JULY 18, 2007

Vol 6, Issue 4

September 17, 2007 • Sheraton Gateway O’Hare Hotel • Chicago, Illinois
A ONE-DAY WORKSHOP COVERING BASIC RECRUITING SKILLS

7:30 am	Conference Registration
8:00 am - 8:30 am	Continental Breakfast
8:30 am - 9:15 am	Orientation to the Recruitment Process • Sandi Brewer, Carolinas Healthcare System, Charlotte, NC
9:15 am - 10:00 am	Review of Medical and Surgical Specialties • Karen Zeller, Rocky Mountain Medical Search, Fort Collins, CO
10:00 am - 10:15 am	Refreshment Break
10:15 am - 11:00 am	Review of Active and Passive Sourcing • Tammy Jamison, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Allentown, PA
11:00 am - 11:45 am	Interviewing Candidates • Tammy Jamison, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Allentown, PA
11:45 am - 12:45 pm	Working Lunch
12:45 pm - 1:30 pm	Review of Compensation Models • Rich Glehan, The Healthfield Alliance, Danbury, CT
1:30 pm - 2:15 pm	Preparation for a Site Visit • Jo-Ann Toldt, TeamHealth, Woodbury, NJ
2:15 pm - 2:30 pm	Refreshment Break
2:30 pm - 3:00 pm	Contract Negotiation/Client and Candidate Advocacy • D.R. Richards, TIVA Healthcare, Inc., Sunrise, FL
3:00 pm - 3:30 pm	Closing the Search • Pat Doyle-Grace, Cejka Search, St. Louis, MO
3:30 pm - 4:00 pm	Wrap-Up/Closing Remarks

For additional Workshop information, click here. To download the registration form, click here.

---

The Physician Shortage
(Reprinted in part from the NAS Recruitment Communications' website)

By George Williams, Director, NAS Insights

Introduction: There has been an ongoing debate about a physician shortage. During the 1960s as medical schools were expanding, Federal health agencies and certain advisory bodies warned of a coming surplus of physicians. Studies were consistent in making confident predictions that we faced a troubling surplus of physicians. For years, only a few experts were waving a red flag. Few healthcare experts were willing to admit that a shortage of doctors was coming, despite the growing difficulty hospital administrators and physician recruiters were experiencing recruiting physicians, and the increasing number of published surveys showing an increased demand for physicians.

However, recent studies have brought the surplus theory under closer scrutiny and a growing number of experts are concerned that we may be facing a physician shortage that will continue to get worse over the next 15 years. One influential study, published by lead author, Richard Cooper, MD, director of the Health Policy Institute, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, concludes that the U.S. will be facing a shortage of 200,000 physicians by the year 2020 if current trends continue. Another important study prepared by Edward Salsberg, a respected specialist in issues related to the physician workforce, concludes that the nation will face a shortage of 85,000 physicians by the year 2020. Predictions of a surplus were shortsighted because previous projections overestimated the effects of managed care and underestimated the effects of an aging population on the need for physicians.

These studies ended the complacency of many who believed we had a comfortable surplus of doctors. The Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME), a panel of healthcare experts charged with periodically reporting to Congress on the state of physician manpower in the U.S., endorsed the Salsberg report in July 2003. This marks a significant reversal from its long-standing position in earlier COGME reports that there was a surplus of physicians. In December 2003, an American Medical Association (AMA) advisory council advised the AMA to abandon its long-standing position that there is a physician surplus. As a result, the American Medical Association, which for many years supported predictions of a physician surplus, has changed its viewpoint and conceded that physician shortages exist. With COGME and the AMA reversing their previous stance, there is a growing consensus among healthcare organizations and hospital administrators that there is a shortage of physicians.

To access the entire article, click here.

---

Are Physicians a Vanishing Breed - The Looming Physician Shortage

By Ardena L. Flippin, MD, MBA

There seems to be an end to the physician shortage - physician oversupply debate. The AAMC, as a result of a 2006 fall survey of U.S. medical schools, has recommended a 30 percent increase in first-year U.S. M.D. enrollment by 2015.

A 30-percent increase would require more than 4,900 additional medical students per year. But will this solve the problem?

To access the entire article, click here.

---

Kudos to Leanne Leidigh...

Wanda Parker reported that in a recent copy of LocumLife magazine contained an article "2007 Recruiters of the Year Showcase." The magazine staff asked practitioners to vote for "the most exemplary recruiter with whom they had worked." There were 10 recruiters mentioned -- most were NALTO only firms; Leanne Leidigh of TIVA Healthcare was the only recruiter from a NAPR/NALTO firm.

Kudos to Leanne Leidigh with TIVA for being named an exemplary recruiter!

---

Ask Miss Deed...


Dear Miss Deed:

I am a recruiter for a hospital and our administrator signed a retainer contract with a recruiting firm. After receiving several monthly candidate sourcing invoices, I asked the firm to summarize their progress. They responded in part by sending the names of approximately 30 potential candidates they had contacted. After several months, a viable candidate for the retainer search was presented to me by a contingency firm, and the candidate ultimately took the job. I informed the retained firm and they then told me their fee was due because they had previously presented the candidate. After some research, I realized that the candidate’s name was on the list of 30 potential candidates presented previously as part of their progress report; however, the candidate claims never to have talked with the retained firm and most importantly, the retained firm never specifically “worked up” the candidate or did anything to bring about the placement. Do I owe them a fee also?

Am I in...
Hot Water

Dear Hot:

The specific answer is, “It depends.” Bear with me, the answer won’t be brief.

If the retained firm’s contract says that their fee is due when the search is completed (regardless of who is the source of the completion, that is if you or another firm found the candidate) then without question, you owe the retainer fee.

If the contract language says that the retainer firm must be the entity which identifies the candidate, that is, that the candidate recruited must be the result of their specific efforts, then you are off the hook for two fees (one to the retainer firm and one to the contingency firm).

That being said, beyond the money, the key issue is whether a proper referral was made and who was the procuring cause or agent who helped bring about the placement?

When any recruiting firm sends just a name, that does not constitute a valid referral because it was without the potential candidates’ knowledge and permission. Your response to the retained firm could have indicated that you considered that the list of names represented only a work product and activity measurement, but not a document representing their formal presentation of candidates. Clearly they never set in motion a series of events which led to the placement (the procuring cause), therefore, disallowing their basis for claiming a fee (other then possible specific contract language as noted above).

Clearly this is a basic Ethics’ Code violation. The candidate did not give permission and had no knowledge that his or her name was presented. This type of activity gives rise to many conflicts and taints the reputation of reputable firms which abide by the Code of Ethics.

It is essential that in-house recruiters work closely with recruiting firms to assure that referrals (the lifeblood of our industry) meet the standards set forth in the NAPR Code of Ethics. In-house recruiters must require that firms have talked with candidates, gotten the candidates’ permission to present their credentials and actually have the CV in hand (firms waiting more than one day to send a candidate’s CV after they have verbally referred the name to their client are in violation of the Code of Ethics). Although this places some burden on the in-house recruiter to “police” a firm’s activities, it is immensely helpful in avoiding potential conflicts.

Cordially,
Miss Deed

Miss Deed is an expert on all things ethical, and is ready to answer your questions. All questions to Miss Deed must be accompanied by the individual's name, telephone, and e-mail address. If the individual does not want his or her name published, we will publish the question with the statement: "Name Withheld by Request." No questions will be considered without verifying who the sender is. Send your questions to Miss Deed at the following e-mail address: DearMissDeed@napr.org and your question may appear in an upcoming NewsFlash!