Skip to main content

Charity Encourages Generous Donations - New Standard for the Industry?


This really happened.  The vignette I present now occurred 3 days before its posting on this site.  My good friend Bill invited me to a fundraising dinner to support a Jewish organization.  I declined the invitation, but told Bill that I would be pleased to make a donation to support a cause that was important to him.  I connected to the website which led visitors quickly to the Donate page.  Charitable enterprises want to make it as easy as possible for you express your generosity and separate you from your funds.  Haven’t you noticed that every museum visit leads to the gift shop? 

I quickly filled in the credit card information and then scrolled down and typed $50 in the Customized Donation window.  This box allowed donors to designate their own amount, bypassing the default listed uber high dollar amounts that appeared higher up on the page.  The entire process expended about 3 minutes and ended when I clicked on the Donate Now button.   It’s the same process that we all use to purchase items on line.

Immediately, I received an e-mail receipt, which I opened for no clear reason as I generally ignore these notifications.  At first glance, I noted a donation amount of $18,000 which, of course, was incorrect.  On closer inspection, as my pulse rate quickened, this is exactly what the receipt claimed was transacted. Most likely, I thought I must be suffering from some transient blurry vision from over-caffeination, a previously unknown complication. But, squinting failed to change the number.  I did not panic, because I am a medical professional, who is steeled to maintain my equipoise when unexpected turbulence confronts me.  This is when seasoned pros must let their training and muscle  memory kick in.  In other words, I panicked.  



At least they thanked me!


I called Visa, whom I regarded as culpable, or at least guilty of contributory negligence, by facilitating this fraudulent transaction.  After exposure to the highly personalized menu tree, and hitting the zero on the phone repeatedly until my index finger was nearly calloused, a human-sounding voice emerged that claimed to be emanating from an actual human.  I was grateful to have discovered an escape from the menu tree, a labyrinth that can keep clients and customers trapped for months or longer.  Most of these lost souls go mad simply from being forced to hear, ‘Please listen carefully as our options have changed’, at high volume and without pause.  Visa-man advised me that I had no recourse available with them; I needed to take it up with the charity.

A few nanoseconds later, I phoned the charity and immediately was greeted by a voice mail.  When would I hear back?  What if the call came while I was doing a colonoscopy?  Should I answer anyway?  (I was leaning 'yes' on this.) What if the religious charity didn’t consider my donation as a human error, but as a divine stroke for which I would be rewarded in the hereafter?  Would I risk selling my soul for a mere $18,000? (I was scared to lean yes on this one.)

In less time than it seemed, a rabbi called and promptly and courteously returned me to the status quo ante.  He made me whole.  How did this escapade happen?  He explained that the Donate page was defaulted to donate 18 grand, and unless this box is unchecked by the donor, this will be the amount transferred.   I congratulated the rabbi on having such an effective donation process, and he assured me with a laugh, that he would attend to the glitch. 

We have all clicked on the wrong box or sent a text message to an unintended recipient, which can result in amusing or serious consequences.   In this case, my ‘error’ wasn’t one of commission, but of omission.  I failed to ‘opt out’.

Physicians, at least honest ones, can relate to this anecdote.  In the electronic medical era, how many of us have placed an order on the wrong patient?  Wouldn’t it be a shame if a doctor ordered a colonoscopy on Bill by mistake?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier.  There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform.  Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele.  It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance.  For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings?  If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits?  The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform.   Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat.   The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families.   Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR).  I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary.  And it’s not a fair fight.  You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine.   I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient.   You must think I am a magician or a savant.   While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago.   (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary