Saturday, 19 of May of 2012

Healthcare, Uncertainty, and Thinking

No Gravatar

The healthcare system is fascinating because it will touch EVERYONE at one time or another. You may work in the system, or supply the system, or use the system – but it will touch you, one way or another, over the course of your life. I have friends who never fly and, therefore, don’t care about the airline industry. I have friends without cars who don’t care about the car industry. But I don’t have any friends who have never been sick or never needed medical help.  Healthcare is one of a few systems that touch all of us. So we had better think about its future.

Many people have written about healthcare as a “broken system.” I think of it as a rapidly evolving system that that is affected by a lot of strong forces, from technology to demographics to political posturing. In other words, the future of our healthcare system is uncertain.

How did we get here?  Well, the system that serves us today is the result of the predominant targets of the healthcare system in the past. Consider the role of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals as they responded to the following:

  • 1850 to 1900: Epidemics are prevalent. Food, water, sanitation and other aspects of city life cause health problems for masses of people.
  • 1900 to World War I: Individual trauma (wounds) and infections are the focus
  • World War I to World War II: tuberculosis, malaria, pneumonia, venereal disease and industrial hygiene are big issues to be resolved in the United States.
  • World War II to 1980: We are living the “good life” and heart disease, cancer, and strokes are on the rise.
  • 1980 to Present: Chronic diseases, emotional and behavioral conditions, terror, war, and genetic inheritances come to the fore.

Now think about the next age of healthcare and consider the forces that will hit the system in the coming years: more and more people are uninsured or underinsured at exactly the same time as families have become smaller and more dispersed. The massive Boomer generation is aging. There are fewer people moving into healthcare. More and more healthcare has become a “for profit” business. The bottom line is that the system and its participants will be stressed in ways we have never precisely encountered before.

That said, this system has evolved in the past and is not a stranger to new ways.

The overriding challenge is for people affected by the system to think about its future and take appropriate actions. Doctor, administrator, nurse, patient, taxpayer – ALL have a stake in the future of this sytem.

The future of the healthcare system

Esteemed doctors, academics, economists, and consultants have written a great deal about their view of and prescription for healthcare and healthcare providers. However, much of it is built on a particular point of view and, when taken in total, a contradictory picture arises. Some see the future of healthcare providers operating in the context of a “consumer- driven” system. Some see the future of providers in the context of information-empowered “personalized medicine.” And others see the entire industry changing as we move (in their view) to a single-payer system. GE Healthcare sees a fundamental shift in the nature of the healthcare provider as the system moves from “late disease” to “early health.” Because all of these points view are about the future, all we know for sure is that no one is right and no one is wrong – yet. We are uncertain.

uncertainty

Healthcare is filled with smart and well-educated people. And that single fact is a cause for hope and concern as we face the future of this vital industry. Because we have so many smart people, we hope that we will be able to “figure it out” as the system changes. However, because we have so many well-educated people, we may be trapped into the viewing the evolving system through mental models that may no longer be appropriate.

As you reflect on the position you want to take in the current “debate” about the future of a system that affects all of us, I suggest that you might want to consider one or more of five ways of thinking.

  • Think about the speed of industry evolution. Our hospitals and providers have to keep up with the speed of evolution (on a global basis) or risk becoming irrelevant.
  • Think about the larger system. Our hospitals are part of a larger system and the answer to the question “Why is my hospital changing?” is always found in the larger systems of healthcare and economy.  
  • If you work in healthcare, think about your business model. Whether you are a solo practitioner or a team leader or the CEO of a hospital you have customers and they will the ultimate arbiters of your value.
  • Think critically. The world is loaded with people who have opinions. Are your opinions well founded on accepted principals of good thinking? Or, heaven forbid, are you simply repeating someone else’s opinions as “fact.”
  • Think across time. The past can inform actions we take in the present. All present day decisions have a “futurity,” both good and bad. And thinking about the future forms the visions we create for our organizations today.

When you think about OUR healthcare system do you throw your hands up in the air and say it’s too confusing? Don’t – your health depends on it.


Leave a Comment

  • CommentLuv badge

Comments RSS TrackBack 15 comments

Fred H SchlegelNo Gravatar

in August 28th, 2009 @ 12:11

I can’t wait for us to get a chance to talk about Healthcare in person. You have been bringing a lot of good points to the table here at the blog. As we talk about the evolution of services it raises the point that the current system is running into barriers to potentially powerful innovation and any future system will have its own set of barriers. For me the question is – for the next two or three decades what refinements will push for the highest value innovation in the system? This is a very hard nut to crack.
.-= Fred H Schlegel´s last blog ..Why ATT Is Fabulous and Why Comcast Should Not Be On Twitter. =-.


Bill WelterNo Gravatar

in August 28th, 2009 @ 15:25

Fred,
We need a little hoshin planning in healthcare — lots of good ideas but too many barriers — need to to focus on the barriers just as much as the good ideas.
How about coffee and conversation in the near future?
Bill


Fred H SchlegelNo Gravatar

in September 1st, 2009 @ 14:54

Coffee sounds good. Hoshin planning?
.-= Fred H Schlegel´s last blog ..Biomutualism, Breaking Down Silos, and Finding Inspiration =-.


Oliver CummingsNo Gravatar

in September 1st, 2009 @ 20:51

I think this is good thinking at the strategic level. I also like the work Michael Porter and his co-author E.O.Tiesberg did in their book Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results. Strategy and a middle ground heading toward operations. I have jus taken it to the base level in an article in Provider Magazine in which I reported on a study of the foundational skill and characteristics needed by the CNA. If real change is to occur in the industry I think it takes attention and effort at all levels across the various industry enterprises.

Good show, Bill and you got the first response I have ever made to a blog.


Bill WelterNo Gravatar

in September 2nd, 2009 @ 13:47

Oliver,
I’m honored to have your first response.
In addition to Porter have you looked at Clay Christensen’s book on HC? His view of three kinds of providers is a great organizing tools.
Bill


Bill WelterNo Gravatar

in September 2nd, 2009 @ 13:51

Fred,
Let’s find a place to meet for coffee and conversation after Labor Day. Somewhere near O’Hare? I’d love to meet face-to-face.
Hoshin planning is a Japanese approach and looks at the reality of obstacles in the path to strategic success. I liken it to “reality strategy.”


Fred H SchlegelNo Gravatar

in September 4th, 2009 @ 09:23

Hoshin sounds interesting. Timing on coffee sounds good.
.-= Fred H Schlegel´s last blog ..Biomutualism, Breaking Down Silos, and Finding Inspiration =-.


Bob ClarkeNo Gravatar

in September 10th, 2009 @ 18:41

Bill.. These are all very interesting questions or statements about the state of our health care system. Having worked with leadership at all levels, payer and provider organizations, physicians, as a patient and as a business owner offering insurance benefits, I certainly see that the issues are real and very complex. Unfortunately I don’t believe that any one approach will ever “solve” the crisis that is brewing. On one hand there are clearly technical innovations that can be applied to all sides of the equation (giving, getting, and paying for care) but each has its own issues and biases. On the other hand there are certainly financial models that can influence one’s purchasing decisions either from a patient seeking care or from an organization that provides or pays for care. But…and this is a big one.. Individuals are individuals first and will generally pitch in for the greater good only after their personal needs are met. For example, waiting for certain types of treatment that may not yet be proven 100% effective if there is just a HOPE that anything will help…of course regardless of cost or efficacy. We are willing make changes as long as they don’t affect me. This holds true in the workforce as well of course. That Twinkie and triple latte I had for lunch? Why should I be financially penalized if I have a heart attack later? With so many competing interests it may prove impossible to come to an acceptable solution.

I agree with your premise that the industry as been in a state of evolution and will continue to do so. The speed at which change is happening however is certainly accelerating. My perspective, after having been inside many of these nation’s leading organizations, is that leadership for the most part is simply afraid of change or is not equipped for it. The triangle “tug of war” between the providing of care, the payment of care, and the personal expectation of care makes for a very difficult balance. This of course is why some in government feel compelled to step in. I don’t have the solution of course but I do know that leadership at all levels must not be fearful of the unknown and be willing to wade into the depths to continue to improve the system.


Bill WelterNo Gravatar

in September 10th, 2009 @ 19:57

Bob,
Thanks for the comments and the insights. I really like your triangle of forces pulling on the system.
I tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative so I agree and disagree with both of our political parties. I just wish I saw more thinking and less posturing.
My next post is going to look at some of the issues raised in T.R. Reid’s latest book. I think I also need to consider your triangle.
Bill


Bob ClarkeNo Gravatar

in September 11th, 2009 @ 09:39

OK.. so I sort of drifted off of your actual topic but I enjoyed the soap box! I too view myself as a fiscal conservative / socially progressive (read responsible) individual… I don’t like unwarranted government intervention but I don’t want the arctic drilled for oil either. Health care is a different animal though. There are too many forces pulling in very different directions all of which are admirable but not necessarily in agreement. My concern is that traditional healthcare leadership, those within the walls of an organization have by and large, not been proactive enough in fixing the systems to improve access, quality and affordability. Certainly there are those who are outside the norm but in general I find that this is case. I truly do hope that market forces and free enterprise can address these issues… but we are also running out of time.


Steve MacGillNo Gravatar

in September 14th, 2009 @ 10:41

Bill;

Looks like I’m a bit late to the conversation you are having out here. Some great comments and good thinking. Hopefully I can add to the mix a bit.

Two thoughts to add to the conversation:

I like the triangle model. I’ve seen it twice in the past couple of days. Here and in an article I read…..I think it was in Newsweek. It explains the tug of war that takes place in the politics of this space as well as the realities of the multitude of solutions being considered. The triangle explains that you can’t have it all.

The question then becomes where is the balance and collectively how much of what do we want and need. Cost, choice and coverage. I think this is at the core of the current debate and I too believe this will continue to be an evolutionary process and even then not static. A process that will constantly need balance.

The second piece of thinking I’d like to add to the debate is continuing the stream of thought regarding Michael Porter and his thinking on the subject. He recently wrote an article (I think it was in the NE Journal of Medicine but don’t hold me to it) where he talked about the fact that employers can not and should not remove themselves from providing health care.

He differentiated health care by the way from mere health insurance. He called the later the “sick fund” and labeled it as valuable but reactive. He cited the growth of employer sponsored health care in countries with universal coverage as an example. His focus was on the value to the business of keeping people healthier and helping them manage their health….its impact on productivity and the cost of disability to the operations of the business.

He focused on the use of information technology and the customized and predictive information employers can leverage to help employees change their behavior and better manage their health. I’ll see if I can retrieve the article…he does a more better and much more compelling job than I do…..but I found the focus very interesting.

A third thought…. I know I said two but this hit me as I was writing #2. So what should each of the players in the process do now? What actions (if any) should they take? Is sitting still and waiting an option right now?

Look forward to your next installment …

Steve MacGill


Bill WelterNo Gravatar

in September 14th, 2009 @ 16:38

Bob,
I agree with your wish for market forces and free enterprise to work. And, like you, I worry about running out of time.
I suspect that will will only work if someone “follows the money” and levels the playing field with the insurance companies. I had a long conversation over this past weekend with an old friend who pretty much convinced me that government’s role should be to level the competitive playing field and then get out of the way. He’s absolutely against a national insurance scheme and “simply” wants any payor to compete in any state. When I think back to the deregulation of the airline industry I think I have to agree. It was tough for some of the incumbants, but pretty good (price wise) for the American public.


Bill WelterNo Gravatar

in September 14th, 2009 @ 16:47

Steve,
Thanks for the comments.
Your comment about sitting still reminds me of some advice I received from a Gunnery Sergeant in my Marine Corps days. His advice was simple — when you’re caught in an ambush — MOVE. Standing still gets you killed. It seems to me that the “standing still” option is not viable at all.
I’ll have to find Porter’s article, but I like the message. Preventive “maintenance” of our most valuable resource (people) will pay off in the longer term. Unfortunately, some pundits can only see the short term costs.


TrackBack

Twitter Trackbacks for Healthcare, Uncertainty, and Thinking » Adaptive Strategies Blog [adaptstrat.com] on Topsy.com

[...] Healthcare, Uncertainty, and Thinking » Adaptive Strategies Blog www.adaptstrat.com/blog/index.php/healthcare-uncertainty-and-thinking – view page – cached We Help Managers Make a Difference — From the page [...]

The Buzz » Blog Archive » Healthcare , Uncertainty, and Thinking » Adaptive Strategies Blog

[...] The healthcare system is fascinating because it will touch EVERYONE at one time or another. You may work in the system, or supply the system, or use the system – but it will touch you, one way or another, over the course of your life. …Continue Reading… [...]