Category Archives: Cost Reduction

Here’s how hospitals can chart a path to a sustainable financial future (Part 2: Hospital of the Future series)

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Ambulatory Care Services, Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASC), Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Transparency, Financial Viability, For-Profit, Health System, Home-Based Care, Home-Hospital Care, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Inpatient Care, Nurse Staffing, Nurses, Outpatient Care, Outpatient Clinic Model, Outpatient Migration, Physician, Physician Practice Management, Price Transparency, Price Variation, Pricing Leverage, Rural Health, Rural Health Clinics (RHC), Rural Hospital, Strategic Plan, Streamlining Operations, Telemedicine, Telemedicine Strategy • Leave a comment
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2022/12/22/radio-advisory-143?utm_source=member_db&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2022Dec22&utm_content=member_headline_final_ecpost_x_x_x&elq_cid=4838956&

Radio Advisory’s Rachel Woods sat down with Optum EVP Dr. Jim Bonnette to discuss the sustainability of modern-day hospitals and why scaling down might be the best strategy for a stable future.

Read a lightly edited excerpt from the interview below and download the episode for the full conversation.https://player.fireside.fm/v2/HO0EUJAe+Rv1LmkWo?theme=dark

Rachel Woods: When I talk about hospitals of the future, I think it’s very easy for folks to think about something that feels very futuristic, the Jetsons, Star Trek, pick your example here. But you have a very different take when it comes to the hospital, the future, and it’s one that’s perhaps a lot more streamlined than even the hospitals that we have today. Why is that your take?

Jim Bonnette: My concern about hospital future is that when people think about the technology side of it, they forget that there’s no technology that I can name that has lowered health care costs that’s been implemented in a hospital. Everything I can think of has increased costs and I don’t think that’s sustainable for the future.

And so looking at how hospitals have to function, I think the things that hospitals do that should no longer be in the hospital need to move out and they need to move out now. I think that there are a large number of procedures that could safely and easily be done in a lower cost setting, in an ASC for example, that is still done in hospitals because we still pay for them that way. I’m not sure that’s going to continue.

Woods: And to be honest, we’ve talked about that shift, I think about the outpatient shift. We’ve been talking about that for several years but you just said the change needs to happen now. Why is the impetus for this change very different today than maybe it was two, three, four, five years ago? Why is this change going to be frankly forced upon hospitals in the very near future, if not already?

Bonnette: Part of the explanation is regarding the issues that have been pushed regarding price transparency. So if employers can see the difference between the charges for an ASC and an HOPD department, which are often quite dramatic, they’re going to be looking to say to their brokers, “Well, what’s the network that involves ASCs and not hospitals?” And that data hasn’t been so easily available in the past, and I think economic times are different now.

We’re not in a hyper growth phase, we’re not where the economy’s performing super at the moment and if interest rates keep going up, things are going to slow down more. So I think employers are going to become more sensitized to prices that they haven’t been in the past. Regardless of the requirements under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which require employers to know the costs, which they didn’t have to know before. They’re just going to more sensitive to price.

Woods: I completely agree with you by the way, that employers are a key catalyst here and we’ve certainly seen a few very active employers and some that are very passive and I too am interested to see what role they play or do they all take much more of an active role.

And I think some people would be surprised that it’s not necessarily consumers themselves that are the big catalyst for change on where they’re going to get care, how they want to receive care. It’s the employers that are going to be making those decisions as purchasers themselves.

Bonnette: I agree and they’re the ultimate payers. For most commercial insurance employers are the ultimate payers, not the insurance companies. And it’s a cost of care share for patients, but the majority of the money comes from the employers. So it’s basically cutting into their profits.

Woods: We are on the same page, but I’m going to be honest, I’m not sure that all of our listeners are right. We’re talking about why these changes could happen soon, but when I have conversations with folks, they still think about a future of a more consolidated hospital, a more outpatient focused practice is something that is coming but is still far enough in the future that there’s some time to prepare for.

I guess my question is what do you say to that pushback? And are there any inflection points that you’re watching for that would really need to hit for this kind of change to hit all hospitals, to be something that we see across the industry?

Bonnette: So when I look at hospitals in general, I don’t see them as much different than they were 20 years ago. We have talked about this movement for a long time, but hospitals are dragging their feet and realistically it’s because they still get paid the same way until we start thinking about how we pay differently or refuse to pay for certain kinds of things in a hospital setting, the inertia is such that they’re going to keep doing it.

Again, I think the push from employers and most likely the brokers are going to force this change sooner rather than later, but that’s still probably between three and five years because there’s so much inertia in health care.

On the other hand, we are hitting sort of an unsustainable phase of cost. The other thing that people don’t talk about very much that I think is important is there’s only so many dollars that are going to health care.

And if you look at the last 10 years, the growth in pharmaceutical spend has to eat into the dollars available for everybody else. So a pharmaceutical spend is growing much faster than anything else, the dollars are going to come out of somebody’s hide and then next logical target is the hospital.

Woods: And we talked last week about how slim hospital margins are, how many of them are actually negative. And what we didn’t mention that is top of mind for me after we just come out of this election is that there’s actually not a lot of appetite for the government to step in and shore up hospitals.

There’s a lot of feeling that they’ve done their due diligence, they stepped in when they needed to at the beginning of the Covid crisis and they shouldn’t need to again. That kind of savior is probably not their outside of very specific circumstances.

Bonnette: I agree. I think it’s highly unlikely that the government is going to step in to rescue hospitals. And part of that comes from the perception about pricing, which I’m sure Congress gets lots of complaints about the prices from hospitals.

And in addition, you’ll notice that the for-profit hospitals don’t have negative margins. They may not be quite as good as they were before, but they’re not negative, which tells me there’s an operational inefficiency in the not for-profit hospitals that doesn’t exist in the for-profits.

Woods: This is where I wanted to go next. So let’s say that a hospital, a health system decides the new path forward is to become smaller, to become cheaper, to become more streamlined, and to decide what specifically needs to happen in the hospital versus elsewhere in our organization.

Maybe I know where you’re going next, but do you have an example of an organization who has had this success already that we can learn from?

Bonnette: Not in the not-for-profit section, no. In the for-profits, yes, because they have already started moving into ambulatory surgery centers. So Tenet has a huge practice of ambulatory surgery centers. It generates high margins.

So, I used to run ambulatory surgery centers in a for-profit system. And so think about ASCs get paid half as much as a hospital for a procedure, and my margin on that business in those ASCs was 40% to 50%. Whereas in the hospital the margin was about 7% and so even though the total dollars were less, my margin was higher because it’s so much more efficient. And the for-profits already recognize this.

Woods: And I’m guessing you’re going to tell me you want to see not-for-profit hospitals make these moves too? Or is there a different move that they should be making?

Bonnette: No, I think they have to. I think there are things beyond just ASCs though, for example, medical patients who can be treated at home should not be in the hospital. Most not-for-profits lose money on every medical admission.

Now, when I worked for a for-profit, I didn’t lose money on every Medicare patient that was a medical patient. We had a 7% margin so it’s doable. Again, it’s efficiency of care delivery and it’s attention to detail, which sometimes in a not-for-profit friends, that just doesn’t happen.

The next health care wars are about costs

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Affordability, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Cost Shifting, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Industry, Healthcare Reform, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Out of Pocket Expenses, Political Lobbying • Leave a comment
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/02/health-care-costs-congress-insurance-politics?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

All signs point to a crushing surge in health care costs for patients and employers next year — and that means health care industry groups are about to brawl over who pays the price.

Why it matters: The surge could build pressure on Congress to stop ignoring the underlying costs that make care increasingly unaffordable for everyday Americans — and make billions for health care companies.

[This special report kicks off a series to introduce our new, Congress-focused Axios Pro: Health Care, coming Nov. 14.]

  • This year’s Democratic legislation allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices was a rare case of addressing costs amid intense drug industry lobbying against it. Even so, it was a watered down version of the original proposal.
  • But the drug industry isn’t alone in its willingness to fight to maintain the status quo, and that fight frequently pits one industry group against another.

Where it stands: Even insured Americans are struggling to afford their care, the inevitable result of years of cost-shifting by employers and insurers onto patients through higher premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.

  • But employers are now struggling to attract and retain workers, and forcing their employees to shoulder even more costs seems like a less viable option.
  • Tougher economic times make patients more cost-sensitive, putting families in a bind if they get sick.
  • Rising medical debt, increased price transparency and questionable debt collection practices have rubbed some of the good-guy sheen off of hospitals and providers.
  • All of this is coming to a boiling point. The question isn’t whether, but when.

Yes, but: Don’t underestimate Washington’s ability to have a completely underwhelming response to the problem, or one that just kicks the can down the road — or to just not respond at all.

Between the lines: If you look closely, the usual partisan battle lines are changing.

  • The GOP’s criticism of Democrats’ drug pricing law is nothing like the party’s outcry over the Affordable Care Act, and no one seriously thinks the party will make a real attempt to repeal it.
  • One of the most meaningful health reforms passed in recent years was a bipartisan ban on surprise billing, which may provide a more modern template for health care policy fights.
  • Surprise medical bills divided lawmakers into two teams, but it wasn’t Democrats vs. Republicans; it was those who supported the insurer-backed reform plan vs. the hospital and provider-backed one. This fight continues today — in court.

The bottom line: Someone is going to have to pay for the coming cost surge, whether that’s patients, taxpayers, employers or the health care companies profiting off of the system. Each industry group is fighting like hell to make sure it isn’t them.

Inflation Is Squeezing Hospital Margins—What Happens Next?

Posted on by • Posted in American Hospital Association (AHA), Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Inflation, Labor Spend Management, Market Outlook, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty, Medicare, Medicare Reimbursement, Nurse Agency Staffing, Nurse Staffing, Nurses Shortage, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Out of Pocket Expenses, Patient Experience, Quality of Care, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/inflation-squeezing-hospital-margins-happens-next

Hospitals in the United States are on track for their worst financial year in decades. According to a recent report, median hospital operating margins were cumulatively negative through the first eight months of 2022. For context, in 2020, despite unprecedented losses during the initial months of COVID-19, hospitals still reported median eight-month operating margins of 2 percent—although these were in large part buoyed by federal aid from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

The recent, historically poor financial performance is the result of significant pressures on multiple fronts. Labor shortages and supply-chain disruptions have fueled a dramatic rise in expenses, which, due to the annually fixed nature of payment rates, hospitals have thus far been unable to pass through to payers. At the same time, diminished patient volumes—especially in more profitable service lines—have constrained revenues, and declining markets have generated substantial investment losses.

While it’s tempting to view these challenges as transient shocks, a rapid recovery seems unlikely for a number of reasons. Thus, hospitals will be forced to take aggressive cost-cutting measures to stabilize balance sheets. For some, this will include department or service line closures; for others, closing altogether. As these scenarios unfold, ultimately, the costs will be borne by patients, in one form or another.

Hospitals Face A Difficult Road To Financial Recovery

There are several factors that suggest hospital margins will face continued headwinds in the coming years. First, the primary driver of rising hospital expenses is a shortage of labor—in particular, nursing labor—which will likely worsen in the future. Since the start of the pandemic, hospitals have lost a total of 105,000 employees, and nursing vacancies have more than doubled. In response, hospitals have relied on expensive contract nurses and extended overtime hours, resulting in surging wage costs. While this issue was exacerbated by the pandemic, the national nursing shortage is a decades-old problem that—with a substantial portion of the labor force approaching retirement and an insufficient supply of new nurses to replace them—is projected to reach 450,000 by 2025.

Second, while payment rates will eventually adjust to rising costs, this is likely to occur slowly and unevenly. Medicare rates, which are adjusted annually based on an inflation projection, are already set to undershoot hospital costs. Given that Medicare doesn’t issue retrospective corrections, this underadjustment will become baked into Medicare prices for the foreseeable future, widening the gap between costs and payments.

This leaves commercial payers to make up the difference. Commercial rates are typically negotiated in three- to five-year contract cycles, so hospitals on the early side of a new contract may be forced to wait until renegotiation for more substantial pricing adjustments. “Negotiation” is also the operative term here, as payers are under no obligation to offset rising costs. Instead, it is likely that the speed and degree of price adjustments will be dictated by provider market share, leaving smaller hospitals at a further disadvantage. This trend was exemplified during the 2008 financial crisis, in which only the most prestigious hospitals were able to significantly adjust pricing in response to historic investment losses.

Finally, economic uncertainty and the threat of recession will create continued disruptions in patient volumes, particularly with elective procedures. Although health care has historically been referred to as “recession-proof,” the growing prevalence of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and more aggressive cost-sharing mechanisms have left patients more exposed to health care costs and more likely to weigh these costs against other household expenditures when budgets get tight. While this consumerist response is not new—research on previous recessions has identified direct correlations between economic strength and surgical volumes—the degree of cost exposure for patients is historically high. Since 2008, enrollment in HDHPs has increased nearly four-fold, now representing 28 percent of all employer-sponsored enrollments. There’s evidence that this exposure is already impacting patient decisions. Recently, one in five adults reported delaying or forgoing treatment in response to general inflation.

Taken together, these factors suggest that the current financial pressures are unlikely to resolve in the short term. As losses mount and cash reserves dwindle, hospitals will ultimately need to cut costs to stem the bleeding—which presents both challenges and opportunities.

Direct And Indirect Consequences For Cost, Quality, And Access To Care

Inevitably, as rising costs become baked into commercial pricing, patients will face dramatic premium hikes. As discussed above, this process is likely to occur slowly over the next few years. In the meantime, the current challenges and the manner in which hospitals respond will have lasting implications on quality and access to care, particularly among the most vulnerable populations.

Likely Effects On Patient Experience And Quality Of Care

Insufficient staffing has already created substantial bottlenecks in outpatient and acute-care facilities, resulting in increased wait times, delayed procedures, and, in extreme cases, hospitals diverting patients altogether. During the Omicron surge, 52 of 62 hospitals in Los Angeles, California, were reportedly diverting patients due to insufficient beds and staffing.

The challenges with nursing labor will have direct consequences for clinical quality. Persistent nursing shortages will force hospitals to increase patient loads and expand overtime hours, measures that have been repeatedly linked to longer hospital stays, more clinical errors, and worse patient outcomes. Additionally, the wave of experienced nurses exiting the workforce will accelerate an already growing divide between average nursing experience and the complexity of care they are asked to provide. This trend, referred to as the “Experience-Complexity Gap,” will only worsen in the coming years as a significant portion of the nursing workforce reaches retirement age. In addition to the clinical quality implications, the exodus of experienced nurses—many of whom serve in crucial nurse educator and mentorship roles—also has feedback effects on the training and supply of new nurses.

Staffing impacts on quality of care are not limited to clinical staff. During the initial months of the pandemic, hospitals laid off or furloughed hundreds of thousands of nonclinical staff, a common target for short-term payroll reductions. While these staff do not directly impact patient care (or billed charges), they can have a significant impact on patient experience and satisfaction. Additionally, downsizing support staff can negatively impact physician productivity and time spent with patients, which can have downstream effects on cost and quality of care.

Disproportionate Impacts On Underserved Communities

Reduced access to care will be felt most acutely in rural regions. A recent report found that more than 30 percent of rural hospitals were at risk of closure within the next six years, placing the affected communities—statistically older, sicker, and poorer than average—at higher risk for adverse health outcomes. When rural hospitals close, local residents are forced to travel more than 20 miles further to access inpatient or emergency care. For patients with life-threatening conditions, this increased travel has been linked to a 5–10 percent increase in risk of mortality.

Rural closures also have downstream effects that further deteriorate patient use and access to care. Rural hospitals often employ the majority of local physicians, many of whom leave the community when these facilities close. Access to complex specialty care and diagnostic testing is also diminished, as many of these services are provided by vendors or provider groups within hospital facilities. Thus, when rural hospitals close, the surrounding communities lose access to the entire care continuum. As a result, individuals within these communities are more likely to forgo treatment, testing, or routine preventive services, further exacerbating existing health disparities.

In areas not affected by hospital closures, access will be more selectively impacted. After the 2008 financial crisis, the most common cost-shifting response from hospitals was to reduce unprofitable service offerings. Historically, these measures have disproportionately impacted minority and low-income patients, as they tend to include services with high Medicaid populations (for example, psychiatric and addiction care) and crucial services such as obstetrics and trauma care, which are already underprovided in these communities. Since 2020, dozens of hospitals, both urban and rural, have closed or suspended maternity care. Similar to closure of rural hospitals, these closures have downstream effects on local access to physicians or other health services.

Potential For Productive Cost Reduction And The Need For A Measured Policy Response

Despite the doom-and-gloom scenario presented above, the focus on hospital costs is not entirely negative. Cost-cutting measures will inevitably yield efficiencies in a notoriously inefficient industry. Additionally, not all facility closures negatively impact care. While rural facility closures can have dire consequences in health emergencies, studies have found that outcomes for non-urgent conditions remained similar or actually improved.

Historically, attempts to rein in health care spending have focused on the demand side (that is, use) or on negotiated prices. These measures ignore the impact of hospital costs, which have historically outpaced inflation and contributed directly to rising prices. Thus, the current situation presents a brief window of opportunity in which hospital incentives are aligned with the broader policy goals of lowering costs. Capitalizing on this opportunity will require a careful balancing act from policy makers.

In response to the current challenges, the American Hospital Association has already appealed to Congress to extend federal aid programs created in the CARES Act. While this would help to mitigate losses in the short term, it would also undermine any positive gains in cost efficiency. Instead of a broad-spectrum bailout, policy makers should consider a more targeted approach that supports crucial community and rural services without continuing to fund broader health system inefficiencies.

The establishment of Rural Emergency Hospitals beginning in 2023 represents one such approach to eliminating excess costs while preventing negative patient consequences. This rule provides financial incentives for struggling critical access and rural hospitals to convert to standalone emergency departments instead of outright closing. If effective, this policy would ensure that affected communities maintain crucial access to emergency care while reducing overall costs attributed to low-volume, financially unviable services.

Policies can also help promote efficiencies by improving coverage for digital and telehealth services—long touted as potential solutions to rural health care deserts—or easing regulations to encourage more effective use of mid-level providers.

Conclusion

The financial challenges facing hospitals are substantial and likely to persist in the coming years. As a result, health systems will be forced to take drastic measures to reduce costs and stabilize profit margins. The existing challenges and the manner in which hospitals respond will have long-term implications for cost, quality, and access to care, especially within historically underserved communities. As with any crisis, though, they also present an opportunity to address industrywide inefficiencies. By relying on targeted, evidence-based policies, policy makers can mitigate the negative consequences and allow for a more efficient and effective system to emerge.

10 hospitals, health systems cutting jobs

Posted on by • Posted in Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Employee Layoffs, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Labor Spend Management, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Margin, Talent Management • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/10-hospitals-health-systems-cutting-jobs-102822.html?utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter

Several hospitals and health systems are trimming their workforces or jobs due to financial and operational challenges. 

Below are workforce reduction efforts or job eliminations that were announced within the past month and/or take effect over the next month. 

1. Fayetteville, N.C.-based Cape Fear Valley Health is eliminating 200 positions. The decision affects 42 employees in non-direct patient care positions. The other 158 positions were unfilled positions. Employees were informed of the changes Oct. 27. 

2. Sioux Falls, S.D.-based Sanford Health announced layoffs affecting an undisclosed number of staff on Oct. 19, a decision its CEO said was made “to streamline leadership structure and simplify operations” in certain areas. The layoffs primarily affect nonclinical areas.

3. University Hospitals announced efforts to reduce system expenses by $100 million Oct. 12, including the elimination of 326 vacant jobs and layoffs affecting 117 administrative employees. None of the employees affected by job cuts or layoffs provide direct patient care. The workforce reduction comes as the 21-hospital system faces a net operating loss of $184.6 million from the first eight months of 2022. 

4. Ascension is closing Ascension St. Vincent Dunn, a critical access hospital in Bedford, Ind., and nine medical practices in December, a move that will affect 133 employees. Affected employees who do not secure another position within the health system will be offered severance and outplacement services.

5. Quincy, Ill.-based Blessing Health System closed its hospital in Keokuk, Iowa, Sept. 30. The closure affected 151 workers. The layoffs take effect Nov. 4. The employees will do on-site work or be placed on administrative leave until the layoff date, Blessing Health said.

6. St. Vincent Charity Medical Center in Cleveland will lay off 978 workers when it ends many services in November. The hospital, part of Sisters of Charity Health System, is ending inpatient care and most other services in November. After the transition, the facility will offer outpatient behavioral health, urgent care and primary care.

7. Commonwealth Health, part of Franklin, Tenn.-based Community Health Systems, will lay off 245 employees when it closes facilities at the end of October. The health system is closing First Hospital, a psychiatric hospital in Kingston, Pa., and its various outpatient centers on Oct. 30. Affected workers are encouraged to apply for open positions they’re qualified for at other Commonwealth Health facilities, a system spokesperson told Becker’s.

8. Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health eliminated 155 management positions from its nearly 30,000-person workforce. The health system laid off 72 employees and eliminated 83 vacant positions, a spokesperson told Becker’s Hospital Review in September. The cuts were attributed to financial pressures.

9. Citing financial pressures, BHSH System — now named Corewell Health — cut about 400 positions from its 64,000-member workforce in September. The 22-hospital organization was formed by the February merger of Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Spectrum Health with Southfield, Mich.-based Beaumont Health.

10. Bakersfield (Calif.) Heart Hospital is laying off 114 employees. Affected employees were told in September that they no longer had to report to work, but they will continue to receive full pay and benefits through Nov. 5. The layoffs are an effort to optimize operations and to free up resources for patient care and specialized surgery, the hospital said. 

Where do patients go when hospitals shut down capacity?

Posted on by • Posted in Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Labor Spend Management, Mission, Nurse Agency Staffing, Nurses Shortage • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/f1c5ab8c3811/the-weekly-gist-october-28-2022?e=d1e747d2d8

Last week we met the CEO of the flagship hospital of a large academic health system. Like nearly every hospital, they are challenged in finding the staff they need to keep the hospital running at full capacity. Keeping all the hospital’s units open has been critical: “Over the past three months, we have been busting at the seams…more patients, and they’re sicker. And we’re not even really into flu season yet.” We asked what had changed, given that summer usually is lighter than other seasons for hospital admissions. 

His diagnosis: local community hospitals, also strapped for staff, had begun to regularly shut down units to keep premium labor spend in check. “If they’re not running at full capacity, the patients still have to go somewhere. Given that we’re both the quaternary care provider and the community’s safety net, they’re coming downtown to us. We don’t have the luxury to shut down.” The system had to ramp up agency nursing to accommodate the demand, leading to a sharp rise in labor costs.

This CEO wasn’t backing away from the system’s mission, and vowed to expand capacity as much as they could, but felt that policymakers and payers needed to understand the dynamics in the market: “We’re getting criticized for not being able to control our costs, despite the fact that we’re absorbing what other hospitals can’t handle.” As we head into winter, flu will surely spike, and another COVID surge is possible—the hospitals at the top of the “care chain” will become even more strained in their mission to accommodate their communities’ needs. 

CFOs experienced in cutting costs, restructuring in high demand

Posted on by • Posted in Budget, CFO, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Labor Spend Management, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Restructure, Talent Acquisition Strategy, Talent Competition, Talent Management • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/cfos-experienced-in-cutting-costs-restructuring-in-high-demand.html?utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter

Fall is typically a period of increased CFO turnover as hospitals and health systems begin searches for new executives for the beginning of the following year, but the pressures associated with high inflation, a projected recession and the continued effects of the pandemic have led to more churn than usual for top financial positions, The Wall Street Journal reported Oct. 23

Many economists and financial experts are expecting a recession to hit the U.S. in early- to mid-2023. This is pushing some executives to switch roles now before the labor market changes. Many healthcare organizations are also preparing for a potential economic downturn by searching for CFOs who are experienced in cutting costs or restructuring operations, according to the report.

Recession planning in healthcare is challenging because it can have both negative (payer mix, patient volume) and positive effects (decrease in labor and supply inflation) on financial performance, according to Daniel Morash, senior vice president of finance and CFO for Boston-based Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

“The best advice I would give is that hospitals need to consider recession scenarios when making long-term commitments on wage increases, capital expenditures and planning for capacity for patient access,” Mr. Morash told Becker’s Hospital Review. “Most of our focus needs to be on the acute challenges we are facing. Still, it’s important to be careful not to overreact or overcommit financially when a recession could change a number of trends we’re seeing now.”

As hospitals make cuts, the losses are loud or quiet

Posted on by • Posted in Budget, Budget Cuts, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Labor Spend Management, Talent Acquisition Strategy, Talent Competition, Talent Imperative, Talent Management • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/as-hospitals-make-cuts-the-losses-are-loud-or-quiet.html?utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter

There are few easy ways to cut expenses. But in hospitals and health systems, there are quieter ways. 

Workforce reductions are never painless — or never should be, especially for those doing the reducing. Involuntary job loss is one of the most stressful events workers and families experience, carrying mental and physical health risks in addition to the disruption it poses to peoples’ short- and long-term life plans. 

But as health systems find themselves in untenable financial positions and looming risk of an economic recession, job cuts and layoffs in hospitals and health systems are increasingly likely. In a report released Oct. 18 from Kaufman Hall based on response from 86 health system leaders, 46 percent said labor costs are the largest opportunity for cost reduction — up significantly from the 17 percent of leaders who said the same last year. 

Job cuts at hospitals may seem counterintuitive given the nation’s widely known shortages of healthcare workers. But as hospitals weather one of their most financially difficult years, some are reducing their administrative staff, eliminating vacant jobs and reorganizing or shrinking their executive teams to curb costs.  

Decisions to reduce administrative labor tend to garner quieter reactions compared to budgetary decisions to end service lines or close sites of patient care, including hospitals. While the implications of administrative shakeups may be felt throughout a health system, the disruption they pose to patients is less immediately palpable. Few people know the name of their community hospitals’ senior vice presidents, but most do know how many minutes it takes to travel to a nearby site of care for an appointment during a workday or a tolerable amount of time to wait for said appointment. 

It doesn’t hurt that hospital and health systems’ administrative ranks have ballooned compared to their patient-facing counterparts. While the number of practicing physicians in the U.S. grew 150 percent between 1975 and 2010, the number of healthcare administrators increased 3,200 percent in the same period. More broadly, administrative spending accounts for 15 to 30 percent of healthcare spending in the U.S. and at least half of that “does not contribute to health outcomes in any discernible way,” according to a report published Oct. 6 in Health Affairs.

A couple of health systems have denoted their plans to cut nonclinical employees and jobs in the past week. 

Cleveland-based University Hospitals announced efforts to reduce system expenses by $100 million Oct. 12, including the elimination of 326 vacant jobs and layoffs affecting 117 administrative employees. The workforce reduction comes as the 21-hospital system faces a net operating loss of $184.6 million from the first eight months of 2022.

Sioux Falls, S.D.-based Sanford Health is laying off an undisclosed number of staff, a decision the organization’s top leader says is “to streamline leadership structure and simplify operations” in certain areas, the Argus Leader reported Oct. 19. Bill Gassen, president and CEO of Sanford Health, also said the layoffs primarily affect nonclinical areas and that they will “not adversely impact patient or resident care in any way.”

These developments are only several days old, but have not yet triggered any newsworthy follow-up developments or pushback. Cost reduction efforts that close facilities or reduce services tend to — on the other hand — catalyze scrutiny, debate and conflict in communities that can span for months and even years. 

Look to Atlanta. Marietta, Ga.-based Wellstar unexpectedly announced on Aug. 31 that its 460-bed Atlanta Medical Center will end operations on Nov. 1, with plans to progressively wind down services leading up to that date. The system attributed the decision to the $107 million loss incurred operating the hospital over the last 12 months. Noteworthy is that the system has said that 1,430 (82 percent) of Atlanta Medical Center workers affected by the facility’s impending closure have accepted job offers at other Wellstar Health System facilities. 

Since, the decision to close one of Atlanta’s level 1 trauma centers has drawn attention from Georgia’s governor and gubernatorial candidate, congressional members and Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens, who in a town hall Oct. 19 said that in closing Atlanta Medical Center, “Wellstar said they don’t want to be in the business of urban healthcare.” 

The decision has also spilled over to affect area hospitals, namely Atlanta’s public Grady Health System, which received a $130 million cash infusion from the state and reported a 30 percent increase in patient volume after the emergency department of Atlanta Medical Center closed. 

Health systems have a lot to weigh. Their administrative layers are thick, varied and necessary to a degree, meaning this broad category of workers still poses tough decisions when it comes to cost containment efforts. But in a very simple view, laying off people who care for patients will only hurt health systems’ chances of recruiting and retaining clinical talent — in a time when no health systems’ odds of doing so are especially outsized.

Will agency labor needs become permanent? 

Posted on by • Posted in Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Job Market, Labor Market, Labor Shortages, Labor Spend Management, Nurse Agency Staffing, Nurse Retention, Nurse Travelers, Nurses Compensation, Nurses Shortage • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/b1e0aa55afe5/the-weekly-gist-october-7-2022?e=d1e747d2d8

“A few months ago, I was confident we would be able to wean our system off travel nurses. But now I’m not so sure,” a chief nursing officer recently shared with us. Like most health systems, they had seen their use of agency nurses decline from peaks during the Delta and Omicron waves of the pandemic, and were encouraged by anecdotes of nurses returning to staff after stints as travelers. But today they remain “persistently stuck with a quarter of the agency nurses we needed at the peak”. 
 
Seeing nurses returning from travel roles makes sense. It’s naturally a time-limited job—eventually the desire to be home wins out over the earning potential on the road. But another nursing leader shared his fear that a stint as a traveler could become an expected part of the arc of a nurse’s career. And from a hospital operations perspective, agency nursing needs are no longer connected to COVID, but are instead driven by general capacity needs in a tight labor market, keeping the operating rooms, emergency department, and ICUs open.

Health systems and physician groups continue to face labor costs that are up to 40 percent higher than 2019. A permanent need for agency nurses will frustrate efforts to rein in labor costs, through both the dollars spent on premium labor, and the resulting need to boost staff nurse salaries when a portion of their colleagues’ pay is anchored at the “traveling rate”.