Should We Cry for Non-Profit Hospital System CEOs Paid Less than For-Profit CEOs?

Two recent articles (here and here) in Modern Healthcare providing an update on the compensation of CEOs of non-profit hospital systems raised new questions.

The CEOs' Compensation

The first article documented the rich compensation of the top paid CEOs of non-profit US hospital systems.  A summary of their total compensation:

-  Donald Faulk (now retired), Central Georgia Health System - $8 million
-  George Halvorson, Kaiser Permanente - $7.9 million
-  Jeffrey Romoff, UPMC - $6.1 million
 -  Pat Fry, Sutter Health - $5.2 million
-  Gregory Beier (retired), Novant Health  - $5.1 million
-  Dr Steve Safyer, Montefiore Medical Center - $5 million
-  David Bernd, Sentara - $4.6 million

The Usual Talking Points

The articles in combination provided the usual talking points as justification for this compensation.   We have noted that nearly every attempt made to defend the outsize compensation given hospital and health system executives involves the same talking points.   We first listed the talking points here, and then provided additional examples of their use here, here here, here and here.   They are:
- We have to pay competitive rates
- We have to pay enough to retain at least competent executives, given how hard it is to be an executive
- Our executives are not merely competitive, but brilliant.

So true to form, we found in the Modern Healthcare articles these justifications of the executives multimillion dollar pay.

Competition

In general,

In interviews, health system directors and executives at the systems where these top-paid executives work defended the compensation packages as necessary to remain competitive....

Re UPMC

UPMC spokeswoman Susan Manko described his [that is, Romoff's] pay as competitive for an institution of UPMC's size and complexity. 

Re Novant

Novant spokeswoman Kati Everett said Novant follows IRS rules that call for pay to be compared against the market....

Re Sutter

[Sutter Health board of trustees member and chair of the compensation committee Andy] Pansini said the Sutter board set the CEO's salary halfway between the lowest and the highest amount he could earn elsewhere.

Also,

He said Sutter's board relies heavily on consultants to compare Fry's compensation against the market.

Retention

 Re Sentara

'Mr Bernd's compensation takes into account his 40-year tenure of leadership at Sentara, with nearly 20 serving as the organization's top executives.

Brilliance

Re Novant

[Novant spokeswoman Kati Everett said] 'At Novant Health, we recognize (that) our responsibility to serve our community depends on the caliber of talent in our workforce, our leadership group....'

Re Sentara

[CEO Bernd's] 'pay reflects his experience, expertise....'

Re Sutter

[Pansini] defended [CEO] Fry's compensation as reasonable and necessary to meet Sutter's strategic goals by hiring a skilled executive team. 

Explicit Comparison to For-Profit Corporations

The articles also introduced one new element.  Some defenders of non-profit hospital CEO compensation explicitly argued that should take into account compensation of for-profit CEOs.

This argument was made by "Jill Horwitz, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles,' who had "defended paying not-for-profit healthcare executives market rates."

She also noted that not-for-profit systems have to compete with the for-profit sector for top talent. 'This idea that people should be donating their labor is a misunderstanding of charity.'

Defenders of CEO compensation at specific health systems also made similar points.  For example, a Kaiser Permanente spokesman explicitly compared his CEO's pay to that given to CEOs of for-profit health plans,

Kaiser spokesman Won Ha, in a written statement, said Halvorson's pay falls short of the average compensation of $14 million, not including option exercises, earned by CEOs of the 12 largest for-profit healthcare systems, which had average 2011 revenue of $37 billion.

'Compensation paid to senior management is substantially less than that of many for-profit health (plans),...'

Also, re Sutter,

[board committee chair Pansini noted that when comparing his CEO's pay against the market] That comparison includes other executives of similar not-for-profit health systems, and to a lesser degree, of for-profit systems.

 Summary: An Extension, but Still no Clear Justification for the Talking Points


The talking points to explain executive compensation in health care are used again and again.  They never seem to be publicly challenged.  However, they should raise some obvious questions.

The argument about competition raises several obvious questions.  Why should the top hired managers' pay be only compared to other top managers, and not explicitly to other employees?  Even if the comparison is restricted to other top managers, how can they be used for those at the top of the pay scale for non-profit hospital system CEOs?  How these CEOs' compensation could be dubbed merely competitive, much less "halfway between the lowest and highest amount he could earn elsewhere," is not clear.

The retention argument begs the questions of whether any of these managers is really likely to leave, whether they really would be attractive to other organizations at the same or even higher pay, and whether it would really be difficult to find replacements.

The brilliance argument raises the question of how brilliance is defined.  Given that it is almost unheard of for a fan of current compensation practices to dub any top manager anything less than brilliant, the obvious question is how can CEOs, like the children of Lake Woebegone, all be above average? 

 Furthermore, the talking points seem to be in the process of extension, which should raise even more questions.

Defenders of CEO pay, usually "spokespeople" or members of boards of trustees, often cite the need for "competitive" pay.  They usually are not clear about with whom they are competing.  Now it seems to be more popular to say that non-profit health care organizations are competing with for-profit corporations, despite the ostensible difference in their natures.  Non-profits are supposed to have a charitable nature and function, to have some sort of mission that serves the greater good.  To support that apparently benevolent purpose, in the US they are exempt from certain taxes, are are able to receive charitable contributions which in turn earn deductions for their givers.  For-profit corporations are in business ostensibly for their owners. 


In addition, by now asserting that the non-profit CEOs should be likened to the CEOs of for-profit corporations, the expanded talking points highlight questions that have been raised about how these hired managers are paid. We have previously discussed some pithy critiques of American practices of executive compensation (look here and here.)

CEO compensation as a multiple of the pay of the average worker has risen 10-fold since the 1960s (see this chart). As a consequence, the top 1% and 0.1% of the US income distribution is increasingly and disproportionately made up of executives, that is hired managers, (see the recent article by Bivens and Mishel[1] for a summary).  Per the article, the income of top corporate executives has grown even faster than that of other members of the top 0.1%.  It seems evident that these rates of growth cannot be explained by increases in the financial performance of their companies.  Furthermore, while it appears that compensation of US health care corporate executives has grown as fast as their brethren, there is no data that US health care has improved at anything like a similar rate.  It may have hardly improved at all.  A recent JAMA article is just the latest example of studies showing that US health is lagging that of other developed countries, although the US spends far more per capita on health care.(2)     

Furthermore, there is more and more criticism about how the compensation of top hired managers is set.  Steve Denning's blog  post in Forbes summarized a 2012 Harvard Business Review article(3) suggesting that "market-based" compensation schemes mistake top managers for innovative entrepreneurs, when they are mainly simply "bureaucrats"; reward managers for luck rather than skill; and is "inversely related to shareholder returns."

Finally, Elson and Ferrere critiqued the mechanics of how compensation is set.  In particular, while boards of directors may attend to data on compensation of CEOs at other, supposedly comparable corporations, they almost always "choose a package that is in the 50th, 75th, or 90th percentile of their target peer group.  Targeting levels below the 50th percentile is rarely, if ever done."  Thus, boards nearly always act as if their CEO is above average, while by definition, most CEOs cannot be above average.  Why do boards commit this folly?  The authors postulated that suggesting the CEO is less than average "may raise concerns over the executive's position within the company...."  Perhaps boards also fear that labeling the CEO below average may be an admission of below average governance. 

Desai suggested that the perverse incentives created by current schemes to compensate managers were a major cause of the 2008 financial meltdown.  As Dennings wrote,

despite the constraints to change, the overcompensation of the C-suite and the financial sector is not sustainable. It causes serious misallocation of capital and talent, repeated governance crises, rising income inequality and an overall decline of the US economy. It obviously cannot continue, if only because, as Margaret Thatcher used to say in a different context, 'Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money'

Clearly, in the health care context, the results could be even worse.  Perverse executive compensation could not only lead to misallocation of capital and talent in health care, it could lead to bad health care decisions that could harm patients' and the public's health.  However, there seems to be almost no discussion of, much less research about, much less policy changes addressing perverse incentives for health care managers and their likely ruinously bad effects on people and patients.

Such discussion and research is a prerequisite to true health care reform, which would require such policy changes.

Meanwhile, I hope at least the next time huge compensation of some health care managers is announced, someone asks the next set of questions after the usual talking points are made.  

Roy M. Poses MD in Health Care Renewal

References
1.  Bivens J, Mishel L. The pay of corporate executives and financial professionals as evidence of rents in top 1 percent incomes.  J Econ Perspect 2013; 27: 57-78.
2. US Burden of Disease Collaborative.  The state of US health, 1990-2010 burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors.  JAMA 2013; 310: 591-608.  Link here.
3. Desai M. The incentive bubble.  Harvard Business Review, March 2012. 

Health Care Hired Managers Not Playing by the Same Rules - the Example of Lancaster General Health

That all people in the US do not play by the same rules, and that more specifically the richest people do not play by the same rules as the somewhat or a lot less rich, became a topic of discussion after the 2008 global financial collapse/ great recession.  A powerful discussion of this theme appeared in Predator Nation, the book by Charles Ferguson that followed his award winning documentary, Inside Job:

Ponder the toxic effects of too much wealth, too much power, the new culture of American investment banking, and a life conducted within the cocoon of America's new oligarchy. [p 112]

He focused on the culture of finance, but as we have seen, this culture has overlapped the culture of health care.  Thus we have shown multiple examples of those who have become rich due to their positions in health care, almost always positions as high-ranking hired managers of health care organizations.  They get paid according to different rules than apply to other hired employees, and live by different rules than their less-favored fellow employees, again by virtue of their positions.

Some of these examples were of CEOs of huge, for-profit health care corporations,  However, we have increasingly seen hired managers of moderate size non-profit organizations who also appear to play by different rules than their fellow employees.

The Executives of Lancaster General Health

The latest example appeared through reporting found in LancasterOnline, the web presence of several newspapers in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, about a regional community health care system, Lancaster General Health.  The system includes one major hospital, Lancaster General, an obstetrics hospital, and a variety of satellites and out-patient facilities.    

The system was facing challenges in 2010:

In 2010, times were getting tougher for Lancaster General Health.

The mammoth [sic] health care system would notch record revenues of nearly $1 billion that year. But its annual surplus fell for the fourth straight year. Though destitute by no means, galloping expenses and uncertainty in the marketplace were hammering LGH's business model, prompting changes. Two units were closed, some positions were eliminated, and 170 employees were reassigned.

However, despite these difficulties,

Two executives — CEO Tom Beeman, who was on military leave part of the year, and Executive Vice President Jan Bergen, who helped fill in for Beeman in his absence — earned more than $1 million in total compensation; another six got at least $500,000.

And those top 21 executives collectively received more than $2 million in bonuses and incentives.

That lavish total compensation included "perks" that were likely not furnished to lesser employees, for example

The IRS form lists few explicit perks, save one: LGH paid $1,044 in social club dues for Beeman in 2010.

Said Regina Mingle, LGH's executive vice president of human resources: 'In this community, if you need to do business, you do it at the Hamilton Club or Lancaster Country Club. We decided ... we would pay those fees.'

It seems doubtful, however, that any other employees who felt that they did "business" at country clubs or similar establishments were entitled to subsidized dues.

This relatively lavish pay was part of a pattern.  Executive compensation had been increasing out of proportion to any obvious benchmark for a while.

 In fiscal year 2005-06, CEO Tom Beeman earned a comparatively modest total compensation of $646,094. By 2010, that had more than doubled, to $1.35 million. That figure included a base compensation of $606,728, along with $345,000 in bonuses and incentives and $279,511 in retirement and other deferred compensation.

Bergen, who along with Executive Vice President Marion A. McGowan took on some of Beeman's duties when he left in October 2010 for a nine-month military leave of absence, saw her compensation rise from $332,823 in 2005-06 to a total of $1.1 million in 2010. The latter figure included $425,967 in base pay, $177,752 in bonuses and incentives, $111,383 in retirement and other deferred compensation, and $320,208 in what the IRS calls 'other reportable compensation' such as employee contributions to 401(k) or 403(b) retirement plans.

The third highest-paid LGH executive in 2010 was McGowan, whose compensation package totaled $772,978, including $456,789 in base pay and $192,226 in bonuses and incentives. Fourth on the list was 

Dr. Lee M. Duke II, senior vice president and chief physician executive, whose compensation totaled $746,830, including $405,083 in base pay and $140,377 in bonuses and incentives.

Fifth was Chief Financial Officer F. Joseph Byorick Sr., whose total compensation of $652,667 included $397,160 in base pay and $140,500 in bonuses and incentives.

So note that CEO Beeman's compensation was for less than one full year's worth of work.  His annualized rate would have been even more.

A companion article noted that part of CEO Beeman's bonus for 2010 was justified by his efforts to keep in touch with the institution while he was physically not present, and was, in fact off-site for an extended period fulfilling a military reserve commitment

 In October 2010, Lancaster General Health had a problem.

Its CEO, Tom Beeman, was shipping out for a military tour of duty, to serve as deputy director of the National Intrepid Center of Excellence in Bethesda, Md. Two other administrators —  Executive Vice Presidents Jan Bergen and Marion W. McGowan — would step into Beeman's shoes while he was away.

Yet Beeman stayed involved. 'We had regular Skype [video-conferencing] calls,' said Alex Henderson, chairman of the LGH Board of Trustees.

That, LGH officials believed, merited a bonus. So Beeman got nearly $90,000 for his efforts in absentia.

Note that this verified that Beeman got more than $1 million in compensation despite not having worked a whole year, since it was necessary for two other executives to take over his work.

Furthermore, while US law does mandate employers to re-hire employees who take leaves to fulfill military reserve commitments (look here),  I suspect that very few employers pay employees anything while they are away (although reservists are certainly paid by the government for their reserve duty).  However, Beeman got a bonus merely for keeping in touch while he was away doing another job.  I further suspect it is extremely unusual to pay an employee a bonus for trying to keep in touch during his or her military service.

So the reporting on compensation given to top hired managers at Lancaster General emphasized that executive pay is set using very different rules than are used to set the pay of other employees.

The Talking Points Reappear as Justifications for Exceptional Compensation of Hired Managers

Furthermore, the justifications made for the Lancaster General top executives' large compensation packages echoed talking points used to support such largess for top hired managers in other health care settings, but did not explain why hired managers merit exceptional treatment.   We first listed the talking points here, and then provided additional examples of their use here, and here.   The talking points are:
-  we pay what everyone else pays
-  CEOs work hard and are brilliant, and so deserve high pay
-  high pay is needed to attract and retain competent, if not brilliant people.

None of the examples of these talking points we have seen so far explain why these apply to CEOs and other top hired managers, but not to other kinds of employees.  .

We Pay What Everyone Else Pays

A third article in the LancasterOnline series noted that executive compensation was based on information on what everyone else pays,

nonprofits must hire consultants to study how similarly sized nonprofits pay their executives.

LGH's consultant is a firm called Mercer, headquartered in New York City with an office in Philadelphia. Charlie Scott, of Mercer, has in recent years helped LGH determine what to pay its highest-compensated executives.

 'Our role is to be [an] independent source of market norms,' said Scott, determining 'levels of compensation available in the market for executive positions, as well as how compensation is paid.

This is an interesting variant of this talking point, because it essentially blames the reasoning on the Internal Revenue Service.  The article did not explain how Mercer determined the extent of the appropriate market, nor how it obtained a representative sample of data about that market.

CEOs Work Hard and Are Brilliant, and So Deserve High Pay

High Pay is Needed to Attract and Retain Competent, if not Brilliant People

These justifications are often combined.  In the case of Lancaster General, the examples included

At LGH, officials say the generous compensation is necessary to attract and retain the top talent. Said Lancaster attorney Alex Henderson III, chairman of the Lancaster General Health board of trustees and its compensation committee, which decides what to pay top execs: 'Demand for top-notch hospital executives has grown, and we have to respond to that.'

'We're not looking to be average.'

I seriously doubt that the hospital system is committed to "generous" pay to get "top talent" for all of its job openings.  Again, I doubt the generosity includes full pay for leaves taken for military service, or, for that matter country club dues.

Another version was offered by the chair of the system's board of trustees:

 Trustee Henderson said that as LGH's goal isn't to maximize revenue but save lives, executives can be doing a fantastic job — worthy of six-figure bonus and incentive pay — even when the system's financial performance slips.

Consider an executive who devises a way to shorten stays for patients, Henderson said: 'That's great for the patients, for insurance companies, for nurses who don't have to take care of people who don't need to be here' — but it's bad for LGH's bottom line.

Left out of the first part of the statement was how one could attribute lives saved to the work of a hired manager, especially, as in the case of CEO Beeman, a manager with no direct experience caring for patients.  Mr Beeman's official hospital bio listed this educational background,

Prior to joining Lancaster General Health, he served at Saint Thomas Health Services as its President and Chief Executive Officer, and the Senior Vice President for Hospital Operations and Executive Director of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.

It did not include any former positions that would have involved direct patient care. 

Health care actually does not save lives that often, but hopefully does often ameliorate disease and injury, reduce suffering and improve function.  However, the people who actually directly accomplish this are health care professionals, nurses, doctors, therapists, etc, not managers who sit in offices.  

I will merely note that Mr Henderson's second example apparently was theoretical.  There was no example given of an executive who actually did shorten length of stay.  

In a third article in the LancasterOnline series, the compensation consultant employed by Lancaster General Health reiterated the argument that one must pay top dollar for scarce managerial talent:

[Mercer consultant Charlie] Scott said that the law of supply and demand that applies 'to any type of talent pool applies to health care executives. There's normally a lack of supply of what's considered blue-chip talent ... [and] the increasing complexity of the health care industry requires an increasing level of talent and capability.'

Note that no one who defended the compensation given to CEO Beeman or other top managers provided evidence that they are "top" or "blue chip" talent, or that they, rather than the health care professionals who work at or for the system save lives.

Summary

In our last US election campaign season, a few candidates pledged to level the playing field so that rich and poor would play by the same rules.  Other candidates scoffed at the importance of the problem, or called its invocation class warfare.  Meanwhile, in health care, we just accumulate more examples that different people play by different rules.

So we have yet another particular example of how top hired managers, particularly CEOs, of even modestly sized, non-profit health care organizations get to play by different rules than those affecting other employees, and other people who work in health care.  As in previous cases, the justifications provided for these different rules were basically a repeat of poorly conceived arguments that have been cited often by defenders of executive exceptionalism. 

The "we pay what everyone else pays" is basically an appeal to common practice fallacy.  Why we have to do so is never stated.  In any case, the argument did not include why the limited selection of comparator hospitals and executives used is a representative sample of "everyone."  Furthermore, as we noted here, what evidence there is suggests that skills required to run one organization do not necessarily transfer to another, suggesting the comparison to "everyone" makes no sense.

As is usual, the "CEOs are brilliant" argument is basically an appeal to authority fallacy, and provided no evidence that the particular CEO is brilliant.  In fact, it seems that everyone who has used this talking point before claims his or her CEO is brilliant. (Look here for example.) Obviously, all CEOs cannot be above average. 

Finally, as noted here, there is no evidence that without high pay worthy leaders could not be hired or retained.

Unfortunately, the otherwise excellent articles on Lancaster General did not challenge any of the defenders of executive exceptionalism to better justify their assertions.  Nor were they asked to consider its adverse effects. 

As we have frequently said, current policies about paying hired health care managers leave the managers unaccountable for the effects of their actions on patients' and the public's health, and worse, fail to deter and may even encourage ignorance of the health care mission, frankly mission-hostile behavior, self-interest, conflicts of interest, and outright corruption.  Meanwhile, paying nearly all top managers as if they were brilliant, while setting much harsher standards for the employees who actually take care of patients, including health professionals, demoralizes those on whom patients actually depend for care.

As we have said endlessly,....   Health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research. On the other hand, those who authorize, direct and implement bad behavior ought to suffer negative consequences sufficient to deter future bad behavior.

If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.

More Reasons to Doubt How CEOs are Chosen and Paid

Health Care Renewal is about problems with the leadership and governance of health care organizations.  Since the global financial collapse/ great recession began in 2008, it became evident that the problems we saw affecting health care leadership were similar to problems affecting other large organizations, notably financial firms.  Recently, I spotted a series of articles that raise more questions about how business leaders, and by extension, leaders of health care organizations are chosen and paid.

Doubts about Generic Managers

We have often questioned the wisdom of having health care organizations lead by people with little if any direct health care experience, little knowledge of health care on the ground, and little commitment to health care's core values.  We have called such leaders generic managers.

A New York Times article by Gretchen Morgenson from September, 2012, cited new academic work that questioned the abilities of generic managers.  The source article was Elson CM, Ferrere CK.  Executive superstars, peer groups, and overcompensation - cause, effect and solution.  Ms Morgenson summarized,

Mr. Elson and Mr. Ferrere conclude, contrary to the prevailing line, that chief executives can’t readily transfer their skills from one company to another.

Furthermore, Ms Morgenson interviewed Mr Elson, who said,

But we found that C.E.O. skills are very firm-specific. C.E.O.’s don’t move very often, but when they do, they’re flops.

Also,

But there is little evidence, according to Mr. Elson and Mr. Ferrere, that a hot market exists for interchangeable chief executives. First, they note numerous academic studies indicating that C.E.O.’s selected from within a company perform better than outsiders, especially in the creation of long-term shareholder value.

'There is no conclusive empirical evidence that outside succession leads to more favorable corporate performance, or even that good performance at one company can accurately predict success at another,' the authors conclude. 'In short, executive skills cannot pass the most basic test of generality: transferability.'

To be sure, this flies in the face of the widely held view that skilled managers have become generalists and are therefore far more interchangeable than in previous years. Proponents of this thesis argue that top managers today can accumulate a broad knowledge of economics, finance and management science, giving them the ability to manage any type of company effectively. Technological advancements also give chief executives access to untold amounts of data about a particular company that in previous times would have taken years to amass and synthesize, this view holds.

But the data on actual C.E.O. moves raises questions about just how portable C.E.O. skills really are. The Delaware paper cites several studies indicating that relatively few chief executives land new top jobs elsewhere. One study, a 2011 analysis of roughly 1,800 C.E.O. successions from 1993 to 2005, found that less than 2 percent had been public-company chief executives before their new jobs.

This data and these observations seem to broadly apply to business executives, but there is no reason to think they do not apply to executives of health care corporations.  Furthermore, given that on its face, health care is less like making automobiles than, say, the restaurant business is, there is no reason to think doubts this raises about the abilities of generic managers should not be even bigger in health care, and should apply not just to for-profit, but to not for profit corporations.  Yet the trend in health care seems to increasingly favor generic managers of not just for-profit health care corporations, but also hospitals and hospital systems, non-profit health insurers and managed care organizations, health care charities, disease advocacy groups, and even medical associations, medical schools, and their parent universities.  

Doubts about Executive Compensation

Peer-Group Benchmarking

We have often posted about amazingly generous compensation given to top leaders of health care organizations.  Health care corporate CEOs can make tens of millions of dollars, occasionally even more.  While CEOs of not for profit health care organizations make less, they still now can makes millions of dollars.  Ms Morgenson called the usual justification for these huge amounts of compensation the "pay-'em-or-lose-'em" myth.

Corporations are forever defending big executive paydays. If we don’t pay up, the argument goes, our sharpest minds will jump to our rivals.

This notion, or myth, depends on the argument that generic managers are the best managers, which appears to be largely unsubstantiated, as we noted above.

 In other words, the argument that C.E.O.’s will leave if they aren’t compensated well, perhaps even lavishly, is bogus. Using the peer-group benchmark only pushes pay up and up. 

Furthermore,

Importantly, the study disputes the notion that executive pay today is a result of an efficient bidding process for finding and retaining a scarce and valuable commodity: managerial talent. 'In essence, this process creates a model of a competitive market for executives where it otherwise does not exist,' the authors wrote. 'Through the operation of a market, it is argued, wages are bid up to an executive’s outside opportunities.'

Instead, as noted above, since the skills needed to run one sort of company or organization may not readily transfer to other companies and organizations, even seemingly similar ones, such a market does not exist. 
 
 Incentives Based on Short-Term Financial Results

We have also previously discussed (look here) how contemporary economic dogma suggest that the only measure of success of a for-profit corporation is "shareholder value," which has come to mean the stock price over the short term.  There is reason to think that this focus on short-term economic performance has also become the major measure of success of health care organizations.  Another word for this phenomenon is "financialization."  

An op-ed in the UK Independent questions this focus because of its economic effects.  Anthony Hilton wrote about the views of Andrew Smithers,

His starting point was that the economy was floundering because of inadequate demand. Personal spending is flat for obvious reasons but the real culprit is the companies who are hoarding cash and refusing to invest.

Others have noticed the cash hoarding but explain it away by saying we live in uncertain times and companies will start investing again once they become more confident about the economic outlook. Smithers disagrees fundamentally with this. He says companies are not investing because executives are bonused to deliver short-term profits. Costly spending on investment projects is therefore anathema to them. Investment may deliver long-term prosperity but by that time they will have left the company. It also depresses short-term profits while they are still there.

We have in the last two decades, under the mantra of shareholder value and aligning the interests of management with shareholders, created a new breed of management incentivised to believe that what is good for them is good for the business. They dislike investment because it reduces their bonuses .

They don't invest surplus cash. They hoard it or they use it to buy back their own company's shares.

When the majority of the managements in publicly quoted companies start behaving this way, as they now do, we have a serious problem. They are sitting on cash which is the equivalent of six per cent of GDP. This deadweight of unused resources prevents lift-off and threatens to leave the economy forever trapped in the mire.

Smithers says this behaviour by management is a structural change — meaning it is something which won't go away. It makes this down- turn different from all that have gone before.

There is no reason to think that health care corporations are not hoarding money in the sense described above.  If so, they may be failing to invest in drugs or devices that would have helped patients in the future.

Because of the limited reporting required of large health care non-profit organizations in the US, it may be very hard to tell if they are similarly hoarding money, but if they are, the effects again might be to fail to provide patients long-term benefits they might otherwise have enjoyed.

The Ultimately Self-Destructive Outcome

Meanwhile, writing in the New York Times, Chrystia Freeland, the author of Plutocrats: the Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else, explained why picking the wrong leaders  and paying them too much may be bad for everyone.  We have noted that an increasing fraction of the wealthiest one percent of the US are current and former corporate executives.  Ms Freeland wrote how domination by an increasingly wealthy and powerful elite usually dooms the countries they dominate.

what separates successful states from failed ones is whether their governing institutions are inclusive or extractive. Extractive states are controlled by ruling elites whose objective is to extract as much wealth as they can from the rest of society.

So

it is the danger America faces today, as the 1 percent pulls away from everyone else and pursues an economic, political and social agenda that will increase that gap even further — ultimately destroying the open system that made America rich and allowed its 1 percent to thrive in the first place.  

Furthermore,

It is no accident that in America today the gap between the very rich and everyone else is wider than at any time since the Gilded Age. Now, as then, the titans are seeking an even greater political voice to match their economic power. Now, as then, the inevitable danger is that they will confuse their own self-interest with the common good. The irony of the political rise of the plutocrats is that, like Venice’s oligarchs, they threaten the system that created them.

So it is not merely that overcompensating generic executives has likely been one of the major reasons our health care is so expensive, inaccessible, and mediocre.  The larger problem of overpaying under skilled executives threatens to destroy our whole society.  How cheerful

Summary

The way forward seems clear.  It is just blocked by the interests of the rich and powerful elite which our current foolish policies have created.

In a health care context, leaders of organizations should only be those with clear knowledge of, experience in, and commitment to the values of health care.  Their compensation should be reasonable, and based on their ability to uphold these values first, with financial goals clearly second, and short-term financial goals probably not at all.  Pay should not be bench-marked to compensation of leaders of other organizations, especially not of vastly different kinds of organizations.

Whether there is any chance of such changes happening while corporate boards of directors, and non-profit boards of trustees are dominated by executives of other organizations is doubtful.  Thus we also need to change the governance of for-profit health care corporations to clearly reflect the long-term interests of the stockholders, who will only prosper if in the long run their companies provide products and services that help patients at a fair price and with minimal risks.   Thus we further need to need to change the governance of health care non-profits to reflect the needs of patients, their communities and other key constituencies.  That should keep us all busy for a while.