Election 2020: Trump and Biden’s starkly diverging views on healthcare

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/presidential-election-2020-trump-biden-different-healthcare-policies-ACA-coronavirus/585184/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-10-01%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:29992%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Spoiler: the 2 nominees differ on almost everything.

President Donald Trump and Democrat nominee Joe Biden’s starkly contrasting views on healthcare were laid bare during this week’s chaotic debate. But some major industry executives noted at a recent conference they’ve done relatively well under Trump and could likely weather a Biden presidency, given his moderate stance and rejection of liberal dreams of “Medicare for All.”

The former vice president stresses incremental measures to shore up President Barack Obama’s landmark Affordable Care Act. Trump’s campaign website has no list of healthcare priorities, making his record even more relevant to attempts to forecast his future policies.

“I think a lot of the president’s second term agenda will be extensions of things he’s done in his first term,” Lanhee Chen, domestic policy director at Stanford University’s Public Policy program, said at AHIP in September.

Either way, the impact of whoever lands in the White House next year still matters for the industry’s future.

And 33 seats in the Senate are also up for grabs in November, complicating the outlook. Two scenarios would likely lead to health policy gridlock, according to analysts and DC experts: Trump wins regardless of Senate outcome, or Biden wins and Republicans maintain control of the Senate. A third scenario, where Biden wins and Democrats retake the Senate, would be the most negative for healthcare stocks, Jefferies analysts say, while the other two outcomes would be a net positive or mostly neutral.

Here’s a look at where the candidates stand on the biggest healthcare issues: the coronavirus pandemic, the Affordable Care Act, changes to Medicare and Medicaid and lowering skyrocketing healthcare costs.

COVID-19 response

Trump

Of all wealthy nations, the U.S. has been particularly unsuccessful in mitigating the pandemic. The U.S. makes up 4% of the global population, but accounted for 23% of all COVID-19 cases and 21% of all deaths as of early September.

Public health experts assign the majority of the blame to an uncoordinated federal response, with the president electing to take a largely hands-off approach to the virus that’s killed nearly 207,000 people in the U.S. to date. That backseat stance is unlikely to change if Trump is elected to a second term.

In March, Trump said a final COVID-19 death toll in the range of 100,000 to 200,000 Americans would mean he’s “done a very good job.”

Critics blame shortages of supplies like test materials, personal protective equipment and ventilators, especially in the crucial early days of the pandemic, on Trump’s approach. States and healthcare companies have also reported challenges with shifting federal guidelines on topics from risk of infection to hospital requirements for reporting COVID-19 caseloads.

Trump has also pushed unproven treatments for COVID-19, giving rise to concerns about political influence on traditionally nonpartisan agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

These concerns have colored Operation Warp Speed, the administration’s public-private partnership to fast-track viable vaccines. The operation received $10 billion in funds from Congress, but administration officials have also pulled $700 million from the CDC, even as top health officials face accusations of trying to manipulate CDC scientific research publications.

Fears that political motivations, not clinical rigor, are driving the historically speedy timeline could lower public trust in a vaccine once it’s eventually approved.

Trump has also repeatedly refused to endorse basic protections like widespread mask wearing, often eschewing the face covering himself in public appearances. He’s consistently downplayed the severity of the pandemic, saying it’ll go away on its own while suggesting falsely that rising COVID-19 cases were solely due to increased testing.

While Trump’s list of priorities for his second term include “eradicating COVID-19,” the plan is short on details. His most aggressive promise has been approval of a vaccine by the end of this year and creating all “critical medicines and supplies for healthcare workers” for a planned return to normal in 2021, along with refilling stockpiles to prepare for future pandemics.

Biden

Biden, for his part, would likely work to enact COVID-19 legislation and dramatically change the role of the federal government in pandemic response first thing if elected.

The Democratic candidate says he would re-assume primary responsibility for the pandemic. He plans to “dramatically scale up testing” and “giving states and local governments the resources they need to open schools and businesses safely,” per an August speech in Wilmington, Delaware.

Biden says he’d take a backseat to scientists and allow FDA to unilaterally make decisions on emergency authorizations and approvals.

The candidate supports reopening an ACA enrollment period for the uninsured, eliminating out-of-pocket costs for COVID-19 treatment, enacting additional pay and protective equipment for essential workers, increasing the federal match rate for Medicaid by at least 10%, covering COBRA with 100% premium subsidies during the emergency, expanding unemployment insurance and sick leave, reimbursing employers for sick leave and giving them tax credits for COVID-19 healthcare costs.

Trump opposes most of these measures, though he did sign COVID-19 relief legislation that upped the Medicaid match rate by 6.2% and extended the COBRA election period, though without subsidies.

Biden has said he’d be willing to use executive power for a national mask mandate, though ensuring compliance would be difficult. He’d also rejoin the World Health Organization, which Trump pulled the U.S. out of in May.

Affordable Care Act

Trump

On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order saying: “It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” But after the Republican repeal-and-replace effort floundered in 2017, the administration began steadily chipping away at key tenets of the decade-old law through regulatory avenues.

Trump has maintained he’ll protect the 150 million people with preexisting conditions in the U.S. But despite publicly promising a comprehensive replacement plan on the 2015 campaign trail (and at least five times this year alone), Trump has yet to make one public. The president did in September sign a largely symbolic executive order that it’s the stance of his administration to protect patients with preexisting conditions.

The president doesn’t mention the ACA in his list of second term priorities. The omission could have been intentional, as Trump is backing a Republican state-led lawsuit seeking to overturn the sweeping law, now pending in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and scheduled for oral arguments one week after the election.

The death of liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg puts the law in an even more precarious position.

And Trump’s health agencies have enacted myriad policies keeping the law from functioning as designed.

The president signed legislation zeroing out the individual mandate penalty requiring people to be insured in 2017. The same year, he ended cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers, suggesting that would cause the ACA to become “dead.” But the marketplace generally stabilized.

The administration has also increased access to skimpier but cheaper coverage that doesn’t have to comply with the 10 essential health benefits under the ACA. The short-term insurance plans widely discriminate against people with pre-existing health conditions, even as a growing number of Americans, facing rising healthcare costs, enrolled, according to a probe conducted by House Democrats this year.

Trump has also encouraged state waivers that promote non-ACA plans, cut funding for consumer enrollment assistance and outreach, shortened the open enrollment period and limited mid-year special enrollments.

​Despite his efforts, the ACA has grown in popularity among voters on both sides of the aisle, mostly due to provisions like shoring up pre-existing conditions and allowing young adults to stay on their parent’s insurance until age 26.

Biden

If elected, Biden would likely roll back Trump-era policies that allowed short-term insurance to proliferate, and restore funding for consumer outreach and assistance, political consultants say.

Building on the law is the linchpin of Biden’s healthcare plan. The nominee has pledged to increase marketplace subsidies to help more people afford ACA plans through a number of policy tweaks, including lowering the share of income subsidized households pay for their coverage; determining subsidies by setting the benchmark plan at the pricier “gold” level; and removing the current cap limiting subsidies to people making 400% of the federal poverty level or below.

Biden maintains as a result of these changes, no Americans would have to pay more than 8.5% of their annual income toward premiums. They could save millions of people hundreds of dollars a month, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis. Commercial payers mostly support these efforts, hoping they’ll stabilize the exchanges.

But a second prong of Biden’s health strategy is deeply unpopular with private insurers: the public option. Biden’s called for a Medicare-like alternative to commercial coverage, available to anyone, including people who can’t afford private coverage or those living in a state that hasn’t expanded Medicaid.

The rationale of the public plan is that it can directly negotiate prices with hospitals and other providers, lowering costs across the board. However, market clout will depend on enrollment, which is still to-be-determined.

Critics see the plan, which by Biden’s estimate would cost $750 billion over 10 years, as a down payment on Medicare for All. And the private sector worries it could threaten the very profitable healthcare industry, which makes up about a fifth of the U.S. economy.

Medicare

Trump

Neither Trump nor Biden supports Medicare for All, dashing the hopes of supporters of the sweeping insurance scheme for at least another four years.

“It has a pulse — it’s not dead — I just don’t see it happening in any near term,” John Cipriani, vice president at public affairs firm Global Strategy Group, said at AHIP.

Trump has promised to protect Medicare if elected to a second term, and it’s unlikely he’d make any major changes to the program’s structure or eligibility requirements, experts say.

But Medicare is quickly running out of money, and neither Trump nor Biden has issued a complete plan to ensure it survives beyond 2024. Political consultants think it’ll teeter right up to the edge of insolvency before lawmakers feel compelled to act.

The president’s administration has allowed Medicare to pay for telehealth and expanding supplemental benefits in privately run Medicare Advantage programs, efforts that would likely bleed into his second term — or Biden’s first, given general bipartisan support on both, experts say.

Under Trump, HHS did pass a site-neutral payment policy, cutting Medicare payments for hospital outpatient visits in a bid to save money. But Democratic lawmakers have argued Trump’s calls to get rid of the federal payroll tax, which partially funds Medicare, could throw the future of the cash-strapped program in jeopardy.

The president has also signed legislation experts say accelerated insolvency, including the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, which repealed the ACA’s Cadillac tax — a tax on job-based insurance premiums above a certain level.

Nixing that tax lowered payroll tax revenue, also dinging Medicare’s shrinking trust fund.

Trump’s proposed budget for the 2021 fiscal year floated culling about $450 billion in Medicare spending over a decade. And repealing the ACA would also nix provisions that closed the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole,” that added free coverage of preventive services and reduced spending to strengthen Medicare’s winnowing Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.

Biden

Biden has proposed lowering the Medicare age of eligibility to 60 years, with the option for people aged 60-64 to keep their coverage if they like it. The idea is popular politically, though providers oppose it, fearful of losing more lucrative commercial revenue.

It would make about 20 million more people eligible for the insurance, but could also add even more stress onto the program, experts say. Biden’s campaign says it would be financed separately from the current Medicare program, with dollars from regular tax revenues, and will reduce hospital costs.

Biden also says he’d add hearing, vision and dental benefits to Medicare.

Medicaid

Trump

Trump’s tenure has also been defined by repeated efforts to prune Medicaid. The president has consistently backed major cuts to the safety net insurance program, along with stricter rules for who can receive coverage. That’s likely to continue.

Republican lawmakers maintain the program costs too much and discourages low-income Americans from getting job-based coverage, and have enacted policies trying to privatize Medicaid. The Trump administration took a step toward a long-held conservative dream earlier this year, when CMS invited state waivers that would allow states to deviate from federal standards in program design and oversight, in exchange for capped funding.

So far, no states have enacted the block grants.

The administration also aggressively encouraged states to adopt work requirements, programs tying Medicaid coverage to work or volunteering hours. A handful of states followed suit, but all halted implementation or rolled back the idea following fierce public backlash and legal ramifications.

And repealing the ACA would ax Medicaid expansion, which saved some 20,000 lives between 2014 and 2017, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Biden

Biden, however, wants to preserve expansion, and would take a number of other steps to bolster the program, including increasing federal Medicaid funding for home- and community-based services. The roughly 4.8 million adults in states that elected not to expand Medicaid would be automatically enrolled into his public option, with no premium and full Medicaid benefits.

Additionally, states that have expanded Medicaid could elect to move their enrollees into the public option, with a maintenance-of-effort payment.

Lowering costs of drugs and services

Trump

Efforts to lower prescription drug costs have defined Trump’s healthcare agenda in his first term, and been a major talking point for the president. That’s more than likely to continue into a second term, experts say, despite a lack of results.

Trump did cap insulin costs for some Medicare enrollees, effective 2021. He also signed legislation in 2018 banning gag clauses preventing pharmacists from telling customers about cheaper options.

But despite fiery rhetoric and a litany of executive orders, Trump has made little if any concrete progress on actually lowering prices. One week into 2020, drugmakers had announced price hikes for almost 450 drugs, despite small price drops earlier in Trump’s tenure.

Trump has proposed several ideas either dropped later or challenged successfully by drugmakers in court, including allowing patients to import drugs from countries like Canada, banning rebates paid to pharmacy benefit manufacturers in Medicare and forcing drugmakers to disclose the list prices of drugs in TV ads.

The president has signed recent executive orders to lower costs largely viewed as pre-election gambits, including one tying drug prices in Medicare to other developed nations and another directing his agencies to end surprise billing. Implementation on both is months away. Trump has also promised to send Medicare beneficiaries $200 in drug discount cards before the election, an effort slammed as vote-buying that would cost Medicare at least $6.6 billion.

Both Trump and Biden support eliminating surprise bills but haven’t provided any details how. That “how” is important, as hospitals and payers support wildly different solutions.

Biden

Biden also has a long list​ of proposals to curb drug costs, including allowing the federal government to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers on behalf of Medicare and some other public and private purchasers, with prices capped at the level paid by other wealthy countries. Trump actually supported this proposal in his 2016 campaign, but quickly dropped it amid fierce opposition from drugmakers and free market Republican allies.

Biden would also cap out-of-pocket drug costs in Medicare Part D — but wouldn’t ban rebates, as of his current plan, allow consumers to import drugs (subject to safeguards) and eliminate tax breaks for drug advertising expenses.

He would also prohibit prices for all brand-name and some generic drugs from rising faster than inflation under Medicare and his novel public option. Biden would create a board to assess the value of new drugs and recommend a market-based price, in a model that’s shown some efficacy in other wealthy countries like Germany.

Both Biden and Trump say they support developing alternative payment models to lower costs. But they diverge on the role of competition versus transparency in making healthcare more affordable. In a rule currently being challenged in court, Trump’s HHS required hospitals to disclose private negotiated prices between hospitals and insurers, with the hope price transparency will allow consumers to shop between different care sites and shame companies into lowering their prices.

Biden, by comparison, says he would enforce antitrust laws to prevent anti-competitive healthcare consolidations, and other business practices that jack up spending. Trump has been mum on the role of M&A in driving healthcare costs, and inherited a complacent Federal Trade Commission that’s done little to reduce provider consolidation. Until a contentious hospital merger in February this year, the FTC hadn’t opposed a hospital merger since 2016.

 

 

 

 

FTC expands retrospective scrutiny of mergers

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/ftc-expands-retrospective-scrutiny-of-mergers.html?utm_medium=email

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Definition

The Federal Trade Commission is expanding its retrospective review of mergers and acquisitions, using data from before and after a deal to assess whether the transaction affected prices, quality and consumer choice. 

The FTC has retrospectively reviewed mergers since 1984. The two goals of the program are to understand whether the agency’s threshold for bringing an enforcement action in a merger case has been too permissive and to assess the performance of tools that FTC economists use to predict the effects of proposed mergers.

The expanded program means the agency will dedicate more time and resources to studying completed mergers, addressing antitrust questions that have not been extensively studied in previous years and expanding retrospective reviews to industries that have not been studied.

Compared to other industries, healthcare mergers have undergone extensive scrutiny under the retrospective review program, with eight studies since 2011. These retrospective analyses have proven influential to federal challenges of subsequent healthcare mergers: The FTC was able to challenge 13 hospital cases from 2008 to 2018.

As part of the expanded program, the FTC director of the bureau of economics will release an annual summary on lessons and findings from the retrospective studies.

 

 

 

 

Jefferson Health CFO walks back stance that Einstein is at risk without merger

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/jefferson-health-cfo-walks-back-stance-that-einstein-is-at-risk-without-merger.html?utm_medium=email

Jefferson Health Announces Partnership with Prepared Health to Coordinate  Care Transitions from Hospital to Home - Dina

Jefferson Health walked back its stance that Einstein Health Network’s flagship hospital is at risk of financial failure without a merger during the first day of arguments at a trial, according to Law360.

The Federal Trade Commission’s legal challenge to block the proposed merger of Einstein Healthcare Network and Jefferson Health started in court Sept. 14. The FTC argues that combining the two Philadelphia-based systems would reduce competition in the Philadelphia region and Montgomery County.

In response to the legal challenge, Jefferson Health and Einstein argued that the merger is a matter of survival for Einstein’s flagship hospital

The health systems argued that Einstein, which has only had annual operating profits twice since 2012, is on a path to financial failure without the deal and needs $500 million to invest in key capital projects and deferred maintenance. Further, the organizations said that without the infusion, Einstein will continue to weaken “as it is forced to cut services or close facilities.”

However, at day one of the trial, Jefferson Health CFO Peter DeAngelis conceded during arguments that Jefferson had no evidence that Einstein is in danger of insolvency, despite painting the finances as bleak, according to Law360. 

The hearing on the preliminary injunction is expected to last the entire week, but a decision won’t happen by the end of the week. An additional round of filings must be submitted by the FTC and the two health systems by Sept. 28. The judge overseeing the case hopes to issue a decision before Jan. 1, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. 

 

 

 

 

Einstein’s flagship hospital at risk without merger, Jefferson and Einstein say

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/einstein-s-flagship-hospital-at-risk-without-merger-jefferson-and-einstein-say.html?utm_medium=email

FTC says merger of Jefferson and Einstein would raise hospital prices 6.9%

The merger of Einstein Healthcare Network and Jefferson Health is a matter of survival for Einstein’s flagship hospital, the two Philadelphia systems argued in a federal court filing this week, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

The health systems are attempting to overcome opposition to their merger from the Pennsylvania attorney general and the Federal Trade Commission.

A Sept. 14 hearing is slated on the FTC’s preliminary injunction request. 

A court filing from the two health systems argued that Einstein, which has only had annual operating profits twice since 2012, is on a path to financial failure and needs $500 million to invest in key capital projects and deferred maintenance.

Without the infusion, Jefferson and Einstein said Einstein will continue to weaken “as it is forced to cut services or close facilities,” the Inquirer reported.

“Einstein was unable to identify any alternative buyer to Jefferson that possessed the financial strength and scale necessary to address Einstein’s financial problems,” the filing read, according to the Inquirer. “No other potential strategic partners were willing and able to commit to keep EMCP [Einstein Medical Center Philadelphia] open with its current set of services.”

The FTC announced in February its intent to sue to block the merger, arguing that combining the two systems would reduce competition in Philadelphia and Montgomery County.

“Jefferson and Einstein have a history of competing against each other to improve quality and service,” the FTC said in the February announcement. “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.”

The FTC said that with a combination, the two parties would own at least 60 percent of the inpatient general acute care service market around Philadelphia and at least 45 percent of that same market in Montgomery County.

 

 

 

Cartoon – Modern Health Policy

MSSNYeNews: October 18, 2019 - Foul Turns FairMSSNYeNews Surprise Medical  Bills -

Sutter posts $857M loss in H1 on investment, operational declines

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/sutter-posts-857m-loss-in-h1-on-investment-operational-declines/583910/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-08-21%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:29231%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

California's Sutter Health reaps rewards from investments in ...

Dive Brief:

  • Sutter Health had a staggering loss of $857 million in the first half of the year as the Northern California health was bruised by the pandemic. That’s almost a $1.4 billion drop in income compared to the first half of last year, a plummet Sutter management largely blamed on investment and operational losses in its latest financial filing posted Thursday.
  • The virus shuttered operations for a period of time, driving Sutter’s revenue down 8% to $6.1 billion during the first half of the year. Expenses climbed nearly 2%, contributing to an operating loss of $557 million.
  • Still, the nonprofit noted it did experience a significant rebound in its investments in the second quarter after weathering the devastating effects of the first quarter.

Dive Insight:

Sutter joins other major nonprofit health systems in posting net losses for the first half of the year despite receiving hundreds of millions in federal grants to help offset headwinds brought on by the pandemic.

Recently, both Renton, Washington-based Providence and Arizona-based Banner Health posted losses for the first half of the year — $538 million and $267 million, respectively. Dampened revenue and downturns in investments contributed to their losses.

The federal government has funneled billions of dollars to providers across the country in an attempt to help them weather the downturn in patient volumes. Sutter noted in its filing that it’s received $400 million in federal relief funds so far, though that wasn’t enough to push the health system back into the black. Sutter operates 29 hospitals and enjoys a large presence in Northern California.

Sutter reported fewer admissions and emergency room visits in the second quarter compared to the prior-year period, down about 10% and 19%, respectively.

The pandemic was quick to wreak havoc on Sutter’s finances during the first quarter, in which the system reported an operating loss of $236 million and a net loss of almost $1.1 billion.

The coronavirus is also serving as a drag on its ratings. In April, two of the three big ratings agencies downgraded Sutter Health’s rating.

In part, Moody’s attributed the downgrade to Sutter’s weaker profitability profile. In its rationale, Moody’s said, “Following a second year of weaker results, margins in 2020 are likely to remain under pressure due to COVID-19 related disruptions, ongoing performance challenges at some of Sutter’s facilities, and continued reimbursement pressure.”

Also weighing on Moody’s rating is the $575 million settlement expected to be paid this year to resolve antitrust issues. Last year, the health system averted a trial over antitrust concerns after agreeing to a settlement with California regulators. Sutter agreed it would end any contracts that require all of its facilities to be in-network or none of them and cap out-of-network charges, among other stipulations.

 

 

 

 

Regional chains Sentara, Cone to merge into 17-hospital, $11.5B system

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/regional-chains-sentara-cone-to-merge-into-17-hospital-115b-system/583379/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-08-12%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:29035%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Is Consolidation the Way to Survive in Today's Healthcare ...

Dive Brief:

  • Sentara Healthcare and Cone Health signed a letter of intent to merge the two regional, integrated health systems, according to an announcement Wednesday. Pending state and federal regulatory review, the deal is expected to close in the middle of next year, creating a 17-hospital, $11.5 billion system. 
  • Norfolk, Virginia-based Sentara is a nonprofit system with 12 hospitals in Virginia and North Carolina, employing more than 30,000 people. Its two health plans serve 858,000 members in Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio. Greensboro, North Carolina-based Cone Health has five hospitals in the state and around 15,000 employees. Its two health plans serve 15,000 members.
  • Corporate headquarters will remain in Norfolk, and Sentara’s current CEO, Howard Kern, will oversee the combined organization. Cone Health CEO Terry Akin will serve as president for the Cone Health Division, with regional headquarters in Greensboro.

Dive Insight

The providers contend the new system will focus on expanding value-based care models and increasing the companies’ health insurance options, according to a news release. Executives also hope to increase access points, including virtual ones, and make care more accessible in the surrounding communities.

After the deal closes, it’s expected to take up to two additional years for the two companies to fully integrate.

Sentara ended 2019 with $6.8 billion in revenue. Cone Health has about $2 billion in annual revenue.

Cone Health had planned to become the successor organization of Randolph Health when the 145-bed hospital in Asheboro, North Carolina, emerged from bankruptcy, but nixed the plan in March, citing uncertainty from the novel coronavirus.

It’s unclear how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected hospital M&A activity. Activity in the second quarter was not stalled as much as some analysts had expected, according to consultancy Kaufman Hall. Throughout the entire health services sector, however, M&A in the first half of the year was the lowest it’s been since 2015, PwC said recently.

Life Span and Care New England said in early June the coronavirus crisis reignited their merger talks. Heavyweight nonprofits Advocate Aurora Health and Beaumont Health announced they had signed a letter of intent to merge the same month, well into the pandemic.

Beaumont, however, cited COVID-19 as derailing its merger plans with Summa Health in May.

While the deal with Sentara and Cone Health are between two not-for-profit systems, a recent Health Affairs study found for-profits and church run health systems dominated M&A activity, at least from 2016 to 2018.

 

 

 

 

Feds sue to block Geisinger’s partial acquisition of 132-bed hospital

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/feds-sue-to-block-geisinger-s-partial-acquisition-of-132-bed-hospital.html?utm_medium=email

Federal Antitrust Compliance Attorneys - Oberheiden, P.C.

The U.S. Justice Department sued to block Danville, Pa-based Geisinger’s partial acquisition of a 132-bed hospital in Lewisburg, Pa. 

In the antitrust suit, filed Aug. 5, prosecutors said Geisinger and Evangelical are close competitors for inpatient acute care for patients in six counties in Pennsylvania.

As a result, Geisinger’s plan to acquire a 30 percent ownership stake in Evangelical Community Hospital would “fundamentally” alter the relationship between the two organizations and reduce incentives to “compete aggressively against each other,” the complaint reads.

The suit also claims the agreement between the two parties would result in higher prices, lower care quality and reduced access to inpatient hospital services.

The Justice Department said Geisinger initially sought to acquire Evangelical  Community Hospital in full. But, instead pursued a partial acquisition agreement “in part to avoid antitrust scrutiny,” according to the suit. 

“Preserving competition in healthcare markets is a priority for the Department of Justice because of its important impact on the health and well-being of Americans,” said Makan Delrahim, an assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s antitrust division. “This agreement between Geisinger and Evangelical threatens to harm patients in central Pennsylvania by reducing competition that has improved the price, quality, and availability of healthcare in the region.”

“We are disappointed by the decision and continue to believe enhancing our relationship with Geisinger is in the best interest of the region and will provide efficient, cost-effective healthcare to the communities we serve,” Kendra Aucker, president and CEO of Evangelical Community Hospital, told PennLive.

 

 

 

 

619-bed California hospital to join Cedars-Sinai

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/619-bed-california-hospital-to-join-cedars-sinai.html?utm_medium=email

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center halts use of heart compressor device ...Contact Huntington Hospital | Huntington Hospital

 

Huntington Hospital in Pasadena, Calif., has entered into a definitive agreement to join Los Angeles-based Cedars-Sinai Health System, roughly four months after the organizations signed a letter of intent to explore an affiliation. 

The agreement calls for investments in 619-bed Huntington Hospital’s information technology, ambulatory services and physician development. Under the agreement, Huntington Hospital would be governed by a local board and its philanthropy and volunteer support would be locally controlled, the organizations said.

“On behalf of everyone at Huntington Hospital, we are all very pleased to have reached this important milestone,” said Jaynie Studenmund, chair of the Huntington Hospital board of directors, in a news release. “We pledge to work cooperatively with all the relevant parties and believe that this proposed affiliation is in the best interest of all of our stakeholders and the greater San Gabriel Valley community.”

The definitive agreement will now be submitted for regulatory review and approval. The review process is expected to take several months.