Eyeworld

EW NEWS & OPINION 28 July 2016 0 to 10, where "0" is the absence of fairness and "10" is absolute fairness. • Ask everyone to write down their personal 0 to 10 score based on their broad feelings about the current compensation model used in your practice. • Share the resulting votes—re- vealed anonymously or (better) openly. Each of the above approaches or their hybrids may be more or less suitable depending on the setting. A compensation model that seems fair today can become unfair in a year or 2 as conditions change. Here's an easy boardroom exercise to gauge everyone's sense of fairness: • Describe to the assembled board members a "fairness score" from • Use the scores to make a decision to either give the current comp model a formal vote of confi- dence, or to empower a small task force to come up with something better. Here are 3 final thoughts. Transparency is critical; all partners should receive (and un- derstand!) a monthly recap of how the formula has been applied to them—and should have monthly evidence that their open accounts receivable are being worked as hard as everyone else's (we've stepped into settings where the lead partner had his accounts well-collected and the junior doctors less so). Keep in mind that compensa- tion is just one basis—one of many dependent variables—for a doctor thinking he or she is being handled fairly in a practice. Other elements include access to patients, the fair- ness of internal cross referral, and one's ability to pursue lucrative sub- specialties, academics, or research. Compensation modeling is a zero-sum activity. Any change in the model creates winners and losers. For this reason, it is usually inappro- priate to ask the practice administra- tor to lead the compensation mod- eling process; if a change is made, the doctors who "lose" can hold a grudge against anyone involved. It's more appropriate to use peer-partner and external advisors to lead the process. EW Femtosecond Thorlakson Eye Speculum K1-5673 Adjustable mechanism 10mm rounded wire blades designed to accommodate the suction ring of the FEMTO LDV TM laser. FEMTO LVD TM is a trademark of Ziemer Ophthalmic Systems AG Thorlakson Z-LASIK TM Flap Lifter K3-2536 K3-2537 short handle Combines a 1mm long, extra fine modified Sinskey Hook and a 12mm long bi-convex spatula with beveled notches. To lift LASIK flaps created with a femtosecond laser. Z-LASIK TM is a trademark of Ziemer Ophthalmic Systems AG IntraLase® Flap Lifter K3-2538 Combines a 1mm long Sinskey Hook for finding the flap edge and a long, blunt, 11mm long hook to undermine the flap perpendicular to the hinge. IntraLase® is a registered trademark of AMO INSTRUMENTS 800 - 225 - 1195 • www.katena.com ® Partner continued from page 27 Mr. Pinto is president of J. Pinto & Associates Inc., an ophthalmic practice man- agement consulting firm established in 1979 with offices in San Diego. His latest ASCRS•ASOA book, Simple: The Inner Game of Ophthalmic Practice Success, is now available at www.asoa.org. Mr. Pinto can be contacted at pintoinc@aol.com or 619-223-2233. Ms. Wohl is president of C. Wohl & Associates Inc., a practice management consulting firm. She earned her Masters of Health Services Admin- istration degree at the George Washington University and has 30 years of hospital and physician practice management expertise. Ms. Wohl can be contacted at czwohl@ gmail.com or 609-410-2932. About the authors In a few settings, with argu- mentative doctors, we've suggested a "micro-allocation" model, where practice costs are precisely divided; for example, a doctor is charged $X per hour that he uses a clinic, or $Y for every hour of tech time assigned to his pod. This is a huge accounting chore, but can prevent the breakup of such groups.

• Cover