Category Archives: Financial Stewardship

The UAW Strike: What Healthcare Provider Organizations Should Watch

Posted on by • Posted in Consumerism, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Future, Future State, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Job Security, Labor Relations, Labor Shortages, Labor Spend Management, Labor Strike, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty, Scrutiny, Systemness, Uncertainty, Vulnerable • Leave a comment
The Keckley Report

Politicians, economists, auto industry analysts and main street business owners are closely watching the UAW strike that began at midnight last Thursday. Healthcare should also pay attention, especially hospitals. medical groups and facility operators where workforce issues are mounting.

Auto manufacturing accounts for 3% of America’s GDP and employs 2.2 million including 923,000 in frontline production. It’s high-profile sector industry in the U.S. with its most prominent operators aka “the Big Three” operating globally. Some stats:

  • The US automakers sold an estimated 13.75 million new and 36.2 million used vehicles in 2022.
  • The total value of the US car and automobile manufacturing market is $104.1 billion in 2023:
  • 9.2 million US vehicles were produced in 2021–a 4.5% increase from 2020 and 11.8% of the global total ranking only behind China in total vehicle production.
  • As of 2020, 91.5% of households report having access to at least one vehicle.
  • There were 290.8 million registered vehicles in the United States in 2022—21% of the global market.
  • Americans spend $698 billion annually on the combination of automobile loans and insurance.

By comparison, the healthcare services industry in the U.S.—those that operate facilities and services serving patients—employs 9 times more workers, is 29 times bigger ($104 Billion vs. $2.99 trillion/65% of total spend) and 6 times more integral in the overall economy (3% vs. 18.3% of GDP).  

Surprisingly, average hourly wages are similar ($31.07 in auto manufacturing vs. $33.12 in healthcare per BLS) though the range is wider in healthcare since it encompasses licensed professionals to unskilled support roles. There are other similarities:

  • Each industry enjoys ubiquitous presence in American household’ discretionary. spending.
  • Each faces workforce issues focused on pay parity and job security.
  • Each is threatened by unwelcome competitors, disruptive technologies and shifting demand complicating growth strategies.
  • Each is dependent on capital to remain competitive.
  • And each faces heightened media scrutiny and vulnerability to misinformation/disinformation as special interests seek redress or non-traditional competitors seek advantage.

Ironically, the genesis of the UAW dispute is not about wages; it is about job security as electric-powered vehicles that require fewer parts and fewer laborers become the mainstay of the sector. CEO compensation and the corporate profits of the Big Three are talking points used by union leaders to galvanize sympathizer antipathy of “corporate greed” and unfair treatment of frontline workers.

But the real issue is uncertainty about the future: will auto workers have jobs and health benefits in their new normal?

In healthcare services sectors—hospitals, medical groups, post-acute care facilities, home-care et al—the scenario is similar: workers face an uncertain future but significantly more complicated. Corporate greed, CEO compensation and workforce discontent are popular targets in healthcare services media coverage but the prominence of not-for-profit organizations in healthcare services obfuscates direct comparisons to for-profit organizations which represents less than a third of the services economy. For example, CEO compensation in NFPs—a prominent target of worker attention—is accounted differently for CEOs in investor-owned operations in which stock ownership is not treated as income until in options are exercised or shares sold. Annual 990 filings by NFPs tell an incomplete story nonetheless fodder for misinformation.

The competitive landscape and regulatory scrutiny for healthcare services are also more complicated for healthcare services. Unlike auto manufacturing where electric vehicles are forcing incumbents to change, there’s no consensus about what the new normal in U.S. healthcare services will be nor a meaningful industry-wide effort to define it. Each sector is defining its own “future state” based on questionable assumptions about competitors, demand, affordability, workforce requirements and more. Imagine an environmental scan in automakers strategy that’s mute on Tesla, or mass transit, Zoom, pandemic lock-downs or energy costs?

While the outlook for U.S. automakers is guardedly favorable, per Moody’s and Fitch, for not-for-profit health services operators it’s “unsustainable” and “deteriorating.”

Nonetheless, the parallels between the current state of worker sentiment in the U.S. auto manufacturing and healthcare services sectors are instructive. Auto and healthcare workers want job security and higher pay, believing their company executives and boards but corporate profit above their interests and all else. And polls suggest the public’s increasingly sympathetic to worker issues and strikes like the UAW more frequent.

Ultimately, the UAW dispute with the Big Three will be settled. Ultimately, both sides will make concessions. Ultimately, the automakers will pass on their concession costs to their customers while continuing their transitions to electric vehicles.

In health services, operators are unable to pass thru concession costs due to reimbursement constraints that, along with supply chain cost inflation, wipe out earnings and heighten labor tension.  

So, the immediate imperatives for healthcare services organizations seem clear as labor issues mount and economics erode:

  • Educate workers—all workers—is a priority. That includes industry trends and issues in sectors outside the organization’s current focus.
  • Define the future. In healthcare services, innovators will leverage technology and data to re-define including how health is defined, where it’s delivered and by whom. Investments in future-state scenario planning is urgently needed.
  • Address issues head-on: Forthrightness about issues like access, prices, executive compensation, affordability and more is essential to trustworthiness.  

Stay tuned to the UAW strike and consider fresh approaches to labor issues. It’s not a matter of if, but when.

PS: I drive an electric car—my step into the auto industry future state. It took me 9 hours last Thursday to drive 275 miles to my son’s wedding because the infrastructure to support timely battery charges in route was non-existent. Ironically, after one of three self-charges for which I paid more than equivalent gas, I was prompted to “add a tip”. So, the transition to electric vehicles seems certain, but it will be bumpy and workers will be impacted.

The future state for healthcare is equally frought with inadequate charging stations aka “systemness” but it’s inevitable those issues will be settled. And worker job security and labor costs will be significantly impacted in the process.

Healthcare CFOs’ No. 1 concern

Posted on by • Posted in CFO, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Concern, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Inflation, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Margin, Operating Model, Operating Performance • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/healthcare-cfos-no-1-concern.html?origin=CEOE&utm_source=CEOE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G

Health plan and health system CFOs point to the current economic situation when asked to identify their top concern, according to a Sept. 14 survey from Deloitte. 

The consulting firm surveyed 60 finance chiefs at American health plans and health systems about their priorities and paths forward and shared their findings with Becker’s. 

Inflationary pressures have created a cost-heavy operating model for many organizations, CFOs told Deloitte. Coupled with higher care delivery, labor and supply costs — and slowed revenue growth

— financial viability weighs heavily on leaders.

More than 40 percent of health system CFOs believe their health systems may need more than two years to reach the profit levels they generated before the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Seventy percent of CFOs identified the current economic situation as a greater concern than it was last year. Meanwhile, 57 percent pointed to new regulatory requirements as a growing concern, and 51 percent said the same of the current operating model and structure. 

When Financial Performance Matters

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Capital Allocation Process, Capital Deployment, Cross Subsidy Model, Financial Stewardship, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Investment, Leadership, Leadership Commitment, Leadership Investment, Leadership Legacy, Leadership Will, Right Size, Sunk Cost, Sunk Cost Fallacy, Underperforming Assets • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/when-financial-performance-matters

The Sunk Cost Fallacy

In behavioral economics, the sunk cost fallacy describes the tendency to carry on with a project or investment past the point where cold logic would suggest it is not working out. Given human nature, the existence of the sunk cost fallacy is not surprising. The more resources—time, money, emotions—we devote to an effort, the more we want it to succeed, especially when the cause is an important one.

Under normal circumstances, the sunk cost fallacy might qualify as an interesting but not especially important economic theory. But at the moment, given that 2022 will likely be the worst financial year for hospitals since 2008 and given that the hospital revenue/expense relationship seems to be entirely broken, there is little that is theoretical about the sunk cost fallacy. Instead, the sunk cost fallacy becomes one of the most important action ideas in the hospital industry’s absolutely necessary financial recovery.

Historically, cases of the sunk cost fallacy can be relatively easy to spot. However, in real time, cases can be hard to identify and even harder to act on. For hospital organizations that are subsidizing underperforming assets, identifying and acting on these cases is now essential to the financial health of most hospital enterprises.

For example, perhaps the asset that is underperforming is a hospital acquired by a health system. (Although this same concept could apply to a service line or a related service such as a skilled nursing facility, ambulatory surgery center, or imaging center.) The costs associated with integrating an acquired hospital into a health system are typically significant. And chances are, if the hospital was struggling prior to the acquisition, the purchaser made substantial capital investments to improve the performance.

As time goes on, if the financial performance of the entity in question continues to fall short, hospital executives may be reluctant to divest the asset because of their heavy investment in it.

This understandable tendency can lead the acquiring organization to throw good money after bad. After all, even when an asset is underperforming, it can’t be allowed to deteriorate. In the case of hospitals, that’s not just a matter of keeping weeds from sprouting in the parking lot. The health system often winds up supporting an underperforming hospital with both working capital and physical capital, which compounds the losses.

And the costs don’t stop there, because other assets in the system are supporting the underperforming asset. This de facto cross-subsidy has been commonplace in hospital organizations for decades. Such a cross subsidy was probably never sustainable, but it is even less so in the current challenging financial environment.

This is a transformative period in American healthcare, when hospital organizations are faced with the need to fundamentally reinvent themselves both financially and clinically. The opportunity costs of supporting assets that don’t have an appropriate return are uniquely high in such an environment. This is true whether the underperforming asset is a hospital in a smaller system, multiple hospitals in a larger system, or a service line within a hospital.

The money that is being funneled off to support underperforming assets may be better directed, for example, toward realigning the organization’s portfolio away from inpatient care and toward growth strategies. In some cases, the resources may be needed for more immediate purposes, such as improving cash flow to support mission priorities and avoiding downgrades of the organization’s credit rating.

The underlying principle is straightforward:

When a hospital supports too many low-performing assets, the capital allocation process becomes inefficient. Directing working capital and capital capacity toward assets that are dilutive to long-term financial success means that assets that are historically or potentially accretive don’t receive the resources they need to grow and thrive. The underlying principle is a clear lose-lose.

In the highly challenging current environment, it is especially important for boards and management to recognize the sunk cost fallacy and determine the right size of their hospital organizations—both clinically and financially.

Some leadership teams may determine that their organizations are too big, or too big in the wrong places, and need to be smaller in order to maximize clinical and balance-sheet strength. Other leadership teams may determine that their organizations are not large enough to compete effectively in their fast-changing markets or in a fast-changing economy.

Organizational scale is a strategy that must be carefully managed. A properly sized organization maximizes its chances of financial success in this very difficult inflationary period. Such an organization invests consistently in its best performing assets and reduces cross-subsidies to services and products that have outlived their opportunity for clinical or financial success.

Executives may see academic economic theory as arcane and not especially relevant. However, we have clearly entered a financial moment when paying attention to the sunk cost fallacy will be central to maintaining, or recovering, the financial, clinical, and mission strength of America’s hospitals.

California system’s 10.2% operating margin bucks national trend

Posted on by • Posted in Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Credit Upgrade, Financial Reserves, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Labor Spend Management, Nurse Agency Staffing, Nurse Retention, Nurses Compensation, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Retention, Talent Management • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/california-system-s-10-2-operating-margin-bucks-national-trend.html?utm_campaign=bhr&utm_source=website&utm_content=latestarticles

Mountain View, Calif.-based El Camino Health ended the first quarter with an impressive operating margin of 10.2 percent when many health systems saw their margins hover above zero or fall into the red. The system’s revenue for the quarter totaled $131,290. 

For the nine months ended March 31, the two-hospital system posted an operating gain of $141.4 million on revenue of just over $1 billion. 

However, like most health systems, El Camino’s expenses are substantially higher than the same period last year, increasing 10.6 percent year over year for the nine months ending March 31, 2023, to $881.9 million. 

The system is making a conscious effort to march down labor costs while also placing a significant emphasis on retention. In June, El Camino agreed a deal to increase pay for nurses by 16 percent over three years.

“Like nearly all hospitals, our nursing staff comprises the largest part of our workforce. With the recruitment of a single nurse estimated to be nearly $60,000, our primary strategy to reduce labor costs is to focus on decreasing turnover,” El Camino CEO Dan Woods told Becker’s.

“Our turnover rate for nurses is just about 8 percent while the turnover rate nationally is still running at 22 percent.”

In March, the system also received a credit rating upgrade from Moody’s, which noted the system’s “superlative cash metrics and operating performance.” Fitch Ratings also revised El Camino’s outlook to positive in February, noting that the 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.

Taking a historical view of hospital operating margins

Posted on by • Posted in Competition, Financial Distress, Financial Performance, Financial Pressure, Financial Reserves, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/cc1fe752f93c/the-weekly-gist-july-14-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

So far, 2023 is shaping up to be a slightly better year for hospital performance, but it comes on the heels of unprecedented financial difficulties for the sector.

In the graphic above, we evaluated nearly 30 years of historical data from Kaufman Hall and the American Hospital Association to provide a broader perspective on hospital operating margins over time. 2020 and 2022 have been the only years in which a majority of hospitals—53 percent—posted a negative operating margin. 

During the most comparable periods of recent economic hardship, the “dot-com bubble burst” of the late 1990s and the 2009 Great Recession, the share of hospitals with negative operating margins amounted to only 42 and 32 percent, respectively.

With this context, hospitals’ current financial distress is more severe than anything we’ve seen in the past three decades. 

Healthcare is clearly no longer recession-proof: a four percent operating margin—the level needed for health systems to not only sustain operations but also invest in growth—feels even more elusive as labor costs remain high, surgical care continues to shift to outpatient settings, the second half of the Baby-Boom generation ages into Medicare, and deep-pocketed competitors compete for profitable services.

9 recent health system downgrades and outlook revisions

Posted on by • Posted in Balance Sheet, Credit Downgrade, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Financial Ratios, Financial Reserves, Financial Stewardship, Financial Viability, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Liquidity, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/9-recent-health-system-downgrades-and-outlook-revisions.html?origin=RCME&utm_source=RCME&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G

Here is a summary of recent credit downgrades and outlook revisions for hospitals and health systems.

The downgrades and downward revisions reflect continued operating challenges many nonprofit systems are facing, with multiyear recovery processes expected.

Downgrades:

Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health: Operating weakness and elevated debt contributed to the downgrade of bonds held by Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health, Moody’s said May 5. The bond rating slipped from “Aa3” to “A1,” and the outlook was revised to stable from negative.

The system saw a second downgrade as its default rating and that on a series of bonds were revised one notch to “A+” from “AA-” amid continued operating woes, Fitch said June 28.

Not only have there been three straight years of such challenges, but the operating environment continues to cast a pall into the second quarter of the current fiscal year, Fitch said.

UC Health (Cincinnati): The system was downgraded on a series of bonds, Moody’s said May 10.

The move, which involved a lowering from a “Baa2” to “Baa3” grade, refers to such bonds with an overall value of $580 million.

In February, UC Health suffered a similar downgrade from “A” to “BBB+” on its overall rating and on some bonds because of what S&P Global termed “significantly escalating losses.”

UNC Southeastern (Lumberton, N.C.): The system, which is now part of the Chapel Hill, N.C.-based UNC Health network, saw its ratings on a series of bonds downgraded to “BB” amid operating losses and sustained weakness in its balance sheet, S&P Global said June 23.

While UNC Southeastern reported an operating loss of $74.8 million in fiscal 2022, such losses have continued into fiscal 2023 with a $15 million loss as of March 31, S&P Global said. The system had earlier been placed on CreditWatch but that was removed with this downgrade.

Butler (Pa.) Health: The system, now merged with Greensburg, Pa.-based Excela Health to form Independence Health System, saw its credit rating downgraded significantly, falling from “A” to “BBB.”

The move reflects continued operating challenges and low patient volumes, Fitch said June 26.

Such operating challenges, including low days of cash on hand, could result in potential default of debt covenants, Fitch warned.

Outlook revisions:

Redeemer Health (Meadowbrook, Pa.): The system had its outlook revised to negative amid “persistent operating losses,” Fitch Ratings said June 14. The health system, anchored by a 260-bed acute care hospital, reported a $37 million operating loss in the nine months ending March 31, Fitch said.

Thomas Jefferson University (Philadelphia): The June 9 downward revision of its outlook, which includes both the health system and the university’s academic sector, was due to sustained operating weakness, S&P Global said.

IU Health (Indianapolis): While it saw ratings affirmed at “AA,” the 16-hospital system had its outlook downgraded amid persistent inflationary pressures and large capital expense, Fitch said May 31.

UofL Health (Louisville, Ky.): Slumping operating income and low days of cash on hand (42.8 as of March 31) contributed to S&P Global revising its outlook for the six-hospital system to negative May 24.

The Hospital Makeover—Part 2

Posted on by • Posted in Board, C-Suite, Financial Distress, Financial Instability, Financial Performance, Financial Reserves, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Labor Spend Management, Leadership, Leadership Vision, Leadership Will, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Physician Compensation, Physician Employment, State of the Union, Talent Management • Leave a comment
https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/hospital-makeover?utm_source=mkto&utm_campaign=ken-weekly-blog&utm_medium=em&utm_term=230706&mkt_tok=NjU0LUNOWS0yMjQAAAGMyohOOZcZs3aJnJhxoHk_Hk8EYNak25kOEXMHBJnN1UR7-zgWFnovwx7nW95hz47QWJel9dLywqwuLOz84xyF9t7AMAtzIJm_DDlYVLtq46Rk

America’s hospitals have a $104 billion problem.

That’s the amount you arrive at if you multiply the number of physicians employed by hospitals and health systems (approximately 341,200 as of January 2022, according to data from the Physicians Advocacy Institute and Avalere) by the median $306,362 subsidy—or loss—reported in our Q1 2023 Physician Flash Report.

Subsidizing physician employment has been around for a long time and such subsidies were historically justified as a loss leader for improved clinical services, the potential for increased market share, and the strengthening of traditionally profitable services.

But I am pretty sure the industry did not have $104 billion in losses in mind when the physician employment model first became a key strategic element in the hospital operating model. However, the upward reset in expenses brought on by the pandemic and post-pandemic inflation has made many downstream hospital services that historically operated at a profit now operate at breakeven or even at a loss. The loss leader physician employment model obviously no longer works when it mostly leads to more losses.

This model is clearly broken and in demand of a near-term fix. Perhaps the critical question then is how to begin? How to reconsider physician employment within the hospital operating plan?

Out of the box, rethink the physician productivity model. Our most recent Physician Flash Report data shows that for surgical specialties, there was a median $77 net patient revenue per provider wRVU. For the same specialties, there was a median $80 provider paid compensation per provider wRVU. In other words, before any other expenses are factored in, these specialties are losing $3 per wRVU on paid compensation alone. Getting providers to produce more wRVUs only makes the loss bigger.

It’s the classic business school 101 problem.

If a factory is losing $5 on every widget it produces, the answer is not to produce more widgets. Rather, expenses need to come down, whether that is through a readjustment of compensation, new compensation models that reward efficiency, or the more effective use of advanced practice providers.

Second, a number of hospital CEOs have suggested to me that the current employed physician model is quite past its prime. That model was built for a system of care that included generally higher revenues, more inpatient care, and a greater proportion of surgical vs. medical admissions. But overall, these trends were changing and then were accelerated by the Covid pandemic. Inpatient revenue has been flat to down. More clinical work continues to shift to the outpatient setting and, at least for the time being, medical admissions have been more prominent than before the pandemic.

Taking all this into account suggests that in many places the employed physician organizational and operating model is entirely out of balance. One would offer the calculated guess that there are too many coaches on the team and not enough players on the field. This administrative overhead was seemingly justified in a different loss leader environment but now it is a major contributor to that $104 billion industry-wide loss previously calculated.

Finally, perhaps the very idea of physician employment needs to be rethought.

My colleagues Matthew Bates and John Anderson have commented that the “owner” model is more appealing to physicians who remain independent then the “renter” model. The current employment model offers physicians stability of practice and income but appears to come at the cost of both a loss of enthusiasm and lost entrepreneurship. The massive losses currently experienced strongly suggest that new models are essential to reclaim physician interest and establish physician incentives that result in lower practice expenses, higher practice revenues, and steadily reduced overall subsidies.

Please see this blog as an extension of my last blog, “America’s Hospitals Need a Makeover.” It should be obvious that by analogy we are not talking about a coat of paint here or even new appliances in the kitchen.

The financial performance of America’s hospitals has exposed real structural flaws in the healthcare house. A makeover of this magnitude is going to require a few prerequisites:

  1. Don’t start designing the renovation unless you know specifically where profitability has changed within your service lines and by explicitly how much. Right now is the time to know how big the problem is, where those problems are located, and what is the total magnitude of the fix.
  2. The Board must be brought into the discussion of the nature of the physician employment problem and the depth of its proposed solutions. Physicians are not just “any employees.” They are often the engine that runs the hospital and must be afforded a level of communication that is equal to the size of the financial problem. All of this will demand the Board’s knowledge and participation as solutions to the physician employment dilemma are proposed, considered, and eventually acted upon.

The basic rule of home renovation applies here as well: the longer the fix to this problem is delayed the harder and more expensive the project becomes. The losses set out here certainly suggest that physician employment is a significant contributing factor to hospitals’ current financial problems overall. It would be an understatement to say that the time to get after all of this is right now.

Rural hospital closures rising again with end of COVID aid

Posted on by • Posted in Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Financial Instability, Financial Reserves, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Hospital Bankruptcy, Hospital Closure, Innovation, Innovative Care Models, Rural Health, Rural Hospital • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/7f59f737680b/the-weekly-gist-june-30-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

After a brief reprieve thanks to COVID relief funds, rural hospital closures are once again on the rise, with 11 facilities already closing in the first half of this year. 

More rural facilities have already closed in 2023 than the previous two years combined, and this year is on pace to be the second-highest number of rural hospital beds lost since 2005. 

And the majority of rural hospitals that haven’t closed are experiencing negative operating margins, with almost one in three at immediate or high risk of closure due to declining volumes, shifting payer mix, and increased labor and supply costs.

Leaders at rural hospitals now face difficult decisions including drastically cutting services, merging with a larger system, or closing their doors altogether. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the Rural Emergency Hospital Program recently, designed to financially support small rural hospitals that convert to providing emergency services only, but so far program uptake has been limited. 

While efforts to prop up hospitals will help to sustain access to care in the near term, rural communities ultimately need a new model for care, with reimagined facilities, supported by enhanced virtual connections to specialists and higher-acuity services.

45 health systems with strong finances

Posted on by • Posted in Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Financial Reserves, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Net Income, Nonoperating Income, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/35-health-systems-with-strong-finances.html?origin=RCME&utm_source=RCME&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G

Here are 45 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. AdventHealth has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the  Altamonte Springs, Fla.-based system’s strong financial profile, characterized by still-adequate liquidity and moderate leverage, typically strong and highly predictable profitability, Fitch said. 

2. AnMed Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Anderson, S.C.-based system has maintained strong performance through the COVID-19 pandemic and current labor market pressures, Fitch said.  

3. 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. 

4. Banner Health has an “AA-” and stable outlook with Fitch. The Phoenix-based system’s rating highlights the strength of its core hospital delivery system and growth of its insurance division, Fitch said. 

5. BayCare Health System has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Tampa, Fla.-based system’s rating reflects its excellent financial profile supported by its leading market position in a four-county area and the ability to sustain a solid operating outlook in the face of inflationary sector headwinds, Fitch said. 

6. Beacon Health System has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the strength of the South Bend, Ind.-based system’s balance sheet, the rating agency said.   

7. 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. 

8. Cape Cod Healthcare has an “AA-” and stable outlook with Fitch. The Hyannis, Mass.-based system’s rating reflects a dominant market position in its service area and historically solid operating results, the rating agency said. 

9. Carle Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Urbana, Ill.-based system’s distinctly leading market position over a broad service area, Fitch said. 

10.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.  

11. 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. 

12. 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. 

13. Concord (N.H.) Hospital has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the strength of Concord’s leverage and liquidity assessment and Fitch’s assessment that two recently acquired hospitals will be strategically and financially accretive. 

14. 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.

15. Cottage Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Santa Barbara, Calif.-based system’s leading market position and broad reach in a service area that exhibits modest population growth but consistently high demand for acute care services, Fitch said. 

16. 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. 

17. Froedtert Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Milwaukee-based system’s maintenance of a strong, albeit compressed, operating performance and a robust liquidity position, Fitch said. 

18. Hackensack Meridian Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Edison, N.J.-based system’s rating is supported by its strong presence in its large and demographically favorable market, Fitch said.  

19. 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.

20. 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.  

21. IU Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Indianapolis-based system has a long track record of strong operating margins and an overall credit profile that is supported by a strong balance sheet, the rating agency said. 

22. 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. 

23. Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Palo Alto, Calif.-based hospital’s role as a nationally known, leading children’s hospital, Fitch said. It also benefits from resilient clinical volumes and a solid market position, as well as its relationship with Stanford University and Stanford Health Care. 

24. Kaiser Permanente has an “AA-” and stable outlook with Fitch. The Oakland, Calif.-based system’s rating is driven by a strong financial profile, which is maintained despite a challenging operating environment in fiscal year 2022. 

25. 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.

26. 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. 

27. MemorialCare has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Fountain Valley, Calif.-based system’s strong financial profile and excellent leverage metrics despite its weaker operating performance, Fitch said. 

28. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects Fitch’s expectation that the New York City-based system’s national and international reputation as a premier cancer hospital will continue to support growth in its leading and increasing market share for its specialty services. 

29. Midland (Texas) Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects Midland’s exceptional market position and limited competition for acute-care services and growing outpatient services, Fitch said.  

30. Munson Healthcare has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the strength of the Traverse City, Mich.-based system’s market position and its leverage and liquidity profiles.  

31. North Mississippi Health Services has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Tupelo-based system’s rating reflects its very strong cash position and strong market position, Fitch said. 

32. 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.  

33. 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. 

34. 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.  

35. The Queen’s Health System has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Honolulu-based system’s rating reflects its leading state-wide market position, historically strong operating performance and diverse revenue streams, the rating agency said. 

36. 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. 

37. 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. 

38. 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. 

39. 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. 

40. 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.  

41. St. Clair Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Pittsburgh-based system’s strong financial profile assessment, solid market position and historically strong operating performance, the rating agency said. 

42. 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.  

43. 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. 

44. 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.

45. 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.

Is the Traditional Hospital Strategy Aging Out?

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Business Case, Business Model, Financial Distress, Financial Performance, Financial Reserves, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Leadership Culture, Leadership Intent, Leadership Legacy, Leadership Values, Leadership Vision, Leadership Will, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Model, Operating Performance, Strategic Alignment, Strategic Imperative, Strategic Issue, Strategic Leadership, Strengths, Value, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/traditional-hospital-strategy-aging-out

On October 1, 1908, Ford produced the first Model T automobile. More than 60 years later, this affordable, mass produced, gasoline-powered car was still the top-selling automobile of all time. The Model T was geared to the broadest possible market, produced with the most efficient methods, and used the most modern technology—core elements of Ford’s business strategy and corporate DNA.

On April 25, 2018, almost 100 years later, Ford announced that it would stop making all U.S. internal-combustion sedans except the Mustang.

The world had changed. The Taurus, Fusion, and Fiesta were hardly exciting the imaginations of car-buyers. Ford no longer produced its U.S. cars efficiently enough to return a suitable profit. And the internal combustion technology was far from modern, with electronic vehicles widely seen as the future of automobiles.

Ford’s core strategy, and many of its accompanying products, had aged out. But not all was doom and gloom; Ford was doing big and profitable business in its line of pickups, SUVs, and -utility vehicles, led by the popular F-150.

It’s hard to imagine the level of strategic soul-searching and cultural angst that went into making the decision to stop producing the cars that had been the basis of Ford’s history. Yet, change was necessary for survival. At the time, Ford’s then-CEO Jim Hackett said, “We’re going to feed the healthy parts of our business and deal decisively with the areas that destroy value.”

So Ford took several bold steps designed to update—and in many ways upend—its strategy. The company got rid of large chunks of the portfolio that would not be relevant going forward, particularly internal combustion sedans. Ford also reorganized the company into separate divisions for electric and internal combustion vehicles. And Ford pivoted to the future by electrifying its fleet.

Ford did not fully abandon its existing strategies. Rather, it took what was relevant and successful, and added that to the future-focused pivot, placing the F-150 as the lead vehicle in its new electric fleet.

This need for strategic change happens to all large organizations. All organizations, including America’s hospitals and health systems, need to confront the fact that no strategic plan lasts forever.

Over the past 25-30 years, America’s hospitals and health systems based their strategies on the provision of a high-quality clinical care, largely in inpatient settings. Over time, physicians and clinics were brought into the fold to strengthen referral channels, but the strategic focus remained on driving volume to higher-acuity services.

More recently, the longstanding traditional patient-physician-referral relationship began to change. A smarter, internet-savvy, and self-interested patient population was looking for different aspects of service in different situations. In some cases, patients’ priority was convenience. In other cases, their priority was affordability. In other cases, patients began going to great lengths to find the best doctors for high-end care regardless of geographic location. In other cases, patients wanted care as close as their phone.

Around the country, hospitals and health systems have seen these environmental changes and adjusted their strategies, but for the most part only incrementally. The strategic focus remains centered on clinical quality delivered on campus, while convenience, access, value, affordability, efficiency, and many virtual innovations remain on the strategic periphery.

Health system leaders need to ask themselves whether their long-time, traditional strategy is beginning to age out. And if so, what is the “Ford strategy” for America’s health systems?

The questions asked and answered by Ford in the past five years are highly relevant to health system strategic planning at a time of changing demand, economic and clinical uncertainty, and rapid innovation. For example, as you view your organization in its entirety, what must be preserved from the existing structure and operations, and what operations, costs, and strategies must leave? And which competencies and capabilities must be woven into a going-forward structure?

America’s hospitals and health systems have an extremely long history—in some cases, longer than Ford’s. With that history comes a natural tendency to stick with deeply entrenched strategies. Now is the time for health systems to ask themselves, what is our Ford F150? And how do we “electrify” our strategic plan going forward?