See what our 10th Annual
Salary & Expense Survey says
By Linda Segall

Stand a doctor who belongs to a practice-management group next to one who does not, and the two look almost identical.

But, on closer examination you can find differences — differences that count at the bank.

One question asked in Chiropractic Economics 10th Annual Salary & Expense Survey was, “Do you belong to a practice-management group?” More than one-quarter (28.8 percent) of the 575 respondents said they belonged to such a group. So, we took a look at the similarities and dissimilarities between the two groups of respondents.

The results were interesting. And they might make you consider carefully the value of having a coach or consultant on your team.

First, the similarities

See what our 10th Annual Salary & Expense Survey says

Stand a doctor who belongs to a practice management group next to one who does not, and the two look almost identical. But, on closer examination you can find differences — differences that count at the bank. One question asked in Chiropractic Economics 10th Annual Salary & Expense Survey was, “Do you belong to a practice-management group?” More than one-quarter (28.8 percent) of the 575 respondents said they belonged to such a group. So, we took a look at the similarities and dissimilarities between the two groups of respondents. The results were interesting. And they might make you consider carefully the value of having a coach or consultant on your team. First, the similarities Let’s look at the general personal and practice characteristics first. The survey shows little difference between the two groups:

• Solo practitioners. Approximately 70 percent of both groups were solo practitioners.
• Clinic label. The number of respondents in each group who preferred to call their practices “clinics” was about the same (73.0 percent). Likewise, the number of respondents (20.0 percent) in each group who called their practices “wellness centers” was about the same.
• Number of licenses and clinics. On average, each group was licensed in the same number of states (1.5 states). And they averaged operating only one clinic. The dissimilarities As similar as the two groups looked, however, they showed their differences.
• Franchise operations. Which group was more willing to participate in franchise operations? If you guessed the group belonging to a practicemanagement group, you would be correct. The survey showed 4.7 percent of this group owned franchise operations, compared to only 1.4 percent of the group who did not have coaches. (Overall, 2.3 percent of all respondents owned franchises.)
• Years in practice. Both groups were close in age (40.5 years old for the practice-management group; 42.5 years old for the others), and, as you might expect, the number of years each had been in practice reflected the same slight difference in age (11.7 years and 13.6 years). These numbers were mean averages, however. The median average age showed a significant difference between the groups. The median average years of experience of the practice-management group was 8.0 years, compared to 12.0 years for the group without coaches.
• Location. Significant differences showed up in this statistic, also. Both groups preferred the suburbs (68.7 percent of the practice-management group, 59.3 percent of the no-consultant group), but more than one-quarter (26.7 percent) of the no-consultant group practiced in an urban area, compared to 12.9 percent of the practice-management group.
• Specialties. More than one-third (36.1 percent) of the practice-management group, compared to onequarter (24.8 percent) of the no-coach group, specialized in families. More of the no-coach group (61.9 percent) considered themselves generalists, compared to 52.4 percent of the practice-management group. The bottom line Looking at similarities and dissimilarities isinteresting, but, in the end, do the groups have differences that count at the bank? According to the survey, the answer is yes.
• Billings. The group who works with practicemanagement companies billed on average $594,720, compared to $408,880 for the no-coach group. This was the mean average (total divided by number of respondents). The median average (the number in the middle — 50 percent higher and 50 percent lower) was even more significant: The practice-management group had a median average of $400,000 in billings, compared to $280,000 for the no-consultant group.
• Collections. Billings are one thing; collections — the amount actually in the till — are another. The practice-management group had a mean average of $352,757 in collections; the no-coach group averaged $274,129. The median averages were also significant: $295,394 and $200,000, respectively.
• Net practice income. Net practice income is, essentially, the bottom line — what remains after bills and taxes are paid. The group associated with practicemanagement companies had a mean average net practice income of $143,777, whereas the group without a practice-management company averaged $131,549.

Why the differences?

The bottom-line differences may be easily explained by the numbers:

• Patient-visit average (PVA). The group that did not engage a consultant or coach had an average PVA of 28.4 (median 22), where the practice-management group had an average PVA of 35.3 (median 31).
• New patients per week. The practicemanagement group averaged 7.2 new patients per week, while the other group averaged 5.5.
• Patients per week. When all is said and done, a significant reason for the difference between the two groups may be in the number of patients treated each week. The practice-management group averaged 156.4 (median 130), whereas the group with no coaches averaged 116.5 (median 95).

Spend money to make money

The two groups demonstrated differences concerning how they spent money.

• Advertising. The practicemanagement group spent on average $14,571 on advertising and marketing. The group without consultants spent on average $9,654.
• Staff benefits. The survey did not ask about staff turnover. It did ask, however, about staff benefits. More of the practice-management group (23.8 percent) offered a retirement plan, compared to 20.8 percent of the no-coach group. One-third of the consultant group also offered some type of health insurance benefit, compared to 27.0 percent of the no-coach group. A significantly greater number of the practice-management group (96.0 percent, compared to 56.3 percent of the no-coach group) offered bonus, incentive, or profit sharing programs to employees. And 78.0 percent of the practice management group provided paid time off (vacation and sick pay), compared to only 63.5 percent of the other group.
• Salaries. Each of the groups paid approximately the same amount ($26,000) to CAs, but the practice-management group paid associates an average of $66,391, compared to $59,995 paid by the group without consultants.

What does it all mean?

This was the first year Chiropractic Economics asked the question about belonging to a practice-management group on its salary survey. The statistics for the current survey are interesting, but it will be even more interesting to make year-to-year comparisons. In the meantime, the numbers give you something to think about.



Linda Segall is editor-in-chief of Chiropractic Economics. She can be reached by e-mail at lsegall@chiroeco.com.