Archive | 4:47 PM

Exceptional performance- government style

28 Oct

 

Pay for performance is in the news a great deal these days, but did you know that the federal government also has a pay for performance program?  Career senior executive service personnel are eligible for a bonus based on the previous year’s performance of 5% to 20% of base pay.

Of course, there is inherently nothing wrong with such a system, good performance should be rewarded especially in government service.  Too bad we can’t annually evaluate members of Congress.

On the other hand consider this; nearly 50% of the employees eligible for awards receive the highest possible performance rating each year.  In other words, they are “outstanding.”

Here is some detail:

2005 = 43.4% highest rating

2006 = 43.4%

2007 = 47%

2008 = 48.2%

Office of Personnel Management Annual Report 

man_laughing_at_you_lg_clrThe normal distribution for such an outstanding rating would be 10% or less, some companies, knowing the tendency for generous performance evaluations, even limit the number of possible top rating to no more than 10% or less.

In a normal organization, one would expect that the majority of workers would be in the average range. Apparently, we have one heck of an exceptional group of government workers (or one lousy bureaucratic performance evaluation system).

Telling people the whole truth about health care reform would be refreshing

28 Oct

I am not an economist, in college I was so adept at statistics the professor saw to it that I took the course twice, but I do know that if something is free, somebody somewhere is paying for it.  I do know that if you buy something with borrowed money you have to repay it or suffer the consequences and I know that if you take from one place to give to another there is somebody who comes out on the short end of the stick.  Therefore, I apparently know a great deal more than members of the Congress of the United States. 

francis_telling_a_lie_with_fingers_crossed_md_clr

Trust me, you are going to save money and we are going to stick it to the insurance companies

A new multi-state study by Wellpoint (yes, I know they are an insurance company) demonstrates what many of us have been saying (using only common sense), and that is that for people who have health insurance now, the cost of that coverage will go up, in some cases significantly, under the planned health care reform.  That is because of mandates, new underwriting standards and age based premiums, etc.  Perhaps that is the price to pay for reform, but let’s tell people the truth. 

Also, buried within the reform legislation is an expansion of Medicaid, the state-run health insurance for low income Americans.  What you don’t hear is that much of the financial burden for expanding Medicaid falls on the states many of which are already struggling with budget deficits, but in any case more state obligations must mean higher taxes for citizens and or higher deficits or cuts in other programs. 

Hard choices are surely required in any reform effort, but at least tell people the full story.  The simple fact of course is that politicians don’t trust the public with the truth.  In private some staffers in Congress will tell you that.  I have to admit that listening to some individuals’ view of health care and health care costs, politicians may have a point.  None the less, this is a big, big deal and we need to let people know what they are in for, those with health insurance and those without.

blogsurfer.us

Krugman makes it clear

28 Oct

In his October 25 column in the NYT Paul Krugman makes the case for health care reform and in part uses the Massachusetts experience as a model to expand coverage.  “He concludes that this thing is going to work.”

“This thing” presumably is the expansion of coverage to more Americans and in that he is probably right.

But shouldn’t this thing be actual reform of the health care, not the health insurance system?  Should we be seeking to truly reduce costs and lower the rate of future growth in costs while raising the quality and efficiency of health care?   While there is a great deal of rhetoric attributing quality and affordability to the various pieces of legislation, the truth is there is little of either.

Krugman got something else right in his assessment of the expansion of coverage effort in Massachusetts, as he said,  “And the Massachusetts plan hasn’t yet done anything significant to contain costs.”

Surprise, surprise

 

blogsurfer.us

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 371 other followers