Health Care Costs: Is Medicine a Market?

There is an excellent article in The New Yorker comparing the production and quality control methods of the Cheesecake Factory to certain advances in “Big Medicine.”  It focuses on the savings available from large health systems through standardization and quantity purchasing. In reality, the problem with health care costs runs far deeper than that.

All businesses compete in a market. Health Care, at 18% of the Gross Domestic Product, is America’s largest business. Despite the trillions spent each year, however, our health care costs are not subject to the normal market forces that balance expense and delivery in other industries.

Here are three factoids. The number of physician jobs in America, according to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, is just over 661,000. A study in the same year (2010) at the University of North Carolina showed 850,000 licensed physicians nationally. Simultaneous with these two studies, the American Medical Association said that the current number of practicing physicians was 954,000. (Wall Street Journal)

Physicians control virtually every dollar of the $2.6 trillion spent on health care in 2010. No hospital can admit a patient, no procedure can be ordered, and no drug can be dispensed without the approval of a physician. That means, even using the highest estimate, that three-tenths of one percent of the country controls almost one out of every five dollars in our economy.

To put this in perspective, let’s get 310 people in a room. Now pick one person (the physician) to stand in the middle, and separate 56 of those remaining to stand on one side. Those 56 people are dependent for all their earnings, and spend 100% of their income based on the decisions of the one person standing in the middle.

With all that economic power at their disposal, and considering that physicians are carefully licensed and regulated, how can three definitive counts of their numbers vary by almost 50%?

Having contracted with and for doctors, I know that many sign payment agreements with little notice of the rates. An insurance company simply claims “This is our standard contract” and most providers accept it. Health plans may pay a percentage of “usual and customary” charges, a term that has no specific definition. Medicare, the largest payor in the country, sets the benchmark for many other contracts, which may pay anywhere from 60% to 90% of the current Medicare rate. Again there is up to a 50% variation, often to the same physician for the same service.

Let’s stretch this national process to be the logic for a business. You provide services using independent contractors. You don’t know how many contractors you have, but they generate all of your revenue. Customers use the services and pay you, but you don’t really know which customers are using the services, or how much they are going to pay until their check comes in.

Your only viable strategy would have to be providing as many services as possible, priced with sufficient margin to be profitable no matter what the payment level was. To get away with that, you’d have to be in a business where customers were required to use you whether they wanted to or not.

Health care in the USA is a dysfunctional market. No amount of tinkering with costs can fix a system that can’t track them to start with.

 

Posted in Thoughts and Opinions | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

One Response to Health Care Costs: Is Medicine a Market?

  1. Mimi Grant says:

    John, loved your post. Here are a few more issues to factor in: most “customers” (folks who actually pay the bill) don’t see the doctor. Why? Because these customers are typically the employers and governments that are paying the insurance premiums. Only those few truly paying “cash” for services, or those in the “individual market,” where they’re paying their own premiums, are the true customers who have a better idea of the actual cost of healthcare.

    Of course, the government, through the Affordable Care Act, is trying to give more individuals “greater access” to care. This in turn has accelerated another phenomenom: consolidation. As hospitals hire physicians directly, where they can, or indirectly through Foundations, in the states where they can’t, prices are going up – simply because hospital-based services receive a higher reimbursement.

    The other trend we’re seeing is the increase in “direct pay/concierge” physicians. With rates typically starting at $2000/year and going up from there, these doctors “limit their panel” of patients they see, a win-win for the doctor (smaller patient panel for the same or more money) and the patients who can afford this perk (easier access). The only problem is – now that the doctor’s panel has decreased, let’s say, from 3000 to 600 patients – the 2400 Former Patients need to find a new doctor. Play this out, as we hear is happening in Massachusetts, and the unattended consequence of providing for greater access, is greater expense and/or longer waits to see your same (or a new) doctor.

    Clearly we need to “bend the cost trend” to bring down the unsustainably growing high cost of healthcare. But who among the 18% making their living from this 18% of the GDP spent in healthcare (the ultimate “service” business), is going to “volunteer” to cut their compensation? After all, when you have burgeoning demand from the Medicare population (and the 10,000 Boomers a day joining it), and a society – starting with our children – increasingly prone to obesity and all its attendant ills, due to their eating/lack of exercise choices, what “magic bullet” is going to bend this trend?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Employee Motivation: The Effect of the Economy

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter delivered his “Crisis of Confidence” speech, commonly referred to as his “Malaise Speech” although he never actually used that word. To a country reeling from stagflation and an oil crisis, it was an additional blow to our collective psyche. We felt poor, and other countries were getting ahead of us. Interestingly, the terminology he used could apply every bit as much today.

In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning….

Whether we like it or not, owning things and consuming things are still the measurements by which we determine success today. Advertisers fight for every square inch of space to promote consumption. Five years ago, an article in the New York Times estimated that the average city dweller saw 5,000 ads daily. The number certainly hasn’t declined since.

The election has inundated us with claims that the middle class is worse off than it was twenty years ago. How is “worse off” defined as a measurement? For most of the world, “rich” could be defined as having indoor plumbing, 24 hour electricity and a motor bike. In America, “poor” can mean having only one television, one car, and an inability to eat at nice restaurants.

I caught the Sean Connery 1993 movie “Rising Sun” on one of my 400+ advertising-supported television stations last week. It was an amusing journey into our last period of general fear about our whole country being bought outright, although that time it was by Japan just before their financial crash. This time it is China. Our 19th century paranoia about the “Yellow Peril” lives on. The media tells us we are poor again, and that others are getting ahead of us.

How can we, as business owners, motivate employees who see no light at the end of the tunnel? Statistically, about one in five of them owe more on their houses than they can sell them for. In the worst hit states like California (one in three), Florida (almost half) and Nevada (two-thirds) many employees have simply stopped paying their mortgages. They have decided that their homes are a lost cause, and they would rather use wages for more immediate rewards.

A couple of years ago, when gasoline spiked to $4.00 a gallon, many employers offered assistance to employees who traveled distances to their jobs. Last month most of the country came near those prices again, but I didn’t hear a word from our clients about fuel assistance. On the whole, our employees are certainly no better off than they were, but we’ve made so many other cuts in our businesses that we now expect them just to tough it out. We assume that they understand why things are tight.

Money by itself is an indifferent motivator. No rational employee works harder in the mere quest for a bigger bank balance. It is what he or she can purchase from among the minute-to-minute inundation of advertising offerings that makes money desirable.

The primary reason people like their job is the social culture of the workplace. They spend more waking hours talking to coworkers than to their families (especially if you don’t let them watch TV on the job). They form friendships, and in a small company they know a lot about each other’s children and marriages.

As a businessman, you can’t buck the economy or two billion dollars worth of political advertising. You don’t have the ability to buy down the principle on your employees’ homes, or give them new cars. If you can afford to pay them a bit better than market rates, that’s great, but it probably isn’t going to change their impression of the world around them.

What you can do is make their workplace a haven from the drumbeat of doom that is surrounding them outside. As Mr. Carter said; owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. When you can’t provide a job that fulfills all your employees’ material aspirations, it had better be addressing their need to do something worthwhile.

Posted in Leadership, Management, Thoughts and Opinions | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Management and Teachers: Accountability Requires Authority

In Chicago, the city and the teachers’ union are approaching an agreement. Interestingly, neither side said that the strike was over wages. (According to NPR, the average teacher makes just over $76,000 a year, and will receive a raise of about 16% during the next 4 years.)

The most important disagreement in the strike is about measuring teacher effectiveness. Chicago is seeking to implement metrics that will be used in deciding tenure, promotions and compensation. Teachers whose students learn more would be better paid. Rahm Emanuel, the Mayor of Chicago, says it is all about accountability. I’m no fan of unions and of the teachers’ unions in particular, but if I look at the schools as a business, I have a problem with their definition of accountability.

No sane business owner will argue against accountability. We live with it all day, every day. We bear the consequences of our decisions, both good and bad. We expect our employees to accept responsibility for the jobs they are given, and have prescribed actions (progressive discipline, termination) for those who don’t. What could be wrong with accountability for teachers?

I met a teacher recently who had taken a job in a Catholic school. His previous experience had been in a big city public school system. The Catholic school was in the same area of town as the public school where he taught previously.

Within a week or so, he began experiencing disruption in his classroom. Students weren’t paying attention; listening to music and talking with each other. During his free periods he walked around the school observing other classes, and noticed that none of the other teachers had the same problem. Their classes were quiet and well-behaved.

He felt inadequate. He assumed that the lack of engagement was his fault, because he wasn’t as good a teacher as the others. The problems grew worse. He finally swallowed his pride, and raised the question in the teachers’ lounge. “How do you all keep order so well?”

The others looked at him incredulously. “We have students misbehave, but if they don’t straighten out, we send them to the principal’s office.”

“I know that I can refer them for disciplinary action, but what good does it do?” he replied. “They just serve some minor punishment and come back.”

“No they don’t. If they don’t straighten out, they are dropped from the school.”

He was thunderstruck. “We can do that?”

“Of course. Our school provides an excellent education. To accomplish that, we have to be able to teach. If we can’t teach, we can’t fulfill our promise to the parents who pay us. Students who prevent us from accomplishing what we promise can’t be tolerated.”

The difference was so simple, yet so profound. In order to be held accountable for the result, the school demanded authority for how it was delivered. It is a basic tenet of any contract.

My son attended a magnet high school. Like many such, its 400 students were encapsulated with 2500 others in an urban  school. Every single member of his graduating class was accepted to college. The acceptance rate for the rest was in the very low double digits. The magnet school had academic and behavior standards for admission and retention. If you didn’t maintain them, you were transferred to the other student body. 

In Chicago, a number of public schools have remained open for the sole purpose of serving meals to the 350,000 students who are dependent on the Board of Education for decent meals. It is part of the role we have mandated for our schools nationally. No one will say that a student should have to watch others eat because he or she can’t afford to buy lunch.

We’ve allowed the social role of schools to overshadow their educational purpose. In business, we expect a different level of accountability from a factory worker compared to a manager. The worker needs to show up and do as he is directed. The manager is expected to get results, and needs the authority to do so.

Providing a safe haven from the streets and basic nourishment is a school’s factory job. Ensuring that a student learns the necessary skills for productive citizenship requires some authority.

I am wholly in favor of teacher accountability; but I can’t imagine telling a manager that his performance review depended solely on his department productivity without giving him the authority to make it happen. I know that he can’t do it with employees who don’t have to show up, or don’t have to work.

I also know that no amount of salary will attract the best managers to a job where they are destined to fail. Educational reform depends on teachers who are held accountable, but there is a lot more involved than just a grading system.

Posted in Management | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

One Response to Management and Teachers: Accountability Requires Authority

  1. Heather says:

    The grievance is whether 40% or less of theteacher’s performance review is based on student performance. If your job is to teach, then it seems to me ridiculous to think there is a method of evaluation that doesn’t include student performance! You make good points here, but there must be some accountability to educate your students. In your private school example, I assume these teachers must still educate their students and performance is a measure of their success. Just because the students behave, it doesn’t mean the teachers are effective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politically Speaking: Do Small Business Owners Have a Voice?

The political parties have completed their prime-time convention pageantry, and are buckling down for the 60 day dash to the election. Both profess to be focused on the”little guy,” the middle class backbone of America. One party says that you succeed on your own. The other says that you succeed because you live in a system that makes success possible.

My friend Jim Blasingame’s Small Business Advocate newsletter conducts a poll every week. Not surprisingly his readers, owners of small businesses, tend to lean strongly to the Republican side of politics. Are the Republicans really the political party of business?

Those who watched the Republican convention were treated to a parade of small business owners, and of politicians who extolled their small business roots. Does anyone really think they can finance a Presidential campaign on the contributions of small business owners? Of course not. As soon as the lights were turned off in Tampa they rushed to ask the lobbyists of giant corporations for contributions. Small business doesn’t have the excess cash to throw around.

At home, we are watching “The Killing” on Netflix. The reformer politician is running behind. He needs money, and his legion of followers can’t come up with enough. The campaign manager suggests a visit to the local tech billionaire, to which the reformer exclaims ” I won’t take money from someone whose patron saint is Ayn Rand.”

Of course he goes, and gets a big check. At least the show was fair to Ayn’s memory. He accepts the check with the excuse that he is only doing it for the good of the people. The entrepreneur responds that he is doing it for his own reasons, and could care less why the reformer is accepting it. If Ms. Rand’s consciousness exists somewhere (she would not appreciate being portrayed in a happy afterlife), I hope she was pleased.

As the election approaches, our peer board meetings and many of my coaching sessions veer off into a discussion of politics. The ridiculous refund reporting requirements of the Affordable Healthcare Act seem to have gotten owners stirred up. On the heels of that came the notices from our accountants regarding the new taxes effective in January. (Somehow the press seems to miss that when the President says he hasn’t raised any money on the backs of the middle class.)

The conversations usually end the same way. One of us says “That’s all fine to talk about, but we need to focus on running our businesses.” Is that correct? Are small business owners really just ineffective pawns in a broken system?

In the 1970’s the drug epidemic in New York City was out of control. I remember reading a magazine story about a woman whose sister visited from Connecticut. They took their two young daughters to the park, where the NYC mom spent every moment tracking the kids’ moves. No going behind the bush, some addict might be there. No picking things up, it might be a diseased hypodermic needle.

The suburban sister asked why they even came to the park, since it was so dangerous and stressful. The mom answered: “Because if we stop coming, they win.”

The story isn’t just about maternal courage. The fact is they did eventually clean up the parks, at least in many areas. By refusing to give up, eventually they won.

A technology entrepreneur (not a billionaire yet) said to me the other day “Why should I bother to vote for President? In Texas, it is a waste of time. We live in the reddest of red states, and there is zero chance that anything I do can change that.”

I reminded him that Texas was once the bluest of blue states. As described in Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point, things changed little by little until suddenly they changed all at once.

Small business owners aren’t powerless. We may not be able to pour millions into political war chests. We can talk to our employees, but most will still vote as they see fit. What we can do is not give up. Don’t stop talking. Don’t stop pointing to things you see that are unfair or corrupt.

Entrepreneurs own businesses because they refused to accept the way things were. A feeling of helplessness is absolutely the worst thing that can happen to small business in America. The odds of engendering change are long, but every day that you unlock the doors of your business you have already beaten the odds.

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Leadership | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Employ People; Don’t Adopt Them

I cringe when a business owner tells me “Our company is just like a family.” I have a family, and thankfully my business is nothing like them.

Family members have the right to unconditional love. They can make mistakes (and in the case of children, the same mistake multiple times) and expect to be forgiven every time. What they receive from you is based on need, not ability.

If that is how you treat your employees, I’m guessing that your business is in big trouble.

Employees are hired. They have a contract, whether it is written or not. It requires a certain level of job performance, in return for which they receive wages and benefits. If they can’t or won’t hold up their end of the bargain, you have no obligation to stick to yours.

More importantly, allowing one employee to fail without suffering the consequences is unfair to all the others. If you do it regularly, you won’t have any good employees left to carry the load.

When you interview a new employee, I’m sure you say things like “We want people on our team that we can depend on.” Or “You will be joining a group of folks who work hard and do a great job.” Do you believe it when you say it? I hope so, or else we know where to place the blame for performance problems.

Many business owners fall into a deadly routine of accepting mediocrity. First, they hire based on whether they can get one person less expensively than another. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard “I liked the other applicant better, and he had more experience, but he wanted a hundred dollars a week more.”

A hundred dollars? Really? You can’t see anything in that position that, done efficiently, correctly and with enthusiasm, couldn’t add $5,000 a year to your bottom line? Why does the job exist at all, in that case?

Then there are a thousand excuses (not reasons) for hanging on to a mediocre performer. He or she does the job well enough. His mistakes are regular, but usually minor. She has a great personality, and everyone likes her. He is the designated driver for the Friday after-work parties. She coordinates all the birthday cards and cakes.

Those might be reasons to stick with your family, but they aren’t justification for spending precious payroll dollars.

Perhaps he was ill, and never quite got back up to speed. Or she had issues in her family, and has been distracted. Employees have lives. They fall in love, break up, get back together, get married and get divorced. They have children, parents, siblings and pets. They buy houses, make  investments both good and bad, and get sick. Those aren’t reasons to be paid not to do their jobs.

 Of course we all care for our employees, and we want to treat them well. In practice, you routinely accept that they have no intention of giving you the same consideration. Do you think I sound callous? Try this little exercise. Call your employees together and make this speech.

 “As some of you know, I have had a number of personal problems over the last few months. Things aren’t so good at home, and my portfolio has taken a shellacking. I’ve also been to see the doctor, and he says that I have a chronic condition that, while not life-threatening, will require some extensive treatment.”

“Because of these issues I haven’t been able to give my full attention to the business, and our performance has suffered because of it. I am fully confident that we will recover, but in the meantime we won’t be able to issue paychecks until further notice.”

 Yeah. You know how much sympathy you’d get. Perhaps a mumbled “I’m sorry” as your longest-tenured employee cleaned out his desk.

 Entrepreneurs have less slack, less margin for error and less flexibility than their employees. Expecting a reasonable day’s work for a reasonable day’s pay is fair, equitable and sustainable. Paying for work you don’t receive is unfair to you, your customers and your other employees.

Posted in Management | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

2 Responses to Employ People; Don’t Adopt Them

  1. Claire Gard says:

    Great read and so true

  2. shandi says:

    I agree. Great read

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *