Category Archives: Health System

42 hospitals closed, filed for bankruptcy this year

Posted on by • Posted in American Hospital Association (AHA), Bankruptcy, Cash, Cash Reserves, Coronavirus, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Bankruptcy, Hospital Closure, Hospital Industry, Liquidity, Market Consolidation, Market Outlook, Market Trends • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/42-hospitals-closed-filed-for-bankruptcy-this-year.html?utm_medium=email

The Local Hospital Closed. These Doctors Didn't Give Up.

From reimbursement landscape challenges to dwindling patient volumes, many factors lead hospitals to shut down or file for bankruptcy. At least 42 hospitals across the U.S. have closed or entered bankruptcy this year, and the financial challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may force more hospitals to do the same in coming months. 

COVID-19 has created a cash crunch for many hospitals across the nation. They’re estimated to lose $200 billion between March 1 and June 30, according to a report from the American Hospital Association. More than $161 billion of the expected revenue losses will come from canceled services, including nonelective surgeries and outpatient treatment. Moody’s Investors Service said the sharp declines in revenue and cash flow caused by the suspension of elective procedures could cause more hospitals to default on their credit agreements this year than in 2019. 

Below are the provider organizations that have filed for bankruptcy or closed since Jan. 1, beginning with the most recent. They own and operate a combined 42 hospitals.

Our Lady of Bellefonte Hospital (Ashland, Ky.)
Bon Secours Mercy Health closed Our Lady of Bellefonte Hospital in Ashland, Ky., on April 30. The 214-bed hospital was originally slated to shut down in September of this year, but the timeline was moved up after employees began accepting new jobs or tendering resignations. Bon Secours cited local competition as one reason for the hospital closure. Despite efforts to help sustain hospital operations, Bon Secours was unable to “effectively operate in an environment that has multiple acute care facilities competing for the same patients, providers and services,” the health system said.

Williamson (W.Va.) Hospital
Williamson Hospital filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October and was operating on thin margins for months before shutting down on April 21. The 76-bed hospital said a drop in patient volume due to the COVID-19 pandemic forced it to close. CEO Gene Preston said the decline in patient volume was “too sudden and severe” for the hospital to sustain operations.

Decatur County General Hospital (Parsons, Tenn.)
Decatur County General Hospital closed April 15, a few weeks after the local hospital board voted to shut it down. Decatur County Mayor Mike Creasy said the closure was attributable to a few factors, including rising costs, Tennessee’s lack of Medicaid expansion and broader financial challenges facing the rural healthcare system in the U.S.

Quorum Health (Brentwood, Tenn.)
Quorum Health and its 23 hospitals filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy April 7. The company, a spinoff of Franklin, Tenn.-based Community Health Systems, said the bankruptcy filing is part of a plan to recapitalize the business and reduce its debt load.

UPMC Susquehanna Sunbury (Pa.)
UPMC Susquehanna Sunbury closed March 31. Pittsburgh-based UPMC announced plans in December to close the rural hospital, citing dwindling patient volumes. Sunbury’s population was 9,905 at the 2010 census, down more than 6 percent from 10 years earlier. Though the hospital officially closed its doors in March, it shut down its emergency department and ended inpatient services Jan. 31.

Fairmont (W.Va.) Regional Medical Center
Irvine, Calif.-based Alecto Healthcare Services closed Fairmont Regional Medical Center on March 19. Alecto announced plans in February to close the 207-bed hospital, citing financial challenges. “Our plans to reorganize some administrative functions and develop other revenue sources were insufficient to stop the financial losses at FRMC,” Fairmont Regional CEO Bob Adcock said. “Our efforts to find a buyer or new source of financing were unsuccessful.” Morgantown-based West Virginia University Medicine will open a 10-bed hospital with an emergency department at the former Fairmont Regional Medical Center by the end of June.

Sumner Community Hospital (Wellington, Kan.)
Sumner Community Hospital closed March 12 without providing notice to employees or the local community. Kansas City, Mo.-based Rural Hospital Group, which acquired the hospital in 2018, cited financial difficulties and lack of support from local physicians as reasons for the closure. “Lack of support from the local medical community was the primary reason we are having to close the hospital,” RHG said. “We regret having to make this decision; however, despite operating the hospital in the most fiscally responsible manner possible, we simply could not overcome the divide that has existed from the time we purchased the hospital until today.”

Randolph Health
Randolph Health, a single-hospital system based in Asheboro, N.C., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy March 6. Randolph Health leaders have taken several steps in recent years to improve the health system’s financial picture, and they’ve made progress toward that goal. Entering Chapter 11 bankruptcy will allow Randolph Health to restructure its debt, which officials said is necessary to ensure the health system continues to provide care for many more years.

Pickens County Medical Center (Carrollton, Ala.)
Pickens County Medical Center closed March 6. Hospital leaders said the closure was attributable to the hospital’s unsustainable financial position. A news release announcing the closure specifically cited reduced federal funding, lower reimbursement from commercial payers and declining patient visits.

The Medical Center at Elizabeth Place (Dayton, Ohio)
The Medical Center at Elizabeth Place, a 12-bed hospital owned by physicians in Dayton, Ohio, closed March 5. The closure came after years of financial problems. In January 2019, the Medical Center at Elizabeth Place lost its certification as a hospital, meaning it couldn’t bill Medicare or Medicaid for services. Sixty to 65 percent of the hospital’s patients were covered through the federal programs.

Mayo Clinic Health System-Springfield (Minn.)
Mayo Clinic Health System closed its hospital in Springfield, Minn., on March 1. Mayo announced plans in December to close the hospital and its clinics in Springfield and Lamberton, Minn. At that time, James Hebl, MD, regional vice president of Mayo Clinic Health System, said the facilities faced staffing challenges, dwindling patient volumes and other issues. The hospital in Springfield is one of eight hospitals within a less than 40-mile radius, which has led to declining admissions and low use of the emergency department, Dr. Hebl said.

Faith Community Health System
Faith Community Health System, a single-hospital system based in Jacksboro, Texas and part of the Jack County (Texas) Hospital District, first entered Chapter 9 bankruptcy — a bankruptcy proceeding that offers distressed municipalities protection from creditors while a repayment plan is negotiated — in February. The bankruptcy court dismissed the case May 26 at the request of the health system. The health system asked the court to dismiss the bankruptcy case to allow it to apply for a Paycheck Protection Program loan through a Small Business Association lender. On June 11, Faith Community Health System reentered Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

Pinnacle Healthcare System
Overland Park, Kan.-based Pinnacle Healthcare System and its hospitals in Missouri and Kansas filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Feb. 12. Pinnacle Regional Hospital in Boonville, Mo., formerly known as Cooper County Memorial Hospital, entered bankruptcy about a month after it abruptly shut down. Pinnacle Regional Hospital in Overland Park, formerly called Blue Valley Hospital, closed about two months after entering bankruptcy.

Central Hospital of Bowie (Texas)
Central Hospital of Bowie abruptly closed Feb. 4. Hospital officials said the facility was shut down to enable them to restructure the business. Hospital leaders voluntarily surrendered the license for Central Hospital of Bowie.

Ellwood City (Pa.) Medical Center
Ellwood City Medical Center officially closed Jan. 31. The hospital was operating under a provisional license in November when the Pennsylvania Department of Health ordered it to suspend inpatient and emergency services due to serious violations, including failure to pay employees and the inability to offer surgical services. The hospital’s owner, Americore Health, suspended all clinical services at Ellwood City Medical Center Dec. 10. At that time, hospital officials said they hoped to reopen the facility in January. Plans to reopen were halted Jan. 3 after the health department conducted an onsite inspection and determined the hospital “had not shown its suitability to resume providing any health care services.”

Thomas Health (South Charleston, W.Va.)
Thomas Health and its two hospitals filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Jan. 10. In an affidavit filed in the bankruptcy case, Thomas Health President and CEO Daniel J. Lauffer cited several reasons the health system is facing financial challenges, including reduced reimbursement rates and patient outmigration. The health system announced June 18 that it reached an agreement in principle with a new capital partner that would allow it to emerge from bankruptcy.

St. Vincent Medical Center (Los Angeles)
St. Vincent Medical Center closed in January, roughly three weeks after El Segundo, Calif.-based Verity Health announced plans to shut down the 366-bed hospital. Verity, a nonprofit health system that entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2018, shut down St. Vincent after a deal to sell four of its hospitals fell through. In April, Patrick Soon-Shiong, MD, the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, purchased St. Vincent out of bankruptcy for $135 million.

Astria Regional Medical Center (Yakima, Wash.)
Astria Regional Medical Center filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in May 2019 and closed in January. When the hospital closed, 463 employees lost their jobs. Attorneys representing Astria Health said the closure of Astria Regional Medical Center, which has lost $40 million since 2017, puts Astria Health in a better financial position. “As a result of the closure … the rest of the system’s cash flows will be sufficient to safely operate patient care operations and facilities and maintain administrative solvency of the estate,” states a status report filed Jan. 20 with the bankruptcy court.

 

 

 

Moody’s: Patient volume recovered a bit in May, but providers face long road to recovery

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Bad Debt Expense, Cash, Cash Reserves, Coronavirus, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Crisis, Crisis Management, Deferred Healthcare, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Emergency Care, Federation of American Hospitals, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Liquidity, Market Outlook, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty, Medicaid, Medicare Advance Payments, Mortality, Office Visit, Pandemic, Payor Mix, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Physician, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle, Social Distancing, Supply Chain, The CARES Act • Leave a comment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/moody-s-patient-volume-recovering-may-but-providers-face-long-road-to-recovery?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWmpjeVlXVTRZV0l5T1RndyIsInQiOiJLWWxjamNKK2lkZmNjcXV4dm0rdjZNS2lOanZtYTFoenViQjMzWnF0RGNlY1pkcjVGcFwvZFY4VjFaUUlZaFRBT1NRMGE5eWhGK1ZmR01ZSWVZWGMxOHRzTkptZVZXZmc5UnNvM3pVM2VIWDh6VllldFc3OGNZTTMxTDJrXC8wbzN1In0%3D&mrkid=959610

Moody's: Patient volume recovered a bit in May, but providers face ...

Patient volumes at hospitals, doctors’ and dentists’ offices recovered slightly in May but lagged well behind pre-pandemic levels, according to a new analysis from Moody’s Investors Service.

In all, the ratings agency estimated total surgeries at rated for-profit hospitals declined by 55% to 70% in April compared with the same period in 2019. States required hospitals to cancel or delay elective procedures, which are vital to hospitals’ bottom lines.

“Patients that had been under the care of physicians before the pandemic will return first in order to address known health needs,” officials from the ratings agency said in a statement. “Physicians and surgeons will be motivated to extend office or surgical hours in order to accommodate these patients.”

Those declines narrowed to 20% to 40% in May when compared to 2019.

Emergency room and urgent care volumes were still down 35% to 50% in May.

“This could reflect the prevalence of working-from-home arrangements and people generally staying home, which is leading to a decrease in automobile and other accidents outside the home,” the analysis said. “Weak ER volumes also suggest that many people remain apprehensive to enter a hospital, particularly for lower acuity care.”

The good news:  The analysis estimated it is unlikely there will be a return to the nationwide decline of volume experienced in late March and April because healthcare facilities are more prepared for COVID-19.

For instance, hospitals have enough personal protective equipment for staff and have expanded testing, the analysis said.

For-profit hospitals also have “unusually strong liquidity to help them weather the effects of the revenue loss associated with canceled or postponed procedures,” Moody’s added. “That is largely due to the CARES Act and other government financial relief programs that have caused hospital cash balances to swell.”

However, the bill for one of those sources of relief is coming due soon.

Hospitals and other providers will have to start repaying Medicare for advance payments starting this summer. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services doled out more than $100 billion in advance payments to providers before suspending the program in late April.

Hospital group Federation of American Hospitals asked Congress to change the repayment terms for such advance payments, including giving providers at least a year to start repaying the loans.

Another risk for providers is the change in payer mix as people lose jobs and commercial coverage, shifting them onto Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) insurance exchanges.

“This will lead to rising bad debt expense and a higher percentage of revenue generated from Medicaid or [ACA] insurance exchange products, which typically pay considerably lower rates than commercial insurance,” Moody’s said.

 

 

 

Coronavirus Doesn’t Recognize Man-Made Borders

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Access, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Economy Reopening, Essential Health Benefits, Essential Workers, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Bed Shortage, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Intensive Care (ICU), Mortality, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Determinants of Health, Social Distancing, Supply Chain • Leave a comment

Coronavirus Doesn’t Recognize Man-Made Borders

Coronavirus Doesn't Recognize Man-Made Borders - California Health ...

From El Centro Regional Medical Center, the largest hospital in California’s Imperial County, it takes just 30 minutes to drive to Mexicali, the capital of the Mexican state of Baja California. The international boundary that separates Mexicali from Imperial County is a bridge between nations. Every day, thousands of people cross that border for work or school. An estimated 275,000 US citizens and green card holders live in Baja California. El Centro Regional Medical Center has 60 employees who reside in Mexicali and commute across the border, CEO Adolphe Edward told Julie Small of KQED.

Now these inextricably linked places have become two of the most concerning COVID-19 hot spots in the US and Mexico. While Imperial County is one of California’s most sparsely populated counties, it has the state’s highest per capita infection rate — 836 per 100,000, according to the California Department of Public Health. This rate is more than four times greater than Los Angeles County’s, which is second-highest on that list. Imperial County has 4,800 confirmed positive cases and 64 deaths, and its southern neighbor Mexicali has 4,245 infections and 717 deaths.

The COVID-19 crisis on the border is straining the local health care system. El Centro Regional Medical Center has 161 beds, including 20 in its intensive care unit (ICU). About half of all its inpatients have COVID-19, Gustavo Solis reported in the Los Angeles Times, and the facility no longer has any available ventilators.

When Mexicali’s hospitals reached capacity in late May, administrators alerted El Centro that they would be diverting American patients to the medical center. “They said, ‘Hey, our hospitals are full, you’re about to get the surge,’” Judy Cruz, director of El Centro’s emergency department, recounted to Rebecca Plevin in the Palm Springs Desert Sun.

By the first week of June, El Centro was so overburdened that “a patient was being transferred from the hospital in El Centro every two to three hours, compared to 17 in an entire month before the COVID-19 pandemic,” Miriam Jordan reported in the New York Times.

Border Hospitals Filled to Capacity

Since April, hospitals in neighboring San Diego and Riverside Counties have been accepting patient transfers to alleviate the caseload at the lone hospital in El Centro, but the health emergency has escalated and now those counties need relief. “We froze all transfers from Imperial County [on June 9] just to make sure that we have enough room if we do have more cases here in San Diego County,” Chris Van Gorder, CEO of Scripps Health, told Paul Sisson in the San Diego Union-Tribune. El Centro patients are now being airlifted as far as San Francisco and Sacramento.

According to the US Census Bureau, nearly 85% of Imperial County residents are Latino, and statewide, Latinos bear a disproportionate burden of COVID-19. The California Department of Public Health reports that Latinos make up 39% of California’s population but 57% of confirmed COVID-19 cases.

Nonessential travel between the US and Mexico has been restricted since March 21, with the measure recently extended until July 21. However, jobs in Southern California, such as in agricultural fields and packing houses, require regular movement between the two countries. “I’m always afraid that people are imagining this rush on the border,” Andrea Bowers, a spokesperson for the Imperial County Public Health Department, told Small. “It’s just folks living their everyday life.”

These jobs, some of which are considered essential because of their role in the food supply chain, may have contributed to the COVID-19 crisis on the border. Agricultural workers often lack access to adequate personal protective equipment and are unable to practice physical distancing. They also are exposed to air pollution, pesticides, heat, and more — long-term exposures that can cause the underlying health conditions that raise the risk of death for COVID-19 patients.

Comite Civico del Valle, a nonprofit focused on environmental health and civic engagement in Imperial Valley, set up 40 air pollution monitors throughout the county and found that levels of tiny, dangerous particulates violated federal limits, Solis reported.

“I can tell you there’s hypertension, there’s poor air pollution, there’s cancers, there’s asthma, there’s diabetes, there’s countless things people here are exposed to,” David Olmedo, an environmental health activist with Comite Civico del Valle, told Solis.

Fear of New Surges

With summer socializing in full swing, health experts worry that COVID-19 spikes will follow. Imperial County saw surges after Mother’s Day and Memorial Day, probably because of lapsed physical distancing and mask use at social events.

Latinos in California are adhering to recommended public health behaviors to slow the spread of the virus. CHCF’s recent COVID-19 tracking poll with Ipsos asked Californians about their compliance with recommended behaviors. Eighty-four percent of Californians, including 87% of Latinos, say they routinely wear a mask in public spaces all or most of the time. Seventy-two percent of Californians, including 73% of Latinos, say they avoid unnecessary trips out of the home most or all of the time, and 90% of Californians, including 91% of Latinos, say they stay at least six feet away from others in public spaces all or most of the time.

A Push to Reopen Anyway

Most counties in California have met the state’s readiness criteria for entering the “Expanded Stage 2” phase of reopening. Imperial County has not. In the past two weeks, more than 20% of all COVID-19 tests in the county came back positive, the Sacramento Bee reported. The state requires counties to have a seven-day testing positivity rate of no more than 8% to enter Expanded Stage 2.

Still, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors is pushing Governor Gavin Newsom for local control over its reopening timetable. The county has a high poverty rate — 24% compared with the statewide average of 13% — and “bills are stacking up,” Luis Pancarte, chairman of the board, said on a recent press call.

He worries that because neighboring areas like Riverside and San Diego have opened some businesses with physical distancing measures in place, Imperial County residents will travel to patronize restaurants and stores. This movement could increase transmission of the new coronavirus, just as reopening Imperial County too soon could as well.

More than 1,350 residents have signed a petition asking Newsom to ignore the Board of Supervisor’s request, Solis reported. The residents called on the supervisors to focus instead on getting the infection rate down and expanding economic relief for workers and businesses.

Cruz, who has been working around the clock to handle the county’s COVID-19 crisis, agrees with the petitioners. The surges after Mother’s Day and Memorial Day made her “really concerned about unlocking and letting people go back to normal,” she told Plevin. “It’s going to be just like those little gatherings that happened [on holidays], but on a bigger scale.”

 

 

 

 

750 Million Struggling to Meet Basic Needs With No Safety Net

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Basic Needs Vulnerability Index, Health Policy, Health System, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers, Social Determinants of Health, Uncompensated Care, Underinsured, Uninsured, Vulnerable Populations • Leave a comment

https://news.gallup.com/poll/312401/750-million-struggling-meet-basic-needs-no-safety-net.aspx?utm_source=newsbrief-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NewsBriefNewsletter-NewsAlerts_June_06232020&utm_content=readarticle-textlink-6&elqTrackId=4006f0c4b7d144559ddd21458f847dda&elq=855f025f02c444dcb59fe9492ea16815&elqaid=4326&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=925

750 Million Struggling to Meet Basic Needs With No Safety Net

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • One in seven adults worldwide struggle to afford food, shelter with no help
  • At least some percentage in every country is “highly vulnerable”
  • Highly vulnerable in developed, developing world as likely to have health problems

This article is the first in series based on results from Gallup’s new Basic Needs Vulnerability Index.

Imagine being unable to afford food or to put a roof over your head, or maybe you are struggling to do both. On top of this, you don’t have family or friends who can help you.

Now, imagine this is all happening and a pandemic hits.

Gallup’s new Basic Needs Vulnerability Index, based on surveys in 142 countries in 2019, suggests this was the reality for hundreds of millions worldwide just as COVID-19 arrived.

About one in seven of the world’s adults — or about 750 million people — fall into this index’s “High Vulnerability” group, which means they are struggling to afford either food or shelter, or struggling to afford both, and don’t have friends or family to count on if they were in trouble.

Globally, at least some adults in every country fall into the High Vulnerability group, which is important because Gallup finds people in this group are potentially more at risk in almost every area of their lives. Worldwide, these percentages range from 1% in wealthy countries such as Denmark and Singapore to roughly 50% in places such as Benin and Afghanistan.

20200602_vulnerability@2x

Gallup’s Basic Needs Vulnerability Index gauges people’s potential exposure to risk from economic and other types of shocks like a pandemic. Beyond measuring people’s ability to afford food and shelter, this index also folds in whether people have personal safety nets — people who can help them when they are in trouble.

People worldwide fall into one of three groups:

High Vulnerability: People in this group say there were times in the past year when they were unable to afford food or shelter or say they struggled to afford both and say they do not have family or friends who could help them in times of trouble.

Moderate Vulnerability: People in this group say there were times in the past year when they were unable to afford food or shelter or say they struggled to afford both, and they do have family or friends to help them in times of trouble.

Low Vulnerability: People in this group say there were not times in the past year when they struggled to afford food or shelter and say they do have family or friends to help them if they were in trouble.

Before the pandemic, most of the world was at least moderately vulnerable, falling into either the High Vulnerability group (14%) or the Moderate Vulnerability group (39%). The rest, 47%, fell into the Low Vulnerability group.

The life experiences in these three groups illustrate the difference that not having family and friends to count on in times of trouble can make in people’s lives.

Highly Vulnerable Most Likely to Experience Health Problems, Experience Pain

While people in the High Vulnerability group are potentially more at risk in almost every area of their lives than those in the other two groups, they are particularly at risk when it comes to their health.

More than four in 10 (41%) of the highly vulnerable say they have health problems that keep them from doing activities that people their age normally do. This percentage drops to 29% among those who are moderately vulnerable and to 14% among those with low vulnerability.

The same is true for experiences of physical pain. The highly vulnerable are also far more likely to say they experienced physical pain the day before the interview (53% have) compared with 37% in the moderately vulnerable and 20% in the lowest vulnerability group.

Looking at who the highly vulnerable are within the global population reinforces why the greater risks to their health are so important. Globally, people in the high vulnerability group are just as likely to be male or female (14% of each fall into this group), and percentages are similar in the 15 to 29 age group (12%) and 60 and older group (14%).

However, the highly vulnerable are more likely to live in rural (16%) rather than urban areas (10%) and be in the poorest 20% of the population (21%) than the richest 20% of the population (7%).

Highly Vulnerable in Developed and Developing Countries Poor Health in Common

As might be expected, most of the countries with the highest percentage in the High Vulnerability group are a mix of developing economies and notably one emerging economy — India — and the countries with the lowest percentage are developed, high-income economies.

However, regardless of where they are located or their level of development, the highly vulnerable populations look a lot alike. In fact, when it comes to health problems, among the highly vulnerable populations, almost the exact same percentage in developing economies (41%) and high-income economies (42%) report having them.

The highly vulnerable in developing countries are only slightly more likely to report experiencing physical pain (53%) than this group in developed, high-income economies (47%).

Implications

As massive as the highly vulnerable group was before the pandemic, it could have been even larger, taking children and other household members into account.

As such, this new layer of vulnerability among populations will be important to monitor as the pandemic threatens to push tens of millions more people into extreme poverty and hunger this year and beyond.

 

 

 

 

Re-examining the delivery of high-value care through COVID-19

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Access, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Affordability, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Clinical Unmet Needs, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Emergency Care, Evidence, Evidence-Based Care, Evidence-Based Plan, Health Insurance Benefit Design, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Prices, High Value Care, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Low-Value Care, Medicaid, Medicare, Non-Essential Care, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Population Health, Primary Care, Quality, Quality of Care, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Unnecessary Care, Vaccination • Leave a comment

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/502851-examining-the-delivery-of-high-value-care-through-covid-19#bottom-story-socials

Re-examining the delivery of high-value care through COVID-19 ...

Over the past months, the country and the economy have radically shifted to unchartered territory. Now more than ever, we must reexamine how we spend health care dollars. 

While the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed challenges with health care in America, we see two overarching opportunities for change:

1) the under-delivery of evidence-based care that materially improves the lives and well-being of Americans and

2) the over-delivery of unnecessary and, sometimes, harmful care.

The implications of reallocating our health care spending to high-value services are far-ranging, from improving health to economic recovery. 

To prepare for coronavirus patients and preserve protective equipment, clinicians and hospitals across the country halted non-urgent visits and procedures. This has led to a substantial reduction in high-value care: emergency care for strokes or heart attacks, childhood vaccinations, and routine chronic disease management. However, one silver lining to this near shutdown is that a similarly dramatic reduction in the use of low-value services has also ensued.

As offices and hospitals re-open, we have a once in a century opportunity to align incentives for providers and consumers, so patients get more high-value services in high-value settings, while minimizing the resurgence of low-value care. For example, the use of pre-operative testing in low-risk patients should not accompany the return of elective procedures such as cataract removal. Conversely, benefit designs should permanently remove barriers to high-value settings and services, like patients receiving dialysis at home or phone calls with mental health providers.   

People with low incomes and multiple chronic conditions are of particular concern as unemployment rises and more Americans lose their health care coverage. Suboptimal access and affordability to high-value chronic disease care prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was well documented  As financially distressed providers re-open to a new normal, hopeful to regain their financial footing, highly profitable services are likely to be prioritized.

Unfortunately, clinical impact and profitability are frequently not linked. The post-COVID reopening should build on existing quality-driven payment models and increase reimbursement for high-value care to ensure that compensation better aligns with patient-centered outcomes.

At the same time, the dramatic fall in “non-essential care” included a significant reduction in services that we know to be harmful or useless. Billions are spent annually in the US on routinely delivered care that does not improve health; a recent study from 4 states reports that patients pay a substantial proportion (>10 percent) of this tab out-of-pocket. This type of low-value care can lead to direct harm to patients — physically or financially or both — as well as cascading iatrogenic harm, which can amplify the total cost of just one low-value service by up to 10 fold. Health care leaders, through the Smarter Health Care Coalition, have hence called on the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Azar to halt Medicare payments for services deemed low-value or harmful by the USPSTF. 

As offices and hospitals reopen with unprecedented clinical unmet needs, we have a unique opportunity to rebuild a flawed system. Payment policies should drive incentives to improve individual and population health, not the volume of services delivered. We emphasize that no given service is inherently high- or low-value, but that it depends heavily on the individual context. Thus, the implementation of new financial incentives for providers and patients needs to be nuanced and flexible to allow for patient-level variability. The added expenditures required for higher reimbursement rates for highly valuable services can be fully paid for by reducing the use of and reimbursement for low-value services.  

The delivery of evidence-based care should be the foundation of the new normal. We all agree that there is more than enough money in U.S. health care; it’s time that we start spending it on services that will make us a healthier nation.

 

 

 

Navigating a Post-Covid Path to the New Normal with Gist Healthcare CEO, Chas Roades

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Board, Board Assessment, Board Competency, Board Engagement, Brand Loyalty, Branding, Business to Consumer Model, Capitation, Cash, Cash Reserves, Competition, Consumer Loyalty, Consumer Trust, Consumerism, Coronavirus, Corporate Overhead, Corporate Strategy, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Crisis, Crisis Management, Cross Subsidy Model, Debt Service, Decision Making, Demographics, Disruption, Disruptive Technology, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Efficiency, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Fee for Service Reimbursement, Financial Incentives, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Focus, Governance, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Job, Job Market, Job Search, Job Security, KPI Dashboards, Labor Spend Management, Leadership, Leadership Alignment, Leadership Trust, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Share, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty, Medical Group, Member Health, Mergers & Acquisitions, Net Income, Nonoperating Income, Objectivity, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Physician, Physician Employment, Physician Independent Network (IPA), Physician Multispecialty Network, Physician Practice Management, Price Transparency, Pricing, Primary Care Delivery Model, Primary Care Loyalty, Private Equity, Profit Model, Quality, Quality of Care, Safety, Strategic Alignment, Strategic Leadership, Strategy, Streamlining Operations, Supply Chain, Surprise Bills, Telemedicine, Trust, Trusted Brand, Truth, Value, Value Creation, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Reality, Virtual Visit, Workplace Safety • Leave a comment

https://www.lrvhealth.com/podcast/?single_podcast=2203

Covid-19, Regulatory Changes and Election Implications: An Inside ...Chas Roades (@ChasRoades) | Twitter

Healthcare is Hard: A Podcast for Insiders; June 11, 2020

Over the course of nearly 20 years as Chief Research Officer at The Advisory Board Company, Chas Roades became a trusted advisor for CEOs, leadership teams and boards of directors at health systems across the country. When The Advisory Board was acquired by Optum in 2017, Chas left the company with Chief Medical Officer, Lisa Bielamowicz. Together they founded Gist Healthcare, where they play a similar role, but take an even deeper and more focused look at the issues health systems are facing.

As Chas explains, Gist Healthcare has members from Allentown, Pennsylvania to Beverly Hills, California and everywhere in between. Most of the organizations Gist works with are regional health systems in the $2 to $5 billion range, where Chas and his colleagues become adjunct members of the executive team and board. In this role, Chas is typically hopscotching the country for in-person meetings and strategy sessions, but Covid-19 has brought many changes.

“Almost overnight, Chas went from in-depth sessions about long-term five-year strategy, to discussions about how health systems will make it through the next six weeks and after that, adapt to the new normal. He spoke to Keith Figlioli about many of the issues impacting these discussions including:

  • Corporate Governance. The decisions health systems will be forced to make over the next two to five years are staggeringly big, according to Chas. As a result, Gist is spending a lot of time thinking about governance right now and how to help health systems supercharge governance processes to lay a foundation for the making these difficult choices.
  • Health Systems Acting Like Systems. As health systems struggle to maintain revenue and margins, they’ll be forced to streamline operations in a way that finally takes advantage of system value. As providers consolidated in recent years, they successfully met the goal of gaining size and negotiating leverage, but paid much less attention to the harder part – controlling cost and creating value. That’s about to change. It will be a lasting impact of Covid-19, and an opportunity for innovators.
  • The Telehealth Land Grab. Providers have quickly ramped-up telehealth services as a necessity to survive during lockdowns. But as telehealth plays a larger role in the new standard of care, payers will not sit idly by and are preparing to double-down on their own virtual care capabilities. They’re looking to take over the virtual space and own the digital front door in an effort to gain coveted customer loyalty. Chas talks about how it would be foolish for providers to expect that payers will continue reimburse at high rates or at parity for physical visits.
  • The Battleground Over Physicians. This is the other area to watch as payers and providers clash over the hearts and minds of consumers. The years-long trend of physician practices being acquired and rolled-up into larger organizations will significantly accelerate due to Covid-19. The financial pain the pandemic has caused will force some practices out of business and many others looking for an exit. And as health systems deal with their own financial hardships, payers with deep pockets are the more likely suitor.”

 

 

 

 

Recovery of medical staffing firms will lag behind hospitals, analysts say

Posted on by • Posted in Cash, Cash Reserves, Coronavirus, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economic Stimulus, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Emergency Care, Emergency Room Staffing, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Linear Path, Liquidity, Market Outlook, Market Uncertainty, Medicare Advance Payments, Private Equity, The CARES Act • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/recovery-of-medical-staffing-firms-will-lag-behind-hospitals-analysts-say/580171/

COVID-19 Triggers Cash Need, Lenders Tighten Reins | PYMNTS.com

Dive Brief:

  • Though U.S. hospital staffing companies are slowly beginning to recover from the COVID-19 shutdown and corresponding drop in revenues, that rebound will lag behind hospitals.
  • Recovery of giants like ER staffing firm Envision and AMN Healthcare, which has the largest network of qualified clinicians in the U.S., will be hindered as hospitals prefer to keep their own staff employed over external contractors amid a recession.
  • The “pace of recovery will not be linear,” and depends on the mix of service lines and geography, S&P Global analysts said in a Thursday note. Analysts also expect hospitals to aggressively renegotiate rates and terms with staffing companies later in the year, which could depress margins even more in the long-term.

Dive Insight:

The collapse in patient volume following stay-at-home guidelines implemented earlier this year has had a well-documented effect on provider finances. Hospitals and doctor’s offices prepared for an influx of COVID-19 patients as lucrative elective procedures declined and revenues imploded.

At the nadir in April, anesthesiology services were down 70%, radiology down 60% and ER visits down 40%, S&P said. Analysts expect tentative recovery in May and June, but no return to pre-pandemic volume until mid-2021.

The dramatic reduction slashed the revenues and cash flows of staffing companies, though the worst is likely over. At the beginning of the pandemic, staffing companies and hospitals alike took preventive measures like furloughing nonessential and back-office workers, extending vendor payment terms, aggressively collecting old receivables and onboarding doctors to telehealth. Many have kept up adequate frontline capacity too, despite uncertain demand.

The economy saw some small gains in May as furloughed employees began to trickle back to work. But the increase in health services employment that month came largely in dental health workers and physician offices. Hospitals shed another 27,000 jobs.

Hospitals will likely fill staffing needs internally, bringing back furloughed or laid off employees first as operations slowly improve, before turning once again to medical contractors.

“Given the extended disruption, a looming recession, and possible lasting changes to health care providers, credit metrics will be much weaker than what we had previously expected for nearly all staffing companies,” analysts wrote. “Some staffing companies, particularly those that are highly leveraged, may face very significant liquidity pressures for several months. It is possible not all will be able to withstand the sharp decline.”

S&P Global has taken a number of negative rating actions on staffing companies since late March.

Envision and anesthesiology firm ASP Napa, both rated ‘CCC’ with a negative outlook, have the greatest potential for a default. Envision, owned by private equity firm KKR and one of the largest U.S. physician staffing firms, is reportedly considering a bankruptcy filing as it struggles with $7 billion in debt.

Knoxville, Tenn.-based Team Health and clinical practice management firm SCP Health have enough liquidity to chug along for several more months of lower-than-normal volumes, while AMN and Utah-based CHG Healthcare Services are both in more solid positions to weather the pandemic, S&P said.

But professional outsourced staffing businesses, like anesthesiology and radiology, should recover more quickly, and many firms have gotten financial support from lenders and private equity backers. Team Health, for example, approved a senior secured term loan from its PE sponsor, Blackstone, which covers interest payments in April through mid-May.

Liquidity was also helped by the passage of the $2.2 trillion CARES relief legislation late March.

Several staffing companies have reportedly received grants from the $100 billion allocated by the legislation for providers, along with no-interest loans from accelerated Medicare payments, sparking questions over whether companies backed by cash-rich private equity firms need the funds.

 

 

 

 

Moody’s: US healthcare system rebounds from COVID-19 in May, but a bumpy road lies ahead

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Cash, Cash Reserves, Coronavirus, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economy, Economy Reopening, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Emergency Care, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Linear Path, Liquidity, Market Outlook, Market Uncertainty, Medical Device, Out of Pocket Expenses, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Robot-Assisted Surgery, Robotic Process Automation, Supply Chain • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/moodys-us-healthcare-system-rebounds-from-covid-19-in-may-but-a-bumpy-ro/580152/

Banks rating downgrade: Moody's changes outlook on Indian banks to ...

Dive Brief:

  • A Moody’s Investors Service report on Thursday suggests that the U.S. healthcare industry is on the rebound from COVID-19, but recovery will likely to slow and uneven. Moreover, the report expressed concerns that regional flareups of coronavirus could majorly set back the return to normal volumes.
  • Investment firm Jefferies affirmed those worries in hospital traffic data shared Friday, noting “a sharp reversal” in hotspot state Arizona. Analysts tracked “record lows” in Arizona’s hospital traffic last week, down from what was thought to be the trough in April and sagging below May recovery amid a significant uptick in COVID-19 cases and protests.
  • “Whether states can continue their recovery even as cases increase, as we’ve seen in [Texas] and others, or if the recent reversals in [Arizona, Illinois,] etc. become more widespread is a trend to watch in coming weeks,” Jefferies analysts wrote.

Dive Insight:

Large sections of the healthcare sector all but shut down during the spring as the coronavirus led to nationwide shelter-in-place orders. However, as states and municipalities slowly reopen, so are the doors for hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, clinics and other integral components of healthcare delivery.

As a result, Moody’s reported “considerable sequential improvement” during May. For example, while for-profit hospitals saw surgery volumes drop as much as 70% in April compared to the same period in 2019, May volumes were down about 20% to 40% compared to last year’s. Hospital-operated ambulatory surgical centers saw an 80% to 90% drop in April volumes, but only a 30% to 40% drop in May.

However, Moody’s noted that the “path to normalized volumes are not linear.” It also pointed out that emergency room care volumes, which dropped as much as 60% in April, have yet to really rebound, as they still appeared depressed as much as 50% in May.

“This could reflect the prevalence of working-from-home arrangements and people generally staying home, which is leading to a decrease in automobile and other accidents outside the home. Weak ER volumes also suggest that many people remain apprehensive to enter a hospital, particularly for lower acuity care,” the Moody’s report said.

The firm also noted that “the shape of recovery will vary by state, region and service line, reinforcing the importance of diversification for credit quality among healthcare service providers.”

However, Moody’s believes that the darkest days of March and April are behind much of the healthcare sector. It noted that most providers have stockpiled appropriate personal protective equipment and have reconfigured their offices, waiting rooms and other infrastructure to protect the health of both patients and employees.

Traffic data from 3,300 U.S. hospitals, tracked by Jefferies via mobile device pings, indicates that compared to January 2019 levels, national traffic lows of 43.7% in mid-April improved to 63.3% by early June.

But state-by-state analysis reveals some parts of the country are trending backwards. Arizona fell to a new low of 28.5% last week after hitting 51.5% on May 20. The analysts also reported Illinois hit its own new low on June 7.

While Moody’s did express some concern about regional outbreaks, it concluded that the precautions already taken “make it less likely that the U.S. would once again shut down all non-elective care across the nation if there is a second wave of coronavirus infections.”

Moody’s did express some concerns about hospital finances, but noted that for-profit hospitals “have unusually strong liquidity” due to payouts from the CARES Act and other government-sponsored financial relief programs.

Medical device firms should be prepared for a long and uneven recovery, according to Moody’s. The dental and orthopaedic sectors “will see a greater than average impact from consumers’ inability to pay for procedures or their unwillingness to engage with the healthcare system.” Moody’s forecast “a gradual, uneven pace of recovery,” with pre-tax earnings to decline as much as 30% in 2020 compared to 2019, while revenues will shrink around 10%. It expects that earnings will rebound in 2021 to 2019 levels.

Companies that operate in discretionary sectors will be hit harder as they rely on patients able to meet large deductibles or co-payments or to pay for related procedures entirely on their own. Moody’s noted that a large number of these procedures are performed in acute care hospitals with the assistance of robotics, but hospitals may be more conservative in their robotics investments given new budget constraints.

 

 

 

3 New Jersey health systems tap Chris Christie for lobbying

Posted on by • Posted in Economic Stimulus, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Lobbyist, Medicare • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/3-new-jersey-health-systems-tap-chris-christie-for-lobbying.html?utm_medium=email

Lobbyist transparency bill headed to House floor - New Mexico In Depth

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who registered as a lobbyist earlier this month, has three new health system clients: Atlantic Health System, Hackensack Meridian Health and RWJBarnabas Health. 

The three New Jersey health systems hired Mr. Christie to lobby the federal government on Medicare reimbursement and federal relief funding, according to lobbying disclosure documents submitted June 17.

Mr. Christie is registered to lobby through his firm, Christie 55 Solutions. He works with his former chief of staff Rich Bagger.

Atlantic Health System is based in Morristown, Hackensack Meridian is in Hackensack, and RWJBarnabas is in West Orange. 

 

 

 

 

LA healthcare leaders urge reopening coronavirus surge hospital

Posted on by • Posted in Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Bed Shortage, Hospital Industry, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety • Leave a comment

LA healthcare leaders urge reopening coronavirus surge hospital

LA healthcare leaders urge reopening coronavirus surge hospital ...

With recent flare-up in neighboring counties, L.A.-area hospital leaders want the county to work with the state to keep surge hospitals open.

Healthcare officials on Tuesday called for Los Angeles County leaders to work with the state to reopen its “surge” hospital and recommended that another in Long Beach swing open its doors, citing the need to fully reopen medical centers while also dealing with an expected surge in coronavirus cases.

The state-funded Los Angeles Surge Hospital, which opened on April 13 at the former site of the St. Vincent Medical Center amid heightened concern about having enough beds to deal with Covid-19 patients, has closed.

But Dr. Hector Flores, an Adventist Health White Memorial physician, told the county’s Board of Supervisors and his fellow members on the county’s Economic Resiliency Task Force that county officials should work to bring it back online. He also recommended that Long Beach Community Hospital — which has long been on the cusp of reopening — become a surge hospital.

The context in June is different, however, than it was in March and April, when public health officials were intensely concerned that the county’s hospital capacity would be overwhelmed by a never-before-seen virus that was spreading and killing exponentially.

Along with many other businesses, hospitals, too, shut down many services in an effort to grow bed capacity for COVID-19 patients. But those services were essential for many hospitals’ bottom line — everything from elective procedures to vital surgeries. Couple that with patients who were delaying or outright canceling vital non-coronavirus visits, and in the first 90 days of the pandemic in L.A. County, hospitals — typically among the largest employers — were shedding jobs and occupancy (which fell to about 40% collectively, according to Flores).

“Hospitals are like hotels. If they are not fully occupied they are losing money,” said Flores, who heads a working group on the county’s task force.

Ultimately, the industry took an estimated $15 billion hit, he said, and only now, in the past two weeks is it starting to recover as health orders are eased and 15,000 doctors and medical support staffs make their way back to their once-shuttered practices.

Flores, and his committee of healthcare leaders have been devising a framework for recovery in the healthcare sector of the county’s economy. They want to maintain those jobs in the $100-billion-a-year healthcare industry.

It’s a larger goal among county leaders, who started the resiliency task force to figure out how several of the region’s economic sectors can recover after being shut down for months.

But there’s a looming concern: A second wave of the virus.

Flores said recent coronavirus spikes in Orange and Ventura counties — which saw large crowds gathering at beaches over the Memorial Day holiday — are giving him pause.

And that’s prompted Flores and others to call for the county to work with state officials to reopen and keep surge hospitals open. The move would help regular hospitals keep their non-COVID business going but allow for more capacity, if needed.

As it stands, non-COVID patients are coming back. Hospitals over the last two to three weeks have gone from 40% to 85% occupancy rates.

“What that tells us is that if there is a surge there won’t be the same capacity that we had for the first 90 days (of the pandemic),” he said. “We’re concerned about the uptick we see in Ventura and Orange County, since on Memorial Day weekend they opened beaches, hiking trails and parks. Sadly, many people took advantage of that open environment without protection of masks and often congregating in clusters. We’re also waiting to see the impact of the protests in two weeks.”

State and local officials have repeatedly said that public health data will guide local decisions, and have held out the possibility that public health orders could be re-tightened.

During Tuesday’s meeting, Supervisor Sheila Kuehl questioned whether Flores meant the county should keep surge hospitals “available” or actually open them.

Flores said as hospitals reopen and perform essential surgeries, they need “safe units” where patients can recover from an operation without the threat of being infected by the virus. And to do that, they need more space, he said.

“As we see a smaller number of beds available in hospitals, we are eventually going to rely on surge hospitals … because we anticipate there is quite likely going to be another surge if the patterns we see in Ventura and Orange counties come to play in Los Angeles,” Flores said.

The shuttered St. Vincent’s hospital, on a 10-acre campus in the Westlake District near Downtown Los Angeles, seemed essential when it was pressed into duty on April 13 after being closed in January. It quickly became part of the state’s plan to outfit roughly 50,000 more hospital beds to handle a surge of infected patients.

Ultimately, though, that surge never came. The hospital treated 65 people at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $15 million, the Southern California News Group reported.

It may very well stay that way. A spokesperson for the hospital said Tuesday that the hospital is “officially closed at the present time, there are no plans to reopen.”

Long Beach Community Hospital, too, was eyed. City leaders and officials from Molina, Wu, Network, Inc. — the hospital’s new operator — scurried to reopen it in the early COVID-19 days.

MWN said in late March that the facility was “days away” from opening, as Long Beach looked for capacity.  That never came. Plus, the U.S. Navy hospital ship Mercy, which arrived in Los Angeles in late March to help treat non-coronavirus patients, returned to San Diego after treating just 77 patients.

Meanwhile, regular hospitals were scambling to find room for the expected surge of COVID patients. But between that and the March “Safer-at-Home” order, hospitals suffered the unintended consequence of furlough and layoffs related to a shortage of “non-essential” medical work.

The county’s Department of Health Services says the decision to reopen the St. Vincent’s property lies with the state, which in consultation with Dignity Health and Kaiser, closed down operations as its contract was due to run out by the end of June.

Could it come back online?

“The opinion of the County is that a) currently we project having sufficient overall beds in the county to meet demand (with the exception of ICU which can be resolved by flexing bed types within existing hospitals) and b) surging our existing hospitals,” according to a statement.

Officials say adding beds at existing hospitals is a “better approach” because it makes use of the existing infrastructure. County health services officials add that all hospitals have the ability “to surge patients at least 20% above their normal capacity.”

As for Long Beach Community Hospital, health officials noted that it has not yet been approved to operate by licensing through the state.

“We would welcome LBCH coming on line as an additional acute care hospital, but need for them to meet state licensing criteria,” according to the statement.

L.A. County Public Health officials predict that with no change in the transmission rate of the disease, the demand for hospital beds will remain relatively stable, with some slight “up-trending” because of the easing of health-order restrictions.

If transmission increases by half above current levels, a June 10 county Department of Health Services projection concluded that nearly 70% of the county’s population will catch the virus by Dec. 1.

Hospitalizations across the county were down to 1,285 as of Monday from a peak of nearly 2,000 in late April. While the numbers have been down considerably, some hospitals have experienced a slight uptick in recent days. Whether that increase is the result of an oncoming surge has yet to be seen, according to Molly Lawson, spokeswoman for Centinela Hospital Medical Center in Inglewood.

“It’s really too early to tell,” Lawson said. “This week we had anticipated seeing the community impact of some of the protests and marches and all the activities happening of late.”

Centinela Hospital, which according to Lawson had one of the higher levels of hospitalization rates, treated about 70 COVID-19 patients in late April and early May. Patients occupied two full units, Lawson said. As of Tuesday, the hospital had 17 patients, just half a unit.

At Torrance Memorial Medical Center, which saw a peak of about 55 patients just as “Safer-at-Home” orders went into effect in late March, the hospital has been treating 15 to 21 patients for the past several weeks, according to spokeswoman Sandy Rodriguez. The lowest number of COVID-19 patients the hospital had admitted was 11.

“We have seen some intermittent increases, but no surge,” Rodriguez said.