ccmc_phonak_2011 benchmarking summary report

7/30/2019 CCMC_Phonak_2011 Benchmarking Summary Report

1/24

Summary Report and Analysis

Key Metrics of Hearing Practices

2011 National Research StudyConducted by Customer Care Measurement & Consulting, LLC

Sponsored by Phonak LLC


2/24

Table of Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................

2. Hearing Practice Characteristics .....................................................................................

3. Sources of Revenue ............................................................................................................

4. Hearing Instrument Dispensing........................................................................................

5. Productivity Benchmarks....................................................................................................

6. Types Of Instruments Dispensed ..................................................................................

7. Professional Compensation ............................................................................................

8. Practice Marketing.............................................................................................................

9. Practice Websites...............................................................................................................

10. Testing And Recall...........................................................................................................

2

2

6

7

8

11

14

16

20

21


3/24

2

1. IntroductionDuring 2011, Phonak, LLC commissioned Customer Care Measurement and Consulting, LLC (CCMC) toconduct a nationwide survey of hearing professionals to establish basic industry metrics. Similar studieshad been sponsored by Phonak in 2008, 2009, and 2010. This benchmarking survey summary report wasdesigned to provide individual hearing practices with a tool they can use to compare their performanceagainst industry standards. These industry benchmarks can be used as a basis for assessing and settingrealistic, continuous, and fact based improvement goals.

Few hearing practices have the means to conduct market research to define competitive performancenorms that are statistically valid. Phonaks on-going national metrics research is designed to address thisinformation need.

A web-based survey methodology was utilized. Responses were collected in July and August 2011.There were 386 respondents to the 2011 survey.

References to 2010 results and 2009 results reflect actual practice performance data for these years(e.g., What percentage of 2010 gross revenue). References to 2011 study and 2010 study reflectpractice characteristics/opinions in the years these studies were conducted (e.g., How many full-time andpart-time office locations does the practice have? asked in the 2011 study; referring to office locationsin 2011).

2. Hearing Practice Characteristics

The most common type of hearing practice in the United States was a single full-time location, staffed byone hearing professional (Table 1). (Unless otherwise noted, when the term professional is used in thisreport, the designation means full-time licensed professional.) Thirty-four percent of practices were of thistype.

Table 1. 2011 Practice Type% Of Practices

Practice Type2011 Study

Difference from

previous year

Single Full-Time Location* 59% -1%Solo professional 34% -7%2 or more professionals 25% +6%

Multiple Full-Time

Locations* (With One OrMore Professionals)

30% +2%

Other** 11% 0%Total 100%

* May include part-time professional personnel ** Includes practices with no full-time professionals


4/24

3

The median hearing practice earned gross revenue of $551,429 during 2010 (Table 2). The higherpractice gross revenue reported by the top two quintiles can be explained by the higher revenue reportedby the multi-full-time-unit and multi-professional practices. Median practice gross revenue growth during2010 was +9.5%. Median and the largest sized practices enjoyed the highest rates of growthduring 2010 (Figure 1).

Table 2. Practice Size Quintiles2010 Gross Revenue

Practice Size Quintiles Median

Largest 20% $2,400,000Next 20% $933,000Median 20% $557,500Next 20% $400,000Smallest 20% $101,839

Total Hearing Practices $551,429

Figure 1. Gross Revenue % Change

By Practice Size Quintiles*

*Includes only practices reporting gross revenue for both 2009 and 2010


5/24

4

For single full-time-location/solo professional practices, median 2010 gross revenue was $411,000 (Table3). These offices were typically open 40 hours per week and the solo professional typically worked 2,000hours annually (Table 5). Single full-time-location/solo professional practices had median office space of1,000 square feet. They typically employed three non-hearing professional staff members.

Single full-time-location practices with two or more full-time professionals had median gross revenue of$740,000 during 2010 more than one and a half times the median of solo professional practices. Singlefull-time-location/2+ professional practices were also typically open 40 hours per week and had two full-time hearing professionals. The median square footage of these practices was 1,400. They typicallyemployed six non-hearing professional staff members.

Multi-full-time-location practices had median gross revenue of $1,441,266. The median number of full-time locations for these practices was three. The total median square footage of these practices was2,800. The median number of non-hearing professional staff members in multi-full-time-location practiceswas ten.

Table 3. Gross Revenue By Practice Type2010 Gross Revenue

Practice Type Median

Median 2009-2010

% Change

Single Full-Time Location* $500,000 +10.7%Solo professional $411,000 +10.7%2 or more professionals $740,000 +10.0%

Multiple Full-Time

Locations* (With One Or

More Professionals)

$1,441,266 +9.6%

Total Hearing Practices $551,429 +9.5%* May include part-time professional personnel

Within each practice type, there was a considerable range of median gross revenue reported (Table 4).For example, among solo professional practices, the largest third of practices achieved a median gross

revenue of $675,253 64% higher than the median for this type of practice. Multi-full-time-locationpractices in the top third of that practice type had median revenue of $3.8 million and accounted for nearly49% of the total revenue for all of the practices which responded to the survey.

Table 4. Range In 2010 Gross Revenue By Practice TypeMedian 2010 Gross Revenue

Practice Type Smallest 3rd Median 3rd Largest 3rd

Single Full-Time Location*

Solo professional $150,000 $411,000 $675,253% Of Gross Revenue 1.3% 3.5% 10.7%

2 or more professionals $368,000 $740,000 $1,535,029% Of Gross Revenue 2.3% 4.8% 13.0%

Multiple Full-Time

Locations* (With One OrMore Professionals)

$475,000 $1,441,266 $3,825,000

% Of Gross Revenue 3.0% 9.5% 48.9%

* May include part-time professional personnelNote: Percentages of gross revenue do not add up to 100 percent because they do not include the 3.0 percent ofgross revenue for the respondents who were in the Other category for Practice Type.


6/24

5

The median gross revenue per full-time hearing location was $477,833 during 2010. Among multi-full-time-location practices, the median gross revenue per location was $430,301, while the median grossrevenue for a solo professional working at one location was $411,000. As would be expected, single full-time-location/2+ professional practices earned the most revenue per location a median of $740,000.

The median gross revenue earned per hearing professional during 2010 was $375,000. Revenuereported per professional was highest in solo professional/single full-time-location practices ($411,000),

although revenue per professional for practices with multiple locations was only slightly lower ($405,000).The median revenue per professional for single full-time-location/2+ professional practices was muchlower ($286,500).

For all hearing practices, there was a median of 2.5 non-hearing professional staff members per hearingprofessional. The median for solo professional/single full-time-location practices was higher (a median of3.0), while single full-time-location/2+ professional practices employed a median of 2.0 non-hearingprofessional staff members per professional. This suggests that staff is more efficiently deployed insingle full-time-location/multi-professional practices (Table 5).

Table 5. Practice Characteristics By Practice Type

Single Full-TimeLocation*

Practice Characteristic

Solo-

Professional

2+ Full-Time

Professionals

Multiple Full-TimeLocations* (With

One Or More

Professionals)

2010 Gross Revenue: Median $411,000 $740,000 $1,441,266

Weekly Office Hours: Median 40 40 40

2010 Professional Hours (Full-Time And

Part-Time): Median 2,000 4,078 6,000

2010 % Hours Dedicated To Diagnostics

(Average) 31% 32% 32%

Office Square Feet: Median 1,000 1,400 2,800

Full-Time Locations: Median 1 1 3

Part-Time Locations:

% Of Practices With Any Part-

Time Locations 25% 50% 59%

Number (Median) For Practices

With A Part-Time Location1 2 2

Full-Time Hearing Professionals: Median 1 2 3

Part-Time Hearing Professionals: Median 0 0 1

Non-Hearing Professional Staff: Median 3 6 10

Non-Hearing Professional Staff Per Full-Time Professional: Median 3 2 3

* May include part-time professional personnel


7/24

6

3. Sources of Revenue

In U.S. hearing practices, revenue from fitting hearing instruments was an average of 71% of practicegross revenue during 2010 (Figure 2), compared to 75% in 2009. This category has been further brokendown into revenue from practice generated patients and revenue from referral networks. Over 62%percent of gross revenue was from practice generated patients while just under 9% was from referralnetworks. Diagnostic testing contributed 19% to gross revenue for the average practice, compared to15.3% in 2009. Source of revenue did not vary greatly by practice type or practice size. Practices in the

largest quintile earned more than 21 times the instrument fitting revenue as those in the smallestquintile (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Source Of Gross Revenue

* I.e., walk-ins, generated by marketing, etc.** I.e., EPIC, Hearing Planet, HearPO, etc.

Figure 3. Instrument Fitting Revenue By Practice Size

$89,125

$311,386$469,617

$836,345

$1,920,000

$449,925

$0

$250,000$500,000

$750,000

$1,000,000

$1,250,000

$1,500,000

$1,750,000

$2,000,000

$2,250,000

Smallest20%

Next 20% Median 20% Next 20% Largest20%

TotalHearing

Practices

2010MedianInstru

mentFittingRevenue

$933,000$557,500 $2,400,0002010 Median

Gross Revenue

Practice Size

Quintiles

$400,000$101,893 $551,429

Total: Fitting hearinginstruments = 71.3%


8/24

7

4. Hearing Instrument Dispensing

Hearing practices dispensed a median of 250 instruments during 2010 (Table 6) (a median of 210instruments per full-time location), compared to a median of 225 instruments in 2009. Single full-time-location/solo professional practices dispensed a median of 176 instruments. Multiple full-time-locationpractices dispensed a median of 450 instruments in 2010; a drop from a median of 576 in 2009.

Table 6. 2010 Instruments Dispensed By Practice TypeInstruments Dispensed

Per Practice

Practice Type

% Of Total

Instruments Median


Solo professional 8% 176

2 or more professionals 11% 320

Multiple Full-Time

Locations* (With One OrMore Professionals) 81% 450

Total Hearing Practices 100% 250* May include part-time professional personnel

The median number of instruments dispensed per full-time hearing professional in 2010 was 152 (Table7). Single full-time-location/solo professional offices achieved the highest dispensing rates per full-timeprofessional a median of 176 instruments dispensed per full-time professional versus 125 for single full-time-location/2+ professional practices and 158 for multiple full-time-location practices.

Table 7. 2010 Hearing Instrument Units Dispensed PerFull-Time Professional

Instruments Dispensed Per Full-Time

ProfessionalNumber Of Full-Time

Professionals In Practice Median

One 177

Two 125

Three 146

Four Or More 153

Total Hearing Practices 152


9/24

8

31%

56%

68%

77%

93%

63%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bottom

20%

Next 20% Median

20%

Next 20% Top 20% Total

Hearing

Practices

Average%N

ewPatients

OfTotalFitted

2010Performance

Quintiles

An average of 63% of instruments dispensed in 2010 were fit on patients new to the practice (Figure 4),the exact same result as in 2009. Practices with higher ratios of new patients tended to be smaller and attheir current locations for fewer years. The respondents from these practices also tended to be neweraudiology/dispensing licensees.

Figure 4. 2010 New Patient Ratio Performance Quintiles

5. Productivity Benchmarks

Gross Revenue Per Professional HourGross revenue per professional hour is the most important productivity measure in hearing practices. Itreveals how effectively professionals use their time. It is calculated by dividing practice gross revenue bythe total number of hours worked by all full-time and part-time hearing professionals for any specifiedperiod. The median 2010 gross revenue per professional hour for all practices was $174 (Figure 5),compared to $144 in 2009. The most productive 20% of practices achieved hourly professional revenue

of $345, almost twice the median. Although overall gross revenue per professional hour was higherin 2010 than in 2009, the most productive practices in 2010 performed worse than the mostproductive practices in 2009 ($345 per hour in 2010 versus $374 per hour in 2009).

Figure 5. 2010 Gross Revenue Per Professional HourPerformance Quintiles

$48

$113

$176

$226

$345

$174

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

Bottom20%

Next 20% Median20%

Next 20% Top 20% TotalHearing

Practices

MedianGrossRevenue

PerProfessionalHo

ur

Performance

Quintiles


10/24

9

As would be expected, revenue per professional hour was lowest in the smallest 20% of practices (Figure6). Moreover, these practices tended to be open fewer hours per week than larger practices almostone-half of the smallest quintile of practices were open 35 hours or less per week versus just 18% of allother practices.

Figure 6. 2010 Gross Revenue Per Professional Hour By Practice Size

What gross revenue per professional hour does your practice produce?

The Practice Performance Comparisons section of this report shows hourly revenue production during2010, based on the responses to the hearing industry survey. This metric is calculated by dividing 2010practice gross revenue by the total number of professional hours worked during 2010. You can performthis calculation yourself. Increasing hourly production is best done by thinking more strategically aboutthe practice and implementing greater office efficiencies. For example, more effective marketing is astrategy for increasing the number of new hearing instrument patients seen by the practice. Delegatingnon-revenue producing administrative tasks to support personnel will free professional time to engage inmarketing planning and conducting patient outreach programs that will increase hourly revenueproduction. Hourly production can also be improved by increasing the ratio of higher end technologyinstruments dispensed along with more effective fee strategies.

Gross Revenue Per Non-Hearing Professional Staff Member

The 2010 median gross revenue per non-hearing professional staff member was $132,474 (Table 8).The number of full-time professionals in a practice did not correlate with median gross revenue per non-hearing professional staff member, although practices with three full-time professionals generated themost revenue per non-hearing professional staff member.

2010 gross revenue per non-hearing professional staff member was not correlated with the number ofsuch staff members that the practice employed (Figure 7). Practices with two non-hearing professionalstaff members reported a higher median gross ($200,000 per employee) than practices that had four ormore non-hearing professionals ($127,714 per employee).


11/24

10

Table 8. Gross Revenue Per Non-Hearing Professional Staff Member By

Number Of Full-Time Professionals2010 Gross Revenue Per Non-Hearing

Professional Staff MemberNumber Of Full-TimeProfessionals In Practice Median

One $136,000

Two $125,000Three $182,600Four Or More $126,132

Total Hearing Practices $132,474

Figure 7. 2010 Gross Revenue Per Non-Hearing Professional EmployeeBy Number Of Such Staff Members

How much gross revenue does your practice produce for each non-hearing professional staff memberemployed?

The Practice Performance Comparisons section of this report shows how much revenue was producedduring 2010 for each non-hearing professional staff member employed, based on the responses to thehearing industry survey. This metric is calculated by dividing 2010 practice gross revenue by the total

number of non-hearing professional staff members. You can perform this calculation yourself. Practicesthat achieve above median dispensing rates but lower than median gross revenue per non-hearingprofessional staff member are likely to be overstaffed. Industry norms suggest that solo full-time-professional offices, except for the busiest, do not require more than one non-hearing professional staffmember to provide acceptable service. Offices with two professionals are unlikely to require more thantwo non-hearing professional staff members.


12/24

11

Practice Gross Revenue Per Instrument Dispensed

The median gross practice revenue per instrument dispensed during 2010 was $2,143 (Figure 8),compared to a 2009 median of $1,886. This ratio is affected both by the fees charged for instrumentsand by the percent of practice revenue produced by instrument fittings.

Figure 8. 2010 Practice Gross Revenue Per Hearing InstrumentDispensed Performance Quintiles

How much revenue does your practice produce for each instrument dispensed?

The Practice Performance Comparisons section of this report shows total practice revenue earned perinstrument dispensed during 2010, based on the responses to the hearing industry survey. This metric iscalculated using the following formula: 2010 practice gross revenue / number of instruments dispensed in2010. You can perform this calculation yourself. Increasing revenue per instrument is best achieved byincreasing the ratio of higher end technology instruments dispensed and by effective pricing strategies.

6. Types Of Instruments Dispensed

Thirty-four percent of hearing practices reported that they were members of a buying group in 2011,

compared to 44% in 2010 (Figure 9). Of those practices that were members, 34% said that theypurchase between 96% and 100% of their hearing instruments through the buying group, a significantincrease compared to 24% in 2010. Although in 2011 fewer practices participated in buying groups,those that did participate increased the percentage of their purchases through these groups.


13/24

12

Figure 9. Hearing Instrument Purchases Through The Buying Group

Hearing professionals reported that an average of 41% of instruments sold had fitting fees (hearing aidand professional fees) of under $2,000 (Table 9). The median fee was estimated to be $2,140. This washigher than the reported median instrument revenue per unit dispensed, suggesting some over-statementof the usage of higher value products.

Table 9. 2010 Bundled Fitting Fees For InstrumentsAverage % Of Units Sold At

Fitting Fee Range

Less than $1,000 9%

$1,000-$1,999 32%

Sub-total under $2,000 41%

$2,000-$2,499 26%

$2,500-$2,999 19%

$3,000 or more 15%

Sub-total $2,000 or more 60%

Total 100%

Median fitting fee* $2,140

*Calculated from respondent sales mix estimates


14/24

13

Hearing practices reported that an average of 20% of instruments dispensed during 2010 were custom in-the-ear (ITE) units, 34% were behind-the-ear (BTE) types, and 45% were receiver in the canal (RIC) units(Figure 10). Instrument type usage did not vary significantly among practice types. There was asignificant increase in the usage of RIC units from 2009 to 2010 from 38% to 45%. There was acorresponding decrease in the usage of BTE units from 2009 to 2010 from 40% to 34%.

Figure 10. Type Of Hearing Instruments Dispensed

Practices in the top 20% of the instrument revenue per unit dispensed quintile sold a higher proportion ofRIC units and a smaller proportion of Custom ITE units (Table 10).

Table 10. 2010 Instruments Sold By Instruments Revenue

Per Unit QuintilesInstrument Revenue Per Unit Quintiles

Bottom

20%

Next

20%

Median

20%

Next

20%

Top

20%Instruments Sold $526 $1,349 $1,753 $2,059 $2,648

Custom ITE 26% 23% 22% 22% 17%

Total BTE 34% 36% 28% 42% 31%BTE Standard 15% 11% 10% 18% 13%BTE Power 9% 6% 7% 9% 8%Micro BTE 10% 19% 11% 15% 10%

RIC (Receiver in the canal) 40% 41% 50% 36% 52%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


15/24

14

There was limited variation in the price points of the instruments used by practice type. Multiple full-time-location practices reported a somewhat higher percentage of fits of units with fees above or equal to$2,000.

7. Professional Compensation

Of practices which employed full-time or part-time licensed hearing professionals, 40% compensatedprofessionals with salaries and commissions, 26% paid salary only, 21% paid salary plus bonus, and 13%

paid commission only (Figure 11). There was a significant reduction from 2010 to 2011 in the percent ofprofessionals paid only a salary, and corresponding increases in the percent of professionals paid with asalary plus bonus, and in the percent of professionals paid by commission only. Fifty-seven percent ofthese practices provided health insurance to professionals. This was significantly lower than in 2010,when two-thirds of these practices provided health insurance to professionals.

Figure 11. Compensation Plans For Licensed Hearing Professionals

(Full-Time And Part-Time)

Practice owners in multiple full-time-location practices earned significantly higher compensation

than did owners of single full-time-location practices. However, owner compensation in multiple full-time locations was half the percent of practice gross revenue of single full-time location/solo professionalpractices (Table 12). Within single full-time-location practices, owner compensation was the samewhether one hearing professional was employed or two or more hearing professionals were employed.The median total compensation in 2010 was $100,000, compared to a median of $135,000 in 2009. Onekey reason total compensation went down in 2010 was a significant reduction in the amount of dollarsspent on fringe benefits for full-time/part-time hearing professionals, from a median of $15,000 in 2009down to $7,000 in 2010 (Table 8).


16/24

15

Table 6. 2010 Compensation By Practice Type:

Practice Owner CompensationPractice Owner Compensation

Practice Type Median


Solo professional $87,5002 or more professionals $87,500

Multiple Full-Time Locations* (With

One Or More Professionals)$137,500

Total Hearing Practices $87,500* May include part-time professional personnel

Table 7. 2010 Owner Compensation % Of Practice Gross Revenue

By Practice TypeOwner Compensation % Of Practice

Gross RevenuePractice Type Median


Solo professional 24%2 or more professionals 15%

Multiple Full-Time Locations* (With

One Or More Professionals)12%

Total Hearing Practices 17%* May include part-time professional personnel

Table 8. Total Compensation For Full-Time/Part-Time Hearing

Professionals2010 Results 2009 Results

MedianCompensation

MedianCompensation

Salaries And Commissions $100,000 $110,000

Fringe Benefits $7,000 $15,000

Total* $100,000 $135,000

Total Compensation % Of Gross

Revenue** (Median) 21% 22%* The total is calculated by adding the individual respondents salaries/commissions and fringe benefits andthen calculating the median of these totals for all respondents. The total will therefore not necessarily equal the

overall median salaries/commissions plus the overall median fringe benefits. The total was only calculated forrespondents who supplied both salary/commission and fringe benefit data.** Total compensation % of gross revenue could only be calculated for respondents who suppliedsalary/commission, fringe benefits, and gross revenue data.


17/24

16

8. Practice Marketing

The median hearing practice spent 4.4% of gross revenue for marketing, or a median of $20,000 annually(Table 9), compared to a median of 4.8% of gross revenue spent for marketing in 2009 ($15,000annually). Although marketing expenses increased in 2010, their percentage of gross practice revenuedecreased when compared to 2009 due to an increase in overall 2010 gross practice revenue.

More aggressive marketers (top 20% of practices on the basis of marketing spending ratio) spent 16.2%of gross revenue on marketing (Table 10). The percentage of gross revenue that a practice spends onmarketing can be affected by a number of variables, including the level of physician referrals, the practicesetting, and the particular goals of the practice.

Table 9. Marketing Expenditures2010 Results 2009 Results

Median Median

Marketing Spending $20,000 $15,000

Marketing % Of Gross Revenue 4.4% 4.8%

Marketing Spending % Supplier

Support10% 0%

Amount Of Supplier Support $660 $0

Table 10. Marketing % Of 2010 Gross Revenue QuintilesMarketing % Of Gross Revenue

Marketing % Of Gross Revenue Quintiles Median

Highest 20% 16.2%Next 20% 9.3%Median 20% 4.4%Next 20% 1.4%Lowest 20% 0.0%

Total Hearing Practices 4.4%* May include part-time professional personnel

The most commonly used forms of marketing included newspaper advertising and direct mail (Table 11).Among those practices which used newspaper advertising, (excluding practices which did not usenewspaper advertising), the average amount of the marketing budget spent on newspapers was 36%,while practices which used direct mail (excluding practices which did not use direct mail) spent an

average of 32% of their marketing budget on this activity. 47% of practices spent some of their marketingbudget on website development, and 42% of practices used patient referral programs. Smaller numbersof practices used broadcast advertising, radio spots or e-mail campaigns to attract new patients. Usageof marketing tactics does vary somewhat by practice type and practice size. Multi-full-time-location andlarger practices are more likely to use direct mailer programs and newspaper ads than single full-time-location and smaller practices.

The percentage of practices using newspaper ads increased from 65% in 2009 to 72% in 2010. Therewas also an increase in usage of social media campaigns/programs, from 4% in 2009 to 10% in 2010.While overall spending increased in 2010, there was a decrease in the amount spent on TVadvertisements for those practices which used such a medium, from $14,107 in 2009 to $9,988 in 2010.


18/24

17

Table 11. 2010 Marketing Tactics Used

Marketing Activity

Average %Of Total

Spending% Using

TacticMedian

Expenditure*

Newspaper Ads 26% 72% $10,500

Direct Mailer Programs 19% 58% $7,410

Physician Referral Programs 8% 39% $1,660

Open Houses 7% 38% $3,123

Website Development/Initiatives 6% 47% $2,400

Patient Referral Programs 6% 42% $1,800

TV Spots 4% 18% $9,988

Newsletters 4% 30% $3,000

Radio Spots 3% 15% $4,379

Education Seminars 3% 25% $1,500

E-mail Campaigns 1% 10% $1,500SEO Functionality (Search EngineOptimization)

1% 15% $2,325

Social Media Campaigns/Programs (e.g.,Twitter, Facebook, Blog, etc.)

1% 10% $1,500

Pay-Per-Click Programs 1% 7% $1,680

Other 8% 19% $4,680

Total 100% $20,000*Among practices using tactic

A majority of hearing practices (51%) rated their 2010 marketing program as only somewhat effective,

indicating an opportunity for many practices to improve their marketing efforts (Figure 12). The percent ofpractices which rated their marketing program as very/somewhat effective decreased from 75% in 2009to 69% in 2010. There was a corresponding increase in the percent of practices which felt that theirmarketing programs were somewhat/very ineffective, from 10% in 2009 to 15% in 2010.

Practices spending the lowest ratio of gross revenue for marketing rated the effectiveness of theirprograms lower than other practices (Table 12). This was also true in 2009, however in 2009 theeffectiveness rating given by this group was 52%, versus 35% in 2010 a significant decrease.

Figure 12. Overall Marketing Program Effectiveness Rating

17


19/24

18

Table 12. 2010 Marketing Program Effectiveness Rating By Marketing

% Of Gross Revenue Quintiles

Marketing % Of Gross Revenue

Quintiles

Median Marketing

% Of Gross

Revenue

% Very Effective/

Somewhat Effective

Highest 20% 16.2% 79%Next 20% 9.3% 86%Median 20% 4.4% 86%Next 20% 1.4% 57%Lowest 20% 0.0% 35%

Total Hearing Practices 4.4% 69%

Marketing tactics which received the highest effectiveness ratings included patient referral programs,physician referral programs, open houses, direct mail, newsletters, and education seminars. Butrelatively few practices judged any of these tactics as very effective (Table 13). Although use of socialmedia campaigns/programs went up in 2010, hearing practices viewed them as being less effective in

2010 than in 2009. In 2010, only 41% found social media to be very/somewhat effective, compared to55% in 2009.

Table 13. 2010 Marketing Tactics Effectiveness Ratings

Marketing ActivityVery

EffectiveSomewhatEffective

NeitherEffective

Nor

IneffectiveSomewhatIneffective

VeryIneffective

2010Average*

2009Average*

Patient Referral Programs 38% 41% 13% 6% 2% 4.1 4.2

Physician ReferralPrograms

36% 39% 14% 7% 4% 4.0 4.0

Open Houses 24% 50% 14% 9% 3% 3.8 4.0

Direct Mailer Programs 22% 50% 8% 12% 8% 3.7 3.8

Newsletters 12% 56% 26% 5% 1% 3.7 3.8

Education Seminars 22% 50% 13% 9% 6% 3.7 3.9

Newspaper Ads 16% 51% 12% 13% 8% 3.6 3.6

WebsiteDevelopment/Initiatives

10% 42% 35% 10% 3% 3.4 3.3

SEO Functionality (SearchEngine Optimization)

11% 37% 37% 13% 2% 3.4 3.5

TV Spots 9% 50% 18% 12% 11% 3.3 3.7

Social Media

Campaigns/Programs(e.g., Twitter, Facebook,Blog, etc.)

15% 26% 35% 9% 15% 3.2 3.7

Radio Spots 8% 31% 27% 25% 9% 3.1 3.1

E-mail Campaigns 6% 20% 47% 17% 10% 3.0 3.2

Pay-Per-Click Programs 4% 39% 19% 15% 23% 2.8 3.1

Other 26% 37% 25% 7% 5% 3.7 -

* Very Effective = 5, Somewhat Effective = 4, etc.


20/24

19

Referrals are the major source of new patients for hearing practices, accounting for an average of45% of new patients (Figure 13). Referrals from physicians produced an average of 27% of newpatients; referrals from current patients produced an average of 18% of new patients. There were nosignificant differences from 2009 to 2010. Primary care physicians accounted for an average of 29% oftotal referrals and ENT specialists accounted for an average of 28% (Figure 14).

Figure 13. 2010 Source Of New Patients

Figure 14. 2010 Source Of Referrals

* Patient referral and Word-of-mouth were the most common Other sources mentioned. 18% of respondentslisted Patient referral or Word-of-mouth as their Other source.


21/24

20

How much does your practice invest to attract new patients?

The Practice Performance Comparisons section of this report shows the percentage of practice grossrevenue invested in marketing during 2010, based on the responses to the hearing industry survey. Thismetric is calculated by dividing total 2010 marketing spending by 2010 practice gross revenue. You canperform this calculation yourself. If your marketing spend is below the median of the percent of grossrevenue spent on marketing, or the percentage of new patients generated from referrals is greater than50%, your practice is probably under-investing in marketing.

9. Practice Websites

Eighty-two percent of practices had a business website, including 73% of single full-time-location/soloprofessional practices. Larger practices were more likely to have had a website than smaller ones. Whilejust under three-fourths of the smallest practices had websites, 94% of the largest practices had websites.The overall percentage of practices with websites increased to 82% in 2011 from 76% in 2010.

Nearly three-fourths of practice websites included hearing information archive functionality, and 60% ofpractice websites had a section to accept patient inquiries (Table 14). Only one-third of sites enabledappointment scheduling by patients. Just under half used search engine optimization. In 2011, 52% ofpractice websites included educational videos, compared to 39% in 2010. There was also an increaseduse of physician pages, from 18% in 2010 to 28% in 2011.

Table 14. Practice Websites

% With Practice Website 82%

% With Functionality

Website Functionality 2011 Study 2010 Study

Hearing information archive 72% 72%

Section to accept patient inquiries 60% 62%

Educational videos 52% 39%Patient testimonials 49% 44%

Search engine optimization 48% 45%

Website analytics (e.g., Googleanalytics, tracking traffic, etc.)

45% 43%

Lead capturing system (e.g., for namesand e-mail addresses, etc.)

38% 39%

Appointment scheduling 33% 21%

Practice newsletter 29% 27%

Physician page 28% 18%

Medical history record updates 19% 11%

Patient satisfaction survey 15% 9%

Other 10% 11%


22/24

21

10. Testing And Recall

A median of 75% of patients received a hearing aid demonstration as part of practice routine counselingservices in 2011 (Figure 15), compared to a median of 50% in 2010. This difference largely resulted froma significant increase in the percentage of practices which reported that 100% of their patients received ahearing aid demonstration, from 15% in 2010 to 24% in 2011. The percentage of practices whichreported that 0% of their patients received a hearing aid demonstration also significantly went down, from12% in 2010 to 4% in 2011. Real ear measures, electroacoustics measures, speech in noise, and

COSI were used most often by the practices for the routine fitting and verification of hearing instruments(Figure 16).

Figure 15. Patients Receiving Hearing Aid Demonstrations

Figure 16. 2011 Hearing Instrument Fitting Testing Procedures

64%

50%47%

44%

10%

21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Real ear

measures

Electro-

acoustics

measures

Speech in noise COSI (Client

Ordered Scale

of

Improvement)

Front-to-back

ratios

Other

%O

fHearin

gPractices

Performing

Procedure


23/24

22

Eighty-one percent of hearing practices scheduled recalls for cleaning (Figure 17). These practicesscheduled quarterly cleanings for an average of 37% of their patients and scheduled cleanings on a semi-annual basis for 37% of their patients. The percentage of practices which scheduled quarterly cleaningsincreased from 32% in 2010 to 37% in 2011. Seventy-seven percent of hearing practices scheduledrecalls for hearing tests (Figure 18). These practices scheduled annual hearing tests for an average of71% of their patients.

Figure 17. Frequency Of Patient Recall: Cleanings

Figure 18. Frequency Of Patient Recall: Hearing Tests


24/24

Conducted by:

Customer Care Measurement & Consulting

20 South Quaker Lane, Suite 230

Sponsored by:

Phonak

4520 Weaver Parkway

ccmc_phonak_2011 benchmarking summary report

Documents