Skip to main content

Big Money = Big Project = Big Success! Right? Wrong!

In a funny and thoughtful TED video, ad man Rory Sutherland says many flashy, expensive fixes are just obscuring better, simpler answers. To illustrate, he uses behavioral economics and hilarious examples.

Sutherland's premise:  "...large organizations have actually become completely disconnected with what actually matters to people."  And "...our sense of self-aggrandizement (demands) that big important problems need to have big, important and expensive solutions attached to them."

Sound familiar?  A hospital spends $100 million on a new bed tower because "patients demand private rooms."  Well, of course they do.  What other options did you give them?

It's axiomatic that someone given $100 million to solve a problem will solve it quite differently from someone given only $1 million.  And, depressingly, there's absolutely no guarantee that the expensive fix will be the most effective.

If you want to know how to better serve Medicaid patients, don't ask a rich, suburban hospital.  They'll just give you the big-money, big suburban hospital answer.  Big money and, likely, wrong.  No, ask Chicago's Mount Sinai.  If, like GE, you're selling $100k diagnostic machines, where do you find out how to sell machines just as capable for $5,000?  Rural India of course. 

By the way, I love his riff on why Accenture dumped Tiger Woods, when most of Woods' transgressions seemed to perfectly fit Accenture's 'outsource and multi-task' advice model.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved