PeaceHealth has eliminated 251 caregiver roles across multiple locations, the Vancouver, Wash.-based health system said in a statement shared with Becker’s on April 26.
“PeaceHealth is actively responding to the significant challenges faced by healthcare organizations across the U.S. Comprehensive plans are already underway to recruit additional nurses, ensure patients can return home as quickly as possible and grow the services we know our community members need,” the statement read.
“As always, we are also adjusting operations and services to reflect changes in our communities and ensure we are being responsible to our healing mission into the future.”
PeaceHealth said affected roles include 121 from Shared Services, which supports its 16,000 caregivers in Washington, Oregon and Alaska. Shared Services include administrative services that support clinical caregivers such as human resources, information technology, marketing and communications, and finance.
The remaining affected roles are “relatively evenly spread across our three networks. In line with our value of respect, we offer comprehensive transitional support consistent with our policies and practices to all impacted caregivers,” the health system said.
PeaceHealth spokesperson Alison Taylor told Becker’s the health system anticipates many affected caregivers will be qualified for the nearly 1,300 open clinical roles across the organization.
In February, PeaceHealth reported a loss of $90.8 million in the six months ending Dec. 31, 2022. The health system was also downgraded in March by Fitch Ratings, which cited the organization’s “considerable operating stress.”
PeaceHealth operates 10 hospitals across Alaska, Oregon and Washington.
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.
Using data from Kaufman Hall’s National Hospital Flash Report, as well as publicly available investor reports for some of the nation’s largest nonprofit health systems, the graphic above takes stock of the current state of health system margins.
The median US hospital has now maintained a negative operating margin for a full year. Some good news may be on the horizon, as the picture is slightly less gloomy than a year ago, with year-over-yearrevenues increasing seven points more than total expenses.
However, the external conditions suppressing operating margins aren’t expected to abate, and many large health systems are still struggling.
Among large national non-profits Ascension, CommonSpirit Health, Providence, and Trinity Health, operating income in FY 2022 decreased 180 percent on average, and investment returns fell by 150 percent on average, compared to the year prior.
While health systems’ drop in investment returns mirrors the overall stock market downturn, and is largely comprised of unrealized returns, systems may not be able to rely on investment income to make up for ongoing operating losses.
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.
Published this week in the New York Times, this article describes the decaying state of Greenwood Leflore Hospital, a 117 year-old facility in the Mississippi Delta that may be within months of closure. While rural hospitals across the country are struggling, Mississippi’s firm opposition to Medicaid expansion has exacerbated the problem in that state, by depriving providers of an additional $1.4B per year in federal funds. Instead, only a few of the state’s 100-plus hospitals actually turn an annual profit, and uncompensated care costs are almost 10 percent of the average hospital’s operating costs.
Despite a dozen or more hospitals at imminent risk of closure, Mississippi officials would rather use the state’s $3.9B budget surplus to lower or eliminate the state income tax.
The Gist:Expanding Medicaid doesn’t just reduce rates of uncompensated care provided by hospitals, it changes the volume and type of care they provide.
Further, Medicaid expansion has been found to result in significant reductions in all-cause mortality.
Ensuring that low-income residents in Mississippi and other non-expansion states have access to Medicaid would allow providers to administer more preventive care and manage chronic diseases more effectively, before costly exacerbations require hospitalization.
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.”
MedPAC’s recommendation that acute care hospitals don’t need a significant increase in 2024 Medicare rates is “totally insufficient and out of touch with reality,” according to the American Hospital Association.
“This view is one-sided, inaccurate and misleading,” Ashley Thompson, AHA’s senior vice president of public policy analysis and development, wrote in a March 23 blog post. “After years of once-in-a-lifetime events in the form of a global pandemic and record inflation, hospitals across the country are struggling to continue to fulfill their mission to care for their patients and communities.”
In its annual March report to Congress, MedPAC recommended an update to hospital payment rates of “current law plus 1 percent,” which the AHA says is not enough for many hospitals to keep their doors open.
The commission found that most indicators of sufficient Medicare rates for providers were positive or improved in 2021, though it acknowledged that hospitals saw more volatile cost increases in 2022 compared to years prior. Hospital margins were also lower last year than in 2021, according to preliminary data, driven in part by providers facing higher than expected costs and capacity and staffing challenges.
The report also said that its 2024 payment recommendations “may not be sufficient” to sustain some safety-net hospitals with a low number of commercially insured patients, and proposed $2 billion in add-on payments.
Across the U.S., a total of 631 rural hospitals — or about 30 percent of all rural hospitals — are at risk of closing in the immediate or near future.
MedPAC’s recommendations for 2024 differ from how some health economists have recently described hospitals’ finances. In January, hospitals had a median operating margin of -1 percent according to Kaufman Hall, a finding that arrived on the heels of 2022 being named the worst financial year for hospitals since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“It is also important to realize that MedPAC’s report and data has limitations,” Ms. Thompson wrote, referring to a misalignment in the calendar year MedPAC chose to analyze and how hospitals can differ in how they report their individual financial earnings.
MedPAC said its report reflects 2021 data, preliminary data from 2022, and projections for 2023, along with recent inflation rates.
“…cost reports are filed for hospitals’ own specific fiscal years, and because surges, relief payments, and eventual expense increases happened at different times for different hospitals, these calculated margins don’t necessarily provide a fully accurate picture of the financial reality in 2021,” Ms. Thompson wrote.
The AHA stressed that hospitals’ finances in 2023 face much different challenges compared to 2021, when the industry was more supported by strong investment returns and federal pandemic relief.
“The fact that massive numbers of hospitals are not currently closing due to financial pressures should be seen as positive for patients and communities,” Ms. Thompson said. “Instead, some observers seem to be disappointed that more hospitals are not failing financially.”
A detailed response from the AHA to the MedPAC report is available here.
HENRY KOTULA 