What's Driving Increasing Healthcare Costs?

A while back I read a great article on the health care cost crisis in the New Yorker by Atul Gawande.  The article is titled, The Cost Conundrum and I took some time to read it again today.  It's a long one.

It's so insightful that I thought I'd do a short post to call out the key points.  If you have any interest at all in health care I'd highly recommend giving it a read.

The article starts after Gawande learns that McAllen, Texas is one of the most expensive health care markets in the country.  In 2006, Medicare spent $15k per enrollee in McAllen, almost twice the national average.  

Gawande visits McAllen to find out why costs there are so high.  The answer is surprisingly simple and is outlined in this excerpt.

Health-care costs ultimately arise from the accumulation of individual decisions doctors make about which services and treatments to write an order for. The most expensive piece of medical equipment, as the saying goes, is a doctor’s pen. And, as a rule, hospital executives don’t own the pen caps. Doctors do.

He finds that doctors in McAllen are using their pens a lot.  They're more entrepreneurial and profit-minded than their counterparts in other markets.  And as a result are prescribing far more health care than an average market like El Paso, which is just a few miles away.

In 2005 and 2006, patients in McAllen received twenty per cent more abdominal ultrasounds, thirty per cent more bone-density studies, sixty per cent more stress tests with echocardiography, two hundred per cent more nerve-conduction studies to diagnose carpal-tunnel syndrome, and five hundred and fifty per cent more urine-flow studies to diagnose prostate troubles. They received one-fifth to two-thirds more gallbladder operations, knee replacements, breast biopsies, and bladder scopes. They also received two to three times as many pacemakers, implantable defibrillators, cardiac-bypass operations, carotid endarterectomies, and coronary-artery stents. And Medicare paid for five times as many home-nurse visits. The primary cause of McAllen’s extreme costs was, very simply, the across-the-board overuse of medicine.

Doctors in McAllen are more likely to pursue referral fees from other health systems, be shareholders in their own practices and be involved in other business ventures.  More procedures means more revenue and more money in their pockets.

Gawande argues that the solution to higher cost markets doesn't lie with the payer issue, as most politicians seem to argue.  Regardless of who's paying, when doctors in certain markets are prescribing increasing amounts of care, the cost problem doesn't go away.  Instead, the solution, he argues, lies in the promotion of systems like that of the Mayo Clinic.  

The core tenet of the Mayo Clinic is “The needs of the patient come first”—not the convenience of the doctors, not their revenues. The doctors and nurses, and even the janitors, sat in meetings almost weekly, working on ideas to make the service and the care better, not to get more money out of patients. I asked Cortese how the Mayo Clinic made this possible.

It pooled all the money the doctors and the hospital system received and began paying everyone a salary, so that the doctors’ goal in patient care couldn’t be increasing their income. Mayo promoted leaders who focused first on what was best for patients, and then on how to make this financially possible.

The Business Model Test

A simple way to think about the viability of a new business idea is to use the logic test and the economic test:

  1. The Logic Test: does the business make sense?  Is it easy to explain the value it will provide and how it will make money?  You can't understand its viability if you can't understand these things.
  2. The Economic Test: once you've established that the business idea makes sense, now consider whether it can work profitably.  Space travel is a good example of a business that passes the Logic Test but not the Economic Test.  Certainly there would be a lot of people that would like to travel to space for the weekend, but with the current technology it simply can't be done profitably.  Kozmo.com -- the famous dot-com bust -- that promised free, one-hour delivery of things like CDs, DVDs, candy and magazines is another example.  It's just not possible to deliver a pack of gum to someone within an hour at a profit.

Once these two tests have been passed, there are of course dozens of other factors to consider.  But I've found this framework to be helpful in discussing a new idea's viability.  

Answer to My Favorite Interview Question

Several weeks ago I posted my favorite question to ask a job candidate.  This is the question:

How do you see yourself adding value to a company?  That is, when you get a job, a company is going to invest in you and pay you (hopefully a lot), so, ideally, what would you like to be doing on a weekly, monthly, quarterly basis to ensure a high return on that investment? 

I thought I'd post my own answer to this question here.  For me, the answer to this question is always evolving.  But there are three critical pieces to the answer that must always be there for me.  What I want to do has to be something that 1.) I really enjoy doing 2.) I'm pretty good at and 3.) is something people will pay for now and into the future.

With that in mind, here's my answer:

I'd like to take innovative products that solve important problems and shape them and the stories around them to get them adopted into the market well before the market is ready.

Bottom's Up Management

Joel Spolsky had a great post the other day laying out his unique approach to management at startups.  I’d recommend reading the entire post when you get a chance but I’ve re-blogged some of the key excerpts below.

Most TV management is of the “command and control” variety. The CEO makes a decision, and tells his lieutenants. They convey this important decision to the teams, who execute on the CEO’s decision. It’s top-down management. All authority and power and decisions flow from the top. How could it work any other way?

This system probably works very well when you are trying to organize a team of manual laborers with interchangeable skills to sweep up the ticker tape in the street after the Giants parade BECAUSE THE GIANTS WON THE SUPER BOWL IF YOU DID NOT NOTICE.

The “management team” isn’t the “decision making” team. It’s a support function. You may want to call them administration instead of management, which will keep them from getting too big for their britches.

Administrators aren’t supposed to make the hard decisions. They don’t know enough. All those super genius computer scientists that you had to recruit from MIT at great expense are supposed to make the hard decisions. 

Think about how a university department organizes itself. There are professors at various ranks, who pretty much just do whatever the heck they want. Then there’s a department chairperson who, more often than not, got suckered into the role. The chairperson of the department might call meetings and adjudicate who teaches what class, but she certainly doesn’t tell the other professors what research to do, or when to hold office hours, or what to write or think.

And yes, you’re right, Steve Jobs didn’t manage this way. He was a dictatorial, autocratic asshole who ruled by fiat and fear. Maybe he made great products this way. But you? You are not Steve Jobs. You are not better at design than everyone in your company. You are not better at programming than every engineer in your company. You are not better at sales than every salesperson in the company.

A couple thoughts:

This is a great post.  I love the idea of flipping management on its head in a knowledge organization.  Your most junior employees are highly paid and extremely intelligent.  They should have lots of authority over how they do their jobs.  But often what works in theory doesn't work in practice.  Employees need a strong vision from the top and often need to be motivated to push through the challenges that inevitably come up.  While I agree that "management" can come from the bottom up, strong "leadership" from the top remains critical.

One final note:  I see Joel's point on this, but the analogy of a university isn't a good one.  Most universities are extremely inefficient, particularly compared to a tech startup.  I wrote a post a while back on the inefficiencies of the university system.

Pinterest

A lot has been written about Pinterest, the social photo sharing website, in the last few weeks.  Fastest company ever to get to 10 million monthly uniques.  Very impressive.  What's even more impressive is how they're monetizing these users at a very early stage with a somewhat brilliant idea.  Here's how it works:

  • I post a link to a pair of sneakers that I like from say, Sports Authority, to my Pinterest page
  • You see the image and click on the link
  • Pinterest runs an instant query to determine whether or not Sports Authority has an affiliate program
  • If they have one, the link is automatically converted to Sports Authority's affiliate link and you're sent to Sports Authority's site
  • You make a purchase from Sports Authority
  • Pinterest takes their commission

A very innovative (and frankly gutsy) idea.  Twitter and Facebook are probably kicking themselves for not thinking of it years ago.  

Success at Work

On Friday I was asked to walk a small team through some of my thoughts on what makes individuals successful at work.  After the session the team was asked to send me their key takeaways.  There were some interesting trends in what they sent back.  I'm posting their takeaways here – in their own words.

  • real failure is highly valuable
  • strive to be the lynchpin
  • make boss’s job easier
  • always bring energy and positivity
  • insights are just as valuable as results
  • consistent habits are important (going to the gym at the same time everyday)
  • always add insight, value, be interesting
  • biggest takeaway – the importance of becoming a “lynchpin” for the company, and for your boss.
  • results and insights are equally important; always search for insights on how to improve next time, even if the results aren’t really there this time
  • in conversation, try to make the majority of it insights; always aim to add helpful/interesting things to increase value
  • simplify the goal; break it down into more achievable parts
  • 3 things that ensure added value: be good at what you’re doing, like what you’re doing, and make it worth paying for
  • become the lynchpin – work towards becoming indispensable to my boss
  • reflect on the work that I have done and think about whether or not someone/something else can do the same or better at a lower cost
  • simplify the goal – this will allow me to focus and create a clear path towards actually achieving it
  • communicate with insights not empty words – always think about how I can add value to a conversation rather than just fill in space
  • key to career growth isn’t necessarily being the smartest/ most intelligent person. Core values such as Trust, Collaboration, and willingness to work towards manager’s goals are some of the key attributes that help in career growth.
  • always remind yourself to be on the learning curve – to better yourself + add value to the company
  • always ask yourself – Why am I best suited to do the job that I am supposed to do? What can I do to better myself in order to do that job better?  If you don’t know the answer to both these questions your career path is probably not on the right track

Some Thoughts on the Super Bowl

Being from the Boston area, I'm a pretty big Patriots fan.  So watching last night's game was miserable.  Though, being objective, I have to admit it was a great game to watch.

A few things came to mind while I was trying -- unsuccessfully -- to get some sleep after the game.

Rob Gronkowski's ankle injury had a huge impact.  When a big tight end can't make quick lateral cuts, it's almost impossible for him to be an effective receiver.  Brady's interception was clear evidence that Gronkowski's ankle had an impact.  I don't recall ever seeing a linebacker defending a receiver that far down the field.  The ankle injury allowed a slower defender to cover him and freed up the corners and safeties to cover the Patriots’ receivers.

On the last drive of the second quarter, Brady ate up the Giant defense with his typical quick, short passes.  He was 10 for 10 on the 98 yard drive, virtually neutralizing the Giants' pass rush.  The Giants made a big adjustment at the beginning of the second half by rushing only 3 linemen; putting one man on Gronkowski and a tight zone on the rest of the receivers.  Brady had plenty of time to throw but nobody was open.  The Patriots couldn't adjust to the new scheme quickly enough and as a result could only put up 7 points in the second half.

Making quick adjustments is critical in business and sports.  The game you’re playing in today is going to be much, much different in six months or a year.  

Check out James Surowiecki’s New Yorker column this week on RIM and the fall of the BlackBerry; a company that, much like the Patriots on Sunday, couldn’t adjust until it was too late.

My Favorite Interview Question

This changes over time, but here’s my favorite question to ask a job candidate:

How do you see yourself adding value to a company?  That is, when you get a job, a company is going to invest in you and pay you (hopefully a lot), so, ideally, what would you like to be doing on a weekly, monthly, quarterly basis to ensure a high return on that investment? 

Typically, you can learn several things from their answer:

  1. What they like to do
  2. What they’re passionate about
  3. What they’re good at
  4. What differentiates them
  5. How they see themselves fitting into an organization 

Of course I would never qualify or disqualify a candidate based on the answer to one question, but the answer to this question usually tells me a lot.

The Razorblade Strategy

Yesterday I wrote about how I'm long on Amazon. One of the reasons is that they’re in the process of aggressively implementing the Razorblade Strategy.  The Razorblade Strategy is when one item is sold at a low price in order to increase sales of a complimentary good.  It was made famous by Gillette -- they sell their razors for next to nothing and the blades at a high premium.  This creates a profitable recurring revenue stream, and recurring revenue is generally better than one-time revenue.  Printer companies also do this very well.  Printers cost almost nothing and Hewlett-Packard, as an example, makes nearly all of its profits on the sale of the toner (again, recurring revenue).  I remember reading that one ounce of HP print toner costs more than one ounce of Dom Perignon...

The price of Amazon's Kindle has nosedived over the last several months -- you can get one for $79.  Rumor is that they’re even losing money on manufacturing the devices.  They're hoping that by lowering the price more people will buy a Kindle and then buy the profitable digital media to put on the device.  This is a perfect example of the Razorblade Strategy at work and exactly why I believe they’ll compete well against Apple in the digital media space.

Typically, the major risk involved with the Razorblade Strategy is when the price of the complimentary good falls.  But with Amazon's scale and dominance in media there's relatively little risk for them there.

Amazon should race as fast as they can to get a Kindle in the hands of every consumer.  Good execution of the Razorblade Strategy, and a price of $79 versus Apple’s cheapest iPad at $499, is a critical and promising step in that direction.

The Big 4 Internet Companies

Someone asked me the other day if I could only invest in one of the Big 4 internet companies (Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple), who would it be?  I didn't even hesitate: my answer was Amazon.

Without doing a true valuation analysis (I plan to do one in the coming days), here's my simple reasoning:

Facebook: overvalued due to the hype and enormous amount of un-monetized users; my sense is that with the lack of a coherent, long term revenue strategy the public markets will bring their valuation down to earth a bit when they IPO.

Google: using Warren Buffet's investment thesis of "only invest in what you know", I'm afraid of Google.  They're in too many businesses where they haven't been successful, and in too many businesses in general for me to wrap my head around.  I don't like to invest in what I don't know.  Google now has such a wide array of products that they have a website titled "what do you love?" where you can search any word -- any word -- and they'll come up with a listing of products that serve that word.  Try it and you'll see it what I mean.  They're in a lot more businesses than many conglomerates (GE is down to thirteen).  I'm not saying there isn't upside for Google, but their business is much too difficult for a casual investor to grasp.

Apple: I haven't read the Steve Jobs biography yet but I've read enough excerpts and heard enough interviews about him and it to know that he was the heart and soul of that company.  The company succeeded when he started it, crashed when he left and came back like wildfire when he returned.  See a post I wrote about his success a while back.  Surely his unfortunate passing is built into their share price at this point, but there are certainly enough reasons to believe that Apple's outrageously impressive growth curve may have peaked.  And without Jobs at the helm, they're tough to bet on.

Amazon: a fantastic management team with a long, long track record of success competing in a variety of synergistic verticals.  Amazon is steadily entering businesses that they are setup perfectly to dominate -- self-publishing being one of the most promising.  They've finally smartened up and have reduced the price of the Kindle massively, setting them up nicely to dominate digital media alongside Apple.  Amazon is so well run and at the early stages of so many fast growing businesses that I think it's a no-brainier to put my money behind that team.

So there's my very amateur, 100,000 foot view of the Big 4.  I'm planning to write a post on valuations (including those of the Big 4) in the coming days so more on this topic soon.

A Sales Pipeline & Process for Startups

The other day an entrepreneur was asking me how to best setup and monitor a sales pipeline and process.  I thought I'd post my answer here.  Three simple steps: Step One: Setup Stages.  I like to use these six:

  1. Qualified: you've identified the right individual to speak to
  2. Meeting Set (with right individual)
  3. Meeting Held (with right individual)
  4. Proposal (your proposal has been received by the prospect)
  5. Verbal (prospect has agreed to the terms of your proposal)
  6. Closed Won (signed contract received)

Step Two: Identify your "conversion angles" for each stage of the process.  That is, what are the secrets to getting the sale from one stage to the next?  For example, to qualify a lead it might mean identifying the person's job title and name by using LinkedIn or Hoovers.  To get an opportunity from verbal to close it might be putting a product launch date on the IT team's calendar or a price break in return for a quicker close.  Putting conversion angles for each stage down in writing is critical -- start with at least two angles for each stage.

Step Three: Identify the bottlenecks.  Look at last quarter or even the current week (if you have enough opportunities) and place them in the appropriate stage.  Identify which conversions are working and which are not.  See the sample analysis below:

Based on this analysis, here's what's working and not:

Working: Qualifying Leads, Holding Meetings that get set

Not working: Setting meetings, Sending proposals out of meetings

With this information the team can dive into the details of these conversions to find out what's slowing the process down.  Is it effort?  Is it resources?  The angles?  Are some team members converting this well and others not?  When this converts quickly, what are people doing?  Are there specific segments of clients that are converting better than others?  Why?  Dive into the problems with these conversions.  To add a layer of complexity, you can add a column showing the number of days that opportunities are in each stage.

This kind of analysis is valuable as a one off, but it will be even more valuable as time goes on.  Managers can look at how these conversions are changing week over week or month over month.  Relative data is always more valuable than a snapshot in time.

Even with a good sales process, there can still be holes that need to be patched.  Different reps may interpret the stages differently or you may need to add steps to the process to have more transparency.  To deal with the potential holes in the process, in parallel, I like to monitor what I call "tipping points".  Tipping points are pieces of information, insights and actions taken by the prospect that increase my confidence that the deal is legitimate and moving at the right pace.  Tipping points are crucial to keeping a sales team and a sales process on track.

This post is already getting a bit long.  I'll write a post on tipping points in the next few weeks.

Employee Promotions & The Peter Principle

Recently I made the following comment on a blog post:

I recall watching an interview with Bill Gates.  The interviewer asked him what was the biggest mistake he made when he was building Microsoft. Because I admire Bill Gates enormously, I was on the edge of my seat to hear his answer...

His answer: the biggest mistake he made was assuming that their best engineers would also make good managers.

Of course it's intuitive to promote the best tactical performers but given how often this fails I'm amazed at how companies -- big and small -- continue to use this approach.

A few days later, I came across a theory known as the "Peter Principle":

The "Peter Principle" states that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his or her level of incompetence, meaning that employees tend to be promoted until they reach a position at which they cannot work competently.

It's easy to see how management allows this to happen in their organizations.  If someone performs well it's only logical that they go onto the next step in their career path.  But of course it's extremely dangerous for companies to operate with a bunch of employees that can't do their job well, much less competently.

The solution to this, I believe, it to shake up the old fashioned "career path culture" and build a culture that values the "do'er" and not the manager.  To promote this type of culture, companies should setup formal incentive systems that reward the employee without promoting them into management.  Incentives can include:

  • Salary, bonus, equity increases
  • Allow them to work on the coolest projects or largest accounts
  • Allow them to work on exploratory or strategic projects
  • Let them work side by side with senior management and/or the CEO
  • Give them the best mentorship and training

Most cultures, especially in large companies, value the managers -- employees want to be "in management".  It's critical to setup values and formal systems that disrupt this type of culture to avoid mediocrity and the dangers of the Peter Principle.