The Sickly State of Public Hospitals

There are many types of hospitals but the mostto raise capital to finance hyper-sophisticated
well known are the Public Hospitals. What setsmarketing. Public policy must be written to
them apart is that they provide services to thesupport "safety net" institutions. They must be
indigent (people without means) and toallowed to organize their own MCOs (Managed
minorities.Historically, public hospitals started asCare Organizations of patients), to insure patients
correction and welfare centres. They wereand to market their services directly to groups of
poorhouses run by the church and attached topotential consumers. This way they will save the
medical schools. A full cycle ensued: communities20% commission that they are paying HMOs
established their own hospitals which were latercurrently. If they become more efficient and
taken over by regional authorities andreduce utilization, they will absorb the full benefits,
governments - only to be returned to theinstead of ceding them to contracting groups of
management of communities nowadays. Betweenpatients and insurance companies or even to the
1978 and 1995 a 25% decline ensued in thegovernment's medical insurance plans. The
number of public hospitals and those remaininghospitals will thus be able to construct their own
were transformed to small, rural facilities.In thenetworks of suppliers and share their risks with
USA, less than one third of the hospitals are intheir physicians or with the insurance companies
cities and only 15% had more than 200 beds. Theas best suits their objectives.An example: a Public
100 largest hospitals averaged 581 beds.A debateHospital with its own healthcare plan is likely to
rages in the West: should healthcare bemake use of all its specialists and facilities, increase
completely privatized - or should a segment of itcapacity utilization and profits - whereas today
be left in public hands?Public hospitals are in direonly its primary care, less lucrative, services are
financial straits. 65% of the patients do not payused by independent HMOs.The government can
for medical services received by them. The publiclimit the total number of healthcare plans available,
hospitals have a legal obligation to treat all. Someso that the one propagated by the public hospital
patients are insured by national medical insurancewill stand out and not be swamped by hundreds
plans (such as Medicare/Medicaid in the USA, NHSof other plans. Such a public hospital plan could
in Britain). Others are insured by communityalso be declared the "healthcare plan of default" -
plans.The other problem is that this kind ofanyone who has not selected a plan will be
patients consumes less or non profitable services.automatically referred to and included in the public
The service mix is flawed: trauma care, drugs,hospital plan.Not every hospital can start an HMO
HIV and obstetrics treatments are prevalent -plan. Only the big ones can support the necessary
long, patently loss making services.The moreinsurance payments, the reserve requirements
lucrative ones are tackled by private healthcareand the marketing and administrative costs. The
providers: hi tech and specialized services (cardiacparadox is that big public hospitals are already
surgery, diagnostic imagery).Public hospitals arecommitted to HMOs, insurers, other patient
forced to provide "culturally competent care":groups, or government-sponsored MCOs. These
social services, child welfare. These are moneyresist the inclusion of hospitals which own
losing operations from which private facilities cancompeting healthcare plans - in their networks.
abstain. Based on research, we can safely sayThis is natural: a hospital with a plan - is a direct
that private, for profit hospitals, discriminatecompetitor of a private provider of healthcare
against publicly insured patients. They prefermanagement and insurance. Another obstacle is
young, growing, families and healthier patients. Thethat governments are very reluctant to
latter gravitate out of the public system, leaving itencourage the public sector on account of the
to become an enclave of poor, chronically sickprivate one. This is definitely out of fashion
patients.This, in turn, makes it difficult for thenowadays.So, an alternative strategy looks more
public system to attract human and financialviable:Public hospitals can act as direct contracting
resources. It is becoming more and morenetworks. They can team up, pool their
destitute.Poor people are poor voters and theyresources, exercise political lobbying, relegate
make for very little political power.Public hospitalsadministrative and audit functions (data processing,
operate in an hostile environment: budgetclaim processing, payment system, accounting,
reductions, the rapid proliferation of competinglegal services) to a common centre. This will
healthcare alternatives with a much better imageeliminate the need for middlemen like the HMOs.
and the fashion of privatization (even of safetyThese joint networks will be able to negotiate
net institutions).Public hospitals are heavilycontracts with other contractors: physicians,
dependent on state funding. Governments footpharmacies, specialized laboratories and so on. This
the bulk of the healthcare bill. Public and privatewill assist the public hospitals to preserve a loyal
healthcare providers pursue this money. In theand stable (low churning) patient base.Finally, public
USA, potential consumers organized themselves inhospitals are large employers with political muscle.
Healthcare Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). TheAll they lack is the will to exercise it. They should
HMO negotiates with providers (=hospitals, clinics,do it to force governments to adopt some
pharmacies) to obtain volume discounts and theunpopular decisions: offer incentives to HMOs
best rates through negotiations. Public hospitals -which will refer patients to public hospitals, require
underfunded as they are - are not in the positionHMOs to use all the range of services (both
to offer them what they want. So, they loseprimary and speciality), compensate public
patients to private hospitals.But public hospitals arehospitals directly for nonpaying patients.But the
also to blame for their situation.They have notpublic hospitals must begin to behave as public
implemented standards of accountability. Theyentities: they must open their decision making
make no routine statistical measurements of theirprocesses and make them community-oriented.
effectiveness and productivity: wait times, financialThey must shift from relying on contractual
reporting and the extent of networklanguage to relying on administrative law
development. As even governments are(regulations) - except when it comes to
transformed from "dumb providers" to "smartemployment. In a nutshell: they should be business
purchasers", public hospitals must reconfigure,oriented, on the one hand - and publicly
change ownership (privatize, lease their facilitiesaccountable on the other.There is the little matter
long term), or perish. Currently, these institutionsof Public Relations and advocacy. Public Hospitals
are (often unjustly) charged with faulty financialhave a terrible image and they are doing very
management (the fees charged for their serviceslittle to change it. They do not even collaborate
are unrealistically low), substandard, inefficientwith researchers trying to establish a factual
care, heavy labour unionization, bloatedfundament concerning "safety net medical and
bureaucracy and no incentives to improvesocial care". In a world where images count more
performance and productivity. No wonder there isthan realities this may well be the public hospitals
talk about abolishing the "brick and mortar"biggest mistake.Eight Ways to Improve the
infrastructure (=closing the public hospitals) andOperation of Public HospitalsA public hospital can
replacing it with a virtual one (=geographicallylease physical space or temporal slots, or
portable medical insurance).To be sure, there arecomputer equipment or any other equipment
counterarguments:The private sector is unwillingwhich suffers capacity underutilisation - to their
and unable to absorb the load of patients of thephysicians for private practice.The lessee
public sector. It is not legally obligated to do sophysicians will undertake to pay the hospital -
and the marketing arms of the various HMOs areeither in the form of fixed fees or in the form of
interested mainly in the healthiest patients.Theseparticipation in the income (franchise
discriminatory practices wreaked havoc and chaosarrangements).They will also commit themselves
(not to mention corruption and irregularities) onto provide community-oriented, non profit
the communities that phased out the publicservices in return for the right to use what is,
hospitals - and phased in the private ones.Trueessentially, community property.Another method
enough, governments perform poorly as costof using the excess capacity is to sell it, rent it, or
conscious purchasers of medical services. It is alsolease it to entrepreneurs who are not members
true that they lack the resources to reach aof the hospital staff. There are many such
substantial segment of the uninsured (throughpossibilities: small laboratories, speciality medical
subsidized expansions of insuranceservices, primary care and specialist practitioners.
plans).40,000,000 people in the USA have noAll these would love to use the superior
medical insurance - and a million more are addedinfrastructure of the hospital. The right to use this
annually. But, there is no data to support theinfrastructure can be given in the form of a
contention that public hospitals provide inferiorconcession, a franchise, a rental arrangement, or
care at a higher cost - and, indisputably, theyany other arm's length mode of collaboration.
possess unique experience in caring for lowProfessionals are likely to jump on the bandwagon
income populations (both medically and socially).So,when they realize that the hospital provides them
in the absence of facts, the arguments really boilwith a "captive market" of patient. This is very
down to philosophy. Is healthcare a fundamentalmuch like the relationship between an "anchor" in a
human right - or is it a commodity to beshopping mall and the small retail shops
subjected to the invisible hand of thesurrounding it. The small shops benefit from the
marketplace? Should prices serve as thebusiness diverted in their direction from the big
mechanism of optimal allocation of healthcare"anchor" outlets.The next logical step would be to
resources - or are there other, less quantifiable,sell products and services to the community on a
parameters to consider?Whatever thecommercial, competitive basis. The hospital does
philosophical predilection, a reform is a must. Itnot have to limit itself to the sale of medical
should include the following elements:Public hospitalsgoods and services. It can also sell medical legal
should be governed by healthcare managementservices, use its print shop to offer print jobs,
experts who will emphasize clinical and fiscalorganize its social services as a profit centre and
considerations over political ones. This should besell them to the community or to individuals, offer
coupled with the vesting of authority withmedical consultancy on a fee per service basis,
hospitals, taking it back from local government.even sell food from the hospital kitchen through a
Hospitals could be organized as (public benefit)catering service or data to researchers from its
corporations with enhanced autonomy to avoidarchives. A natural extension of this approach
today's debilitating dual effects: politics andwould be "internal privatization".A hospital is a
bureaucracy. They could organize themselves ascollection of small (to medium) size businesses
Not for Profit Organizations with independent, selfoperating under one organizational roof. Laundry,
perpetuating boards of directors.But all this cancleaning, kitchen, the provision of television sets
come about only with increased publicand telephones to patients, a business centre for
accountability and with clear measuring, using clearthe hospitalized businessmen - these are all profit
quantitative criteria, of the use of funds dedicatedor loss generating centres.Internal privatization
to the public missions of public hospitals. Hospitalsentails the transformation of the hospital into a
could start by revamping their compensationholding company. This holding company will own
structures to increase both pay and financialand operate a host of corporations. Each
incentives to the staff.Current one-fits-allcorporation will constitute a separate contractor
compensation systems deter talented people. Paywhich will provide the hospital with a service or a
must be linked to objectively measured criteria.product. Thus, all laundry will be done by a
The Hospital's top management should receive acorporation which will charge the hospital for its
bonus when the hospital is accredited by theservices. The same will go for the kitchen, the
state, when wait times are improved, whenprintshop, the legal services and so on. These
disrollment rates go down and when morecorporations will employ the former staff of the
services are provided.To implement this (mainlyhospital. This way, the knowledge and experience
mental) revolution, the management of publicaccumulated within the hospital will not be lost.
hospitals should be trained to use rigorous financialThe corporations owned by the former
controls, to improve customer service, toemployees will have a "right of first refusal" in the
re-engineer processes and to negotiatefirst five years following the transformation. The
agreements and commercial transactions.Theemployee-owned corporations will be allowed to
staff must be employed through writtenmatch the best offers in yearly tenders that the
employment contracts with clear severancehospital will conduct for the services that they are
provisions that will allow the management to takeoffering.These corporations will also be allowed to
commercial risks.Clear goals must be defined andoffer their services to other clients. Thus, they will
met. Public hospitals must improve continuity ofreduce their dependence on one employer, the
care, expand primary care capacity, reducehospital. They will become truly entrepreneurial
lengths of stay (=increase turnaround) and meetentities, competing for profits in a market
budgetary constraints imposed both by the stateenvironment.A part of the re-engineering process
and by patient groups or their insuranceis to determine which of the functions that the
companies.All this cannot be achieved without thehospital fulfils are "core functions", indispensable
full collaboration of the physicians employed byfunctions without which the hospital will cease to
the hospitals. Hospitals in the USA form businessexist or will change its identity to such an extent
joint ventures with their own physicians (PHO -that it will no longer will be recognizable as a
Physicians Hospital Organizations). They benefithospital. All other, "noncore", functions should be
together from the implementation of reforms andtendered out (a concept called "outsourcing").
by the increase of productivity. It is estimatedThey should be awarded in a tender to the most
that productivity today is 40% less in the publiccompetitive bidders, regardless of their identity
sector than in the private one. This is a dubiousand previous allegiance. The hospital is likely to
estimate: the patient populations are differentbenefit from the transfer of functions, in which it
(sicker people in the public sector). But even if thehas no relative competitive advantage, to
figure is incorrect - the essence is: public hospitalsoutsiders whose expertise these functions are.
are less efficient.They are less efficient becauseThis is somewhat akin to international (free)
of archaic scheduling of patient-doctortrade, where each nation optimizes its resources
appointments, laboratory tests and surgeries,and passes the (beneficial) results of this
because of obsolete or non-existent informationoptimization process to its trading partners.To
systems, because of long turnaround times andcontrol this kind of transformation, medical
because of redundant lab tests and medicalinformation management systems need to be
procedures. The support - which exists in privateintroduced. Many are available and they improve
hospitals - from other (clinical and nonclinical)both the quality and the quantity of data available
personnel is absent because of impossiblyto the management of the hospital and, as a
complex labour rules and job descriptions imposedresult, the decision making process. This will make
by the unions. Most of the doctors have splitit easier for the management to pinpoint which
loyalties between the medical schools in whichareas require doing what. For instance: the
they teach and the various hospital affiliates. Theymanagement of the hospital will be able to
would tend to neglect the voluntary affiliates anddetermine what kind of incentives should be
contribute more to the prestigious ones. Publicprovided to which members of the staff, where
hospitals would, therefore, be well advised to hirecould costs be cut and where and how could
new staff, not from medical schools, share risksproductivity be improved.Finally, a novel concept is
with its physicians through joint ventures, signemerging. Universities and hospitals are two
contracts with pay based on productivity and putimportant repositories of human knowledge and
physicians in the governing boards. In general, theexperience. Virtually every hospital somehow
hospitals must shrink and re-engineer thecollaborates with an academic institution, or with a
workforce. About half the budget is normallymedical school.There is symbiosis between hospital
spent on labour costs in private hospitals - andand medical and social researchers.Hospitals should
more than 70% in public ones. It is no good toactively encourage this. It improves their image, it
reduce the workforce through natural attrition,contributes to their ability to provide quality
mass layoffs, or severance incentives. These areservices. But should not do it for free. They
"blind", nondiscriminating measures which affectshould be contractual partners to the commercial
the quality of the care provided by the hospital.exploitation of the results of research conducted
When compounded by work rules, senioritywithin their premises or with their co-operation.
systems, job title structures and skewedThere is a vast field for pharmaceutical, medical,
grievance procedures - the situation can getgenetic and bioengineering research - and a lot of
completely out of hand.The government mustopportunities to make money for the benefit of
contribute its part. Public hospitals cannot complythe entire community. By not getting commercially
or compete with the demands of national, publiclyinvolved - hospitals give up money which really is
traded HMOs with political clout and the capacitynot theirs to give up.