If private practice is so great…

Since I started writing about private equity in radiology back in 2022 and more recently since featuring private practice jobs on the site followed by launching Independent Radiology, I often get questions that read something like this:

If private practice is so great, why are so many groups struggling?

Because it’s hard.

I believe that private practice is important. It provides an anchor for how doctors are paid and establishes standards for how a specialty chooses to practice. When employed positions are good, that is largely a direct result of the need to compete with private practice in a tight labor market.

However, it does not necessarily follow that all or even most practices are run well. It was relatively easy (I imagine) to run a business during the golden age of radiology; it isn’t easy now. And we should admit, without hesitation, that of course there are also poorly-run unsavvy groups just like we’ve all experienced poorly run hospitals and other businesses.

It’s also much easier to run an effective business when it’s a small democratic group where everyone has skin in the game and the desire to make it work. Increasing imaging volumes and increasing consolidation combined with increasing regulatory burdens and have resulted in overall fewer and overall larger groups. That increases the stakes and increases the complexity. The growing pains are real.

Instability is Everywhere

I do think the current shortage, shifting lifestyle demands, and the (probably temporary) sweetheart deals for mammo ultimately have destabilized radiology practice in general, not limited to but certainly including small democratic practices where radiologists wanted to be treated the same historically. (As in, a young breast imager’s desire for shorter workweeks of 100% breast without any evenings or call doesn’t easily jive with how many practices have historically practiced, and the need to play ball to recruit sometimes requires substantial chances to practice structure with negative downstream consequences). I think the shortage has absolutely shredded some democratic groups, especially those that are small with a lot of physical presence, call, or struggling to staff women’s imaging.

Everything is Local

The reality is that the success of any given model is in part predicated on regional dynamics. If the hospitals don’t have to play ball in tough group negotiations, it’s hard for groups to get what they need for retention and recruitment in the current climate. Stipends are increasingly table stakes to cover off-hours and on-site work in an era where direct reimbursement is falling and labor supply is insufficient. We aren’t a free market in medicine because we don’t control how much we charge. In a normal labor market, a labor shortage will drive up compensation. That needs to happen here too, but that money has to come from somewhere when it can’t happen organically from CMS or the commercial payors in our fee-for-service model.

Hospitals have the ability to supplement compensation with a fraction of technical fees and stipends, which means that–if they want to–they can (potentially temporarily) offer more money and potentially even a “better” job than a group relying on professional fees alone. They could give that support to a private practice so that the group is healthy, or if they are more daring, they can be aggressive and use that as leverage to bring the group in-house. In the short term, I imagine the downsides of employment for radiologists are probably pretty small right now. The market is so tight they can’t play too many games or risk the whole thing blowing up. Longer term, I am more skeptical.

The Tele Problem

One thing that gets lost in the generally increasing hospital stipend support trend and more remote work: some hospitals in less affluent areas will struggle to pay higher rates and may be hard-pressed to provide stipends needed to account for competitive compensation in the current market or high levels of bad debt from unfunded patients. Some areas are geographically undesirable, adding another wrinkle to any efforts at recruitment. If you can’t recruit to the area because no one wants to live there, then you need to pay for remote rads. But the market for remote rads is increasingly national, not local. Which means you need to be able to compete nationally.

The more people who want to do teleradiology, the more groups struggle to sustainably get the work done locally. So we can just say it: people’s individual desires are destabilizing the field. It may be reasonable for the individual and their family but no doubt it’s a growing problem for local high-touch practices. It also makes it easier for rads to quit their jobs for any reason and find work without having to make geographic changes. Lower friction means mobility, which means more volatility and churn.

But it’s essentially a tragedy of the commons situation. If everyone wants to work from home sometimes, no big deal. But if too many people want to work remotely too quickly, it’s hard for the industry to quickly accommodate and it destabilizes everyone’s work.

Note that instability here isn’t necessarily bad long term, it could even lead to long-lasting improvements in some domains. But, increased volatility and drama are inarguably close bedfellows with the current tele trend.

Could most radiologists give up contrast coverage, basically refuse to do the vast majority of fluoro of any kind, and be 100% remote? In some practice settings, probably. But the downstream long-term consequences of too much of the field going that way is to throw open the doors to replacement. The faster we consider practicing radiology only to mean interpreting imaging, the less real clout we have.

Consolidation is Real

One factor that does matter is size. Larger groups servicing a larger part of a large client are harder to replace, tend to be able to provide more remote work options, have dedicated nightfolks/less call, etc. A fragmented market with many small groups in the current era of big consolidated health networks, payer shenanigans, CMS cuts, and stupid MIPS compliance measures is less predictable than one with a few big groups that are busy enough that they really aren’t competing with each other so much as holding a line against the hospitals. These jobs aren’t always better. The groups may be culturally diluted and overall indistinguishable structurally from any other medium to large company. But, they may be more stable when faced with headwinds.

Ultimately, radiology is still a human enterprise. Relationships matter. Hospital leadership, radiologist leadership, other clinicians, the patients–they matter. So I do think it’s critical that no one should take an overall trend facing our field with a prediction for any specific group. There are thriving small groups that are killing it.

Macro trends are easy to opine about as a random person on the internet. But real life is lived in the details.

Risks & Opportunities

A staffing shortage climate nationwide is only an opportunity because it’s also a risk. The increasing complexity of regulation coupled with needing to work with increasingly consolidated revenue- and growth-focused mega health systems and fight large payors increases the stakes and bureaucracy of running a practice. And that can be especially hard when recruitment and retention are intrinsically unstable as everyone starts working harder than they want to.

There is a zero-sum recruiting component to the whole radiology enterprise where some companies with better contracts are able to at least temporarily offer better jobs on paper with more flexibility in order to handle their overflow or fuel their growth in remote coverage. Look no further than the recent United and Aetna lawsuits against Radiology Partners to see how one really great contract can provide the temptation to double down on arbitrage as the core business model (even in cases where it might be…illegal).

Dominoes are falling–and that means opportunity for others–but all that opportunity only exists because some practices are failing or falling behind or dropping contracts–and hospitals are desperate. For every group that comes in and sweeps up by landing some great contract, it means that someone else has downsized, failed, and/or some hospital was recalcitrant in how they approached an important negotiation. Even when everything works out well, it means there’s a lot of stress and conflict in the process.

In summary, I think a large part of the instability really has less to do with the practice model itself and much more to do with staffing shortages more broadly.

The reality:

I don’t think this is a simple time to be a radiologist or to run a practice, but I think the real existential difference between private practice and other models is that the hospital can get locums or pay extra for a different group if they are forced to, but an independent practice fails when it fails. There is no alternative: it either works or it doesn’t.