The Compliance and Ethics Blog

SCCE/HCCA

Compliance Fiction

by 6 Comments

Compliance Fiction by Roy Snell

2014-snell-roy-speaking-headshot-200By Roy Snell
roy.snell@corporatecompliance.org

Let me tell you a completely fabricated compliance story.

A company of 250 employees had a compliance and ethics program.  They had brought in independent experts and anonymously surveyed all the employees.  The survey revealed that every employee felt free to share issues with their supervisor, HR, compliance officer and CEO.  Anything any employee felt they needed to report was reported without any concern.  They felt good about the follow-up.  The culture was one of the finest in the world.  But there was a problem.  They did a little work internationally and hired a subcontractor to do $15,000 of work for them.  Despite being a conscientious subcontractor he unfortunately broke a law he didn’t know existed. He was investigated which led to an investigation of the firm that hired him, our culturally idealistic company.  It was deemed that the subcontractor was indeed wrong and that the firm that hired him was also to be held responsible.

The enforcement community used a compliance program standard to determine if the little company’s compliance efforts warranted a large or small penalty.  The standard said you are responsible for your subcontractors.  The standard went one step further though, and also said that if you did not have a hotline phone number you could not pass the compliance program standard no matter what else you had done.  Our little company had an anonymous drop box but not a hotline number.  Actually they had something better than a hotline; they had an ethical, transparent and open culture.  They worked hard at education, conducting audits, investigating issues, performing risk assessments and implemented all the other elements of a compliance program to the best of their ability.  Even the investigators said they had never seen anything like it.  But unfortunately the compliance program standard said that a hotline phone number was mandatory.  A one size fits all kind of thing.

Note: The standards body did not have a requirement for a hotline number in the original standard.  The first version of the standard stated, “All compliance programs must have an anonymous reporting mechanism, such as a phone number or drop box.”  However, a company that was deemed to have met the standard got caught in a 25 million dollar bribery scheme. They had several methods for reporting issues but not a hotline number. The response was immediate and extremely negative.  “How could you have a standard that didn’t mandate a hotline regardless of how they scored?” There was huge pressure to make several components of the standard mandatory regardless of how you scored. 

To continue with our completely fabricated story…. While all this was going on there were several big settlements.  The press, public and politicians were very upset.  The fact that this other company  had passed the standard and was later found guilty of committing 25 million dollars in bribes… made matters worse.  Because the little company with a remarkable culture didn’t “check the box” of having a hotline, they failed the standard.  The company was forced to pay treble damages. The enforcement community was under a great deal of pressure. They were getting hammered in the press for not being tough enough.  They were forced into a position of including a Corporate Integrity Agreement as a part of the settlement with our little company.  The CIA included 5 years of oversight by a Federal Monitor.  The Federal Monitor was required to use the standard to help the company improve and maintain their compliance program over the 5 year period of the agreement.

Because the standard was by definition, “A one size fits all approach,” the standard was built to cover every conceivable company.  It was built to include 100,000 employee multinational companies.  Our little company was forced to spend millions of dollars to improve their compliance program over the course of the CIA.  Even the Federal Monitor felt it was excessive but his hands were tied. The enforcement community felt their hands were tied because of the pressure they were under from the press, politicians and the public.  The standard was also under a great deal of pressure.

Unfortunately for the standard, the risk, ethics, audit, and legal professionals were also making demands that their section of the compliance program should be more comprehensive.  And the people representing each profession seemed to be particularly animated supporters of their profession’s role in compliance.  They were neither patient nor understanding.  I do believe the hair of a couple people making demands burst into flames when there was a little pushback about how big the standard was getting.  If they got their way the standard could be hundreds of pages long.  Those that created the standard wanted to make it reasonable for everyone but some groups got upset and said, “This is what we want added or we will not support your standard.”  It was a tough position to be in. The standard grew and grew.

The story about our little ethical company hit the press.  The standard was hammered.  The Wall Street Gazette, Washington Pillar and the New London Times all did stories about what happened to the little company.  Their report included a list of the increased costs, the reason the costs were incurred and the fact that the little company with the idealistic culture had gone out of business.  There was a complete frenzy on social media. Feeling the pressure, the people maintaining the standard went back to work.

The standards body said they would make three versions of the standard; one for small, medium and large size companies.  But people were still upset because nonprofits were different than privately held and publicly traded companies.  So the standards body said they would set up three more standards.  Actually it turned out to be 9 standards so they could cover small publically traded, privately held and nonprofits, medium sized publically traded companies…..and so on, and so forth.  All was well for a while until….

Companies that were not multinationals said it was an unfair burden to them.  They pointed out that multinational company’s compliance programs had to deal with dozens of different sets of laws, cultures, geographic locations and many more languages.  “Our compliance program requirements were far less complicated than some of those covered in the standard.”  So the standards body said they would create just one more version for single-nation companies.  Well, it wasn’t exactly one more version because they had to create a standard for single-nation companies that were small/medium/large, for-profit/nonprofit/publically traded, etc.  There were now well over a dozen standards and they were getting worried about the cost of effectively maintaining so many versions of the standard.  They wondered how many standards you could have before a standard really wasn’t a standard.  Before they could sort it all out they got a panicked call from healthcare.

Healthcare said that they believed they have more invested in compliance than all other industries combined.  They provided a great deal of credible data to support their claim.  They pointed out that there were hundreds of laws specific only to healthcare. And they believed that it was not possible to measure effectiveness of education and audit if the standard wasn’t specific to the laws in their industry.  “How can you say education was effective if you don’t check to see if the most relevant laws were being taught? How can you verify healthcare audits if you don’t check to see if we are auditing laws specific to our industry?”  The standards body could not have the largest industry in the country unsupportive of the standard so they developed yet another version.  Shortly thereafter, transportation, defense, financial services, utilities and other industries were at their doorstep saying the standard was not specific enough for them.  “How can you develop a standard specifically for healthcare and not develop one for our industries?”

The standards body decided that things had gone too far. They were concerned about keeping up with so many standards. They began to realize that even keeping one standard up to date was going to be a challenge.   They realized that the standard had to be changed as best practices changed.  Compliance programs were relatively new.  Best practices in audit, risk, education, etc. were being discovered on a regular basis. Laws were changing on a weekly basis.  If they didn’t update the standard regularly it would surely fall behind best practices.  If the standard fell behind best practices, then companies might be tempted to just meet the now outdated standard.  They did not want the standard to retard growth; they wanted it to improve compliance programs.  They were worried that the standard could actually discourage companies from doing more than just meet the minimum standard.

The standards body met.  They recapped all the problems they had encountered.  Someone said, “Despite the fact that the legal, audit, risk, HR and many other departments have been around as long as 100 years, none of them have a detailed standard like ours. Surely they must have tried.  A standard is such a logical idea.  Maybe they ran into the same problems we have run into.”  They concluded there were so many differences between organizations that a single standard with this much detail was not practical.  So they decided to go the other way.

They changed the standard to a simple seven elements.  And they created a short description that would apply to everyone.  It was not too specific and yet it was very meaningful.  It was excellent guidance and it provided a framework that everyone would benefit from. It fit every size and type of organization.  They were thrilled that they had found a solid solution to everyone’s problem.

Because of the vast improvements they decided they needed to change the name of the standard.  They thought and they thought.  They consulted the best and the brightest in the industry.  Then one day someone said, “Let’s call it Chapter 8 of the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines.”  The group cheered the decision and then released their new standard.  And all was right with the compliance world again.

Despite the fact this was a completely fabricated story… everyone lived happily ever after.

[bctt tweet=”#Compliance Fiction @RoySnellSCCE” via=”no”]

Compliance Culture Building Block #6: Pave a Two-Way Street

by Leave a Comment

Compliance Culture Building Block #6: Pave a Two-Way Street

Margaret ScavottoBy Margaret Scavotto, JD, CHC
Director of Compliance Services
Management Performance Associates

Does the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) play a prominent role in your compliance program? Here are four ways you can respect employees and make compliance a two-way street.

Discipline should be clear and fair.

Compliance programs require disciplinary guidelines. Compliance cultures benefit when discipline is not a surprise, and when it is consistent. Make expectations clear from day one of employment. When disciplinary guidelines come into play, be fair and objective. This means applying discipline consistently regardless of position.

Admit mistakes.

All health care providers make mistakes. A provider without an effective compliance program doesn’t know what mistakes it has made—that’s a ticking time bomb. A provider with an effective compliance program finds these mistakes, discloses them, fixes them, uses them as a teaching moment, and improves.

It isn’t easy for anyone to admit mistakes. Compliance expects employees to admit mistakes—and so should compliance leaders.

Open the door.

Employees constantly hear about the need to report non-compliance internally. But where do they go with compliance questions? A compliance officer who encourages questions as much as internal reporting will find more employees stopping by for both reasons. Establish an open door policy. Better yet, frequently leave the office, walk the halls, and talk to people about their concerns.

Follow up—and say thank you.

If possible, follow up with complainants so they know their complaint was taken seriously. Employees often sweat bullets about making a complaint. A simple phone call explaining that you looked into the matter, combined with whatever information you can share (after talking with your legal counsel if necessary), can let an employee know you took their complaint seriously. Don’t forget to thank them for making the complaint. If employees believe your organization is committed to compliance and doing the right thing, reporting will seem worthwhile. This increases the likelihood of internal reporting.

Compliance expects a lot from employees. Compliance leaders can strengthen compliance culture by paying it forward: be fair, and give credit where credit is due.

[bctt tweet=”Compliance Culture Building Block #6: Pave a Two-Way Street @mpaCompliance”]

Coming Home

by 2 Comments

Coming Home by John Nocero

John NoceroBy John Nocero

“Coming Home” is a song written by American rapper and producer Diddy (also known as Sean “Puffy” Combs) and his band Dirty Money that was released in 2010. The song is inspired by moments in Diddy’s life, the loss of his close friend, The Notorious B.I.G and references to classic songs by Dionne Warwick, Smokey Robinson & the Miracles and McFadden & Whitehead.

When asked about its meaning, Diddy responded, “Coming Home” goes to everybody out there who’s going through a struggle or obstacle. I’ve been lost in life, I’m still lost in life in the sense of trying to find your way back to that person who your grandmother or father wanted you to be. Sometimes you get lost through drug addiction or you break up with up your partner or remission from cancer etc. you struggle to find your way back to yourself….”

Some love their home, others detest their home, and others feel indifferent. Some carry a yearning for their home for the rest of their lives, while others brood the thought of returning. Some who disliked their childhood home build a better home for themselves as an adult, one that contributes to success and not their failure.

Home shapes you.

While a chief executive officer, Board of Directors and compliance committee preaches the tone at the top, the compliance practitioner inspires employees as the role model, like our grandparents. We self-monitor, detect, and resolve problems, like your sister when she tattled on you after catching you in act of sneaking an extra home-baked chocolate chip cookie (or is that just me?). We continuously adapt and offer significant opportunities to enhance organizational effectiveness and efficiency, under inclement conditions, like our mothers and fathers.

You don’t grow up because you’re getting older. You grow up through experience. Failure. Standing up for your beliefs. Facing fear, harsh critics, your responsibilities. From seeing things through.

Did you ever know one of those families? You know – the one that just had it together. My best friend had one. Mom and dad genuinely adored each other and kids always did the right thing. This was intentional. Parents created and prioritized a strong family culture.

As the compliance practitioner, take the lead and direct yours.

Ain’t no place like home, baby.

[bctt tweet=”Coming Home @SCCE” via=”no”]

References:
Diddy – Dirty Money – Coming Home ft. Skylar Grey
“Live Lounge Sessions – Diddy”. Live Lounge (BBC Radio 1). January 20, 2011.

Career Planning in Compliance

by Leave a Comment

Career Planning in Compliance by John Nocero

John NoceroBy John Nocero
john.nocero@barberinstitute.org

I read an article this past weekend on career planning that was written by Marc Andreessen in 2007. It is one of the most fascinating and genuine pieces I have ever read. The fact is it eight years old and still amazingly relevant, speaks to the author’s depth of knowledge on the subject.

His takeaway message: Don’t plan your career. Leave it alone. It will only frustrate you.

Instead focus on developing your skills and pursing opportunities.

He is exactly right. Reflect on your own career for a second. Is your career path entirely linear? Mine isn’t. My first ambition was to be a disc jockey. To achieve it, I worked hard, taking overnight shifts at local radio stations until I got my first full-time job on air at a country music station. I can still remember the Billboard Top 10 from my last year in the business, because I hustled and worked hard.

I looked for those opportunities to my come my way. If I was not looking, they would have disappeared as fast as they came. It is the same way I continue to look for risk as a compliance practitioner. To be relevant, we have to stay current. Compliance, like our world, is incredibly complex and rapidly-changing. I cannot accurately predict what is going to happen in the future. I may think I know, but I have no idea. This includes what companies I work for, what my job might look like, my role, and ultimately my contributions. This is why is so much smarter to focus on opportunity.

I waited until my last paragraph to mention salary. Don’t get me wrong. The money’s great. I like paying my bills. But if I am receiving an exorbitant salary working at a job that doesn’t not satisfy me, I work longer, and harder trying to convince myself that I like it, and overcompensating for receiving a great amount of dough.

You cannot buy peace of mind. Stretch assignments, where you can learn and grow; having a rich mix of quality and depth of critically-thinking colleagues; and the flexibility of the working environment and your cultural fit mean more. Now, I also realize a lot depend on where you are in your career. That’s also dependent on risk. If you are younger, jump on the startup. If you are sixty, and still paying your daughter’s credit card bills, think twice.

Only you can define your risk.

But without risk, there is no reward.

And there is nothing like defining your own career.

Nothing.

 [bctt tweet=”Career Planning in Compliance @SCCE” via=”no”]

References:

http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_career_planning_part1.html

“Having an Ethics Hotline is a Really, Really Bad idea.” (Really?)

by 8 Comments

Ethics Hotline

photo of Jim BrennanBy Jim Brennan
jamesmbrennan@att.net

Sometimes they admit it openly . . . but usually they don’t. Whether it is openly expressed or not, though, it’s true: many members of management, especially outside the corporate headquarters, hate their company’s Ethics Hotline. They want to blow it up. They think having a Hotline is a really, really bad idea — for numerous reasons.

A kneejerk reaction may be to resist the contention that there are ‘cons’ to having a Hotline. It would be a mistake to do so, though. Why? Because there are ‘cons’ to having a Hotline. Failing to admit this fact does nothing but hurt our credibility. Admitting it, on the other hand, is only honest. Moreover, admitting it both adds to our credibility and helps us in our efforts to win over the “Ethics Program skeptics.”

Here are just a few of the anti-Hotline diatribes that I have heard:

  • “At my location/facility, I’m trying to build a family culture of trust and of open, mature communication. The Ratline – I mean, the Hotline – undermines our efforts. It encourages people to skip difficult conversations and to instead take the easy way out with an anonymous call to Corporate.”
  • “The Hotline lets poor performers, whose job is in jeopardy, throw a Hail Mary pass by calling the Hotline to get whistleblower protection.”
  • “The Hotline is abused by cowards who, anonymously and unfairly, knowingly make up things to defame people they don’t like.”
  • “Some people don’t like it when a new boss (appropriately) holds them to higher levels of accountability, so they call the Hotline to complain that their boss is abusive.”
  • “The Hotline causes confusion about leadership and chain of command.”
  • “The Hotline creates a culture of paranoia.”
  • “The Hotline sends the signal to employees that Corporate does not trust local leadership and thus neither should the employees.”

There is obviously more validity for some of these objections than for others (although there is arguably at least a grain of truth in each of them). Furthermore, there are of course rejoinders to each objection. For instance, although it is not unheard of for employees to invent falsehoods to defame another, still, anyone who has experience with a Hotline knows that such calls are – thankfully — exceedingly rare. Moreover, even if there are suspicions about an employee’s bona fides, the obligation always remains to fairly, objectively and independently ‘run out the grounders.’ Doing so sometimes results in very important findings that were completely unexpected.

Although not all the Hotline objections hold much water, still, given that there are multiple anti-Hotline objections – some of which raise pretty good points – it begs the question: why the heck do we have a Hotline? Simple: the ‘pros’ outweigh the ‘cons.’ By far. Just a few of the ‘pros’ are:

  • Hotlines are a proven resource. They have allowed companies to detect and address countless  issues and concerns. Hotlines are thus a strategically essential component for upholding a company’s ethical fabric.
  • Many companies are required, by their industry or issuer/ownership status, to have a Hotline.
  • Even for those companies which are not per se required to have a Hotline, various bodies, both governmental (e.g., the United States Sentencing Commission) and quasi-governmental lay out compelling incentives and disincentives for having/not having a Hotline. Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, for instance, convicted companies which are found to have had an effective compliance program may have their fines reduced up to 90%. (It is essentially impossible that a judge will make a finding of an effective compliance program if there is no Hotline.) If, on the other hand, a company is found to have ignored this vital component of corporate compliance, it can get thumped by the court even harder. Thus, even companies which are not technically required to have a Hotline would be foolish and reckless – and open to potential liability in various contexts — if they do not have one.
  • The company makes a commitment to always give people a place to turn with concerns or reports of wrongdoing. Certainly, employees should always first think of turning to their supervisor if they see something wrong, but if the problem is with their supervisor and/or their chain of command, or they have already pursued that route, or have reasons to believe that this route is not a viable one, it is vital that employees know there is always somewhere they can turn. The Hotline is always available, 24/7.
  • Hotlines save the company a lot of money. (Now there is something that management will understand!) Here is just one example of how. A terminated employee calls the Hotline alleging that his termination was unfair. After an independent, fair investigation there is a finding that the termination was not inappropriate. It is thus upheld. Hotline personnel telephone the former employee back, explaining that there was an independent review of the termination and “I am sorry to tell you that the termination stands. We wish you the very best of luck in the future.” Anyone who has made a number of these calls will attest that the vast majority of the time the reaction of the caller is not to protest but is to express gratitude for the inquiry and for the callback. They are grateful because someone heard them . . . and oftentimes being heard is what they really wanted. Such persons are extremely unlikely to retain counsel and sue the company for wrongful termination. Take away the Hotline, though, and a certain percentage of them would have sued the company. It is obviously impossible to reduce this phenomenon to a dollar figure, but experience shows that it is not insignificant.
  • Lastly, what would happen if the company did not have a Hotline? Well, one of two things would likely occur. Either the employee who witnesses wrongdoing (but does not want to speak up locally) will not speak up and the problem will fester and grow — a recipe for disaster – or, the employee will speak up . . . probably outside the company (plaintiff’s attorney, government agency, the media, etc.). Even the staunchest “Ethics Program skeptic” recognizes that it is better for the company to have the chance to solve the problem internally than it is to have the problem go to the outside.

Let’s face it: sometimes the ‘Ethics Program skeptics’ consider ethics and compliance practitioners to be ‘clueless’ about the realities of business. If we fail to concede any valid points that they have (such as that there are negatives to having a Hotline), we only play into their hands. If, on the other hand, we admit their valid points and then explain why their concerns are outweighed by other considerations, this goes a long way toward winning them over. That, in turn, helps us strengthen the foundation of the ethics program, thereby improving and reinforcing the company’s ethical culture.

[bctt tweet=”‘Having an Ethics Hotline is a Really, Really Bad idea.’ (Really?) @SCCE” via=”no”]

Overreach: A Sure Way to a Compliance Officer’s Demise

by 1 Comment

Overreach: A Sure Way to a Compliance Officer's Demise by Roy Snell

2014-snell-roy-speaking-headshot-200By Roy Snell
roy.snell@corporatecompliance.org

Once in a while, someone suggests or implies that compliance professionals should be involved in executive compensation. It seems to me, that is the Board’s role. Compliance programs are designed to help organizations follow the rule of law and build an ethical culture. We are not supposed to take over the management of the organization. One exception might be that we try to help management find ways to incorporate compliance metrics in the bonus structure. But I can think of few things that will derail a compliance officer and a compliance program faster than overreach. Those that are suggesting compliance professionals get involved in setting executive compensation are overreaching, and are on a path to failure.

I can just see the executive compensation crowd throwing up their hands and saying, “How can you not think executive compensation is important?” I do think executive compensation is important—I just don’t think that everything that is important is the responsibility of the compliance officer. It may be an ethicist’s, governance expert’s, or the corporate social responsibility officer’s job to opine about how those in governance handle executive compensation—but it’s not the compliance officer’s job.

When I was a compliance officer, people would ask me to overreach. One administrator wanted my help justifying the purchase of an expensive piece of medical equipment. They said their purchase was related to a compliance issue. I asked them to tell me the rule of law that we would break if they didn’t buy the equipment. They couldn’t. I said, “Well, come on back when you figure that out and I will help.”

I have the same problem with the Governance, Risk, and Compliance (or GRC) crowd. I understand why vendors use the GRC term because they have products in all three areas. However, compliance professionals don’t govern; and although risk is important, it’s not more important than ethics, audit, legal, or many other elements of a compliance program. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) folks want us to get involved in social and political issues. It’s not just the executive compensation crowd; almost everyone, it seems, wants the compliance officer to get involved in their favorite cause.

Many people are trying to distract us from our role of preventing, finding, and fixing problems and promoting an ethical culture. Isn’t that what happened before the compliance profession was created? Everyone was running up and down the hall with their hair on fire about their favorite cause; but few, if any, were actually preventing, finding, and fixing problems. Isn’t it illogical to allow people to send us back to the way things were done in the past if that way didn’t work? Didn’t the approach of the past result in the problems we have now? Isn’t the reputation of organizations at an all-time low because of regulatory missteps? Penn State University, Enron, WorldCom, VW, etc. were not in compliance with the rule of law. Ethicists say, “Go beyond compliance to ethics.” I will be glad to go beyond compliance— once we stop breaking the rule of law. You cannot possibly have an ethical culture if you are breaking the rule of law. Stop dismissing compliance for ethics and suggesting that compliance officers should just focus on ethics. We need both.

Ethical behavior and an ethical culture are outcomes, not a methodology. Compliance programs are a methodology that can impact outcomes such as behavior and culture. Everything is important, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have at least one person focused on compliance with the rule of law. I support ethicists, CSR, the legal department, and everyone else. I am just asking you to let us get our job done and to stop asking us to overreach, to become distracted, or to do your job.

Do not overreach. Do not listen to those who want you to overreach. Just because something is important doesn’t mean it’s your job. We have millions of people opining—but we have terrifyingly few people actually preventing, finding, and fixing regulatory problems. Stay focused, my friends.

[bctt tweet=”Overreach: A Sure Way to a Compliance Officer’s Demise @RoySnellSCCE” via=”no”]

Compliance Culture Building Block #4: HELP Your People

by Leave a Comment

Compliance Culture Building Block #4: HELP Your People by Margaret Scavotto

Margaret ScavottoBy Margaret Scavotto, JD, CHC
Director of Compliance Services
Management Performance Associates

This is the fourth installment of the Compliance Culture Building Blocks series.

Compliance is complicated. A compliance program that takes a hard-lined “hammer” approach only makes this worse. Yes, of course you need to discipline employees who violate the compliance program. But a “get it right or else” attitude will not motivate most people to comply—and it certainly won’t motivate people to report problems to you. A compliance program that strives to help employees do their jobs in a way that adheres to the compliance program makes things easier for employees. Where would you rather work?

Culture is in the context

You hire employees with good values and high integrity. How do you reinforce those values so employees make the right decision in a tough situation? By making compliance your context. Compliance should be part of the conversation, from line staff to leadership and executives. This can’t happen unless everyone is trained, and compliance is part of the dialogue.

Training opportunities are everywhere

In order to make compliance part of your culture, training needs to go far beyond the annual compliance training PowerPoint session or video. Your strategy should be to help employees understand compliance, every day.

Employees are busy providing patient care, documenting their work, and submitting claims. We can help our employees do these things in a way that adheres to the compliance program. This requires compliance to meet employees where they are. How can you get compliance reminders in front of your team throughout their work flow? Would a shift change chat work? Flyers in the bathrooms? Training doesn’t have to be a 30- to 60- minute in-service to be effective.

In this era of social media, infotainment and information overload, staff are constantly inundated with new information. This means you need to make some noise. Think outside the box for ways to keep compliance risks top-of-mind. Use examples so employees are prepared to respond in a tough situation.

Market compliance to your staff

If compliance feels like a hammer in your organization, it’s time to re-brand. Brand your message so people see compliance as something that helps them do their jobs—not as something confusing, or something to fear. Once you choose your message, get the word out. Launch a compliance campaign, plan a compliance week, and find ways to increase your Compliance Officer’s visibility.

Be an ally to your staff and help them participate in your compliance journey, and your compliance culture and employee satisfaction will grow.

[bctt tweet=”If compliance feels like a hammer in your organization, it’s time to re-brand @mpaCompliance” via=”no”]

SCCE/HCCA A Brief History of Time

by Leave a Comment

Growth Industry2014-snell-roy-speaking-headshot-200By Roy Snell
roy.snell@corporatecompliance.org

We are on the eve of our 20th anniversary and I want to share a brief history of our time.  About 20 years ago I was asked to be the compliance officer for the University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation by a forward thinking COO named Marc Dettmann.   I was given a copy of the Sentencing Guidelines and a business card of a compliance officer named Mary Dunaway.  She and I set up a one day conference for compliance officers in Minneapolis, 30 were invited… 60 showed up.

At the end of the meeting I suggested we form a group. At dinner, Brent Saunders and I wrote the name and a mission statement for HCCA on the back of a napkin. Don’t ask, it’s lost, who knew a napkin would be relevant?  The next day I asked Debbie Troklus to help.  (8,600+ people from 70 countries currently hold a compliance credential she created.) Modern Healthcare Magazine called and wanted to do a story on compliance officers.  They put me and the statement “Growth Industry” on the cover. That helped the evolution of the Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA).  After some success the Board approved a proposal to have Dan Roach and Odell Guyton start the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE).  At one point there were 3 members, now there are over 15,500 from about 80 countries. The problem with a short story about the evolution of an organization like SCCE/HCCA is that you have to leave out hundreds of very important people like Boehme, Murphy, Vacca, and on and on and on.  Every Board member, employee and volunteer helped to get SCCE/HCCA where it is today.

Modern Healthcare seems to have made an accurate prediction, “Growth Industry.”  It may seem like an easy prediction in hindsight, but I assure you it was a leap of faith at the time.  Some said compliance would simply be another methodology like Total Quality Management and fade away.  Some thought it would be just another activity of the legal department and follow the path of preventative law. Ethicists downplayed compliance to focus on culture. Risk thought compliance was a subset of risk.  Audit thought it was their responsibility but did not commit.  Some just simply didn’t want compliance. Many people intentionally or unintentionally tried to grab the wheel and head for the ditch.  However, countless volunteers and staff created a framework called SCCE/HCCA that allowed thousands of compliance professionals to represent and define their profession.  The profession leading the profession… as it should be.

[bctt tweet=”SCCE/HCCA A Brief History of Time @RoySnellSCCE” via=”no”]

A Compliance Plan or a Compliance Idea?

by Leave a Comment

John NoceroBy John Nocero
john.nocero@barberinstitute.org

Hermann Goerner is one of the strongest men all time. Surprisingly, he did not have a set workout routine. He trained according to his mood and varied his program to suit his energy. He never performed a workout if he did not feel like it, but when he did train, he left enough room to make changes if and when it suited him. This flies in the face of conventional wisdom and probably why it’s so darn brilliant.

The compliance practitioner can learn something here.

Much of what we do is dictated by our compliance plan. But we also need to be able to react based on arising risks or incidental findings. Often, being able to reprioritize is most important. I write a goal list of what I am going to get done each week, but some weeks are impossible to predict. You often need to make changes in real-time. Very rarely you can ever say you are totally locked in to a particular plan. Maybe it is better to characterize the compliance plan as a compliance idea – you are pointed in the right direction, but you are ready to make an adjustment if needed.

Goerner was always locked in when he trained though. A typical workout may be two hours. He worked fast and did not pause to “check his phone.” All his talking was done after his workout was finished. This shows focus on the training, while it is being done.

Another great lesson here too.

Randomly hopping from risk to risk – SQUIRREL! – guarantees minimal progress. It already is becoming harder to sort through what is actually important because some individuals speak as if they are subject matter experts when they are not. Many just always rely on other’s opinions as facts. This is ignorant. Don’t be ignorant. Stay focused and challenge the system.

Sticking with a plan doesn’t mean you are not able to adapt when the need arises. Both can co-exist. The worst mistake you can make it is to radically change the plan. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

[bctt tweet=”A Compliance Plan or a Compliance Idea? @SCCE” via=”no”]

Turkey Soup

by 6 Comments

Turkey Soup

turteltaub-adam-200x200-150x150By Adam Turteltaub
adam.turteltaub@corporatecompliance.org

Turkey soup is a really bad invention.  It’s not that turkey soup tastes bad.  But it’s kind of like banana bread taken to a nightmarish extreme.

No one that I know of buys bananas to make banana bread.  Instead, bananas that were bought to be eaten as, well, bananas, end up sitting around too long and have long since lost their golden hue.  They are clearly ready to be thrown out, but then someone says, “Wait, I can use them for banana bread.”  At that point, one of two things happens.  The bananas are actually turned into banana bread, or they sit around for another week or so on the promise of being turned into banana bread.  Then, they rot to a disgusting state and are mercifully thrown out, as they should have been days or weeks earlier.

Turkey soup is worse because by the time it’s made, we’ve all been eating turkey for far too long and are already sick and tired of it. The last thing the family wants is to find one more way to eat turkey, but some enterprising soul won’t give up.  Turkey soup is made and then eaten with great resentment while the family contemplates how much they now hate Pilgrims and their silly hats.

There’s a temptation in business to make turkey soup.  Too often we hang onto a program longer than we should because someone still thinks there’s a way to squeeze one more ounce of life out of it.

That’s backward thinking.  Whenever you have an initiative you need to start with an objective of what you want to achieve.  In compliance, it’s likely about a behavior you want to elicit from people (such as calling the helpline) or a behavior you want to stop (like paying bribes).

The question then needs to be:  what’s the best way to achieve our goal within our limited means?

But, when the discussion of objectives begins with:  How do we get more mileage out of…?  or How can we use these leftover…..?  Then you know, you’re going about your thinking the wrong way, and you’re about to serve people a big, steaming hot bowl of turkey soup.

And even a nice dessert of banana bread probably isn’t going to help.

[bctt tweet=”There’s a temptation in business to make turkey soup @AdamTurteltaub” via=”no”]