Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA

Talking honestly about problems can help organizations, so long as those in charge take a compassionate approach

Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA

Conflict in organizations is pervasive; the challenge for health care leaders is to handle it constructively. It is often useful to externalize conflict in order to resolve it. The metaphor of a "moose on the table" can be used to externalize conflict and provide some distance from the source of tension, making it easier to deal with. The moose symbolizes painful issues no one wants to confront; yet a leader will always address them.

Randall Tobias, chairman emeritus of Eli Lily and former vice chairman at AT&T, frequently used the moose metaphor as a leadership tool. In Tobias's book, Put the Moose on the Table, current Lily chairman and CEO Sidney Taurel observes: "We had a tendency [at Lily] to sometimes not say things as they really were in order not to offend one another. That can be very counterproductive. So we adopted Randy's phrase 'get the moose on the table' as a lighthearted way to signal that we needed to speak openly and honestly about an issue at hand."

It was also a pharmaceutical executive (not Tobias) who introduced me to the phrase "put the moose on the table." The executive frequently uttered those words during high-level merger discussions whenever parties appeared to reach an impasse. The executive's well-timed comments kept the discussions going and the merger occurred on track.

Apart from handling conflict openly and honestly, conflict should be embraced with compassion. The psychologist David T. Kyle has identified compassion as one of the four "powers" of leadership, along with presence, intention, and wisdom.

The myth that leaders must be aggressive and cannot show compassion is debunked in Built to Last, the book that identified 18 visionary companies and determined what is special about them. One of the core myths, according to the authors, is that domineering and charismatic people lead visionary companies. There are examples of that pattern, but there are also just too many counterexamples — in reality, the majority of the visionary companies are run by remarkably self-effacing leaders. In fact, a take-charge charismatic leader can be detrimental.

I once worked for a health care organization led by an individual admired for his winning personality, yet he caused the company's demise. The organization filed a $1.3 billion bankruptcy in 1998, the largest ever in not-for-profit health care. Detailed published accounts of the bankruptcy faulted the CEO for ill-advised acquisitions in a medical arms race with competing health care systems. But the real lesson was embodied in the moose.

The CEO's strategies were never challenged, and the CEO himself went about his business unchecked and unopposed. Coworkers feared him, and nobody ever said "Put the moose on the table."

Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA, is senior director of clinical research for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals in Wilmington, Del. He is editor of MD/MBA: Physicians on the New Frontier of Medical Management (American College of Physician Executives, 1998). He can be reached by phone at 302/885-4542 or by e-mail at arthur.lazarus@astrazeneca.com. His opinions are his own, not necessarily those of AstraZeneca or Managed Care.

Managed Care welcomes proposals for contributions to this column. Mail them to:

Viewpoint Editor
Managed Care Magazine
780 Township Line Road
Yardley, PA 19067

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.