I took another “We Think We Need To Merge!” call today from a thoughtful practice on the east coast. A couple small groups, aimed at getting a more fair piece of the pie. Can’t say I blame their intent.
Practice mergers are like tattoos - they sound good when you and all your friends have had a few drinks. They even look good on a few people. “Just picture it: 70 of us, fighting UnitedHealthCare!” sounds suspiciously like, “Just picture it: a rose, right there, where no one can see it!” Face it, can you come up with a tattoo design that will look good on you 10 years from now?
The inspiration to to record this conversation came from one comment in the middle. Apparently, there’s a trustworthy lawyer in the mix (they exist) who has stated, unequivocally, that he believes the practices need to merge in order to negotiate with insurance companies. I wonder if this lawyer has ever actually negotiated a primary care insurance contract? Do you think he sees tens of thousands of dollars in fees making this happen, risk free? I sure do - whenever I see a lawyer pushing for groups to merge, I throw a GIANT RED FLAG. If the plan succeeds, he’s a genius. If it fails, there are 1001 reasons for the failure besides his insistence. And if it neither succeeds nor fails, but rides in the middle for a decade or more…you become one his favorite clients!
I’ll save the long lectures for future posts, but our experience with group mergers (which is significant) has identified a few of the myths of practice mergers:
This sounds reactive, I realize, but for every merger success I’ve seen, there have been a half-dozen failures. Perhaps I’ll provide real examples of these items above to act like warning signs for anyone following the merger footsteps.
It’s not that we think they are a bad idea, we just think they are usually done poorly and for the wrong reasons.
Or, more succinctly: groups merging simply to stick it to the insurance companies will fail. FTC issues aside, you’d better have a lot more in common than hatred for managed care or it’s never going to fly and only the lawyers will get wealthy.
All For One! (The Myths of
Chip,
While I agree with some of what you said, I disagree with your basic
premise that practice aggregation is destined to fail and not be cost
effective. I believe that small practices are going to have an
increasingly difficult time surviving or at least earning enough to
send the kids to college after all your loans are paid.
The myths you mention MAY be correct, but only if you do not realize
that these problems exist and consider them prior to any practice
aggregation. I know of many such models that work, from my own full
asset merger with my strongest competitor, to the newly formed group
without walls on Long Island, to the Peds IPA in Atlanta.
The success of these organizations stems from careful planning and
teaching of anyone involved in them what the risks and benefits are
upon entering such arrangements. It also depends on the willngness of
those involved to not control every aspect of the merger and have their
fingers in every decision. Doctors are notorious control freaks and if
this is not noted and dealt with effectively, doctors cannot get
together successful.
It is often fiendishly hard to do, but, in the long run, as Franklin
said we must all hang together as we will certainly all hang alone.
Herschel Lessin MD
Medical Director and Director of Clinical Research
The Children’s Medical Group, PLLC
Poughkeepsie, NY
All For One! (The Myths of
First, thanks for the comment. I wasn’t deliberately setting bait for you, but I should have known you couldn’t pass it up.
I don’t believe that practice aggregation is destined to fail, per
se. I DO believe it is destined to fail when the parties are a)
interested only or primarily in “screwing the insurance companies” and
b) underestimate the overhead and costs of merging. Unfortunately,
those two caveats are the norm, as you know.
Also, I don’t think your examples of successful models work as an
argument agains this. First, your merger is a model not easily
replicated in other parts of the country. Second, the Long Island
groups (there are 3 of them) have yet to actually prove any success,
imo. And are feeding their attorneys far faster than their members. And
the IPA model - as used successfully in GA (as you mention) as well as
MA, TN, and NJ - is different from practice mergers!
Look at CHA in NJ: they don’t get better rates than the majority of
our existing clients get on their own and they have, what, >100
pediatricians? When I hear about one of those LI groups getting an
“8-10%” increase from two payors, I have to ask: was that because it’s
now 15 doctors or was it because most of those practices had never
negotiated before?
Why is it that our clients on Long Island who have already
negotiated with insurance companies walked away from the LI deals?
Because they already get $80-$100 per visit when the rest get $50-$60.
As for the requirements of a successful merger: I couldn’t agree
with you more. I’ve just seen example after example of where they fail
for this reason.
Let me put it another way: more often than not, it’s not the SIZE
that matters in the negotiation, it’s the ORGANIZED EFFORT. Which helps
explain why many of our smaller practices fare better than our larger
ones…
Chip Hart - Pediatric Solutions
chip @ pcc.com
800-722-7708
http://pedsource.com/blog
All For One! (The Myths of
All valid points. Doctor’s are their worst enemy. However, I will
postulate that the vast majority of small practices are the same
practices who view business as evil and do not negotiate. They may also
be the ones who refuse to share their toys. Overhead definitely goes up
in any merger situation. The only way it works is if the top line
increases in excess of the increase in overhead. That, as you point
out, is a function of operational skill and management.
I suspect that big is better than small in many markets, simply
because the resources are there to establish the infrastructure to get
better organization and operation, and the savvy to realize why this is
important.
Also, size can improve coverage, increase income, iincrease vacation
time, and provide resources for an actual QI operation. This has
certainly been our experience.
Imagine what a big group could do with the help of your consultative skills!!
Herschel Lessin MD
Medical Director and Director of Clinical Research
The Children’s Medical Group, PLLC
Poughkeepsie, NY
All For One! (The Myths of
Again, I think that you and I agree fundamentally. But, having
actually read the materials being used for many of these merging
groups, things like “cost savings” and “economies of scale” are often
listed as primary benefits of mergers. The evidence of that is woefully
inadequate, if not invisible.
What does - or can - happen, though, is that a group of merging
offices can actually afford to hire a professional negotiator (in-house
or not) and other professional resources. That certainly happens with
positive results. It’s not the size-as-leverage that’s important but
the size-as-combined-resources that works. Which is why I often like
the IPA model.
Honestly, as part of my point above, I’d like to say the large
groups shouldn’t need our help. But, all too often, they need us more!
Chip Hart - Pediatric Solutions
chip @ pcc.com
800-722-7708
http://pedsource.com/blog