Three Must-Haves for Every Rating Presentation

Creating a great rating agency presentation is imperative to telling your story. I’ve probably seen a thousand presentations across the past three decades and I can say without a doubt that a great presentation will find its way into the rating committee. Show me a crisp, detailed, well-organized presentation, and I’ll show you a ratings analyst who walks away with high confidence that the management team can navigate the industry challenges ahead.

During the pandemic, Kaufman Hall recommended that hospitals move financial performance to the top of the presentation agenda. Better presentations chronicled the immediate, “line item by line item” steps management was taking to stop the financial bleeding and access liquidity. We still recommend this level of detail in your presentations, but as many hospitals relocate their bottom line, management teams are now returning to discussing longer-term strategy and financial performance in their presentations.

Beyond the facts and figures, many hospitals ask me what the rating analysts REALLY want to know. Over those one thousand presentations I’ve seen, the presentations that stood out the most addressed the three themes below:

  1. What makes your organization essential? Hospitals maintain limited price elasticity as Medicare and Medicaid typically comprise at least half of patient service revenue, leaving only a small commercial slice to subsidize operations. The ability to negotiate meaningful rate increases with payers will largely rest on the ability to prove why the hospital is a “must-have” in the network. In other words, a health plan that can’t sell a product without a hospital in its network is the definition of essential. This conversation now also includes Medicare Advantage plans as penetration rates increase rapidly across the country. Essentiality may be demonstrated by distinct services, strong clinical outcomes and robust medical staff, multiple access points across a certain geography, or data that show the hospital is a low-cost alternative compared to other providers. Volume trends, revenue growth, and market share show that essentiality. A discussion on essentiality is particularly needed for independent providers who operate in crowded markets.
  2. What makes your financial performance durable? Many hospitals are showing a return to better performance in recent quarters. Showing how your organization will sustain better financial results is important. Analysts will want to know what the new “run rate” is and why it is durable. What are the undergirding factors that make the better margins sustainable? Drivers may include negotiated rate increases from commercial payers and revenue cycle improvements. On the expense side, a well-chronicled plan to achieve operating efficiencies should receive material airtime in the presentation, particularly regarding labor. It is universally understood that high labor costs are a permanent, structural challenge for hospitals, so any effort to bend the labor cost curve will be well received. Management should also isolate non-recurring revenue or expenses that may drive results, such as FEMA funds or 340B settlements. To that end, many states have established new direct-to-provider payment programs which may be meaningful for hospitals. Expect questions on whether these funds are subject to annual approval by the state or CMS. The analysts will take a sharpened pencil to a growing reliance on these funds. 

    The durability of financial performance should be represented with highly detailed multi-year projections complete with computed margin, debt, and liquidity ratios. Know that analysts will create their own conservative projections if these are not provided, which effectively limits your voice in the rating committee. 

    We also recommend that hospitals include a catalogue of MTI and bank covenants in the presentation. Complying with covenants are part of the agreement that hospitals make with their lenders, and it is the organization’s responsibility to report how it’s performing against these covenants. General philosophy on headroom to covenants also provides insight to management’s operating philosophy. For example, is it the organization’s goal to have narrow, adequate, or ample headroom to the covenants and why? As the rating agencies will tell you, ratings are not solely based on covenant performance, but all rating factors influence your ability to comply with the covenants.
  3. What makes your capital plan affordable? Every rating committee will ask what the hospital’s future capital needs are and how those capital needs will be supported by cash flow, also known as “capital capacity.” To answer that question, a hospital must understand what it can afford, based on financial projections. Funding sources may require debt, which requires a debt capacity analysis with goals on debt burden, coverage, and liquidity targets. Over the years, better presentations explain the organization’s capital model, outline the funding sources, and discuss management’s tolerance for leverage.

There is always a lot to cover when meeting with the rating agencies and a near endless array of metrics and indicators to provide. As I’ve written before, how you tell the story is as important as the story itself. If you can weave these three themes throughout the presentation, then you will have a greater shot at having your best voice heard in rating committee.

Financial Reserves and Credit Management

For large capital projects—construction of a new cancer
treatment center, for example, or replacement of an
aging facility—issuance of municipal debt is one of the
most affordable ways for not-for-profit hospitals and
health system to finance the project
.

The affordability of that debt is, however, partly contingent on the
organization’s ability to maintain a strong credit rating,
and financial reserves—again measured as Days Cash on
Hand—are a significant component of that credit rating.


There are two basic forms of municipal debt:


Ÿ General obligation bonds are backed by the full
taxing power of the issuing municipal authority and
are considered relatively low risk. Hospitals that are
owned by a city or county can be funded by general
obligation bonds, although there are practical
limitations on their ability to issue these bonds,
including in many instances the need to obtain voter
or county commissioner approval. Organizations

without municipal ownership—including most
not-for-profit hospitals and health systems—
cannot issue general obligation bonds.


Ÿ Revenue-backed municipal bonds are backed by
the ability of the organization borrowing the debt
to meet its obligation to make principal and interest
payments through the revenue it generates over the
life of the bond. Because revenues can be disrupted
by any range of factors, revenue-backed bonds are
higher risk for investors. Most healthcare bonds
are revenue-backed municipal bonds.


When determining whether to invest in revenue-backed
municipal healthcare bonds, investors will look to the
credit rating of the hospital or health system that is
borrowing the debt. Credit ratings—issued by one or
more of the three major credit rating agencies (Fitch
Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service, and S&P Global
Ratings)—provide an assessment of the probability

that the hospital or health system will be able to meet
the terms of the debt obligation. These ratings are
tiered. A credit rating in the AA tier is better than a credit
rating in the A tier, which is better than a rating in the
BBB tier. Ratings below the BBB tier are considered sub-investment grade.

Organizations with a sub-investment
grade rating can still access various forms of debt,
but the amount of debt they can access generally will
be lower, the cost of the debt will be higher, and the
covenants that lenders require will be more stringent
than for investment-grade rated organizations.


Financial reserves and credit ratings


Days Cash on Hand is one of the most important factors
credit rating agencies use because it is an indicator
of how long the rated organization could withstand
serious disruption to its operations and cashflow.
The rating agencies issue median values for the various
metrics they use to determine credit ratings. Median

values for Days Cash on Hand increased significantly
across most rating categories for all three agencies
in 2020 and 2021; this reflects the temporary inflow
of pandemic relief funding through, for example,
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act.


We anticipate these medians will move
closer to pre-pandemic levels as relief funds are
exhausted and hospitals repay remaining balances
on Medicare’s COVID-19 Accelerated and Advanced
Payment (MAAP) program funds. But even before
the pandemic, organizations in 2019 had a median
Days Cash on Hand
of 276 to 289 days at the AA level,
173 to 219 days at the A level, and 140 to 163 days at
the BBB level.


In other words, the Days Cash on Hand
benchmark for organizations seeking to maintain an
investment-grade rating would be well over 100 Days
Cash on Hand, and well over 200 Days Cash on Hand for
organizations seeking to achieve a higher rating level.
Again, these reserves are proportionate to the operating
expenses of the individual hospital or health system.

Impact of credit ratings on access to capital


Organizations that can achieve a higher rating can
also borrow money at more affordable interest
rates. Figure 3 shows average interest rates for
municipal bonds across a range of maturities as of
mid-December 2022 (maturity is the term in years
for repayment of the bond at the time the bond is
issued). Lower-risk general obligation municipal bonds
are shown as the baseline, with lines for AA, A, and
BBB rated healthcare revenue-backed bonds above
it. As a reminder, most hospitals and health systems
cannot borrow money using general obligation bonds;
instead, they use higher-risk revenue-backed bonds
.
Because revenue-backed bonds are a higher risk for
investors than tax-based general obligation bonds,

even hospitals and health systems with a strong
AA credit rating will pay a higher interest rate than
would a city or county that could back repayment of
the bond with tax revenues (see the line for AA rated
Healthcare Revenue Bonds compared to the line
for AAA rated General Obligation bonds). But there
is also a significant gap between the interest rate a
hospital with an AA credit rating would pay compared
to the interest rate available to a hospital with a lower
BBB rating
. Here, the difference is approximately
three-fourths of a full percentage point. When the
amount borrowed for a major new hospital project
can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars,
that difference represents significant savings for
organizations with a higher credit rating.

Financial reserves and debt capacity


Financial reserves and the funds they generate—
including investment income—also help define an
organization’s debt capacity: essentially, the amount of
debt an organization can assume without jeopardizing
its current credit rating. There are two key ratios here:


Ÿ The first is total unrestricted cash and investments
to debt.
In general, the more favorable that ratio is,
the more latitude a hospital or health system has to
take on additional debt, especially if the organization
is toward the middle to top end of its rating tier.

Ÿ The second is the debt service coverage ratio,
which measures the organization’s ability to
make principal and interest payments with funds
derived from both operating and non-operating
(e.g., investment income) activity. A higher ratio
here means the organization has more funds
available to service debt.


The ability to assume additional debt is an important
safety valve
if, for example, an organization needs to
mitigate poor financial performance to fund ongoing
capital needs or strategic initiatives.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Not-for-profit hospitals and health systems often
borrow debt through revenue-backed municipal
bonds, meaning that the debt obligations will be
met by the revenue the organization generates
over the life of the bond.


Ÿ Because revenue-backed bonds are higher
risk than general obligation bonds
backed by a
municipality’s taxing authority (revenues can
be disrupted), investors seek assurance that an
organization will be able to meet its obligations.


Ÿ Credit ratings offer investors an assessment of
an organization’s current and near-term ability to
meet these obligations.

Ÿ Days Cash on Hand is an important metric in
assessing the organization’s credit rating, and a
higher rating generally requires a higher number of
Days Cash on Hand.


Ÿ A higher credit rating allows organizations to
borrow money at more affordable interest rates.


Ÿ A higher level of financial reserves and investment
income in relation to existing debt obligations also
increases an organization’s debt capacity, creating
an important safety valve if an organization has
to borrow money to mitigate poor operating or
investment performance.

The Not-for-Profit Healthcare Resource Chasm

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/blog/not-profit-healthcare-resource-chasm

Current Funding Environment

Healthcare debt issuance remains incredibly light. How long can a capital-intensive industry tolerate limited capital generation? Is pressure building to some tipping point when the need for capital and liquidity will outweigh defending a credit-rating position or avoiding what seems like high-cost debt? The sector generated a lot of internal and external capital in 2020-2021, but the falloff across all channels has been dramatic and residual resource positions are deteriorating.

The Need for Enterprise Performance Improvement

Recent economic releases—jobs report to CPI to PPI to retail sales—all suggest that the Federal Reserve’s efforts to bring inflation into line are yielding slower than hoped for results. The expectation is continued Fed tightening (higher rates), with a range of voices suggesting the Fed will be forced to push rates high enough to trigger a recession. Every restaurant and shop in the small town I live near has a “we’re hiring” sign in its window and each was jam-packed with very active consumers this past Presidents’ Day weekend. If success in taming inflation requires a broad-based hiring and economic slowdown, it feels like we have a long way to go.

Markets keep doing their thing, which frequently seems disconnected from the Fed’s thing. Both 30-year Treasuries and MMD are just starting to bump up against 30-year averages, the 10-year Treasury has moved higher over the past several weeks but remains below Effective Fed Funds, and the Chicago Fed’s National Financial Conditions Index continues to suggest relatively accommodative overall financial conditions.

While I question the depth and reliability of fixed income markets, the funding environment doesn’t seem as bad as the very low debt issuance activity would suggest. Channeling Shakespeare, it seems that “the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves,”

meaning that low debt issuance is coming out of healthcare’s very profound resource problem rather than externalities.

I concluded a long time ago that not-for-profit healthcare credit and capital management is about strategic resource allocation. Healthcare leaders continuously rebalance the allocation of resources embedded in operations, credit position, and retained fixed and financial assets; and there has never been as challenging a resource generation and allocation moment as the one we are in and are likely to remain in for an extended period.

The scary version of all this is that not-for-profit healthcare has entered a resource chasm that will fundamentally degrade the sector’s credit and capital foundation.

COVID and inflation have combined to expose the brittleness of the healthcare resource chassis. The engine—operations—is bumping up against the dual pressures of:

  1. Labor-scarcity-driven strains on converting customer demand into realized financial resources; and
  2. A business model that doesn’t allow the efficient transfer of increased costs onto customers.

The result is unprecedented resource compression that leads to dramatically lower internal and external capital formation;

existential covenant threats; and the temptation, if not the necessity, to use retained wealth (i.e., spend down balance sheet) to support current operations versus funding growth or protecting long-term resiliency.

Every organization must aggressively identify and pursue operating performance improvement initiatives. But every organization needs to extend the idea of performance improvement to balance sheet, with the goal of addressing three total enterprise considerations:

  1. What Is Our Resource Portfolio? What is the catalogue of resources available to the organization? What form are those resources in? What is the roster of demands on those resources and is there balance or imbalance between the two? What are the consequences of imbalance and the costs of moving to balance?
  2. What Are Our Resource Priorities? How dependent is your organization on balance sheet to achieve success? Is balance sheet a critical liquidity or credit buffer against elevated operating and strategic volatility—the bridge between today and a successfully implemented operations performance improvement plan? Is it a source of external capital to fund strategic initiatives or defend overall liquidity? Is it an actual funding source and is this a departure from past practice? Is it an independent and alternative source of (non-operating) cash flow? Is the balance sheet role changing and what does that mean to operations, credit, resiliency, etc.?
  3. How Should Our Resources Be Positioned? Are balance sheet resources in their best form or is there a benefit from converting them into something different (like cash)? Will performance improvement initiatives alter positioning conclusions and, if so, does that improvement occur over an acceptable time frame? Can various resources be successfully converted today or are there cost or other impediments?

The need is to move out of siloed and into integrated and enterprise-centric performance improvement, which requires one consistent resource allocation mindset applied across operations, liabilities, real estate holdings, financial asset holdings, and every other class of organizational resources.

The need is to transition from thinking that balance sheet and operations can be disconnected thoughts to seeing them as two sides of the same coin.

Covenant threats continue to escalate, all centered on how reduced resource generation impacts debt service coverage.

We reiterate that it is critical for every organization to understand how its specific covenants work and to have a rolling forecast on expected performance.

As an example, many organizations now have coverage covenants where default requires two consecutive years of below the coverage ratio. This is an unconditionally good thing, but many of these same organizations may face a consultant call-in at year one and some of them may also confront year-two limitations on additional debt, merger, sale, disposition of assets, and a host of other important management levers. So, the good thing has conditions that are essential to understand and, perhaps, get ahead of. We have a robust library of covenant-related thought leadership on our website—ranging from written content to webinars—and our team is always ready to help.