How hospital operators fared financially in 2020

“For the most part providers were dependent on that CARES funding. I think they would have been in the red or break even without it,” Suzie Desai, a senior director at S&P Global Ratings, said.

The pandemic weighed heavily on the financial performance of not-for-profit hospitals in 2020, but some of the larger health systems remained profitable despite the upheaval — in large part thanks to substantial federal funding earmarked to prop up providers during the global health crisis. 

Industry observers have been closely watching to see how health systems ultimately fared in 2020. Now, with the fiscal-year ended and accounted for, analysts say the $175 billion in federal funds was crucial for providers’ bottom lines.

Without the stimulus funding, it is very likely we would have seen more issuers [hospitals/health] systems experience either lower profitable margins, or outright losses from operations,” Kevin Holloran, senior director of U.S. public finance for Fitch Ratings, said.  

Still, the pandemic put a squeeze on nonprofit hospital margins last year, according to a recent Moody’s report that showed the median operating margin was 0.5% in 2020 compared to 2.4% in 2019.

The first half of the year hit providers especially hard as volumes fell drastically, seemingly overnight. Revenue plummeted alongside the volume declines as the nation paused lucrative elective procedures to preserve medical resources.

One estimate showed hospitals lost more than $20 billion as they halted surgeries in the early months of the outbreak in the U.S. 

But as the year wore on, the outlook improved as some volumes returned closer to pre-pandemic levels. At the same time, health systems worked to cut expenses to mitigate the financial strain.

Still, some health systems did post operational losses even with the federal funds meant to help them. Moody’s found that 42% of 130 hospitals surveyed posted an operating loss, an increase from 23% the year prior. Yet, the 2019 survey included more hospitals, a total of 282.

Sutter Health, the Northern California giant, reported an operating loss for 2020 and said it was launching a “sweeping review” of its finances as the pandemic exacerbated existing challenges for the provider. Washington-based Providence also reported an operating loss for 2020. However, both Sutter and Providence were able to post positive net income thanks in large part to investment gains.    

Investment income can aid nonprofit operators even when core operations are stunted like during 2020. Though, initially, the pandemic put stress on the stock market as uncertainty around the virus and its duration ballooned. The stock market took a dive and it was reflected in some six-month financials as both operations and investments took a hit. 

“COVID and the stimulus is (hopefully) a once in a lifetime disruption of operations,” Holloran said, who noted analysts have been trying to assess whether the top line losses can be placed squarely on COVID-19. If that’s the case, analysts are typically more apt to keep the provider’s existing rating. 

“For the most part providers were dependent on that CARES funding. I think they would have been in the red or break even without it,” Suzie Desai, a senior director at S&P Global Ratings, said.

For example, Arizona’s Banner Health would have posted an operating loss without federal relief, according to their financial reports. Banner Health was able to work its way back to black after it reported a loss through the first six months of the year. The same was true for Midwest behemoth Advocate Aurora. 

The providers that were able to weather the storm of the pandemic tended to be integrated systems that had a health plan under their umbrella. 

Kaiser Permanente ended the year with both positive operating and net income and returned relief funds it received.   

“The integrated providers, yeah, were one group that just had a natural hedge with the insurance premiums still coming in,” Desai said.  

Still, the hospital lobby is hoping to secure more funding for its members as the threat of the virus is still present even amid large scale efforts to vaccinate a majority of Americans to reach a blanket of protection from the novel coronavirus and its variants.

4 recent health system credit rating downgrades

Rating agencies brace for backlash after rash of downgrades | Financial  Times

The following four health system credit rating downgrades occurred in the past three months. They are listed in alphabetical order. 

1. Mercy Hospital (Iowa City, Iowa) — from “Ba3” to “B1” (Moody’s Investors Service)
The downgrade to B1 reflects the near term challenges that Mercy will face following the large operating loss in fiscal 2020, narrow headroom to the debt service covenant in fiscal 2020 and the pronounced December COVID surge, creating headwinds to retire to historical levels of stronger financial performance,” Moody’s said. 

2. NYC Health + Hospitals — from “AA-” to “A+” (Fitch Ratings) 
The downgrade of the NYCHCC bonds is tied to the downgrade of the city’s IDR to ‘AA-‘ from ‘AA’, and reflects Fitch’s expectation that the impact of the coronavirus and related containment measures will have a longer-lasting impact on New York’s economic growth than most other parts of the country,” Fitch said.

3. The Methodist Hospitals (Gary, Ind.) — from “BBB” to “BBB-” (Fitch Ratings)
The downgrade to ‘BBB-‘ is based on continued operating constraints after significant losses in 2017 through 2019. Interim nine-month fiscal 2020 operating income results, despite the pandemic, reflect an early stabilization trend but at weaker levels that are more consistent with the prior three years,” Fitch said.

4. Tower Health (West Reading, Pa.) — from “BB+” to “BB-” (S&P Global Ratings); from “BB+” to “B+” (Fitch Ratings)
“The two-notch downgrade reflects our view of Tower Health’s continued significant operating losses through the interim period ended Dec. 31, 2020, which have been higher than expected, coupled with recent resignations of members of the senior management team,” said S&P Global Ratings credit analyst Anne Cosgrove.

Troubled Pennsylvania health system looks for a buyer

Reading Hospital | Tower Health

West Reading, Pa.-based Tower Health is looking for a partner to buy the entire system, which comprises six hospitals, according to the Reading Eagle.

“We are compelled to pursue every possible avenue available to protect and preserve the future of care at all of our hospitals and facilities,” Tower said in a statement to The Philadelphia Inquirer on Feb. 26. “As part of this process, we will examine potential partnerships for the entire Tower Health system with like-minded health systems that share our same values and passion for clinical excellence.” 

The health system had previously said it was looking for buyers for its hospitals, with the exception of its flagship facility, Reading Hospital in West Reading, according to the Inquirer. 

On March 1, Tower Health was hit with a three-notch credit downgrade by Fitch Ratings. The credit rating agency said its long-term “B+” rating and negative outlook for the system reflect significant ongoing financial losses from the COVID-19 pandemic and operational challenges following the 2017 acquisition of five hospitals. 

S&P lowered its rating on Tower Health by two notches, to “BB-” from “BB+,” on March 2. 

Tower Health had operating losses of more than $415 million in fiscal year 2020, and it expects an operating loss of about $160 million in fiscal 2021, according to Fitch. 

11 health systems with strong finances

11 health systems with strong finances

Hospital Mergers, Acquisitions, and Affiliations | Case Study – RMS

Here are 11 health systems and hospitals with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to reports from Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings.

1. Morristown, N.J.-based Atlantic Health System has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The credit rating agency expects the health system to continue to generate favorable operating performance and to maintain double-digit operating cash flow margins and solid debt coverage. 

2. Charlotte, N.C.-based Atrium Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s and an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with S&P. Atrium and Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Wake Forest Baptist Health merged in October. The addition of the Winston-Salem service area and Wake Forest Baptist’s academic and research programs enhances Atrium’s position within the highly competitive North Carolina healthcare market, S&P said. 

3. Dallas-based Baylor Scott & White Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The system has strong liquidity and is the largest nonprofit health system in Texas, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects Baylor Scott & White Health to continue to benefit from its centralized operating model, proven ability to execute complex strategies and well-developed planning abilities. 

4. Pittsfield, Mass.-based Berkshire Health System has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has improved its liquidity while investing in facilities without increasing its debt load, Fitch said. The credit rating agency expects the system to maintain a strong financial profile. 

5. Mishawaka, Ind.-based Franciscan Alliance has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The system has leading positions in key markets and a strong cash position, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects the system to sustain double-digit operating cash flow margins. 

6. Falls Church, Va.-based Inova Health System has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The system has a strong financial profile, and Moody’s expects Inova’s balance sheet to remain exceptionally strong. 

7. Palo Alto, Calif.-based Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The hospital is nationally known, has a strong market position and is one of two key clinical partners of Stanford University, Fitch said. 

8. Grand Blanc, Mich.-based McLaren Health Care has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has a strong financial profile and a leading market position over a broad service area that covers much of Michigan, Fitch said. 

9. Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Novant Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The system has strong margins, and each of its markets has met or exceeded budgeted expectations over the past four years, Fitch said. 

10. Renton, Wash.-based Providence has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. Providence has a large revenue base and a leading market share in most of its markets, according to Moody’s. The credit rating agency expects the system’s operations to improve this year. 

11. Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating is driven by Trinity’s national size and scale, with significant market presence in several states, Fitch said. The credit rating agency expects the system’s operating margins to improve in the long term. 

Healthcare executives fear for their organizations’ viability without a COVID-19 vaccine

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/healthcare-executives-fear-their-organizations-viability-without-covid-19-vaccine

A complete financial recovery for many organizations is still far away, findings from Kaufman Hall indicate.

For the past three years, Kaufman Hall has released annual healthcare performance reports illustrating how hospitals and health systems are managing, both financially and operationally.

This year, however, with the pandemic altering the industry so broadly, the report took a different approach: to see how COVID-19 impacted hospitals and health systems across the country. The report’s findings deal with finances, patient volumes and recovery.

The report includes survey answers from respondents almost entirely (96%) from hospitals or health systems. Most of the respondents were in executive leadership (55%) or financial roles (39%). Survey responses were collected in August 2020.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Findings from the report indicate that a complete financial recovery for many organizations is still far away. Almost three-quarters of the respondents said they were either moderately or extremely concerned about their organization’s financial viability in 2021 without an effective vaccine or treatment.

Looking back on the operating margins for the second quarter of the year, 33% of respondents saw their operating margins decline by more than 100% compared to the same time last year.

Revenue cycles have taken a hit from COVID-19, according to the report. Survey respondents said they are seeing increases in bad debt and uncompensated care (48%), higher percentages of uninsured or self-pay patients (44%), more Medicaid patients (41%) and lower percentages of commercially insured patients (38%).

Organizations also noted that increases in expenses, especially for personal protective equipment and labor, have impacted their finances. For 22% of respondents, their expenses increased by more than 50%.

IMPACT ON PATIENT VOLUMES

Although volumes did increase over the summer, most of the improvement occurred in areas where it is difficult to delay care, such as oncology and cardiology. For example, oncology was the only field where more than half of respondents (60%) saw their volumes recover to more than 90% of pre-pandemic levels.

More than 40% of respondents said that cardiology volumes are operating at more than 90% of pre-pandemic levels. Only 37% of respondents can say the same for orthopedics, neurology and radiology, and 22% for pediatrics.

Emergency department usage is also down as a result of the pandemic, according to the report. The respondents expect that this trend will persist beyond COVID-19 and that systems may need to reshape their business model to account for a drop in emergency department utilization.

Most respondents also said they expect to see overall volumes remain low through the summer of 2021, with some planning for suppressed volumes for the next three years.

RECOVERY MEASURES

Hospitals and health systems have taken a number of approaches to reduce costs and mitigate future revenue declines. The most common practices implemented are supply reprocessing, furloughs and salary reductions, according to the report.

Executives are considering other tactics such as restructuring physician contracts, making permanent labor reductions, changing employee health plan benefits and retirement plan contributions, or merging with another health system as additional cost reduction measures.

THE LARGER TREND

Kaufman Hall has been documenting the impact of COVID-19 hospitals since the beginning of the pandemic. In its July report, hospital operating margins were down 96% since the start of the year.

As a result of these losses, hospitals, health systems and advocacy groups continue to push Congress to deliver another round of relief measures.

Earlier this month, the House passed a $2.2 trillion stimulus bill called the HEROES Act, 2.0. The bill has yet to pass the Senate, and the chances of that happening are slim, with Republicans in favor of a much smaller, $500 billion package. Nothing is expected to happen prior to the presidential election.

The Department of Health and Human Services also recently announced the third phase of general distribution for the Provider Relief Fund. Applications are currently open and will close on Friday, November 6.

2020 State of Healthcare Performance Improvement Report: The Impact of COVID-19

For the past three years, Kaufman Hall has surveyed hospitals and health systems on their performance improvement and cost transformation efforts. This year, these efforts met an historic challenge with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The pandemic’s impacts have been severe. Entire service lines were shut down as state governments required or strongly encouraged suspension of elective and non-emergency procedures, in part to conserve critical resources—including personal protective equipment—in the early days of the pandemic. Supply chains were disrupted, with organizations that had come to rely on “just in time” inventory practices scrambling to secure the resources needed to ensure the safety of patients and frontline clinical staff. The healthcare workforce came under incredible pressure, confronting a crisis that threatened to overwhelm the health system’s capacity to treat patients.

In a year unlike any other, our annual survey moved away from the questions of earlier years. We have focused on the impacts of COVID-19 on hospital and health system performance. Then, through interviews with survey respondents on the front line of the battle with COVID-19, we have sought to understand how health system leaders are seeking to find a path forward amid uncertainty that will likely stretch through 2021, if not beyond.

Key findings from this year’s report include the following:

  • Financial viabilityApproximately three fourths of survey respondents are either extremely (22%) or moderately (52%) concerned about the financial viability of their organization in the absence of an effective vaccine or treatment.
  • Operating margins. One third of our respondents saw year-over-year operating margin declines in excess of 100% from Q2 2019 to Q2 2020.
  • Volumes. Volumes in most service areas are recovering slowly. In only one area—oncology—have a majority of our respondents seen volumes return to more than 90% of pre-pandemic levels.
  • Expenses. A majority of survey respondents have seen their greatest percentage expense increase in the costs of supplying personal protective equipment. Nursing staff labor is in second place, cited by 34% of respondents as their most significant area of expense increase.
  • Healthcare workforce. Three fourths of survey respondents have increased monitoring and resources to address staff burnout and mental health concerns.
  • Telehealth. More than half of our respondents have seen the number of telehealth visits at their organization increase by more than 100% since the pandemic began. Payment disparities between telehealth and in-person visits are seen as the greatest obstacle to more widespread adoption of telehealth.
  • Competition. Approximately one third of survey respondents believe the pandemic has affected competitive dynamics in their market by making consumers more likely to seek care at retail-based clinics.
9 hospitals with strong finances

9 hospitals with strong finances

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/9-hospitals-with-strong-finances-102020.html?utm_medium=email

Here are nine hospitals and health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to reports from Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings.

1. St. Louis-based Ascension has an “AA+” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The system has a strong financial profile and a significant presence in several key markets, Fitch said. The credit rating agency expects Ascension will continue to produce healthy operating margins. 

2. Phoenix-based Banner Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch and S&P. Banner’s financial profile is strong, even taking into consideration the market volatility that occurred in the first quarter of this year, Fitch said. The credit rating agency expects the system to continue to improve operating margins and to generate cash flow sufficient to sustain strong key financial metrics. 

3. Cincinnati-based Bon Secours Mercy Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has a good payer mix, a leading position in several of its markets and adequate margins to support its growth, Fitch said. The credit rating agency expects the system to maintain strong operating profitability.  

4. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s and an “AA” rating and stable outlook with S&P. The hospital has a strong market position and healthy liquidity, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects CHOP’s market position and brand equity will support its recovery from disruption caused by COVID-19. 

5. Milwaukee-based Children’s Wisconsin has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s and an “AA” rating and stable outlook with S&P. The health system has strong cash flow margins, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects the health system’s financial performance to remain solid, given its commanding market presence and demand for services. 

6. Philadelphia-based Main Line Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The credit rating agency expects the system’s operations to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic and for it to resume its track record of strong operating cash flow margins. 

7. Midland-based MidMichigan Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The system has generated healthy operational levels through fiscal year 2020, and Fitch expects it to continue generating strong cash flow. 

8. Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Children’s Hospital has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The system has a strong market position in pediatric services in Columbus and the broad central Ohio region, and its advanced research capabilities will support volume recovery from disruption caused by COVID-19, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects Nationwide Children’s margins to remain strong and for cost management initiatives and volume recovery to drive improvements. 

9. Chicago-based Northwestern Memorial HealthCare has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system had strong pre-COVID margins and liquidity, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects the system to maintain strong operating cash flow margins. 

New Jersey hospitals are a microcosm of potential COVID-19 financial impact

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/new-jersey-hospitals-microcosm-potential-covid-19-financial-impact

What CFOs think about the economic impact of COVID-19

The last time margins sank so deeply into the red was after the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, though today’s margins are faring worse.

COVID-19 continues to have deep and lingering financial impacts on hospitals in New Jersey. A midyear analysis of financial data shows nearly 60% of the state’s hospitals in the red and an average statewide operating margin of negative 4%.

The effects have been profound, and serve as a potential microcosm of the continuing impact of the coronavirus on hospital operating margins nationwide.

The decline in the state is the result of a dual blow of declining revenues and rising expenses, according to the report from the Center for Health Analytics, Research and Transformation at the New Jersey Hospital Association. Officials said the state’s hospitals haven’t experienced this level of fiscal distress in more than 20 years.

In fact, the last time margins sunk so deeply into the red was in the late 1990s. At that time, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 resulted in significant payment cuts to the state’s hospitals, with margins falling to -1.7% and -2.3% in 1998 and 1999, respectively. And those numbers are not as distressing as the ones being experienced during the public health crisis.

WHAT’S THE IMPACT?

The report, “At Mid-Year, COVID-19’s Financial Wounds Continue for N.J. Hospitals,” shows the impact of continued loss of revenue from the suspension of elective procedures at COVID-19’s peak in the spring, and the slow rebound of patients returning to the hospital.

CHART’s data, comparing June 30, 2019, with June 30, 2020, shows that total patient revenues declined 6.6%. Emergency department cases plummeted 23%, while hospital admissions fell by 8% and outpatient visits dropped by 22%.

An additional aggravating factor is a 12% increase in total operating expenses, because COVID-19 required hospitals to redirect resources to increase staffing; boost supplies of personal protective equipment, pharmaceuticals and ventilators; and modify operations and facilities to expand capacity.

CHART’s analysis takes a closer look at the disruption of elective procedures in New Jersey hospitals and its lingering impact. Governor Phil Murphy’s Executive Order 109, in effect March 27 through May 26, required hospitals to suspend elective procedures during the state’s COVID-19 surge. CHART used claims data for some of the highest-volume elective procedures performed in New Jersey hospitals – bariatric surgery, pacemaker insertion, spinal fusion, knee replacement and hernia repair – to gauge the impact.

In April and May 2019, the state’s hospitals performed these procedures 4,336 times. That number plummeted to just 400 statewide in April and May 2020. The state’s executive order suspending procedures during this time allowed exemptions for cases in which a delay would result in “undue risk to the current or future health of the patient.” 

The year-over-year decline persisted even when the suspension was lifted. In June and July of 2019, 4,194 procedures from the list of high-volume procedures were performed, compared with 3,191 in June and July of 2020.

But the greatest decline in volume by percentage was seen in hospital emergency departments, where cases nosedived 23.4% between June 30, 2019, and June 30, 2020. That has healthcare leaders concerned.

NJHA officials said a hospital turnaround is critical for the statewide recovery from the coronavirus.

“The state’s hospitals pump $25 billion annually into the New Jersey economy and employ 154,000 people,” said NJHA’s Roger Sarao, vice president of economic and financial information and lead author of the CHART report. “They are an essential part of the road to recovery from this public health and economic crisis.”

THE LARGER TREND

The effects of the pandemic on the nation’s hospitals will be long-lasting, especially among nonprofits. A recent Fitch Ratings analysis showed that the full effects have yet to be felt.

The agency predicted that capital spending will be greatly reduced in the initial years post-pandemic, though some of it will ultimately accelerate due to anticipated merger and acquisition activity.

Fitch expects hospitals to take on added expenses to perform the same level of service, and predicts revenue declines from a shift in payer mix.

Moody’s: Hospital financial outlook worse as COVID-19 relief funds start to dwindle

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/moody-s-hospital-financial-outlook-worse-as-covid-19-relief-funds-start-to-dwindle?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWTJZek56Z3lNV1E0TW1NMyIsInQiOiJKdUtkZE5DVGphdkNFanpjMHlSMzR4dEE4M29tZ24zek5lM3k3amtUYSt3VTBoMmtMUnpIblRuS2lYUWozZk11UE5cL25sQ1RzbFpzdExcL3JvalBod3Z6U3BZK3FBNjZ1Rk1LQ2pvT3A5Witkc0FmVkJocnVRM0dPbFJHZTlnRGJUIn0%3D&mrkid=959610

For-profit hospitals are expected to see a financial decline over the next 12 to 18 months as federal relief funds that shored up revenue losses due to COVID-19 start to wane, a recent analysis from Moody’s said.

The analysis, released Monday, finds that cost management is going to be challenging for hospital systems as more surgical procedures are expected to migrate away from the hospital and people lose higher-paying commercial plans and go to lower-paying government programs such as Medicaid.

“The number of surgical procedures done outside of the hospital setting will continue to increase, which will weaken hospital earnings, particularly for companies that lack sizeable outpatient service lines (including ambulatory surgery centers),” the analysis said.

A $175 billion provider relief fund passed by Congress as part of the CARES Act helped keep hospital systems afloat in March and April as volumes plummeted due to the cancellation of elective procedures and reticence among patients to go to the hospitals.

Some for-profit systems such as HCA and Tenet pointed to relief funding to help generate profits in the second quarter of the year. The benefits are likely to dwindle as Congress has stalled over talks on replenishing the fund.

“Hospitals will continue to recognize grant aid as earnings in Q3 2020, but this tailwind will significantly moderate after that,” Moody’s said.

Cost cutting challenges

Compounding problems for hospitals is how to handle major costs.

Some hospital systems cut some costs such as staff thanks to furloughs and other measures.

“Some hospitals have said that for every lost dollar of revenue, they were able to cut about 50 cents in costs,” the analysis said. “However, we believe that these levels of cost cuts are not sustainable.”

Hospitals can’t cut costs indefinitely, but the costs for handling the pandemic (more money for personal protective equipment and safety measures) are going to continue for some time, Moody’s added.

“As a result, hospitals will operate less efficiently in the wake of the pandemic, although their early experiences in treating COVID-19 patients will enable them to provide care more efficiently than in the early days of the pandemic,” the analysis found. “This will help hospitals free up bed capacity more rapidly and avoid the need for widespread shutdowns of elective surgeries.”

But will that capacity be put to use?

The number of surgical procedures done outside of the hospital is likely to increase and will further weaken earnings, Moody’s said.

“Outpatient procedures typically result in lower costs for both consumers and payers and will likely be preferred by more patients who are reluctant to check-in to a hospital due to COVID-19,” the analysis said.

The payer mix will also shift, and not in hospitals’ favor. Mounting job losses due to the pandemic will force more patients with commercial plans toward programs such as Medicaid.

“This will hinder hospitals’ earnings growth over the next 12-18 months,” Moody’s said. “Employer-provided health insurance pays significantly higher reimbursement rates than government-based programs.”

Bright spots

There are some bright spots for hospitals, including that not all of the $175 billion has been dispersed yet. The CARES Act continues to provide hospitals with a 20% add-on payment for treating Medicare patients that have COVID-19, and it suspends a 2% payment cut for Medicare payments that was installed as part of sequestration.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services also proposed increasing outpatient payment rates for the 2021 fiscal year by 2.6% and in-patient rates by 2.9%. The fiscal year is set to start next month.

Patient volumes could also return to normal in 2021. Moody’s expects that patient volumes will return to about 90% of pre-pandemic levels on average in the fourth quarter of the year.

“The remaining 10% is likely to come back more slowly in 2021, but faster if a vaccine becomes widely available,” the analysis found.

 

 

 

 

Outlook remains negative for US for-profit hospitals, Moody’s says

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/outlook-remains-negative-for-us-for-profit-hospitals-moody-s-says.html?utm_medium=email

Fitch gives negative ratings outlook for APAC life insurance | Insurance  Business

Moody’s Investors Service maintained its negative outlook for U.S. for-profit hospitals due to waning federal aid, shifting payer mixes and varying volume trends.

Moody’s expects for-profit hospitals earnings before interest tax depreciation and amortization to decline by a low-to-mid single-digit rate in the next 12 to 18 months.

The credit rating agency maintained the negative outlook for several reasons, including that government aid to providers is beginning to wind down and most providers will see adverse payer mix shifts in the next year due to the high unemployment rate in the U.S.

In addition, volume trends and acuity levels are likely to vary significantly for these for-profit providers across the U.S. and the number of procedures performed outside of the hospital setting will continue to increase, which will weaken hospital earnings, Moody’s said. 

Further, the credit rating agency said that many providers implemented rapid and aggressive cost cutting measures, which enabled them to exit the second quarter largely unscathed.

“Some hospitals have said that for every lost dollar of revenue, they were able to cut about 50 cents in costs. However, we believe that these levels of cost cuts are not sustainable,” Moody’s said.

Overall, Moody’s said it expects volumes to gradually return to pre-COVID-19 levels in 2021.