Equity Investment in Physician Practices: What's All This Brouhaha?

There have been two waves of equity-based investment in physician practices. Both used a combination of public and private sources but in different mixes. The first investment wave, in the 1990s, was led by public equity and physician practice management companies, with less involvement by private equity (PE). The second investment wave followed the Affordable Care Act and was led by PE firms. It has generated concerns of wasteful spending, less cost-effective care, and initiatives harmful to patient welfare. This article compares the two waves and asks if they are parallel in important ways. It describes the similarities in the players, driving forces, acquisition dynamics, spurs to consolidation, types of equity involved, models to organize physicians, and levels of market penetration achieved. The article then tackles three unresolved issues: Does PE investment differ from other investment vehicles in concerning ways? Does PE possess capabilities that other investment vehicles lack and confer competitive advantage? Does physician practice investment offer opportunities for supernormal profits? It then discusses ongoing trends that may disrupt PE and curtail its practice investment. It concludes that past may be prologue, that is, what happened during the 1990s may well repeat, suggesting the PE threat is overblown.

Federal Out-of-Network Balance Billing Legislation: Context and Implications for Radiology Practices.

Out-of-network (OON) balance billing, commonly known as surprise billing but better described as a surprise gap in health insurance coverage, occurs when an individual with private health insurance (vs a public insurer such as Medicare) is administered unanticipated care from a physician who is not in their health plan's network. Such unexpected OON care may result in substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients. Although ending surprise billing is patient centric, patient protective, and noncontroversial, passing federal legislation was challenging given its ability to disrupt insurer-physician good-faith negotiations and thus impact in-network rates. Like past proposals, the recently passed No Surprises Act takes patients out of the middle of insurer-physician OON reimbursement disputes, limiting patients' expense to standard in-network cost-sharing amounts. The new law, based on arbitration, attempts to protect good-faith negotiations between physicians and insurance companies and encourages network contracting. Radiology practices, even those that are fully in network or that never practiced surprise billing, could nonetheless be affected. Ongoing rulemaking processes will have meaningful roles in determining how the law is made operational. Physician and stakeholder advocacy has been and will continue to be crucial to the ongoing evolution of this process. © RSNA, 2021.

Implications of the severe acute respiratory syndrome associated with the novel coronavirus-2 on vascular surgery practices.

BACKGROUND: We sought to understand the effects of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) on vascular surgery practices as related to the Vascular Activity Condition (VASCON) scale. METHODS: All members of the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society were surveyed on the effects of COVID-19 in their practices, educational programs, and self-reported grading of their surgical acuity level using the VASCON scale. RESULTS: Total response rate was 28% (206/731). Most respondents (99.5%) reported an effect of COVID-19 on their practice, and most were VASCON3 or lower level. Most reported a decrease in clinic referrals, inpatient/emergency room consults, and case volume (P < .00001). Twelve percent of respondents have been deployed to provide critical care and 11% medical care for COVID-19 patients. More than one-quarter (28%) face decreased compensation or salary. The majority of respondents feel vascular education is affected; however, most feel graduates will finish with the necessary experiences. There were significant differences in answers in lower VASCON levels respondents, with this group demonstrating a statistically significant decreased operative volume, vascular surgery referrals, and increased hospital and procedure limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all vascular surgeons studied are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic with decreased clinical and operative volume, educational opportunities for trainees, and compensation issues. The VASCON level may be helpful in determining surgical readiness.

The financial evolution of endovascular aneurysm repair delivery in contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVE: The fiscal impact of endovascular repair (EVR) of aortic aneurysms and the requisite device costs have previously highlighted the tenuous long-term financial sustainability among Medicare beneficiaries. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have since reclassified EVR remuneration paradigms with new Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs) intended to better address the procedure's cost profile. The impact of this change remains unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to compare EVR-specific costs and revenue among Medicare beneficiaries both before and after this change. METHODS: All infrarenal EVRs performed in fiscal years (FYs) 2014 and 2015, before the MS-DRG change, and those performed in FYs 2017 and 2018, after the MS-DRG change, were identified using the DRG codes 238 (n = 108) and 269 (n = 84), respectively. We then identified those who were treated according to the instructions for use guidelines with a single manufacturer's device and billed to Medicare (n = 23 in FY14-15; n = 22 in FY17-18). From these cohorts, we determined total procedure technical costs, technical revenue, and net technical margin in conjunction with the hospital finance department. Results were then compared between these two groups. RESULTS: The two cohorts demonstrated similar demographic profiles (FY14-15 vs FY17-18 cohort: age, 78 years vs 74 years; median length of stay, 1.0 day vs 1.0 day). Mean total technical costs were slightly higher in the FY17-18 group ($24,511 in FY14-15 vs $26,445 in FY17-18). Graft implants continued to account for a significant portion of the total cost, with the device cost accounting for 56% of the total procedure costs in both cohorts. Net revenue was greater in the FY17-18 group by $5800 ($30,698 in FY14-15 vs $36,498 in FY17-18), resulting in an increased overall margin in the FY17-18 group compared with the FY14-15 group ($6188 in FY14-15 vs $10,053 in FY17-18). CONCLUSIONS: Device costs remain the single greatest cost driver associated with EVR delivery. DRG reclassification of EVR to address total procedure and implant costs appears to better address the requisite associated procedure costs and may thereby better support long-term fiscal sustainability of this procedure for hospitals and health systems alike.

The financial and employment effects of coronavirus disease 2019 on physicians in the United States.

Although the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created havoc with the U.S healthcare system and physicians, the financial and contractual implications for physicians are now beginning to come to the forefront. Financial assistance from the federal government has mainly been received by hospitals, which have borne the brunt of the COVID-19 illness. Some physician groups have, or are, receiving assistance through a few programs, although the accelerated and advance payments have been suspended. Employed surgeons are now being furloughed, terminated, or persuaded to agree to a significant cut in pay, forego bonuses, or take leave without pay as healthcare systems and some physician groups have started to experience the consequences of halting elective procedures. Newly hired surgeons might be forced in a few cases to agree to delays in starting their employment, new amendments, changes in employment status, and other terms for fear of losing their employment. In the present report, we have explained some agreement terminology and options available to allow physicians to understand the terms of their employment agreement and make their decisions after consulting with an expert healthcare attorney.

Financing Buprenorphine Treatment in Primary Care: A Microsimulation Model.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the financial impact to primary care practices of alternative strategies for offering buprenorphine-based treatment for opioid use disorder. METHODS: We interviewed 20 practice managers and identified 4 approaches to delivering buprenorphine-based treatment via primary care practice that differed in physician and nurse responsibilities. We used a microsimulation model to estimate how practice variations in patient type, payer, revenue, and cost across primary care practices nationwide would affect cost and revenue implications for each approach for the following types of practices: federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHCs in urban high-poverty areas, non-FQHCs in rural high-poverty areas, and practices outside of high-poverty areas. RESULTS: The 4 approaches to buprenorphine-based treatment included physician-led visits with nurse-led logistical support; nurse-led visits with physician oversight; shared visits; and solo prescribing by physician alone. Net practice revenues would be expected to increase after introduction of any of the 4 approaches by $18,000 to $70,000 per full-time physician in the first year across practice type. Yet physician-led visits and shared medical appointments, both of which relied on nurse care managers, consistently produced the greatest net revenues ($29,000-$70,000 per physician in the first year). To ensure positive net revenues with any approach, providers would need to maintain at least 9 patients in treatment, with a no-show rate of <34%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a simulation model, we estimate that many types of primary care practices could financially sustain buprenorphine-based treatment if demand and no-show rate requirements are met, but a nurse care manager-based approach might be the most sustainable.

Medical students' perspectives on earning opportunities of self-employed physicians - realistic and relevant for the process of career choice?

BACKGROUND: Several studies report a substantial impact of financial considerations on the process of specialty choice and the willingness to establish one's own practice. In Germany, reliable information on self-employed physicians' earning opportunities is basically available, but not easily accessible and understandable for medical students. Misperceptions might contribute to recruitment problems in some fields, particularly in general practice. In order to identify a possible need for action, we investigated current German medical students' level of information regarding future earnings, and whether net earnings of general practitioners and other physicians working self-employed are estimated realistically. Additionally, we explored students' self-assessments regarding the extent of the impact of expected earnings on their personal career choice process. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey among fourth year (of six) medical students at one medical school (Leipzig). The participants estimated the net earnings of different physicians working self-employed. These estimations were compared with actual earnings data derived from a large German practice panel. RESULTS: Response rate was 73.6% (231/314). The participants' mean age was 24.9 years and 59.1% were women. On a 10-point scale ranging from 1 = 'no influence' to 10='very big influence', 92.6% of the participants described at least some (≥2) influence of earning expectations on their career choice process, and 66.2% stated this influence to be 5 or higher. Every fourth student (26.4%) would rather or definitely reject a certain specialty because of expected low earning opportunities. While 60.4% had already thought about future earnings, only 26.8% had obtained concrete information. Compared with the data derived from the practice panel, the participants substantially underestimated the earning opportunities in self-employed settings, including general practice (median: 4500 vs. 6417€). However, depending on the single estimations, between 87.7 and 95.6% of the students stated they were 'rather uncertain' or 'very uncertain' regarding their estimations. CONCLUSIONS: Despite confirming a relevant impact of financial considerations on career choice, German fourth year medical students are not well informed about earning opportunities in self-employed settings. Providing easily understandable information could enhance transparency and might help students to consider financial issues of career choice on a realistic basis.

Estimating the Costs and Income of Providing Vaccination to Adults and Children.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccinations are recommended to prevent serious morbidity and mortality. However, providers' concerns regarding costs and payments for providing vaccination services are commonly reported barriers to adult vaccination. Information on the costs of providing vaccination is limited, especially for adults. METHODS: We recruited 4 internal medicine, 4 family medicine, 2 pediatric, 2 obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) practices, and 2 community health clinics in North Carolina to participate in a study to assess the economic costs and benefits of providing vaccination services for adults and children. We conducted a time-motion assessment of vaccination-related activities in the provider office and a survey to providers on vaccine management costs. We estimated mean cost per vaccination, minimum and maximum payments received, and income. RESULTS: Across all provider settings, mean cost per vaccine administration was $14 with substantial variation by practice setting (pediatric: $10; community health clinics: $15; family medicine: $17; OBGYN: $23; internal medicine: $23). When receiving the maximum payment, all provider settings had positive income for vaccination services. When receiving the minimum reported payments for vaccination services, pediatric and family medicine practices had positive income, internal medicine, and OBGYN practices had approximately equal costs and payments, and community health clinics had losses or negative income. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, vaccination service providers appeared to have small positive income from vaccination services. In some cases, providers experienced negative income, which underscores the need for providers and policymakers to design interventions and system improvements to make vaccination services financially sustainable for all provider types.

SCAI/ACVP expert consensus statement on cardiovascular catheterization laboratory economics: If the cath lab is your home you should understand its finances: This statement was endorsed by the Alliance of Cardiovascular Professionals (ACVP) in April 2019.

This article is intended for any physician, administrator, or cardiovascular catheterization laboratory (CCL) staff member who desires a fundamental understanding of finances and economics of CCLs in the United States. The authors' goal is to illuminate general economic principles of CCL operations and provide details that can be used immediately by CCL leaders. Any article on economics in medicine should start by acknowledging the primacy of the principles of medical ethics. While physicians have been trained to act in the best interests of their patients and avoid actions that would harm patients it is vitally important that all professionals in the CCL focus on patients' needs. Caregivers both at the bedside and in the office must consider how their actions will affect not only the patient they are treating at the time, but others as well. If the best interests of a patient were to conflict with any recommendation in this article, the former should prevail. KEY POINTS: To be successful and financially viable under current payment systems, CCL physicians, and managers must optimize the outcomes and efficiency of care by aligning CCL leadership, strategy, organization, processes, personnel, and culture. Optimizing a CCL's operating margin (profitability) requires maximizing revenues and minimizing expenses. CCL managers often focus on expense reduction; they should also pay attention to revenue generation. Expense reduction depends on efficiency (on-time starts, short turn-over time, smooth day-to-day schedules), identifying cost-effective materials, and negotiating their price downward. Revenue optimization requires accurate documentation and coding of procedures, comorbidities, and complications. In fee-for-service and bundled payment reimbursement systems, higher volumes of procedures yield higher revenues. New procedures that improve patient care but are expensive can usually be justified by negotiating with vendors for lower prices and including the "halo effect" of collateral services that accompany the new procedure. Fiscal considerations should never eclipse quality concerns. High quality CCL care that prevents complications, increases efficiency, reduces waste, and eliminates unnecessary procedures represents a win for patients, physicians, and CCL administrators.

How accurate are we? A comparison of resident and staff physician billing knowledge and exposure to billing education during residency training

Background: Practice management is an overlooked and undertaught subject in medical education. Many physicians feel that their exposure to billing education during residency training was inadequate. The purpose of this study was to compare resident and staff physicians in terms of their billing knowledge and exposure to billing education during residency training. Methods: Senior residents and staff physicians completed a scenario-based clinical billing assessment. Posttest surveys were completed to determine exposure to practice management and billing education during training. Results: A total of 16 resident physicians and 17 staff physicians completed the billing assessment. Overall, the billing accuracy of respondents was poor. Staff physicians had a greater percentage of correct billing codes (55.3% v. 37.5%, p < 0.001) and underbilled codes (6.2% v. 3.4%, p = 0.009), with fewer missed billing codes (38.5% v. 59.1%, p < 0.001), compared with resident physicians. The percentage value of correct billings was significantly higher for staff physicians (71.5% v. 56.8%, p = 0.01). In the posttest survey, 100.0% of residents and 79.0% of staff physicians desired more billing education during training. Conclusion: In general, staff physicians billed more accurately than resident physicians, but even experienced staff physicians missed a substantial amount of potential revenue because of billing errors and omissions. The majority of the residents and staff physicians who participated in our study felt that current billing education is both insufficient and ineffective. Incorporating practice management and billing education into residency training is critical to ensure that the next generation of medical trainees possess the financial competence to required to manage a successful medical practice.

Contexte: La gestion médicale est un sujet souvent oublié et trop peu enseigné durant les études de médecine. Beaucoup de médecins ont l'impression que la formation sur la facturation offerte durant leur résidence était insuffisante. L'objectif de cette étude était de comparer les connaissances sur la facturation et l'exposition, durant la résidence, à la formation sur ce sujet des résidents et des médecins membres du personnel. Méthodes: Les résidents seniors et les médecins membres du personnel ont effectué une évaluation de facturation clinique à partir de mises en situation. Ils ont répondu à un sondage après le test pour déterminer leur exposition à la formation sur la gestion médicale et la facturation durant leurs études. Résultats: Au total, 16 médecins résidents et 17 médecins membres du personnel ont fait l'évaluation de facturation. Dans l'ensemble, l'exactitude de leur facturation était faible. Les médecins membres du personnel avaient un pourcentage plus élevé de codes de facturation corrects (55,3 % contre 37,5 %, p < 0,001) et de codes de facturation insuffisants (6,2 % contre 3,4 %, p = 0,009), et avaient moins de codes manquants (38,5 % contre 59,1 %, p < 0,001), comparativement aux médecins résidents. Le pourcentage de facturations correctes était significativement plus élevé chez les médecins membres du personnel (71,5 % contre 56,8 %, p = 0,01). Dans le sondage post-test, 100,0 % des résidents et 79,0 % des médecins membres du personnel désiraient avoir davantage de formation sur la facturation durant les études. Conclusion: En général, les médecins membres du personnel ont produit des factures plus exactes que les médecins résidents, mais même des médecins membres du personnel expérimentés ont perdu des revenus potentiels considérables en raison d'erreurs de facturation et d'omissions. La majorité des résidents et des médecins membres du personnel qui ont participé à l'étude avaient l'impression que la formation actuelle sur la facturation était à la fois insuffisante et inefficace. Il est essentiel d'intégrer la formation sur la gestion médicale et la facturation dans la résidence pour garantir que la prochaine génération de futurs médecins possède les compétences financières nécessaires pour gérer un cabinet prospère.

Efficiency of physician specialist groups.

This is the first study to use stochastic frontier analysis to simultaneously estimate the technical, cost and profit efficiency of physician practices for different physician specialist groups. We base our analysis on a unique panel data set of 4964 physician practices in Germany for the years 2008 to 2010. The data contains information on practice costs and revenues, services provided, as well as physician characteristics and practice characteristics. Additionally we consider a wide range additional variables not previously analyzed in this context (e.g. sub-specialization of physician groups and environmental factors such as physician density in the area). We investigate differences in cost, technical and profit efficiency utilizing production-/cost- and profit-functions with a translog functional form. We estimated the stochastic frontier using the comprehensive one-step approach for panel data following Battese and Coelli (Empir Econ 20(2): 325-332, 10). Overall findings indicate that participation in disease management programs and the degree of specialization are associated with significantly higher technical- cost-, and profit-efficiency for most physician specialist groups, e.g. due to the standardization of processes. In addition, our analyses show that group practices perform significantly better than single practices. This may be due to indivisibilities in expensive technical equipment, which can lead to different health care services being provided by different practice types. A more thorough look at specialist groups suggests that it is important to investigate all efficiency types for different physician groups, as results may depend on the type of efficiency analyzed as well as the physician group in question.

Profit efficiency of physician practices: a stochastic frontier approach using panel data.

While determinants of efficiency have been the subject of a large number of studies in the inpatient sector, relatively little is known about factors influencing efficiency of physician practices in the outpatient sector. With our study, we provide the first paper to estimate physician practice profit efficiency and its' determinants. We base our analysis on a unique panel data set of 4964 physician practices for the years 2008 to 2010. The data contains information on practice costs and revenues, services provided, as well as physician and practice characteristics. We specify the profit function of the physician practice as a translog functional form. We estimated the stochastic frontier using the comprehensive one-step approach for panel data of Battese and Coelli (1995). For estimation of the profit function, we regressed yearly profit on several inputs, outputs and input/output price relationships, while we controlled for a range of control variables such as patients' case-mix or share of patients covered by statutory health insurance. We find that participation in disease management programs and the degree of physician practice specialization are associated with significantly higher profit efficiency. In addition, our analyses show that group practices perform significantly better than single practices.

Administrative Costs Associated With Physician Billing and Insurance-Related Activities at an Academic Health Care System.

Importance: Administrative costs in the US health care system are an important component of total health care spending, and a substantial proportion of these costs are attributable to billing and insurance-related activities. Objective: To examine and estimate the administrative costs associated with physician billing activities in a large academic health care system with a certified electronic health record system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used time-driven activity-based costing. Interviews were conducted with 27 health system administrators and 34 physicians in 2016 and 2017 to construct a process map charting the path of an insurance claim through the revenue cycle management process. These data were used to calculate the cost for each major billing and insurance-related activity and were aggregated to estimate the health system's total cost of processing an insurance claim. Exposures: Estimated time required to perform billing and insurance-related activities, based on interviews with management personnel and physicians. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated billing and insurance-related costs for 5 types of patient encounters: primary care visits, discharged emergency department visits, general medicine inpatient stays, ambulatory surgical procedures, and inpatient surgical procedures. Results: Estimated processing time and total costs for billing and insurance-related activities were 13 minutes and $20.49 for a primary care visit, 32 minutes and $61.54 for a discharged emergency department visit, 73 minutes and $124.26 for a general inpatient stay, 75 minutes and $170.40 for an ambulatory surgical procedure, and 100 minutes and $215.10 for an inpatient surgical procedure. Of these totals, time and costs for activities carried out by physicians were estimated at a median of 3 minutes or $6.36 for a primary care visit, 3 minutes or $10.97 for an emergency department visit, 5 minutes or $13.29 for a general inpatient stay, 15 minutes or $51.20 for an ambulatory surgical procedure, and 15 minutes or $51.20 for an inpatient surgical procedure. Of professional revenue, professional billing costs were estimated to represent 14.5% for primary care visits, 25.2% for emergency department visits, 8.0% for general medicine inpatient stays, 13.4% for ambulatory surgical procedures, and 3.1% for inpatient surgical procedures. Conclusions and Relevance: In a time-driven activity-based costing study in a large academic health care system with a certified electronic health record system, the estimated costs of billing and insurance-related activities ranged from $20 for a primary care visit to $215 for an inpatient surgical procedure. Knowledge of how specific billing and insurance-related activities contribute to administrative costs may help inform policy solutions to reduce these expenses.

Reimbursement in hospital-based vascular surgery: Physician and practice perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine change in value of a vascular surgery division to the health care system during 6 years at a hospital-based academic practice and to compare physician vs hospital revenue earned during this period. METHODS: Total revenue generated by the vascular surgery service line at an academic medical center from 2010 through 2015 was evaluated. Total revenue was measured as the sum of physician (professional) and hospital (technical) net revenue for all vascular-related patient care. Adjustments were made for work performed, case complexity, and inflation. To reflect the effect of these variables, net revenue was indexed to work relative value units (wRVUs), case mix index, and consumer price index, which adjusted for work, case complexity, and inflation, respectively. Differences in physician and hospital net revenue were compared over time. RESULTS: Physician work, measured in RVUs per year, increased by 4%; case complexity, assessed with case mix index, increased by 10% for the 6-year measurement period. Despite stability in payer mix at 64% to 69% Medicare, both physician and hospital vascular-related revenue/wRVU decreased during this period. Unadjusted professional revenue/wRVU declined by 14.1% (P = .09); when considering case complexity, physician revenue/wRVU declined by 20.6% (P = .09). Taking into account both case complexity and inflation, physician revenue declined by 27.0% (P = .04). Comparatively, hospital revenue for vascular surgery services decreased by 13.8% (P = .07) when adjusting for unit work, complexity, and inflation. CONCLUSIONS: At medical centers where vascular surgeons are hospital based, vascular care reimbursement decreased substantially from 2010 to 2015 when case complexity and inflation were considered. Physician reimbursement (professional fees) decreased at a significantly greater rate than hospital reimbursement for vascular care. This trend has significant implications for salaried vascular surgeons in hospital-based settings, where the majority of revenue generated by vascular surgery care is the technical component received by the facility. Appropriate care for patients with vascular disease is increasingly resource intensive, and as a corollary, reimbursement levels must reflect this situation if high-quality care is to be maintained.

Relative value unit-based compensation incentivization in an academic vascular practice improves productivity with no early adverse impact on quality.

OBJECTIVE: Given the increased pressure from governmental programs to restructure reimbursements to reflect quality metrics achieved by physicians, review of current reimbursement schemes is necessary to ensure sustainability of the physician's performance while maintaining and ultimately improving patient outcomes. This study reviewed the impact of reimbursement incentives on evidence-based care outcomes within a vascular surgical program at an academic tertiary care center. METHODS: Data for patients with a confirmed 30-day follow-up for the vascular surgery subset of our institution's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program submission for the years 2013 and 2014 were reviewed. The outcomes reviewed included 30-day mortality, readmission, unplanned returns to the operating room, and all major morbidities. A comparison of both total charges and work relative value units (RVUs) generated was performed before and after changes were made from a salary-based to a productivity-based compensation model. P value analysis was used to determine if there were any statistically significant differences in patient outcomes between the two study years. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in outcomes of the core measures studied was identified between the two periods. There was a trend toward a lower incidence of respiratory complications, largely driven by a lower incidence in pneumonia between 2013 and 2014. The vascular division had a net increase of 8.2% in total charges and 5.7% in work RVUs after the RVU-based incentivization program was instituted. CONCLUSIONS: Revenue-improving measures can improve sustainability of a vascular program without negatively affecting patient care as evidenced by the lack of difference in evidence-based core outcome measures in our study period. Further studies are needed to elucidate the long-term effects of incentivization programs on both patient care and program viability.

Medical Malpractice Damage Caps and Provider Reimbursement.

A common state legislative maneuver to combat rising healthcare costs is to reform the tort system by implementing caps on noneconomic damages awardable in medical malpractice cases. Using the implementation of caps in several states and large database of private insurance claims, I estimate the effect of damage caps on the amount providers charge to insurance companies as well as the amount that insurance companies reimburse providers for medical services. The amount providers charge insurers is unresponsive to tort reform, but the amount that insurers reimburse providers decreases for some procedures. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The effects of expanding outpatient and inpatient evaluation and management services in a pediatric interventional radiology practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite a continuing emphasis on evaluation and management clinical services in adult interventional radiology (IR) practice, the peer-reviewed literature addressing these services - and their potential economic benefits - is lacking in pediatric IR practice. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effects of expanding evaluation and management (E&M) services through the establishment of a dedicated pediatric interventional radiology outpatient clinic and inpatient E&M reporting system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected and analyzed E&M current procedural terminology (CPT) codes from all patients seen in a pediatric interventional radiology outpatient clinic between November 2014 and August 2015. We also calculated the number of new patients seen in the clinic who had a subsequent procedure (procedural conversion rate). For comparison, we used historical data comprising pediatric patients seen in a general interventional radiology (IR) clinic for the 2 years immediately prior. An inpatient E&M reporting system was implemented and all inpatient E&M (and subsequent procedural) services between July 2015 and September 2015 were collected and analyzed. We estimated revenue for both outpatient and inpatient services using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule global non-facility price as a surrogate. RESULTS: Following inception of a pediatric IR clinic, the number of new outpatients (5.5/month; +112%), procedural conversion rate (74.5%; +19%), estimated E&M revenue (+158%), and estimated procedural revenue from new outpatients (+228%) all increased. Following implementation of an inpatient clinic reporting system, there were 8.3 consults and 7.3 subsequent hospital encounters per month, with a procedural conversion rate of 88%. CONCLUSION: Growth was observed in all meaningful metrics following expansion of outpatient and inpatient pediatric IR E&M services.

The financial impact of clinic no-show rates in an academic pediatric otolaryngology practice.

PURPOSE: To investigate determinants of no-show rates in an academic pediatric otolaryngology practice including appointment time, age, sex, new patient status, payer mix, and median household income by zip code. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review of clinic no-show rates and patient demographics in a free standing children's hospital and affiliated outpatient clinics across eight providers in a one-year period. RESULTS: Analysis shows that the overall no-show rate across all providers was 15% with the highest rate of 19% in the zip code with the lowest median income. Highest no-shows are in June, but overall, seasons did not play a significant role in no-show rates. Male gender, morning appointments, and having public insurance appear to significantly predict no-shows. Lost revenue on no-shows range from $191K to $384K per year. The average percentage of the amount billed paid by insurance range from the lowest by out-of-state Medicaid at 16% to the highest by managed care at 54%. CONCLUSIONS: No-show rates account for a significant portion of lost revenue in the outpatient setting for an academic practice, and can be predicted by lower median income, male gender, morning appointments, and public insurance. Such patients may need different appointment reminders. Future clinic templates should be optimized for no-shows to increase productivity and access to care.

Private general paediatric care availability in Melbourne.

Objective The aims of the present study were to determine the actual availability of private general paediatric appointments in the Melbourne metropolitan region for children with non-urgent chronic illnesses and the cost of such care. Methods A 'secret shopper' method was used. Telephone calls were made to a random sample of 47 private paediatric clinics. A trained research assistant posed as a parent, requesting the first available appointment with a specific paediatrician. Data regarding appointment availability, total potential charges and net charges after the Medicare rebate were collected. Results Appointments were available in 79% (n=37) of clinics, with 72% (n=34) able to offer an appointment with the requested general paediatrician. The number of days until available appointments varied from same day appointments to a wait of 124 days, with an average wait of 33 days. Of practices that provided information about the appointment cost (n=42), five bulk-billed for the consultation, whereas the remainder (n=37) were fee-paying clinics. The potential maximum charge for an initial consultation in the fee-paying clinics ranged from A$177 to A$430, with an average cost of A$279. The potential maximum out-of-pocket cost for patients ranged from A$40 to A$222, with an average out-of-pocket cost of A$128. Conclusions Private paediatric care in the Melbourne metropolitan region is generally available. The out-of-pocket cost of private paediatric out-patient care may present a potential economic barrier for some families. What is known about the topic? In Australia, out-of-pocket expenses for private specialist care are not covered by private health insurance. There are no data available on the actual cost of private paediatric consultations that are based on real-time assessments. Data collected in 1998 suggested that the average waiting time for a first standard consultation with a general paediatrician in a private room was 14.1 days. There are no recent empirical data on appointment availability and waiting time for appointments with general paediatricians in Australia. What does this paper add? There is high availability of paediatric consultations in the private sector. Waiting times for an appointment vary considerably from same day appointments to a wait of 124 days, with an average wait of 33 days. The cost of a private paediatric consultation in Australia to the patient is considerable, with an average potential maximum up-front charge for an initial consultation of A$279 and an average potential maximum out-of-pocket cost of A$128. What are the implications for practitioners? Data on the availability and cost of private paediatric consultations are imperative to formulate evidence-informed policy and better understand variations in the availability of public and private care.

Project Management for Healthcare Practices: Costs and Timing.

Every medical practice and every hospital will at some point decide to incorporate a new technology, a new procedure, or a new building; hire a new doctor; or embark on literally hundreds of other projects that require going outside of the box and outside of the usual routine in order to bring the project to fruition. This article discusses project management for implementing a new brand into a medical practice or a hospital, and how to prepare a time schedule and a cost analysis to see that the project is completed on time and within budget.