By KIM BELLARD
Just lately in The Washington Submit, author Daniel Pink initiated a collection of columns he and WaPo are calling “Why Not?” He believes “American creativeness wants an creativeness shot.” As he describes the plan for the columns: “In every installment, I’ll provide a single thought — daring, stunning, perhaps a bit jarring — for bettering our nation, our organizations or our lives.”
I adore it. I’m all in. I’m a “why not?” man from method again, significantly in relation to well being care.
Mr. Pink describes three core values (within the curiosity of area, I’m excerpting his descriptions):
- Curiosity over certainty. The world is unsure. Curiosity and mental humility are the best solvents for unsticking society’s gears.
- Openness over cynicism: Cynicism is simple however hole; openness is tough however wealthy.
- Dialog over conversion: The last word dream? That you simply’ll learn what I’ve written and say, “Wait, I’ve obtained a fair higher thought,” after which share it.
Once more, kudos. One may even say “transfer quick and break issues,” however the bloom has come off that individual rose, so one may simply say “take possibilities” or “assume totally different.” Perhaps even “dream large.”
Across the similar time I noticed Mr. Pink’s column I occurred to be studying Adam Nagourney’s The Times: How the Newspaper of Record Survived Scandal, Scorn, and the Transformation of Journalism. Within the early 1990’s The Instances (and the remainder of the world) was struggling to determine if and the way the Web was going to alter issues. Mr., Nagourney experiences how writer Arthur Sulzberger (Jr) realized the influence can be profound:
One doesn’t should be a rocket scientist to acknowledge that ink on wooden delivered by vehicles is a time consuming and costly course of.
I.e., opposite to what many individuals at The Instances, and plenty of of its readers, thought on the time, the newspaper wasn’t the bodily object they had been used to; it was the knowledge it delivers. That will appear apparent now however was in no way then.
Which brings me to well being care. Opposite to what many individuals working in healthcare, and many individuals getting care from it, may assume, healthcare is just not medical doctors, hospitals, prescriptions, and insurance coverage corporations. These are merely the ink on wooden delivered by vehicles that we’re used to, to make use of the metaphor.
And it doesn’t take a rocket science to acknowledge that what we name well being care at the moment is a time consuming and costly course of – to not point out usually irritating and ineffective.
Why not do higher?
I additionally thought of well being care when studying Mr. Nagourney’s e-book when he described the battle between the journalism facet of the corporate versus the enterprise facet: was the newspaper concerning the articles it revealed, with the promoting simply there to help them, or was it actually an promoting platform that wanted the content material the journalists created to carry eyeballs to it? In healthcare, is it about serving to sufferers with their well being, or is it a method to offer earnings to the folks and organizations concerned of their care?
I.e., is it concerning the mission or the margins?
When you assume that’s too cynical, I’ll level to Matthew Holt’s great article in The Health Care Blog arguing that many hospitals techniques at the moment are basically hedge funds that occur to offer some care, whereas additionally creating scads of wealthy executives. Or to how an precise hedge fund is buying a hospital. Or to how, certainly, personal fairness companies are buying up health care organizations of all types, despite the fact that many specialists warn the primary influence is to lift prices and adversely influence care. Or to how Medicare Benefit plans may be better at delivering insurer profits than quality care.
I may go on and on, but it surely appears clear to me that healthcare has misplaced its method, mistaking the way it does issues from what it’s speculated to be for. If healthcare has turn out to be extra about making a small variety of folks wealthy than about making lots of people more healthy, then I say let’s blow it up and begin from first ideas.
There’s a “Why Not?”
Mr. Holt’s “Why Not?” is to take a measly $38b from the $300b he estimates these hospitals are sitting on, and make investments it in major care, such because the Federally Certified Well being Facilities (FQHCs). Major care wants the cash; the hospitals/hedge funds, not a lot. Amen to that.
A pair years in the past I proposed a fair wilder thought: let’s give each doctor $2 million – perhaps even $2.5 million – yearly. We are saying we worth them, so let’s reward them accordingly. The caveat: from that they’d should pay for all of their sufferers’ well being care wants – referrals, prescriptions, hospital stays, and so forth. I posited that they’d negotiate a lot better offers with their compatriots than we appear to have the ability to do. Plenty of particulars to be labored out, but it surely falls into the “Why Not?” class.
Right here’s one other audacious Why Not: it’s fairly well known that CEO to employee pay ratios have skyrocketed from a modest 20-1 within the 1960’s to one thing like 344-1 now. There’s no proof I’ve seen that the ratios are any better in healthcare. Since no occupation in healthcare is extra revered and relied on than nurses, I suggest – perhaps making it a situation for receiving any federal funds — that no healthcare group ought to have an govt compensation to nurse compensation ratio that exceeds 20 (and I do imply compensation reasonably than wage, to keep away from the bonus/inventory shenanigans that executives have relied on).
If that sounds low, I’d pity the manager who desires to argue with straight face that he/she is greater than twenty occasions extra necessary than nurses. I guess they couldn’t discover many sufferers who’d agree, or any nurses.
———–
When you work in healthcare, you need to ask your self: is what I do the ink, the wooden, or the supply truck, or is it actually integral to what healthcare must be in 2024? When you assume your job must be extra about well being and fewer concerning the enterprise of well being, why not make it so?
And the remainder of us must be asking ourselves: is the healthcare we get nonetheless the equal of a print newspaper? We don’t should be rocket scientists to acknowledge that, in 2024, we must be anticipating one thing higher – cheaper, quicker, extra interactive, extra private, and rather more impactful.
Why not, certainly?
Kim is a former emarketing exec at a serious Blues plan, editor of the late & lamented Tincture.io, and now common THCB contributor
