cardiology partnership options 2010

22
Cardiology Partnership Options 2010

Upload: catalyst00

Post on 12-Nov-2014

2.808 views

Category:

Health & Medicine


2 download

DESCRIPTION

 

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Cardiology Partnership Options

2010

Page 2: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Financial Pressure

• The increasing financial pressure that exists within cardiology practices is driving an increase in hospital collaboration

• Hospitals and cardiology practice both have motivations for collaboration

• A recent ACC/MedAxiom survey indicated that 2/3 of the 24,000 USA cardiologists to be integrated by years end

Page 3: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Hospital Motivations

• Physician alignment• Performance imperatives• Physician staffing shortages• Hospital competition & physician loyalty• ED call coverage• Stability & growth in market share

Page 4: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Cardiologist Motivations

• Personal income security• Mitigate reimbursement declines• Increasing private practice overhead• IT strategies• Work-life balance• Access to capital• Managed care pressures

Page 5: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Options

• Employment• Lease• Practice merger• Stay the course

Page 6: Cardiology partnership options 2010

EMPLOYMENT

Page 7: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Key Elements of Employment

• Compensation• Asset purchase• Governance

Page 8: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Contractual Issues

• Income guarantee• Term of employment agreement (5 & 10)• Negotiation of RWU conversion factor for the

term of the agreement• Fixing the RWU table (nuclear, cath bundling)• Termination of physicians• Operational control

Page 9: Cardiology partnership options 2010

CompensationDirect Employment

FMV must be established for RWU (assume $52/RWU)Individual physician RWU compensation (no group model)

• Doctor 1 – 12,000 RWU’s/year = $624,000• Doctor 2 – 11,450 RWU’s/year = $595,400• Doctor 3 – 6,700 RWU’s/year = $348,400

Notes:• Expense side has no impact on physician compensation• Benefits are paid in addition to compensation• Purchase of practice assets is a separate transaction• “Provider based” non-invasive billing, purchase revenue stream• Better commercial provider agreements• Better benefits, mal-practice cost structure

9

Page 10: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Compensation

• Physician Compensation– Conversion factor X individual RWU/physician– Compensation for non-RWU activities– Incentive plan (business and clinical targets)

Page 11: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Asset Purchase

• Practice purchase (tangible & intangible)– Assets (equipment & real estate)– Medical records– Goodwill– Accounts receivable

Page 12: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Governance/Management in Integration

Hospital Board

Hospital

Wholly Owned Subsidiary

Practice CV Service Line Co-management

Page 13: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Governance Continuum

• Direct employment– Physicians have individual employment agreements– Physicians have a practice operating committee– Physicians have disparate medical directorships– Miss opportunity for full physician investment in hospital

operation• Advisory CV Council– Much like a clinical co-management program

• Practice line authority– The group has been delegated line authority over hospital

and practice operation

Page 14: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Legal Residence of Physicians

• Direct employees of hospital• Employees of a wholly owned subsidiary• Employees of an existing hospital multi-

specialty group• Note: Some groups are employed by the

SYSTEM rather than any one hospital

Page 15: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Decision-Matrix• Hospital “reserve powers”

– Set general parameters/approve budget– Set general parameters/approve strategic plan– Approve employment of physicians

• Authority of Subsidiary Board– Establish clinical objectives (M&M, ACO)– Establish business objectives (LOC, CPC)– Business development/improve patient access– Establish new clinical services

• Authority delegated to a “Physician Management Committee”– General practice operation– Elect/remove physician representatives from leadership– Physician schedule– Physician assignments– Physician compensation– Physician and staff discipline– Implement budget and business plan

Page 16: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Practice Operation in Integration

• A “Physician Management Committee” has responsibility for:– day-to-day operations– determine distribution of compensation pool– “unwind”– top 1-3 executives– hiring/firing of physicians– authority to implement approved budget/business

plan– Re-negotiate employment agreement

Page 17: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Employment• Pro’s

– Best time to sell (maximal practice value)– Income gains over structured timeline– Maximal Group-hospital alignment– Preparation for reform/global reimbursement– Greater market security– Potential for improved physician recruiting

• Con’s– Some loss of control– Heavy reliance on PBR– Will it resolve practice governance issues?– Changes in hospital leadership– Uncertainty regarding renewal (at 5 or 10 years)

Page 18: Cardiology partnership options 2010

LEASE

Page 19: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Lease

• Many of the same components as employment

• Negotiate PSA & Co-management Agreement• Establish a lease payment & Co-management

agreement $$ with FMV support• Lease a physician, sub-group of FTE physicians,

or the whole practice• Provider Based Reimbursement

Page 20: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Lease

• Maintain practice assets and structure• Will not be able to secure full practice

purchase price• A viable alternative to employment• Theoretically works better when group works

at multiple systems• Still have option for group employment, and

practice sale in the future

Page 21: Cardiology partnership options 2010

PRACTICE MERGER

Page 22: Cardiology partnership options 2010

Practice Merger

• Governance considerations• Old competitive issues?• Compensation plan• Common call• Economies of scale• Duplication of services• Better position to negotiate with hospitals ,

payers, primary care networks• May not be enough, on its own