National Alliance for Physician Competence Discovery Workshop

Context

  • Jay gave a summary of the previous round of reports based on his scribing. The group then discussed what work they still needed to do and then self-selected teams. They ended up with one group focused on the December Summit, one group focused on the GMP document, one group focused on the interim structure, and one group focused on summarizing key concepts that have been discussed throughout this workshop.

Conversation

Jay Smethurst

This is one synthesis of what I heard in the last reports.

Short term we want to incubate the structure and we want to create a way to evaluate the need of the organization on a pretty regular basis.

There needs to be criteria for membership. The members must be involved in self-regulation and be data based. We want to produce a net gain in value.

Owner members will contribute some member fees initially. There will not be physicians or patients as members but this will be an organization of organizations.

This could be a coop/alliance with professional management. There might be a member steering committee. There might be non-member stakeholders that would have input but not be members (physicians and patients).

The work of the organization is convening forums for dialog on certain topics and identifying problems that need work (big problems). We would organize project teams to work on these problems. The alliance would facilitate and then project manage and at the end of each project they would launch the product and disband the team.

When we launch the product we might do it in different ways. We may form a new organization or find a new home organization for the product to live at, or we may develop a for-profit subsidiary to market and sell the products.

So we manage the projects and identify problems where we can facilitate dialog about.

Communication, Facilitation, project management, finding appropriate products, we have a project portfolio (we are working on these things and we have these other things in the pipeline).

The branding could be part of the value burden equation. The branding could be a product and the license could become the brand (where the myth becomes the reality).

Top of Page

Bryan

We have time for a couple more rounds of work today. What do we need to work on?

The money. The idea of branding. The agenda for the December Summit (the objectives for the December meeting). Next steps on the GMP document. Insuring institutional memory or continuity with people rotating away from this group. When to go public with all of this? Consider another iteration of what you just did. There are concepts that you have been exposed to that aren't showing up in the structure.

You have done hugely well in grabbing ideas and moving forward. The finance community meet all the time and they bring scientists in. They are data oriented and you are going to be data oriented. You are just starting.

We could have a group get together and walk through the agenda from the workshop and list all the principles and the ideas we have heard here.

Our outside experts could be a group and come up with suggestions for improvement - or provide feedback on the model we've just heard about? Maybe they could take a crack at designing the solution?

Maybe another point to articulate is the discussion about an endpoint and not a lot of talk about getting to the end point. You need a development plan with consideration of the risks.

This group will talk about the resources and the sources and uses of funds. This group will talk about staffing.

Three of the four groups came up with a 501c3 and one of the groups said keep it virtual. Is that where we are going? The advantage of that direction is that it doesn't preclude going that way.

Having a public financing model could put this process on a little bit of steroids but not a lot of steroids.

If I show up at the next meeting I might be disturbed that some decisions have been made at this meeting. Is that true for others?

This is a proposal and it's also how we want to operate between now and December. We're not going to stop the things we're doing now.

This is a proposal and it's also how we want to operate between now and December. We're not going to stop the things we're doing now. I envisioned us reporting to the group in December with some recommendations. They can depend on us to do this work and report back to them.

The web site is going to be available and we'll direct people there. That is part of the transparency.

Will we have a group that will work on this between now and December. We can modify the original proposal for the Alliance based on what we have done here.

Anything else?

If we didn't make decisions and I go to the web site and see pictures of three groups that said do a 501c3 and one that didn't will that be a problem?

We usually walk people through the web site and don't necessarily recommend they will understand it all just viewing it on their own. They will need a summary document that people can pull down from the web.

OK - so just a show of hands, how many people want to be on the agenda team? How many on the GMP team? How many on the organization team? How many on revisiting principles? You will have to revisit the workshop agenda to do that.

I've been thinking about the transition and wondering about the list that we created. No one is asking for money now. We need a transition to a structure that is on its way to a 501c3 that has a CEO and has a to do list for the next several years.

We should meet for some time while we are here.

What are your reactions to the list?

The FSMB has been organizing this and it probably amounts to a full time position. We could begin to shift away from the Federation and into the Alliance. Get some administrative apparatus to this so Jim doesn't have to go to his Board and explain this. This team could do that or it could be two teams.

What if this is an organizing core group?

This could be a core team but this is not staff. How did this list evolve? This group represents the major organizations that are here today. They probably won't develop a job description but they could describe the transition between now and a 501c3. Someone will have to coordinate the advocacy for the GMP. Someone will have to coordinate the December Summit. Someone will have to coordinate the ABMS meeting. It would be reasonable to have a job description and a plan for transitioning and staffing the transition.

Is it a mixture of staff and appointed or elected? Are there other groups that are here that should be up there? I don't think this group is going to talk about money now. What kind of structure do we want in a transition to a 501c3? If we could get a critical mass of these people to work on this it would be helpful.

Originally that group was going to plan for the Alliance and consider staffing.

We'll have people volunteer and see what comes out then look at what else needs to be done.

This group is representational. It won't make a financial commitment but it will be tasked to a short term continuity of projects.

We are also still accepting contributions for the Alliance.

One of the risks you run if you create an internal list is you bias the decision making. All of us know we come from different perspectives but you've said that some decisions will be made and they will be biased.

This is real work. We all know when we have your foot in different camps that you either have 200% of the job or some things fall through the cracks. A real key is what staff do we need to keep this going and what does it cost?

We don't need groups to sign up. If you have a team of two you have to go get another person. On the other end 8 is probably too many at this point. If you have 8 you can vote someone off the island. You will find out in a group of 8 you won't accomplish as much.

 

Top of Page