Blog Archive
Posted Aug 28, 2009 by Bill George |
Filed in: Leadership
Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig is facing the greatest crisis of his tenure, one that could destroy all he has built since becoming interim commissioner in 1992. The proliferation of steroids and performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) among MLB players has compromised the sport’s integrity, tarnished its brand, and endangered its future.
Baseball is America’s pastime. Its players are the role models for every young boy and girl; it’s not supposed to be world-wide wrestling. Are these bulked-up superstars who cheat to break world records the people we want our sons and daughters looking up to?
As a boy, I was addicted to baseball. Growing up in Michigan, I was a dyed-in-the-wool Detroit Tigers fan. I idolized Al Kaline and Harvey Kuehn. When I was ten, my father drove me to Tiger Stadium to see the Tigers play Boston, led by the great Ted Williams. When Williams came toward the dugout before game time, my father urged me to get his autograph. He graciously signed my scorecard, looked up and grinned, “I hope you’ll be out here some day, kid.”
In the ninth inning, the Tigers were up 3-0 as the Red Sox filled the bases. Big Ted stepped to the plate, took a giant cut, and the ball sailed into the stands. Final Score: Red Sox 4, Tigers 3. In retrospect, how would I have felt had it been revealed that Williams used PEDs to beat my Tigers? A role model destroyed, and young boy’s belief in heroes shattered.
For years rumors of drug use have simmered as players bulked up and shattered previously untouchable records. Thanks to the partial leaking of a 2003 league-wide drug test, a celebrity list of PEDs-infused players has recently been exposed. On August 26th the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal agents wrongfully seized the 2003 drug test results as part of the otherwise legal BALCO investigation. But what’s out there is out there, and the blight on baseball is clear. Regardless of legality issues, the requisite media circus has followed, with outed players running for cover under non-committal sound bites (“I did not know what was in the shake/shot/pill”). Meanwhile, fans and sportswriters are furiously questioning America’s pastime.
The most shameful aspect of this scandal is that these players, their managers, and league administrators – including Selig – were well aware of rampant substance abuse, yet no one stepped up to bring the sport back to purity and legitimacy.
As a result, baseball is in a tailspin. Like so many failed corporations, the seeds of destruction were sown by flawed leadership. Commissioner Selig, the players association, team owners, managers, and players are all in denial that their leadership failures enabled the steroid-ridden atmosphere. At the top, Selig failed to come clean with the damaging report six years ago and failed to enforce an effective league-wide, anti-doping program. Individual team owners and managers failed to monitor their players. Worst of all, players failed to control themselves.
MLB disseminates a product, markets merchandise, has consumers, shareholders, and even a union. Why shouldn’t the rules of business apply? GE cannot sell defective microwaves. Nike wouldn’t dare sell sole-less shoes. What makes baseball’s leadership believe it can peddle a flawed product without the fans eventually turning away?
How should MLB leadership, with or without Bud Selig, turn around the business, particularly when they themselves have been complicit in the corruption?
Let’s examine the lessons from my book, 7 Lessons for Leading in Crisis, to put baseball back on track:
#1: MLB must face the reality that fans are angry and sportswriters are disenchanted, and yet players seem ambivalent. It is high time for Selig to acknowledge his mistakes publicly so that he can clear the air and begin to regain lost trust.
#2: The Commissioner’s office must bring together owners, players, and MLBPA to develop complete solutions to the problems.
#3: MLB must dig deep to find the root cause of this plague. What compels players to cheat? Money? Fame? What similarities exist among juiced players? Increasing punishments and testing recurrences hasn’t worked, so an in-depth examination is required.
#4: Get ready for the long haul. As Xerox Chair Anne Mulcahy says, “A lot of crises seem to happen overnight, but they have really long roots, like 10 to 15 years.” A quick fix is impossible. It will take time to clean up the league. If the Commissioner has a long-term commitment, the problems can be ameliorated.
#5: Don’t waste this crisis. This is an opportunity to rebrand baseball in a positive light. Come clean, and rebuild MLB as true to its roots as America’s pastime, and the first great modern spectator sport.
#6: You’re in the spotlight, Mr. Selig. Everything you say and do is being watched. Be candid and transparent. Most of all, accept responsibility for your role in this crisis.
#7: Don’t hunker down. Go on the offensive. Swing for the fences. Institute a zero-tolerance policy and enforce it. Rally support of the fans, owners, players and even the sportswriters for ridding baseball of PEDs.
After 17 years as MLB commissioner, the drug crisis is the real test of Bud Selig’s leadership. He can duck and forever tarnish his reputation, or he can step up and follow his True North. If he doesn’t, America’s national pastime may be, well, something of the past.
On August 7th Alaska Governor Sarah Palin warned that Congress and the White House will create bureaucratic health rationing panels – aka “death panels” – to decide whether America’s sick, aged, or disabled are “worthy of healthcare.” In other words, Palin predicts the government will decide if you live or die, should pending legislation become law.
In the same breath that she mentions death panels, Palin asserts that “[h]uman rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.” I wholeheartedly agree. “Rights” and “dignity” are central to the health care discussions we have with our doctors, particularly end-of-life consultations about our future care.
A wide range of media have delivered over forty reports refuting this warped and unfounded claim but shockingly, it is still believed by many, much like last year’s charges that President Obama is a Muslim. Conservative pundits and fringe elements are using it as a call to arms to oppose reform.
Spare us the pain, and examine the facts.
Proposed legislation provides Medicare funding for voluntary end-of-life counseling, also known as advanced care planning consultation. This permits American citizens to visit their doctor once every 5 years to discuss issues like hospice care, health proxies, living wills, and appropriate future pain medications. There are no provisions for bureaucratic health boards, no mentions of care rationing, and no allusions to anything resembling a “death panel.”
Despite all this evidence, arguments to the contrary pervade the blogosphere. The misinformation just won’t stop. Those who hype the “death panel” argument continue to distract attention away from an already confusing debate on healthcare. We need to focus on the framework and details of an integrative, preventative healthcare reform approach, and not get lost in the mire of deficient, inflammatory rhetoric.
Regardless of how irrational their basis, “death panelists” are having a very real impact on healthcare reform. The New York Times reported on August 14th that the Senate will likely drop end-of-life care provisions because they “could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.” Furthermore, USA Today reported on August 18th that while end-of-life counseling “started out as a rare example of congressional bipartisanship,” the measure has effectively zero chance of passing. Not only has Congress been forced to ignore one potential building block for consensus, but many American citizens may be forced to enter a very trying period of life with little to no guidance from their personal physicians.
Framing end-of-life counseling as some form of forced euthanasia robs America’s seniors of the dignity that comes with making these difficult decisions in their waning years. It is a disservice to humane hospice and in-home care, and it insults the intelligence of responsible Americans seeking candid medical advice on extremely sensitive treatment options. This debate is more “sound and fury,” another sidetracked discussion where political rhetoric displaced policy debate.
To get the health care dialogue with the American people back on track, President Obama needs to step up and address these issues directly, along with making the case for comprehensive health care reform – not just health insurance reform – starting with a national focus on wellness and prevention.
Ted Kennedy was a true leader in the United States Senate. While other senators played politics, he rose above them to pursue the causes he was passionate about and reached across the aisle to team up with Republican Senators like Orin Hatch (R – UT). After the death of his brother Bobby, he assumed the leadership of the Kennedy clan and did so with dignity for more than forty years. He overcame the disappointments of his younger years, including the tragic deaths of his brothers and the sad events at Chappaquiddick Island, to become the finest Senator in the United States.
I vividly recall our meeting exactly ten years ago when Medtronic was working to gain his support. A FDA reform bill that enabled patients to receive life-saving medical technology was up for consideration, and Senator Kennedy’s office was the last stop before the legislation was signed into law. Prior to the meeting I waited in a room just off his office that was filled with Kennedy memorabilia. I was there just long enough to soak in the connections with historical events of the world over the past forty years. Ever the negotiator, Kennedy started off by saying, “Well, Mr. George, it looks like we have resolved five of our seven points [which we had previously conceded in his favor]. If you can see these last two points our way, we have a deal.” I patiently explained that these were the two most important points of the bill and that eliminating them would emasculate the legislation. After some thoughtful exchanges, he graciously agreed to accept our position. Two days later President Clinton signed the bill into law.
The United States Senate has lost a great leader who cannot easily be replaced. His life’s story validates the premise that out of tragedy can come greatness. Ted Kennedy learned from earlier events in his life and devoted the last forty years to serving his country with dignity and honor.
The American healthcare debate has taken a turn for the fanatical. An overzealous constituency, bolstered by a media more interested in the next big controversy than the next big policy breakthrough, has snatched the microphone from the nation’s political leaders and temporary drowned out any semblance of a coherent, meaningful debate.
I cherish the First Amendment. I believe that elected officials need town hall forums to effectively represent their constituents. And I am happy to see the public taking an active role in the discussion.
However, as much as it is someone’s right to speak, it is another’s to be heard. And as much as members of Congress need to listen to their constituents, their constituents need to do some listening of their own.
Reforming healthcare to achieve a cost-reducing and long-lasting system is far more complex than many rally-criers would suggest. Crafting a viable reform bill is an intricate process which brings many potentially competing interests – lawmakers, insurers, lawyers, doctors, pharmaceuticals, interest groups, employers – to the table. Boiling viewpoints down to polar opposites and then boiling over in public rage simply distracts from the true goal: affecting a cost-reducing and integrative reform.
The media, particularly partisan talking heads, shoulder every bit as much of the burden for the confusion, mistrust, and misplaced rage streaking the landscape. The nation needs news anchors to play a role in moderating a complicated discussion. Instead, they are juicing ratings with a turbo charged focus on controversy. News coverage has stoked partisan flames, distracting from the issue.
All things considered, I’m left to ask myself: what are the policy implications of all this? What does it mean for democracy when our politicians cannot have a discussion without being shouted down?
As far as the future health of American democracy and civil discourse, this recent rash of extreme activism has the possibility of discouraging politicians from engaging face-to-face with their constituents on hot-button issues. What rational person runs for office hoping for wrathful constituents to berate her?
At heart, I believe the media pundits and town-hall attendees mean well. Though lacking tact, they have reflect viewpoints that are (in theory) based on what they believe to truly be in America’s interest. But they are going about it all wrong. Debate is only possible when other side will pause and listen. An argument without a counter-argument is just a lot of yelling.
Obama has surrendered policy to politics. Here’s a workable proposal to get health-care reform back on track.
Courtesy of BusinessWeek.com
Health-care reform—version 2009—is heading for a train wreck. The debate in Congress is generating more heat than light. While senators and congressmen are on August recess, they are getting an earful from worried constituents, who sense the flaws in proposed plans. The Obama Administration would be well advised to take its own recess to develop a sound, workable policy proposal that can be reintroduced in the fall.
By focusing on politics instead of policy, the Obama Administration has erred in letting Congress create an unworkable reform. The final health-care legislation is being severely compromised by myriad lobbyists and special interests who advocate to protect their turf but rarely contribute to sound long-term policy. Already numerous side deals have been cut with industry groups that make a noncompetitive market even less competitive. The bills under consideration will only make a broken system worse, resulting in unintended consequences.
Health care already accounts for one-sixth of U.S. gross domestic product, and this legislation pushes it toward one-fifth. The system is extremely complex with many interlinked parts. Of the four major elements of health-care— access, cost, quality, and consumer focus on wellness and prevention—current reform efforts address only access to insurance. By tinkering with just one aspect without looking at the whole picture, the President and Congress risk destabilizing the system further.
Granting access to health insurance to all Americans is a worthwhile goal. However, we cannot do so without addressing problems of ongoing cost escalation, major quality issues, and unhealthy lifestyles. The risk in ignoring these other three areas is runaway costs that could bankrupt Medicare while producing convoluted legislation that satisfies no one.
AN AFFORDABLE HEALTH-CARE PROPOSAL
What’s needed is an approach that enables all Americans to gain access to health insurance while incentivizing them to adopt healthy lifestyle practices and rewards their providers for reductions in spending. Here is an integrated proposal for achieving all these goals on a fiscally sound basis:
1. The greatest risk to individuals is facing catastrophic events without insurance. Instead of providing full insurance coverage, the government should sponsor self-funded low-premium, high-deductible catastrophic coverage plans. Catastrophic coverage would kick in after the individual absorbed the deductible. To reduce deductibles, consumers could pay higher monthly premiums.
2. To administer these plans, the government should set up insurance cooperatives that require mandatory portability for workers changing jobs and no limitations for pre-existing conditions, so that no one would fear loss of health-care coverage. These cooperatives would be self-funded and run independently under rules set by the government. All billing would be handled electronically to eliminate paperwork.
3. To address lifestyle issues contributing to the high cost of chronic disease, the federal government should launch a national wellness and prevention campaign—much like the smoking cessation campaign—focusing on sound nutrition, physical fitness, stress management, and reduction of obesity.
4. The federal government should partner with state and local governments to expand community clinics that provide basic services for modest fees and teach people how to improve their health. These clinics would also help consumers access the massive amount of health-care information available on the Internet. This approach puts responsibility for healthy lifestyles where it belongs—on individuals, with support from their caregivers.
5. To promote quality outcomes for chronic disease, the government would shift from reimbursing procedures to paying for keeping people healthy. Physicians and hospitals would be paid for keeping people well, not doing more procedures and tests. Physicians and caregivers would develop integrated approaches to patient care, rather than automatically opting for high-tech, high-cost approaches.
Comparative effectiveness studies would help patients and physicians choose the most cost-effective, proven procedures for treating chronic illness, including accelerated approval of generic drugs after patents expire.
6. Changes in tort laws should be enacted to protect physicians and hospitals that follow these procedures from punitive damage claims, thereby reducing the malpractice claims and class action suits that dramatically drive up costs.
7. To address high end-of-life costs, patients would shift to hospice facilities or their homes where they would receive palliative care.
By focusing on wellness and prevention, consumer empowerment for healthy lifestyles, improved quality in chronic disease management, and reducing overuse of health care, excessive paperwork, and end-of-life costs, this integrated plan ensures affordable access to all Americans while addressing the major elements of health-care costs.
The only costs of this program would be for a national health and wellness campaign and funding community clinics. These costs, a fraction of the $1 trillion price tag being considered by Congress, would more than pay for themselves as citizens choose healthier lifestyles.
This is the only way that we can ultimately ensure health coverage for all American citizens and high-quality, cost-effective care that strengthens our economy and builds a healthy population.
