I wrote this editorial in 2010 for the Minnesota Psychiatric Society newsletter Ideas of Reference as part of my role as the President at the time. Since then, things continue to go in the wrong direction. Some knowledge workers get more recognition from the business managers than others but it is based on income generation rather than the cognitive aspects of the job. And of course, psychiatrists are managed as if there is no cognitive aspect as all. In an interesting development at the time, I was contacted by Canadian physicians after this editorial was published in the newsletter, but no American physicians.
Imagine working in an environment that is optimized for
physicians. There are no obstacles to providing care for your patients. You
receive adequate decision support. Your work is valued and you are part of the
team that gets you immediate support if you encounter problems outside of your
expertise. In the optimized environment you feel that you are working at a
level consistent with your training and current capacity. That environment
allows you to focus on your diagnosis and treatment of the patient with minimal
time needed for documentation and coding and no time wasted responding to
insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers.
As I think about the problems, we all encounter in our work
environment on a daily basis I had the recent thought that this is really a
management problem. Most of the management that physicians encounter is
strictly focused on their so-called productivity. That in turn is based on an
RVU system that really has no research evidence and is clearly a political
instrument used to adjust the global budget for physicians. Current state-of-the-art
management for physicians generally involves a manager telling them that they
need to generate more RVUs every year. Managers will also generally design
benefits and salary packages that are competitive in order to reduce physician
loss, but this
is always in the larger context of increasing RVU
productivity. Internet searches on the subject of physician management
generally bring back diverse topics like "problem doctors",
"managing physician performance", "disruptive behavior",
"anger management", and "alcoholism", but nothing about a
management plan that would be mutually beneficial for physicians, their
patients and the businesses they work for.
In my research about employee management, I encountered the
work of the late Peter Drucker in the Harvard Business Review. Drucker was
widely recognized as a management guru with insights into how to manage
personnel and information going into the 21st century. One of his key concepts
was that of the "knowledge worker". He discussed the evolution of managing workers
from a time where the manager had typically worked all the jobs he was
supervising and work output was more typically measured in quantity rather than
quality. By contrast knowledge workers will generally know much more about
their work than the manager. Work quality is more characteristic than quantity.
Knowledge workers typically are the major asset of the corporation and
attracting and retaining them is a corporate goal. Physicians are clearly
knowledge workers but they are currently being managed like production workers.
The mistakes made in managing physicians in general and
psychiatrists in particular are too numerous to outline in this essay. The
current payers and companies managing physicians have erected barriers to their
physician knowledge workers rather than optimizing their work environments. The
end result has been an environment that actually restricts access to the most
highly trained knowledge workers. It does not take an expert in management to
realize that this is not an efficient way to run a knowledge-based business.
Would you restrict access to engineers and architects who are working on
projects that could be best accomplished by those disciplines? Would you
replace the engineers and architects by general contractors or laborers? I see
this dynamic occurring constantly across clinical settings in Minnesota and it
applies to any model that reduces psychiatric care to prescribing a limited
formulary of drugs.
I think that there are basically three solutions. The first
is a partial but necessary step and that is telling everyone we know that we
have been mismanaged and this is a real source of the so-called shortage of
psychiatrists. The second approach is addressing the issue of RVU-based pay
directly. I will address the commonly used 90862 or medication management code.
As far as I can tell, people completing this code generally fill out a limited
template of information, ask about medication side effects, and record the patient's
description of where they are in the longitudinal course of their symptoms and
side effects. I would suggest that adding an AIMS evaluation or screen for
metabolic syndrome, an in-depth probe into their current nonpsychiatric
medications and how they interact with their current therapy, adding a brief
psychotherapeutic intervention, case management discussions with other
providers or family, and certainly any new acute medical or psychiatric
problems addressed are all a la carte items that need to be assigned RVU status
and added to the basic code. Although there are more, these are just a few
areas where psychiatrists add quality care to the prescription of medicines.
The final solution looks ahead to the future and the psychiatrist's role in the
medical home approach to integrated care. We currently have to decide where we
fit in that model and make sure that we don't end up getting paid on an RVU
basis while we are providing hours of consultation to primary care physicians
every day.
Overall, these are political problems at the legislative,
bureaucratic and business levels. It should be apparent to anyone in practice
that when political pressure succeeds in dumbing down the profession, it
necessarily impacts adversely on work environment, compensation, and most
importantly the ability to deliver quality care. The continued mismanagement of
psychiatrists by businesses and bureaucrats who have nothing more to offer than
a one-size-fits-all productivity-based model, is the biggest threat to
psychiatry today and a much more enlightened management strategy is urgently
needed. The Minnesota Psychiatric Society and the APA need a strong voice in
that change.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA