Collaboration, Not Calculation: A Qualitative Study of How Hospital Executives Value Hospital Medicine Groups
BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine groups (HMGs) typically receive financial support from hospitals. Determining a fair amount of financial support requires negotiation between HMG and hospital leaders. As the hospital medicine care model evolves, hospital leaders may regularly challenge HMGs to demonstrate the financial value of activities that do not directly generate revenue.
OBJECTIVE: To describe current attitudes and beliefs of hospital executives regarding the value of contributions made by HMGs. DESIGN: Thematic content analysis of key informant interviews.
PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four healthcare institutional leaders, including hospital presidents, chief medical officers, chief executive officers, and chief financial officers. Participants comprised a diverse sample from all regions in the United States, including rural, suburban, and urban locations, and academic and nonacademic institutions.
RESULTS: Executives highly valued hospitalist groups that demonstrate alignment with hospital priorities, and often used this concept to summarize the HMG’s success across several value domains. Most executives evaluated only a few key HMG metrics, but almost no executives reported calculating the HMG return on investment by summing pertinent quantitative contributions. Respondents described an evolving concept of hospitalist value and believed that HMGs generate substantial value that is difficult to measure financially.
CONCLUSIONS: Hospital executives appear to make financial support decisions based on a small number of basic financial or care quality metrics combined with a subjective assessment of the HMG’s broader alignment with hospital priorities. HMG leaders should focus on building relationships that facilitate dialog about alignment with hospital needs.
© 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine
Executives generally struggled to recall specific ways that the nonfinancial contributions of hospitalists were incorporated into executive decisions regarding the hospitalist group. Two related themes emerged: first, the belief that hospitals could not function effectively without hospitalists, making their presence an expected cost of doing business. Second, absent measures of HMG ROI, executives appeared to determine an approximate overall value of hospitalists, rather than parsing the various contributions. A few respondents expressed alarm at the rise in hospitalist salaries, whereas others acknowledged market forces beyond their control.
“… there is going to be more of a demand for hospitalists, which is definitely going to drive up the compensation. So, I don’t worry that the compensation will be driven up so high that there won’t be a return [on investment].” (CFO, #16)
Some urged individual hospitalists to develop a deeper understanding of what supports their salary to avoid strained relationships with executives.
Evolution and Risk-Sharing Contracts
Respondents described an evolving conceptualization of the hospitalist’s value, occurring at both a broad, long-term scale and at an incremental, annual scale through minor modifications to incentive pay schemes. For most executives, hiring hospitalists as replacements for PCPs had become necessary and not a source of novel value; many executives described it as “the cost of doing business.” Some described gradually deemphasizing relative value unit (RVU) production to recognize other contributions. Several reported their general appreciation of hospitalists evolved as specific hospitalists matured and demonstrated new contributions to hospital function. Some leaders tried to speculate about future phases of this evolution, although details were sparse.
Among respondents with greater implementation of risk-sharing contracts or ACOs, executives did not describe significantly different goals for hospitalists; executives emphasized that hospitalists should accelerate existing efforts to reduce inpatient costs, length of stay, healthcare-acquired conditions, unnecessary testing, and readmissions. A theme emerged around hospitalists supporting the continuum of care, through improved communication and increased alignment with health systems.
“Where I see the real benefit…is to figure out a way to use hospitalists and match them up with the primary care physicians on the outpatient side to truly develop an integrated population-based medicine practice for all our patients.” (President, #15)
Executives believed that communication and collaboration with PCPs and postacute care providers would attract more measurement.
DISCUSSION
Our findings provide hospitalists with insight into the approach hospital executives may follow when determining the rationale for and extent of financial support for HMGs. The results did not support our hypothesis that executives commonly determine the appropriate support by summing detailed quantitative models for various HMG contributions. Instead, most hospital executives appear to make decisions about the appropriateness of financial support based on a small number of basic financial or care quality metrics combined with a subjective assessment of the HMG’s broader alignment with hospital priorities. However, we did find substantial evidence that hospital executives’ expectations of hospitalists have evolved in the last decade, creating the potential for dissociation from how hospitalists prioritize and value their own efforts. Together, our findings suggest that enhanced communication, relationship building, and collaboration with hospital leaders may help HMGs to maintain a shared model of value with hospital executives.
