Ivory tower

To the editor:

To reference your free pass editorial (Fast Foreward, April 2005): You had some great points, and for those who can get their facilities to cough up the money for the product I could not agree more. The fact is we have over 5,000 hospitals in the U.S. and only 3,000 or more materials managers that are involved in AHRMM and it only costs $100. Why is that? Mainly because the facilities will not even support that small amount for them to belong to a professional organization, let alone go to the annual conference. Remember that vendors and other non materials managers make up a portion of that 3,000 plus so in reality about 50 percent at best belong to their own professional organization. Kit were not for the vendors and federal healthcare (V.A. and military), the annual conference would be very small in numbers. We have a great organization worth more than any $100. The point that many materials managers were trying to make on that AHRMM "free" message board was not whether it was something worth buying, but that many do not have the funds to purchase such a luxury. Based on your logic, whenever we have an issue we should hire a consultant to "make sense of it all." You're in an ivory tower and need to come out here where the rubber meets the road. Although I respect your 14 years of experience and my ivory tower comment is to remind great shakers and movers like yourself that being down in the mud at the tactical level is a whole lot different than being the guy who writes about it. Materials management is a tough job with few tools and resources for all of us to squeeze blood out of turnip.

Terry K. Cox

Vice President, Material & Contract

Management, Abrazo Health

Vanguard Health Systems, Phoenix, AZ

From the editor:

Actually, I don't reside in any ivory tower. I leave that to the academics. Plus, it's not high enough. If anything, I like to think I reside in an orbiting satellite, if not a jet plane, trying to make sense of everything. Admittedly, I'm not a materials management professional, but after 14 years of covering the industry I think I do understand many of the challenges they (you) face. I'm hoping that comes across in my interviewing and writing, which advocates the importance of materials management without compromising fairness. And that's precisely why I took the point of view in Fast Foreward.

Contrary to the impression you apparently received, I wasn't advocating the use of consultants or hiring third parties to "make sense of it all," although your objection to a third party as an option is curious if you use a GPO (which serves a similar function). I believe Vanguard works with HPG. I was merely reinforcing the role that AHRMM should be playing for its members, as well as the services it should be offering so that materials management professionals can focus their energies on other administrative tasks that are more directly linked to patient care.

Of course, I understand the argument against having to pay some kind of fee for AHRMM's service, particularly if members are providing the original data that AHRMM will assemble into a more cohesive package. But if you reread my Fast Foreward column you should see how I justify my reasoning. Because MM departments are so resource-strapped it only makes sense not to have your staff performing a time-consuming administrative task that AHRMM is willing to do. That way materials managers can focus their energies on the tasks in which you're evaluated by colleagues, customers and superiors. That's not to say your staff isn't capable of performing the task but if you're faced with choosing between making your customers happy so they can care for patients or devoting resources or trying to develop better battle plans to make your customers happy it's probably wise from fiscal and operational standpoints to focus on the former.

This leads me to my main point. For whatever reason, AHRMM feels the need to charge a nominal fee for this service. Quite possibly it's due to the fact that AHRMM believes some sort of compensation is necessary to cover the costs of producing a report. As I understand it, AHRMM sets a budget and the parent organization, American Hospital Association, grants personal membership groups (PMGs) such as AHRMM the approved funds they need to operate on an annual basis. Hence, any revenue from conventions, publications, etc., generated by AHRMM activities flows through AHRMM to the AHA kitty to be redistributed based on some internal formula. Hence, rather than objecting to a fee for this manual, which is based on information provided free to AHRMM by the members, it might be wise for the AHRMM board to appeal to AHA for more funding to cover those additional costs. Also, perhaps AHRMM would consider either granting a considerable discount to or waving the fee entirely for those members who submit material for inclusion in the manual. That way, active participants gain value while supporting the organization, as well as generating ideas to improve operations at their own facilities.

Certainly AHRMM members still can exchange ideas via the message board (let's hope AHRMM doesn't charge anything more for that service) for free and simply not pay any fee for any published material that results from those exchanges and submissions. That's why the Web and the Internet remain such useful sources. At the same time, it's important for members to maintain the viability of the organization that serves them. Maybe vendors could donate money to cover the costs. Either way, an organization like AHRMM is only as useful and viable as its members are willing to actively participate in and support its activities.

Just as it's important for materials managers to control the relationships they have with GPOs and vendors, it's important that AHRMM members control the relationship they have with the association and its parent organization. Keep pressing on with the debate so that an outcome favorable to all parties is achieved.

COPYRIGHT 2005 Healthcare Purchasing News
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group