Ascendancy of primary care will create role intensification for physician executives

The need for physicians in management roles in the health care system has never been greater. And the years ahead will see that need broadened and intensified. To maintain their leadership role in medical affairs in hospitals and other types of health care delivery organizations, physician executives will have to envision provider organizations and systems that have not yet been conceived, let alone developed and implemented. They have to become totally open-minded and futuristic in their thinking. And they will have to help other physicians accommodate this new way of thinking if the medical profession is to continue in a leading role in health care matters. Although numerous factors will have to be anticipated and analyzed by these new physician leaders, the ascendancy of primary care in a managed health care world long dominated by the technical and technological superiority of hospital care will present a particular challenge to the physician executive.     

The new health care civilization: integration of physician land and manageria

Changes occurring in health care demand that physicians expand their professional knowledge and skills beyond the medical and behavioral sciences. Subjects absent from traditional medical education curricula, such as the economics and politics of health care, practice management, and leadership of professional organizations, will become important competencies, particularly for physicians who serve in management roles. Because physicians occupy a central role in planning and allocating medical care services and other health care resources, they must be better prepared to work with other health care professionals to create a new civilization, even if this means leaving the cloistered domain of "physician land" to serve as interface professionals between the delivery of medical services and the management of health care. Our research findings and conclusions strongly suggest that economic, management, and leadership competencies need to be incorporated into the professional development of physicians, especially in postgraduate and continuing education curricula.     

Partnerships in health care: creating a strong value chain

The health care climate is one of stormy relations between various entities. Employers, managed care organizations, hospitals, and physicians battle over premiums, inpatient rates, fee schedules, and percent of premium dollars. Patients are angry at health plans over problems with access, choice, and quality of care. Employers dicker with managed care organizations over prices, benefits, and access. Hospitals struggle to maintain operations, as occupancy rates decline and the shift to ambulatory care continues. Physicians strive to assure their patients get quality care while they try to maintain stable incomes. Businesses, faced with similar challenges in the competitive marketplace, have formed partnerships for mutual benefit. Successful partnerships are based upon trust and the concept of "win-win." Communication, ongoing evaluation, long-term relations, and shared values are also essential. In Japan, the keiretsu contains the elements of a bonafide partnership. Examples in U.S. businesses abound. In health care, partnerships will improve quality and access. When health care purchasers and providers link together, these partnerships create a new value chain that has patients as the focal point.     

Serf or citizen: physician status and organizational structure

For more than a decade, dynamic changes in the health care industry have created new organizations for physicians. The major change for physicians has not been the organization itself, but the principles by which it is governed. This fundamental shift is studied with its impact on physicians, by analogy, becoming more like serfs or more like citizens. A review of the general organizational direction and results of non-physician health care organizations is made followed by the statistical trends of physician groups. Historical comparisons of non-health care industries are made with current organizational choices of physicians and physician groups. Observations of physician decisions are made identifying the direction they send physician status along the continuum from serf to citizen. Physicians are unknowingly making decisions regarding the principles by which they will be governed in new organizations. The choices they are making give them less autonomy and less opportunity to make future choices. The seductive invitation to spend less time in administrative matters and more time practicing medicine is a siren's call that will diminish the status of physicians and the autonomy by which medicine is practiced.     

The ascendancy of primary care: permanent or temporary?

The conventional wisdom strongly suggests a health care provider food chain for the future: Primary care physicians (PCPs), principally family practitioners, on the top playing the lead role, distantly followed by specialists, with hospitals and other ancillary services even further down the line. Is this a reasonable expectation? Will PCPs dominate the new systems? Or will they be but one of many equally necessary components of these developing integrated health care delivery organizations? Looking at the various models now developing, it would seem that future integrated delivery systems will utilize both PCPs and specialists, but with strong augmentation from a diverse assortment of other health care professionals, including nonphysician providers, educators, and administrators. To separate the illusion of primary care dominance of the coming health care system from the likely reality, we should first determine what is driving the apparent present demand for primary care physicians. Next, we will examine the possible and probable reactions to that demand from an economic standpoint and from the points of view of both health care professionals and the public. Finally, we must try to picture how health care provider organizations of the future are likely to look and how they will integrate their health care professionals.     

Physician anger--Part 1. Changing perception: an interview with Charles E. Dwyer, PhD. Interview by Richard L. Reece.

On January 21, Richard Reece, MD, interviewed Charles E. Dwyer, PhD, to talk about solutions for changing the perceptions of today's beleaguered physicians. He discusses the state of affairs of physician executives in this turbulent industry and how they need to move beyond their thinking about organizations and their current responses to change. The key, Dwyer emphasizes, is influencing people to do what you want them to do. "If you want somebody to do something other than what they are doing now, then you must bring them to perceive that what you want them to do is better than what they are doing now in terms of what is important to them." He also explores how physicians can change their responses to the health care environment: "You can actually decide how you are going to respond conceptually, emotionally, and behaviorally to anything that happens in your life." Part 2 of this interview will appear in the upcoming May/June issue and will provide hands-on strategies for dealing with physician anger, fear, and resentment.     

Health care futures, Part 1. The emergence of the new health care consumer. Panel discussion

In Part 1 of this second annual panel discussion, six experts examine the new health care consumer. The whole concept of the patient as consumer still makes people uneasy when it's applied to health care. Whether you prefer consumer, customer, purchaser, end-user, ultimate buyer, or beneficiary, one thing's for sure: Many of us are as different from the bygone patient as an HMO is from the general practitioner who made house calls. One of the reasons for many Americans' new interest, knowledge, attitudes, and expectations about health and health care is the Internet, the second topic in this discussion. In Part 2, physician executives from the three leading physician practice management companies (PPMCs) join Jeff Goldsmith, Barbara LeTourneau, and Uwe Reinhardt for a spirited exchange about this burgeoning new industry in the American health care sector. They will tackle questions such as: Are PPMCs delivering what they promise? What will separate successful PPMCs from the rest? Can PPMCs meet Wall Street's earnings expectations and also help physicians deliver better care? When PPMCs win, who loses? And, what roles will physician executives play in PPMCs?     

The evolving role of the primary care physician

In today's climate of health care reform, the title of this article might more appropriately be "Is the Role of the Primary Care Physician Evolving or Going the Way of the Dinosaur?" According to Koop, primary care is in trouble. Whereas only 29 percent of U.S. physicians are primary care physicians, in Great Britain, 72 percent of physicians are primary care physicians and in Europe and Canada the average is 50 percent. Many U.S. primary care physicians are in the later stages of their careers and nearing retirement age. Unless the supply increases, this number will dwindle further. However, in 1992, only 14 percent of U.S. medical school graduates were headed for primary care careers. Even if the supply of primary care graduates were increased to 50 percent of the graduating medical school class, it would be well into the next century before the ratio of primary care physicians to specialists would be equal. Primary care is at a critical juncture and the next few years will decide the fate of the primary care physician. Given the state of primary care today, I believe that a fundamental look at the assumptions regarding the role of primary care physicians is in order. The current health reform movement has placed a major responsibility on primary care to solve many of the problems in health care delivery today, such as cost, utilization, and prevention. Many health care organizations are planning strategies involving primary care providers, and physician executives can play a key role in these decisions.     

Legal issues in accepting capitation

The effort to reduce the cost of medical, hospital, and ancillary services increasingly focuses on shifting the financial risk for the cost of these services to those who provide them. Shifting arrangements include capitation for physicians classified as "primary care" physicians; capitation arrangements that include primary and specialty services; risk shifting to medical groups, IPAs, and other physician organizations; as well as the packaging of physician and hospital services on a "full risk," "per case," or other basis. Accepting financial risk for the cost of medical and other health care services, as well as the responsibility for managing the provision of services, may very well be the only remaining opportunity for providers to maximize reimbursement and maintain administrative and clinical self-direction. However, physicians must work with managed care organizations (MCOs) through negotiation of contracts and throughout the relationship to make sure: Unnecessary financial and legal risks to the MCO and physicians are eliminated. Risks that cannot be eliminated are apportioned between the MCO and physicians. All risks are managed in a coordinated fashion between the MCO and physicians.     

Purchasers and the impact of managed care on physicians

In much the same way that demands by managed care organizations are shaping the way physicians practice, health care purchasers impact how managed care organizations operate. Corporations purchase managed health care through their employee benefits programs, and understanding the language, objectives, and limitations of these purchasers is essential to grasping the forces influencing managed care organizations and the modern practice of medicine. The emergence of value-based purchasing as a strategic corporate approach to health benefits programs will dictate the forces on physicians, hospitals, and managed care organizations for years to come. These forces have already led to price reductions, health plan accreditation, employee-directed report cards, outcomes management, and organized systems of care, and they will determine the broad outlines of the emerging U.S. health care system.     

The consumer and provider: pillars of the new health care system

Managed care has suffered a public backlash, with complaints increasing across the nation from unhappy patients. The physician community despises the current system and is wrestling for control of clinical decision-making. A health care system that is disliked by the public and is despised by the physician community can never succeed. No health care system or reform is possible without willing or even enthusiastic physician participation because only they can control costs, quality of care, and consumer satisfaction. A successful health care system recognizes that only providers can control quality of care and costs--and will create appropriate incentives that allow physicians to do so without losing the public's trust. The author advocates a new system, where consumers choose provider organizations based on disease expertise and purchase insurance through Internet accessible brokers. Provider organizations assume economic risk and have the detailed know-how to treat a specific disease spectrum better and cheaper. Consumers purchase this new "product" in a competitive market and are the principal benefactors of this market-driven, unmanaged care system.     

Credentialing in managed care

Through the use of managed care techniques in recent years, the insurance industry has tried to bring the runaway costs of medical care under control. The result of this control effort is system access limitations, compared to the full choice indemnity plans of the past. This limited system access has now clearly moved HMOs and other managed care organizations into the category of "potentially liable health care entities," based on patient steerage, economic disincentives, and limited choices of the plan's participating providers and facilities. Just as hospitals have had to exercise rigorous care in the credentialing of members of their medical staffs, managed care organizations will have to ensure that the providers they use meet acceptable standards of competence.     

Health care trends, Part 2. The new health care team. Panel discussion

In Part 2 of this third annual panel discussion, six experts talk about the growing diversity of health care providers and what it means for consumers and physicians. Americans are getting their wellness and health care services from a wider variety of non-physician practitioners than ever before. The number of allied health and alternative providers with direct patient access is likely to continue growing. This trend is being driven by consumer demand, by the lobbying efforts of non-physician providers, and by federal, state, and private payers who see the potential for reduced health care spending, greater consumer satisfaction, and better outcomes. In practice, this means physicians and non-physician providers, some of whom may not be sanctioned by the medical establishment, are obligated to collaborate as a team. Members of this new provider team will have to communicate effectively (with each other, with consumers, and with payers) and make evidence-based clinical decisions. Physicians may have to share decision-making with other members of this new health care team.     

Strategic positioning. Part 1: The sources of value under managed care

Part 1 of this series organizes and discusses the sources of value against a background of an evolving managed care market. Part 2 will present, in more detail, the marketing and financial challenges to organizational positioning and performance across the four stages of managed care. What are the basic principles or tenets of value and how do they apply to the health care industry? Why is strategic positioning so important to health care organizations struggling in a managed care environment and what are the sources of value? Service motivated employees and the systems that educate them represent a stronger competitive advantage than having assets and technology that are available to anyone. As the health care marketplace evolves, organizations must develop a strategic position that will provide such value and for which the customer will be willing to pay.     

The future of health care, Part 2. The PPMC debate. Panel discussion

In Part 2 of this second annual panel discussion, Jeff Goldsmith, Barbara LeTourneau, Uwe Reinhardt, and physician executives from three physician practice management companies (PPMCs) examine this burgeoning new industry. They grapple with questions (and occasionally with each other), such as: Are PPMCs delivering what they promise? What will separate successful PPMCs from the rest? When PPMCs win, who loses? What value do PPMCs add to health care? What lies ahead for this industry? Could Wall Street pressure cause PPMCs to put profit ahead of physicians and patients? And, what roles will physician executives play in PPMCs?     

The implications of practice guidelines for physician medical malpractice liability

Medical practice guidelines are increasingly coming into use, and as more and more physicians are presented with guidelines to follow in the delivery of health care, the question arises of whether these guidelines will become instruments for imposing greater medical malpractice liability on physicians. This column will briefly describe what guidelines are, how they are developed, and how they have been and may be used in litigation against physicians, hospitals, and other health care institutions. As hospitals and managed care organizations continue to implement guidelines, the role these guidelines play in malpractice cases can be expected to increase. It appears, however, that, although guidelines will contribute to the establishment of the standard of care by which a physician's actions will be measured, they are not likely to become the standard that all physician treatment decisions must meet.     

Specialist versus primary care: not an easy question

The central focus in the debate to reform our nation's health care system is on cost, quality, and access. There is general agreement that there are too many specialists in the wrong places, which is said to contribute to the rising cost of health care. Physician profiling has supported the concept that some specialists are more costly than primary care physicians, although the severity of illness in patients treated by specialists may often be greater. Increasing the number of primary care providers may be a solution to reduce costs and will clearly improve access. The study reported in this article was carried out to examine the efficiency of primary care physicians and endocrinologists, a specialty that has been cited as one in which resource utilization is high, in caring for hospital inpatients with diabetic ketoacidosis.     

Self-directed health plans: alternatives to managed care enabled by new technologies

Few people believed the Internet would have much impact on the delivery of health care services. However, combined with technological advances in how computer systems are structured and implemented and knowing what doesn't work in managed care from bitter experience, the Internet is being used to create a new paradigm of alternative health insurance products. These products hold the potential to change for the better the face of health care as we know it. Self-directed health plans will be less expensive than managed care programs and offer greater predictability in health care spending. For health care providers, SDHPs' reliance upon episode allowances will create a new market for packaged or bundled services. Providers will be paid to provide solutions, not just treatment. This could represent a new model in which physicians accept a risk-adjusted payment and provide a warranty that they will do whatever necessary until the patient has reached the reasonably expected health status. This is a radical departure from the fee-for-service or capitation system.     

The coming alliance revolution in health care

Like it or not, the health care profession is being "shifted" into a revolutionary new world. The question is not will it change but rather how will it change? Who will determine its fate? What form will these changes take? What are the best alternatives for physicians, institutions, health care workers, insurers, employers, and, most importantly, patients? Some of the changes will come from government mandate, others from market forces. To understand what the future might bring, we should look at both the driving forces behind the changes and how other industries have responded to similar forces. An important consideration for health care professionals will be how, if at all, the concepts of collaboration and cooperation that are inherent in networking and alliances will guide their planning.     

Getting the most benefit from information systems consultants

Consultants are usually well-meaning people who enjoy the variety of organizations and problems they face in their work. Most do not like to get bogged down in fruitless and wasteful consulting engagement any more than managers of health care organizations like to supervise them, but at least the consultants are paid for their time. The health care organization that defines a project poorly, does not know what it wants from consultants, or does not direct consultants will pay the price in increasingly scarce resources squandered. The tips in the following article for managing an information systems consulting engagement apply to most consulting engagements and to the use of other expensive advisers, such as attorneys and engineers. But information systems is a field particularly foreign, and often threatening, to most administrators and physician executives, so the risk of wasting money on unsuccessful consulting engagements is high.