Trump tells Senate to fix taxes — not Obamacare

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/24/trump-obamacare-taxes-senate-republicans-244124

Image result for ACA

The bipartisan effort to stabilize insurance markets gets pushed to the end of the year.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday steered Senate Republicans toward tax reform and away from health care, pushing off any deal to fund controversial Obamacare subsidies to the end of the year at best.

Trump joined Senate Republicans at their weekly policy lunch but gave no direction on what he wants to see in a health care bill. He praised Sen. Lamar Alexander’s (R-Tenn.) work on a bipartisan deal meant to stabilize the Obamacare markets, but his emphasis on taxes led senators in the room to believe Trump doesn’t want a stand-alone Obamacare vote anytime soon.

“There isn’t anything else other than taxes,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

A filibuster-proof majority backs the bipartisan deal Alexander brokered with Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), but conservatives and the White House oppose it, meaning it won’t even come up for a vote in the Senate.

Without a clear directive from the president, Republicans are still debating whether to work with Democrats to fund Obamacare’s “cost-sharing” program, which helps low-income people pay their out-of-pocket medical bills. Trump abruptly cut off the subsidies — the subject of a court battle — earlier this month. Insurers still have to make the payments, and many boosted their premiums for 2018 to take those costs into account.

Alexander’s stabilization bid got even more muddled when a pair of top Republicans said they would release a different bill — rivaling the bipartisan proposal — to fund the subsidies. But their version would neuter the individual mandate for five years, a nonstarter for Democrats who would be needed to get a bill through the Senate.

The new version “proves that we should be focused on tax reform right now, because obviously we haven’t gotten our act together on health care,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

Republicans are increasingly confident that the subsidies will get rolled into a large, year-end bill to fund the government and raise the nation’s debt limit. But there is no agreement on what exactly that will look like, and leadership-level negotiations on the year-end bill are weeks away.

The lack of clarity left Senate Republicans with enough wiggle room to interpret Trump’s Obamacare comments as they see politically fit.

Cornyn saw a “shoutout” by Trump to Alexander as encouragement for his bill. “He wasn’t specific, but that’s the way I interpreted it,” he said.

But Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — an Alexander-Murray skeptic — said Trump didn’t offer any clear support for the proposal over the GOP’s competing ideas.

“There was not significant discussion on Alexander-Murray,” Cruz said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), another foe of Alexander-Murray, walked away with the same conclusion.

“He didn’t get into that in great depth — put it that way,” Hatch said. “All I can say is that he wasn’t too definitive.”

During the lunch meeting, Trump focused more on getting tax reform done so that the GOP can take another shot at repealing Obamacare in the future, instead of what should be done to stabilize the health care law in the interim.

“If we get taxes done, we’ll have momentum for health care,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), summing up Trump’s position. “He talked a lot about doing health care again.” Trump has repeatedly stated recently that the GOP now has the votes for repeal in the Senate — but senators say that’s not the case, that no one has flipped.

The meeting marked Trump’s first visit to the Senate GOP’s weekly policy lunch as president, and it came amid a rift with Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and growing concern within the GOP that lawmakers will go into the 2018 midterm election without a legislative accomplishment. That’s amped up the pressure in the GOP to do tax reform.

But many Republican senators said after the lunch meeting that there was no discussion of petty politics and that Trump was focused on notching some GOP wins.

“It was the complete opposite of what I thought it would be — the atmosphere in the room and his complete focus,” said one senator.

The conservative Obamacare bill introduced Tuesday came from Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady.

That bill, which would fund the cost-sharing program for two years, is designed to appeal to Republicans who want to fund the Obamacare program but feel that Alexander didn’t get enough conservative concessions in his negotiations with Murray.

It would eliminate Obamacare’s individual mandate penalties through 2021 and expand the use of health savings accounts. The Hatch-Brady bill would also exempt businesses from the employer mandate for 2015 through 2017 and apply certain “pro-life protections” to the cost-sharing funding.

“We must include meaningful structural reforms that provide Americans relief,” Hatch said. “This agreement addresses some of the most egregious aspects of Obamacare.”

Some of the provisions in the proposal — like the expansion of HSAs and employer mandate exemption — mirror the changes that the White House requested be made to the Alexander-Murray bill.

Alexander said he was encouraged by a growing consensus Congress should fund the payments to insurers for two more years.

“We’ve gone from a position where everybody was saying we can’t do cost sharing to responsible voices like Sen. Hatch and Chairman Brady saying we should,” he said.

But any cost-sharing bill will need 60 votes to get through the Senate, meaning Republicans will have to get at least eight Democrats to sign on. Undoing the mandates in the future would be a nonstarter for many Democrats.

“If it were just a matter of getting Republicans to agree with each other, we would have repealed and replaced Obamacare by now,” said a Senate GOP aide.

How Premiums Are Changing In 2018

How Premiums Are Changing In 2018

Related image

The premiums for 2018 Marketplace plans were recently released to give consumers a chance to look at their plan options before open enrollment begins on November 1. Premiums are rising significantly in many counties across the country, in part due to the decision of the Trump Administration to cease payments to insurers for cost-sharing reductions. Insurer participation also declined in many areas, leaving more counties with only one insurer, which likely contributed to the high rate of premium growth.

The map below illustrates how premiums changed for 2018 by looking at the change in the lowest-cost bronze, silver and gold plans by county in states participating in the federal Marketplace. Results are shown for a 40-year-old paying the full premium and for a 40-year old with an income of $25,000 (207% of poverty), $30,000 (249% of poverty), $35,000 (290% of poverty), and $40,000 (332% of poverty), who would be eligible for a premium tax credit.

Percent Change in Lowest-Cost Metal Plan Before and After Tax Credit, 2017-2018

Nationally, the unsubsidized premium for the lowest-cost bronze plan in the federal Marketplace is increasing an average of 17% between 2017 and 2018, the lowest-cost silver plan is increasing an average of 35%, and the lowest-cost gold plan is increasing an average of 19% (Table 1). These average increases are weighted by the number of plan selections by county in 2017 (see Methods). Premiums for silver plans are rising much more than those for bronze or gold plans because in many states insurers loaded the cost from the termination of the cost-sharing reduction payments entirely on the silver tier.

For consumers who receive premium tax credits, the amounts that they will have to pay will often be lower in 2018 (Table 2). The particularly large increase in premiums for silver plans means that tax-credit-eligible Marketplace enrollees will see much higher premium tax credits (which are calculated based on the second-lowest-cost silver plan in each area). These large credits make gold plans more easily attainable and make bronze plans much cheaper (or even available at no additional premium). In fact, after these increases, the lowest-cost gold premium is lower than the lowest-cost silver premium in 459 counties.

For example, a 40-year-old individual making $35,000 (249% of poverty) and eligible for a tax credit will on average pay 39% less in 2018 for their share of the premium for the lowest-cost bronze plan, 7% less for the lowest-cost silver plan, and 13% less for the lowest-cost gold plan. The savings are greater for subsidized enrollees with lower incomes and less for those with higher incomes (Table 2). The premiums for bronze plans may be particularly attractive to many people eligible for premium tax credits. For example, the tax credit for a 40-year-old individual making $25,000 covers the full cost of the premium for the lowest-cost bronze plan in 1,540 counties.

Counties Where the Lowest-Cost Bronze Plan Premium Costs Zero Dollars After the Tax Credit in 2018

The map below shows counties where the unsubsidized premium for the lowest-cost gold plan has a lower or comparable premium to the lowest-cost silver plan in 2018.

Counties Where the Lowest-Cost Gold Plan Costs Less than the Lowest-Cost Silver Plan

Discussion

The differences in premium changes across plan types and the peculiar effect these differences have on plan costs for both unsubsidized and subsidized enrollees makes it important that consumers shop around and carefully consider their options. Although CMS will no longer be paying insurers for reducing the cost sharing for lower-income enrollees, insurers remain obliged to provide the reduced cost sharing policies to eligible Marketplace enrollees. These policies generally have higher actuarial values than gold plans for enrollees with incomes below 200% of poverty so consumers will need to carefully consider whether it makes sense to switch even though gold-plan premiums may be comparable or less than silver plans. Consumers eligible for cost sharing reductions also will need to weigh the much lower premiums they would pay for a bronze plan with the much higher cost sharing they could encounter if they need care.

How do you ‘hire’ (and manage) an interim executive?

How do you ‘hire’ (and manage) an interim executive?

Image result for interim cfo

Abstract:  This article is about the optimum relationship between an interim executive and their client.  It has been a while since I wrote on Interim Executive Services.  In this article,  I  return to the primary topic of this blog.

What is the difference between interviewing and hiring an interim vs. an employee?

First of all, it is not in your best interest to ‘hire’ an interim.

If the interim is furnished though a firm, they are more than likely paid on a W-2 and you are not technically ‘hiring’ the interim, you are engaging or entering a contact with their firm.  The interim is ’employed’ by the firm and not you.  Employed is loosely used in this case because while the interim may be on a W-2 program with their firm, the only time they are paid is if they’re producing billable revenue. Sadly for the interim, they get to bear all of the disadvantages of being paid by W-2 while consulting without having the ability to reap any of the benefits of being an independent expert.

Now assume that you are smart enough and lucky enough to source the perfect independent or free lance interim directly, what then?

Congratulations, you are probably well on your way to having a far superior resource that will  be highly motivated to address your situation without the interference of a third party that in my experience, adds little if any value beyond sourcing the interim.  If you have experience with this, you know what I’m talking about.  When was the last time you saw anyone from the interim firm you engaged other your interim?

With a free agent, you will be contracting with the Interim or a company (LLC or S-4 Corporation) they own.  Legally, you are dealing with a sole proprietor in most cases regardless of whether their corporate entity is involved or not.  For this reason and depending upon the circumstances, you might want to get their personal guarantee of their firm’s performance.

I have a S-4 Corporation that I can use for contracting.  The problem for me is that if I bill though my corporation, I am obliged to pay the federal government 9% of my earnings in the form of federal unemployment tax or FUTA that I can never claim because as an independent consultant, I cannot be ‘laid off’ so I am ineligible to receive FUTA.  Don’t get me started.  I have been fortunate that my clients have agreed to engage me directly and individually.  A corporate structure when dealing with a sole provider affords disproportionate list to the provider.

What about insurance?  Increasingly, client firms are requesting or requiring professional liability insurance.  Setting aside the fact that I have never seen a claim against a professional liability policy for interim services, I have been successful in convincing my clients to name me under their Directors and Officer’s Insurance (D&O) coverage if I as an interim am going to be authorized to execute documents and take actions on behalf of my client.  To me, this makes more sense for the client because if I am required to obtain insurance that will most likely be less robust than the organization’s D&O coverage, that cost is going to be passed along and in effect, the client will be paying twice for the same coverage.  Not only that, in the event of a problem, you are more than likely going to be drawn into a subrogation fight.  If I have no authority and I am not going to be executing documents, i.e., I am engaged to do project work, then liability insurance should be a non-issue.

In another article, I talk about how to find interim executives.

If you have found the ‘perfect’ interim for your transition or challenge, good for you.  If the interim is experienced and sophisticated, you should not have any reservation about engaging them directly and putting them to work in your organization immediately.

Once the interim is aboard, do not lose sight and do not allow your organization to lose site of the purpose of the interim engagement which is usually to help an organization work through a transition usually while beginning the process of addressing major challenges or problems.  The scope of the work to be performed should be mutually understood and memorialized in the contract with the Interim Executive.  Subsequent departures from the agreed scope represent sub-optimization of the engagement at best and a useless waste of resources at worst.

An interim is not an employee and the more you treat them like an employee, the less effective they will be and the higher risk you will bear with respect to their status as an independent contractor.

A number of requirements must be met before your interim reaches reach the threshold of independent contractor status.  To name a few:

  • You cannot set the interim’s hours
  • You cannot dictate when and how the interim does their work
  • You cannot require the interim to use your facilities and equipment to do their job
  • You cannot subject the interim to your personnel policies and procedures like travel policies, etc.
  • You should not require the interim to participate in employee related activities like employee health, computer system training, etc., unless their specific responsibilities require patient contact or hands-on operation of hospital systems which should be very rarely.
  • You should never require interims to record time on your organization’s timekeeping system

The more you require your interims to engage in the actives of employees; things like requiring them to attend out of scope meetings, the higher your risk that the IRS may subsequently find that they were not independent contractors and subject your organization to payroll tax liability and overtime claims that you did not anticipate.

Time and again, I have been required by hospital personnel departments to go through all of the clearances and sometimes orientation of employees.  Then I get invited to every meeting in the organization.  All of this increases the client’s risk while wasting my time.  I have asked the person that executed my contract to screen and approve meeting requests to insure that I am able to stay on task and that the rest of the organization understands my roles and its limitations from their perspective.

I tell clients that regardless of the number of hours they pay for, they receive 100% of my mental capacity virtually 100% of the time.  I find it difficult if not impossible to mentally divorce myself from the needs and issues of my client whether I am ‘on the clock’ or not.  Because of this, flexibility of hours should not be an issue because when I am engaged, I am always working for the benefit of my client.  That said, I assure my client that regardless of the ‘normal’ schedule we agree to, I endeavor to make myself available on-site as needed.  This means spending weekends in the client’s city and/or traveling on behalf of the client for matters not related to Interim services commuting.

Take another look at my article about how to find an interim.  The effort you expend to locate a ‘free agent’ Interim Executive is worth the trouble.  My prediction is that you will thank yourself for taking charge of what should be expected to be one of the most important decisions you may ever make because of the potential of a well conceived Interim Engagement to be favorably transformative in your organization.

If you are a Board member or a CEO and you do not know where to start or how to go about finding an Independent Interim, get in touch with me and I will give you some pointers.

Contact me to discuss any questions or observations you might have about these articles, leadership, transitions or interim  services.  I might have an idea or two that might be valuable to you.  An observation from my experience is that we need better leadership at every level in organizations.  Some of my feedback is coming from people that are demonstrating interest in advancing their careers and I am writing content to address those inquiries.
The easiest way to keep abreast of this blog is to become a follower.  You will be notified of all updates as they occur.  To become a follower, just click the “Following” bubble that usually appears near the bottom each web page.
I encourage you to use the comment section at the bottom of each article to provide feedback and stimulate discussion.  I welcome input and feedback that will help me to improve the quality and relevance of this work.
This is original work.  This material is copyrighted by me with reproduction prohibited without attribution.  I note and  provide links to supporting documentation for non-original material.  If you choose to link any of my articles, I’d appreciate notification.
If you would like to discuss any of this content, provide private feedback or ask questions, I may be reached at ras2@me.com.

Professionalism And Choosing Wisely

http://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20171024.907844/full/

The US health care system is plagued by the use of services that provide little clinical benefit. Estimates of expenditures on overuse of medical services range from 10–30 percent of total health care spending. These estimates are typically based on analyses of the geographic variation in patterns of care. For example, researchers at the Dartmouth Institute focused on differences in care use between high-spending and low-spending regions with no corresponding reductions in quality or outcomes. An analysis by the Network for Excellence in Health Innovation (formerly known as the New England Healthcare Institute) identified significant geographic variation in the rates of both surgical and non-surgical services such as coronary artery bypass grafting, back surgery, cholecystectomy, hip replacements, diagnostic testing, and hospital admission.

This variance-based approach to estimating overuse has been very useful at highlighting the problem of inefficiency in the health care system but has done little to direct initiatives designed to reduce unnecessary tests and procedures. The aggregate approach does not help clinicians or managers identify exactly how they should change their practice patterns. As a result, it has been hard to reduce overuse. Identifying the significant overuse of medical services in the health care system is only the first step; now we need to develop evidence-based solutions to reduce unnecessary services and improve efficiency.

The History Of Choosing Wisely

The Choosing Wisely initiative, announced in 2012 by the ABIM Foundation and Consumer Reports, was designed to spark conversations among physicians, patients, payers, and purchasers about the overuse of tests and procedures, and to support physician efforts to help patients make smart and effective care choices. Specialty societies identified specific services that were unnecessary in specific situations. With more than 80 participating specialty societies, Choosing Wisely has identified more than 500 commonly overused tests and procedures and published recommendations for their proper use. For example, the American College of Emergency Physicians recommends avoiding computed tomography (CT) scans in low-risk patients with minor head injury.

The Choosing Wisely campaign began in an environment when efforts to reform health care were polarized by discussions of “rationing” and “death panels.” The initiative focused on quality, safety, and doing no harm to counter suspicions of dual agency and cost reductions motivated by profit; this allowed both the public and clinicians to begin to see reducing unnecessary care as in the best interest of the patient.

Choosing Wisely appealed to the professionalism of physicians and other clinicians as articulated in the Physician Charter on Medical Professionalism, which included a commitment to manage health care resources. The campaign was conducted in a way that respected the autonomy of physicians, relying on and enhancing their professional pride and sense of mastery, instead of functioning as yet another quality initiative imposed from above. Specialty societies took a leadership role in partnership with a wide swath of consumer and patient groups, helping physicians and patients accept the message of “more is not always better.”

Through Choosing Wisely, physicians were socialized toward a new norm in the culture of medicine against low-value care, which was reflected in the medical literature. From 2014 to 2015, the number of articles on overuse nearly doubled. The adage that “culture eats strategy every day” became a guiding light. Manya Gupta, MD, from Rush University Medical Center, summed it up as, “Once culture change starts, improvements become expected.”

The unexpected nature of societies taking the lead on this issue, potentially in conflict with their members’ economic self-interest, helped make the campaign stick. Similarly, the simplicity, concreteness, and credibility of the recommendations allowed them to be deployed in a variety of settings at a variety of levels in the organization.

Implementation has been accelerated through the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), which has provided two grants to support putting the Choosing Wisely recommendations into practice.

Choosing Wisely In Action

The front line empowerment fostered by Choosing Wisely was evident when the University of Vermont Medical Center asked faculty and residents to submit ideas for high-value care projects targeting tests and treatments that could be performed less frequently. Interventions on seven projects were completed. Key reported outcomes included:

  1. a 72 percent reduction in the use of blood urea nitrogen and creatinine lab testing in patients with end-stage renal disease who were on hemodialysis and hospitalized;
  2. a 90 percent reduction in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) screening on women ages 65 and older without clinical risk factors for osteoporosis; and
  3. a 71 percent reduction in the use of portable chest x-rays in mechanically ventilated patients who were not intubated that day and did not have a procedure performed.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center drove cultural change through a “challenge” to all house staff and residents aimed at reducing unnecessary daily lab orders. After educational sessions, teams were sent weekly emails on tracking use in a friendly monthly competition. This resident-originated focus and intervention resulted in significant reported decreases of daily blood counts and basic metabolic panels.

Crystal Run Healthcare, a multispecialty practice with 350 clinicians, also sponsored a contest designed to advance Choosing Wisely recommendations. Eric Barbanel, MD, a practicing physician at the clinic, was the champion for the winning project, which focused on four recommendations from the American Academy of Family Physicians. The interventions included peer education, clinical decision support, and data feedback. Decreases in annual electrocardiograms (EKGs), magnetic resonance imagings (MRIs) for low back pain, and DEXA screening were reported.

The campaign has also relied on regional health collaboratives to help drive local public awareness of the issue of overuse. Two grantees supported by RWJF, HealthInsight Utah and Maine Quality Counts, have used town hall meetings to engage in conversations with patients and the broader public about Choosing Wisely.

The Choosing Wisely campaign has focused first on adaptive change—on “why” there is concern about overuse by clinicians and patients, and on developing a consensus set of common values and purposes. The campaign has emphasized evidence about benefits and harms and the pursuit of enhancing quality, safety, and doing no harm. The aim has been to win both the hearts and minds of physicians so that they would be more engaged in improvement efforts, something often missing in efforts to change behaviors in clinical practice. The rapid introduction of purely technical solutions (that is, clinical decision support through electronic medical records) often alienates clinicians who don’t know the values and motivation behind the need for such solutions.

Remaining Challenges

Choosing Wisely has had some success in raising awareness of overuse and incorporating recommendations into practice. But results from national studies have been mixed, highlighting the need for further formal evaluation of the initiative’s impact.

More importantly, other strategies needed to complement Choosing Wisely must be jumpstarted. Specifically, more needs to be done to address some of the other underlying drivers of overuse in the health care system, notably perverse payment incentives; eliminating unnecessary services will be challenging as long as providers face financial incentives to provide more care and patients have no incentives to avoid care. Choosing Wisely is an attempt to change attitudes and mindset, but changing attitudes is hard when incentives are misaligned.

Payment reform can play a role in changing physician behavior by minimizing rewards for doing unnecessary tests and procedures. In fact, some evidence suggests population payment has disproportionately reduced use of potentially unnecessary tests and procedures. But it is not always easy to design payment reform such that the incentives are fully experienced at the point of care. Moreover, although evidence suggests these payment models lower spending without sacrificing quality, the effects have generally been modest and surely more could be done. And reinforcement works both ways: Just as payment reform can make the task of changing attitudes through Choosing Wisely easier, winning hearts and minds can amplify the effectiveness of any payment reform strategy.

Benefit design can also help reduce use of potentially unnecessary services by increasing patient out-of-pocket spending for those services. However, higher out-of-pocket spending can be a significant financial burden on patients, and in many cases they are not well suited to make nuanced decisions about care. Most evidence suggests that when faced with higher cost sharing, patients reduce use of appropriate and inappropriate care in similar proportions. Value-based insurance design (VBID)—which aims to increase cost-sharing for less effective treatments and decrease cost sharing for more effective treatments—can help encourage patients to specifically reduce overuse of low-value care. However, VBID is not a panacea and must be implemented in a way that avoids adverse selection and excessive complexity. Engaging clinicians in explaining and implementing benefit design changes will be necessary to help patients better navigate the choices they will confront.

Even if Americans were not grappling with high health care spending, avoiding potentially unnecessary services would be important. But with fiscal pressures driving changes by private and public purchasers that often have deleterious consequences, eliminating potentially unnecessary services—and thus delivering cost savings while increasing quality—is more important than ever. Choosing Wisely exemplifies efforts of the professional societies to engage on the issue; by appealing to the professionalism of physicians and other clinicians, it can provide the foundation for promoting delivery of appropriate care.

Professionalism as a force to improve quality has an opportunity to show its value along with the technical approaches and the environmental changes needed (for example, payment reform). The design of Choosing Wisely, which included few rules, much autonomy for engagement and design, and little central control, produced an activated professionalism. Appealing to the intrinsic motivations of physicians offers an underused path to achieve widely shared policy goals such as reducing the cost of our health care system while enhancing its quality. Professionalism can also appeal to patients and give them confidence in their physicians’ counsel that unnecessary care truly is unnecessary. Given the activity that has been unleashed in health systems and clinical practices throughout the United States, professionalism should not be overlooked as part of our broad health care transformation strategy.

A Better Boss or a Pay Raise?

A Better Boss or a Pay Raise? What Would YOUR Employees Choose?

Ask yourself this question: If I gave my employees a choice between receiving a pay raise or me becoming a better boss, which would they choose?

Chances are you’d probably say your employees would choose a pay raise, right? I mean, after all, who wouldn’t want more money? Taking a few liberties with the classic song Money by Barrett Strong, your employees are probably saying “Your leadership gives me such a thrill, but your leadership don’t pay my bills, I need money!”

Getting a pay raise would be an immediately tangible reward that everyone could literally take to the bank. Besides, it’s not like you need any dramatic improvement as a boss, right? Sure, you may not be the greatest leader in the world, but there’s a whole lot of bosses plenty worse than you. Your people would definitely choose a pay raise, you say.

Well, you’d be wrong. One study showed that 65% of Americans would choose a better boss over a pay raise. How do you like them apples?

In many of our training courses we do a “best boss” exercise. We ask participants to share the characteristics of the person who was their best boss, and as you can see from the list below, many of these traits are ones you can develop and master with just a bit of effort and focus.

My best boss…

  • Was trustworthy—Often mentioned as the foundation of what makes a best boss, being trustworthy is paramount to being an effective leader. Research has shown that employees who have high levels of trust in their boss are more productive, engaged, innovative, creative, and contribute more to the organization’s bottom-line. Click here to learn more about how to build trust as a leader.
  • Believed in me—Best bosses believe in the capabilities and potential of their people. Through their words and actions they communicate a sincere faith in their employees that builds the confidence of their team members to go above and beyond expectations.
  • Showed respect—No one likes to be talked down to or treated as “less than.” Best bosses recognize the inherent worth each person possesses and they seek to build people up, not tear them down.
  • Listened to me—Being a good listener is one of the most powerful, yet underrated leadership skills. Good listeners don’t interrupt, ask clarifying questions, summarize what they’ve heard, probe for deeper understanding, and also pay attention to what’s not being said in the conversation. Check out The 5 Fundamentals of Effective Listening for more tips.
  • Helped me grow—People want leaders who are invested in helping them grow in their jobs and careers. Best bosses understand that leadership is not about them; it’s about the people they serve. As such, they are committed to helping their team members grow in their careers, even if that means the employee ultimately leaves the team or organization for better opportunities.
  • Had my back—Participants in our classes often say their best boss was always in their corner, or had their back. There are times in organizational life where the boss needs to step up and defend the needs or interests of his/her team. Supporting your employees doesn’t mean blindly defending them regardless of the circumstances, but it does mean you always have their best interests at heart and are committed to putting that belief into practice.
  • Gave feedback in a way I could hear it—I’ve learned in my career that people really do want, and deserve, honest feedback about their performance. The trick is to deliver feedback in a way the person on the receiving end can hear it without becoming defensive, internalize it, and take positive action moving forward. Here is a way to give feedback that builds trust in a relationship.
  • Cared about me as a person—It’s a cliché but it’s true: people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. You can be the most competent boss around, but if your people don’t feel you truly care about them as humans, then they will withhold their trust and commitment from you.
  • Adjusted their leadership style to my needs—The best bosses know that one size doesn’t fit all when it comes to leadership. Each team member can be at different development levels in their goals and tasks, so the leader needs to adjust his/her leadership style to meet the needs of the employee. Managers need to learn to become situational leaders.
  • Gave me autonomy—No one likes to be micro-managed. Helicoptering over your employees and telling them what to do, how to do it, and when to do it, creates a sense of learned helplessness. It erodes the morale and motivation of employees and leads to them developing a “quit but stay” mentality. Best bosses make sure their team members have been given the proper training and have the best resources and tools needed to do their jobs. Then the manager steps out of the way and lets their team do their thing, while providing any needed support and direction along the way.

Unfortunately, too many leaders are unwilling to admit they could use a bit of improvement, and too many organizations tolerate poor managerial performance (free whitepaper: 7 Ways Poor Managers Are Costing Your Company Money). But as you can see from this list, becoming a best boss isn’t rocket science. It’s within the grasp of any leader who is willing to put in a bit of work to improve his/her craft.

Health-Care Transactions Update: Deals Significantly Up in Third Quarter

https://www.bna.com/healthcare-transactions-update-n73014471384/?utm_campaign=LEGAL_NWSLTR_Health%20Care%20Update_102717&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&elqTrackId=25bb35a21f7f4ee09f31a5e908020cf8&elq=3924f09b80454e158ead21b0e1788481&elqaid=9961&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=7532

Image result for merger and acquisition

Stay ahead of developments in federal and state health care law, regulation and transactions with timely, expert news and analysis.

July, August, and September have been the most active deal months in 2017 so far, with over 299 recorded deals. That can be contrasted with the same quarter in 2016, during which only 167 deals were recorded, making it the slowest quarter that year.

The three most active sectors in summer 2017 were long-term care, health-care information technology, and physician practices, as strategic and financial buyers continued to actively shop for assets. The much-discussed market uncertainty—stemming from the political environment, regulatory uncertainty, and other factors—doesn’t seem to be hindering transaction activity.

Long-Term Care Has Been Most Active

Long-term care, including home health, continues to outpace the industry, with 215 transactions year to date. The sector remains attractive for many investors looking to position their portfolios for future growth, predominantly due to demand fundamentals such as an aging U.S. population and shifting preferences of seniors.

It is estimated that 10,000 U.S. residents turn 65 each day, adding to an already sizable population demographic that historically utilizes the vast majority of health-care spending. In particular, as the U.S. health-care system increasingly places emphasis on efficient outcomes and lowering cost of care, long-term care will offer a critical value proposition as an effective means of reducing the number of acute-care hospital visits and maintaining the overall health of seniors.

Of note in the third quarter was BlueMountain’s $700 million purchase of skilled nursing and assisted living assets from Kindred Healthcare. Continued interest and heightened activity are expected in this sector.

Physicians Have More Buyer Options for Transactions

Historically, large independent physician networks looking to partner with either a strategic or financial sponsor were limited in their options—mainly larger physician groups and local health systems. The landscape has quickly evolved as more organizations are seeing the value in controlling large patient populations.

Private equity buyers and insurance giants are increasingly interested in physician groups and are willing to purchase partial or complete interests at a premium. In the third quarter, Ares Capital invested $1.45 billion in DuPage Medical Group, a multi-specialty practice in Illinois previously owned by the private equity group Summit Partners.

Financial sponsors see an opportunity to leverage size and scale through acquisition and de novo growth, to increase patient populations and capture added revenues in a changing reimbursement environment. In April, Optum, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, purchased American Health Network, a 300-physician practice in Indiana for $184 million. The insurer’s strategy is to control the delivery and cost of health care in all settings outside of the hospital.

Strategic buyers such as hospitals continue to actively recruit independent physicians, but are increasingly disadvantaged when forced to compete with the deep pockets of private equity investors and large insurers. Further compounding the problem for hospitals are the fair market value requirements that, by regulation, limit physician compensation options.

The single specialty provider space has experienced some of the highest activity in all of health-care services. With over 100 single specialty practices completing or announcing a transaction so far in 2017, independent physician groups are viewing an active mergers and acquisitions marketplace as an opportunity to secure future growth and viability.

A growing shift away from a hospital setting has increased the negotiating power of private practitioners and many are turning to private equity partners as a way to further increase their geographic footprint through aggressive growth strategies.

More and more groups are expected to pursue partnership and sale options as physicians continue to witness these large transaction values.

Size Is Attractive for Hospital Buyers

Bigger isn’t always better, but when it comes to hospital transactions, there is a market for sizable assets. In this quarter, Ascension Health, the country’s largest health system, emerged as the buyer of the struggling Presence Health in the Chicago area.

Despite Presence’s poor operations, it was able to align with a financially strong provider because it offered immediate scale in the Chicago market. With this transaction, Ascension, through its Amita Health joint venture with Adventist, vaulted up the market-share list from number four (8.1 percent) to number one (18.8 percent), according to Presence Health’s 2016 official statement. Acquiring and maintaining strong market share will continue to be a significant driver of financial success, thus the opportunity to immediately acquire scale through an acquisition will always be attractive.

Health-Care IT Remains Active

For many years, experts have thought that technology would be the key to driving value (high quality at a low cost). The activity in this space demonstrates the truth of that belief as there have been 133 transactions year to date. Notably, large private equity players have been active.

Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Inc., a private equity firm, acquired Carestream Dental in the third quarter, purchasing the dental imaging and practice management company with an eye toward growth, and expecting to leverage the technological expertise to grow the business.

Final Thoughts

While the summer months remained active, we believe the market will stay strong through the end of the year. Activity spawns more activity, and sellers are undoubtedly attracted to the high valuation multiples offered by buyers with tremendous access to capital and few investment options more attractive than health care.

Another Health-Care Fraud Judgment Includes Personal Liability

https://www.bna.com/healthcare-fraud-judgment-b73014471303/?utm_campaign=LEGAL_NWSLTR_Health%20Care%20Update_102717&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&elqTrackId=b4c0d096790e4f62a8a465ccca33d352&elq=3924f09b80454e158ead21b0e1788481&elqaid=9961&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=7532

Related image

The Department of Justice has put another notch on its Yates memo belt in securing a $2 million judgment against a home health provider and its owner personally.

A federal district judge issued the judgment Oct. 20 against Dynamic Visions Inc. and its owner Isaiah Bongam. The court previously granted the DOJ judgment on the issue of liability against Dynamic, and agreed that Bongam should be held personally responsible for Dynamic’s activities, which included forging physician signatures on patient care plans that were submitted to the District of Columbia’s Medicaid program.

The DOJ’s litigation strategy in the False Claims Act lawsuit aligned firmly with the 2015 Yates memo directive to hold individuals personally responsible for corporate fraud. While the court said there wasn’t sufficient evidence to tie Bongam to the forged signatures directly, it instead ruled that Bongam should be held personally liable for Dynamic’s actions because he was in sole control of the corporation.

Holding a person responsible for corporate liability, known as “piercing the corporate veil,” is available when the corporation is determined to be a mere shell or alter ego of a person, and therefore not deserving of the legal protection generally accorded the corporate form.

In this case, the court said not piercing the corporate veil to reach Bongam personally would be an “inequitable result,” citing Bongam’s disregard for corporate formalities and intermingling of personal funds with Dynamic’s accounts.

The judgment itself consisted of $1.5 million in damages and an additional $517,000 in fines for each alleged false claims submission. The DOJ asked for, and the court gave, the maximum $11,000 per claim damages for the 47 false claims that Dynamic submitted to Medicaid based on Dynamic’s egregious behavior.

Bongam is now on the hook for that judgment, unless it’s overturned on appeal. Bongam’s attorney told me that he intends to file an appeal, so stay tuned for an update.