Cartoon – Modern Leadership
Cartoon – Influenced by Corrupt Corporate Culture
Cartoon – Buy vs Lease
Cartoon – Ran Out of Metaphors
How cognitive biases impact healthcare decisions
Day one of the healthcare strategy course I teach in the Stanford Graduate School of Business begins with this question: “Who here receives excellent medical care?”
Most of the students raise their hands confidently. I look around the room at some of the most brilliant young minds in business, finance and investing—all of them accustomed to making quick yet informed decisions. They can calculate billion-dollar deals to the second decimal point in their heads. They pride themselves on being data driven and discerning.
Then I ask, “How do you know you receive excellent care?”
The hands slowly come down and room falls silent. In that moment, it’s clear these future business leaders have reached a conclusion without a shred of reliable data or evidence.
Not one of them knows how often their doctors make diagnostic or technical errors. They can’t say whether their health system’s rate of infection or medical error is high, average or low.
What’s happening is that they’re conflating service with clinical quality. They assume a doctor’s bedside manner correlates with excellent outcomes.
These often false assumptions are part of a multi-millennia-long relationship wherein patients are reluctant to ask doctors uncomfortable but important questions: “How many times have you performed this procedure over the past year and how many patients experienced complications?” “What’s the worst outcome a patient of yours had during and after surgery?”
The answers are objective predictors of clinical excellence. Without them, patients are likely to become a victim of the halo effect—a cognitive bias where positive traits in one area (like friendliness) are assumed to carry over to another (medical expertise).
This is just one example of the many subconscious biases that distort our perceptions and decision-making.
From the waiting room to the operating table, these biases impact both patients and healthcare professionals with negative consequences. Acknowledging these biases isn’t just an academic exercise. It’s a crucial step toward improving healthcare outcomes.
Here are four more cognitive errors that cause harm in healthcare today, along with my thoughts on what can be done to mitigate their effects:
Availability bias
You’ve probably heard of the “hot hand” in Vegas—a lucky streak at the craps table that draws big cheers from onlookers. But luck is an illusion, a product of our natural tendency to see patterns where none exist. Nothing about the dice changes based on the last throw or the individual shaking them.
This mental error, first described as “availability bias” by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, was part of groundbreaking research in the 1970s and ‘80s in the field of behavioral economics and cognitive psychology. The duo challenged the prevailing assumption that humans make rational choices.
Availability bias, despite being identified nearly 50 years ago, still plagues human decision making today, even in what should be the most scientific of places: the doctor’s office.
Physicians frequently recommend a treatment plan based on the last patient they saw, rather than considering the overall probability that it will work. If a medication has a 10% complication rate, it means that 1 in 10 people will experience an adverse event. Yet, if a doctor’s most recent patient had a negative reaction, the physician is less likely to prescribe that medication to the next patient, even when it is the best option, statistically.
Confirmation bias
Have you ever had a “gut feeling” and stuck with it, even when confronted with evidence it was wrong? That’s confirmation bias. It skews our perceptions and interpretations, leading us to embrace information that aligns with our initial beliefs—and causing us to discount all indications to the contrary.
This tendency is heightened in a medical system where physicians face intense time pressures. Studies indicate that doctors, on average, interrupt patients within the first 11 seconds of being asked “What brings you here today?” With scant information to go on, doctors quickly form a hypothesis, using additional questions, diagnostic testing and medical-record information to support their first impression.
Doctors are well trained, and their assumptions prove more accurate than incorrect overall. Nevertheless, hasty decisions can be dangerous. Each year in the United States, an estimated 371,000 patients die from misdiagnoses.
Patients aren’t immune to confirmation bias, either. People with a serious medical problem commonly seek a benign explanation and find evidence to justify it. When this happens, heart attacks are dismissed as indigestion, leading to delays in diagnosis and treatment.
Framing effect
In 1981, Tversky and Kahneman asked subjects to help the nation prepare for a hypothetical viral outbreak. They explained that if the disease was left untreated, it would kill 600 people. Participants in one group were told that an available treatment, although risky, would save 200 lives. The other group was told that, despite the treatment, 400 people would die. Although both descriptions lead to the same outcome—200 people surviving and 400 dying—the first group favored the treatment, whereas the second group largely opposed it.
The study illustrates how differently people can react to identical scenarios based on how the information is framed. Researchers have discovered that the human mind magnifies and experiences loss far more powerfully than positive gains. So, patients will consent to a chemotherapy regiment that has a 20% chance of cure but decline the same treatment when told it has 80% likelihood of failure.
Self-serving bias
The best parts about being a doctor are saving and improving lives. But there are other perks, as well.
Pharmaceutical and medical-device companies aggressively reward physicians who prescribe and recommend their products. Whether it’s a sponsored dinner at a Michelin restaurant or even a pizza delivered to the office staff, the intention of the reward is always the same: to sway the decisions of doctors.
And yet, physicians swear that no meal or gift will influence their prescribing habits. And they believe it because of “self-serving bias.”
In the end, it’s patients who pay the price. Rather than receiving a generic prescription for a fraction of the cost, patients end up paying more for a brand-name drug because their doctor—at a subconscious level—doesn’t want to lose out on the perks.
Thanks to the “Sunshine Act,” patients can check sites like ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs to find out whether their healthcare professional is receiving drug- or device-company money (and how much).
Reducing subconscious bias
These cognitive biases may not be the reason U.S. life expectancy has stagnated for the past 20 years, but they stand in the way of positive change. And they contribute to the medical errors that harm patients.
A study published this month in JAMA Internal Medicine found that 1 in 4 hospital patients who either died or were transferred to the ICU had been affected by a diagnostic mistake. Knowing this, you might think cognitive biases would be a leading subject at annual medical conferences and a topic of grave concern among healthcare professionals. You’d be wrong. Inside the culture of medicine, these failures are commonly ignored.
The recent story of an economics professor offers one possible solution. Upon experiencing abdominal pain, he went to a highly respected university hospital. After laboratory testing and observation, his attending doctor concluded the problem wasn’t serious—a gallstone at worst. He told the patient to go home and return for outpatient workup.
The professor wasn’t convinced. Fearing that the medical problem was severe, the professor logged onto ChatGPT (a generative AI technology) and entered his symptoms. The application concluded that there was a 40% chance of a ruptured appendix. The doctor reluctantly ordered an MRI, which confirmed ChatGPT’s diagnosis.
Future generations of generative AI, pretrained with data from people’s electronic health records and fed with information about cognitive biases, will be able to spot these types of errors when they occur.
Deviation from standard practice will result in alerts, bringing cognitive errors to consciousness, thus reducing the likelihood of misdiagnosis and medical error. Rather than resisting this kind of objective second opinion, I hope clinicians will embrace it. The opportunity to prevent harm would constitute a major advance in medical care.
Two Lawsuits. Two Issues. One Clear Message.
Last Monday, two lawsuits were filed that strike at a fundamental challenge facing the U.S. health system:
In the District Court of NJ, a class action lawsuit (ANN LEWANDOWSKI v THE PENSION & BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF JOHNSON AND JOHNSON) was filed against J&J alleging the company had mismanaged health benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). As noted in the 74-page filing “This case principally involves mismanagement of prescription-drug benefits. “Over the past several years, defendants breached their fiduciary duties and mismanaged Johnson and Johnson’s prescription-drug benefits program, costing their ERISA plans and their employees millions of dollars in the form of higher payments for prescription drugs, higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher coinsurance, higher copays, and lower wages or limited wage growth… Defendants’ mismanagement is most evident in (but not limited to) the prices it agreed to pay one of its vendors—its Pharmacy Benefits Manager (“PBM”)—for many generic drugs that are widely available at drastically lower prices.”
The issue is this: what liability risk does a self-insured employer have in providing health benefits to their employees?
Is the structure of the plan, the selection of providers and vendors, and costs and prices experienced by employees subject to litigation? What’s the role of the employer in protecting employees against unnecessary costs?
On the same day, in the District Court of Eastern Wisconsin, an 85-page class action lawsuit was filed against Advocate-Aurora Health (AAH) claiming it “uses its market power to raise prices, limit competition and harm consumers in Wisconsin:
- Forces commercial health plans to include all its “overpriced facilities” in-network even when they would prefer to include only some facilities.
- Goes to “extreme efforts to drive out innovative insurance products that save commercial health plans and their members money.”
- Suppresses competition through “secret and restrictive contract terms that have been the subject of bipartisan criticism.”
- Acquires new facilities, which then allows it to raise prices due to reduced competition
… without intervention, the health system will continue to use “anticompetitive contracting and negotiating tactics to raise prices on Wisconsin commercial health plans and their members and use those funds for aggressive acquisitions and executive compensation.”
The issue is this: is a health system’s liable when its consolidation activities result in higher prices for services provided communities and employers in communities where they operate?
Is there a direct causal relationship between a system’s consolidation activities and their prices, and how should alleged harm be measured and remedied?
Two complicated issues for two reputable mega-players in the U.S. health system. Both lawsuits were brought as class actions which guarantees widespread media attention and a protracted legal process. And each contributes directly to the gradual erosion of public trust in the health system since the plaintiffs essentially claim the business practices of J&J and Advocate-Aurora willfully harm the individuals they pledge to serve.
In the November 2023 Keckley Poll, I asked the sample of 817 U.S. adults to assess the health system overall. The results were clear:
- 69% think the system is fundamentally flawed and in need of major change vs. 7% who think otherwise.
- 60% believe it puts its profits above patient care vs. 13% who disagree.
- 74% think price controls are needed vs. 7% who disagree.
- 83% believe having health insurance that’s ‘affordable and comprehensive’ is essential to financial security vs 3% who disagree.
- 52% feel confident in their ability to navigate the U.S. system “when I have a problem” vs. 32% who have mixed feelings and 16% who aren’t.
- And 76% think politicians avoid dealing with healthcare issues because they’re complex and politically risky vs/ 6% who think they tackle them head-on.
The poll also asked their level of trust and confidence in five major institutions “to develop a plan for the U.S. health system that maximizes what it has done well and corrects its major flaws.”
Clearly, trust and confidence in the health system is low, and expectations about solutions fall primarily on hospitals and doctors. Lawsuits like these widen suspicion that the industry’s dominated first and foremost by Big Businesses focused on their own profitability before all else. And they pose particular problems for sectors in healthcare dominated by not-for-profit and public ownership i.e. hospitals, home care, public health agencies and others.
My take
These lawsuits address two distinct issues: the roles of employers in designing their health benefits for employees including the use of PBMs, and the justification for consolidation of hospital and ancillary services in markets.
But each lawsuit s predicated on a legal theory that prices set by organizations are geared more to corporate profits than public good and justifiable costs.
Pricing is the Achilles of the health system. Pushback against price transparency by some, however justified, has amplified exposure to litigation risk like these two and contributed to the public’s loss of trust in the system.
It is unlikely greater price transparency and business practice disclosures by J&J and Advocate-Aurora could have avoided these lawsuits, but it’s clearly a message that needs consideration in every organization.
Healthcare organizations and their trade groups can no longer defend against lack of transparency by defaulting to the complexity of our supply chains and payment systems. They’re excuses. The realities of generative AI and interoperability assure information driven healthcare that’s publicly accessible and inclusive of prices, costs, outcomes and business practices. In the process, the public’s interest will heighten and lawsuits will increase.
P.S. Nashville is known as a hot spot for healthcare innovation including transparency solutions. Check out this meeting February 29: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/leaping-into-the-future-of-healthcare-2024-insights-tickets-809310819447
Resources
Lawsuit 119120873885 (documentcloud.org)
Microsoft Word – Aurora Class Action Complaint (FINAL filed Feb. 5 2024) (aboutblaw.com) February 5, 2024
Is the Tax Exemption for Not-for-Profit Hospitals at Risk?
Last Thursday, Seattle-based Providence Health System announced it is refunding nearly $21 million in medical bills paid by low-income residents of Washington and erasing $137 million more in outstanding debt for others. Other systems are likely to follow as pressure con mounts on large, not-for-profit systems to modify their business practices in sensitive areas like patient debt collection, price transparency, executive compensation, investment activities and others.
Not-for profit systems control the majority of the 2,987 nongovernment not-for-profit community hospitals in the U.S. Some lawmakers think it’s time to revisit to revisit the tax exemption. It has the attention of the American Hospital Association which lists “protecting not-for-profit hospitals’ the tax-exempt status” among its 15 Advocacy Priorities in 2024 (it was not on their list in 2023).
Background: Per a recent monograph in Health Affairs: “The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses the Community Benefit Standard (CBS), a set of 10 holistically analyzed metrics, to assess whether nonprofit hospitals benefit community health sufficiently to justify their tax-exempt status. Nonprofit hospitals risk losing their tax exemption if assessed as underinvesting in improving community health. This exemption from federal, state, and local property taxes amounts to roughly $25 billion annually.
However, accumulating evidence shows that many nonprofit hospitals’ investments in community health meet the letter, but not the spirit, of the CBS.
Indeed, a 2021 study showed that for every $100 in total expenses nonprofit hospitals spend just $2.30 on charity care (a key component of community benefit)—substantially less than the $3.80 of every $100 spent by for-profit hospitals. A 2022 study looked at the cost of caring for Medicaid patients that goes unreimbursed and is therefore borne by the hospital (another key component of community benefit); the researchers found that nonprofit hospitals spend no more than for-profit hospitals ($2.50 of every $100 of total expense).”
In its most recent study, the AHA found the value of CBS well-in-excess of the tax exemption by a factor of 9:1. But antagonism toward the big NFP systems has continued to mount and feelings are intense…
- Insurers think NFP systems exist to gain leverage in markets & states over insurers in contract negotiations and network design. They’ll garner support from sympathetic employers and lawmakers, federal anti-consolidation and price transparency rulings and in the court of public opinion where frustration with the system is high.
- State officials see the mega- NFP systems as monopolies that don’t deserve their tax exemptions while the state’s public health, mental health and social services programs struggle.
- Some federal lawmakers think the NFP systems are out of control requiring closer scrutiny and less latitude. They think the tax exemption qualifiers should be re-defined, scrutinized more aggressively and restricted.
- Well-publicized investments by NFP systems in private equity backed ventures has lent to criticism among labor unions and special interests that allege systems have abandoned community health for Wall Street shareholders.
- Investor-owned multi-hospital operators believe the tax exemption is an unfair advantage to NFPs while touting studies showing their own charity care equivalent or higher.
- Other key NFP and public sector hospital cohorts cry foul: Independent hospitals, academic medical centers, safety-net (aka ‘essential’) hospitals, rural health clinics & hospitals, children’s hospitals, rural health providers, public health providers et al think they get less because the big NFPs get more.
- And the physicians, nurses and workforces employed by Big NFP systems are increasingly concerned by systemization that limits their wages, cuts their clinical autonomy and compromises their patients’ health.
My take:
The big picture is this: the growth and prominence of multi-hospital systems mirrors the corporatization in most sectors of the economy: retail, technology, banking, transportation and even public utilities. The trifecta of community stability—schools, churches and hospitals—held out against corporatization, standardization and franchising that overtook the rest. But modernization required capital, the public’s expectations changed as social media uprooted news coverage and regulators left doors open for “new and better” that ceded local control to distant corporate boards.
Along the way, investor-owned hospitals became alternatives to not-for-profits, and loose networks of hospitals that shared purchasing and perhaps religious values gave way to bigger multi-state ownership and obligated groups.
The attention given large NFP hospital systems like Providence and others is not surprising. These brands are ubiquitous. Their deals with private equity and Big Tech are widely chronicled in industry journalism and passed along in unfiltered social media. And their collective financial position seems strong: Moody’s, Fitch, Kaufman Hall and others say utilization has recovered, pandemic recovery is near-complete and, despite lingering concerns about workforce issues, growth in their core businesses plus diversification in new businesses are their foci. (See Hospital Section below).
I believe not-for-profit hospital systems are engines for modernizing health delivery in communities and a lightening rod for critics who think their efforts more self-serving than for the public good.
Most consumers (55%) think they earn their tax exemption but 34% have mixed feelings and 10% disagree. (Keckley Poll November 20, 2023). That’s less than a convincing defense.
That’s why the threat to the tax exemption risk is real, and why every organization must be prepared. Equally important, it’s why AHA, its state associations and allies should advance fresh thinking about ways re-define CBS and hardwire the distinction between organizations that exist for the primary purpose of benefiting their shareholders and those that benefit health and wellbeing in their communities.
PS: Must reading for industry watchers is a new report from by Health Management Associates (HMA) and Leavitt Partners, an HMA company, with support from Arnold Ventures. The 70-page report provides a framework for comparing the increasingly crowned field of 120 entities categorized in 3 groups: Hybrids (6.9 million), Delivery (5.8 million) and Enablers 17.5 million
“At the start of the movement, value-based arrangements primarily involved traditional providers and payers engaging in relatively straight-forward and limited contractual arrangements. In recent years, the industry has expanded organically to include a broader ecosystem of risk-bearing care delivery organizations and provider enablement entities with capabilities and business models aligned with the functions and aims of accountable care…Inclusion criteria for the 120 VBD entities included in this analysis were:
- 1-Serve traditional Medicare, MA, and/or Medicaid populations. Entities that are focused solely on commercial populations were excluded
- 2-Operate in population-based, total cost of care APMs—not only bundled payment models.
- 3- Focus on primary care and/or select specialties that are relevant to total cost of care models (i.e., nephrology, oncology, behavioral health, cardiology, palliative care). Those exclusively focused on specialty areas geared toward episodic models (e.g., MSK) were excluded. –
- 4-Share accountability for cost and quality outcomes. Business models must be aligned with provider performance in total cost of care arrangements. Vendors that support VBP but do not share accountability for outcomes were excluded.
HMA_VBP-Entity-Landscape-Report_1.31.2024-updated.pdf (healthmanagement.com) February 2024
Three Must-Haves for Every Rating Presentation
Creating a great rating agency presentation is imperative to telling your story. I’ve probably seen a thousand presentations across the past three decades and I can say without a doubt that a great presentation will find its way into the rating committee. Show me a crisp, detailed, well-organized presentation, and I’ll show you a ratings analyst who walks away with high confidence that the management team can navigate the industry challenges ahead.
During the pandemic, Kaufman Hall recommended that hospitals move financial performance to the top of the presentation agenda. Better presentations chronicled the immediate, “line item by line item” steps management was taking to stop the financial bleeding and access liquidity. We still recommend this level of detail in your presentations, but as many hospitals relocate their bottom line, management teams are now returning to discussing longer-term strategy and financial performance in their presentations.
Beyond the facts and figures, many hospitals ask me what the rating analysts REALLY want to know. Over those one thousand presentations I’ve seen, the presentations that stood out the most addressed the three themes below:
- What makes your organization essential? Hospitals maintain limited price elasticity as Medicare and Medicaid typically comprise at least half of patient service revenue, leaving only a small commercial slice to subsidize operations. The ability to negotiate meaningful rate increases with payers will largely rest on the ability to prove why the hospital is a “must-have” in the network. In other words, a health plan that can’t sell a product without a hospital in its network is the definition of essential. This conversation now also includes Medicare Advantage plans as penetration rates increase rapidly across the country. Essentiality may be demonstrated by distinct services, strong clinical outcomes and robust medical staff, multiple access points across a certain geography, or data that show the hospital is a low-cost alternative compared to other providers. Volume trends, revenue growth, and market share show that essentiality. A discussion on essentiality is particularly needed for independent providers who operate in crowded markets.
- What makes your financial performance durable? Many hospitals are showing a return to better performance in recent quarters. Showing how your organization will sustain better financial results is important. Analysts will want to know what the new “run rate” is and why it is durable. What are the undergirding factors that make the better margins sustainable? Drivers may include negotiated rate increases from commercial payers and revenue cycle improvements. On the expense side, a well-chronicled plan to achieve operating efficiencies should receive material airtime in the presentation, particularly regarding labor. It is universally understood that high labor costs are a permanent, structural challenge for hospitals, so any effort to bend the labor cost curve will be well received. Management should also isolate non-recurring revenue or expenses that may drive results, such as FEMA funds or 340B settlements. To that end, many states have established new direct-to-provider payment programs which may be meaningful for hospitals. Expect questions on whether these funds are subject to annual approval by the state or CMS. The analysts will take a sharpened pencil to a growing reliance on these funds.
The durability of financial performance should be represented with highly detailed multi-year projections complete with computed margin, debt, and liquidity ratios. Know that analysts will create their own conservative projections if these are not provided, which effectively limits your voice in the rating committee.
We also recommend that hospitals include a catalogue of MTI and bank covenants in the presentation. Complying with covenants are part of the agreement that hospitals make with their lenders, and it is the organization’s responsibility to report how it’s performing against these covenants. General philosophy on headroom to covenants also provides insight to management’s operating philosophy. For example, is it the organization’s goal to have narrow, adequate, or ample headroom to the covenants and why? As the rating agencies will tell you, ratings are not solely based on covenant performance, but all rating factors influence your ability to comply with the covenants. - What makes your capital plan affordable? Every rating committee will ask what the hospital’s future capital needs are and how those capital needs will be supported by cash flow, also known as “capital capacity.” To answer that question, a hospital must understand what it can afford, based on financial projections. Funding sources may require debt, which requires a debt capacity analysis with goals on debt burden, coverage, and liquidity targets. Over the years, better presentations explain the organization’s capital model, outline the funding sources, and discuss management’s tolerance for leverage.
There is always a lot to cover when meeting with the rating agencies and a near endless array of metrics and indicators to provide. As I’ve written before, how you tell the story is as important as the story itself. If you can weave these three themes throughout the presentation, then you will have a greater shot at having your best voice heard in rating committee.
Don’t Let Your Hospital Be Boeing
If you haven’t noticed (but I am sure you have) American business can be very unsettling from time to time, and occasionally the bigger the business, the more unsettling it gets. Exhibit A right now for this observation is, of course, the Boeing Company.
For years Boeing was an iconic, high reliability company; a worldwide leader in the growth of airplane transportation. As Bill Saporito wrote in the January 23 New York Times, Boeings’ airplanes were industry-changing, including the 707 jet in 1957, the 747 introduced in 1970, and perhaps the most successful commercial plane in aviation history, the 737.
But when things go bad, they can, indeed, go very bad. The newly designed 737 MAX crashed twice, once in 2018 and again in 2019, with a loss of life of 346 people. Now this year, a door plug fell off the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 at 16,000 feet and subsequent investigation revealed the possibility of missing bolts. All 737 MAX 9s were grounded while a special investigation was convened. Manufacturing airplanes is a special enterprise; lives are at stake. Airlines and the flying public take these Boeing problems very seriously.
What went wrong at Boeing?
Everybody has an opinion. One popular interpretation goes all the way back to Boeing’s merger in 1997 with McDonell Douglas. Recent articles suggest that prior to 1997 Boeing had a very dominant “engineering” culture. After the McDonell Douglas merger, the Boeing culture took a more “business” turn. That is the speculation anyway.
What strikes me here is the similarity between Boeing and the American hospital industry. Boeing “manufactures” planes and hospitals “manufacture” healthcare.
Neither industry can make mistakes; manufacturing errors in both cases change lives and cause real personal and societal pain. For both Boeing and hospitals, high reliability and error-free execution is the only acceptable business model.
Why is this analogy to Boeing apt and important?
Because American healthcare is likely the most intricate enterprise humanity has ever engineered. Therapeutic interventions are increasingly effective but demand pinpoint diagnoses and precision treatment. All of this is happening within profound technological complexity. The opportunity for regrettable manufacturing error—in fact the likelihood of such error—is so significant that no American hospital can possibly take for granted that high reliability processes and culture are properly in place and remain in place.
So what can hospitals do to keep from being Boeing?
In all candor, this question is over my paygrade, so for an experienced and nuanced answer, I turned to Allan Frankel, MD. Dr. Frankel is an anesthesiologist and former hospital executive who founded Safe and Reliable Healthcare after evaluating one too many disasters in healthcare delivery. He is currently an Executive Principal at Vizient Inc. Dr. Frankel offered the following high reliability tutorial:
- High reliability manufacturing is directly dependent on the culture of the organization in question. Everyday excellence which leads to high reliability is dependent on the collective mindset and social norms of your workforce. Any high reliability workforce must trust its leadership and believe that the workforce values and leadership values are aligned. Further, a high reliability culture gives the workforce a sense of purpose and the opportunity to be their best professional selves on the job.
- In the workplace, bi-directional communication is essential. Leaders and managers must round, see the actual work firsthand, learn what it is like to perform the work, and talk to individuals about the challenges of doing the work. Under best practices senior leaders should round 10% to 20% of their time. Line managers should round 80% to 90% of their time.
- Workers, on the other hand, must have a sense of voice and agency. Voice means that workers are able to speak up about their concerns and ideas. Agency means that when workers do speak up, they see their ideas and concerns influence their work environment for the better.
- Voice and agency require that workers feel safe in the high reliability process and that when identifying defects in the manufacturing process, they will be treated fairly. And importantly, that having the courage to speak up is an organizational attribute that is perceived as worthy. Such worthiness is described by discrete concepts including “psychological safety,” just culture,” and “respect.” Each of these concepts is definable and requires focused and ongoing training.
- Concepts 3 and 4 require close attention and care and feeding. Functionally, this happens by robust leader rounding, robust managerial huddles, and timely feedback regarding manufacturing concerns and weaknesses. These activities need to be structural and must be built into a system of operations—such systems are often referred to as “standard work.” These changes plus the right frame of mind functionally drive improvement and change. Dr. Frankel noted “it’s not complicated, but as the Boeing example illustrates, the high reliability philosophy must be perpetually nourished.”
- Once all the above is in place, there needs to be an effector arm. Process improvement skills are required to take ideas and concerns and test and implement them. Quality personnel must check on the changes as they are being made and audit operations. Dr. Frankel adds that this part of the high reliability journey is very often under-resourced in healthcare organizations, with the result that the overall process feels less effective so the activities stop occurring.
- Training and skills are paramount. Skills come from training and reading. You should be thinking here about the “10,000 hours concept.” Worthy attitudes must be defined by your organization and then uniformly expected of all staff. Finally, behaviors can be structured, expectations set, and measures and metrics identified.
As you can see from the suggested activities, the foundations of high reliability are not rocket science. They require the right frame of mind, attention to detail, and clear accountability of all involved. No hospital should let that metaphorical 737 MAX 9 door plug fall off at 16,000 feet. It was, without question, a terrifying manufacturing moment.
U.S. economy adds whopping 353,000 jobs in January as labor market heats up
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/02/us-jobs-report-january-2024
The U.S. economy added 353,000 jobs in January, while the unemployment rate held at 3.7%, the Labor Department said Friday.
Why it matters:
The first look at the 2024 labor market shows it’s on fire — not slowing down as previously thought.
Details:
The January payroll figures show hiring picked up from the 333,000 added the prior month, which itself was revised higher by 117,000.
- Job gains in November were revised slightly higher, too, by 9,000 to 182,000 jobs added.
What’s new:
The hiring boom last month came amid strong job gains in health care, retail and professional and business services, while mining and oil and gas extraction are among the sectors that shed jobs.
- Meanwhile, the labor force participation rate — the share of workers with or looking for a job — was 62.5% in January.
- Average hourly earnings, a measure of wage growth, soared by 0.6%. Over the past 12 month, average hourly earnings increased by 4.5%.
The big picture:
The data is the latest in recent weeks to show that the economy is revving up, with fading inflation and steady hiring — a welcome development for the Biden administration that is touting its economic agenda ahead of the 2024 election.
The intrigue:
The strong growth in both jobs and earnings will make the Federal Reserve reluctant to cut interest rates soon, out of fear that labor market strength could reverse progress on inflation.
- Already this week, Fed chair Jerome Powell threw cold water on the idea of a March rate cut.
The bottom line:
Despite high profile layoffs at media and technology companies, the report shows that broader labor market is heating up.
HENRY KOTULA 