H E A L T H L A W Medical Search Firms: Match Making Comes to Medicine ■ JOHN SHUFELDT, MD, JD, MBA, FACEP R ecently, a friend called to tell me he was going to the air- port to meet a woman he met online. He described her as tall, blonde, athletic and, based upon her e-mails and witty repartee, very smart. He brought the photo she e-mailed so he would recognize her when she walked through the gate. Oddly, he never did see her walk off the plane; however, he felt a tug on the bottom of his coat and looked down to find a small person with a big smile looking up at him. She said, “I’m who you are waiting for, I switched pictures with my friend!” He called back and asked for my advice. The only thing I could think to say was, “Do you drink beer?” Lesson 1: Don’t underestimate the importance of truth in advertising. And who can forget the scene in Ghostbusters when Dr. Pe- ter Venkman (played by Bill Murray) says, “Janine, someone with your qualifications would have no trouble finding a top- flight job in either the food service or housekeeping industries.” Lesson 2: When searching for a new job, aim for a level commensurate with your abilities and experience. Well-qualified residents often ask me if they should en- gage a search firm to help them find a new position. The short answer is, “It depends on your circumstances.” Search firms have traditionally been engaged by hospitals and practices to identify potential candidates to fill a vacancy. In ad- dition, a provider may engage a firm to seek out alternative job opportunities and thereby request that a recruitment firm con- fidentially identify potential employment opportunities. For hard-to-fill vacancies (Barrow, Alaska in the winter) or hard-to-hire providers (just out of prison for their third sex offense), the cost-benefit analysis of the search firm inures favorably to their benefit. John Shufeldt is the founder of the Shufeldt Law Firm, as well as the chief executive officer of NextCare, Inc., and sits on the Editorial Board of JUCM. He may be contacted at JJS@shufeldtlaw.com. 38 Alternatively, when an institution simply does not have the resources to devote to a large-scale search, it may be cost effective to utilize a search firm. Types of Agreements Generally speaking, most search firms are engaged by the practice or institution needing a provider. Search firms usu- ally contract in one of two ways: retained agreement or con- tingency agreement. Retained Agreements Under the retained method, the search firms are paid a percentage of the service fee to begin the search. Using this methodology, the search firm often demands an exclusive commitment from the group or institution. Under such a retained exclusive search, all candidates are contacted and screened by the search firm. In this scenario, the physician does not make the decision to use a search firm but rather receives the inherent recruitment services as engaged by the institution or practice at no cost. The retainer monthly fee typically ranges from $4,000 to $6,000, or in some cases is simply a percentage of the to- tal search fee. The remaining balance of the search service fee is paid upon contracting with a provider. Depending on the recruitment company and the services rendered, the to- tal search fee ranges from $20,000 to $30,000. Contingency Agreements Alternatively, under a contingency arrangement, the total fee is paid to the recruitment company upon completion of the recruitment process and the firm carries the entire cost of the search until the candidate is hired. Total fee amount is similar to the retained arrangement. Under a contingency recruitment agreement, very few, if any, performance guarantees are provided by the search firm. Essentially, it is a full-risk expense contract for the search firm in the event a successful candidate is not hired. JUCM T h e J o u r n a l o f U r g e n t C a r e M e d i c i n e | O c t o b e r 2 0 0 8 w w w. j u c m . c o m