Chehardy Sherman Williams introduces its newest trial lawyer to the firm.

Join us in welcoming Daniel Edwards, a personal injury and civil litigation attorney.

Mr. Edwards was born and raised in Tangipahoa Parish and served as a fourth-generation Sheriff for 20 years. Before running for Sheriff in 2004, Edwards served as an Assistant District Attorney for the 21st Judicial District, prosecuting felony crimes. We are thrilled to have his experience and knowledge on our team.

Learn more about Mr. Daniel’s background and how he can use his years of experience to benefit you and your case.

Chehardy Sherman Williams, founded in the Greater New Orleans area, has been a leading law firm serving Southeastern Louisiana since 1989.

We put decades of legal practice to work for our clients and provide more personalized services to achieve their desired results. From businesses and individuals across more than ten practice areas, we can provide more experience and more representation.

We can help resolve a wide range of complex legal issues in all courts, including parish, state, and federal branches. Our attorneys have represented cases across Louisiana and the country. Armed with a profound and comprehensive knowledge of the legal system, we are devoted to protecting your legal rights while upholding the highest standards of the justice system.

We are consistently recognized as leaders in the industry, earning local and national accolades for results, service, and commitment.

Please join us in celebrating and congratulating the LSU Women’s Gymnastics team on its first NCAA Championship win! This team’s success not only shines a spotlight on the positive sports culture at LSU and its female athletes but also makes a big impact on young women. Anything is possible if you work hard and have a passion for whatever it may be!

Introduction:
Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s time for our next guest. LSU is governed by a board of supervisors, which oversees Louisiana’s flagship university and its many campuses. At this time, please join me in welcoming the athletics chair of the LSU Board of Supervisors, James Williams.

James Williams:
Good evening, everyone. On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I want to first congratulate our team on all of their success. I need to recognize the chairman of our board, Jimmy Woods; and thank you for appointing me as Athletics Chairman and also for giving me the opportunity to make these remarks. I want to acknowledge our board members that are present. We have board member Laurie Aronson, board member, Pat Morrow, board member Remy Starns, board member Mary Werner, board member Lee Mallett, and board member Glenn Armentor. From the board, I want to extend congratulations to President Tate, chair of the department Scott Woodward, head coach Jay Clark, all of the assistant coaches, our gymnasts, and then congratulations to all the season ticket holders, all of our fans, all of our family, and all of our friends.

You’ve heard the mission of the Board of Supervisors. You’ve heard our duty, and we are particularly excited about this championship because, as former LSU Chancellor Mark Emmert says, “athletics – and in this situation, gymnastics – is the front porch, the front porch to our university.” There are a lot of great things happening here at LSU, but our gymnastics team is the curb appeal. It’s what people see on the outside. It’s what draws them in. Just like a front porch enhances the beauty of a home, the gymnastics team has enriched the fabric of our institution drawing attention and admiration for LSU from around the world. You don’t just win a championship based on speed and strength. Their journey to the top is a testament to their discipline and their intelligence that defines all LSU students and faculty.

But you see, a front porch is not just for curb appeal; it’s also a gathering spot. And think about what gymnastics has done this year alone as a gathering spot. When people packed into this PMAC, nobody said, “well, I’m going to only sit with the people from North Louisiana,” or “I’m going to only sit with Democrats or Republicans,” or “I’m not going to fool with those or sit with those people because they’re from the Northshore.” Black, white, purple, green, Republican, Democrat, whatever you want to call yourself. We all sat side by side, shoulder to shoulder in this arena to unify behind our national championship gymnastics team. Thank you for bringing us together. And what I want to say is Louisiana, for all of the knocks that people around the country want to give us, for all the ways people who don’t understand us, want to make fun of us and ridicule us, we’re the most talented state in the country. We are. We are. There’s more talent coming out of Louisiana than any place else despite what they say. And so, where I grew up, in the Louisiana I grew up in, when you’re the most talented, and people talk about you, they call that hating.

And what we do when people hate – and that’s why I love the way they compete – we put our best and our brightest up against your best and your brightest. And we let that do the talking. We let that do the talking. And now that we are champions, and I’ve likened the gymnastics team to the front porch, I want you to think about “the front porch to what?” The front porch to our house. This is our house. LSU belongs to us, to the people of Louisiana. But it’s only through efforts like your gymnastics team, like the fight you put forward day after day on television for the world to see. Everyone now knows what we already know. That LSU is full of champions. LSU is full of winners. and I’m just so proud that you are the latest installment of a legacy of greatness for this university. On behalf of the LSU Board of Supervisors, thank you for making us champions. Thank you for vindicating us. Thank you for letting us talk noise to all our friends.

Congratulations. Job well done.

New Orleans Magazine May 2024

As a highly sought-after expert in corporate, transactional, and healthcare law, David Sherman is a driving force for the legal industry in the Greater New Orleans Metropolitan Area.

Mr. Sherman is a lifelong resident of New Orleans and as one of the founding partners of Chehardy Sherman Williams, has practiced law for more than four decades. He serves as legal counsel to healthcare providers, including full-service hospitals, surgery and imaging centers, and medical practices. He represents businesses in all aspects of planning, compliance and operations, contract negotiations, and sales and acquisitions. Mr. Sherman also works with individual clients in business, tax, and estate planning.

David Sherman has received numerous honors both professionally and personally, including inclusion in Best Lawyers in America, a Louisiana Super Lawyer, New Orleans CityBusiness Leadership in Law Hall of Fame, one of New Orleans’/Jefferson’s Most Influential Citizens and a “Person to Watch,” a New Orleans ICON, and Activist of the Year.

Chehardy Sherman Williams is one of the most recognized law firms in the region. Its attorneys have years of experience representing clients in 21 practice areas in all courts.

Chehardy Sherman Williams, founded in the Greater New Orleans area, has been a leading law firm serving Southeastern Louisiana since 1989.

We put decades of legal practice to work for our clients and provide more personalized services to achieve their desired results. From businesses and individuals across more than ten practice areas, we can provide more experience and more representation.

We can help resolve a wide range of complex legal issues in all courts, including parish, state, and federal branches. Our attorneys have represented cases across Louisiana and the country. Armed with a profound and comprehensive knowledge of the legal system, we are devoted to protecting your legal rights while upholding the highest standards of the justice system.

We are consistently recognized as leaders in the industry, earning local and national accolades for results, service, and commitment.

Mr. Mueller and David Sherman, Chehardy Sherman Williams Co-Managing Partner, have a longstanding relationship, both personal and professional. Mr. Mueller chose his good and trusted friend, David, to bring experienced insight and innovative ideas to the Higgins Hotel project from conception to completion.

Chehardy Sherman Williams, founded in the Greater New Orleans area, has been a leading law firm serving Southeastern Louisiana since 1989.

We put decades of legal practice to work for our clients and provide more personalized services to achieve their desired results. From businesses and individuals across more than ten practice areas, we can provide more experience and more representation.

We can help resolve a wide range of complex legal issues in all courts, including parish, state, and federal branches. Our attorneys have represented cases across Louisiana and the country. Armed with a profound and comprehensive knowledge of the legal system, we are devoted to protecting your legal rights while upholding the highest standards of the justice system.

We are consistently recognized as leaders in the industry, earning local and national accolades for results, service, and commitment.

Congratulations to Las Vegas for hosting another outstanding Super Bowl, and congrats to the Kansas City Chiefs for an incredible win!

Founding Partner David Sherman joined Lt. Governor Billy Nungesser, Mayor Latoya Cantrell, New Orleans Saints owner Gayle Benson, New Orleans & Company CEO Walt Leger, and President of the New Orleans Convention Center Michael Sawaya, for Super Bowl LVXIII. 

We are proud of the work Mr. Sherman continues to do as he serves on the GNOSF Host Committee and helps to bring Super Bowl LIX to New Orleans in 2025! 

Chehardy Sherman Williams, founded in the Greater New Orleans area, has been a leading law firm serving Southeastern Louisiana since 1989.

We put decades of legal practice to work for our clients and provide more personalized services to achieve their desired results. From businesses and individuals across more than ten practice areas, we can provide more experience and more representation.

We can help resolve a wide range of complex legal issues in all courts, including parish, state, and federal branches. Our attorneys have represented cases across Louisiana and the country. Armed with a profound and comprehensive knowledge of the legal system, we are devoted to protecting your legal rights while upholding the highest standards of the justice system.

We are consistently recognized as leaders in the industry, earning local and national accolades for results, service, and commitment.

Best Law Firms 2024

Best Lawyers® recently selected Chehardy Sherman Williams for its 2024 Edition of The Best Law Firms in the United States. According to the Best Law Firms guidelines, this ranking is based on client/professional reference feedback, firmographic information provided by firms, industry leader interviews, and feedback collected on individual lawyers through the Best Lawyers research process. On November 2, 2023, Best Law Firms published the annual rankings independently for the first time.

To be considered for this ranking, a firm must have at least one attorney ranked high enough to be listed in the current edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. Earlier this year, 14 Chehardy Sherman Williams attorneys were named to the 2024 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America® & Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America.

Chehardy Sherman Williams, founded in the Greater New Orleans area, has been a leading law firm serving Southeastern Louisiana since 1989.

We put decades of legal practice to work for our clients and provide more personalized services to achieve their desired results. From businesses and individuals across more than ten practice areas, we can provide more experience and more representation.

We can help resolve a wide range of complex legal issues in all courts, including parish, state, and federal branches. Our attorneys have represented cases across Louisiana and the country. Armed with a profound and comprehensive knowledge of the legal system, we are devoted to protecting your legal rights while upholding the highest standards of the justice system.

We are consistently recognized as leaders in the industry, earning local and national accolades for results, service, and commitment.

Noncompete Agreements

Health Law Talk Presented by Chehardy Sherman Williams

+ Full Transcript

Introduction (00:01):
Welcome to Health Law Talk, presented by Chehardy Sherman Williams Health Law. Broken down through expert discussion, real client issues and real life experiences, breaking barriers to understanding complex healthcare issues is our job.

Conrad Meyer (00:21):
And good morning, good afternoon, whatever time it is when you’re listening to this podcast, another edition of Health Law Talk here at Chehardy Sherman Williams. Conrad Meyer on the mic with Rory Bellina. Chris Martin, rounding out the wealth and depth of healthcare knowledge here at the firm. Gentlemen, good to see you

Rory Bellina (00:40):
Guys. Good afternoon. Good

Chris Martin (00:41):
Afternoon.

Conrad Meyer (00:42):
It’s been a minute since all three of us have been kind of in the studio to talk about some healthcare topics, so I’m glad to see everybody’s here. That’s good.

Rory Bellina (00:50):
It’s been a busy time. You

Conrad Meyer (00:52):
Just say the least. Right? I mean, it’s been a busy year, I think, for all of us to try to find time to come in and sadly, we’ve had a lot of important issues that have come up in 2024 that I think have affect clients, and I think we got a really big one today, especially in Louisiana, that I think is important. And I think we’re going to hit on it pretty hard. I know we’ve been talking about it for years, and that’s non-competes. Sure.

Rory Bellina (01:21):
Yep. I think today’s topic is going to be, we’ll call it the Louisiana Revised Non-Compete Senate Bill 1 65. If anyone wants to go check it at home. It came out of the 2024 regular session. It was co-authored by a handful of Louisiana senators, a lot of big names here, especially in the healthcare world. And it goes into effect January 1st, 2025. So it’s given our clients and practices time to understand and digest it, but we’re going to kind of walk you through it and talk about the things we like, the things we don’t like, the things that we think may be missing and possible issues we see with it going forward.

Conrad Meyer (01:59):
Absolutely. Chris, I know you and Rory both have clients that deal with non-competes. What have been some of the main complaints that you’ve heard of in terms of non-competes from your clients previously prior to this bill?

Chris Martin (02:18):
Well, from the physician side, I think the main concern is for specialists for instance, that if say they were doing business with a certain large healthcare system, they’d literally have to move out of the state to carry on their profession if the non-compete was enforced. So it literally, I think had a dampening effect for certain specialties to come to Louisiana.

Rory Bellina (02:58):
And I always thought too, putting aside the aspect of losing that physician, but you’re losing that physician’s family, you’re losing one of the statistically top earners from an income standpoint to the state. You’re losing their dependence mean, we’re talking about Louisiana who already has a declining population, and we have obviously hurricanes with natural disasters, and we have a real issue here with healthcare serving or getting access to the underserved population. So Louisiana’s had so many things going against it and so many things causing, let’s just not even talk about physicians. We’re just causing people to move away. And then the fact that we have such an expansive allowance of non-compete for physicians here in Louisiana for them, for these bigger systems to be able to have these in place where, like Chris said, to get outside of the non-compete, they’re going to have to leave. So we’re losing them. We’re losing their spouse, their kids, that income, that tax revenue base, and they’re probably not going to come back. Why would they come back? And then if they want to move again, they’re going to have another non-compete issue to do with. So we’re losing that family line forever.

Conrad Meyer (04:09):
And we watched the evolution of that non-compete over the years. I mean, I’m sure you guys have seen it when we get the list of the restricted area or the covered area or the geo, whatever the defined term is for the restrictive covenant. And before I used to see, especially in the greater New Orleans area, I saw Orleans Parish, Jefferson Parish, St. Tammany, sort of the trio than St. Bernard. And then suddenly it got to the point where it was going from five or six parishes to 10 to 15. And I think at one point I saw one with over 30 parishes, and I was like,

Rory Bellina (04:41):
And then creeping into Mississippi for some systems.

Conrad Meyer (04:45):
And I was like, when does this end? That’s just nuts. Y’all remember seeing the evolution of that? I mean,

Chris Martin (04:53):
Absolutely. Absolutely. The non-compete provision used to be a couple of lines, and then they started listing all the parishes and it ends up being half a

Conrad Meyer (05:04):
Page. Oh, then it added, it was non-solicitation, and then you had to do the non raiding clause in terms of that. I mean, the restrictive covenant just grew like a bean stalk, like a jack. It’s just magic beans. Let’s just make it as big as possible.

Rory Bellina (05:18):
Sure. And when you go back to the reason of why did we have non-competes, is it really an issue of your concern that that provider is going to take patients and open up a clinic and compete? Is it a penalty? I think a lot of people will answer that question differently on why were these put in place. Probably in the beginning it was because you were really concerned that if you lost one your, let’s say a junior pediatrician, that they’re going to open up a pediatrician clinic after they’ve learned everything from you and take population, then they could open up theoretically right next door to you. But I think we’ve shifted away from that a lot. And now it seems a lot more of a stick of we’re putting this in there and yeah, we’re investing in you and we’re going to teach you a lot. But I don’t think that it matches. I don’t think that the penalty of it really matches what the providers are getting anymore. I could be wrong with, that’s just mine.

Conrad Meyer (06:14):
No, I think it’s a stick. Absolutely. Because now at least I know we talked about this before, the three of us have, but I’m seeing the stick include not only just the larger geographic area, but then you have the without cause termination extended from 90 to maybe 120 or 150 days or some long period of time. So you’re stuck in that job when you do the withdrawal. And then on top of that, the buyout, adding the damaged buyout for moving the non-compete. In other words, if you just terminate and you bought, you have a buyout if you want to get out of that one or two year deal, whatever the deal is, and it’s a full year salary.

Rory Bellina (06:56):
And Chris and I had a common client a while back where the non-compete just didn’t make sense. And it came from a practice who just says, this is the standard non-compete that we give to everyone, but this non-compete was for a anesthesiologist who typically does not really have a patient per se.

Conrad Meyer (07:15):
So what’s the point of

Rory Bellina (07:16):
That, right? I mean, you’re not going to a certain surgery center. You want that person to put you to sleep. You’re going there because of the surgeon. So I really think it’s just become this thing that’s little monster where we have non-competes and so many people have signed non-competes. So now everyone gets a non-compete, and it’s going to be for all 64 parishes plus Hancock and Harrison and creep into Mississippi. And the effect of it does not match, I think what the goal was.

Conrad Meyer (07:46):
So what, Chris, what does the new law, I mean, can you walk us, I know you have some highlights, and I know we talked about this, but where does this now start? I know Rory mentioned January 1st, 2025. What is your take on, if you can tell our listeners who might not be aware of what this is, what does it do now to non-compete starting in 2025?

Chris Martin (08:09):
So if we start with primary care physicians, that’s probably the biggest change is starting in 2025. Primary care physicians, which are defined as physicians who predominantly practice general family medicine, general internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics, gynecology, those specialties or those categories of practices cannot have a non-compete that’s longer than three years. And it’s the other important part of it. It’s limited to three parishes as I understand it. So the amount of time and the scope of the non-compete have been radically changed.

Rory Bellina (09:04):
And

Conrad Meyer (09:05):
I dunno if it’s three years, I think it can be two years max, but I think after the third year of working.

Rory Bellina (09:11):
Oh, that’s right. So I’m sorry. Yeah, where the numbers come, I had to read this. Isn’t that right? A few times as well. It cannot exceed three years from the effective date of the contract. So if you go by statute, the rule is that an OEE can’t be longer than two years. That’s right. 23 by statute, 22 years. This is now clarifying that if it’s for a primary care physician, the overall non-compete cannot be more than three years from the effective date. So if you go work for a system and on let’s say today, July 3rd, 2024, you sign a five year deal or whatever, and they have that two year, well, once you reach three years into it, then it’s over. So if you keep re-upping, or let’s just say you have a one year contract, but you have that two year, if you just keep re-upping, you cannot have a non-compete that goes three years after the effective date. So if you sign a contract today, July 3rd, 2024, no matter how many times you could work there for 30 years, and typically that’s how most non-competes work right now, is that the non-compete, the clock on the non-compete doesn’t start until your last day,

Conrad Meyer (10:25):
Until the termination of the agreement.

Rory Bellina (10:26):
Until the termination of the agreement. So in my example, if you work there for another 30 years until 2054, then your non compete goes two years past that. This revision says no. No matter what happens, your non compete ends July 3rd, 2027. We don’t care how long you’re there. That’s how long it goes. It doesn’t end. The clock doesn’t start two years or three years after you

Conrad Meyer (10:50):
Gone. Does the clock start right now or does it start January 1st?

Rory Bellina (10:55):
Well, effective January 1st, it is three years. It cannot exceed three years from the effective date of your initial contract. So I think your question is what happens to everyone

Conrad Meyer (11:06):
That has one in place? I say I started right now, so I mean, do I get eight months credit or six months credit to the January 1st trigger date? That’s something that’s not clear, at least to me it’s not clear. But

Rory Bellina (11:20):
The retroactivity of this statute,

Conrad Meyer (11:23):
Essentially,

Rory Bellina (11:25):
And actually I don’t think it even,

Chris Martin (11:27):
I think for contracts in existence now, the initial three or the five year term begins to run on January 1st, 2025.

Conrad Meyer (11:36):
That’s what I thought too, but I wasn’t a hundred percent sure on that.

Rory Bellina (11:40):
So you would probably get the lesser of the two.

Conrad Meyer (11:42):
So you have to wait until January 1st, 2025 for the time to start running. That makes sense. We all agree on that.

Chris Martin (11:50):
And the same with the geographic provisions. Those kick in on January 1st. So there’d

Conrad Meyer (11:56):
Be a lot of contract revisions, I think on a system level for some of the systems here and maybe even other the employers to do their revisions on their parishes starting next year.

Rory Bellina (12:05):
And as Chris was stating, no more than two continuous parishes.

Conrad Meyer (12:11):
So in other words, you could do Orleans Jefferson, but not St. Tammany, right? I mean, or Yeah, St. Tammany’s right next to, is

Rory Bellina (12:19):
That considered geographic wise? Is that considered

Conrad Meyer (12:22):
Yeah, because St. Tammany and Jefferson run a line on the lake.

Rory Bellina (12:25):
True.

Conrad Meyer (12:25):
So you can’t really, because they touch each other.

Chris Martin (12:30):
So the statute says that the non-compete agreement must specify the parish where the physician’s principal practice is located.

Rory Bellina (12:40):
That’s interesting

Chris Martin (12:40):
Because, and not more than two contiguous parishes.

Conrad Meyer (12:45):
So you read it as three totals. Yeah,

Chris Martin (12:47):
Three total. But the law doesn’t really discuss how to define or how to determine what that quote principle location

Conrad Meyer (12:54):
Is. They shuffle them around, right?

Rory Bellina (12:57):
Yeah. Your principal practice, if you have clinic in Luling and Mey, if you shared a, and

Conrad Meyer (13:05):
I haven’t looked at that, if there’s a defined term for principal practice. So interesting. Now the specialists are different. I mean, I think they have something, Chris that addresses the specialist.

Chris Martin (13:15):
So the specialist, instead of the non-compete expiring after three years for specialists. It’s a five year sort of provision. So what’s

Rory Bellina (13:31):
The thought behind that?

Chris Martin (13:34):
I think part of the rationale, like you were explaining earlier, Rory is more time and money and resources are put into specialists and they’re probably more valuable, say for a health system. So this statute is recognizing that and giving hospital employers a little more time and a little more leeway with respect to neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons and transplant surgeons. So I think that was probably an accommodation in the negotiation.

Rory Bellina (14:13):
Makes sense. And I guess you want the shortest period for your primary cares. The ones that are probably in inmost need for a lot of these clinics.

Chris Martin (14:23):
They’re also the gatekeepers too. They’re the ones, they’re the traffic cops where they refer to the specialists. So you want them to have as much freedom as possible to practice

Conrad Meyer (14:39):
From a public policy standpoint to give patients most access.

Chris Martin (14:43):
And that’s the patient’s introduction usually to the healthcare field, or is that primary care doctor and hopefully not the emergency room. So that’s where they start primary care physicians. And so policy wise, you want to give the public freedom of choice and the physician freedom of decisionmaking when it comes to where they work and not handcuff them too much. Plus we have a shortage of these types, these practitioners, family medicine, internal medicine.

Conrad Meyer (15:22):
This are huge shortage. I totally agree. And I think this is a long time coming. I mean, I think we’ve heard about this before. You know what, a couple of years ago, Rory, we had that attempt that it was failed. Every

Rory Bellina (15:34):
Year there’s an attempt that seems to fail.

Conrad Meyer (15:36):
It seems to fail. This

Rory Bellina (15:37):
One finally made it. I didn’t not have confidence that it would make it, but it

Conrad Meyer (15:41):
Did. It did. Well, you know what? And I want to talk to you about that. I think large employers and systems knew this was coming. I think they knew that the leak and the dike had spread and that it was ready to fall forward. And so what I’ve been seeing is in an effort to sort of lock the dock in, lock the doc in to the hospital or the system, they’ve been paying these doctors retention bonuses. Have y’all seen that?

Chris Martin (16:13):
You were mentioning that? I haven’t seen it yet, but it’s very interesting. Explain that a little

Conrad Meyer (16:18):
More. So maybe about three or four years ago, maybe more than that, I started seeing contracts with not only signing bonuses, but then a subsequent addendum called a retention bonus, where they would pay these physicians a lump sum of money with the goal of retaining that physician at the facility of the system, but then having this long prorata forgiveness period. And a lot of times these doctors would never get counsel to look at this because they thought, oh, it’s simply a retention. It’s not really a full contract, it’s just going to be getting a bonus. But what they failed to do is when they looked at the forgiveness period, and I think I mentioned this to you, Chris, the one I saw recently was eight years. So you’ve got a $200,000 loan that’s only going to forgive $25,000 over eight years. I mean, and to me, that’s just insane.

Chris Martin (17:14):
It’s a form of

Conrad Meyer (17:16):
Indenture. Servitude. Yeah,

Chris Martin (17:18):
Restraint.

Conrad Meyer (17:19):
You got to,

Chris Martin (17:19):
Yeah. The other point in this that I’m noticing is remember these bonuses or repayment provisions used to say plus, or they do say plus interest. And for so many years we didn’t really think about interest. It was 2%, 3%. Well, now it’s 7, 9, 10, 11%. So it becomes a significant, can be a significant component of repayment

Conrad Meyer (17:50):
Obligation. And that’s what I can’t stand guys, because for example, if you’ve got a client, and I’m curious to hear, Rory, your thoughts on both of y’all on this. If you’ve got a client that wants to separate and they’ve got the retention bonus and you’ve got the issue of interest and so forth. Now, I mean to me, and I’m dealing with this right now with a couple of them, it is almost that’s a hammer. It is an absolute hammer. And they’re using this as leverage against the docs. And I really don’t think doctors understand when they sign that thing, what that really means because it’s free money to them. But it’s meant, like we said before, to sort of put the ball in chain.

Rory Bellina (18:32):
Yeah. I’ve always tried to advise physicians that get these bonuses to really save that money until the end of that term and not do anything with it just in case of a repayment. Because you don’t want to spend money. You don’t have to take money out that you don’t have that you’ve already spent.

Conrad Meyer (18:50):
Good luck doing that. Really. I mean, but it’s hard. Here’s a hundred grand. Just put it away. Put it away, put it in that little cookie

Rory Bellina (18:58):
Jar. That’s always been my advice. I don’t know. I don’t know if they listen to me, but that’s what I like. One thing that I thought was interesting in this statute is that the definition of an employer is not defined, and it’s pretty vague. And so one thing I was thinking in a Dell’s advocate approach is there’re going to be some sort of movement as to who the employer is. And does that start the clock over? Meaning if you work for such and such LLC and then you finish your three years, or let’s say at the end of your, let’s say, getting towards the end of your three years when they know you’re non-competes about to lapse, do they try to re-up you under a different entity or a different organization

Conrad Meyer (19:45):
Like assigning it to a practice group LLC?

Rory Bellina (19:48):
Exactly. Or what if your hospital or group is purchased and now you’re employed by another and you’re employed by another company? I mean, I would be concerned that, again, this statute is going to take probably some more revisions to it just to clean these kinds of things up. But I saw that in there as especially with practices being bought all the time, is that okay, well now your employer is now such and such private equity and we’re making all these people resign and this clock starts over.

Conrad Meyer (20:16):
Or do you have the provision in the sale agreements or even the employment agreements that any assignments will carry the same language or whoever buys it or changes, it will be held accountable to all of the provisions contained in the agreement. Something like that.

Rory Bellina (20:33):
Yeah, that’s an option too. And why? Very interesting. And in here, another interesting part that I wanted to get both of y’all’s opinion on is that this is not applying to rural hospitals and FQHCs.

Conrad Meyer (20:46):
I saw that and think

Chris Martin (20:47):
That’s a reaction to the fact that rural hospitals are struggling. FQHCs have a unique purpose. And for instance, they’re not. They have the Federal Torts Act. So you can’t sue A-F-Q-H-C doctor like you normally would under Louisiana law. You have to go through the Federal Torts Act. I think this is a carrot or a benefit to those particular providers, rural health hospitals and FQHCs, to give them a little advantage

Rory Bellina (21:23):
By allowing them to have

Chris Martin (21:25):
To retain, to retain, retain doctors

Rory Bellina (21:28):
If I allow them to have those more strict,

Chris Martin (21:32):
That’s my take on it. What’ll be interesting to see is do we see the rise of less employment of physicians and perhaps some hybrid independent contractor arrangement to get around this?

Rory Bellina (21:49):
Yeah, because the language in here, it says any provision in a contractor agreement, but then it says employer. So are people going to get cute with that and say, well, I’m not really your employer and this really isn’t a contract. I think there’s the way that it was written, I think they’re going to have to come back in and add a ton of definitions because this is going to become a problem for some practices and systems, and they’re going to find ways to work

Conrad Meyer (22:16):
Around it. They better be really careful. Meaning practices, hospital systems, whoever decides to try to skirt this with a 10 99 or an independent contractor because you don’t want to fall into that pit where the IRS as you improperly classify this individual. That should be a terrible situation. And the

Chris Martin (22:34):
IRS, my impression is the IRS is stepping up. Its enforcement of that exact issue of people who are really employees but are being paid and under a 10 99. So

Conrad Meyer (22:48):
What do you do guys, when you have a situation? I want to get, because I know we are going to make this a sort of a quick episode, but what do we tell clients when they are faced with a situation like with this new law, they’ve got a retention bonus that they’ve got time left on it. If they separate from a hospital employer now and they have maybe a productivity contract where they’re owed money on a production basis at the time of separation. So you’ve got this conjoining of issues when the doctor wants to leave. And I’ve seen that multiple times. I know y’all both have. What advice would you give doctors when they’re facing situations like that and as well as the new non-compete? Chris, see everybody’s licking like, wow, this would be a good question.

Chris Martin (23:38):
I think I would advise against agreeing to a long-term retention bonus. I think what’ll be interesting is if anybody who has a long-term retention bonus right now and wants to challenge the legality of that saying its in effect, it has the same effect as a non-compete provision, which our legislature has now radically changed. It’d be an interesting argument. It maybe be a bit of a stretch, but it has the same effect of restraining

Conrad Meyer (24:15):
Movement. True. It does. And does the system want to challenge that? In other words, would that be something an employer system hospital want to take that step? Very interesting take on that.

Rory Bellina (24:27):
That’s good, Chris. I did not think about that because it says the first two words in this statute, say any provision which, well, any provision in a contractor agreement, which restraints, so it’s not saying a non-compete provision. It’s saying any

Conrad Meyer (24:44):
Provision

Rory Bellina (24:45):
Which restraints from practicing medicine. So perfect example, this loan, these repayment things, I would 100% be comfortable arguing that if my client leaves in a certain window, let’s say the window is five years, which does not jive with this, I would be very comfortable saying that that is a provision that is restraining my client from practicing medicine. Because if they leave just like a non-compete, they’re going to pay a penalty. They’re going to have to pay back these funds plus interest,

Conrad Meyer (25:20):
Not about the docs that have been at the employer over now for five, seven, ten years. And they call you up and say, can I get out of this now? What’s the answer?

Chris Martin (25:32):
Well, unfortunately, I think the way the statute’s written,

Rory Bellina (25:36):
It’s effective as the effective date

Chris Martin (25:39):
Is January 1st, 2025. So they’re going to have to wait.

Rory Bellina (25:42):
Yeah, it says at the end of this act, it says, for any agreements that are in existence as of the effective date, that three or five years starts on the effective date. So January one and the geographic provisions are the same thing. So for anyone in that situation, their clock is going to start January one of 25.

Conrad Meyer (26:01):
Got it. So what are the take homes from this? So we got a new specialist five year trigger, a primary care, which is broadly defined, Chris, for a three year, don’t do long-term retentions, make sure it’s only two contiguous parishes with your primary parish being stated where you work. And we don’t start till January, 2025. Is that sort of the, and it’s any provision, it doesn’t have to simply stay, not compete, provision, anything that could restrict, right. Wow. Yep.

Chris Martin (26:32):
It’s a big change.

Conrad Meyer (26:33):
Yes,

Rory Bellina (26:34):
It’s a big change. I think we will start to see, obviously new agreements coming out next calendar year. We’re going to have to make sure that they comply. Chris, US three are going to have to make sure that it complies with us. But then I think we’ll start to get the interesting phone calls in, what would that be, 20, 27 for the first batch of people that that’s going to be the first batch. So in the end of, we’ll say end of 25, end of 27,

Conrad Meyer (27:05):
I agree with everything you just said. What happens with the doctor that comes to you and says, Hey, I started on January 1st, 2025 and now it’s December 31st, 2027, and I just left. Can they enforce the non-compete? And I want to say if he just would’ve stayed one more day. Right. Hopefully

Rory Bellina (27:29):
That doesn’t happen anyway. And look, this is, this all a little bit hinges on what’s going on on the national FTC level with that. We

Conrad Meyer (27:39):
Didn’t even touch that today. I

Rory Bellina (27:41):
Know that’s a whole other episode. I just wanted to briefly talk about that. I mean, the ftc,

Conrad Meyer (27:46):
It’s been challenged right now. Correct?

Rory Bellina (27:48):
It’s been challenged in Texas, which Louisiana would fall under it. I know it’s been challenged in numerous states. We all listened to a webinar on that. And then the Supreme Court just came down with a pretty scathing opinion against these agencies. The

Conrad Meyer (28:00):
Chevron. The Chevron.

Rory Bellina (28:02):
So I would not, we

Conrad Meyer (28:03):
Haven’t even touched

Rory Bellina (28:04):
That. I would not be surprised if that completely goes away. And all we’re left with is our Louisiana version.

Conrad Meyer (28:11):
Well, I guess our legislators thought very highly of our physicians. So we’ll see how it turns out, I guess. Alright. Well, gentlemen, I thank you very much for this. I think this was a very interesting conversation. One that we need to continue. I mean, I think we’ve got a lot of topics and I’m glad Chris, I’m glad to have you come back in the studio. It was so good to see you. Yep. Enjoyed it. Thank you. And Rory, thank you very much. And for all those who are listening, thank you so much for listening to Chehardy Sherman’s Health Law Talk. We’ll see you next time. Have a good day.

Introduction (28:45):
Thanks for listening to this episode of Health Law Talk, presented by Chehardy Sherman Williams. Please be sure to subscribe to our channel. Make sure to give us that five star rating and share with your friends. Chehardy Sherman Williams is providing this podcast as a public service. This podcast is for educational purposes only. This podcast does not constitute legal advice, nor does this podcast establish an attorney-client relationship. Reference to any specific product or entity does not count as an endorsement or recommendation by Chehardy Sherman Williams. The views expressed by guests on the show are their own, and their appearance does not imply an endorsement of them or their entity that they represent. Remember, please consult an attorney for your specific legal issues.

Join hosts Conrad Meyer and Rory Bellina and special guest Chris Martin, all board-certified healthcare attorneys at Chehardy Sherman Williams, as they dive deep into the groundbreaking changes brought by Louisiana’s 2024 Senate Bill 185. Discover this new law’s profound impact on physician contracts and non-compete clauses. This episode is a must-listen for healthcare professionals navigating the evolving legal landscape. Tune in for expert insights, lively discussion, and practical advice to stay ahead in your career. Don’t miss out – hit play now and stay informed with “Health Law Talk”! #HealthLawTalk #Podcast #NonCompeteClauses #LouisianaLaw #HealthcareLaw #PhysicianContracts

Health Law Talk, presented by Chehardy Sherman Williams, one of the largest full service law firms in the Greater New Orleans area, is a regular podcast focusing on the expansive area of healthcare law. Attorneys Rory Bellina, Conrad Meyer and George Mueller will address various legal issues and current events surrounding healthcare topics. The attorneys are here to answer your legal questions, create a discussion on various healthcare topics, as well as bring in subject matter experts and guests to join the conversation.

Health Law Talk Interviews Joe Aguilar

Health Law Talk Presented by Chehardy Sherman Williams

Health Law Talk logo
+ Full Transcript

Intro (00:01):
Welcome to Health Law Talk, presented by Chehardy Sherman Williams health Law. Broken down through expert discussion, real client issues and real life experiences, breaking barriers to understanding complex healthcare issues is our job.

Conrad Meyer (00:21):
And good morning, good afternoon, or wherever you’re listening to this podcast. Welcome to another edition of Health Law Talk here at Chehardy Sherman Williams. Conrad Meyer, Rory Bellina to esteemed healthcare lawyers in the New Orleans area board certified, bringing you the greatest and greatest in health law talk. And today we have a special guest in the studio with us to help our episode out. Joe Aguilar. Joe Aguilar, a partner at HMS Valuation Partners, our first valuation speaker here. So Joe, welcome to the show. We really appreciate you coming on today. How are you?

Joe Aguilar (00:55):
Thank you. I’m doing great. Very happy to be here. This is my hometown, so it’s always great to be back in New Orleans.

Conrad Meyer (01:03):
That’s fantastic. Well, I’m glad to have you here. I know Rory is, I know we talked briefly before the show. Why don’t you tell the listeners, because we have a good provider, listener audience, what is it about, tell us a little bit about yourself. What about you do for a living? What’s your job and how does it work with healthcare? And a little bit about HMS. Sure,

Joe Aguilar (01:23):
Sure. Well, I am the managing partner of HMS Valuation partners. We’ve been around for 27 years. We actually are headquartered here out of New Orleans. Our primary work is in healthcare compliance. So we do a lot of transaction work. We do a lot of physician compensation arrangements. We do medical office timeshare real estate. So we pretty much span the spectrum both from a evaluation standpoint as well as consulting. My area of expertise has been primarily in physician compensation, advanced practice providers. I’m actually a nurse practitioner, trained in women’s health and family medicine as well. So that has brought a lot of opportunities in my work as well.

Conrad Meyer (02:10):
So a nurse practitioner and evaluation expert? That’s correct. I never heard of that combination.

Rory Bellina (02:16):
Yeah, I remember we spoke about that off air the last time we met out of town. But I’m glad you brought that up because I’ll have definitely some questions about that. So tell us about HMS, because I’m sure a lot of our listeners know what these valuation firms do. Would please tell us what your firm does?

Joe Aguilar (02:31):
Yeah, sure. So HMS is primarily focused on basically two arms of work, which is both the health system work where we’re doing a lot of the recurring regular transactions that occur every day, which could include physician employment arrangements, er call, medical directorships, you name it from that perspective. And then we also do the transaction work, which is the joint venture, the practice acquisitions and so forth. In terms of our spectrum, as I mentioned earlier, we basically take care of any transaction that comes across your desk. So we have the run of the mill real estate appraisal work, the fixed asset work, if you’re looking at an asset purchase arrangement or the physician compensation or advanced practice compensation, we also do compensation design work and then medical office timeshares. But I think one of the areas that we’re starting to see a lot more work in is in the hospital-based services arrangements. So your anesthesia, your emergency medicine work, your hospitalist work. Because as you begin to see some of those labor costs skyrocket and reimbursement less, you’re seeing these PSAs, the professional services agreements go up and that’s causing challenges for hospitals.

Conrad Meyer (03:51):
I agree. Well, I was going to ask you that. You took the words out of my mouth. This is what you’re seeing in 2024. This is a trend you’re seeing coming in for the year.

Joe Aguilar (04:01):
Exactly. So what’s happening, and I just am going to be talking on this in 2024 multiple venues, but is that hospitals are reaching a tipping point. And that tipping point has been met before, but it’s basically the same cycle. You start with A PSA at some amount, then a year later, the contractor will come back and say, well, the market dynamics are suggesting that we can’t afford this anymore. So they come back and they dip into the well again. And it’s been going on and on and on to the point where we’re starting to see, this is probably maybe about five years ago, we were starting to counsel our clients and saying, while we can support it from an FMV standpoint, is this really sustainable going forward? And at what point, what are y’all using as metrics to determine whether or not you guys should just do it on your own?

(04:51):
Because at some point in time, it gets to the point where it’s so costly that why are we losing the 20% margin to a staffing provider when we can just do it ourselves? Well, that’s a loaded question because it’s not that easy to do it yourselves either. But it’s gotten to the point where that question is being asked, and you see anesthesia coming in-house, you see emergency medicine is already coming house. You see rollups in radiology. And what we’re doing now for systems is really helping them, okay, now we’ve brought them in. What do we do now? We hand it off to our physician operation folks who are doing family medicine and cardiology and orthopedics. Well, the anesthesia scheduling and billing is a completely different animal. It’s

Conrad Meyer (05:41):
A very unique animal. And I guarantee you, you’re not going to have any physician ops people that know how to handle that

Joe Aguilar (05:46):
Well. And that’s the issue. And so even just the standpoint of understanding what you’re getting when you actually roll in that group, so are you getting a group that’s overstaffed or understaffed, overpaid or underpaid? All that matters. And we’ve done, I remember one in particular where we looked at the anesthesia group and they just were overstaffed. And so we ended up talking with the hospital system and kind of right sizing also in terms of right case mix or provider mix because we ended up using more CRNAs and we ended up saving multiples of millions on that just annually just by right-sizing the group. And then we saw an emergency medicine. I remember one in particular where the emergency medicine physicians were just workhorses, but the comp was not matching. And it was because mostly it was going to the margin or to the management fees. And so we just talked with the hospital and said, guys, you can have a win-win if you increase the comp to the physicians, and then you save on some of the margin and you just bring ’em in house. And that’s been pretty much the case. So you

Conrad Meyer (07:01):
Cut out the management fee, you appoint one doc as a medical director to let him run the schedule, and then you just play it. They know how to do it

Joe Aguilar (07:07):
Already. Absolutely, absolutely.

Rory Bellina (07:09):
And has that change been going so far? How do the providers feel about coming in-house versus working for outside company and just being that independent contractor and getting maybe the higher billables as being out of network but still having to deal with all the administrative burdens?

Joe Aguilar (07:24):
Well, I think they do give up some of the administrative burdens when they come in-house. I think it’s hit or miss. And being from New Orleans and being in New Orleans now, it’s kind of like the roo, right? If you don’t get started the right way, the gumbo isn’t going to taste good at the end, but it’s the truth. In other words, just those two examples I mentioned, when you engage the physicians, like the emergency medicine physicians who have been paid less and you say, Hey guys, we’re thinking about doing this. We’re going to roll you in and here’s, you’re going to be your new comp model. And so that’s so critical. Develop the right comp model to align incentives at the end of that, everybody’s happy. Well, we’ve seen during covid, we saw transactions where anesthesiologists were getting paid, let’s say 450,000 on average for the group. They were brought in at a hundred thousand more, let’s say five 50, 600,000. Well, it just wasn’t sustainable. And now we’re looking at the hospital saying, Hey, we just lost $50 million. Can we continue doing this? So who do they look at the physicians? And now we end up in an animosity scenario and it just doesn’t

Rory Bellina (08:39):
Work. That’s what I was thinking is that it seems to be the pendulum going back and forth on you contract this out under A PSA and they bill out of network, and then you bring them back in, and then you go back and forth. Do you see that that happens back and forth and it’s going to continue? I mean, you obviously want to find the balance, what works best for whoever your client is, whether it be the group or the hospital. But it seems to just be kind of going back and forth. I mean, we’ve seen it here locally. Definitely. We

Joe Aguilar (09:07):
Agree. I mean, in other words, what we’ll say is that we’re talking about the win for the hospital bringing in, but truthfully, the service providers have a lot to shoulder. In other words, they’re getting the exclusive agreement, but they also have the full bag to hold when it comes to, are you staffing the program? Are you making enough money to pay the physicians and so forth and so on. So it’s not an easy job. So what we are seeing is yes, it swims back and forth. And I mean, having done this now, let’s see, I started at a local firm here back in 1991. So having done this in over 30 years, you see the arc of history repeat itself? Sure,

Conrad Meyer (09:49):
Sure. See, that’s the issue. So you touched on a lot of things in a very shorter period of time, especially the dynamic. So even if it’s looking at anesthesia or if you’re looking at er, the ED department as a hospital, a former hospital guy. And so I would think, okay, my margins are getting eaten up every single year, but it’s a service. I have to have it to stay open. I have to do that. And the culture, okay, there’s a culture shift too, because I got my surgeons who are very, very nitpicky about when they want to have cases open, let’s talk about anesthesia out. And so I have to be very considerate about keeping cases open, staffing those rooms. That’s going to work. I don’t know how to do that. I’m hiring out. Well, then every single year in a contract, especially when it gets down to renewal, those docs are coming back or that group is coming back and saying, well, I want more from the kitty.

(10:44):
I want more from the kitty. I mean, it’s a natural thing. I get that. So now I’m having to say, well, I don’t have any more in the kitty. And then if I lose the docs, then I have to go get locums, which is going to cost me more. So I’m in this conundrum. And then I’m thinking to myself, okay, what’s my payer mix? And now I’m going to a value-based reimbursement on cases. How is that going to work? So how do you factor in all those factors when you sit down with your C-suite folks and say, okay, we have some serious discussions to have. How does that work?

Joe Aguilar (11:16):
Well, you said a lot.

(11:20):
No, but I think you’re right. What you said initially is that what typically drives the decision to up the ante or go back to the kitty is I need the service. And I don’t want to make it too simple, but basically they end up paying for it because they’re stuck. They’re totally stuck. Stuck. They’re stuck. And what we’re trying to say is that when you get evaluation, for instance, evaluation on the hospital-based service line like anesthesia or emergency medicine or radiology or any of those, you’re basically building an income statement that’s driven by provider compensation and staffing. And you’re basically trying to determine, okay, what’s the revenues, what’s the cost? And what’s the shortfall in order to pay an appropriate amount to all parties, physicians getting their comp and the staffing provider getting their margin. So we start there, I mean, to be honest with you, and we try to say, okay, where are they landing? Where are their revenues? Are they collecting? Because if you’re in a subsidy arrangement, you have an incentive to collect. But a lot of these anesthesiology arrangements are collections guarantees. So basically if you didn’t have a floor on the collections guarantee you were in trouble, especially during times of covid. So you look towards collections and say, are you actually doing your very best to collect? Because under a collections guarantee, there isn’t really an incentive.

Conrad Meyer (12:38):
No, you’re stuck on that. So the only other place to attack and a collections guarantee is the management fee. And then of course, you start hitting that node, everyone gets upset. There’s a lot of issues to work

Joe Aguilar (12:50):
Through. And so when we look at these things, you have to, are the FTEs being used appropriately? In other words, because management fee and margin and all those things can get rolled in by, I don’t want to say inflating, but by having too high of an FTE count that’s being rolled in. So you have to look at all that. And so we do that and we look at what’s the production? What’s the A SA units that the anesthesiology group is doing? What’s the work RVs? What’s the number of shifts being covered? And then are they appropriately using their apps versus their physicians?

Conrad Meyer (13:28):
It’s a complex analysis and you don’t just plug into a spreadsheet and say, oh, here’s the answer, right?

Joe Aguilar (13:32):
Correct. And what we say is that not every situation is going to warrant the same solution. And so I can’t just automatically say, well, once you get to this tipping point, and once you get to this per day subsidy rate, you need to reel it back in. There’s a lot of different dynamics. Has there

Rory Bellina (13:51):
Been any effect on this analysis based on no surprises going into effect, especially in our example for anesthesia and er

Joe Aguilar (13:59):
Yeah, so it impacts the reimbursement. And so yes, those are the things you have to look at and see. Because one of the things that we’ve also toed around with is the idea because from the service provider’s perspective, they’re in a volatile environment as well. So they think, how can I agree to a three-year PSA when next year my labor costs may be up and my reimbursement may be down because all the things that we’re just talking about. And so we’ve even looked at different structures with the legal and from a valuation perspective of how do you build in levers so that or triggers so that everybody’s happy, because I think that’s what, this is my personal opinion, I think that’s what the service providers are trying to do. They’re trying to get as much as they can upfront because they know they have to staff the program.

Rory Bellina (14:55):
So what do you think is better for the patient? Do you think it’s better for these services to be brought back in or based on, because the hospital is going to run better with them all being under the umbrella? Or do you think it’s better to have these outside managed by the groups that are just focusing on these special areas?

Joe Aguilar (15:14):
Boy, that’s a tough question because I think it also depends. I’m channeling my father who’s an attorney also, and it depends, was always an answer. And the reason I’m saying that is because I can see some benefits with operationally. We just talked about not everybody has the expertise in how to manage a anesthesia group or a radiology group effectively. And so bringing that in-house to a hospital doesn’t necessarily automatically indicate that it’s going to run well. And I also think that with certain specialties, it works better than others. And I think that’s also a key.

Conrad Meyer (15:53):
I think when you talk about that, and I agree with you exactly what you’re saying, larger systems have the ability to do that. They have the ability, they have the cash flow in the revenue. One of our podcasts recently, I said, how many administrators does it take to run a hospital? And I think as many as possible. As many as possible. But the smaller, I would say, private hospitals and even smaller systems, that’s not the case. So you might have to contract out those types of services because you just can’t bring in the expertise under the umbrella. You don’t have the revenue to do that. Right,

Joe Aguilar (16:27):
Right. Well, exactly. And so the working capital that’s needed and just understanding the revenue cycle management of these hospital-based specialties is just different.

Rory Bellina (16:40):
One thing that I wanted to ask you about specifically, and we’ve had a couple of podcasts on this, and one in particular, it’s a physician owned hospital that is strictly cash based. So what have you been seeing in your industry? Have you had clients approach you or systems or smaller groups look at going to a cash basis? And how does that analysis go in for your

Joe Aguilar (17:02):
Firm? Interesting. Truthfully, we haven’t done as much on that area.

Conrad Meyer (17:06):
Well, they’re unicorns. There’re not many. I mean, you have to have Medicare, Medicaid or you die, but they have some unicorns out there. Well,

Rory Bellina (17:14):
And we did a podcast with one of those, and it’s actually, it’s a local hospital here that’s strictly, I mean, he explained to us that you would go in for services and there’s a menu with all of his prices. And I didn’t know if you had had any experience with that yet or what your thoughts generally were on. Is that sustainable from HMS or from your perspective?

Joe Aguilar (17:34):
Yeah, I mean,

(17:36):
We encounter it with regards to valuation work. So right now we have several who have specialized arrangements. So concierge medicine would be one that comes that kind of work. But you also see it in some of the use Conrad’s term, the unicorn. So that highly specialized physician who may pull patients from abroad or regionally and end up doing services on a cash basis. So I think from a dynamic valuation work, it’s a little bit different because you can’t just open up the survey book and scroll your finger down and find that particular individual. But in terms of sustainability, I think it’s tough because they’re still operating under the same environment that every other hospital’s operating under, and the average individual just can’t support

Rory Bellina (18:27):
It. I mean, I like the concept of it. I really liked his model and the concept of it. But like you said, it’s been ingrained in so many people and providers of having that insurance and billing that fee for service.

Conrad Meyer (18:40):
The problem is that, just to speak to that issue is that you really have to know your market and payer mix to be able to sustain that. And the locations can be critical because you’re literally going after a very small percentage of the pie of market to sustain yourself. And so I don’t know the future of that. I, I’m looking at one of the things that I think that was important in terms of healthcare in 2024 and beyond, and I’m seeing this in provider comp and that’s why I’m pivoting. I’m sort of going along and around the barn here is compensation based on not just regular RVU metrics on value. And my issue is where are we going from what you’re seeing? In other words, I used to, and tell me this, 10%, 5% of comp used to be some sort of quality metric. It wasn’t much. It wasn’t now, now I’m seeing up to 20%, up to, in one case, 25%. And it was very difficult for the higher compensation model on a quality metric when the metrics are out of control of the physician. So patient satisfaction scores, patient surveys, and then of course you combine this with a value-based reimbursement model. What do you see down the pipe from your colleagues talking about this? How does that affect physician comp and then of course, delivery of services, what do you see?

Joe Aguilar (20:10):
Yeah, that’s a lot too.

Conrad Meyer (20:12):
I have a tendency, forgive me, but we have only have a little bit of time, so I have the tendency of trying to pack everything in, but each one of those things could be a show.

Joe Aguilar (20:21):
Yeah. Yeah. I love coming back to New Orleans, so I come as much as you want. Yes. But I think the reason I say it’s a lot is because one, we’re seeing penetration of value-based arrangements vary across the country. So our work as a firm, we do work from Alaska all the way to the keys and everywhere in between basically. So you can see a lot of variance. It’s also the chicken and the egg issue. In other words, a lot of systems are kind of hesitant to take that big step with regards to value-based compensation models when they’re still largely fee for service. And I get what you’re saying. You’re seeing some of these arrangements being in the 20, 25% quality. And yes, we completely agree. You’re seeing that. I think the key is to get alignment. And so there’s a lot of hurdles that need to be addressed before it actually becomes a successful model.

(21:16):
And so for instance, we’ve seen team models work best when you’re thinking about the use of a PP. So me as an a p for instance, some of the providers may feel like, well, wait a second, they impact my compensation. So how do we align the two together? And I do think that the quality metrics need to be meaningful because we’re no longer paying on widgets. We’re trying to pay on how well was the widget made, how effective is it? And in this case, are you creating a healthier patient in the mix? I mean, when I was practicing, we used to have to check off on the super bill. This was I guess maybe 10, 12 years ago, whether or not the patient was diabetic and did we check A1C or was it a cholesterol order? Kind of basic kind of stuff. And we’re getting there, but then you have to make sure that you have your systems in place, so your provider compensation and billing kind of all intertwined because otherwise you’re not going to be able to get enough good information’s really, really be able to determine the success.

Rory Bellina (22:29):
I know we’ve talked to some providers about this shift and how they feel about it personally. And a lot of them don’t want, they don’t want, A lot of them are very comfortable with the model of, I know I did this surgery today, I billed these codes. I know what the reimbursement is from Blue Cross, and I know I’m going to make X in two weeks, and I don’t want to rely on a patient clicking a link, taking a survey, or was my OR time under a certain threshold, or was my anesthesia time under a certain threshold?

Conrad Meyer (22:55):
Or did I like the food? I mean, did the room smell nice?

Rory Bellina (22:58):
Sure. There’s just, well, the swarms so many variables. I think that it’s a shift, like you said, everything has been, and it’s a slow shift. And I don’t know if providers really want that shift new.

Joe Aguilar (23:10):
Well, I think the newness is always scary. And so usually when we are talking about compensation design changes, we really try to start with kind of a crosswalk. So don’t change anything. Let’s just do it mathematically so that we can show you what does it look like. And I think that’s an important first step to showing physicians. If we started a year where we just tracked you, we kept your, the same as it always has been, but we track all these metrics and we say, okay, if we would’ve flipped the switch, here’s the way your comp would’ve rolled out, and you’re going to have winners and losers. So you’re going to have those who are happy and those are not. But I mean, getting to your other point, in other words, I know we’re talking patient satisfaction and that’s really tough, but even just the act of improving one’s care.

(24:00):
So in other words, now the A PP had comes on, I mean, I had many patients who would tell me, I work 40 hours plus a week. I have an elder at home that I’m caring for. Yes, I know I’m my A one C’S seven or an eight, but I just can’t find the time to exercise or I can’t find the time to do these things. And truthfully, there were very real scenarios that were barriers, and it’s like, well, how do I get judged on that when some of the factors are outside of my control? And I mean, the other way is to say, okay, don’t judge on the A1C, but judge whether or not I ordered tests. Well then I don’t know if that’s, you can just click the box, then it’s clicking the box. So it’s a really tough thing to get right.

Conrad Meyer (24:57):
Well, I think Medicare is going to drive that bus too. So I mean, they’re looking to move to episodic payment. And so if they do it, then all of the big boy commercial payers can do the same. So is the tidal wave coming? I mean, do you see that, I mean from what you’re even, I’m talking at the A HLA events. You’re talking to policymakers maybe here locally and even really in DC or hearing from CMS folks. Do you see the tidal wave coming?

Joe Aguilar (25:24):
I would like to see a tidal wave of quality come. My worry is that it feels the same as when we had staff model HMOs 30 years ago, and we were trying to bring things in-house all under one roof so that we can control the cost and control the quality. And then that didn’t work. So I don’t know if we’ve got all folks moving in the same direction. You need the payers, you need the providers. And it’s really tough to get everybody,

Conrad Meyer (25:58):
There’s been a distrust for that for years, decades. I mean, that’s the problem.

Joe Aguilar (26:02):
That’s the real problem. Now look, you got Optum, they acquired so many last year physicians, they’re up to 20, 30,000 in terms of providers. That’s huge. I do think the concept works. In other words, having a system, a true system where you have providers under one roof, you may have the payers under that same roof and you’re better able to manage and control cost. But I don’t know if it’s going to be a wave. There’s a few more steps that need to fall before I can say

Conrad Meyer (26:35):
That. I don’t disagree with that, but I just was curious what your thoughts were. I have sat in meetings at a board level for iPASS under in an MA program, and I could tell you the management of the care is, so the drive, the data dive down in the drive is down to the prescription, the amount you write, the drugs you write, I mean, it is that minute. And so I wonder sometimes, is there a corporate practice of medicine issue? I mean, are we walking a thin line where you just mentioned Optum, I guarantee you over the 20 or 30,000 physicians there, and this is why I asked, how many administrators do you need? How many VPs of whatever do you need in a payer to manage and drill down to the data for 20 or 30,000 physicians to, like you said, control and manage? Are we walking a fine line? I mean, are we allowing docs to actually freely practice? I mean, what are your thoughts on that?

Joe Aguilar (27:50):
Yeah. Well, it comes to mind like the CVS care, that’s not doctors, but it’s apps where you have an algorithm. I mean, friends of mine who would, and I don’t know if it’s the same now, but years ago when you would sign up and work at one of these MinuteClinics or one of the, I’m not saying MinuteClinic per se, but one of those, you were restricted to only diagnose a specific set of diagnoses. And if you diagnosed that particular ailment, you were only given a select few prescriptions that you can choose from. Now, I mean, to a certain degree, you can say, well, that’s algorithmic and that’s evidence-based practice. And these certain things should drive what you do. I think that it’s in reality, when you’re actually seeing the, I mean, that may work for a sinusitis or a UTI or a sprained ankle, but when you’re dealing with more complex folks, it’s not going to work.

(28:50):
I mean, perfectly. I had a very healthy 50-year-old executive. She had just come back from Mexico on vacation. She was about to go to another business trip. She came in to get some refills, and every provider knows this. It’s as soon as you hold the handle on the doorway to get out the door, you always get that, by the way, question. And she said, well, by the way, when I was running on the beach in Cancun, I’d get heartburn. So can you give me some Prilosec or some medicine from a heartburn? And I said, well, tell me more about this. And what she described was pretty classic angina in women Here you’re looking at her. And she looked fine. Yeah, fine. So if I’m looking at an algorithm, I’m probably think, well, she’s fine. And sure enough, she had 99% blockage.

Conrad Meyer (29:46):
Oh

Joe Aguilar (29:46):
My God. And so it’s an art form. And so I don’t think it’s so much an art form that we can’t have some parameters to help with cost, but we need to leave a little bit of that decision making still in the patient room.

Conrad Meyer (30:04):
I mean, I agree with that. My concern is, especially now with your chat GT or ai, because I mean AI is being talked about in healthcare, mean all over the place, especially with big data. And we could give into the whole weeds and that, but are we going to sit, just have a terminal, hire somebody, whether it’s an A PP or even an RN who just gets all these little machines and gets all the data in. And Jarvis is going to say, okay, nurse, give her this, give her this, give her

Joe Aguilar (30:31):
This. I have another story. So I would say no,

Conrad Meyer (30:37):
Because an art form, I agree with you.

Joe Aguilar (30:38):
Well, okay, I just had this conversation just the other day with, and primary care is what I did. And primary care is number one thing about primary care in my mind is it’s relationships. So I had a very strong farmer in Wisconsin where I had to practice. This fellow was, I think he was in his high seventies. He came in with what he called an infection on his arm. He said, Hey, they called me Dr. Joe, can you go ahead and take care of this? Give me some SAV or something. And I said, well, you know what? This looks a little different. Lemme cut it out and lemme see. Well, it turned out to be basal cell carcinoma. He and I talked about his corn farms and other things that he liked, the Wisconsin badgers and all the fun things while I was doing the procedure with him.

(31:24):
And well, he felt comfortable enough coming back a week later to tell me what really was going on. Well, he ended up having stage four penile cancer. And when you’re at that stage, he had visibly enlarged inguinal lymph nodes to the size of softballs. And I called the UW Madison urology team, and he told me, he says, I doubt what you’re seeing because I’ve only seen one. And I said, well, I think you’re about to see number two. And sure enough, that’s what he had. But whenever I have residents or medical students that I’ve been able to come across and talk to, that to me is a telling story in primary care. Because that fellow had this issue going on for years. And it wasn’t until I took care of what he called an infection, which was incredibly minor and sat and talked with him about that.

Conrad Meyer (32:18):
He felt comfortable

Joe Aguilar (32:19):
That he felt comfortable, right? Because it was a sensitive issue. And here he came. If he would’ve had a relationship like that with somebody earlier, potentially we’d have got caught it sooner. So I think that’s, you can’t algorithm that.

Conrad Meyer (32:32):
I pray that it doesn’t come to that.

Joe Aguilar (32:34):
I pray it doesn’t come to that. Yeah, Jarvis can’t solve that.

Conrad Meyer (32:37):
Jarvis can’t solve that problem. Right? I’m with you. But are

Rory Bellina (32:39):
You seeing restrictions being put in place by some of your hospital clients on those metrics for patient encounters, patient times? Because all that has to be measured to calculate. So swing the pendulum back in your example of meeting with that patient, that’s not another encounter that you got to bill for. That’s not another encounter that if you worked for a hospital, they would be able to bill for, and you sent that case out to urology. So all of those things hospitals are looking at as well, that was a waste of our time because they didn’t financially benefit from it. So what are your thoughts on that?

Joe Aguilar (33:12):
Yeah, I mean I think that gets down to the comp design that gets down to compensation expectations by providers, all of that. So in other words, you also said a lot, so I want to make sure I hit on all the things you said. I think that with respect to compensation or style of practice, for instance, sure. If you are going to want to have that style where you spend more time and you have less work RVU and you have less collections, it’s going to impact compensation. And that’s a reality. I think you have to make sure that you are building that in. I guess with respect to, I don’t want to say, yeah, you have to build it in with respect to the money and whether or not the finances are there to support what you’re doing. But it’s still, I think that’s where if you work as a system and you’re looking at things collectively, and hopefully it’s a little bit tougher in this instance, I have to send them completely out. It’s not that tough. If we’re talking about cholecystectomy, let’s say, where I’m setting that patient within my hospital system, let’s say. It’s easier to kind of try to manage that, but ultimately you want to make sure that you do the right thing for the patient from that perspective.

Conrad Meyer (34:35):
One thing, I’m going to switch gears because we’re seen with physician comp, but one thing I want to ask you, and we see it a lot here, is in employment contracts, there’s always a clause, and I’ve seen it consistently now that hospitals will refuse or will cap compensation on FMV to avoid any kickback issues or stark issues. Usually it’s any kickback issues. So I don’t know if you saw the case recently, that case you and I talked about the $310 million DOJ settlement with a system. What state was it in? Was it St. Louis?

Rory Bellina (35:14):
I believe it was somewhere in the Midwest. Midwest, I believe

Conrad Meyer (35:16):
Midwest. I can’t remember what, but it was basically an issue where they overcompensated the docks and they got hit with the DOJ whistleblower action and settled for 310 million on an over comp. And usually every time I get, and the reason I’m bringing this up is because we get it on the hospital side, we usually get on the provider side where the docs would say, I don’t want that cap in place. I don’t want that. And usually when I look at the MGMA numbers for the specialty and the given area for that specific situation, the comp that these hospitals are offering the doc, it’s running around the median range. And so I said, look, you have a long way to go before you hit the 90%. I don’t know if they’re ever going to get you there. I mean, you’re talking maybe 10 God knows how many years. So I wouldn’t worry about it. But my question to you is, how do you advise facilities on the cap? In other words, I know you’re asked, sometimes we think it’s just a thing they throw in there so they don’t have to pay ’em anymore. But is that a real issue for you? Is that something real and tangible, and how does that play out in your world?

Joe Aguilar (36:25):
Yeah, so it’s very real and we see it quite often. I’ve seen it also described as a soft cap, and basically it’s a speed bump. It’s basically a means for the system to be able to double check and make sure that everything is still compliant. What I think happens in day-to-day life is that you may have a physician who is getting paid for their clinical services and then they add an A PP, so then they get paid a PP supervision, and then there may be some graduate medical education. So they get paid for that. And then you get all these stackable elements that start to add up. And if you’re not careful, I mean they can get out of alignment. And because of all the moving parts and all the people that are involved, I think that what we see is that soft cap as a means to just make sure that there’s actually something in finance that says, if it’s over this number, hey, let’s just take a look at it. I think that, well, lemme,

Conrad Meyer (37:27):
What’s that percentage in your head? We use MG MAA lot, and I, there’s others out there too, but what’s your red zone? Red zone area for percentage of total comp given using an MGMA standard? Is it 85? 90 95? What, in your mind, where does that red zone hit? Well see,

Joe Aguilar (37:48):
It’s interesting. We do valuations for our clients when they are in excess of the norms. So

Conrad Meyer (37:56):
Beyond way beyond that,

Joe Aguilar (37:57):
We’re way beyond that. But it depends. So in other words, if you look at the recent guidance in the last two years ago, CMS was very clear in the sense that they don’t want to put a bright line. It’s not if you go over this number, you’re outside of FMV, because if you are also over just even the median, depending on your production, they could argue that that’s also outside of FMV. It depends, well,

Conrad Meyer (38:21):
How many DOJ suits it have to bring for that? I mean, it would be staggering.

Joe Aguilar (38:25):
Yeah. So I think the point that you’re making is that I would say from a cap standpoint, what we like to say is that if you’re adding work, so where the cap really gets to be, I don’t want to say a problem, but it does present an issue, is if, let’s say you’re a three general surgery group for a hospital, and each of you guys are taking 122 days of call and somebody leaves, and all of a sudden now you’re having to take another 60 days of call, well, now you’re bumping up the cap and then the cap presents a problem, and then finance can’t pay you, compensation’s delayed. Now you got to go see a guy named Joe. That happens all the time, and that’s what gets people annoyed. So in my mind, I think you could argue that for those types of situations when there’s actual work that can be documented, like another call shift that’s being done, or you’ve added an administrative role to this particular physician or something that you could potentially move the needle further. That’s a good point. So you could add to the cap from that standpoint.

Rory Bellina (39:34):
On that same topic, what do you do when you run into a system that is able to get or wants to employ that rockstar double board certified specialist who is going to generate a ton of revenue and refer a ton of cases, but they’re worth it and their training deserves extra comp. But you’re outside of MGMA, you’re outside of all the numbers. What do you do in that case? Because fair market value at that point doesn’t really mean anything because there is no fair market value for that 1% surgeon that goodwill, right.

Joe Aguilar (40:06):
Well, I mean, I think I have been doing this along with many other, I guess a few others for 30 years that we’ve kind of built the model. And this is across a few other firms as well. It’s not just us. But so what I mean by that is it’s not without kind of some guidance. So when I think about what you’re saying is that there are those rock stars, there are those unique folks who are first in the world to do a particular case or working on revolutionizing research or what have you. So I think you have to go beyond the surveys. And so that’s the other thing that we’ve been very happy with with regards to CM S’S commentary, is that the surveys are what they consider the starting point. It’s not the end point. So we don’t look at 90th percentile as the end.

(40:54):
I can tell you I’ve delivered many in the last month that are multiples of the 90th. And it’s because that’s who we get called, that’s who pays us to do the work for that. And I think that, just to give you more concrete answer is that, so for instance, if you do have a subspecialty that’s highly compensated, maybe doesn’t have as many folks in the sample size, we’ll do internal surveys ourselves with similar positioned physicians across the country, whether that’s in an academic setting or whether it’s in a non-academic setting. And we’ll do our own interviews and we’ll try to assess, well, what is the market for this physician when there’s only a hundred of ’em?

Conrad Meyer (41:38):
Alright, I got to good one for you. Here we go. Okay. On your FMV opinion, when you do it for the facility or whoever you’re doing, yeah. Ever been challenged by one by DOJ?

Joe Aguilar (41:47):
No, we haven’t. Thankfully You didn’t

Conrad Meyer (41:50):
Expect

Joe Aguilar (41:50):
That one, did you? No, I did not expect that one. I always say, knock on wood, knock on you. But I think our wood is solid because we look at the facts and circumstances. So each of our opinions are certainly rooted in the analytical, quantitative analysis, but it’s also, I can tell a storyline. So I get concerned if I’m being told something by my client and I’m looking at the provider and they’re not really aligning with their value. That being said to me, then I’m a little bit concerned it raises an eyebrow. Well, you

Conrad Meyer (42:29):
Knock on wood, let’s knock on wood for that one. Okay, yeah,

Joe Aguilar (42:31):
Absolutely.

Conrad Meyer (42:32):
I’ll do a follow-up absolutely. While I’m thinking about it. When I’m thinking about it. Okay, this is the second question.

Joe Aguilar (42:36):
Lemme see. I feel like I’m on rapid fire. You

Conrad Meyer (42:37):
Are on. This is a crossfire with Rory and I, so this is good. This is really good. So have you ever been called by a client or anyone on your team, but called by a client where you go in and they say, Hey, whatever the valuation is, and you get in there and you’re looking at it and you’re saying, oh boy, we need to do something here,

Joe Aguilar (42:58):
Meaning that the client is unhappy with what No,

Conrad Meyer (43:01):
No, no. The client is over overvaluing or the valuation is so off that you have to say, we have a problem, we need to dial it back.

Joe Aguilar (43:10):
Oh, yeah, yeah. It’s not a fun conversation. No. With the

Conrad Meyer (43:13):
CEO EO or Yeah,

Joe Aguilar (43:15):
Right. No, it’s not a fun conversation. How do you

Conrad Meyer (43:17):
Manage that? The personalities? You can’t tell those people. No, they don’t want to hear.

Joe Aguilar (43:22):
No. Yeah, yeah. No. Well, we do. I mean, I think that’s what we do, and I think it’s important. It’s a hard conversation. Yeah. I will tell, maybe I told this to Rory when he stopped by at the booth that we have a healthy no rate as well. I mean, that’s kind of what we say. It’s still low on the scheme of things because really hospitals are still a business and they need to figure out how to do this in a manner that’s sustainable. But there are situations where they need to just dial it back. But it’s not just, we just say, Hey, you need to dial it back. We will get into the same way we talked about hospital based arrangements. We’ll get into the detail and the metrics and say, Hey, and then the other things we’ll put on our Kevlar jacket and have that conversation with the physicians ourselves as well. Good luck. Well, I’ve,

Conrad Meyer (44:10):
That’s a hard conversation. I bet.

Joe Aguilar (44:12):
Yeah. I’ve got scars to prove it, but I think that that’s where our role is. In other words, the hospital wants to pay as much as they can within reason. The physicians want to get paid as much as they want, like anybody else. And so our role is to kind of figure out what that playing ground looks like. And so I will tell our clients and offer it up. Hey, I’m happy to talk with them. And I think that’s where, I mean, I’m not a physician, but I think that’s where sometimes the clinician helps a bit, so we can talk through it. And I’ve been lucky, Conrad, most of the physicians have been very

Conrad Meyer (44:48):
Reasonable.

Joe Aguilar (44:49):
Yeah, they’ve been receptive. They may not have agreed, but I think we could come to a,

Conrad Meyer (44:55):
Well, it’s good you’re sort of the third party because the distrust between hospital administration and physician has been around for decades. And so by having you come in, even if you’re hired by the hospital and having that data-driven discussion, because they’re data people themselves, they’re science and math oriented. And if you have that discussion, I think that would go over much better than having an administrator have that discussion.

Joe Aguilar (45:18):
Right, right. Well, what’s interesting too is that we value and we value agreements and agreement terms. So we have situations where you could be an orthopedist, let’s say in trauma, and you are taking call for the entire hospital every day for trauma cases, even though the panel for orthopedic care is being shared amongst 10 other physicians. So what does it happen on the ground is that basically on the day that you’re not taking call, you get a call from a community physician because it’s an acetabular fracture, it’s some complex fracture. And so then from the physician’s perspective, who’s talking about their comp, they’re saying, well, wait a second, I’m really on call 365 days out of the year, but I’m only getting paid for 40 days. And they’re true. It’s true. It’s legitimate. It’s legitimate. So then how do you fix that? Well, we can’t fix it by, I like to say that there’s buckets. When you think about all the different things that the physician does, it’s valued in different buckets. And I can’t make the bucket bigger because for call, I can only do what I can with regards to the services that they’re offering. But that’s when we have that conversation with the hospital, CEO, who’s upset and say, well, you know what? He’s providing calls so we can, why don’t we set that up and consider these things? So we peel back the onion and try to help. That’s good.

Rory Bellina (46:43):
Very good. One thing I wanted to ask you, and Conrad knows that I hate saying it, but we talked about it for probably two years and did different episodes on it, is the C word is covid from, we saw what happened from a compensation standpoint for providers and really from CMS and reimbursement, but can you explain what you saw as a valuation firm during covid? And then what are you seeing now? What’s changing? I mean, obviously you were contacted from providers during covid on compensation, but what did you do during then? And then now what’s swinging back another direction now?

Joe Aguilar (47:21):
Yeah, so covid was a unique year, obviously that’s an understatement. We did a lot of in the surge business, in other words, how do we cover the ICUs, the ERs and so forth on physician comp related material. We didn’t do a whole lot because of the waivers that were in place, especially if it was related to covid. But the afterwards, so the 20 21, 20 22, when you had transactions and you had COVID dollars in those transactions, you had to be kind of careful because the folks who sold during COVID 2020 typically had a very low ebitda. And so their multiples were very high. So if you just took the multiples from 2020 for instance, and you applied it to your 2021 transactions, you were seeing just overvaluing because the EBITDA were so low on during the COVID year, so you had to be careful. So thankfully, we’re not really seeing much of an impact anymore.

Rory Bellina (48:29):
Are you seeing a realignment of physician compensation or provider compensation now that we’re out of it and that things are going back to, or things have gone back to you, but essentially more of a normal of where you’re not needing that ER coverage and that ICU coverage like you were before, and there’s arguably more providers now back in the workplace.

Joe Aguilar (48:48):
Yeah, what’s interesting, yes. Yes. So I definitely think we’re getting back to normal in terms of compensation. What we are seeing though is hospitals asking for more of those surge rates. And for instance, in with the RSV and pediatric hospital care with RSV going up in these last couple months, we were asked to look at how do we pay for some of these surges that occur that really weren’t, and the RSV isn’t new, but it really wasn’t a topic until covid from that

Rory Bellina (49:20):
Standpoint. I didn’t know if you had experience where you had an increased in provider comp, but now it’s had to come down. And if hospitals had to justify that to their docs,

Joe Aguilar (49:30):
We haven’t. And it’s mixed in. There is another topic that is probably also another hour is what is

Conrad Meyer (49:39):
About an hour

Joe Aguilar (49:40):
Is the change in the fee schedule. So with the work RVU values and the e and m, so all that kind of muddied things a lot because you saw primary care physicians overnight, if you stayed on, if you moved, stayed on the same conversion factor, and you moved to the new fee schedule, keeping volumes the same. You saw 20, 25% increases in comp. And so all that kind of money, but it was a

Conrad Meyer (50:08):
False bottom because what they did was they raised the RVs, but they reimbursed at the same rate. So how do you tell a doc on an RVU production model to say, Hey, by the way, you’re going to get a 30% bump, but we’re not going to pay you.

Joe Aguilar (50:20):
And that’s, that’s crazy. No, that’s incredible. And so we counseled a lot of

Conrad Meyer (50:27):
Hospitals

Joe Aguilar (50:28):
Because we were having them look at that in the sense that they weren’t going to have the money to pay.

Conrad Meyer (50:34):
It was a terrible, terrible thing what CMMS did with that. And to me, it made no sense. I’m like, if you know everybody’s doing production comp, why would you even do it? Why would you even alter the rvu, the work RVs?

Joe Aguilar (50:43):
Right. Yeah. I think it was a long time coming and it just came at the wrong time. It didn’t, and considering covid and considering all the other things that were coming out of, I

Conrad Meyer (50:52):
Agree with you on the EBITDA return on the multiples during covid. I mean, it totally dipped because the trailing production in revenue was not there. No, not even close. And so I saw an article recently about, we’re going to get to private equity a little bit. Did you see an influx in covid of private equity sort of sweep up maybe a sweetheart deal because the EBITDA was so they could argue a lower EBITDA on a buyout because of covid. Did you see that? And where do you see that going in 2024?

Joe Aguilar (51:27):
Well, I definitely see it growing, I think 2021, I have another team that does a lot of the transaction work, but we definitely saw it in 2020, but in 2021 as well. And I think 21 was a big year. I can’t remember if it was 22.

Conrad Meyer (51:42):
Even with the T trache payments, it wasn’t

Joe Aguilar (51:44):
Enough. No. And I think that you’re going to continue seeing private equity continue to grow. I definitely think there’s a continued big interest, and it’s obviously changing in terms of the specialties that they’re focusing on. But I have a piece on private equity acquisitions in MGMA Connection this month and where basically what we’re saying is that it just depends on where the horizon is for those physicians that are in the private practice. So if a lot of the physicians who’ve held out up until this point, if they’re getting to the point where they’re in their twilight years of private equity, that’s the drive makes sense for them completely if they’re in the younger years. Well, some of the compensation arrangements that are available at the hospital or the health system level, which is very different than the private equity level, may be more attractive to that 30 something year old. But either way, I think private equity’s not going away.

Rory Bellina (52:47):
Think so. Do you still see that it’s focused heavily on your dermatology, radiology ortho, or do you see it shifting now to other industries going forward in 2024

Joe Aguilar (52:58):
ASCs, we saw probably cardiology started to wean down last year hitting all the specialties you mentioned definitely radiology and ortho, but I think right now there’s still a lot of work in that space.

Rory Bellina (53:14):
Okay,

Conrad Meyer (53:16):
Interesting. Well, I mean, I could tell you we could go on a hole. Every little thing that we have a rabbit hole on, whether it’s PE or whatever, we could do an hour on that. And I tell you, that’s why I love healthcare. I mean, I’ve been doing healthcare since, like you were saying in the early nineties, I was at HCA a, we’ve been doing MO days. So I mean, I love talking about this and I like seeing the trends, and it’s good to be able to spot the trends and being able to help providers work through

Joe Aguilar (53:47):
That.

Conrad Meyer (53:49):
I think you’re doing a great job. I mean, I’m very intrigued. I’m very happy that you came on the show today. Same

Joe Aguilar (53:54):
Here. Same here.

Rory Bellina (53:54):
Yeah, absolutely. So I mean, yeah, before we close, is there anything that you wanted to end with on where you see things going in 2024? I know we have an election at the end of the year. Is there anything that you wanted to lead into? Because we definitely want to have you back to talk

Joe Aguilar (54:07):
More. I definitely don’t want to comment on any elections. I’m not, no, we’re not going

Conrad Meyer (54:11):
To get a politic. We’re not going to get

Joe Aguilar (54:12):
There. But no, I mean, I think from a healthcare and valuation perspective, I think it, it’s complex. And I think that for health systems clients, I think really they’re looking for partners. And I think that’s a key in looking at how they handle and how they remain compliant because they have limited resources. And so we know the financial pressures that are out there. And so what we’re basically arguing is that not every valuation firm needs to be, or not every valuation. You need to spend that many resources to support, but you definitely need to be cautious about how you approach each of those arrangements.

Conrad Meyer (54:56):
Well, I want to thank you very much for taking the time in your busy schedule to come sit down and talk to us in our studio here. I think I’m agreeing with Rory, even if we do remote, I would love to have you back on some of these other topics and maybe have a panel discussion. If we could put someone together like that, I think that would be fantastic.

Joe Aguilar (55:12):
Absolutely.

Rory Bellina (55:14):
We really appreciate it. But if you want to give your contact information to our listeners and we’ll wrap it up. Yeah, go

Joe Aguilar (55:18):
Ahead. Sure, sure. Okay. Well, you can reach me at Joe Aguilar, that’s A-G-U-I-L-A-R@hmsvalue.com. Or you can reach me by phone at (678) 984-6435.

Conrad Meyer (55:38):
Fantastic. That’s great. Well, Joe, thank you so much for coming. Thank you on the show today. And everyone, thank you so much for listening in to another healthcare episode here at Health Law Talk at Chehardy Sherman Williams. Have a blessed day, and until the next time Take care.

Intro (55:51):
Thanks for listening to this episode of Health Law Talk, presented by Chehardy Sherman Williams. Please be sure to subscribe our channel. Make sure to give us that five star rating and share with your friends. Chehardy Sherman Williams is providing this podcast as a public service. This podcast is for educational purposes only. This podcast does not constitute legal advice, nor does this podcast establish an attorney client relationship. Reference to any specific product or entity does not count as an endorsement or recommendation by Chehardy Sherman Williams. The views expressed by guests on the show are their own, and their appearance does not imply an endorsement of them or their entity that they represent. Remember, please consult an attorney for your specific legal issues.

Welcome to another engaging episode of “Health Law Talk,” the podcast show where we delve into the intricacies of healthcare law and the challenges faced by providers.

Join us as we talk to Joe Aguilar, Managing Partner at HMS Valuation Partners. With considerable valuation experience, Joe has personally completed thousands of valuation engagements in the healthcare industry, and brings unique expertise in both clinical and financial disciplines to client engagements. Joe is a thought leader in the field, and brings incredible perspective to the health care conversation.

Conrad Meyer, Rory Bellina, and George Mueller, come together to unravel the complex web of healthcare and legal issues. Each episode is a captivating journey through the intricate world of health law, offering unique insights and perspectives. From current healthcare policy debates to legal challenges in the medical field, this trio covers it all. Join us for lively discussions and expert analysis on the issues that shape the healthcare landscape. Get ready to stay informed and engaged with ‘Health Law Talk’.

Prepare to be enlightened as our esteemed guests share their invaluable insights on the top issues surrounding distrust in today’s healthcare landscape. From prioritizing profit over patients to the lingering physician/hospital conflicts, reimbursement problems, patient trust erosion, and the profound lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic—no stone will be left unturned.

Engage in an insightful discussion that explores real-life case studies, thought-provoking anecdotes, and evidence-based analysis. Together, we will examine the multifaceted nature of distrust in healthcare and seek solutions that promote transparency, patient-centric care, and rebuilding a solid foundation of trust.

The “Health Law Talk” podcast is your go-to resource for navigating healthcare law and ethics. Our hosts, board-certified in healthcare law, and special guests share practical knowledge, best practices, and thought leadership to empower healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patients.


Health Law Talk, presented by the Chehardy Sherman Williams law firm, one of the largest full service law firms in the Greater New Orleans area, is a regular podcast focusing on the expansive area of healthcare law. Attorneys Rory Bellina, Conrad Meyer and George Mueller will address various legal issues and current events surrounding healthcare topics. The attorneys are here to answer your legal questions, create a discussion on various healthcare topics, as well as bring in subject matter experts and guests to join the conversation.

We handle everything from regulatory and compliance check-ups to employment matters, Medicare and Medicaid issues to state and federal fraud and abuse regulations. Our healthcare attorneys are always staying up to date on the latest state and federal regulations to ensure that our knowledge is always accurate.

Our team has the expertise to assist you with compliance matters, HIPAA violations, payor contracts and employee negotiations, practice and entity formation, and insurance reimbursement issues, in addition to the full spectrum of other healthcare related issues.


Chehardy Sherman Williams, founded in the Greater New Orleans area, has been a leading law firm serving Southeastern Louisiana since 1989.

We put decades of legal practice to work for our clients and provide more personalized services to achieve their desired results. From businesses and individuals across more than ten practice areas, we can provide more experience and more representation.

We can help resolve a wide range of complex legal issues in all courts, including parish, state, and federal branches. Our attorneys have represented cases across Louisiana and the country. Armed with a profound and comprehensive knowledge of the legal system, we are devoted to protecting your legal rights while upholding the highest standards of the justice system.

We are consistently recognized as leaders in the industry, earning local and national accolades for results, service, and commitment.

Health Law Talk podcast channel logo
Health Law Talk podcast channel logo
Health Law Talk podcast channel logo
Health Law Talk podcast channel logo
Health Law Talk podcast channel logo

Heath Law Talk discusses Private Equity

Health Law Talk Presented by Chehardy Sherman Williams

Health Law Talk logo
+ Full Transcript

Intro (00:01):
Welcome to Health Law Talk, presented by Chehardy Sherman Williams Health Law. Broken down through expert discussion, real client issues and real life experiences, breaking barriers to understanding complex healthcare issues is our job.

Conrad Meyer (00:20):
And good morning, good afternoon, wherever. What time it is that you’re listening to this podcast. Welcome to another edition of Health Law Talk with Chehardy Sherman Williams and in the studio today we have the three originators, I guess George Mueller, Rory Bellina, Conrad Meyer behind the mics, and sort of wrapping out 2023, we decided we would like to come do an episode on private equity and healthcare and what that means, what does that look like and some of the issues that I guess when you bring in private equity into healthcare, whether it’s buying out of group practice, whether it’s buying a private hospital, what does that look like? What are some of the issues that you face as a provider dealing with private equity and what does that usually mean? Could mean for the public, good, bad or not. And so it was a good topic, especially timely because of some of the things that are going on the news, some of the things that are happening in politics, especially on DC. And so we thought it was a great idea to bring it up. So I’m going to defer right now. Rory. George, what do you guys think? Private equity, healthcare 2023, getting bigger, smaller, what, what’s on your radar when you think of private equity?

Rory Bellina (01:35):
I definitely wouldn’t say that it’s getting smaller. I would say that it’s continuing to grow and that you see these private equity companies are targeting slowly but surely different sectors, different practice types. There was a trend for a while to do dermatology and now we see that shifting to more of the surgery center spaces. They see that the revenue comes in from so many different sources of providers, but I definitely would not say that it’s slowing down. If anything, I think they’re just looking at new areas to expand to or maneuver over to.

George Mueller (02:08):
Yeah, I would say I would echo Rory’s sentiment and then say that I think that there are certain groups, certain I’d say groups of money, people who want to roll up and acquire certain specialties and subspecialties. And so as kind of acquisition penetration occurs regionally and throughout the country in certain subspecialties, you’ll find ebbs and flow of which specialties are getting bought up and at what rate and what size and what region. So I think there are, within specialties, there are different kind of speeds and I guess ages insofar as who’s buying what and where.

Conrad Meyer (02:55):
When you say the ebb and flow, and I understand where both of y’all are coming from, what, what’s been on your radar this year in terms of the specialties and of the spread of private equity acquisition? We gone from dermatology, like you said, Rory, what have both of you seen the expansion? Where is it going now?

George Mueller (03:17):
Well, I think we’ve seen certainly in imaging seen that there’s a lot of radiology roll-ups going on. I’ve seen dermatology is another area where I think some surgery practices, of course we’ve seen that as well in different areas. We do have sort of different internal medicine to some degree. You have insurers who are sort of sponsoring clinics or opening clinics and then trying to staff those with internists and then using practice extenders to be able to leverage down and try to penetrate the internal medicine, primary care family care market in certain particular populations. But I think if we go back to the first two examples, radiology and surgery, I think in derm maybe perceived to be some areas where private equity through how they structure and manage can frankly make some money and do well efficiencies, so to speak. I think a lot of owners turn into employees, which compensation’s a little different. Also, I think from a macro perspective, you have to realize that the population of physicians in their age relative to where they are in terms of

Conrad Meyer (04:33):
Seniority,

George Mueller (04:34):
Well where they are in terms of their horizon, their personal horizon, maybe it’s 60, 65 and you really start to contemplate within that five to 10 year period, how much longer do I want to do this? How much longer can I do this? Depending on how physically demanding your specialty is. And I think Durham versus orthopedic surgery, arguably

Conrad Meyer (04:52):
Because when you say surgery, you mean ortho cardio neuro, is that what you think

George Mueller (04:56):
Top? I was thinking primarily top three, primarily ortho. I think now we have had some, right in Louisiana we had

Conrad Meyer (05:02):
The cardio. We’ve had some

George Mueller (05:03):
Cardiology Institute of the South as recently as That’s right, yeah, those specialties. And there are probably a bunch of others if we were to do the research and kind of line it up to the extent those deals are reported. But yeah, I think you see basically as the provider, as the physician owner population ages out, you will see that more people are starting to come into that and then the structure and the availability of money has been plentiful. So if you add all that up, you’re going to get some consolidation, right? You’re going to get some roll-ups. And so the younger physicians really aren’t in a spot to sell out yet, right? And they maybe don’t want to. They’ve owning their own practice, they kind of making their hay so to speak. But I think when you get to a point where you’re 65, 68, 72, maybe you start thinking about it and then so you’re more likely to be someone who’s going to sell your controlling interest and bring along your partners, structure your retirement in a way where you’re going to work three to five more years, maybe get the air quotes, rollover equity, and then hopefully you get to second bite it to Apple three to five to seven years after that.

Conrad Meyer (06:14):
When we talk about a private equity deal, Rory, what does that look like? I heard George touch on it a little bit. What does it look like from a practice standpoint when you’ve got private equity contacting a group practice and saying, okay, we want to come in. What’s been your experience when dealing with a deal? How’s it structured? What do you see?

Rory Bellina (06:35):
I mean, it could be as fast or as slow as the acquiring company wants to go. A lot of times before they do anything, they’ll get the confidentiality agreements in place and they’re going to want to look at the financials to see is this even worth the go or no go analysis? Is this even worth proceeding with? And that seems to take a huge chunk of time. Once you get past that, then they’ll start asking more. And that’s when you start to see the data rooms open and start to look at, okay, well let’s look at who your vendors, your provider contract with. We need to see your billing, which is a whole other separate issue to start to look and see the next step of this. Do we again want to proceed? And then a lot of times, like George mentioned is what is the demographics of the practice?

(07:20):
Is it a practice where you’ve got a lot of older providers on top who own the majority of, let’s say the stock in the company and they’re going to use this as their way to cash out and there’ll be employees for a couple more years and go, or do you have, and you could have a split where you have that group, but then you also have a lot of young employed physicians who they’re straight out of residency that have been in this practice that’s now going to get purchased by private equity and they’re going to be become an employee. And this is not what they thought that they signed up for. Maybe they thought that they were going to slowly buy into this practice and become an owner. So you have to juggle that because the purchaser wants, most of the time they want to keep all the providers in because they’ll keeps the cash flow going.

(08:07):
And so you don’t want all the young physicians to quit. You definitely don’t want the older ones to leave because they have the established patient base. So that becomes a delicate balance as well as trying to keep everyone happy and how do you keep the older physicians that own the stock in the company, they’re going to be happy because they’re going to get paid out the most. The younger ones that really have nothing figuring out how do you keep them in and keep them happy to be the workhorses when really they’re just going to be earning a salary and they have no shot at getting ownership. I think that becomes a delicate talking point. I know George, we’ve gone through that with some different clients. It that’s always a juggle to deal with the breakdown of the older tenured physicians,

George Mueller (08:52):
Their investment expectations. I think their professional horizons and what they want to do for the next 10 to 20 years are two dramatically different groups of people and both are pretty critical to the continued cashflow based on the model, based on the enterprise value, based on the spreadsheet. That’s the decisional framework for private equity coming in and buying. When they set all that, they’ve got to presume all the information about current revenue levels, future patient retention, and then case money collections, et cetera. All that has to be considered when they put a price on ’em, right? And so they’ve got to be able to retain those people. Obviously, employment agreements and retention are a certain amount of people are kind of key because all those revenue assumptions are based on that. So they’ve got to keep those in there.

Conrad Meyer (09:38):
And we talk about revenue assumptions and how they value, meaning private equity values of practice. And I know the three of us have mentioned this before when looking at a deal, but are we seeing the similar trend across the board with private equity coming in and dangling the carrot in front of these doctors knowing the demographic makeup of the practice where they say, oh, we’re going to give you a 10 x multiple or even higher. And then during the whole modeling show the whole beauty pageant. And then suddenly as we start getting into the LOI and getting into the definitive agreements and reviewing, like Rory, you said the data room of the actual vendors and the payer mix and so forth, that multiple seems to decrease a lot. And then you have the holdover. And so now when you really get down to the actual closing of the deal, it’s not as sweet as it started

Rory Bellina (10:37):
Often, but you’re so exhausted from negotiating it and spent so much time in attorney’s fees that you just want to close how often,

Conrad Meyer (10:44):
But how often does that happen? Is that a SY thing from private

Rory Bellina (10:48):
Every time and you call in the most complicated attorneys at the end to muddy up something to have more money put in escrow or to lower that projection a little bit? We see that every time and kind of expect it that with buying a house, your first offer is your Beth offer. Same thing with this. The first number that they’re going to give to you is as good as it’s going to get, and it’s only going to go down from there. But it’s hard to, we’ve had George, we had.

George Mueller (11:19):
Sure. So depending on how much information particular pursuer has on a given target, they may have, the indication of interest is usually, Hey, this is what we’ve liked. And we kind get, as Rory was saying earlier, confidentiality, generally speaking, if they’re working with a broker, then the broker will usually have some sort of a deal book available that has some sanitized but fairly specific parameter as to revenue level, number of physicians, all the key drivers that any particular buyer would want to see to arouse dication of interest. And then from there they may develop some expectations and then look at what their enterprise value is and set up. So you have these couple of working pieces. You have the enterprise value, which is that total of EBITDA times a given multiple, like the big shiny object at the top. That’s the carrot,

Conrad Meyer (12:21):
The star on the tree. That’s right. That’s

George Mueller (12:23):
Right. And then because we’re seasonally appropriate here,

Conrad Meyer (12:26):
Star, I like

George Mueller (12:27):
That then, but then you’ve got to look at A, are they going to keep the multiple there, right? And B, that enterprise value that ebitda. So what normalizations air quotes for those of you listening are going to impact that number once they get into the data room and look at it start to beat up the quality of earnings. Well,

Conrad Meyer (12:48):
We usually have it on the group side. So I mean that number, that multiple that all of us are talking about right here, the star on the tree, it’s so hard to manage client expectations because when they hear that number, it’s usually before we even get to ’em,

Rory Bellina (13:04):
Each usually had a steak dinner. It’s usually

Conrad Meyer (13:06):
A steak dinner or kind. And so by the time we get it, suddenly we have to manage client’s expectations and saying, well, they said 13 x or 12 x or 15

George Mueller (13:18):
X instead put it into numbers. The letter says, we believe this thing’s worth $150 million. And then the dinging yellow, those dollar signs are going off and it’s hearts and flowers and everything

Rory Bellina (13:29):
Start to mentally spend it. There’s

Conrad Meyer (13:30):
A lot of hearts and flowers.

George Mueller (13:31):
Mental millions are spent instantly on second homes, third boats and fourth whatevers. I mean just

Conrad Meyer (13:37):
Everything, right?

George Mueller (13:38):
So

Conrad Meyer (13:40):
That’s hard though. It’s hard to manage that.

George Mueller (13:43):
It’s human nature and believe me, that these things are played upon because of that. So then what happens is that number will begin to erode and typically erodes for valid reasons. I mean, they’re going to come and say, well, hey, look, this physician’s not going to be here that long. Or Hey, we are expecting some headwinds on this cost or your reimbursement in this probably going to go down because it’s going to be some downward pressure because the charge master is going to go down or because whatever derivative Medicare schedule we’re using is they’re going to squeeze that more blah. Then all the parade of horror suddenly comes out. It goes from hearts and flowers, 150 million to erode. Look at all these things. Look at this. It’s terrible. It’s like, and you’ve hired X brothers inspectors to go into your house and shoot holes in the thing, and

Rory Bellina (14:26):
While it’s eroding, it’s eroding and the erosion is being put in little buckets that you can only touch at certain points in time. So that 150 million for your example, might now be down to one 30,

George Mueller (14:39):
But

Rory Bellina (14:39):
30 million of that is going to be put in escrow and 20 million is going to be

Conrad Meyer (14:45):
Held for two or three years.

Rory Bellina (14:46):
Some of this is rollover, so it’s not

George Mueller (14:49):
Dollars. We haven’t gotten to that rollover yet. That’s a separate big deal. The enterprise value is the whole pie, but they’re not going to buy the whole pie. They’ll buy a piece of the pie. Okay,

Conrad Meyer (14:59):
So let’s talk about that. But they’re

George Mueller (15:00):
Going to have a hundred percent control. So the idea, and look, if you have, let’s say you have a pot of money, 2.3 billion at Crud Rock Inc or whatever. And so you’ve got a bunch of guys in the Patagonia vests and they’re all doing their thing. They have a spreadsheet, slick fast, got to use a major firm, blah, blah, blah. So those guys, they have a limited amount of money, so they’ve got to shoot the biggest elephants using the fewest bullets as possible. And so that’s what we see you value a hundred percent, but they’re maybe going to acquire 65% and you’re going to get 35% of rollover equity to all of those key partners and the other people, but you’re going to have a hundred percent control and that 35% is locked up. It’s hard to get a put on it without giving them a call.

(15:50):
And then there’s no guarantee. You can’t just go and say, Hey, in five years you need to buy me out my same multiple cash. I really want to be out out. I’ll take the rod. I want my second bite at the apple. You said it’s going to be at a 13 x, not at a nine x that you’re buying us at. Wow. It’s four x more and it’s a tax efficient. So everyone has a script that they follow. First thing they say is, well, you’re going to get way more on it. You’re not going to pay tax on it. So it’s very tax efficient. You don’t have to pay that tax. And then you don’t want to have to redeploy it in another investment. They say all the things you don’t want to do with your own money in your pocket besides say, spend it, give it to your kids or reinvest it in something that has nothing to do with what you’ve been doing for the last 30 years.

(16:26):
All those things really play into what happens. And some people like it because if you’re young enough and then you’re going to be involved enough, then yeah, they’ll take the ride on it. They believe in the company they built, they’re going to sell it. They think it’s only going to get better. They drape the Kool-Aid. And it may well though mean, to be fair, some of these things do work out favorably. Yeah, sure. I think this particular discussion point really emphasizes the importance of trying to get a put right or an exit for your seller who has that carryover equity in terms that if nothing else, if they really want to get out, and it kind of depends on their age and their investment horizon, but if you can get them a guaranteed out at no less a price than what they sold the day you did it, then that might give the buyer private equity an opportunity to buy them at the nine x when it’s worth 13, they’re going to sell it. But if you want out now, you may like that. You may not want to wait or you may be ill, well, you might

Conrad Meyer (17:21):
Want to do it now because you’re not going to have control once the deal closes, you’re done. And so if you don’t exercise it before you’re going to lose

George Mueller (17:28):
It. And so with that, just generally speaking, rollover equity like it to be as close to 30, 40% as possible. I think sellers, depending on their tax scenario, if it’s been around 20, 30 years, maybe some anti churning things, some rare tax stuff that happens with corporations, then you may not to go above 20% and you want to get as much problem is they’ve got to use more cash or more debt financing on a company you’re going to buy. So it’s either way, whether they’re putting their own cash up from that big pile of money we talked about a few minutes ago, or they’re going to go borrow, the company will borrow debt and pay you with it, but the borrowed debt directly devalues, it’s on the balance sheet of the rollover equity you have. So one way or another you’re

Conrad Meyer (18:13):
Going to earn it back over the years.

George Mueller (18:14):
One way or another, it’s out of your pocket as a seller. And so that’s a critical kind of economic distinction to make when

Conrad Meyer (18:20):
You’re doing it. And see, lemme just say

George Mueller (18:21):
You get no control. I mean, they’re going to run it. They’re going to have the back office as we’re going through a list of kind of talking points that y’all see in your earbuds going to really, the idea is private equity is supposed to pull out the money by managing it, by providing financing, by doing all the payroll. It’s going to be a management services agreement. They’re going to streamline, by the way they, you’re an employee now. So even if you work in a magical RV U thing, you’re probably still making less and you’re not going to get those same equity distributions. That’s right. It’s a little less money. So all in all, it is a good economic prospect, but it is a liquidity solution for someone who wants to get out. And so that’s not all bad.

Conrad Meyer (19:02):
Very complicated concepts you just said. And I know Rory, you’ve dealt with that too, but let me ask you this guys, how hard is what you just digested in a very, very good summary in a few minutes. How hard is that to relay to providers when doing a deal after they’ve been told at the steak dinner it’s going to be a 13 x multiple, now you’re walking it back. They have, I think it

George Mueller (19:28):
Varies. Honestly, it’s humans. And so I know we all have different clients with different aptitudes and different attitudes and different, and so some may be absolutely just focus on that and they’re going to go, go, go. And they’ve kind of persuaded by a

Conrad Meyer (19:44):
Ready, fire aim.

George Mueller (19:45):
But I think to their credit, a lot of our physician clients are very shrewd and they’re not just fabulous practitioners. They’re not just really good at what they do with their subspecialty. They read a lot. They’re polymaths, they’re bright, they’re good business people, not all of them, but some of them are. And I find the ones that have a tendency to be good business people immediately understand the economic alternatives and pivot points of control versus liquidity versus price versus the normalizations versus as Rory was talking about even the last second, healthcare, healthcare compliance and regulatory issues never come up in the first 30 days of a deal. They always come up in the last 10, 20 days, and it’s always someone who’s in a corner in a little fax office somewhere. They don’t have particularly good social skills. They have a tendency to be very verbose, almost like when you’re on the phone with them, they’re avoiding eye contact with you on the phone.

(20:49):
That’s how awkward it is. And it’s just basically their regulatory wonks and they’re like engineers, they’re like light switches, God bless. We love our engineer clients, but it’s all or nothing. Everything’s immediate report full, blah, blah, blah. Everything is like to the max or you’re going to die, right? I mean it’s like, it’s literally an on off switch, which is interesting because a lot of these things really do have a subjective factor to them. Some of them are objective, but I think they’re intentionally brought up at the end they say, oh, look what we got to do. And all of a sudden more money goes in and it doesn’t hurt. The buyer doesn’t care. They’re just going to take the money. They would pay you and report it to buy regulatory peace and quiet where there’s a lot of practical issues about how efficacious those claims would be. And of course, we don’t advise people to not comply with all federal laws and regulations, but it’s just at some point in time, it comes kind of, for lack of a better term, what’s the word you would use where something is just absolutely, maybe technically there’s a concern, but from a practical standpoint, anecdotally, it’s a total nothing burger. So I,

Rory Bellina (22:02):
I don’t know if there’s a term for it, but I agree with that. You have those situations where like you said, it could be very subjective and that regulatory attorney wants to do a self-report and it’s going to go to Washington and sit on someone’s desk for a year and they’ll gladly take your money and that’s it. And there may not have been there. But like you said, I think what brought us to this conversation was issues going on nationwide about there was a large private equity company who purchased up a system and purchased up a hospital, and there was some issues with staffing there and that got Congress involved. And the larger question has been presented, is private equity good for healthcare or not? And I think that yes, it’s good, but I think that in some spots maybe it’s not good. So I’d love to hear both of your opinion when we got about 10 more minutes left in this

George Mueller (22:59):
Overall

Rory Bellina (23:00):
Good or bad in how it’s helpful, but also

George Mueller (23:03):
Not. So it’s always, we’ve seen it happen in the insurance sector and I think we’re seeing it happen in the hospital sector. And then I don’t think physicians have, there’s a limitation on physician owned hospitals now from the Affordable Care Act. That’s right. And so overall, if we view this more than just through a keyhole or a telescope and see the broader issue, things seem to continue to be moving towards consolidation. And so you have consolidation of common ownership and control over various practice sectors that are either because financially or just situationally, they’re more ripe for acquisition because funds will naturally see if we have this money, are we going to buy groups? Who are we going to roll up? Where can we make the most money their role? And then what are most susceptible to roll up for those various drivers? I think when that happens, invariably you get larger groups.

(24:04):
Larger groups typically means more bargaining power, right? Because they have greater percentages of market share in any particular geography. And state contracts are kind of state by state with respect to various insurers. So all that in your larger cities where a lot of these roll-ups focus because of patient population, right? Yeah. I think you just see continued consolidation. Now if you’re of the big theory that government wants to consolidate everything because someday we’ve got to go to single payer because that’s what everyone else in the world does, but everyone else in the world comes here for healthcare. It’s just odd. There may be a correlation, maybe it’s just coincidence. I don’t know. We get political here, but I think the point is that the government doesn’t seem to want to allow, if Humana wants to merge with someone that were trying to merge earlier, that got blown up.

(24:57):
I think too, I think Elance and someone else maybe were trying to merge. They had to go back and change their terms. It’s strange because while antitrust and FTC issues certainly abound with respect to consolidation and whether or not you need a Hart Scout rodino issue, but I would think they would want consolidation because eventually if they have all the tune in one bucket, how easy it is at some point in time to just take the one bucket and let ’em all swim into the bucket freely. I think that’s what I see happening. That said, it gets interesting for patients. It gets interesting for payers because you lose the ability to have multiple choices to go to if everyone’s getting bought up in or consolidated, right? Industry by industry.

Conrad Meyer (25:40):
I echo that and I’m thinking more operationally from a private equity standpoint, when you take over a group practice, a surgery center, even still a private hospital, because they can still take over private hospitals, they can even buy hospitals now because they’re not providers. So there’s no prohibition on that. So they can go out and buy a system like what happened here? My question is what happens when you get private equity administrators who are really focused on profitability, and we all talk about, well, they could debt service, they could upgrade, whatever. But really what they’re going to be trying to do is because the continued fee schedules are being scrutinized every year at CMS, which all private payers, not private pay, but commercial payers then follow the suit right from CMS, then if I’m private equity, I’m going to be trying to decrease my expenses any way I can and maximize reimbursement any way I can. How do I do

George Mueller (26:43):
That? Well, we hope that patient care is in compromised. I mean, we still have really good physicians. All

Conrad Meyer (26:47):
It’s easy to say to anybody though, George, I mean, everybody can get on a podium and say, we’re going to give you high quality low cost healthcare, and how many times have we heard that? But when you get down on the front lines, it becomes a different story. For the example we were talking about before the show, the issue telemetry monitoring. The remote monitoring, I’ve watched over the years, the remote monitoring go from one monitor to 10 20 patients to now I’m seeing 40, 50 patients. Is

George Mueller (27:16):
There a standard of care

Conrad Meyer (27:17):
For, we’ve talked about that

George Mueller (27:19):
With all the tech and

Conrad Meyer (27:21):
Interestingly, I know that I saw the other night where HCA was saying that they have a 40 to one ratio or something like that. It was on the news, and they allegedly abide by the guidelines that the American Heart Association says, which is 40 to one, 40 patients to one monitor. And then I saw the A HA says, well, we never said that. So I don’t know if there’s a regulatory baseline on the monitoring, but my point is, take that aside, that private equity, when you have an administrator from private equity come in for a group a SC or even a system, you’ve got people who’ve never had any healthcare experience come in and their sole focus is to cut the fat, get rid of expenses, and how can we do that? I’ll give you an example for-profit hospital situation, and I’m not going to say who it is, but I witnessed this, I watched this happen.

(28:13):
MedSurg floors used to be med-surg floors would have 20, 30, sometimes 40 basis on a MedSurg floor, and you would have at least on a four to one ratio coverage, maybe six to one ratio, where you had an RN covering that kind of patient base, and it was all RNs. And so I know four profit companies come in and say, oh, we don’t need four RNs on a med-surg floor. We need three LPNs and one RN to monitor all the LPNs. So is that patient care? Is that quality? Do we go from monitoring a 20 to one telemetry to a 60 to one? Is that quality? Do we go from having 10 sets of hardware at a hospital? Because each surgeon likes to have their Medtronic, their Stryker, whatever hardware they like to do their cases to where it only can have one set like going to a tool like an automotive mechanic. Some might want cobalt, some might want whatever, snap on, snap on, right?

(29:14):
Matco, Matco, Matco. And so then you say, we’re only going to have one set. So I mean, there’s ways to streamline it, but what I see operationally is I don’t see that. I don’t see the good outcomes from that. I see examples of the bad outcomes now I guess I’m wearing tanned glasses. I like to see the good outcomes, but I don’t know how you can look at someone and say, putting a 40 to 50 to one on a telemetry monitoring is good healthcare. I dunno how you could say four RNs. Now we’re going to take away those people and give LPNs. I don’t think

George Mueller (29:47):
He can do that as a split of industries. I’m just as

Conrad Meyer (29:49):
An example.

George Mueller (29:50):
Yeah. Do you think that because of the nature of the services, do you think that maybe that private equity consolidation has more of a potential negative effect on quality of care for say, facilities versus practices?

Conrad Meyer (30:07):
I think that yes and no. Yes, I would say for facilities yes practices, what you’re going to have is

George Mueller (30:14):
The physicians are still providing the care. The care,

Conrad Meyer (30:17):
That’s right. They’re going to cut the fat of those practices. So if you’ve got a low performing doc, that person is going to be gone. And then how many mid-levels do you really, how many apps do you really need to cover for a given practice? I mean, a lot of docs want their apps to do their closing, their opening

George Mueller (30:37):
And so forth. I expect they have an optimization calculation. I’m

Conrad Meyer (30:40):
Sure they

George Mueller (30:41):
Do, which is pretty lean and probably has a little ouch factor with it. And they strive to push it towards that ouch factor without causing a reverse.

Conrad Meyer (30:50):
Let me just say this, and I’m going to say this to both, that most

George Mueller (30:52):
Of the pressure points in those sort of operational quantities,

Conrad Meyer (30:56):
I’m going to say this lastly, because I do think there’s a good point on private equity acquisition of facilities, and I’ll tell you the good point. I have watched over the years, I’ve been in healthcare for almost 30 years, even from an administrative side, how many administrators do we need to run a hospital? How many? Because every time I look, and I bet you if you ask the providers this question, they would shake their head, I agree with you. How many VPs of X do we need to run the facility? And if you look at an org chart, it looks like a fricking spiderweb. I mean, because you’re looking at it like, oh my gosh, we have a VP of what? We have a VP of this. Yeah.

George Mueller (31:38):
So there I think, sorry.

Conrad Meyer (31:39):
No, no,

George Mueller (31:40):
Ran. What I was going to say is

Conrad Meyer (31:42):
Do y’all agree, disagree?

George Mueller (31:43):
Well, I will say this certainly in the air quote spreadsheet that they use to look to analyze earnings and come up with enterprise value based on operational management and budget assumptions. I think they certainly achieve some efficiencies by having some more remote or regional back office crammed into the quote unquote MSA that typically gets signed. And I think it’s the same probably with hospitals to some degree. Obviously there’s going to be some, the Bobs will come and ask you what you do, Bob, right? Bob, what exactly do you do here? Great movie and metaphor. And that happens. That happens in all industries, not just healthcare’s

Conrad Meyer (32:21):
Everywhere. I would ask both of you to look at the ratio of administrators to providers in a facility and then look at it, the ratio of administrators to providers and the system.

George Mueller (32:32):
There’s a lot of paperwork and a lot of nonsense involved in the provision of healthcare.

Conrad Meyer (32:37):
Well, you have your back office for that. Yeah,

George Mueller (32:39):
But I mean effectively that’s what they

Conrad Meyer (32:42):
Are. No, no. I’m talking about administrators. I’m not talking about your back office staff for claims. And I get that. I do get that. I’m talking about your VP of admin over business development, for example, or marketing or whatever. Feel good. You want to title someone as a VP of something, look at your administrator to provide a ratio. Yeah. I

George Mueller (33:02):
Think what happens is with size of organizations, those have a tendency to grow because people who would be responsible for multiple parts of those just don’t want it. And they appear that there’s maybe room in the budget. And I think again, it can grow like government, right? And nothing grows except for maybe Kudzu in Mississippi, nothing grows like government, right? Because once it goes, it doesn’t stop. You can’t retard it, you can’t eat it.

Conrad Meyer (33:31):
Love your analogy.

George Mueller (33:32):
Nothing can do. And so

Conrad Meyer (33:33):
Those people who are not from Mississippi or mother don’t even know what katsu is. I mean, it’s like a weeded and it starts and it just grows at an exponential rate. Doesn’t stop, does not stop it’s vine. Anyway, that’s what I thought. Rory, sorry for the long-winded answer.

George Mueller (33:49):
No, it presents and for law firms, it presents great opportunities. It does to advise your clients through a critical one-time practice exit. For us, it’s advising them on the culmination of valuing a big component of the life’s work and then making sure they maximize value for that. And then you have an appreciation of what those exit points and what those value parameters are going to be when the deal’s done

Conrad Meyer (34:18):
Well. Good. Alright. Well, gentlemen, I think I know Rory had a rollout, so we’re going to end this a little earlier. I will tell you this, I think we

George Mueller (34:24):
Scratched the surface. There’s a lot going

Conrad Meyer (34:26):
Think there’s a lot going.

George Mueller (34:27):
Probably hit this topic with a lot of depth on either how the deals are structured and kind of a narrative of what goes on at various stages to say, as you say, to kind of have a particular client digest that, and then maybe go into a little bit of some of the regulatory issues that we’ve been seeing with respect to how Congress views it, what their attitude towards is, which I think is kind of duplicitous. I think in one way they want consolidation. If they want single payer, then you’ve got to have consolidation to get all the tune in a bucket. At the same time, they don’t want consolidation in a way that upsets the air quotes balance of power or things.

Conrad Meyer (35:04):
But we’re, lemme just say this, we’re going to, and we’ll get to that. I think let’s ask the listeners here, if you are interested in anyone listening to the podcast that wanted to do some additional, maybe a multi-part series on an in-depth private equity transaction and the issues that we face, give us an email, send us an email, let us know what you think and we’ll be happy to look at this and maybe add some more, I guess, colorful commentation and discussion and future series. So gentlemen, thank you very much for this, George Mueller. Conrad Meyer here. We really appreciate everybody. And look, it’s getting close. I think we’re doing this way. We’re close to Christmas, right? Yes, we are.

George Mueller (35:45):
I’m wearing my plaid, which is red and green and everything else. Ho ho. Merry Christmas.

Conrad Meyer (35:51):
Yes. So for those of you who are listening to this around Christmas time, Merry Christmas to you and your families. I’ll enjoy. And until the next time, we’ll see you soon. Take care.

Intro (36:01):
Thanks for listening to this episode of Health Law Talk, presented by Chehardy Sherman Williams. Please be sure to subscribe to our channel. Make sure to give us that five star rating and share with your friends. Chehardy Sherman Williams is providing this podcast as a public service. This podcast is for educational purposes only. This podcast does not constitute legal advice, nor does this podcast establish an attorney client relationship. Reference to any specific product or entity does not count as an endorsement or recommendation by Chehardy Sherman Williams. The views expressed by guests on the show are their own, and their appearance does not imply an endorsement of them or their entity that they represent. Remember, please consult an attorney for your specific legal issues.

Welcome to another engaging episode of “Health Law Talk,” the podcast show where we delve into the intricacies of healthcare law and the challenges faced by providers.

Conrad Meyer, Rory Bellina, and George Mueller, come together to unravel the complex web of healthcare and legal issues. Each episode is a captivating journey through the intricate world of health law, offering unique insights and perspectives. From current healthcare policy debates to legal challenges in the medical field, this trio covers it all. Join us for lively discussions and expert analysis on the issues that shape the healthcare landscape. Get ready to stay informed and engaged with ‘Health Law Talk’.

Prepare to be enlightened as our esteemed guests share their invaluable insights on the top issues surrounding distrust in today’s healthcare landscape. From prioritizing profit over patients to the lingering physician/hospital conflicts, reimbursement problems, patient trust erosion, and the profound lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic—no stone will be left unturned.

Engage in an insightful discussion that explores real-life case studies, thought-provoking anecdotes, and evidence-based analysis. Together, we will examine the multifaceted nature of distrust in healthcare and seek solutions that promote transparency, patient-centric care, and rebuilding a solid foundation of trust.

The “Health Law Talk” podcast is your go-to resource for navigating healthcare law and ethics. Our hosts, board-certified in healthcare law, and special guests share practical knowledge, best practices, and thought leadership to empower healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patients.


Health Law Talk, presented by the Chehardy Sherman Williams law firm, one of the largest full service law firms in the Greater New Orleans area, is a regular podcast focusing on the expansive area of healthcare law. Attorneys Rory Bellina, Conrad Meyer and George Mueller will address various legal issues and current events surrounding healthcare topics. The attorneys are here to answer your legal questions, create a discussion on various healthcare topics, as well as bring in subject matter experts and guests to join the conversation.

We handle everything from regulatory and compliance check-ups to employment matters, Medicare and Medicaid issues to state and federal fraud and abuse regulations. Our healthcare attorneys are always staying up to date on the latest state and federal regulations to ensure that our knowledge is always accurate.

Our team has the expertise to assist you with compliance matters, HIPAA violations, payor contracts and employee negotiations, practice and entity formation, and insurance reimbursement issues, in addition to the full spectrum of other healthcare related issues.


Chehardy Sherman Williams, founded in the Greater New Orleans area, has been a leading law firm serving Southeastern Louisiana since 1989.

We put decades of legal practice to work for our clients and provide more personalized services to achieve their desired results. From businesses and individuals across more than ten practice areas, we can provide more experience and more representation.

We can help resolve a wide range of complex legal issues in all courts, including parish, state, and federal branches. Our attorneys have represented cases across Louisiana and the country. Armed with a profound and comprehensive knowledge of the legal system, we are devoted to protecting your legal rights while upholding the highest standards of the justice system.

We are consistently recognized as leaders in the industry, earning local and national accolades for results, service, and commitment.

Health Law Talk podcast channel logo
Health Law Talk podcast channel logo
Health Law Talk podcast channel logo
Health Law Talk podcast channel logo
Health Law Talk podcast channel logo

Adam Stumpf portrait - Gambit Weekly

Please join us in congratulating partner Adam Stumpf on being named to Gambit Weekly’s 2023 “40 Under 40” list. Adam works tirelessly to make our community a better place. He is recognized for his leadership with New Orleans Crimestoppers and the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority and is volunteer work at the Cox Small Business Growth Academy at Delgado Community College.

Chehardy Sherman Williams, founded in the Greater New Orleans area, has been a leading law firm serving Southeastern Louisiana since 1989.

We put decades of legal practice to work for our clients and provide more personalized services to achieve their desired results. From businesses and individuals across more than ten practice areas, we can provide more experience and more representation.

We can help resolve a wide range of complex legal issues in all courts, including parish, state, and federal branches. Our attorneys have represented cases across Louisiana and the country. Armed with a profound and comprehensive knowledge of the legal system, we are devoted to protecting your legal rights while upholding the highest standards of the justice system.

We are consistently recognized as leaders in the industry, earning local and national accolades for results, service, and commitment.