OMA Mid-Life Crisis

One ThiOrganizations risk becoming irrelevant and detached from their members.

Wynne’s attack on doctors puts the Ontario Medical Association in a bad spot. Front line docs will resent government initially. But unless they see the OMA as their champion, physicians will eventually turn against their association.

Relativity grates on doctors every time they drive in to do a case at midnight or try to wake up a cushier specialty at 3 in the morning. Invariably, the cushy guys generate a much bigger income. Everyone knows it, but no one can fix it. Docs give it less attention when times are good.

Repeat failed contracts weaken the OMA. People forget the totalitarian approach government took in ‘negotiations’. Doctors just see failure. Physicians do not suffer fools lightly. MDs believe serving in leadership is half as hard as clinical practice. Many think they could do a better job if they were in leadership but just don’t have the interest or time to spare.

Disruptive technology pops up when the status quo gets too big, expensive and unwieldy. Personal computers took over when mainframes became more powerful than necessary and too hard to access.

Is the OMA risking a disruptive innovation?

The Ontario Coalition of Family Physicians formed after family practice nearly died in the 1990s. Many of the coalition members got on the OMA board and improved things for family practice in the early 2000s. They saved family practice from extinction.

Family doctors now face a 25-30% income cut by 2017 from 2012 levels. It’s not the OMA’s fault. Premier Wynne slashed doctors to finance Liberal debt and scandals. But doctors won’t remember that. They’ll just see that their collective bargaining agent didn’t come through for them.

Crucial Conversations

The OMA faces a critical juncture. It needs to ask some hard questions.

  • Why does the OMA exist?
  • Who does it serve?
  • Where does it draw the line between serving members and partnering with government?
  • Does the OMA take members for granted?
  • Does the OMA resist change and avoid competition?
  • What political philosophy does it espouse?
  • How does OMA policy and bureaucracy help or hinder its mandate?
  • What needs to change?
  • Can the OMA improve member involvement and if so how?

The late Brenda Zimmerman inspired us to ask ‘wicked questions’ that include seeming opposites. For example, how can we increase services AND spend less? Love of wicked questions aside, we often struggle to hold onto more than one thing at a time.

OMA Mid-Life Crisis?

Billy Crystal played Mitch Robbins in the 1991 Movie, City Slickers. Mitch has a mid-life crisis and signs up for a cattle drive on a ranch in New Mexico to clear his head. An old cowboy, Curly Washburn, played by Jack Palance, offers Mitch some advice.

Curly: Do you know what the secret of life is?

[holds up one finger]

Curly: This.

Mitch: Your finger?

Curly: One thing. Just one thing. You stick to that and the rest don’t mean sh**.

Mitch: But, what is the “one thing?”

Curly: [smiles] That’s what *you* have to find out.

What is the OMA’s one thing?

Without member support, the OMA loses relevance. It can have the best leadership, policies and bureaucracy, but without support, it’s weak and lost. How can front line physicians help the OMA through to find its one thing, to continue being relevant, strong and connected?

 

Doctors Won’t Fight The Nanny

nanny stateSteve Paikin, host of TVO’s The Agenda, wrote a blog: Doctors no longer have all the power in Ontario’s Health Care.

He writes that the Ontario Medical Association used to stand and fight in the 80s and 90s. Earlier, he asked the OMA president, “What do the doctors have planned now?” I blogged about it here.

Paikin assumes most doctors do not vote Liberal. I suspect he’s wrong.

Physicians tend to support the party in power like most other voters. Doctors want stability and predictability. They like big government handouts.

Beyond the practicalities of clinical care, many doctors hold idealistic notions about society. They ask the state to legislate healthy behaviours. Diabetes experts lecture about menus, food choices in supermarkets and even neighbourhood design. They believe government should plan society to promote health. Many doctors call for levels of state control seen only in totalitarian regimes.

Physicians should re-examine their politics. If they support:

  • Expanding government size and control
  • Government ownership and control of services and production
  • Increased wealth redistribution
  • Increased handouts with little attention to warrant
  • Complete insulation of society from risks associated with personal behaviour
  • State help for bad business outcomes
  • Penalizing professionals for hard work
  • Unearned handouts

Then physicians should accept their cuts and be quiet. Wynne’s attack on doctors follows from her political philosophy.

On the other hand, if doctors support

  • Responsible spending
  • Individual choice (e.g., telephone, air travel, postage, education)
  • Self-reliance for things most individuals can handle
  • Government doing what only governments can do (e.g., military, courts and banking)
  • Letting voters direct tax dollars (e.g., remove hospital block funding, school vouchers)
  • No handouts without some effort except for those completely incapacitated
  • Not insulating people from all the risks of their choices about debt, behaviour and lifestyle
  • That professionals should control their workplaces and practices, not bureaucrats

Then physicians should fight.

They could start a human rights challenge of the CPSO ban on physician job action. They might challenge the legality of the ban on physician billing outside of Medicare. They should ‘raise hell’ as Paikin mentioned.

Do doctors refuse to fight because they support the nanny state and want more of it? Doctors won’t fight the party they love.

 

What Will Doctors Do Next? OMA MOH Negotiations

StevePaikin2010_22Television host, Steve Paikin, spoke with Dr. Ved Tandan, Ontario Medical Association President, about the failed OMA MOH negotiations. Paikin asked what happens when government, the payor, makes unilateral cuts.

Usually when these kinds of things break down, Dr. Tandan, the payee does something like withdraw services; like go to Queen’s Park with lab coats and protest signs and raise hell, etc., etc. What do the doctors have planned now?

Tandan said, “The doctors of Ontario are going to do everything we can to minimize the impacts of these cuts. But make no mistake; there will be negative impacts.

See The Agenda (11:38).

What Next?

A prominent pollster in Ontario told a large group of physicians that doctors need to learn how to play tough. They shouldn’t be so nice.

Ineffective action could be seen as inaction.

Physicians need to think about doctors who are working now, those who will follow, and all their patients. If doctors frame fee cuts as nothing but a personal nuisance, they miss the point. Current cuts drain physician funding for the next 15 years or more.

Time to Recovery

In 2012, doctors took a 5% fee cut. Inflation runs between 1.2-2% per year. The Wynne Liberals sliced off 2.65% this month with more to follow. Wynne promises 4% plus an unknown amount of claw backs as ‘reconciliation’ for growth in services.

5% + (2% x 2 years) +4% = 13%

Doctors will see 17% cuts, or more, to gross billings by 2017 including inflation. Physicians’ net income will drop well over 20%.

A007How long will it take to fees to recover? Even if we assume a 1% recovery per year, plus 2% inflation, it would take 17 years to recover with 3% raises per year, or 2034. How reasonable is it to expect 17 yrs of 3% raises? The core family practice code, A007, has almost flatlined.

 

Response vs. Vision

Doctors took a fairly measured, coordinated response so far. Articles, videos, social media and meetings with politicians offer peaceful protest. Should physicians ramp up their response? Should they march to Queen’s Park?

What do doctors want? They probably want the bottomless pit of reconciliation abolished. Docs likely want the indiscriminate program and fee cuts reversed. But do physicians have a vision for fundamental change?

Without system change, we can expect more cuts and tweaks in the future. Political pilot projects within the current framework will raise expectations and then disappoint with unsustainable costs. Four decades make it certain. Dr. Max Gammon, after studying the British National Health Service, said that in

a bureaucratic system … increase in expenditure will be matched by fall in production ….

It’s called Gammon’s Law, or the Theory of Bureaucratic Displacement.

Some doctors want protest but have little appetite for fundamental change. Protesting current cuts while asking for a return to the status quo prolongs the inevitable. If we protest, we need protest with vision. Are doctors willing to consider substantive system change? Is the public ready for it?

Or should doctors shut up and accept a >20% cut to net income?

photo credit: theagenda.tvo.org