Improving clinical productivity in the academic setting: a novel incentive plan based on utility theory.

PURPOSE: Academic internal medicine practices face growing challenges to financial viability due to high overhead, competing institutional missions, and suboptimal physician productivity. The authors describe the development of a clinical incentive plan for a group of academic subspecialty physicians at the Dana Clinic, an outpatient setting at Yale School of Medicine, and report on results of the first year's experience under the plan. METHOD: Utility theory was used to assess the risk profile of clinic faculty and identify incentive payments that would optimize faculty benefit or "utility" while minimizing departmental costs. Under the plan, physicians who reached a productivity target based on work Relative Value Units (wRVUs) between October 2003 and November 2004 had overhead costs covered and received a fixed payment to support salary; additional incentive payments were available for those exceeding the target. Physicians failing to reach the target were responsible for their own overhead costs and received no fixed payment. Physician productivity as measured by wRVU per full-time equivalent (FTE) was compared for the year prior to, and the year following, incentive plan introduction. RESULTS: Forty-seven members of eight academic sections were included in the analysis. Median productivity improved by 34%, with 42 of 47 physicians showing improvement. Significant improvements were also noted in collections (62%) and visit volume (23%), and shifts were observed in coding patterns. CONCLUSIONS: The unique threshold-based structure of the incentive plan, as determined through utility theory modeling, as well as permitting physicians to choose how to achieve the wRVU target were key features of its success, resulting in improved productivity without increasing practice resources or faculty salaries.     

Recognizing clinical faculty's contributions in education.

OBJECTIVE: A faculty productivity profile system was designed to recognize faculty's contributions to administrative, educational, and research activities. It has long been recognized that clinical faculty receive little recognition or compensation for their efforts in education. Our surgery department previously had in place a recognition program for research achievements, but not for educational contributions. The new system was designed to recognize and reward all aspects of faculty contributions, including education. DESCRIPTION: The faculty productivity profile is a simple Excel document sent to each faculty member once a year. We piloted the program for the first time in 2001, recognizing faculty's contributions for the previous year. The pilot began with the formation of a committee whose first function was to identify all possible opportunities for faculty to participate as educators at our institution. This included giving lectures, participating in faculty development programs, serving as mentors, interviewing student or resident candidates, serving in administrative educational roles (e.g., clerkship or residency director), giving oral exams, or attending conferences and journal club. The committee then developed a point scale assigning each activity or contribution a value on a scale of 0-25. Each activity was then listed on the Excel form. Faculty were to fill in the number of times each activity was performed and this was multiplied by the points to obtain a weighted value. Point values for conferences were determined by percentage of conferences attended for a year (i.e., for grand rounds, those attending 0-49%, 50-75%, 75-90%, and more than 90% received 0, 20, 40, and 60 points, respectively). Points were also assigned for teaching awards and high scores on student and resident evaluations. After approval by the committee and the department chairman, the form was presented at a faculty meeting. Each faculty member then received a floppy disk with the form and was asked to complete the form and attach a supporting copy of his or her CV. The form required only input of numbers or a "yes" or "no." After submission, the clerkship coordinator input additional data from a database of conference attendance and student evaluations. Points were then calculated for each faculty member based upon his or her contributions and each activity's weighted value. A dinner was held to recognize outstanding faculty contributions. All faculty completing the form were invited and recognized and those with outstanding contributions received awards. DISCUSSION: Teaching medical students and residents is a rewarding experience; however, it requires significant time and effort. Faculty who feel their contributions are unrecognized may be more likely to burn out and less likely to continue contributing. We believe it is worthwhile to recognize faculty contributions in all areas, including education. Our pilot program had excellent participation due to the ease of using the form. We believe it has improved faculty morale and willingness to participate. We are continuing the program and plan to evaluate its impact on encouraging continued participation in teaching.     

Overcoming a perfect storm: an academic cardiology section's story of survival.

Increasingly, academic institutions are grappling with financial pressures that threaten the academic mission. The author presents an actual case history in which a section of cardiology in an academic health center was confronted with huge projected deficits that had to be eliminated within the fiscal year. The section used eight principles to shift from deficit to profitability (i.e., having revenue exceed costs). These principles included confronting the brutal facts, managing costs and revenue cycles, setting expectations for faculty, and quality improvement. The section accomplished deficit reduction through reducing faculty salaries (nearly $2 million) and nonfaculty salaries ($1.3 million) and reducing operational costs while maintaining revenues by increasing individual faculty productivity and reducing accounts receivable. In the face of these reductions, clinical revenues were maintained, but research revenue and productivity fell (but research is being fostered now that clinical services are profitable again). These principles can be used to stabilize the financial position of clinical practices in academic settings that are facing financial challenges.     

Scholarly Productivity in Clinical Psychology PhD Programs: A Normative Assessment of Publication Rates

Scholarly productivity of 166 American Psychological Association–accredited clinical psychology PhD programs was measured to provide objective, normative data. Publications were tallied over a five-year period (2000–2004) for individual faculty members from PsycINFO entries. Scholarly productivity profiles are provided for each program, including total number of publications, mean number of publications per faculty member, and total publications by publication type. A moderate relationship was found between U.S. News & World Report rankings and rankings of scholarly productivity ( r_S  = .57–.64). Correlations of program size and number of publications suggest that larger programs tend to produce more total publications; however, having more faculty members did not correlate with a higher mean or median publication rate per individual.     

An incentive plan for professional fee collections at an indigent-care teaching hospital.

The authors describe the implementation and development of an incentive plan to improve professional fee collections at an indigent-care teaching hospital. They theorized that an incentive plan based on relative value unit (RVU) productivity would increase billings and collections of professional fees. Unique RVU targets were set for individual services based on the number of faculty full-time equivalents and average reported productivity for academic physicians by specialty. The incentive plan was based on the level of expected faculty billings, measured in RVUs, for each department. A "base + incentive" model was used, with the base budget being distributed monthly throughout the year, and the incentive held as a "withhold" to be paid at the year's end only if the billing target in RVUs was met. Additionally, a task force worked with physician billing office and the hospital to improve collections. In the first year after implementation of the system was in place, important increases were noted in total RVU productivity (30.5% over the previous year) and in collections (49.5% over the previous year). Sixteen of 23 departments exceeded their incentive targets, and it was possible to make distributions of professional fees to those departments, to be used within the hospital system to enhance clinical services. Moreover, the plan created an overall positive attitude toward billings and documentation of faculty activities. The authors believe that this kind of incentive plan will be increasingly important for academic faculty working in public hospital systems.     

Effects of performance-based compensation and faculty track on the clinical activity, research portfolio, and teaching mission of a large academic department of medicine.

PURPOSE: Academic departments of medicine must compete effectively for extramural research support and access to patients while preserving their teaching mission. There is not much literature describing plausible mechanisms for ensuring success. The authors describe the design, implementation, and testing of a performance-based compensation plan in a department of medicine that is closely linked to the faculty appointment track. METHOD: Over a three-year period, the changes this plan effected in research portfolio, clinical enterprise, and faculty satisfaction as well as the teaching perceptions of students and housestaff were measured. RESULTS: The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for clinical work grew 40% faster after plan implementation. Federal funding increased at a CAGR that was 170% greater than before. The department halved its award rankings at the National Institutes of Health and faculty satisfaction improved compared with the former method of compensation. Faculty who better understood the plan were more satisfied with the conversion. High measures of teaching quality were maintained by faculty with no apparent change in satisfaction among students or housestaff. CONCLUSIONS: This performance-based compensation plan with its emphasis on the objectives of career orientation and faculty track assignment strengthened the opportunity to grow both clinical productivity and the funded research portfolio.     

Using a productivity-based physician compensation program at an academic health center: a case study.

PURPOSE: With increased budget constraints, academic health centers (AHCs) have turned their focus on physician compensation. While many AHCs are concerned that compensation programs driven primarily by revenue generation will have a negative impact on their academic mission, little information is available to support this. The authors examined the effects on teaching and clinical productivity of an innovative compensation program for pediatrics primary care faculty at an AHC and related those effects to national standards for productivity. METHOD: A baseline productivity and compensation assessment was conducted for a group of 35 academic general pediatricians. The data were compared with Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) figures for general pediatricians. A productivity-based faculty compensation program using the work component of the relative-value unit (RVU) as the measure of productivity was designed and implemented. Productivity and compensation were measured after the first year of the program and compared with the baseline assessment. The numbers of hours precepting students and residents and the students' evaluations of their clinical experiences before and after implementation of the program were compared. RESULTS: The baseline assessment showed that over half of the faculty had productivity that fell below the MGMA 25th percentile, while the majority had compensation that exceeded this percentile. After implementation of the compensation program, 89% of the faculty increased their clinical productivity. The times faculty spent precepting and students' evaluations before and after program implementation were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Successful productivity-based physician compensation programs can be developed for AHCs.     

Implementing a comprehensive relative-value-based incentive plan in an academic family medicine department.

The authors describe the implementation and first three years (1997-1999) of a department-wide incentive plan of the Department of Family Medicine at the State University of New York at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. By using a consensus approach, a representative elected committee designed a clinical relative value unit (explained in detail) that could be translated to equally value and reward faculty efforts in patient care, education, and research and which allowed the department to avoid the imposition of a model that could have undervalued scholarship and teaching. By 1999, the plan's goal of eight patient-care-equivalent points per four-hour session had been exceeded for pure clinical care. Clearly, only a small financial incentive was necessary (in 1999, an incentive pool of 4% of providers' gross salary) to motivate the faculty to be more productive and to self-report their efforts. Long-term productivity for pure clinical care rose from 9.8 points per session in 1997 to 10.4 in 1999. Of the mean total of 3,980 points for the year 1999, the contribution from teaching was 1,146, or 29%, compared with 25% in 1997. For scholarship, the number of points was 775, or 20%, in 1999, compared with 11% in 1997. The authors describe modifications to the original plan (e.g., integration of quality measures) that the department's experience has fostered. Problems encountered included the lack of accurate and timely billing information from the associated teaching hospitals, the inherent problems of self-reported information, difficulties of gaining buy-in from the faculty, and inherent risks of a pay-for-performance approach. But the authors conclude that the plan is fulfilling its goal of effectively and fairly quantifying all areas of faculty effort, and is also helping the department to more effectively demonstrate clinical productivity in negotiations with teaching hospitals.     

Mission-based budgeting: removing a graveyard.

Many activities in today's medical schools no longer have medical students' education as their central reason for existence. Faculty are hired primarily to provide clinical service or to make discoveries, with the role of educator of secondary importance. Budgeting in medical schools has not evolved in concert with these changing roles of faculty. The cost of medical students' education is still calculated as if all faculty were hired primarily to teach medical students and their other activities were to support this "central" mission. Most medical schools still mix revenues without regard to intent and cannot accurately determine costs because they confuse expenses with costs. At the University of Florida College of Medicine, a group of administrators, chairpersons, and faculty developed a budgeting process now called mission-based budgeting. This is a three-step process: (1) revenues are prospectively identified for each mission and then aligned with intended purposes; (2) faculty productivity, i.e., faculty effort and its quality, is measured for each of the missions; and (3) productivity is linked to the prospective budget for each mission. This process allows the institution to understand the intent of its revenues, to measure how productive its faculty are, to learn the true costs of its missions, to make wise investment decisions (subsidies), and to justify to various constituents its use of revenues. The authors describe this process, focusing particularly on methods used to develop a comprehensive database for assessment of faculty productivity in education.     

Post-tenure review at the University Of Louisville School Of Medicine: a faculty development and revitalization tool.

In 1994, the University of Louisville board of trustees mandated that each school develop a methodology for post-tenure review. Ten years after implementation, this article provides an update on the process and its outcomes. In the case of an unsatisfactory evaluation, a faculty member is re-reviewed two years later. Failed reviews trigger the creation of a faculty development plan. The plan includes specific and measurable requirements to be met within one year, with an additional year to demonstrate success. The plan must clearly state objective goals related to the area of deficiency, development activities that the faculty member will engage in, and resources the institution will provide for the faculty member to achieve the stated goals.Soon after implementation, an increase in retirement rates was observed. Since then, more than 250 post-tenure reviews have been completed in the school of medicine, and over 95% of faculty reviewed received ratings of satisfactory. Outcomes for faculty receiving ratings of unsatisfactory vary. Overall, results suggest that post-tenure review at the University of Louisville School of Medicine has facilitated faculty revitalization not only for those who failed, but also for others as they prepare for the evaluation process. The key to the success of this program is its nonpunitive nature. The focus on faculty development and the resulting reinvigoration of the careers of faculty put a positive spin on what otherwise would have been perceived as a top-down measure to increase faculty accountability.     

Creating a mission-based reporting system at an academic health center.

The authors developed a Web-based mission-based reporting (MBR) system for their university's (UC Davis's) health system to report faculty members' activities in research and creative work, clinical service, education, and community/university service. They developed the system over several years (1998-2001) in response to a perceived need to better define faculty members' productivity for faculty development, financial management, and program assessment. The goal was to create a measurement tool that could be used by department chairs to counsel faculty on their performances. The MBR system provides measures of effort for each of the university's four missions. Departments or the school can use the output to better define expenditures and allocations of resources. The system provides both a quantitative metric of times spent on various activities within each mission, and a qualitative metric for the effort expended. The authors report the process of developing the MBR system and making it applicable for both clinical and basic science departments, and the mixed success experienced in its implementation. The system appears to depict the activities of most faculty fairly accurately, and chairs of test departments have been generally enthusiastic. However, resistance to general implementation remains, chiefly due to concerns about reliability, validity, and time required for completing the report. The authors conclude that MBR can be useful but will require some streamlining and the elimination of other redundant reporting instruments. A well-defined purpose is required to motivate its use.     

Commentary: The battle of Louisville: money, power, politics, and publicity at an academic medical center

In 2009, the entire clinical faculty of the Department of Neurosurgery of the University of Louisville School of Medicine elected to become employees of a nearby community hospital. This took place in the context of the financial burden of caring for the indigent, declining reimbursement, clinical demands for neurosurgical coverage of a level 1 trauma center, rising salaries for neurosurgeons, and competitive pressure on hospitals. The author, who was dean of the school of medicine at the time, would not accept the abrupt withdrawal of these clinicians from the faculty practice plan, single-point contracting, and academic governance of clinical work assignments. Politicians, the press, and accreditation bodies quickly weighed in as the university, the school, and the public good were placed in jeopardy. The motivations for this event-the community hospital defending its market share and physician recruitment and retention pipeline, the dean defending principles of academic governance and the faculty practice plan-and the responses of the participants offer an instructive case study for academic medical management. The author concludes that one might view the protagonists of this episode not as defenders of principles but, rather, as pawns in a larger drama playing out related to a perfect storm of economic and social pressures in American medicine.     

The advisory dean program: a personalized approach to academic and career advising for medical students.

Advising and mentoring programs for medical students vary in their official names, scope, and structures. Catalyzed by negative student feedback regarding career advising and a perceived disconnection between faculty and students, in academic year 2003-2004, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons implemented its formal Advisory Dean (AD) Program and disbanded its former advising system that used faculty volunteers. The AD Program has become a key element for enhancing the students' professional development throughout their student training, focusing on topics including, but not limited to, career counseling, professionalism, humanism, and wellness resources. Advisory deans and the dean for student affairs, familiar with resources for academic development, student support, and extracurricular activities, operate at the nexus of the program, providing personalized mentoring and advising for each student. Fully supported by administration and faculty, the program has shown early success according to student feedback. Early feedback from the Class of 2006, who had been involved in our AD Program for three years, has been encouraging. Out of 152 students, 104 (68%) provided feedback, with 93 (89%) of the respondents reporting the AD Program as a valuable initiative. Expecting to further improve on this early positive response, the AD Program will continue to foster an environment conducive to a seamless transition from student to physician.     

Primary care compensation at an academic medical center: a model for the mixed-payer environment.

The authors' academic medical center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, developed a primary care physician (PCP) salary incentive program for employed academic physicians. This program, first implemented in 1999, was needed to meet the financial imperatives placed on the institution by managed care and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; its goal was to create a set of incentives for PCPs that is consistent with the mission of the academic center and helps motivate and reward PCP's work. The program sought to simultaneously increase productivity while optimizing resource utilization in a mixed-payer environment. The salary incentive program uses work relative-value units (wRVUs) as the measure of productivity. In addition to productivity-derived base pay, bonus incentives are added for efficient medical management, quality of care, teaching, and seniority. The authors report that there was significant concern from several members of the physician staff before the plan was implemented; they felt that the institution's PCPs were already operating at maximum clinical capacity. However, after the first year of operation of this plan, there was an overall 20% increase in PCP productivity. Increases were observed in all PCP subgroups when stratified by professional experience, clinical time commitment, and practice location. The authors conclude that the program has succeeded in giving incentives for academic PCPs to achieve under the growing demands for revenue self-sufficiency, managed care performance, quality of care, and academic commitment.     

Assessing research productivity: evaluating journal publication across academic departments

Publications produced by faculty over a three-year period are used in analyzing the relative research productivity of basic and clinical science departments in a college of medicine. The citation ratings of the journals, the number of authors, and the byline position of the faculty member are used in various publication evaluation schemes. The departments vary almost tenfold in research productivity per faculty member. Results of the analysis demonstrate that the number of authors and the byline position influence departmental productivity rankings very little. Rankings are substantially affected, however, when the journals are weighted based heavily on citation ratings.     

The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine: thirty-five years of experience with a nontraditional approach to medical education.

The University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) School of Medicine is a public medical school that opened in 1971 in response to a need to train more physicians in Missouri. As a six-year, integrated, combined-degree program leading to the baccalaureate and medical degrees, the school offers an innovative, nontraditional approach to medical education. In the past 35 years, UMKC has graduated over 2,400 physicians who are successful according to outcomes measures used at other medical schools. With recent interest in reforming medical education to prepare physicians for a changing world, a review of alternative models may be especially instructive.UMKC's academic plan offers a blueprint for the curriculum plan and governance of the school. The plan is built on four hallmarks: (1) a combined baccalaureate/MD program, (2) early exposure to clinical medicine, (3) small-group learning through the docent system, and (4) a continuing ambulatory care clinic experience for four years.This article catalogs the results of this plan including student, faculty, and graduates' perceptions of and satisfaction with the school's educational approach, students' achievement on licensing examinations and in the residency match, graduates' performance in residency programs, and their subsequent career patterns. The authors also discuss lessons learned and adjustments made in response to local needs in the context of a changing environment in education, health care, and health care delivery while continually improving the school's nontraditional approach to medical education. These include changes in basic and clinical science instruction, student assessment, faculty development, and funding and governance.     

Program Proficiency in Training Graduate Students for Clinical Faculty Careers: Does Program Size Matter?

Hunt suggests that our published analysis of program proficiency in training graduate students for clinical psychology faculty careers is "worse than useless," inasmuch as it utilizes as its principal measure the total number (rather than the percentage) of each program's graduates which have attained training faculty status— an approach that, according to Hunt, "systematically underrates small programs." In reply, we note that (a) our analysis was not intended as an overall rating of program strength, but rather as an indication of program achievement in a narrowly specified domain, (b) the utilized total number metric has considerable specific informative utility, and (c) additional analyses based upon Hunt's preferred percentage metric do not support the claim that our previously published report systematically underrated small programs. Because it may be of interest to prospective students (and others), a rank-ordered listing of programs which have placed at least 5% of recent Ph.D. recipients in clinical faculty positions is provided.     

Revising appointment, promotion, and tenure procedures to incorporate an expanded definition of scholarship: the University of Kentucky College of Medicine experience.

Scholarly activity and scholarly productivity are key features of the academic health center (AHC) and the work of college of medicine faculty. Recent changes in the academic environment of the University of Kentucky (UK) College of Medicine led to an examination of its appointment, promotion, and tenure procedures. This, in turn, led to a re-examination of the college's definition of scholarship. This article describes three of UK's scholarship-related challenges, particularly those related to clinical departments. The authors describe some of the new procedures being implemented to address these challenges; these include new faculty designations, clearer articulation of promotion procedures, explicit recognition of multiple forms of scholarship, expectations for investment in junior faculty, and mandatory discussion of faculty success in chairs' annual reviews. Faculty reactions, positive and negative, to these changes in procedures are also presented.     

Collaboration and peer review in medical schools' strategic planning.

The management of medical schools has never been so difficult, but can be facilitated by using a well-developed, broadly accepted strategic plan. While the concept of strategic planning has been reasonably well accepted by both faculty and leaders at most medical schools, using the strategic plan to allocate resources has proved to be a challenge. Achieving "buy-in" by all parties involved can help meet this challenge and can be critical to the success of strategic planning and management. The authors describe the collaborative planning process that the University of Wisconsin Medical School used to develop its 1998-2000 strategic plan. This unique effort culminated in using a peer-review process--similar to that used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)--and developing criteria to select a limited number of program priorities. This selection occurred after a school-wide process to solicit strategic program proposals had taken place. Over 130 faculty from most departments throughout the school helped develop and revise the strategic plan. There was frequent communication and engagement with faculty at all levels, which was important in gaining the faculty's acceptance and, indeed, endorsement of the process and its outcomes. Because the process was effective in achieving consensus about the school's strategic priorities, it enabled the school to reach a firmer end-point and implementation plan than had been possible with the previous strategic plan. It also identified important weaknesses in some areas of the medical school; the resulting attention to those areas will help strengthen the school. Finally, the process moved much more swiftly than the previous effort. The authors recommend that such an approach be used by other medical schools, and be carried out before a school implements mission-aligned budgeting and management of its fiscal resources.