Healthcare Reform: Managing What You Measure

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) expanded health coverage to millions of people. It did little or nothing to control costs, and is just the tip of the iceberg in improving the quality of care.

Think about how you select your health care providers. Who recommended them? If it was a friend, what does he or she know about the practice of medicine? I did a statistical study when I was managing medical groups. It proved that patients rated their physician by his staff’s attitude.

Think about it. You see the doctor for about 5 minutes. He looks at the information an assistant took down, asks a few questions, and delivers his verdict. Was your visit pleasant? If so, it probably didn’t have much to do with the doctor. So it’s likely that your friend gave you a recommendation heavily influenced by his or her impression of a nurse or receptionist.

Was the doctor you are thinking of recommended by another doctor? I have some more surprising news. Unless they are collaborating on a treatment plan, physicians rarely know much about a colleague’s practice patterns. I used to recruit docs to sit on M&M panels. M&M stands for Morbidity and Mortality; in other words, the process that (sometimes) occurs when a treatment goes wrong.

There were many times when our participating reviewers were aghast at the standard of care delivered by someone they knew well. I’d hear things like “He recommended WHAT? That treatment was discredited 15 years ago. My God, I’ve been sending my patients to him all this time!”

How do docs decide who is the best doctor? Often, it is by the same trappings of wealth that you might use. If he has a big house, expensive car and custom made suits, he is successful. Success=ability=quality, right?

Not at all. I knew of a surgeon who officed in the most expensive medical office building in Beverly Hills. His waiting room was literally packed with the rich and famous. Too bad his outcome rate was worse than most first-year residents. Paying a premium price in health care frequently has more to do with someone’s marketing than their proficiency.

How can you find out if a physician is really good at what he or she does? Unfortunately, you probably can’t. The necessary information often isn’t collected. If it is collected, it may not be accurate. If it is accurate, it likely won’t be reported.

Outcomes are hard to measure. In New York City a few years ago a magazine collected the results of all heart surgeries and reported them. They ranked the surgeons by the success of their operations. Great, right? Not so fast.

It turned out that the success rate was highly sensitive to the patient demographics of the practice. In other words. surgeons who operated on wealthier patients, people who had better educations, more dietary awareness, and greater financial resources for follow up treatment and support, had better outcomes. Not surprising.

In fact, the surgeon rated as the worst in the city was one who specialized in taking all the high risk patients that his colleagues were afraid to operate on. They referred to him because he was the most skilled among them, but the measurements said he was a disaster because of his adverse patient selection.

So if we do collect data, we don’t report it because simple yardsticks are too misleading to be of general use. If it is reported without explaining the many subtle variances that affect the data, and it could destroy a career without justification or even due process.

President Obama ran for his first term on a platform that included a national outcomes and best practices database. That, like a few of his good ideas, is proving to be a bigger challenge than anticipated. Measuring medical outcomes is complicated, sensitive, fraught with pitfalls and difficult to communicate. It is something only the government can do, but unfortunately it isn’t the kind of thing the government does well.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Could We Stamp Out Entrepreneurship in America?

In a recent Special Report on the Nordic Countries, The Economist notes that some Californian citizens pay taxes equivalent to those of Sweden. The Swedes,  however, at least receive an excellent educational system and free health care in return.

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants sponsors a site where you can see how much you pay in taxes. The Total Tax Calculator includes income, payroll, property, excise and capital gains levies. I highly recommend the tool. It’s easy, and a bit shocking.

I tried it with some simple numbers; $250,000 adjusted net income, a $500,000 house, and about $2,000 a month in discretionary spending aside from fuel and phone, with no capital gains or dividends (which took the largest hit in the recent tax bill). In San Antonio, that would incur about $78,000 in total taxes. In Sacramento, the ding would be over $91,000, and in New York City it is just below $97,000. It seems that the Big Apple takes a pretty big bite.

outnumbered-againIn California, less than 150,000 people in a state of 36,000,000 pay half of the total income taxes. Citizens passed a recent referendum to raise the top income tax rate to 13.3% and the sales tax to 11.25%. Let’s think about that for a moment. If I put 400 people on one side of a room, and 1 person on the other side, and let the 400 vote on whether the one should cough up more money to support them, how do you think that might go?

Last week we discussed the drop in US productivity. Follow this train of thought one step further. What would happen to the American economy if entrepreneurs decided that the rewards associated with working hard weren’t worth the effort?

This week I had discussion with one of my TAB Boards about the cost impact of the Affordable Care Act (wow! Another Soviet-style misnaming, just like the Taxpayer Relief Act) on our profits. Not surprisingly, business owners are discussing strategies for maintaining profits by reducing headcount or outsourcing more work.

On Thursday I also appeared on Jim Blasingame’s “Small Business Advocate” radio show, as I do from time to time. During a commercial break, Jim was talking about how many business owners whom he knows claim to be losing their desire to grow. Whether increased taxation and national health care are really going to crimp the average entrepreneur’s lifestyle remains to be seen. The problem is, they think it will.

We know the economy experiences massive swings with changes in consumer attitudes. How is it impacted by the enthusiasm of small business owners? The NFIB Optimism Index is at miserable levels, with negativity unseen since 1980; the Carter years of stagflation. With small businesses currently creating a massive 75% of all new jobs, how can that not impact the economy’s growth rate?

Regular readers know that I often write about the impact of Baby Boomers, the 2/3 of small business owners approaching retirement. As anyone over 60 can tell you, you start to slow down at that age whether you like it or not. The over-60’s are now 40% of the Boomers. That extrapolates to about 2,500,000 small business owners, or about a quarter of all small employers in the country.

Most of these business owners know that they won’t make a whole lot more money from their businesses. In fact, many believe that they will be making less than they did before. Are they likely to push harder and grow faster, can they coast into retirement, or could they just take their chips and go home?

Besides naming laws in ways that contradicted their true purpose, the Soviets were known for something else: lousy productivity. Their ubiquitous workplace saying from the 60’s through the 80’s was “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” If American entrepreneurs start deciding to mail it in, we are in serious trouble.

Posted in Exit Planning, Thoughts and Opinions | 3 Comments

3 Responses to Could We Stamp Out Entrepreneurship in America?

  1. Mike Kawula says:

    Thanks for sharing this on Linkedin. Great points and unfortunately to true. I know several SMB owners who are at 45+ employees (but less than 50) from businesses started within the last 5-10 years. Thats on average 4-10 new employees a year and many of them are extremely concerned about future growth. Several have pulled back advertising short-term until they better understand what the cost will be on their businesses at the 50+ level.

  2. George Benson says:

    It would be interesting to know what the average Scandinavian earns compared to the average American. It would also be interesing to know the level of income and wealth inequality in Scandinavian countries compared to the US. It might just show that the average Scandinavian can afford to pay more taxes after being able to pay living expenses. I doubt that the average American is in that situation. However, I believe that most Americans would not shy away from paying their fair share as long as they could maintain a standard of living enjoyed by the majority of Scandinavians. Please try not to compare apples with lutefisk.

    • John F. Dini says:

      Thanks George, but I don’t customarily accept research assignments. As to the assumed (meaning- without checking) erroneousness of the comment, your ripost is better sent to The Economist, whom I was quoting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Productivity Declines: Does it matter?

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, as reported by Bloomberg, employee productivity dropped last quarter at a 2% annual rate. The common wisdom is that we have pushed an overstretched workforce as far as we can, but there could be other reasons.

One is that sales are declining, but not sharply enough to warrant layoffs just yet. Small business generates about two-thirds of the new jobs in America. Those owners who survived the Great Recession by reducing staff are reluctant to do so again without a clear indication of what is coming.

Large corporations  can reduce head count to meet short-term profitability objectives. As long as hiring and training costs are treated as immediate expenses, rather than the long-term investments they should be considered, layoffs create an immediate improvement to their bottom line.

Small business owners can’t afford to ignore the cost of bringing a new employee up to speed. Throwing away the training investment in any new hire is wasteful, regardless of the accounting treatment it engenders. In a small business, waste is simply waste. Making the bottom line look better in this quarter at the expense of future profits is nonsensical to an owner. He or she has to take a longer term view.

computer usersAn alternative explanation for the productivity drop, and one that isn’t even mentioned in the media, is that employees are simply being less productive. As one owner said to me earlier in the week; “I look into every office, and the person inside is staring at a computer. How am I supposed to know if they are accomplishing anything?”

It’s a good question. He might more accurately ask “How do I know if they are accomplishing what they are being paid for?”

Back in the dark ages before portable cellular phones, most workplaces had a prohibition against using company telephones for personal business. It was easy enough to track. If an employee was engaged in  a personal conversation you could tell, and calls were billed individually with documentation of the number dialed. Unfortunately, that billing methodology led us to unwittingly term the forbidden behavior as using the company telephones (theft of equipment capability), rather than using company-paid time (theft of personnel capability). With personal communications devices, the rationale quickly became “I’m not using the company’s phone.”

Most employers stuck with this hardware-based policy logic as computers, and then Internet connections became ubiquitous. The logic fails, however, when the time wasters are built-in, or promoted by the company. Operating systems come with pre-installed games. Supervisors forward jokes or cute videos to subordinates, who then redistribute them to coworkers.

Policies against using the Internet for personal reasons are difficult to enforce, and have been shown to be most violated by management. Disciplining an employee becomes impossible if he or she can produce one non-business email from someone higher up on the organizational chart. Forbidding personal cell phone use in the office is tougher to justify if you use that same phone to contact an employee when he is in the field.

One of the biggest challenges is defining misuse. We can start with using company resources for illegitimate activity, like online gambling or illegal downloading. From there, however, things get murkier. If employees can have a radio at their desk, can they therefore stream an Internet music station? If someone communicates via email with a staffer in another location, can they use that same email account to invite them to a party?

Productivity measurements may be important to economists, but on an individual level they become meaningless. Business owners must rely on what an employee accomplishes to judge performance. The melding of work and personal communications means that we have to trust employees to act as adults, and guide them with clear objectives rather than rules for behavior.

Posted in Management | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Small Business and BIG Taxes – Timing is Everything

This column typically focuses on the issues of running a business, especially those that revolve around leading employees and growing profits. When I am consulting on issues that include tax planning, I am supposed to include a “Circular 230 Disclaimer”, which cautions any advice as not encouraging tax evasion. So I start this by reminding readers to consult with their CPAs, who are far more qualified than I to determine whether any change for tax purposes is advisable.

Whew! Having at least partially covered my legal butt, I will now venture my opinion.

Many small business owners I know who have had their companies for 20 years or more are structured as “C”, or regular corporations. Years ago, I also had a C-Corp. It was the only way you could cover your health and other benefits as an employee expense. Many others use it because the first $50,000 of taxable profit is dinged at a very low rate. That makes it much easier to accumulate working capital without paying the full personal ordinary income tax rate from the first dollar of earnings.

Here is the issue. Owners from the Baby Boom generation are planning their exits, and a privately held C-Corp can be a tax nightmare to sell. Some 80% or more of small business sales are asset sales. When you sell the assets of a C-Corp, it creates ordinary income for the corporation (C-Corps don’t get capital gains treatment). Then when you distribute the balance to yourself or other shareholders, you pay dividend tax.

I’m not expert on the details of the new tax law passed in the last month, but if proceeds from the sale are enough to trigger a 39% taxation range, you could be paying that twice. In other words, about 37 cents of each dollar in proceeds finally goes to you, and 63 cents to the IRS. Owners who decide to sell before checking the tax implications (and there are many) get a very rude surprise. (I’m mixing corporate and personal tax rates here, but remember you should talk to a professional. The point is still valid.)

This double taxation doesn’t occur in “pass-through” entities like Subchapter S corporations, LLCs or partnerships, but changing a C-Corp is (of course!) a bit more complicated than just doing the paperwork.

1120sTaxFormYour C-Corp can be converted to a Subchapter S by filing an election form. Here’s the catch. The conversion triggers the Built In Gains (appropriately shorthanded as BIG) tax. The entire value of the corporation becomes your personal property, and therefore personal income to you.

Here’s the good news (at last!), you don’t have to pay tax on that income immediately. You are allowed to amortize it over time, or until you sell the assets of the business. Here’s some more good news, that amortization period has just been reduced from ten years to five. So if you sell in more than 5 years, you are only taxed on the proceeds of the sale one time, at your personal rate.

What if you plan to sell in less than five years? The conversion is at a present value, it doesn’t change. If your business is growing, that new growth is in the Subchapter S. So each year you save some potential taxes via amortization, and some more on the growth in the “new” entity.

Why am I devoting a whole column to this technical stuff? Because there is one…more…catch. (Aren’t you surprised?) A subchapter S election may only be made in the first 75 days of the fiscal year. If yours started on January 1, you have until March 15th to file, or lose the option. If you lose the option, you lose a whole year of both growth and amortization at the potentially lower rates.

If you are a Baby Boomer who still runs your business in a C-Corp, talk to your accountant. There are some other benefits of conversion, but I’m happy to let him look smart. And like the man says, “Don’t try this at home!”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leaner and Meaner (Part 4): Beating the Big Guys

If your small business depends on excellent employees, how can you attract and retain them against the resources of larger corporations? In our previous installments of this Leaner and Meaner series, we’ve talked about how the pressures of running a business today require accomplishing more with less. For most of us, that means employees who are very good at what they do, and who are getting better all the time.

Small businesses have a litany of reasons why they are an attractive employment alternative to big organizations. Some are true, but others are merely fantasies that an owner creates to make him- or herself feel better about not being competitive, or not hiring the best.

True Differentiators

An employee in a small business is an individual. Others in the company know who they are, and what their role is in the organization. They don’t have to search a cafeteria at lunch time to see whom they might recognize. They don’t have a job description defined by a number (level II administrative clerk) or shared with dozens of others.

cube farmPeople want to be important. Big businesses can tell people they are important, but reality intrudes when you are sitting in a cube farm that stretches to the horizon. In a small business, every employee really is a key part of the machine. It is an owner’s job to make sure that is understood, both by the employee and by his or her coworkers.

Everyone wants to make a difference. Imagine standing outside of the exit gate from a large businesses employee parking lot. Pretend you have each employee roll down the car window and answer two questions: “Did you do a good job today?” and “How do you know?”

Most will answer “Yes” to the first question, and “I don’t know” to the second. Enthusiasm for a job has to come from more than slogans and team meetings. It should be generated by an understanding of why your job is important, and how it impacts the company as a whole. A small business enjoys a tremendous advantage when communicating that information to every employee.

False Differentiators

The most frequent and least credible claim I hear from small business owners about the advantages of working in their company is “We treat everyone like family.” It is a poor differentiator because it is so true.

Most families are a least somewhat dysfunctional. Which of your employees is uncle Bob, who is only contacted about births and deaths, and happily ignored the rest of the time? Which one is cousin Brittany, whose life disasters provide ongoing grist for the gossip mill? Employees have their own families, and all the baggage that comes with them.

Social interaction, working with people you like and whose company you enjoy, is a key part of company culture. Being sociable and supporting as you would with family, instead of demanding performance, is a clear pathway to mediocrity. Worse, the best workers will leave if they feel they are supporting underperformers.

Competitive Factors

Pay: Big companies can afford to pay more than normal market rates to offset their lack of emotional rewards. That doesn’t mean small companies can pay less than market rates and make it up with culture. You have to be within the range. Check the salary scales on websites dedicated to that purpose, and make sure you keep up with the norm. Employees have real families to support.

Benefits: Health insurance isn’t an option if you want to attract top performers. You may not be able to afford a gilt-edged plan, and you may have to ask for more employee contribution that a big company does. Not offering anything however, is a guaranty that the best prospects will pass you by.

Flexibility: It is laughable that Corporate America is beating the daylights out of small business on the flexibility issues. The only reason a small business can’t compete is because the owner doesn’t want to. Tailoring some customization into schedules or duties is greatly appreciated, and really speaks to how you value an individual.

Growth: Small business usually can’t offer a “career path” of incremental advancement, but that is no reason you can’t offer employees a chance to grow and learn. The current issue of Inc. Magazine quotes Harvard Professor Teresa M. Amabile:

“Of all the things that contribute to a happy workday, the one thing that stands out from my research is making progress on meaningful work.”

Each employee is proportionately more important in a small business. Attracting people who want to be meaningful in their workplace should be a slam-dunk. Having the financial resources to compete on the rest of the issues requires you to be “leaner and meaner.” For that, you need exceptional employees. I admit that it’s a Catch 22, but you can’t build your bottom line with poor performers.

 

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Leadership, Management | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

One Response to Leaner and Meaner (Part 4): Beating the Big Guys

  1. I enjoyed the article, we have worked hard to bring our small business to the size and profitability to retain our top performers. Although we think of ourselves as a family we do cull the family to make room for new family members. Most of the time “family members” who are repeatable passed up will leave on their own: At times We need to let them know their future is not with us. When this happens we need to step back and rebuild the team, though recently we have the new member work for a week at a time with one trainer in their work related areas. after a month we confer with the trainers and see where their strengths are, should any of the managers feel the time investment will not pay off the individual is let go. the longer it takes to make that decision the more difficult it is to let them go–part of the family dilemma I suspect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *