The healthcare financings that came in the past couple of weeks generally did well. Maturities seemed to do better than put bonds, and it remains important to pay attention to couponing and how best to navigate a challenging yield curve. But these are episodic indicators rather than trends, given that the scale of issuance remains muted. Other capital markets—like real estate—are becoming more active and offer competitive funding and different credit considerations relative to debt market options. Credit management continues to be the main driver of low external capital formation, but those looking for outside funding should spend time up front considering the full array of channels and structures.
This Part of the Crisis
And now it’s official. After JPMorgan acquired First Republic Bank—with a whole lot of help from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation—CEO Jamie Dimon declared, “this part of the crisis is over.” Not sure regional bank shareholders would agree, but from Mr. Dimon’s perspective the biggest bank got bigger, which made it a good day.
Last week the Federal Reserve raised rates another 25 basis points and the expectation (hope) seems to be that the Fed has reached the peak of its tightening cycle or will at least pause to see if constrictive forces like higher rates and regional bank balance sheet deflation slow activity enough to bring inflation back to the 2.0% Fed target. Assuming this is a pause point, it makes sense to check in on a few economic and market indicators.
Inflation is improving, although it remains well above the Fed’s 2.0% target range, and there are other indicators (like labor participation and unemployment) that have recovered some of the ground lost in 2020. But the weird part remains that this all seems quite civilized. To some, the Treasury curve spread continues to suggest a recession is looming, but in my neighborhood workers are still in short supply, restaurants are busy, and contractors are booked well into the future. Today’s ~3.36% 10-year Treasury rate is less than 100 basis points higher than the average since the start of the Fed interventionist era in 2008 and a whopping 257 basis points lower than the average since 1965. Think about how much capital has been raised in market environments much worse than now (including most of the modern-day healthcare inpatient infrastructure). Again, the main culprit in retarded capital formation is institutional credit management concerns rather than the funding environment.
The major fallout from the Fed’s recent anti-inflation efforts seems concentrated with financial intermediaries rather than consumers (or workers), and the financial intermediary stress the Fed is relying on to help curb economic activity is grounded in their own balance sheet management decisions rather than deteriorating loan portfolios. We’ve looked at this before, but it bears repeating that in the “great inflation” of the 1970s, the Chicago Fed’s Financial Conditions Index reached its highest recorded points (higher means tighter than average conditions) and in this most recent inflationary cycle, that same index has remained consistently accommodative. Can you wring inflation out of a system while retaining relatively accommodative financial conditions? Which begs the question of whether any Fed pause is more about shifting priorities: downgrading the inflation fight in favor of moderating the financial intermediary threat? We might be living a remake of the 1970s version of stubborn inflation, which means that all the attendant issues—rolling volatility across operations, financing, and investing—might be sticking around as well.
Meanwhile, somewhere out in the Atlantic the debt ceiling storm is forming. Who knows whether it will make landfall as a storm or a hurricane, but it does remind us that the operative portion of the Jamie Dimon quote noted above is this part of the crisis is over. The next part of the long saga that is about us climbing out of a deep fiscal and monetary hole will roll in and new variations of the same central challenge will emerge for healthcare leaders.
A Healthcare Makeover
Ken Kaufman has been advancing the idea that healthcare needs a “makeover” to align with post-COVID realities. Look for a piece from him on this soon, but the thesis is that reverting to a 2019 world isn’t going to happen, which means that restructuring is the only option. The most recent National Hospital Flash Report suggests improving margins, but they remain well below historical norms and the labor part of the expense equation is structurally higher. Where we are is not sustainable and waiting for a reversion is a rapidly decaying option.
My contribution to Ken’s argument is to reemphasize that balance sheet is the essential (only) bridge between here and a restructured sector and the journey is going to require very careful planning about how to size, position, and deploy liquidity, leverage, and investments. Of course, the central focus will be on how to reposition operations. But if organic cash generation remains anemic, the gap will be filled by either weakening the balance sheet (drawing down reserves, adding leverage, or adopting more aggressive asset allocation) or by partnering with organizations that have the necessary resources.
Organizations reach the point of greatest enterprise risk when the scale of operating challenges outstrips the scale of balance sheet resources. Missteps are manageable when the imbalance is the product of rapid growth but not when it is the result of deflating resources. If the core imperative is to remake operations, the co-equal imperative is continuously repositioning the balance sheet to carry you from here to whatever defines success.
Sacramento, Calif.-based Sutter Health reported $88 million in operating income for the first quarter of 2023 on revenues of $3.8 billion.
Such figures compared with $95 million operating income on $3.6 billion of revenues in the same period last year.
The positive first-quarter operating income figure builds on a 2022 operating income of $278 million. Overall income for the first quarter totaled $220 million compared with a $166 million loss in the same period in 2022.
Sutter Health, which is undergoing some executive management changes, employs 51,000 people and operates 282 care facilities.
Here are 24 health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to reports from credit rating agencies Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global in 2023.
Note: This is not an exhaustive list. Health system names were compiled from credit rating reports.
1. Atrium Health has an ‘AA-‘ and stable outlook with S&P Global. The Charlotte, N.C.-based system’s rating reflects a robust financial profile, growing geographic diversity and expectations that management will continue to deploy capital with discipline.
2. Berkshire Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Pittsfield, Mass.-based system has a strong financial profile, solid liquidity and modest leverage, according to Fitch.
3. CaroMont Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with S&P Global. The Gastonia, N.C.-based system has a healthy financial profile and robust market share in a competitive region.
4. CentraCare has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The St. Cloud, Minn.-based system has a leading market position, and its management’s focus on addressing workforce pressures, patient access and capacity constraints will improve operating margins over the medium term, Fitch said.
5. Children’s Minnesota has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Minneapolis-based system’s broad reach within the region continues to support long-term sustainability as a market leader and preferred provider for children’s health care, Fitch said.
6. Cone Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the expectation that the Greensboro, N.C.-based system will gradually return to stronger results in the medium term, the rating agency said.
7. El Camino Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Mountain View, Calif.-based system has a history of generating double-digit operating EBITDA margins, driven by a solid market position that features strong demographics and a very healthy payer mix, Fitch said.
8. Harris Health System has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Houston-based system has a “very strong” revenue defensibility, primarily based on the district’s significant taxing margin that provides support for operations and debt service, Fitch said.
9. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Newport Beach, Calif.-based system’s rating is supported by a leading market position in its immediate area and very strong financial profile, Fitch said.
10. Inspira Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Mullica Hill, N.J.-based system’s rating reflects its leading market position in a stable service area and a large medical staff supported by a growing residency program, Fitch said.
11. Mayo Clinic has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The Rochester, Minn.-based system’s credit profile characterized by its excellent reputations for clinical services, research and education, Moody’s said.
12. McLaren Health Care has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Grand Blanc, Mich.-based system has a leading market position over a broad service area covering much of Michigan and a track-record of profitability despite sector-wide market challenges in recent years, Fitch said.
13. Novant Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Winston-Salem, N.C.-based system has a highly competitive market share in three separate North Carolina markets, Fitch said, including a leading position in Winston-Salem (46.8 percent) and second only to Atrium Health in the Charlotte area.
14. NYC Health + Hospitals has an “AA-” rating with Fitch. The New York City system is the largest municipal health system in the country, serving more than 1 million New Yorkers annually in more than 70 patient locations across the city, including 11 hospitals, and employs more than 43,000 people.
15. Orlando (Fla.) Health has an “AA-” and stable outlook with Fitch. The system’s upgrade from “A+” reflects the continued strength of the health system’s operating performance, growth in unrestricted liquidity and excellent market position in a demographically favorable market, Fitch said.
16. Rush System for Health has an “AA-” and stable outlook with Fitch. The Chicago-based system has a strong financial profile despite ongoing labor issues and inflationary pressures, Fitch said.
17. Saint Francis Healthcare System has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Cape Girardeau, Mo.-based system enjoys robust operational performance and a strong local market share as well as manageable capital plans, Fitch said.
18. Salem (Ore.) Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The system has a “very strong” financial profile and a leading market share position, Fitch said.
19. Stanford Health Care has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Palo Alto, Calif.-based system’s rating is supported by its extensive clinical reach in the greater San Francisco and Central Valley regions and nationwide/worldwide destination position for extremely high-acuity services, Fitch said.
20. SSM Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The St. Louis-based system has a strong financial profile, multi-state presence and scale, with solid revenue diversity, Fitch said.
21. UCHealth has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Aurora, Colo.-based system’s margins are expected to remain robust, and the operating risk assessment remains strong, Fitch said.
22. University of Kansas Health System has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with S&P Global. The Kansas City-based system has a solid market presence, good financial profile and solid management team, though some balance sheet figures remain relatively weak to peers, the rating agency said.
23. WellSpan Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The York, Pa.-based system has a distinctly leading market position across several contiguous counties in central Pennsylvania, and management’s financial stewardship and savings initiatives will continue to support sound operating cash flow margins when compared to peers, Moody’s said.
24. Willis-Knighton Health System has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Shreveport, La.-based system has a “dominant inpatient market position” and is well positioned to manage operating pressures, Fitch said.
For the first time in recent history, we saw all three functions of the not-for-profit healthcare system’s financial structure suffer significant and sustained dislocation over the course of the year 2022 (Figure above).
The headwinds disrupting these functions are carrying over into 2023, and it is uncertain how long they will continue to erode the operating and financial performance of not-for-profit hospitals and health systems.
The Operating Function is challenged by elevated expenses, uncertain recovery of service volumes, and an escalating and diversified competitive environment.
The Finance Function is challenged by a more difficult credit environment (all three rating agencies
now have a negative perspective on the not-forprofit healthcare sector), rising rates for debt, and a diminished investor appetite for new healthcare debt issuance. Total healthcare debt issuance in 2022 was $28 billion, down sharply from a trailing two-year average of $46 billion.
The Investment Function is challenged by volatility and heightened risk in markets concerned with the Federal Reserve’s tightening of monetary policy and the prospect of a recession. The S&P 500—a major stock index—was down almost 20% in 2022. Investments had served as a “resiliency anchor” during the first two years of the pandemic; their ability to continue to serve that function is now in question.
A significant factor in Operating Function challenges is labor: both increases in the cost of labor and staffing shortages that are forcing many organizations to run at less than full capacity. In Kaufman Hall’s 2022 State of Healthcare Performance Improvement Survey, for example, 67% of respondents had seen year-over-year increases of more than 10% for clinical staff wages, and 66% reported that they had run their facilities at less-than-full capacity because of staffing shortages.
These are long-term challenges,
dependent in part on increasing the pipeline of new talent entering healthcare professions, and they will not be quickly resolved. Recovery of returns from the Investment Function is similarly uncertain. Ideally, not-for-profit health systems can maintain a one-way flow of funds into the Investment Function, continuing to build the basis that generates returns. Organizations must now contemplate flows in the other direction to access
funds needed to cover operating losses, which in many cases would involve selling invested assets at a loss in a down market and reducing the basis available to generate returns when markets recover.
The current situation demonstrates why financial reserves are so important:
many not-for-profit hospitals and health systems will have to rely on them to cover losses until they can reach a point where operations and markets have stabilized, or they have been able to adjust their business to a new, lower margin environment. As noted above, relief funding and the MAAP program helped bolster financial reserves after the initial shock of the pandemic. As the impact of relief funding wanes and organizations repay remaining balances under the MAAP program, Days Cash on Hand has begun to shrink, and the need to cover operating losses is hastening this decline. From its highest
point in 2021, Days Cash on Hand had decreased, as of September 2022, by:
29% at the 75th percentile, declining from 302 to 216 DCOH (a drop of 86 days)
28% at the 50th percentile, declining from 202 to 147 DCOH (a drop of 55 days)
49% at the 25th percentile, declining from 67 to 34 DCOH (a drop of 33 days)
Financial reserves are playing the role for which they were intended; the only question is whether enough not-for-profit hospitals and health systems have built sufficient reserves to carry them through what is likely to be a protracted period of recovery from the pandemic.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
All three functions of the not-for-profit healthcare system’s financial structure—operations, finance, and investments—suffered significant and sustained dislocation over the course of 2022.
These headwinds will continue to challenge not-forprofit
hospitals and health systems well into 2023.
Days Cash on Hand is showing a steady decline, as the impact of relief funding recedes and the need to cover operating losses persists.
Financial reserves are playing a critical role in covering operating losses as hospitals and health systems struggle to stabilize their operational and financial performance.
Conclusion
Not-for-profit hospitals and health systems serve many community needs. They provide patients access to healthcare when and where they need it. They invest in new technologies and treatments that offer patients and their families lifesaving advances in care. They offer career opportunities to a broad range of highly skilled professionals, supporting the economic health of the communities they serve.
These services and investments are expensive and cannot be covered solely by the revenue received from providing care to patients.
Strong financial reserves are the foundation of good financial stewardship for not-for-profit hospitals and health systems.
Financial reserves help fund needed investments in facilities and technology, improve an organization’s debt capacity, enable better access to capital at more affordable interest rates, and provide a critical resource to meet expenses when organizations need to bridge periods of operational disruption or financial distress. Many hospitals and health systems today are relying on the strength of their reserves to navigate a difficult
environment; without these reserves, they would not be able to meet their expenses and would be at risk of closure.
Financial reserves, in other words, are serving the very purpose for which they are intended—ensuring that hospitals and health systems can continue to serve their communities in the face of challenging operational and financial headwinds.
When these headwinds have subsided, rebuilding these reserves should be a top priority to ensure that our not-for-profit hospitals and health systems can remain a vital resource for the communities they serve.
According to a new report from the American Hospital Association (AHA), hospitals and health systems are facing significant financial pressures from rising expenses, including for labor, drugs, medical supplies and more. And without increased government support, the organization warns that patients’ access to care could be at risk.
Hospitals continue to see expenses grow, negative margins
In the report, AHA writes that several factors, including historic inflation and critical workforce shortages leading to a reliance on contract labor, led to “2022 being the most financially challenging year for hospitals since the pandemic began.”
According to data from Syntellis Performance Solutions, overall hospital expenses increased by 17.5% between 2019 and 2022 — more than double the increases in Medicare reimbursements during the same time. Between 2019 and 2022, Medicare reimbursement only grew by 7.5%.
With expenses significantly outpacing reimbursement, hospital margins have been consistently negative over the last year. In fact, AHA noted that “over half of hospitals ended 2022 operating at a financial loss — an unsustainable situation for any organization in any sector, let alone hospitals.”
So far, this trend has continued into 2023, with hospitals reporting negative median operating margins in both January and February.
A recent analysis also found that the first quarter of 2023 had the largest number of bond defaults among hospitals in over 10 years.
Between 2019, and 2022 hospital labor expenses increased by 20.8%, a rise that was largely driven by a growing reliance on contract labor to fill in workforce gaps during the pandemic. Even after accounting for an increase in patient acuity, labor expenses per patient increased by 24.7%.
Compared to pre-pandemic levels, hospitals saw a 56.8% increase in the rates they were charged for contract employees in 2022. Overall, hospitals’ contract labor expenses increased by a “staggering” 257.9% in 2022 compared to 2019 levels.
A sharp rise in inflation in recent months has also led to a significant increase in hospitals’ non-labor expenses, particularly for drugs and medical expenses. According to a report by Kaufman Hall, just non-labor expenses would lead to a $49 billion one-year expense increase for hospitals and health systems.
Since 2019, non-labor expenses have grown 16.6% per patient. Hospitals’ expenses for drugs and medical supplies/equipment have seen similar increases per patient at 19.7% and 18.5%, respectively. Costs of laboratory services (27.1%), emergency services (31.9%), and purchased services, including IT and food and nutrition services, (18%) have also increased significantly per patient.
Outside of labor and non-labor expenses, AHA writes that policies from health insurers have also contributed to significant burden among hospital staff and increased administrative costs. Currently, administrative costs account for up to 31% of total healthcare spending — of which, billing and insurance makes up 82%.
With the COVID-19 public health emergency ending on May 11, several important hospital waivers and flexibilities will soon end, and “[t]he downstream effects of this will be wide-ranging as hospitals will be faced with a set of additional challenges,” AHA writes.
“Rising costs for drugs, supplies, and labor coupled with sicker patients, longer hospital stays, and government reimbursement rates that do not come close to covering the costs of caring for patients have created a dire situation for hospitals and health systems,” said AHA president and CEO Rick Pollack.
“This is not just a financial problem; it is an access problem.
When healthcare providers cannot afford the tools and teams they need to care for patients, they will be forced to make hard choices and the people who will be impacted the most are patients. We can’t let that happen. Congress and others must act to preserve the care our nation needs and depend on.”
To address these financial challenges and ensure that hospitals are able to continue caring for patients, AHA has suggested several actions Congress could take to support hospitals going forward, including:
Enacting policies to support efforts to boost the healthcare workforce and ensure of future pipeline of professionals to combat longstanding labor shortages
Rejecting attempts to cut Medicare or Medicaid payments to hospitals, which could further reduce patients’ access to care
Encouraging CMS to use its “special exceptions and adjustments” to make retrospective adjustments to account for differences between what was implemented for fiscal year 2022 and what is currently projected
Creating a special statutory designation and providing additional support to hospitals that serve historically marginalized communities
“As the hospital field maintains its commitment to care in the face of significant challenges, policymakers must step up and help protect the health and well-being of our nation by ensuring America has strong hospitals and health systems,” AHA writes.
On today’s episode of Gist Healthcare Daily, Kaufman Hall co-founder and Chair Ken Kaufman joins the podcast to discuss his recent blog that examines Ford Motor Company’s decision to stop producing internal-combustion sedans, and talk about whether there are parallels for health system leaders to ponder about whether their traditional strategies are beginning to age out.
A number of healthcare and hospital systems detailed their levels of debt when reporting recent financial results. Here is a summary of some of those systems’ reports, including debt totals calculated by ratings agencies:
Augusta, Ga.-based AU Health, which comprises a 478-bed adult hospital and 154-bed children’s hospital and serves as the academic medical center for the Medical College of Georgia, had approximately $327 million of debt in fiscal 2022. The system, which became affiliated with Atlanta-based Wellstar Health System on March 31, was downgraded to “B2” from “Ba3” with a negative outlook, Moody’s said March 23.
Salt Lake City-based Intermountain Health had long-term debt of $3.6 billion as of Dec. 31. Overall income for the 33-hospital system in 2022 totaled $2.6 billion, boosted by the affiliation effective April 1 of SCL Health, which contributed $4 billion.
Credit rating agency Moody’s is revising Springfield Ill.-based Memorial Health System‘s outlook from stable to negative as the health system ended fiscal year 2022 with $343 million in outstanding debt. Moody’s expects Memorial to stabilize in 2023 but not reach historical levels until 2025, according to the March 24 report.
New York City-based NYU Langone Hospitals, which has total debt outstanding of approximately $3.1 billion, had its outlook revised to positive from stable amid a “very good operating performance” that has helped lead to improved days of cash on hand, Moody’s said. NYU Langone consists of five inpatient locations in New York City and on Long Island as well as numerous ambulatory facilities in the five boroughs, Long Island, New Jersey and Florida.
Bellevue, Wash.-based Overlake Hospital Medical Center was downgraded on a series of bonds as the 310-bed hospital faces ongoing labor and inflationary challenges and the possibility of not meeting its debt coverage requirements, Moody’s said March 9. The hospital, which also operates several outpatient clinics and physician offices in its service area, has $295 million of outstanding debt.
Renton, Wash.-based Providence, has about $7.4 billion worth of debt. The 51-hospital system, which reported a fiscal 2022 operating loss of $1.7 billion, was downgraded as it continues to deal with ongoing operational challenges, Fitch Ratings said March 17, the first of three downgrades Providence suffered in the space of weeks. The Fitch downgrade to “A” from “A+” applies both to the system’s default rating and on the $7.4 billion in debt.
Lansing, Mich.-based Sparrow Health had long-term debt of $353.5 million as of Dec. 31, S&P Global said. Sparrow Health has had a series of bonds it holds placed on credit watch amid concern over the eventual outcome of a planned merger with Ann Arbor-based University of Michigan Health, S&P Global said Feb. 16. The $7 billion merger was eventually approved April 3.
St. Louis-based SSM Health, which had approximately $2.6 billion of total debt outstanding at the end of fiscal 2022, reported an operating loss of $248.9 million after its expenses increased 7.6 percent over the previous year. SSM Health had an “AA-” rating affirmed on a series of bonds it holds as the 23-hospital system dipped in operating income in fiscal 2022 after “several years of consistently solid performance,” according to a March 24 report from Fitch Ratings.
Philadelphia-based Temple University Health had $395.6 million long-term debt as of Dec. 31. The system’s outlook was revised to stable from positive following recent results S&P Global described as “very challenged” and “deeply negative.” The referenced results are interim fiscal 2023 figures that contrast significantly with expectations, S&P said March 15. Temple Health is in danger of not meeting debt coverage requirements as a result.
Dallas-based Tenet Healthcarereported $14.9 billion of long-term debt when it revealed net income of $410 million for the year Feb. 9. Tenet had its default rating affirmed at “B+” as the 61-hospital system’s operating income remains resilient in the face of industry pressures and debt levels stay manageable, Fitch Ratings said March 27.
The AHA has previously noted the third party observers who demonstrate a tenuous grasp of the data and rules regarding federal hospital transparency requirements. Now, some of those same entities with deep pockets and an apparent vendetta against hospitals and health systems have turned their attention toward the broader financial challenges facing the field. The results, as described in a recent Health Affairs blog, are as expected — a complete misunderstanding of current economic realities.
The three most egregious suggestions in this piece are that hospitals are seeking some kind of bailout from the federal government, employers and patients; that investment losses are the most problematic aspect of hospital financing; and that hospitals’ analyses of their financial situation are dishonest.
We debunk these in turn.
Hospitals are seeking fair compensation, not a government bailout. The authors state that hospitals are asking “constituents to foot the bill for hospitals’ investment losses.” This is patently false. Indeed, if you read the request we made to Congress cited in their blog, hospitals and health systems are simply asking to get paid for the care they deliver or to lower unnecessary administrative costs. This includes asking Medicare to pay for the days hospitals care for patients who are otherwise ready for discharge. Increasingly, this has occurred because there is no space in the next site of care or the patient’s insurer has delayed the authorization for that care. Keeping someone in a hospital bed for days, if not weeks, requires skilled labor, supplies and basic infrastructure costs. This doesn’t even account for the impact on a patient’s health for not being in the most appropriate care setting. Today, hospitals are not paid for these days. Asking for fair compensation is not a bailout; it is a basic responsibility of any purchaser.
While investment income may be down, hospitals and health systems have faced massive expense increases in the last year. The authors note that patient care revenue was up “by just below 1 percent in relative terms from 2021 to 2022,” suggesting that implies a positive financial trend. However, hospital total expenses were up 7% in 2022 over 2021, and were up by even more, 20%, when compared to pre-pandemic levels, according to Kaufman Hall. And it’s not just the AHA and Kaufman Hall saying this either: in its 2023 outlook, credit rating agency Moody’s noted that “margins will remain constrained by high expenses.” Hospitals should not need to rely on investment income for operations. However, many have been forced into this situation by substantial underpayments from their largest payers (Medicare and Medicaid), which even the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent advisor to Congress, has acknowledged. MedPAC’s most recent report showed a negative 8.3% Medicare operating margin. Hospitals and health systems are experiencing run-away increases in the supplies, labor and technology needed to care for patients. At the same time, commercial insurance companies are increasing their use of policies that can cause dangerous delays in care for patients, result in undue burden on health care providers and add billions of dollars in unnecessary costs to the health care system.
Hospitals and health systems are committed to an honest examination of the facts. The authors imply that the studies documenting hospitals’ financial distress are biased. They note that certain studies conducted by Kaufman Hall are based on proprietary data and therefore “challenging to draw general inferences.” They then go on to cherry-pick metrics from specific non-profit health care systems voluntarily released financial disclosures to make general claims about “the primary driver of hospitals’ financial strain.” The authors and their financial backers clearly seem to have a preconceived narrative, and ignore all the other realities that hospital and health system leaders are confronting every day to ensure access to care and programs for the patients and communities they serve.
It is imperative to acknowledge financial challenges facing hospitals and health systems today. Too much is at stake for the patients and communities that depend upon hospitals and health systems to be there, ready to care.
I have been both a frontline officer and a staff officer at a health system. I started a solo practice in 1977 and cared for my rheumatology, internal medicine and geriatrics patients in inpatient and outpatient settings. After 23 years in my solo practice, I served 18 years as President and CEO of a profitable, CMS 5-star, 715-bed, two-hospital healthcare system.
From 2015 to 2020, our health system team added 0.6 years of healthy life expectancy for 400,000 folks across the socioeconomic spectrum. We simultaneously decreased healthcare costs 54% for 6,000 colleagues and family members. With our mentoring, four other large, self-insured organizations enjoyed similar measurable results. We wanted to put our healthcare system out of business. Who wants to spend a night in a hospital?
During the frontline part of my career, I had the privilege of “Being in the Room Where It Happens,” be it the examination room at the start of a patient encounter, or at the end of life providing comfort and consoling family. Subsequently, I sat at the head of the table, responsible for most of the hospital care in Southwest Florida. [1]
Many folks commenting on healthcare have never touched a patient nor led a large system. Outside consultants, no matter how competent, have vicarious experience that creates a different perspective.
At this point in my career, I have the luxury of promoting what I believe is in the best interests of patients — prevention and quality outcomes. Keeping folks healthy and changing the healthcare industry’s focus from a “repair shop” mentality to a “prevention program” will save the industry and country from bankruptcy. Avoiding well-meaning but inadvertent suboptimal care by restructuring healthcare delivery avoids misery and saves lives.
RESPONDING TO AN ATTACK
Preemptive reinvention is much wiser than responding to an attack. Unfortunately, few industries embrace prevention. The entire healthcare industry, including health systems, physicians, non-physician caregivers, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical firms, and medical insurers, is stressed because most are experiencing serious profit margin squeeze. Simultaneously the public has ongoing concerns about healthcare costs. While some medical insurance companies enjoyed lavish profits during COVID, most of the industry suffered. Examples abound, and Paul Keckley, considered a dean among long-time observers of the medical field, recently highlighted some striking year-end observations for 2022. [2]
Recent Siege Examples
Transparency is generally good but can and has led to tarnishing the noble profession of caring for others. Namely, once a sector starts bleeding, others come along, exacerbating the exsanguination. Current literature is full of unflattering public articles that seem to self-perpetuate, and I’ve highlighted standout samples below.
The Federal Government is the largest spender in the healthcare industry and therefore the most influential. Not surprisingly, congressional lobbying was intense during the last two weeks of 2022 in a partially successful effort to ameliorate spending cuts for Medicare payments for physicians and hospitals. Lobbying spend by Big Pharma, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, American Hospital Association, and American Medical Association are all in the top ten spenders again. [3, 4, 5] These organizations aren’t lobbying for prevention, they’re lobbying to keep the status quo.
Concern about consistent quality should always be top of mind. “Diagnostic Errors in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review,” shared by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, compiled 279 studies showing a nearly 6% error rate for the 130 million people who visit an ED yearly. Stroke, heart attack, aortic aneurysm, spinal cord injury, and venous thromboembolism were the most common harms. The defense of diagnostic errors in emergency situations is deemed of secondary importance to stabilizing the patient for subsequent diagnosing. Keeping patients alive trumps everything. Commonly, patient ED presentations are not clear-cut with both false positive and negative findings. Retrospectively, what was obscure can become obvious. [6, 7]
Spending mirrors motivations. The Wall Street Journal article “Many Hospitals Get Big Drug Discounts. That Doesn’t Mean Markdowns for Patients” lays out how the savings from a decades-old federal program that offers big drug discounts to hospitals generally stay with the hospitals. Hospitals can chose to sell the prescriptions to patients and their insurers for much more than the discounted price. Originally the legislation was designed for resource-challenged communities, but now some hospitals in these programs are profiting from wealthy folks paying normal prices and the hospitals keeping the difference. [8]
“Hundreds of Hospitals Sue Patients or Threaten Their Credit, a KHN Investigation Finds. Does Yours?” Medical debt is a large and growing problem for both patients and providers. Healthcare systems employ collection agencies that typically assess and screen a patient’s ability to pay. If the credit agency determines a patient has resources and has avoided paying his/her debt, the health system send those bills to a collection agency. Most often legitimately impoverished folks are left alone, but about two-thirds of patients who could pay but lack adequate medical insurance face lawsuits and other legal actions attempting to collect payment including garnishing wages or placing liens on property. [9]
“Hospital Monopolies Are Destroying Health Care Value,” written by Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) in The Hill, includes a statement attributed to Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, “that the law which facilitates consolidation ends in a conspiracy against the public to raise prices.” The country has seen over 1,500 hospital mergers in the past twenty years — an example of horizontal consolidation. Hospitals also consolidate vertically by acquiring physician practices. As of January 2022, 74 percent of physicians work directly for hospitals, healthcare systems, other physicians, or corporate entities, causing not only the loss of independent physicians but also tighter control of pricing and financial issues. [10] The healthcare industry is an attractive target to examine. Everyone has had meaningful healthcare experiences, many have had expensive and impactful experiences. Although patients do not typically understand the complexity of providing a diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis, the care receiver may compare the experience to less-complex interactions outside healthcare that are customer centric and more satisfying.
PROFIT-MARGIN SQUEEZE
Both nonprofit and for-profit hospitals must publish financial statements. Three major bond rating agencies (Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service, and S & P Global Ratings) and other respected observers like KaufmanHall, collate, review, and analyze this publicly available information and rate health systems’ financial stability.
One measure of healthcare system’s financial strength is operating margin, the amount of profit or loss from caring for patients. In January of 2023 the median, or middle value, of hospital operating margin index was -1.0%, which is an improvement from January 2022 but still lags 2021 and 2020.
Erik Swanson, SVP at KaufmanHall, says 2022,
“Is shaping up to be one of the worst financial years on record for hospitals. Expense pressures — particularly with the cost of labor — outpaced revenues and drove poor performance. While emergency department visits and operating room minutes increased slightly, hospitals struggled to discharge patients due to internal staffing shortages and shortages at post-acute facilities,” [11]
Another force exacerbating health system finance is the competent, if relatively new retailers (CVS, Walmart, Walgreens, and others) that provide routine outpatient care affordably. Ninety percent of Americans live within ten miles of a Walmart and 50% visit weekly. CVS and Walgreens enjoy similar penetration. Profit-margin squeeze, combined with new convenient options to obtain routine care locally, will continue disrupting legacy healthcare systems.
Providers generate profits when patients access care. Additionally, “easy” profitable outpatient care can and has switched to telemedicine. Kaiser-Permanente (KP), even before the pandemic, provided about 50% of the system’s care through virtual visits. Insurance companies profit when services are provided efficiently or when members don’t use services. KP has the enviable position of being both the provider and payor for their members. The balance between KP’s insurance company and provider company favors efficient use of limited resources. Since COVID, 80% of all KP’s visits are virtual, a fact that decreases overhead, resulting in improved profit margins. [12]
On the other hand, KP does feel the profit-margin squeeze because labor costs have risen. To avoid a nurse labor strike, KP gave 21,000 nurses and nurse practitioners a 22.5% raise over four years. KP’s most recent quarter reported a net loss of $1.5B, possibly due to increased overhead. [13]
The public, governmental agencies, and some healthcare leaders are searching for a more efficient system with better outcomes
at a lower cost. Our nation cannot continue to spend the most money of any developed nation and have the worst outcomes. In a globally competitive world, limited resources must go to effective healthcare, balanced with education, infrastructure, the environment, and other societal needs. A new healthcare model could satisfy all these desires and needs.
Even iconic giants are starting to feel the pain of recent annual losses in the billions. Ascension Health, Cleveland Clinic, Jefferson Health, Massachusetts General Hospital, ProMedica, Providence, UPMC, and many others have gone from stable and sustainable to stressed and uncertain. Mayo Clinic had been a notable exception, but recently even this esteemed system’s profit dropped by more than 50% in 2022 with higher wage and supply costs up, according to this Modern Healthcare summary. [14]
The alarming point is even the big multigenerational health system leaders who believed they had fortress balance sheets are struggling. Those systems with decades of financial success and esteemed reputations are in jeopardy. Changing leadership doesn’t change the new environment.
Nonprofit healthcare systems’ income typically comes from three sources — operations, namely caring for patients in ways that are now evolving as noted above; investments, which are inherently risky evidence by this past year’s record losses; and philanthropy, which remains fickle particularly when other investment returns disappoint potential donors. For-profit healthcare systems don’t have the luxury of philanthropic support but typically are more efficient with scale and scope.
The most stable and predictable source of revenue in the past was from patient care. As the healthcare industry’s cost to society continues to increase above 20% of the GDP, most medically self-insured employers and other payors will search for efficiencies. Like it or not, persistently negative profit margins will transform healthcare.
Demand for nurses, physicians, and support folks is increasing, with many shortages looming near term. Labor costs and burnout have become pressing stresses, but more efficient delivery of care and better tools can ameliorate the stress somewhat. If structural process and technology tools can improve productivity per employee, the long-term supply of clinicians may keep up. Additionally, a decreased demand for care resulting from an effective prevention strategy also could help.
Most other successful industries work hard to produce products or services with fewer people. Remember what the industrial revolution did for America by increasing the productivity of each person in the early 1900s. Thereafter, manufacturing needed fewer employees.
PATIENTS’ NEEDS AND DESIRES
Patients want to live a long, happy and healthy life. The best way to do this is to avoid illness, which patients can do with prevention because 80% of disease is self-inflicted. When prevention fails, or the 20% of unstoppable episodic illness kicks in, patients should seek the best care.
The choice of the “best care” should not necessarily rest just on convenience but rather objective outcomes. Closest to home may be important for take-out food, but not healthcare.
Care typically can be divided into three categories — acute, urgent, and elective. Common examples of acute care include childbirth, heart attack, stroke, major trauma, overdoses, ruptured major blood vessel, and similar immediate, life-threatening conditions. Urgent intervention examples include an acute abdomen, gall bladder inflammation, appendicitis, severe undiagnosed pain and other conditions that typically have positive outcomes even with a modest delay of a few hours.
Most every other condition can be cared for in an appropriate timeframe that allows for a car trip of a few hours. These illnesses can range in severity from benign that typically resolve on their own to serious, which are life-threatening if left undiagnosed and untreated. Musculoskeletal aches are benign while cancer is life-threatening if not identified and treated.
Getting the right diagnosis and treatment for both benign and malignant conditions is crucial but we’re not even near perfect for either. That’s unsettling.
In a 2017 study,
“Mayo Clinic reports that as many as 88 percent of those patients [who travel to Mayo] go home [after getting a second opinion] with a new or refined diagnosis — changing their care plan and potentially their lives. Conversely, only 12 percent receive confirmation that the original diagnosis was complete and correct. In 21 percent of the cases, the diagnosis was completely changed; and 66 percent of patients received a refined or redefined diagnosis. There were no significant differences between provider types [physician and non-physician caregivers].” [15]
The frequency of significant mis- or refined-diagnosis and treatment should send chills up your spine. With healthcare we are not talking about trivial concerns like a bad meal at a restaurant, we are discussing life-threatening risks. Making an initial, correct first decision has a tremendous influence on your outcome.
Sleeping in your own bed is nice but secondary to obtaining the best outcome possible, even if car or plane travel are necessary. For urgent and elective diagnosis/treatment, travel may be a
good option. Acute illness usually doesn’t permit a few hours of grace, although a surprising number of stroke and heart attack victims delay treatment through denial or overnight timing. But even most of these delayed, recognized illnesses usually survive. And urgent and elective care gives the patient the luxury of some time to get to a location that delivers proven, objective outcomes, not necessarily the one closest to home.
Measuring quality in healthcare has traditionally been difficult for the average patient. Roadside billboards, commercials, displays at major sporting events, fancy logos, name changes and image building campaigns do not relate to quality. Confusingly, some heavily advertised metrics rely on a combination of subjective reputational and lagging objective measures. Most consumers don’t know enough about the sources of information to understand which ratings are meaningful to outcomes.
Arguably, hospital quality star ratings created by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are the best information for potential patients to rate hospital mortality, safety, readmission, patient experience, and timely/effective care. These five categories combine 47 of the more than 100 measures CMS publicly reports. [16]
A 2017 JAMA article by lead author Dr. Ashish Jha said:
“Found that a higher CMS star rating was associated with lower patient mortality and readmissions. It is reassuring that patients can use the star ratings in guiding their health care seeking decisions given that hospitals with more stars not only offer a better experience of care, but also have lower mortality and readmissions.”
The study included only Medicare patients who typically are over 65, and the differences were most apparent at the extremes, nevertheless,
“These findings should be encouraging for policymakers and consumers; choosing 5-star hospitals does not seem to lead to worse outcomes and in fact may be driving patients to better institutions.” [17]
Developing more 5-star hospitals is not only better and safer for patients but also will save resources by avoiding expensive complications and suffering.
As a patient, doing your homework before you have an urgent or elective need can change your outcome for the better. Driving a
couple of hours to a CMS 5-star hospital or flying to a specialty hospital for an elective procedure could make a difference.
Business case studies have noted that hospitals with a focus on a specific condition deliver improved outcomes while becoming more efficient. [18] Similarly, specialty surgical areas within general hospitals have also been effective in improving quality while reducing costs. Mayo Clinic demonstrated this with its cardiac surgery department. [19] A similar example is Shouldice Hospital near Toronto, a focused factory specializing in hernia repairs. In the last 75 years, the Shouldice team has completed four hundred thousand hernia repairs, mostly performed under local anesthesia with the patient walking to and from the operating room. [20] [21]
THE BOTTOM LINE
The Mayo Brother’s quote, “The patient’s needs come first,” is more relevant today than when first articulated over a century ago. Driving treatment into distinct categories of acute, urgent, and elective, with subsequent directing care to the appropriate facilities, improves the entire care process for the patient. The saved resources can fund prevention and decrease the need for future care. The healthcare industry’s focus has been on sickness,
not prevention. The virtuous cycle’s flywheel effect of distinct categories for care and embracing prevention of illness will decrease misery and lower the percentage of GDP devoted to healthcare.
Editor’s note: This is a multi-part series on reinventing the healthcare industry. Part 2 addresses physicians, non-physician caregivers, and communities’ responses to the coming transformation.
Hospital finances are starting to stabilize as razor-thin margins become the new normal, according to Kaufman Hall’s latest “National Flash Hospital Report,” which is based on data from more than 900 hospitals.
External economic factors including labor shortages, higher material expenses and patients increasingly seeking care outside of inpatient settings are affecting hospital finances, with the high level of fluctuation that margins experienced since 2020 beginning to subside.
Hospitals’ median year-to-date operating margin was -1.1 percent in February, down from -0.8 percent in January, according to the report. Despite the slight dip, February marked the eight month in which the variation in month-to-month margins decreased relative to the last three years.
“After years of erratic fluctuations, over the last several months we are beginning to see trends emerge in the factors that affect hospital finances like labor costs, goods and services expenses and patient care preferences,” Erik Swanson, senior vice president of data and analytics with Kaufman Hall, said. “In this new normal of razor thin margins, hospitals now have more reliable information to help make the necessary strategic decisions to chart a path toward financial security.”
High expenses continued to eat into hospitals’ bottom lines, with February signaling a shift from labor to goods and services as the main cost driver behind hospital expenses. Inflationary pressures increased non-labor expenses by 6 percent year over year, but labor expenses appear to be holding steady, suggesting less dependence on contract labor, according to Kaufman Hall.
“Hospital leaders face an existential crisis as the new reality of financial performance begins to set in,” Mr. Swanson said. “2023 may turn out to be the year hospitals redefine their goals, mission, and idea of success in response to expense and revenue challenges that appear to be here for the long haul.”
HENRY KOTULA 