healthy4u

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Thompson, Kenneth wrote:



> given this, why is it that the best care in american appears to be

> delivered by some of the larger systems? clearly there must be some

> relationship between central resources and local ones. but how to

> optimize that relationship?



The particular situation of high-quality care being delivered by large

systems points out something much closer to what this listserv is really

about: idealism. It has long been observed that certain large systems

deliver higher quality care than private practice or even some prestigious

hospitals. That was part of the idea behind the Nixon administration's

advancement of HMOs (they coined the term, actually - Kaiser et al. were

Prepaid Group Practices before that). To understand why it's important to

look carefully at which large systems deliver the best care: places like

Kaiser, Group Health of Puget Sound, Health Insurance Plan of Greater New

York are the classic examples.



How do they do it? Health services researchers identified three

mechanisms: selective recruitment, group practice effect, and idealism.

Selective recruitment because Kaiser would hire only better docs, whereas

any schmoe who could make it through med school could hang out a shingle

in private practice. Group practice effect is what happens in my office

every day: my colleagues and I consult amongst ourselves, keeping each

other up on the literature and polishing our knowledge, an effect very

difficult to replicate in a one- or two-doc shop. Idealism because of why

Kaiser, Group Health, etc. exist.



The HMOs that consistently deliver high quality care are what health

services researchers refer to as the "HMO Movement" HMOs. Those are very

different animals from the "HMO Industry" HMOs. The former exist because

they believe in quality and efficiency; their mission is to serve

patients, and they were doing it even when the deck was stacked against

them. The latter exist because the TEFRA law changes under Nixon made it

economically attractive and payers wanted to control costs. Their mission

is financial, and as this group has observed repeatedly they approach that

mission with all the ethics of Enron or WorldCom.



The large systems that deliver high quality care are the "movement"

systems, those idealistically-based systems that believe in quality care

and have finance people to keep them solvent so they can pursue that

ideal. The systems we discuss so often on this group are "industry"

systems, run by money people, to whom docs are just the means of

production and patients are merely market share.



No amount of free market incentive alignment, government regulatory

micromanagement, liability threat, or anything else will ever turn the

latter into the former. The system behaves in the best interest of

patients if and only if people who have ideals and ethics run the system.