If you'd like to hear this discussed, watch the video and related post about it I did the other day I remind that I have on at least two occasions over the years asked for salaries for GRMC, this is PUBLIC information, despite some wanting to keep taxpayers from knowing it.
2016 Hospital Preliminary Hospital Budget
2016 501a Preliminary Budget
A few things I'm pulling out that I"m interested in from the 501a budget
I put up the doctor's salaries from previous budgets here
Salaries (Salary plus PTO)
For the number at the right, look on the individual spreadsheet, add up clinic revenu and hospital revenue and subtract all the next range of numbers-that gives you whether the practice makes money. Only Dr Turk in the example below appears to be making money.
Davis 184,616.00 +15,384.00 ----200,000 ...........Doctor's salary is 19% of revenue. Hospital revenue is 37,300.00 Profit and loss- loss of $175,068.87
Carpenter 180,770.00 + 19,230.00..... 200,000.......Doctor's salary is 19% of revenue - Hospital revenue is 35,250 but practice loss overall of $129,814.31
Hutchinson 292,923.09 + 27,076.91....320,000 ......Doctor's salary is 35% of revenue. Hospital revenue is $93,500.00 but practice loss overall is $168,744.46
Hay (not sure why he's still listed here, maybe placeholder for another doctor?)
Peters - 184,616.00 + 15,384.00 .....200.000 Doctor's salary is 47% of revenue. Hospital revenue is $30,000 but practice loss overall is $232,562.45
Patino - $159,538.46 + 12,461.54 162,000 (part time) Doctor's salary is 35% or revenue. Hospital revenue is $349,850.00 but practice loss overall is $131,358.69
Turk - 164,768.96 + 15,231.04 ...........180,000 Doctor's salary is 17% of revenue. Hospital revenue is $78,780.00 and practice profit is 98,511.13
Laughton 207,692.32 + 17,307.68.....225,000 Doctor's salary is 82% of revenue. Hospital revenue is $30,000 but practice loss is $331,526.60
Vacek - 184,615.39 + 15,384.61...........200,000 Doctor's salary is 25% of revenue. Hospital revenue is $60,000 but practice loss is $24,192.79
If there's an assumption that it takes a few years for a doctor's practice to get up to speed in order to turn a profit, that's one thing. It's interesting to me that only one of the doctors is actually making a profit for their practice. SINCE THE MONEY for this comes from the taxpayer via the budget, then that means we the taxpayers are subsidizing a system in which all the doctors but one do not carry their weight, overall. And, to add to that, and this of course, is my own bugaboo, Ray Reynolds has said that the 501a exists for shortfall money. GRMC could directly hire the doctors as employees and pay them the same salaries without the fig leaf of a 501a but the point is that if any doctor can't quite make enough money for his or her practice for a given period of time, Ray Reynolds and Michael Honea will transfer money. As I have noted repeatedly before, including my complaint to the Somervell County Sheriff's Department in 2013, which Andy Lucas is aware of, the terms of the 501a contract as testified to an auditor were NOT being followed. Instead of insisting that the contract, which called for the doctors asking for additional money and then providing documentation after the fact to prove that's how the money was spent, the board voted, first, not to follow the contract and later, to dumb down the contract and gut accountability. So, what is there to create an environment in which the doctors are incented to make money and carry their weight, especially when not only do most of the practices lose money but they can just get 501a shortfall money if they need? I don't actually include Dr Vacek in this since he's fairly new and falls into the category of building up a practice.
Some other questions. Do the nurse practitioners have their own charges they make for patients that gets rolled into the billings for the doctor? Is that broken out somewhere else, ie, how does someone know how much money is brought in from the doctor seeing patients as opposed to a nurse practicioner? I also notice on the spreadsheet that, for Dr Hutchinson, there are some numbers that don't appear to be required to be paid per contract. For example, Dues and Subscriptions for $900,000, Educational fees for 1000, and Travel expenses for 15000. If these are not contractually required, why are taxpayers picking up this cost?
It's bothersome to me. If a doctor doesn't have to worry about losing money, and can get additional float money via shortfall without accountability, what stops him or her from deciding not to work 40 hours or carrying X number of a patient load? I mean, that person will get tax money and a guaranteed salary no matter what, so is there any situation where, for example, someone takes the day off or pads schedules?