Category Archives: Cash-Flow Improvements

Claim denials and payer audits are affecting the revenue cycle

Posted on by • Posted in Cash Management, Cash-Flow Improvements, Cost to Collect, Denial, Denial Management, Denial Rates, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Denials, Operating Revenue, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/claim-denials-and-payer-audits-are-affecting-revenue-cycle?mkt_tok=NDIwLVlOQS0yOTIAAAGQAybyM6ggpJgo3nj6rjwmb49NGUlbd0b6yUC5x8PYV_PO_M-0hvHxFayPzi7gipxN6FGBGtvC0lbz3ivr3YP9benJmUuNyUH-cD71HJ7ii7s

Claim denials are increasing, especially in Medicare Advantage, and it’s affecting hospital’s revenue cycles and patient care.

“We definitely are seeing an increase in denials,” said Sherri Liebl, executive director of Revenue Cycle, CentraCare Health, a large multispecialty system in Minnesota. CareCare has two acute care hospitals, seven Critical Access Hospitals and 30 standalone clinics, many of them in rural areas. 

CentraCare reported a positive margin this year, but in no way realizes the profits of insurers, especially the national insurers where Liebl is having the most difficulty with claims.

CentraCare’s goal in its cost to collect – not all-around denials – is to be at 2%. The health system is closer to 7% on its cost to collect. 

“The cost for our organization is exorbitant,” Lieble said.

Much of the blame for denials is falling to artificial intelligence being used in algorithms to deny claims.

UnitedHealthcare has been sued in a class action lawsuit that alleges the insurer unlawfully used an artificial intelligence algorithm to deny rehabilitative care to sick Medicare Advantage patients.

Cigna has also been sued for allegedly using algorithms to deny claims. The lawsuit claims the Cigna PXDX algorithm enables automatic denials for treatments that do not match preset criteria, evading the legally required individual physician review process.

A Cigna Healthcare spokesperson said the vast majority of claims reviewed through PXDX are automatically paid, and that the PXDX process does not involve algorithms, AI or machine learning, but a simple sorting technology that has been used for more than a decade to match up codes. Claims declined for payment via PXDX represent less than 1% of the total volume of claims, the spokesperson said.

Industry consultant Adam Hjerpe, who formerly worked for UnitedHealth Group, said there’s nothing new about payers using artificial intelligence. AI has been used for 20 years in robotic processes, statements in Excel and algorithms, he said.

Everybody is working with good intent, Hjerpe said. There are reasonable controls in place to avoid fraud and abuse.

Claims are being denied for missing information, or for the information being out of sequence, or for the claim giving an incomplete picture of the care.

“We don’t want care delayed,” he said.

Nobody wins in claims denials, said Susan Taylor, Pega’s vice president of Healthcare and Life Sciences.

While payers save money in the short-term, in the long-term, the best arrangement is to have payers and providers work together to prevent denials, said Taylor, who has worked in healthcare for more than 25 years, starting on the health system side before moving into IT. 

“There are more claims of note being denied,” Taylor said. “If you look at the ecosystem, there are a lot of opportunities for error.” 

The solution is building an agility layer to streamline workflows throughout the revenue cycle, from initial claim submission to the complex denials processing stage. 

WHY THIS MATTERS

Liebl said that denials have increased over the past two years and that there’s also been an uptick in payer audits months after payment has been made. 

Insurers want justification for why CentraCare should keep its payments, and this is especially true for Medicare Advantage claims, she said. 

One insurer said the claim didn’t meet inpatient criteria and downgraded the claim to an observation patient.

“We have a pretty good success rate as far as being able to justify we did the right care,” Liebl said.

Asked what’s driving the higher denial rates Lieble said, “Everybody wants to keep margins and expand their business. I think it comes down to profit margins, trying to keep profit margins high; we’re just trying to stay afloat.”

To combat denials and work with payers, CentraCare founded a joint operating committee to have successful partnerships. They’ve been more successful with the local Minnesota plans than the national plans, but Liebl is optimistic, she said.

“I am hopeful we can create partnerships …” she said. “Some of the denials we receive are against their payer policy. We need to be able to hold payers accountable.”

Larger health systems have a little more clout, and CentraCare is able to partner with other health systems through the Minnesota Hospital Association.

What’s being lost in all this is the patient, Liebl said. Sometimes a patient is getting a bill up to a year after a procedure.

“Sometimes the patient focus is lost when we work through some of this,” she said.

“They keep our money longer,” Liebl said. “They hold our money hostage. We have denials sitting out there for 300 days. It’s a lot of administrative burden on our part. We’ve spent a lot of money just to get the money in the door. Finally when that claim has been resolved, it’s a year later. No one wins? I think there is some winning going on one side.”

Hospitals are dropping Medicare Advantage left and right

Posted on by • Posted in Accounts Receivable (AR), Administrative Burden, Cash-Flow Improvements, Health Insurance Industry, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Contract Terms, Medicare Denials, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/hospitals-are-dropping-medicare-advantage-left-and-right.html

Medicare Advantage provides health coverage to more than half of the nation’s seniors, but a growing number of hospitals and health systems nationwide are pushing back and dropping the private plans altogether.

Among the most commonly cited reasons are excessive prior authorization denial rates and slow payments from insurers. Some systems have noted that most MA carriers have faced allegations of billing fraud from the federal government and are being probed by lawmakers over their high denial rates.

“It’s become a game of delay, deny and not pay,” Chris Van Gorder, president and CEO of San Diego-based Scripps Health, told Becker’s.

“Providers are going to have to get out of full-risk capitation because it just doesn’t work — we’re the bottom of the food chain, and the food chain is not being fed.” 

In late September, Scripps began notifying patients that it is terminating Medicare Advantage contracts for its integrated medical groups, a move that will affect more than 30,000 seniors in the region. The medical groups, Scripps Clinic and Scripps Coastal, employ more than 1,000 physicians, including advanced practitioners. 

Mr. Van Gorder said the health system is facing a loss of $75 million this year on the MA contracts, which will end Dec. 31 for patients covered by UnitedHealthcare, Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California, Centene’s Health Net and a few more smaller carriers. The system will remain in network for about 13,000 MA enrollees who receive care through Scripps’ individual physician associations.

“If other organizations are experiencing what we are, it’s going to be a short period of time before they start floundering or they get out of Medicare Advantage,” he said. “I think we will see this trend continue and accelerate unless something changes.”

Bend, Ore.-based St. Charles Health System has taken it a step further and is not only considering dropping all Medicare Advantage plans, but is also encouraging its older patients not to enroll in the private Medicare plans during the upcoming enrollment period in October.

The health system’s president and CEO, CFO and chief clinical officer cited high rates of denials, longer hospital stays and overall administrative burden for clinicians.

“We recognize changing insurance options may create a temporary burden for Central Oregonians who are currently on a Medicare Advantage plan, but we ultimately believe it is the right move for patients and for our health system to be sustainable into the future to encourage patients to move away from Medicare Advantage plans as they currently exist,” St. Charles Health CFO Matt Swafford said.

“I feel terrible for the patients in this situation; it’s the last thing we wanted to do, but it’s just not sustainable with these kinds of losses,” Mr. Van Gorder added. “Patients need to be aware of how this system works. Traditional Medicare is not an issue. With these other models, seniors need to be wary and savvy buyers.”

Here are six more recent examples of hospitals dropping Medicare Advantage contracts:

1. Adena Regional Medical Center is terminating its contract with Anthem BCBS’ Medicare Advantage and managed Medicaid plans in Ohio, effective Nov. 2. The flagship facility of Chillicothe, Ohio-based Adena Health System said rate negotiations between the organizations “have not been productive,” leading it to terminate its agreement with Anthem, whose parent company is Elevance Health.

2. Corvallis, Ore.-based Samaritan Health Services ended its commercial and Medicare Advantage contracts with UnitedHealthcare. The five-hospital, nonprofit health system cited slow “processing of requests and claims” that have made it difficult to provide appropriate care to UnitedHealth’s members, which will be out of network with Samaritan’s hospitals on Jan. 9. Samaritan’s physicians and provider services will be out of network on Nov. 1, 2024. 

3. Cameron (Mo.) Regional Medical Center stopped accepting Cigna’s MA plans in 2023 and plans to drop Aetna and Humana in 2024. It plans to continue Medicare Advantage contracts with UnitedHealthcare and BCBS, the St. Joseph News-Press reported in May. Cameron Regional CEO Joe Abrutz previously told the newspaper the decision stemmed from delayed reimbursements.

4. Stillwater (Okla.) Medical Center ended all in-network contracts with Medicare Advantage plans amid financial challenges at the 117-bed hospital. Humana and BCBS of Oklahoma were notified that their MA members would no longer receive in-network coverage after Jan. 1, 2023. The hospital said it made the decision after facing rising operating costs and a 22 percent prior authorization denial rate for Medicare Advantage plans, compared to a 1 percent denial rate for traditional Medicare.

5. Brookings (S.D.) Health System will no longer be in network with any Medicare Advantage plans in 2024, the Brookings Register reported. The 49-bed, municipally owned hospital said the decision was made to protect the financial sustainability of the organization. 

6. Louisville, Ky.-based Baptist Health Medical Group went out of network with Humana’s Medicare Advantage and commercial plans on Sept. 22, Fox affiliate WDRB reported.

Care Now, Pay Later – How Embedded Finance is Poised to Improve Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in Application Programming Interface (API), Bad Debt Expense, Cash Management, Cash Payment, Cash-Flow Improvements, Consumer Needs, Consumer Preferences, Consumerism, Embedded Finance, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Hospital Portal, Medical Debt, Medical Debt Financing, Rev Cycle Management • Leave a comment

Click to access Industry_Insights_7.19.23.pdf

In an era of significant medical debt, rising healthcare costs and delayed
treatments, our current healthcare system is ripe for solutions that alleviate the
burden of paying patient bills.

Enter embedded finance. While not a new concept by any stretch – it
has long existed in retail – fintechs and traditional banks are determined to give patients more
options and a fundamentally better experience in the way they pay for healthcare services. In doing
so, a financially strained domestic healthcare system stands to benefit from increased cash flow,
improved health equity and optimized patient engagement.


Simply put, embedded finance is the integration of financial services – such as payment, lending,
banking and insurance features – into another company’s normal service or products. We have all
undoubtedly come across these offerings in our daily lives as consumers. Think private label credit
cards with retail chains or airlines, digital wallet purchase options at the Amazon checkout, a buynow-pay-later (BNPL) plan from Affirm or Klarna, or insurance obtained from a car rental.


The goal of embedded finance:

is to improve a user’s experience by accessing financial services
without leaving a brand’s platform. By layering application programming interface (API)-driven
fintech or banking capabilities on top of a website or mobile app for, say, a hospital patient portal, the
bundled solution allows the user to stay on one website or application to complete a financial
transaction. Doing so removes friction in the experience and delivers a breadth of contextual
information that a provider or payer can use to prompt further action on the patient’s medical journey.


The implications for embedded finance in healthcare are vast and benefit every stakeholder across the revenue cycle value chain:

Patients: Flexibility and convenience to better structure and plan bill payment while receiving
greater access to financial options and additional services that improve the care experience
such as reminders and health tracking

Providers: Faster and higher rates of collections coupled with ongoing patient dialogue that
cements loyalty, affords clinicians the opportunity to suggest customized treatment options,
and improves revenue composition and potential valuation

Payers: More efficient claims processing cycle, automated processes and improved data
security

The burden of patient bills and increasing medical costs are not new to our system. Yet there has
been a confluence of fundamental changes that make embedded finance particularly attractive in
healthcare going forward, including increased smartphone usage and Internet penetration, COVID19 adoption of fintech products across healthcare settings, rising inflation rates that reduce a
patient’s ability to pay and the adoption of mobile-based apps among younger, digitally native
consumers and lower income patients.

These tailwinds support a massive addressable market as healthcare is expected to comprise approximately 23% of a U.S. embedded finance industry set to exceed $230 billion by 2025, or a 10x increase from $23 billion in 2020.

Significant attention and capital investment are accelerating the rise of embedded finance in healthcare.

Punctuated by attractive elements at the intersection of technology, financial services and healthcare sectors, nimble fintech companies and large financial institutions alike are competing for market presence. For example, pioneering healthcare-focused fintech PayZen closed $220 million in fresh capital in late 20223, while banks such as Wells Fargo and Synchrony have launched the popular medical-focused credit cards Health Advantage and CareCredit, respectively. Cain Brothers’ parent company, KeyBank, has also advanced an embedded strategy to provide healthcare digital innovation at scale and enhance patient experiences by acquiring XUP Payments in 2021. The resulting U.S. landscape for healthcare embedded finance is one that is evolving rapidly and that we are monitoring closely for investment and eventual M&A consolidation.

With expanding options around the type of medical care received and where it is received, we expect the financial tools at a patient’s disposal to garner significant attention in the years to come.

Embedded finance is a leading solution positioned to improve health equity and the financial well-being of millions of patients across the U.S., as well as fuel sector growth. Just as we’re accustomed now to buying pretty much anything with a few clicks, so too will embedded finance become a ubiquitous part of the healthcare landscape.

Canceled elective procedures putting pressure on nation’s hospitals

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, American Hospital Association (AHA), Bankruptcy, Cash, Cash Reserves, Cash-Flow Improvements, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Crisis, Crisis Management, Deferred Healthcare, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economic Stimulus, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Emergency Care, Employee Benefits, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Evidence-based Leadership, Evidence-Based Plan, Evidence-Based Policy, Financial Pressure, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Labor Spend Management, Liquidity, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Medicare Advance Payments, Mergers & Acquisitions, Mortality, National Strategy, Net Income, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Outpatient Care, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Reorganization, Supply Chain, The CARES Act • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/canceled-elective-procedures-putting-pressure-nations-hospitals

U.S. Hospitals Brace for 'Tremendous Strain' from New Virus - JEMS

Even upticks in COVID-19 patients haven’t made up for the revenue losses, since reimbursement for those services is comparatively slim.

Elective procedures are in a strange place at the moment. When the COVID-19 pandemic started to ramp up in the U.S., many of the nation’s hospitals decided to temporarily cancel elective surgeries and procedures, instead dedicating the majority of their resources to treating coronavirus patients. Some hospitals have resumed these surgeries; others resumed them and re-cancelled them; and still others are wondering when they can resume them at all.

In a recent HIMSS20 digital presentation, Reenita Das, a senior vice president and partner at Frost and Sullivan, said that during the pandemic, plastic surgery activity declined by 100%, ENT surgeries declined by 79%, cardiovascular surgeries declined by 53% and neurosurgery surgeries declined by 57%.

It’s hard to overstate the financial impact this is likely to have on hospitals’ bottom lines. Just this week, American Hospital Association President and CEO Rick Pollack, pulling from Kaufman Hall data, said the cancellation of elective surgeries is among the factors contributing to a likely industry-wide loss of $120 billion from July to December alone. When including data from earlier in the pandemic, the losses are expected to be in the vicinity of $323 billion, and half of the nation’s hospitals are expected to be in the red by the end of the year.

Doug Wolfe, cofounder and managing partner of Miami-based law firm Wolfe Pincavage, said this has amounted to a “double-whammy” for hospitals, because on top of elective procedures being cancelled, the money healthcare facilities received from the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act was an advance on future Medicare payments – which is coming due. While hospitals perform fewer procedures, they will now have to start paying that money back.

All hospitals are hurting, but some are in a more precarious position than others.

“Some hospital systems have had more cash on hand and more liquidity to withstand some of the financial pressure some systems are facing,” said Wolfe. “Traditionally, the smaller hospital systems in the healthcare climate we face today have faced a lot more financial pressure. They’re not able to control costs the same way as a big system. The smaller hospitals and systems were hurting to begin with.”

LOWER REVENUE, HIGHER COSTS

Some hospitals, especially ones in hot spots, are seeing a surge in COVID-19 patients. While this has kept frontline healthcare workers scrambling to care for scores of sick Americans, COVID-19 treatments are not reimbursed at the same level as surgeries. Hospital capacity is being stretched with less lucrative services.

“Some hospitals may be filling up right now, but they’re filling up with lower-reimbursing volume,” said Wolfe. “Inpatient stuff is lower reimbursement. It’s really the perfect storm for hospitals.”

John Haupert, CEO of Grady Health in Atlanta, Georgia, said this week that COVID-19 has had about a $115 million negative impact on Grady’s bottom line. Some $70 million of that is related to the reduction in the number of elective surgeries performed, as well as dips in emergency department and ambulatory visits. 

During one week in March, Grady saw a 50% reduction in surgeries and a 38% reduction in ER visits. The system is almost back to even in terms of elective and essential surgeries, but due to a COVID-19 surge currently taking place in Georgia, it has had to suspend those services once again. ER visits have only come back about halfway from that initial 38% dip, and the system is currently operating at 105% occupancy.

“Part of what we’re seeing there is reluctance from patients to come to hospitals or seek services,” said Haupert. “Many have significantly exacerbated chronic disease conditions.”

Patient hesitation has been an ongoing problem, as has the associated cost of treating coronavirus patients, said Wolfe.

“When they were ramping up to resume the elective stuff, there was a problem getting patients comfortable,” he said. “And the other thing was that the cost of treating patients in this environment has gone up. They’ve put up plexiglass everywhere, they have more wiping-down procedures, and all of these things add cost and time. They need to add more time between procedures so they can clean everything … so they’re able to do less, and it costs more to do less. Even when elective procedures do resume, it’s not going back to the way it was.”

Most hospitals have adjusted their costs to mitigate some of the financial hit. Even some larger systems, such as 92-hospital nonprofit Trinity Health in Michigan, have taken to measures such as laying off and furloughing workers and scaling back working hours for some of its staff. At the top of the month, Trinity announced another round of layoffs and furloughs – in addition to the 2,500 furloughs it announced in April – citing a projected $2 billion in revenue losses in fiscal year 2021, which began on June 1.

Hospitals are at the mercy of the market at the moment, and Wolfe anticipates there could be an uptick in mergers and consolidation as organizations look to partner with less cash-strapped entities. 

“Whether reorganization will work remains to be seen, but there will definitely be a fallout from this,” he said.

 

 

 

 

Hospital margins could sink to a negative 7% this year: 5 things to know

Posted on by • Posted in Bankruptcy, Cash, Cash Reserves, Cash-Flow Improvements, Coronavirus, Credit, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Stimulus, Financial Pressure, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Net Income, Nonoperating Income, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Supply Chain, The CARES Act • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/hospital-margins-could-sink-to-a-negative-7-this-year-5-things-to-know.html?utm_medium=email

New Kaufman Hall Report: Hospital Finances Crashed in April ...

The COVID-19 pandemic has created financial challenges for hospitals and health systems, and, without additional federal aid, half of US hospitals could be operating in the red in the second half of this year, according to an analysis released by the American Hospital Association on July 21.

Five takeaways from the analysis: 

1. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the median hospital margin was 3.5 percent. COVID-19 is expected to drive the median hospital margin from positive to negative. 

2. Without funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, hospital margins would have been a negative 15 percent in the second quarter of 2020. Margins are still expected to drop to a negative 3 percent in the second quarter.

3. Without additional aid from the federal government, hospital margins could sink to a negative 7 percent in the second half of this year. 

4. In the second quarter of this year, nearly half of U.S. hospitals had negative margins. Those hospitals will remain with negative margins without further financial support.  

5. “Heading into the COVID-19 crisis, the financial health of many hospitals and health systems were challenged, with many operating in the red,” said hospital association President and CEO Rick Pollack in a news release. “As today’s analysis shows, this pandemic is the greatest financial threat in history for hospitals and health systems and is a serious obstacle to keeping the doors open for many.” 

The full report, prepared by Kaufman, Hall & Associates and released by the AHA, is available here. 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

UPMC latest hospital system to report Q1 loss due to COVID-19

Posted on by • Posted in Cash, Cash Reserves, Cash-Flow Improvements, Coronavirus, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Fear, Health Insurance Industry, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/upmc-latest-hospital-system-to-report-q1-loss-due-to-covid-19/578907/

Complaint: UPMC uses nonprofit dollars to build for-profit ...

Dive Brief:

  • UPMC reported a small operating loss but higher revenues for the quarter ending March 31. The Pittsburgh-based regional healthcare system attributed the red ink to the COVID-19 pandemic and suggested the next quarter could be even tougher.
  • The healthcare services division “experienced significant reductions in patient volumes during the last two weeks” of the quarter, representing about a $150 million loss in revenue for that time period, UPMC said in its unaudited financial statement posted Friday. The system said it is receiving about $255 million from the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.
  • UPMC’s health insurance plan also saw increased revenue due to a significant rise in its membership, but its operating income dropped by 56%.

 

Dive Insight:

UPMC, which operates 40 hospitals in Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio, has been growing steadily in recent years. However, its growth in the first quarter collided head-on with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The system posted a $41 million operating loss on revenues of $5.5 billion, according to the financial report. For the first quarter of 2019, it reported an operating profit of $44 million on revenue of $5.1 billion. The system did not disclose its net numbers.

Investment losses reached nearly $800,000, compared to a gain of more than $224,000 in the prior-year period.

While overall outpatient revenue increased 1% during the quarter, revenue from physician services was down 3% while hospital admissions and observations dropped by 4%.

UPMC is the latest nonprofit healthcare provider to report losses blamed on COVID-19, although its numbers are not as big as those reported by Kaiser Permanente and CommonSpirit Health, both of which reported quarterly losses exceeding $1 billion apiece.

UPMC did note in a statement that its business was moving back toward normal in recent weeks.

“During the COVID-19 crisis, UPMC’s leaders, scientists, clinicians and front-line workers throughout our … system were prepared to care for the potential surge of COVID-positive patients while also safely providing essential, life-saving care to our non-COVID patients,” Edward Karlovich, UPMC’s interim chief financial officer, said in a statement. “However, many patients who had scheduled surgeries and procedures before the crisis postponed their care. With assurances that all our facilities are safe for all patients and staff, we are seeing our patients returning for their essential care that had been postponed and our current volumes are beginning to approach near-normal levels.”

The system also noted that it was sitting on $7 billion in cash and liquid investments. It reported 99 days cash on hand.

UPMC’s insurance division remained in the black, but was under strain. Its operating income was $39 million — compared to $89 million for the first quarter of 2019. However, membership grew by 7% during the quarter to 3.8 million enrollees.

 

 

 

 

Sluggish patient volume could jeopardize hospitals repaying advanced Medicare funds, report suggests

Posted on by • Posted in Cash, Cash Reserves, Cash-Flow Improvements, Coronavirus, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Emergency Care, Fear, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Outlook, Market Uncertainty, Medicare Advance Payments • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/outpatient-visits-rebounding-transunion-report/578894/

CMS Suspends Advance Payment Program to Clinicians for COVID-19

Dive Brief:

  • Though hospital volumes are expected to remain below pre-pandemic levels for quite some time, rebounding outpatient visits seem to be outpacing those for inpatient care or emergency department visits, according to a Transunion Healthcare survey of more than 500 hospitals.
  • During the week of May 10-16, outpatient visits were down 31% and emergency visits were down 40% compared to pre-COVID-19 levels. Inpatient volumes were down 20% and continue to trend upward, though at a slower rate than outpatient or ER visit volumes. Outpatient visits plunged between April 5 and 11, hitting a bottom of 64% down from typical volume.​
  • Baby boomers (born between 1944 and 1964) and the what the report calls the silent generation (born before 1944) are returning to ERs faster than younger generations. Millennials (born between 1980 and 1994) and Generation Z (born between 1995 and 2002) patients, however, are driving positive trends in inpatient and outpatient rebounds.

Dive Insight:

The report echos several others suggesting patients are still cautious about returning to the hospital and other care settings. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that the pandemic has forced nearly half of patients to postpone medical care. About 32% of those who have postponed care said they would get the service in the next three months and 10% said they will do so in four months to a year.

The overall sluggish outlook led Transunion to suggest patient volumes may not be restored to pre-pandemic levels soon enough to both sustain operational and clinical functions and repay advanced Medicare payments that many systems large and small have taken advantage of from CMS.

Because of the demographic trends, systems may have greater success scheduling appointments by checking in first with younger generations, the report suggests.

“We think as providers are beginning to really drive their patient engagement strategies that it’s best if they start reaching out to them, because it’s likely they’ll be willing to re-enter the care setting,” John Yount, vice president for TransUnion Healthcare, told Healthcare Dive.

Providers are taking steps to ease patient fears upon returning to medical settings by implementing temperature checks, spacing out waiting rooms to allow for social distancing and taking other safety measures.

But a sluggish recovery is still likely as patients plan to continue delaying care, especially older adults who are at higher risk for COVID-19 and in some states have been told to continue following stay at home orders.

The slowest return to growth in emergency room visits raises concerns that patients who need emergency care may be avoiding hospital settings due to COVID-19 fears, according to the report.

Older patients are leading the pack in returning to ERs, and they also experienced the largest decline in inpatient volumes from March 1-7 and April 5-11.

Comparatively, younger generations had smaller declines in visit activity overall and are returning to care settings faster, Yount said.

“These deferrals will have implications for both patients and providers — high-acuity and chronically-ill patients risk waiting too long to seek care, and a continued reduction in visit volume will further amplify existing financial challenges for hospitals,” David Wojczynski, president of TransUnion Healthcare, said in a statement.

 

 

 

 

 

Fitch Q2 outlook for nonprofit hospitals: ‘worst on record’

Posted on by • Posted in Cash, Cash Reserves, Cash-Flow Improvements, Coronavirus, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Emergency Care, Fear, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Outlook, Market Uncertainty, Medicare Advance Payments, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/fitch-analysts-hospital-worries-FY-2020/577875/

7 Ways to Survive a Cash Flow Crunch | SCORE

UPDATE: May 15, 2020: This article has been updated to include information from a Moody’s Investors Service report.

From the Mayo Clinic to Kaiser Permanente, nonprofit hospitals are posting massive losses as the coronavirus pandemic upends their traditional way of doing business.

Fitch Ratings analysts predict a grimmer second quarter: “the worst on record for most,” Kevin Holloran, senior director for Fitch, said during a Tuesday webinar.​

Over the past month, Fitch has revised its nonprofit hospital sector outlook from stable to negative. It has yet to change its ratings outlook to negative, though the possibility wasn’t ruled out.

Some have already seen the effects. Mayo estimates up to $3 billion in revenue losses from the onset of the pandemic until late April — given the system is operating “well below” normal capacity. It also announced employee furloughs and pay cuts, as several other hospitals have done.

Data released Tuesday from health cost nonprofit FAIR Health show how steep declines have been for larger hospitals in particular. The report looked at process claims for private insurance plans submitted by more than 60 payers for both nonprofit and for-profit hospitals.

Facilities with more than 250 beds saw average per-facility revenues based on estimated in-network amounts decline from $4.5 million in the first quarter of 2019 to $4.2 million in the first quarter of 2020. The gap was less pronounced in hospitals with 101 to 250 beds and not evident at all in those with 100 beds or fewer.

Funding from federal relief packages has helped offset losses at those larger hospitals to some degree.

Analysts from the ratings agency said those grants could help fill in around 30% to 50% of lost revenues, but won’t solve the issue on their own.

They also warned another surge of COVID-19 cases could happen as hospitals attempt to recover from the steep losses they felt during the first half of the year.

Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, warned lawmakers this week that the U.S. doesn’t have the necessary testing and surveillance infrastructure in place to prep for a fall resurgence of the coronavirus, a second wave that’s “entirely conceivable and possible.”

“If some areas, cities, states or what have you, jump over these various checkpoints and prematurely open up … we will start to see little spikes that may turn into outbreaks,” he told a Senate panel.

That could again overwhelm the healthcare system and financially devastate some on the way to recovery.

“Another extended time period without elective procedures would be very difficult for the sector to absorb,” Holloran said, suggesting if another wave occurs, such procedures should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not a state-by-state basis.

Hospitals in certain states and markets are better positioned to return to somewhat normal volumes later this year, analysts said, such as those with high growth and other wealth or income indicators. College towns and state capitols will fare best, they said.

Early reports of patients rescheduling postponed elective procedures provide some hope for returning to normal volumes.

“Initial expectations in reopened states have been a bit more positive than expected due to pent up demand,” Holloran said. But he cautioned there’s still a “real, honest fear about returning to a hospital.”

Moody’s Investors Service said this week nonprofit hospitals should expect the see the financial effects of the pandemic into next year and assistance from the federal government is unlikely to fully compensate them.

How quickly facilities are able to ramp up elective procedures will depend on geography, access to rapid testing, supply chains and patient fears about returning to a hospital, among other factors, the ratings agency said.

“There is considerable uncertainty regarding the willingness of patients — especially older patients and those considered high risk — to return to the health system for elective services,” according to the report. “Testing could also play an important role in establishing trust that it is safe to seek medical care, especially for nonemergency and elective services, before a vaccine is widely available.”

Hospitals have avoided major cash flow difficulties thanks to financial aid from the federal government, but will begin to face those issues as they repay Medicare advances. And the overall U.S. economy will be a key factor for hospitals as well, as job losses weaken the payer mix and drive down patient volumes and increase bad debt, Moody’s said.

Like other businesses, hospitals will have to adapt new safety protocols that will further strain resources and slow productivity, according to the report.​

Another trend brought by the pandemic is a drop in ER volumes. Patients are still going to emergency rooms, FAIR Health data show, but most often for respiratory illnesses. Admissions for pelvic pain and head injuries, among others declined in March.

“Hospitals may also be losing revenue from a widespread decrease in the number of patients visiting emergency rooms for non-COVID-19 care,” according to the report. “Many patients who would have otherwise gone to the ER have stayed away, presumably out of fear of catching COVID-19.”