Archive for March 16th, 2010

ERs are overcrowded with the uninsureds … oh, really ?

March 16, 2010

Punchline: If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get (and it will !), emergency room use may increase. That’s called an unintended consequence.

* * * * *
Excerpted from Newsweek: The Illusion of ‘Reform, March 15, 2010

How often have you heard the emergency-room argument?

The uninsured, it’s said, use emergency rooms for primary care. That’s expensive and ineffective. Once they’re insured, they’ll have regular doctors. Care will improve; costs will decline. Everyone wins.

Great argument.

Unfortunately, it’s untrue.

A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured account for 83 percent of emergency room visits, reflecting their share of the population.

After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency room use remained higher than the national average, reports an Urban Institute study.

More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies.

People said it was “more convenient” to go to the emergency room or they couldn’t “get (a doctor’s) appointment as soon as needed.”

If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency room use may increase.

Full article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/15/obamas_health_proposal_is_the_illusion_of_reform.html

Posted in Health Care / Medical Insurance | Leave a Comment »

Why We Make Mistakes: The myth of multi-tasking

March 16, 2010

In this and a couple of preceding and subsequent posts, I’m excerpting the 13 reasons from:

Why We Make Mistakes, Joseph T. Hallinanm, Broadway Books 2009

Today, we add reason #5 to the list.

* * * * * *

The errors we make can be explained through 13 lessons:

1. We look but don’t always see.

2. We all search for meaning.

3. We connect the dots.

4. We wear rose-colored glasses.

* * * * *

5. We can walk and chew gum — but not much else.

Whether we’re on foot or behind the wheel, our attention is continually being divided by the tasks we try to juggle, such as listening to iPods, talking on cell phones, and tapping away on BlackBerrys.

Most of us believe our brains can work in the same way that computers multitask. Although multi-tasking has become a hallmark of the modern workplace, it is also one of the great myths of the modern age. We may think we are focusing on several activities at once, but our attention is actually jumping back and forth between tasks.

Not even a computer, by the way, can multitask; it actually switches back and forth between several tasks several times per second, thus presenting the illusion that all of the tasks are being performed at once.

Our minds provide us with the same illusion.

the gains we think we make by multitasking are often illusory. This is because the brain slows down when it has to juggle tasks.

Switching from task to task also creates other problems. One such problem is that we forget what we are doing — or planned to do. In some cases, the forgetting rate can be as high as 40 percent.

Another cost to multitasking is downtime. When we’re working on one thing and are interrupted, it takes us a while to refocus on what we were originally working on.

Workplace studies have found that it takes up to 15 minutes for us to regain a deep state of concentration after a distraction, such as a phone call.

Divided attention can also produce a dangerous condition known as inattentional blindness. In this condition, it is possible for an individual to look directly at something and still not see it.

One example, driver distraction, is now considered a much more frequent cause of auto accidents than safety officials once believed. When switching from task to task, drivers need downtime to recover.

* * * * *
Next up: Wrong frame of mind …

Posted in Decision-making, Problem solving, Psychology | Leave a Comment »

PowerPoint Management: Ford’s secret to recent success

March 16, 2010

Punch line: Ford’s CEO Ford’s CEO has an obsession with Power Point … and it works !

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ: Ford’s Renaissance Man, Feb 26., 2010

Alan Mulally, Ford’s president and chief executive officer, is exuding ebullience over, of all things, PowerPoint slides.

“How cool is that?” asks Mr. Mulally, pointing to slides showing rows and rows of numbers … relishing a slide of color-coded charts depicting the status of key projects that looks like a scrambled Monopoly board … and one that shows overlapping ovals that depict the configuration of corporate alliances in the global car business.

Mr. Mulally and his team of 16 top executives review 300 such slides in each weekly BPR, or Business Planning Review, which lasts just over two hours.

“If you aren’t comfortable with that you might be more comfortable leaving the company.”

To a visitor, these slide shows sound mind-numbing. But the CEO is excited about them for good reason.

Ford’s recent success is already amazing considering the prior half-dozen years of near-fatal decline. If it continues, Mr. Mulally will be credited with one of the great turnarounds in corporate history. His method has been to simplify, relentlessly and systematically, a business that had grown way too complicated and costly to be managed effectively.

“Improve Focus, Simplify Operations,” reads one of Mr. Mulally’s many charts, which he repeats like a sacred mantra.

* * * * * 

Soon after his arrival Ford began shedding brands—Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin among them—that the company couldn’t afford to support. Volvo will be next to go.

In the process, Ford cut its number of global platforms, or chassis, to eight from more than 20, and the number of nameplates to 25 from 97.

Ford is methodically implementing the “One Ford” strategy of developing cars in a single region (say Europe, or North America) and selling them globally, instead of developing slightly different cars in each region at enormous extra cost.

“It’s back to Henry Ford’s original vision, isn’t that cool?” gushes Mr. Mulally, reaching for—you guessed it—yet another chart. “It’s all about producing products people want,” he adds. “Our goal is PGA – Profitable Growth for All.”

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704479404575087372469421104.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

Posted in Autos - Travel, Communications - Presentations - Powerpoint | Leave a Comment »

Novel idea: Listen to your constituents …

March 16, 2010

Punchline: Reps in swing districts can either vote with their constituents or jump off a cliff. Why is that a difficult decision?

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ: Swing Districts Oppose Health Reform, Mar 15, 2010 

Democratic leaders cite national polls that show support for individual provisions of the bill as a reason to pass this reform. Yet vulnerable politicians should be warned: Responses to questions about individual benefits, particularly when removed from a cost context, are different from those on the whole bill.

Voters in key congressional districts are clear in their opposition to the proposed health-care reform.

That’s one of the findings of a survey that will be released today by the Polling Company on behalf of Independent Women’s Voice. The survey consisted of 1,200 registered voters in 35 districts represented by members who could determine the outcome of the health-care debate.

The survey shows astonishing intensity and sharp opposition to reform, far more than national polls reflect.

  • For 82% , the heath-care bill is either the top or one of the top three issues for deciding whom to support for Congress next November.
  • 60% want Congress to start from scratch on a bipartisan health-care reform proposal or stop working on it this year.
  • Majorities say the legislation will make them and their loved ones, the economy and the U.S. health-care system worse off.
  • 70% would vote against a House member who votes for the Senate health-care bill with its special interest provisions.
  • 75% disagree that the federal government should mandate that everyone buy a government-approved insurance plan
  • 81% say any reform should focus first on reducing costs.
  • 75% agree that Americans have the right to choose not to participate in any health-care system or plan without a penalty or fine.
  • 60% of the voters surveyed will vote for a candidate who opposes the current legislation and wants to start over.
  • Over 1/3 of respondents say they will actively work against a candidate who votes the wrong way or for the candidate who votes the right way.

That translates into specific concerns with the Senate legislation—and none of these objections would be addressed by the proposed fixes.

Over 70%—indeed in several districts over 80%—of respondents, across party lines, said that the following information made them less supportive:

  • mandates that individuals purchase insurance or face penalties;
  • cuts Medicare Advantage;
  • will force potentially millions to lose existing coverage;
  • will cost an estimated $2.3 trillion over its first 10 years; and it will grant unprecedented new powers to the Health and Human Services secretary.

These are the constituents of the members whose votes will matter most this week. Perhaps, if this republic is still the people’s, those members should heed those they claim to represent.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121541779736742.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

Posted in Health Care / Medical Insurance | Leave a Comment »