Most physicians are now paid, at least in part, based on their personal productivity. Many medical groups, seeking to align physicians’ incentives to see more patients and do more procedures in a system dominated by fee-for-service reimbursement, pay physicians for their clinical services using some variation on the following formula: Clinical compensation = (National median compensation per wRVU benchmark) × (Personally performed wRVUs) + (Compensation for meeting specified clinical quality targets). There are compelling reasons for the widespread adoption of the productivity-based portion of this model, including expediency and a perception of impartiality and correctness. However, these impressions overlook a fundamental flaw in the model: General benchmark data cannot, by definition, reflect the reality of any organization’s unique situation. In relying solely on such data, an organization effectively relinquishes control of one of its largest expenses and may be risking budgets and relationships with physicians, especially in times of great uncertainty. This session will show attendees how to resolve this flaw within their own practices using real-life scenarios, with specific ways that participants can implement better contracting, oversight and communication to improve physician alignment.
Learning Objectives:
Outline a step-by-step framework to replace general benchmarks in productivity-based compensation models with a factor that works best for a given medical practice
Analyze proposed changes to compensation models so that impact can be measured at a detailed level for careful adjustments and optimized outcomes
Prepare a thoughtful, transparent physician compensation oversight process that meshes with a given medical practice’s culture
.jpg "Stuart J. Schaff, FHFMA (he/him/his) photo")