CFO base pay raises outpace CEOs’

Dive Brief:

  • CFO salary increases edged out CEO increases in 2022, with CFOs on average seeing an increase in base salary of 5.5% while CEOs’ pay increased by 4.4%, according to a recent report by Compensation Advisory Partners.
  • Most (80%) of both CFOs and CEOs saw increases in base salary, the report from the compensation consulting firm found. Of those companies making increases, CEOs saw a typical range between 3.4% to 7.4%, compared to the 3.6% to 9.1% range for CFOs.
  • A notable portion of both CFOs and CEOs saw significant increases in total compensation for 2022, with 40% of CEOs and one-third of CFOs seeing a 25% increase in total compensation compared to their total pay for the prior year.

Dive Insight:

The report, based on proxy statements, provides an early look at payment trends even as filings continue to trickle in during March and early April.

The bigger CFO salary gains could be partially due to the fact that the finance chiefs’ role has changed over time from a pure reporting function — the  “level of sophistication for the role has been increasing,” Ryan Colucci, principal for CAP and the author of the report, said in an interview.

Lingering stresses from the COVID-19 pandemic — which put particular strain on certain roles including the chief legal or chief human resource officer as well as CFOs — could also be contributing to the boost in salary, for that matter.

Executive team priorities have shifted since the pandemic, with individuals searching for a greater work-life balance which could be causing both higher turnover in these roles — Colucci has seen greater CFO turnover over the past six to 12 months, he said — as well as efforts by companies to hang on to skilled, dependable executives.

“I think if you have someone good, you want to reinforce it with a nice increase,” he said.

Equity awards also remained the bulk of the pay mix for the majority of executives, representing two-thirds of total compensation for CEOs, and 56% of total compensation for CFOs. Additionally, while top executives saw higher increases in total compensation compared to their finance chiefs, they were also more prone to significant fluctuations in the area of incentive compensation.

A higher percentage of CEOs experienced increases or decreases of 25% or more concerning their incentive compensation than CFOs, with one-fifth of companies keeping their equity awards on par with the prior years’ grants.

Raises for U.S. CFOs of small to mid-sized businesses outpaced inflation, an August report by French fintech startup Spendesk showed, surging 16% from 2021 to reach approximately $224,000.

Colucci expects future filings to continue to show salary increases in 2022. As companies facing economic headwinds seek out steady financial leaders, increases “might be a little preventative” from some companies as they look to entice their financial leaders to stay put, he said.

“I think, not that there’s a CFO shortage by any means, but I think because it is a more important role than it was maybe five, 10 years ago, I think that kind of lends itself to more movement,” he said. “I don’t see it slowing down. I think the pace of transitions will probably keep up for this year.”

While CFO base salary increases beat out top executives, CEOs still saw higher increases in total compensation, according to the report. The increase in total compensation on average was mild, rising by 4% for CEOs compared with the 2% average for finance chiefs. However, 40% of CEOs and approximately 33% of CFOs saw a significant 25% increase in total compensation compared to their total pay for the prior year.

This could also be driving trends in CFO payments —  “the biggest thing driving the trend of CFO pay going up is that CEO pay is going up, and other executives follow,” Rosanna Landis Weaver, director, wage justice & executive pay for consumer advocacy group As You Sow wrote in an email to CFO Dive.

CEO pay has continued to increase, a trend that shareholders will likely push back on as company performance wobbles ahead of a downturn. “That will be particularly true if we see companies that try to game ‘pay for performance,’” she wrote. “Shareholders are clear that structures should mean pays goes down when performance goes down.”

“I have never read in a proxy statement that the company’s performance is influenced by externals when the externals are positive,” Weaver wrote in an email, noting that “when the externals may affect performance on the downside, we read endless language about how challenging things are. Shareholders are becoming cynical about that.”

Companies are gearing up for an environment where they will soon need to share further details surrounding both executive pay and financial performance. Pay-versus-performance rules, which were adopted last year by the Securities and Exchange Commission, require large public companies to disclose additional information regarding executive compensation, including a table that covers compensation and financial performance indicators.

The financial performance measures will include the companies’ total shareholder return and net income, according to the SEC

Executive pay policy rejections ticked up in 2022 from 2021, according to recent data from Willis Towers Watson, up to 86 last year compared to 71 in the year prior — marking the highest number of rejections since “say-on-pay” was made mandatory in 2011, the company said.

5 health systems zeroing in on exec teams, administration

At least five health systems announced changes to executive ranks and administration teams in February and March. 

The changes come as hospitals continue to grapple with financial challenges, leading some organizations to cut jobs and implement other operational adjustments. Changes to executive ranks include reorganizing executive responsibilities and executive appointments.

The following changes were announced within the last two months and are summarized below, with links to more comprehensive coverage of the changes. 

1. Philadelphia-based Penn Medicine is eliminating administrative positions. The change is part of a reorganization plan to save the health system $40 million annually, the Philadelphia Business Journal reported March 13. Kevin Mahoney, CEO of the University of Pennsylvania Health System, told Penn Medicine’s 49,000 employees last week that changes include the elimination of a “small number of administrative positions which no longer align with our key objectives,” according to the publication. The memo did not indicate the exact number of positions that were eliminated.

2. Sovah Health, part of Brentwood, Tenn.-based Lifepoint Health, has eliminated the COO positions at its Danville and Martinsville, Va., campuses. The responsibilities of both COO roles will now be spread across members of the existing administrative team. 

3. Cox Medical Group, a subsidiary of Springfield, Mo.-based CoxHealth, has made several leadership changes to support the health system’s new operating model. The new model is focused on key service lines — such as cardiovascular services, orthopedics and primary care. Four things to know.

4. Valley Health, a six-hospital health system based in Winchester, Va., eliminated 31 administrative positions. The job cuts are part of the consolidation of the organization’s leadership team and administrative roles. They were announced internally on Feb. 28. 

5. Roseville, Calif.-based Adventist Health will transition from seven networks of care to five systemwide to reduce costs and strengthen operations, according to a Feb. 15 news release shared with Becker’s. Under the reorganization, the health system will have separate networks for Northern California, Central California, Southern California, Oregon and Hawaii. The reorganization will result in job cuts, including reducing administration by more than $100 million.

New MetroHealth CEO suspends bonuses that led to predecessor’s firing

MetroHealth CEO Airica Steed, EdD, RN, is suspending supplemental and one-time bonus programs that led to the firing of former CEO Akram Boutros, MD, Cleveland.com reported March 14. 

Dr. Steed also told Cuyahoga County Council that new safeguards are being put in place after Dr. Boutros was accused of taking $1.9 million in what the health system’s board called “improper bonuses,” according to the report.

The plan outlined by Dr. Steed includes a national search to fill several critical executive roles, including a human resources officer who will ensure the department is thoroughly involved in compensation matters going forward, according to the report. Dr. Steed said that structure was not previously in place. 

The system is also seeking a permanent CFO after Craig Richmond resigned from the role, according to the report. Geoff Himes, the health system’s former vice president of finance, is serving as interim CFO. 

The plan also calls for creating a workplace culture where “no one is afraid to speak up if they’re not sure what’s being asked of them is the right thing to do,” according to the report.  

report from the accounting firm BDO at the request of the system’s board found that Dr. Boutros paid himself $1.9 million in unauthorized bonuses and concealed the actions from the board, according to Cleveland.com. He was fired in November after the payments came to light. He was set to retire at the end of 2022. 

The BDO report said Dr. Boutros created the Supplemental Performance Based Variable Compensation/Supplemental Incentive Compensation program without involving the human resources department. Former CFO Mr. Richmond allegedly forwarded details of the program down the chain for payroll approval without confirming there had been board approval.  

Dr. Boutros’ attorney Jason Bristol sent a letter to Cuyahoga County Council alleging the BDO report is “biased, inaccurate and seriously flawed,” according to Cleveland.com. Mr. Bristol argued the report contained no supporting evidence for the assertion Dr. Boutros secretly created a bonus program. He also said Mr. Richmond resigned because he believed the report “inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading,” citing a letter released by Mr. Richmond’s attorney. Mr. Richmond resigned two days before the report was released. 

Dr. Boutros has filed multiple lawsuits since his firing. He filed a lawsuit Nov. 28 in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, alleging violations of Ohio’s Open Meetings Act and the board bylaws. Dr. Boutros also alleges board retaliation and accuses the MetroHealth board of violating the law in its hiring of Dr. Steed. Dr. Boutros filed a separate lawsuit against the health system in December alleging breach of contract. He has repaid the system $2.1 million for the bonuses and interest. 

Achieving True Health Care Transformation Requires Rethinking Compensation Models and Executive Performance Metrics

https://medcitynews.com/2023/01/

Healthcare leaders now need to strike a delicate balance that requires managing financial and growth metrics, increasing the speed of transformation, and building the health systems of tomorrow. So how do we redefine compensation models to reward all these behaviors?

Executive compensation might not spring to mind as a key driver of healthcare transformation, nor does it seem naturally connected to critical issues such as health equity, patient safety, or quality of care – just a few of the areas where significant changes can be made to transform healthcare. But, in fact, executives leading not-for-profit health systems today are tasked with delivering measurable results that improve the health status of their patients and their communities. And to ensure that these new performance metrics are met, we must change how we think about —and deliver—compensation.

Defining a new model

While executive compensation has always been tied to specific objectives, they have historically leaned heavily toward financial performance, volume and margins, with a modest portion of compensation aligned to quality of care and patient outcomes. But transformative approaches such as population health, value-based care, patient wellness and health outcomes are shifting the mark.

Healthcare leaders now need to strike a delicate balance that requires managing financial and growth metrics, increasing the speed of transformation, and building the health systems of tomorrow. So how do we redefine compensation models to reward all these behaviors?

Some might say that the answer lies in adjusting incentive plans. While incentive plans across health care have not changed significantly in the past decade, the sophistication of the plans has changed, reflecting greater attention to delivering a better patient experience. But delivering better experiences does not imply that health systems have transformed from the top down. In my mind, adjusting incentive plans only solves part of the problem.

If we want true health care transformation—and we should, in order to best serve patients and communities—health systems need to re-evaluate the outcomes for each stakeholder and create incentives to evolve leadership as a whole. We need to rethink executive compensation models to align with value-based care, patient experience, and the resulting outcomes, along with traditional performance measurements.

Leading through lingering disruption 

But rethinking executive compensation models won’t be an easy task, especially given the external challenges and changes thrust upon the health care system over the last few years.

As with nearly every other aspect of health care, pay for performance was disrupted during the pandemic. Demand for health services changed dramatically, labor and attrition issues intensified, and supply chain problems and operational costs increased. These new pressures required executives to manage through long periods of uncertainty where meeting operational pay-for-performance goals was nearly impossible. Fast-forward to today, the executive talent market remains extraordinarily competitive. Demand outpaces supply due to higher-than-typical retirements, effects of the great resignation, the need for new skill sets and overall burnout.

As a result, there has been upward pressure on compensation to address and fulfill unexpected but immediate needs such as rewarding executives for managing in a unique and challenging performance environment, increasing efforts to recruit and retain, and recognizing leaders for their hard-won accomplishments.

Considerations and changes

When considering adjusting models for 2023 and beyond, CEOs and compensation committees need to take these pressures and disruptions into account. They should look closely at their own compensation data from the past two years – not as a lighthouse for future compensation, but as data that may need to be set aside due to the volume of performance goals and achievements that were up-ended by the pandemic. When relying on external industry data, the same rules apply; smaller data sets or those that don’t account for the past two years may be misleading, so review carefully before using limited data sets to inform adjusted models.

Just as important, CEOs and compensation committees should consider new performance measurements tied to both financial and quality or value-based transformation metrics. We don’t need to eliminate traditional financial and operational goals because viability is still a business mandate. But how can we articulate compensation-driven KPIs for stewardship of patient and community health, improved outcomes and reduced cost of care? Too many measures are akin to having no measures at all.

The compensation mix should take into account a more focused approach to long-term measures. The old paradigm of 12-month incentive cycles is not enough to address the time required to truly transform health care. Another consideration should be performance-based funding of deferred compensation based on achieving transformation goals, and greater use of retention programs to support the maintenance of a stable executive team during the transformation period. Covid-19 proved how crisis can be an accelerator for change. True transformation should blend the skills gained from crisis management with planful, thoughtful and intentional change.

In addition, some metrics may need to incorporate a discretionary component, considering ongoing disruption within the workforce, supply chain limitations, and energy, equipment and labor cost increases. More organizations are also including health equity, DE&I, and ESG goals in incentive programs to tighten alignment with mission-critical board-mandated goals.

Transformative change 

There are four elements that are vital in the journey to transform health care from “heads in beds” to the public-service-oriented organizations that they were meant to be—and can be again. With mounting pressure from patients, communities, and payers to boards and employees, CEOs and compensation committees must become key drivers of change, setting the right goals and incentives from the top down.

  • Affordability: can patients afford the care they need?
  • Quality: is the care being delivered of the utmost quality?
  • Usability: how can we reduce hurdles to undertaking the care plan?
  • Access: are all community members able to access needed care?

Solving for each of these elements is one of the biggest challenges we face, and as we begin to emerge from the disruption of the pandemic, leaders will be watched closely to ensure that they deliver—and can clearly show the path to delivery.

Ideally, end achievements would include patients spending less to achieve better health; payers controlling costs and reducing risk; providers realizing efficiencies and greater patient satisfaction; and alignment of medical supplier pricing to patient outcomes. And when you zoom out to reveal the bigger picture, all of these pieces come together to achieve healthier populations and lower overall health care costs, while still meeting the financial goals of the organization.

We’re asking a lot of already-overburdened health care executives. Stakeholders must prove that we value leaders with the right mindset and skillset in order to attract executives who can shepherd organizations through the transformation journey. This requires a setting where there is supportive leadership, a compelling mission and opportunity for personal growth and development. It will not be easy, but without rethinking how we design compensation models from the top down, it will be unnecessarily challenging.

MetroHealth fires CEO over more than $1.9M in unreported bonuses

The board of trustees at Cleveland-based MetroHealth System has fired President and CEO Akram Boutros, MD.

Dr. Boutros was fired Nov. 21 after the board received findings of a probe into compensation issues involving more than $1.9 million in supplemental bonuses, Vanessa Whiting, chair of the board, said in a statement posted on the health system’s website. The probe found that between 2018 and 2022, Dr. Boutros authorized the compensation for himself, without disclosure to the board.

“We have taken these actions mindfully and deliberately but with sadness and disappointment,” Ms. Whiting said. “We all recognize the wonderful things Dr. Boutros has done for our hospital and for the community. However, we know of no organization permitting its CEO to self-evaluate and determine their entitlement to an additional bonus and at what amount, as Dr. Boutros has done.”

Dr. Boutros took the helm of MetroHealth in 2013. Last year, Dr. Boutros announced his plans to retire at the end of 2022. In September, MetroHealth named Airica Steed, EdD, RN, its next president and CEO. Dr. Steed, who is executive vice president and system COO of Sinai Chicago Health System, will take the helm of MetroHealth Dec. 5, according to Ms. Whiting’s statement. Meanwhile, Nabil Chehade, MD, executive vice president and chief clinical transformation officer at MetroHealth, will assume the CEO’s duties on an interim basis.

Ms. Whiting said MetroHealth discovered the compensation issues related to Dr. Boutros while preparing for the CEO transition, and an internal investigation took place, led by the Tucker Ellis law firm.

She said Dr. Boutros admitted to conducting self-assessments of his performance under specific metrics he established and authorizing payment to himself of more than $1.9 million in supplemental bonuses between 2018 and 2022.

According to Ms. Whiting, Dr. Boutros repaid more than $2.1 million in October, representing the supplemental bonus money paid without board approval for performance in calendar years 2017 through 2021, plus more than $124,000 in interest.

She said the board has also implemented immediate CEO spending and hiring limitations through Dec. 31, 2022, and Dr. Boutros has self-reported to the Ohio Ethics Commission.

MetroHealth’s internal investigation is ongoing.

Among Dr. Boutros’ accomplishments at MetroHealth were helping annual revenue increase from $785 million to more than $1.5 billion; growing the health system’s workforce from 6,200 to nearly 8,000 while seeing employee minimum wage increase to $15 per hour; and developing Ohio’s only Ebola treatment center.

Investor sues UHS execs, alleging ‘unfair’ stock gains amid pandemic

The US should tax excessive CEO compensation

A Universal Health Services investor is suing several executives of the King of Prussia, Pa.-based system, alleging they unjustly enriched themselves through stock options amid the pandemic, according to Law360

The lawsuit, filed in the Delaware Chancery Court and made public July 9, accuses UHS executives and directors of taking advantage of a pandemic-related temporary hit in the company’s stock price and argues taking the stock options was “grossly unfair to the company and its stockholders.”

“The controllers and other company insiders took advantage of the temporary drop in the company’s stock price to grant and receive options to buy the company’s stock at rock bottom prices, thereby showering themselves in excessive compensation,” the lawsuit claims.

In particular, the lawsuit claims that in just 12 days after the stock options were granted, defendants made over $30 million in gains. 

Several top execs were named as defendants, including Alan Miller, UHS founder and chair and Marc Miller, CEO and president of UHS. Three other UHS execs were named, as well as Warren Nimetz, an administrative partner of law firm Norton Rose Fulbright’s New York office.

“UHS’s directors and officers deny any liability associated with the company’s routine and publicly disclosed options grant in March 2020,” attorney Matthew Madden of Robbins Russell Englert Orseck & Untereiner, representing UHS, its executives and Mr. Nimetz, told Law360. “The options grant was in line with the company’s compensation practices in prior years and took place at a board meeting scheduled months in advance.”

Mr. Madden added that UHS’ executives and officials “acted properly” and that the plaintiff’s claims are “baseless.” 

“UHS is proud of its service to patients, and stewardship of investor capital, during these unprecedented times in the healthcare industry,” Mr. Madden told Law360.

The lawsuit was filed by Robin Knight. 

Tower Health to cut pay for executives, managers

Image result for tower health headquarters

Tower Health said it is cutting salaries of executives and managers amid financial losses linked to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The West Reading, Pa.-based health system has struggled financially in the last two fiscal years. It recorded an operating loss of $378.2 million in fiscal year 2020, as well as an operating deficit of $178.8 million the year prior. And last November, the health system said it would consider selling six of its Philadelphia-area hospitals, including those it has purchased since 2017 from Franklin, Tenn.-based Community Health Systems, as part of a financial turnaround plan.

To help offset the financial damage, about 400 Tower Health executives and managers will have their pay cut, beginning in their Feb. 19 paychecks, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer, which cites a letter CEO Clint Matthews wrote to staff. Executives will have their pay cut by 15 percent, and directors, senior directors and associate vice presidents will have their pay cut by 10 percent.

In a statement shared with Becker’s on Feb. 8, the health system said it “is undertaking several initiatives as part of a coordinated plan to improve operations, strengthen care delivery and address the ongoing financial impact of COVID-19.”

“These actions include compensation reductions for executives and managerial employees, along with operational improvements to reduce costs and enhance revenue,” according to the Tower Health statement.

The salary cuts will be in effect until June 30, and do not affect front-line clinical or support staff, who received merit increases in January.

Tower Health projects cost savings of about $11.6 million because of the pay cuts.  

“Reducing management compensation is a difficult but necessary decision that will stabilize and strengthen our financial performance as we continue to meet the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as our ongoing mission of providing compassionate, accessible, high-quality, cost-effective healthcare to our communities,” the health system said.