顯示具有 Throughput Accounting 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Throughput Accounting 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2026年1月13日 星期二

Why the NHS Must Rethink Cost Accounting and Free Its Most Vital Constraint: Doctors and Operating Rooms

 Why the NHS Must Rethink Cost Accounting and Free Its Most Vital Constraint: Doctors and Operating Rooms


The persistent bed shortage in the NHS is not just a seasonal flu problem; it is a structural failure driven by the wrong way of looking at costs and value. The system focuses on counting occupied beds and shaving visible expenses, instead of maximizing the flow of patients through its true bottlenecks: doctors and operating rooms.

The hidden cost of blocked beds

Every winter, the same scenes reappear: ambulances queuing outside A&E, patients lying on trolleys in corridors, and “non‑urgent” surgeries postponed indefinitely. Behind these symptoms lies a large group of patients who are medically stable yet still occupying hospital beds because safe discharge or step‑down care is not in place. On paper, these patients are “bed days” and “occupancy rates.” In reality, each occupied bed blocks a new patient from receiving timely treatment, pushes operations further back, and extends waiting lists. The cost of this is not just financial; it is measured in delayed diagnoses, worsening conditions, and human lives.

Why traditional cost accounting misleads the NHS

Traditional cost accounting treats each department as a cost centre and each bed day as a unit of activity to be budgeted and controlled. Under this logic, the hospital appears “efficient” if bed occupancy is high and immediate spending on extra community care, step‑down units, or rehab capacity seems “expensive.” This mindset encourages managers to protect short‑term budgets instead of improving patient flow. It hides the fact that the real economic loss comes from under‑utilising the most scarce and valuable resources: specialist doctors, surgical teams, and operating theatres. When surgeries are cancelled because no post‑operative beds are available, the system saves a bit on short‑term discharge support but wastes the far more valuable time of surgeons and theatre staff, and prolongs the suffering and productivity loss of patients.

Throughput accounting: focusing on flow, not beds

Throughput accounting, rooted in the Theory of Constraints, asks a different question: what is the true constraint limiting the system’s ability to deliver value, and how can everything else be aligned to exploit and protect that constraint? In the NHS acute hospital, the key constraints are not beds as such; they are the time and capacity of doctors and operating rooms. If a consultant surgeon can only perform a limited number of operations per week, every cancelled case caused by unavailable beds destroys throughput. Under throughput accounting, the goal is to maximise the rate at which the system converts scarce clinical capacity into completed, successful treatments. Beds, wards, and administrative units become supporting resources whose job is to ensure the constraint (doctors and theatres) never sits idle due to avoidable blockages, such as delayed discharges.

Bureaucracy versus clinical flow

The current bureaucratic logic often forces discharge decisions and social‑care arrangements into slow, risk‑averse, paperwork‑heavy processes. Every extra meeting, form, or sign‑off may feel “safe” from a governance perspective, but it steals time, delays decisions, and leaves medically fit patients occupying acute beds. Meanwhile, doctors and theatre slots go under‑used or are repeatedly rescheduled. The system behaves as if the safest option is to “keep the patient in hospital a bit longer,” while ignoring the systemic risk of gridlock: A&E overcrowding, ambulance delays, cancelled operations, staff burnout, and rising public frustration. A throughput‑oriented NHS would treat excessive bureaucracy itself as a clinical risk, because anything that keeps the constraint idle directly harms patients.

Redesigning around the true constraint

If the NHS accepts that its vital constraints are doctors and operating rooms, several strategic shifts follow:

  • Prioritise bed availability for patients who need acute interventions, not those who are clinically stable but trapped by social‑care gaps.

  • Invest in flexible step‑down capacity: community hospitals, rehab units, home‑care packages, and temporary “recovery at home” schemes that can be activated quickly to free acute beds.

  • Streamline discharge pathways so that medically stable patients move out of acute care within hours, not days, once fit for discharge, with clear accountability and minimal bureaucratic friction.

  • Schedule operating theatres and consultant time around maximising completed procedures and timely treatments, treating cancellations as system failures, not routine events.

In this design, community care and social services are not “extra costs”; they are essential supports that protect the throughput of the system’s most precious resource: clinical expertise.

A call for a new economic mindset in the NHS

The NHS is not mainly wasting money; it is wasting capacity. When doctors, nurses, and operating rooms are forced to wait for beds to clear, or for discharge paperwork to be processed, the system is burning its scarcest and most expensive assets while appearing “frugal” on paper. The apparent savings from under‑funded social care and minimal step‑down capacity are illusions. The real bill appears later as longer waiting lists, more complex illnesses, higher emergency demand, and deeper public distrust. A shift to throughput accounting would expose this false economy and redirect management attention where it matters: identify the true constraints, exploit them fully, subordinate everything else to support them, and only then consider expanding capacity. Until the NHS abandons narrow cost accounting and bureaucratic self‑protection, the annual crisis of bed shortages will keep repeating—because the system will continue to suffocate its own vital flow.

2026年1月12日 星期一

The Marginal Cost of a Journey: Why Free Senior Travel is "Free" for the Taxpayer

The Marginal Cost of a Journey: Why Free Senior Travel is "Free" for the Taxpayer

Recent discussions surrounding the UK bus pass rules for 2026—as highlighted by the UK Seniors Hub [00:17]— https://youtu.be/DrgIj_PfppM?si=br1IpR_8v6qbDmpS often focus on the "financial strain" local councils face. Headlines warn of eligibility shifts linked to the rising state pension age [02:37] and stricter renewals to "prevent misuse" [05:39]. However, from the perspective of throughput accounting, the argument that providing free travel to seniors creates a significant "added cost" for Transport for London (TfL) or other regional networks is largely a myth.

Here is why the real cost of letting a senior board a bus or train is effectively zero, and why the "budget crisis" lies in maintenance, not passengers.

1. The Reality of Fixed Costs

In transport logistics, the vast majority of expenses are fixed. Whether a London bus carries 5 people or 50, the costs remain identical:

  • The Driver: The salary is paid regardless of passenger count.

  • The Schedule: The bus runs on a fixed route at a fixed time.

  • Fuel/Power: While weight slightly affects fuel consumption, the difference between an empty bus and one with five extra seniors is statistically negligible.

  • Infrastructure: The tracks, stations, and signaling systems cost the same to maintain whether the trains are full or empty.

In throughput accounting terms, "Operating Expense" is relatively flat. Unless TfL plans to drastically reduce service frequency, decommission a large portion of the fleet, and lay off drivers, the system's "cost" is already sunk.

2. Zero Marginal Cost

The "marginal cost" is the cost of producing one more unit—in this case, one more passenger journey. Because the bus is already running and the driver is already driving, the cost of one more person boarding is zero.

Conversely, if a senior decides not to travel because they cannot afford the fare, there is zero reduction in cost for the transport authority. The bus still drives the route, consumes the fuel, and pays the driver. Removing the "free" element doesn't save the system money; it simply results in empty seats and socially isolated seniors [01:26].

3. Misplaced Blame: Maintenance vs. Passengers

The narrative that "more people living longer" [07:31] is the primary driver of financial strain ignores the true "black hole" in transport budgets: Inefficient Preventive Maintenance.

When a system suffers from poor maintenance protocols, it drives up total fixed costs through:

  • Emergency Repairs: Which are significantly more expensive than scheduled upkeep.

  • Asset Degradation: Shortening the lifespan of expensive buses and trains, requiring premature capital expenditure for new fleets.

  • Service Reliability: Breakdowns lead to fines, lost productivity, and the need for "standby" equipment.

If TfL or local councils are facing a budget deficit, the culprit is likely the management of these high-level fixed costs and technical inefficiencies, not the senior citizen using a seat that was going to that destination anyway.

4. The Social Throughput

From a holistic viewpoint, "throughput" isn't just about fare revenue; it’s about the movement of people to keep the economy and society functioning. As noted in the video, for many, the bus pass is a "lifeline" to reach GPs, chemists, and shops [01:18].

When seniors travel, they participate in the economy. If we restrict their travel based on the false premise of "added transport costs," we create real costs elsewhere—such as increased NHS spending due to isolation-related health issues or decreased local commerce.

Conclusion

The "urgent rule changes" and "cost control" measures being discussed for 2026 [05:15] are often based on traditional cost-accounting that treats every passenger as a liability. Throughput accounting reveals the truth: the seats are already paid for. Providing free travel to seniors is a high-impact social benefit with near-zero marginal cost. The real financial challenge for our transport networks isn't the person with the pass; it's the efficiency of the machine itself.

2025年9月24日 星期三

Culling the Herd: How to Stop Pharma Inventory Waste and Protect What Matters

 

Culling the Herd: How to Stop Pharma Inventory Waste and Protect What Matters

In the pharmaceutical world, inventory management is a high-stakes game. Companies often carry a vast number of product variations, or SKUs (Stock Keeping Units), to meet market demands. However, this common practice leads to a silent but significant problem: a warehouse full of slow-moving stock that eventually expires, forcing companies to write it off as a total loss. At the same time, this clutter can obscure the true state of the supply chain, leaving critical, life-saving drugs understocked.

This challenge is a classic case for the Theory of Constraints (TOC), which provides a clear path to prioritize and protect what's most important. Instead of treating all products equally, TOC helps us differentiate between what truly matters and what's simply taking up space and costing money.


The Problem: A Tale of Two SKUs

Imagine a pharmaceutical company with thousands of different product variants. Some are blockbuster drugs used daily by millions, while others are rare medications for a specific, small patient population. Without a smart strategy, both are treated similarly by the inventory system. This results in:

  • Excessive Waste: Low-demand SKUs sit on shelves for months or years, ultimately expiring and being thrown away. This is not just a financial loss; it's a major source of waste.

  • Patient Risk: The company's focus is spread thin, and the most important, fast-moving drugs may not receive the attention they need. This can lead to stockouts of life-saving medicines, which carries a far greater cost than any financial loss.


The TOC Cure: A Simple, Three-Step Prescription

The solution lies in applying TOC's principles to inventory management. It’s about being strategic and focusing on throughput, which is the rate at which the system generates money.

  1. Rank Your SKUs by Throughput:

    First, we must stop treating all products as equal. Using throughput accounting, we rank every SKU not just by sales volume, but by its contribution to the company's throughput. This means we look at the gross profit an SKU generates, minus any direct costs. More importantly, we also consider its clinical value. This step gives us a clear picture of what’s truly valuable.

    Example with Numbers:

    Let's look at three hypothetical SKUs:

    • SKU A (Lifesaving Vaccine): Sells 100 units per month, with a profit of $500 per unit. Monthly Throughput: $50,000. Clinical Value: Extremely high.

    • SKU B (Common Pain Reliever): Sells 10,000 units per month, with a profit of $10 per unit. Monthly Throughput: $100,000. Clinical Value: High.

    • SKU C (Rare Dietary Supplement): Sells 20 units per month, with a profit of $20 per unit. Monthly Throughput: $400. Clinical Value: Low.

    Throughput accounting immediately highlights that while SKU B has the highest sales volume, SKU A's critical nature and high per-unit value make it equally, if not more, important to protect. SKU C, however, has a negligible contribution.

  2. Cull the Non-Performers:

    Once you've ranked your SKUs, you'll find that a small number of products are responsible for the vast majority of your throughput. You'll also identify a group of low-impact SKUs with negligible throughput contribution. The cure is simple: reduce the SKU count by eliminating these non-essential products. This frees up capital, warehouse space, and management focus, all of which were previously wasted on items that provided minimal value.

    Example with Numbers:

    After our analysis, the company decides to discontinue SKU C. By doing this, they free up the space and labor previously dedicated to managing a product that only generated $400 per month in throughput. This resource can now be redirected to more profitable or critical products.

  3. Differentiate Your Buffers:

    With your inventory streamlined, you can now apply a tailored approach to managing what's left. Instead of one-size-fits-all safety stock levels, you create differentiated buffers.

    Example with Numbers:

    Let's assume a typical safety stock is a 2-month supply for all products.

    • SKU A (Lifesaving Vaccine): We increase the buffer to a 4-month supply to protect against any disruption. Instead of just 200 units on hand, we now maintain 400 units, ensuring patients are never at risk of a stockout.

    • SKU B (Common Pain Reliever): We keep its buffer at a 2-month supply, which is sufficient for a high-demand, stable product. We maintain 20,000 units.

    • SKU C (Rare Dietary Supplement): Having culled it from the inventory, we have a 0-month supplyas it is no longer stocked.


The Result: A Healthier Inventory

By applying these TOC principles, a pharma company can transform its inventory from a cluttered, wasteful mess into a lean, efficient system. They stop focusing on products that drain resources and start protecting the products that save lives. This approach not only lowers waste and cost but, more importantly, protects patient-critical flows, ensuring the right drug is always available at the right time.