PREAMBLE: In this issue we extract a report recently distributed by the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, as part of their effort to disseminate information on contemporary public health issues. This refers to work jointly published in the Lancet by Harvard University, Boston and the University of Washington, Seattle, which reveals that investment in the non-government sector may result in more favourable health spending by government than by investing directly in the government sector itself.
Specifically, the study reported below found that debt relief, and development assistance for health (DAH) to government had a negative and significant effect on domestic government spending on health such that for every US$1 of DAH to government, government health expenditures from domestic resources were reduced by $0•43 (p=0) to $1•14.
However, debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH to the non-governmental sector had a positive and significant effect on domestic government health spending.
A counterpoint, implying that full understanding requires further examination, as explanations may vary widely depending on the situation of individual countries, is offered by another set of authors, whose comments are also extracted below.
Our topic choice for this issue is based on recognition that the findings of this Gates Foundation supported study have potentially major implications for donor funding. While there is a need to examine the findings further, especially in light of individual country situations, major questions about aid effectiveness emerge.
REPORT ON PUBLISHED ARTICLE - Public financing of health in developing countries: a cross-national systematic analysis
“…….Government spending on health from domestic sources is an important indicator of a government's commitment to the health of its people, and is essential for the sustainability of health programmes. We aimed to systematically analyse all data sources available for government spending on health in developing countries; describe trends in public financing of health; and test the extent to which they were related to changes in gross domestic product (GDP), government size, HIV prevalence, debt relief, and development assistance for health (DAH) to governmental and non-governmental sectors.
Methods
… a systematic analysis of all data sources available for government expenditures on health as agent (GHE-A) in developing countries, including government reports and databases from WHO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). GHE-A consists of domestically and externally financed public health expenditures. We assessed the quality of these sources and used multiple imputation to generate a complete sequence of GHE-A. With these data and those for debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH to governments, we estimated government spending on health from domestic sources. We used panel-regression methods to estimate the association between government domestic spending on health and GDP, government size, HIV prevalence, debt relief, and DAH disbursed to governmental and non-governmental sectors. We tested the robustness of our conclusions using various models and subsets of countries.
Findings
In all developing countries, public financing of health in constant US$ from domestic sources increased by nearly 100% (IMF 120%; WHO 88%) from 1995 to 2006. Overall, this increase was the product of rising GDP, slight decreases in the share of GDP spent by government, and increases in the share of government spending on health. At the country level, while shares of government expenditures to health increased in many regions, they decreased in many sub-Saharan African countries. The statistical analysis showed that debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH to government had a negative and significant effect on domestic government spending on health such that for every US$1 of DAH to government, government health expenditures from domestic resources were reduced by $0•43 (p=0) to $1•14 (p=0).
However, debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH to the non-governmental sector had a positive and significant effect on domestic government health spending. Both results were robust to multiple specifications and subset analyses. Other factors, such as debt relief, had no detectable effect on domestic government health spending.
Interpretation
To address the negative effect of debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH on domestic government health spending, we recommend strong standardised monitoring of government health expenditures and government spending in other health-related sectors; establishment of collaborative targets to maintain or increase the share of government expenditures going to health; investment in the capacity of developing countries to effectively receive and use DAH; careful assessment of the risks and benefits of expanded DAH to non-governmental sectors; and investigation of the use of global price subsidies or product transfers as mechanisms for debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH.
Funding
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation…..”
Source and Reference: Lu C, Schneider MT, Gubbins P, Leach-Kemon K, Jamison D, Murray CJL. Lancet 2010; published online April 8. 2010 - DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60233-4 Website: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960233-4/fulltext#
THE FOLLOWING COUNTERPOINT WAS ALSO PUBLISHED BY ANOTHER GROUP, IN COMMENTING ON THE ABOVE REPORT
VIEWPOINT: Crowding out: are relations between international health aid and government health funding too complex to be captured in averages only?
“…..In today’s Lancet, Lu and colleagues show that for every dollar of international health aid provided to governments, government health funding falls by US$0•43–1•14. Irrespective of whether this outcome is named fungibility or crowding out, mean estimates from many countries suggest a pattern. Without questioning the mean findings of today’s study, we argue that explicit policy choices are behind crowding-out effects, unfolding very differently dependent on the individual countries’ situations. To try to understand why some countries make these choices that result in crowding-out effects, and not only whether they do, is of importance…..”
Source and Reference: Ooms G, Decoster K, Miti K, Rens S, Van Leemput L, Vermeiren P, Van Damme W. www.thelancet.com Published online April 9, 2010 DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60207-3
URL: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60207-3/fulltext
Showing posts with label Harvard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harvard. Show all posts
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Monday, 16 March 2009
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS – 7 QUESTIONS
PREAMBLE: When this issue was first posted on March 16, we attempted to test a 7-day polling function offered by Google. Our trial topic was “health leadership and management”. However, interest in the poll was insufficient, so we removed the questions from our sidebar on March 23. We also reconstructed the material that now follows, to be consistent with this decision.
Given the role of poorly prepared leaders and managers in the global financial crisis, it is possible that a similar crisis may be developing in health organizations.
As a “backgrounder” we supply extracts from an Opinion piece in the Globe and Mail, in which Henry Mintzberg, Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies, McGill University, took aim at “America’s monumental failure of management”. His focus on the global financial crisis and the contribution of US management teaching, including that of Harvard University, stimulated our interest in reflecting on current approaches to health leadership and management and the potential for similar failures.
Reference: Minzberg H. Globe and Mail p A11, March 16, 2009 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090313.wcomintzberg16/BNStory/specialComment/home
Comment: One of our concerns is that the current fashion of promoting leadership studies among health professionals early in their career development may be at the cost of first building their management skills; if so, this will eventually adversely impact the managerial competence of their organizations.
BACKGROUNDER
In his critique of American leadership and management training practices, Minzberg states: “American management is still revered across much of the globe for what it used to be. Now, a great deal of it is just plain rotten - detached and hubristic. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting engaged, too many CEOs sit in their offices and deem: They pronounce targets for others to meet, or else get fired.”
Further on he addresses “hubris on a massive scale” from which we extract the following:
“Management is a practice, learned in context. No manager, let alone leader, has ever been created in a classroom. Programs that claim to do so promote hubris instead. And that has been carried from the business schools into corporate America on a massive scale."
Minzberg then comments on the iconic Harvard Business School which, according to its MBA website, is ‘focused on one purpose - developing leaders.’ He states: "At Harvard, you become such a leader by reading hundreds of brief case studies, each the day before you or your colleagues are called on to pronounce on what that company should do. Yesterday, you knew nothing about Acme Inc.; today, you're pretending to decide its future. What kind of leader does that create?"
He notes that Harvard prides itself on how many of its graduates make it to the executive suites. He states: “Learning how to present arguments in a classroom… helps. But how do these people perform once they get to those suites? Harvard does not ask. So we took a look.” He then summarizes a study he carried out with a colleague Joseph Lampel:
“Joseph Lampel and I found a list of Harvard Business School superstars, published in a 1990 book by a long-term insider. We tracked the performance of the 19 corporate chief executives on that list, many of them famous, across more than a decade. Ten were outright failures (the company went bankrupt, the CEO was fired, a major merger backfired etc.); another four had questionable records at best. Five out of the 19 seemed to do fine. These figures, limited as they were, sounded pretty damning. (When we published our results, there was nary a peep. No one really cared.)”
OUR SEVEN QUESTIONS ON HEALTH LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
These questions were composed by the authors of this blog, and required only “yes” or “no” responses, a format that we recognized would severely limit the scope of the exercise. As already noted, responses were insufficient to form a basis for any comment or interpretation, so we removed the poll from this issue on March 23, and offer the same seven question (below), but now with our own commentary.
Introduction: A wide range of educational institutions (with varying capacities in health, leadership and management, from modest to substantial) have a major impact on the preparation of leaders and managers for the health field, yet health systems everywhere are creaking under the strain of expanding need and constrained budgets. We suggest therefore that the time has surely come to examine some related questions regarding leadership and management in the health sector.
The Seven Questions:
1. Like GM, are some health care organizations now “too big to fail”? COMMENT: We believe that this is very much so, and that examples exist at every level, from the World Health Organization to any number of health service entities within countries. What looms large are issues of accountability.
2. Is too much emphasis now being given to “leadership” training for health organizations at the expense of basic management skills? COMMENT: We are aware of numerous instances where individuals have been inside-tracked into leadership training, without having first gone through the process of learning much about health organizations from working within them.
3. Noting a trend towards recruiting CEOs for large health organizations from outside the health system, based on their success in unrelated fields e.g, food, energy, tourism, are such CEOs adequately prepared for the health context? COMMENT: This is a definite risk in political cultures that are more oriented towards cost containment than positive health outcomes.
4. Do such CEOs give enough philosophical commitment (comparable to that of the health professionals they lead) to health goals and objectives? COMMENT: We believe that there is a risk here, and one that needs to be studied. Just how well can "leaders" from outside health identify with health goals, or will business models dominate to the detriment of evidence based services?
5. With such CEOs is there a greater risk of remote leadership with an easy exit out of health in the event of failure? COMMENT: To the extent that health services are viewed as a business, we believe that there is a risk in relation to this trend; while career mobility and sourcing talent are important recruitment considerations, there are also downside risks in relation to loyalty to a health mission e.g, consider the greed and irresponsibility in the financial industry that has surfaced over the past year.
6. Are “leaders” of health organizations receiving disproportionate compensation, driven more by the size of their operating budgets than consistency with evidence of efficacy and positive outcomes, while extolling teamwork and sustainability? COMMENT: We dont know the answer to this, but it is a serious question: if more transparency were to apply to senior levels of the health enterprise, it would be easier for everyone to know.
7. Do teachers of health leadership and management in tertiary education institutions have sufficient health leadership and management experience to relate their teaching to reality? COMMENT: There are many exceptions, but also many people engaged in education and research into health leadership and management have a "product" to promote, not necessarily real experience on how that product actually works.
Disclaimer: The foregoing questions and comments are not cited from any of Minzberg's work, but were stimulated by his opinion piece. We accept responsibility for our exercise, and hope that it may provoke interest in the future of health leadership and management.
Given the role of poorly prepared leaders and managers in the global financial crisis, it is possible that a similar crisis may be developing in health organizations.
As a “backgrounder” we supply extracts from an Opinion piece in the Globe and Mail, in which Henry Mintzberg, Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies, McGill University, took aim at “America’s monumental failure of management”. His focus on the global financial crisis and the contribution of US management teaching, including that of Harvard University, stimulated our interest in reflecting on current approaches to health leadership and management and the potential for similar failures.
Reference: Minzberg H. Globe and Mail p A11, March 16, 2009 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090313.wcomintzberg16/BNStory/specialComment/home
Comment: One of our concerns is that the current fashion of promoting leadership studies among health professionals early in their career development may be at the cost of first building their management skills; if so, this will eventually adversely impact the managerial competence of their organizations.
BACKGROUNDER
In his critique of American leadership and management training practices, Minzberg states: “American management is still revered across much of the globe for what it used to be. Now, a great deal of it is just plain rotten - detached and hubristic. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting engaged, too many CEOs sit in their offices and deem: They pronounce targets for others to meet, or else get fired.”
Further on he addresses “hubris on a massive scale” from which we extract the following:
“Management is a practice, learned in context. No manager, let alone leader, has ever been created in a classroom. Programs that claim to do so promote hubris instead. And that has been carried from the business schools into corporate America on a massive scale."
Minzberg then comments on the iconic Harvard Business School which, according to its MBA website, is ‘focused on one purpose - developing leaders.’ He states: "At Harvard, you become such a leader by reading hundreds of brief case studies, each the day before you or your colleagues are called on to pronounce on what that company should do. Yesterday, you knew nothing about Acme Inc.; today, you're pretending to decide its future. What kind of leader does that create?"
He notes that Harvard prides itself on how many of its graduates make it to the executive suites. He states: “Learning how to present arguments in a classroom… helps. But how do these people perform once they get to those suites? Harvard does not ask. So we took a look.” He then summarizes a study he carried out with a colleague Joseph Lampel:
“Joseph Lampel and I found a list of Harvard Business School superstars, published in a 1990 book by a long-term insider. We tracked the performance of the 19 corporate chief executives on that list, many of them famous, across more than a decade. Ten were outright failures (the company went bankrupt, the CEO was fired, a major merger backfired etc.); another four had questionable records at best. Five out of the 19 seemed to do fine. These figures, limited as they were, sounded pretty damning. (When we published our results, there was nary a peep. No one really cared.)”
OUR SEVEN QUESTIONS ON HEALTH LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
These questions were composed by the authors of this blog, and required only “yes” or “no” responses, a format that we recognized would severely limit the scope of the exercise. As already noted, responses were insufficient to form a basis for any comment or interpretation, so we removed the poll from this issue on March 23, and offer the same seven question (below), but now with our own commentary.
Introduction: A wide range of educational institutions (with varying capacities in health, leadership and management, from modest to substantial) have a major impact on the preparation of leaders and managers for the health field, yet health systems everywhere are creaking under the strain of expanding need and constrained budgets. We suggest therefore that the time has surely come to examine some related questions regarding leadership and management in the health sector.
The Seven Questions:
1. Like GM, are some health care organizations now “too big to fail”? COMMENT: We believe that this is very much so, and that examples exist at every level, from the World Health Organization to any number of health service entities within countries. What looms large are issues of accountability.
2. Is too much emphasis now being given to “leadership” training for health organizations at the expense of basic management skills? COMMENT: We are aware of numerous instances where individuals have been inside-tracked into leadership training, without having first gone through the process of learning much about health organizations from working within them.
3. Noting a trend towards recruiting CEOs for large health organizations from outside the health system, based on their success in unrelated fields e.g, food, energy, tourism, are such CEOs adequately prepared for the health context? COMMENT: This is a definite risk in political cultures that are more oriented towards cost containment than positive health outcomes.
4. Do such CEOs give enough philosophical commitment (comparable to that of the health professionals they lead) to health goals and objectives? COMMENT: We believe that there is a risk here, and one that needs to be studied. Just how well can "leaders" from outside health identify with health goals, or will business models dominate to the detriment of evidence based services?
5. With such CEOs is there a greater risk of remote leadership with an easy exit out of health in the event of failure? COMMENT: To the extent that health services are viewed as a business, we believe that there is a risk in relation to this trend; while career mobility and sourcing talent are important recruitment considerations, there are also downside risks in relation to loyalty to a health mission e.g, consider the greed and irresponsibility in the financial industry that has surfaced over the past year.
6. Are “leaders” of health organizations receiving disproportionate compensation, driven more by the size of their operating budgets than consistency with evidence of efficacy and positive outcomes, while extolling teamwork and sustainability? COMMENT: We dont know the answer to this, but it is a serious question: if more transparency were to apply to senior levels of the health enterprise, it would be easier for everyone to know.
7. Do teachers of health leadership and management in tertiary education institutions have sufficient health leadership and management experience to relate their teaching to reality? COMMENT: There are many exceptions, but also many people engaged in education and research into health leadership and management have a "product" to promote, not necessarily real experience on how that product actually works.
Disclaimer: The foregoing questions and comments are not cited from any of Minzberg's work, but were stimulated by his opinion piece. We accept responsibility for our exercise, and hope that it may provoke interest in the future of health leadership and management.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
