A few hours ago I found out David DePaolo was killed in a motorcycle-related accident over the weekend.  Friends, colleagues, business associates all have attempted to express their feelings at this shocking news, news that anyone who knew David finds tough to believe.

Because he lived life to the fullest.

Flying his plane, riding his bike at zero-dark-thirty, cruising on his motorcycle, opining on the weighty issues of the day, confronting us with the uncomfortable truths, all attacked with passion and energy.  David delighted in disagreeing without being disagreeable, a skill he exemplified.  Even if you really disagreed with his perspective, it was always impossible to ignore him.

His last post, a brutal and much-deserved takedown of pharma giant Purdue, is classic David.

There are so many battles left to fight, so many problems demanding our attention, so much left to do, and now we have to do it without him.  Suddenly it just seems a lot harder.

We all have lost a unique person, one that made the world a better place because he cared deeply.  I’m so sorry for his family and close friends, for they knew David far better than I ever did, and thus will miss him so.

The takeaway for me is simple – at the end of life, you have only your reputation, the good you’ve done, the life you’ve led.

David left more than most of us ever will.

Sometimes you read things that make you squirm a bit; this article was one of those times for me.

The piece, entitled “How to Stop People Who Bog Things Down with Bureaucracy”, had me nodding my head as I replayed past experiences working for big insurance companies. We’ve all had them; there’s a problem that is readily apparent to everyone.  Maybe it’s a customer’s repeated complaints about a process or missed target or service change requirement.

A meeting is convened to figure out how to address the problem.

The discussion quickly expands the issue to identify underlying causes – changing the process means several departments have to communicate differently, share information faster, streamline a well-established workflow that will disrupt current operations as staff is re-trained.  Management metrics will be affected, and dashboards altered.

As the discussion progresses, you can feel the oxygen leaving the room.

(Scott Adams has a brutally funny understanding of management)

It’s just too big, there are too many people who need to buy in and take action to fix the problem, there are other priorities, no single person can own it and fix it.  An “action” plan may be agreed upon, which usually involves more meetings and memos and prioritization and risk assessment – and little action that actually addresses the original problem.

 

Fact is, the people who point out that this or that change will require lots of other changes may well be right.

But, while they may be technically correct, when you think about what they’re really saying, they are most definitely wrong.

Wrong because organizations – for-profit, not-for-profit, governmental – all exist to serve their “customers”, and the people who focus on the obstacles to delivering for customers are coming at this bass-akwards.  Instead of thinking about the issue from their organization’s perspective, they should be looking at it from their customer’s.

Here’s how the HBR article described these well-intentioned managers…

Energy vampires are often smart, well-intentioned managers who inadvertently slow the company down with too many questions, too much analysis, too much process—and not enough action. They exist in the organization to administer various systems and processes that in isolation seem necessary, but in aggregate simply clog up the works and slow the company down.

Customers don’t give a rat’s rear end about your internal processes or metrics or management meetings.  They have a need – get this service delivered this way to me in this amount of time – and successful organizations attack problems from that external perspective.

What caused me to squirm is this.  I’m really good at the strategic view, at understanding customer needs and verbalizing them, but I can also be too quick to point out the potential obstacles and organizational changes and issues involved in meeting those needs. That can flip the discussion from where it should be coming from – the customer’s side – to what’s best for the organization.

In so doing, one concedes the field to the energy vampires, the “this is the way we do it here” people who keep things running smoothly – and directly away from success.

A few relatively simple things you can do to address this very real problem.

1. Keep problems simple.  Don’t overcomplicate things.
2. Eat the elephant one bite at a time.  Sometimes there are issues that require lots of organizational change; don’t try to do it all at once.
3. Start with high-value changes with a very high chance of success.  This builds momentum and credibility and support.
4. Reward intelligent risk-taking, and dis-incent the overly cautious.
5. Accept some downside, understanding that overall, the net result is what matters, not ensuring every effort is a successful one.

What does this mean for you?

Think about the last meeting you had about a customer issue, and what is happening as a result of that meeting.  I’m hoping your organization focused on the “how” and not the “why we can’t.”

My post on the inability/unwillingness of work comp payers to talk publicly about the good work their employees do generated a bunch of emails and a few comments from the few payers that actually do try to get that message out.

Kudos to those payers for trying; doing something is far better than doing nothing. And I do NOT want the rest of this post to be seen as anything other than constructive criticism.  And thanks very much to the folks who got in touch and commented.

But…

Two issues – these folks are very much the exception to the rule.  Fact is the vast majority of payers rarely if ever share the positive news.

Which leads me to the second issue.  The folks that are doing some outreach almost without exception are bringing the proverbial knife to the gun fight.  YouTube posts, blog posts, and press releases are very few and very far between.  Some are pretty well done, but even the most prolific payers’ messaging is sporadic at best.

It is also rarely picked up by other media, so it sits there on their blog or YouTube channel, garnering a few hundred readers after a year or so.

Contrast that to the stories about heartless work comp insurers screwing injured patients in pursuit of the almighty dollar.  The media reach of bad news; ProPublica/NPR series, the Department of Labor’s discussion of work comp, and local media’s coverage of alleged bad behavior on the part of workers’ comp payers, adjusters, and medical management staff buries the good news about comp payers.

One other point; many payers’ press releases are rife with stories about their successes in catching claimants doing things they shouldn’t be able to, showing that the insurance company will find out if the poor “claimant” (I hate that word) is really able to walk without a cane.

While that messaging may discourage the occasional “fraud”, it’s more likely this PR effort does more damage than good.

Come on, folks.  While you may think this discourages the very few potential bad actors out there who are looking to game the system, the overall message is the giant, omnipotent, all-powerful insurance company vs the poor guy or gal trying to get by on a paltry average weekly wage that’s nowhere near enough to meet their financial needs.

So, what to do?

• individual companies need to develop a strategy – a long-term strategy – to figure out how they want to be perceived and why.
• commit to it, follow thru, and be consistent
• work together in local markets and nationally to get that message out.
• don’t be an insurance company – be innovative, interesting, engaging, occasionally funny, compassionate.
• tell stories – about claimants, about the real, live, moms and dads that work for your company trying to make sure the patients they are responsible for get better and their families are protected.
• don’t let execs’ fear of doing anything remotely risky stop you.

What does this mean for you?

If you don’t say who you are and what you stand for in a way that connects with people, you’re screwed.

 

It’s tough to find any thoughtful Brit on the “Leave” side who isn’t haven’t second thoughts about the vote to leave the European Union.  

With the pound taking a, well, pounding; equity markets down 5%+ around the globe, and the total inability of the leadership of either British political party to come up with anything coherent to say about what to do now, those thoughtful types have much to be thinking about.

It’s too bad this thinking wasn’t done before the referendum that is causing the clustermess in Europe, and will almost certainly hurt Britain much more than the EU.

There was a lot of fearmongering on all sides, a good bit of nasty nativism from Leavers, and a slew of unfounded statements about various and sundry awful ways the EU was ruining Britain.  Simplistic claims unsupported by facts or data ruled the day, and now there’s a shipload of buyers’ remorse. A few other complications…

First, there’s a nascent but forceful move in Northern Ireland to leave the UK and merge with Ireland – which is still part of the EU.

Second, Scotland may well vote to leave the UK as well, making the UK and “Union” of England and Wales.

Third, Gibraltar is now being claimed by Spain, and reportedly is in talks with Scotland in an effort to somehow stay in the EU as the UK’s representative.

Add this to the financial mess in the UK, and it is blindingly obvious that the Brexit vote was a really bad decision.

I could go on, but you get the picture.  What this has to do with we health care and work comp folks is this – when it comes to big decisions, such as overhauling healthcare, passing workers’ comp opt-out legislation, compromising on opioid limits, or otherwise legislating or regulating things that are big – at least for us – be thoughtful, ask lots of questions, look for facts, data, and logic in responses, and weigh things carefully.

What does this mean for us?

When it comes to big issues, do not get caught up in simple statements and black-and-white comparisons.  The world is more complicated than ever, and major decisions deserve major time and attention.

A busy week indeed!

Here’s what happened that’s worthy of your attention.

The Feds have been all over healthcare fraud for several years; earlier this week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced charges against 301 people accused of defrauding taxpayers – that’s us, folks – of almost a billion dollars.

Over the last decade, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force has charged “2,900 people with health-care fraud, who have billed Medicare for $8.9 billion.”  Note that doesn’t include Medicaid and private insurer fraud; I’d be surprised if the alleged miscreants weren’t going after every payer.

Workers’ comp

There’s been much talk of late about “broken” workers’ comp systems, a good bit of which has been hyperbolic and based on shrill trumpeting of anecdotal reports of payer screw-ups.  Rick Victor PhD, formerly WCRI Executive Director and now with the Sedgwick Institute provides a needed review of the facts in his latest missive.  A couple highlights:

• The overwhelming majority of injured workers return to work and do so to their pre-injury employer at the same or higher pay
• Most workers receive their first indemnity payment without dispute or substantial delay
• By an overwhelming majority, most workers were satisfied with medical care received

I’d suggest that, like any and every other social benefit mechanism, work comp does have its issues, problems, shortfalls, and screwups, it works well for the vast majority of patients.

Yes, we can always do better.  Yes, there are bad actors.  But no, workers’ comp is NOT broken.

ODG delisting from National Guideline Clearinghouse

The kerfuffle about ODG’s removal from the NGC is a teaching moment that risks being overwhelmed by marketing-speak.

The central issue is NGC’s definition of and requirements related to assessing, documenting and applying scientific evidence.  An unrelated but still-relevant issue is applying for listing on NGC is discretionary, and by no means should a decision to NOT apply be construed as “evidence” the guideline developer is somehow lacking.

A quick summary of “evidence” is here; you may well think this is anything BUT quick, however like many critically-important but somewhat obtuse subjects, the devil is in the details.

Another excellent – and shorter – synopsis is from the Institute of Medicine. The IOM has eight standards for “trustworthy” guidelines:

• Establishing transparency;
• Management of conflict of interest;
• Guideline development group composition;
• Clinical practice guideline–systematic review intersection;
• Establishing evidence foundations for and rating strength of recommendations;
• Articulation of recommendations;
• External review; and
• Updating.

Suffice it to say that one person’s (or company’s) definition of “evidence-based” may well be different from another person’s – or generally accepted standards.

I’m hoping to continue the discussion of “evidence” in future posts.

Well worth a read

David Williams writes often and clearly about health issues; a recent post caught my eye and I’ve returned to it several times since. David discusses robotic surgery, making the case that technology may well hit surgery – and surgeons – just as it will affect long-haul trucking.

A stupid comparison, you say.

Before you do, read his post.

Finally, Health Affairs is looking for articles/research on various aspects of work and health for its February 2017 edition.  Details here.

Enjoy the weekend.

The RFP will award the contract to at least two separate companies, yet the two “separate” companies that won the business are “partners” that work together quite closely.

And one has repeatedly failed to meet performance requirements and been accused of overcharging the client – while the other does not have the infrastructure or experience or basic functions required to meet the RFP’s requirements.

That’s the summary of the Veteran’s Administration contracting process for veterans’ disability evaluations, one that is now on hold pending protests from other bidders.  Yesterday Politico’s Ellen Mitchell reported that the contracting process is now on hold pending the resolution of the several protests, a delay that will cause further harm to veterans.

This is about the change the process for evaluating veterans for disability benefits, a highly-specialized service that long was the purview of the VA itself.  However, long delays in evaluations led Congress to launch a pilot program using non-VA entities to deliver the service.  The results were sufficiently positive to convince the powers-that-be to transition the evaluations to private entities.

And that’s where we are now – except the entities that “won” the vast majority of the business are either owned by or “partners” with Lockheed Martin – the giant defense contractor.

Despite a pretty shoddy performance record and demonstrated inability to meet the scheduling timeframes. So, the VA awarded most of the work to a company(s) that, to date, hasn’t been able to fix the problem that caused the VA to outsource evaluations in the first place.

After much work, three companies have protested the VA’s decision, and we’ll know more in a month or so.  (I’ve done work for one – Veterans’ Evaluation Services.)

In the meantime, veterans who need to get their evaluations done so they can start getting benefits and getting on with their lives are stuck in limbo.

Yes, the VA has been hampered by political enemies.  Yes, it has been damaged by the incredibly stupid sequester. But the failure of the contracting officials at the VA to consider their own standards when awarding this contract is a travesty, smacking of backroom deals for huge corporations.

hosted by Health Affairs and authored by REAL journalist Christopher Fleming is up here for your perusing pleasure.

Posts from Hank Stern, Louise Norris, David Harlow, Roy Poses, and Tom Lynch are among the insights you’ll find at this latest Health Wonk Review.

I cannot believe we actually have to discuss presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Donald Trump’s health care plan.

Trump’s website calls for few specifics; most are recycled from other GOP positions while some directly contradict his past statements about healthcare or standard GOP health reform views. Moreover, he has been wildly inconsistent and often downright contradictory, often promoting then disavowing specific policy ideas in the same speech.

Notably, a couple positions contradict basic conservative ideology as well.

In fairness, buried in the dog’s breakfast that is Trump’s healthcare plan there are a couple good ideas.

With those rather major caveats, here’s what Trump says – as of this moment – about his plans for healthcare reform.

1. Repeal Obamacare – but keep the mandate banning insurers from considering pre-existing conditions.
2. Allow the sale of health insurance across state lines
3. Full deductibility of individual health insurance premiums
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts
5. Full pricing transparency for all health care providers
6. Change Medicaid to block grants
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products.

Rather than getting into an analysis of each of these “ideas”, let’s look at the overall impact.

First, the number of Americans without health insurance would immediately explode. About 21 million people have gained coverage under ACA; they would likely lose that coverage. Unless insurers can figure out how to comply with Trump’s requirement that insurers have to cover anyone regardless of pre-existing medical condition without going bankrupt.

If not, only healthy people would be able to get health insurance.  Health insurers would immediately begin canceling and/or non-renewing and/or not offering policies for individuals, families, and employers with many health conditions/diagnoses.  This is a matter of survival, as any healthplan forced to cover sick people would quickly find its costs exploding while healthy members fled to lower-cost healthplans.

This is fundamentally unworkable; you can’t require health insurers to cover people who aren’t forced to buy insurance, as only sick people will buy insurance. 

Notably, there’s no mention of what Trump would do to address this.

Third, full tax deductibility of premiums makes consumers less sensitive to the cost of health insurance and healthcare, a violation of conservative free market ideology.

Fourth, health care providers would have to comply with an as-yet undefined governmental bureaucracy regulating “transparency”, with requirements around posting prices, updating same, making this information available to consumers, and enforcing these regulations. If anyone thinks healthcare providers would not instantly figure out how to game this, they’re hopelessly naive.

Finally, the American health care industry is in the midst of adapting to PPACA, a process that is well underway. The changes are monumental for every stakeholder.

Any individual with an IQ above that of your average tomato plant would understand that throwing the brake switch to stop a runaway train will kill most of the passengers.

The net – Trump’s ideas are either totally unworkable and/or widely discredited. He does not have an ideologically consistent, coherent or even remotely intelligible health care plan.