Input Up, Output Down – Gammon’s Law in Medicare

Gammon's black holeReading the headlines might remind you of Henny Penny:

Rising costs creating ‘extreme financial constraints’ for funding new drugs in Ontario. (Ottawa Citizen, April 10, 2014)

Luring Medical Tourists for Care is a Trip Down the Slippery Slope. (Globe)

Regardless of Henny Penny’s anxiety, the sky looks awfully close from the tip of the health care spending curve:

Canada spent $211 billion in 2013 on healthcare. Check out the 1975-2013 trend in healthcare spending:

healthspending

Gammon’s Law

The economist, Milton Friedman, in “Gammon’s Black Holes”, quotes Dr. Gammon saying that in

“a bureaucratic system … increase in expenditure will be matched by fall in production. … Such systems will act rather like ‘black holes,’ in the economic universe, simultaneously sucking in resources, and shrinking in terms of ‘emitted’ production.”

Gammon called it the ‘theory of bureaucratic displacement’ in Health and Security, Report on the Provision for Medical Care in Great Britain (London, St. Michael’s Organization, 1976, out of print).

Later, Friedman mentioned public education in Input and Output in Medical Care:

“I have long been impressed by the operation of Gammon’s law in the U.S. school system: input, however measured, has been going up for decades, and output, whether measured by number of students, number of schools, or even more clearly, quality, has been going down.”

He then turned his attention to healthcare:

“Gammon illustrates his theory from the British National Health Service (NHS). He points out that in the eight years “between 1965 and 1973, the total number of staff employed in NHS hospitals in Great Britain increased” by 28 per cent (and administrative and clerical staff by 51 per cent). On the other hand, “the average number of beds occupied daily” declined by just over 11 per cent. He goes on to note that the long waiting lists for beds throughout the period ensure that the number of beds occupied is a valid measure of output. Input up, output down.”

Input up, output down

Despite this, we still hear experts like professor Stephen Birch blame an over-supply of providers for driving up costs.

Usually, progress and volume decrease cost.  Friedman notes elsewhere that only in healthcare do we find improved technology and performance causing an increase in costs.

How do we fix it? For a bureaucratized system:

“The difference is in the bottom line. If a private venture is unsuccessful, its backers must either shut it down or finance its losses out of their own pockets, so it will generally be terminated promptly. If a governmental venture is unsuccessful, its backers have a different bottom line…Little wonder that unsuccessful government ventures are generally expanded rather than terminated.”

Perhaps Friedman was too pessimistic. Maybe Gammon had personal issues with someone in government. Perhaps they were just real life Henny Penny’s. Or, maybe they were right.

(Photocredit: dailymail.co.uk)

Physician vs. State Paternalism

paternalismMedical students learn to despise paternalism.  Patients must be given all information and helped to make their own decisions.  It is better to cause pain and suffering with brutal honesty and unfettered autonomy than to presume benefit on a patient’s behalf. Students are taught that physicians must never bias patients in any way.

  • What about depressed, suicidal patients?
  • People who want to stop medications they need?
  • Demented patients who won’t eat?
  • Homeless people who won’t come in from the cold?
  • Diabetics who won’t comply with treatment?

Should physicians be paid more when patients make healthy decisions? Should the outcome of patients’ decisions determine physician payment?

Paternalism

Refers to the limitations of personal liberty/freedom for an individual’s own good by the state, an organization, or other individual (Wikipedia and Stanford Phil).

  1. Soft versus Hard – Soft paternalism supports intervention when decisions are not truly voluntary (e.g. person does not understand a poison label).  Hard intervenes even when people know what they are doing (e.g. suicide).
  2. Broad versus Narrow – Narrow relates only to concerns about state paternalism.
  3. Weak versus Strong – Weak paternalism interferes with freedom to promote an end valued by the individual (e.g., seatbelts; most people value safety).  Strong interferes when an individual’s values are suspect (e.g., motorcycle helmet laws).
  4. Pure versus Impure – Impure paternalism changes a whole system to benefit a group (e.g. preventing cigarette manufacturing).
  5. Moral versus welfare – Welfare paternalism benefits health/safety only.

Should we force people to live healthy, safe lives?

Physicians get bonuses based on how many of their patients get flu shots, mammograms, and other screening tests. Definitions and explanations can steer patients, while giving the impression of free decision making.

  • Should patients be informed that physicians get rewarded for specific outcomes?
  • Would it call into question the physician’s advice?
  • Is this paternalistic?

Medicare provides, rations, and decides service based on beliefs about need/benefit.  Medicare is paternalistic.  Where do we draw the line between supporting state paternalism and opposing individual paternalism?

Please share your thoughts below!

(photo credit: wired.com)

Privileged Patients in Medicare

Privileged PatientsPrivileged patients do not wait for healthcare in Canada like everyone else.   Privileged patients bypass

  • waiting rooms
  • wait lists for imaging
  • delays for consultation

Like Nexus cardholders zipping past airport security, privileged patients get seen in a different line.

The old sarcasm is true: you go into healthcare to get great care for yourself and your family.

We console ourselves that only unique cases get preferential treatment, rare exceptions.  Just as long as ordinary people do not get treated like privileged patients.  While we do not like it, we can live with a few getting special privileges.

Privileged Patients We Can Tolerate (sort of)

  • Professional athletes
  • Worker’s compensation patients (WSIB)
  • Federal politicians
  • People able to travel to USA (or Quebec) for tests
  • Visitors from outside Canada

But we cannot bear the thought that our fellow Canadians, our next-door neighbours, might be getting treated like privileged patients.

Privileged Patients You Do Not Tolerate

  • Doctors
  • Nurses
  • Family members of doctors and nurses
  • Donors who give big gifts to hospital foundations
  • Hospital board members
  • Minor celebrities
  • Local politicians
  • Close friends of health care workers
  • Police
  • Fire
  • Ambulance workers
  • Hospital employees (especially with their badges on)
  • Even Lawyers acting lawyerly get treated and kicked out of EDs as fast as possible.

The list goes on…

Managed care requires armies of managers to keep it fair and equitable.  Even with legions of managers, ‘professional courtesy’ still guarantees your neighbours could be one of the privileged patients.

In a system with intolerable waits and inconvenience, we find ways to give great service to our most privileged patients.  Why not extend the service to all?