Worcester Business Journal

www.wbjournal.com November 9, 2015 • Worcester Business Journal 29 H ealth care pricing is quite a tricky business. It's not, say, like the plumbing industry, where we could easily say the best plumbers should be able to charge the highest rates – free of government regulation — leaving consumers to decide if they want to pay for higher quality at a higher price, or just go with the low bid. When it comes to their health, consumers aren't very likely to choose the low price option on their own, at least not without a lot of education on what separates one from the other. People in life-or-death situations aren't going to tell an ambulance driver to bring them to the less-expensive hospital. While pricing in health care is finally making its way into the consciousness of consumers, much of that coverage and negotiation is still in the hands of their insurers. We're simply not at the point where consumers have the tools, the confidence or sufficient incentive to find the best health care provider at the most competitive price. That being said, it is a slippery slope for the state to step in and place further controls on hospitals and other health care providers on how much they can charge for specific procedures. In Staff Writer Emily Micucci's cover story, Central Massachusetts hospitals came out strongly against a state legislative bill and two 2016 ballot initiatives that would set both a floor and a ceiling for how much health care providers can collect in revenue for their services. Even the small regional hospitals that would presumably benefit from a reduction in the price disparity between them and their larger, urban counterparts are against the measures. Is that because the small hospitals just don't want to create any waves and upset the bigger fish in the pool? Perhaps that is a factor, but the overriding one seems to be a resistance to an overly heavy hand by regulation. In business, companies with a higher-quality service are able to command a premium. Collecting that higher-than-average fee allows those firms to continue to recruit top talent and invest in the latest technology. Granted, this supply-and-demand relationship does not match up apples to apples when it comes to health care — and as our article points out, the high-cost hospitals don't always have the highest-rated services. Nonetheless, the health care industry is moving toward a new payment model where providers are rewarded for keeping their patient populations healthy, rather than simply treating them when they are sick. This change from the sick-care model that has ruled the industry for more than a century should keep costs in check and serve to decrease the price disparity between providers, but it will take time to develop. Therefore, the Massachusetts legislature needs to be more patient and avoid this heavy- handed approach to reigning in price disparities, giving the new health care model time to work out its kinks. There are times for prudent regulation and times where the free market does the most efficient job in rewarding those who deliver quality services at a competitive overall cost. On the hospital rate side of the equation, this is a time for a little more patience and not a regulatory intervention. n Hospitals, consumers should determine pricing E D I T O R I A L The Worcester Business Journal welcomes letters to the editor and commentary submissions. Please send submissions to Brad Kane, editor, at bkane@wbjournal.com. Letters can also be faxed to 508-755-8860. O f the 100 largest public companies in Massachusetts: • 24 have no women on their boards of directors. • 46 have no women executive officers. • 19 have no women on their boards or in their executive suites. Which may lead you to ask, "Where are the women?" It's an important question, especially as a considerable amount of research shows that businesses with greater gender diversity at the top have a competitive advantage in the global economy. Women, as well as minorities, bring unique perspectives and experiences and make companies stronger. The Boston Club's annual census of women directors and executive officers cites these numbers, bluntly stating: "No More Excuses." Last month, the legislature unanimously adopted a resolution I filed to encourage companies to increase the number of women on their boards of directors and in their senior management ranks. Similar to goals set by the national 2020 Women on Boards organization, the resolution sets a target of Dec. 31, 2018, for companies to have at least three women directors on their boards. As just the third state, along with California and Illinois, to make the clear statement that opening doors for more women is a public policy priority, Massachusetts has the opportunity to lead the nation on this issue. Last year, the Alliance for Business Leadership organized an eye-opening meeting with more than 140 influential Massachusetts CEOs and thought leaders to discuss how companies can embrace gender diversity. It was a candid conversation of successes, challenges and frustrations. Women have come far in the workplace, but not far enough. I suggested my resolution as one step we can take to help clear the path. At a public hearing at the Massachusetts State House, business leaders shared stories of advancing women and the terrific results that followed. One CEO explained how profits jumped significantly after the company brought on more women in leadership. Another described soaring productivity and business growth. Recognizing that their businesses need to use all the talent available in order to succeed, many CEOs in Massachusetts have already set targets for women on their boards. They are developing pipelines for future leaders through mentoring programs. They encourage senior- level management to network in new and diverse places. And they make diversity an open, publicized value. This is not a women's issue; it is a business and economic development issue. The future of the state's economy depends on our highly educated, highly skilled workforce. How can we expect our businesses to compete and our economy to continue to thrive without the best mix of workers and leadership at the table? There are many smart, talented women in Massachusetts. We need to connect more of them with available leadership positions. We still have a lot of work to do, but this resolution is an important step toward increasing opportunities for more Massachusetts women and bringing diverse perspectives to our state's businesses. n State Sen. Karen E. Spilka (D-Ashland) represents the 2nd Middlesex & Norfolk district. Massachusetts needs women business leaders BY KAREN E. SPILKA Special to the Worcester Business Journal V I E W P O I N T Sen. Karen E. Spilka State money for Worcester stadium S tanding in front of a crowd of cheerful onlookers on Oct. 26 at the announcements of a $36-million renovation to two downtown Worcester office towers and of 500 UMass Memorial Health Care workers relocating downtown, Lt. Gov. Karen Polito was all too happy to tout all that had been done to improve the city. "We are transforming this city block by block," Polito said at the announcement. We challenge Polito and other state officials to take a much bolder step in the revitalization of downtown Worcester: Help the city fund a minor league baseball stadium development. The Pawtucket Red Sox already have expressed interest in relocating their AAA minor league baseball team to another New England market, with at least a passing interest in New England's second largest city — Worcester. While city officials have said they are willing to have a conversation with the team about such a move, the flash point is around funding, since it would take upwards of $50 million or more to build a new stadium complete with all the trappings necessary to entice the Pawsox from their current home. However, Worcester alone does not a have the resources or the appetite to fund the development on its own. How much public side money is needed to clinch a deal? It is hard to say, but a conversation with the Pawtucket ownership will go nowhere unless the city works up a competitive package. Without state help, a deal will simply not get done. A state-supported bid to wrest the Red Sox AAA franchise from neighboring Rhode Island would clearly be a coup and add immeasurably to the momentum the city already has going. The last AAA minor league baseball stadium to be built was the 10,200-seat BB&T Ballpark in Charlotte, N.C. That cost $54 million in North Carolina dollars. Given Massachusetts' prevailing wage and the necessary agreements with unions that go hand-in-hand with using public funding, Worcester could well pay an additional premium to get a similar stadium built. Is the city truly interested? Do our civic leaders want to see a deal happen for the Red Sox AAA franchise? We'll see. The former Wyman Gordon site sits as an obvious choice for a stadium to be located. Clearly the city, state and local business leaders as well as team owners should all contribute to making it happen. Whether that can turn into a winning bid is far too early to tell, but if Worcester wants to be in the game, it needs to grapple directly with the stadium funding question right out of the box. Clearly the Baker-Polito administration has expressed a strong interest and engagement in seeing the Worcester area succeed. Perhaps that interest can extend to a stadium deal as well. Let's hope they are already talking. n

• Cover