Leadership: Who’s in Charge of Medicare?

Medicare leadershipIf you let them, physicians tell about the days when MDs lead healthcare.  They remember medical staff associations deciding whether to hire another surgeon, not administrators or bureaucrats.

After 40 years, most doctors know better.  They hold hat in hand, look at their feet, and speak only when spoken to.  Well, some do…

Even mentioning this topic requires courage.  It’s politically incorrect, dangerous.  Un-Canadian!

Medicare axiom: doctors are not in charge.

Sure, doctors write orders.  But everyone gets trained to double-check and question every order, and that’s generally a good thing.  A tiny step separates double-checking orders from questioning the relevance of physician opinion in everything.

Inside Medicare we hear, “Do we really need a doctor for this leadership position?  Patient care improves when doctors are not in charge!

But what do people outside healthcare think?

What do patients and families believe?

Who do courts identify as being most responsible for outcomes?

Everyone outside of healthcare assumes doctors lead Medicare.

Health systems discover, over and over, that great outcomes require physician leadership (see comments here, here, here and here).

When things go bad, the boss takes the blame.  When companies flounder, CEOs get canned. When bad things happen from overcrowding or long waits, doctors get sued.

It’s well known that doctors have done a pitiful job of leading at times.  They have been arrogant and condescending.  We can be sure of this by watching TV and listening to our mothers tell stories about nursing in the 1970s. (#sarcasm)

Responsibility, not behaviour, determines authority.  Behaviour should not dictate that a whole class of providers remains in authority, or subservience.

Leaders who behave poorly should not lead.  They should lose their authority.  But you cannot remove authority and leave responsibility unchanged.

We need to teach physicians to lead well.  Then, we need to put physicians back in charge of healthcare.

Of course, we need diverse senior leadership teams in bureaucracy and hospitals, from varied clinical backgrounds.  But those teams must have 30-50% physician members.  Currently, doctors hold <10% of leadership positions in Medicare.

Until we figure out a way to give final responsibility for medical care to other providers, we need doctors playing a major role in all aspects of Medicare leadership.

(photo credit: spectator.co.uk)

Scope of Practice Cherry-Picking

scope of practiceStool can get so hard that clinicians need to pull on a glove and dig it out.  It happens most often in very old, demented patients.  They pull their knees up into their tummies, we slip ‘blue pads’ under the business end, and a nurse or physician starts working at the blockage.

It takes muscle.   You lean low over the bed, left hand on the patient’s right hip, and dig deep with your right hand.  Success brings relief for patients and makes a huge mess of the bed.

No one fights for bowel disimpaction on his or her scope of practice.

Nurses used to disimpact bowels in the ED. They know how. Now nurses usually say, “That’s not within my scope of practice”.

You never hear “That’s not within my scope of practice” for fun things.  Prescribing medications, discharging patients, applying splints, and patient education are aggressively pursued.

Premier Wynne wants to increase nurses’ prescribing scope.

Pandering to unions does not improve wait times or patient care.  If Wynne wanted to really improve patient care by changing nursing, she would call for increased after-hours care, productivity incentives, and a return to the unpleasant parts of nursing that now get pushed off as outside of scope.

Doctors cherry-pick, too.

Orthopedic surgeons love to delegate ‘simple’ reductions of wrist fractures in elderly patients.  But pods hesitate about letting others reduce simple hip dislocations in the same patients.  Hip dislocations take seconds to fix, pay hundreds of dollars, and require almost no follow-up.  Wrist fractures require 20 times as long to fix, pay a fraction of the fee, and often require complex follow-up.

Everyone wants scope of practice to suit their needs, not patient needs.

Providers cherry-pick attractive bits of patient care and try to sell it as better for patients.  It’s not better for patients.  It’s just  self-interest.

(photo credit: stellacreek.com.au)

Canadians Love Kaiser Permanente

kplogoCanada loves Molly Porter.  She gets invited to speak all across Canada, and for good reason.  Her enthusiasm for patient experience at Kaiser Permanente (KP)   shines through every time she speaks.

Canadians see Kaiser as the apotheosis of Medicare utopia.  We recognize similarities to our system and lust after great outcomes, but entirely overlook KP’s secret to greatness.

What We Love

  • Uniform care pathways
  • Uniform approach to preventative care
  • Uniform IT system
  • Community health programs
  • Healthy living services
  • Docs on competitive salaries
  • Nurses and allied health workers unionized
  • Generous pensions and benefits
  • Peer review and a probationary period for new physicians
  • MDs do not control office bookings – any clerk can book appointments

What We Lust For

  • Smoking rates < nation average
  • Over 10 national awards for service and excellence
  • Less costly than competitors in many groups
  • Lower malpractice rates
  • No or short waits in Emergency Department
  • Same day appointments
  • Rated in top 6% of 484 comparator plans
  • Shortest hospital length of stay (others are catching up)
  • Outstanding IT functionality
  • Patient online access to records
  • “Care Anywhere; Care Anytime”

What We Overlook

  • “Competition played a huge role in success…we almost went under in 1997-98.”
  • While most patients have co-pays for face-to-face visits and for prescriptions, there are no co-pays for secure e-mail exchanges with providers and scheduled telephone visits.
  • Physicians call the shots on medical care
  • Physicians have parallel leadership corporation with own CEO (Permanente Medical Group)
  • Physicians profit share
  • Many unions have performance measures for group outcomes
  • Care moves down to the least trained professional who can provide it safely
  • Outcomes drive process…relentlessly devoted to patient outcomes, service and convenience
  • Costs $53 billion for the services given to 9.3 million patients.  Ontario spends $50 billion serving 13.5 million patients, but with a different mix of services covered.
  • Serves 3% of US population
  • Pulled out of OHIO and Texas (losing money)

Canadian love Kaiser Permanente.  KP is cool.  It reminds us of ourselves, and Ms. Porter does an amazing job describing it.

Idealists ignore Kaiser’s secret to greatness.  Kaiser Permante’s radical devotion to patient experience defines their competitive advantage.

Kaiser must compete or die.  

Kaiser Permanente knows each operational decision risks the life of KP.  They must focus on patients.  Although Kaiser is nonprofit, it must have operational income to invest in its infrastructure and growth as it owns and runs most of its own delivery system.

Kaiser must succeed or close down.  They cannot raise taxes to cover deficits.  They cannot ignore patient satisfaction, ever.

Canadians can learn from KP.  But let’s look at the whole package instead of picking and choosing only the things that appeal to our Medicare sensibilities.

(Thank you, Molly, for reading this over and helping with the details!  Any remaining mistakes are entirely my own.)