The Practice Financial Performance Report

[Pages:11]eardon onsulting, Inc.

An Affiliate of The Reardon Group Healthcare, Financial & Management Consulting

The Practice Financial Performance Report

A Practice Performance Report benchmarks a medical practice against MGMA norms for revenue and costs, balance sheets, staffing (FTE and costs), A/R and ratios. We can benchmark a medical practice using any of the more than 700 variables in the Cost Survey report.

Benchmarking operations represents more than establishing targets for expenditures. The report results should be developed through a process in which all providers including the Medical Group's Executive Management Director team (hereinafter MGMD) participate. Cost and productivity issues between providers come into clear view during this process, underscoring the need for administrative and physician leadership. For instance, the process will expose opportunities for integrating systems, facilitate dialogue among the stakeholders in the practice, and ultimately serve as a catalyst for changes in the operation.

The process of benchmarking will surface issues related to physician production, expectations for changes to the case mix and/or insurance mix and opportunities to maximize revenue through fee schedule changes.

Reporting

The reporting and analysis of operating results through financial statements must be done according to a consistent methodology. Medical practices historically report performance on the cash basis of accounting differing from the accrual methods utilized by larger businesses including hospitals. The differences in the two accounting systems are significant. For example, accrual accounting reports income when services are rendered, whereas cash basis accounting recognizes the income when the payment is received. Because physician practices are not endowed with substantial working capital, the overriding financial issue is whether there is enough cash on hand to pay expenses. In this regard, accrual accounting can provide misleading information. Furthermore, recognizing the income when services are rendered will have tax implications for the physician practice as a cash basis taxpayer, an issue that does not concern commercial enterprises and bigger businesses.

Main Office 27 Regency Plaza 871 Baltimore Pike Glen Mills, PA 19342

Telecommunications:

Main Phone: 610 459-9300

DE Phone:

302 656-5530

Fax:

610-459-5122

Internet E-Mail: Web Site:

trg@

SAMPLE PRACTICE BENCHMARKING REPORTS

Performance Measures and Benchmarking

Actual performance should be compared with benchmarked performance to monitor the financial health of the practice. External data can also be extremely useful for comparing practice performance against national and other norms. Just as the physician monitors medical vital signs such as heart rate, blood pressure and respiration in determining the health and well being of the patient, the Medical Group's Executive Management team must monitor their practice's financial vital signs in determining the financial health and well being of the medical practice in order to identify opportunities for practice performance enhancement.

Expenses

The financial health and well being of the physician practice is not determined solely by the flow of money into the practice; however, the practice's ability to manage its finances prudently is critical. Although the physician leadership should monitor all expenses, three expense categories provide them with a strong indication of practice performance:

? Total non-provider operating expenses, ? Staff salaries, and ? Provider compensation. Non-provider operating expenses (excluding provider compensation and costs of provider benefits) are expenses incurred to operate the practice and should be compared to the benchmark. Staff and physician salaries represent the wages each group receives. Since human resource expenses are the largest costs incurred by medical practices, these expenses should be closely monitored. In summary, the Practice Performance Report provides the physician leadership with the key elements that indicate the financial health and well being of their medical practice.

Sample Practice Data

In the following Tables we depict the practice operating results of a 3 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) physician medical practice specializing in Anesthesiology.

Page 2 of 11

C:\2008\TRG\Web Page\New Web Page\Data for Inserts\Benchmarking\Financial Profiles.doc

SAMPLE PRACTICE BENCHMARKING REPORTS

Table 1 depicts the practice data as reported on the cash basis for one full tax accounting year which has been recast into the same categories of Revenues and Expenses utilized in the MGMA Annual Cost Survey datasets.

TABLE #1:

Income Statement (% of Total Medical Revenue)

Table 5a

Revenue (% of Total Medical Revenue) Net fee-for-service collections/revenue Net capitation revenue Net other medical revenue Total medical revenue Net nonmedical revenue Total revenue

1/06-12/06 $

$1,418,068 $120,436 $23,616

$1,562,120 $0

$1,562,120

Percent 90.78% 7.71% 1.51%

100.00% 0.00%

100.00%

%NMR Table 5b

Cost (% of Total Medical Revenue)

Operating Cost Total business operating staff Total front office support staff Total clinical support staff cost Total ancillary support staff cost Total employed support staff benefits Total contracted support staff cost Total support staff cost

Information technology Drug Supply Medical and surgical supply Building and occupancy Furniture and equipment Admin supplies and services Professional liability insurance Other insurance premiums Outside professional fees Promotion and marketing Clinical laboratory Radiology and imaging Other ancillary services Billing purchased services Management fees paid to MSO Misc operating cost Cost allocated to practice from parent Total general operating cost

Total operating cost

Page 3 of 11

C:\2008\TRG\Web Page\New Web Page\Data for Inserts\Benchmarking\Financial Profiles.doc

1/06-12/06

$ $84,987 $102,939 $130,931 $45,010 $86,483

$5,117 $455,468

Percent 5.44% 6.59% 8.38% 2.88% 5.54% 0.33%

29.16%

$19,098 $37,825 $21,086 $101,952 $10,407 $29,913 $25,768

$2,981 $8,015 $3,305 $33,639 $6,747 $5,192 $31,441 $68,438 $16,994 $145,512 $568,312

1.22% 2.42% 1.35% 6.53% 0.67% 1.91% 1.65% 0.19% 0.51% 0.21% 2.15% 0.43% 0.33% 2.01% 4.38% 1.09% 9.32% 36.38%

$1,023,779 65.54%

SAMPLE PRACTICE BENCHMARKING REPORTS

Table 5c

Provider Cost Physician Providers Total physician compensation Total physician benefit cost Total physician cost

Nonphysician Providers Nonphysician provider compensation Nonphysician provider benefit cost Total nonphysician cost

Provider Consultants Provider Consultant Cost

Total Provider Cost

Total Cost

$490,050 $78,208

$568,258

31.37% 5.01%

36.38%

$62,214 $12,977 $75,191

3.98% 0.83% 4.81%

$0

0.00%

$643,449 41.19%

$1,667,229 106.73%

Page 4 of 11

C:\2008\TRG\Web Page\New Web Page\Data for Inserts\Benchmarking\Financial Profiles.doc

SAMPLE PRACTICE BENCHMARKING REPORTS

Table 2 depicts what is commonly referred to as a Common Size table comparison. Here the respective percentages that each dollar category of expense represents in Table 1 is compared converted to a percentage of each dollar of fee collections and the percentage of each dollar of collections that goes toward covering an item of practice expense is then compared to the National (or sometimes regional) benchmark data for your specific practice specialty. From this comparison, the percentage spread for each line item is then noted for the percentage deviance from the suggested normative data for comparison.

It is here that the major categories of expense begin to reveal themselves for items such as:

? Total support staff cost ? Total general operating cost ? Total operating cost ? Total physician cost ? Total nonphysician cost ? Total provider cost ? Total cost

From this data it begins to become evident where the major cost overruns (if any) begin to reveal themselves.

TABLE #2:

Revenues & Cost (% of Total Medical Revenue)

MGMA percentile 50 is the benchmark.

Revenue (% of Total Medical Revenue) Net fee-for-service collections/revenue Net capitation revenue Net other medical revenue Total medical revenue Net nonmedical revenue Total revenue

1/06-12/06 Percent 90.78% 7.71% 1.51% 100.00%

100.00%

MGMA Percent 97.83% 6.65% 2.16% 100.00% 0.81%

1/06-12/06 % Difference

-7.21% 15.92% -30.11%

Cost (% of Total Medical Revenue) Operating Cost

Total business operating staff Total front office support staff Total clinical support staff cost Total ancillary support staff cost Total employed support staff benefits Total contracted support staff cost Total support staff cost

Information technology

1/06-12/06 Percent 5.44% 6.59% 8.38% 2.88% 5.54% 0.33% 29.16%

1.22%

MGMA Percent 6.66% 5.76% 7.61% 3.62% 5.97% 0.38% 30.23%

1.49%

1/06-12/06 % Difference

-18.36% 14.38% 10.14% -20.49% -7.25% -13.33% -3.53%

-17.84%

Page 5 of 11

C:\2008\TRG\Web Page\New Web Page\Data for Inserts\Benchmarking\Financial Profiles.doc

SAMPLE PRACTICE BENCHMARKING REPORTS

Drug Supply Medical and surgical supply Building and occupancy Furniture and equipment Admin supplies and services Professional liability insurance Other insurance premiums Outside professional fees Promotion and marketing Clinical laboratory Radiology and imaging Other ancillary services Billing purchased services Management fees paid to MSO Misc operating cost Cost allocated to practice from parent Total general operating cost

2.42% 1.35% 6.53% 0.67% 1.91% 1.65% 0.19% 0.51% 0.21% 2.15% 0.43% 0.33% 2.01% 4.38% 1.09% 9.32% 36.38%

4.28% 1.50% 6.40% 1.10% 1.55% 2.16% 0.19% 0.47% 0.34% 1.86% 0.94% 0.55% 0.42% 3.04% 1.37% 3.98% 30.77%

Total operating cost

65.54%

61.55%

Provider Cost Physician Providers Total physician compensation Total physician benefit cost Total physician cost

31.37% 5.01%

36.38%

33.42% 5.17% 39.07%

Nonphysician Providers Nonphysician provider compensation Nonphysician provider benefit cost Total nonphysician cost

3.98% 0.83% 4.81%

2.51% 0.59% 3.13%

Provider Consultants Provider Consultant Cost

0.98%

Total Provider Cost

41.19%

42.07%

Total Cost

106.73%

100.89%

Footnotes: 1. MGMA benchmark table and selection criteria is: All Multispecialty. 2. Due to rounding "Total" may not equal the sum of the detail numbers. 3. All MGMA data in MGMA columns is from the 2006 report based on 2005 data.

-43.46% -10.01%

1.93% -39.49% 23.78% -23.74%

3.14% 8.24% -37.59% 15.96% -54.10% -39.79% 384.99% 43.97% -20.65% 134.10% 18.24%

6.48%

-6.14% -3.24% -6.90%

58.61% 40.57% 53.83%

-2.09%

5.79%

Page 6 of 11

C:\2008\TRG\Web Page\New Web Page\Data for Inserts\Benchmarking\Financial Profiles.doc

SAMPLE PRACTICE BENCHMARKING REPORTS

Table 3 depicts the staffing averages evidenced by our sample practice to those of the statistical benchmarks evidenced by those comparable competitors in the median staffing range. The far column to the right entitled Ranking suggests in what percentile your practice ranks compared to the benchmark. For instance, total front office support staff at 2.26 FTE for each 1.0 FTE physician in our sample practice is higher than the benchmark of 1.53 FTE for each 1.0 FTE physician and ranks in the 89th percentile of the benchmark data. Here for example, this higher staffing ratio should be supported by better and higher collections or it may cause the physician owners to question why their practice requires such a heavier staffing complement to that of their peers and perhaps to question what, if anything that they might do to reduce that ratio to a more manageable number (and implied cost).

Keep in mind that we always break down the analysis to the most common denominator---1.0 full time equivalent (1.0 FTE). This allows us to properly benchmark our subject practice to the normative data. Thus, where the practice suggests that it has total front office support staff at 2.26 FTE for each 1.0 FTE physician, given that we have 3.0 FTE physicians in our subject practice, then in actuality we have 6.8 FTE front desk personnel involved is servicing the needs of these 3 physicians and their CRNAs (hence, 6.8 FTE divided by 3 FTE practice physicians gives us the comparison of 2.26 FTE front office support staff, per 1.0 FTE physician).

A review of this data can serve to reveal opportunities for potential cost reduction or process improvements.

Table 3:

Staffing Comparison (Per FTE Physician)

MGMA percentile 50 is the benchmark.

Support Staff FTE General administrative Patient accounting General accounting Managed care administrative Information technology Housekeeping, maintenance, security Total business oper staff Medical receptionists Medical secretaries, transcribers Medical records Other administrative support Total front office support staff Registered Nurses Licensed Practical Nurses Medical assistants, nurse aides Total clinical support staff

1/0612/06

Per FTE Physician

0.25 0.67 0.13 0.06 0.05

0.00 1.15 1.27 0.28 0.44 0.28 2.26 0.31 0.67 0.98 1.96

1/0512/05

Per FTE Physician

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MGMA

Per FTE

Physician

0.28 0.64 0.08 0.07 0.11

1/0612/06

% Difference

9.75% -4.71% -65.38% 17.39% 58.72%

0.08 1.16 0.97 0.19 0.36 0.13 1.53 0.39 0.39 0.82 1.60

100.00% 1.37%

-31.09% -49.46% -22.35% -125.60% -48.39% 19.17% -71.03% -18.71% -22.10%

1/0612/06

Ranking

43% 56% 77% 40% 15%

49% 82% 65% 65% 74% 89% 42% 69% 60% 76%

Page 7 of 11

C:\2008\TRG\Web Page\New Web Page\Data for Inserts\Benchmarking\Financial Profiles.doc

SAMPLE PRACTICE BENCHMARKING REPORTS

Clinical laboratory Radiology and imaging Other medical support services Total ancillary support staff Total contracted support staff Total support staff

0.35 0.25 0.14 0.74 0.16 6.27

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.30 0.26 0.27 0.65 0.08 4.91

Total Nonphysician Provider FTE

0.33

0.00

0.23

Total Physician FTE

3.00

0.00

Total Provider FTE

1.33

0.00

1.23

Footnote: 1. MGMA benchmark table and selection criteria is: All Multispecialty. 2. Due to rounding "Total" may not equal the sum of the detail numbers. 3. All MGMA data in MGMA columns is from the 2006 report based on 2005 data.

-17.79% 3.05%

49.08% -14.31%

-89.02% -27.70%

-44.93%

-8.40%

59% 48% 32% 59% 67% 82%

70%

69%

Page 8 of 11

C:\2008\TRG\Web Page\New Web Page\Data for Inserts\Benchmarking\Financial Profiles.doc

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download