The Business Case for Investing in Physician Well-Being

Tait D. Shanafelt; Joel  Goh; Christine A. Sinsky

Article | JAMA Internal Medicine

The Business Case for Investing in Physician Well-Being

by Tait D. Shanafelt, Joel Goh and Christine A. Sinsky

Abstract

Importance: Widespread burnout among physicians has been recognized for more than two decades. Extensive evidence indicates that physician burnout has important personal and professional consequences.
Observations: A lack of awareness regarding the economic costs of physician burnout and uncertainty regarding what organizations can do to address the problem have been barriers to many organizations taking action. Although there is a strong moral and ethical case for organizations to address physician burnout, financial principles (e.g., return on investment) can also be applied to determine the economic cost of burnout and guide appropriate investment to address the problem. The business case to address physician burnout is multifaceted and includes costs associated with turnover, lost revenue associated with decreased productivity, as well as financial risk and threats to the organization’s long-term viability due to the relationship between burnout and lower quality of care, decreased patient satisfaction, and problems with patient safety. Nearly all U.S. health care organizations have used similar evidence to justify their investments in safety and quality. Herein, we provide conservative formulas based on readily available organizational characteristics to determine the financial return on organizational investments to reduce physician burnout. A model outlining the steps of the typical organization’s journey to address this issue is presented. Critical ingredients to making progress include prioritization by leadership, physician involvement, organizational science/learning, metrics, structured interventions, open communication, and promoting culture change at the work unit, leader, and organization level.
Conclusions and Relevance: Understanding the business case to reduce burnout and promote engagement as well as overcoming the misperception that nothing meaningful can be done are key steps for organizations to begin to take action. Evidence suggests that improvement is possible, investment is justified, and return on investment measurable. Addressing this issue is not only the organization’s ethical responsibility, it is also the fiscally responsible one.

Keywords: Physicians; well-being; ROI; Health; Welfare or Wellbeing; Ethics; Investment Return; Health Industry;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Purchase

Citation:

Shanafelt, Tait D., Joel Goh, and Christine A. Sinsky. "The Business Case for Investing in Physician Well-Being." JAMA Internal Medicine 177, no. 12 (December 2017): 1826–1832. (doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.4340.)

Book Abstract: The editors, aided by a team of internationally acclaimed experts, have curated this timely volume to help newcomers and seasoned researchers alike to rapidly comprehend a diverse set of thrusts and tools in this rapidly growing cross-disciplinary field. The Handbook covers a wide range of macro-, meso- and micro-level thrusts—such as market design, competing interests, global health, personalized medicine, residential care, and concierge medicine, among others—and structures what has been a highly fragmented research area into a coherent scientific discipline. The Handbook also provides an easy-to-comprehend introduction to five essential research tools—Markov decision process, game theory and information economics, queueing games, econometric methods, and data science—by illustrating their uses and applicability on examples from diverse healthcare settings, thus connecting tools with thrusts. The primary audience of the Handbook includes analytics scholars interested in healthcare and healthcare practitioners interested in analytics.

Article | Operations Research | May–June 2018

Data Uncertainty in Markov Chains: Application to Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Medical Innovations

Joel Goh, Mohsen Bayati, Stefanos A. Zenios, Sundeep Singh and David Moore

Cost-effectiveness studies of medical innovations often suffer from data inadequacy. When Markov chains are used as a modeling framework for such studies, this data inadequacy can manifest itself as imprecision in the elements of the transition matrix. In this paper, we study how to compute maximal and minimal values for the discounted value of the chain (with respect to a vector of state-wise costs or rewards) as these uncertain transition parameters jointly vary within a given uncertainty set. We show that these problems are computationally tractable if the uncertainty set has a row-wise structure. Conversely, we prove that the row-wise structure is necessary for tractability. Without it, the problems become computationally intractable (strongly NP-hard). We apply our model to assess the cost effectiveness of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), a new screening method for colorectal cancer. Our results show that despite the large uncertainty in FIT's performance, it could be cost-effective relative to the prevailing screening method of colonoscopy.

Keywords: Markov Chains; cost effectiveness; medical innovations; Colorectal Cancer; Health Care and Treatment; Cost vs Benefits; Innovation and Invention; Mathematical Methods; Health Industry;

Citation:

Goh, Joel, Mohsen Bayati, Stefanos A. Zenios, Sundeep Singh, and David Moore. "Data Uncertainty in Markov Chains: Application to Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Medical Innovations." Operations Research 66, no. 3 (May–June 2018): 697–715. (Winner, 2014 INFORMS Health Applications Society Pierskalla Award & Finalist, 2014 INFORMS George E. Nicholson student paper competition.) View Details

Cite View Details Find at Harvard

In December 2014, Dr. Anthony Furlan, chair of the Department of Neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center (UH), faced a mandate from the hospital’s executive leadership team. Specifically, all UH departments were directed to take steps within six months to reduce the waiting time for outpatient appointments—measured as the time to first available outpatient appointment—to no more than 15 days. For Furlan and his colleagues in neurology, achieving this target was a significant challenge, as the department’s current time to first available appointment was 93 days. The case considers several alternatives for reducing waiting time in outpatient neurology without increasing the total clinical staff. The case allows students to evaluate opportunities for expanding the effective capacity of a complex service operation and to understand the tradeoffs between customer service and labor utilization.

Faculty & Research

The Business Case for Investing in Physician Well-Being

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author