Mandatory seat belt laws in the states. A study of fatal and severe occupant injuries

This study examines the impact of mandatory seat belt laws on fatal and incapacitating injury rates in the states. Annual data for all 50 states for the period 1975-1991 are used. Pooled time series analysis is employed. The general conclusion that emerges from this analysis is that seat belt laws significantly impact state fatal injury rates. Primary enforcement and all-seat coverage provisions appear to be particularly effective in reducing fatality rates.     

Matching anonymous pre-posttests using subject-generated information

Sensitive research issues call for anonymous questionnaires. This makes accurately matching pretests with posttests difficult or impossible. Various subject-generated coding schemes have been developed, but their accuracy has been unknown. This anonymous study, with 745 students, used subject-generated coding to match pretests with posttests. The matching was verified for accuracy with the use of a collateral, anonymous, sticker identification system. The coding system was able to accurately match 75.2% of all the pretest-posttest pairs. An additional 22.1% of the pairs were left unmatched and only 2.7% were matched incorrectly. Subject-generated coding systems can be very effective where confidentiality is important to protect.     

Financing reform for long-term care: strategies for public and private long-term care insurance

The way the nation provides for the financing and delivery of long-term care is badly in need of reform. The principal options for change are private insurance, altering Medicaid, and public long-term care insurance. This article uses the Brookings-ICF Long-Term Care Financing Model to evaluate each of these options in terms of affordability, distribution of benefits, and ability to reduce catastrophic out-of-pocket costs. So long as private insurance is aimed at the elderly, its market penetration and ability to finance long-term care will remain severely limited. Affordability is a major problem. Selling to younger persons could solve the affordability problem, but marketing is extremely difficult. Liberalizing Medicaid could help solve the problems of long-term care, but there is little public support for means-tested programs. Finally, universalistic public insurance programs do well in meeting the goals of long-term care reform, but all social insurance programs are expensive and seem politically infeasible in the current political environment.     

Coming out

Self-knowledge is the beginning of integrity, of coming out of the closet, and is a prerequisite for dealing well with change. Integrity is not just about not lying. Integrity means as on the inside, so on the outside. The Latin roots of integrity refer to touch. To have integrity is to be untouched, undivided, whole, integrated, integral. There is a tight relationship between integrity and the ability to change, because integrity is about knowing yourself, about being transparent. Integrity allows you to move with tremendous speed when the time comes to move. An organization that wants to learn to dance with change must come to know itself and its environment thoroughly. To do this, it must make use of all the knowledge of every member--and all of their learning capability. It must be built into the culture that new information and different points of view are powerful, are welcomed.     

Health care futures. Part 2: The future of physician executives? Panel discussion

What is the future of health care in America? This is Part 2 of The Physician Executive panel discussion that explores the future of health care in America. To narrow this ambitious focus somewhat, the future is defined as five to 10 years hence. In Part 1, which was published in the May/June issue, Russell C. Coile, Jr., Barbara LeTourneau, MD, MBA, FACPE, James Reinertsen, MD, Uwe Reinhardt, PhD, Marshall Ruffin, MD, MPH, MBA, FACPE, and David Vogel, MS, shared their opinions about what the future holds in managed care, information technology, and biotechnology. In Part 2, Susan Cejka, Barbara LeTourneau, MD, MBA, FACPE, John Henry Pfifferling, PhD, Uwe Reinhardt, PhD, and James Todd, MD, share their views on the future of medical education and physician executives.     

Where can we learn about change?

Presented here are some resources--books, consultants, and personal growth practices--that you might find useful in the struggle to become adept at dealing with change. Mastering change is a long process, but unlike building a cathedral or growing apples, as soon as you start you will have something that you can use--some insight, a different way of looking at what is confronting you, something to help jar you to a more creative strategy.     

Running toward the roar

How do you embrace paradox, changing and growing without losing your sense of who you are? We talked last time about the paradox of reaching for the new, without losing your ground in the old. Paradox is the place of insight. Accepting paradox, not as a momentary distraction but as a place to live, lies at the heart of dealing successfully with change. We can see this most clearly if we ask ourselves, "What business am I in? What am I about?" In health care, this did not used to be a meaningful question. Today, it is a critical one. But to really develop, we have to seek out the situations that are the most difficult for us, work them through, hang out with them long enough to begin to be at home in the paradoxical, ambiguous, and strange circumstance.     

Organizational politics: did you hear?

How do you define organizational politics? The underground system of communication, the grapevine, what's really going on in the organization, rumors, knowing who really has the power? However you define it, all sources agree you'd better not ignore it. According to one physician executive: "Organizational politics is how things really get done, who really has the power, how decisions get made. Things are not always what they appear to be on the organizational chart." Presented here are some thoughts about organizational politics from physician executives and their stories of when it helped or hurt their careers or prevented them from accomplishing something in their organizations.