Last evening I watched Gov. Sarah Palin deliver her coming out speech at the Republican National Convention. In the speech (which was one of the better ones of the two conventions), she lampooned Sen. Barack Obama’s community organization experience and suggested that it was less worthy than a job that “actually makes decisions”. The Whisperer believes this "those who can't, teach" argument falls flat. Why is being governor of a state that is half a world away from Washington superior to learning the problems of the working and unworking poor on the south side of Chicago?
If I remember my American history, Abraham Lincoln was an Illinois state senator (which Obama was) and a member of the House of Representatives (not an executive position) before being elected the 16th president of the United States. John F. Kennedy was a senator and not a governor. Jimmy Carter was a governor and we all know how ineffective he was. And the current President of the United States certainly does not prove that having been a governor qualifies someone to be an effective president.
The fact is, we have had presidents who rose to the occasion during times of national strife, and we have had presidents who were barely more effective than the local dogcatcher. Whether someone was a mayor, a governor, a senator, or a janitor has nothing to do with being an effective president of the country. Knowing how to build consensus and how not to be handicapped by ideology are more indicative of success in the highest office in the land.
Be well.
--TMW
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
It’s Time To Kill The “S Word” Once And For All!
Today I got another one of those pieces in the mail from a nearby hospital—you know, the one with the vanilla husband and wife, both frolicking on the beach, he in is tan swim trunks and full head of shocking white hair, she in her one -piece bathing suit, her capped teeth gleaming in the bright sunlight.
Hospitals are looking to “align” with what they believe are the wealthier market segment—those 50 years and older (of course, the hospital’s brochure, in its unintended patronizing way, refers to them as “50 years and better”). The hospital marketing department’s thought process is to solicit folks in this age group to join its“senior membership” program. Get discounts at neighborhood retailers by flashing them your telltale membership card. Partake in free “seniorcize” classes at the hospital’s health and fitness center, where silver-haired warriors can get their blood pressures checked and the hospital can ultimately get a few heart procedures.
Honestly, I have no issue with programs that are set up to attract older individuals approaching or already in retirement. Banks do this all the time. And hospitals are not just trying to improve their payer mix and volume of patients with these membership programs. The material is educationally important and the programs provide excellent socializiation opportunities in addition to healthy living habits thatmany people in their advancing years need. But what really irks me is that people 55 years of age or older are still being called “seniors”. People in their thirties and forties aren’t called “juniors”, are they? I’m not aware of any “juniorcize” exercise programs out there. Every other market group rails when it is stereotyped. Why are we, the growing bald and bunion market segment, letting society get away with this??
Rather than refer to us as seniors, why not just call us “smart shoppers”? We know a good deal when we see one, and we know when marketers are really just after our money (which we don’t have a lot of anyway). So please, no more commercials with Wilford Brimley droning on about spending our golden years on some crappy insurance plan. And no more cheesy brochures with that lady with the pearly whites.
Be well.
--TMW
Hospitals are looking to “align” with what they believe are the wealthier market segment—those 50 years and older (of course, the hospital’s brochure, in its unintended patronizing way, refers to them as “50 years and better”). The hospital marketing department’s thought process is to solicit folks in this age group to join its“senior membership” program. Get discounts at neighborhood retailers by flashing them your telltale membership card. Partake in free “seniorcize” classes at the hospital’s health and fitness center, where silver-haired warriors can get their blood pressures checked and the hospital can ultimately get a few heart procedures.
Honestly, I have no issue with programs that are set up to attract older individuals approaching or already in retirement. Banks do this all the time. And hospitals are not just trying to improve their payer mix and volume of patients with these membership programs. The material is educationally important and the programs provide excellent socializiation opportunities in addition to healthy living habits thatmany people in their advancing years need. But what really irks me is that people 55 years of age or older are still being called “seniors”. People in their thirties and forties aren’t called “juniors”, are they? I’m not aware of any “juniorcize” exercise programs out there. Every other market group rails when it is stereotyped. Why are we, the growing bald and bunion market segment, letting society get away with this??
Rather than refer to us as seniors, why not just call us “smart shoppers”? We know a good deal when we see one, and we know when marketers are really just after our money (which we don’t have a lot of anyway). So please, no more commercials with Wilford Brimley droning on about spending our golden years on some crappy insurance plan. And no more cheesy brochures with that lady with the pearly whites.
Be well.
--TMW
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Flexible Workplace: Hardly Working, Or Working Hardly?
A lot is being written these days about flexibility in the workplace. Is the traditional five day a week, eight-hour work-week relevant in today's marketplace? I am not aware of any study that definitively proves that the forty-hour work week yields maximum productivity for employers. Quite to the contrary, my hypothesis is that, at best, the average non-self employed individual produces five quality hours in a workday, if that. The other three hours are just not as productive, and are filled with personal phone calls, furtive use of the internet, day-dreaming, and worst of all, sitting through endlessly boring meetings. Of course, this brings into question: what does productive mean?
Are we talking efficiency or effectiveness? Or both?
If I, Joe Employee, can accomplish my widgeting in four hours instead of eight, am I 200% productive, even though my widgeting results in a significant number of errors? Or suppose I take longer than eight hours to achieve the targeted widgeting, but with great results?
A good example that illustrates the difference between the two is the opposing quarterbacks in a football game. One team’s quarterback may complete 75% of his passes (he is highly efficient) yet never score a touchdown (he is highly in-effective). Conversely, the other team’s quarterback may complete only 45% of his passes (he is very inefficient), but four of his completed passes result in touchdowns (he is highly effective). Of course, each quarterback’s efficiency and effectiveness ratings are dependent on the ability of his wide receiver to catch the ball—which is where team productivity comes into play (no pun intended).
I recall once reading in one of my graduate school management classes about a consultant who was supposedly hired by a company that developed a recipe for a soft drink to give it recommendations on how it could build market share. The consultant's report comprised two words: "bottle it". Those two words resulted in millions of dollars in sales. Would the consultant have been more productive if he had issued a one-hundred page report listing dozens of recommendations? Should he have been paid more for that two- word report than if he had issued the one-hundred page report?
I also recently read that Google has been cited as a workplace that offers flexibility, but even Google generally follows a traditional eight-hour workday. Free food during the day, and maybe a nap, but all to basically squeeze as much ingenuity and "productivity" out of a happier workforce.
The Whisperer would be interested in hearing from those of you out there in the 9 to 5 crowd. Take the poll and register your opinion.
Work Smart. Not Hard.
--TMW
Are we talking efficiency or effectiveness? Or both?
If I, Joe Employee, can accomplish my widgeting in four hours instead of eight, am I 200% productive, even though my widgeting results in a significant number of errors? Or suppose I take longer than eight hours to achieve the targeted widgeting, but with great results?
A good example that illustrates the difference between the two is the opposing quarterbacks in a football game. One team’s quarterback may complete 75% of his passes (he is highly efficient) yet never score a touchdown (he is highly in-effective). Conversely, the other team’s quarterback may complete only 45% of his passes (he is very inefficient), but four of his completed passes result in touchdowns (he is highly effective). Of course, each quarterback’s efficiency and effectiveness ratings are dependent on the ability of his wide receiver to catch the ball—which is where team productivity comes into play (no pun intended).
I recall once reading in one of my graduate school management classes about a consultant who was supposedly hired by a company that developed a recipe for a soft drink to give it recommendations on how it could build market share. The consultant's report comprised two words: "bottle it". Those two words resulted in millions of dollars in sales. Would the consultant have been more productive if he had issued a one-hundred page report listing dozens of recommendations? Should he have been paid more for that two- word report than if he had issued the one-hundred page report?
I also recently read that Google has been cited as a workplace that offers flexibility, but even Google generally follows a traditional eight-hour workday. Free food during the day, and maybe a nap, but all to basically squeeze as much ingenuity and "productivity" out of a happier workforce.
The Whisperer would be interested in hearing from those of you out there in the 9 to 5 crowd. Take the poll and register your opinion.
Work Smart. Not Hard.
--TMW
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Can Failure Really Be Your Friend?
There’s an outdoor billboard near General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee’s major airport) with a picture of Abraham Lincoln. The caption reads: “Failed. Failed. Failed. And Then…….”. Underneath this phrase appears one word: “Persistence.” This billboard, produced by the Foundation For A Better Life, has appeared in cities and states around the country as part of a series of uplifting, inspirational themes.
Because I was curious to learn more behind the campaign, I went to the Foundation’s web page: www.forbetterlife.org.There I saw a series of billboards featuring a variety of famous and not so famous individuals who represented values such as Albert Einstein (confidence), Shaquille Oneal (perseverance) Winston Churchill (commitment), and Christopher Reeves (strength). All of these people faced incredible odds in their quests to succeed in their chosen fields: Einstein was a poor student who failed math; Shaquile Oneal earned his college diploma in the off-seasons when he wasn’t playing basketball; Churchill was considered a poor communicator early in his life; Reeves was thought to be just a Hollywood lightweight by many of his peers, until he showed a level of courage that many people with his tragic condition wouldn’t find in themselves.
In today's email, I found more on failure that further supports last week's blog on why so many people are reluctant to take any chances in life. A message from Marketing Profs entitled: "Make Failure Your Friend". The message cites a quote from Marketing Safari by Hjörtur Smárason:
"Mistakes are a necessary part of learning, development and innovation..... "There's a lot you don't understand until you try it on yourself. And if you let the fear of failure stop you from trying something new, you'll face nothing but stagnation."
"One mistake doesn't mean that the next attempt is more likely to fail," says Smárason. "Actually, it should be the contrary. It should be more likely to succeed as that person hopefully learned something from the mistakes (see the full article: http://blog.scope.is/marketing_safari/2008/05/are-you-never-t.html
To be sure, risks must be calculated and carefully vetted. But one must keep in mind that nothing worthwhile on the face of the earth came about because of a reluctance to take on risk.
So get out there and swing for the fences--unless you never want to cross home plate.
Because I was curious to learn more behind the campaign, I went to the Foundation’s web page: www.forbetterlife.org.There I saw a series of billboards featuring a variety of famous and not so famous individuals who represented values such as Albert Einstein (confidence), Shaquille Oneal (perseverance) Winston Churchill (commitment), and Christopher Reeves (strength). All of these people faced incredible odds in their quests to succeed in their chosen fields: Einstein was a poor student who failed math; Shaquile Oneal earned his college diploma in the off-seasons when he wasn’t playing basketball; Churchill was considered a poor communicator early in his life; Reeves was thought to be just a Hollywood lightweight by many of his peers, until he showed a level of courage that many people with his tragic condition wouldn’t find in themselves.
In today's email, I found more on failure that further supports last week's blog on why so many people are reluctant to take any chances in life. A message from Marketing Profs entitled: "Make Failure Your Friend". The message cites a quote from Marketing Safari by Hjörtur Smárason:
"Mistakes are a necessary part of learning, development and innovation..... "There's a lot you don't understand until you try it on yourself. And if you let the fear of failure stop you from trying something new, you'll face nothing but stagnation."
"One mistake doesn't mean that the next attempt is more likely to fail," says Smárason. "Actually, it should be the contrary. It should be more likely to succeed as that person hopefully learned something from the mistakes (see the full article: http://blog.scope.is/marketing_safari/2008/05/are-you-never-t.html
To be sure, risks must be calculated and carefully vetted. But one must keep in mind that nothing worthwhile on the face of the earth came about because of a reluctance to take on risk.
So get out there and swing for the fences--unless you never want to cross home plate.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
The Law Of The (Work) Jungle
Thousands of miles from here,deep in the heart of the Serengetti National Park in northeastern Tanzania,the wildebeest run as a pack to make it harder for the attacking hyenas to pull any one of them down. The luckier of the herd are in the middle-- the best place to be for survival, whereas the ones on the outer flanks are the most vulnerable to being caught and eaten by their savage predators. They live a fast life, these flankers. They know that one slip and they’re a goner. Yet they also know that a hyena can only catch one wildebeest at a time, so the odds are good that they won’t be the one that fattens a hyena’s belly. Eventually, some of the middlers will find themselves out on the flanks. Those that have grown soft and slow from too much time in the middle will suffer the consequences of not having kept themselves in shape.
This got me wondering about how many of us get up every day and go to work to thrive rather than just survive? Indeed, how many of our workplaces today encourage people to push themselves, to take on challenges that could result in great success? People are reluctant to try something new for fear that, if not successful, they will lose stature in the organization and be held personally accountable for failing . Thus, individual initiative is subordinated to “groupthink”, and innovative ideas are stifled in the interest of “teamwork” (which is often code for “don’t rock the boat”). True, there are those companies where employees are rewarded for looking for ways to improve customer service, productivity, and sales. But even in these environments, employees still perceive that it is safer to “stay in the middle”.
In an era of global competition, it seems we are becoming a nation of middlers when we so desperately need more flankers. The false security of the bi-weekly paycheck will not protect us from being laid off. Even if we are excellent at what we do, there will always be a hyena out there looking for our job—someone who is faster, hungrier, and who will accomplish twice as much as we do at the same or lower salary.
With that thought, The Whisperer urges you to always stay nimble and creative in your thinking. It’s good hyena insurance.
Be well.
--TMW
This got me wondering about how many of us get up every day and go to work to thrive rather than just survive? Indeed, how many of our workplaces today encourage people to push themselves, to take on challenges that could result in great success? People are reluctant to try something new for fear that, if not successful, they will lose stature in the organization and be held personally accountable for failing . Thus, individual initiative is subordinated to “groupthink”, and innovative ideas are stifled in the interest of “teamwork” (which is often code for “don’t rock the boat”). True, there are those companies where employees are rewarded for looking for ways to improve customer service, productivity, and sales. But even in these environments, employees still perceive that it is safer to “stay in the middle”.
In an era of global competition, it seems we are becoming a nation of middlers when we so desperately need more flankers. The false security of the bi-weekly paycheck will not protect us from being laid off. Even if we are excellent at what we do, there will always be a hyena out there looking for our job—someone who is faster, hungrier, and who will accomplish twice as much as we do at the same or lower salary.
With that thought, The Whisperer urges you to always stay nimble and creative in your thinking. It’s good hyena insurance.
Be well.
--TMW
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
My Head Hurts, Herr Doktor
This week a Belgian company, InBev, purchased Annheuser Busch for $52 million. Hearing about this got me to thinking: why couldn’t a European country, particularly one that has had a long history of managing health care for its citizens, run our health care system? Why not totally outsource our third party quasi- government/private health care-financed miasma to a country like Germany, which has been in the social security business since Otto von Bismarck designed the first modern public welfare system in the mid 1800’s?
Before you conclude that I have had one too many Bud (er, excuse me, InBev) lites, consider that many of the western European countries, including Germany, France, and Spain, have high-speed intra- and inter-country rail service. Europeans drive more gas-efficient automobiles and get their health care taken care of in technologically up-to-date and clean facilities.While still small in number, more and more Americans are traveling for medical care to western (and eastern) Europe, as well as to Thailand and India, because out of pocket costs are lower, even including the travel portion. And it’s a well-established fact that western countries with standards of living similar to ours have better morbidity and mortality statistics than our own in many of the leading health care indicators.
According to the travel web site www.justlanded.com:
“The German health care system has the reputation of being one of the best in the world. There is an extensive network of hospitals and doctors covering even the remotest areas of Germany. Waiting lists for treatments are rare. Medical facilities are equipped with the latest technology and the statutory health insurance scheme provides nearly full cover for most medical treatments and medicines. Almost everybody in Germany has access to this system, irrespective of income or social status.”
This by no means is to say that Germany and countries like it have solved the problem of financing health care. In fact, according to justlanded.com, Germany’s medical costs are among the most expensive in the world. The difference is that more of the dollars spent on health care go toward the provision of care as opposed to paying for the bloated overhead and administrative costs associated with our crazy-quilt third party payment “system”.
Oktoberfest is just around the corner, so hoist one high, all you consumers of 16% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. This one’s for you!
--Be well. TMW
Before you conclude that I have had one too many Bud (er, excuse me, InBev) lites, consider that many of the western European countries, including Germany, France, and Spain, have high-speed intra- and inter-country rail service. Europeans drive more gas-efficient automobiles and get their health care taken care of in technologically up-to-date and clean facilities.While still small in number, more and more Americans are traveling for medical care to western (and eastern) Europe, as well as to Thailand and India, because out of pocket costs are lower, even including the travel portion. And it’s a well-established fact that western countries with standards of living similar to ours have better morbidity and mortality statistics than our own in many of the leading health care indicators.
According to the travel web site www.justlanded.com:
“The German health care system has the reputation of being one of the best in the world. There is an extensive network of hospitals and doctors covering even the remotest areas of Germany. Waiting lists for treatments are rare. Medical facilities are equipped with the latest technology and the statutory health insurance scheme provides nearly full cover for most medical treatments and medicines. Almost everybody in Germany has access to this system, irrespective of income or social status.”
This by no means is to say that Germany and countries like it have solved the problem of financing health care. In fact, according to justlanded.com, Germany’s medical costs are among the most expensive in the world. The difference is that more of the dollars spent on health care go toward the provision of care as opposed to paying for the bloated overhead and administrative costs associated with our crazy-quilt third party payment “system”.
Oktoberfest is just around the corner, so hoist one high, all you consumers of 16% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. This one’s for you!
--Be well. TMW
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
No, Doctor, It's My Left Leg.....
When was the last time you checked your medical records for accuracy? Have you ever checked them at all? The whisperer thinks it’s incredible that, with all the money being spent on converting to electronic medical records, innumerable mistakes are still being made that go uncorrected. In computer technology parlance, this is known as “GIGO” (garbage in, garbage out); i.e. if faulty information is entered, then the output of that information will be faulty as well. For example, I have found things in my medical records that have said that I am currently married (I have been divorced for over ten years), that I am five years older than I actually am, and that I am allergic to cats and dogs (I am not).
Granted, these are not life and death mistakes, and it’s not as if these mistakes would likely lead to an inappropriate treatment or, worse, an adverse clinical event. Nevertheless, they should not be there. Why not make it a required part of the history-taking process that patients review the information that is recorded in their charts before it gets memorialized in an electronic file that will likely never be corrected? The federal government requires that the three credit bureaus make available a free credit report at least once a year so that consumers can check to see if erroneous information is in their credit files. Why not do the same with our medical records?
Many patients have no idea as to what is written in their charts and would be horrified to read the misinformation that exists in their charts. Some of the blame belongs with patients, who should be more vigilant with their providers. But a lot of the blame belongs with providers for not taking the time to assure that they have accurately heard and recorded what their patients have told them.
What do you think? Take the poll in the right column.
Until next time, good health to you.
--TMW
Granted, these are not life and death mistakes, and it’s not as if these mistakes would likely lead to an inappropriate treatment or, worse, an adverse clinical event. Nevertheless, they should not be there. Why not make it a required part of the history-taking process that patients review the information that is recorded in their charts before it gets memorialized in an electronic file that will likely never be corrected? The federal government requires that the three credit bureaus make available a free credit report at least once a year so that consumers can check to see if erroneous information is in their credit files. Why not do the same with our medical records?
Many patients have no idea as to what is written in their charts and would be horrified to read the misinformation that exists in their charts. Some of the blame belongs with patients, who should be more vigilant with their providers. But a lot of the blame belongs with providers for not taking the time to assure that they have accurately heard and recorded what their patients have told them.
What do you think? Take the poll in the right column.
Until next time, good health to you.
--TMW
Friday, July 4, 2008
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of (Un) happiness?
The whisperer wishes everyone a Happy Fourth of July. But in so doing, he reflects on the state of affairs on our country's 232nd birthday. A recent poll carried out by Leicester University in Great Britain found that people who live in Denmark are the happiest people in the world. The U.S. ranked 23rd in happiness. How can this be? Could it be that Danes do not think as critically about things as we do?
Was Shakespeare all wet when he characterized Hamlet the melancholy Dane?
Or could it have something to do with the fact that Denmark is not at war, the euro is stronger than its ever been, and Danes as a society are not as uptight about sex and marijuana?
The problem is: Denmark has rated number one in national happiness for over 30 years. So this is not some fluky finding by a research company looking to get a quirky story on the evening news.
Most psychologists would agree that having a lot of money does not necessarily make one happy. A friend of mine told me recently about someone she knows who barely makes enough money to feed herself, yet whatever little amount she makes she contributes to help the homeless because they need help. And this makes her happy.
Whatever the reasons are for our national discontent, it seems that we are not achieving Jefferson's vision of happiness, or that perhaps his vision was a lot less demanding than ours is. As for me, I'm happy to have the ability to write this blog without worrying about being thrown in jail, or fearing I'll be incarcerated without explanation for questioning the way public officials spend our tax dollars. At least that's what I want to believe will always be the case.
So, my fellow melancholians, let's try to be happier on this commemoration of our nation's birth about the things that truly matter in life. And maybe, just maybe someday we'll beat Denmark in futbol. Although I doubt that will make us any happier.
--Be safe. TMW
Was Shakespeare all wet when he characterized Hamlet the melancholy Dane?
Or could it have something to do with the fact that Denmark is not at war, the euro is stronger than its ever been, and Danes as a society are not as uptight about sex and marijuana?
The problem is: Denmark has rated number one in national happiness for over 30 years. So this is not some fluky finding by a research company looking to get a quirky story on the evening news.
Most psychologists would agree that having a lot of money does not necessarily make one happy. A friend of mine told me recently about someone she knows who barely makes enough money to feed herself, yet whatever little amount she makes she contributes to help the homeless because they need help. And this makes her happy.
Whatever the reasons are for our national discontent, it seems that we are not achieving Jefferson's vision of happiness, or that perhaps his vision was a lot less demanding than ours is. As for me, I'm happy to have the ability to write this blog without worrying about being thrown in jail, or fearing I'll be incarcerated without explanation for questioning the way public officials spend our tax dollars. At least that's what I want to believe will always be the case.
So, my fellow melancholians, let's try to be happier on this commemoration of our nation's birth about the things that truly matter in life. And maybe, just maybe someday we'll beat Denmark in futbol. Although I doubt that will make us any happier.
--Be safe. TMW
Monday, June 30, 2008
What Makes A Great Physician Group Practice?
By Patrick T. Buckley, as published in HealthLeaders Media Physicians' E-zine.
In his 2001 book, Good To Great, author Jim Collins talked about research he and his associates had conducted on why some companies thrived during economic downturns and others in the same field floundered. Although the companies that Collins and his team studied didn’t include medical group practices, there are a number of principles that are relevant to physicians trying to run a successful business.
So what makes a group practice great? In many cases, marketing makes the difference between a mediocre group practice and an exceptional one.
CEOs will tell you that the “moments of truth” for a business occur in daily operations. All the publicity, promotion, and advertising in the world won’t matter one bit if the word on the street is that it is difficult to make an appointment or get in to see your physician. Those who would separate marketing from operations fail to see that the two are integrally wound together. Timely appointment-setting, friendly reception, respect for the patient’s opinion, and protecting patients’ rights are all things that happen through customer interaction—which is operations and marketing.
In a recent focus group I arranged and witnessed, the facilitator asked participants what they felt truly equated to a great experience when seeing a physician. “I was concerned that there may have been wrong information in my medical record and asked if I could review it,” one participant said. “Not only did they let me review it, but they apologized after I pointed out mistakes in the record and promised to correct them. They also asked that I double-check with them later to make sure the corrections were made.”
Another participant boasted that the nurse arranged for a pick up when she wasn’t able to drive. Others lauded simple things like being able to make appointments online or in the evening and being informed of the doctor’s progress every ten minutes when waiting for an appointment.
These are the things that Jim Collins would say are the mark of a great, not just a good, medical group practice. They are the result of truly listening to the patient, putting the customer (patient) first, and doing something as opposed to just talking about it. At first, employees and their managers are worried that implementing patient-driven enhancements will take too much time and cost too much. However, practices that operate with a focus on the patient have actually seen employee morale improve while costs have not skyrocketed. In fact, in some cases, they have gone down because of spin-off efficiencies as a result of process improvements.
A number of progressive medical groups have learned the secret to building and sustaining patient volume. They have integrated market research into their efforts to improve operations, and they have fine-tuned their operations to incorporate marketing concepts. But even the best-run practices struggle with the on-going throughput/efficiency vs. customer satisfaction challenge. There is an opportunity cost to an unused MRI machine or an empty exam room. Machines and buildings have sunk costs that must be covered by paying customers. To the degree that a practice can accommodate throughput without sacrificing clinical quality, it will achieve coverage of the fixed and variable costs that exist with all operations. But will it achieve customer satisfaction?
A recent study that was reported in the Denver Business Journal suggests that efforts at increasing efficiency can be compatible with customer service. The article claims that overbooking patients (similar to how airlines overbook flights) may be better for large practices where there can be a significant number of patient no-shows. Which leads one to ask: Wouldn’t it make sense to find out why there are so many no-shows and devise a strategy that would cut down on them? This is where market research and strategy can be instrumental in not only improving operational efficiency but in increasing patient loyalty and satisfaction.
Together, operations and marketing help bring in patients and keep them coming back to a physician’s practice (if medically necessary).
There are many factors involved in attaining patient loyalty, including competent clinical management of chronic disease from specialists and pharmacologic management of cholesterol levels and blood pressure by primary care physicians. However, what makes a patient refer other potential patients to the practice (the “multiplier effect” of marketing), is primarily the skills and understanding of the physician in meeting the patient’s specific health care needs. And what makes you’re a great group practice is making your interaction with patients more than just a “get ‘em in, get ‘em out” experience.
'Til next time.
--TMW
In his 2001 book, Good To Great, author Jim Collins talked about research he and his associates had conducted on why some companies thrived during economic downturns and others in the same field floundered. Although the companies that Collins and his team studied didn’t include medical group practices, there are a number of principles that are relevant to physicians trying to run a successful business.
So what makes a group practice great? In many cases, marketing makes the difference between a mediocre group practice and an exceptional one.
CEOs will tell you that the “moments of truth” for a business occur in daily operations. All the publicity, promotion, and advertising in the world won’t matter one bit if the word on the street is that it is difficult to make an appointment or get in to see your physician. Those who would separate marketing from operations fail to see that the two are integrally wound together. Timely appointment-setting, friendly reception, respect for the patient’s opinion, and protecting patients’ rights are all things that happen through customer interaction—which is operations and marketing.
In a recent focus group I arranged and witnessed, the facilitator asked participants what they felt truly equated to a great experience when seeing a physician. “I was concerned that there may have been wrong information in my medical record and asked if I could review it,” one participant said. “Not only did they let me review it, but they apologized after I pointed out mistakes in the record and promised to correct them. They also asked that I double-check with them later to make sure the corrections were made.”
Another participant boasted that the nurse arranged for a pick up when she wasn’t able to drive. Others lauded simple things like being able to make appointments online or in the evening and being informed of the doctor’s progress every ten minutes when waiting for an appointment.
These are the things that Jim Collins would say are the mark of a great, not just a good, medical group practice. They are the result of truly listening to the patient, putting the customer (patient) first, and doing something as opposed to just talking about it. At first, employees and their managers are worried that implementing patient-driven enhancements will take too much time and cost too much. However, practices that operate with a focus on the patient have actually seen employee morale improve while costs have not skyrocketed. In fact, in some cases, they have gone down because of spin-off efficiencies as a result of process improvements.
A number of progressive medical groups have learned the secret to building and sustaining patient volume. They have integrated market research into their efforts to improve operations, and they have fine-tuned their operations to incorporate marketing concepts. But even the best-run practices struggle with the on-going throughput/efficiency vs. customer satisfaction challenge. There is an opportunity cost to an unused MRI machine or an empty exam room. Machines and buildings have sunk costs that must be covered by paying customers. To the degree that a practice can accommodate throughput without sacrificing clinical quality, it will achieve coverage of the fixed and variable costs that exist with all operations. But will it achieve customer satisfaction?
A recent study that was reported in the Denver Business Journal suggests that efforts at increasing efficiency can be compatible with customer service. The article claims that overbooking patients (similar to how airlines overbook flights) may be better for large practices where there can be a significant number of patient no-shows. Which leads one to ask: Wouldn’t it make sense to find out why there are so many no-shows and devise a strategy that would cut down on them? This is where market research and strategy can be instrumental in not only improving operational efficiency but in increasing patient loyalty and satisfaction.
Together, operations and marketing help bring in patients and keep them coming back to a physician’s practice (if medically necessary).
There are many factors involved in attaining patient loyalty, including competent clinical management of chronic disease from specialists and pharmacologic management of cholesterol levels and blood pressure by primary care physicians. However, what makes a patient refer other potential patients to the practice (the “multiplier effect” of marketing), is primarily the skills and understanding of the physician in meeting the patient’s specific health care needs. And what makes you’re a great group practice is making your interaction with patients more than just a “get ‘em in, get ‘em out” experience.
'Til next time.
--TMW
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Customer Service Expectations Are Universal
Last week I received an email from someone named “Pablo”. No last name, just Pablo. At first I figured it was spam and moved it to my junk mail folder. But something told me I should open the message, so I did. Turns out Pablo is the director of marketing at the Hospital of the University of Navarra, Spain. He had bought a copy of my book—The Complete Guide To Hospital Marketing—via the internet, and wanted to tell me how grateful he was to have read it. He also said it was comforting to see that hospital marketing is taken seriously here in the U.S.
Folks, I’m not making this up! Here are Pablo’s own words (there are a few grammatical and language roughspots, but the meaning comes through loud and clear):
“Sincerely, the best thing of the book is the approach of the hospital marketing. In Spain…people who work in hospital in marketing matters are not respected. For you, hospital marketing is really a branch of marketing, and you speak about with authority, so, it’s very good to read people who think that marketing in the hospital is not for the crazy people, but for the people who understand the hospital context and who know the importance of hospital role in the society.”
Pablo goes on to write: “In Spain, the hospital marketing is technology, technology and technology. We have forgotten the role of human experiences, the essence of healthcare brands.”
The funny thing about this email from a hospital marketer in Spain is that it could have been written by someone right here in the good old U S of A. Unfortunately, many of our hospitals focus their marketing on technology just as Pablo says his hospital does. About six years ago I made a trip to Germany, a few months after the horror of 911. While there, I visited the University of Heidelberg and its teaching hospital. I was impressed that they had technology even more advanced than that in some of our university hospitals. But more impressive was the friendliness I detected in the staff, the cleanliness in the halls, the ease I had in communicating with the physicians and nurses.
Somehow it's comforting to know that hospital marketers across the world are concerned that "we have forgotten the role of human experiences." Wouldn’t it be great if there were international standards for customer service in health care?
'Til next time.
--TMW
Folks, I’m not making this up! Here are Pablo’s own words (there are a few grammatical and language roughspots, but the meaning comes through loud and clear):
“Sincerely, the best thing of the book is the approach of the hospital marketing. In Spain…people who work in hospital in marketing matters are not respected. For you, hospital marketing is really a branch of marketing, and you speak about with authority, so, it’s very good to read people who think that marketing in the hospital is not for the crazy people, but for the people who understand the hospital context and who know the importance of hospital role in the society.”
Pablo goes on to write: “In Spain, the hospital marketing is technology, technology and technology. We have forgotten the role of human experiences, the essence of healthcare brands.”
The funny thing about this email from a hospital marketer in Spain is that it could have been written by someone right here in the good old U S of A. Unfortunately, many of our hospitals focus their marketing on technology just as Pablo says his hospital does. About six years ago I made a trip to Germany, a few months after the horror of 911. While there, I visited the University of Heidelberg and its teaching hospital. I was impressed that they had technology even more advanced than that in some of our university hospitals. But more impressive was the friendliness I detected in the staff, the cleanliness in the halls, the ease I had in communicating with the physicians and nurses.
Somehow it's comforting to know that hospital marketers across the world are concerned that "we have forgotten the role of human experiences." Wouldn’t it be great if there were international standards for customer service in health care?
'Til next time.
--TMW
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Multi-tasking And Rising Attention Deficits: Just Coincidence?
It’s in practically every job description: “Fast-paced environment; must be able to multi-task”. Employers once prized those employees who could put their entire attention to a task to be sure it was done right. Now, if you can’t prepare your powerpoint presentation while you carry out an important phone conversation , eat your yogurt lunch, and respond to the latest email from your boss, you may be headed for the glue factory.
Whatever happened to focusing on the task at hand, and to doing a thorough job? Is speed that much more important than accuracy? Is it really more productive to do so many things at once?
Has efficiency trumped effectiveness?
Ever since the early 20th-century time and motion studies of Frederick Taylor, workplaces have looked for ways to get employees to do more in an eight hour day (now a ten to twelve-hour day/night). Typing 75 words a minute was better than 60. Speeding up the testing of more water heater cylinders on the production line, even though the error rate for detecting defects increased, was valued in that industry.
The multi-tasking craze has taken the “doing more is better” thinking to the point where it even is affecting the quality of information we receive in our electoral process. Politicians are forced to sound-bite their way onto CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Does our collective intelligence as an electorate increase proportionally with the more talking heads we listen to? (Remember the headline in the London Daily Mirror after the 2004 presidential election: “How can 59 million Americans be so dumb?).
I would love to see a research study to determine if there is a correlation between poorer decision-making and multi-tasking. And I would love to hear what you all think on this subject. Oops—gotta go, my cell phone is ringing, my cordless is ringing, I'm balancing a salad on my lap, and I’m trying to follow the stock market gadget on my desktop as I type this.
--TMW
Whatever happened to focusing on the task at hand, and to doing a thorough job? Is speed that much more important than accuracy? Is it really more productive to do so many things at once?
Has efficiency trumped effectiveness?
Ever since the early 20th-century time and motion studies of Frederick Taylor, workplaces have looked for ways to get employees to do more in an eight hour day (now a ten to twelve-hour day/night). Typing 75 words a minute was better than 60. Speeding up the testing of more water heater cylinders on the production line, even though the error rate for detecting defects increased, was valued in that industry.
The multi-tasking craze has taken the “doing more is better” thinking to the point where it even is affecting the quality of information we receive in our electoral process. Politicians are forced to sound-bite their way onto CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Does our collective intelligence as an electorate increase proportionally with the more talking heads we listen to? (Remember the headline in the London Daily Mirror after the 2004 presidential election: “How can 59 million Americans be so dumb?).
I would love to see a research study to determine if there is a correlation between poorer decision-making and multi-tasking. And I would love to hear what you all think on this subject. Oops—gotta go, my cell phone is ringing, my cordless is ringing, I'm balancing a salad on my lap, and I’m trying to follow the stock market gadget on my desktop as I type this.
--TMW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
