Friday, June 29, 2012

Obamacare - 7 new taxes, and believe me folks....this is just the start (of taxes associated with this law!


ObamaCare‘s new taxes that we will pay...And believe me folks...this is just the start! Why... because the Supreme Court says that the Government can do WHATEVER they like...as long as they call it a tax! I just do not like bureaucrats  having that type of power!
Here’s a rundown of seven ObamaCare tax hikes that affect the ALL AMERICANS!

No. 1. The Individual Mandate Excise Tax. Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income tax surtax. It goes up each year until 2016 and beyond when a couple would pay a tax of the higher or $1,360 or 2.5% of adjusted gross income.

No. 2. The Over-The-Counter Drugs Trap. Since Jan. 1, 2011, employees with health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts or health reimbursement accounts have no longer been able to use pre-tax funds stashed in these accounts to buy over-the-counter medicines for allergy relief and the like without a doctor’s prescription (there’s an exception for insulin).

No. 3. The Healthcare Flexible Spending Account Cap. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, employees will face a $2,500 cap on the amount of pre-tax salary deferrals they can make into a healthcare flexible spending account. There is no cap under current law. In light of the new cap, employee benefits groups are lobbying for Congress to modify the use-it-or-lose-it rule that means employees forfeit unused funds in their accounts at the end of the plan year.

No. 4. The Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, taxpayers who face high medical expenses will only be allowed a deduction for expenses to the extent they exceed 10% of adjusted gross income, up from 7.5% now. Taxpayers 65 and older can still use the old 7.5% threshold through 2016. For how to score the medical expense deduction before 2013, click here.

No. 5. The Health Savings Account Withdrawal Penalty. Since Jan. 1, 2011, taxpayers who withdraw money from health savings accounts for non-medical expenses before age 65 face a 20% penalty, up from 10% before.

No. 6. The Indoor Tanning Services Tax. Since July 1, 2010, folks using indoor tanning salons face a new 10% excise tax. This one hasn’t been bringing in as much revenue as anticipated.

No. 7. The Cadillac Health Insurance Plan Tax. Starting in 2018, there will be a new 40% excise tax on taxpayers who are covered by comprehensive health insurance plans. EXCEPT FOR UNION MEMBERS....THEY ARE EXEMPT!

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Health Savings Accounts...40% of Americans opening an HSA are over 40 years old, and make less than $50k

Bottom Line....Given a choice Americans would rather put their hard-earned money into a Savings account for to spend on their own health! The alternative is having money taken, and given to the Federal Government (Obamacare), or paying for an insurance policy that is used on occasion. The HSA would allow Americans keep their own money to use it on themselves! 40% off all Americans opening an HSA are over 40 years of age, and make less than $50K.


Health Savings Accounts Work
by Michael F. Cannon
Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on February 9, 2006

This article appeared on Philly.com on February 5, 2006.

In December 2003, President Bush signed a health-care law that had two major components. The first was the new Medicare prescription drug benefit that took effect last month. That big-government program has been widely panned as a disaster. The second was a new health insurance option called health savings accounts, or HSAs, which became available in January 2004.

Unlike the Medicare drug program, the response to HSAs has been overwhelmingly positive. In just two years, three million Americans have signed up for an HSA. More than one-third of HSA enrollees were previously uninsured, which means HSAs already may have reduced the number of uninsured by 1 million. Deloitte Consulting L.L.P. reports that, for two years running, insurance premiums for HSAs and similar plans rose at about one-third the rate of increase for other types of coverage.

So in his State of the Union address, Bush proposed expanding and enhancing HSAs. His new Medicare entitlement? He didn't even mention it. Go figure.

Fortunately, his HSA proposals would make health coverage and care better and more affordable for hundreds of millions of Americans.

HSAs couple high-deductible health insurance with a tax-free savings account (the HSA) for out-of-pocket medical expenses. Individuals and/or employers can contribute money to HSAs tax-free up to the amount of the insurance deductible. HSAs must be coupled with insurance that has a deductible of at least $1,050 for individuals and $2,100 for families.

HSA funds may be withdrawn tax-free for any medical expenses. Once expenses reach the deductible, insurance takes over. Any funds that remain in the HSA roll over from year to year and grow tax-free.

Right off the bat, HSAs save money because high-deductible insurance is cheaper than low-deductible coverage. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that the difference in premiums between the average HSA-compatible policy and the average for all types of insurance is $1,324. That is more than enough savings to cover the average annual HSA deductible ($1,901) in just two years. Sometimes, the savings covers the entire deductible in the first year.

HSAs also let consumers control more of their health-care dollars and decisions. Since consumers own the money that covers their out-of-pocket expenses, they can see any doctors they like, whenever they like. At the same time, patients scrutinize their medical bills and their doctors' recommendations more carefully because it is their money on the line.

The chronically ill, however, likely would use up all their HSA deposits in a given year and have little opportunity to save for future medical needs. Even with HSAs, consumers without access to employer-sponsored insurance still pay a hefty tax penalty when they purchase health insurance on their own.

To address those problems, the President proposes essentially doubling the limits on HSA contributions and allowing people to purchase health insurance with tax-free HSA funds. The higher contribution limits ($5,250 for individuals and $10,500 for families) would help the chronically ill and their families by allowing them to put more money aside tax-free for their medical needs. Allowing HSA funds to purchase health insurance would provide tax equity to millions who are unfairly punished by the tax code.

Critics claim that HSAs are only good for the healthy or wealthy. If true, that would mean HSAs benefit only about 80 percent of the population. Not bad, that. But in fact, eHealthInsurance.com reports that half of HSA enrollees are over 40 years old, 20 percent earn less than $35,000, and 40 percent earn less than $50,000.

Unfortunately, the President's proposals are unnecessarily complex and would continue to restrict HSAs to those who purchase high-deductible insurance. There is no reason why HSA holders should not be able to choose their health plan themselves.

Nonetheless, Bush has made a solid proposal that would improve the quality and affordability of private-sector health insurance and medical care. As for Medicare, well...


Monday, June 25, 2012

Your Doctor hates Obamacare, and here is why!


Physicians do not want a 16.7% pay decrease the day Obamacare is enacted! That is why Physicians do not like Obamacare! Oh…that 16.7% is on top of the current cuts to reimbursement that is coming from Medicare right now!
Why Your Doctor Secretly Hates Obamacare
By Katie Kieffer
In Townhall.com
April 30 2012

Your doctor won’t tell you this when you’re sitting in his office, so I will: He hates Obamacare. It’s time you know why your doctor is concerned about Obamacare.

Doctors already live in constant fear of malpractice lawsuits. The last thing they want to do is stick their necks out and publicly attack Obamacare. Doctors also do not have an effective D.C. lobby group or public advocate.

A 2011 survey by Jackson and Coker reports that most doctors believe the mega-lobbyist group, American Medical Association (AMA), fails to represent docters’ interests on Capitol Hill. Forbes Reports: Much of that dissatisfaction stems from the organization’s support for President Obama’s contentious health care reform package. … [The AMA] has backed a law that would force some physicians to work longer hours for less pay and others to operate in perpetually overcrowded emergency rooms.”

Doctors question how the AMA can represent them in D.C. while cutting back-door deals with the government. Doctors have been effectively forced to fund the AMA by purchasing Medicare and Medicaid billing code books. Dr. Jane Orient, a privately practicing doctor in Arizona, blew the whistle when she discovered that, beginning in 1998, the Health Care Financing Administration gave: “… the AMA the exclusive copyright on the codes…” reports The New American.

Since the AMA does not speak up for doctors, I will try to be a voice for doctors. Here are two primary reasons why your doctor hates Obamacare:

1.) Doctors Need Ownership

Dagny Taggart is the heroine of Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged.” At one point, Dagny asks a renowned medical doctor named Dr. Hendricks why he left the medical practice. He says: “I quit when medicine was placed under State control … Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquiring that skill [performing brain surgery]? …I would not let them [politicians] dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything—except the desires of the doctors. … Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.”

Obamacare removes ownership from the medical field. An individual doctor no longer owns his education, career or even day-to-day lifestyle choices. Under Obamacare, he goes from feeling a sense of caring ownership for his patients and his craft to feeling over-worked, under-paid and micro-managed.

Obamacare effectively steals from doctors by confiscating the skills, energy and time they have devoted to medicine. When you steal a man’s life-long passion; his hard-won goal; his lifestyle—do not expect him to be happy or to maintain his conscientious passion for practicing medicine.

2.) Doctors Need Motivation and Compensation

A better name for Obamacare is the “16.7 Percent Paycut,” because that is what it means for doctors. In order to “save” Medicare, Obamacare asks doctors to take a 16.7 percent paycut. And, guess what? Patients will suffer, not just doctors. Patients will suffer because smart and caring young men and women will forfeit their dreams of entering the medical profession and choose alternate careers that promise less stress and higher pay.

A few months ago, I had the opportunity to visit my brother at his medical school and meet some of the other medical students. They were intelligent and hard-working individuals who clearly cared about helping people. I did not get the sense that money was their primary motivation in becoming doctors.

Indeed, 60 percent of doctors are concerned that Obamacare will diminish their ability to care for patients, finds a Feb. 29, 2012 survey completed by The Doctors Company Market Research, America’s largest surgeon and physician medical liability insurer.

Money simply allows smart young Americans, like my brother and his peers, to justify spending an additional four-to-ten years after college holed up in a library just to graduate with $160,000 in debt (the median debt load for medical school grads according to a 2010 Mayo Clinic study).

There are 70 million baby-boomers out there who will be looking for geriatricians soon. But there is only one geriatrician for every 2,600 Americans over the age of 75, according to the American Geriatrics Society. Why is this? Money. Geriatricians made a median salary of $183,523 in 2010, reports the Medical Group Management Association. America desperately needs more geriatricians, but young doctors are choosing to specialize in other areas because they can earn two-to-three times more.

Money is a suitable incentive, especially when you are asking people to give up their youth studying while amassing debt. But Obamacare removes the practical “profit motive” of capitalism and replaces it with the idealistic “poverty motive” of socialism.

A Better Way

I think trying to save something that is hopelessly broken, like Medicare, is a mistake. Ultimately, I think it’s a choice between complete government control over limited medical care resources or a more freedom-based system where prices are lower because competition exists and health insurance is actually insurance (now, insurance covers basic, common care which is ridiculous and causes overall healthcare costs to rise). Insurance should only be involved in major medical care; otherwise, it’s not insurance, it’s maintenance.

When it comes to medicine, you get what you pay for. As patients, I think we should be willing to pay a little more in exchange for the highest quality of care. Sorry, President Obama, but your plan is “JurassicParkCare”—doctors go extinct and their patients go untreated while your buddies in Hollywood cheer.


Monday, June 18, 2012

AFTER OBAMA CARE IS DEFEATED GET READY FOR "Accountable Care Organizations"!

AFTER OBAMA CARE IS DEFEATED GET READY FOR "Accountable Care Organizations"!


Supreme court ruling won't stop push to control health costs


HACKENSACK, N.J. – In 2010, Fred Aueron and his partners looked at the new health care reform law and decided to sell their five-doctor practice.

Medicare reimbursements were dropping, and private-insurance reimbursements were worse. To compete, they needed to be much bigger.

And none of those pressures will change, he says, if the Supreme Court throws out the law when it issues its long-awaited ruling, which could come soon as Monday.

"The small, onesie-twosie practice where you put up your shingle out of medical school is not going to be there any more," the 59-year old Millburn, N.J., cardiologist said. "The strategy was to go to a hospital or a large group. And if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) weren't there, it would be something else."

From Wall Street, the decision's potential impact on health care — and the health care business — looks huge.Barclays Captial analyst Joshua Raskin says some health insurance stocks might drop 30% if the court throws out the entire law.

The ACA would require Americans to buy insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, subsidize coverage for the working class, expand Medicaid and reform Medicare, and further regulate insurance carriers — all in hopes of covering most of the 50 million Americans without insurance and cutting the 18% of gross domestic product the U.S. spends on health care.

Across the Hudson River in New Jersey, the decision's impact looks much smaller. At Summit Medical Group, which bought Aueron's practice and is the state's largest practice group, and Hackensack University Medical Center, its largest hospital, health care's bruising economics and falling reimbursements are spurring change before most of the act takes effect.

Both institutions provide a similar picture of America's health care future, with or without the ACA. They're big and getting bigger through mergers. They're tightening up management to respond to Medicare's push for cost containment and higher-quality care, which preceded the law.

The reason: Medical inflation, while moderating, continues to outpace general inflation, driving fiscal problems for states and for Washington. At the same time, health care remains a tough business: Bond-rating agency Moody's says non-profit hospitals, which control most of the U.S. market, have their lowest revenue growth in 50 years.

Both institutions are experimenting with new ways of getting paid. Hackensack is a trial site for new federally backed payment models such as Accountable Care Organizations, which bundle payments to encourage preventive care and try to de-emphasize costly tests and hospitalizations. Summit is part of a different federally backed experiment where better prevention and integration has helped a group of New Jersey practices cut emergency-room visits by a quarter and hospital readmissions by 27%, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield says. Both are spending millions on electronic medical records systems to avoid mistakes and document quality of care — a must as talks with insurers to get above-market reimbursements get tougher.

"The act made us all talk about it, think about it, and do it," said Ihor Sawczuk, chief medical officer at Hackensack. "But I don't think it will stop. It's the right thing to do."

Building scale to save fees

Jeffrey LeBenger understands the need to make health care cheaper. But he still wants his doctors to get paid.

The Brooklyn-raised ear-nose-and-throat doctor, who has been Summit's chairman for 12 years, knows many health care scholars cheer on networks like Pennsylvania-based Geisinger Health System, believing their use of salaried doctors limits hospitalizations, expensive tests, even excessive end-of-life care. But that's not Summit's business model, and LeBenger's job is to find a way to make his business work in a post-reform world — mending fee-for-service rather than ending it. Summit charges higher fees, yes, but delivers a lower total cost by reducing how much care people need to stay healthy, he says.

"I'll get the patient better, sooner," he said. "Our rates may be higher, but we don't overutilize, and we can prove it."

Running essentially a large corporation built on fee-for-service medicine, the Summit Medical chairman's changes aim to justify Summit's rates by helping patients reduce how much care they need to stay healthy. Since the Affordable Care Act is built to accommodate fee-for-service, a lot of health care's future will reflect his formula: using size and scale as an alternative to moving doctors onto a hospital payroll.

"The Affordable Care Act reflects a lot of what we're doing," Chief Financial Officer Rob Booth said. "Electronic medical records and a multispecialty environment where there is collaboration and quality management because there's enough scale to make the investment."

Make no mistake: Summit is big. When it took over the Berkley Heights campus of Dun & Bradstreet, it had to expand it. It has 1,200 employees and 134,000 patients — aided by acquisitions that brought in 27 doctors since 2010, part of the 81 new docs added in the last five years. In parts of New Jersey, its market share is 40%. It plans more mergers this year to deepen its share in other counties, LeBenger said.

The goal is end-to-end medicine, nearly eliminating out-of-network testing and referrals that cost insurers extra. Summit has doctors in 70 specialties, its own same-day surgery center, even its own urgent-care center, a kind of junior emergency room. Only 6% to 7% of Summit's urgent-care patients are admitted to hospitals, LeBenger said, vs. the 13% to 15% of ER patients the Centers for Disease Control says were admitted in the U.S. in 2008.

Booth claims Summit can deliver 20% lower costs when its doctors provide more than half of a patient's care.

The strategy also demands management and supervision of individual doctors by the firm itself.

Summit has an in-house quality assessment team, whose tasks include reviewing care to make sure hospital stays are kept as short as possible; an electronic medical records system to coordinate care, prevent mistakes that require more treatment and to emphasize generic medications. It even commissioned New York University’s business school to create a medical-economics and management course for SMG doctors The intense focus on studying practice patterns lets Summit sign contracts with insurers that let them gain rewards for saving payers money, said Pegeen Butterfield, a nurse who is Summit's director of care management.

It all costs money small practices don't have, up to 20% of Summit's revenue, Booth says. It's also leading to changes in pay practices: For example, the group now employs hospitalists to monitor patients inside hospitals, and up to a third of their compensation is bonuses tied to quality metrics, tracked by the EMRs, such as average length of stay and how often patients are readmitted.

The benefit patients can see is convenience, says Kara Whitely, a client from Summit, N.J.

Summit doctors delivered Whitely's baby, gave her shots before she traveled to Tanzania to climb Mount Kilimanjaro and, she says, removed her toenail and fixed her stress fracture when she got back. The shared records mean everyone she sees "knows my story." The size of the practice doesn't make it too impersonal, she said.

"If you go to a big university, you still find professors you connect with," she said. "I know the campus and doctors. It's a brand thing, and a trust thing."

There's a harder-headed economic reason, too, Aueron says. The mergers let Summit have enough presence at more hospitals in New Jersey that it gains more leverage on insurers.

Specialization and market share

Robert Garrett says to forget the idea that health care reform will mean lots of money for hospitals. Instead, the chief executive of Hackensack says it has to get smarter — and bigger — with or without the Affordable Care Act.

"If there's an increase in Medicaid, it will be more than paid for by Medicare cuts," Garrett said. The hospital, which gets nearly 40% of its $1.3 billion in annual revenue from Medicare and Medicaid, never took a position on the law, he said.

Like Summit, Hackensack is making deals to grow. Already the biggest employer in an affluent county of 900,000, the hospital, 7 miles west of Manhattan, has taken over the closed 128-bed Pascack Valley Hospital. It has also applied for permission to acquire 365-bed Mountainside Hospital in Montclair and has an alliance with a third hospital for cancer care. Dallas investor Legacy Health Systems will own a majority of Pascack and Mountainside, contributing $90 million to the Pascack deal.

Its strategy is to use Hackensack's national-class capabilities in areas such as cardiology and oncology to lure New Jersey's most complex cases to doctors who handle such patients more often.

"The idea is to export Hackensack quality to the community hospitals, but if there's something very specialized, rather than sending that patient to New York they can come to Hackensack," Garrett said.

One measure the plan is working: The bond-rating agency Moody's raised Hackensack's credit rating last July, saying the non-profit company's combination of mergers, specialized units that are boosting volume, and cost-cutting, including freezing its pension plan, made its already investment-grade debt even stronger.

Quality counts

Another part of Hackensack's plan is becoming a test site for a Medicare cost-containment plan called Accountable Care Organizations.

Launched in April, Hackensack's ACO is an alliance of the hospital and local doctors to emphasize prevention by encouraging early-intervention and disease management plans, and letting providers keep part of the savings. The pilot was authorized by the Affordable Care Act but is similar to earlier Medicare quality initiatives, Sawczuk said.

Hackensack has a toe in the waters of even deeper reforms. About 250 of the 1,600 doctors who practice at the hospital are salaried employees, rather than independent contractors like Summit. And the hospital, along with other New Jersey health systems, owns a small stake in an insurance plan.

Both point toward the possibility of a very different future for the health care business, in which independent doctors become even less important, and there is much more integration between insurance companies and health care providers. That's already common in parts of the country, where integrated plans such as Kaiser Permanente and Utah's Intermountain Healthcare do business.

Movement in those directions will be gradual, hospital executives say. Younger physicians are more likely to adopt the salaried-doctor model than older colleagues, Sawczuk said. For Hackensack, an important question is how rapidly doctors can be asked to change a system that has served them well, he said.

While more radical change may take years, and the court may force trillion-dollar changes in the industry's plans, electronic medical records, mergers and incremental shifts in doctors' financial incentives to emphasize prevention and quality care will go on.

"Medicare is demanding better outcomes and lower costs regardless of what the Supreme Court does," said Bernard Bober, patient representative on the board of Hackensack's Accountable Care Organization. "It's early days. But you can bet they'll know what the outcomes of these changes are, because measurement is a big part of it."


Monday, June 11, 2012

What happens to physician and patients after the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare!

What Happens If the Supreme Court Strikes Down Obamacare
Scott Galupo is a Washington-based freelance writer writting in U.S. News.

If the chatter in our capital city this week proves accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to strike down the Affordable Care Act in full.
The question on everyone’s mind is, “What then?”
I predict that Congress’s first order of business, before addressing the plight of the uninsured, will be to reinstate, as a stand-alone measure, the section of Obamacare that closes the so-called “Donut Hole” of the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.
The reason is simple. Congress—all of it, not just one party—is over-responsive to the demands of wealthy seniors. If and when they find out they’re going to be adversely affected by the overturning of Obamacare, seniors are going to raise holy hell. And since they were the bloc of voters most resistant to its passage, the appropriate response to the ensuing outcry should be the world’s tiniest violin—but it won’t be.
Another prediction. We’re going to see a sort of strange alchemy in the opinion trends of low-information independents. When they become aware of the fact that Obamacare contained not just spinach but sweets as well, their reaction will be as follows: “But ... but, I didn’t know that was in there!”
Conor Friedorsdorf sums it up nicely at the Atlantic:
Put simply, Americans want all the freedom of a market-based health insurance system, all the security of a system heavily regulated by government, and the option to put off purchasing this guaranteed insurance until it’s needed. And all for no more than they’re paying now. It seems whoever is in power will be doomed to disappoint.
All true—with the ever-thus exception of seniors, who want to continue enjoying the benefits of single-payer insurance (for me and not for thee), and for no more than they’re paying now. They’ll likely get their wish.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Whya re Physicians selling practices to Healthcare Systems?

Seems older physicians do not want the hassle of running a practice in today's environment, and younger physician's are seeking employed opportunities!


Physicians Again are Opting to Sell Practices to Hospitals
SHARON H. FITZGERALD

This is supposed to be a story about practice management. What it is instead is a story about what physicians today, particularly those under 40, think of practice management. The bottom line? Most would prefer not to think about it at all.
That’s one factor driving the growing trend of hospitals and hospital systems purchasing medical practices. “Doctors are tired of trying to be business executives and clinicians, and this provides them the opportunity to turn their practice over and let somebody else run it,” said Kevin Boggs, a senior vice president of PivotHealth, a Brentwood-based contract management company that specializes in bringing practices into the hospital fold and ensuring a smooth transition. Then PivotHealth helps hospitals, on a full-time or interim basis, manage day-to-day office operations such as scheduling, coding, billing and claims. “We focus wholly on the physician-hospital relationship,” Boggs said.

When asked if doctors are more willing today to sell their practice to the local hospital, Boggs responded, “Absolutely, and we’re seeing that nationwide. There’s not one reason; there’s a litany of reasons.” Motivation to sell includes:

  • Rising costs, from supplies and salaries to malpractice insurance premiums,
  • Declining reimbursements,
  • Claim hassles,
  • The growing need for continued electronic sophistication,
  • The desire for more family time and a more predictable schedule,
  • The stress of personnel management and
  • Stress in general.

Boggs said practices are operating on razor-thin margins, adding pressure to physicians who don't necessarily have the requisite business skills on top of their clinical expertise. "They want to be a doctor and go home. Particularly physicians coming out of training today, they are willing to let someone else take the risk," he explained.

Wait a minute. Isn’t this sounding like the late 1980s and early 1990s? Look how that turned out. Boggs said this time it’s different. Hospitals have wised up, he said, and aren’t “building doctors taj mahals and then wondering why they are losing their shirts. Hospitals are a lot smarter about this now. They are not going in and buying good will in a practice. They’re not throwing their cash around.”

In fact, today’s hospital-practice deals revolve around the fair market value of the hard assets and perhaps a flat fee per patient chart. “Once they buy that practice, they have no guarantee that that patient is going to stay with that practice and continue to provide a downstream revenue, so they’re not willing to pay for something that they’re not sure they’re getting,” Boggs said. “We’re seeing hospitals that are not awash in cash – they’re having some struggles too because of the poor economy and a higher self-pay population, but they recognize that they have to make sure their physicians stay with them and continue to admit and order ancillary tests.”

With healthcare reform, accountable care organizations – provider partnerships forged to increase efficiency and improve patient care – are in the offing, and hospitals see the advantages of casting a net and pulling in a variety of providers to establish continuity of care and the strongest array of services possible.

But what about physicians in a community who stay independent – a large group practice or a fiercely independent doctor duo? “When we work with hospitals, we try to help them build a model across all the physicians in the community,” Boggs explained. “Hospitals are going to have to work with every physician within that continuum. We work with hospitals to help them run their own practices more efficiently, help them with their billing and operations, but we also help them set up, for lack of a better term, the old MSOs, management service organizations.” In that scenario, hospitals offer independent practices administrative services such as electronic health records and billing and charge them a fair market value. “Ultimately, what happens is that once you develop that relationship and that bridge, when the physician becomes ready to align more closely, you already have that relationship with them,” Boggs said.

Another option for a hospital-practice relationship is for the physicians to hold onto the real estate and the hospital enters into a lease, thus offering the doctor a long-term tenant. “You structure it along the line that you’re not tripping any of the issues with anti-kickback or the Stark regulations,” he said. “You’re just buying the real assets of that practice.”

Last October, the Medical Group Management Association released the results of a survey that revealed that physician compensation and revenue are negatively affected by hospital ownership of a practice. According to the report, the medium total medical revenue for a multispecialty hospital-owned practice was $448,597 per full-time physician, $350,011 lower than in not-hospital-owned groups. Specialty-care physicians in hospital-owned practices earned 19.85 percent less in total compensation than those in not-hospital-owned groups. Primary-care physicians fared better in hospital-owned practices, earning about $12,000 more than independent primary-care doctors.

Boggs said today’s typical arrangement establishes a market-competitive base salary for physicians, usually with a factor added for production. Yet a bonus isn’t based on a patients-through-the-door count. More likely, bonuses are accrued based on relative value units. Again, Boggs added, hospitals are approaching practice purchases more pragmatically this time around.