Subscribe to our blog
The Dark Side of Competition
The participants at the Madison meeting told us that the biggest barrier to collaboration was competition. One is hard-pressed to find a community where competition doesn’t rule the day.
For the last 30 years, competition has been part of this country’s health care policy strategy to reduce costs and enhance quality. The theory is that consumers and patients, armed with cost and quality information, would select high-performing institutions. Poor performers would be forced to improve or go out of business. The “best” would capture more of the market share and thus market forces would improve health care.
Even if competition drove hospitals to improve quality and lower costs of producing units of service, does that reduce costs for the community?
The reality you see in Madison and most communities in the U.S. shows us a different side of competition:
1. Cost of care is largely driven by supply – the number of beds and physicians in a region.
If all the hospitals and physicians in an area were providing the optimal level of care for a community, they could compete for who was going to provide that care. However, a health care institution provides a service and hopes to operate that service at full capacity, independent of community need: “A built bed is a filled bed.” Communities and countries that have been able to control the supply of hospital beds (thus avoiding any potential surplus) appear to be better off in terms of overall health care costs and quality.
2. In competitive markets, health care institutions survive by producing more volume, particularly in the form of tests and procedures with higher profit margins.
Hospitals and other facilities tend to invest in services that have high operating margins. If heart procedures have a higher margin, you tend to see more investment in that area.
3. Collaboration within this competitive model is difficult.
If you wanted to rationalize the numbers of the delivery of a specific service (e.g., heart surgeries), there would be losers and winners. No one wants to be a loser. Since the focus of an organization is on survival, health outcomes for the community take back seat.
4. Current Federal health care reform legislation.
Participants at the Madison meeting felt that Accountable Health Organizations would not be a force for collaboration but would fuel competition in their region. It has produced a “put your head down” approach to survive. In other parts of the country, consolidation has replaced collaboration.
In 30 years, competition has not proven to decrease costs in the long-term. Let’s give collaboration a chance and see what the results will be.
Leave a Reply
Required fields are BOLD