Health Plans & Hospitals…
Email This Post
Print This Post
A couple of months ago, I was approached by Ted Ladd, who chairs the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center’s (BIDMC) Board of Trustees, and by Paul Levy, who’s the CEO of the hospital, about joining the BIDMC’s Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is not the governing institution for the hospital. That’s the Board of Directors. The Board of Trustees is kind of an ancillary board to the Board of Directors. Trustees serve on Committees that are chaired by members of the Board of Directors, but the Board of Directors makes the final call on all major decisions.
I thought about the offer in conjunction with my position as a member of the Massachusetts Health Care Quality and Cost Council, which is in the process of developing a framework for publicly collecting and distributing information on health care system performance. If I learned a thing or two about health care delivery from the provider side of things, it might make me a better CEO at Harvard Pilgrim — but it would also improve my performance as a member of the Council. I talked it over with Harvard Pilgrim’s Board of Directors, and they basically said that as long as I wasn’t involved in anything that was connected to governance, compensation, financial performance or health plan contracting (which believe it or not, leaves a bunch of other options), I could do it.
So — I agreed to join the Board of Trustees, and to serve on the Patient Care Assessment Committee, which is the primary independent body that oversees health care quality efforts throughout the hospital.
The Boston Globe picked up on this issue and wrote about it last week. Since then, I’ve heard from some of my colleagues in the health care industry who questioned whether a senior health plan executive should participate on the Board of Trustees of any hospital or provider organization.
I would be interested in hearing from others on this. I think I could learn a lot from doing it, and I don’t think it’s a conflict — given the separation from the main operations of the hospital. That said, I could see why some people might think any connection at all is a conflict. Thoughts?
I think it is terrific and about time that an insurance company executive (albeit of a non-profit) is willing to examine the care delivery system from the perspective of a trustee — committed to sustaining an academic medical center’s full charitable mission. I think the medical center will learn much from you and that you, in turn, will learn from them. But who’ll be blogging about what?? We’ll have to keep reading you and Paul Levy…
I, too, view it as win-win. (No surprise!) Charlie gets to learn about how we try to make improvements in patient safety and quality and service, and we get the benefit of his advice in those arenas and a better understanding of the concerns of his subscribers.
And, yes, with any luck, it will improve both blogs, too!
More seriously, we do not exclude people from other industries and companies who do business with the hospital from being on our boards. We, of course, make them recuse themselves from any areas in which there might be a conflict of interest; but, in general, we seek highly qualified people from a broad variety of backgrounds to serve on our boards.
I am frankly surprised that there are any negative reactions to Charlie’s participation on the BIDMC board of trustees, particularly given the parameters that are clearly delineated to avoid potential conflicts. What are folks afraid of? That Charlie will gain insight into the issues facing hospitals that might color his thinking in policy-making decisions? Or that he will have a particular bias for one provider over another in the market? Seems as absurd to worry about this as it would be to believe gay marriage threatens “traditional marriage”. Given the complex and multi-factored challenges facing the business of health care, we should welcome everything that contributes to open-minded and innovative thinking.
Well, there you have, Charlie. A landslide: Ayes 3 - Nays 0!
Why is it that people who have raised concerns with you privately about his won’t say anything here publicly, even under a pseudonym, so that the rest of us can understand their concerns?