Category Archives: Health System

Providence Inches Closer to Breakeven in Q2, But Reckons With ‘Polycrisis’

Posted on by • Posted in Financial Performance, Financial Pressure, Financial Reporting, Financial Stewardship, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Margin Drivers, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/ceo/providence-inches-closer-breakeven-q2-reckons-polycrisis

The nonprofit health system narrowed its operating loss while continuing to grapple with financial and policy pressures as it progresses towards profitability.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Providence cut its operating loss in the second quarter to $21 million, improving from a $123 million loss a year ago.

Revenue rose 3% year-over-year to $7.91 billion, driven by higher patient volumes and better commercial rates.

The health system faces ongoing “polycrisis” challenges, including rising supply costs, staffing mandates, insurer denials, and looming Medicaid cuts, which have already prompted layoffs, hiring pauses, and leadership restructuring.

Providence made promising strides toward financial sustainability in the second quarter as higher patient volumes helped trim an operating loss that has weighed heavily on its balance sheet.

Yet the Renton, Washington-based health system warned that a compounding set of external pressures, which it labeled a “polycrisis,” still poses formidable challenges to its mission and future.

For the three months ended June 30, the nonprofit reported an operating loss of $21 million, equating to an operating margin of –0.3%, representing a marked improvement from the $123 million loss (–1.6%) posted over the same period in 2024. Compared with the previous quarter, the gain was even starker as Providence trimmed its deficit by $223 million. Through the first six months of the year, the health system had an operating loss of $265 million (-1.7%).

Revenue growth was fueled by higher patient volumes and improved commercial rates, Providence highlighted. Operating revenue rose 3% year-over-year to $7.91 billion as inpatient admissions (up 3%), outpatient visits (up 3%), case mix–adjusted admissions (up 3%), physician visits (up 8%), and outpatient surgeries (up 5%) all contributed.

On the expense side, Providence managed a 2% rise in operating costs to $7.93 billion, thanks largely to productivity gains, including a 43% reduction in agency contract labor. However, supply costs swelled by 9% and pharmacy expenses jumped by 12% year-over-year.

Providence, along with the healthcare industry at large, faces what CEO Erik Wexler called a “polycrisis” due to a mix of inflation, tariff-driven supply pressures, new state laws on staffing and charity care, insurer reimbursement delays and denials, and looming federal Medicaid cuts, especially from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which the health system said “threatens to intensify health care pressures.”

Those factors are significantly influencing hospitals’ and health systems’ decision-making. Providence has made staffing adjustments that include cutting 128 jobs in Oregon earlier this month, a restructuring in June that eliminated 600 full-time equivalent positions, a pause on nonclinical hiring in April, and leadership reorganization since Wexler took over as CEO in January.

Accounts receivable is another area that has been indicative of headwinds, with Providence noting that while it improved in the second quarter, it “remains elevated compared to historical trends.”

Even with the roadblocks in its path, Providence is working towards profitability after being in the red for several years running.

“I’m incredibly proud of the progress we’ve made and grateful to our caregivers and teams across Providence St. Joseph Health for their continued dedication,” Wexler said in the news release. “The strain remains, especially with emerging challenges like H.R.1, but we will continue to respond to the times and answer the call while transforming for the future.”

Gut Punches for Healthcare and Hospitals

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Bankruptcy, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Deferred Healthcare, Financially Distressed, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Industry, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid Cuts, Medical Debt, Out of Pocket Expenses, Politics, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Model, Profit Motive, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Shareholder Expectations, Sign of the Times, Underinsured, Uninsured, Wall Street • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
Gut Punches for Healthcare and Hospitals: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the CMS Proposed Rule

The healthcare industry is still licking its wounds from $1 trillion in federal funding cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed into law July 4.

Adding insult to injury, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services issued a 913-page proposed rule last Tuesday that includes unwelcome changes especially troublesome for hospitals i.e. adoption of site neutral payments, expansion of hospital price transparency requirements, reduction of inpatient-only services, acceleration of hospital 340B discount repayment obligations and more.

The combination of the two is bad news for healthcare overall and hospitals especially: the timing is precarious:

  • Economic uncertainty: Economists believe a recession is less likely but uncertainty about tariffs, fear about rising inflation, labor market volatility a housing market slowdown and speculation about interest rates have capital markets anxious. Healthcare is capital intense: the impact of the two in tandem with economic uncertainty is unsettling.
  • Consumer spending fragility: Consumer spending is holding steady for the time being but housing equity values are dropping, rents are increasing, student loan obligations suspended during Covid are now re-activated, prices for hospital and physicians are increasing faster than other necessities and inflation ticked up slightly last month. Consumer out-of-pocket spending for healthcare products and services is directly impacted by purchases in every category.
  • Heightened payer pressures: Insurers and employers are expecting double-digit increases for premiums and health benefits next year blaming their higher costs on hospitals and drugs, OBBBA-induced insurance coverage lapses and systemic lack of cost-accountability. For insurers, already reeling from 2023-2024 financial reversals, forecasts are dire. Payers will heighten pressure on healthcare providers—especially hospitals and specialists—as a result.

Why healthcare appears to have borne the brunt of the funding cuts in the OBBBA is speculative: 

Might a case have been made for cuts in other departments? Might healthcare programs other than Medicaid have been ripe for “waste, fraud and abuse” driven cuts? Might technology-driven administrative costs reductions across the expanse of federal and state government been more effective than DOGE- blunt experimentation?

Healthcare is 18% of the GDP and 28% of total federal spending: that leaves room for cuts in other industries.

Why hospitals, along with nursing homes and public health programs, are likely to bear the lion’s share of OBBBA’ cut fallout and CMS’ proposed rule disruptions is equally vexing.  Might the high-profile successes of some not-for-profit hospital operators have drawn attention? Might Congress have been attentive to IRS Form 990 filings for NFP operators and quarterly earnings of investor-owned systems and assume hospital finances are OK? Might advocacy efforts to maintain the status quo with facility fees, 340B drug discounts, executive compensation et al been overshadowed by concerns about consolidation-induced cost increases and disregard for affordability? Hospital emergency rooms in rural and urban communities, nursing homes, public health programs and many physicians will be adversely impacted by the OBBBA cuts: the impact will vary by state. What’s not clear is how much.

My take:

Having read both the OBBBA and CMS proposed rules and observed reactions from industry, two things are clear to me:

The antipathy toward the healthcare industry among the public  and in Congress played a key role in passage of the OBBBA and regulatory changes likely to follow. 

Polls show three-fourths of likely voters want to see transformational change to healthcare and two-thirds think the industry is more concerned with its profit over their care: these views lend to hostile regulatory changes. The public and the majority of elected officials think the industry prioritizes protection of the status quo over obligations to serve communities and the greater good.

The result: winners and losers in each sector, lack of continuity and interoperability, runaway costs and poor outcomes.

No sector in healthcare stands as the surrogate for the health and wellbeing of the population. There are well-intended players in each sector who seek the moral high ground for healthcare, but their boards and leaders put short-term sustainability above long-term systemness and purpose. That void needs to be filled.

The timing of these changes is predictably political. 

Most of the lower-cost initiatives in both the OBBBA changes and CMS proposals carry obligations to commence in 2026—in time for the November 2026 mid-term campaigns. Most of the results, including costs and savings, will not be known before 2028 or after. They’re geared toward voters inclined to think healthcare is systemically fraudulent, wasteful and self-serving.

And they’re just the start: officials across the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Commerce, Labor and Veterans Affairs will add to the lists.

Buckle up.

Hospital purchasing still buffeted by trade winds

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Cost Management, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Supply Chain, Supply Costs, Tariffs, Uncertainty • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/18/hospital-purchasing-tariffs-trump-ppe

Tariffs and supply chain uncertainty are playing havoc with hospitals’ purchasing plans, especially for lower-margin products like gloves, gowns and syringes.

Why it matters: 

The uncertainty is in some cases delaying spending decisions, including capital improvements, as health system administrators wait to see the effect of increased duties and whether manufacturers win exemptions from the Trump administration.

What they’re saying: 

“Hospitals are definitely feeling a pinch,” Mark Hendrickson, director of Premier’s supply chain policy, told Axios. “We’ve never seen tariffs for this long a period of time for this broad a portfolio of products in basically all of our lifetimes.”

  • “It’s really an uncertain enough environment that we’re cautioning members from panic buying and buying ahead,” he added. “We don’t want to drive artificial shortages of products that could be avoided.”

The big picture: 

The health care supply chain is already hard enough to navigate, with certain sterile injectable drugs and other essentials regularly going into shortage.

  • But President Trump’s existing and threatened tariffs are scrambling the calculus for health systems and the group purchasing organizations they contract with, as they seek a steady supply of what they need and identify possible new sources.
  • “Everyone in the supply chain, from hospitals to suppliers to manufacturers, is grappling with how to plan thoughtfully and proceed in a way that doesn’t either under- or over-correct for the potential impacts of these tariffs,” Akin Demehin, the American Hospital Association’s vice president of quality and patient safety policy, told Axios.

Between the lines: 

So far, there haven’t been clear price hikes or shortages.

  • But certain types of products are being watched more closely, starting with low-cost, high-volume items often imported from China such as PPE and disposable medical devices.
  • “Are there going to be instances where those low margin products are just not worth manufacturing anymore?,” Hendrickson said.

U.S. manufacturing of protective gear picked up during the pandemic, to alleviate foreign supply chain disruptions. But some of those sources dried up with the end of mask mandates and other public health measures, when hospitals went back to buying from overseas.

  • The hospital association is particularly concerned about critical minerals and derivatives used in medical imaging, radioactive drugs and other applications, which could be subject to sectoral levies imposed in the interests of national security.
  • Last month, the AHA sent a letter to the Trump administration calling for medical exemptions.

The bottom line: 

“We haven’t seen the bottom fall out,” Hendrickson said. “I’m hoping we don’t.”

Workplace violence costs hospitals more than $18B: report

Posted on by • Posted in Federal Criminal Charges, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Employed Physicians, Hospital Industry, Hospital Outpatient Departments, Hostile, Legislative Agenda, Workplace Violence, Workplace Violence Prevention, Workplace Violence Prevention Plan • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/05/hospital-assaults-workplace-violence-costs

Assaults against health care workers are costing hospitals upward of $18 billion a year in added security, training, workers compensation and other expenses, including treating victims, according to a new industry report.

Why it matters: 

Attacks by patients and visitors in hospitals and clinics already were a problem before the pandemic and got worse with backlash against public health measures.

  • The American Hospital Association says there’s a human toll beyond the financial burden, with burnout, staff turnover, legal concerns and negative public perceptions all plaguing health systems.

By the numbers: 

The University of Washington report for the trade group found prevention measures like active shooter training, hiring more security and reinforcing entry points and creating designated safe areas cost health systems $3.6 billion a year.

  • The cost of care for fatal and nonfatal injuries, lost productivity and replacing damaged equipment and infrastructure total about $14.6 billion a year. Health expenses for treating injuries alone account for more than $13 billion of that amount.

Between the lines: 

Violent incidents most often occur in psychiatric units, emergency departments, waiting rooms and geriatric units, with rural areas having higher prevalence than urban areas, the report found.

  • Registered nurses, nursing assistants and patient care assistants experience particularly high rates of workplace violence. A 2024 American Hospital Association poll found half of U.S. nurses reported being either verbally abused, physically assaulted or both by a patient or a patient’s family member within the previous two years.

What we’re watching: 

Congress is again considering legislation that would make assaulting hospital staff a federal crime, similar to protections for flight crews and airport workers.

Hospitals begin to grapple with tariff fallout

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Operating Expenses, Rural Health, Rural Health Clinics (RHC), Rural Hospital, Shortages, Supply Chain, Supply Costs, Supply Shock, Tariff Fallout, Tariffs • Leave a comment
https://www.axios.com/2025/05/01/hospitals-struggle-tariff-impacts?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Hospitals across the country are starting to reckon with the effects President Trump’s tariffs are having on medical supplies like syringes and PPE, and in some cases freezing spending and making other contingencies.

Why it matters: 

A global trade war could bring a return to pandemic disruptions if imported goods that health systems purchase in high volumes from China can’t be replenished. And there’s still the prospect of Trump’s tariffs on pharmaceuticals.

  • Ultimately, experts warn, supply disruptions and price hikes could drive up the price of patient care.

“Tariffs have the potential to add a layer of complication to [hospitals’] ability to get all of those medical goods, the drugs and the devices that they need to deliver care,” said Akin Demehin, the American Hospital Association’s vice president of quality and patient safety policy.

State of play: 

So far, there have been no widespread shortages or price spikes.

  • What most concerns the providers is a reliance on medical gear from China. Enteral syringes used to deliver drugs or nutrition through feeding tubes have no alternative sources and are subject to a 245% tariff, according to group purchasing organization Premier.
  • “With the consumables — the gowns, the gloves, masks … hospitals go through an enormous volume of those every year. Certainly there is some risk there,” said Kyle MacKinnon, senior director of operational excellence at Premier.

The pandemic spawned more domestic manufacturing of medical gear — and an anticipated reduction in dependence on overseas suppliers. But many of the startups have since disappeared, the New York Times reported, leaving the health system once again vulnerable to supply shocks amid threats like measles outbreaks and avian flu.

Between the lines: 

The situation could be further complicated by tariffs on pharmaceuticals that could weigh particularly hard on imported generics.

  • Cancer and cardiovascular medications, as well as immunosuppressives and antibiotics, are of great concern to hospitals, per a letter the American Hospital Association sent earlier this year to Trump. MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston instituted a hiring freeze due to uncertainty, in part, from the tariffs’ impact on drug prices.
  • Medical devices are also facing a high level of exposure with roughly 70% of U.S. marketed medical devices manufactured exclusively outside the U.S., Premier wrote.
  • The American Hospital Association on Wednesday pointed to data that found 82% of health care experts expect tariff-related expenses to raise hospital costs by at least 15% over the next six months.
  • 94% of health care administrators expected to put off equipment upgrades, in response.

Reality check: 

Many hospitals may still be insulated from the worst effects because of long-term purchasing contracts.

  • Universal Health Services CFO Steve Filton said during an earnings call that three-quarters of the company’s supply chain had fixed contracted prices, Fierce Healthcare reported.
  • The company had begun to see “fees or stipends” on invoices with vendors with fixed contracted prices but had been ignoring them. “At the moment, it feels like there’s not a great deal of pressure,” he said.
  • But a dramatic reduction in goods from a major trading partner will eventually hit multiple players needing to replenish inventories, experts predict.

What to watch: 

Hospitals are among trade groups lobbying for tariff exemptions for critical medical supplies, including drugs. One question is whether pharmaceutical manufacturers can limit their exposure by “reshoring” more intellectual property in order to pay more U.S. taxes, Leerink Partners wrote in an investor note on Wednesday.

  • As supplies that have been stockpiled by hospitals begin to run low or as contracted prices expire, the true costs will begin to be felt.
  • “We especially worry about the potential impacts to vulnerable and to rural health care providers who already are operating on thin margins, and for whom changes in the cost of those kinds of goods could have a disproportionate impact,” Demehin said.

The Next 100 Days: What Healthcare Should Expect

Posted on by • Posted in Economy, Funding, Health Insurance Industry, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Investing, Investment, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Supreme Court, Wall Street • Leave a comment
The Next 100 Days: What Healthcare Should Expect

The Trump administration is moving into its second 100 days facing conditions more problematic than its first 100. For healthcare, this period will define the industry’s near-term future as changes in three domains unfold:

  • The Economy: The economy is volatile and consumer confidence is waning. The impact of tariffs on U.S. prices remains an unknown and escalating tension between the Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Palestine, Pakistan and India are worrisome. Household debt is mounting as student loans, medical debt and housing costs imperil financial security for more than half of U.S. households. The 3 major stock indices remain in the red YTD, prospects for a recession are high and investors are increasingly cautious. Net impact on healthcare organizations and public programs: negative, especially those without strong balance sheets and access to affordable private capital.
  • The Courts: Recent opinions by the Supreme Court and District Courts suggest a willingness to challenge the administration’s Executive Orders on immigrant deportation and due process, threats and funding cuts aimed at law firms and universities considered “woke” and layoffs initiated by DOGE and more. Court challenges will slow the administration’s agenda and create uncertainty in workplaces. Net impact: negative. Uncertainty paralyses planning and operations in every public and private healthcare organization.
  • The Public Mood: The afterglow of the election has dissipated and the public’s mood has shifted from guarded optimism to anxiety and despair. The public’s uncertain about tariffs and worried about household expenses. Net impact: negative. Healthcare affordability and prices are major concerns to consumers: the majority (76%) think the system is more concerned about profitability than patient care (Jarrard).

Current events in these areas portend headwinds for most public and private healthcare organizations where attention in the next 100 days will be focused in these areas:

  • Oversight: New rules, programmatic priorities, key personnel appointments and re-organization in HHS, CMS, the FDA and VA: RFKJ’s MAHA plans and Commission appointees, Oz’ affinity for Medicare Advantage predisposition toward value-based care and Makary’s overhaul of the FDA’s drug oversight process will be “on the table” in the next 100 days.
  • Funding: Healthcare funding in the FY 2026 federal budget. The GOP-controlled House and Senate can pass a budget with minimal support from Dem’s that reflects a serious effort to reduce the federal debt ($37 trillion/123% of GDP– up from $20 trillion in 2017). Healthcare cuts expected to be significant though rumored massive cuts to Medicaid unlikely.
  • States: State healthcare referenda and executive actions: states are evaluating price controls on drugs and hospitals, reparations from insurers for delays and prior-authorizations, scope of practice restrictions and more. Topping the watchlist in most states is Medicaid funding and potential fallout from discontinued ACA marketplace subsidies factored into the FY 2026 budget being finalized by the GOP-led Congress in DC.
  • SCOTUS: Supreme Court decisions will be handed down or before June 30 when SCOTUS’ 2024 term ends including Braidwood Management v. Becerra which will determine whether the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that private insurers cover preventive services without cost-sharing will continue. The court will also opine to the authority of the HHS secretary to appoint members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The potential impact of these decisions on coverage, insurance premiums and access to preventive health services is pervasive.
  • Financial markets: Capital markets are in a watchful waiting mode as US trade policy unfolds, inflation fluctuates, the fed’s interest rate determination is disclosed and consumer spending reacts. Private investing in healthcare remains opportunistic though deal flow is shifting and risk thresholds tightening.
  • Polls: Polls draw the attention of media and elected officials. They influence how organizations prioritize advocacy strategies, address consumer complaints and concerns and manage reputations. As reflected in numerous national polls, trust in the system and its key players—insurers, hospitals, drug companies—is at a historic low.

Each sector in U.S. healthcare will be impacted differently: Three face the strongest headwinds:

  • Hospitals: Hospitals face enormous financial challenges, especially not-for-profits, safety net, rural and veteran’s hospitals. Last week’s unfavorable SCOTUS decision against hospitals alleging DSH under-payments will cost $1 billion per year. Congressional adoption of site neutral payment policy could cost $15 billion/year. Drug prices, labor costs, insurer payment cuts and red-tape will negate operating margins and lower investment income knee-capping growth and innovation plans. Complicating matters, employed physicians will demand higher pay and more control.  And Congressional budget-creators believe the sector’s 31% share of total healthcare spending makes it ripe for cuts attributable to “waste, fraud and abuse”.
  • Insurers: Medicare Advantage (which enjoys support by key administrators including CMS’ Mehmet Oz) has become a lightening rod of insurer criticism alongside prior authorization policies that restrict care. Coverage remains key to household financial security but insurers are seen as barriers to rather than facilitators of evidence-based cost-effective care. And the concentration of power in corporate titans (United, Humana, Cigna, CVS, Centene and others) is viewed with skepticism.
  • Public Health: Public health is not a priority in the U.S. health system despite recognition that social determinants account for 70% of the system’s $5 trillion spending. Most programs are funded by state and local governments with federal support limited. Public health is not seen as an investment and, in some settings treated with disdain as welfare or waste. As Mayors and Governors develop plans for the rest of 2025 and through 2026, public health cuts will be likely as federal co-funding becomes scarce.

The next 100 days will define the national agenda for the mid-term election in November 2026, reflect the solidarity of the MAGA movement and show the impact of tariffs on inflation, consumer prices and the public’s mood.

Healthcare leaders will be watching closely. All will be impacted.

The Implications of Losing Access to Tax-Exempt Financing

Posted on by • Posted in Credit Downgrade, Credit Management, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Credit Upgrade, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty, Tax Exempt Debt, Tax Exempt Status, Tax-Exempt Status • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/implications-losing-access-tax-exempt-financing

On January 17, 2025, a list of potential cost reductions to the federal budget was released by Republicans on the House Budget Committee. The list is long and covers the federal budget waterfront, but it spends considerable time focusing on reductions to healthcare spending. This laundry list of cost reductions is important because the highest priority of the Trump administration is a further reduction in federal taxes. A reduction in taxes would, of course, reduce federal revenue; if federal expenses are not proportionately reduced then the federal deficit will increase. When the deficit increases then the federal debt must increase and at that point the overall impact on the American economy becomes concerning and possibly damaging. There has already been much public speculation as to how the Federal Reserve might react to such a scenario.

It is not possible right now to highlight and describe all of the House budget proposals, but one proposal absolutely stands out: The suggestion to eliminate the tax-exempt status for interest payments on all municipal bonds, or potentially in a more targeted manner, for private activity bonds, including those issued by not-for-profit hospitals. Siebert Williams Shank, an investment banking firm, described the elimination of tax exemption for municipal bonds as “the most alarming of the proposed reforms impacting non-profit and municipal issuers.”[1] This is certainly true for hospitals, since over the past 60 years the growth and capability of America’s hospitals has been substantially constructed on the foundation of flexible and relatively inexpensive tax-exempt debt. Given all of this, it is not too early to begin speculating on the impact of the elimination of tax-exempt debt on hospital finances and strategy.

We should also point out that a separate topic is under discussion, related to the potential loss of not-for-profit status for hospitals and health systems. Such a maneuver could potentially expose hospitals to income taxes, property taxes, and higher funding costs. For now, that is beyond the scope of this blog but may be something we write about in future posts.

Below is a series of important questions related to the elimination of tax-exempt financing and some speculations on the overall impact:

  1. What immediately happens if 501(c)(3) hospitals lose the ability to issue tax-exempt bonds? Let’s treat fixed rate debt first. Assume for now that only newly issued debt would be affected and that all currently outstanding tax-exempt fixed rate debt would remain tax-exempt. We could see an effort to apply any changes retroactively to existing bonds, but we view that as unlikely. Therefore, our current expectation is that outstanding fixed-rate debt would not see a change in interest expense.

    However, it is possible that outstanding floating rate debt would immediately begin to trade based on the taxable equivalent. Historically the tax-exempt floating rate index trades at about 65% of the taxable index. The difference between the tax-exempt and taxable floating rate indices in the current market is 175 basis points. For every $100 million of debt, this would increase interest expense by $1.75m annually.
  2. How would new hospital debt be issued? New debt would be issued in the municipal market on a taxable basis or in the corporate taxable market. The taxable municipal market would need to adapt and expand to accommodate a significant level of new issuance. The concern in the corporate taxable market is greater. Currently, the corporate market requires issuance of significant dollar size and generally the issuer brings significant name recognition to the market. Many hospitals may have difficulty meeting the issuance size of the corporate debt market and/or the necessary market recognition. As such, smaller and less frequent issuers would expect to pay a penalty of 25-50 basis points for issuing in the corporate market.
  3. If tax-exempt debt goes away will certain hospitals be advantaged and others disadvantaged? Larger hospitals with national or regional name recognition that issue bonds with sufficiently large transaction size and frequency will likely borrow at better terms and lower rates. Smaller- to medium-sized hospitals may find borrowing much more difficult, and borrowing may come with more problematic terms and/or amortization schedules and likely higher interest rates.
  4. Will borrowing costs go up? The cost of funds for new borrowings would increase for all hospital borrowers. For a typical A-rated hospital, annual interest expense would increase by approximately 30%. For example, in the current market, on $100 million of new debt, average annual interest expense would increase by $815,000 annually.
  5. Will debt capacity go down? All other things being equal, interest rates will go up and hospital debt capacity will go down. Also, if the taxable market shortens amortization schedules, then that will decrease overall debt capacity as well.
  6. What would the impact of the elimination of tax-exempt debt be on synthetic fixed rate structures? Hospitals have long employed derivative structures to hedge interest rate risk on outstanding variable rate bonds and loans. The loss of tax-exemption for outstanding variable rate bonds and loans would precipitate an adjustment to taxable rates, but corresponding swap cash flows are not designed to adjust. Interest rate risk is hedged, but tax reform risk is not. The net effect to borrowers would be an increase in cost similar to the cost contemplated above for variable rate bonds.
  7. What are the rating implications of the elimination of the tax-exempt market? Rating implications will be varied. Hospitals with strong financial performance and liquidity are likely to absorb the increased interest expense of a taxable borrowing with little to no rating impact. In fact, over the past decade, many larger health systems in the AA rating categories have successfully issued debt in the taxable market without rating implications despite a higher borrowing rate. Even amid the pandemic chaos of 2021, numerous AA and A rated systems issued sizable, taxable debt offerings to bolster liquidity as proceeds were for general corporate purposes and not restricted by a third-party, such as a bond trustee.

    Lower-rated hospitals with modest performance and below-average liquidity will be at greater risk for a downgrade. These hospitals may not be able to absorb the increased interest expense and maintain their ratings. While interest expense is typically a small percentage of a hospital’s total expenses, it is a use of cash flow.

    We do not anticipate the rating agencies will take wholesale downgrade action on the rated portfolio as there would likely be a phase-in period before the elimination occurs. Rather, we expect the rating agencies will take a measured approach with a case-by-case evaluation of each rated organization through the normal course of surveillance, as they did during the pandemic and liquidity crisis in 2008. A dialogue on capital budgets and funding sources, typically held at the end of a rating meeting, would be moved to the top of the agenda, as it will have a direct impact on long-term viability.
  8. How would the loss of the tax-exempt market impact the pace of consolidation in the hospital industry? If a hospital cannot afford the taxable market, then large capital projects would need to be funded through cash and operations. This inevitably will limit organizational liquidity, which will lead to downward rating pressure. Some hospitals, in such a situation, will be unable to both fund capital and adequately serve their local community and, therefore, will need to find a partner who can. We anticipate that the loss of the tax-exempt bond market will lead to further consolidation in the industry.

Let’s indulge in one last bit of speculation. What is the probability that Congress will pass legislation that eliminates tax-exempt financing? Sources in Washington tell us that it is premature to wager on any of the items put forth by the Budget Committee. And it should be noted that over the years the elimination of tax-exempt financing has been proposed on several occasions and never advanced in Congress. However, one well-informed source noted that as the tax and related legislation moves forward, there is likely to be significant horse-trading (especially in the House) to secure the necessary votes to pass the entire package. What happens during that horse-trading process is anybody’s guess. So the best advice to our hospital readership right now is to not take anything for granted. But be absolutely assured that the maintenance of tax-exempt financing is an essential strategic component for the successful future of America’s hospitals.

Implications of the National Hospital Flash Report for Hospital Operations

Posted on by • Posted in Financial Goals, Financial Performance, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Management, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Margin Drivers, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/implications-national-hospital-flash-report-hospital-operations

For the past six years, Kaufman Hall has been publishing its monthly National Hospital Flash Report, which is designed to provide a pulse on the health of the healthcare industry and to highlight meaningful and pertinent trends for hospital and health system leaders. The data that powers the report is taken from over 1,300 hospitals, which are reflective of all geographic locations, hospital sizes and types. To ensure the content is digestible and understandable, Kaufman Hall aggregates the data into larger cohorts and measures a select set of key metrics that are most important for understanding the health of the industry. Industry groups and system leaders use these reports both for peer review purposes but also to paint an overall story for their boards and communities.

Through a detailed review of the Flash Report data, each month Kaufman Hall develops findings that healthcare leaders may find instructive as they determine how to adjust to changing market conditions. In 2024 it was reasonably obvious that there was a widening divide between the highest performing hospitals and the lowest performers. While a significant cadre of hospitals and health systems have recovered to pre-Covid financial success, 37% of American hospitals continue to lose money.

We are often asked what the successful hospitals are doing—and importantly—what the data tell us about those that are less successful. Using 2024 data, we have drawn two important conclusions around the role of leading management teams and what separates their organizations from others. 

These teams have:

  1. A sophisticated and balanced approach to the management of departmental performance: and
  2. An understanding of the management of shared service costs.

A sophisticated and balanced approach to the management of departmental performance

It turns out that current data demonstrate that the management of departmental performance is critical to overall hospital financial performance but in a more nuanced manner than expected.

Our analysis was conducted as follows:

  • First, we looked at data across hospitals nationwide to understand the difference in departmental performance between top and bottom performing hospitals.
  • Second, we ranked each department in a hospital from 0 to 100, with 100 representing the best performance based on expense per unit of service.
  • Third, we then grouped all hospitals based on their bottom-line operating margin into three cohorts: those hospitals that fell into the bottom quartile of financial performance, those between the bottom and top quartile, and those in the top quartile.
  • Finally, we created a histogram of the average composition of departmental performance across each of the three margin cohorts.

The findings demonstrate that organizations with top financial performance have departmental results that look like a normal curve around the median. Said more simply, in top-performing hospitals the number of lower-performing departments is roughly equal to the number of higher-performing departments, with most departments operating near the national departmental medians. In contrast, hospitals with the lowest financial performance show a much greater number of departments operating with high cost per units of service and a few departments that operate extremely efficiently.

It appears that poorer performing hospitals focus on the management of the largest clinical and nursing areas. These are the departments that tend to be the “easiest” to manage because they are the “easiest” to benchmark. But the data show that these same hospitals tend to have poor performance over the remainder of the departments, which leads to poor financial results for the total hospital.

Hospitals with top quartile financial performance tend to manage all departments as close to the benchmark median as possible. Such a result means spending more managerial time on the harder to manage departments, especially those departments that are more “unique” and where overall performance is harder to characterize and benchmark.

The observations that can be drawn here are important and as follows:

  • First, oversight and management of individual departments is critical to the financial success of the entire hospital or system.
  • Second, the overall organizational structure of departmental administration is critical as well. The more complicated your departmental structure and the more individual departments you maintain and administer, the more difficult it will be to manage a majority of departments to “median” results.

The data suggest a perhaps unexpected operational conclusion. The achievement of median national departmental benchmarks is leading to overall positive hospital financial operating margins. This outcome offers significant budgeting advice and over the course of a fiscal year should prove to be a remarkably useful administrative lesson.

Understanding the management of shared service costs

Given the growing costs of shared services and related overhead, Kaufman Hall wanted a closer look at how well hospital organizations were scaling shared service costs related to the organization’s size. Unexpectedly, shared service costs were not highly correlated to the size of the hospital or hospital system. This suggests that the management of shared service costs on a per unit basis is difficult and that this aspect of expense management requires diligent focus to enact and sustain cost change. Our data often indicates a wide variation of cost performance among shared services of similar types within different large organizations. This suggests that standardization of such services is not well developed and that there may be a certain level of wishful thinking that increases in organizational size will automatically correlate to lower per unit costs.

The data did indicate, however, that larger organizations can achieve higher performance over smaller organizations relative to shared service expenses. This is an indication that size can be leveraged for superior performance but that such results are not automatic. The takeaway here is that the total spend for shared service functions is very substantial and growing. In that regard, it is most important to proactively address expenses in these areas, build appropriate management plans, and understand how to focus on the right buttons and levers. To the extent that organizations are assuming that growth (both organic and inorganic) will create economies of scale with the overall shared service apparatus, the data demonstrate that such an outcome is possible but only with strong planning and execution.

Operating hospitals in 2025 is flat-out hard and likely to get harder over the year. Hospital executives right now should use every managerial advantage available. A close look at the National Hospital Flash Report data identifies important relationships that provide for a more nuanced and sophisticated operation of both individual departments and the bundle of shared services. The data clearly demonstrate that better results in both these areas will lead to improved financial performance within the hospital overall. The data also indicate key managerial strategies that will lead to such improvement.

The Perfect Storm facing the Healthcare Workforce: Eight Current Issues frame the Challenge

Posted on by • Posted in Employee Layoffs, Executive Compensation, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Outlook, Market Power, Medicaid, Private Equity, Tax-Exempt Status, Workforce Issues, Workforce Modernization • Leave a comment
The Perfect Storm facing the Healthcare Workforce: Eight Current Issues frame the Challenge

Tonight at midnight, thousands of federal workers face the possibility their jobs will be eliminated as part of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) federal cost reduction initiative under Elon Musk’ leadership. Already, thousands who serve in federal healthcare roles at the NIH, CDC and USAID have been terminated and personnel in agencies including CMS, HHS and the FDA are likely to follow.

The federal healthcare workforce is large exceeding more than 2.5 million who serve agencies and programs as providers, clerks, administrators, scientists, analysts, counselors and more. More than half work on an hourly basis, and 95% work outside DC in field offices and clinics. For the vast majority, their work goes unnoticed except when “government waste” efforts like DOGE spring up. In those times, they’re relegated to “expendables” status and their numbers are cut.

The same can be said for the larger private U.S. healthcare workforce. Per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, industry employment was 21.4 million, or 12.8% of total U.S. employment in 2023 and is expected to reach 24 million by 2030. It’s the largest private employer in the U.S. economy and includes many roles considered “expendable” in their organizations.

Facts about the U.S. healthcare workforce:

  • More than 70% of the healthcare workforce work in provider settings including 7.4 million who work in hospitals.
  • More than half work in non-clinical roles.
  • Home health aides is the highest growth cohort and hospitals employ the biggest number (7.4 million).
  • 29% of physicians and 15% of nurses are foreign born, almost three-fourths of the workforce are women, two-thirds are non-Hispanic whites, and the majority are older than 50.
  • Its licensed professions enjoy public trust ranking among Gallup’s highest rated though all have declined:
 % 2023‘19-‘23’23 Rank % 2023‘19-‘23’23 Rank
Nurses78-71Pharmacists55-96
Dentists59-2 Psychiatrists36-79
Medical doctors56-95Chiropractors33-810

The Perfect storm

The healthcare workforce is unsteady: while stress and burnout are associated with doctors and nurses primarily, they cut across every workgroup and setting.

Eight fairly recent issues complicate efforts to achieve healthcare workforce stability:

Increased costs of living: 

Consumers are worried about their costs of living: it hits home hardest among young, low-income households including dual eligible seniors for whom gas, food and transportation are increasing faster than their incomes, and rents exceed 50% of their income. The healthcare workforce takes a direct hit: one in five we employ cannot pay their own medical bills.

Slowdown in consolidation: 

The Federal Trade Commission’s new pre-merger notification mandate that went in effect today essentially requires greater pre-merger/acquisition disclosures and a likely slowdown in deals.  Organizations anticipating deals might default to layoffs to strengthen margins while the regulatory consolidation dust settles. Expendables will take a hit.

Uncertainty about Medicaid cuts: 

In the House’ budget reconciliation plan, Medicaid cuts of up to $880 billion/10 years are contemplated. A cut of that magnitude will accelerate closure of more than 400 rural hospitals already at risk and throw the entire Medicaid program into chaos for the 79 million it serves—among them 3 million low-hourly wage earners in the healthcare workforce and at least 2 million in-home unpaid caregivers who can’t afford paid assistance. The impact of Medicaid cuts on the healthcare workforce is potentially catastrophic for their jobs and their health.

Heightened attention to tax exemptions for not-for-profit hospitals: 

Large employers sent this recommendation to Congressional leaders last week as spending cuts were being considered: “Nonprofit hospitals, despite their tax-exempt status, frequently prioritize profits over patient care. Many have deeply questionable arrangements with for-profit entities such as management companies or collections agencies, while others have “joint ventures” with Wall Street hedge funds or other for-profit provider or staffing companies. Nonprofit hospitals often shift the burden of their costs onto taxpayers and the communities they serve by overcharging for health care services, or abusing programs intended to provide access to low-cost care and prescription drugs for low-income patients. By eliminating nonprofit hospital status, resources could be more evenly distributed across the healthcare system, ensuring that hospitals are held accountable for their charitable care both to their communities and the tax laws that govern them.” Pressures on NFP hospitals to lower costs and operate more transparently are gaining momentum in state legislatures and non-healthcare corporate boardrooms. Belt tightening is likely. Layoffs are underway.

Heightened attention to executive compensation in healthcare organizations: 

Executive compensation, especially packages for CEO’s, is a growing focus of shareholder dissent, Congressional investigation, media coverage and employee disgruntlement. Compensation committee deliberations and fair market comparison data will be more publicly accessible to communities, rank and file employees, media, regulators and payers intensifying disparities between “labor” and “management”.

Increased tension between providers and insurers:

Health insurers are now recovering from 2 years of higher utilization and lower profits; hospitals did the same in 2022 and 2023. Neither is out of the woods and both are migrating to tribal warfare based on ownership (not-for-profit vs. investor owned vs. government owned), scale and ambition. Bigger, better-capitalized organizations in their ranks are faring better while many struggle. The workforce is caught in the crossfire.

Increased pressure on private equity-backed employers to exit: 

The private equity market for healthcare services has experienced a slow recovery after 2 disappointing years peppered by follow-on offerings in down rounds. Exit strategies are front and center to PE sponsors; workforce stability and retention is a means to an end to consummate the deal—that’s it.

The AI Yellow Brick Road: 

Last and potentially the most disruptive is the role artificial intelligence will play in redefining healthcare tasks and reorganizing the system’s processes based on large-language models and massive investments in technology. Job insecurity across the entire healthcare workforce is more dependent on geeks and less on licensed pro’s going forward.

These eight combine to make life miserable most days in health human resource management. DOGE will complicate matters more. It’s a concern in every sector of healthcare, and particularly serious in hospitals, medical practices, long-term and home care settings.

‘Modernizing the healthcare workforce’ sounds appealing, but for now, navigating these issues requires full attention. They require Board understanding and creative problem-solving by managers. And they merit a dignified and respectful approach to interactions with workers displaced by these circumstances: they’re not expendables, they’re individuals like you and me.