Dual Agency in Hospitals: What Strategies Do Managers and Physicians Apply to Reconcile Dilemmas Between Clinical and Economic Considerations?

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 The Smokler Center for Health Policy Research, Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute, Jerusalem, Israel

2 Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

3 Department of Health Care Management, Faculty of Economics & Management, Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany

4 Department of Population Medicine and Health Services Research, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

5 European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Brussels, Belgium

Abstract

Background 
Hospital professionals are “dual agents” who may face dilemmas between their commitment to patients’ clinical needs and hospitals’ financial sustainability. This study examines whether and how hospital professionals balance or reconcile clinical and economic considerations in their decision-making in two countries with activity-based payment systems.
 

Methods 
We conducted 46 semi-structured interviews with hospital managers, chief physicians and practicing physicians in five German and five Israeli hospitals in 2018/2019. We used thematic analysis to identify common topics and patterns of meaning.
 

Results 
Hospital professionals report many situations in which activity-based payment incentivizes proper treatment, and clinical and economic considerations are aligned. This is the case when efficiency can be improved, eg, by curbing unnecessary expenditures or specializing in certain procedures. When considerations are misaligned, hospital professionals have developed a range of strategies that may contribute to balancing competing considerations. These include ‘reshaping management,’ such as better planning of the entire course of treatment and improvement of the coding; and ‘reframing decision- making,’ which involves working with averages and developing tool-kits for decision- making.
 

Conclusion 
Misalignment of economic and clinical considerations does not necessarily have negative implications, if professionals manage to balance and reconcile them. Context is important in determining if considerations can be reconciled or not. Reconciling strategies are fragile and can be easily disrupted depending on context. Creating tool-kits for better decision- making, planning the treatment course in advance, working with averages, and having interdisciplinary teams to think together about ways to improve efficiency can help mitigate dilemmas of hospital professionals.

Keywords


  1. Blomgren M, Waks C. Coping with contradictions: hybrid professionals managing institutional complexity. J Prof Organ. 2015;2(1):78-102. doi:10.1093/jpo/jou010
  2. Gaba V, Greve HR. Safe or profitable? the pursuit of conflicting goals. Organ Sci. 2019;30(4):647-667. doi:10.1287/orsc.2018.1280
  3. Greve HR, Teh D. Goal selection internally and externally: a behavioral theory of institutionalization. Int J Manag Rev. 2018;20(Suppl 1):S19-S38. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12138
  4. Nigam A. Multiple and competing goals in organisations: insights for medical leaders. BMJ Lead. 2018;2(3):85-86. doi:10.1136/leader-2018-000112
  5. Cyert RM, March JG. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Vol 2.; 1963. https://www.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=b1ivnNddmiEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA60&ots=my4pYDdF99&sig=83-Wx_jY1DfHl86JWZg_qwgZ2t8. Accessed December 8, 2020.
  6. Glouberman S, Mintzberg H. Managing the care of health and the cure of disease--Part I: differentiation. Health Care Manage Rev. 2001;26(1):56-69. doi:10.1097/00004010-200101000-00006
  7. Town R, Wholey DR, Kralewski J, Dowd B. Assessing the influence of incentives on physicians and medical groups. Med Care Res Rev. 2004;61(3 Suppl):80S-118S. doi:10.1177/1077558704267507
  8. Smith PC, Stepan A, Valdmanis V, Verheyen P. Principal-agent problems in health care systems: an international perspective. Health Policy. 1997;41(1):37-60. doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(97)00012-2
  9. Foss N, Stea D. Putting a realistic theory of mind into agency theory: implications for reward design and management in principal-agent relations. Eur Manag Rev. 2014;11(1):101-116. doi:10.1111/emre.12026
  10. Gafni A, Charles C, Whelan T. The physician-patient encounter: the physician as a perfect agent for the patient versus the informed treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(3):347-354. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00091-4
  11. Linder S, Foss NJ. Agency theory. SSRN Electron J. 2013. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2255895
  12. Hoop JG. Hidden ethical dilemmas in psychiatric residency training: the psychiatry resident as dual agent. Acad Psychiatry. 2004;28(3):183-189. doi:10.1176/appi.ap.28.3.183
  13. Kälvemark S, Höglund AT, Hansson MG, Westerholm P, Arnetz B. Living with conflicts-ethical dilemmas and moral distress in the health care system. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(6):1075-1084. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00279-x
  14. Langer A, Schröder-Bäck P, Brink A, Eurich J. The agency problem and medical acting: an example of applying economic theory to medical ethics. Med Health Care Philos. 2009;12(1):99-108. doi:10.1007/s11019-008-9138-y
  15. Rasooly A, Davidovitch N, Filc D. The physician as a neoliberal subject - a qualitative study within a private-public mix setting. Soc Sci Med. 2020;259:113152. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113152
  16. Tilburt JC. Addressing dual agency: getting specific about the expectations of professionalism. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(9):29-36. doi:10.1080/15265161.2014.935878
  17. Wallace JE. Organizational and professional commitment in professional and nonprofessional organizations. Adm Sci Q. 1995;40(2):228-255. doi:10.2307/2393637
  18. Ellis RP, McGuire TG. Hospital response to prospective payment: moral hazard, selection, and practice-style effects. J Health Econ. 1996;15(3):257-277. doi:10.1016/0167-6296(96)00002-1
  19. Frank RG, Glazer J, McGuire TG. Measuring adverse selection in managed health care. J Health Econ. 2000;19(6):829-854. doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(00)00059-x
  20. Frank RG, Glazer J, McGuire TG. Measuring adverse selection in managed health care. In: Models of Health Plan Payment and Quality Reporting. World Scientific; 2017:29-57. doi:10.1142/9789813202887_0002
  21. Ellis RP. Creaming, skimping and dumping: provider competition on the intensive and extensive margins. J Health Econ. 1998;17(5):537-555. doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(97)00042-8
  22. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Better Ways to Pay for Health Care. Paris: OECD; 2016. doi:10.1787/9789264258211-en
  23. van Barneveld EM, Lamers LM, van Vliet RC, van de Ven WP. Risk sharing as a supplement to imperfect capitation: a tradeoff between selection and efficiency. J Health Econ. 2001;20(2):147-168. doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(00)00077-1
  24. Brammli-Greenberg S, Glazer J, Waitzberg R. Modest risk-sharing significantly reduces health plans' incentives for service distortion. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(9):1359-1374. doi:10.1007/s10198-019-01102-w
  25. Quinn AE, Trachtenberg AJ, McBrien KA, et al. Impact of payment model on the behaviour of specialist physicians: a systematic review. Health Policy. 2020;124(4):345-358. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.02.007
  26. Town R, Kane R, Johnson P, Butler M. Economic incentives and physicians' delivery of preventive care: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2):234-240. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.013
  27. Heider AK, Mang H. Effects of monetary incentives in physician groups: a systematic review of reviews. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2020;18(5):655-667. doi:10.1007/s40258-020-00572-x
  28. Chaix-Couturier C, Durand-Zaleski I, Jolly D, Durieux P. Effects of financial incentives on medical practice: results from a systematic review of the literature and methodological issues. Int J Qual Health Care. 2000;12(2):133-142. doi:10.1093/intqhc/12.2.133
  29. Waitzberg R, Quentin W, Daniels E, Paldi Y, Busse R, Greenberg D. Effects of activity-based hospital payments in Israel: a qualitative evaluation focusing on the perspectives of hospital managers and physicians. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;10(5):244-254. doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2020.51
  30. Geist P, Hardesty M. Negotiating the Crisis: DRGs and the Transformation of Hospitals. Routledge; 1992.
  31. Carr VF. Dual agency and fiduciary responsibilities in modern medicine. Physician Exec. 2005;31(6):56-58.
  32. Green EP. Payment Mechanisms in the Healthcare Industry: An Experimental Study of Physician Incentives in a Multiple Principal Agent Setting. University of Delaware, Department of Economics, Alfred Lerner College of Business & Economics; 2012.
  33. Riise J, Hole AR, Gyrd-Hansen D, Skåtun D. GPs' implicit prioritization through clinical choices - evidence from three national health services. J Health Econ. 2016;49:169-183. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.07.001
  34. Minogue B. The two fundamental duties of the physician. Acad Med. 2000;75(5):431-442. doi:10.1097/00001888-200005000-00009
  35. Phelps C. Health Economics.; 2017. https://www.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=R9IrDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT17&ots=Wa1J2bHZTE&sig=Ucwb6KptUhv3T7W2lgyZArzhQOY. Accessed December 22, 2020.
  36. Saltman R, Rico A, Boerma W. Social Health Insurance Systems in Western Europe.; 2004. https://www.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dQpewBbXn8oC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Social+health+insurance+systems+in+western+Europe&ots=9mh45frRkU&sig=ROjm8FMG7-bK-nVwzgNHmSn0L3Q. Accessed December 23, 2020.
  37. Waitzberg R, Quentin W, Daniels E, et al. The 2010 expansion of activity-based hospital payment in Israel: an evaluation of effects at the ward level. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):292. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4083-4
  38. Blumel M, Spranger A, Achstetter K, Maresso A, Busse R. Germany: Health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2020;22(6):i-273.
  39. Brammli-Greenberg S, Waitzberg R, Perman V, Gamzu R. Why and how did Israel adopt activity-based hospital payment? the Procedure-Related Group incremental reform. Health Policy. 2016;120(10):1171-1176. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.08.008
  40. Geissler A, Quentin W, Scheller-Kreinsen D, Busse R. Introduction to DRGs in Europe: common objectives across different hospital systems. In: Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe: Moving towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals. Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education; 2011:9-21. www.openup.co.uk. Accessed December 18, 2020.
  41. Meng Z, Hui W, Cai Y, Liu J, Wu H. The effects of DRGs-based payment compared with cost-based payment on inpatient healthcare utilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Policy. 2020;124(4):359-367. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.01.007
  42. Mihailovic N, Kocic S, Jakovljevic M. Review of diagnosis-related group-based financing of hospital care. Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2016;3:2333392816647892. doi:10.1177/2333392816647892
  43. Blank RH. Comparative Health Policy: 2018 Edition. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017.
  44. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  45. Braun V, Clarke V. What can "thematic analysis" offer health and wellbeing researchers? Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2014;9:26152. doi:10.3402/qhw.v9.26152
  46. Andersson T, Cäker M, Tengblad S, Wickelgren M. Building traits for organizational resilience through balancing organizational structures. Scand J Manag. 2019;35(1):36-45. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2019.01.001
  47. Miller TE, Sage WM. Disclosing physician financial incentives. JAMA. 1999;281(15):1424-1430. doi:10.1001/jama.281.15.1424
  48. Barros PP, Olivella P. Hospitals: teaming up. In: In: Glied S, Smith PC, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Health Economics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012:432-462. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238828.013.0019
  49. Harris JE. The internal organization of hospitals: some economic implications. Bell J Econ. 1977;8(2):467-482. doi:10.2307/3003297
  50. Wehkamp KH, Naegler H. The commercialization of patient-related decision making in hospitals. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2017;114(47):797-804. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2017.0797
  51. Byrkjeflot H, Jespersen PK. Three conceptualizations of hybrid management in hospitals. Int J Public Sect Manag. 2014;27(5):441-458. doi:10.1108/ijpsm-12-2012-0162
  52. Noordegraaf M. Hybrid professionalism and beyond: (New) Forms of public professionalism in changing organizational and societal contexts. J Prof Organ. 2015;2(2):187-206. doi:10.1093/jpo/jov002
  53. Leah C. Approved mental health professionals: a jack of all trades? hybrid professional roles within a mental health occupation. Qual Soc Work. 2020;19(5-6):987-1006. doi:10.1177/1473325019873385
  54. Llewellyn S. ‘Two-way windows’: clinicians as medical managers. Organ Stud. 2001;22(4):593-623. doi:10.1177/0170840601224003
  55. Spyridonidis D, Hendy J, Barlow J. Understanding hybrid roles: the role of identity processes amongst physicians. Public Adm. 2015;93(2):395-411. doi:10.1111/padm.12114
  56. Hendrikx W, van Gestel N. The emergence of hybrid professional roles: GPs and secondary school teachers in a context of public sector reform. Public Manag Rev. 2017;19(8):1105-1123. doi:10.1080/14719037.2016.1257062
  57. Croft C, Currie G, Lockett A. Broken ‘two‐way windows’? an exploration of professional hybrids. Public Adm. 2015;93(2):380-394. doi:10.1111/padm.12115
  58. Kurunmäki L. A hybrid profession—the acquisition of management accounting expertise by medical professionals. Account Organ Soc. 2004;29(3-4):327-347. doi:10.1016/s0361-3682(02)00069-7
  59. Clay-Williams R, Ludlow K, Testa L, Li Z, Braithwaite J. Medical leadership, a systematic narrative review: do hospitals and healthcare organisations perform better when led by doctors? BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e014474. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014474
  60. Pihlainen V, Kivinen T, Lammintakanen J. Management and leadership competence in hospitals: a systematic literature review. Leadersh Health Serv (Bradf Engl). 2016;29(1):95-110. doi:10.1108/lhs-11-2014-0072
  61. Adams TL. Professional employees and professional managers: conflicting logics, hybridity, and restratification. J Prof Organ. 2020;7(1):101-115. doi:10.1093/jpo/joaa005
  62. Spehar I, Frich JC, Kjekshus LE. Clinicians in management: a qualitative study of managers' use of influence strategies in hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:251. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-251
  63. Spehar I, Sjøvik H, Karevold KI, Rosvold EO, Frich JC. General practitioners' views on leadership roles and challenges in primary health care: a qualitative study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2017;35(1):105-110. doi:10.1080/02813432.2017.1288819
  64. Andersson T, Liff R. Co-optation as a response to competing institutional logics: professionals and managers in healthcare. J Prof Organ. 2018;5(2):71-87. doi:10.1093/jpo/joy001
  65. Loh E, Morris J, Thomas L, Bismark MM, Phelps G, Dickinson H. Shining the light on the dark side of medical leadership - a qualitative study in Australia. Leadersh Health Serv (Bradf Engl). 2016;29(3):313-330. doi:10.1108/lhs-12-2015-0044
  66. Witman Y, Smid GAC, Meurs PL, Willems DL. Doctor in the lead: balancing between two worlds. Organization. 2010;18(4):477-495. doi:10.1177/1350508410380762
  67. Sirris S. Coherent identities and roles? hybrid professional managers’ prioritizing of coexisting institutional logics in differing contexts. Scand J Manag. 2019;35(4):101063. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2019.101063
  68. Bévort F, Suddaby R. Scripting professional identities: how individuals make sense of contradictory institutional logics. J Prof Organ. 2016;3(1):17-38. doi:10.1093/jpo/jov007
  69. Berghout MA, Fabbricotti IN, Buljac-Samardžić M, Hilders C. Medical leaders or masters?-a systematic review of medical leadership in hospital settings. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0184522. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184522
  70. Kippist L, Fitzgerald A. Organisational professional conflict and hybrid clinician managers: the effects of dual roles in Australian health care organizations. J Health Organ Manag. 2009;23(6):642-655. doi:10.1108/14777260911001653
  71. Greenwood R, Raynard M, Kodeih F, Micelotta ER, Lounsbury M. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Acad Manag Ann. 2011;5(1):317-371. doi:10.5465/19416520.2011.590299

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 15 August 2021
  • Receive Date: 22 September 2020
  • Revise Date: 01 June 2021
  • Accept Date: 14 July 2021