An article published this week in Stat documents private equity’s move into the cardiovascular space. There’s reason to suspect private equity ownership could exacerbate cardiology’s overuse problem, according to several cardiologists and researchers. Studies has found private equity acquisition results in more patients, more visits per patient, and higher charges.
Outpatient atherectomies have become a poster child for overutilization, with the volume billed to Medicare more than doubling from 2011-2021.
The Gist: Fueled by the growing number of states allowing outpatient cardiac catheterization, all signs point to cardiovascular practices being the next specialty courted for PE rollups.
However, the service line brings more complexities to deal structure and future returns than recent targets like dermatology and orthopedics. Heart and vascular groups are more heterogeneous, and less profitable medical management of conditions like congestive heart failure accounts for a greater portion of patient volume. Much more of the medical group business is intertwined with inpatient care, and, unlike other proceduralists, around 80 percent of cardiologists are already employed by health systems. While that doesn’t mean health systems are safe from cardiologists seceding for the promise of PE windfalls,
the closer PE firms get to the “heart” of medicine, the more they’ll find their standard playbook at odds with the broad spectrum of care that cardiovascular specialists provide—and the more they’ll find that partnering with local hospitals will be non-negotiable to maintain the book of business.
Politicians, economists, auto industry analysts and main street business owners are closely watching the UAW strike that began at midnight last Thursday. Healthcare should also pay attention, especially hospitals. medical groups and facility operators where workforce issues are mounting.
Auto manufacturing accounts for 3% of America’s GDP and employs 2.2 million including 923,000 in frontline production. It’s high-profile sector industry in the U.S. with its most prominent operators aka “the Big Three” operating globally. Some stats:
The US automakers sold an estimated 13.75 million new and 36.2 million used vehicles in 2022.
The total value of the US car and automobile manufacturing market is $104.1 billion in 2023:
9.2 million US vehicles were produced in 2021–a 4.5% increase from 2020 and 11.8% of the global total ranking only behind China in total vehicle production.
As of 2020, 91.5% of households report having access to at least one vehicle.
There were 290.8 million registered vehicles in the United States in 2022—21% of the global market.
Americans spend $698 billion annually on the combination of automobile loans and insurance.
By comparison, the healthcare services industry in the U.S.—those that operate facilities and services serving patients—employs 9 times more workers, is 29 times bigger ($104 Billion vs. $2.99 trillion/65% of total spend) and 6 times more integral in the overall economy (3% vs. 18.3% of GDP).
Surprisingly, average hourly wages are similar ($31.07 in auto manufacturing vs. $33.12 in healthcare per BLS) though the range is wider in healthcare since it encompasses licensed professionals to unskilled support roles. There are other similarities:
Each industry enjoys ubiquitous presence in American household’ discretionary. spending.
Each faces workforce issues focused on pay parity and job security.
Each is threatened by unwelcome competitors, disruptive technologies and shifting demand complicating growth strategies.
Each is dependent on capital to remain competitive.
And each faces heightened media scrutiny and vulnerability to misinformation/disinformation as special interests seek redress or non-traditional competitors seek advantage.
Ironically, the genesis of the UAW dispute is not about wages; it is about job security as electric-powered vehicles that require fewer parts and fewer laborers become the mainstay of the sector. CEO compensation and the corporate profits of the Big Three are talking points used by union leaders to galvanize sympathizer antipathy of “corporate greed” and unfair treatment of frontline workers.
But the real issue is uncertainty about the future: will auto workers have jobs and health benefits in their new normal?
In healthcare services sectors—hospitals, medical groups, post-acute care facilities, home-care et al—the scenario is similar: workers face an uncertain future but significantly more complicated. Corporate greed, CEO compensation and workforce discontent are popular targets in healthcare services media coverage but the prominence of not-for-profit organizations in healthcare services obfuscates direct comparisons to for-profit organizations which represents less than a third of the services economy. For example, CEO compensation in NFPs—a prominent target of worker attention—is accounted differently for CEOs in investor-owned operations in which stock ownership is not treated as income until in options are exercised or shares sold. Annual 990 filings by NFPs tell an incomplete story nonetheless fodder for misinformation.
The competitive landscape and regulatory scrutiny for healthcare services are also more complicated for healthcare services. Unlike auto manufacturing where electric vehicles are forcing incumbents to change, there’s no consensus about what the new normal in U.S. healthcare services will be nor a meaningful industry-wide effort to define it. Each sector is defining its own “future state” based on questionable assumptions about competitors, demand, affordability, workforce requirements and more. Imagine an environmental scan in automakers strategy that’s mute on Tesla, or mass transit, Zoom, pandemic lock-downs or energy costs?
While the outlook for U.S. automakers is guardedly favorable, per Moody’s and Fitch, for not-for-profit health services operators it’s “unsustainable” and “deteriorating.”
Nonetheless, the parallels between the current state of worker sentiment in the U.S. auto manufacturing and healthcare services sectors are instructive. Auto and healthcare workers want job security and higher pay, believing their company executives and boards but corporate profit above their interests and all else. And polls suggest the public’s increasingly sympathetic to worker issues and strikes like the UAW more frequent.
Ultimately, the UAW dispute with the Big Three will be settled. Ultimately, both sides will make concessions. Ultimately, the automakers will pass on their concession costs to their customers while continuing their transitions to electric vehicles.
In health services, operators are unable to pass thru concession costs due to reimbursement constraints that, along with supply chain cost inflation, wipe out earnings and heighten labor tension.
So, the immediate imperatives for healthcare services organizations seem clear as labor issues mount and economics erode:
Educate workers—all workers—is a priority. That includes industry trends and issues in sectors outside the organization’s current focus.
Define the future. In healthcare services, innovators will leverage technology and data to re-define including how health is defined, where it’s delivered and by whom. Investments in future-state scenario planning is urgently needed.
Address issues head-on: Forthrightness about issues like access, prices, executive compensation, affordability and more is essential to trustworthiness.
Stay tuned to the UAW strike and consider fresh approaches to labor issues. It’s not a matter of if, but when.
PS: I drive an electric car—my step into the auto industry future state. It took me 9 hours last Thursday to drive 275 miles to my son’s wedding because the infrastructure to support timely battery charges in route was non-existent. Ironically, after one of three self-charges for which I paid more than equivalent gas, I was prompted to “add a tip”. So, the transition to electric vehicles seems certain, but it will be bumpy and workers will be impacted.
The future state for healthcare is equally frought with inadequate charging stations aka “systemness” but it’s inevitable those issues will be settled. And worker job security and labor costs will be significantly impacted in the process.
Hospitals in California are being warned not to violate state law on staffing levels or face fines. New state policy narrows the circumstances under which hospitals can claim “unpredictable circumstances” for violating the mandate.
The California Department of Public Health this week, in a notice to hospitals, warned that noncompliance can result in a $15,000 fine for a first violation and $30,000 for a second.
The state conducts periodic, unannounced inspections to enforce compliance.
New policy by Governor Newsom narrows the circumstances under which hospitals will not be penalized for violations due to “unpredictable circumstances,” requiring them to document efforts to maintain safe staffing and that such instances be truly unforeseen.
In an advisory letter to hospitals, the public health department said, “Situations that are not considered unpredictable, unknown or uncontrollable include consistent, ongoing patterns of understaffing. Facilities are expected to maintain required nurse-to-patient ratios at all times, including but not limited to, weekends, holidays, leaves of absences, among others.”
WHY THIS MATTERS
Minimum staffing ratios have been law in California since nurses and healthcare workers fought to pass AB 394, the nation’s first nurse-patient staffing ratio law in 1999.
In addition, SB 227, which passed in 2019, requires the state to assess administrative fines on hospitals that violate the safe staffing law. Law AB 1422 requires public comment before the public health department grants waivers to the critical care program flexibility requests.
THE LARGER TREND
Nurse staffing ratios are controversial and California remains the only state to have enacted them.
A study reportedly commissioned by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said there was “no single staffing level that would guarantee quality care.”
The NIH looked at survey data from 22,336 hospital staff nurses in California, Pennsylvania and New Jersey in 2006 and state hospital discharge databases. California hospital nurses cared for one less patient on average than nurses in the other states and two fewer patients in medical and surgical units, the NIH research said.
The study found that lower ratios were associated with significantly lower mortality. When nurses’ workloads were in line with California-mandated ratios in all three states, nurses’ burnout and job dissatisfaction were lower, and nurses reported consistently better quality of care, the NIH said.
Also, the hospital nurse staffing ratios in California were associated with better nurse retention than in the other states.
ON THE RECORD
“Patients in California are safer today because nurses and healthcare workers demanded that hospitals be held accountable for violating safe-staffing laws,” said Leo Pérez, RN and president of SEIU 121RN. “The COVID-19 pandemic taught us that our state’s health depends on supporting and listening to those who are on the front lines of patient care – a lesson we should never forget. Today’s action is the result of SEIU’s relentless vigilance. We applaud the step CDPH has taken to enforce laws that keep patients safe.”
Learn about the 10 major trends impacting health systems this year — from financial pressures to workforce stability to generative AI. Download these ready-to-use slides to get up to speed on what health system leaders should be watching this year.
OVERVIEW
We’ve updated our ready-to-use slides depicting the most important market forces affecting health systems in 2023. Whether you’re speaking to your board, C-suite, or community, you’ll have access to the latest data and insights, pre-formatted and ready to present for your next presentation.
The 10 major trends:
Health systems bend but do not break in the wake of the worst financial year in recent memory.
Stakeholders align on urgency to rationalize services for long-term sustainability.
Quality suffers as organizations look for workforce stability.
Virtual hospitals rise in popularity to accelerate care model transformation.
Beware vaporware! The hype and reality of generative AI comes into focus.
Mega-corporations make further inroads into care delivery.
Health systems lose the narrative in the public’s eye.
Value-based care hype is tempered by market realities.
Health systems look for new growth pastures to compensate for tepid inpatient surgery growth.
Unlikely alliances take form to counteract common pressures across the health system community.
Health plan and health system CFOs point to the current economic situation when asked to identify their top concern, according to a Sept. 14 survey from Deloitte.
The consulting firm surveyed 60 finance chiefs at American health plans and health systems about their priorities and paths forward and shared their findings with Becker’s.
Inflationary pressures have created a cost-heavy operating model for many organizations, CFOs told Deloitte. Coupled with higher care delivery, labor and supply costs — and slowed revenue growth
— financial viability weighs heavily on leaders.
More than 40 percent of health system CFOs believe their health systems may need more than two years to reach the profit levels they generated before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Seventy percent of CFOs identified the current economic situation as a greater concern than it was last year. Meanwhile, 57 percent pointed to new regulatory requirements as a growing concern, and 51 percent said the same of the current operating model and structure.
Across the hospital industry, heavy reliance on contract labor in 2021 and 2022 caused a significant challenge for profitability.
However, a chief financial officer recently posited that his system’s large contract labor load has had unexpected benefits.
“Other hospitals [in our market] thought we were crazy to keep staffing with high contract rates until recently,” he shared. “But by keeping the agency nurses around a little longer, we were able to avert raising base salaries quite as much, and are in a better place today now that the labor market has softened.” It’s a story we’ve heard several times now.
While market rates for nursing and other clinical labor have undoubtedly been rebased, salary increases are sticky—it’s hard to adjust wages downward when the labor market loosens.
Systems who were able to avert large wage increases by increasing bonuses and other non-salary benefits, or forestalled permanent hiring at higher salaries by extending contract labor, now find themselves with more flexibility and potentially lower staffing costs in the long-term.
On Tuesday, CMS announced the States Advancing All-Payer Health Equity Approaches and Development (AHEAD) Model, a new payment model that will give up to eight states or sub-state regions the ability to test global hospital budgets across an 11-year period.
Participating states will assume responsibility for managing healthcare costs for traditional Medicare and Medicaid populations, while encouraging private payers to pay hospitals under a similar relationship.
Primary care practices will have the option to participate in a primary care component of the model, called Primary Care AHEAD, in which they will receive a Medicare care management fee and be required to engage in state-led Medicaid transformation initiatives.
CMS is hoping that the AHEAD model will reduce healthcare cost growth, improve population health, and reduce health outcome disparities. It builds upon existing Innovation Center state-based models, including the Maryland Total Cost of Care Model, the Vermont All-Payer Accountable Care Organization Model, and the Pennsylvania Rural Health Model, which have all shown promise in lowering Medicare spending while improving patient outcomes.
Program applications will open late this year, and the first states selected would begin a pre-implementation period in summer 2024.
The Gist:
Shifting to a total-cost-of-care model will be a difficult undertaking for even the most motivated states.
Though a stable annual budget may be a welcome prospect to struggling hospitals, large regional systems may balk at the idea, especially as the Maryland Hospital Association has claimed that their state’s regulated rates have lagged hospital cost inflation by 1.3 percent per year.
With the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP)saving only one quarter of one percent of Medicare’s total spending in 2022, CMS has good reason to explore other ways to reduce Medicare cost growth
—but these Innovation Center models will only achieve their goals if they can first induce sufficient participation.
Studies show healthcare affordability is an issue to voters as medical debt soars (KFF) and public disaffection for the “medical system” (per Gallup, Pew) plummets. But does it really matter to the hospitals, insurers, physicians, drug and device manufacturers and army of advisors and trade groups that control the health system?
Each sector talks about affordability blaming inflation, growing demand, oppressive regulation and each other for higher costs and unwanted attention to the issue.
Each play their victim cards in well-orchestrated ad campaigns targeted to state and federal lawmakers whose votes they hope to buy.
Each considers aggregate health spending—projected to increase at 5.4%/year through 2031 vs. 4.6% GDP growth—a value relative to the health and wellbeing of the population. And each thinks its strategies to address affordability are adequate and the public’s concern understandable but ill-informed.
As the House reconvenes this week joining the Senate in negotiating a resolution to the potential federal budget default October 1, the question facing national and state lawmakers is simple: is the juice worth the squeeze?
Is the US health system deserving of its significance as the fastest-growing component of the total US economy (18.3% of total GDP today projected to be 19.6% in 2031), its largest private sector employer and mainstay for private investors?
Does it deserve the legal concessions made to its incumbents vis a vis patent approvals, tax exemptions for hospitals and employers, authorized monopolies and oligopolies that enable its strongest to survive and weaker to disappear?
Does it merit its oversized role, given competing priorities emerging in our society—AI and technology, climate changes, income, public health erosion, education system failure, racial inequity, crime and global tension with China, Russia and others.
In the last 2 weeks, influential Republicans leaders (Burgess, Cassidy) announced plans to tackle health costs and the role AI will play in the future of the system. Last Tuesday, CMS announced its latest pilot program to tackle spending: the States Advancing All-Payer Health Equity Approaches and Development Model (AHEAD Model) is a total cost of care budgeting program to roll out in 8 states starting in 2026. The Presidential campaigns are voicing frustration with the system and the spotlight on its business practices intensifying.
So, is affordability to the federal government likely to get more attention?
Yes. Is affordability on state radars as legislatures juggle funding for Medicaid, public health and other programs?
Yes, but on a program by program, non-system basis.
Is affordability front and center in CMS value agenda including the new models like its AHEAD model announced last week? Not really.
CMS has focused more on pushing hospitals and physicians to participate than engaging consumers. Is affordability for those most threatened—low and middle income households with high deductible insurance, the uninsured and under-insured, those with an expensive medical condition—front of mind? Every minute of every day.
Per CMS, out-of-pocket spending increased 4.3% in 2022 (down from 10.4% in 2021) and “is expected to accelerate to 5.2%, in part related to faster health care price growth. During 2025–31, average out-of-pocket spending growth is projected to be 4.1% per year.” But these data are misleading. It’s dramatically higher for certain populations and even those with attractive employer-sponsored health benefits worry about unexpected household medical bills.
So, affordability is a tricky issue that’s front of mind to 40% of the population today and more tomorrow.
Legislation that limits surprise medical bills, requires drug, hospital and insurer price transparency, expands scope of practice opportunities for mid-level professionals, avails consumers of telehealth services, restricts aggressive patient debt collection policies and others has done little to assuage affordability issues for consumers.
Ditto CMS’ value agenda which is more about reducing Medicare spending through shared savings programs with hospitals and physicians than improving affordability for consumers. That’s why outsiders like Walmart, Best Buy and others see opportunity: they think patients (aka members, enrollees, end users) deserve affordability solutions more than lip service.
Affordability to consumers is the most formidable challenge facing the US healthcare industry–more than burnout, operating margins, reimbursement or alternative payment models. Today, it is not taken seriously by insiders. If it was, evidence would be readily available and compelling. But it’s not.
Issue: Medical debt negatively affects many Americans, especially people of color, women, and low-income families. Federal and state governments have set some standards to protect patients from medical debt.
Goal: To evaluate the current landscape of medical debt protections at the federal and state levels and identify where they fall short.
Methods: Analysis of federal and state laws, as well as discussions with state experts in medical debt law and policy. We focus on laws and regulations governing hospitals and debt collectors.
Key Findings and Conclusion: Federal medical debt protection standards are vague and rarely enforced. Patient protections at the state level help address key gaps in federal protections. Twenty states have their own financial assistance standards, and 27 have community benefit standards. However, the strength of these standards varies widely. Relatively few states regulate billing and collections practices or limit the legal remedies available to creditors. Only five states have reporting requirements that are robust enough to identify noncompliance with state law and trends of discriminatory practices. Future patient protections could improve access to financial assistance, ensure that nonprofit hospitals are earning their tax exemption, and limit aggressive billing and collections practices.
Introduction
Medical debt, or personal debt incurred from unpaid medical bills, is a leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States. As many as 40 percent of U.S. adults, or about 100 million people, are currently in debt because of medical or dental bills. This debt can take many forms, including:
past-due payments directly owed to a health care provider
ongoing payment plans
money owed to a bank or collections agency that has been assigned or sold the medical debt
credit card debt from medical bills
money borrowed from family or friends to pay for medical bills.
This report discusses findings from our review of federal and state laws that regulate hospitals and debt collectors to protect patients from medical debt and its negative consequences. First, we briefly discuss the impact and causes of medical debt. Then, we present federal medical debt protections and discuss gaps in standards as well as enforcement. Then, we provide an overview of what states are doing to:
strengthen requirements for financial assistance and community benefits
regulate hospitals’ and debt collectors’ billing and collections activities
limit home liens, foreclosures, and wage garnishment
develop reporting systems to ensure all hospitals are adhering to standards and not disproportionately targeting people of color and low-income communities.
(See the appendix for an overview of medical debt protections in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.)
Impact of Medical Debt
More than half of people in medical and dental debt owe less than $2,500, but because most Americans cannot cover even minor emergency expenses, this debt disrupts their lives in serious ways. Fear of incurring medical debt also deters many Americans from seeking medical care. About 60 percent of adults who have incurred medical debt say they have had to cut back on basic necessities like food or clothing, and more than half the adults from low-income households (less than $40,000) report that they have used up their savings to pay for their medical debt.
A significant amount of medical debt is either sold or assigned to third-party debt-collecting agencies, who often engage in aggressive efforts to collect on the debt, creating stress for patients. Both hospitals and debt collectors have won judgments against patients, allowing them to take money directly from a patient’s paycheck or place liens on a patient’s home. In some cases, patients have also lost their homes. Medical debt can also have a negative impact on a patient’s credit score.
Key Terms Related to Medical Debt
Financial assistance policy: A hospital’s policy to provide free or discounted care to certain eligible patients. Eligibility for financial assistance can depend on income, insurance status, and/or residency status. A hospital may be required by law to have a financial assistance policy, or it may choose to implement one voluntarily. Financial assistance is frequently referred to as “charity care.”
Bad debt: Patient bills that a hospital has tried to collect on and failed. Typically, hospitals are not supposed to pursue collections for bills that qualify for financial assistance or charity care, so bad debt refers to debt owed by patients ineligible for financial assistance.
Community benefit requirements: Nonprofit hospitals are required by federal law and some state laws to provide community benefits, such as financial assistance and other investments targeting community need, in exchange for a tax exemption.
Debt collectors or collections agencies: Entities whose business model primarily relies on collecting unpaid debt. They can either collect on behalf of a hospital (while the hospital still technically holds the debt) or buy the debt from a hospital.
Sale of medical debt: Hospitals sometimes sell the debt patients owe them to third-party debt buyers, who can be aggressive in seeking repayment of the debt.
Creditor: A party that is owed the medical debt and often wants to collect on the medical debt. This can be a hospital, a debt collector acting on behalf of a hospital, or a third-party debt buyer.
Debtor: A patient who owes medical debt over unpaid medical bills.
Wage garnishment: The ability of a creditor to get a court order that would allow them to deduct a portion of a debtor-patient’s paycheck before it reaches the patient. Federal law limits how much can be withheld from a debtor’s paycheck, and some states exceed this federal protection.
Placing a lien: A legal claim that a creditor can place on a patient’s home, prohibiting the patient from selling, transferring, or refinancing their home without first paying off the creditor. Most states require creditors to get a court order before placing a lien on a home.
Foreclosure or forced sale: A creditor can repossess and sell a patient’s home to pay off their medical debt. Often, creditors are required to obtain a court order to do so.
Perhaps what is most troubling is that the burden of medical debt is not borne equally: Black and Hispanic/Latino adults and women are much more likely to incur medical debt. Black adults also tend to be sued more often as a result. Uninsured patients, those from low-income households, adults with disabilities, and young families with children are all at a heightened risk of being saddled with medical debt.
Causes of Medical Debt
Most people — 72 percent, according to one estimate — attribute their medical debt to bills from acute care, such as a single hospital stay or treatment for an accident. Nearly 30 percent of adults who owe medical debt owe it entirely for hospital bills.
Although uninsured patients are more likely to owe medical debt than insured patients, having insurance does not fully shield patients from medical debt and all its consequences. More than 40 percent of insured adults report incurring medical debt, likely because they either had a gap in their coverage or were enrolled in insurance with inadequate coverage. High deductibles and cost sharing can leave many exposed to unexpected medical expenses.
The problem of medical debt is further exacerbated by hospitals charging increasingly high prices for medical care and failing to provide adequate financial assistance to uninsured and underinsured patients with low income.
Key Findings
Federal Medical Debt Protections Have Many Gaps
At the federal level, the tax code, enforced by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), requires nonprofit hospitals to broadly address medical debt. However, these requirements do not extend to for-profit hospitals (which make up about a quarter of U.S. hospitals) and have other limitations.
Further, the IRS does not have a strong track record of enforcing these requirements. In the past 10 years, the IRS has not revoked any hospital’s nonprofit status for noncompliance with these standards.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission have additional oversight authority over credit reporting and debt collectors. The Fair Credit Reporting Act regulates credit reporting agencies and those that provide information to them (debt collectors and hospitals). Consumers have the right to dispute any incomplete or inaccurate information and remove any outdated, negative information. In some cases, patients can directly sue hospitals or debt collectors for inaccurately reporting medical debt to credit reporting agencies. In addition, the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act limits how aggressive debt collectors can be by restricting the ways and times in which they can contact debtors, requiring certain disclosures and notifications, and prohibiting unfair or deceptive practices. Patients can directly sue debt collectors in violation of the law. This law, however, does not limit or prohibit the use of certain legal remedies, like wage garnishment or foreclosure, to collect on a debt.
Many states have taken steps to fill the gaps in federal standards. Within a state, several agencies may play a role in enforcing medical debt protections. Generally speaking:
state departments of health are the primary regulators of hospitals and set standards for them
state departments of taxation are responsible for ensuring nonprofit hospitals are earning their exemption from state taxes
state attorneys general protect consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices by hospitals and debt collectors.
Fewer Than Half of States Exceed Federal Requirements for Financial Assistance, Protections Vary Widely
Federal law requires nonprofit hospitals to establish and publicize a written financial assistance policy, but these standards leave out for-profit hospitals and lack any minimum eligibility requirements. As the primary regulators of hospitals, states have the ability to fill these gaps and require hospitals to provide financial assistance to low-income residents. Twenty states require hospitals to provide financial assistance and set certain minimum standards that exceed the federal standard.
All but three of these 20 states extend their financial assistance requirements to for-profit hospitals. Of these 20 states, four states — Connecticut, Georgia, Nevada, and New York — apply their financial assistance requirements only to certain types of hospitals.
Policies also vary among the 31 states that do not have statutory or regulatory financial assistance requirements for hospitals. For example, the Minnesota attorney general has an agreement in place with nearly every hospital in the state to adhere to certain patient protections, though it falls short of requiring hospitals to provide financial assistance. Massachusetts operates a state-run financial assistance program partly funded through hospital assessments. Other states use far less prescriptive mechanisms to try to ensure that patients have access to financial assistance, such as placing the onus of treating low-income patients on individual counties or requiring hospitals to have a plan for treating low-income and/or uninsured patients without setting any specific requirements.
Enforcement of state financial assistance standards.
The only way to enforce the federal financial assistance requirement is to threaten a hospital’s nonprofit status, and the IRS has been reluctant to use this authority. Among the 20 states that have their own state financial assistance standards, 10 require compliance as a condition of licensure or as a legal mandate. These mandates are often coupled with administrative penalties, but some states have established additional consequences. For example, Maine allows patients to sue noncompliant hospitals.
Six states make compliance with their financial assistance standards a condition of receiving funding from the state. Two other states use their certificate-of-need process (which requires hospitals to seek the state’s approval before establishing new facilities or expanding an existing facility’s services) to impose their financial assistance mandates.
Setting eligibility requirements for financial assistance.
The federal financial assistance standard sets no minimum eligibility requirements for hospitals to follow. However, the 20 states with financial assistance standards define which residents are eligible for aid.
One way for states to ensure that financial assistance is available to those most in need is to prevent hospitals from discriminating against undocumented immigrants. Four states explicitly prohibit such discrimination in statute and regulation. Most states, however, are less explicit. Thirteen states define eligibility broadly, basing it most frequently on income, insurance status, and state residency. However, it is unclear how hospitals are interpreting this requirement when it comes to patients’ immigration status. In contrast, three states explicitly exclude undocumented immigrants from eligibility.
States also vary widely in terms of which income brackets are eligible for financial assistance and how much financial assistance they may receive.
At least three of the 20 states with financial assistance standards allow certain patients with heavy out-of-pocket medical expenses from catastrophic illness or prior medical debt to access financial assistance. Many states also require hospitals to consider a patient’s insurance status when making financial assistance determinations. At least six states make financial assistance available for uninsured patients only, while at least eight others also make financial assistance available to underinsured patients.
Standardizing the application process.
Cumbersome applications can discourage many patients from applying for financial assistance. Five states have developed a uniform application form, while three others have set minimum standards for financial assistance applications. Eleven states require hospitals to give patients the right to appeal a denial of financial assistance.
States Split in Requiring Nonprofit Hospitals to Invest in Community Benefits
Federal and state policymakers also can require nonprofit hospitals to invest in community benefits in return for tax exemptions. Federal law requires nonprofit hospitals to produce a community health needs assessment every three years and have an implementation strategy. Almost all states exempt nonprofit hospitals from a host of state taxes, including income, property, and/or sales taxes. However, only 27 impose community benefit requirements on nonprofit hospitals.
Community benefits frequently include financial assistance but also investments that address issues like lack of access to food and housing. In the long run, these investments can reduce medical debt burden by improving population health and the financial stability of a community. Most states that require nonprofit hospitals to provide community benefits allow nonprofit hospitals to choose how they invest their community benefit dollars. This hands-off approach has given rise to concerns about the lack of transparency in community benefit spending as well as questions about whether hospitals are investing this money in ways that are most helpful to the community, such as in providing financial assistance.
Applicability of community benefit standards.
Nineteen states impose community benefit requirements on all nonprofit hospitals in the state, but three states further limit these requirements to hospitals of a certain size. At least six states have extended these requirements to for-profit hospitals as well. Of these six, the District of Columbia, South Carolina, and Virginia have incorporated community benefit requirements into their certificate-of-need laws instead of their tax laws. As a result, any hospital seeking to expand in these states becomes subject to their community benefit requirement.
Interaction between financial assistance and community benefits.
The federal standard allows nonprofit hospitals to report financial assistance as part of their community benefit spending. Most states with community benefit requirements also allow hospitals to do this. However, only seven states require hospitals to provide financial assistance to satisfy their community benefit obligations.
Setting quantitative standards for community benefit spending.
Only seven states set minimum spending thresholds that hospitals must meet or exceed to satisfy state community benefit standards. For example, Illinois and Utah require nonprofit hospitals’ community benefit contributions to equal what their property tax liability would have been. Unique among states, Pennsylvania gives taxing districts the right to sue nonprofit hospitals for not holding up their end of the bargain, which has proven to be a strong enforcement mechanism.
Fewer Than Half the States Exceed Federal Standards for Billing and Collections
Hospital billing and collections practices can significantly increase the burden of medical debt on patients. However, the current federal standard does not regulate these practices beyond imposing waiting periods and prior notification requirements for certain extraordinary collections actions (ECAs), such as garnishing wages or selling the debt to a third party.
Requiring hospitals to provide payment plans.
Federal standards do not require hospitals to make payment plans available. However, a few states do require hospitals to offer payment plans, particularly for low-income and/or uninsured patients. For example, Colorado requires hospitals to provide a payment plan and limit monthly payments to 4 percent of a patient’s monthly gross income and to discharge the debt once the patient has made 36 payments.
Limiting interest on medical debt.
Federal law does not limit the amount of interest that can be charged on medical debt. However, eight states have laws prohibiting or limiting interest for medical debt. Some states like Arizona have set a ceiling for interest on all medical debt. Others like Connecticut further prohibit charging interest to patients who are at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level and are ineligible for public insurance programs.
Though many states do not have specific laws prohibiting or limiting interest that hospitals or debt collectors can charge on medical debt, all states do have usury laws, which limit the amount of interest than can be charged on any oral or written agreement. Usury limits are set state-by-state and can range anywhere from 5 percent to more than 20 percent, but most limits fall well below the average interest rate for a credit card (around 24%). At least one state, Minnesota, has sued a health system for charging interest rates on medical debt that exceeded the allowed limit in the state’s usury laws.
Interactions between hospitals, third-party debt collectors, and patients.
Unlike hospitals, debt collectors do not have a relationship with patients and can be more aggressive when collecting on the debt. Federal law neither limits when a hospital can send a bill to collections, nor does it require hospitals to oversee the debt collectors it uses. Most states (37) also do not regulate when a hospital can send a bill to collections, although some states have developed more protective approaches.
For example, Connecticut prohibits hospitals from sending the bills of certain low-income patients to collections, and Illinois requires hospitals to offer a reasonable payment plan first. Additionally, five states require hospitals to oversee their debt collectors.
Sale of medical debt to third-party debt buyers.
Hospitals sometimes sell old unpaid debt to third-party debt buyers for pennies on the dollar. Debt buyers can be aggressive in their efforts to collect, and sometimes even try to collect on debt that was never owed. Federal law considers the sale of medical debt an ECA and requires nonprofit hospitals to follow certain notice and waiting requirements before initiating the sale. Most states (44) do not exceed this federal standard.
Only three states prohibit the sale of medical debt. Two other states — California and Colorado — regulate debt buyers instead. For example, California prohibits debt buyers from charging interest or fees, and Colorado prohibits them from foreclosing on a patient’s home.
Reporting medical debt to credit reporting agencies.
Federal law considers reporting medical debt to a credit reporting agency to be an ECA and requires nonprofit hospitals to follow certain notice and waiting requirements beforehand. Most states (41) do not exceed this federal standard.
Of the 10 states that do go beyond the federal standard, a few like Minnesota fully prohibit hospitals from reporting medical debt. Most others require hospitals, debt collectors, and/or debt buyers to wait a certain amount of time before reporting the debt to credit agencies (Exhibit 8). Two states directly regulate credit agencies: Colorado prohibits them from reporting on any medical debt under $726,200, while Maine requires them to wait at least 180 days from the date of first delinquency before reporting that debt.
States Vary Widely on Patient Protections from Medical Debt Lawsuits
Federal law considers initiating legal action to collect on unpaid medical bills to be an extraordinary collections action and also limits how much of a debtor’s paycheck can be garnished to pay a debt.
In most states, hospitals and debt buyers can sue patients to collect on unpaid medical bills. Three states limit when hospitals and/or collections agencies can initiate legal action. Illinois prohibits lawsuits against uninsured patients who demonstrate an inability to pay. Minnesota prohibits hospitals from giving “blanket approval” to collections agencies to pursue legal action, and Idaho prohibits the initiation of lawsuits until 90 days after the insurer adjudicates the claim, all appeals are exhausted, and the patient receives notice of the outstanding balance.
Liens and foreclosures.
Most states (32) do not limit hospitals, collections agencies, or debt buyers from placing a lien or foreclosing on a patient’s home to recover on unpaid medical bills. However, almost all states provide a homestead exemption, which protects some equity in a debtor’s home from being seized by creditors during bankruptcy. The amount of homestead exemption available to debtors varies from state to state, ranging from just $5,000 to the entire value of the home. Seven states have unlimited homestead exemptions, allowing debtors to fully shield their primary homes from creditors during bankruptcy. Additionally, Louisiana offers an unlimited homestead exemption for certain uninsured, low-income patients with at least $10,000 in medical bills.
Ten states prohibit or set limits on liens or foreclosures for medical debt. For example, New York and Maryland fully prohibit both liens and foreclosures because of medical debt, while California and New Mexico only prohibit them for certain low-income populations.
Wage garnishment.
Under federal law, the amount of wages garnished weekly may not exceed the lesser of: 25 percent of the employee’s disposable earnings, or the amount by which an employee’s disposable earnings are greater than 30 times the federal minimum wage. Twenty-one states exceed the federal ceiling for wage garnishment. Only a few states go further to prohibit wage garnishment for all or some patients. For example, New York fully prohibits wage garnishment to recover on medical debt for all patients, yet California only extends this protection for certain low-income populations. While New Hampshire does not prohibit wage garnishment, it requires the creditor to keep going back to court every pay period to garnish wages, which significantly limits creditors’ ability to garnish wages in practice.
Many States Have Hospital Reporting Requirements, But Few Are Robust
Federal law requires all nonprofit hospitals to submit an annual tax form including total dollar amounts spent on financial assistance and written off as bad debt. However, these reporting requirements do not extend to for-profit hospitals and lack granularity. States, as the primary regulators of hospitals, would likely benefit from more robust data collection processes to better understand the impact of medical debt and guide their oversight and enforcement efforts.
Currently, 32 states collect some of the following:
financial data, including the total dollar amounts spent on financial assistance and/or bad debt
financial assistance program data, including the numbers of applications received, approved, denied, and appealed
demographic data on the populations most affected by medical debt
information on the number of lawsuits and types of judgments sought by hospitals against patients.
Fifteen states explicitly require hospitals to report total dollar amounts spent on financial assistance and/or bad debt, while 11 states also require hospitals to report certain data related to their financial assistance programs. Most of these 11 states limit the data they collect to the numbers of applications received, approved, denied, and appealed. However, a handful of them go further and ask hospitals to report on the amount of financial assistance provided per patient, number of financial assistance applicants approved and denied by zip code, number of payment plans created and completed, and number of accounts sent to collections.
Five states require hospitals to further break down their financial assistance data by race, ethnicity, gender, and/or preferred or primary language. For example, Maryland requires hospitals to break down the following data by race, ethnicity, and gender: the bills hospitals write off as bad debt and the number of patients against whom the hospital or the debt collector has filed a lawsuit.
Only Oregon asks hospitals to report on the number of patient accounts they refer for collections and extraordinary collections actions.
Discussion and Policy Implications
In 2022, the federal government announced administrative measures targeting the medical debt problem, which included launching a study of hospital billing practices and prohibiting federal government lenders from considering medical debt when making decisions on loan and mortgage applications. Although these measures will help some, only federal legislation and enhanced oversight will likely address current gaps in federal standards.
States can also fill the gaps in federal patient protections by improving access to financial assistance, ensuring that nonprofit hospitals are earning their tax exemption, and protecting patients against aggressive billing and collections practices. States also can leverage underutilized usury laws to protect their residents from medical debt.
Finding the most effective ways to enforce these standards at the state level could also protect patients. Absent oversight and enforcement, patients from underserved communities continue to face harm from medical debt, even when states require hospitals to provide financial assistance and prohibit them from engaging in aggressive collections practices. Bolstering reporting requirements alone would not likely ensure compliance, but states could protect patients by strengthening their penalties, providing patients with the right to sue noncompliant hospitals, and devoting funding to increase oversight by state agency officials.
To develop a comprehensive medical debt protection framework, states could also bring together state agencies like their departments of health, insurance, and taxation, as well as their state attorney general’s office. Creating an interagency office dedicated to medical debt protection would allow for greater efficiency and help the state build expertise to take on the well-resourced debt collection and hospital industries.
Still, these measures only address the symptoms of the bigger problem: the unaffordability of health care in the United States. Federal and state policymakers who want to have a meaningful impact on the medical debt problem could consider the protections discussed in this report as part of a broader plan to reduce health care costs and improve coverage.
In much of the country, a single hospital system now accounts for most hospital admissions.
Some illnesses and injuries — say, a broken ankle — can send you to numerous health care providers. You might start at urgent care but end up in the emergency room. Referred to an orthopedist, you might eventually land in an outpatient surgery center.
Four different stops on your road to recovery. But as supersized health care systems gobble up smaller hospitals and clinics, it’s increasingly likely that all those facilities will be owned by the same corporation.
Hospital trade groups say mergers can save failing hospitals, especially rural ones. But research shows that a lack of competition often leads to fewer services at higher costs. In recent years, federal regulators have been taking a harder look at health care consolidation.
Yet some states, notably those in the South, are paving the way for more mergers.
Mississippi passed a law this year that exempts hospital acquisitions from state antitrust laws, while North Carolina considered legislation to do the same for the University of North Carolina’s health system. Louisiana officials approved a $150 million hospital acquisition late last year that has ignited a legal battle with the Federal Trade Commission over whether they allowed a monopoly.
States including South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia have certificate of public advantage (COPA) laws that let state agencies determine whether hospitals can merge, circumventing federal antitrust laws. And large hospital systems wield significant political power in many state capitals.
‘A tool in the tool belt’
Nearly half of Mississippi’s rural hospitals are at risk of closing, according to a report from the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform, a nonprofit policy research center.
Mississippi leaders hope easing restrictions on hospital mergers could be a solution. A new law exempts all hospital acquisitions and mergers from state antitrust laws and classifies community hospitals as government entities, making them immune from antitrust enforcement.
We saw primary care offices get shut down. We’ve seen our specialists leave for out of state. Several of the outlying hospitals saw services cut even though they were told it wouldn’t happen.
– Kerri Wilson, a registered nurse in North Carolina
Mississippi, one of the poorest states in the nation, is also one of the least healthy, with high rates of chronic conditions like heart disease and diabetes. It is one of 10 states that haven’t expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, and has one of the nation’s highest percentages of people without health insurance.
“Like many states in a similar socioeconomic status, Mississippi has difficulties with patients that are either not insured or underinsured,” said Ryan Kelly, executive director of the nonprofit Mississippi Rural Health Association. Food insecurity and lack of reliable transportation mean rural residents tend to be sicker and more expensive to treat.
That’s part of the reason why so many Mississippi hospitals operate in the red. The largest hospital in the Mississippi Delta region, Greenwood Leflore, is at immediate risk of closure even after hospital leaders shuttered unit after unit — including labor and delivery, and intensive care — in an effort to remain solvent.
A deal for the University of Mississippi Medical Center to purchase Greenwood Leflore fell through last year. Now, with the new law in effect, the hospital’s owners — the city and county — are soliciting new bidders and offering them the option to buy the hospital outright.
Kelly said he expects to see more Mississippi hospitals consolidate over the coming decade. Some have already had conversations around merger possibilities after the new law went into effect, though talks are in early days.
“It’s a tool in the tool belt,” he said of the new law. “I think it could be a saving grace for some of our hospitals that are perennially struggling but still serve with good purpose. They could be part of a larger system that could help offset their costs so they’re able to be a little leaner but still provide services in their community.”
Leaders in some states think consolidation could solve their health care woes, but studies indicate it has a negative impact.
“There’s a large body of research showing that health care consolidation leads to increases in prices without clear evidence it improves quality,” said Zachary Levinson, a project director at KFF, a nonprofit health care policy research organization, who analyzes the business practices of hospitals and other providers and their impact on costs.
When researchers studied how affiliation with a larger health system affected the number of services a rural hospital offered, they found most of the losses in service occurred in hospitals that joined larger systems, according to a 2023 study from the Rural Policy Research Institute at the University of Iowa.
Even when an acquisition by a larger health system helps a struggling hospital keep its doors open, “there can be potential tradeoffs,” Levinson said.
“There’s some concern that, for example, when a larger health system buys up a smaller independent hospital in a different region, that hospital will become less attentive to the specific needs of the community it serves,” and may cut services the community wants because they’re not deemed profitable enough, he said.
Most research suggests hospital consolidation does lead to higher prices, according to a sweeping 2020 report from MedPAC, an independent congressional agency that advises Congress on issues affecting Medicare. The report found that patients with private insurance pay higher prices for care and for insurance in markets that are dominated by one health care system. And when hospitals acquire physician practices, taxpayer and patient costs can double for some services provided in a physician’s office, the report found.
Kelly said he’s not as concerned with consolidation raising costs for Mississippi’s rural residents because so many qualify for subsidized care, but he does think mergers could eliminate some jobs in the health care sector.
“It’s hard to say for sure,” he said. “It is a risk, no question. But I still think it’s a net positive.”
A ‘hospital cartel’
When HCA Healthcare purchased a North Carolina hospital system in 2019, registered nurse Kerri Wilson wasn’t prepared for how much would change — and how quickly — at her hospital in Asheville.
“Once the sale was final in 2019, that’s when it was like the ball dropped and we started seeing staffing cuts,” said Wilson, an Asheville native who has worked in the cardiology stepdown unit at Mission Hospital since 2016.
“We saw our nurse-patient ratios change,” Wilson said. “We saw primary care offices get shut down. We’ve seen our specialists leave for out of state. Several of the outlying hospitals saw services cut even though they were told it wouldn’t happen.”
In the four years since HCA Healthcare bought Mission Health, North Carolinians have hit the nation’s largest health system with multiple antitrust lawsuits, including one that asserts HCA operates an unlawful health care monopoly through Mission Health, and another filed by city and county governments that says HCA’s corporate practices have decimated local health care options and raised costs.
HCA Healthcare did not immediately respond to a request for comment. However, when the second lawsuit was filed, HCA/Mission Health spokesperson Nancy Lindell called it “meritless.”
“Mission Health has been caring for Western North Carolina for more than 130 years and our dedication to providing excellent health care to our community will not waiver [sic] as we vigorously defend against this meritless litigation,” Lindell said in a statement to the Mountain Xpress newspaper. “We are disappointed in this action and we continue to be proud of the heroic work our team does daily.”
Mission’s nurses voted in 2020 to join National Nurses Organizing Committee, an affiliate of National Nurses United, the nation’s largest nursing union, to advocate for higher pay and safer working conditions.
Meanwhile, North Carolina leaders such as Republican State Treasurer Dale Folwell and Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein have spoken out against HCA’s practices. Folwell likened the merger to a “hospital cartel” and both officials filed amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuits.
“We have a situation with the cartel-ization of health care in North Carolina where people have to drive miles just to get basic services, and this is unacceptable,” Folwell told Stateline. He said many North Carolinians, particularly those with low incomes, fear seeking medical help because of sky-high medical bills that he said are a result of massive health care systems with little state oversight.
Folwell has publicly criticized the power that the North Carolina Health Care Association, the state’s hospital trade group, wields in the legislature. He calls the group the “leader of the [hospital] cartel.”
Industry groups spent more than $141 million nationwide lobbying state officials on health issues in 2021. And out of that $141 million, the hospital and nursing home industry spent the most, accounting for nearly 1 out of every 4 dollars spent on lobbying state lawmakers over health issues.
“This is not a Republican or Democrat issue,” said Folwell, who has lent his support to a bipartisan bill that would limit the power of large hospitals to charge interest rates and rein in medical debt collection tactics. “It’s a moral issue.”
North Carolina Democratic state Sen. Julie Mayfield, who was on the Asheville City Council when HCA acquired Mission Health, sponsored a bill earlier this year that would have curbed hospital consolidations.
In a social media post introducing the bill, Mayfield said she hoped it would “prevent other communities from suffering what we have suffered in the wake of the Mission sale — loss of nursing and other staff, loss of physicians, closure of facilities, and the resulting lower quality of care many people have experienced in Mission hospitals over the last four years.”
Even the Federal Trade Commission jumped in, urging legislators to “reconsider” a bill that would have greenlighted UNC Health’s expansion, saying it could “lead to patient harm in the form of higher health care costs, lower quality, reduced innovation and reduced access to care.” That bill ultimately failed in the state House, as sentiment among some North Carolina leaders had already soured on hospital mergers.
In most U.S. markets, a single hospital system now accounts for more than half of hospital inpatient admissions. Federal regulators have been scrutinizing health care mergers more carefully in recent years, said KFF’s Levinson. The FTC has both sued and been sued by health care systems in Louisiana this year, and recently released a draft version of new guidelines on anti-competitive practices.
“People have viewed those guidelines as indicating the FTC and [the U.S. Department of Justice] will be more interested in aggressively challenging anti-competitive practices than in the past,” Levinson said.
Both the Trump and Biden administrations issued executive orders directing federal agencies to focus on promoting competition in health care markets. President Joe Biden’s order noted that “hospital consolidation has left many areas, particularly rural communities, with inadequate or more expensive healthcare options.”
In Mississippi, the hospital mergers law received widespread support from most of the state’s GOP leaders. But the state’s far-right Freedom Caucus came out against it, with Republican state Rep. Dana Criswell, the chair of the caucus, calling it “an attempt at a complete government takeover” of Mississippi’s hospitals.
Criswell said allowing the University of Mississippi Medical Center to buy smaller hospitals “will create a huge government protected monopoly, driving out competition and ultimately putting private hospitals out of business.”
‘Trying something different’
Wilson, the Asheville nurse, said she used to have three or four patients per shift before the merger; now she typically has five. That gives her an average of 10 minutes per patient per hour. It’s not enough time, she said, to give patients their medication, answer questions and perform other tasks that she said nurses often take on because other departments are short-staffed.
Sometimes, she said, those tasks include helping patients go to the bathroom because there aren’t enough nursing assistants or taking out the trash because of a shortage of cleaning staff. Meanwhile, the waiting rooms are overflowing.
Wilson joined the new Mission Hospital nurses union, which was able to negotiate raises for its members. The union continues to protest working conditions, including staff-patient ratios.
But Kelly, of the Mississippi Rural Health Association, said that in his state, mergers are an opportunity for positive change.
“It’s not like health care in Mississippi is at the top of the list for good things,” he said. “I think this is an example of trying something different and seeing if it works.”
HENRY KOTULA 