In the following post, D’Amore-McKim School of Business Professor Timothy Hoff examines the benefits of strong doctor-patient relationships and what the weakening of those ties means for health care in general.
A version of this post was originally published on the Oxford University Press blog:
If there is a single profound thing that has occurred in health care over the past couple of decades, that has neither benefitted patients or the doctors who care for them, nor the health system as a whole, it is the fairly rapid deterioration of the physician-patient relationship as the centerpiece of effective, satisfying, and high quality health care delivery. Instead of building system improvements around strengthening the relational care between our best trained health care professionals and patients, many health care systems around the world have chosen to place their faith in technologies like electronic medical records, which surveys show makes the doctor’s ability to connect with the patient and spend time with them as an individual more challenging and frustrating. In addition, the industry’s growing corporate takeover of health care delivery, driven by large health systems, insurance plans, and hospitals place the health care organization, not the individual doctor, in front of the patient at every turn. As a result, patients become “consumers”, and the role of the doctor in being the patient’s trusted ally shrinks.
Network “orchestrators” have been learning several lessons from the current Hurricane Harvey community resilience efforts as they lead through this crisis event and beyond, but none more than Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. In the following post, D’Amore-McKim School of Business Associate Teaching Professor Martin Dias discusses the leadership and logistical challenges the Mayor has faced and the lessons learned.
Turner has a lot going for him. He has a great education, which includes a degree from Harvard Law. He has had tremendous influence in society resulting from his current position and other state-level political office experience. He works in one of the country’s largest urban areas, and he leads an organization that has a history of resilience and a culture of reciprocity. He even enjoys an enviable social media following for someone approaching retirement age.
Yet, Turner currently faces major challenges with both historical and future significance. He leads an organization at a time of catastrophe and has to deal with social-media-amplified rumor mills disrupting his ability to orchestrate a network of internal and external resources. He must address the concerns of his “customer” base, which include both loss of life and property.
Since he has officially declared Houston again “open for business” in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, now is a good time to reflect on lessons learned from response and recovery efforts. In what ways was Mayor Turner’s approach to galvanizing rescue and relief efforts a useful model for leaders attempting to build community resilience in their locales? What key resilience takeaways can other leaders gain from Houston’s tragic loss?
Amidst all the controversies of the Trump administration, we students of negotiations have been given a number of heretofore rare opportunities to observe and analyze actual negotiations that take place in the political world. We have many instances of seeing presidents negotiate in public, but little idea of how negotiations play out when these actors are not on stage. We have recently had the opportunity to compare the public part of a negotiation (“Mexico will pay for the wall”) with the actual negotiation that followed.
On August 4, 2017, The New York Times published the transcript of telephone conversations that took place earlier this year. The first transcript was of a conversation between President Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. President Trump has stated many times in public that Mexico will pay for the wall. This strong public position has a number of purposes, some of which are to “anchor” the negotiation towards an extreme end and also to intimidate an opponent. By being so public with this anchor, the President has signaled his resoluteness, since it is hard to back down from publicly-stated positions without losing face, looking very weak, and causing future extreme anchors to be ignored.
In the following post, D’Amore-McKim School of Business Professor Jeffery Born answers questions about his recent research that examines the impact that tweets from President Donald Trump have on a Semi-Strong Form (SSF) Efficient Market.
Q: Which tweets by Trump did you investigate?
A: We focused on tweets by President Donald Trump, which mentioned publicly traded firms (n=10) from the date of his election on November 8, 2016, to his inauguration on January 20, 2017. Fifteen tweets were separated by enough time for the stock market’s response to the information to be considered independent.
Q: Why did you look at these events?
A: In real time, there were many in the press who reported that the President-elect’s tweets were driving the firm’s stock price in a significant fashion. None of the press reports contrasted these movements against the same day movement in broad market averages, nor did the press report how risky the firms were (compared to the broad market). Failing to control for movements in the broad market and risk limits the conclusions one can draw the firm responses.