American hospitals are under extraordinary pressure: margins remain thin, workforce shortages persist, emergency department boarding continues to frustrate patients and clinicians alike, and many organizations are struggling simply to maintain financial stability. Hospital leaders often attribute these challenges to forces outside their control: reimbursement, labor markets, regulation and rising costs.
Those pressures are real. But they do not explain one of healthcare’s most puzzling questions.
Why do some hospitals, facing the same challenges, achieve dramatic improvements in patient flow, quality, staff satisfaction and financial performance, while others continue to struggle year after year? The answer may have less to do with resources than with leadership.
Over the past two decades, multiple hospitals have demonstrated that operational redesign can significantly improve performance without adding beds, hiring large numbers of staff or undertaking major capital projects. One example is smoothing elective admissions — reducing artificial peaks and valleys in patient demand created by traditional surgical scheduling patterns. Hospitals that have implemented this approach have reported improvements in patient flow, reduced overcrowding, increased capacity, improved staff experience and stronger financial performance. Yet despite a growing body of evidence and numerous success stories, adoption remains surprisingly limited. Why?
The conventional explanation is that healthcare is complicated. But complexity cannot explain why some organizations act on evidence while others do not. The more likely explanation is that hospitals operate under two fundamentally different leadership models. The first model focuses primarily on acquiring additional resources. When beds are full, the organization seeks more beds; when staffing is tight, it seeks more staff; when margins are under pressure, it seeks higher reimbursement. There is nothing wrong with pursuing additional resources. Every hospital needs them. But there is a critical limitation to this approach: it often assumes that current resources are already being used as effectively as possible.
The second leadership model starts with a different question: “What if some of our biggest problems are consequences of how we organize care?” Leaders operating under this model look beyond symptoms. They examine underlying system design. They ask whether chronic overcrowding, ED boarding, staffing instability, delayed discharges and recurring operational crises are inevitable or whether they are partially the result of long-standing practices that no longer serve patients or staff. That question can be uncomfortable.
Unlike requests for additional reimbursement, operational redesign often requires changing established habits, challenging assumptions and engaging influential stakeholders whose preferences helped shape the status quo. Seeking additional funding rarely creates internal resistance. Changing the way work is organized often does. As a result, many healthcare organizations become exceptionally skilled at managing crises that could potentially be prevented.
This is not a criticism of hospital leaders. Running a health system today may be one of the most difficult jobs in America. Nor is it a question of intelligence or commitment. Healthcare executives are deeply dedicated professionals working under immense pressure. The issue is whether organizations are willing to act when evidence challenges long-standing practices. The most successful hospitals are not always those with the largest budgets, newest facilities or strongest market positions. Often, they are the organizations whose leaders are willing to ask difficult questions and persist through the discomfort that meaningful change can create.
The greatest mystery in healthcare is not why hospitals struggle. The greatest mystery is why hospitals that have access to documented solutions continue to struggle in exactly the same ways year after year. As policymakers debate reimbursement and workforce investments, those conversations should continue. But hospital leaders should ask themselves another question: Are our challenges primarily the result of insufficient resources or are some of them the result of operational practices that we have accepted for so long that they now appear inevitable?
The answer may determine which organizations thrive in the years ahead, and which continue managing the same crises they managed yesterday.
Eugene Litvak, PhD, is president and CEO of the nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Optimization and adjunct professor of operations management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He has spent more than 25 years studying the impact of patient-flow variability on healthcare quality, safety and cost, and is the editor of two Joint Commission books on patient flow.
At the Becker's 11th Annual IT + Revenue Cycle Conference: The Future of AI & Digital Health, taking place September 14–17 in Chicago, healthcare executives and digital leaders from across the country will come together to explore how AI, interoperability, cybersecurity, and revenue cycle innovation are transforming care delivery, strengthening financial performance, and driving the next era of digital health. Apply for complimentary registration now.