Simplify Healthcare to Save $$

Slide1This post could be titled

“Simplify healthcare to save money, improve patient service, transform the experience of care, drive outstanding quality, increase morale, decrease administrative costs, reduce errors, minimize frustration, reduce burn-out, retain experienced clinicians, increase joy at work and so much more.”

In healthcare, we pursue good things instead of important things and complicate care in the process.  Everyone working in healthcare has the power to make simple things painful and complicated. Leaders especially.

Take information technology. IT experts value security and privacy, which are both good things. But they complicate life with timed log-outs that make users sign-in again and again, forced password changes every month, multiple portals just to see one patient’s results, and firewalls that block clinical sites. They complicate care.  They can ruin a great experience while trying to do something good.

We pick on IT because it’s easy. But everyone can choose to simplify healthcare or make it nasty, brutal and long. New forms, checklists, rules, legislation, processing and dozens of other things can make care hard, slow, painful.

Simple takes effort and does not happen by accident. The Toyota approach to LEAN manufacturing has helped 100s of hospitals provide better care with less effort and waste. But it requires intention and hours of expertise to cut out useless work.

Ockham of Healthcare

Maybe healthcare needs a committee designed to axe committees? It could look at every process, legislation or regulation and ask,

Does this simplify healthcare? If not, is there a simpler way to get the same or better outcomes?

If it looks like there might be a simpler way, the committee could ask those who came up with the process to try to make it simpler.

Science informs modern medicine. All things being equal, science loves simplicity; it lives by Ockham’s razor. Ockham’s razor, or the law of parsimony, says we must not multiply explanations beyond necessity.

Maybe we need an Ockham’s razor of healthcare: Do not complicate beyond necessity.

I wrote about the legislation epidemic as have many others. Here’s a short list of some of the work being done mostly outside Canadian healthcare:

Simplify Healthcare

Simple takes effort. Some jobs depend on healthcare being complicated.  Some people get paid to keep things complicated. Will we work and sacrifice to simplify?

4 Features of Government Healthcare

tomorrowland-raising-handYou can expect 4 features from almost all government services: paper, process, waits and privilege.

As every other industry moves away from hardcopy and convoluted processes towards convenience and transparency, Medicare pushes a wheelbarrow load of forms, complicated process maps, painful waits and privileged access.

Consider a recent trip to the Ministry of Transportation.

We stand in a line that stretches ten people in front and as many behind. People fight off numb feet by shifting from one locked knee to the other. Some stare at the ceiling, mouths half open. Like stuffing escaping an old couch, ownership papers and safety certificates stick out under folded arms.

A car dealer interrupts our REM cycles. He has a big smile, noisy shoes and forced laughter. He owns this office.

He leaves. We’re still in line. Another dealer swaggers in a bit later. The clerk giggles at his grin.

The staff seems busy. Each cubicle wall holds file folders intent on vomiting paper.  Old-fashioned computer printers scream out perforated paper. Clerks tear, rip, stamp and sign. A paper jam requires two staff with special tools. It holds up all the other print jobs.

At the front of the line, a clerk asks why we’re there. Sorry. You’ll have to wait for a different agent. The next agent frowns when we show him our paper. Follow me. He ushers us down to a special counter at the back of the room, barely visible from the front, to wait behind a dealer.

Thirty seconds after speaking to the special desk, with four pieces of paper in hand – including receipt for payment – we toddle out thankful to feel the edema squish out of our feet.

Though the wait was painful, and the process impossibly convoluted, we leave impressed with the expert service provided by the person at the back of the room.

4 Features of Government Healthcare

Nationalized services have core similarities: paper, waits, process and privilege.

In healthcare, we still print, scan and fax things into and out of our electronic medical records. Whether it’s a consultant’s office, the emergency department or a local clinic, we put patients through multi-step processes for everything no matter how simple the problem.

Never assume you have a simple problem for a government service to fix.

Patients see their doctor in one place, go somewhere else for blood work, a third place for X-Rays and then wait weeks to discuss the results. But for those with connections, waits shorten and process becomes almost convenient. The forms, paper and charts usually cannot be avoided.

Does any other industry work like this? Airlines? Dentists? Auto mechanics?

Renovate vs. Demolish

In the movie Tomorrowland, the heroine asks, “What are we doing to fix it?” Despite the utopian promise, it presents a worthy challenge. Faced with bad news, we must choose to despair or resolve to fix it.

Medicare could use much less paper. It might become electronic as a way to serve patients, and not just as a means to control data.

Medicare could simplify processes. It would be hard to remove special interests that resist streamlining, but not impossible.

Waits could almost disappear. They create more work, not less. Doing work tomorrow that could be done today costs more, too. Canadians wait for many reasons, but mostly because we institutionalize waiting. It’s not necessary. And it’s not about money. Most incentives align to create waits. Other countries do not allow it.

Finally, we could offer all patients privileged access and service. Just like the Ministry of Transportation office lets the car dealers skip to the front of the line, Medicare could offer great service for everyone. But for now, there’s no reason to do it. In fact, being able to coordinate access and care for family and friends remains a special perk of working in healthcare for some people.

Can we envision a day when the 4 features of government healthcare disappear?

photo credit: teen.com

Good Monopolies – Medicare?

googles-utopian-vision-quest-benevolent-tech-monopoly-of-the-future12Good monopolies escape competition. A service monopoly often implies a greedy, exploitative weed that thrives off a niche habitat of bureaucratic rot and legislative fertilizer.

Peter Thiel wrote about good monopolies in the Wall Street Journal. He uses Google as an example. Despite protests insisting that Google has real competition, it actually owns its market space. And we love it, because Google treats us well. Google knows that great service is the best way to own the whole market. (see also Google’s Utopian Quest)

Nationalization

Canadian Medicare enjoys a monopoly only if it offers reasonably good service most of the time. Escalating wait times and arbitrary cuts to doctors and nurses undermine the Medicare monopoly and tarnish the whole franchise of parliament.

Nationalization evangelists argue that many industries show ideal conditions for natural monopolies. Take the military. It seems logical to have one army; same thing with the courts.

Looking to other services, large swaths of uninhabited Canadian countryside make basics like travel and telephone a challenge. But people need these basic services. We ought to provide them in the name of compassion, of Canadian values.

Apologists pause at this point in their sermon.

With right hand on chest, they remind us of our success when we all laboured together under the war measures act. They leverage our patriotism and national pride as reasons to support nationalized monopolies in education, health, transportation, hydro, phone and every other service they can imagine.

Queue a few bars of John Lennon:

Natural Monopolies

Forty years ago, Medicare fit the natural monopoly narrative. Widely separated communities defied even the most ardent laissez faire capitalists to come up with a true market.  It’s pretty tough to have meaningful healthcare or educational choice in Atikokan.

Canada looks different since Tommy Douglas first sermonized about Medicare.  Our population is larger (18 million in 1960 vs. 35 million today) and older (average age mid-20s in 1960s vs. 41 yrs old today). We travel more, and do so more easily. The number of Canadians exploited by niche monopolies based on geographic isolation has decreased dramatically. Retailers cannot gouge customers in Shebandowan like they used to. Everyone has eBay.

Same Motivation, Different Reasons

The arguments supporting nationalized services thin and fade with improved technology and population growth. Canadians do not need a national airline anymore. Privatized ones offer better service and quality for a fraction of the cost. We do not need nationalized telephone service or nationalized railways today.

No nationalized telephone service in the 1970s meant Nipigon went without telephone. Now Nipigon has cell phone service as does Marathon, Terrace Bay and all the other communities over the North Shore.

NOTE: Just because nationalized telephone outlived its usefulness does not mean we can do away with government. We need politicians and bureaucrats to do the work that only they can do. We just don’t need them to run telephone or airline companies anymore.

Despite all that has changed, our motivation remains the same. Compassion dictated that we nationalize services in the 1950s. Compassion now dictates we improve Medicare by allowing competition to improve services just like we did with air travel, telephone and mail. Healthcare stands to improve with a bit of competition.

Is Medicare a good monopoly today?

photo credit: bussiness2community.com