What a Biden-Trump Re-Match means for Healthcare Politics: How the Campaigns will Position their Differences to Voters

With the South Carolina Republican primary results in over the weekend, it seems a Biden-Trump re-match is inevitable. Given the legacies associated with Presidencies of the two and the healthcare platforms espoused by their political parties, the landscape for healthcare politics seems clear:

Healthcare IssueBiden PolicyTrump Policy
Access to Abortion‘It’s a basic right for women protected by the Federal Government’‘It’s up to the states and should be safe and rare. A 16-week ban should be the national standard.’
Ageism‘President Biden is alert and capable. It’s a non-issue.’‘President Biden is senile and unlikely to finish a second term is elected. President Trump is active and prepared.’
Access to IVF Treatments‘It’s a basic right and should be universally accessible in every state and protected’‘It’s a complex issue that should be considered in every state.’
Affordability‘The system is unaffordable because it’s dominated by profit-focused corporations. It needs increased regulation including price controls.’‘The system is unaffordable to some because it’s overly regulated and lacks competition and price transparency.’
Access to Health Insurance Coverage‘It’s necessary for access to needed services & should be universally accessible and affordable.’‘It’s a personal choice. Government should play a limited role.’
Public health‘Underfunded and increasingly important.’‘Fragmented and suboptimal. States should take the lead.’
Drug prices‘Drug companies take advantage of the system to keep prices high. Price controls are necessary to lower costs.’‘Drug prices are too high. Allowing importation and increased price transparency are keys to reducing costs.’
Medicare‘It’s foundational to seniors’ wellbeing & should be protected. But demand is growing requiring modernization (aka the value agenda) and additional revenues (taxes + appropriations).’‘It’s foundational to senior health & in need of modernization thru privatization. Waste and fraud are problematic to its future.’
Medicaid‘Medicaid Managed Care is its future with increased enrollment and standardization of eligibility & benefits across states.’‘Medicaid is a state program allowing modernization & innovation. The federal role should be subordinate to the states.’
Competition‘The federal government (FTC, DOJ) should enhance protections against vertical and horizontal consolidation that reduce choices and increase prices in every sector of healthcare.’‘Current anti-trust and consumer protections are adequate to address consolidation in healthcare.’
Price Transparency‘Necessary and essential to protect consumers. Needs expansion.’‘Necessary to drive competition in markets. Needs more attention.’
The Affordable Care Act‘A necessary foundation for health system modernization that appropriately balances public and private responsibilities. Fix and Repair’‘An unnecessary government takeover of the health system that’s harmful and wasteful. Repeal and Replace.’
Role of federal government‘The federal government should enable equitable access and affordability. The private sector is focused more on profit than the public good.’‘Market forces will drive better value. States should play a bigger role’

My take:

Polls indicate Campaign 2024 will be decided based on economic conditions in the fall 2024 as voters zero in on their choice. Per KFF’s latest poll, 74% of adults say an unexpected healthcare bill is their number-one financial concern—above their fears about food, energy and housing. So, if you’re handicapping healthcare in Campaign 2024, bet on its emergence as an economic issue, especially in the swing states (Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona) where there are sharp health policy differences and the healthcare systems in these states are dominated by consolidated hospitals and national insurers.

  • Three issues will be the primary focus of both campaigns: women’s health and access to abortion, affordability and competition. On women’s health, there are sharp differences; on affordability and competition, the distinctions between the campaigns will be less clear to voters. Both will opine support for policy changes without offering details on what, when and how.
  • The Affordable Care Act will surface in rhetoric contrasting a ‘government run system’ to a ‘market driven system.’ In reality, both campaigns will favor changes to the ACA rather than repeal.
  • Both campaigns will voice support for state leadership in resolving abortion, drug pricing and consolidation. State cost containment laws and actions taken by state attorneys general to limit hospital consolidation and private equity ownership will get support from both campaigns.
  • Neither campaign will propose transformative policy changes: they’re too risky. integrating health & social services, capping total spending, reforms of drug patient laws, restricting tax exemptions for ‘not for profit’ hospitals, federalizing Medicaid, and others will not be on the table. There’s safety in promoting populist themes (price transparency, competition) and steering away from anything more.

As the primary season wears on (in Michigan tomorrow and 23 others on/before March 5), how the health system is positioned in the court of public opinion will come into focus.

Abortion rights will garner votes; affordability, price transparency, Medicare solvency and system consolidation will emerge as wedge issues alongside.

PS: Re: federal budgeting for key healthcare agencies, two deadlines are eminent: March 1 for funding for the FDA and the VA and March 8 for HHS funding.

The genetic paradox: Yesterday’s solutions are today’s problems. Can U.S. healthcare shift gear faster than our genes?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/genetic-paradox-yesterdays-solutions-todays-problems-can-pearl-m-d–r6mic/?trackingId=C3X2nlWPRe6yBwiHCcuWGg%3D%3D

In a world where change is the only constant, the swift currents of modern life contrast starkly with the sluggish pace of genetic evolution—and of American healthcare, too.

Two relatively recent scientific discoveries demonstrate how the very genetic traits that once secured humanity’s survival are failing to keep up with the times, producing dire medical consequences. These important biological events offer insights into American medicine—along with a warning about what can happen when healthcare systems fail to change.

The Mysteries Of Sickle Cell And Multiple Sclerosis

For decades, scientists were baffled by what seemed like an evolutionary contradiction.

Sickle cell disease is a condition resulting from a genetic mutation that produces malformed red blood cells. It afflicts approximately 1 in 365 Black Americans, causing severe pain and organ failure.

Its horrific impact on people raises a question: How has this genetic mutation persisted for 7,300 years? Nature is a merciless editor of life, and so you would expect that across seven millennia, people with this inherited problem would be less likely to survive and reproduce. This curiosity seems to defy the teachings of Charles Darwin, who theorized that evolution discards what no longer serves the survival of a species.

Scientists solved this genetic puzzle in 2011, illuminating a significant evolutionary trade-off.

People living with sickle cell disease have two abnormal genes, one inherited from each parent. While the disease, itself, affects a large population (roughly 100,000 African Americans), it turns out that a far larger population in the United States carries one “abnormal” gene and one normal gene (comprising as many as 3 million Americans).

This so called “sickle cell trait” presents milder symptoms or none at all when compared to the full disease. And, unlike those with the disease, individuals who with one (but not both) abnormal genes possess a distinct evolutionary advantage: They have a resistance to severe malaria, which every year claims more than 600,000 lives around the globe.

This genetic adaptation (a resistance to malaria) kept people alive for many millennia in equatorial Africa, protecting them from the continent’s deadliest infectious disease. But in present-day America, malaria is not a major public-health concern due to several factors, including the widespread use of window screens and air conditioning, controlled and limited habitats for the Anopheles mosquitoes (which transmit the disease), and a strong healthcare system capable of managing and containing outbreaks. Therefore, the sickle cell trait is of little value in the United States while sickle cell disease is a life-threatening problem.

The lesson: Genetic changes beneficial in one environment, such as malaria-prone areas, can become harmful in another. This lesson isn’t limited to sickle cell disease.

A similar genetic phenomenon was uncovered through research that was published last month in Nature. This time, scientists discovered an ancient genetic mutation that is, today, linked to multiple sclerosis (MS).

Their research began with data showing that people living in Northern Europe have twice the number of cases of MS per 100,000 individuals as people in the South of Europe. Like sickle cell disease, MS is a terrible affliction—with immune cells attacking neurons in the brain, interfering with both walking and talking.

Having identified this two-fold variance in the prevalence of MS, scientists compared the genetic make-up of the people in Europe with MS versus those without this devastating problem. And they discovered a correlation between a specific mutated gene and the risk of developing MS. Using archeological material, the researchers then connected the introduction of this gene into Northern Europe with cattle, goat and sheep herders from Russia who migrated west as far back as 5,000 years ago.

Suddenly, the explanation comes into focus. Thousands of years ago, this genetic abnormality helped protect herders from livestock disease, which at the time was the greatest threat to their survival. However, in the modern era, this same mutation results in an overactive immune response, leading to the development of MS.

Once again, a trait that was positive in a specific environmental and historical context has become harmful in today’s world.

Evolving Healthcare: Lessons From Our Genes

Just as genetic traits can shift from beneficial to detrimental with changing circumstances, healthcare practices that were once lifesaving can become problematic as medical capabilities advance and societal needs evolve.

Fee-for-service (FFS) payments, the most prevalent reimbursement model in American healthcare, offer an example. Under FFS, insurance providers, the government or patients themselves pay doctors and hospitals for each individual service they provide, such as consultations, tests, and treatments—regardless of the value these services may or may not add.

In the 1930s, this “mutation” emerged as a solution to the Great Depression. Organizations like Blue Cross began providing health insurance, ensuring healthcare affordability for struggling Americans in need of hospitalization while guaranteeing appropriate compensation for medical providers.

FFS, which linked payments to the quantity of care delivered, proved beneficial when the problems physicians treated were acute, one-time issues (e.g., appendicitis, trauma, pneumonia) and relatively inexpensive to resolve.

Today, the widespread prevalence of chronic diseases in 6 out of 10 Americans underlines the limitations of the fee-for-service (FFS) model. In contrast to “pay for value” models, FFS, with its “pay for volume” approach, fails to prioritize preventive services, the avoidance of chronic disease complications, or the elimination of redundant treatments through coordinated, team-based care. This leads to increased healthcare costs without corresponding improvements in quality.

This situation is reminiscent of the evolutionary narrative surrounding genetic mutations like sickle cell disease and MS. These mutations, which provided protective benefits in the past, have become detrimental in the present. Similarly, healthcare systems must adapt to the evolving medical and societal landscape to better meet current needs.

Research demonstrates that it takes 17 years on average for a proven innovation in healthcare to become common practice. When it comes to evolution of healthcare delivery and financing, the pace of change is even more glacial.

In 1934, the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care (CCMC) concluded that better clinical outcomes would be achieved if doctors (a) worked in groups rather than as fragmented solo practices and (b) were paid based on the value they provided, rather than just the volume of work they did.

Nearly a century later, these improvements remain elusive. Well-led medical groups remain the minority of all practices while fee-for-service is still the dominant healthcare reimbursed method.

Things progress slowly in the biological sphere because chance is what initiates change. It takes a long time for evolution to catch up to new environments.

But change in healthcare doesn’t have to be random or painfully slow. Humans have a unique ability to anticipate challenges and proactively implement solutions. Healthcare, unlike biology, can advance rapidly in response to new medical knowledge and societal needs. We have the opportunity to leverage our knowledge, technology, and collaborative skills to address and adapt to change much faster than random genetic mutations. But it isn’t happening.

Standing in the way is a combination of fear (of the risks involved), culture (the norms doctors learn in training) and lack of leadership (the ability to translate vision into action).

Genetics teaches us that evolution ultimately triumphs. Mutations that save lives and improve health become dominant in nature over time. And when those adaptations no longer serve a useful purpose, they’re replaced.

I hope the leaders of American medicine will learn to adapt, embracing the power of collaborative medicine while replacing fee-for-service payments with capitation (a single annual payment to group of clinicians to provide the medical care for a population of patients.) If they wait too long, dinosaurs will provide them with the next set of biological lessons.

Layoffs cool as hospital margins stabilize

Layoffs are slowing at hospitals and health systems as margins gradually improve, but CFOs continue to focus on controlling costs — particularly on the labor and supply fronts — to secure the long-term sustainability of their organizations.

Last year was characterized by hospital and health systems big and small trimming their workforces due to financial and operational challenges. 

From October 2022 through December 2023, Becker’s reported on more than 100 hospitals and health systems across the country that laid off workers, eliminated positions or reduced or closed certain facilities and services to help shore up finances. 

While layoffs have been reported at some hospitals this year, workforce cuts have been occuring at a slower rate compared to last year. 

Hospital revenues are up year over year as patient volumes continue to rebound. Operating margins have fluctuated in the last 12 months, from a -1.2% low in February 2023 to 5.5% highs in June and December, according to Kaufman Hall. In January, average operating and operating EBITDA margins dropped to 5.1%.

Kaufman analysts noted that too many hospitals are losing money and high-performing hospitals doing better and better, “effectively pulling away from the pack.” 

Fitch Ratings has described 2024 as another “make or break” year for a significant portion of the nonprofit hospital sector, which continues to battle an ongoing “labordemic.” However, the U.S. has also avoided a recession so far, partly due to a robust healthcare job market, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Where some COOs, CFOs are passing the baton

Nearly a quarter of health systems are appointing new executives to lead provider compensation — a function previously headed by COOs and CFOs, according to a recent report shared with Becker’s

That stat comes from the American Association of Provider Compensation Professionals, which recently surveyed 75 U.S. health systems and medical groups to learn more about their management methods. 

Health systems have been expanding their provider networks since the late 2000s and are continuing to work toward alignment, according to the report. Previously, COOs and CFOs might have led provider compensation strategy — but the arena has grown too complex and calls for an executive presence of its own. 

As such, a number of roles specific to provider compensation have emerged, from the executive director level up to the senior vice presidency. Nearly 25% of health systems surveyed have created a new executive position to develop and lead a provider compensation department; 93% of these departments have sole responsibility for their organization’s compensation design and 84% have full control of compensation strategy, from management of fair market value to contract management. 

“The core function of this new resource, department, and team was to build and manage compensation models developed for physicians. For many organizations, this expanded to include advanced practice providers,” the report says. “Over the years, organizations have understood the role to be much more strategic than initially proposed, which is why organizations across the country have developed roles [specific to provider compensation].”

UPMC back in the red with $198M operating loss, -0.7% margin

Pittsburgh-based UPMC reported a $198 million operating loss (-0.7% margin) in 2023, down from a $162 million gain (0.6% margin) in 2022, according to financial documents published Feb. 28.

UPMC attributed the swing from operating income to loss to various factors, including increased labor and supply costs, increases in medical claims expense due to higher utilization and certain legal settlements. 

Revenue for the health system increased 8.5% year over year to $27.7 billion and expenses rose 10% to $27.9 billion. Under expenses, labor costs increased 6.4% to $9.7 billion and supply costs were up 11% to $7.4 billion.

After accounting for nonoperating items, such as investment returns, UPMC ended 2023 with a $31 million net loss, compared to a $1 billion net loss the previous year. 

As of Dec. 31, UPMC had more than $9.5 billion in cash and investments, $3.2 billion of which was held by its regulated health and captive insurance companies.

Hospital expenses per inpatient day across 50 states

Below are the adjusted expenses for nonprofit, for-profit and government hospitals per inpatient day in 2022 in every U.S. state, according to the latest estimates provided by Kaiser State Health Facts. 

The figures are based on information from the 2022 American Hospital Association Annual Survey. They are an estimate of the expenses incurred in a day of inpatient care and have been adjusted higher to reflect an estimate of outpatient service volumes, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The foundation notes the figures are “only an estimate of expenses incurred by the hospital” for one day of inpatient care and do not substitute actual charges or reimbursement for care provided.

National average 
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,167
For-profit hospitals: $2,383 
State/local government hospitals: $2,857

Alabama
Nonprofit hospitals: $1,984
For-profit hospitals: $1,723
State/local government hospitals: $1,929

Alaska 
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,130
For-profit hospitals: $3,152
State/local government hospitals: $1,905

Arizona
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,430
For-profit hospitals: $2,746
State/local government hospitals: $2,833

Arkansas
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,082
For-profit hospitals: $1,942
State/local government hospitals: $4,263

California
Nonprofit hospitals: $4,719
For-profit hospitals: $2,655
State/local government hospitals: $4,338

Colorado 
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,862
For-profit hospitals: $3,408
State/local government hospitals: $2,528

Connecticut 
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,223
For-profit hospitals: $2,584
State/local government hospitals: $5,234

Delaware
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,399
For-profit hospitals: $1,429
State/local government hospitals: n/a

District of Columbia
Nonprofit hospitals: $4,272
For-profit hospitals: $3,081
State/local government hospitals: n/a

Florida 
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,063
For-profit hospitals: $2,301
State/local government hospitals: $2,884

Georgia 
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,556
For-profit hospitals: $2,312
State/local government hospitals: $814

Hawaii
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,551
For-profit hospitals: n/a
State/local government hospitals: $1,598

Idaho
Nonprofit hospitals: $4,570
For-profit hospitals: $2,944
State/local government hospitals: $2,406

Illinois 
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,168
For-profit hospitals: $2,403
State/local government hospitals: $3,862

Indiana
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,327
For-profit hospitals: $2,865
State/local government hospitals: $2,686

Iowa
Nonprofit hospitals: $1,847
For-profit hospitals: $1,596
State/local government hospitals: $1,942

Kansas
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,287
For-profit hospitals: $2,551
State/local government hospitals: $2,314

Kentucky
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,485
For-profit hospitals: $2,637
State/local government hospitals: $3,484

Louisiana
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,788
For-profit hospitals: $2,336
State/local government hospitals: $2,345

Maine
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,944
For-profit hospitals: $1,154
State/local government hospitals: $1,082

Maryland
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,617
For-profit hospitals: $1,734
State/local government hospitals: n/a

Massachusetts
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,670
For-profit hospitals: $2,559
State/local government hospitals: $2,545

Michigan
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,546
For-profit hospitals: $2,449
State/local government hospitals: $893

Minnesota 
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,813
For-profit hospitals: n/a
State/local government hospitals: $2,273

Mississippi
Nonprofit hospitals: $1,615
For-profit hospitals: $1,753
State/local government hospitals: $1,229

Missouri
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,864
For-profit hospitals: $2298
State/local government hospitals: $2,379

Montana
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,192
For-profit hospitals: $2,708
State/local government hospitals: $750

Nebraska 
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,832
For-profit hospitals: $4,769
State/local government hospitals: $1,765

Nevada 
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,771
For-profit hospitals: $2,127
State/local government hospitals: $2,972

New Hampshire
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,030
For-profit hospitals: $2,720
State/local government hospitals: n/a

New Jersey
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,415
For-profit hospitals: $2,361
State/local government hospitals: $2,451

New Mexico 
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,973
For-profit hospitals: $2,686
State/local government hospitals: $3,710

New York 
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,721
For-profit hospitals: n/a
State/local government hospitals: $3,675

North Carolina 
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,810
For-profit hospitals: $2,391
State/local government hospitals: $2,411

North Dakota
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,308
For-profit hospitals: $4,196
State/local government hospitals: n/a

Ohio
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,402
For-profit hospitals: $2,447
State/local government hospitals: $3,761

Oklahoma
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,450
For-profit hospitals: $2,580
State/local government hospitals: $1,964

Oregon
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,827
For-profit hospitals: $3,368
State/local government hospitals: $5,155

Pennsylvania 
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,045
For-profit hospitals: $2,251
State/local government hospitals: $1,609

Rhode Island 
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,102
For-profit hospitals: n/a
State/local government hospitals: n/a

South Carolina 
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,430
For-profit hospitals: $1,874
State/local government hospitals: $2,598

South Dakota 
Nonprofit hospitals: $1,673
For-profit hospitals: $4,275
State/local government hospitals: $780

Tennessee
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,960
For-profit hospitals: $2,133
State/local government hospitals: $2,019

Texas
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,291
For-profit hospitals: $2,325
State/local government hospitals: $3,768

Utah
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,550
For-profit hospitals: $3,232
State/local government hospitals: $3,542

Vermont
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,079
For-profit hospitals: n/a
State/local government hospitals: n/a

Virginia
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,813
For-profit hospitals: $2,194
State/local government hospitals: $4,208

Washington
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,753
For-profit hospitals: $3,696
State/local government hospitals: $4,079

West Virginia
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,447
For-profit hospitals: $1,206
State/local government hospitals: $1,500

Wisconsin 
Nonprofit hospitals: $2,796
For-profit hospitals: $3,055
State/local government hospitals: $3,641

Wyoming 
Nonprofit hospitals: $3,092
For-profit hospitals: $3,133
State/local government hospitals: $1,485

Sutter Health Oakland hospital could close by 2030

Oakland, Calif.-based Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, part of Sacramento, Calif.-based Sutter Health, could close by 2030.

“This closure would strain healthcare access in Berkely and send shockwaves across the region,” Jesse Arreguin, mayor of Berkeley, Calif., said in a Feb. 27 news release shared with Becker’s. “The impacts to EMS response times and service cuts for our most voluerable communities are simply unaccebtable.”

Amid the fear of closure, a spokesperson for Sutter Health told Becker’s in a statement that the health system is developing a comprehensive plan to meet the needs of the community.

This includes thoroughly evaluating how our patients use our services, including outpatient clinics, specialty care, hospital care, and emergency services, with a focus on identifying and addressing unmet community needs,” the spokesperson said. “It’s a major undertaking that has taken longer than anticipated; however, it’s important to emphasize that no final decisions have been made.”

The Berkeley City Council voted on Feb. 27 to allocate $300,000 from the Berkeley General Fund to help explore current or potential opportunities to secure future healthcare and hospital access for the community. 

“We cannot underestimate the repercussions of losing such a critical healthcare resource,” Sophie Hahn, a Berkeley City Council member, said in the release. “Beyond undermining our healthcare system, this closure would result in a profound loss of local jobs and impacts to our economy.”