As Rosie the Riveter Says: We Can Do It—Collaborative and Facilitative Leadership

Jeri Hepworth, PhD,STFM Past President

What a fortunate path I have been on. But it is a path that more of us can take, and that is the core message of this blog post. As a behavioral scientist in family medicine for more than 30 years, I grew up in parallel with the discipline of family medicine and have been part of the community of behavioral science faculty who help family physicians know what it means to care for real people, for families, and to do so collaboratively with other health care professionals. Over time, I felt included and valued in my department, in my medical school, and in our national organizations, especially the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM). So what a thrill it was to be elected STFM president. But it was not without trepidations.

As STFM President-Elect, I attended my first meeting of CAFM and Working Party. Forgive the funny names, but they represent the Council of Academic Family Medicine organizations (STFM; ADFM, the organization of departments and chairs; AFMRD, the residency directors; and NAPCRG, the primary care researchers). The Working Party includes the CAFM organizations, plus the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Board of Family Medicine, and the AAFP Foundation. Together, the organizations work to ensure coordinated positions and grapple with vision and leadership of family medicine. These meetings represent ideal examples of Covey’s work of being both important and not urgent, of taking the time to consider what family medicine is accomplishing, and very powerfully, what should be the next steps.

Not surprisingly, attending my first meetings of these groups was intimidating. But, on the first morning, I received this email from my husband, Robert Ryder: “You are not a non-physician. You were elected to represent the educators in family medicine. So you represent the future of family medicine. Go do good work.” I must say, I walked a bit taller after that email, and over the last couple of years of leadership within national family medicine, I take these statements very much to heart. And I want others to recognize these truths.

Behavioral science clinicians and educators have the skills needed for leadership in our departments, in our health care systems, in our agencies and policy-making arenas, and in our national organizations and advocacy efforts. We know how to listen and include others. We can elicit divergent views and withstand conflict. We know how valuable it is to include the views of those who feel less powerful in systems. We can tolerate the anxiety that emerges in systems under stress or facing change. We know how to help groups create goals and vision, though we sometimes need help determining whether differences actually emerged. So we know we need collaborators, and generally we know how to play well with others. If we have been successful in working in settings in which our professions were the minority, we have learned these skills. And they are exactly the skills needed for effective leadership.

I truly enjoyed giving talks as president of STFM. Unlike presentations about my work, I learned that I didn’t need to hold back, because I wasn’t talking about me. I was representing something greater than me. To be grandiose, and also accurate, I was able to talk about a future and vision of compassionate, effective health care. It wasn’t a form of bragging about my work or ideas; it became a responsibility to do the best I can to help achieve our common goals. I was given a wonderful platform and support to do so.

And the beat goes on. I will still take the opportunities to advocate for family medicine, for primary care, for integrated health care systems that are focused first on patients and families and that require the collaboration and skills of many. But I also have a commitment to encouraging others to stand up and participate in advocacy and leadership for our common visions. The Collaborative Family Healthcare Association and STFM create wonderful platforms for us to do so. Let’s not waste these opportunities.

This is the first in a series of collaborative blog posts between the Collaborative Family Healthcare Association and the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine.

Governance, What If…

Stacy Brungardt, CAE STFM Executive Director

Imagine an organization where an individual who works in academic family medicine knows where to turn to get his/her problems solved.

Imagine that this disciplined organization aligns products with its mission, uses data-driven strategies, and focuses on members’ needs. This organization is highly functioning and nurtures an inclusive culture that engages in dialogue between members and leaders.

Imagine an organization with sufficient resources to do its work. This organization is agile, proactively addresses issues, assesses and takes action quickly, and makes course corrections as necessary.

Imagine an organization that pursues alliances that relate to existing strategies or that form a tight fit with its mission and purpose. It is selective about determining with whom they should partner to be as effective as possible.

Imagine what we could accomplish if STFM operated like this all the time.

I do imagine this and believe there are literally hundreds of members and staff who are helping us move toward this vision.

I also believe that a strong governance structure either moves you in this direction or provides barriers that staff and members sidestep or hurdle, slowing down progress toward our vision.

Yes, good governance matters. Simply put, governance is the way decisions are made, who makes them, and under what parameters.1

Good governance can make the difference between the Society moving forward or not. It can demonstrate inclusiveness and be accountable for actions, or it can waste time and resources of the organization. By the way, we spend a lot on governance when you consider member time and STFM dollars to support Board, committee, and task force meetings and the staff time to manage these groups.

The STFM Board recently reflected on series of events related to our governance structure that have caused us to consider the best way to approach these issues.

The Board saw a convergence of activities and agreed that we would benefit from taking a more systematic approach to our governance assessment rather than trying to address each of these issues separately. We recognized the risk of each of these groups making separate recommendations that weren’t coordinated or in alignment. In fact, experts in association governance would tell you that groups who approach governance assessment elements in a piecemeal fashion generally struggle and are less happy with their outcomes than groups that approach this assessment in a way that starts globally with how the model assists their organization in meeting its desired ends.

Thus, the Board approved bringing in an outside consultant to facilitate this process of reviewing our governance structure. We will be working with governance consultant Michael Gallery, PhD, a well-respected association management professional who chaired the task force that created 7 Measures of Success: What Remarkable Associations Do That Others Don’t. This landmark research in association management applied the work of Jim Collin’s Good to Great to association management. Dr Gallery understands medical associations and association governance. (He also comes highly recommended and is affordably priced!)

What I like about his process is that he starts with the end in mind and includes operational elements such as obtaining member input, creating a communications plan for stakeholders, and evaluating any new structure we would create.

I don’t think we’re doing a bad job at governing the Society, but we haven’t taken an in-depth look at our governance structure since we created STFM in 1967. Until you spend some time thinking about what outstanding governance performance looks like, how our current structure compares, and how to address the gaps, we are likely not reaching our potential as an organization.

What if…

Reference
  1. Gallery M. Governance: a new approach to an old problem. Session presented at the American Society of Association Executives Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, August, 2012.

SSI/SSD: What Is Our Role as Family Medicine Educators?

Colleen Fogarty,
MD, MSc

How do we as family medicine educators work with residents or students who come to precept saying, “I don’t think this patient is disabled but…” or “What am I supposed to do with this long form?”

As a family physician who has spent my career practicing and teaching in community health centers, I have come to recognize the importance of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD) to many of my patients who are out of options. In our annual community medicine rotation, I co-teach a session with a local lawyer to help our residents understand some of the elements of disability determination so they can effectively manage requests for information and advocate for patients as suitable.

SSI, or Title XVI, is a needs-based federal benefits program for poor adults who are over 65 or disabled, and children under 18 who are disabled and whose families are poor. In contrast, Social Security Disability Insurance—or Title II—is an insurance program for disabled adults (wage earners) who have contributed into the Social Security system (FICA). This distinction is as important as it is confusing.

Why should we as family medicine educators know the details about these programs? In a word, poverty. Many of our patients with complex medical needs may be unable to engage in “substantial gainful activity” (SGA), the social security administration’s term for “work for a living.” Many poor individuals and families qualify for county-based programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Safety Net assistance. These programs are administered at the county level; benefits vary among states, or—in some states—don’t exist at all. Typically, clients must re-apply every 6 months and must participate in some type of work, training, or rehabilitation. Since “Welfare Reform” in 1996, time limits have been imposed.

Given the increasing burden of public assistance, many counties are trying to shift clients off the local “welfare rolls” to SSI, a federal program. Having a reliable source of income adds a measure of stability to people’s lives and keeps them from continually running to the public assistance office, which in many counties can be chaotic and difficult to navigate. Now, when I say “reliable source of income” I am by no means implying that SSI is a gravy train. Just the opposite; SSI determines a set amount per recipient that is based on living arrangements and any other income. In New York in 2012, this comes to approximately $780 per month for the maximum benefit, for a total annual “income” of less than $12,000 per year. Many of my patients on SSI cannot afford to purchase routine hygiene products but are able to afford a low rent and reliably make their payments.

Importantly, SSI comes with health insurance. In two thirds of states, including New York and New Jersey, SSI recipients are automatically eligible for Medicaid. SSD recipients are automatically eligible for Medicare 24 months after receiving their first payment. Even with the imperfections and gaps in coverage of Medicaid and Medicare, having health insurance can mean the difference between getting needed health care and not.

Who is eligible for SSI or SSD?

The SSA Standard for Disability reads: “Inability to perform substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, or combination of impairments, which has lasted or is expected to last at least 12 consecutive months, or end in death, taking into account the individual’s age, education, and work history.” The SSA website http://www.ssa.gov/ contains a wealth of information and can facilitate online applications.

Disabled individuals who have enough work history and FICA contributions may be eligible for SSD. Chronically poor individuals without work history who have a disability expected to last 12 months may be eligible for SSI disability benefits.

Who determines disability, and how can I maintain an effective doctor-patient relationship?

I never promise a patient that she/he will qualify for SSI or SSD. I discuss the patient’s situation with them; in many cases they will have applied and been denied several times. Recommending a skilled disability lawyer is useful. I tell my patients that I will do a full clinical evaluation and provide the information requested to SSA or their lawyer. The Commissioner of Social Security determines disability, not the clinician. This is an important boundary for us to establish with our patients; it provides me a way to stay connected with my patient, honest with my findings, and advocate or not as appropriate to the clinical scenario. I don’t use the word “disable” as a verb, as in “I’ll disable you on this form.” In fact, I don’t tell them that at all, I simply do a full evaluation and document my findings, taking into account contributing factors such as mental illness, learning disability, and educational attainment.

SSA will consider the opinion of the treating source, that is, the primary clinician, as “controlling” if our documentation is well supported and not contradicted. This means that our words as primary care clinicians should carry more weight than consultative examiners or SSA clinicians. Our role is to write and record the patient’s history, diagnosis, limitations, and functional capacity to our best judgment.

At a practical level here are the things I do in practice to assist with these applications:

  1. Book an extended appointment with the patient, specifically to discuss the condition for which they claim disability.
  2. Ensure the patient has signed an appropriate release of information.
  3. Discuss with the patient the SSA definition of disability, my role in the process, and let them know I will provide them and their lawyer with a copy of the visit note documenting my findings.
  4. Use the electronic record to fully document the visit, listing the diagnoses evaluated and billing according to the level of service, usually 99214 for an established patient.
  5. Elicit and document a full occupational history, if not already done. Many of my patients have spotty work histories, based on prior or current mental health problems or other problems. Others have always done physical jobs and have no other skills to bring to the work force.
  6. Elicit and document an educational history. Was the patient diagnosed with a “learning disability” as a student? Have they attempted a GED course and exam? Is there other evidence of a learning problem? What about the possibility of a low IQ?
  7. Include in the assessment/plan a statement of functional limitation and residual functional capacity (eg, how much can the patient walk, stand, sit, lift, carry, bend, handle? How reliable is the patient with:
    1. Understanding, remembering, and carrying out simple instructions?
    2. Making simple work-related decisions?
    3. Responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual work situations?
    4. Dealing with changes in a routine work setting?
  8. Provide a copy to the patient, or send it directly to the lawyer or SSA address designated by the patient.

The National Health Care for the Homeless council has published two useful publications, one on general tips on documenting disability and an updated version geared for persons with substance use disorders and co-occuring impairments.

In summary, SSI for eligible individuals can make the difference between a reasonably stable chronic poverty and homelessness, and between access and non-access to health care. As advocates for improved health care, family medicine faculty should have some familiarity with their county social service benefits as well as federal programs, such as SSI and SSD. Family medicine residents need to learn to document and advocate for these programs as appropriate and recognize that certain vulnerable members of our communities may be disabled and thus eligible for available public assistance.

Acknowledgement:
The author thanks Catherine M. Callery, Esq, for her educational contributions to our residency program and for reviewing this essay.