Trinity Health Michigan is raising its minimum wage to $15 per hour for hospital and medical group employees, the organization announced in an Oct. 19 news release.
The wage increase will affect 2,100 full- and part-time employees at Norton Shores-based Mercy Health and Canton-based Saint Joseph Mercy Health System, and their medical groups, IHA, St. Joe’s Medical Group and Mercy Health Physician Partners.
Employees affected by the wage increase include non-union environmental services workers, medical assistants, patient companions, food and retail services and transporters.
Trinity Health Michigan officials said an additional 6,000 employees making between $15 to $19 an hour will also “have their wage adjusted in order to maintain meaningful distinctions in pay.” They said the additional wage increases are to improve pay for a large number of employees, and help retain and attract talented workers.
“Our dedicated and compassionate employees are at the heart of what makes our health ministry remarkable,” Rob Casalou, president and CEO of Trinity Health Michigan, said in a statement. “As we continue to face the COVID pandemic and work together to address economic challenges, we want to recognize our employees whose commitment and talent have enabled us to care for our communities during this challenging time. These investments in our people are part of an overall philosophy to offer equitable and market-competitive pay and benefits for our staff, as together we build a strong future.”
Trinity Health Michigan officials said eligible employees are still slated to receive their annual wage increases for 2020-2021, and no increases are planned in medical health plan premium contributions for employees for 2021. Additionally, they said the base minimum of the employer’s core contributions will climb from $1,200 to $1,400 for calendar year 2021.
Mercy Health and Saint Joseph Mercy Health System are part of Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health’s Michigan region. Mercy Health serves the Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Shelby and the Lakeshore communities, and Saint Joseph Mercy Health System has hospitals in Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Howell, Livonia and Pontiac, according to Trinity Health’s website.
In a court filing, Einstein Healthcare Network warned that a move by the Federal Trade Commission to block its merger with Jefferson Health could lead to a “death spiral” at its Philadelphia flagship safety-net hospital, according to the Philadelphia Business Journal.
In court documents opposing an FTC analysis of the merger, Einstein said that its financial condition has deteriorated since 2017, resulting in operating losses averaging about $30 million per year.
Einstein said it will incur even greater losses, largely because of the challenging payer mix and large underinsured or uninsured population of its flagship Philadelphia medical center.
Without a merger, “Einstein [would have to] dramatically cut its services at Einstein Medical Center Philadelphia, leading to job losses and even further reductions in maintenance and needed investment, precipitating a ‘death spiral’ that would jeopardize access to health care for many of Philadelphia’s underserved residents,” Einstein wrote in the documents, according to the Philadelphia Business Journal.
The FTC announced in February its intent to sue to block the proposed merger, arguing that combining the two systems would reduce competition in Philadelphia and Montgomery counties.
“Jefferson and Einstein have a history of competing against each other to improve quality and service,” the FTC said in February. “The proposed merger would eliminate the robust competition between Jefferson and Einstein for inclusion in health insurance companies’ hospital networks to the detriment of patients.”
Einstein and Jefferson Health countered that a combined system still would face competition from other hospitals and operate in a challenging market dominated by one healthcare insurer, according to the report.
Here are nine hospitals and health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to reports from Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings.
1. St. Louis-based Ascension has an “AA+” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The system has a strong financial profile and a significant presence in several key markets, Fitch said. The credit rating agency expects Ascension will continue to produce healthy operating margins.
2. Phoenix-based Banner Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch and S&P. Banner’s financial profile is strong, even taking into consideration the market volatility that occurred in the first quarter of this year, Fitch said. The credit rating agency expects the system to continue to improve operating margins and to generate cash flow sufficient to sustain strong key financial metrics.
3. Cincinnati-based Bon Secours Mercy Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has a good payer mix, a leading position in several of its markets and adequate margins to support its growth, Fitch said. The credit rating agency expects the system to maintain strong operating profitability.
4. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s and an “AA” rating and stable outlook with S&P. The hospital has a strong market position and healthy liquidity, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects CHOP’s market position and brand equity will support its recovery from disruption caused by COVID-19.
5. Milwaukee-based Children’s Wisconsin has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s and an “AA” rating and stable outlook with S&P. The health system has strong cash flow margins, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects the health system’s financial performance to remain solid, given its commanding market presence and demand for services.
6. Philadelphia-based Main Line Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The credit rating agency expects the system’s operations to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic and for it to resume its track record of strong operating cash flow margins.
7. Midland-based MidMichigan Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The system has generated healthy operational levels through fiscal year 2020, and Fitch expects it to continue generating strong cash flow.
8. Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Children’s Hospital has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The system has a strong market position in pediatric services in Columbus and the broad central Ohio region, and its advanced research capabilities will support volume recovery from disruption caused by COVID-19, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects Nationwide Children’s margins to remain strong and for cost management initiatives and volume recovery to drive improvements.
9. Chicago-based Northwestern Memorial HealthCare has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system had strong pre-COVID margins and liquidity, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects the system to maintain strong operating cash flow margins.
The COVID-19 pandemic has increased pressures on an already-stressed public health care financing system. This is especially evident when it comes to the financial health of Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund, which finances health care services related to hospital, skilled nursing facility, and hospice stays for Medicare beneficiaries.
In April, using pre-COVID-19 data, the Trustees of Social Security and Medicare projected that the HI Trust Fund would become insolvent in 2026 — meaning that Medicare Part A claims submitted by providers would not be fully reimbursed. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) made a similar projection when it issued its March 2020 baseline projections. In a September 2020 report, the CBO projected that the date of insolvency had moved up to 2024.
The pandemic has disrupted economic activity in the United States in several ways: a large and rapid rise in unemployment substantially reduced payments to the Trust Fund from payroll taxes, and hospitals experienced unprecedented financial stress from lost revenues because of a dramatic drop in admissions and procedures, along with new costs arising from the pandemic. One way that Congress provided relief to address these economic shocks was to make advance payments. Between $65 billion and $92 billion in advance payments were made to Medicare Part A providers that draw upon the HI Trust Fund. This increased claims on the Trust Fund in 2020 and lowers them for 2021 — assuming they are paid back in 2021. Together these economic dynamics create a situation that requires quick action to prevent insolvency; the margin for error is small.
The duration of the pandemic and the timing and size of an economic recovery remain highly uncertain. While unemployment has declined notably, from 14.7 percent in April to 8.4 percent in August, new spikes in COVID-19 cases across the country continue to dampen economic activity. The recent jobs report also suggested a slowing of employment recovery. Further, there is great uncertainty about the timing, availability, and effectiveness of a potential vaccine. As a result, we are quite unsure when payroll tax revenues will recover or to what degree hospital finances will recover.
“The COVID-19 pandemic — like all pandemics — will come to an end. Of course, nobody knows when that will be. No one also knows whether there will be subsequent waves of the virus that trigger a nationwide resumption of strict social distancing protocols or whether a proven vaccine allows a swift return to pre-COVID norms. Thus, the trajectory of the recovery is the key unknown at this point.”
Together these forces create policy tensions. It is important to continue to support hospitals and nursing homes whose revenues have not yet recovered, and those that continue to incur unusual costs because they are still carrying heavy financial burdens stemming from COVID-19. At the same time state and federal health care financing programs are under extreme financial stress.
Recent legislation negotiated between Congress and the Trump administration would permit hospitals to request an extension for repaying advance payment loans and also reduce the interest rate. Together, these provisions recognize the continued financial stress and provide relief but also introduce new uncertainty. That is, by lengthening the repayment period and reducing the costs of carrying the loans it becomes less certain when they will be paid back in full and returned to the Trust Fund, making the solvency date of the Trust Fund less certain (as specified further in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidance). In addition, this assumes that the full amounts of the loan will be paid back.
The timing of the COVID-19 pandemic has been especially unfortunate in terms of maintaining the Medicare HI Trust Fund’s solvency. The Trustees issued a warning that action was needed when insolvency was estimated to occur in 2026; it has now been pushed up to 2024. One way to address the uncertainty would be to make a fund transfer from general revenues to the Trust Fund in the amount of the outstanding loans, thereby removing any additional uncertainty around timing of repayment. This could help mitigate risks in a world with highly uncertain economic and epidemiological forecasts but would risk further increasing federal spending during an economic downturn.
As the presidential election draws near, we reflect on the meaningful differences in health policy priorities and platforms between the two candidates, which we’ve described more fully in our recent blog series.
While similarities exist in some areas — most notably prescription drug pricing and proposals to control health care costs — the most striking differences between the positions taken by President Donald Trump and those of former Vice President Joe Biden are on safeguarding access to affordable health care coverage, advancing health equity for those who have been historically disadvantaged by the current system, and managing the novel coronavirus pandemic.
The importance of maintaining or expanding access to affordable health care in the midst of a pandemic cannot be understated. Going into the crisis, 30 million Americans lacked health coverage, with many more potentially at risk as a result of the current economic downturn. And even for many with coverage, costs are a barrier to receiving care. Moreover, despite efforts by Congress and the Trump administration to ease the financial burden of COVID-19 testing and treatment, many people remain concerned about costs; examples of charges for COVID-related medical expenses are not uncommon.
In this context, President Trump’s efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the most important signal of his position on health care. The administration’s legal challenge of the law will be considered by the Supreme Court this fall. With no Trump proposal for a replacement to the ACA, if the Court strikes the law in its entirety or in part, many voters cannot be certain that their health coverage will be secure. By undermining the ACA — the vast law that protects Americans with preexisting health conditions and makes health coverage more affordable through a system of premium subsidies and cost-sharing assistance — the president has put coverage for millions at risk.
Trump issued an executive order to preserve preexisting condition protections. If the ACA remains intact, the order is redundant. But if the ACA is repealed by the Court, the order is meaningless because it lacks the legal underpinning and legislative framework to take effect.
In contrast, Vice President Biden has proposed expanding coverage through the ACA by adding a public option, enhancing subsidies to make health care more affordable, filling the gap for low-income families living in states that did not expand Medicaid, and giving people with employer health plans the option to enroll in marketplace coverage and take advantage of premium subsidies. For sure, if Biden is elected, many policy details must be ironed out; passing legislation in a deeply divided Congress is never easy. Despite these challenges, Biden proposes expanding health coverage rather than revoking it.
Just as COVID-19 has exposed gaps in health coverage and affordability, it also has highlighted the poor health outcomes stemming from racial and ethnic inequities in the U.S. health system. Communities of color — Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native people — have higher rates of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths compared to white people. These disparities are a result of myriad factors, many of which are deeply rooted in structural racism. The candidates’ plans to address health disparities and advance health equity set them apart.
The ACA has played a critical role in reducing disparities in access to health care and narrowed the uninsured rate among Black and Hispanic people compared to white people. Medicaid expansion has been key to improving racial equity. Repealing the ACA, as President Trump has sought to do, would reverse these gains. Even beyond repealing the ACA, this administration has pursued policies intended to limit Medicaid eligibility — for example, by permitting states to impose work requirements and other restrictions that would lead to fewer people covered. These measures and others are already having an impact; coverage gains achieved through the ACA have eroded since 2016. Health care for legal immigrants also has declined as a result of policies like the recently finalized “public charge” rule, which seems also to have caused an increase in uninsurance among children. The administration has further revoked ACA antidiscrimination and civil rights protections for LGBTQ people.
In addition to restoring and expanding coverage under the ACA, Vice President Biden has pledged to address health disparities and reinstate antidiscrimination protections. He has a proposal to advance racial equity not just in health care but across the economy. If successful, his plan could address underlying factors contributing to higher rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths among people of color, as well as their higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, and other health conditions tied to social determinants of health.
Finally, the candidates differ deeply in their approaches to the coronavirus pandemic. President Trump has failed to orchestrate a national strategy for combating coronavirus and has routinely undermined accepted public health advice with respect to mask-wearing and social distancing. He has delegated to the states responsibility for controlling the pandemic when it is clear that the virus travels freely across the country, regardless of state borders. Lax states can negate the efforts of those states sacrificing to bring the pandemic under control. Vice President Biden has strongly signaled, though his personal conduct and rhetoric, that he intends more aggressive federal leadership in fighting the virus.
In a recent Commonwealth Fund survey of likely voters, control of the pandemic and covering preexisting conditions were very important factors in choosing a president. In seven battleground states, protections for preexisting conditions outweighed COVID-19 and health costs as the leading health care issue voters are considering. In all 10 battleground states included in the survey, Vice President Biden was viewed as the more likely candidate to address these critical health care issues.
Perhaps since the Civil War, the United States has never faced starker choices in a presidential election. In health and other areas, there are profound differences in the positions of President Trump and former Vice President Biden. Voting this November is literally a matter of life and death for the American people.
