As the locus of care continues to shift from inpatient hospitals to outpatient centers, health system executives face a growing conundrum over pricing. The combination of “consumerism” and tougher reimbursement policies raises a question about how aggressively systems should discount services to compete in the ambulatory arena.
Site-neutral payment remains a goal for Medicare, and consumers are increasingly voting with their pocketbooks when it comes to choosing where to have procedures and diagnostics performed. “We know we’re going to have to give on price,” one CEO recently shared with us. “The question is how much, and how soon.”
Should hospitals proactively shift to match prices offered by freestanding centers, or should they try to defend their substantially higher “hospital outpatient department” (HOPD) pricing?
The former choice could help win—or at least keep—business in the system, but at the risk of turning that business into a money-losing proposition.
To compete successfully, hospitals will not only need to lower price, but also lower cost-to-serve—rethinking how operations are run, how overhead is allocated, and how services are staffed and delivered in ambulatory settings.
“We’ve got to get our costs down,” the CEO admitted. “Trying to run an ambulatory business with our traditional hospital cost structure is a recipe for losing money.”
And as a system CFO recently told us, “We can’t just trade good price for bad, for doing the same work. We have to be smart about where to discount services.” The future sustainability of many health systems will hinge on how they navigate this transition to an ambulatory-centric model.
Large, not-for-profit hospitals/health systems are getting a disproportionate share of unflattering attention these days. Last week was no exception: Here’s a smattering of their coverage:
Jiang et al “Factors Associated with Hospital Commercial Negotiated Price for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Brain” JAMA Network Open March 21. 2023;6(3):e233875. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.3875
Whaley et al What’s Behind Losses At Large Nonprofit Health Systems? Health Affairs March 24, 2023 10.1377/forefront.20230322.44474
A Pa. hospital’s revoked property tax exemption is a ‘warning shot’ to other nonprofits, expert says KYW Radio Philadelphia March 24, 2023 ww.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-pa-hospital-s-revoked-property-tax-exemption-is-a-warning-shot-to-other-nonprofits-expert-says
These come on the heals of the Medicare Advisory Commission’s (MedPAC) March 2023 Report to Congress advising that all but safety-net hospitals are in reasonably good shape financially (contrary to industry assertions) and increased lawmaker scrutiny of “ill-gotten gains” in healthcare i.e., Moderna’s vaccine windfall, Medicare Advantage overpayments and employer activism about hospital price-gauging in several states.
Like every sector in healthcare, hospitals enter budget battles with good stories to tell about cost-reductions and progress in price transparency compliance. But in the current political and economic environment, large, not-for-profit hospitals and health systems seem to be targets of more adverse coverage than others as illustrated above. Like many NFP institutions in society (higher education, organized religion, government), erosion of trust is palpable. Not-for-profit hospitals and health systems are no exception.
The themes emerging from last week’s coverage are familiar:
‘Not-for-profit hospitals/health systems, do not provide value commensurate with the tax exemptions they get.’
‘Not for profit hospitals & health systems take advantage of their markets and regulations to create strong brands and generate big profits.’.
‘Not for profit hospitals & health systems charge more than investor-owned hospitals: the victims are employers and consumers who pay higher-than-necessary prices for their services.’
‘NFP operators invest in risky ventures: when the capital market slumps, they are ill-prepared to manage. Risky investments, not workforce and supply chain issues, are the root causes of NFP financial stress. They’re misleading the public purposely.’
‘Executives in NFP systems are overpaid and patient collection policies are more aggressive than for-profits. NFP boards are ineffective.’
The stimulants for this negative attention are equally familiar:
Proprietary studies by think tanks, trade associations, labor unions and consultancies designed to “prove a point” for/against not-for-profit hospitals/health systems.
Government reports about hospital spending, waste, fraud, workforce issues, patient safety, concentration and compliance with transparency rules.
Aggressive national/local reporting by journalists inclined to discount NFP messaging.
Public opinion polls about declining trust in the system and growing concern about price transparency, affordability and equitable access.
Politicians who use soundbites and dog whistles about NFP hospitals to draw attention to themselves.
The cumulative effect of these is confusion, frustration and distrust of not-for-profit hospitals and health systems. Most believe not-for-profit hospitals/health systems do not own the moral high ground they affirm to regulators and their communities (though religiously-affiliated systems have an edge). Most are unaware that more than half of all hospitals (54%) are not-for-profit and distinctions between safety net, rural, DSH, teaching and other forms of NFP ownership are non-specific to their performance.
What’s clear to the majority is that hospitals are expensive and essential. They’re soft targets representing 31.1% of the health system’s total spend ($4.3 trillion in 2021) increasing 4.9% annually in the last decade while inflation and GDP growth were less.
So why are not-for-profit systems bearing the brunt of hospital criticism?
Simply put: many NFP systems act more like Big Business than shepherds of community health. In fact, 4 of the top 10 multi-hospital system operators is investor owned: HCA (184), CHS (84), LifePoint (84), Tenet (65). In addition, 3 others are in the top 50: Ardent (30), UHS (26), Quorum (22). So, corporatization of hospital care using private capital and public markets for growth is firmly entrenched in the sector exposing not-for-profit operators to competition that’s better funded and more nimble. And, per industry studies, not-for-profits tend to stay in markets longer and operate unprofitable services more frequently than their investor-owned competitors. But does this matter to insurers, community leaders, legislators, employers, hospital employees and physicians? Some but not much.
My take:
There are no easy answers for not-for-profit hospitals/heath systems. The issue is about more than messaging and PR. It’s about more than Medicare reimbursement (7.5% below cost), protecting programs like 340B, keeping tax exemptions and maintaining barriers against physician-owned hospitals. The issue is NOT about operating income vs. investment income: in every business, both are essential and in each, economic cycles impact gains/losses. Each of these is important but only band-aids on an open wound in U.S. healthcare.
Near-term (the next 2 years), opportunities for not-for-profit hospitals involve administrative simplification to reduce costs and improve the efficiencies and effectiveness of the workforce. Clinical documentation using ChatGPT/Bard-like tools can have a massive positive impact—that’s just a start. Advocacy, public education and Board preparedness require bigger investments of time and resources. But that’s true for every hospital, regardless of ownership. These are table stakes to stay afloat.
The longer-term issue for NFPs is bigger:
It’s about defining the future of the U.S. health system in 2030 and beyond—the roles to be played and resources necessary for it to skate to where the puck is going. It’s about defining the role played by private employers and whether they’ll pay 220% more than Medicare pays to keep providers and insurers solvent. It’s about how underserved and unhealthy people are managed. It’s about defining systemness in healthcare and standardizing processes. It’s about defining sources of funding and optimal use of resources. Not-for-profit systems should drive these discussions in the communities they serve and at a national level.
MedPAC’s 17 member Commission will play a vital role, but equally important to this design process are inputs from employers, consumers and thought leaders who bring fresh insight. Until then, not-for-profit health systems will be soft targets for unflattering media because protecting the status quo is paramount to insiders who benefit from its dysfunction. Incrementalism defined as innovation is a recipe for failure.
It’s time to begin a discussion about the future of the U.S. health system—all of it, not just high-profile sectors like not-for-profit hospitals/health systems who are currently its soft target.
Thursday marks the 13th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act– perhaps the most consequential healthcare legislation since LBJ’s passage of the Medicare Act in 1965. Except in healthcare circles, it will probably go unnoticed.
World events in the Ukraine and China President Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia will grab more media attention. At home, the ripple effects of Silicon Valley Bank’s bankruptcy and the stability of the banking system will get coverage and former President Trump’s arrest tomorrow will produce juicy soundbites from partisans and commentators. Thus, the birthday of Affordable Care Act, will get scant attention.
That’s regrettable: it offers an important context for navigating the future of the U.S. health system. Having served as an independent facilitator between the White House and private sector interests in 2009-2010, I recall vividly the events leading to its passage and the Supreme Court challenge that affirmed it:
The costs and affordability of healthcare and growing concern about the swelling ranks of uninsured were the issues driving its origin. Both political parties and every major trade group agreed on the issues; solving them not so easy.
Effective messaging from special interests about the ACA increased awareness of the law and calcified attitudes for or against. Misinformation/disinformation about the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” morphed to a national referendum on insurance coverage and the cost-effectiveness of the ACA’s solution (Medicaid expansion, subsidies and insurance marketplaces). ‘Death panels. government run healthcare and Obamacare’ labels became targets for critics: spending by special interests opposed to the law dwarfed support by 7 to 1. Differences intensified: Emotions ran high. I experienced it firsthand. While maintaining independence and concerns about the law, I received death threats nonetheless. Like religion, the ACA was off-limits to meaningful discussion (especially among the majority who hadn’t read it).
And after Scott Brown’s election to the vacant Massachusetts seat held by Ted Kennedy in January, 2010, the administration shifted its support to a more-moderate Senate Finance Committee version of the law that did not include a public option or malpractice reforms in the House version. Late-night lobbying by White House operatives resulted in a House vote in favor of the Senate version with promises ‘it’s only the start’. Through amendments, executive orders, administrative actions and appropriations, it would evolve with the support of the Obama team. It passed along party lines with the CBO offering an optimistic view it would slow health cost escalation by reducing administrative waste, implementation of comparative effectiveness research to align evidence with care, increased insurance coverage, changing incentives for hospitals and physicians and more.
The Affordable Care Act dominated media coverage from August 2009 to March 2010. In the 2010 mid-term election, it was the issue that catapulted Republicans to net gains of 7 in the Senate, 63 in the House and 6 in Governor’s offices. And since, Republicans in Congress have introduced “Repeal and Replace” legislation more than 60 times, failing each time.
Today, public opinion about the ACA has shifted modestly: from 46% FOR and 40% against in 2010 to 55% FOR and 42% against now (KFF). The national uninsured rate has dropped from 15.5% to 8.6% and Medicaid has been expanded in 39 states and DC. Lower costs, increased affordability and quality improvements owing to the ACA have had limited success.
Key elements of the ACA have not lived up to expectations i.e. the Patient Centered Outcome Research Institute, the National Quality Strategy, Title V National Healthcare Workforce Task Force, CMMI’s alternative payment models and achievement of Level 3 interoperability goals vis a vis ONCHIT, CHIME et al. So, as the 2024 political season starts, the ACA will get modest attention by aspirants for federal office because it addressed big problems with blunt instruments. Most recognize it needs to be modernized based on trends and issues relevant to healthcare in 2030 and beyond.
Trends like…
Self-diagnostics and treatment by consumers (enabled by ChatGPT et al).
Data-driven clinical decision-making.
Integration of non-allopathic methodologies.
The science of wellbeing.
Complete price, cost and error transparency.
Employer and individual insurance coverage optimization.
And others.
Issues like….
The role and social responsibility of private equity in ownership and operation of services in healthcare delivery and financing.
The regulatory framework for local hospitals vs. Regional/nation health systems, and between investor-owned and not-for-profit sponsorship.
The role and resources for guided self-care management and virtual-care.
Innovations in care delivery services to vulnerable populations using technologies and enhanced workforce models.
Modernization of regulatory environments and rules of competition for fully integrated health systems, prescription drug manufacturers, health insurers, over-the counter therapies, food as medicine, physician ownership of hospitals, data ownership, tech infomediaries that facilitate clinical decision-making, self-care, professional liability and licensing and many others.
Integration of public health and local health systems.
The allocation of capital to the highest and best uses in the health system.
The sustainability of Medicare and role of Medicare Advantage.
The regulatory framework for disruptors”.
And many others.
These trends are not-easily monitored nor are the issues clear and actionable. Most are inadequately addressed or completely missed in the ACA.
Complicating matters, the political environment today is more complicated than in 2010 when the ACA became law. The economic environment is more challenging: the pandemic, inflation and economic downturn have taken their toll. Intramural tensions in key sectors have spiked as each fights for control and autonomy i.e. primary care vs. specialty medicine, investor-owned vs. not-for-profit hospitals, retail medicine & virtual vs. office-based services, carve-outs, direct contracting et al . Consolidation has widened capabilities and resources distancing big organizations from others. Today’s media attention to healthcare is more sophisticated. Employers are more frustrated. And the public’s confidence in the health system is at an all-time low.
“ACA 2.0” is necessary to the system’s future but unlikely unless spearheaded by community and business leaders left out of the 1.0 design process. The trends and issues are new and complicated, requiring urgent forward thinking.
On Wednesday, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, announced plans to modernize the US organ transplant system. For 40 years, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has held an exclusive contract to facilitate the retrieval, matching, and distribution of all transplanted organs, handling a record 43K transplants last year.
Starting this fall, HRSA will split out contracts and open the bidding process up to competition, hoping to increase efficiency, accountability, and transparency. While the Biden administration has asked Congress to double the funding appropriated to HRSA for the transplant system, it has the authority to institute many of these changes without Congressional action.
The Gist: The US organ transplant system has long received criticism from patients and providers.With over 100K Americans currently on organ transplant waiting lists, and 6K dying annually while waiting (a group that is disproportionately Black and Latino), there’s vast room for improvement.
The government’s efforts to increase competition to solve operational and distribution challenges is overdue, but other aspects of the transplant process, including performance evaluation, deserve reassessment as well. For example, providers are scored on the survival rates of patients who receive transplants, but not those who die on waiting lists. Thus, they are disincentivized to operate on higher-risk patients or utilize organs that are potentially transplantable but have imperfections.
Hospitals and transplant specialists must take an active role in ensuring the overhauled process provides comprehensive reform, driven by the best interests of patients.
CVS Health is close to a deal to acquire primary care provider Oak Street Health for around $10.5 billion, including debt, marking the latest move among major healthcare stakeholders in acquiring primary care companies, the Wall Street Journal reports.
According to people with knowledge of the matter who spoke to the Journal, the two companies are discussing a deal in which CVS would acquire Oak Street for a price of around $39 a share. If the deal goes through, it could be announced as soon as this week.
According to the Journal, “the Oak Street acquisition would further the company’s long-term shift to broaden into businesses beyond retail pharmacy by adding doctors who can more fully manage patients’ care.”
Oak Street has more than 160 centers across 21 states and focuses mainly on caring for patients enrolled in Medicare. The company, which is based in Chicago, was founded in 2012 and specializes in caring for patients under value-based care arrangements.
Aetna, which is owned by CVS, has a growing Medicare Advantage business that would likely tie in with Oak Street’s clinics, which care for about 159,000 patients under value-based arrangements, the Journal reports.
The move is the latest among major healthcare stakeholders acquiring primary care companies. In September 2022, CVS announced an $8 billion deal to acquire home healthcare company Signify Health.
Meanwhile, Amazon in July 2022 announced a $3.9 billion deal to acquire primary care company One Medical, Humana in September 2022 announced its intention to spend up to $550 million to purchase 20 CenterWell Senior Primary Care clinics, and Walgreens Boots Alliance in November 2022 announced a roughly $9 billion deal to acquire Summit Health.
Recent conversations with executive teams about physician issues have made us feel like we’ve time-travelled back to 2006. Both health systems and large independent physician groups report having difficulties hiring physicians willing to take call, even among specialties where it has long been part of the job expectations.
“We stopped paying for call fifteen years ago,” one CMO shared. “But now, even though we’ve started paying again, it’s hard to get takers.” While procedural specialties seem to be the hardest to cover, with orthopedics, urology, and GI cited most frequently, we’re also hearing challenges with medical specialty coverage. One hospital CEO (who lamented that call coverage had once again risen to a CEO-level problem) shared that cardiologist candidates were looking for positions without call obligations.
The knee-jerk reaction of older executives is to blame a younger generation of doctors seeking more work-life balance. Surely this contributes, but as one astute medical group CEO pointed out, the only way doctors can draw this line in the sand with health systems is if there are alternatives that don’t require call.
He referenced the growing number of investor-backed specialty practices focused squarely on outpatient growth and even offering doctors no-call positions straight out of training. In his market, he felt these doctors were discouraged from taking call: “When 80 percent of the procedures are done in a surgery center, an orthopod doesn’t need referrals from call to fill his schedule with new patients. And the patients they encounter in our ED are more likely to be uninsured or government pay, so they don’t want them anyway.”
Beyond simply paying for call, a few other solutions are gaining traction. Some hospitals are expanding the number of in-house, hospitalist-like positions for other specialties. Others are deploying virtual consult services with some success, even in procedural specialties. As one orthopedic surgeon told us, the virtual call coverage does a decent job with triage and can often save the doctor from having to come in overnight.
Ultimately, as the number of investor-owned specialty groups expands, health systems must develop collaborative relationships to solve care delivery challenges across the continuum.
Radio Advisory’s Rachel Woods sat down with Advisory Board‘s Aaron Mauck and Natalie Trebes to talk about where leaders need to focus their attention on longer-term industry challenges—like growing competition, behavioral health infrastructure, and finding success in value-based care.
Rachel Woods: So I’ve been thinking about the last conversation that we had about what executives need to know to be prepared to be successful in 2023, and I feel like my big takeaway is that the present feels aggressively urgent. The business climate today is extraordinarily tough, there are all these disruptive forces that are changing the competitive landscape, right? That’s where we focused most of our last conversation.
But we also agreed that those were still kind of near-term problems. My question is why, if things feel like they are in such a crisis, do we need to also focus our attention on longer term challenges?
Aaron Mauck: It’s pretty clear that the business environment really isn’t sustainable as it currently stands, and there’s a tendency, of course, for all businesses to focus on the urgent and important items at the expense of the non-urgent and important items. And we have a lot of non-urgent important things that are coming on the horizon that we have to address.
Obviously, you think about the aging population. We have the baby boom reaching an age where they’re going to have multiple care needs that have to be addressed that constitute pretty significant challenges. That aging population is a central concern for all of us.
Costly specialty therapeutics that are coming down the pipeline that are going to yield great results for certain patient segments, but are going to be very expensive. Unmanaged behavioral needs, disagreements around appropriate spending. So we have lots of challenges, myriad of challenges we’re going to have to address simultaneously.
Natalie Trebes: Yeah, that’s right. And I would add that all of those things are at threshold moments where they are pivoting into becoming our real big problems that are very soon going to be the near term problems. And the environment that we talked about last time, it’s competitive chaos that’s happening right now, is actually the perfect time to be making some changes because all the challenges we’re going to talk about require really significant restructuring of how we do business. That’s hard to do when things are stable.
Woods: Yes. But I still think you’re going to get some people who disagree. And let me tell you why. I think there’s two reasons why people are going to disagree. The first reason is, again, they are dealing with not just one massive fire in front of them, but what feels like countless massive fires in front of them that’s just demanding all of their strategic attention. That was the first thing you said every executive needs to know going into this year, and maybe not know, but accept, if I’m thinking about the stages of grief.
But the second reason why I think people are going to push back is the laundry list of things that Aaron just spoke of are areas where, I’m not saying the healthcare industry shouldn’t be focused on them, but we haven’t actually made meaningful progress so far.
Is 2023 actually the year where we should start chipping away at some of those huge industry challenges? That’s where I think you’re going to get disagreement. What do you say to that?
Trebes: I think that’s fair. I think it’s partly that we have to start transforming today and organizations are going to diverge from here in terms of how they are affected. So far, we’ve been really kind of sharing the pain of a lot of these challenges, it’s bits and pieces here. We’re all having to eat a little slice of this.
I think different organizations right now, if they are careful about understanding their vulnerabilities and thinking about where they’re exposed, are going to be setting themselves up to pass along some of that to other organizations. And so this is the moment to really understand how do we collectively want to address these challenges rather than continue to try to touch as little of it as we possibly can and scrape by?
Woods: That’s interesting because it’s also probably not just preparing for where you have vulnerabilities that are going to be exposed sooner rather than later, but also where might you have a first mover advantage? That gets back to what you were talking about when it comes to the kind of competitive landscape, and there’s probably people who can use these as an opportunity for the future.
Mauck: Crises are always opportunities and even for those players across the healthcare system who have really felt like they’re boxers in the later rounds covering up under a lot of blows, there’s opportunities for them to come back and devise strategies for the long term that really yield growth.
We shouldn’t treat this as a time just of contraction. There are major opportunities even for some of the traditional incumbents if they’re approaching these challenges in the right fashion. When we think about that in terms of things like labor or care delivery models, there’s huge opportunities and when I talk with C-suites from across the sector, they recognize those opportunities. They’re thinking in the long term, they need to think in the long term if they’re going to sustain themselves. It is a time of existential crisis, but also a time for existential opportunity.
Trebes: Yeah, let’s be real, there is a big risk of being a first mover, but there is a really big opportunity in being on the forefront of designing the infrastructure and setting the table of where we want to go and designing this to work for you. Because changes have to happen, you really want to be involved in that kind of decision making.
Woods: And in the vein of acceptance, we should all accept that this isn’t going to be easy. The challenges that I think we want to focus on for the rest of this conversation are challenges that up to this point have seemed unsolvable. What are the specific areas that you think should really demand executive attention in 2023?
Trebes: Well, I think they break into a few different categories. We are having real debates about how do we decide what are appropriate outcomes in healthcare? And so the concept of measuring value and paying for value. We have to make some decisions about what trade-offs we want to make there, and how do we build in health equity into our business model and do we want to make that a reality for everyone?
Another category is all of the expensive care that we have to figure out how to deliver and finance over the coming years. So we’re talking about the already inadequate behavioral health infrastructure that’s seen a huge influx in demand.
We’re talking about what Aaron mentioned, the growing senior population, especially with boomers getting older and requiring a lot more care, and the pipeline of high-cost therapies. All of this is not what we are ready as the healthcare system as it exists today to manage appropriately in a financially sustainable way. And that’s going to be really hard for purchasers who are financing all of this.
There is no shortage of challenges to confront in healthcare today, from workforce shortages and burnout to innovation and health equity (and so much more). We’re committed to giving industry leaders a platform for sharing best practices and exchanging ideas that can improve care, operations and patient outcomes.
Check out this podcast interview with Ketul J. Patel, CEO at Virginia Mason Franciscan Health and division president, Pacific Northwest at CommonSpirit Health, for his insights on where healthcare is headed in the future.
In this episode, we are joined by Ketul J. Patel, Division President, Pacific Northwest; Chief Executive Officer, CommonSpirit Health; Virginia Mason Franciscan Health, to discuss his background & what led him to executive healthcare leadership, challenges surrounding workforce shortages, the importance of having a strong workplace culture, and more.
The executives featured in this article are all speaking at the Becker’s Healthcare 13th Annual Meeting April 3-6, 2023, at the Hyatt Regency in Chicago.
Question: What will hospitals and health systems look like in 10 years? What will be different and what will be the same?
Michael A. Slubowski. President and CEO of Trinity Health (Livonia, Mich.): In 10 years, inpatient hospitals will be more focused on emergency care, intensive/complex care following surgery or complex medical conditions, and short-stay/observation units. Only the most complex surgical cases and complex medical cases will be inpatient status. Most elective surgery and diagnostic services will be done in freestanding surgery, procedural and imaging centers. Many patients with chronic medical conditions will be managed at home using digital monitoring. More seniors will be cared for in homes and/or in PACE programs versus skilled nursing facilities.
Mark A. Schuster, MD, PhD. Founding Dean and Chief Executive Officer of Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine (Pasadena, Calif.): The future of hospitals might not actually unfold in hospitals. I expect that more and more of what we now do in hospitals will move into the home. The technology that makes this transition possible is already out there: Remote monitoring of vital signs and lab tests, remote visual exams, and videoconferencing with patients. And all of this technology will improve even more over the next 10 years — turning at-home care from a dream into a reality.
Imagine no longer being kept awake all night by beeps and alarms coming from other patients’ rooms or kept away from family by limited visiting hours. The benefits are especially welcome for people who live in rural places and other areas with limited medical facilities. Who knows? Maybe robotics will make some in-home surgeries not so far off!
Of course, not all patients have a safe or stable home environment where they could receive care, so hospitals aren’t going away anytime soon. I’m not suggesting that most current patients could be cared for remotely in a decade — but I do think we’re moving in that direction. So those of us who work in education will need to train medical, nursing, and other students for a healthcare future that looks quite different from the healthcare present and takes place in settings we couldn’t imagine 10 years ago.
Shireen Ahmad. System Director, Operations and Finance of CommonSpirit Health (Chicago): The biggest change I anticipate is a continuation in the decentralization of health services delivery that has typically been provided by hospitals. This will result in a reduction of hospitals with fewer services performed in acute settings and with more services provided in non-acute ones.
With recent reimbursement changes, CMS is helping to set the tone of where care is delivered. Hospitals are beginning to rationalize services, including who and where care is delivered. For example, pharmacies often carry clinics that provide vaccinations, but in France, one can go to a pharmacy for care and sterilization of minor wounds while only paying for bandages, medication and other supplies used in the visit. I would not be surprised if, in 10 years, one could get an MRI at their local Walmart or schedule routine screenings and tests at the grocery store with faster, more accurate results as they check out their produce.
If the pandemic has taught us anything, there will always be a need for acute care and our society will always need hospitals to provide care to sick patients. This is not something I would anticipate changing. However, the need to provide most care in a hospital will change with the result leading to fewer hospitals in total. Far from being a bleak outlook, however, I believe that healthier, sustainable health systems will prevail if they are able to provide a greater spectrum of care in broader settings focussing on quality and convenience.
Gerard Brogan. Senior Vice President and Chief Revenue Officer of Northwell Health (New Hyde Park, N.Y.): Operationally, hospitals and health systems will be more designed around the patient experience rather than the patient accommodating to the hospital design and operations. Specifically, more geared toward patient choice, shopping for services, and price competition for out-of-pocket expenses. In order to bring costs down, rational control of utilization will be more important than ever. Hopefully, we will be able to shrink the administrative costs of delivering care. Structurally, more care will continue to be done ambulatory, with hospitals having a greater proportion of beds having critical care capability and single rooms for infection control, putting pressure on the cost per square foot to operate. Sustainable funding strategies for safety net hospitals will be needed.
Mike Gentry. Executive Vice President and COO of Sentara Healthcare (Norfolk, Va.): During the next 10 years, more rural hospitals will become critical assessment facilities. The legislation will be passed to facilitate this transition. Relationships with larger sponsoring health systems will support easy transitions to higher acuity services as required. In urban areas, fewer hospitals with greater acuity and market share will often match the 50 percent plus market share of health plans. The ambulatory transition will have moved beyond only surgical procedures into outpatient but expanded historical medical inpatient status in ED/observation hubs.
The consumer/patient experience will be vastly improved. Investments in mobile digital applications will provide greatly enhanced communication, transparency of clinical status, timelines, the likelihood of expected outcomes and cost. Patients will proactively select from a menu of treatment options provided by predictive AI. The largest 10 health systems will represent 25 percent of the total U.S. acute care market share, largely due to consumer-centric strategic investments that have outpaced their competitors. Health systems will have vastly larger pharma operations/footprints.
Ketul J. Patel. CEO of Virginia Mason Franciscan Health (Seattle) and Division President, Pacific Northwest of CommonSpirit Health (Chicago): This is a transformative time in the healthcare industry, as hospitals and healthcare systems are evolving and innovating to meet the growing and changing needs of the communities we serve. The pandemic accelerated the digital transformation of healthcare. We have seen the proliferation of new technologies — telemedicine, artificial intelligence, robotics, and precision medicine — becoming an integral part of everyday clinical care. Healthcare consumers have become empowered through technology, with greater control and access to care than ever before.
Against this backdrop, in the next decade we’ll see healthcare consumerism influencing how health systems transform their hospitals. We will continue incorporating new technologies to improve healthcare delivery, offering more convenient ways to access high-quality care, and lowering the overall cost of care.
SMART hospitals, including at Virginia Mason Franciscan Health, are utilizing AI to harness real-time data and analysis to revolutionize patient and provider experiences and improve the quality of care. VMFH was the first health system in the Pacific Northwest to introduce a virtual hospital nearly a decade ago, which provides virtual services in the hospital across the continuum of care to improve quality and safety through remote patient monitoring and care delivery.
As hospitals become more high-tech, more nimble, and more efficient over the next 10 years, there will be less emphasis on brick-and-mortar buildings as we continue to move care away from the hospital toward more convenient settings for the patient. We recently launched VMFH Home Recovery Care, which brings all the essential elements of hospital-level care into the comfort and convenience of patients’ homes, offering a safe and effective alternative to the traditional inpatient stay.
Health systems and hospitals must simplify the care experience while reducing the overall cost of care. VMFH is building Washington state’s first hybrid emergency room/urgent care center, which eliminates the guesswork for patients unsure of where to go for care. By offering emergent and urgent care in a single location, patients get the appropriate level of care, at the right price, in one convenient location.
As healthcare delivery becomes more sophisticated in this digital age, we must not lose sight of why we do this work: our patients. There is no device or innovation that can truly replace the care and human intelligence provided by our nurses, APPs and physicians. So, while hospitals and health systems might look and feel different in 2033, our mission will remain the same: to provide exceptional, compassionate care to all — especially the most vulnerable.
David Sylvan. President of University Hospitals Ventures (Cleveland): American healthcare is facing an imperative. It’s clear that incremental improvements alone won’t manifest the structural outcomes that are largely overdue. The good news is that the healthcare industry itself has already initiated the disruption and self-disintermediation. I would hope that in the next 10 years, our offerings in healthcare truly reflect our efforts to adopt consumerism and patient choice, alleviate equity barriers and harness efficiencies while reducing time waste.
We know that some of this will come about through technology design, build and adoption, especially in the areas of generative artificial intelligence. But we also know that some of this will require a process overhaul, with learnings gleaned from other industries that have already solved adjacent challenges. What won’t change in 10 years will be the empathy and quality of care that the nation’s clinicians provide to patients and their caregivers daily.
Joseph Webb. CEO of Nashville (Tenn.) General Hospital: The United States healthcare industry operates within a culture that embraces capitalism as an economic system. The practice of capitalism facilitates a framework that is supported by the theory of consumerism. This theory posits that the more goods and services are purchased and consumed, the stronger an economy will be. With that in mind, healthcare is clearly a driver in the U.S. economy, and therefore, major capital and technology are continuously infused into healthcare systems. Healthcare is currently approaching 20 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and will continue to escalate over the next 10 years.
Also, in 10 years, there will be major shifts in ownership structures, e.g., mergers, acquisitions, and consolidations. Many healthcare organizations/hospitals will be unable to sustain operations due to shrinking profit margins. This will lead to a higher likelihood of increasing closures among rural hospitals due to a lack of adequate reimbursement and rising costs associated with salaries for nurses, respiratory therapists, etc., as well as purchasing pharmaceuticals.
Aging baby boomers with chronic medical conditions will continue to dominate healthcare demand as a cohort group. To mitigate the rising costs of care, healthcare systems and providers will begin to rely even more heavily on artificial intelligence and smart devices. Population health initiatives will become more prevalent as the cost to support fragmented care becomes cost-prohibitive and payers such as CMS will continue to lead the way toward value-based care.
Because of structural and social conditions that tend to drive social determinants of health, which are fundamental causes of health disparities, achieving health equity will continue to be a major challenge in the U.S. Health equity is an elusive goal that can only be achieved when there is a more equitable distribution of SDOH.
Gary Baker. CEO, Hospital Division of HonorHealth (Scottsdale, Ariz.): In 10 years, I would expect hospitals in health systems to become more specialized for higher acuity service lines. Providing similar acute services at multiple locations will become difficult to maintain. Recruiting and retaining specialty clinical talent and adopting new technologies will require some redistribution of services to improve clinical quality and efficiency. Your local hospital may not provide a service and will be a navigator to the specialty facilities. Many services will be provided in ambulatory settings as technology and reimbursement allow/require. Investment in ambulatory services will continue for the next 10 years.
Michael Connelly. CEO Emeritus of Bon Secours Mercy Health (Cincinnati): Our society will be forced to embrace economic limits on healthcare services. The exploding elderly population, in combination with a shrinking workforce to fund Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, will force our health system to ration care in new ways. These realities will increase the role of primary care as the needed coordinator of health services for patients. Diminishing fragmented healthcare and redundant care will become an increasing focus for health policy.
David Rahija. President of Skokie Hospital, NorthShore University HealthSystem (Evanston, Ill.): Health systems will evolve from being just a collection of hospitals, providers, and services to providing and coordinating care across a longitudinal care continuum. Health systems that are indispensable health partners to patients and communities by providing excellent outcomes through seamless, coordinated, and personalized care across a disease episode and a life span will thrive. Providers that only provide transactional care without a holistic, longitudinal relationship will either close or be consolidated. Care tailored to the personalized needs of patients and communities using team care models, technology, genomics, and analytics will be key to executing a personalized, seamless, and coordinated model of care.
Alexa Kimball, MD. President and CEO of Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Boston): Ten years from now, hospitals will largely look the same — at least from the outside. Brick-and-mortar buildings aren’t going away anytime soon. What will differ is how care is delivered beyond the traditional four walls. Expect to see a more patient-centered and responsive system organized around what individuals need — when and where they need it.
Telehealth and remote patient monitoring will enable greater accessibility for patients in underserved areas and those who cannot get to a doctor’s office. Technology will not only enable doctors to deliver more personalized treatment plans but will also dramatically reshape physician workflows and processes. These digital tools will streamline administrative tasks, integrate voice commands, and provide more conducive work environments. I also envision greater access to data for both providers and patients. New self-service solutions for care management, scheduling, pricing, shopping for services, etc., will deliver a more proactive patient experience and make it easier to navigate their healthcare journey.
Ronda Lehman, PharmD. President of Mercy Health – Lima (Ohio):
This is a highly challenging question to address as we continue to reevaluate how healthcare is being delivered following several difficult years and knowing that financial challenges still loom. That said, when I am asked what it will look like, I am keenly aware of the fact that it only will look that way if we can envision a better way to improve the health of our communities. So 10 years from now, we need to have easier and more patient-driven access to care.
We will need to stop doing ‘to people’ and start caring ‘with people.’ Artificial intelligence and proliferous information that is readily available to consumers will continue to pave the way to patients being more empowered and educated about their options. So what will differentiate healthcare of the future? Enabling patients to make informed decisions.
Undoubtedly, technology will continue to advance, and along with it, the associated costs of research and development, but healthcare can only truly change if providers fundamentally shift their approach to how we care for patients. It is imperative that we need to transform from being the gatekeepers of valuable resources and services to being partners with patients on their journey. If that is what needs to be different, then what needs to be the same? We need the same highly motivated, highly skilled and perhaps most importantly, highly compassionate caregivers selflessly caring for one another and their communities.
Mike Young. President and CEO of Temple University Health System (Philadelphia): Cell therapy, gene therapy, and immunotherapy will continue to rapidly improve and evolve, replacing many traditional procedures with precise therapies to restore normal human function — either through cell transfer, altering of genetic information, or harnessing the body’s natural immune system to attack a particular disease like cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, or diabetes. As a result, hospitals will decrease in footprint, while the labs dedicated to defining precision medicine will multiply in size to support individual- and disease-specific infusion, drug, and manipulative therapies.
Hospitals will continue to shepherd the patient journey through these therapies and also will continue to handle the most complex cases requiring high-tech medical and surgical procedures. Medical education will likely evolve in parallel, focusing more on genetic causation and treatment of disease, as well as proficiency with increasingly sophisticated AI diagnostic technologies to provide adaptive care on a patient-by-patient basis.
Tom Siemers. Chief Executive Officer of Wilbarger General Hospital (Vernon, Texas): My predictions include the national healthcare landscape will be dominated by a dozen or so large systems. ‘Consolidation’ will be the word that describes the healthcare industry over the next 10 years. Regional systems will merge into large, national systems. Independent and rural hospitals will become increasingly rare. They simply won’t be able to make the capital investments necessary to replace outdated facilities and equipment while vying with other organizations for scarce, licensed personnel.
Jim Heilsberg. CFO of Tri-State Memorial Hospital & Medical Campus (Clarkston, Wash.): Tri-State Hospital continues to expand services for outpatient services while maintaining traditionally needed inpatient services. In 10 years, there will be expanded outpatient services that include leveraged technology that will allow the patient to be cared for in a yet-to-be-seen care model, including traditional hospital settings and increasing home care setting solutions.
Jennifer Olson. COO of Children’s Minnesota (St. Paul, Minn.): I believe we will see more and better access to healthcare over the next 10 years. Advances in diagnostics, monitoring, and artificial intelligence will allow patients to access services at more convenient times and locations, including much more frequently at home, thereby extending health systems’ reach well beyond their walls.
What I don’t think will ever change is the heart our healthcare professionals bring with them to work every day. I see it here at Children’s Minnesota and across our industry: the unwavering commitment our caregivers have to help people live healthier lives.
If I had one wish for the future, it would be that we become better equipped to address the social determinants of health: all of the factors outside the walls of our hospitals and clinics that affect our patients’ well-being. Part of that means relaxing regulations to allow better communication and sharing of information among healthcare providers and public and private entities, so we can take a more holistic approach to improve health and decrease disparities. It also will require a fundamental shift in how health and healthcare are paid for.
Stonish Pierce. COO of Holy Cross Health, Trinity Health Florida: Over the next decade, many health systems will pivot from being ‘hospital’ systems to true ‘health’ systems. Based largely on responding to The Joint Commission’s New Requirements to Reduce Health Care Disparities, many health systems will place greater emphasis on reducing health disparities, enhanced attention to providing culturally competent care, addressing social determinants of health (including, but not limited to food, housing and transportation) and health equity. I’m proud to work for Trinity Health, a system that has already directed attention toward addressing health disparities, cultural competency and health equity.
Many systems will pivot from offering the full continuum of services at each hospital and instead focus on the core services for their respective communities, which enables long-term financial sustainability. At the same time, we will witness the proliferation of partnerships as adept health systems realize that they cannot fulfill every community’s needs alone. Depending upon the specialty and region of the country, we may see some transitioning away from the RVU physician compensation model to base salaries and value-based compensation to ensure health systems can serve their communities in the long term.
Driven largely by continued workforce supply shortages, we will also see innovation achieve its full potential. This will include, but not be limited to, virtual care models, robots to address functions currently performed by humans, and increased adoption of artificial intelligence and remote monitoring. Healthcare overall will achieve parity in technological adoption and innovation that we take for granted and have grown accustomed to in industries such as banking and the consumer service industries.
For what will remain the same, we can anticipate that government reimbursement will still not cover the cost of providing care, although systems will transition to offering care models and services that enable the best long-term financial sustainability. We will continue to see payers and retail pharmacies continue to evolve as consumer-friendly providers. We will continue to see systems make investments in ambulatory care and the most critically ill patients will remain in our hospitals.
Jamie Davis. Executive Director, Revenue Cycle Management of Banner Health (Phoenix): I think that we will see a continued shift in places of service to lower-cost delivery sources and unfavorable payer mix movement to Medicare Advantage and health exchange plans, degrading the value of gross revenue. The increased focus on cost containment, value-based care, inflation, and pricing transparency will hopefully push payers and providers to move to a more symbiotic relationship versus the adversarial one today. Additionally, we may see disruption in the technology space as the venture capital and private equity purchase boom that happened from 2019 to 2021 will mature and those entities come up for sale. If we want to continue to provide the best quality health outcomes to our patients and maintain profitability, we cannot look the same in 10 years as we do today.
James Lynn. System Vice President, Facilities and Support Services of Marshfield Clinic Health System (Wis.): There will be some aspects that will be different. For instance, there will be more players in the market and they will begin capturing a higher percentage of primary care patients. Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, Amazon, Google and others will begin to make inroads into primary care by utilizing VR and AI platforms. More and more procedures will be the same day. Fewer hospital stays will be needed for recovery as procedures become less invasive and faster. There will be increasing pressure on the federal government to make healthcare a right for all legal residents and it will be decoupled from employment status. On the other hand, what will stay the same is even though hospital stays will become shorter for some, we will also be experiencing an ever-aging population, so the same number of inpatient beds will likely be needed.
HENRY KOTULA 