More USAP heat

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
When you look at the WaPo article about the same thing, the comments below all blame us as greedy anesthesiologists. This is one of the central problems that ASA has enabled - the anticompetitive behavior of the overlords (PE backed AMCs) is viewed as money-sucking behavior by anesthesiologists. ASA should denounce PE and AMCs as leeches and show the flow of money away from patients and physicians and to PE, AMCs, hospitals, the AHA, and so forth - but instead they're complicit in this scheme.

WaPo
 
kidthor said:
When you look at the WaPo article about the same thing, the comments below all blame us as greedy anesthesiologists. This is one of the central problems that ASA has enabled - the anticompetitive behavior of the overlords (PE backed AMCs) is viewed as money-sucking behavior by anesthesiologists. ASA should denounce PE and AMCs as leeches and show the flow of money away from patients and physicians and to PE, AMCs, hospitals, the AHA, and so forth - but instead they're complicit in this scheme.

WaPo
Click to expand...

You know you HAVE TO join asa if you want to work for some AMCs right? They promise certain set revenue for asa. You scratched my back, I scratched yours.
 
Last edited:
“We have long argued against the use of restrictive non-compete agreements, and supported efforts by the FTC to prohibit their use. Non-compete clauses in the health care industry reduce patient access to care, increase health care costs, limit a physician’s ability to negotiate, stifle competition, contribute to labor shortages, and limit the ability of workers to speak out about unfair or dangerous practices,” the Senators continued”

If Senator Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren

If she were serious. Than ask why the American Hospital Association is trying to stop the non compete ban. Hmm
 
aneftp said:
“We have long argued against the use of restrictive non-compete agreements, and supported efforts by the FTC to prohibit their use. Non-compete clauses in the health care industry reduce patient access to care, increase health care costs, limit a physician’s ability to negotiate, stifle competition, contribute to labor shortages, and limit the ability of workers to speak out about unfair or dangerous practices,” the Senators continued”

If Senator Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren

If she were serious. Than ask why the American Hospital Association is trying to stop the non compete ban. Hmm
Click to expand...

It’s “then” not “than.” 😆

I don’t get what you are saying. We know why the American Hospital Association is trying to stop the non-compete ban. I’m sure Elizabeth Warren knows as well. Is your statement/question rhetorical?
 
GravelRider said:
It’s “then” not “than.” 😆

I don’t get what you are saying. We know why the American Hospital Association is trying to stop the non-compete ban. I’m sure Elizabeth Warren knows as well. Is your statement/question rhetorical?
Click to expand...
My question/statement is stop picking on little usap. The ftc is a bully. They rather go after the small bratty kid (usap) than the real big boys, the American hospital association.

Tell the senators to address the non compete first. And this means directly going toe to toe with the AHA. Once they resolve the non compete issue. They can go after usap.

But the senators are chicken. The ftc has back tracked and wants to wait some more before attacking the aha on the non compete.
 
Shimmy8 said:
Just spouting off the same politically driven agenda of the FTC nonsense.

Let's hear about United and Optum next then???
Click to expand...
““We urge DOJ and FTC to closely scrutinize UnitedHealth’s proposed acquisition of Amedisys and oppose the growing trend of insurers buying up health care providers to reduce competition and pad their profits at the expense of their patients,” Warren and Jayapal reportedly wrote in a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Tuesday.”

homehealthcarenews.com

Lawmakers Elizabeth Warren, Pramila Jayapal Urge DOJ To Further Scrutinize Optum-Amedisys Deal

Lawmakers are hoping to direct further scrutiny toward UnitedHealth Group’s (NYSE: UNH) pending deal of the home health giant Amedisys Inc. (Nasdaq:
homehealthcarenews.com homehealthcarenews.com

“Just a year after the MLR requirement was put in place, UnitedHealth Group formed Optum, which now includes a PBM and a specialty pharmacy, as well as over 70,000 physicians”


Not like they’re ignoring optum/united health.
 
aneftp said:
My question/statement is stop picking on little usap. The ftc is a bully. They rather go after the small bratty kid (usap) than the real big boys, the American hospital association.

Tell the senators to address the non compete first. And this means directly going toe to toe with the AHA. Once they resolve the non compete issue. They can go after usap.

But the senators are chicken. The ftc has back tracked and wants to wait some more before attacking the aha on the non compete.
Click to expand...

My guess is that any over-arching FTC rule outlawing non-competes would be challenged almost immediately. Given the current state of our Supreme Court, there is a 100% chance that any FTC rule would be immediately overturned…especially after the AHA gifts a few Winnebagos to the justices.

I always felt the FTC talk regarding non-competes was meant to push states to pass laws outlawing them, which would be much more enduring than the FTC swinging whichever way the current presidential administration wants it to.
 
kidthor said:
When you look at the WaPo article about the same thing, the comments below all blame us as greedy anesthesiologists. This is one of the central problems that ASA has enabled - the anticompetitive behavior of the overlords (PE backed AMCs) is viewed as money-sucking behavior by anesthesiologists. ASA should denounce PE and AMCs as leeches and show the flow of money away from patients and physicians and to PE, AMCs, hospitals, the AHA, and so forth - but instead they're complicit in this scheme.

WaPo
Click to expand...
It WAS greedy anesthesiologists selling out younger and future docs and current and future patients in exchange for a buy out.
 
GravelRider said:
My guess is that any over-arching FTC rule outlawing non-competes would be challenged almost immediately. Given the current state of our Supreme Court, there is a 100% chance that any FTC rule would be immediately overturned…especially after the AHA gifts a few Winnebagos to the justices.

I always felt the FTC talk regarding non-competes was meant to push states to pass laws outlawing them, which would be much more enduring than the FTC swinging whichever way the current presidential administration wants it to.
Click to expand...
No chance the FTC rule doesn’t exempt high paying physicians IMO when the head of the FTC is married to an Academic Cardiologist… we will find he mysteriously gets a big name title and a nice bonus a few months later.
 
triggermaster said:
It WAS greedy anesthesiologists selling out younger and future docs and current and future patients in exchange for a buy out.
Click to expand...
The Colorado docs did not get a good as a deal as Dallas Houston and Orlando original usap buyouts.

Look a public court cases of some group partners lol. Or other legal records. The buyouts were less than 1 million each partner. In exchange for giving up 20% of income forever (626k cash and 224k fake usap stock) in exchange for 5 years employment. Original 3 got over 2 million cash and 600k usap shares)

The original 3 buyouts were 3x as much as the Colorado docs. It was not a good deal for the Colorado docs. But usap stock was anticipated to be worth 3x as much with ipo. So those Colorado docs were anticipating a lot more coming.
 
aneftp said:
The Colorado docs did not get a good as a deal as Dallas Houston and Orlando original usap buyouts.

Look a public court cases of some group partners lol. Or other legal records. The buyouts were less than 1 million each partner. In exchange for giving up 20% of income forever (626k cash and 224k fake usap stock) in exchange for 5 years employment. Original 3 got over 2 million cash and 600k usap shares)

The original 3 buyouts were 3x as much as the Colorado docs. It was not a good deal for the Colorado docs. But usap stock was anticipated to be worth 3x as much with ipo. So those Colorado docs were anticipating a lot more coming.
Click to expand...
lol Classic F around and find out situation.
 
aneftp said:
The Colorado docs did not get a good as a deal as Dallas Houston and Orlando original usap buyouts.

Look a public court cases of some group partners lol. Or other legal records. The buyouts were less than 1 million each partner. In exchange for giving up 20% of income forever (626k cash and 224k fake usap stock) in exchange for 5 years employment. Original 3 got over 2 million cash and 600k usap shares)

The original 3 buyouts were 3x as much as the Colorado docs. It was not a good deal for the Colorado docs. But usap stock was anticipated to be worth 3x as much with ipo. So those Colorado docs were anticipating a lot more coming.
Click to expand...


Yeah they were just stupid.
 
triggermaster said:
That’s not a valid argument to defend their wrongdoing.
Tu quoque fallacy?
Click to expand...

I’m not defending anything. I am pointing out that a lot of people complaining about sellouts would sell out themselves if the price was right. That’s just reality. If someone offered you $200k for a beat up 2011 Camry, 99.9999% of people would sell it.
 
nimbus said:
Yeah they were just stupid.
Click to expand...
MD only practices equal partner track groups the buyout price usually 1 million cash around 2012-2015. They got slightly above fair market value if the usap stock was valued at 700k or more plus their 624k cash

Remember ipo was suppose to be end of 2017/beginning of 2018. Envision was just purchased by kkr for 9 billion end of 2017

So i don’t care it stupid. Just they were sold on usap stock being higher anticipated value

My buddy made out like a bandit with Mednax stock 4x its value from his strike point from an early buyout. So he got 1 million dollar cash plus mednax stock worth about 1 million when he cashed out at the peak.

Just a matter of timing.

The more crna heavy the practice along with good payor mixed. I’ve seen buyouts at the peak as much as 8 million in act model with the average being 2 million

In MD only equal practice buyouts averaged 1 million.
 
aneftp said:
MD only practices equal partner track groups the buyout price usually 1 million cash around 2012-2015. They got slightly above fair market value if the usap stock was valued at 700k or more plus their 624k cash

Remember ipo was suppose to be end of 2017/beginning of 2018. Envision was just purchased by kkr for 9 billion end of 2017

So i don’t care it stupid. Just they were sold on usap stock being higher anticipated value

My buddy made out like a bandit with Mednax stock 4x its value from his strike point from an early buyout. So he got 1 million dollar cash plus mednax stock worth about 1 million when he cashed out at the peak.

Just a matter of timing.

The more crna heavy the practice along with good payor mixed. I’ve seen buyouts at the peak as much as 8 million in act model with the average being 2 million

In MD only equal practice buyouts averaged 1 million.
Click to expand...


Our MD only group had a similar offer around the same time. There was a lot of doom and gloom at the time about declining reimbursements. The driver was fear. Our board didn’t even present the offer to the members for a vote because it was not a good offer.

I guess if things went south, we would have regretted not selling but they didn’t go south.
 
Last edited:
I dont know whats goin on - USAP seems to be a target everywhere from every angle.

although looking at this particular lawsuit, I am not sure if USAP is at fault here at all
 
neutro said:
I dont know whats goin on - USAP seems to be a target everywhere from every angle.

although looking at this particular lawsuit, I am not sure if USAP is at fault here at all
Click to expand...

Hit the big dog to get the little ones in line
 
aneftp said:
The Colorado docs did not get a good as a deal as Dallas Houston and Orlando original usap buyouts.

Look a public court cases of some group partners lol. Or other legal records. The buyouts were less than 1 million each partner. In exchange for giving up 20% of income forever (626k cash and 224k fake usap stock) in exchange for 5 years employment. Original 3 got over 2 million cash and 600k usap shares)

The original 3 buyouts were 3x as much as the Colorado docs. It was not a good deal for the Colorado docs. But usap stock was anticipated to be worth 3x as much with ipo. So those Colorado docs were anticipating a lot more coming.
Click to expand...
Wow, I wish! I was in original Pinnacle group in Dallas that got bought up by USAP and my buyout was closer to $350K with about $140K in stock. I only had to give back 17.5% of my salary which was quickly made up by improvement in Insurance contracts. Now my division was not a top earning division at the time and I think better paid groups may have gotten double what I got. All based on the billings of each division.
 
srmanesthesia said:
Wow, I wish! I was in original Pinnacle group in Dallas that got bought up by USAP and my buyout was closer to $350K with about $140K in stock. I only had to give back 17.5% of my salary which was quickly made up by improvement in Insurance contracts. Now my division was not a top earning division at the time and I think better paid groups may have gotten double what I got. All based on the billings of each division.
Click to expand...


Buyout amount was calculated as a multiple of yearly revenue forfeited. 17.5% was not a large amount to forfeit. If you were willing to give up more future collections, you would have gotten a larger buyout. But $500k is very low compared to the other deals I heard. What was the multiple at the time, 5x?

This lawsuit reveals the terms of the Colorado deal.

Crocker v. Greater Colo. Anesthesia, P.C., 463 P.3d 860 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Crocker v. Greater Colo. Anesthesia, P.C., 463 P.3d 860, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com


Ҧ 3 In late 2014, old GCA began entertaining a "merger" with USAP. USAP would buy out all existing GCA shares for a substantial lump sum of cash plus USAP common stock. To receive that payment, shareholders of old GCA would be required to execute various agreements, including a new employment agreement reflecting a 21.3% reduction in pay and a five-year employment commitment. To effectuate the merger, old GCA would form an interim company (GCA Merger Sub, Inc.), file amended and restated articles of incorporation, and convert the company into a C-corporation, new GCA.

¶ 4 Crocker opposed the action. He voted against it on January 27, 2015, and provided notice pursuant to section 7-113-202, C.R.S.2017, that he would demand payment for his share of old GCA if the shareholders approved the merger, in exercise of his dissenter's rights.

¶ 5 Shareholders approved the merger on January 30, 2015. The merger took place eleven days later. Each shareholder who had voted for the merger and had executed the related agreements would receive (1) $626,000 in cash; (2) $224,000 in USAP common stock, to fully vest in five years; and (3) a signing/retention bonus reflective of his or her prior income. Old GCA sent Crocker $100 for his share, an amount that he refused. He later demanded payment in the amount of $1,030,996.“
 
Last edited:
aneftp said:
“We have long argued against the use of restrictive non-compete agreements, and supported efforts by the FTC to prohibit their use. Non-compete clauses in the health care industry reduce patient access to care, increase health care costs, limit a physician’s ability to negotiate, stifle competition, contribute to labor shortages, and limit the ability of workers to speak out about unfair or dangerous practices,” the Senators continued”

If Senator Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren

If she were serious. Than ask why the American Hospital Association is trying to stop the non compete ban. Hmm
Click to expand...
It’s THEN you ****ing ******.
 
nimbus said:
Buyout amount was calculated as a multiple of yearly revenue forfeited. 17.5% was not a large amount to forfeit. If you were willing to give up more future collections, you would have gotten a larger buyout. But $500k is very low compared to the other deals I heard. What was the multiple at the time, 5x?

This lawsuit reveals the terms of the Colorado deal.

Crocker v. Greater Colo. Anesthesia, P.C., 463 P.3d 860 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Crocker v. Greater Colo. Anesthesia, P.C., 463 P.3d 860, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com


Ҧ 3 In late 2014, old GCA began entertaining a "merger" with USAP. USAP would buy out all existing GCA shares for a substantial lump sum of cash plus USAP common stock. To receive that payment, shareholders of old GCA would be required to execute various agreements, including a new employment agreement reflecting a 21.3% reduction in pay and a five-year employment commitment. To effectuate the merger, old GCA would form an interim company (GCA Merger Sub, Inc.), file amended and restated articles of incorporation, and convert the company into a C-corporation, new GCA.

¶ 4 Crocker opposed the action. He voted against it on January 27, 2015, and provided notice pursuant to section 7-113-202, C.R.S.2017, that he would demand payment for his share of old GCA if the shareholders approved the merger, in exercise of his dissenter's rights.

¶ 5 Shareholders approved the merger on January 30, 2015. The merger took place eleven days later. Each shareholder who had voted for the merger and had executed the related agreements would receive (1) $626,000 in cash; (2) $224,000 in USAP common stock, to fully vest in five years; and (3) a signing/retention bonus reflective of his or her prior income. Old GCA sent Crocker $100 for his share, an amount that he refused. He later demanded payment in the amount of $1,030,996.“
Click to expand...
It’s not a bad deal if you were 3 years from retiring.

Usap break even point was around 2 years assuming they could jack up negotiating power to increase commercial insurance rates by more than 20% (which they did). So win win for everyone to be honest

Issue they all started getting disgruntled by 2019
225k worth of usap stock basically worthless. Was suppose to be worth likely 3x that amount at ipo which never came.

A few of my homies who sold to mednax and Sheridan got better deals. But they were heavy act model.

The Colorado docs were MD only model I think
 
aneftp said:
It’s not a bad deal if you were 3 years from retiring.

Usap break even point was around 2 years assuming they could jack up negotiating power to increase commercial insurance rates by more than 20% (which they did). So win win for everyone to be honest

Issue they all started getting disgruntled by 2019
225k worth of usap stock basically worthless. Was suppose to be worth likely 3x that amount at ipo which never came.

A few of my homies who sold to mednax and Sheridan got better deals. But they were heavy act model.

The Colorado docs were MD only model I think
Click to expand...


Not win-win for anyone who joins after buyout.
 
my friend in the greater dc area said USAP has lost all its asc contracts in the area and a new group AMcon? Has emerged to cover that business and poach drs from Kaiser. Also just heard they lost a big contract in MD - Frederick? Anyone confirm this rumor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
AMC Comparison (Envision, TeamHealth, NAPA, USAP, etc)
Replies
15
Views
2K
aneftp
A
P
USAP Seattle
Replies
2
Views
2K
MirrorTodd
MirrorTodd
D
USAP Colorado
2 3 4 5
Replies
224
Views
21K
lotsapain
L
A
FTC settles w WCAS, USAP still on the hook
Replies
13
Views
1K
Drwine
Drwine
H
USAP-answer to cheaper labor
2
Replies
97
Views
10K
pgg
pgg
Top