Beware USAP Misleading Advertising

[UW in 2002]

USAP states that they are "MAJORITY PHYSICIAN owned." This statement, while not necessarily untrue, really gives the inaccurate appearance that the physicians call the shots and run the show in the company. The reality is that physicians own 46% of the company, while 4 different investment banking firms own the remaining 54%. If you separate out the banking firms individually, then the physicians do have the largest percentage, but that does not mean the physicians are in the majority.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CopaceticOne]

And in other news: The sky is up and sometimes has clouds.

I say the above in jest. But really, all AMCs are large corporations. Their bottom line is to make money for people who have equity stake in the company but do none of the clinical work. To keep that money machine running they need to market themselves to the cogs in the machine, aka physicians, in order to keep a steady stream of labor. If you trust anything a corporation tells you without actually seeing the details on paper, I've got a nice piece of real estate to sell you.

 

[AdmiralChz]

This post

Literally you said X is totally false! But also sort of true. Y is way wrong! But kind right too.

No one is forcing you to work for USAP, or envision or whatever. There are other options out there, particularly if you are even a little flexible with location.

 

[habibimarwan]

I think USAP should change name to ISIS. Amazing! 4 different investor firms owning 4000 physicians together. 1:1000. Good polygamy ratio! No thank you!!

 

[aneftp]

Usap 2015-2019 is just like Medax/American anesthesiology was from 2007-2012

u can only buy over so many profitable groups. Mednax paid a ton of money in that 5 year stretch. The early sellers made a ton of money selling to mednax.

problem is only so many profitable groups u can buy that don’t take any subsidy. Eventually the growth stops. The original sellers leave the practices.

 

[dannyboy1]

USAP states that they are "MAJORITY PHYSICIAN owned." This statement, while not necessarily untrue, really gives the inaccurate appearance that the physicians call the shots and run the show in the company. The reality is that physicians own 46% of the company, while 4 different investment banking firms own the remaining 54%. If you separate out the banking firms individually, then the physicians do have the largest percentage, but that does not mean the physicians are in the majority.

Seriously, who gives a $hit. It’s a job. Only thing that matters is salary, work hours, and vacation. It could be owned by the Catholic Church or a Mexican drug cartel. Makes no difference to me.....

 

[Morzh]

It could be owned by the Catholic Church or a Mexican drug cartel. Makes no difference to me.....

Funnily enough, I know of one particular south Texas group that was strongly rumored to, in fact, have some shady dealings with La Eme (the Mexican Mafia) - at least back in the mid-2000's.

 

[meschler]

And in other news: The sky is up and sometimes has clouds.

I say the above in jest. But really, all AMCs are large corporations. Their bottom line is to make money for people who have equity stake in the company but do none of the clinical work. To keep that money machine running they need to market themselves to the cogs in the machine, aka physicians, in order to keep a steady stream of labor. If you trust anything a corporation tells you without actually seeing the details on paper, I've got a nice piece of real estate to sell you.

I think the difference is that USAP pretends to "be different" than an AMC. But yes, you are right, I don't see any difference between USAP and any other AMC except for the forced 150K stock purchase when you become a USAP "partner."

 

[dchz]

I think the difference is that USAP pretends to "be different" than an AMC. But yes, you are right, I don't see any difference between USAP and any other AMC except for the forced 150K stock purchase when you become a USAP "partner."

I feel like the USAP buy in is way overblown. Are you seriously saying you won't take the job if the USAP job paid you $150k more each year all things equal? People are way too emotional about this.

Just compare the jobs apples to apples and cover up the name of the company.

 

[Deanmonster]

What is going to happen to these AMCs with the balance billing legislation? Seems like they just lost a huge portion of their ability to make money off the doctors. They cant balance bill the patients like they used to.

 

[spike7585]

I feel like the USAP buy in is way overblown. Are you seriously saying you won't take the job if the USAP job paid you $150k more each year all things equal? People are way too emotional about this.

Just compare the jobs apples to apples and cover up the name of the company.

How is it overblown? It's a double buy in correct? You get paid significantly less for 3 years while on a partner track (first buy in) and then pay a large sum at the end of the track. As far as I know, the other AMCs don't do a similar double buy in

 

[dchz]

How is it overblown? It's a double buy in correct? You get paid significantly less for 3 years while on a partner track (first buy in) and then pay a large sum at the end of the track. As far as I know, the other AMCs don't do a similar double buy in

It's overblown because it's only one part of the equation. You're focusing on one part of the equation when you should be focusing on the big picture.

If other AMCs don't make you do a double buy in but pay $100k less each year, you'll be ahead with USAP after two years even with the double buy in. If the USAP offer doesn't pay enough, just pass. You understand the offer, why make it so emotional??

Finally, I'm going to stress this part again because you obviously ignored it in my reply the first time:

Just compare the jobs apples to apples and cover up the name of the company.

Are you telling me a bunch of people with graduate doctorates can't do some simple arithmetic to understand how one offer compares to another??? instead you should reject all jobs with a double buy in and jobs with a single buy in are superior 100% of the time? Hence, the double buy in is overblown and people are too emotional about it. Just understand it and take it into consideration as a part of the whole package. My offers were better with USAP even with the double buy in and the pay reduction factored in. Your mileage may vary. Compare apples to apples and make the best decision for yourself.

 

[Howard888]

Per your other post, you’ve only been with USAP six months.

you are correct that some USAP practices, but only some, pay more than other amcs once you a “partner”.

however, as I said in the other thread, the only reason that is the case at some of their practices is they have extremely high unit rates. Being out of network with United and arbitration coming, the odds of maintaining those rates are lower and odds they loose contracts over it are higher. Not certain-they did sign a BCBS contract in Texas, but solid chance that their rates go down or lose facilities. This is why moodys downgraded USAP.

what won’t change is the 20-35% revenue that you are giving up for those higher rates even as those rates go down or as you lose facilities for being OON.

the original headline of this post is the misleading part. Which USAPs advertising is. Physicians own over 50% of stock but have zero control or rights over corporate decision making-that remains with the institutional investors. It is not a physician owned company. Stock ownership means nothing without corporate voting rights