Moody’s on Friday downgraded its credit rating of the United States by a notch to “Aa1” from “Aaa”, citing rising debt and interest “that are significantly higher than similarly rated sovereigns.”
The rating agency had been the last among major ratings agencies to keep a top, triple-A rating for U.S. sovereign debt, though it had lowered its outlook in late 2023 due to wider fiscal deficit and higher interest payments.
“Successive US administrations and Congress have failed to agree on measures to reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs,” Moody’s said on Friday, as it changed its outlook on the U.S. to “stable” from “negative.”
Since his return to the White House on January 20, President Donald Trump has pledged to balance the U.S. budget while his Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, has repeatedly said the current administration aims to lower U.S. government funding costs.
The administration’s mix of revenue-generating tariffs and spending cuts through Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have highlighted a keen awareness of the risks posed by mounting government debt, which, if unchecked, could trigger a bond market rout and hinder the administration’s ability to pursue its agenda.
The downgrade comes as Trump’s sweeping tax bill failed to clear a key procedural hurdle on Friday, as hardline Republicans demanding deeper spending cuts blocked the measure in a rare political setback for the Republican president in Congress.
“We do not believe that material multi-year reductions in mandatory spending and deficits will result from current fiscal proposals under consideration,” Moody’s said, while forecasting federal debt burden to rise to about 134% of GDP by 2035, compared with 98% in 2024.
The cut follows a downgrade by rival Fitch, which in August 2023 also cut the U.S. sovereign rating by one notch, citing expected fiscal deterioration and repeated down-to-the-wire debt ceiling negotiations that threaten the government’s ability to pay its bills.
On January 17, 2025, a list of potential cost reductions to the federal budget was released by Republicans on the House Budget Committee. The list is long and covers the federal budget waterfront, but it spends considerable time focusing on reductions to healthcare spending. This laundry list of cost reductions is important because the highest priority of the Trump administration is a further reduction in federal taxes. A reduction in taxes would, of course, reduce federal revenue; if federal expenses are not proportionately reduced then the federal deficit will increase. When the deficit increases then the federal debt must increase and at that point the overall impact on the American economy becomes concerning and possibly damaging. There has already been much public speculation as to how the Federal Reserve might react to such a scenario.
It is not possible right now to highlight and describe all of the House budget proposals, but one proposal absolutely stands out: The suggestion to eliminate the tax-exempt status for interest payments on all municipal bonds, or potentially in a more targeted manner, for private activity bonds, including those issued by not-for-profit hospitals. Siebert Williams Shank, an investment banking firm, described the elimination of tax exemption for municipal bonds as “the most alarming of the proposed reforms impacting non-profit and municipal issuers.”[1] This is certainly true for hospitals, since over the past 60 years the growth and capability of America’s hospitals has been substantially constructed on the foundation of flexible and relatively inexpensive tax-exempt debt. Given all of this, it is not too early to begin speculating on the impact of the elimination of tax-exempt debt on hospital finances and strategy.
We should also point out that a separate topic is under discussion, related to the potential loss of not-for-profit status for hospitals and health systems. Such a maneuver could potentially expose hospitals to income taxes, property taxes, and higher funding costs. For now, that is beyond the scope of this blog but may be something we write about in future posts.
Below is a series of important questions related to the elimination of tax-exempt financing and some speculations on the overall impact:
What immediately happens if 501(c)(3) hospitals lose the ability to issue tax-exempt bonds? Let’s treat fixed rate debt first. Assume for now that only newly issued debt would be affected and that all currently outstanding tax-exempt fixed rate debt would remain tax-exempt. We could see an effort to apply any changes retroactively to existing bonds, but we view that as unlikely. Therefore, our current expectation is that outstanding fixed-rate debt would not see a change in interest expense.
However, it is possible that outstanding floating rate debt would immediately begin to trade based on the taxable equivalent. Historically the tax-exempt floating rate index trades at about 65% of the taxable index. The difference between the tax-exempt and taxable floating rate indices in the current market is 175 basis points. For every $100 million of debt, this would increase interest expense by $1.75m annually.
How would new hospital debt be issued? New debt would be issued in the municipal market on a taxable basis or in the corporate taxable market. The taxable municipal market would need to adapt and expand to accommodate a significant level of new issuance. The concern in the corporate taxable market is greater. Currently, the corporate market requires issuance of significant dollar size and generally the issuer brings significant name recognition to the market. Many hospitals may have difficulty meeting the issuance size of the corporate debt market and/or the necessary market recognition. As such, smaller and less frequent issuers would expect to pay a penalty of 25-50 basis points for issuing in the corporate market.
If tax-exempt debt goes away will certain hospitals be advantaged and others disadvantaged? Larger hospitals with national or regional name recognition that issue bonds with sufficiently large transaction size and frequency will likely borrow at better terms and lower rates. Smaller- to medium-sized hospitals may find borrowing much more difficult, and borrowing may come with more problematic terms and/or amortization schedules and likely higher interest rates.
Will borrowing costs go up? The cost of funds for new borrowings would increase for all hospital borrowers. For a typical A-rated hospital, annual interest expense would increase by approximately 30%. For example, in the current market, on $100 million of new debt, average annual interest expense would increase by $815,000 annually.
Will debt capacity go down? All other things being equal, interest rates will go up and hospital debt capacity will go down. Also, if the taxable market shortens amortization schedules, then that will decrease overall debt capacity as well.
What would the impact of the elimination of tax-exempt debt be on synthetic fixed rate structures? Hospitals have long employed derivative structures to hedge interest rate risk on outstanding variable rate bonds and loans. The loss of tax-exemption for outstanding variable rate bonds and loans would precipitate an adjustment to taxable rates, but corresponding swap cash flows are not designed to adjust. Interest rate risk is hedged, but tax reform risk is not. The net effect to borrowers would be an increase in cost similar to the cost contemplated above for variable rate bonds.
What are the rating implications of the elimination of the tax-exempt market? Rating implications will be varied. Hospitals with strong financial performance and liquidity are likely to absorb the increased interest expense of a taxable borrowing with little to no rating impact. In fact, over the past decade, many larger health systems in the AA rating categories have successfully issued debt in the taxable market without rating implications despite a higher borrowing rate. Even amid the pandemic chaos of 2021, numerous AA and A rated systems issued sizable, taxable debt offerings to bolster liquidity as proceeds were for general corporate purposes and not restricted by a third-party, such as a bond trustee.
Lower-rated hospitals with modest performance and below-average liquidity will be at greater risk for a downgrade. These hospitals may not be able to absorb the increased interest expense and maintain their ratings. While interest expense is typically a small percentage of a hospital’s total expenses, it is a use of cash flow.
We do not anticipate the rating agencies will take wholesale downgrade action on the rated portfolio as there would likely be a phase-in period before the elimination occurs. Rather, we expect the rating agencies will take a measured approach with a case-by-case evaluation of each rated organization through the normal course of surveillance, as they did during the pandemic and liquidity crisis in 2008. A dialogue on capital budgets and funding sources, typically held at the end of a rating meeting, would be moved to the top of the agenda, as it will have a direct impact on long-term viability.
How would the loss of the tax-exempt market impact the pace of consolidation in the hospital industry? If a hospital cannot afford the taxable market, then large capital projects would need to be funded through cash and operations. This inevitably will limit organizational liquidity, which will lead to downward rating pressure. Some hospitals, in such a situation, will be unable to both fund capital and adequately serve their local community and, therefore, will need to find a partner who can. We anticipate that the loss of the tax-exempt bond market will lead to further consolidation in the industry.
Let’s indulge in one last bit of speculation. What is the probability that Congress will pass legislation that eliminates tax-exempt financing? Sources in Washington tell us that it is premature to wager on any of the items put forth by the Budget Committee. And it should be noted that over the years the elimination of tax-exempt financing has been proposed on several occasions and never advanced in Congress. However, one well-informed source noted that as the tax and related legislation moves forward, there is likely to be significant horse-trading (especially in the House) to secure the necessary votes to pass the entire package. What happens during that horse-trading process is anybody’s guess. So the best advice to our hospital readership right now is to not take anything for granted. But be absolutely assured that the maintenance of tax-exempt financing is an essential strategic component for the successful future of America’s hospitals.
Downgrades continued to outpace upgrades in 2024 although at a lower rate than in 2023. When combining the rating actions of the three rating agencies, the number of downgrades (95) declined while the number of upgrades (37) increased, compared to 116 and 33, respectively, in 2023. Many of the downgrades reflected ongoing expense pressure that exceeded revenue growth, even as volumes headed back to pre-pandemic levels and the use of contract labor declined. Other downgrades reflected outsized increases in debt to fund pivotal growth strategies. Most of the upgrades reflected mergers of lower-rated hospitals into higher-rated systems. Rating affirmations remained the majority rating action in 2024, as in prior years.
Key takeaways include:
The ratio of downgrades to upgrades narrowed at Moody’s (2.0-to-1 in 2024 from 3.2-to-1 in 2023) and Fitch (1.5-to-1 from 3.5-to-1). S&P saw a wider spread in the ratio: 4.5-to-1 in 2024 from 3.8-to-1 in 2023.
Downgrades reflected a wide swath of hospitals, from small independent providers to large regional systems. Large academic medical centers and children’s hospitals saw downgrades, even with exclusive tertiary services that provided differentiation with payers. Shared, recurring downgrade factors included weaker financial performance, payer mix shifts to more governmental and less commercial, and thinner reserves. Many of the downgrades were concentrated along the two coasts: California and the Pacific Northwest and New York and Pennsylvania. Many of the ratings were already in low or below investment grade categories.
Multi-notch downgrades continued in 2024, ranging from two to four notch movements in one rating action. One of the hospitals that experienced a four-notch downgrade subsequently defaulted on an interest payment (Jackson Hospital & Clinics, AL). Multi-notch upgrades reflected mergers into higher-rated systems, the largest being a seven-notch upgrade of a small, single-site hospital into a 19-hospital system in the Midwest.
Five hospitals experienced multiple rating actions in 2024, with rating committees convening not once but two and three times during the year. These were distressed credits whose financial performance and reserve levels dropped materially from quarter to quarter, a characteristic of high-yield or speculative rated borrowers.
While some of the upgrades followed mergers, other upgrades reflected improved financial performance and stable or growing liquidity. Likewise, some of the upgraded hospitals began receiving new supplemental funds known as Direct Payment Programs (DPPs). Unlike other supplemental funds, DPPs are subject to annual federal and state approval, making their long-term reliability uncertain. Numerous types of providers saw upgrades—including academic medical centers, independent hospitals and regional health systems—and were located across the U.S. Most of the upgraded hospitals (excluding those involved in mergers) were already investment grade.
As in past years, rating affirmations represented the overwhelming majority of rating actions in 2024. This is welcome news for the industry as many hospitals and health systems will turn to the bond market to borrow for their capital projects. Investors’ view of the industry should be bolstered by the change in industry outlooks. S&P moved to Stable from Negative and Fitch moved to Neutral from Deteriorating in December 2024, joining Moody’s revision to Stable from Negative in 2023.
We expect rating affirmations will again be the majority rating action in 2025. However, even with the stability viewed by the agencies, we expect downgrades to outpace upgrades given a growing reliance on government payers, labor challenges and a competitive environment. Policy and funding changes will also cast uncertainty into the mix in 2025 and may cause credit deterioration in future years.
The drugstore retailer faces debt maturities, while the upending of some strategies introduces new uncertainties, analysts said.
S&P Global Ratings analysts have downgraded Walgreens Boot Alliance by two notches, to ‘BB’ from ‘BBB-’, which puts the drugstore company into speculative-grade territory.
Analysts Diya Iyer and Hanna Zhang cited guidance for the year “notably below” their expectations, and said “material strategic changes, limited cash flow generation, and large maturities in coming years are key risks to the business.”
The company is struggling in its retail business as well as its pharmacy operations, they said in a Friday client note. In the U.S., margins are taking a hit on the pharmacy side from reimbursement pressure and on the retail side from declining sales volume and higher shrink. They expect Walgreens’ S&P Global Ratings-adjusted EBITDA margin to decline more than 100 basis points this fiscal year, dipping below 5%, from 6% last year, though the company’s cost cuts will counter that somewhat.
Walgreens’ debt and its need to refinance much of it represent another “key risk,” they said. This November, Walgreens faces $1.4 billion in maturities, mostly U.S. bonds. Another $2.8 billion comes due in fiscal 2026 and $1.8 billion in fiscal 2027. The analysts called Walgreens’ move to consolidate cash “prudent” in case refinancing isn’t possible.
“We will be monitoring how Walgreens’ new management addresses this large debt load closely amid its persistently weak performance and higher interest rates,” Iyer and Zhang said.
Beyond those financial realities, though, are strategic weaknesses. Ex-Cigna executive Tim Wentworth took over as CEO last fall and this year has overseen a strategic review that has entailed more layoffs and store closures.
Walgreens has also upended some of its plans to expand its medical care operations, divesting of or shrinking many of its original investments and plans. Last month, for example, the company announced it would reduce its stake in value-based medical chain VillageMD, saying it will no longer be the company’s majority owner, after closing dozens of the clinics last year. The company first poured $1 billion into VillageMD in 2020 and more than doubled its stake for another $5.2 billion the following year, but the banner’s waning value helped drive a $6 billion loss in Q2.
Despite such moves, Iyer and Zhang said they continue to see the VillageMD banner as “a significant drag on profitability due to the rising cost of labor, pressures from reimbursement, and lower volumes.”
Walgreens’ acquisition streak led the S&P analysts to believe that it would divest of its Boots U.K. business, which could have helped pay down $8 billion to $10 billion in debt. But the company called off the idea about two years ago.
“We believe these frequent and large changes to the company’s strategic plans diminish management’s credibility to execute on a sustainable and cohesive operating model for Walgreens in both the near and long term,” Iyer and Zhang said.
Gains that Walgreens has managed to eke from its medical operations haven’t managed to offset declines on the retail said, they also said, adding that they are closely watching what it does next with its massive footprint. The company last year announced that it would close 150 stores in the U.S. and 300 in the U.K. and just last month said it was reviewing 25% of its current footprint, with plans to shutter a “significant portion” of its roughly 8,700 stores.
“Our ratings continue to reflect Walgreens’ large scale and its efforts to address its credit metric profile. With almost $140 billion in sales in fiscal 2023 and a diverse array of global businesses, Walgreens remains prominent in the drugstore space,” they said. “However, we think its scale is providing less protection to profitability at least partly due to inconsistent strategic direction.”
On Monday, Fitch Ratings, the New York City-based credit rating agency, released a report predicting that the US not-for-profit hospital sector will see average operating margins reset in the one-to-two percent range, rather than returning to historical levels of above three percent.
Following disruptions from the pandemic that saw utilization drop and operating costs rise, hospitals have seen a slower-than-expected recovery.
But, according to Fitch, these rebased margins are unlikely to lead to widespread credit downgrades as most hospitals still carry robust balance sheets and have curtailed capital spending in response.
The Gist:As labor costs stabilize and volumes return, the median hospital has been able to maintain a positive operating margin for the past ten months.
But nonprofit hospitals are in a transitory period, one with both continued challenges—including labor costs that rebased at a higher rate and ongoing capital restraints—and opportunities—including the increase in outpatient demand, which has driven hospital outpatient revenue up over 40 percent from 2020 levels.
While the future margin outlook for individual hospitals will depend on factors that vary greatly across markets, organizations that thrive in this new era will be the ones willing to pivot, take risks, and invest heavily in outpatient services.
Asexpected, 2023 saw a material increase in downgrades over 2022 while the number of upgrades declined from the prior year. Volume showed favorable growth for many hospitals during 2023 although some indicators remained below pre-pandemic levels. Other hospitals reported a payer mix shift toward more Medicare as the population continued to age and Medicare Advantage plans gained momentum at the expense of commercial revenues. Continued labor challenges drove expense growth, even with many organizations reporting a reduction in temporary labor, as permanent hires pressured salary and benefit expenses. Some of the downgrades reflected pronounced operating challenges that led to covenant violations while others were due to a material increase in leverage viewed to be too high for the rating category.
Figure1: Downgrades at Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch
Here are five key takeaways:
The ratio of downgrades to upgrades reached a high level for all three rating agencies: Moody’s, 3.2-to-1; S&P: 3.8-to-1; and Fitch: 3.5-to-1. In 2022, the ratio crested just above 2.0-to-1 at the highest among the three firms.
Downgrades covered a wide swath of hospitals, ranging from single-site general acute care facilities to academic medical centers as well as large regional and multistate systems. Many of the hospital downgrades were concentrated in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. All rating categories saw downgrades, although the majority were clustered in the Baa/BBB and lower categories.
Multi-notch downgrades were mainly relegated to ratings that were already deep into speculative grade. Multi-notch upgrades were due to mergers or acquisitions where the debt was guaranteed by or added to the legal borrowing group of the higher rated system.
Upgrades reflected fundamental improvement in financial performance and debt service coverage along with strengthening balance sheet indicators. Like the downgraded organizations, upgraded hospitals and health systems ranged from single-site hospitals to expansive, super-regional systems. Some of the upgrades reflected mergers into higher-rated systems.
The wide span between downgrades to upgrades in 2023 would suggest that the credit gap between highly rated hospitals (say, the “A” or “Aa/AA” category) compared to “Baa/BBB” and speculative grade is widening. That said, given that rating affirmations remain the predominant rating activity annually, the rating agencies reported only a subtle shift in the overall distribution of ratings since the beginning of the pandemic in their panel discussion at Kaufman Hall’s October 2023 Healthcare Leadership Conference.
One person’s prediction for 2024?
It’s a safe bet that downgrades will outpace upgrades given the persistent challenges, although the ratio may narrow if the improvement in current performanceholds. That said, the rating agencies are maintaining mixed views for 2024. S&P and Fitch are sticking with negative and deteriorating outlooks, respectively, while Moody’s has revised its outlook to stable, anticipating that the rough times of 2022 are behind us.
All three rating agencies predict that we are not out of the woods yet when it comes to covenant challenges, especially in the lower rating categories or for those organizations that report a second year of covenant violations.
Here is a summary of recent credit downgrades and outlook revisions for hospitals and health systems.
The downgrades and downward revisions reflect continued operating challenges many nonprofit systems are facing, with multiyear recovery processes expected.
Downgrades:
Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health: Operating weakness and elevated debt contributed to the downgrade of bonds held by Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health, Moody’s said May 5. The bond rating slipped from “Aa3” to “A1,” and the outlook was revised to stable from negative.
The system saw a second downgrade as its default rating and that on a series of bonds were revised one notch to “A+” from “AA-” amid continued operating woes, Fitch said June 28.
Not only have there been three straight years of such challenges, but the operating environment continues to cast a pall into the second quarter of the current fiscal year, Fitch said.
UC Health (Cincinnati): The system was downgraded on a series of bonds, Moody’s said May 10.
The move, which involved a lowering from a “Baa2” to “Baa3” grade, refers to such bonds with an overall value of $580 million.
In February, UC Health suffered a similar downgrade from “A” to “BBB+” on its overall rating and on some bonds because of what S&P Global termed “significantly escalating losses.”
UNC Southeastern (Lumberton, N.C.): The system, which is now part of the Chapel Hill, N.C.-based UNC Health network, saw its ratings on a series of bonds downgraded to “BB” amid operating losses and sustained weakness in its balance sheet, S&P Global said June 23.
While UNC Southeastern reported an operating loss of $74.8 million in fiscal 2022, such losses have continued into fiscal 2023 with a $15 million loss as of March 31, S&P Global said. The system had earlier been placed on CreditWatch but that was removed with this downgrade.
Butler (Pa.) Health: The system, now merged with Greensburg, Pa.-based Excela Health to form Independence Health System, saw its credit rating downgraded significantly, falling from “A” to “BBB.”
The move reflects continued operating challenges and low patient volumes, Fitch said June 26.
Such operating challenges, including low days of cash on hand, could result in potential default of debt covenants, Fitch warned.
Outlook revisions:
Redeemer Health (Meadowbrook, Pa.): The system had its outlook revised to negative amid “persistent operating losses,” Fitch Ratings said June 14. The health system, anchored by a 260-bed acute care hospital, reported a $37 million operating loss in the nine months ending March 31, Fitch said.
Thomas Jefferson University (Philadelphia): The June 9 downward revision of its outlook, which includes both the health system and the university’s academic sector, was due to sustained operating weakness, S&P Global said.
IU Health (Indianapolis): While it saw ratings affirmed at “AA,” the 16-hospital system had its outlook downgraded amid persistent inflationary pressures and large capital expense, Fitch said May 31.
UofL Health (Louisville, Ky.): Slumping operating income and low days of cash on hand (42.8 as of March 31) contributed to S&P Global revising its outlook for the six-hospital system to negative May 24.
Here is a summary of recent credit downgrades and outlook revisions for hospitals and health systems going back to the most recent major roundup March 16.
The various downgrades reflect continued operating challenges many nonprofit systems are facing and will likely continue to deal with for some years to come. The most recent downgrades and revisions, which have not been included in any more recent roundups, are listed first.
Baptist Health Care (Pensacola, Fla.):
BHC had the rating downgraded on a series of its bonds as a reflection of “pressured operating performance and cash flow,” S&P Global said April 19.
As well as typical industry pressures of inflation and labor expenses, the three-hospital system may face further challenge because of a replacement project for its flagship Baptist Hospital that is due to be completed in late 2023.
Beacon Health (South Bend, Ind.):
Beacon Health System had its outlook revised to negative from stable on “AA-” rated bonds it holds, S&P Global said April 14.
The move reflects weaker operating results and an expectation of increased debt over the near term.
Kuakini Health System (Honolulu):
Kuakini Health System, which has a “CCC” long-term rating, has been placed on CreditWatch with negative implications, S&P Global said April 14.
The move reflects the system’s sustained operating challenges with no foreseeable major changes and questions about its long-term viability, the agency said, describing the system’s “precarious financial position.”
Baystate Health (Springfield, Mass.):
Baystate Health had ratings downgraded on specific bonds related to its flagship medical center, S&P Global said April 12.
While ratings were affirmed on other debt, those on others specific to the 780-bed Baystate Medical Center were downgraded to “A” from “A+” as the system’s operating challenges continue into 2023, the agency said.
Penn State Health (Hershey, Pa.):
Higher-than-expected operating losses have led to Penn State Health being downgraded on a series of bonds from “A+” to “A,” S&P Global said April 6.
Original budgets for the first part of fiscal 2023 targeted a slightly positive full-year operating margin, but data shows a $75 million lower-than-forecasted figure, S&P Global said. Operating income showed a loss of $154.5 million for the six months ending Dec. 31 compared with a $48.8 million loss in all of fiscal 2022.
Legacy Health(Portland, Ore.):
Legacy Health had its outlook revised to negative from stable amid expectations the eight-hospital system will continue to experience difficult operating conditions and concern it will continue to fail to meet debt obligations, Moody’s said April 5.
The rating on its revenue bonds was affirmed at “A1.” Total debt stands at $738 million.
Providence (Renton, Wash.):
The 51-hospital system recorded the first of three downgrades in the space of a few weeks March 17 when Fitch Ratings attached an “A” grade to both the system’s default rating and a series of bonds worth approximately $7.4 billion. The outlook for the system is negative due to its higher-than-average debt loads, Fitch said.
S&P Global then downgraded Providence to the same notch from “A+” March 21 amid higher expenses and an expectation of only a multiyear process of recovery. The outlook for the system was also negative given the steep operating losses that need to be dealt with, S&P said.
Finally, Providence was downgraded by Moody’s on a series of bonds from “A1” to “A2.
Thomas Jefferson (Philadelphia):
Thomas Jefferson University has undergone a credit downgrade with cash flow margins expected to stay low for “several years,” Moody’s said March 30.
The 18-hospital system, which also operates 10 colleges located primarily on two campuses in Philadelphia, is expected to stabilize its days of cash on hand to about 140, but debt will remain high, Moody’s said. The outlook is stable.
Oaklawn Hospital (Marshall, Mich.):
The 68-bed community hospital was downgraded to “BBB-” from “BBB” as it reported operating losses due to higher expenses and length of patient stay, Fitch Ratings said March 29.
The downgrade refers both to its default rating and on bonds worth $63.5 million. The outlook is negative.
DCH Health (Tuscaloosa, Ala.):
The three-hospital system saw its rating on a series of bonds lowered to “A-” from “A” as it continues to suffer operating losses, S&P Global said March 29.
The system’s “deeply negative underlying operations” are unlikely to lead to any substantial improvement in the near future, the agency said.
DCH Health operates a total of 510 staffed beds.
AU Health System (Augusta, Ga.):
The system, which is being pursued by Marietta, Ga.-based Wellstar Health, was downgraded March 23 amid concern over negative cash flow and that it may breach covenant agreements later this year, Moody’s said.
The downgrade to “B2” from “Ba3” applies to revenue bonds the system holds. The outlook is negative.
PeaceHealth (Vancouver, Wash.):
“Considerable operating stress” was the driver behind Fitch Ratings downgrading the 10-hospital system March 21.
The downgrade to “A+” from “AA-” applied to both the system’s default rating and on a series of bonds. The outlook is stable.
Management is targeting a return to profitability by fiscal 2026, Fitch noted.
Mercy Iowa CityHospital:
The hospital, part of Des Moines, Iowa-based MercyOne, was downgraded March 16 to “Caa1” from “B1” because of what Moody’s called “severe cash flow deterioration.” The “Caa1” categorization is seen as “substantial risk.”
PeaceHealth has eliminated 251 caregiver roles across multiple locations, the Vancouver, Wash.-based health system said in a statement shared with Becker’s on April 26.
“PeaceHealth is actively responding to the significant challenges faced by healthcare organizations across the U.S. Comprehensive plans are already underway to recruit additional nurses, ensure patients can return home as quickly as possible and grow the services we know our community members need,” the statement read.
“As always, we are also adjusting operations and services to reflect changes in our communities and ensure we are being responsible to our healing mission into the future.”
PeaceHealth said affected roles include 121 from Shared Services, which supports its 16,000 caregivers in Washington, Oregon and Alaska. Shared Services include administrative services that support clinical caregivers such as human resources, information technology, marketing and communications, and finance.
The remaining affected roles are “relatively evenly spread across our three networks. In line with our value of respect, we offer comprehensive transitional support consistent with our policies and practices to all impacted caregivers,” the health system said.
PeaceHealth spokesperson Alison Taylor told Becker’s the health system anticipates many affected caregivers will be qualified for the nearly 1,300 open clinical roles across the organization.
In February, PeaceHealth reported a loss of $90.8 million in the six months ending Dec. 31, 2022. The health system was also downgraded in March by Fitch Ratings, which cited the organization’s “considerable operating stress.”
PeaceHealth operates 10 hospitals across Alaska, Oregon and Washington.
Using data from Kaufman Hall’s National Hospital Flash Report, as well as publicly available investor reports for some of the nation’s largest nonprofit health systems, the graphic above takes stock of the current state of health system margins.
The median US hospital has now maintained a negative operating margin for a full year. Some good news may be on the horizon, as the picture is slightly less gloomy than a year ago, with year-over-yearrevenues increasing seven points more than total expenses.
However, the external conditions suppressing operating margins aren’t expected to abate, and many large health systems are still struggling.
Among large national non-profits Ascension, CommonSpirit Health, Providence, and Trinity Health, operating income in FY 2022 decreased 180 percent on average, and investment returns fell by 150 percent on average, compared to the year prior.
While health systems’ drop in investment returns mirrors the overall stock market downturn, and is largely comprised of unrealized returns, systems may not be able to rely on investment income to make up for ongoing operating losses.
HENRY KOTULA 