Luddite Leadership

sheepIn the early 1800s, weavers feared the end of their profession.

Automated looms produced more fabric, faster, and at a much lower cost. Weavers were going out of business.

Ned Ludd tried to fix the problem by smashing the new technology. He sparked an uprising that required a military response. Mr. Ludd became immortalized in the term: luddite.

Traditional luddites did not hate progress. They resisted progress to protect personal incomes. Luddites wanted a strong labour position. Smashing machines forced factories to hire workers, instead of replacing them with technology.

Luddite Leadership

We all risk luddite thinking. It can infect any group: political parties, unions, and social clubs.

Luddites smash good ideas, censor discussion, and fear debate. Most of us have acted like luddites at some point.

  • I am the Prime Minister. You shall speak as I say on this issue.
  • We must not mention in-house debates! It makes us look divided.
  • Do not mention the cost of THOSE groups. We sound unsupportive.

Luddite thinking is a form of (toxic) group-think.  It empowers ‘leaders’ beyond ability.  Luddite leaders confuse passion for their cause with true leadership. They attack colleagues using moralistic fear mongering.

Luddites operate with a sense of authority; dizzy with zeal to protect group-think. They substitute passion for thoughtfulness and use an old labour trick: toe the line or have your kneecaps whacked.

Modern luddites lust for stronger positions: political groups manoeuvre for better public opinion; unions stick handle for advantage with government. Luddites use thuggery to protect trade secrets, when they could help their cause more, by sharing great ideas.

How to Fix Luddite Leadership

Luddites have no compunction; they can always escalate threats, intimidate more. Like mosquitoes swarming a bulb at night, luddites cluster around contrived power.

An individual union, fighting for a raise with the only car factory in town, faces a constrained power struggle. If there were other unions and multiple car factories, luddites would lose control. They’d be forced into open debate by competing groups. They could not micromanage the conversation.

Meaningful debates, about real issues, require diverse opinions. But real issues can be costly. They cause change. Change brings new positions, new power struggles. Given the choice, most groups would rather crush debate than lose the power they paid so much to win.

Luddite Control

Every space that supports one, dominate voice risks luddite leadership. Concentration of power invites luddite control.

True leadership allows debate. Real leaders take risks by sharing facts. They give power away, instead of hoarding it with jealous love. True leaders do not want sheep; they want team members with ideas of their own.

And for those of you who worry about whether you might be a luddite, do not worry. Luddites do not reflect on their own leadership. They assume they are right, and that everyone else should get in line.

It takes great courage to oppose the Ned Ludds around us. It takes character to not become one ourselves.

We can let luddites bully and scare us into submission, or work to change to rules that gave them power in the first place. Will we take the risk?

photo credit: express.co.uk

Can Salaried Doctors Advocate for Patients?

Highschool studentMost kids pause before telling parents what happens at high school.

Speaking up can be dangerous.

The video in music class that promotes psychedelics, or the cannabis fog in the stairwells, could drive Mom and Dad into a fit of parental activism. Parents can ruin scholarship applications.

Will a student get an A after her mom attacks the teacher about his (suspected) drug habits?

Doctors face the same decision. We already discussed Free Speech here, and here. Why would any doctor risk hospital privileges except for major issues?

Salaried Doctors Muzzled?

Whether it’s Belize or show business, people learn to keep quiet about bad behaviour.

While discussing free speech this spring, a former colleague tweeted:

How much more could nurses say if they did not fear being fired for speaking out about violence?

Another insider said:

“You know, it’s the ability to be able to write stuff like this [on your blog] that makes being an independent contractor so important.”

Salaried Doctors: Better for Patient Care?

There is nothing so intolerant as the latest fashion.

Fee for service (FFS) is the new smoking. People wrinkle their noses at it. No one dares to question whether FFS is as evil as everyone says.

Salary is in. FFS is out.

We touched on this debate in the following posts:

  1. How to Pay Doctors? Salary, Piecework, or Quality?
  2. Salary vs. Fee For Service: Good vs. Evil?
  3. How to Get Fired in Healthcare. Impossible?

No matter how doctors are paid, patients want doctors to advocate for patients care. But physicians cannot advocate, if they worry about losing their jobs for speaking up.

Physicians, who earn their income from one source, will never feel completely free to advocate for patients, regardless of whether their pay comes through FFS or salary.

Even being part of an association, or medical academy, dampens what docs can say. Physicians in a hospital, and those who hold leadership positions, must be careful. I could not have published my book, No More Lethal Waits, while I held an admin position.

Who Holds Medicare to Account?

The auditor-general audits financial matters, every now and then, but has little insight into what happens inside healthcare.

Unions cannot speak; they live on government handouts.

Associations cannot speak; it might jeopardize invitations to meetings of power.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons cannot speak; they risk government take-over.

Politicians cannot speak; they want re-election.

Bureaucrats cannot speak; they need to keep their jobs.

Patients can speak, but they do not have insider knowledge.

Journalists speak all the time. But they only know what government feeds them and say what their editors allow.

Only physicians, as independent contractors, can speak up for patient needs.

When government runs and controls everything, patients need doctors, as independent contractors, to speak up when the ’system’ fails.

Wherefore Art Thou, Whistleblower?

As medicine adopts more salaried and capitated models, patients lose doctors as whistleblowers. Physicians are either too busy taking care of patients, or too scared to speak up.

Who will speak for patients in the salaried, capitated, controlled and regulated Medicare of the future?

Doctors represent the biggest roadblock to fully managed care in Canada. Doctors can speak out. Elected representatives go out of their way to disparage doctors as greedy, imperfect agents; corrupted patient advocates, at best. Quiet doctors make governments happy.

Like high school students, who see drugs at the school dance, doctors must decide whether or not to publish what they see.

What do patients think about a system that punishes doctors for speaking up?

Salaried doctors, in the current system, have too much to lose; they must keep quiet. Is that good for patients?

 

Privately Owned Clinics: Naked Nonsense

emperors new clothesMost people say you are naked, if you go out wearing only a hat. Sunbathers wear less fabric than found in a toque, yet we do not call them naked.

Naked looks different to nudists and sunbathers.

Most people say you are self-employed, if you run Molly’s Housecleaning Service. You might even say you are self-employed, if you run a Molly Maid franchise.  But you are not self-employed just because you buy a mop and gloves to work at Molly’s Shopping Centre.

Private vs. Government Care

Medicare covers all medically necessary care in Canada: it is illegal to pay for care privately.

A few provinces allow doctors to opt out of Medicare, as long as they bill patients at the fixed prices set by the government insurance plan.

In Ontario, doctors cannot opt out anymore (Future of Medicare Act).

Governments and regulators dictate:
  • # of MDs allowed to work Family Health Teams
  • # of after-hours service family doctors must provide
  • # of X-ray licenses, with strict rules on locations
  • # of ultrasound licenses, with strict rules on location
  • Laboratory licenses and locations
  • Out of hospital surgical facilities
  • Hospitals: pretty much everything about them
  • MD training, continuing medical education, change in scope of practice
  • Blood-testing for exposure-prone procedures
  • Rules around consent and competency, charting, maintenance of records
  • Rules around completion of death certificates, immunization
  • Mandatory public reporting of diseases, reporting of gunshots
  • Etc., etc., etc.

Every year legislators, who are eager to direct how doctors care for patients, write new legislation with dozens of statutes.

Regulatory oversight and clinical guidelines add piles of rules to help doctors behave. Well-meaning elites believe that patient safety improves, if they leave less to clinical judgment.

After programers feed all the rules and regulations into electronic medical records, patient care turns into a cacophony of clicks in dozens of tick boxes.

And physicians shall tick boxes or risk a failed review by the College.

Privately Owned Clinics

An expert, from a major healthcare stakeholder organization, lectured us on system sustainability. Someone asked how to innovate while under government control. He said,

“Remember…. All doctors’ offices are privately owned and privately run.”

What did he mean by saying privately owned and privately run?

Either he made a trivial statement of obvious fact, like saying, “Remember… You are alive”. Or he meant to remind us of something more.

Did he mean that private ownership indicates freedom; some sort of market economy? Was he implying that government has not taken control of clinical care?

I can only imagine that he meant to say there is something very private going on in the provision of medical services.

Not only that, he seemed to imply support for this kind of so-called private care. Or perhaps, he just meant that doctors should appreciate that they still get to pay for offices out of private billings?

The only non-trivial reason for reminding us about privately owned and privately run doctors’ offices is to say that private care exists in Canada.

But private enterprises exist to earn profits.

Ergo, Canada has a blended delivery of universal care; the government does not control everything.

Ta dah! We are more like Europe than you realized.

Only supporters of government controlled healthcare say things like that, and many do so at every opportunity. Those who support government controlling the means of production of medical services – a nationalized medical industry – want you to believe that Canada has private medical care now.

Two Separate Debates

  1. We have (too much) private care in Canada.
  2. Doctors’ offices represent private care in Canada.

For those interested in the first argument, check out an article by Colleen Flood about private care, and Yanick Labrie’s response. Also, look at Bacchus Barua’s article on private care. But argument #1 is a separate debate.

For now, we are only discussing #2.

Side Bar: Independent Contractor vs. Employee

Self-employed, or independent contractor, means something to the taxman. Employees get benefits, and employers pay EI and CPP. Independent contractors (ICs) avoid these deductions.

The courts opined (as they do on every social issue):

In a landmark case, they birthed the Weibe Door Test to determine if you are self-employed. Basically, ICs must have an agreement, control of their work, must buy their own tools, and need to assume the risk of business losses. (See the Power Point part way down this link: Independent Contractor and the Weibe Door test for more.)

Until the taxman says otherwise, most physicians are still independent contractors in Canada.

Too Much Private Care

Social planners see doctors’ offices in need of government help.  Inefficiencies need to be trimmed, regularity enforced, and the public protected, with help from the top down. Private offices should be as safe as a government building.

Others think society is stronger, when built from the bottom up, by people and not governments. They want to decrease government ‘help’ in front-line patient care.

What is a Private Business?

Business firm in the private (non-public) sector of an economy, controlled and operated by private individuals (and not by civil servants or government-employees). Used also as an alternative term for private limited company.

private sector

n.

The part of the economy that is controlled by individuals or private organizations and is not funded by the government.

Nationalized Lemonade Stands

Picture a child starting out in a nationalized lemonade system.

The child can only sell lemonade on a certain block, at fixed prices billed to the government, made with government stamped lemons.

The child cannot give ice with the lemonade: customers must get ice at another regulated venue, at a specific location.

The child cannot serve ice cream with lemonade. That requires another licence.

And so on…

Is this a private refreshment service? Does the nationalized lemonade stand look more like the post office or more like a traditional lemonade stand?

Stating that the child owns the table and jug is just sour condescension.

Private Care Myth

There is very little private about doctors’ offices beyond the sign on the door.

Government sets the prices and determines the services allowed. Regulators dictate which customers must be seen.

Guidelines prescribe investigations and treatment. Inspectors ensure compliance with entries, exits, storage, privacy, and much more.

Government dictates hours of service: including evenings and weekends, holidays, and locum coverage. In many cases, the government owns the facilities and hires the staff, too.

Physicians own or lease their offices and equipment, hire staff, and assume the profits/losses of their efforts.

But they can only work for the government.

Prices are fixed and unilaterally slashed by the government.

Conduct is dictated and directed by the regulatory colleges, educational colleges, public health, and politicians’ whims.

Privately Owned and Privately Run

Experts, who talk about care in privately owned clinics, trick us with equivocation: they say private but mean something different.

Reminding us that doctors own and run their offices just distracts from government control in every aspect of medical care. Until Canada allows truly private clinics, like every country in Europe, reminders about privately owned clinics mean nothing; they are naked nonsense.