Back Button
Menu Button

New Trend or Passing Fad?
Remote Work Environments

This blog is the first in a new series regarding the ‘unintentional consequences’ of the COVID-19 pandemic. As our lives have been abruptly altered due to social distancing requirements – both at home and in the workplace – unplanned ‘disruption’ of previous normal activities could permanently replace sacred elements once believed to be unyielding to any change. But COVID-19 just may have dictated new approaches to how we live and work.

Prior to March and the COVID-19 pandemic, shuttered workplace offices and businesses in Iowa and around the country was unthinkable, it just could not happen – or so we believed. The only way it could happen, we reasoned, was through a sci-fi movie that made this horrifically possible.

But it DID happen, and this B-level movie with an apocalyptic plot has now become reality. Jeffrey Cole, a research professor at the University of Southern California, calls this period in our lives the “greatest social science experiment of all time.” Lockdowns, layoffs and massive public measures to contain COVID-19 “will last long after any threat from the virus is gone,” Cole shared. “In the future, we’ll talk about ‘BC,’ before corona, and after.”

As organizations prepare to reopen businesses and offices throughout our country, thermal scanners and hand sanitizers will be the bare minimum required to keep employees and customers safe. The foreseeable future remains extremely murky as to when (or whether) life will return to pre-virus living. Although working remotely has been around for many years, telecommuting has become an uninvited experimentation for many Iowa and U.S. employers and their employees.

Many health experts believe it will be months, if not years, before a ‘new normal’ develops in our country. Scientists struggle to understand the intricacies of COVID-19. The Wild West mentality of searching for a vaccine to protect people has become a major national priority. America, after all, must cobble together innovative approaches to get people back to work while keeping the public safe.

Working Remotely – an ‘Audition’ for the Future

To ensure safe, social distancing to minimize risk of a second (or third) wave of infections, some organizations are planning to eliminate long rows of desks without partitions, replacing them with work-stations sheathed with glass sneeze guards. Having more space between desks and wearing masks will supplement periodic temperature tests. Designating staircases for entry and exit, strategically staggering lunches and work times will also be very much part of new work environments.

The pandemic has offered proof – supportive or not – that in given industries and organizations, some people can work efficiently from a remote location without having to be physically stationed in an office with other co-workers. It must be noted, however, the mental wellbeing of more isolated workers must seriously be considered and addressed before making a leap into expanding remote workplaces. Will future work mean abandoning in-person connections and replacing with internet connections?

A friend recently mentioned that working remotely for a large insurance company revealed enhanced positive customer service metrics that surpassed pre-COVID-19 results.  This revelation provides a new frame of reference to this organization that working remotely can offer surprising benefits to the company…and to its customers. Having these new performance metrics to complement decision making will be critical in the future.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company recently announced a permanent transition to a hybrid operating model that consists primarily of four main corporate campuses (Central Ohio, Des Moines, Scottsdale and San Antonio) for in-office personnel and working-from-home in most other locations. Although Nationwide had been investing in technological capabilities to do this for years, the pandemic has urgently nudged Nationwide to make these changes now.

Recent Studies about Telecommuting Experiences

According to data from the Coronavirus Disruption Project, 42 percent of American workers said their telecommuting experience has made them want to work from home more. Not too surprisingly, 61 percent of those teleworking said they are enjoying the relaxed attire and grooming standards, greater flexibility and lack of a commute. Over three-quarters (78 percent) said they are as effective or more so working from home.

From the employer viewpoint, nearly three-quarters of corporate finance officials surveyed in late March by Gartner, a business research and consulting firm, revealed that at least five percent of surveyed organizations will convert on-site workers to permanent remote status as part of their post-COVID cost-cutting efforts.

A survey by USA Today and LinkedIn reveals that, according to 54 percent of respondents ages 18-74, working at home positively impacts work productivity. Reasons cited for higher productivity include time saved from commuting (71 percent), fewer distractions from co-workers (61 percent) and fewer meetings (39 percent).

It is fair to say the virus has served as an audition for organizations to determine whether working remotely can become the norm based on the type of work being performed. The implications of evolving from office locations to remote or home locations can have immense consequences to the economy.

The supply and demand of office space could change significantly if organizations eschew owning larger buildings or rent smaller office space than in the past. Even ‘The Oracle of Omaha’ himself, Warren Buffett, has commented that working from home may very well become the norm because productivity has not suffered in certain scenarios. Buffett commented, “…When change happens in the world, you adjust to it.”

Conclusion

Suffice it to say that most organizations are not yet making radical permanent changes when responding to a seemingly ‘transient’ pandemic. However, developing worksites that can appropriately adapt to COVID-19 – and any future health threats – warrants implementing strategies that go beyond short-term fixes.

While embracing telecommuting, organizations may find low-hanging fruit by purchasing or renting smaller buildings and office spaces and convert these overhead ‘savings’ into other operational investments, which could positively impact employee pay and benefits. Would an upward trend of telecommuting adversely impact sectors that currently cater to office-based employees? Absolutely. Lower fuel consumption for commuting, altered business attire and relaxed cosmetic usage are just a few examples of potential long-term disruption that may occur.

We are only two months into this pandemic, yet much is to be learned by employers about long-term trends versus short-term fads in the workplace setting. My best guess is that the COVID-19 will make telecommuting a more permanent fixture in the business world where it makes most sense to the organization and its customers. As the telecommuting ‘experimentation’ phase continues, each organization must weigh the pros and cons when strategizing for the future.

Next Week’s Discussion:  COVID-19 and Telemedicine

To stay abreast of employee benefits, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

Healthcare – Time to Recognize and Confront the ‘Elephant in the Room’

Have you ever been involved with an obvious situation, either personally or professionally, that was largely ignored and going unaddressed? Perhaps a work scenario in which a manager who wields considerable organizational power was impacting the workplace culture in an extremely uncomfortable and unhealthy direction. Speaking up may cause one to lose his/her job or suffer long-term upward job mobility opportunities. Self-preservation is a natural powerful reaction when confronting a seemingly formidable opponent – we simply choose not to act at all.

The fear of speaking up is a metaphor for an ‘Elephant in the room.’

This is happening today in our healthcare delivery and payment environment. We frequently see or experience unacceptable situations that clearly require action to prevent it from happening in the future. As a reader of my blogs, you are keenly aware of the egregious nature of the medical establishment hiding their preventable medical error ‘indiscretions’ in the proverbial litterbox – covering up preventable mistakes that are not meant for public viewing. Yet, without being held accountable for their actions, the medical community will continue to repeat what should be un-repeatable.

The elephant exists in healthcare in a number of ways. Below are just a few prime examples.

Employers are Reluctant

Employers serve as the real payers of healthcare, yet oddly sit on the sidelines exhaustively complaining about the high cost of health insurance and how it adversely impacts their competitiveness in the markets they serve. Unfortunately, most employers are reluctant to bring up the inherent dysfunctional problems because hospitals and medical practices are considered to be ‘other’ large, recognizable community members that are off-limits to public correction. In fact, many business owners are board members at the local hospital, making it difficult to publicly speak up while serving in a ‘distinguished’ role. As real payers, employers can clearly climb into the driver’s seat to collectively initiate sorely-needed changes in how the healthcare establishment behaves. But to do so, they must firmly take hold of the steering wheel to begin the journey. Instead, the employers have historically farmed out this responsibility to the insurance companies.

Insurance Companies Lack Initiative

One can be equally mystified by insurance companies’ lack of initiative when it comes to medical errors. By default, these ‘third-party payers’ assume the purchasing role as an intermediary between the real payers and health providers. More often than not, employers assume that insurance companies are adequately vetting the quality-of-care their network providers are giving to their employees and family members. This is largely not happening. As a paid intermediary, insurers can play a vital role in determining whether their subscribers are receiving the best possible outcomes from the care being purchased through the insurers’ networks.

Because the medical community will not admit their playful litterbox games, an appropriate opportunity for safety-conscious insurers would be to randomly survey their members after they have been discharged from a hospital to learn about their experiences – specifically as it relates to preventable medical errors. Doing so could be a great branding opportunity for innovative, forward-thinking insurance carriers. Over time, when enough patient feedback has been collected and analyzed, insurers can then become a more engaged advocate for employers and their employees when vetting network providers. Why are insurers not performing this difficult but necessary work on behalf of their members? Great question. They should.

Medical Community Touts Economic Strength

The medical community, specifically hospitals, spend a good deal of our[1] money to help perpetuate their economic value in the communities they serve. Recently, the Iowa Hospital Association purchased airtime on at least one local television station to help educate Iowans about the “economic impact” hospitals have in Iowa, including:

  • Number of hospital workers employed in Iowa
  • Benefits hospitals provide to the communities
  • Number of additional jobs created by hospitals

Similar to a certain species of cicadas, which are insects that remain underground from 2-to-17 years before emerging to be seen and heard, the hospital community will annually reveal themselves to promote their substantial workforce and economic growth – but remain curiously silent on the indiscretions buried deep inside the litterbox. Apparently, this marketing scheme successfully elevates their status as the elephant in any room, whether it be in Iowa or some other state. This diversional tactic makes it difficult for others to honestly speak out about the associated problems the elephant causes within our communities. After all, who doesn’t want jobs? No one wants to be ridiculed as a ‘naysayer.’ Unfortunately, honesty may come at a great expense.

Joe Gardyasz of the Des Moines Business Record recently wrote an insightful piece (subscription required) about healthcare jobs in Iowa. Even though jobs in the healthcare sector have surpassed U.S. manufacturing and retail sectors for the first time in 2017, Iowa’s manufacturing sector – at least for now – still outpaces healthcare jobs in our state.

Why healthcare has become the most dominant sector in our country

Other than rising demographic trends of an older population requiring more healthcare services, the most plausible reason for more healthcare jobs is likely due to gross inefficiencies in an inordinately complex environment. As mentioned in my previous blog, “Healthcare Billing Process – The Cost of Doing Business,” non-healthcare industries might typically employ 100 full-time equivalents to collect payment for $1 billion in services, but healthcare employs 770 full-time equivalents per $1 billion of physician services. Keep in mind, healthcare is now a $3+ trillion-dollar industry – which primarily explains why healthcare jobs are soaring past other more-efficient sectors.

Put another way, if non-healthcare sectors wish to tout their economic dominance in their respective communities or state, they would need to become bloated with inefficiencies that would inflate costs, revenue and increase employment opportunities. Thankfully, largely due to powerful market forces that are embedded with price and quality transparencies, those sectors are forced to act efficiently by offering reasonably-priced products and services that are of the highest value. The healthcare industry, it seems, is oddly immune from having to play by these transparency rules. According to Warren Buffett, “Healthcare is the tapeworm of the American economy.”

Through our entrenched relationships (e.g. family, work, business and community), we are too often reticent about changing the status quo when it might possibly ‘threaten’ the comforts of doing nothing. Employers, insurance companies and the medical establishment are each capable of making the necessary changes, but at times, must be ‘nudged’ to do so. The late Stephen Hawking made a great point by writing, “I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

What IS the Elephant?

Regarding healthcare, if each of us fails to recognize, acknowledge and confront the elephant in the room, we too become complicit in this persistent, serious and increasingly costly and harmful problem. If we continue to sit on our hands and do nothing, we eventually enable the elephant to become even larger and more undisciplined.

So what is this elephant in our collective “healthcare room?” John Atkinson of Wrong Hands developed a ‘chartoon‘ about this metaphor, whether the elephant appears in healthcare or elsewhere.

Isn’t it time to begin “eating” this elephant one bite at a time? It starts by recognizing and acknowledging the elephant in the room, and then crossing that road to initiate necessary improvement.

To learn more, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

[1] For the services they provide, hospitals are predominantly recipients of our tax dollars, government-related grants, philanthropic donations, insurance premiums and personal out-of-pocket payments.

Psst…Bezos, Dimon and Buffett: Let’s Lift the Veil on Medical Prices

This past week, we learned of a bombshell joint announcement from three significant U.S. business leaders on fixing our healthcare system: Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Jamie Dimon (JPMorgan Chase) and Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway). These three individuals and organizations plan to form a new independent healthcare company for their 1.1 million employees in the U.S.  In the past, many other large business organizations have attempted to transform this healthcare system that is ripe for disruption and widely considered wasteful and inefficient. To date, however, such activity has met limited success. Conventional wisdom suggests these three behemoth companies do not have critical market power to make inroads on transforming an industry intent on gobbling up more of the U.S. economy.

So, what is different with this latest announcement? Based on this rather skinny declaration, we know very little and only time will tell.

We do know, however, this ‘new’ approach cannot happen soon enough. David Cutler, a Harvard health economist, calculated that administration accounts for nearly a quarter of the total healthcare cost in the U.S. – double the rate in the next bloated country. Karl Vick wrote quite succinctly in TIME magazine: “The U.S. healthcare system is the antithesis of Silicon Valley. Grossly inefficient and user-unfriendly, it may be the least transparent enterprise outside of the Kremlin – and just as awash in money.”

Is it possible this new coalition may propel other employers (and other payers) to band together and look for local alternatives to drive transparency in an industry that is notorious for obfuscation? The common word that is often used to change a particular industry is ‘disruption.’ Harvard professor Clayton Christensen started the Christensen Institute to address how industries can be changed (disrupted), usually through technological innovation.

The ‘pricing’ veil – A personal experience

This past December, after experiencing dizziness and double-vision, coupled with a slightly slower speech pattern, a family member was taken to an urgent care center in Mankato, MN. After undergoing a few initial tests, it was recommended the patient be transferred by ambulance to a hospital two miles away – presumably for more in-depth testing that was not available at the urgent care facility. Needless to say, this sudden turn of events was loaded with confusion over the cause of the medical problem and the impending worry.

As a patient or a family member of a patient, we seldom are prepared for what issues and challenges we face when seeking care due to a sudden medical ‘episode’ or ‘emergency.’ In fact, we typically fly by the seat of our pants when we enter the unknown world of healthcare. Even the well-intentioned medical staff are sometimes bewildered by the symptoms and possible causes of those symptoms.

Confusion reigns further when, in our case, the hospital’s electronic medical records don’t communicate with the tests previously performed at the urgent care center just 30 minutes earlier – even though both facilities are part of the same medical system! Because of this, identical tests (EKGs, blood work-up, etc.) were replicated at the hospital – unnecessary charges equating to additional costs for the payers – and increased revenue for the provider(s). I’m still working on that issue, by the way.

Thankfully, my brother and his wife were with us, which was both comforting and beneficial while attempting to discern the next course of action relating to tests and treatments. By default, we quickly assumed the role of being the ‘patient advocate’ – a daunting task.

Gratefully, the bank of medical tests found no cause for the aforementioned symptoms, although not knowing the cause remains a concern. As many of you know, the shock does not end when the patient is discharged following a litany of medical tests that occurred during a two-night stay. The second shock wave arrived a few weeks later in the form of an ambulance invoice in the snail mail and a host of ‘explanation of benefits’ found on our carrier’s website for all the other charges that occurred at the urgent care center and hospital.

The invoice for a two-mile ambulance joyride was only $1,887.79, while the urgent care facility chimed in at about $5,744.* The hospital invoice for tests and a two-night stay represented the price of a brand spanking new mid-level automobile – $24,579.40. All told, the total charges were $32,211.19, while the carrier applied their ‘network savings’ of $2,779.35.

In their recent article, “Why the U.S. Spends So Much More Than Other Nations on Health Care,” authors Austin Frakt and Aaron Carroll make the case, using a recent study in JAMA along with other research, that higher prices are the real culprit, more so than higher utilization of services by Americans when compared to residents of other countries. Yes, despite the increase in population size and the aging of U.S. citizens, health spending greatly outpaced the spending found in other countries, even after adjusting for other factors. Ashish Jha, a physician with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health is quoted in the Frakt/Carroll piece saying, “The U.S. just isn’t that different from other developed countries in how much healthcare we use. It is very different in how much we pay for it.

Why is this ‘pricing’ problem happening in the U.S., you might ask? Much of this has to do with fundamental limitations of competition in the American healthcare system. This veil of secrecy has little to no accountability on how prices are determined. Bezos, Dimon and Buffett are looking to blow up this highly-guarded industry standard. The rest of us can no longer afford to play the role of ‘innocent bystanders.’

After discussing the dearth of sensibility in healthcare pricing with a friend who works in the insurance industry, he sent me the following comical YouTube clip that cleverly attempts to address the medical price conundrum.

My recent family experience was yet another reminder that no matter our professional background, seldom are we prepared to confront the shock and confusion of the healthcare we receive…and the bills that result from that care.

The status quo in healthcare must be blown up. If existing players and stakeholders resist being part of real solutions, then the eventual sea change will sweep them into a new reality that may be difficult to survive.

As ‘real’ payers of healthcare, maybe employers can become the change they wish to see in the healthcare industry. After all, sometimes business interests can align with those of humans.

But only time will tell.

To learn more, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

*Some billing discrepancies remain while attempting to discern a number of charges found on Mayo’s list billing with what was paid by my insurance carrier.  The list-billing from Mayo, I’m convinced, was clearly not meant to be a consumer-friendly document.