Bureaucracy vs Patient Care

Bureaucracy (photo credit below)

Bureaus and bureaucrats create bureaucracy. Together, they build their own demand and transform people into managers designed to meet bureaucratic needs.

A bureau designed to serve patients ends up serving its creators, while protecting those who work inside.

William Niskanen, economist, offered a definition. Roughly speaking, 1) bureaus contain people who do not earn income from the difference between revenues and cost, and 2) bureau revenue does not come from the sale of output per unit rate.

Squeamish About Saying “Bureaucrat”

Many people refuse to discuss bureaus, bureaucrats, or bureaucracy for fear of causing offence. The managerial and chattering classes see talk of bureau-anything as impolite, ill-defined, or perhaps unhinged.

This tactic is old. See Orwell’s, 1984. Control language; control the masses.

Forcing a word out of fashion does not remove the reality it described. Changing labels creates an endless need for new labels. Relabelling bureaucracy as management or administration does not escape the need to debate the concept.

We need bureaucracy, just like we need surgery. Surgery saves lives when nothing else will do. At the same time, there is nothing that surgery cannot make worse.

The Need for Bureaucracy

As organizations grow, they build bureaus and bureaucracy to decrease risk. Bureaucracy exists to slow things down and make us think twice.

For example, hospitals create communications departments to decrease the likelihood of bad press. Government funding relies foremost on keeping funders happy. Bad press about patient care trumps concern over care itself.

Every element of service creates its own demand for bureaucratic process.

Forms, checklists, and audits.

Computer passwords, authentication, password expiry, and mandatory sign-off.

HR credentialing… the list is endless.

Room always exists for more bureaucracy, with its imprimatur of orderliness and excellence.

The Value of Bureaucracy

Organizations and governments build teams of professional managers (bureaucrats) at significant cost.

Teams struggle to justify their own expense. They cannot point to profit or improved patient care. Given fiscal austerity, ballooning bureaucratic budgets make managers cringe in anticipation of scrutiny.

This creates an impassioned hunt for confirmation of value. Bureaucrats need something — anything — to prove their worth. Continue reading “Bureaucracy vs Patient Care”

User Fees Promote Equity and Efficiency — New Review Paper

 

Twenty eight countries have universal healthcare. Twenty two of them have some form of cost sharing.

User fees offer one example.

They work best as a small, flat fee paid at the point of service. Even a few dollars discourages (rational) people from booking for what they asked twice before.

User fees shorten the line for limited service. They free doctors and nurses to meet greater needs.

Some doctors rant about “skimming cream” and colleagues “stealing all the easy patients.”

Many shrug at creaming skimming. Sure, it exists at the margin, but it guarantees incompetence. Doctors need sick patients to stay sharp.

Either way if cream exists, then user fees are anti-cream.

Advocates for national pharmacare assume cost sharing must exist. Patients should share more of the cost of Viagra than Vancomycin (an antibiotic).

The same advocates often see first-dollar coverage (free meds) as outrageous for drugs but essential for doctors’ services.

Canada stands with a small group of six countries without any cost sharing in universal care. Canada stands alone in not allowing any access to medically necessary care outside the state.

NOTE: All countries with user fees have exemptions for the poor, sick, old, and very young.

Two New Reviews of User Fees

I spent several years pulling together a paper on user fees.

In July, The Macdonald-Laurier Institute published my report: Equity and efficiency vs. overconsumption and waste: The case for user fees in Canada. Check out the (shorter) press release here.

How can we protect a common good from overconsumption and waste? Everyone can access a common good. The more I use the less you get.

How can we deliver high-value care to those who need it most?

Should one person, who tries to protect medicare, and their identical twin, who abuses it, pay the same premiums (taxes) for medicare? Continue reading “User Fees Promote Equity and Efficiency — New Review Paper”

Happy Canada Day! … As Long As We Can Keep It

Happy Canada Day
Parliament Hill winter 2022

There are two kinds of citizens.

The first will fight for neighbours. If attacked, these citizens lay down life for family, community, and flag. Whether new citizens or old, these people think ancestors and descendants matter more than one’s own short life.

The second sees citizenship as a system of rights and privileges afforded by the state. Some may fight to protect such a system. But given external threat or possible collapse, these citizens would sooner run away to a system better suited to their needs.

The first sees Canada more like a giant, extended family. The second sees Canada more like a bureaucracy. The first feels a mutual bond with neighbours that transcends time and space. The second shares access to something owned by the state.

The first grieves at a politics of division. The second sees division as an inevitable outcome of atomized individuals served by big government. Canada is a bureaucracy: a gigantic soup kitchen. No ethos. No fabric. Just an efficient machine delivering tax-funded services.

The first citizens share ideas about what is good, true, and beautiful, starting with the country they share in common. A good country is not perfect, but it is worth defending. The second shares only the notion that Canada must change before it can be good.

Note: This has nothing to do with your country of origin or how long you’ve been in Canada. Each type of citizen can come from any kind of background: young, old, new Canadian, or old Canadian.

Happy Canada Day!

If you celebrate Canada Day, and I hope you do, know that you take a counter-cultural stand.

Celebration of nation — home, people, heritage — is an anachronism. Offensive to many. Out of touch at best. If this becomes majority opinion, you have no country, no nation.

In this sense, Prime Minister Trudeau thinks Canada ended long ago. The New York Times Magazine interviewed Trudeau in 2015.

“There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” Canadians’ shared values make “us the first post-national state.”

What kind of citizens fill Canada today?

Are we more of the first kind, like the ones who fought world wars?

Or are we the second kind: citizens of Trudeau’s post-national state?

The End of the West

We stand at a crossroads in Western civilization.

COVID did not just show us how unprepared we were to face a pandemic. It showed us the state of our social fabric, our lack of institutional capacity, the fragmentation of what it means to be a citizen.

A nation has always been more than what politicians and pundits say it is. As we exit the pandemic, how we respond will show whether Canada still exists. Is Canada still alive, in the old sense of something we would die to save? Or is the old sense gone, and Canada is now something new?

We shall see. In the meantime,

Happy Canada Day! … as long we can keep it.