CardioSource WorldNews December 2014 | Page 64

BUSINESS CONSULT TIM PATMONT and KATHERINE COLLINGS RAY ECG Management Consultants, Inc. BENCHMARKS: The Right Performance Tool? G earing up to review cardiologist performance in calendar year 2014? If you rely on survey benchmarks as a guide, expect to find some interesting trends in the data. For instance, total compensation reported in the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) Physician Compensation and Production Survey: 2014 Report Based on 2013 Data has increased 8% on average across all subspecialties since 2009. Meanwhile, productivity has decreased across all subspecialties by an average of 14% over the same time period. This diverging trend in benchmarking data presents significant implications for organizations that tie cardiology compensation to market benchmarks, leading many administrators to question whether benchmarks are the right tool for measuring cardiology service line performance or calculating compensation. Trends in Cardiology Benchmarks: MGMA All Specialty Average (Median)1[1] What follows here is a discussion of the factors driving changes in the benchmarking data, the impact on hospital-aligned cardiologists, and an outline of potential solutions for ensuring the sustainability and market-competitiveness of your cardiology program. Contributing Factors to Diverging Benchmarks With challenging independent cardiology practice economics and hospitals wanting to develop integrated physician networks, a boom of cardiology employment and partnerships has taken place during the past 5 years. The benchmark data trends that we see today (eg, steady compensation despite work relative value unit [WRVU] productivity declines) are likely the result of these transactions and ongoing reimbursement changes. Specifically, there are several factors at play: 1) High Base Salaries: When the market is hot for a particular specialty, providers have additional leverage to command high base salaries and/or income guarantees, which do not inherently translate into increased productivity. In particular, organizations typically provide an initial base salary as a means of sheltering physicians from the diminished productiv- 62 CardioSource WorldNews ity that comes with joining a new system (eg, having to document in a new medical record). Benchmark data reveals that this dynamic contributes to the increase in compensation per WRVU rates. 2) Subsidies: Hospitals can offset losses in one area (ie, professional services) and make up for them with gains in another (ie, ancillary services), thus keeping physician compensation at a steady level, despite changes in reimbursement. This market reality puts medical groups and physician practices in a difficult position, because they cannot draw from the same pools of revenue. 3) Organizational Shifts to Value: Many hospitals and health systems are exploring and/or transitioning to a value-based model, which incentivizes cost reductions, quality improvements, and utilization decreases. These efforts may reduce WRVU productivity, so the lower WRVU levels could represent a “new normal” in cardiology. Given the influence of these factors on recent survey trends, benchmarks may not accurately reflect cardiology practice economics. So what baseline strategies exist to mitigate the impact of fluctuating benchmarks in the near and long terms? Baseline Performance Strategies If your organization is committed to using survey benchmarks for measuring performance or calculating compensation, it is important to reduce the variability in the data and minimize organizational risk by employing a set of baseline risk mitigation strategies. Examples include using more than one survey, incorporating a rolling average of benchmark survey rates, and adding protective contract language regarding rate decreases/increases. While these strategies are pragmatic for today’s practices, the growing complexity of cardiology raises the following question: Are WRVUs the right target to measure performance? If compensation levels are dependent on benchmarks, and the benchmarks do not reflect the realities of the market, then the continued practice of benchmark-based compensation may exacerbate an existing issue. Organizations are therefore pressed to take a closer look at how value is defined (e.g., patient outcomes) and how that can be reflected in their compensation plans for cardiologists. Future Performance Strategies For those moving away from traditional benchmarkbased approaches, there are hybrid models that incorporate a nonproductivity incentive component into a WRVU-based model. Under this scenario, a plan could tie 80% of compensation to productivity and 20% to nonproductivity measures (e.g., quality, program development). Examples of incentives include patient engagement, documentation, clinical measures, and practice efficiency. Additionally, some organizations are tying incentives to operating budgets, whereby physician compensation is dictated by the revenues and expenses achieved as a cardiology business unit. However, setting the value thresholds (i.e., performance targets) can be tricky, and benchmarks are not available for many nonproductivitybased incentives. As such, it is critical to start with what an organization can actually track so that incentives can be monitored and executed upon. If they haven’t already, conversations around the executive table will soon acknowledge the need for value-based incentives. In order to move these discussions forward, leaders will wrestle with the following questions: How does our organization currently define success and measure performance? How has this changed over time? How will we do so in the future? These are not easy questions, but they must be answered in order to develop cardiology performance evaluation tools that accurately reflect the realities of the market and also align with your organization’s unique perspective on the value of cardiology. ■ Tim Patmont is a senior consultant and Katherine Collings Ray is a manager at ECG Management Consultants, Inc. Tim can be reached at tpatmont@ecgmc. com, and Katherine can be reached at [email protected]. December 2014