Category Archives: Future State

U.S. Healthcare in 2025 and Beyond: Three Major Predictions

Posted on by • Posted in Consumer Price Index (CPI), Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Future, Future State, Inflation, Market Outlook, Market Trends, Private Equity, Value Based Care Model, Value Creation, Value Journey, Value Proposition • Leave a comment
U.S. Healthcare in 2025 and Beyond: Three Major Predictions

With days before voters decide the composition of the 119th U.S. Congress and the next White House occupant, the immediate future for U.S. healthcare is both predictable and problematic:

It’s predictable that…

1-States will be the epicenter for healthcare legislation and regulation; federal initiatives will be substantially fewer.

At a federal level, new initiatives will be limited: continued attention to hospital and insurer consolidation, drug prices and the role of PBMs, Medicare Advantage business practices and a short-term fix to physician payments are likely but little more. The Affordable Care Act will be modified slightly to address marketplace coverage and subsidies and CMSs Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) will test new alternative payment models even as doubt about their value mounts. But “BIG FEDERAL LAWS” impacting the U.S. health system are unlikely.

But in states, activity will explode:  for example…

  • In this cycle, 10 states will decide their abortion policies joining 17 others that have already enacted new policies.
  • 3 will vote on marijuana legalization joining 24 states that have passed laws.
  • 24 states have already passed Prescription Drug Pricing legislation and 4 are considering commissions to set limits.
  • 40 have expanded their Medicaid programs
  • 35 states and Washington, D.C., operate CON programs; in 12 states, CONs have been repealed.
  • 14 have legislation governing mental health access.
  • 5 have passed or are developing commissions to control health costs.
  • And so on.

Given partisan dysfunction in Congress and the surprising lack of attention to healthcare in Campaign 2024 (other than abortion coverage), the center of attention in 2025-2026 will be states. In addition to the list above, attention in states will address protections for artificial intelligence utilization, access to and pricing for weight loss medications, tax exemptions for not-for-profit health systems, telehealth access, conditions for private equity ownership in health services, constraints on contract pharmacies, implementation of site neutral payments, new 340B accountability requirements and much more. In many of these efforts, state legislatures and/or Governors will go beyond federal guidance setting the stage for court challenges, and the flavor of these efforts will align with a state’s partisan majorities: as of September 30th, 2024, Republicans controlled 54.85% of all state legislative seats nationally, while Democrats held 44.19%. Republicans held a majority in 56 chambers, and Democrats held the majority in 41 chambers. In 2024, 27 states are led by GOP governors and 23 by Dems and 11 face voters November 5.  And going into the election, 22 states are considered red, 21 are considered blue and 7 are tagged as purple.

The U.S. Constitution affirms Federalism as the structure for U.S. governance: it pledges the pursuit of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as its purpose but leaves the lion’s share of responsibilities to states to figure out how. Healthcare may be federalism’s greatest test.

2-Large employers will take direct action to control their health costs.

Per the Kaiser Family Foundation’s most recent employer survey, employer health costs are expected to increase 7% this year for the second year in a row. Willis Towers Watson, predicts a 6.4% increase this year on the heels of a 6% bump last year. The Business Group on Health, which represents large self-insured employers, forecasts an 8% increase in 2025 following a 7% increase last year. All well-above inflation, ages and consumer prices this year.

Employers know they pay 254% of Medicare rates (RAND) and they’re frustrated. They believe their concerns about costs, affordability and spending are not taken seriously by hospitals, physicians, insurers and drug companies. They see lackluster results from federal price transparency mandates and believe the CMS’ value agenda anchored by accountable care organizations are not achieving needed results. Small-and-midsize employers are dropping benefits altogether if they think they can. For large employers, it’s a different story. Keeping health benefits is necessary to attract and keep talent, but costs are increasingly prohibitive against macro-pressures of workforce availability, cybersecurity threats, heightened supply-chain and logistics regulatory scrutiny and shareholder activism.

Maintaining employee health benefits while absorbing hyper-inflationary drug prices, insurance premiums and hospital services is their challenge. The old playbook—cost sharing with employees, narrow networks of providers, onsite/near site primary care clinics et al—is not working to keep up with the industry’s propensity to drive higher prices through consolidation.

In 2025, they will carefully test a new playbook while mindful of inherent risks. They will use reference pricing, narrow specialty specific networks, technology-enabled self-care and employee gainsharing to address health costs head on while adjusting employee wages. Federal and state advocacy about Medicare and Medicaid funding, insurer and hospital consolidation and drug pricing will intensify. And some big names in corporate America will step into a national debate about healthcare affordability and accountability.

Employers are fed up with the status quo. They don’t buy the blame game between hospitals, insurers and drug companies. And they don’t think their voice has been heard.

3-Private equity and strategic investors will capitalize on healthcare market conditions. 

The plans set forth by the two major party candidates feature populist themes including protections for women’s health and abortion services, maintenance/expansion of the Affordable Care Act and prescription drug price controls. But the substance of their plans focus on consumer prices and inflation: each promises new spending likely to add to the national deficit:

  • Per the Non-Partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, over the next 10 years, the Trump plan would add $7.5 trillion to the deficit; the Harris plan would add $3.5 trillion.
  • Per the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, Harris’ proposals would add $1.2 trillion to the national deficits over 10 years and Trump’s proposals would add $5.8 trillion over the same period

Per the Congressional Budget Office, federal budget deficit for FY2024 which ended September 30 will be $1.8 trillion– $139 billion more than FT 2023. Revenues increased by an estimated $479 billion (or 11 percent). Revenues in all major categories, but notably individual income taxes, were greater than they were in fiscal year 2023. Outlays rose by an estimated $617 billion (or 10 percent). The largest increase in outlays was for education ($308 billion). Net outlays for interest on the public debt rose by $240 billion to total $950 billion.

The federal government spent $6.75 trillion in 2024, a 10% increase from the prior year. Spending on Social Security (22% of total spending) and healthcare programs (28.5% of total spending) also increased substantially. The U.S. debt as of Friday was $37.77 trillion, or $106 thousand per citizen.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that federal debt held by the public averaged 48.3 % of GDP for the half century ending in 2023– far above its historic average. It projects next year’s national debt will hit 100% for the first time since the US military build-up in the second world war. And it forecast the debt reaching 122.4% in 2034 potentially pushing interest payments from 13% of total spending this year to 20% or more.

Adding debt is increasingly cumbersome for national lawmakers despite campaign promises, and healthcare is rivaled by education, climate and national defense in seeking funding through taxes and appropriations. Thus, opportunities for private investors in healthcare will increase dramatically in 2025 and 2026. After all, it’s a growth industry ripe for fresh solutions that improve affordability and cost reduction at scale.

Combined, these three predictions foretell a U.S. healthcare system that faces a significant pressure to demonstrate value.

They require every healthcare organization to assess long-term strategies in the likely context of reduced funding, increased regulation and heightened attention to prices and affordability. This is problematic for insiders accustomed to incrementalism that’s protected them from unwelcome changes for 3 decades.  

Announcements last week by Walgreens and CVS about changes to their strategies going forward reflect the industry’s new normal: change is constant, success is not. In 2025, regardless of the election outcome, healthcare will be a major focus for lawmakers, regulators, employers and consumers.  

The Four Questions Healthcare Boards must Answer

Posted on by • Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Board Effectiveness, Board Purpose, Disruption, Disruptive Technology, Future State, Innovation, Leadership Vision, Transformation, Transformation Fundamental, Transformation Strategy, Transformation Sustained, Transformational Change, Transformative Forces • Leave a comment
The Four Questions Healthcare Boards must Answer

In 63 days, Americans will know the composition of the 119th Congress and the new occupants of the White House and 11 Governor’s mansions. We’ll learn results of referenda in 10 states about abortion rights (AZ, CO, FL, MD, MO, MT, NE, NV, NY, SD) and see how insurance coverage for infertility (IVF therapy) fares as Californians vote on SB 729. But what we will not learn is the future of the U.S. health system at a critical time of uncertainty.

In 6 years, every baby boomer will be 65 years of age or older. In the next 20 years, the senior population will be 22% of the population–up from 18% today. That’s over 83 million who’ll hit the health system vis a vis Medicare while it is still digesting the tsunami of obesity, a scarcity of workers and unprecedented discontent:

  • The majority of voters is dissatisfied with the status quo. 69% think the system is fundamentally flawed and in need of major change vs. 7% who think otherwise. 60% believe it puts its profits above patient care vs. 13% who disagree.
  • Employers are fed up: Facing projected cost increases of 9% for employee coverage in 2025, they now reject industry claims of austerity when earnings reports and executive compensation indicate otherwise. They’re poised to push back harder than ever.
  • Congress is increasingly antagonistic: A bipartisan coalition in Congress is pushing populist reforms unwelcome by many industry insiders i.e. price transparency for hospitals, price controls for prescription drugs, limits on private equity ownership, constraint on hospital, insurer and physician consolidation, restrictions on tax exemptions of NFP hospitals, site neutral payment policies and many more.

Fanning these flames, media characterizations of targeted healthcare companies as price gouging villains led by highly-paid CEOs is mounting: last week, it was Acadia Health’s turn courtesy of the New York Times’ investigators.

Navigating uncertainty is tough for industries like healthcare where demand s growing, technologies are disrupting how and where services are provided and by whom, and pricing and affordability are hot button issues.  And it’s too big to hide: at $5.049 trillion, it represents 17.6% of the U.S. GDP today increasing to 19.7% by 2032. Growing concern about national debt puts healthcare in the crosshairs of policymaker attention:

Per the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: “In the latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline, nominal spending is projected to grow from $6.8 trillion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 to $10.3 trillion in 2034. About 87% of this increase is due to three parts of the federal budget: Social Security, federal health care programs, and interest payments on the debt.”

In response, Boards in many healthcare organizations are hearing about the imperative for “transformational change” to embrace artificial intelligence, whole person health, digitization and more. They’re also learning about ways to cut their operating costs and squeeze out operating margins. Bold, long-term strategy is talked about, but most default to less risky, short-term strategies compatible with current operating plans and their leaders’ compensation packages. Thus, “transformational change” takes a back seat to survival or pragmatism for most.

For Boards of U.S. healthcare organizations, the imperative for transformational change is urgent: the future of the U.S. system is not a repeat of its past. But most Boards fail to analyze the future and construct future-state scenarios systematically. Lessons from other industries are instructive.

  • Transformational change in mission critical industries occurs over a span of 20-25 years. It starts with discontent with the status quo, then technologies and data that affirm plausible alternatives and private capital that fund scalable alternatives. It’s not overnight.
  • Transformational change is not paralyzed by regulatory hurdles. Transformers seek forgiveness, not permission while working to change the regulatory landscape. Advocacy is a critical function in transformer organizations.
  • Transformation is welcomed by consumers. Recognition of improved value by end-users—individual consumers—is what institutionalizes transformational success. Transformed industries define success in terms of the specific, transparent and understandable results of their work.

Per McKinsey, only one in 8 organizations is successful in fully implementing transformational change completely but the reward is significant: transformers outperform their competition three-to-one on measures of growth and effectiveness.

I am heading to Colorado Springs this weekend for the Governance Institute. There, I will offer Board leaders four basic questions.

  • Is the future of the U.S. health system a repeat of the past or something else?
  • How will its structure, roles and responsibilities change?
  • How will affordability, quality, innovation and value be defined and validated?
  • How will it be funded?

Answers to these require thoughtful discussion. They require independent judgement. They require insight from organizations outside healthcare whose experiences are instructive. They require fresh thinking.

Until and unless healthcare leaders recognize the imperative for transformational change, the system will calcify its victim-mindset and each sector will fend for itself with diminishing results. No sector—hospitals, insurers, drug companies, physicians—has all the answers and every sector faces enormous headwinds. Perhaps it’s time for a cross-sector coalition to step up with transformational change as the goal and the public’s well-being the moral compass.

PS: Last week, I caught up with Drs. Steve and Pat Gabbe in Columbus, Ohio. Having served alongside them at Vanderbilt and now as an observer of their work at Ohio State, I am reminded of the goodness and integrity of those in healthcare who devote their lives to meaningful, worthwhile work. Steve “burns with a clear blue flame” as a clinician, mentor and educator. Pat is the curator of a program, Moms2B, that seeks to alleviate Black-White disparities in infant mortality and maternal child health in Ohio. They’re great people who see purpose in their calling; they’re what make this industry worth fixing!

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.