonomous and willing to shoulder responsibility.

What do you think?

Should government spend most of its time stamping out low-quality performers, reducing variation and increasing monitoring? Or should it spend most of its time unleashing the creative intelligence of professional providers to improve the system for patients? Can it do both at the same time?

photo credit: ikea.com

How to Discourage a Doctor (Repost)

hopeless-discouraged-signThis comes from The Health Care Blog.  It’s brilliant – well worth the 5 minutes you need to read it (1200 words).

Read the article and replace ‘hospital’ with ‘government’ or ‘regional health authority’ to the same effect.  I encourage you to check out the site for other great content.

Here’s the full article:

How to Discourage a Doctor

by Richard Gunderman MD

Not accustomed to visiting hospital executive suites, I took my seat in the waiting room somewhat warily.

Seated across from me was a handsome man in a well-tailored three-piece suit, whose thoroughly professional appearance made me – in my rumpled white coat, sheaves of dog-eared paper bulging from both pockets – feel out of place.

Within a minute, an administrative secretary came out and escorted him into one of the offices. Exhausted from a long call shift and lulled by the quiet, I started to doze off. Soon roused by the sound of my own snoring, I started and looked about.

That was when I spotted the document on an adjacent chair. Its title immediately caught my eye: “How to Discourage a Doctor.”

No one else was about, so I reached over, picked it up, and began to leaf through its pages. It became apparent immediately that it was one of the most remarkable things I had ever read, clearly not meant for my eyes. It seemed to be the product of a healthcare consulting company, presumably the well-dressed man’s employer. Fearing that he would return any moment to retrieve it, I perused it as quickly as possible. My recollection of its contents is naturally somewhat imperfect, but I can reproduce the gist of what it said.

“The stresses on today’s hospital executive are enormous. They include a rapidly shifting regulatory environment, downward pressures on reimbursement rates, and seismic shifts in payment mechanisms. Many leaders naturally feel as though they are building a hospital in the midst of an earthquake. With prospects for revenue enhancement highly uncertain, the best strategy for ensuring a favorable bottom line is to reduce costs. And for the foreseeable future, the most important driver of costs in virtually every hospital will be its medical staff.

“Though physician compensation accounts for only about 8% of healthcare spending, decisions that physicians strongly influence or make directly – such as what medication to prescribe, whether to perform surgery, and when to admit and discharge a patient from the hospital – have been estimated to account for as much as 80% of the nation’s healthcare budget. To maintain a favorable balance sheet, hospital executives need to gain control of their physicians. Most hospitals have already taken an important step in this direction by employing a growing proportion of their medical staff.

“Transforming previously independent physicians into employees has increased hospital influence over their decision making, an effect that has been successfully augmented in many centers by tying physician compensation directly to the execution of hospital strategic initiatives. But physicians have invested many years in learning their craft, they hold their professional autonomy in high esteem, and they take seriously the considerable respect and trust with which many patients still regard them.

As a result, the challenge of managing a hospital medical staff continues to resemble herding cats.

“Merely controlling the purse strings is not enough. To truly seize the reins of medicine, it is necessary to do more, to get into the heads and hearts of physicians. And the way to do this is to show physicians that they are not nearly so important as they think they are. Physicians have long seen the patient-physician relationship as the very center of the healthcare solar system. As we go forward, they must be made to feel that this relationship is not the sun around which everything else orbits, but rather one of the dimmer peripheral planets, a Neptune or perhaps Uranus.

“How can this goal be achieved? A complete list of proven tactics and strategies is available to our clients, but some of the more notable include the following:

“Make healthcare incomprehensible to physicians. It is no easy task to baffle the most intelligent people in the organization, but it can be done. For example, make physicians increasingly dependent on complex systems outside their domain of expertise, such as information technology and coding and billing software. Ensure that such systems are very costly, so that solo practitioners and small groups, who naturally cannot afford them, must turn to the hospital. And augment their sense of incompetence by making such systems user-unfriendly and unreliable. Where possible, change vendors
frequently.

“Promote a sense of insecurity among the medical staff. A comfortable physician is a confident physician, and a confident physician usually proves difficult to control. To undermine confidence, let it be known that physicians’ jobs are in jeopardy and their compensation is likely to decline. Fire one or more physicians, ensuring that the entire medical staff knows about it. Hire replacements with a minimum of fanfare. Place a significant percentage of compensation “at risk,” so that physicians begin
to feel beholden to hospital administration for what they manage to eke out.

“Transform physicians from decision makers to decision implementers. Convince them that their professional judgment regarding particular patients no longer constitutes a reliable compass.

Refer to such decisions as anecdotal, idiosyncratic, or simply insufficiently evidence based. Make them feel that their mission is not to balance benefits and risks against their knowledge of particular patients, but instead to apply broad practice guidelines to the care of all patients. Hiring, firing, promotion, and all rewards should be based on conformity to hospital-mandated policies and procedures.

“Subject physicians to escalating productivity expectations. Borrow terminology and methods from the manufacturing industry to make them think of themselves as production-line workers, then convince them that they are not working sufficiently hard and fast. Show them industry standards and benchmarks in comparison to which their output is subpar. On the off chance that their productivity compares favorably, cite numerous reasons that such benchmarks are biased and move the bar
progressively higher, from the 75th

“Increase physicians’ responsibility while decreasing their authority. For example, hold physicians responsible for patient satisfaction scores, but ensure that such scores are influenced by a variety of factors over which physicians have little or no control, such as information technology, hospitality of staff members, and parking. The goal of such measures is to induce a state that psychologists refer to as “learned helplessness,” a growing sense among physicians that whatever they do, they cannot meaningfully influence healthcare, which is to say the operations of the hospital.

“Above all, introduce barriers between physicians and their patients. The more directly
physicians and patients feel connected to one another, the greater the threat to the hospital’s control.

When physicians think about the work they do, the first image that comes to mind should be the hospital, and when patients realize they need care, they should turn first to the hospital, not a particular physician. One effective technique is to ensure that patient-physician relationships are frequently disrupted, so that the hospital remains the one constant. Another is. . . .”

The sound of a door roused me again. The man in the three-piece suit emerged from the office, he and the hospital executive to whom he had been speaking shaking hands and smiling. As he turned, I looked about. Where was “How to Discourage a Doctor?” It was not on the table, nor was it on the chair where I had first found it. “Will he think I took it?” I wondered. But instead of stopping to look for it, he simply walked out of the office. As I watched him go, one thing became clear: having read that document, I suddenly felt a lot less discouraged.

Photo credit: money.cnn.com