“I would support a debate where when they lie, they get an electric shock.”
Paula Poundstone
Quote of the Day – On Election Debate
Author Archives: henrykotula
Thought of the Day – What You Leave Behind
Pericles is perhaps best remembered for a building program centered on the Acropolis which included the Parthenon and for a funeral oration he gave early in the Peloponnesian War, as recorded by Thucydides. In the speech he honored the fallen and held up Athenian democracy as an example to the rest of Greece.
Are Employers Ready to Move from the Back Bench in U.S. Healthcare?
This year, 316 million Americans (92.3% of the population) have health insurance: 61 million are covered by Medicare, 79 million by Medicaid/CHIP and 164 million through employment-based coverage. By 2032, the Congressional Budget Office predicts Medicare coverage will increase 18%, Medicaid and CHIP by 0% and employer-based coverage will increase 3.0% to 169 million. For some in the industry, that justifies seating Medicare on the front row for attention. And, for many, it justifies leaving employers on the back bench since the working age population use hospitals, physicians and prescription meds less than seniors.
Last week, the Business Group on Health released its 2025 forecast for employer health costs based on responses from 125 primarily large employers surveyed in June: Highlights:
- “Since 2022, the projected increase in health care trend, before plan design changes, rose from 6% in 2022, 7.2% in 2024 to almost 8% for 2025. Even after plan design changes, actual health care costs continued to grow at a rate exceeding pre-pandemic increases. These increases point toward a more than 50% increase in health care cost since 2017. Moreover, this health care inflation is expected to persist and, in light of the already high burden of medical costs on the plan and employees, employers are preparing to absorb much of the increase as they have done in recent years.”.
- Per BGH, the estimated total cost of care per employee in 2024 is $18,639, up $1,438 from 2023. The estimated out-of-pocket cost for employees in 2024 is $1,825 (9.8%), compared to $1,831 (10.6%) in 2023.
The prior week, global benefits firm Aon released its 2025 assessment based on data from 950 employers:
- “The average cost of employer-sponsored health care coverage in the U.S. is expected to increase 9.0% surpassing $16,000 per employee in 2025–higher than the 6.4% increase to health care budgets that employers experienced from 2023 to 2024 after cost savings strategies. “
- On average, the total health-plan cost for employers increased 5.8% to $14,823 per employee from 2023 to 2024: employer costs increased 6.4% to 80.7% of total while employee premiums increased 3.4% increase–both higher than averages from the prior five years, when employer budgets grew an average of 4.4% per year and employees averaged 1.2% per year.
- Employee contributions in 2024 were $4,858 for health care coverage, of which $2,867 is paid in the form of premiums from pay checks and $1,991 is paid through plan design features such as deductibles, co-pays and co-insurance.
- The rate of health care cost increases varies by industry: technology and communications industry have the highest average employer cost increase at 7.4%, while the public sector has the highest average employee cost increase at 6.7%. The health care industry has the lowest average change in employee contributions, with no material change from 2023: +5.8%
And in July, PWC’s Health Research Institute released its forecast based on interviews with 20 health plan actuaries. Highlights:
- “PwC’s Health Research Institute (HRI) is projecting an 8% year-on-year medical cost trend in 2025 for the Group market and 7.5% for the Individual market. This near-record trend is driven by inflationary pressure, prescription drug spending and behavioral health utilization. The same inflationary pressure the healthcare industry has felt since 2022 is expected to persist into 2025, as providers look for margin growth and work to recoup rising operating expenses through health plan contracts. The costs of GLP-1 drugs are on a rising trajectory that impacts overall medical costs. Innovation in prescription drugs for chronic conditions and increasing use of behavioral health services are reaching a tipping point that will likely drive further cost inflation.”
Despite different methodologies, all three analyses conclude that employer health costs next year will increase 8-9%– well-above the Congressional Budget Office’ 2025 projected inflation rate (2.2%), GDP growth (2.4% and wage growth (2.0%). And it’s the largest one-year increase since 2017 coming at a delicate time for employers worried already about interest rates, workforce availability and the political landscape.
For employers, the playbook has been relatively straightforward: control health costs through benefits designs that drive smarter purchases and eliminate unnecessary services. Narrow networks, price transparency, on-site/near-site primary care, restrictive formularies, value-based design, risk-sharing contracts with insurers and more have become staples for employers.
But this playbook is not working for employers: the intrinsic economics of supply-driven demand and its regulated protections mitigate otherwise effective ways to lower their costs while improving care for their employees and families.
My take:
Last week, I reviewed the healthcare advocacy platforms for the leading trade groups that represent employers in DC and statehouses to see what they’re saying about their take on the healthcare industry and how they’re leaning on employee health benefits. My review included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federal of Independent Businesses, Business Roundtable, National Alliance of Purchaser Coalitions, Purchaser Business Group on Health, American Benefits Council, Self-Insurance Institute of America and the National Association of Manufacturers.
What I found was amazing unanimity around 6 themes:
- Providing health benefits to employees is important to employers. Protecting their tax exemptions, opposing government mandates, and advocating against disruptive regulations that constrain employer-employee relationships are key.
- Healthcare affordability is an issue to employers and to their employees, All see increasing insurance premiums, benefits design changes, surprise bills, opaque pricing, and employee out-of-pocket cost obligations as problems.
- All believe their members unwillingly subsidize the system paying 1.6-2.5 times more than what Medicare pays for the same services. They think the majority of profits made by drug companies, hospitals, physicians, device makers and insurers are the direct result of their overpayments and price gauging.
- All think the system is wasteful, inefficient and self-serving. Profits in healthcare are protected by regulatory protections that disable competition and consumer choices.
- All think fee-for-service incentives should be replaced by value-based purchasing.
- And all are worried about the obesity epidemic (123 million Americans) and its costs-especially the high-priced drugs used in its treatment. It’s the near and present danger on every employer’s list of concerns.
This consensus among employers and their advocates is a force to be reckoned. It is not the same voice as health insurers: their complicity in the system’s issues of affordability and accountability is recognized by employers. Nor is it a voice of revolution: transformational changes employers seek are fixes to a private system involving incentives, price transparency, competition, consumerism and more.
Employers have been seated on healthcare’s back bench since the birth of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965. Congress argues about Medicare and Medicaid funding and its use. Hospitals complain about Medicare underpayments while marking up what’s charged employers to make up the difference. Drug companies use a complicated scheme of patents, approvals and distribution schemes to price their products at will presuming employers will go along. Employers watched but from the back row.
As a new administration is seated in the White House next year regardless of the winner, what’s certain is healthcare will get more attention, and alongside the role played by employers. Inequities based on income, age and location in the current employer-sponsored system will be exposed. The epidemic of obesity and un-attended demand for mental health will be addressed early on. Concepts of competition, consumer choice, value and price transparency will be re-defined and refreshed. And employers will be on the front row to make sure they are.
For employers, it’s crunch time: managing through the pandemic presented unusual challenges but the biggest is ahead. Of the 18 benefits accounted as part of total compensation, employee health insurance coverage is one of the 3 most expensive (along with paid leave and Social Security) and is the fastest growing cost for employers. Little wonder, employers are moving from the back bench to the front row.
Two less-obvious ways the Fed made mortgages pricier
Data: Federal Reserve; Chart: Axios Visuals
The Federal Reserve has pushed mortgage rates higher not just through its much-discussed interest rate policy decisions, but through two less widely understood channels, a new paper argues.
Why it matters:
Since 2022, high mortgage rates have made homebuying an expensive endeavor for would-be borrowers and created dysfunction in the housing market.
The big picture:
But mortgage rates have risen substantially higher than justified by the Fed’s rate hikes alone. That’s thanks in part to a double whammy of two other factors:
- Quantitative tightening has meant the Fed withdrawing billions from the mortgage market.
- Higher rates have led banks to do the same as they have lost deposits, says the paper presented by New York University economist Philipp Schnabl on Saturday at the Kansas City Fed’s annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
How it works:
As the Fed looked to stimulate the economy at the onset of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, it began buying mortgage-backed securities (MBS) on massive scale as part of its quantitative easing program, essentially funneling cash to homebuyers. Its stockpile of MBS rose from $1.4 trillion in March 2020 to $2.7 trillion at the peak.
- Its reversal, part of the Fed’s fight against inflation, has so far drained those holdings by about $400 billion.
- Meanwhile, in 2021, consumers’ rapid accumulation of pandemic savings swelled bank deposits, and banks — needing to deploy those funds — ramped up their own mortgage lending and purchases of MBS. But as rates rose, deposits reversed as depositors had better options in Treasury bills and money market mutual funds.
The intrigue:
As the Fed tightened policy to fight inflation starting in 2022, it raised its short-term interest rate target, which also led longer-term Treasury bond yields to rise. But the mortgage rates available to consumers rose by even more.
- The spread between the 10-year Treasury yield and average consumer mortgage rate was a mere 1.5% in May 2021, but nearly twice as large, 2.9%, in 2023.
- In other words, homebuyers got hit harder by monetary tightening than the U.S. government. The new paper helps explain why.
What they’re saying:
“Banks and the Fed bought enormous quantities of mortgages during 2020–21, causing mortgage rates to decline drastically,” write the authors, Itamar Drechsler, Alexi Savov, Schnabl and Dominik Supera.
- “When monetary policy reversed course, banks and the Fed cut back their mortgage holdings, causing mortgage rates to rise and the mortgage spread to widen,” they write. “Monetary policy thus had an outsized impact on mortgage rates.”
The hospital finance misconception plaguing C-suites
Health systems have a big challenge: rising costs and reimbursement that doesn’t keep up with inflation. The amount spent on healthcare annually continues to rise while outcomes aren’t meaningfully better.
Some people outside of the industry wonder: Why doesn’t healthcare just act more like other businesses?
“There seems to be a widely held belief that healthcare providers respond the same as all other businesses that face rising costs,” said Cliff Megerian, MD, CEO of University Hospitals in Cleveland. “That is absolutely not true. Unlike other businesses, hospitals and health systems cannot simply adjust prices in response to inflation due to pre-negotiated rates and government mandated pay structures. Instead, we are continually innovating approaches to population health, efficiency and cost management, ensuring that we maintain delivery of high quality care to our patients.”
Nonprofit hospitals are also responsible for serving all patients regardless of ability to pay, and University Hospitals is among the health systems distinguished as a best regional hospital for equitable access to care by U.S. News & World Report.
“This commitment necessitates additional efforts to ensure equitable access to healthcare services, which inherently also changes our payer mix by design,” said Dr. Megerian. “Serving an under-resourced patient base, including a significant number of Medicaid, underinsured and uninsured individuals, requires us to balance financial constraints with our ethical obligations to provide the highest quality care to everyone.”
Hospitals need adequate reimbursement to continue providing services while also staffing the hospital appropriately. Many hospitals and health systems have been in tense negotiations with insurers in the last 24 months for increased pay rates to cover rising costs.
“Without appropriate adjustments, nonprofit healthcare providers may struggle to maintain the high standards of care that patients deserve, especially when serving vulnerable populations,” said Dr. Megerian. “Ensuring fair reimbursement rates supports our nonprofit industry’s aim to deliver equitable, high quality healthcare to all while preserving the integrity of our health systems.”
Industry outsiders often seek free market dynamics in healthcare as the “fix” for an expensive and complicated system. But leaving healthcare up to the normal ebbs and flows of businesses would exclude a large portion of the population from services. Competition may lead to service cuts and hospital closures as well, which devastates communities.
“A misconception is that the marketplace and utilization of competitive business model will fix all that ails the American healthcare system,”
said Scot Nygaard, MD, COO of Lee Health in Ft. Myers and Cape Coral, Fla.
“Is healthcare really a marketplace, in which the forces of competition will solve for many of the complex problems we face, such as healthcare disparities, cost effective care, more uniform and predictive quality and safety outcomes, mental health access, professional caregiver workforce supply?”
Without comprehensive reform at the state or federal level, many health systems have been left to make small changes hoping to yield different results. But, Dr. Nygaard said, the “evidence year after year suggests that this approach is not successful and yet we fear major reform despite the outcomes.”
The dearth of outside companies trying to enter the healthcare space hasn’t helped. People now expect healthcare providers to function like Amazon or Walmart without understanding the unique complexities of the industry.
“Unlike retail, healthcare involves navigating intricate regulations, providing deeply personal patient interactions and building sustained trust,” said Andreia de Lima, MD, chief medical officer of Cayuga Health System in Ithaca, N.Y. “Even giants like Walmart found it challenging to make primary care profitable due to high operating costs and complex reimbursement systems. Success in healthcare requires more than efficiency; it demands a deep understanding of patient care, ethical standards and the unpredictable nature of human health.”
So what can be done?
Tracea Saraliev, a board member for Dominican Hospital Santa Cruz (Calif.) and PIH Health said leaders need to increase efforts to simplify and improve healthcare economics.
“Despite increased ownership of healthcare by consumers, the economics of healthcare remain largely misunderstood,” said Ms. Saraliev. “For example, consumers erroneously believe that they always pay less for care with health insurance. However, a patient can pay more for healthcare with insurance than without as a result of the negotiated arrangements hospitals have with insurance companies and the deductibles of their policy.”
There is also a variation in cost based on the provider, and even with financial transparency it’s a challenge to provide an accurate assessment for the cost of care before services. Global pricing and other value-based care methods streamline the price, but healthcare providers need great data to benefit from the arrangements.
Based on payer mix, geographic location and contracted reimbursement rates, some health systems are able to thrive while others struggle to stay afloat. The variation mystifies some people outside of the industry.
“Healthcare economics very much remains paradoxical to even the most savvy of consumers,” said Ms. Saraliev.
Senator urges Pennsylvania AG to intervene in Crozer sale
Pennsylvania state Sen. Tim Kearney has raised concerns about the lack of transparency and details around the planned sale of Upland, Pa.-based Crozer Health and has called on the state attorney general to step in and conduct a thorough analysis of the deal, the Daily Times reported Aug. 22.
Earlier this month, Los Angeles-based Prospect Medical Holdings and CHA Partners signed a letter of intent for CHA to acquire Crozer. The proposed deal would involve transitioning Crozer’s four hospitals back to nonprofit status.
“Prospect’s proposed sale of Crozer to CHA Partners LLC exemplifies the need for state oversight of hospital sales, as both entities appear to have histories of burning public partners despite demanding hefty subsidies,” Mr. Kearney said in a statement shared with Becker’s.
Unlike many other states, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General lacks statutory authority to deeply evaluate these deals, according to Mr. Kearney.
“While the AG’s legal settlement with Prospect gives them some oversight of this deal, the legislature needs to provide the AG with greater authority to protect hospitals and the communities that depend on them,” he said. “If the choice is CHA or closure, then we need some assurances that they will be a responsible organization and not just a profiteering speculator.”
Prospect, a for-profit company, plans to sell nine of its 16 hospitals in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Connecticut and is also being investigated by the Justice Department for alleged violations of the False Claims Act. A spokesperson for Prospect told Becker’s the system will continue to cooperate with the investigation, but feels that the allegations have no merit.
CHA did not respond to Becker’s request for comment.
The hottest market for hospital M&A
Hospital consolidation continues to gather momentum across the country, with one state in particular, Pennsylvania, seeing more merger and acquisition activity than any other.
Here are seven hospital and health system deals announced or completed in Pennsylvania so far this year:
1. Risant Health, part of Kaiser Permanente, acquired Danville, Pa.-based Geisinger Health, a 10-hospital system, on March 31. Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser said Risant plans to acquire four to five more community-based health systems over the next four to five years.
2. Washington (Pa.) Health, a two-hospital system, joined Pittsburgh-based UPMC in June. UPMC will invest at least $300 million over the next 10 years to improve services at the two hospitals, which have been rebranded as UPMC Washington and UPMC Greene hospitals.
3. WellSpan Health acquired Lewisburg, Pa.-based Evangelical Community Hospital, effective July 8. York, Pa.-based WellSpan now includes eight hospitals and more than 21,000 team members, including 2,000 employed providers.
4. Philadelphia-based Jefferson Health and Allentown, Pa.-based Lehigh Valley Health Network merged Aug. 1. The combination created one of the 15 largest nonprofit health systems in the U.S., with 32 hospitals and more than 700 sites of care.
5. Doylestown (Pa.) Health and Philadelphia-based University of Pennsylvania Health System in August signed a definitive agreement for Doylestown to become part of Penn Medicine, a six-hospital system. Pending final federal and state approvals, the systems aim to integrate clinical care and operations by early 2025
6. Franklin, Tenn.-based Community Health Systems plans to sell its three Pennsylvania hospitals to nonprofit organization WoodBridge Healthcare. The $120 million deal is anticipated to close in the fourth quarter.
7. Los Angeles-based Prospect Medical Holdings and CHA Partners signed a letter of intent in August for CHA to acquire Upland, Pa.-based Crozer Health. The proposed deal would involve transitioning Crozer’s four hospitals back to nonprofit status. CHA, which owns five hospitals in New Jersey, is working to reach a definitive agreement for the acquisition of Crozer.
67 health systems with strong finances
Here are 67 health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to reports from credit rating agencies Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service released in 2024.
AdventHealth has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating is based on the Altamonte Springs, Fla.-based system’s competitive market position—especially in its core Florida markets—and its financial profile, Fitch said.
Advocate Health members Advocate Aurora Health and Atrium Health have “Aa3” ratings and positive outlooks with Moody’s. The ratings are supported by the Charlotte, N.C.-based system’s significant scale, strong market share across several major metro areas, and good financial performance and liquidity, Moody’s said.
AnMed Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Anderson, S.C.-based system’s strong and stable operating performance and leading market position in a sound service area, Fitch said.
Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating is supported by the system’s strong balance sheet with low leverage ratios derived from modest debt, Fitch said.
Atlantic Health System has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Morristown, N.J.-based system’s fundamental strengths, including strong operating performance with high single digit operating cash flow margins and favorable liquidity of over 300 days cash on hand, Moody’s said.
Avera Health has an “AA-” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Sioux Falls, S.D.-based system’s strong operating risk and financial profile assessments, and significant size and scale, Fitch said.
BayCare Health System has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Clearwater, Fla.-based system on June 30 moved to a new corporate legal structure, replacing a joint operating agreement between multiple hospitals that were responsible for the creation of BayCare in 1997. Fitch views the dissolution of the JOA and the move to the new structure as a credit positive.
Beacon Health System has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. Fitch said the rating reflects the strength of the South Bend, Ind.-based system’s balance sheet.
Bon Secours Mercy Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Cincinnati-based system has a favorable and stable payor mix, leading or secondary market share position in nine of its 11 U.S. markets with improving market share positions in eight, and adequate cash flows to support the system’s strategic plans, Fitch said.
BJC Health System has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The St. Louis-based system reflects its reputation as a leading academic medical center with a long-standing affiliation with Washington University School of Medicine, Moody’s said.
Carle Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Urbana, Ill.-based system’s distinctly leading market position over a broad service area and Fitch’s expectation that the system will sustain its strong capital-related ratios in the context of the system’s midrange revenue defensibility and strong operating risk profile assessments.
Carilion Clinic has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Roanoke, Va.-based system’s scale, regional significance as a tertiary referral system with broad geographic capture, and a highly integrated physician base with a well-defined culture, Moody’s said.
Cedars-Sinai Health System has an “AA-” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Los Angeles-based system’s consistent historical profitability and its strong liquidity metrics, historically supported by significant philanthropy, Fitch said.
Children’s Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Dallas-based system’s continued strong performance from a focus on high margin and tertiary services, as well as a distinctly leading market share, Moody’s said.
Children’s Hospital Medical Center of Akron (Ohio) has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the system’s large primary care physician network, long-term collaborations with regional hospitals, and leading market position as its market’s only dedicated pediatric provider, Moody’s said.
Children’s Hospital of Orange County has an “AA-” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Orange, Calif.-based system’s position as the leading provider for pediatric acute care services in Orange County, a position solidified through its adult hospital and regional partnerships, ambulatory presence, and pediatric trauma status, Fitch said.
Children’s Minnesota has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Minneapolis-based system’s strong balance sheet, robust liquidity position, and dominant pediatric market position, Fitch said.
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating is supported by its national and international reputation in clinical services and research, Moody’s said.
Cleveland Clinic has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the system’s strength as an international brand in highly complex clinical care and research and centralized governance model, the ratings agency said.
Cook Children’s Medical Center has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The ratings agency said the Fort Worth, Texas-based system will benefit from revenue diversification through its sizable health plan, large physician group, and an expanding North Texas footprint.
Corewell Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Grand Rapids and Southfield, Mich.-based system’s significant scale as a provider and payer in Michigan, Moody’s said. The organization also has good and stable financial performance and liquidity.
El Camino Health has an “AA” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Mountain View, Calif.-based system’s strong operating profile assessment with a history of generating double-digit operating EBITDA margins anchored by a service area that features strong demographics as well as a healthy payer mix, Fitch said.
Froedtert ThedaCare Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Milwaukee-based system’s solid market position, track record of strong utilization and operations, and strong financial profile, Fitch said.
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Newport Beach, Calif.-based system’s rating is supported by its strong operating risk assessment, leading market position in its immediate service area, and strong financial profile, Fitch said.
Holland (Mich.) Hospital has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects Holland Hospital’s stable and strong liquidity and capital-related metrics despite sector-wide operating pressures, Fitch said.
Indiana University Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Indianapolis-based health system’s sustained track record of strong operating margins, ratings agency said.
Inova Health System has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The Falls Church, Va.-based system’s rating is anchored by its role as one of the largest health systems in Virginia with a leading market position in a rapidly growing region with unusually high commercial business, Moody’s said.
Inspira Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects Fitch’s expectation that the Mullica Hill, N.J.-based system will return to strong operating cash flows following the operating challenges of 2022 and 2023, as well as the successful integration of Inspira Medical Center of Mannington (formerly Salem Medical Center).
JPS Health Network has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Fort Worth, Texas-based system’s sound historical and forecast operating margins, the ratings agency said.
Kaiser Permanente has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Oakland, Calif.-based system’s rating is driven by its strong financial profile, bolstered by a large and diversified revenue base, Fitch said.
Mass General Brigham has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Somerville, Mass.-based system’s strong reputation for clinical services and research at its namesake academic medical center flagships that drive excellent patient demand and help it maintain a strong market position, Moody’s said.
Mayo Clinic has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Rochester, Minn.-based system’s preeminent reputation for clinical care and research, including new discoveries and cutting-edge treatment, Moody’s said.
McLaren Health Care has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Grand Blanc, Mich.-based system’s leading market position over a broad service area covering much of Michigan, the ratings agency said.
McLeod Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Florence, S.C.-based system maintains a leading and growing market position in its primary service area and is expanding the Carolina’s Forest campus in an area that is expected to experience rapid growth over the coming years, Fitch said.
Med Center Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Bowling Green, Ky.-based system’s strong operating risk assessment and leading market position in a primary service area with favorable population growth, Fitch said.
Memorial Healthcare System has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. Moody’s said the rating reflects that the Hollywood, Fla.-based system will continue to benefit from good strategic positioning of its large, diversified geographic footprint.
Memorial Hermann Health System has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Houston-based system’s leading and expanding market position and strong demand in a growing region, Moody’s said.
Methodist Health System has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. Moody’s said the rating reflects the Dallas-based system’s consistently strong operating performance, excellent liquidity, and very good market position.
Monument Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The ratings agency said the Rapid City, S.D.-based system has a dominant inpatient market position as the leading acute care provider in its geographically broad primary service area
Nationwide Children’s Hospital has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Columbus, Ohio-based system’s strong market position in pediatric services, growing statewide and national reputation, and continued expansion strategies.
Nicklaus Children’s Hospital has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating is supported by the Miami-based system’s position as the “premier pediatric hospital in South Florida with a leading and growing market share,” Fitch said.
North Mississippi Health Services has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Tupelo-based system’s strong cash position and strong market position with a leading market share in its primary services area, Fitch said.
Northwestern Memorial HealthCare has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Chicago-based system’s growing market position, single operating model and financial discipline, Moody’s said.
Novant Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The ratings agency said the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based system’s recent acquisition of three South Carolina hospitals from Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare will be accretive to its operating performance as the hospitals are highly profited and located in areas with growing populations and good income levels.
Oregon Health & Science University has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Portland-based system’s top-class academic, research, and clinical capabilities, Moody’s said.
Orlando (Fla.) Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the health system’s strong and consistent operating performance and a growing presence in a demographically favorable market, Fitch said.
Parkland Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects Fitch’s expectation that the Dallas-based system will remain the leading provider of public (safety net) services in the vast Dallas County service area, supported by its tax levy.
Phoenix Children’s has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the system’s strong cash flow generation that has significantly improved its balance sheet in recent years, Fitch said.
Presbyterian Healthcare Services has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Albuquerque, N.M.-based system’s rating is driven by a strong financial profile combined with a leading market position with broad coverage in both acute care services and health plan operations, Fitch said.
Rady Children’s Hospital has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The San Diego-based system’s rating reflects its well-established strengths, including an “extremely high” market share in all of San Diego County, Moody’s said.
Rush University System for Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Chicago-based system’s strong financial profile and an expectation that operating margins will rebound despite ongoing macro labor pressures, the rating agency said.
Saint Francis Healthcare System has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Cape Girardeau, Mo.-based system’s strong financial profile, characterized by robust liquidity metrics, Fitch said.
Saint Luke’s Health System has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The Kansas City, Mo.-based system’s rating was upgraded from “A1” after its merger with St. Louis-based BJC HealthCare was completed in January.
Salem (Ore.) Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the system’s dominant marketing position in a stable service area with good population growth and demand for acute care services, Fitch said.
Sarasota (Fla.) Memorial Health Care System has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the system’s leading market position in a growing service area, robust historical operating cash flow levels and strong liquidity position, Fitch said.
Seattle Children’s Hospital has an “AA” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the system’s strong market position as the only children’s hospital in Seattle and provider of pediatric care to an area that covers four states, Fitch said.
SSM Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The St. Louis-based system’s rating is supported by a strong financial profile, multistate presence and scale with good revenue diversity, Fitch said.
St. Elizabeth Medical Center has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Edgewood, Ky.-based system’s strong liquidity, leading market position, and strong financial management, Fitch said.
St. Tammany Parish Hospital has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Covington, La.-based system has a strong operating risk assessment and very strong financial profile supported by consistently robust operating cash flows, Fitch said.
Stanford Health Care has an “Aa3” rating and positive outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Palo Alto, Calif.-based system’s clinical prominence, patient demand, and its location in an affluent and well-insured market, Moody’s said.
UChicago Medicine has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the system’s strong financial profile in the context of its broad and growing reach for high-acuity services, Fitch said.
University Health has an “AA+” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The San Antonio-based system’s outlook is based on the Bexar County Hospital District’s significant tax margin, good cost management, and strong leverage position relative to its liquidity and outstanding debt.
University of Colorado Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Aurora-based system’s rating reflects a strong financial profile benefiting from a track record of robust operating margins and the system’s growing share of a growth market anchored by its position as the only academic medical center in the state, Fitch said.
University of Kansas Health System has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects Kansas City-based system’s flagship hospital’s important presence as the only academic medical center in Kansas and a major provider of many high end and unique services to a large geographic area, Fitch said.
UW Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Madison, Wis.-based system’s strong clinical reputation, high acuity services, and important role as the academic medical center affiliated with the state’s flagship public university, Moody’s said.
VCU Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Richmond, Va.-based system’s status as one of Virginia’s leading academic medical centers and essential role as its largest safety net provider, supporting excellent patient demand at high acuity levels, Moody’s said.
Willis-Knighton Medical Center has an “AA-” rating and positive outlook with Fitch. The outlook reflects the Shreveport, La.-based system’s improving operating performance relative to the past two fiscal years combined with Fitch’s expectation for continued improvement in 2024 and beyond.
Cartoon – Modern Turnaround
CMS: Negotiated drug prices would have saved Medicare $6B last year
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services offered the first look at the potential savings generated by the first crop of Medicare drug price negotiations.
On Thursday morning, the agency released data that show if the negotiated prices for the first 10 drugs in the program had been available last year, it would have generated an estimated $6 billion in savings for Medicare. That’s savings of about 22% on those 10 products.
CMS will offer additional details on negotiations down the line, officials said on a call with reporters on Thursday, but they said the program led to price reductions of between 38% and 79% on the initial list of drugs.
On the highest end, negotiations led to a price decrease for Merck’s Januvia, a diabetes drug, from $527 for a 30-day supply to $113, down 79%. CMS said 843,000 Medicare beneficiaries took Januvia in 2023, with the drug accounting for nearly $4.1 billion in spending.
“Americans pay too much for their prescription drugs. That makes today’s announcement historic. For the first time ever, Medicare negotiated directly with drug companies and the American people are better off for it,” said U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra.
Here’s a look at savings for other drugs included in the program:
- Fiasp and NovoLog insulins (Novo Nordisk): Reduced the cost of a 30-day supply from $495 to $119, a decrease of 76%.
- Farxiga (AstraZeneca): List price for a 30-day supply decreased from $556 to $178.50, or 68%.
- Enbrel (Immunex Corporation): Cut the list price for a 30-day supply by 67% from $7,106 to $2,355.
- Jardiance (Boehringer Ingelheim): Reduced the cost of a 30-day supply by 66%, or from $573 to $197.
- Stelara (Janssen): The list price for a 30-day supply dropped from $13,836 to $4,695 or by 66%.
- Xarelto (Janssen): Lowered the cost for a 30-day supply by 62%, or from $517 to $197.
- Eliquis (Bristol Myers Squibb): The cost for a 30-day supply decreased from $521 to $231, or by 56%.
- Entresto (Novartis): Reduced the list price for a 30-day supply by 53%, or from $628 to $295.
- Imbruvica (Pharmacyclics): Decreased the cost for a 30-day supply from $14,934 to $9,319, or by 28%.
CMS sent the initial offers for the 10 drugs to the manufacturers on Feb. 1, and the companies had until March 2 to respond with a counteroffer. Then throughout the summer, the agency held meetings with the drugmakers to continue negotiations, before sending final offers on July 15.
The negotiation period ended on Aug. 1 with a deal in place for all 10 drugs, CMS said.
The new prices will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026. CMS estimates that Medicare beneficiaries will see aggregate savings of $1.5 billion in their personal out-of-pocket costs in 2026.
Final cost savings can vary based on the enrollee’s specific plan, the agency said.
CMS said it will select up to 15 additional drugs for negotiation in 2027, and the list will be announced by Feb. 1, 2025.
Reaction rolls in
Multiple lawmakers praised CMS and the efforts to reduce drug prices in statements Thursday.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who chairs the Finance Committee, said that Medicare used “the bargaining power of tens of millions of American seniors to fight Big Pharma for lower drug prices.”
“These new, lower prices for prescription drugs in Medicare means seniors save money at the pharmacy counter and marks the first step in a seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, taxpayers, and seniors who need affordable prescription drugs,” Wyden said.
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who is the ranking Democrat on the House Energy & Commerce Committee, said that the negotiations will lead to $101 million in savings for seniors living in the Garden State.
Pallone also helped to co-write the Inflation Reduction Act, which gave Medicare the power to negotiate with drug companies.
“This is a historic day for New Jersey and the nation. After more than two decades of fighting, we have finally empowered Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for our seniors,” said Pallone. “This milestone is especially meaningful for New Jersey, where many seniors rely on Medicare for their life-saving medications.”
Reactions, however, were not universally positive. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) CEO Steve Ubl said in a statement Wednesday that regulators won’t be able to achieve their ultimate goal as the negotiation program does not take aim at pharmacy benefit managers.
Ubl also said that the IRA “fundamentally alters” the incentives drugmakers have in researching and developing new products and therapies. He said companies are already making changes to their R&D programs in response.
“The administration is using the IRA’s price-setting scheme to drive political headlines, but patients will be disappointed when they find out what it means for them,” Ubl said. “There are no assurances patients will see lower out-of-pocket costs because the law did nothing to rein in abuses by insurance companies and PBMs who ultimately decide what medicines are covered and what patients pay at the pharmacy.”
“As a result of the IRA, there are fewer Part D plans to choose from and premiums are going up,” he continued.” Meanwhile, insurers and PBMs are covering fewer medicines and say they intend to impose further coverage restrictions as the price-setting scheme is implemented.”
The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which represents PBMs, meanwhile, said that its analyses show that PBM negotiations have driven more significant discounts on six of the 10 drugs included in the program.
“While we share the Administration’s goal to reduce prescription drug costs for America’s seniors and to push back against the high prices set by drug manufacturers, the Administration has missed the mark by choosing several prescription drugs for which PBMs are already actively negotiating steep discounts that significantly lower costs for beneficiaries and taxpayers,” PCMA said.
“The key to reducing drug costs is to increase competition among manufacturers,” the organization said. “We encourage the Administration to focus on those drugs where a lack of competition is driving higher prices and higher costs, and to allow PBM negotiations to continue to deliver value and savings for Medicare.”
While the negotiation program takes more direct aim at drugmakers, PBMs are also under the microscope on the Hill. Lawmakers are mulling a slew of potential reforms to the industry, which critics argue is too concentrated, too opaque and too profit-driven at the expense of patients.
HENRY KOTULA 