Hoping to turn a page on its problem-plagued past, University of California-Irvine Medical Center this week opens the doors to its new state-of-the-art facility. The facility is being observed with restrained optimism given the institution's 15 years of persistent problems, from fertility doctors who stole patients' eggs and embryos to failures in the liver transplant program that led to more than 30 patient deaths.
The rise in the number of patients under observation care is increasing concern in some medical quarters. The number of patients affected by the classification is growing because Medicare and private insurers want only the sickest people to be treated in costly, resource-intensive medical centers.
Massachusetts will combine federal stimulus money with an existing state assistance program so that thousands of unemployed residents will be able to get health insurance at a small fraction of the usual cost. Massachusetts already has its own program to help cover COBRA costs for low- and some middle-income unemployed people, and now the state will combine its program with the federal initiative. Massachusetts will use state money to offset the remaining one-third of a family's premium costs not covered by the federal benefit.
Troy, NY-based healthcare network Northeast Health has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that managers conspired to keep registered nurses' wages artificially low, in a move that could affect other defendants in the case and four related suits across the country. Northeast Health agreed to pay $1.25 million in the settlement. The company didn't admit any wrongdoing and called the allegations in the lawsuit "completely false and offensive." About 2,500 nurses are represented in the class, and the settlement is subject to court approval.
As their constituents continue to face soaring premiums and out-of-pocket costs and policies that cover less, Maryland legislators have introduced bills that try to provide greater accountability and regulation of the insurance industry. Insurers appear open to some of the proposals, but they oppose others and say their profit margins are being squeezed by economic and competitive pressure.
Health insurers and drug makers have showered members of the 111th Congress with millions in campaign contributions over the last four years, with a special focus on leaders who will play major roles in shaping healthcare legislation, according to a study. Health insurers and their employees contributed $2.2 million to the top 10 recipients in the House and Senate since 2005, while drug makers and their employees gave more than $3.3 million to top lawmakers during that period, according to an analysis of federal elections data by California-based advocacy group Consumer Watchdog.
As nearly everyone under the healthcare sun debates the merits of the IT component of the stimulus package, there's been considerable talk about the costs of quality improvement. +
More managers are finding that while increasing one-on-one time with staff may sometimes be a scheduling challenge, the rewards are worth the effort. +
President Barack Obama's economic American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes provisions for heightened enforcement of HIPAA and stiffer penalties for privacy and security violations. It also further strengthens rules for the marketing and release of patient information. +
Healthcare providers are witnessing the onset of another round of wide-ranging consolidation, with economic forces likely to continue as the main driver. To gain the hypothetical benefits of consolidation, healthcare CEOs should invest time in building structures and systems that work. Synergy may be a logical outcome of integration, but there are inherent forces in organizations that undermine it. CEOs must understand the natural forces that fight integration, as well as the tools they can use to create sustainable structures that keep the competing forces in balance.
No matter how you approach it, leaders of recently merged organizations must create balance. Building a stable and sustainable organization demands keen insight and effective action to manage opposing forces and competing priorities. Leaders of merged organizations seek stronger performance through market strength and effective organization and use of resources. Easier said than done. These lofty goals require more sustained attention than many results-driven executives want to invest on the front end.
Just as with designing buildings, designing organizational structures requires clear goals, careful specification of priorities, and the pragmatism to make trade-offs. In post-merger integration, leaders must create structures and systems that support strategy, streamline decision making, and align competence and responsibility. They should encourage freedom, innovation, and growth while exercising control and promoting accountability. And they must manage the conflict between appropriate specialization and desired integration of functions.
Pretty soon, it can seem distressingly bureaucratic. CEOs face concerns about centralization versus decentralization, process versus structure, and service and customer group compatibility. They will need to make decisions about reporting relationships, organizational layers, spans of control, communications, and interdependencies. Fortunately, there are a few basic principles that can help busy executives deal effectively with this complexity.
Buckets and system design
Designing an integrated system is a bit like swinging a bucket of water around your head. As you swing the bucket, you create centrifugal force that makes the bucket feel like it is pulling away from you. To keep the bucket from flying off, you need to have a strong rope attached to it and a firm grip on the rope. In the language of physics, the rope and your grip on it create a centripetal force that keeps the bucket moving in a circle around you. Centrifugal force is one that pulls away from the center, while a centripetal force is one that pulls toward the center. In the language of business, you have created a balance between decentralizing forces moving power away from the central authority and centralizing forces tending to concentrate power in the central authority.
Centrifugal forces in organizations
In business, just as in physics, there is a natural tendency for things to fly apart unless there are specific offsetting forces. Executives planning post-merger integration should be aware of the natural forces that would cause the system to disintegrate, and they should recognize and employ the necessary centralizing forces to counterbalance these.
Organizational cultures create the greatest centrifugal force. Financial and legal structures intended to segregate and protect the assets of individual organizations contribute to pulling it apart. Organizational silos, whether within or between organizations, create wedges that weaken integration efforts. Complexity or lack of clarity about mission, vision, strategy, or standards of performance add to the forces of disintegration. The common desire for organizational autonomy, managerial independence, control of unit resources, and freedom of action all tend to move authority and control away from the center. That is why organizational centrifugal force will lead organizations to split apart rather than integrate unless leaders create strong ties to hold them together.
Centripetal forces
To achieve successful post-merger integration, CEOs should employ design principles that offset the natural forces of disintegration. The first action is to create a strong, stable center. Just as with the spinning bucket, CEOs need to use a strong rope and maintain a firm grip so the integrated system does not fly apart. However, to continue the metaphor, if the rope is too short or if CEOs grip the bucket itself, movement and momentum can be stopped completely, and organizations stagnate.
Healthcare CEOs then need to consider the structure and systems that impact five interrelated—but separate—constituencies: line employees, middle management, senior management, the medical staff, and the board. At each level, different kinds of identity with the mission and vision of the organization exist. A shared sense of purpose within and between levels is a critical centralizing force. CEOs must recognize the power of symbolism and build a common identity for the members of a merged organization. This becomes the foundation of organizational culture.
Next, CEOs should build divisional and departmental structures within the organization to get work done efficiently without segregating the functions that need to interface smoothly. This process begins with a careful assessment of end-users (patients) and other customers (doctors, families, etc.) and an analysis of the organizational services and processes. The goal is to design work interfaces that eliminate unnecessary steps, work-arounds, and other inefficiencies that frustrate staff and tend to set them in opposition to the institution and each other. Uniform processes across organizational sub-units and compatible, interlocking systems hold the parts together even in the face of centrifugal forces.
Managing trade-offs
As the structure is built with these principles in mind, CEOs will need to make decisions regarding the balance between centralization and decentralization and between a flat, broad organization or a narrow, deep one. Practical considerations like span of control and management layers must be addressed.
Decisions will reflect a CEO's style and preference, but they must be informed by the degree of specialization required to provide certain services or to meet the needs of specific customer groups. It is imperative that the structure is aligned with organizational strategy. Savvy CEOs will recognize that each decision involves trade-offs, and no given structure will work perfectly.
Nevertheless, CEOs must also recognize that poor design choices will interfere with growth, innovation, communication, and decision making, and undermine integration and synergy.
Business integration and clinical integration
Most healthcare CEOs begin post-merger integration on the business side rather than the clinical side of the organization. Business systems, like billing, are more easily integrated clinical systems because business systems are typically more generic. Most CEOs and CFOs can more readily identify the efficiencies and consequent cost savings.
Moreover, business systems do not directly challenge the professional autonomy that clinicians, especially physicians, exercise in healthcare settings; however, clinical services are the core business of healthcare organizations. To exclude them from post-merger integration means foregoing the most significant opportunities for operational improvement.
To integrate or centralize business systems while leaving clinical systems essentially non-integrated means that there will continue to be powerful forces working against post-merger integration. However, in many healthcare settings pushing clinical integration too fast will generate strong resistance. Once again, CEOs must consciously evaluate the trade-offs. If they defer clinical integration for practical reasons, they should revisit that decision on a regular basis to test for readiness, as it is likely to change over time. Some healthcare CEOs have found that centralizing performance improvement/quality assurance and building meaningful leadership roles for respected clinicians in the process has been an effective centripetal force that has increased readiness. Others have found that creating uniform standards in key areas like ancillary services has similarly increased readiness for further post-merger clinical integration.
Although CEOs may not welcome an additional task on their already full plates, designing effective consolidated organizations is one of their primary responsibilities, akin to strategic planning. It requires many of the same skills and analytic rigor. Like planning, design requires a deep understanding of the business, it forces choices, and it is not permanent. Fortunately, strategic planning and organizational design overlap and are mutually supportive, although design does not involve as many unknowns as strategic planning. But organizational design is not simply moving boxes around on an organizational chart. CEOs who design as carefully as they plan will add to their competitive advantage and create stronger, healthier, and more vibrant healthcare organizations.
Pete McGinn, a former CEO of a merged system, is a senior strategist with Health Strategies & Solutions, Inc., a healthcare strategy firm based in Philadelphia, PA. For more information visitwww.hss-inc.com.
For information on how you can contribute to HealthLeaders Media online, please read our Editorial Guidelines.
Executive compensation is always a hot topic. And given the fact that we're in a recession and 50% of the nation's hospitals appear to be losing money, according to some reports, the salaries and bonuses that hospital CEOs earn will be even more heavily scrutinized.
On average, hospital presidents earned nearly $500,000 annually in salary and other benefits, according to a recent IRS survey of 485 hospitals, with a smaller group of hospitals' CEOs averaging a salary of $1.4 million. So it was no surprise when Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and a long-time critic of executive compensation, announced this week that he was concerned that such salaries may be too high.
One of Grassley's complaints is that the analysis of hospital CEO compensation is done by consultants (Visit our Lead Time blog to comment on this topic), so he hopes to introduce legislation that would put more pressure on boards to keep salaries in check.
What I'd like to know is whether staff members and physicians think their CEOs deserve their compensation.
Two years ago, Paul Levy, president and CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, asked this question on his blog. To date, he has received 48 responses—with one as recent as this week. At the time, his total compensation was about $1 million, including a $650,000 base salary, a $195,000 bonus for meeting specific performance metrics in clinical quality, patient satisfaction, and financial and benefits package.
Here's a sampling of some of those comments:
"For a $1 billion complex organization like BIDMC, the CEO's compensation is NOT the place to skimp. The best are worth a premium, and you should be prepared to pay it."
"A million a year for a hospital CEO? Probably overpaid in my book."
You are doing a fantastic job. I just don't think that what you do warrants a million dollar salary in comparison to the job your employees are doing for a tiny fraction of your salary.
If a global 20% cut in CEO pay would not result in collapse of the nation's industry (and, I think you can argue that it would NOT), then CEOs in general are paid too highly and there is fat to be cut.
Granted, this is not the best forum to gain a clear understanding of how the organization as a whole views the CEO's value. Perhaps the question should be added to employee satisfaction surveys—does your CEO earn too much, the right amount, or too little?
This knowledge could provide valuable feedback to the CEO. In order to lead effectively, CEOs have got to be on the same page with their staff members and key stakeholders. If there is a huge disconnect in how the CEO views himself or herself and how the rest of the organization views the CEO, then that organization is headed toward troubled waters—if it's not already there.
In addition, should CEOs receive bonuses for basically doing their job? I, for one, am not opposed to bonus payments for meeting certain performance metrics. But how much should that bonus truly be—30%? That is one hefty incentive. I'm not sure if a recession is the time to be handing out bonus payments, either. If your organization has to lay off employees or cut services, knowing that senior leaders still received large bonuses may be a bitter pill for employees to swallow.
Editor's note: Facing $20 million shortfall, Levy recently told staff members in an e-mail that he would be reducing his own pay by 10% and eliminating bonuses for senior managers in 2009.
Carrie Vaughan is leadership editor with HealthLeaders magazine. She can be reached at cvaughan@healthleadersmedia.com.
Note: You can sign up to receive HealthLeaders Media Corner Office, a free weekly e-newsletter that reports on key management trends and strategies that affect healthcare CEOs and senior leaders.
As I read constantly about the executive compensation levels we're seeing at companies that are insolvent, I'm reminded of Clint Eastwood's final words to the bad guys in his Dirty Harry movies.
Are you, as a top executive at a nonprofit, or a key employee of the same, getting paid too much? Well are ya, punk?
The IRS wants to know. But how much is too much?
My colleagues and I have been chatting off and on about the new Form 990 that the IRS has been working on since about 2006, and the study they've conducted on community benefit and executive compensation at nonprofit institutions, including hospitals.
To determine a baseline from which legislation and rules can be crafted, presumably, the IRS surveyed a sample of about 500 hospitals. Well, if you haven't heard, the results are in.
There are lots of moving parts, as you probably already know, and it's tough to read the tea leaves on how legislators might interpret the report and craft new regulations. But that doesn't mean the report isn't interesting reading.
One of the most interesting pieces of the recently released study is the community benefit portion, which lawmakers are likely to use as a basis for starting to measure how much hospitals give back to their community in return for their tax breaks. I've written about that extensively though, here and here. And we haven't seen much movement from Congress on quantifying what level of community benefit hospitals should seek to deliver, other than the occasional missive from crusading Sen. Charles Grassley, whose party carries about as much political clout right now as the financial services industry. And I think we can all agree that given the severity of the economic downturn, Congress has bigger fish to fry right now.
But it's not community benefit I'm curious about right now, it's the executive compensation portion of the report, which perhaps should be your biggest concern regarding your institution's relationship to the IRS. Meanwhile, Grassley's leveled his sights on executive compensation this week again (see story in "editor's picks" below). But enough fearmongering.
What got my attention in the final report was surprisingly good news for those of you who occupy the C-suite. Like the community benefit "nonstandard," the burden of proof on excessive executive compensation among nonprofit leaders lies with the IRS, at least unless and until lawmakers step in to provide more detailed guidance. Currently, under the "rebuttable presumption procedure," the IRS looks into whether such compensation might be excessive by determining the institution's policies and practices used to establish executive compensation. Generally, if you comply with the rebuttable presumption, including comparability data and independent personnel to review and establish executive compensation amounts, you should be safe, for now at least.
But given the negative attention being paid to compensation at the banks and other financials, maybe you should be worried. Executive compensation committees and the consultants they employ at many big for-profit companies seem to have "stacked the deck" in the executives' favor. Executive compensation consultants depend on these companies to hire them for other more lucrative contracts, so it behooves them to find ways to approve whatever compensation the CEO and board wants to pay. And a rising tide of high-level executive salaries has lifted all boats, so to speak, making high executive compensation easily justifiable. Just find another company or two that pays its chiefs a huge amount. These same firms provide executive compensation advice to nonprofits too.
But your organization is not a Fortune 500 company. Far from it. Compared to the obscene executive compensation numbers you'll find at the myriad failing and bailed-out financial institutions, the salary levels of executives running even the biggest and most successful nonprofit hospitals and systems are peanuts. So even if you are an outlier on nonprofit executive compensation, before you go and cut salaries willy nilly, here are some findings on executive compensation from the report. You be the judge as to whether executive compensation will continue to be something lawmakers will likely scrutinize. The following comes from the executive summary of the report, nearly verbatim:
According to the IRS, nearly all hospitals in the study reported complying with important elements of the rebuttable presumption procedure available to establish executive compensation. The results did not vary materially by demographic. The examinations confirmed widespread use by the examined hospitals of comparability data and independent personnel to review and establish executive compensation amounts.
Some facts:
The average and median total compensation amounts reported as paid to the top management official by respondents to the questionnaire were $490,000 and $377,000, respectively. By community type, the largest amounts were reported by high population and other urban and suburban hospitals while critical access hospitals reported the smallest amounts paid. Average and median total compensation paid increased with revenue size.
Hospitals were selected for examination based on high compensation amounts paid taking into account the size and circumstances of the hospital. The average and median total compensation amounts reported by the group of 20 examined hospitals were $1.4 million and $1.3 million, respectively.
Although many of the compensation amounts reported may appear high to some, nearly all examined amounts were upheld as established pursuant to the rebuttable presumption process and within the range of reasonable compensation.
So there. The IRS doesn't appear concerned, absent any new standards lawmakers say they should apply, but given the populist backlash against high executive compensation at failing financial companies, legislators seem more ready to take action than ever. Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, he of the sweetheart Countrywide mortgage deal, even inserted executive pay limits for companies that have accepted government help in the financial crisis. Granted, that's a totally different animal, but as they say down here in the South, their dander's up.
I wouldn't be surprised if at some point—after our legislators take care of preventing the end of the world as we know it—they don't start paying attention to the salaries you make as well.
So do you feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?
Philip Betbeze is finance editor with HealthLeaders magazine. He can be reached at pbetbeze@healthleadersmedia.com.Note: You can sign up to receiveHealthLeaders Media Finance, a free weekly e-newsletter that reports on the top finance issues facing healthcare leaders.