How to Fix Medicare: If Publicly Funded, Then Privately Run

customer_serviceParents guilt children into eating vegetables with, “You should be happy; kids starve in Africa!”  

Canadians guilt patients into accepting long waits and no care options with, “You should be happy; medical bills bankrupt Americans!

Indeed, we should always be grateful.  Looking for better ways to do things doesn’t imply ingratitude.  It demonstrates commitment to excellence.

Designed to Fail

Great organizations meet customer needs.    Great companies offer outstanding products and service at a competitive price… and treat their employees well.  In these companies, CEOs support management to help staff serve customers.

Medicare does the opposite; it serves system needs and sees patients as cost centres.  In publicly run organizations, CEOs support management to help staff spend as little as possible by providing good enough care to avoid revolution.

Politicians and their bureaucrats create regulations and controls that leave administrators and front-line professionals little room to innovate, or incentive to do so.

Good People

Politicians and bureaucrats are good people.  They get loads of criticism no matter what they do well.  I’m thankful that quality people still run for office and work in political bureaucracy.

Politicians and bureaucrats are intelligent individuals caught in a poorly designed system with perverse incentives.

Motivation

If we consider a businesswoman operating her own store, she must keep customers happy with great service, selection, and quality, or she will go under.  No matter how well she manages everything that goes into running a store, if she stops valuing customers she will shut down.

If our businesswoman worked for Medicare, her most important job would be to keep her superiors happy.  More than anything else, she must manage those above her.  If she does not, she risks her position and hopes for promotion.  This is true for every level of Medicare, from front-line providers up through every level of manager and bureaucrat.

Job security motivates administrators; they have to keep bureaucrats happy.

Job security also motivates bureaucrats; they have to keep politicians happy.

Elections motivate politicians.  They have to keep voters happy. Voters respond to marketing and handouts, not tough decisions that might disrupt the status quo.  Better to make no decisions than to risk making a poor one that will upset voters.

When politicians, and by proxy, bureaucrats, control Medicare, the focus becomes staying in office – winning elections, keeping their jobs – not serving customers.

Inefficient

We do not need more money; we need less regulation.  (See How to Fix Healthcare: Let Leaders Lead)  For the same cost, government corporations that go private produce 47% more, and are 27% more efficient, than privately run corps. (Download Fraser Institute 2009 report)

We need to let professional care providers figure out creative ways to meet patients’ needs at a local level.

We need to unleash the creative energies of individual nurses, physicians, and allied care providers.  We need to support them and reward them for creative ideas that improve patient service and efficiency.

Our Own Fault

Until we redesign the system so that good people – politicians, bureaucrats, and administrators – get free of having to pursue perverse results, we will never have a great healthcare system.

If system leaders aim for anything before great patient service and outcomes, we will never improve things; we will always suffer from a system governed to produce job security.

Let’s put patients – service, results, and quality – back in the spotlight.  Let’s stop thinking about elections, job security, or anything else, before patients.

Photo credit: www.gomomentum.com

 

Medicare Change: 10 Ways to Stop Improvement

Stop Sign

 

Some think Medicare means utopia; we just need more of it.  For them, change is bad.  Listed below are 10 tired quips people use to stop change to Medicare (with responses).

1. You exaggerate the problems with Medicare.

Not to people dying on wait lists.

2. Medicare worked so far; why change now?

We need to adapt or go extinct.

3. We just need more money.

Budgets never precede greatness.  Steve Jobs started in a garage.

4. You imply we – providers, bureaucrats, etc. – are a failure.  

No, you’ve done very well even without the best tools.  Imagine what we could accomplish with the right structure, aligned incentives, and patient involvement?

5. You have a hidden agenda.

That’s not fair.  Look at the good folks working to improve things.  

[BTW, this accusation works to undermine anything you want to oppose; it’s impossible to prove the absence of something!]

6. What about control?  What about accountability?  What about, what about, what about?

All great ideas raise questions; none can be answered with certainty beforehand.

7. This just sounds like [choose your favourite distasteful concept].  Favourite distasteful concepts include: American Medicine, big business, profiting on suffering, etc.

Actually, it’s not like any of those terrible things at all.  It’s about giving patients what they need, when they want it, in a way that makes them feel valued.  

8. You’re abandoning our core values.

Change upholds the values that started Medicare.  We started with an insurance program for acute needs.  We now have a warranty to cover routine maintenance.  We need to get back to our original vision and build from there.

9. It won’t work here; we are different.

True.  We are different, but people are the same everywhere.  Canada ranks next to last on many measures (efficiency, service) against European countries.  I’m sure we are smart enough to do better here. 

10. This is a slippery slope towards American healthcare [or other scary idea].

Common sense provides a guardrail.  We let 10 year olds watch TV, but we do not let them vote or drive a car.

Everyone agrees we need change; just not with Medicare.  We need adult conversations that move beyond fear mongering, confusion, and character assassination.  Change will be forced on us as the first baby boomers turn 80 in 2027.  We’ve outgrown Medicare; we must change now, or watch it fail completely.

 

Holding Patients Hostage: Medicare, Stockholm Syndrome, and Choice

stockholmpanoramaFor 6 days, captors held employees hostage in a bank vault in Stockholm, Sweden, August 1973.  Police finally rescued the victims and caught the criminals, but some employees defended their captors for days afterwards.

The Stockholm Syndrome describes the positive feelings that victims sometimes develop toward captors by mistaking a lack of obvious abuse for kindness.

Even after long waits, survivors of major illness are glad to be alive and thankful for their care in Canada.

Fear mongering about financial ruin and system change makes patients cling to a system that holds them captive to long waits with no easy options.

Debate centers on whether our system harms patients.  It does.  But, issues get dismissed as isolated, or labeled as ‘solved’ with wait-time strategies and benchmarking.

 Patient harm is the wrong debate.

 Holding Patients Hostage

We need to focus on what patients aren’t getting.  The public doesn’t really know what they are missing.  It’s up to providers to say so.  When patients finally get an MRI, they’re impressed.  Who wouldn’t be…for ‘free’!

People need to know we have an economy-car version of healthcare at a mid-sized price.  For the same or less money, better systems can:

  • Treat patients like valued customers
  • Give patients choice about who they see and when
  • Provide home or office visits
  • Provide same/next day imaging AND results
  • Offer specialist consultation within days
  • Arrange elective surgery within the week with biopsy results in days
  • Offer electronic access to records
  • And much more…

Increased Utilization

At this point, quants (quantitative analysts) say, “But that would just drive up utilization.”  Utilization equals the number of services provided.  More service means more money: always bad in a publically funded system.

 But, increased utilization is good if more patients get necessary care.

Quants see spikes in utilization as unnecessary care (even in the face of population growth).  They assume providers offer unnecessary care when allowed, fingering providers as liars and thieves.  They assume the same of patients; ergo, patients don’t deserve more care.

But, we know patients need more care; they die on wait lists currently.  We also know patients would like better service; they want more value for money and prompt care options at home, not abroad.

Food Industry Analogy

Just imagine if we socialized the food industry.  Groceries cost thousands per year, and many citizens are malnourished and poor.  Socialized food would help.  We could set prices and offer only essential items, without junk food, for free in government stores.  We could make it illegal to purchase food elsewhere.

Others have tried this: state-run food industry results in no choice, long line-ups, and terrible customer service.  Sound familiar?

 We Need Change

Medicare was built to prevent financial ruin from acute, major health needs, before modern treatment options existed.  Now, most care issues are chronic, multiple, and create arguments over the definition of ‘need’.  Medicare began like collision and theft automobile insurance, but it now covers all mechanical issues: a warranty, not insurance.

We are held hostage, unable to change.  We defend our captor mistaking lack of obvious abuse as kindness.  We must debate whether people should be free to choose more than the bare minimum of care. 

(photo credit: tripadvisor.com)