Category Archives: Capital Structure

From Budget Battles to Consumer Backlash: Paul Keckley on the Future of U.S. Health Care

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Capital Allocation Process, Capital Financing, Capital Formation, Capital Planning, Capital Structure, Consolidation, Consumer Centered Experience, Consumer Culture, Consumer Engagement, Consumer Experience, Consumer Trust, Consumer Value Proposition, Consumer-Centered Care Pathway, Consumer-Centric, Consumerism, Digital Health, Digital Health Initiatives, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Innovation, Private Equity, Workforce Challenges, Workforce Crisis, Workforce Issues, Workforce Shortages • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://strategichcmarketing.com/from-budget-battles-to-consumer-backlash-paul-keckley-on-the-future-of-u-s-health-care/?access_code=667226

The U.S. health care industry is approaching a critical inflection point, according to veteran health care strategist Paul Keckley. In a candid and thought-provoking keynote at the 2025 Healthcare Marketing & Physician Strategies Summit (HMPS) in Orlando, Keckley outlined the challenges and potential opportunities health care leaders must navigate in an era of unprecedented economic uncertainty, regulatory disruption, and consumer discontent.

Drawing on decades of policy experience and his signature candid style, Keckley delivered a sobering yet actionable assessment of where the industry stands and what lies ahead.

Paul Keckley, PhD, health care research and policy expert and managing editor of The Keckley Report

Health care now accounts for a staggering 28 percent of the federal budget, with Medicaid expenditures alone ranging from the low 20s to 34 percent of individual state budgets. Despite its fiscal significance, Keckley points out that health care remains “not really a system, but a collection of independent sectors that cohabit the economy.”

In the article that follows, Keckley warns of a reckoning for those who remain entrenched in legacy assumptions. On the flip side, he notes, “The future is going to be built by those who understand the consumer, embrace transparency, and adapt to the realities of a post-institutional world.”

A Fractured System in a Fractured Economy

Fragmentation complicates any effort to meaningfully address rising costs or care quality. It also heightens the stakes in a political climate marked by what Keckley termed “MAGA, DOGE, and MAHA” factions, shorthand for various ideological forces shaping health care policy under the Trump 2.0 administration.

Meanwhile, macroeconomic conditions are only adding to the strain. At the time of Keckley’s address, the S&P 500 was down 8 percent, the Dow down 10 percent, and inflationary pressures were squeezing both provider margins and household budgets.

“Economic uncertainty is not just about Wall Street,” Keckley warns. “It’s about kitchen-table economics — how households decide between paying for care or paying the cable bill.”

Traditional Forecasting Is Failing

One of Keckley’s key messages was that conventional methods of strategic planning in health care, based on lagging indicators like utilization rates and demographics, are no longer sufficient. Instead, leaders must increasingly look to external forces such as capital markets, regulatory volatility, and consumer behavior.

“Think outside-in,” he urges. “Forces outside health care are shaping its future more than forces within.”

He encourages health systems to go beyond isolated market studies and adopt holistic scenario planning that considers clinical innovation, workforce shifts, AI and tech disruption, and capital availability as interconnected variables.

Affordability and Accountability: The Hospital Reckoning

Keckley pulls no punches in addressing the mounting criticism of hospitals on Capitol Hill, particularly not-for-profit health systems. Public perception is faltering, with hospital pricing increasing faster than other categories in health care and only a third of providers in full compliance with price transparency rules.

“Economic uncertainty is not just about Wall Street. It’s about kitchen-table economics — how households decide between paying for care or paying the cable bill.”

“We have to get honest about trust, transparency, and affordability,” he says. “I’ve been in 11 system strategy sessions this year. Only one even mentioned affordability on their website, and none defined it.”

Keckley also predicts that popular regulatory targets like site-neutral payments, the 340B program, and nonprofit tax exemptions will face intensified scrutiny.

“Hospitals are no longer viewed as sacred institutions,” he says. “They’re being seen as part of the problem, especially by younger, more educated, and more skeptical Americans.”

The Consumer Awakens

Perhaps the most urgent shift Keckley outlines is the redefinition of the health care consumer. “We call them patients,” he says, “but they are consumers. And they are not happy.”

Keckley cites polling data showing that two out of three Americans believe the health care system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Roughly 40 percent of U.S. households have at least one unpaid medical bill, with many choosing intentionally not to pay. Among Gen Y and younger households, dissatisfaction is particularly acute.

“[Consumers] expect digital, personalized, seamless experiences — and they don’t understand why health care can’t deliver.”

These consumers aren’t just passive recipients of care; they’re voters, payers, and critics. With 14 percent of health care spending now coming directly from households, Keckley argues, health systems must engage consumers with the same sophistication that retail and tech companies use.

“They expect digital, personalized, seamless experiences — and they don’t understand why health care can’t deliver.”

Tech Disruption Is Real

Keckley underscores the transformative potential of AI and emerging clinical technologies, noting that in the next five years, more than 60 GLP-1-like therapeutic innovations could come to market. But the deeper disruption, he warns, is likely to come from outside the traditional industry.

Citing his own son’s work at Microsoft, Keckley envisions a future where a consumer’s smartphone, not a provider or insurer, is the true hub of health information. “Health care data will be consumer-controlled. That’s where this is headed.”

The takeaway for providers: Embrace data interoperability and consumer-centric technology now, or risk irrelevance. “The Amazons and Apples of the world are not waiting for CMS to set the rules,” Keckley says.

Capital, Consolidation, and Private Equity

Capital constraints and the shifting role of private equity also featured prominently in Keckley’s remarks. With declining non-operating revenue and shrinking federal dollars, some health systems increasingly rely on investor-backed funding.

But this comes with reputational and operational risks. While PE investments have been beneficial to shareholders, Keckley says, they’ve also produced “some pretty dire results for consumers” — particularly in post-acute care and physician practice consolidation.

“Policymakers are watching,” he says. “Expect legislation that will limit or redefine what private equity can do in health care.”

Politics and Optics: Navigating the Policy Minefield

In the regulatory arena, Keckley emphasizes that perception often matters more than substance. “Optics matter often more than the policy itself,” he says.

He cautions health leaders not to expect sweeping policy reform but to brace for “de jure chaos” as the current administration focuses on symbolic populist moves — cutting executive compensation, promoting price transparency, and attacking nonprofit tax exemptions.

With the 2026 midterm elections looming large, Keckley predicts a wave of executive orders and rhetorical grandstanding. But substantive policy change will be incremental and unpredictable.

“Don’t wait for a rescue from Washington. The future is going to be built by those who understand the consumer, embrace transparency, and adapt to the realities of a post-institutional world.”

The Workforce Crisis That Wasn’t Solved

Keckley also addresses the persistent shortage of health care workers and the failure of Title V of the ACA, which had promised to modernize the workforce through new team-based models. “Our guilds didn’t want it,” Keckley notes, bluntly. “So nothing happened.”

He argues that states, not the federal government, will drive the next chapter of workforce reform, expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and even lay caregivers, particularly in behavioral health and primary care.

What Should Leaders Do Now?

Keckley closed his keynote with a challenge for marketers and strategists: Get serious about defining affordability, understand capital markets, and stop defaulting to legacy assumptions.

“Don’t wait for a rescue from Washington,” he says. “The future is going to be built by those who understand the consumer, embrace transparency, and adapt to the realities of a post-institutional world.”

He encouraged leaders to monitor shifting federal org charts, track state-level policy moves, and scenario-plan for a future where trust, access, and consumer empowerment define success.

Conclusion: A Health Care Reckoning in the Making

Keckley’s keynote was more than a policy forecast; it was a wake-up call. In a landscape shaped by economic headwinds, political volatility, and consumer rebellion, health care leaders can no longer afford to stay in their lane. They must engage, adapt, and transform, or risk becoming casualties of a system under siege.

“Health care is not just one of 11 big industries,” Keckley says. “It’s the one that touches everyone. And right now, no one is giving us a standing ovation.”

Credit and Capital Markets Outlook for 2024

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, ACA, Aging Population, Balance Sheet, Capital, Capital Allocation Process, Capital Analysis, Capital Budget, Capital Expenditure, Capital Financing, Capital Planning, Capital Structure, Cash to Debt, Critical Success Factors, Days Cash on Hand, Debt to Revenue, Financial Stewardship, Financial Viability, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Key Credit Metrics, Key Metrics, Key Performance Indicators, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Operating Cashflow Margin, Operating Margin, Operating Margin Drivers, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Strategic Balance Sheet Management • Leave a comment
https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/article/credit-and-capital-markets-outlook-2024?utm_source=mkto&utm_campaign=tcm-article&utm_medium=em&utm_term=outlook-240125&utm_content=outlook-240125&mkt_tok=NjU0LUNOWS0yMjQAAAGQ4BvXpiLu9UYHmoGO85k4zKLPOBMn7xx4HgGoCWuxKCBTlxPOir6yDwj643FIM86e1G-0qHWUwQ8V8VKzT810xWYroZ6Hy89a7egCMmn69Sgy

For many providers, 2023 provided a return to profitability (albeit at modest levels) following the devastating operating and investment losses experienced in 2022. Kaufman Hall’s National Hospital Flash Report data illustrated generally improving operating margins throughout the year, leveling off at 2.0% in November on a year-to-date basis.

This level of performance is commendable given 2022 and early 2023 margins, although it is still well below the 3% to 4% range which we believe is needed for long-term sustainability in the not-for-profit healthcare world. We may well have reached a point of stability with respect to operating performance, but at a lower level.

The question for hospital and health system leaders is whether this level of operating stability provides sustainability?

From stabilization to normalization

Since the pandemic began in 2020, the progress of recovery has been viewed over three phases: crisis, stabilization, and normalization. In last year’s outlook, we noted that we were in the midst of a potentially multi-year stabilization phase, which would continue to be marked with volatility—including ongoing labor market dislocations, inflationary pressures, and restrictive monetary policies. As we enter 2024, there are signs that we are now at the bridge between stabilization and normalization (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The Three Phases of Recovery from the Covid Pandemic

“The question for hospital and health system leaders is whether that level of stability provides sustainability?”

These signs include evidence that the first two indicators for normalization—a recalibrated or stabilized workforce environment and a return from an erratic interest rate environment—are coming into place. In our 2023 State of Healthcare Performance Improvement survey, respondents indicated that the spike in contract labor utilization that has been a dominant factor in operating expense increases was subsiding. Sixty percent of respondents said that utilization of contract labor was decreasing, and 36% said it was holding steady. Only 4% noted an increase in contract labor usage. Overall employee cost inflation seems to be subsiding as well: for all three labor categories in our survey (clinical, administrative, and support services), more organizations were able to hold salary increases to the 0% – 5% range in 2023 than in 2022.

There is good news on the interest rate front as well. After a series of rate increases in 2023, the Federal Reserve has held steady the last six months and has signaled rate cuts in 2024. Inflation has cooled markedly (albeit not yet at target levels), and employment rates have held steady. The Fed may have achieved a “soft landing” that satisfies its dual mandate of stable prices and maximum sustainable employment. Borrowing costs for not-for-profit hospital issuers have declined nearly 100 basis points in the last two months and we are expecting a return to more normal issuance levels in the first half of 2024.

There are other indications of normalization, including in the rating agencies’ outlooks for 2024. Regardless of the headline, all saw significant improvement in healthcare performance 2023.

The final answer to the question of whether the healthcare industry is entering the normalization phase likely will hinge on the last two indicators. Will we see a return of normalized strategic capital investments, and will we see a revival of strategic initiatives driving the core business (perhaps newly imagined)?

In effect, are health care systems simply surviving or are they thriving?

Looking forward, several factors could either bolster or undermine healthcare leaders’ confidence and willingness to resume a more normal level of investment in both capital needs and strategic growth. These include:

  • Politics and the 2024 elections. When North Carolina—a state that has traditionally leaned “red”—decided to opt into the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) Medicaid expansion in 2023, it seemed that political debates over the ACA might be in the rearview mirror. But last November, former president Trump—currently the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination after strong wins in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary—indicated his intent to replace the ACA with something else. President Biden is now making protection and expansion of the ACA a key part of his 2024 campaign. What had appeared to be a settled issue may be a significant point of contention in the 2024 presidential election and beyond.

Although we do not anticipate any significant healthcare-related legislation in advance of the 2024 elections, healthcare leaders should be prepared for renewed attention to the costs of government-funded healthcare programs leading up to and following the elections. The national debt has increased rapidly over the past 20 years, tripling from $11 trillion in 2003 to $33 trillion in 2023. If the deficit and national debt become an important issue in the election, a move toward a balanced budget—akin to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997—post election could lead to further cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

  • Temporary relief payments. Health systems continue to receive one-time cash infusions through the 340B settlement, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) payments and other governmental programs. Approximately 1,600 hospitals have or will be receiving a lump-sum payment to compensate them for a change in the Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS’s) reimbursement rates for the 340B program from 2018 to 2022, which was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court in a 2022 decision. The total amount to be distributed is approximately $9 billion and began hitting bank accounts in January 2024.

But what the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away. Budget neutrality requirements will force HHS to recoup this offset—amounting to approximately $7.8 billion—which it will do by reducing payments for non-drug items and services to all Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) providers by 0.5% until the offset has been fully recouped, beginning in calendar year 2026. HHS estimates that this process will take approximately 16 years. Is this a harbinger of lower payments on other key governmental programs?

Many hospitals also continue to receive Covid-related payments from FEMA for expenses occurred during the pandemic. In addition, state supplemental payments—especially under Medicaid managed care and fee-for-service programs—are providing some relief. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has issued a proposed rule, however, that would limit states’ use of provider-based funding sources, such as provider taxes, and cap the rate of growth for state-directed payments. 

As all of these payment programs dry up over the next few years, hospitals will need to replace the revenue and/or get leaner on the expense side in order to maintain today’s level of performance.

  • The hollowing of the commercial health insurance market. Our colleague, Joyjit Saha Choudhury, recently published a blog on the hollowing of the commercial health insurance market, driven by long-term concerns over the affordability of healthcare. While volumes have been recovering to pre-pandemic levels, this hollowing threatens the loss of the most profitable volumes and will pressure hospitals and health systems to create and deliver value, compete for inclusion in narrow networks, and develop more direct relationships with the employer community.

Related, the growing penetration of Medicare Advantage plans is reducing the number of traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Many CFOs report that these programs can be the most difficult with which to work given their high denial rates and required pre-authorization rates. A new rule requiring insurers to streamline prior authorizations for Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, and Affordable Care Act plans may help alleviate this issue; however, it will be incumbent upon management teams to stay ahead of them. Aging demographics are also reducing the percentage of commercially insured patients for many hospitals and health systems, further exacerbating the problem. This combination of fewer commercial patients (who often subsidize governmental patients) and more pressure on receiving the duly owed commercial revenue threatens to be an ongoing headache for management teams.

  • Ongoing impact of the Baby Boom generation. Despite the good news on inflation—and indications that the Fed may begin lowering interest rates in 2024—the economy is by no means out of the woods yet. The Baby Boom generation, which holds more than 50% of the wealth in the U.S. and is seemingly price agnostic, still has many years of spending ahead, in healthcare and general purchasing. This will likely continue to pressure inflation, especially in the healthcare sector, where demand will continue to grow. As the generation starts to shrink, the resulting wealth transfer will be the largest ever in our country’s history and have profound (and unforeseen) consequences on the overall economy and healthcare in general.

In sum, these other factors will continue to affect the sector (both positively and negatively) and require health system management teams to navigate an everchanging world. While many signs point toward short-term relief, the longer-term challenges persist. Improvements in the short term may, however, provide the opportunity to reposition organizations for the future.

How hospitals and health systems should respond

Healthcare leaders should view ongoing uncertainty in the political and economic climate as a tailwind as much as a headwind. This uncertainty, in other words, should be a motivation to put in place strategies that will buffer healthcare organizations from potential bumps in the road ahead. Setting balance sheet strategy should be a part of an organization’s planning process.

How an organization sets that strategy, measures its performance, and makes improvements will set apart top-performing organizations. 

Although heightened debt issuance early in 2024 signals a return for many systems to a climate of investment, there is still limited energy around strategy and debt conversations in many boardrooms, especially in those organizations where financial improvement continues to lag. The last two years have illustrated that hospitals and health systems will not be able to cut their way to profitability. Lackluster performance cannot and will not improve without some level of strategic change, whether it is through market share gains, payer mix shift, or operational improvements. This strategic change requires investment and investment requires capital. Capital can be obtained in many forms—whether through growth in capital reserves, improved cash flow, or new debt issuance—but is essential for change. Reengaging in conversations about strategy and growth should be an imperative in 2024 and will require reexamining how that growth is funded.

Healthcare leaders should engage their partners as they continue or refocus on:

  • Changing the conversation from debt capacity to capital capacity. Management teams need to determine what they can afford to spend on capital if the new normal of cash flow will be constrained going forward. Capital capacity is and should be agnostic to the source of that capital, such as debt, cash flow from operations, or liquidity reserves. Healthcare leaders must focus on what they can spend, before deciding how to fund that spending. The conversation will need to balance investment for the future with maintaining key credit metrics in the short term.
  • Conducting a capitalization analysis. Separate but related to the previous entry, how much leverage should your organization have relative to its overall capitalization? Ostensibly, many organizations have been paying principal while curtailing borrowing needs, so capitalization may have improved. While that may be the case, many organizations have depleted reserves and/or experienced investment losses that have reduced capitalization. Understanding where the organization stands is an essential next step.
  • Evaluating surplus return. Consider surplus return as investment income net of interest expense. Organizations should evaluate their ability to reliably generate both operating cash flow and net surplus. How an organization’s balance sheet is positioned to generate returns and manage risk will be a critical success factor.   
  • Focusing on the metrics that matter. These include operating cashflow margin, cash to debt, debt to revenue, and days cash on hand. As key metrics for rating analysts and investors continue to evolve, management teams need to make sure they are focused on the correct numbers. The discussion should be dually focused on ensuring adequate-to-ample headroom to basic financial covenants as well as a comparison to key medians and peers. Strong financial planning will address how these metrics can be improved over time through synergies, growth, and diversification strategies.

Although it has been a difficult few years, hospitals and health systems seem to have moved onto a more stable footing over the last twelve months. In order to build upon the upward trajectory, now is the time to harness strategy, planning, and investment to move organizations from stability to sustainability.

Unlocking Value in Non-Core Healthcare Assets

Posted on by • Posted in Capital Formation, Capital Structure, Cash, Cash Reserves, Days Cash on Hand, Debt Capacity, Debt Service Covenants, Debt Service Coverage Ratio, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Liquidity, Non-Core Assets, Non-Core Services • Leave a comment

Click to access Industry_Insights_6.1.23.pdf

Inflation, labor pressures, and general economic uncertainty have created
significant financial strain for hospitals in the wake of the COVID pandemic.
Compressed operating margins and weakened liquidity have left many
hospitals in a precarious economic situation, with some entities deciding to delay or even cancel planned capital expenditures or capital raising. Given these tumultuous times, hospital entities could look to the realm of the higher education sector for a playbook on how to leverage non-core assets to unlock significant unrealized value and strengthen financial positions, in the form of public-private partnerships.


These structures, also known as P3s, involve collaborative agreements between public entities, like hospitals, and private sector partners who possess the expertise to unlock the value of non-core assets. A special purpose vehicle (SPV) is created, with the sole purpose of delivering the responsibilities outlined under the project agreement. The SPV is typically owned by equity members. The private sector would be responsible for raising debt to finance the project, which is secured by the obligations of the project agreement (and would be non-recourse to the hospital). Of note, the SPV undergoes the rating process, not the hospital entity. Even more importantly, the hospital retains ownership of the asset while benefiting from the expertise and resources of the private sector.


Hospitals can utilize P3s to capitalize on already-built assets, in what is known as a “brownfield” structure. A brownfield structure would typically result in an upfront payment to the hospital in exchange for the right of a private entity to operate the asset for an agreed-upon term. These upfront payments can range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars.


Alternatively, hospitals can engage in “greenfield” structures where the underlying asset is either not yet built or needs significant capital investment. Greenfield structures typically do not result in an upfront payment to the hospital entity. Instead, (in the example of a new build) private partners would typically design, build, finance, operate and maintain the asset. The hospital still retains ownership of the underlying asset at the completion of the agreed upon term.


P3 structures can be individually tailored to suit the unique needs of the hospital entity, and the resulting benefits are multifaceted. Financially, hospitals can increase liquidity, lower operating expenses, increase debt capacity, and create headroom for financial covenants. These partnerships provide a means to raise funds without directly accessing the capital markets or undergoing the rating process. Upfront payments represent unrestricted funds and can be used as the hospital entity sees fit to further its core mission. Operationally, infrastructure P3s offer hospitals the opportunity to address deferred maintenance needs, which may have accumulated over time. Immediate capital expenditure on infrastructure facilities can enhance reliability and efficiency and contribute to meeting carbon reduction or sustainability goals. Furthermore, these structures provide a means for the hospital to transfer a meaningful amount of risk to private partners via operation and maintenance agreements.


For years, various colleges and universities have adopted the P3 model, which is emerging as a viable solution for hospitals as well.
Examples of recent structures in the higher education sector include:

  • Fresno State University, which partnered with Meridiam (an infrastructure private equity fund) and Noresco (a design builder) to
    deliver a new central utility plant. The 30-year agreement involved long-term routine and major maintenance obligations from
    the operator, with provisions for key performance indicators and performance deductions inserted to protect the university.
    Fresno State is not required to begin making availability payments until construction is completed.
  • The Ohio State University, which secured a $483 million upfront payment in exchange for the right of a private party to operate
    and maintain its parking infrastructure. The university used the influx of capital to hire key faculty members and to invest in their
    endowment.
  • The University of Toledo, which received an approximately $60 million upfront payment in exchange for a 35-year lease and
    concession agreement to a private operator. The private team will be responsible for operating and maintaining the university’s
    parking facilities throughout the term of the agreement.

  • Ultimately, healthcare entities can learn from the successful implementation of infrastructure P3 structures in the higher education sector. The experiences of Fresno State, The Ohio State University, and the University of Toledo (among others) serve as compelling examples of the transformative potential of P3s in the healthcare sector. By unlocking the true value of non-core assets through partnerships with the private sector, hospitals can reinforce their financial stability, meet sustainability goals, reduce risk, and shift valuable focus back to the core mission of providing high-quality healthcare services.

  • Author’s note: Implementing P3 structures requires careful consideration and expert guidance. Given the complex nature of these partnerships, hospitals can greatly benefit from the support of experienced advisors to navigate the intricacies of the process. KeyBank and Cain Brothers specialize in guiding entities through P3 initiatives, providing valuable expertise and insight. For additional information, please refer to a recording of our recent webinar and associated summary, which can be accessed here:
    https://www.key.com/businesses-institutions/business-expertise/articles/public-private-partnerships-can-unlock-hospitals-hiddenvalue.html

The Balance Sheet Bridge

Posted on by • Posted in Balance Sheet, Capital, Capital Formation, Capital Structure, Financial Instability, Financial Performance, Financial Pressure, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Restructure • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/blog/balance-sheet-bridge

Current Funding Environment

The healthcare financings that came in the past couple of weeks generally did well. Maturities seemed to do better than put bonds, and it remains important to pay attention to couponing and how best to navigate a challenging yield curve. But these are episodic indicators rather than trends, given that the scale of issuance remains muted. Other capital markets—like real estate—are becoming more active and offer competitive funding and different credit considerations relative to debt market options. Credit management continues to be the main driver of low external capital formation, but those looking for outside funding should spend time up front considering the full array of channels and structures.

This Part of the Crisis

And now it’s official. After JPMorgan acquired First Republic Bank—with a whole lot of help from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation—CEO Jamie Dimon declared, “this part of the crisis is over.” Not sure regional bank shareholders would agree, but from Mr. Dimon’s perspective the biggest bank got bigger, which made it a good day.

Last week the Federal Reserve raised rates another 25 basis points and the expectation (hope) seems to be that the Fed has reached the peak of its tightening cycle or will at least pause to see if constrictive forces like higher rates and regional bank balance sheet deflation slow activity enough to bring inflation back to the 2.0% Fed target. Assuming this is a pause point, it makes sense to check in on a few economic and market indicators.

Inflation is improving, although it remains well above the Fed’s 2.0% target range, and there are other indicators (like labor participation and unemployment) that have recovered some of the ground lost in 2020. But the weird part remains that this all seems quite civilized. To some, the Treasury curve spread continues to suggest a recession is looming, but in my neighborhood workers are still in short supply, restaurants are busy, and contractors are booked well into the future. Today’s ~3.36% 10-year Treasury rate is less than 100 basis points higher than the average since the start of the Fed interventionist era in 2008 and a whopping 257 basis points lower than the average since 1965. Think about how much capital has been raised in market environments much worse than now (including most of the modern-day healthcare inpatient infrastructure). Again, the main culprit in retarded capital formation is institutional credit management concerns rather than the funding environment.

The major fallout from the Fed’s recent anti-inflation efforts seems concentrated with financial intermediaries rather than consumers (or workers), and the financial intermediary stress the Fed is relying on to help curb economic activity is grounded in their own balance sheet management decisions rather than deteriorating loan portfolios. We’ve looked at this before, but it bears repeating that in the “great inflation” of the 1970s, the Chicago Fed’s Financial Conditions Index reached its highest recorded points (higher means tighter than average conditions) and in this most recent inflationary cycle, that same index has remained consistently accommodative. Can you wring inflation out of a system while retaining relatively accommodative financial conditions? Which begs the question of whether any Fed pause is more about shifting priorities: downgrading the inflation fight in favor of moderating the financial intermediary threat? We might be living a remake of the 1970s version of stubborn inflation, which means that all the attendant issues—rolling volatility across operations, financing, and investing—might be sticking around as well.

Meanwhile, somewhere out in the Atlantic the debt ceiling storm is forming. Who knows whether it will make landfall as a storm or a hurricane, but it does remind us that the operative portion of the Jamie Dimon quote noted above is this part of the crisis is over. The next part of the long saga that is about us climbing out of a deep fiscal and monetary hole will roll in and new variations of the same central challenge will emerge for healthcare leaders.

A Healthcare Makeover

Ken Kaufman has been advancing the idea that healthcare needs a “makeover” to align with post-COVID realities. Look for a piece from him on this soon, but the thesis is that reverting to a 2019 world isn’t going to happen, which means that restructuring is the only option. The most recent National Hospital Flash Report suggests improving margins, but they remain well below historical norms and the labor part of the expense equation is structurally higher. Where we are is not sustainable and waiting for a reversion is a rapidly decaying option.

My contribution to Ken’s argument is to reemphasize that balance sheet is the essential (only) bridge between here and a restructured sector and the journey is going to require very careful planning about how to size, position, and deploy liquidity, leverage, and investments. Of course, the central focus will be on how to reposition operations. But if organic cash generation remains anemic, the gap will be filled by either weakening the balance sheet (drawing down reserves, adding leverage, or adopting more aggressive asset allocation) or by partnering with organizations that have the necessary resources.

Organizations reach the point of greatest enterprise risk when the scale of operating challenges outstrips the scale of balance sheet resources. Missteps are manageable when the imbalance is the product of rapid growth but not when it is the result of deflating resources. If the core imperative is to remake operations, the co-equal imperative is continuously repositioning the balance sheet to carry you from here to whatever defines success.

Pandemic relief funds pivotal in keeping hospitals afloat during Q2

Posted on by • Posted in Capital Structure, Cash, Cash Reserves, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Coronavirus, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Financial Pressure, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Liquidity, Medicare, Medicare Advance Payments, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Pandemic, Uncertainty • Leave a comment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/hospital-earnings-highlight-pivotal-role-federal-relief-funds-staying-afloat-during?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURoaU9HTTRZMkV3TlRReSIsInQiOiJwcCtIb3VSd1ppXC9XT21XZCtoVUd4ekVqSytvK1wvNXgyQk9tMVwvYXcyNkFHXC9BRko2c1NQRHdXK1Z5UXVGbVpsTG5TYml5Z1FlTVJuZERqSEtEcFhrd0hpV1Y2Y0sxZFNBMXJDRkVnU1hmbHpQT0pXckwzRVZ4SUVWMGZsQlpzVkcifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610

Hospital system earnings for the second quarter of the year painted a stark picture of how federal relief funding helped offset massive losses in patient volume sparked by the COVID-19 pandemic.

But a full financial recovery may not happen until next year, some analysts warn.

Major hospital systems such as HCA Health and Universal Health Services posted profits in the second quarter despite plummeting volumes sparked by the cancellation of elective procedures and patients avoiding care due to fears of exposure to the virus. A key boost, however, came from a $175 billion fund passed by Congress and loans under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments Program.

“These companies survived the June quarter and exited the quarter with substantial amounts of liquidity,” said Jonathan Kanarek, vice president and senior credit officer for Moody’s Investors Services. “We think [liquidity] is probably the most critical factor for them as far as weathering the storm.”

Congress has approved $175 billion to help prop up providers, of which the Department of Health and Human Services has distributed more than $100 billion.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services also gave out $100 billion in advance Medicare payments before suspending the program in late April. But the payments are loans that hospitals have to start repaying as soon as this month, as opposed to the congressional funding that does not have to get paid back.

Hospital system earnings illustrated how pivotal the relief funds were to combat massive holes in patient volumes.

Tenet Healthcare, which operates 65 hospitals across the country, reported Monday that it earned in the second quarter adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) of $732 million. But of that $732 million, more than 70% of it was aid from the relief fund.

Tenet wasn’t the only for-profit system where relief funding was a large part of their adjusted EBITDA.

Community Health Systems, which operates 95 facilities, reported an adjusted EBITDA of $454 million in the second quarter. But most of that figure was due to the $448 million that it got from the relief funds.

The provider funding made up a smaller portion of HCA Healthcare’s earnings. The system of 184 hospitals reported that the funding made up 31% of its adjusted EBITDA.

Hospital system volumes greatly declined in April as facilities were forced to cancel elective procedures and patients were scared of going to the hospital.

For example, Tenet’s hospital admissions in April were 33% of what it had in the same month in 2019. But volumes started to recover as shelter-in-place orders expired and some states got a better handle on the pandemic.

Tenet saw admissions grow in June to 90% of what they were in June 2019.

But it remains unclear what hospital finances will look like for the rest of the year. Major systems like Tenet and HCA have scrapped their 2020 financial outlook because of the pandemic.

“We don’t think the shape of this recovery or trajectory will be linear in nature,” Kanarek said. “We think there will be a lot of starts and stops.”

Those starts and stops will depend on the extent of the spread of the virus in an area.

Some states such as Florida, Texas and Arizona have seen massive spikes in the virus in recent weeks, which has put renewed strain on systems. Texas’ governor canceled elective procedures in eight counties back in June, some of which included major cities such as Houston and Dallas.

“I am a little skeptical that we are going to be back to normal before we ultimately have a vaccine,” Kanarek said.

It is also murky on whether hospitals will continue to get more financial help from Congress.

The House passed the HEROES Act more than a month ago that gives providers another $100 billion, but it has stalled in the Senate.

Congress and the White House have been in extensive talks for more than a week on a new relief package. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released a package last week that had $25 billion in relief funding and lawsuit liability protections for providers.

But even without the additional funding, for-profit hospitals have made some moves to prepare for more shutdowns such as accessing capital markets to add additional lawyers of bank liquidity, Kanarek said.

“We can only hope 2021 will look like a more normal year for hospitals, perhaps more like 2019, but there is still a lot of uncertainty out there,” he said.

 

 

 

 

These Hospitals Pinned Their Hopes on Private Management Companies. Now They’re Deeper in Debt.

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Capital Structure, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Bankruptcy, Hospital Closure, Hospital Industry, Investment, Investments, Leadership, Management Company, Rural Health, Rural Hospital, Turnaround, Turnaround Plan • Leave a comment

https://www.propublica.org/article/these-hospitals-pinned-their-hopes-on-private-management-companies-now-theyre-deeper-in-debt?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Does+the+US+Spend+Too+Much+on+Police%3F&utm_campaign=TFT+Newsletter+06042020

At least 13 hospitals in Oklahoma have closed or experienced added financial distress under the management of private companies. Some companies charged hefty management fees, promising to infuse millions of dollars that never materialized.

Revenues soared at some rural hospitals after management companies introduced laboratory services programs, but those gains quickly vanished when insurers accused them of gaming reimbursement rates and halted payments. Some companies charged hefty management fees, promising to infuse millions of dollars but never investing. In other cases, companies simply didn’t have the hospital management experience they trumpeted.

Click on link above for examples of rural hospitals that pinned their hopes on private management companies that left them deeper in debt. They are based on interviews, public records and financial information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the American Hospital Directory.

Coronavirus: 15 emerging themes for boards and executive teams

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Capability Building, Capital Structure, Cash, Cash Reserves, Cash-Flow Improvements, Conflicting Stakeholders, Consensus, Debate, Economy Reopening, False Hope, Free Market, Future, Hope, Innovation, Leadership, Mergers & Acquisitions, Realism, Speed, Supply Chain, Trust, Uncertainty, Undefined, Volatile • Leave a comment

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk/our-insights/coronavirus-15-emerging-themes-for-boards-and-executive-teams?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck&hlkid=0e0b80570bfe48508db4370a1999a949&hctky=9502524&hdpid=b867bc22-e8f5-41b6-b080-40a5d4c21c71

11 Ways To Create More Time To Think | Auguste rodin, Rodin, Rodin ...

Board directors and executives can pool their wisdom to help companies grapple with the challenge of a lifetime.

As Winston Churchill said, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” We are seeing some faint signs of progress in the struggle to contain the pandemic. But the risk of resurgence is real, and if the virus does prove to be seasonal, the effect will probably be muted. It is likely never more important than now for boards of directors and executive management teams to tackle the right questions and jointly guide their organizations toward the next normal.

Recently, we spoke with a group of leading nonexecutive chairs and directors at companies around the world who serve on the McKinsey Resilience Advisory Council. They generously shared the personal insights and experiences gained from their organizations’ efforts to manage through the crisis and resume work. The 15 themes that emerged offer a guide to boards and executive teams everywhere. Together, they can debate these issues and set an effective context for the difficult decisions now coming up as companies plan their return to full activity.

Managing through the crisis

1. Boards must strike the right balance between hope for the future and the realism that organizations need to hear. There are many prognostications on what comes after COVID-19. Many will be helpful. Some will be right. Boards and managers may have some hopes and dreams of their own. Creating value and finding pockets of growth are possible. It is important to have these aspirations, because they form the core of an inner optimism and confidence that organizations need. However, leaders should not conflate aspirations with a prescience about the future.

2. The unknown portion of the crisis may be beyond anything we’ve seen in our professional lives. Boards and managers feel like they might be grappling with only 5 percent of the issues, while the vast majority are still lurking, unknown. Executives are incredibly busy, fighting fires in cash management and other areas. But boards need to add to their burden and ask them to prepare for a “next normal” strategy discussion. Managers need to do their best to find out what these issues are, and then work with boards to ensure that the organization can navigate them. The point isn’t to have a better answer. The point is to build the organizational capability to learn quickly why your answer is wrong, and pivot faster than your peers do. Resilience comes through speed. This may be a new capability that very few organizations have now, and they will likely need to spend real time building it.

3. Beware of a gulf between executives and the rank and file. Top managers are easily adapting to working from home and to flexible, ill-defined processes and ways of working, and they see it as being very effective and also the wave of the future. Many people in the trenches think it is the worst thing to happen to them (even those that are used to working remotely). Remote working is raising the divide between elites and the common man and woman. There is a real risk of serious tension in the social fabric of organizations and in local and national communities.

4. Don’t overlook the risks faced by self-employed professionals, informal workers, and small businesses. These groups are often not receiving sufficient support. But their role in the economy is vital, and they may be noticed only later, when it is too late.

5. Certain industries and sectors are truly struggling and require support. Several disrupted industries and many organizations in higher education, the arts, and sports are severely struggling and require support to safeguard their survival.

Return to work—the path ahead

6. Mid- to long-term implications and scenarios vary considerably. It’s important to differentiate between industries and regions. Some industries may never come back to pre-COVID-19 levels.

7. What went wrong? Boards and executives, but also academics, need to debate the question. Where should we have been focusing? Take three examples. Why did companies ignore the issue of inadequate resilience in their supply chain? The risks of single sourcing were well known and transparent. Also, why did we move headlong toward greater specialization in the workforce, when we knew that no single skill was permanently valuable? Finally, why did we refuse to evolve our business models, although we knew that technology and shifts in societal preferences were forcing us down a treadmill of ever decreasing value-creation potential?

8. How can we prevent a backlash to globalization? The tendency toward nationalism was already strong and is growing during the crisis. The ramifications will be challenging. For example, in pharmaceutical development, residents of the country where a pharma company has its headquarters may expect to get the drug first. Global companies, despite their experience, may find it harder to address and engage directly with diverse, volatile, and potentially conflicting stakeholders. In such times, societies may need someone to mediate between the private sector and some of these stakeholders.

9. Companies need help with government relations. Strong government interventions are occurring on the back of a serious loss of confidence in free-market mechanisms. There is little question that different governments will land on different answers to the debate around how free markets really ought to be structured. The corporate community has been thrust into a new relationship with government, and it is struggling. The government landscape is fragmented, with highly varied approaches and competencies. Companies are looking for a playbook; no one has an infrastructure to manage this complexity.

10. Where will the equity come from, and with what strings attached? Governments are propping up various sectors with new capital. What will they receive in return? Will they distort markets? How can companies manage this process carefully to emerge from the crisis with a stronger balance sheet? Further, much more capital is likely needed; presumably some of it will come from the private sector. Will capital markets be effective and trusted in such times? Who governs this overall process, and what role should the government play? Is it the time for more state funds?

11. The balance between profits and cash flow is tricky, and essential to get right. Many companies are caught right now and are sacrificing their bottom line in order to pay for their financing. That’s not sustainable; companies will need guidance on how to balance the two.

12. It may be time for responsible acquisitions, including to help restructure certain industries. Many “resilients” have “kept their powder dry,” and are now ready to acquire. But they need to be sensitive and allow sellers a good path to exit. We need guidelines for responsible acquisitions.

13. Cyberrisk is growing. Remote working increases the “attack surface” for criminals and state actors. Both are more active. Chief information officers and chief information security officers are grappling with the overwhelming demand for work-from-home technology and the need for stringent cybersecurity.

14. Innovation may never have been so important. Innovation has always been essential to solving big problems. The world is looking not just for new things but also for new ways of doing things (especially on the people side, where we need new behaviors, long-term rather than short-term), capabilities, and work ethics.

15. The path ahead will surely have ups and downs and will require resilience. As lockdowns are relaxed, and segments of the economy reopen, viral resurgences and unforeseen events will keep growth from being a straight line going up. It will likely be a lengthy process of preserving “lives and livelihoods” over several months, if not years. The reality is that many or even most business leaders made choices over the past decades that traded resilience for a perceived increase in shareholder value. Now may be the moment to consider that the era of chipping away at organizational resilience in the name of greater efficiency may have reached its limits. This is not to say that there are no efficiencies to be sought or found, but more that the trade-off between efficiency and resiliency needs to be defined far more clearly than it has been in recent years.

It is the board’s responsibility to coach and advise its management team, especially when the terrain is trickier than usual. However, boards should not mistake the need for vigorous debate with the need for consensus. More than ever, a bias to action is essential, which will frequently mean getting comfortable with disagreement. Apart from all the operational focus needed for the return to work, it is even more important that boards and management teams take a step back to reflect upon these 15 core themes. In summary:

  1. Take the time to recognize how the people who (directly or indirectly) depend on the company feel.
  2. Have aspirations about the post-COVID world, but build the resilience to make them a reality.
  3. Strengthen your capability to engage and work with regulators and the government.
  4. Watch out for non-COVID risks, and make sure to carve out time to dedicate to familiar risks that have never gone away.
  5. Find out what went wrong, and answer the uncomfortable truths that investigation uncovers.

 

 

 

CHS debt swap plan is unsustainable, Moody’s says

Posted on by • Posted in Capital Structure, Credit Ratings, Debt Swap, For-Profit, Health System • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/chs-debt-swap-plan-is-unsustainable-moody-s-says.html?origin=cfoe&utm_source=cfoe

Related image

Although Franklin, Tenn.-based Community Health System’s proposed debt exchange plan will alleviate short-term liquidity concerns, it will also add to an already unsustainable capital structure, Moody’s Investors Service said Nov. 4

On Oct. 29, CHS said it plans to offer $700 million in new senior secured notes due in 2027 and up to $1.9 billion in senior unsecured notes due in 2028 in exchange for its $2.6 billion worth of outstanding senior unsecured notes due in 2022.

The plan would increase how much CHS pays in interest.

Moody’s didn’t alter the health system’s current “Caa3” rating in its public comment about the debt swap plan, but said if the plan moves forward it would likely result in downward pressure on some of its ratings.

“If the transaction is completed in its proposed form, the addition of incremental first lien debt will likely result in downward pressure on the existing senior secured first lien ratings of ‘Caa1,'” Moody’s said.