healthy4u: Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center

More Stories of Million Dollar Plus Hospital Executives, but Now the NY Times Challenges the Talking Points

It is spring, time for birds to sing, flowers to bloom, and hospital executives to get more money.  As we do periodically, we have amassed a series of media accounts of the big to enormous compensation paid to top non-profit hospital leaders.  These reports follow a certain pattern, but this year's spring crop included something different. The Pattern In the groundbreaking science fiction series "Fringe," "The Pattern" was a series of apparently inexplicable events which eventually pointed to the existence of a parallel universe. <iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/i8DqLs7254E" width="560"></iframe> In non-profit hospitals, The Pattern of the discussion of executive compensation is this.  Nearly all non-profit hospitals must release minimal data on the total compensation of a few of the highest paid executives.  When these reports come out, sometimes the local media take a look, either at an individual hospital or hospital system, or at a number of local hospitals.  They almost inevitably find that some, usually most executives make what appears to be lots of money.  This could be hundreds of thousands of dollars at small community hospitals, or millions of dollars at larger hospitals and hospital systems.  Sometimes the reports end there.  Sometimes the reporters ask hospital representatives or local experts to explain the apparently exalted compensation figures.  The explanations are usually very similar, and so we have called this part of The Pattern The Talking Points. The Talking Points It seems nearly every attempt made to defend the outsize compensation given hospital and health system executives involves the same arguments, thus suggesting they are talking points, possibly crafted as a public relations ploy.   We first listed the talking points <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/09/talking-points-sans-original-thought-to.html">here</a>, and then provided additional examples of their use <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-repeats-of-talking-points.html">here</a>, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/example-of-how-complex-takes-control.html">here</a> <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/12/health-care-hired-managers-not-playing.html">here,</a> <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/05/executive-compensation-as-legal.html">here</a>, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/06/no-blues-but-lots-of-green-for-st-louis.html">here,</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/08/should-we-cry-for-non-profit-hospital.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-long-con-charitable-hospitals-make.html">here</a>.  They are: - We have to pay competitive rates - We have to pay enough to retain at least competent executives, given how hard it is to be an executive - Our executives are not merely competitive, but brilliant (and have to be to do such a difficult job). The talking points are usually supplied by hospital public relations personnel, sometimes by hospital trustees or executives, sometime by various health care consultants.  The talking points are rarely questioned. So let us look at some recent media articles for The Pattern, grouped in chronological order, to illustrate. Jersey Boys On April 6, 2014, Crain's New York Business<a href="http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140406/HEALTH_CARE/140409916/hospital-execs-receive-sky-high-payouts"> reported</a> some of the biggest yearly compensation figures seen for non-profit hospital CEOs.   <blockquote class="tr_bq">Ronald Del Mauro, the former president and chief executive of Barnabas Health, pulled in almost $22 million in 2012, the year after he retired from New Jersey's largest health system. Joseph Trunfio, president and chief executive at Atlantic Health, made $10 million. Never before have such outsized compensation packages appeared on Crain's <a href="http://www.crainsnewyork.com/data-lists/business-lists/details/30/2962924" target="_blank" title="Crain's list of top-paid health care executives">annual list of top-paid hospital executives</a></blockquote> The explanations fit the pattern.  First from a Barnabas spokesperson, <blockquote class="tr_bq">'When Mr. Del Mauro began his career, Saint Barnabas Medical Center was a stand-alone community hospital,' she said, adding that Barnabas is 'well positioned both financially and operationally, despite significant industry challenges. His retirement package is a function of over four decades of service ... and reflects his exceptional legacy.'</blockquote> He was just another brilliant executive, in other words. Then about Mr Trunfio, <blockquote class="tr_bq">In a statement, Karen Kessler, board chair of Atlantic Health System, said that while Mr. Trunfio's 'current agreement does not have these bonus provisions, his compensation is performance-based, aligned with industry standards and intended to assure we retain top executive talent to provide the best quality of care to the communities we serve.'</blockquote> There in italics were the competitive market rates and retention arguments, and a repeat ("top talent") of the brilliance argument. Meanwhile, on April 28, 2014, NJBiz had its own <a href="http://www.njbiz.com/article/20140428/NJBIZ01/304259991/What%27s-fair-pay-at-nonprofits?-When-it-comes-to-hospitals-a-proper-diagnosis-is-difficult">report</a> on non-profit executive compensation in the state.   Their summary included, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Heading up the list is Robert C. Garrett, CEO of the Hackensack University Health Network at $2.12 million, followed by Richard P. Miller, Virtua Health ($1.99 million); John K. Lloyd, Meridian Health System ($1.68 million); Barry H. Ostrowsky, Barnabas Health ($1.67 million); and Stephen K. Jones, Robert Wood Johnson Health System ($1.55 million). Several New Jersey multi-hospital systems paid several top executives more than $1 million in 2012. Hackensack, for instance, has two executives over the million-dollar mark.</blockquote> [It is not clear why the two different reports listed two different people from Barnabas - Ed] Then came The Talking Points, for example, from Hackensack Hospital, <blockquote class="tr_bq">'The pay for HackensackUMC's executives reflects its complexity and is consistent with those levels paid to executives in other similarly situated not-for-profit academic and integrated health systems,' Hackensack said in a statement. "The compensation philosophy is to provide market-competitive base salaries....</blockquote>  The bit about complexity implies the brilliance argument, since only a brilliant CEO could cope with such complexity.  Then we had two versions of the competitive market based payment argument.   Here is another version of the same thing, this time from one "Joel Cantor, director of the Center for State Health Policy at Rutgers University," <blockquote class="tr_bq">On the other hand, hospital systems are large, complex organizations. Ultimately, CEO compensation is driven by the market for senior talent.  </blockquote> My favorite version of the brilliance argument came from one Ms Betsy Ryan, president of the New Jersey Hospital Association, <blockquote class="tr_bq">They literally are on call 24/7, 365 days a year and they are running an institution where lives are at stake</blockquote>  More on that later..... Smatterings of Data from Connecticut and Pennsylvania There were a series of reports that simply noted large amounts, but did not look for explanations.   HartfordBusiness.com<a href="http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20140512/PRINTEDITION/305099967/15-ct-hospital-execs-paychecks-top-1m"> recounted</a> a state report of the top 10 most highly paid executives of individual hospitals (but did not account for the pay given to executives of hospital system).  The figures started at $3.26 million for the CEO of Yale-New Haven Hospital, and finished with $1.48 million for the senior vice-president and chief of staff at the same institution. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2014/05/15/Former-president-CEO-was-highest-paid-West-Penn-Allegheny-Health-System-employee-in-2012/stories/201405150395">reported</a> pay at the West Penn Allegheny Health System, including that given to a former CEO, $1.89 million, and to a former chief administrative officer, $1.29 million.     Then the Pittsburgh Tribune <a href="http://triblive.com/business/headlines/6100989-74/million-2012-upmc">noted</a> even bigger compensation given out at competitor UPMC. <blockquote class="tr_bq"> <div class="News-body-text">UPMC CEO Jeffrey Romoff got an 8 percent raise two years ago, placing his generous compensation package near the top of the nonprofit hospital industry. </div><div class="News-body-text"> </div><div class="News-body-text">The 68-year-old Romoff, who leads the largest integrated health system in Western Pennsylvania and one of the biggest in the nation, brought in $6.6 million in 2012, up from $6.1 million in 2011, according to tax documents UPMC made public on Friday. </div></blockquote><div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"> </div><div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Also,</div><div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"> </div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">UPMC paid 30 other executives and doctors more than $1 million each in 2012, up from 21 employees who were in the $1 million club the year before.</div></blockquote> Wake Forest Baptist The Winston-Salem Journal <a href="http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/wake-forest-baptist-releases-annual-regulatory-filing/article_f0db42e0-dc9e-11e3-a040-0017a43b2370.html">reported</a> details of executive compensation at Wake Forest Baptist on May 16, 2014.  Its CEO, Dr John McConnell, had "total compensation [which] rose 0.8 percent to $2.06 million in 2012."  Then, however, "Donny Lambeth, the former president of N.C. Baptist, had a 52 percent drop in total compensation to $1.18 million."  Also, "Dr. Thomas E. Sibert, president of Wake Forest Baptist Health and chief operating officer, received a 10 percent drop in total compensation to $1.02 million."  Then, "Edward Chadwick, chief financial officer, had a 2.3 percent drop in total compensation to $956,465."  It is interesting that some executives actually saw small decreases.  Then again, the system lost $4.5 million for fiscal 2012-2013. The article also offered up the usual explanations, first provided by the hospital system itself, <blockquote class="tr_bq">there are few executives with the required skill set to manage and provide leadership for an integrated (center) such as ours</blockquote> There goes another version of the brilliance argument.  Then, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Its executive compensation packages, it said, 'are fiscally responsible, appropriate for the marketplace and an essential part of the effort to recruit and retain skilled executives and visionary leaders for the medical center.'</blockquote> Those included the competitive market rates and the retention arguments, plus the ante for brilliance was upped to the visionary level. The article ladled on one another version, this time supplied by "John Challenger, chief executive of outplacement consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas," <blockquote class="tr_bq"> 'Communities who want the best health-care system they can get should support paying the compensation levels required to attract top talent,' Challenger said. 'Cutting salaries will result in an exodus of top talent to systems that will pay it,...'</blockquote> So "top talent" = brilliance argument, threatening an "exodus" = retention argument. So there they go again, again. Something Different: the New York Times Challenges the Pattern  We have previously challenged the talking points.  For example, in August, 2013 we <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-long-con-charitable-hospitals-make.html">wrote</a>, <blockquote class="tr_bq">As we have <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/08/should-we-cry-for-non-profit-hospital.html">noted before</a>, there is little evidence in support of these talking points.  What evidence there is on the topic suggests there is no real free market in interchangeable CEOs, and that CEOs are not very mobile, especially not across different kinds of organizations (look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/10/more-reasons-to-doubt-how-ceos-are.html">here</a>).  There is little evidence that hospital (or other health care) executives are particularly brilliant, or any more brilliant than multitudes of physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals who work hard to make their institutions run.</blockquote>Yet most discussions of executive compensation in hospitals, and indeed in health care, follow The Pattern. So it was refreshing in this season of outsized compensation reports is that the New York Times ran an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/sunday-review/doctors-salaries-are-not-the-big-cost.html">article</a> that challenged The Pattern, albeit with limitations.  The most obvious problem with the pattern is that the arguments are out of context, and not challenged in context.  However, in the NY Times, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Physicians, the most highly trained members in the industry’s work force, are on average right in the middle of the compensation pack. <div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="134" data-total-count="471" itemprop="articleBody">That is because the biggest bucks are currently earned not through the delivery of care, but from overseeing the business of medicine.</div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody">The base pay of insurance executives, hospital executives and even hospital administrators often far outstrips doctors’ salaries, according to an analysis performed for The New York Times by Compdata Surveys: $584,000 on average for an insurance chief executive officer, $386,000 for a hospital C.E.O. and $237,000 for a hospital administrator, compared with $306,000 for a surgeon and $185,000 for a general doctor.</div></blockquote><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody">Note that this comparison only refers to salaries, not total compensation, so</div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody">And those numbers almost certainly understate the payment gap, since top executives frequently earn the bulk of their income in nonsalary compensation.</div></blockquote><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody">We just saw examples of non-profit hospital CEOs making over $1 million to over $6 million in total compensation.  That would imply that non-profit CEOs may make from three times to over thirty times the total compensation of a surgeon, and from over five times to over thirty-five times the compensation of a general internist.  (And the ratio for such outliers as Mr Del Mauro above would be even higher.)  </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody">So is a hospital CEO thirty times more brilliant than a general internist?  </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody">That suggests also that we go back to another version of the brilliance argument found in one article above.  In the NJBiz article, the NJ Hospital Association President said, about CEOs, not physicians,</div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody">They are literally on call 24/7, 365 days a year and they are running an institution where lives are at stake.</div></blockquote><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody">They may be on call in a sense, but they are never on first call.  Their decisions may ultimately affect lives, and perhaps put lives at risk.  But they never have to make a decision about a patient that could literally cost that patient his or her life.  And they almost never have to be accountable for what happens to individual patients.  </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody">It is easy to argue that physicians' responsibilities for life and death decisions are much more direct.  Explain, then, those pay ratios again.  </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody">Actually, in an <a href="http://www.fiercehealthfinance.com/story/could-watson-replace-high-paid-hospital-execs/2014-04-21">opinion piece</a> about executive compensation in FierceHealthFinance, Ron Shinkman described the life of a typical seven-figure a year hospital executive,</div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="418" data-total-count="889" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><blockquote class="tr_bq">While the days of seven-figure club members are long, they are also predictable--check the census and cash flow reports, confer with the medical staff, get updates on supplies, negotiate with payers, have some meetings on long-term planning. If it is a large hospital in a large market, those meetings are likely focused on site expansion and acquisition. If it is a medium-sized facility, tI expect they spend their time focused on finding a larger partner. Breakfast and dinner meetings and events switch focus to development and fundraising. There may also be some meetings on quality initiatives, but they are of nominal consequence. Members of the seven-figure club enjoy little to no accountability from their customers.</blockquote> So is executive compensation in hospitals, or other parts of the health care system, based on executives' brilliance.  Or is it based on their ability to be rentiers, rent-seekers, who can control the choke points of money flow, and make sure they get more than their share before what is left can go to real health care?  Of course, hospital executives and their ubiquitous spokespeople do not discuss what they do day to day.  Maybe they need to, and also need to address the implications of these statements in the NY Times article, given that the US has the highest health care costs of any developed country, but nowhere near the best results, <blockquote class="tr_bq"><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="372" data-total-count="4255" id="story-continues-3" itemprop="articleBody">And studies suggest that administrative costs make up 20 to 30 percent of the United States health care bill, far higher than in any other country. American insurers, meanwhile, spent $606 per person on administrative costs, more than twice as much as in any other developed country and more than three times as much as many, according to <a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/%7E/media/Files/Publications/In%20the%20Literature/2013/Nov/PDF_Schoen_2013_IHP_survey_chartpack_final.pdf">a study by the Commonwealth Fund</a>.</div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="372" data-total-count="4255" id="story-continues-3" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="274" data-total-count="4529" itemprop="articleBody">As a result of the system’s complexity, there are many jobs descriptions for positions that often don’t exist elsewhere: medical coders, claims adjusters, medical device brokers, drug purchasers — not to mention the 'navigators' created by the Affordable Care Act.</div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="189" data-total-count="4718" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="189" data-total-count="4718" itemprop="articleBody">Among doctors, there is growing frustration over the army of businesspeople around them and the impact of administrative costs, which are reflected in inflated charges for medical services.</div></blockquote><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="189" data-total-count="4718" itemprop="articleBody"> </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="189" data-total-count="4718" itemprop="articleBody">We had <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-long-con-charitable-hospitals-make.html">previously argued</a> (see above) against the talking points, and specifically that there is nothing to suggest that hospital executives are any more, much less an order of magnitude more brilliant than physicians or other health care professionals. But I confess as a physician I did not have the courage to extend that argument to a direct comparison of executive versus health care professional pay. The Times article, written by someone who is not a physician, did not have to worry about appearing self-serving.  I am glad, for it is high time to discuss the degree that the incentives produced by executive pay in health care have become perverse, and how to change these incentives to make health care leaders more accountable for health, and less focused on their own riches.  </div><div class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="189" data-total-count="4718" itemprop="articleBody"> </div>

More Stories of Million Dollar Plus Hospital Executives, but Now the NY Times Challenges the Talking Points

It is spring, time for birds to sing, flowers to bloom, and hospital executives to get more money. As we do periodically, we have amassed a...

Đọc thêm »

The Financialized Medical Center - Executives of Non-Profit Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center Make an "Investor Call," but Have no Investors

We recently discussed the uncomfortable situation of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, the non-profit health system/ academic medical center of Wake Forest School of Medicine.  The organization suffered acute monetary losses after a problem plagued roll out of its new electronic health record.  Presiding over this mess were some extremely well paid executives who had been hailed as "visionaries" by their own public relations people. (Look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/05/executive-compensation-as-legal.html">here</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/05/clouded-visionary-leadership-wake.html">here</a>.) An Even Bigger Financial Loss The resourceful Richard Craver, <a href="http://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/article_52778d60-d2f5-11e2-aeb0-001a4bcf6878.html">writing</a> in the Winston-Salem Journal, just documented that the financial losses due to this cybernetic chaos now seem even bigger, <blockquote class="tr_bq">The center said Monday in a report submitted to bond agencies that it had a $62.8 million operational loss and an overall loss of $3.2 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2012-13, which ended March 31. Stock investment gains of $54.6 million helped offset much of the operational revenue loss. Still, the operational loss was $13.2 million higher than the $49.6 million it reported Dec. 31. At that time, the center reported $7.4 million in overall excess revenue because of investment gains.  </blockquote>A Call to Non-Existent Investors   That, however, was not the big news.  Mr Craver further noted, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Wake Forest Baptist chief executive Dr. John McConnell and chief financial officer Edward Chadwick held an<a href="http://emma.msrb.org/ER677717-ER525248-ER927930.pdf"> investors call</a> on Monday to discuss the financial performance. It is the third such presentation of the fiscal year, according to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s <a href="http://www.emma.msrb.org/">www.emma.msrb.org</a> website.</blockquote> Mr Craver noted that there was something distinctly odd about this.  <blockquote class="tr_bq">The investor call represents a potential blurring of the lines between how not-for-profit hospitals and corporations operate, which also includes executive compensation as a hot-button topic. Analysts said the call is comparable to an earnings warning that corporations provide when they try to soften the negative reaction from a poorer-than-projected financial performance. Wake Forest Baptist did not comment when asked how long has it made investor calls and who receives notifications of the presentations. According to <a href="http://emma.org/">emma.org</a>, the center did not have investor calls listed prior to the first quarter of the current fiscal year. A search of Wake Forest Baptist’s public website did not find any references to investor calls or quarterly and annual financial reports. Spokesman Chad Campbell said the quarterly financial calls are in the public domain.</blockquote> While US publicly traded for-profit companies usually do schedule quarterly conference calls with investors to inform them about recent developments, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center is clearly not a publicly held for-profit company.  It is a non-profit organization.  Non-profit organizations do not have investors or shareholders, For-profit corporations also may do periodic calls with bondholders.  Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center does have bondholders.  But the <a href="http://emma.msrb.org/ER677717-ER525248-ER927930.pdf">posted notice</a> for the call discussed above clearly refers to an "investor call," not a bondholders call.  One can now listen to the call (+1 855 859 2056, conference ID 90279604), and when I did, I heard the call was introduced by the operator, and by the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center CFO as an "investor call."   A Financialized Mindset? So what in the world is going on here?  So why would its CEO and CFO make a quarterly call to "investors?"  The idea is absurd on its face.  Mr Craver was able to find one person to comment, who seemed to assume that the calls were truly "investor calls," not mislabeled calls to bondholders: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Ken Berger, president and chief executive of Charity Navigator, said a not-for-profit hospital holding an investors call 'is the antithesis of why a nonprofit exists.' 'Nonprofits are not supposed to be trying to maximize shareholder value, but maximize their benefit to the communities they serve,' Berger said. 'Transparency is great, whether corporation or nonprofit, for shedding light on financial performance.' 'In this instance, the investor call doesn’t represent full transparency, but only represents more morphing of a not-for-profit into a for-profit organization where only a select few investors are chosen to have access to pertinent current information.' </blockquote>My guess is that Mr Berger got it right.  It may be that the top executives of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center have the mindsets of executives of a big for-profit corporation in an era of <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/financialization">financialization</a>.  <a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/financialization-as-a-cause-of-economic-malaise/">In the New York Times Economix blog</a>, Bruce Bartlett, an economist who has served in the administration of two Republican Presidents, Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, and has worked for two Republican legislators, Jack Kemp and Ron Paul, cited financialization as the big largely anechoic reason for the global economic malaise.  He wrote, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> According to <a href="http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp/BakijaColeHeimJobsIncomeGrowthTopEarners.pdf">research</a> by the economists Jon Bakija, Adam Cole and Bradley T. Heim, financialization is a principal driver of the rising share of income going to the ultrawealthy – the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution. Research by the University of Michigan sociologist <a href="http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/economics/faculty/wray/631Wray/Week%207/Krippner.pdf">Greta R. Krippner</a> supports this position. She notes that financialization exacerbates the well-known problem of corporate ownership and control: while corporate assets are owned by shareholders, they are controlled by managers who often extract an excessive share of corporate profits for themselves.</blockquote>  As we have <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/04/health-care-dysfunction-explained-by.html">discussed</a>, for a generation business schools have taught managers that there primary goal is to maximize shareholder value, which has been interpreted to mean short-term financial performance.  Large corporations now give top managers tremendous incentives to maximize such performance, such that top managers have become rich, often the richest members of society.  Many top managers of health care organizations now come from a business background, and health care managers, even of non-profit organizations, also get large incentives.  Note also that the two executives on the "investor call" both had outsize compensation in 2011, the latest year for which the non-profit Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center has released the disclosure form (990 form) required by the US government.  The CEO, Dr McConnell, received over $2 million, while the CFO, Mr Chadwick, received just short of $1 million. (Look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/05/executive-compensation-as-legal.html">here</a>.)  So it looks like they have a good reason to continue to operate a financialized organization so they can keep extracting sufficient revenue to make themselves rich. Clearly, though, if we want our health care organizations to preserve and protect patients' and the public health, we need them to be lead by leaders who care much more about health care than about short-term revenue and making themselves rich. As we have said endlessly,  true health care reform would put in place leadership that understands the health care context, upholds health care professionals' values, and puts patients' and the public's health ahead of extraneous, particularly short-term financial concerns. We need health care governance that holds health care leaders accountable, and ensures their transparency, integrity and honesty.

The Financialized Medical Center - Executives of Non-Profit Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center Make an "Investor Call," but Have no Investors

We recently discussed the uncomfortable situation of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, the non-profit health system/ academic medical cent...

Đọc thêm »

Executive Compensation as "Legal Corruption" - and the Continuing Example of the Troubles of Wake Forest Baptist

"Legal corruption" was the description of current <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/executive%20compensation">executive compensation</a> practices <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203922804578080670062571256.html">appearing</a>, of all places, in the Wall Street Journal.  The arguments, by Henry Mintzer of the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University, apply to health care, and provide a counterpoint to the usual talking points that are trotted out whenever a top health care manager, or his cronies, feels the need to justify his or her compensation.  A Rigged Game with Other Peoples' Money Prof Mintzer's arguments start with the assertion that executive bonuses are hopelessly rigged in favor of the managers who receive them.  In particular: <ul><li> They represent gambling with "other people's money," in this case, "the stockholders [of large public corporations] not to mention the livelihoods of their employees and the sustainability of their institutions"</li></ul><ul><li>Bonuses are given just based on the appearance of winning, for example, when a company's stock goes up short term, regardless of long-term results.</li></ul><ul><li>Bonuses are given even when the company may lose, for example, the "golden parachute," or severance package that even executives forced to resign or retire may receive.</li></ul><ul><li>Bonuses are given for actions that at best only provide potential gains for the company, for example prior to a merger, but before it is known that the merger will be successful</li></ul><ul><li>Bonuses are given just for showing up, that is, "retention bonuses."</li></ul> Thus he contended that bonuses inspire executives to be gamblers in a game rigged in their favor. Based on False Assumptions Furthermore, he argued that the current system of executive compensation is based on false assumptions.  These include: "A company's health is represented by its financial measures alone - even better, the price of its stock."  However, as Prof Mintzer noted: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Companies are a lot more complicated than that. Their health is significantly represented by what accountants call goodwill, which in its basic sense means a company's intrinsic value beyond its tangible assets: the quality of its brands, its overall reputation in the marketplace, the depth of its culture, the commitment of its people, and so on.  </blockquote> I would note that this applies especially in health care, and more especially to organizations that provide direct patient care.  No hospital system, for example, could function at all without a corps of dedicated health professionals, physicians, nurses, therapists, etc.  Furthermore, Prof Mintzer wrote, <blockquote class="tr_bq">All too often, financial measures are a convenient substitute used by disconnected executives who don't know what else to do—including how to manage more deeply.  Or worse, such measures encourage abuse from impatient CEOs, who can have a field day cashing in that goodwill by cutting back on maintenance and customer service, 'downsizing' experienced employees while others are left to 'burn out,' trashing valued brands, and so on. Quickly the measured costs are reduced while slowly the institution deteriorates </blockquote> This is obviously particularly pernicious in health care, a field in which institutions are complicated, and dependent on the efforts of some very highly trained and specialized people well beyond the management suite.  "Performance measures, whether short or long term, represent the true strength of the company."  Prof Mintzer pointed out the lack of accurate measures of the overall performance of a company or organization.  "The CEO, with a few other senior executives, is primarily responsible for the company's performance."   Prof Mintzer asked, <blockquote class="tr_bq">In something as complex as the contemporary large corporation, how can success over three or even 10 years possibly be attributed to a single individual? Where is teamwork and all that talk about people being 'our most important asset?' More important, should any company even try to attribute success to one person? A robust enterprise is not a collection of 'human resources'; it's a community of human beings. All kinds of people are responsible for its performance. Focusing on a few—indeed, only one, who may have parachuted into the most senior post from the outside—just discourages everyone else in the company.</blockquote> Again, this is obviously particularly the case in health care organizations, especially those that provide direct patient care. Leading to the Worst Possible Leaders and Leadership Finally, Prof Mintzer argued that the current system is designed to promote the worst possible leadership, leading likely to the worst possible outcomes.  He opened with <blockquote class="tr_bq"> Executive bonuses—especially in the form of stock and option grants—represent the most prominent form of legal corruption that has been undermining our large corporations and bringing down the global economy. </blockquote> Our argument has been that the current leadership of health care is similarly bringing down our health care system. He later noted that current compensation practices mainly function to select out the worst possible leaders: <blockquote class="tr_bq"> executive compensation these days reinforces a class structure within the enterprise that is antithetical to its effective functioning. Because of its symbolic nature, executive compensation as currently practiced sends out the worst possible signal to everyone in the enterprise.</blockquote> Furthermore, <blockquote class="tr_bq">bonuses can serve one purpose. It has been claimed that if you don't pay them, you don't get the right person in the CEO chair. I believe that if you do pay bonuses, you get the wrong person in that chair. At the worst, you get a self-centered narcissist. [Or even a full-fledged, if non-violent, psychopath, as noted <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/01/corporate-psychopaths-theory-of-health.html">here</a> - Ed] At the best, you get someone who is willing to be singled out from everyone else by virtue of the compensation plan. Is this any way to build community within an enterprise, even to foster the very sense of enterprise that is so fundamental to economic strength? Accordingly, executive bonuses provide the perfect tool to screen candidates for the CEO job. Anyone who insists on them should be dismissed out of hand, because he or she has demonstrated an absence of the leadership attitude required for a sustainable enterprise. Of course, this might thin the roster of candidates. Good. Most need to be thinned, in order to be refilled with people who don't allow their own needs to take precedence over those of the community they wish to lead.</blockquote> It will be interesting to see if anyone attempts a logical refutation of Prof Mintzer's arguments.  My guess is that we will see little response, based on the usual public relations dictum that it is best not to acknowledge one's detractors, even if they are right.  Furthermore, I predict that what responses there are will partake heavily of logical fallacies. Finally, it is worthwhile to think about Prof Mintzer's points when assessing the arguments made in favor of particular executives' outsized remuneration.  An Example - Continued Riches for Wake Forest Baptist Executives Outsize Executive Compensation Continues A few weeks ago, we <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/05/clouded-visionary-leadership-wake.html">noted</a> that the leaders of this large medical center, while previously proclaimed as visionaries, and enjoying enlarging compensation, seemed to have lead the institution to a financial crisis due to difficulties with a poorly chosen or implemented electronic health record system.  One follow up story updated compensation information and provided the official management rationale for the ongoing largess.  The redoubtable Richard Craver <a href="http://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/article_5da8b354-bda0-11e2-b691-001a4bcf6878.html">wrote</a> in the Winston-Salem Journal, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center provided its top executive, Dr. John McConnell, an 11.9 percent raise in salary during 2011 to $983,777, although his total compensation dropped 18 percent, the center reported Wednesday as part of an annual regulatory filing. McConnell was paid $2.04 million in total compensation, compared with almost $2.5 million for 2010. Although Wake Forest Baptist operates on fiscal years that end on June 30, the pay for its top executives is required to be listed on a calendar-year basis. </blockquote><blockquote>The main difference between the 2010 and 2011 compensation totals for McConnell was $461,575 he received as a one-time payment that replaced the retirement benefits he forfeited upon leaving the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. McConnell was required to work at Wake Forest Baptist for two years to receive the one-time payment.</blockquote> Keep in mind that in 2008-9x, Dr McConnell made a total of just over $700,000, so his compensation in 2011 was about three times that. The benevolent board of the medical center saw to it that Dr McConnell got money for all sorts of reasons: <blockquote class="tr_bq">McConnell received $384,203 in bonus and incentives in fiscal 2010-11. The center said the amount reflects the achievement of clinical quality, academic and financial goals set by the board of directors. The bonus was down $115,797 from fiscal 2009-10 primarily because the center reduced the potential percentage of the incentive compensation from 75 percent of his base salary to 53 percent. McConnell received $38,511 in other reportable compensation, which the center listed: as $8,797 in annual dues for Forsyth Country Club and Rotary Club membership, defined as for business purposes; $16,500 qualified deferred compensation; $3,612 in after-tax life-insurance deduction; and $9,602 in an automobile allowance.  He also received $619,002 in contributions to retirement plans, including a supplemental executive retirement plan solely for McConnell’s benefit.</blockquote> One wonders why, given his salary and bonus, Dr McConnell could not afford to pay dues to the country club and rotary on his own, or for his own car expenses, or to provide for his own retirement, for that matter? Other executives also continued to do very well: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Donny Lambeth, former president of N.C. Baptist Hospital, received $2.47 million in total compensation. Lambeth served as president of Davie County Hospital and Lexington Medical Center before retiring last year. He is now serving as an N.C. House representative. Lambeth’s $495,595 in base salary represented an 8 percent decrease related to his reduced job responsibilities. His bonus and incentive compensation was down 2 percent to $181,988. The bulk of Lambeth’s compensation was $1.62 million related to a fully vested deferred compensation upon his retirement. Dr. Thomas Sibert, president of Wake Forest Baptist Health and chief operating officer, received a 14 percent increase in total compensation to $1.13 million, including $631,297 in salary (up 15.7 percent) and $234,540 in bonus and incentive compensation (up 41.3 percent). Sibert took over his role in September 2010. Edward Chadwick, chief financial officer, received a less than 1 percent increase in total compensation to $979,420. His salary rose 4.6 percent to $527,216, while his bonus and incentive compensation fell 5 percent to $189,929. Russell Howerton, chief medical officer, was paid $295,714 in salary, $300,786 in bonus and incentive compensation and $657,025 in total compensation. Doug Edgeton, former president of Piedmont Triad Research Park (recently renamed as Wake Forest Innovation Quarter), received $490,485 in salary, $162,367 in bonus and incentive compensation and $710,729 in total compensation.</blockquote> The Chief Information Quietly Departs, with Some More Money Meanwhile, Mr Craver also <a href="http://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/article_de6ed88a-bf47-11e2-b05e-0019bb30f31a.html">reported</a> the quiet departure of the executive who presided over the troubled implementation of the EHR, <blockquote class="tr_bq">The chief information officer for Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center is stepping down, effective May 31, the center confirmed Friday. Sheila Sanders has served in that role, as well as vice president of information technology, since being hired in 2009 to direct the center’s overhaul of its IT system. </blockquote><blockquote><div class="p402_hide"><div id="in-story"> </div></div> She is leaving at a time when the center is struggling financially and operationally with implementing the Epic electronic health records system — one of the largest overall projects Wake Forest Baptist and most health care systems have undertaken in recent years.</blockquote> Note that Ms Sanders was well rewarded for her questionable efforts, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Sanders was paid $333,961 in salary, $89,145 in bonus and incentive compensation and $464,543 in total compensation in 2011, according to a regulatory filing that Wake Forest Baptist made public Wednesday. The center’s executive-compensation data typically is about 18 months old when released. In terms of salary, Sanders ranked sixth among the center’s 27 listed management officials. </blockquote> It was clear that Ms Sanders ought to have been directly responsible for the EHR implementation, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> The center said Sanders’ duties included clinical information, administrative, business, academic and research support systems, as well as core IT functions that include a central IT help desk, email, computer desktop support, IT security and telecommunications.</blockquote> Nonetheless, the extremely well-paid top leadership did not seem to have hard feelings. <blockquote class="tr_bq">Dr. John McConnell, the center’s chief executive, said in a statement that Sanders decided in January to take 'a brief career break' after completing major portions of the overhaul. He said Sanders is relocating to Florida to spend more time with her family. Wake Forest Baptist spokesman Chad Campbell stressed it was Sanders’ decision to leave her positions, and it was not related to Epic, which went live in September on the center’s main campus.</blockquote> Also, <blockquote class="tr_bq">'We are deeply grateful to Sheila for her numerous contributions that will serve the medical center for years to come,' McConnell said. McConnell said senior IT officials will manage day-to-day IT operations with his oversight while the center conducts a national search for her replacement.</blockquote> But to reiterate, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> The center said May 2 it had launched another round of 'multi-million dollar' cost-cutting measures that will last through at least June 30, the end of its 2012-13 fiscal year, related to fixing Epic revenue issues.</blockquote>  Perhaps any attempt to saddle the chief information officer with responsibility would point out the lack of responsibility imposed on even higher level and better paid executives for apparently approving and authorizing her previous work. The Usual Talking Points Instead, the official statement from hospital system management about top <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/executive%20compensation">executives' compensation</a> trotted out the usual talking points in defense of all this lavish pay, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Wake Forest Baptist said in a statement explaining its executive compensation packages that as an academic medical center, it requires management with 'a special set of skills and experience to manage relationships with physicians and researchers, the university, its patients and community. … It takes proven talents possessed by a small group of health care executives.' 'Compensating executives, as we do all of our employees, competitively and appropriately, is crucial to the success of Wake Forest Baptist and to Northwest North Carolina.'</blockquote> In addition, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> Baptist said its executive compensation is based primarily on comparisons with 32 academic medical centers, including Duke University Hospital and UNC Hospitals. </blockquote> With regard to Dr McConnell's special retirement plan, <blockquote class="tr_bq">'This is a common benefit for executives at academic medical centers and health systems to encourage retention and provide competitive retirement benefits,' the center said in its statement.</blockquote> We first listed the talking points <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/09/talking-points-sans-original-thought-to.html">here</a>, and then provided additional examples of their use <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-repeats-of-talking-points.html">here</a>, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/example-of-how-complex-takes-control.html">here</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/12/health-care-hired-managers-not-playing.html">here</a>.   The official administration discussion above does seem to include:  - We have to pay competitive rates -  We have to pay enough to retain at least competent executives, given how hard it is to be an executive -  Our executives are not merely competitive, but brilliant. Left out was any evidence about the executives' performance, much less their degree of responsibility for their institution's performance.  Why the few top paid executives should continue to get credit for the institutions' supposed, but unspecified successes, while escaping any accountability for its failures (including the looming problems with its commercial health care information technology) was of course not mentioned.  So here is a great, current example of how top health care executives are gambling with other peoples' money, in a game rigged so that they always win.  As long as we continue such perverse incentives in health care, they will continue to inspire leaders to line their own pockets at the expense of our health care institutions, and ultimately to the detriment of patients' and the public's health.  Conclusion So let me conclude with Prof Mintzer's conclusion, <blockquote class="tr_bq">All this compensation madness is not about markets or talents or incentives, but rather about insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit. Too many large corporations today are starved for leadership—true leadership, meaning engaged leadership embedded in concerned management. And the global economy desperately needs renewed enterprise, embedded in the belief that companies are communities. Getting rid of executive bonuses, and the gambling games that accompany them, is the place to start.</blockquote>

Executive Compensation as "Legal Corruption" - and the Continuing Example of the Troubles of Wake Forest Baptist

"Legal corruption" was the description of current executive compensation practices appearing , of all places, in the Wall Street ...

Đọc thêm »

Clouded "Visionary" Leadership - Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center's EPIC "Business Cycle Disruptions"

A typical excuse for the multi-million dollar compensation now enjoyed by many leaders of health care organizations is these leaders' supposed brilliance. For example, in 2011 we <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/05/million-dollar-plus-hospital-ceo.html">noted  </a>that the total compensation of Dr John McConnell, the CEO of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, a non-profit teaching hospital, rose from over $700,000 in 2008-2009 to over $1.6 million in 2009-2010.  Other top executives in the system made nearly one million a piece.  An official statement from the hospital system claimed that this level of compensation was needed to "retain skilled executives and visionary leaders for the medical center."  Furthermore, in 2012 we <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-rising-compensation-for-executives.html">noted </a>that in 2010-2011 Dr McConnell's compensation had grown to nearly $2.5 million, while other top executives received from over $900,000 to over $1.1 million.  Recent events, however, suggest that the "visionaries" may need new glasses. An EPIC Challenge Last month, the Winston-Salem Journal <a href="http://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/article_c2801866-9e0c-11e2-bf84-0019bb30f31a.html">reported</a> that Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center is facing some unexpected fiscal challenges, especially from its new electronic health record (EHR): <blockquote class="tr_bq">Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center’s struggles to implement its <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/EPIC">Epic electronic records system</a> contributed to additional costs and lost revenue during the first half of its fiscal year 2012-13. The center provided the information in a second-quarter financial report submitted to bond agencies in which it also reported a $49.6 million operational loss and a gain of $7.4 million in overall excess revenue. </blockquote> That is interesting.  There have been many criticisms of EHRs, particularly for how they may <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/healthcare%20IT%20difficulties">impede</a>, rather than help health professionals, and more importantly for their risks of causing <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/healthcare%20IT%20dangers">adverse effects</a> affecting patients, in the absence of clear data from controlled clinical trials that they provide benefits that outweigh their potential harms to patients.  Some of these problems may stem from design and implementation that prioritizes benefits to managers and institutional finances over effects on patients and doctors.  As InformaticsMD <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/05/ama-says-ehrs-create-appalling-catch-22.html">noted</a>, even the AMA now admits that <blockquote class="tr_bq"> As the healthcare industry moves to EHRs, the medical record has essentially been reduced to a tool for billing, compliance, and litigation that also has a sustained negative impact on doctors' productivity, according to Steven J. Stack, MD, chair of the American Medical Association’s board of trustees. </blockquote> Yet in this case, a well known commercial EHR did not even help out the hospital system's finances. Furthermore, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Wake Forest Baptist said it spent as of Dec. 31 about $13.3 million directly on the Epic electronic-record system, which went live in September.</blockquote> And, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> The center also cited $8 million in 'other Epic-related implementation expense' that it listed among 'business-cycle disruptions (that) have had a greater-than-anticipated impact on volumes and productivity.' Also listed was $26.6 million in lost margin 'due to interim volume disruptions during initial go-live and post go-live optimization.'</blockquote> Note that InformaticsMD frequently criticizes proponents of commercial health care information technology for glossing over potentially bad effects on patients and practice with management-speak (e.g., as "glitches," or "hiccups.").  Here is a great example of an attempt to gloss over bad effects on finance with management-speak. Bond Downgrades and Furloughs, Wage Reductions, Hiring Freezes, Retirement Contribution Reductions, and Bonus Eliminations As a consequence, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> On March 20, Moody’s Investors Service downgraded the center’s long-term debt rating below the lowest level of high-grade investment quality. The downgrade to A1 from Aa3 affects $597.2 million of rated debt outstanding.</blockquote> The rationale was clear, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> Moody’s said the A1 rating 'reflects the unexpected decline in financial performance through the first half of fiscal 2013, largely due to the installation of a new information technology platform (Epic), encompassing 95 percent of all revenue components of the enterprise.'</blockquote>You know when you see bond downgrade by rating agencies that  financial matters are really going badly.   By May, 2013, month, the problems were evidently still not solved, and the hospital was forced to take more drastic measures.  As again <a href="http://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/article_0cb3b3a8-b33d-11e2-a80f-0019bb30f31a.html">reported</a> by Richard Carver writing for the Winston-Salem Journal, <blockquote class="tr_bq">The workforce at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center is paying a paycheck price to make up for the financial shortcomings to date of its Epic electronic records system. The center said in a statement Thursday it has begun another round of cost-cutting measures that will last through at least June 30, the end of its 2012-13 fiscal year. The measures include attempts at volunteer employee furloughs and hour-and-wage reductions, a hiring freeze, a reduction in employer retirement contributions, and elimination of executive incentive bonuses for 2013.</blockquote> Management made clear that the cuts were in response to the Epic debacle, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Even though management said Thursday the center is making progress with fixing the Epic revenue issues, it acknowledged it 'will not meet projected financial targets for the current fiscal year.' 'Wake Forest Baptist has identified immediate multimillion-dollar savings with a series of short-term measures that impact personnel,' according to the statement.</blockquote> To give credit where it is due, at least the cuts will apparently not affect line clinical employees: <blockquote class="tr_bq"> Those primarily affected by the volunteer furloughs and hour-and-wage reduction requests are nonclinical full-time employees, including administrative staff. They can volunteer to work as few as 30 hours a week with no loss of health or dental benefits for May and June. In the memo, management said employees can volunteer to continue the reduced-hour work week into fiscal year 2013-14.</blockquote> However, it seems likely that they will affect many employees, including some proportion who likely had not responsibility for the problems with Epic. When in Doubt, Lobby the Government What the hospital system did not seem to be cutting was lobbying and public relations.  Perhaps this was a response to its unexpected inability to manage its own commercial health care information technology?  What bad management can lose, maybe government can supplant.  Once again Richard Carver had <a href="http://www.journalnow.com/news/state_region/article_1aee766e-b5e1-11e2-bba7-001a4bcf6878.html">the story</a> for the Journal: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Stung by a series of unusual setbacks at the General Assembly, the North Carolina hospital industry is launching a public relations campaign aimed, in part, at protecting revenues and staving off competition from lower cost surgery centers. In a social media initiative targeted at lawmakers and their constituents, the N.C. Hospital Association says hospitals are 'fighting for their economic survival.' [It was not said whether they were fighting in part because they had already managed to shoot themselves in their economic feet - Ed] The association and some of the state’s bigger hospitals also are hiring more GOP lobbyists to make inroads with the Republicans who control the state House, Senate and governor’s mansion. The hospital association recently began promoting a new website — <a href="http://www.healthyhospitalsnc.org/">www.healthyhospitalsnc.org</a> — that describes an array of financial threats.</blockquote> Wake Forest Baptist is a big part of this initiative: <blockquote class="tr_bq">When asked about its lobbying efforts, Wake Forest Baptist spokeswoman Paula Faria said last week that the center’s Office of Government Relations monitors proposed legislation and regulations at both the federal and state levels. 'It informs North Carolina’s congressional delegation, members of the General Assembly and their staff about how proposed language could impact the day-to-day operations of the medical center.'</blockquote> Maybe they should be first worrying about the impact of badly chosen, designed, or implemented commercial health care information technology on "day-to-day operations of the medical center" first.  Summary So the top executives of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center have seen compensation rising at a rate greater than inflation and than the general public's income over the last few years.  In particular, the CEO has seen his compensation go up three and one-half times in three years!  The hospital system administration has justified this extraordinary increase by referring to supposedly "visionary" leadership.  Yet over this time frame these "visionaries" decided to implement an EHR whose first effects were to lose the hospital system a lot of money.  Based on previous anecdotes about the Epic system, it is quite possible it had other adverse effects.  For example, InformaticsMD <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/09/in-addition-to-nurses-doctors-now-air.html">discussed</a> a case in which an EPIC system apparently lead to a large disruption in patient workflow and hence large increases in waits for acute care, and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/08/contra-costas-45-million-computer.html">lead to errors</a> that could have adversely affected patients.  So this underscores some important lessons: So beware that "visionary" behind the curtain. As we have noted repeatedly, top health care managers can now easily make themselves rich.  They, their boards of directors (who may be their cronies), and their public relations flacks often justify their exorbitant compensation by their supposed brilliance, if not visionary status.  Such claims are rarely further explained, and mostly seem be be humbug, for want of a better term.  It seems that most top leaders of health care organizations have participated in the managers' coup d'etat, and become at least manager nobility, if not manager-kings  At least, the public should know that their compensation is what they can grab, and its justification is often nonsense.  Note that contrary to a red herring argument often made, outrageous compensation is important not so much because of how much money it drains out of health care, although that can be large in the aggregate.  It is important because it reflects a system that is no longer accountable, and leaders who follow perverse incentives. Such management compensation is almost never revisited to determine whether it turned out to be justified.  Instead, the public, watchdog organizations, health care professionals, and even politicians ought to demand accountability of health care management, good  justification for their compensation, and rationality for the incentives they are provided.  True health care reform would encourage well-informed, competent, mission-focused, honest, responsible, accountable and transparent management, leading organizations of manageable size.  But as long as things stay the same, expect the craziness to continue.

Clouded "Visionary" Leadership - Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center's EPIC "Business Cycle Disruptions"

A typical excuse for the multi-million dollar compensation now enjoyed by many leaders of health care organizations is these leaders' su...

Đọc thêm »