Super doc and real health reform

A large array of social, economic, and professional issues will have to be confronted and resolved before primary care physicians can take their logical place as leaders in the health care delivery system. Linkages will have to be forged between primary care physicians and specialists and between primary care physicians and nonphysician providers of primary care. Key to successful resolution of the current dilemma is ensuring that primary care physicians are compensated at a fair level for their skills. It is the disparity in physician incomes that lies at the heart of the problem, according to the author.     

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.     

Generalists or specialists--who does it better?

Managed care companies encourage primary care physicians to limit referrals to specialists and provide as much of the needed services themselves. As a result, generalist and specialist physicians are now in direct competition with one another. Is the care provided by generalist and specialist physicians different in terms of quality and cost? The authors reviewed the literature over the past five years and found 21 articles comparing the care between specialists and generalists. They realized asking who does it better, the generalists or the specialists, is the wrong question to explore. Physicians must come together to design systems of care that maximize the long-term health of patients and deliver care in a coordinated and efficient manner. The emphasis should be on creating value for the consumer across the continuum of providers and through time. Competition between generalists and specialists in a fragmented system only serves to further weaken the position of physicians in the health care industry.     

From managing access to managing care: the impact of primary care on health care delivery organizations.

Professional "revenge of the nerds" is currently taking place, as managed care evolves generalist physicians into new professional prominence. Primary care physicians are finding themselves at the center of health care market reform as health plans, insurers, and other financing organizations turn to them as the key to cost control. In short supply, they are prospering financially from the demand. As the source of patients, they are gaining in prestige from specialists and hospitals who once demeaned them. But these newfound roles are only the initial steps in the transformation of the primary care practitioner. The change that the generalists are experiencing is essentially managing access to care, not truly managing care itself. There are large and crucial differences between managing access to care and actually managing care. These differences are, in many ways, a higher calling for primary care practitioners as they refocus attention on patient outcomes, which will in itself result in a lower resource utilization above and beyond the crude controlling of access. What those differences are, what new roles they require, and what impact they will have on organizations that either house or contract with primary care physicians will be the focus of this article.     

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.     

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.     

Common denominators of success

There is no mystery to the success stories described in this column. In addition to a lot of hard work, a few basic principles have been applied to widely differing scenarios. These common denominators provide the philosophies and dynamics that can lead to your breakthroughs in quality health care delivery: (1) Trust--among the physicians and then between them and management and the board of directors; (2) positive physician culture and attitudes; (3) effective physician leadership; (4) patient care focus; (5) strong team orientation; and (6) true accountability by all stakeholders. Your job is to help your physicians feel they are major stakeholders in your health care delivery system and be their voice in clinical and financial decision-making at the highest level.     

Hospital-physician relations: overcoming barriers to cooperation.

In the September-October 1986 issue of Physician Executive, we discussed the application of strategic business units (SBUs) to health care. SBUs are those corporate entities that market similar products to one or more target populations with similar characteristics. Examples of SBUs in health care are obstetrics, cardiology, orthopedics, etc. When the services within each SBU are linked together, they might resemble a vertically integrated health care system. In the case of obstetrics, a woman may have contact with physicians, a hospital, home care nurses, house-cleaning services, birthing teachers, and maternity clothing boutiques. Each of these are products/services within the SBU of obstetrics. Strategy development by SBU implies an external focus on the marketplace in terms of the specific mission of the SBU (clinical specialty). It also implies responding to the needs of consumers for whom the historical and present divisiveness between hospitals and physicians is immaterial and irrelevant. In this article, we will focus on ways to stabilize the relationship between hospitals and physicians within an SBU context in order to compete more successfully as a team in today's health care environment.     

Physician executive contracts: negotiating the future

Once viewed as a matter of standard protocol, physician executive contracts have become as complex as the health care industry itself. Historically, hospital administration and physicians negotiated a few key points, then sent the ideas to an attorney for insertion of standard legalize and boilerplate. Today, physician executive contracts are an important part of the changes in health care. They not only cover traditional hospital and physician relations, but increasingly apply to new types of relations (such as employment) between hospitals and physicians, physicians and physicians, and health plans and physicians. In this article, we will explore both the "content" and the "context" of physician executive contracts. Content will deal with the specific provisions typically included in contracts. Context will address issues associated with preparing for and negotiating a contract.     

Lonely at the top and loving it: physicians as CEOs

As little as five years ago, most hospital board members scoffed at the idea of hiring physicians as chief executive officers or chief operating officers. Physicians, they maintained, belonged at the bedside, not in the board room. For the most part, physicians didn't take issue with this thinking. Profit and loss statements, strategic planning, and other CEO duties were alien. Besides, being a "suit" was unconscionable, a total fall from the true grace of medicine: patient care. Dramatic changes in health care have wrought dramatic changes in the mindsets of both board members and physicians. Today, both sides have developed a new perspective on physicians in top hospital administrative positions. In this article, the author reports on the experiences of physician executives who have made the trip to the top.     

The role of the coordinator of care

Regardless of the specific outcome of the current health reform debate in Washington, it is likely that major changes to the health care system are in the offering. These changes, many of which are already in place or imminent in some locations, will have a major impact on the evolving relationships between physicians and hospitals. Most expect that these changes will accelerate the development of integrated health care delivery systems that will compete in the marketplace for a mixture of public and private health insurance dollars. In this system of "managed competition," health care dollars will flow to those systems that can ensure the best clinical outcomes while using the least economic resources. In this scenario, competing collaborative health networks that can manage the continuum of care will be central to the health care delivery system. The economic and political ties between physicians and hospitals will become more closely linked as government and private payers of health care services foster the development of these integrated, value-based health care delivery systems.     

How much administration is today's physician doing?

The substantial changes in the organization and financing of health care services that have occurred in the United States over the past decade have helped to facilitate a growing role for physicians in health care management. These administrative roles for physicians are becoming increasingly important within many health care institutions with regard to such issues as cost containment and cost effectiveness, quality assurance and professional standards, and access to care. The growing complexity and diversity of the delivery system have created the need for more physicians to become involved in "orchestrat(ing)" the management of the medical-industrial complex."     

Which way to the frontier? Physician executives talk about the future

The author interviewed trustees, senior managers, and physicians at Moses Cone Health System in Greensboro, North Carolina, Legacy Health System in Portland, Oregon, and Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan. These three successful health care systems bracket the national market in size, geography, and managed care penetration. The comments of physicians are presented here, drawn from the book, Designing 21st Century Health Care: Leadership in Hospitals and Healthcare Systems. What emerges most clearly from their comments is the enormity of the task ahead. There is wide-spread agreement that substantial improvements in the quality and cost of care are possible, an encouraging stream of anecdotes and ideas about how to proceed, but a lack of consensus on critical components of how to organize practices and promote effective care.     

Quality versus variance: a plea for a different focus and terminology

Much has been written about quality assurance in medical practice over the past 15 years. Medicine suddenly found itself trying to design systems that ensured that medicine was being practiced according to standards of quality when it had neither a definition of its product nor defined standards of practice. Consequently, early quality assurance programs focused primarily on documentation of patient care. As the process matured, it evolved to generic screens, with tolerances and outliers. The theory was that the quality of medical care was enhanced by physicians who practiced within often artificially established norms and was diminished by physicians who practiced outside those same norms. It was much like saying that the quality of manufacturing a new car could be improved by reducing all systems down to one of closely standardizing, observing, and documenting how each individual assembly worker put on a lock nut and then holding each worker independently accountable for the final quality of the care. Physicians felt they were being held responsible for conforming to a rigid set of poorly designed and retrospectively applied standards. Moreover, they were held accountable for applying those standards to all practice situations. Understandably, physicians felt at the mercy of nonphysician quality assurance "detectives" in hospitals and became increasingly suspicious of nurses and administrators, who were perceived as abusing the system at the expense of the physicians. Because of these inadequacies of the earlier quality assurance programs, paranoia among physicians about the quality assurance process remains rampant today. The use of blind outcome scores and practice patterns in credentialing and the reporting of these data to databanks have reinforced the paranoia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Designing the future: physician poll rates the trends

A recent interactive electronic poll of 160 physicians attending an educational conference at ACPE's Future Forum reveals some opinions physicians have about the transition of medicine into the 21st century. Emerging issues include capitation, quality, law, and how to manage integrated delivery systems. Overall, respondents are concerned about remaining solvent is a capitated managed care environment.     

The value circle. A profile of J. Richard Gaintner, MD.

This article describes how the arrival of CEO J. Richard Gaintner, MD, at Shands HealthCare signaled a time for refocusing the organization's direction and helping physicians to cope with the changes buffeting the industry. He saw angst and disenfranchisement, sentiments that characterized not only Shands and the University of Florida Health Science Center, but also the entire establishment of American scientific medicine. Gaintner believes--and continually preaches--that practicing medicine in a cost-effective manner will improve, not harm, the quality of care. His willingness to face reality objectively is perhaps his greatest asset in helping physicians deal with managed care. He conveys heartfelt empathy with the day-to-day conflicts they face. But he does not allow himself the temporary luxury of cynicism, and he refuses to accept negativity and pessimism in others. Rather, he asks that physicians and managers understand the system and develop the capacity to work within it and take responsibility for improving it. Beyond exhorting physicians to be accountable for the success of the enterprise, Gaintner creates mechanisms for meaningful physician participation in enterprise management.     

Physician-centered management guidelines.

The "Fortune 500 Most Admired" companies fully understand the irreverent premise "the customer comes second" and that there is a direct correlation between a satisfied work force and productivity, service quality, and, ultimately, organizational success. If health care organizations hope to recruit and retain the quality workforce upon which their core competency depends, they must develop a vision strategic plan, organizational structure, and managerial style that acknowledges the vital and central role of physicians in the delivery of care. This article outlines a conceptual framework for effective physician management, a "critical pathway," that will enable health care organizations to add their name to the list of "most admired." The nine principles described in this article are based on a more respectful and solicitous treatment of physicians and their more central directing role in organizational change. They would permit the transformation of health care into a system that both preserves the virtues of the physician-patient relationship and meets the demand for quality and cost-effectiveness.     

The physician executive in a changing world.

Physicians are losing their historic franchise as sole and primary providers of medical care. In addition to eroding moral and scientific authority, physicians are also losing income and status. It is no wonder that physicians are retrenching--confused and angry about the increasing marginalization of their profession and about society's changing expectations. Physicians are caught in a transition zone between the world that was and the one that will soon be. This is destabilizing and causes great anxiety. Rather than being buffeted by changing social and cultural definitions of health care, physicians must become proactively involved in the future of their profession. Physicians can only do this by offering a better mental model of health, medicine, and the community. This cannot be a defensive retreat from engagement. Rather, it must be an imaginative vision, vigorously set forth--a vision that will enlist the support of all constituencies involved in the effort to improve the health and well-being of all members of our society. The physician executive needs to work with physicians to orchestrate this effort to create a new vision of health in the 21st century.     

Prescription for physician executives: take care of your doctors

Considerable attention is paid to employee assistance plans in business and medical groups. Successful plans have improved employee retention, productivity, and morale. But physicians tend to resist these plans, because inherent in a physician's egostructure is a perception that physicians do not need support. In assessing unrest among the doctors in our clinic, it seems to me that our physicians clearly need tender, loving care. This article is a summary of areas in which care can be usefully provided.     

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.