Strategy

Does reform need to be reformed?

Posted by

0

The following is the comment I posted to,

Kent Bottles: Is It Really Impossible to Control the Cost of Health Care in the U.S.?

Kent, your narrative should be mandatory reading for all those in Washington whose vision of reform stands in stark contrast to the piece. Then, before they are allowed to propose or vote on their vision, they should be forced to explain why their vision doesn’t address these issues.

In my non-luminary opinion, here’s where I think the reformists have failed. The notion of spending funds that don’t exist, to fix things that may not be broken, without fixing those that are could only come from Washington.

Permit me to over simplify things to make a point. When I look at healthcare, I see a three legged stool; pharma, the payors, and the providers—the three P’s. Not exactly in a pod, each working to their own benefits and operating under different business models—models which are in conflict. For example, many hospitals operate as not for profits, which conflicts with the for profit sectors.

I believe the present reform effort will increase the conflict. Why? Because the legislation is siloed—it looks a lot like the word ‘soiled’ which might also be part of the problem. The legislation does not seem designed to address healthcare as in integrated industry. The way reform is positioned, each nudge that is put to one leg of the stool will cause a reaction, an unfavorable one, to the other legs. It is a little like doing an experiment, changing multiple variables at once, and hoping for the best.

Two sides of the stool, the payors and pharma, have behemoths running the show. Among the behemoths, the business models in pharma are quite similar and the same holds for the payors.
I think it is important to distinguish between the business of healthcare (the dollars and cents) and the healthcare business (the clinical side). The provider segment is highly fragmented. There is no behemoth provider cartel. The business of healthcare, is the side most in need of reform. Each of the thousands of providers operates under their own business model. None of these businesses was designed to be interoperable—I do not use this term in the same sense being used by the ONC and CMS.

The business of healthcare, with all of its inefficiencies, is designed to operate within its four walls and across a limited geographical radius. The long term goal of healthcare reform, I believe, is to make the provider side appear as one giant services provider. Just because consolidation sort of worked for steel, the airlines, and the automotive industry does not mean it will work for delivering healthcare.

My final comment has to do with the payor side of healthcare, and I’ll start by acknowledging that this one is more than a little provocative, one for which I have not thought through a workable solution—I’ll leave that to those of you who aren’t grasping for metaphorical tomatoes to throw. I could be convinced to skip the rest of my comments if for a moment I thought that the business model of the payors was—let’s cover everyone who needs care for a fair cost. Ignore for the moment that my statement is naive.

We know that on a small scale it is possible for people to self-insure, to meet their needs without having to rely on payors. I’ll frame my final comment with a question—where is the value-add to healthcare from the payors?

Here is my issue with the current model. You want to go to the movie, you hand me ten dollars for an eight dollar ticket, and I pay the movie theater on your behalf and pocket the two dollars. In this instance I am merely the middle man, I manage the transaction. The theater gets no marginal benefit, and you get no marginal benefit.

Not complex enough? Let’s say someday millions of people want to go to the movies and a ticket will cost them eight dollars. Anticipating that, everyone pays me a dollar a day so that when the time comes they can go. On that day, I pay for movie tickets for those who want to go, pocket the difference, and I keep the money for those who don’t go.

In my small mind, that’s how I view the payor leg of the stool. I think the payors relish reform. I think the more they complain about how badly this will hurt them the more they may like it. It reminds me of the Uncle Remus story in which Brer Rabbitt pleading with Brer Bear and Brer Fox not to throw him into the briar patch.

What industry wouldn’t be salivating if they could find an additional thirty or forty million customers overnight? What if you could charge them a monthly fee and make the co-pay so high that you might not have to cover major medical claims? Does this sound absurd or does it sound a little like the mortgage banking industry? Fess for no service. I am not saying that this will happen in every case, but I do not think one can argue that this will never happen.

Circling back to how to reform reform. From my vantage point, the most advantageous reform idea would be to force multiples of payors to compete in every state. Competition could do wonders for cost control.

A final thought. Earlier this year a House committee passed legislation on “can’t fail” businesses. The Financial Services Committee voted on an amendment that would let regulators dismantle a firm, limit mergers and acquisitions, and force an end to activities deemed systemically risky. The financial industry opposed the measure, as part of legislation to overhaul Wall Street rules. This could be another opportunity for the camel—Washington—to get its nose further under the healthcare tent. There is nothing that limits the legislation to financial services. Call me a cock-eyed pessimist, but what is there to prevent Congress from deciding that the payors need to be dismantled, thereby ushering in a federal payor model? That would give them two legs of the stool. What if…?

Patient Relationship Management & Patient Equity Management

Posted by

0

Here’s a link to my deck on the above. I’d like to read your thoughts.

http://www.slideshare.net/paulroemer/good-CEM-deck

My latest piece on healthsystemCIO.com

Posted by

0

What Would You Do Without MU?

I was wondering how CIOs would approach the implementation of EMRs if they had never heard the term Meaningful Use. The more I thought about the question, the more I felt it merited discussion. If I were a CIO, I would not let these outside regulatory influences dictate my strategic decision making. As a member of the executive team, my responsibility is two-fold; to facilitate and improve patient care, and to contribute to the business as an advisor, someone whose actions positively impact the bottom line.

Some CIOs have been forced to abdicate their responsibility and to approach EHR as order takers. Sometimes the CEO/CFO/COO creates a directive mandating EHR. That said, their guidance may end. In other, more problematic cases, it doesn’t, and they also supply the name of the EHR vendor that must be used. The worst reaction to this pressure is to not challenge the issue of whether your organization will attempt to meet Meaningful Use. The concept is much more novel than it may appear.

What if Meaningful Use didn’t exist? Many hospitals undertook EHR without any hint of the fact that MU was coming — coming with money, penalties, and constraints. Many completed the implementation only to learn that to meet MU they are not done, far from it. In fact, they have just begun modifying their implementations, and paying big time for those changes.

Those who started EHR early did so under the notion that their efforts were working in concert with an established set of business goals. This is the right way to operate. Remember, EHR is voluntary — really. By default, that makes meeting MU voluntary. There is no hidden directive that states all those who implement an EHR must meet MU. Not meeting it may subject your organization to penalties, and these should be factored into your ROI calculation.

Let’s assume you have, or are going to implement, an EHR system. For large providers, it is difficult to develop a business argument for not having EHR. Now assume that MU does not exist. We already have seen examples of how having MU impacts HIT strategy, how would not having to plan around MU impact your EHR and HIT strategy? What other projects would be at the top of your list? What initiatives could you own if you did not shuffle resources away from your preferred strategy simply to chase MU? Instead, would you be addressing patient and physician churn? Implementing managed services opportunities? Aligning workflows? Developing a social media platform?

There is nothing wrong with assessing what you would be doing to support your hospital if there were no Meaningful Use. You can and should undertake that assessment and calculate its ROI. Then, instead of having a lone MU ROI, you have something else against which to compare it.

Do you believe Meaningful Use is best for you?

Posted by

1

The area was cordoned off with yellow crime scene tape. Crime scene investigators searched the trampled grass, careful so as not to disturb the evidence. People and horses craned their necks to watch. The lead investigator knelt and retrieved a small piece of shell with a pair of tweezers. It looked like the dozens of other pieces they had already collected. The yolk was congealing at the base of the wall.

On the other side of the wall, a rookie patrolman noticed shoe imprints in the wet earth.
“Humpty-Dumpty was pushed,” he yelled to the lead investigator.

Humpty-Dumpty didn’t fall. Even long held beliefs can prove false. Not everything is the way it seems. Just because you believe something is true doesn’t make it so. Ask the Flat Earth Society; ask the people think the moon landing was faked. Sometimes it just requires a little more thought.

Sometimes you need to be the needle in the haystack. There’s not much value in being the hay.

Just because everyone believes chasing Meaningful Use is the right thing to do doesn’t make it so.  This is not a cause and effect relationship. The belief seems to be that meeting the standards set by the CMS is the best metric for determining the value of your EHR.  Wrong. They are only the best metric for determining if you will be receiving incentive money.

Believing something doesn’t make it true. Ask the person who pushed Humpty-Dumpty.

Why do witches burn?

Posted by

1

Some argue that skewed logic is better than none at all. I’m not some people. What is skewed logic? It’s drawing an errant conclusion from a set of facts. If A and B, then C. For example, in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, there is the discussion to deduce if a woman is a witch.
Why do witches burn?
Villager: Because they’re made of…..wood?
B: Goooood!
Other Villagers: oh yeah… oh….
B: So. How do we tell whether she is made of wood?
One Villager: Build a bridge out of ‘er!
B: Aah. But can you not also make bridges out of stone?
Villagers: oh yeah. oh. umm…
B: Does wood sink in water?
One Villager: No! No, no, it floats!
Other Villager: Throw her into the pond!
Villagers: yaaaaaa!
B: What also floats in water? …
King Arthur: A Duck!
Villagers: (in amazement) ooooooh!
B: exACTly!
B: (to a villager) So, *logically*…
Villager: If…she…weighs the same as a duck……she’s made of wood.
B: and therefore…
Villager: A Witch!
All Villagers: A WITCH!

Let’s depict this like a business problem.


There you have it. So campers, where could we possibly heading with this? Here’s where. We’re starting a hospital; THEREFORE we need an ENR.  Washington is giving away money; therefore we need an EHR.

If that logic was correct, if that logic was both necessary and sufficient how would we know it? One way is we would see a bunch of doctors running towards EHRs rather than away from them. The reason this logic is faulty is that the lifeblood of the EHR is about one thing—the records.

So, if the EHR is made of wood and weighs the same as a duck…

“Are the best intentions of EHR Half-Full or Half Empty?”

Posted by

0

Doublethink. Functioning simultaneously on two contradictory beliefs and accepting both as true. By definition, one must be false, unless of course you are living in a parallel universe, in which case you’re in need of more help than I can deliver. George Orwell defined it as, “A vast system of mental cheating”—on yourself, I might add.

What does doublethink accomplish and why does it exist with varying degrees within each of us? First, it allows us to overcome our own competence. I think that’s worth repeating, overcoming our own competence. We know better and yet we talk ourselves out of accepting what we know, creating an equal and offsetting false belief.

Second, it acts as a safety net. How? Let’s say we are one hundred percent confident in Belief A. Well, almost. There’s always that little nagging disbelief, that little devil on the shoulder trying to convince you otherwise. Sort of like ‘buyer’s remorse’—only we’ll call it believer’s remorse. Just in case Belief A is wrong, maybe I should have a backup belied, Belief B. Jeckyll and Hyde.

How does that impact one in the EHR problem?  Buckle up. Most people with whom I’ve worked are very passionate about what they do and are paladins of their methods.  Sort of EHR young Turks.  Belief A. They do everything they can for the program.

While sincerely believing in the importance of EHRs, here’s what else I’ve observed.  Much of that belief envelopes the limited notion of believing that nothing lays outside of their skill set. They often recognize it more as a desire than a belief.  They know fully that they will face challenges which are new to them.  They know fully that many implementations have failed and that they need to spend more effort on change management and work flow alignment than was budgeted.  The list of challenges for which they lack the expertise never empties.  They know the light at the end of the tunnel is just a train. They know fully that solving the current problem only seems to reveal the next one.  Belief B.

So, we’ve come full circle. We outwardly profess we can do what others have failed to do, yet in our heart of hearts we believe that you may never see an ROI. Doublethink.

Which gets us back to our original question, “Are the best intentions Half-Full or Half Empty?”

Something to consider…

Posted by

2

Did you know that having an EHR is not required?

Since it’s not, wouldn’t it make sense to approach EHR like you would any other business problem?

PRM Roadkill

Posted by

0

(AP) New York. CNN reported that PRM died. Services will be held next Monday at Dunkin Donuts. Patients are asked not to attend, but instead to forward their complaints to Rosie O’Donnell.

A fellow, David Phillips, wrote, “Relationships should be considered part of the intrinsic value of the corporation”—he is an auditor. I read a paper co-authored by a slew of PhDs who concluded that the six components for measuring relationships include; mutuality, trust, commitment, satisfaction, exchange relationship, and communal relationship. I feel better just knowing that.

Patient Relationship Management—PRM. I hate being the one to break the news but, PRM is dead. I didn’t kill it. It’s dead because it never existed.  Relationship Management.  Who is actually measuring a relationship? What unit of measure do you use? Inches, foot-pounds, torque? PRM Carcasses are strewn about. You can’t manage what you can’t or don’t measure.

“What are you talking about?” She hollered. “We measure. We measure everything. If it’s got an acronym, we’ve got a measure for it. KPIs. CSFs. ACD. IVR. ATT. AHT. Hold time. Abandonments. Churn.”

Just because something is being measured, it doesn’t mean that the measure has anything to do with the desired outcome. I’d wager my son’s allowance that nobody uses a single quantifiable metric that precisely points to the health of an individual patient relationship. Seems silly? No sillier than really believing you have an ability to manage something as ephemeral and esoteric as relationships.

Just how good are those relationships everyone thinks they’ve been managing? Five percent higher than last month?  Down three percent over plan?  Permit me a brief awkward segue. Joseph Stalin said, “One death is a tragedy, one million deaths are a statistic.” The point is that scale matters—a great deal.  One death versus a million.  One patient interaction versus millions.  It makes a difference. The things we do that impact patients impact them individually, one at a time.

Technology metrics apply to patients—plural. Technology metrics are averages—patients aren’t.  You are measuring against the masses.  The mass does not churn, does not leave your hospital, does not ask to speak to a supervisor.  If I am the patient, not a single metric, not a single measure in your hospital accurately depicts the success or failure of our interaction.

So, what’s a mother to do? Stop pretending you are managing your business by managing relationships—since it’s not possible to do the latter, it follows logically that you can’t possibly be doing the former.

Here’s what you can do, manage your hospital using things you can measure. You can start by defining metrics for the following;

Patient Referral Management—how many patients came via referral?

Patient Resolution Management—how many patient problems were fixed?

Patient Recovery Management—how many patients did you win back?

Patient Retention Management—how many patients did you prevent from going elsewhere?

Show these to the VP of Operations and all of a sudden you have something to talk about. Show the VP how much you reduced some global metric—so what?

Project Management lessons from Alice and Wonderland

Posted by

4

During my career I’ve been involved with hundreds of project teams, some quite gifted, others whose collective intellect was rivaled only by simple garden tools.  I’ve been asked often if I can define what distinguishes the two types of teams.  For me it always comes down to leadership.  It doesn’t matter how hard the people work, it matters how well they are lead.  Does the leader know what to do tomorrow?

That got me to thinking.  Are there some leadership secrets, some project management gems that may have been overlooked?  Rather than offering traditional mish-mash consulting jargon, I thought it would be helpful to find a common ground by which we can form a basis for this discussion.  Hence the following narrative: Everything I learned about project management I learned from Alice in Wonderland.

So, you have spent tens of millions on an electronic health records system.  Some did so without even defining their requirements.  The project is chugging along, new regulations and penalties are appearing through the diaphanous mist like the Cheshire Cat’s toothy grin.

“Well! I’ve often seen a cat without a grin,” thought Alice.  “But a grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!”


How fast must you run so as not to lose ground?  How many milestones do you have to meet, how many due dates do you have to check?  What can be learned from the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland?  She told Alice, “It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast.”




For the EHR project to progress it requires extraordinary effort.  This begs a question of the project leader, where does the project need to go?  In a conversation with the Cheshire Cat Alice asks,

“Would you tell me, please which way I ought to go from here?” “That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.
“I don’t much care where,” she said.
“Then, it doesn’t matter which way you go.” “So long as I get SOMEWHERE,” Alice added as an explanation.
“Oh, you’re sure to do that,” said the Cat, “if you only walk long enough.”

If you only walk long enough.  What is enough for a three year project?  When are you done?  When the money runs out; when there are no more tasks in the work plan.  It seems many EHR projects are much bigger than allowed for by the plan.  They get big, impossibly big.  A lot of that size comes from underestimating the effort to support workflow improvement, change management, and user acceptance.

“Sorry, you’re much too big.  Simply impassible,” said the Doorknob to Alice.   “You mean impossible?” “No, impassible.  Nothing’s impossible.”

We don’t have the benefit of getting advice from talking doorknobs which is why we get so stymied when confronted with having to do the impossible. What is impassible or impossible for your project?  It might be deciding or knowing when to stop.

Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Believing it does not make it so.  Never has, never will.  Belief does not beget success.  Planning does.  Defining your requirements may.  There is no shortage of ex-CIOs who believed their EHR vendor.

Then there’s the skill of managing your EHR vendor.  Perhaps Eaglet said it best, “Speak English! I don’t know the meaning of half those long words, and I don’t believe you do either!”

There will always be those select members of every project team who are so dense that light bends around them; those who have not learned that it is better to keep their mouth shut and appear unintelligent than to open it and remove any doubt; those who have the right to remain silent, who just don’t have the ability.

“You couldn’t deny that, even if you tried with both hands.”

“I don’t deny things with my hands,” Alice objected.

“Nobody said you did,” said the Red Queen. “I said you couldn’t if you tried.”

Do you find yourself sitting through a status meeting unable to tell if the project is moving backwards or forwards, unable to tell what is hiding around the bend?  You think so hard your head feels like your ears are trying to switch places with your eyes.  When all else fails, try this bit if advice.

“Fan her head!” the Red Queen anxiously interrupted. “She’ll be feverish after so much thinking.”  A little thinking won’t hurt, who knows; in small doses it might even be beneficial.

Now, let’s assume you’ve got yourself all worked up.  You and your team are pouring over your work plan, trying to decide what’s left to accomplish, or what can’t be accomplished.  How do you know what’s what and which is which?

“Begin at the beginning,” the King said, very gravely.  “And go on till you come to the end: then stop.”

I’ll take the King’s advice and do the same.

Jihad Joe EHR selection

Posted by

1

When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam’s razor is usually understood.  There is no corollary that works with EHR vendors.

What if we look at HIT vendor selection logically?  Have you ever noticed at the grocery store how often you find yourself in the longest checkout line, or when you’re on the highway how often you find yourself in the slowest lane?  Why is that?  Because those are the lines and lanes with the most people, which is why they move the slowest.

If you are asked in which line is Mr. Jones, you would not be able to know for certain, but you would know that the most probable option is the one with the most people in it.  You are not being delusional when you think you are in the slowest lane, you probably are, you and all the people in front of you.  The explanation uses simple logic.  It’s called the anthropic principle– observations of our physical universe must be compatible with the life observed in it.

It can be argued that the business driver which shapes the software selection process of some is the aesthetics of efficiency, a Jihad Joe approach to expediency.  Buy the same system the hospital down the street bought, the one recommended by your golfing buddy, or the one that had the largest booth at the convention.  Or, one can apply the anthropic principle, rely on the reliability of large numbers and simply follow the market leader.

Might work, might not.  My money is on might not.  There’s still plenty of time to do it right.  If that fails, there will always be time to do it wrong later.  Of course, you can always play vendor darts.  If you do, you should sharpen them so they’ll stick better.