Rating agencies have done a great job in increasing transparency around how ratings are determined. Detailed methodologies, scorecards, and medians are a big part of that effort.
Central to the rating process is the rating committee. All rating decisions are made by a rating committee, not an individual. The rating committee provides a robust discussion of various viewpoints as it deliberates, votes, and assigns ratings to the debt instrument.
Here are five things to know about what happens in a rating committee.
1. Rating committees are presided over by a Rating Committee Chair.
The Chair’s primary responsibility is to check that the committee follows numerous processes that meet company and SEC-mandated guidelines. For example, the Chair must verify that the correct methodology is being used to determine the rating, or if a rating requires additional methodologies (such as short-term rating methodologies on variable rate debt). The Chair must confirm that the rating decision will be based on verifiable facts or assessments (such as an audit) and that voting members are free of conflicts. Committees can be subject to internal and external reviews after the fact to ensure that decisions were made impartially and documented correctly.
The Chair ensures that the committee is populated with voting members who possess in-depth knowledge about the sector or related-credit knowledge (such as a higher education analyst in the case of an academic medical center) and are skilled in credit assessment. Each voting member has one vote and an equal vote. Serving as a voting member of a rating committee or as a Chair is a privilege and must be earned.
2. The rating committee discussion centers around the ability of a borrower to repay its obligations, or said another way, the likelihood of payment default.
As such, debt structure is integral to the rating committee. Detailed information provided in the committee package will include information on outstanding and proposed debt (if a bond financing is imminent), debt structure risks (fixed versus variable, for example), debt service schedule (level payments or with bullets), maturities and call dates, taxable and tax-exempt debt, bank lines and revolvers, counterparty risk and termination events, derivative products such as interest rate swaps and collateral thresholds, senior-subordinate debt structures, bond and bank covenants, obligated group, and security pledge, to name a few. Leases and pension obligations are also considered, particularly when liabilities outsize the direct debt.
Rating committees review hundreds of financial metrics to assess recent financial performance and an organization’s ability to pay debt in the future. Audited financial statements, year-to-date results, and annual budgets and projections are the basis for computing the financial ratios. Non-quantitative factors include success with past strategies and capital projects, market position and essentiality, management, governance and corporate structure, workforce needs, and local economic data. Confidential information provided by the organization is also shared. The job of the lead analyst is to distill all the information and present an organized credit story to the rating committee.
3. Rating consistency is paramount.
An “A” should be an “A” should be an “A.” Comparables (or “comps”) are an important part of the rating committee. Comps may include the other hospitals and health systems operating in the same state given shared Medicaid and state regulations (such as Certificate of Need or state-mandated minimum wage), workforce environment (such as the presence of active unions), and similar economic factors. Like-sized peers in the same rating category also populate comps. The type of hospital being evaluated is also important. For example, health systems that own health plans would be compared to other integrated delivery systems; likewise for children’s hospitals, academic medical centers, or subacute care providers. Medians are also a part of the comps and provide relativity to like-rated borrowers by highlighting outliers.
4. Rating committee spends time reviewing the draft report to make sure the committee’s views are accurately expressed and check that confidential information was not inadvertently revealed. If you want to know what was discussed in the rating committee, read the last rating report.
Over the years, many executives have asked to speak directly to the rating committee. While that is not possible, you can bring your voice to the discussion with an informative, well-crafted rating presentation. That brings me to my final “inside rating committee” point.
5. Rating presentations matter.
Effective, informative presentations that encapsulate your organization’s strengths will be shared with the rating committee. Every slide in your presentation should send a clear message that the organization’s ability to repay the debt and exceed covenants is strong. Emphasize the positives, acknowledge the challenges, and share what your action plan is to address them. Do your homework and review what you shared with the analysts last year; they will be doing the same to prepare. Provide updates on how the strategic plans are going. If you exceeded your financial goals, explain how. If you fell short, explain why.
How you tell the story is as important as the story itself. That’s how you can inform the discussion and ensure your voice is heard around the rating committee table.
Hospital and insurer contract negotiations are often framed as an industry gauntlet, a defined period of time with an objective outcome where big talk does not translate to money. But reimbursement rates secured in new contracts are only one piece of hospitals’ payer-induced headaches.
Traditionally, a health system and commercial insurer would occasionally run into a wall in the contract negotiation process. This could play out into a dispute palpable enough to consumers that it warranted headlines. These impasses generally lasted a matter of weeks with no significant disruptions before outside pressure drove the parties to compromise.
Over the past five years or so, the nature of provider-payer conflicts intensified and may be on the cusp of unprecedented severity given health systems’ financial pressures. At the same time, agreed-upon reimbursement rates are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to payment health systems can expect from commercial insurers, who have many more defensive plays in their playbook.
They boil down to a classic line from a 1968 movie: deny, deny, deny.
Russ Johnson is CEO of LMH Health, a 102-year-old, independent, nonprofit health system based in Lawrence, Kan. The $350 million organization is anchored by a 174-bed hospital. As he puts it: “We’re not tiny, but we’re not very big.”
Mr. Johnson has spent 37 years working in healthcare, holding senior leadership positions in hospitals and health systems in rural communities and large cities. It’s difficult to identify many things going well when it comes to provider-payer relationships, but Mr. Johnson told Becker’s that it’s the payer movements beneath the reimbursement rates that are worsening and causing greater pain today.
“The part that’s getting worse is the practices behind and underneath the contracts — the sophistication and implementation of pay practices, information systems, artificial intelligence and computer algorithms that are just denying claims by the thousands every month,” he said.
The reimbursement rates secured in contracts are what you can see above water. Beneath, health insurers are moving faster and kicking harder. Throughout the first three months of 2023, about one-third of inpatient and outpatient claims submitted by providers to commercial payers went unpaid for more than 90 days, according to an analysis from Crowe.
“So many more claims are now surfacing with some kind of a fallout on a denial, a downcoding or a pre-authorization — you know, the proverbial dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s, sometimes. But what is abundantly clear is it is not fundamentally about a clinical difference,” Mr. Johnson said.
Denials were once reserved for a sliver of expensive treatments and have now become common occurrence for mundane, ordinary medical care and treatments such as inhalers or familiar medications for chronic conditions a patient has managed for years. The administrative burden is something close to a requirement to prove residency every month to receive electricity or verifying eligibility to work in the U.S. every week for a paycheck — redundant, time-wasting activity for ordinary, essential things.
“For our business office to keep up with what I frankly think is mischief by the payers in terms of denials, pre-authorization, DRG downcoding and a completely unengaged experience trying to negotiate — or to have our physicians call in and do a peer-to-peer conferences about clinical necessity — it’s demoralizing, frankly,” Mr. Johnson said. “Dealing with denial from our payers is one of the biggest dissatisfiers our physicians face.”
Authors of the 2010 Affordable Care Act worried that provisions to expand health insurance access — such as barring health insurers’ refusal to cover patients with preexisting conditions — could cause them to ratchet up other tactics to make up for the change. With this in mind, the law charged HHS with monitoring health plan denial rates, but oversight has been unfulfilled, leaving denials widespread.
Data and numbers on denial rates are not easy to find, but some examination paints a picture rich with variation. An analysis of 2021 plans on Healthcare.gov conducted by KFF found nearly 17 percent of in-network claims were denied, with rates varying from 2 percent to 49 percent. The reasons for the bulk of denials are unclear. About 14 percent were attributed to an excluded service, 8 percent to lack of pre-authorization or referral and 2 percent to questions of medical necessity. A whopping 77 percent were classified as “all other reasons.”
Adding to the inconsistency is the fact that health plan denial rates fluctuate year over year. In 2020, a gold-level health plan offered by Oscar Insurance in Florida denied 66 percent of payment requests; in 2021 it denied 7 percent.
There is much to learn about the ways AI will shape healthcare, and its potential to further expedite and increase denials is concerning. Cigna faces a class-action lawsuit alleging it bypassed requirements for claim review before denial by having an algorithm — dubbed “PXDX” — complete review before having physicians sign off on batches of denied claims. The lawsuit followed a ProPublica report on the practice, which said Cigna physicians denied more than 300,000 claims over two months in 2022 through the system, which equated to 1.2 seconds of review per claim on average.
AI is often touted as a potential, looming replacement to hardworking healthcare professionals, but in the day to day it exacerbates the administrative burdens that already bring them down.
“Nobody becomes a physician because they hope to feel like a cog in a factory,” Michael Ivy, MD, deputy chief medical officer of Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health, told Becker’s. “However, between meeting the demands of payers for referrals, denials of payment and increased documentation requirements in order to assure proper reimbursement and risk adjustment, as well as an increasing number of production metrics, it can be difficult not to feel like a cog.”
A number of hospitals and health systems are trimming their workforces or jobs due to financial and operational challenges.
Below are workforce reduction efforts or job eliminations that were announced within the past year and/or take effect later in 2023.
Editor’s Note: This webpage was updated Aug. 10 and will continue to be updated. Stories are listed under the month they were reported on by Becker’s.
August
The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences is laying off 51 workers in support services, administration and service lines. Some previously open positions will also be left vacant, the Little Rock-based institution told the Becker’s in a prepared statement. Some job duties will be reassigned.
Springfield, Ill.-based Memorial Health is laying off hundreds of employees, including 20 percent of leadership positions. Affected employees represent 5 percent of Memorial’s total salary and benefits, according to a statement provided to Becker’s. The cuts focused on system leadership, administrative and support sectors.
Boone Health, a county-owned system based in Columbia, Mo., will cut 62 jobs, most of which are unfilled. Fifteen of the 62 positions are held by existing employees.
The in-home care arm of Syracuse, N.Y.-based St. Joseph’s Health, part of Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health, is closing in October, pending the discharge of all patients. The closure includes the termination of 71 employees. Mark McPherson, president and CEO of Trinity Health At Home, said 63 full and part-time positions are being eliminated, while the remaining eight were contingent positions.
July
Chapel Hill, N.C.-based UNC Health will lay off 246 employees. The reduction will occur after the organization ends services at a behavioral health facility in Raleigh on Sept. 30, according to a WARN notice filed July 21 with the North Carolina Department of Commerce.
Philadelphia-based Jefferson Health is reducing its workforce by about 400 positions. The reduction represents approximately 1 percent of the workforce.
Tupelo-based North Mississippi Health Services is moving forward with layoffs and job reassignments as part of its “redesign” plan to improve the organization’s financial picture, according to a message sent to NMHS employees and affiliated providers July 19. NMHS did not provide the number of affected positions or types of positions affected.
Allina Healthbegan layoffs affecting about 350 team members throughout the Minneapolis-based organization. The health system said the layoffs began July 17 and that most of the affected jobs are leadership and non-direct caregiving roles.
Middletown, N.Y.-based Garnet Healthlaid off 49 employees, including 25 leaders. The reductions represent 1.13 percent of the organization’s total workforce.
June
Coral Gables-based Baptist Health South Florida is offering its executives at the director level and above a “one-time opportunity” to apply for voluntary separation, according to a June 29 Miami Herald report. Decisions on buyout applications will be made during the summer.
MultiCare Health System, a 12-hospital organization based in Tacoma, Wash., will lay off 229 employees, or about 1 percent of its 23,000 staff members, including about two dozen leaders, as part of cost-cutting efforts, the health system said June 29. The layoffs primarily affect support departments, such as marketing, IT and finance.
Greensburg, Pa.-based Independence Health Systemlaid off 53 employees and has cut 226 positions — including resignations, retirements and elimination of vacant positions — since January, The Butler Eagle reported June 28. The 226 reductions began at the executive level, with 13 manager positions terminated in March.
Billings (Mont.) Clinic will lay off workers as part of a restructuring plan to address financial and operational headwinds in today’s healthcare environment, the organization confirmed. The layoffs are expected to affect approximately 27 or fewer positions.
Melbourne, Fla.-based Health First is eliminating some positions and leaving open ones vacant, Florida Today reported June 21. Seventeen jobs will be cut and 36 will be left unfilled, according to Paula Just, the health system’s chief experience officer.
Pittsburgh-based Highmark Healthlaid off 118 employees on June 21, including two from Allegheny Health Network, a spokesperson for the health system told Becker’s. The layoffs follow the health system’s cutbacks in March and April, according to the Pittsburgh Business Times. Highmark laid off 141 workers earlier this year.
Vibra Hospital of Western Massachusetts, a long-term-acute care hospital in Springfield, will lay off 87 employees by Aug. 15 ahead of the facility’s planned closure. About 30 patients will be relocated to Baystate Health’s Valley Springs Behavioral Health Hospital in Holyoke, Mass., which will open in August.
Cortez, Colo.-based Southwest Memorial Hospitallaid off nine people to help ensure the hospital is staffed appropriately, and create financial stability for the future, a spokesperson confirmed to Becker’s. The spokesperson, Chuck Krupa, said the layoffs occurred June 14 and included administrative workers. No bedside care positions were affected.
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital in Valencia, Calif., is making “a little over 100” layoffs amid financial challenges, spokesperson Patrick Moody confirmed to Becker’s. Mr. Moody said the layoffs affect workers “in a wide range of hospital departments.” This includes some management-level employees. The hospital, which has about 1,800 employees total, is not providing specific numbers for specific job titles or departments.
Dartmouth Health is laying off 75 workers and eliminating 100 job vacancies. The layoffs came after the Lebanon, N.H.-based health system implemented a performance improvement plan in November.
Seattle Children’s is eliminating 135 leader roles, citing financial challenges. The management restructuring and reduction affects 1.5 percent of employees across the organization.
White Rock (Texas) Medical Centerlaid off 30 workers across 28 departments. The layoffs include clinical and administrative roles.
Jackson, Miss.-based St. Dominic Health Services is laying off 157 workers and ending behavioral health services. The reduction represents 5.5 percent of the hospital’s workforce.
Danville, Pa.-based Geisinger laid off 47 employees from its IT department. The reduction is part of a restructuring plan to offset high labor and supply costs.
Cascade Behavioral Health Hospital in Tukwila, Wash., is winding down operations and laying off 288 employees. The 137-bed psychiatric facility is slated to close by July 31.
Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance is laying off 69 employees, reducing the hours of 15 others and eliminating 170 open positions, according to The Boston Globe. The reductions are primarily in management, administrative and support areas, a health system spokesperson told Becker’s.
May
Wenatchee, Wash.-based Confluence Health has eliminated its chief operating officer amid restructuring efforts and financial pressures, the health system confirmed to Becker’s May 16.
Conemaugh Memorial Medical Center, a Duke LifePoint hospital in Johnstown, Pa., has laid off less than 1 percent of its workforce, the hospital confirmed to Becker’s May 15.
Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system based in Indianapolis, plans to cut an unspecified number of jobs as it restructures its workforce and makes organizational changes. The health system confirmed the job cuts in a statement shared with Becker’s on May 11. It did not say how many jobs would be cut or which positions would be affected.
New Orleans-based Ochsner Healtheliminated 770 positions, or about 2 percent of its workforce, on May 11. This is the largest layoff to date for the health system.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Centereliminated the positions of 131 employees and cut about two dozen other jobs at related Cedars-Sinai facilities, a spokesperson confirmed via a statement shared with Becker’s May 7. The Los Angeles-based organization said reductions represent less than 1 percent of the workforce and apply to management and non-management roles primarily in non-patient care jobs.
Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health is eliminating about 60 positions. A statement from RRH said the changes affect less than one-half percent of the system population, mostly in nonclinical and management positions.
Memorial Health Systemlaid off fewer than 90 people, or less than 2 percent of its workforce.The Gulfport, Miss.-based health system said May 2 that most of the affected positions are nonclinical or management roles, and the majority do not involve direct patient care.
Monument Healthlaid off at least 80 employees, or about 2 percent of its workforce. The Rapid City, S.D.-based system said positions are primarily corporate service roles and will not affect patient services. Unfilled corporate service positions were also eliminated.
April
Habersham Medical Center in Demorest, Ga., laid off four executives. The layoffs are part of cost-cutting measures before the hospital joins Gainesville-based Northeast Georgia Health System in July, nowhaberbasham.com reported April 27.
Scripps Health is eliminating 70 administrative roles, according to WARN documents filed by the San Diego-based health system in March. The layoffs take effect May 8 and affect corporate positions in San Diego and La Jolla, Calif.
Trinity Health Mid-Atlantic, part of Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health, eliminated fewer than 40 positions, a spokesperson confirmed to Becker’s April 24. The layoffs represent 0.5 percent of the health system’s approximately 7,000-person workforce.
PeaceHealtheliminated 251 caregiver roles across multiple locations. The Vancouver, Wash.-based health system said affected roles include 121 from Shared Services, which supports its 16,000 caregivers in Washington, Oregon and Alaska.
Toledo, Ohio-based ProMedicaplans to lay off 26 skilled nursing support staff. The layoffs, effective in June, affect 20 employees who work remotely across the U.S, and six who work at the ProMedica Summit Center in Toledo, according to a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification filed April 18. Most affected positions support sales, marketing and administrative functions for the skilled nursing facilities, Promecia told Becker’s.
Northern Inyo Healthcare District, which operates a 25-bed critical access hospital in Bishop, Calif., anticipates eliminating about 15 positions, or less than 4 percent of its 460-member workforce, by April 21, a spokesperson confirmed to Becker’s. The layoffs include nonclinical roles within support and administration, according to a news release. No further details were provided about specific positions affected.
West Reading, Pa.-based Tower Health is eliminating 100 full-time equivalent positions. The move will affect 45 individuals, according to an April 13 news release the health system shared with Becker’s. The other 55 positions are either recently vacated or involve individuals who plan to retire in the coming weeks and months.
Grand Forks, N.D.-based Altru Health is trimming its executive team as its new hospital project moves forward. The health system is trimming its executive team from nine to six and incentivizing 34 other employees to take early retirement.
Tacoma, Wash.-based Virginia Mason Franciscan Healthlaid off nearly 400 employees, most of whom are in non-patient-facing roles. The job cuts affected less than 2 percent of the health system’s 19,000-plus workforce.
Katherine Shaw Bethea Hospital in Dixon, Ill., will lay off 20 employees, citing financial headwinds affecting health organizations across the U.S. It will also leave other positions unfilled to reduce expenses amid rising labor and supply costs and reductions in payments by insurance plans. Affected employees largely work in administrative support areas and not direct patient care.
Danbury, Conn.-based Nuvance Health will close a 100-bed rehabilitation facility in Rhinebeck, N.Y., resulting in 102 layoffs. The layoffs are effective April 12, according to the Daily Freeman.
March
Charleston, S.C.-based MUSC Health University Medical Centerlaid off an unspecified number of employees from its Midlands hospitals in the Columbia, S.C. area. Division President Terry Gunn also resigned after the facilities missed budget expectations by $40 million in the first six months of the fiscal year, The Post and Courier reported March 30.
Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Novant Healthlaid off about 50 workers, including C-level executives, the health system confirmed to Becker’s March 29. The layoffs affected Jesse Cureton, the health system’s executive vice president and chief consumer officer since 2013; Angela Yochem, its executive vice president and chief transformation and digital officer since 2020; and Paula Dean Kranz, vice president of innovation enablement and executive director of the Novant Health Innovation Labs.
Penn Medicine Lancaster (Pa.) General Health eliminated fewer than 65 jobs, or less than 1 percent of its workforce of about 9,700, the health system confirmed to Becker’s March 30. The layoffs include support, administrative and executive roles, and COVID-19-related support staff, spokesperson John Lines said, according to lancasteronline.com. Mr. Lines did not provide a specific number of affected workers.
McLaren St. Luke’s Hospital in Maumee, Ohio, will lay off 743 workers, including 239 registered nurses, when it permanently closes this spring. Other affected roles include physical therapists, radiology technicians, respiratory therapists, pharmacists and pharmacy support staff, and nursing assistants. The hospital’s COO is also affected, and a spokesperson for McLaren Health Care told Becker’s other senior leadership roles are also affected.
Bellevue, Wash.-based Overlake Medical Center and Clinicslaid off administrative staff, the health system confirmed to the Puget Sound Business Journal. The layoffs, which occurred earlier this year, included 30 workers across Overlake’s human resources, information technology and finance departments, a spokesperson said, according to the publication. This represents about 6 percent of the organization’s administrative workforce. Overlake’s website says it employs more than 3,000 people total.
Columbia-based University of Missouri Health Care is eliminating five hospital leadership positions across the organization, spokesperson Eric Maze confirmed to Becker’s March 20. Mr. Maze did not specify which roles are being eliminated saying that the organization won’t address individual personnel actions. According to MU Health Care, the move is a result of restructuring “to better support patients and the future healthcare needs of Missourians.”
Greensboro, N.C.-based Cone Healtheliminated 68 senior-level jobs. The job eliminations occurred Feb. 21, Cone Health COO Mandy Eaton told The Alamance News. Of the 68 positions eliminated, 21 were filled. Affected employees were offered severance packages.
The newly merged Greensburg, Pa.-based organization made up of Excela Health and Butler Health Systemeliminated 13 filled managerial jobs. The affected employees and positions are from across both sides of the new organization, Tom Chakurda, spokesperson for the Excela-Butler enterprise, confirmed to Becker’s. The positions were in various support functions unrelated to direct patient care.
Crozer Health, a four-hospital system based in Upland, Pa., is laying off roughly 215 employees amid financial challenges. The system announced the layoffs March 15 as part of its “operational restructuring plan” that “focuses on removing duplication in administrative oversight and discontinuing underutilized services.” Affected employees represent about 4 percent of the organization’s workforce.
Philadelphia-based Penn Medicine is eliminating administrative positions. The change is part of a reorganization plan to save the health system $40 million annually, the Philadelphia Business Journal reported March 13. Kevin Mahoney, CEO of the University of Pennsylvania Health System, told Penn Medicine’s 49,000 employees last week that changes include the elimination of a “small number of administrative positions which no longer align with our key objectives,” according to the publication. The memo did not indicate the exact number of positions that were eliminated.
Sovah Health, part of Brentwood, Tenn.-based Lifepoint Health, eliminated the COO positions at its Danville and Martinsville, Va., campuses. The responsibilities of both COO roles will now be spread across members of the existing administrative team.
Valley Health, a six-hospital health system based in Winchester, Va., eliminated 31 administrative positions. The job cuts are part of the consolidation of the organization’s leadership team and administrative roles.
Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Health System said it would lay off 346 employees, representing less than 3 percent of its employee base.
Roseville, Calif.-based Adventist Health plans to go from seven networks of care to five systemwide to reduce costs and strengthen operations. The reorganization will result in job cuts, including reducing administration by more than $100 million.
Arcata, Calif.-based Mad River Community Hospital is cutting 27 jobs as it suspends home health services.
Hutchinson (Kan.) Regional Medical Centerlaid off 85 employees, a move tied to challenges in today’s healthcare environment.
January
Oklahoma City-based OU Healtheliminated about 100 positions as part of an organizational redesign to complete the integration from its 2021 merger.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center announced it would lay off to reduce costs amid widespread hospital financial challenges. The layoffs are spread across 14 sites in New York City, and equate to about 1.8 percent of Memorial Sloan’s 22,500 workforce.
St. Louis-based Ascensioncompleted layoffs in Texas, the health system confirmed in January. A statement shared with Becker’s says the layoffs primarily affected nonclinical support roles. The health system declined to specify to Becker’s the number of employees or positions affected.
Chillicothe, Ohio-based Adena Health System announced it would eliminate 69 positions — 1.6 percent of its workforce — and send 340 revenue cycle department employees to Ensemble Health Partners’ payroll in a move aimed to help the health system’s financial stability.
Ascension St. Vincent’s Riverside in Jacksonville, Fla., will end maternity care at the hospital, affecting 68 jobs, according to a Workforce Adjustment and Retraining Notification filed with the state Jan. 17. The move will affect 62 registered nurses as well as six other positions.
Visalia, Calif.-based Kaweah Health said it aimed to eliminate 94 positions as part of a new strategy to reduce labor costs. The job cuts come in addition to previously announced workforce reductions; the health system already eliminated 90 unfilled positions and lowered its workforce by 106 employees.
Oklahoma City-based Integris Health said it would eliminate 200 jobs to curb expenses. The eliminations include 140 caregiver roles and 60 vacant jobs.
Toledo, Ohio-based ProMedica announced plans to lay off 262 employees, a move tied to its exit from a skilled-nursing facility joint venture late last year. The layoffs will take effect between March 10 and April 1.
Employees at Las Vegas-based Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center were notified of layoffs coming to the facility, which will transition to a freestanding emergency department. There are 970 employees affected. Desert Springs is part of the Valley Health System, a system owned and operated by King of Prussia, Pa.-based Universal Health Services.
Philadelphia-based Jefferson Health plans to go from five divisions to three in an effort to flatten management and become more efficient. The reorganization will result in an unspecified number of job cuts, primarily among executives.
December
Pikeville (Ky.) Medical Center said it would lay off 112 employees as it outsources its environmental services department. The 112 layoffs were effective Jan. 1, 2023.
Southern Illinois Healthcare, a four-hospital system based in Carbondale, announced it would eliminate or restructure 76 jobs in management and leadership. The 76 positions fall under senior leadership, management and corporate services. Included in that figure are 33 vacant positions, which will not be filled. No positions in patient care are affected.
Citing a need to further reduce overhead expenses and support additional investments in patient care and wages, Traverse City, Mich.-based Munson Health said it would eliminate 31 positions and leave another 20 jobs unfilled. All affected positions are in corporate services or management. The layoffs represent less than 1 percent of the health system’s workforce of nearly 8,000.
November
West Reading, Pa.-based Tower Health on Nov. 16 laid off 52 corporate employees as the health system shrinks from six hospitals to four. The layoffs, which are expected to save $15 million a year, account for 13 percent of Tower Health’s corporate management staff.
St. Vincent Charity Medical Center in Cleveland closed its inpatient and emergency room care Nov. 11, four days before originally planned — and laid off 978 workers in doing so. After the transition, the Sisters of Charity Health System will offer outpatient behavioral health, urgent care and primary care.
October
Sioux Falls, S.D.-based Sanford Healthannounced layoffs affecting an undisclosed number of staff in October, a decision its CEO said was made “to streamline leadership structure and simplify operations” in certain areas. The layoffs primarily affect nonclinical areas.
This week we had a conversation with a health system executive who has been wondering how to make the case to his board for expansion beyond the existing markets where the organization operates.
Like many, he’s confronting declining margin performance, and feeling pressure to combine with another system—joining the wave of cross-market consolidation that’s been dominating discussion among system CEOs recently.
His concern was that his locally governed board may be putting an artificial brake on growth, not seeing value of expansion beyond their market for the community they serve.
That’s a valid point—how does it help a Busytown resident if the local health system expands to operate in Pleasantville? Shouldn’t Busytown Health System just focus its resources and time on improving performance at home, and wouldn’t it represent a loss to Busytown if Pleasantville got investment dollars that could have been spent locally?
That’s a question raised by the “super-regional” or national strategies being pursued by many large systems today, and one worth thinking about.
Whenever a system grows outside its geography, there should be a solid argument that additional scale will reap returns for its existing operations, from better efficiency, better access to innovation and talent, better access to capital, or the like.
Those are legitimate reasons for out-of-market growth and consolidation, as long as the systems involved are diligent in pursuing them.
But local boards are right to hold executives accountable for making the case for growth, and ensuring that growth creates value for local patients and purchasers.
Generative AI applications can already help health systems improve margins, yet only 6% have a strategy ready.
At a Glance
In the wake of their most challenging financial year since 2020, US hospitals are desperately searching for margin improvements.
Generative AI can increase productivity and cost efficiency, but only 6% of health systems currently have a strategy.
Leading providers and payers will start with highly focused, low-risk generative AI use cases, generating the funds and experience for more transformative future applications.
While Covid-19 may no longer be dominating the global news cycle, healthcare providers and payers are still feeling its reverberations. More than half of US hospitals ended 2022 with a negative margin, marking the most difficult financial year since the start of the pandemic.
CEOs and CFOs remember the challenges all too well: The Omicron surge halted nonurgent procedures in the first half of the year, government support tapered off, and labor expenses ballooned amid staffing shortages. There was also the record-high inflation that continues to intensify margin pressures today. According to a recent Bain survey of health system executives, 60% cite rising costs as their greatest concern.
Payers and providers are now on the hunt for margin improvements. In our experience, the most successful companies won’t merely reduce costs, but also ramp up productivity. When done right, modest technology investments can accomplish both.
Artificial intelligence (AI) may hold part of the answer. With the costs to train a system down 1,000-fold since 2017, AI provides an arsenal of new productivity-enhancing tools at a low investment.
Many executives recognize the growing opportunity, especially with the recent rise of generative AI, which uses sophisticated large language models (LLMs) to create original text, images, and other content. It’s inspiring an explosion of ideas around use cases, from reviewing medical records for accuracy to making diagnoses and treatment recommendations.
Our survey reveals that 75% of health system executives believe generative AI has reached a turning point in its ability to reshape the industry. However, only 6% have an established generative AI strategy.
It’s time to play offense—or be forced to play defense later. But choosing from the laundry list of generative AI applications is daunting. Companies are at high risk of overinvesting in the wrong opportunities and underinvesting in the right ones, undermining future profitability, growth, and value creation. A wait-and-see approach is a tempting prospect.
However, we believe the next generation of leading healthcare companies will start today, with highly focused, low-risk use cases that boost productivity and cost efficiency. Over the next three to nine months, these companies will improve margins and learn how to implement a generative AI strategy, building up the funds and experience needed to invest in a more transformative vision.
Endless potential—and high hurdles
The excitement around generative AI may feel akin to the hype around other recent digital and technology developments that never quite rose to their promised potential. Well-intentioned, well-informed individuals are debating how much change will truly materialize in the next few years. While developments over the past six months have been a testament to the breakneck speed of change, nobody can accurately predict what the next six months, year, or decade will look like. Will new players emerge? Will we rely on different LLMs for different use cases, or will one dominate the landscape?
Despite the uncertainty, generative AI already has the power to alleviate some of providers’ biggest woes, which include rising costs and high inflation, clinician shortages, and physician burnout. Quick relief is critical, considering that the heightened risk of a recession will only compound margin pressures, and the US could be short 40,800 to 104,900 physicians by 2030, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.
Many health systems are eyeing imminent opportunities to reduce administrative burdens and enhance operational efficiency. They rank improving clinical documentation, structuring and analyzing patient data, and optimizing workflows as their top three priorities (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
In the near term, generative AI can reduce administrative burdens and enhance efficiency
Some generative AI applications are already streamlining administrative tasks and allowing thinly stretched physicians to spend more time with patients. For instance, Doximity is rolling out a ChatGPT tool that can draft preauthorization and appeal letters. HCA Healthcare partnered with Parlance, a conversational AI-based switchboard, to improve its call center experience while reducing operators’ workload. And there are new announcements seemingly every week: Consider how healthcare software company Epic Systems is incorporating ChatGPT with electronic health records (EHRs) to draft response messages to patients, or how Google Cloud is launching an AI-enabled Claims Acceleration Suite for prior authorization processing.
These applications only scratch the surface of potential. In the future, generative AI could profoundly transform care delivery and patient outcomes. Looking ahead two to five years, executives are most interested in predictive analytics, clinical decision support, and treatment recommendations (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
Predictive analytics, clinical decisions, and care recommendations are long-term generative AI priorities
It’s hard not to catch AI “fever.” But there are real challenges ahead. Some are already tackling the biggest questions: Organizations such as Duke Health, Stanford Medicine, Google, and Microsoft have formed the Coalition for Health AI to create guidelines for responsible AI systems. Even so, solutions to the greatest hurdles aren’t yet keeping up with the rapid technology development.
Resource and cost constraints, a lack of expertise, and regulatory and legal considerations are the largest barriers to implementing generative AI, according to executives (see Figure 3).
Figure 3
A lack of resources, expertise, and regulation are the biggest barriers to generative AI in healthcare
Even when organizations can overcome these hurdles, one major challenge remains: focus and prioritization. In many boardrooms, executives are debating overwhelming lists of potential generative AI investments, only to deem them incomplete or outdated given the dizzying pace of innovation. These protracted debates are a waste of precious organizational energy—and time.
Starting small to win big
Setting the bar too high is setting up for failure. It’s easy to get caught up, betting big on what seems like the greatest opportunity in the moment. But 12 months later, leaders often find themselves frustrated that they haven’t seen results or feeling as if they’ve made a misplaced bet. Momentum and investments slow, further hindering progress.
Leading companies are forming a more pragmatic strategy that considers current capabilities, regulations, and barriers to adoption. Their CEOs and CFOs work together to enforce four guiding principles:
Pilot low-risk applications with a narrow focus first. Tomorrow’s leaders are making no-regret moves to deliver savings and productivity enhancements in short order—at a time when they need it most. Gaining experience with currently available technology, they are testing and learning their way to minimum viable products in low-risk, repeatable use cases. These quick wins are typically in areas where they already have the right data, can create tight guardrails, and see a strong potential return on investment. Some, like call center and chatbot support, can improve the patient experience. However, given the current challenges around regulation and compliance, the most successful early initiatives are likely to be internally focused, such as billing or scheduling. Most importantly, executives prioritize initiatives by potential savings, value, and cost.
Decide to buy, partner, or build. CEOs will need to think about how to invest in different use cases based on availability of third-party technology and importance of the initiative.
Funnel cost savings and experience into bigger bets. As the technology matures and the value becomes clear, companies that generate savings, accumulate experience, and build organizational buy-in today will be best positioned for the next wave of more sophisticated, transformative use cases. These include higher-risk clinical activities with a greater need for accuracy due to ethical and regulatory considerations, such as clinical decision support, as well as administrative activities that require third-party integration, such as prior authorization.
Remember generative AI isn’t a strategy unto itself. To build a true competitive advantage, top CEOs and CFOs are selective and discerning, ensuring that every generative AI initiative reinforces and enables their overarching goals.
Some health systems are already seeing powerful results from relatively small, more practical investments. For instance, recognizing that clinicians were spending an extra 130 minutes per day outside of working hours on administrative tasks, the University of Kansas Health System partnered with Abridge, a generative AI platform, to reduce documentation burden. By summarizing the most important points from provider-patient conversations, Abridge is improving the quality and consistency of documentation, getting more patients in the door, and cutting down on pervasive physician burnout.
Although it will require some upfront investment, in the long run it will be more costly to underestimate the level and speed at which generative AI will transform healthcare. The next generation of leaders will start testing, learning, and saving today, putting them on a path to eventually revolutionize their businesses.
A bipartisan quartet of influential senators is tapping tax regulators within the U.S. Treasury for detailed information on nonprofit hospitals’ reported charity care and community investments, the latest in legislators’ increasing scrutiny of tax-exempt hospitals’ business practices.
In a pair of letters (PDF) sent Monday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Raphael Warnock, D-Georgia, Bill Cassidy, M.D., R-Louisiana, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote they “are alarmed by reports that despite their tax-exempt status, certain nonprofit hospitals may be taking advantage of this overly broad definition of ‘community benefit’ and engaging in practices that are not in the best interest of the patient.”
They also outlined studies from academic and policy groups highlighting that the tax-exempt status of the nation’s nonprofit hospitals collectively was worth about $28 billion in 2020 and how this tally paled in comparison to the charity care most of those hospitals had provided during that same period.
Such studies have been quickly contested by the hospital lobby, which highlights that charity care is just one component of the broader activities that constitute a nonprofit hospital’s community benefit spending.
However, that ambiguity was squarely in the crosshairs of the legislators who said the long-standing community benefit standard “is arguably insufficient in its current form to guarantee protection and services to the communities hosting these hospitals.”
They cited a 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office that found oversight of nonprofit hospitals’ tax exemptions was “challenging” due to the vague definition of community benefit.
Though the IRS implemented several of the office’s recommendations from the report, “more is required to ensure nonprofit hospitals’ community benefit information is standardized, consistent and easily identifiable.” Included here could be additional updates to Form 990’s Schedule H, where nonprofits detail their community benefits and related activities.
To get a better handle on the agencies’ current oversight, the legislators requested from the IRS and the Treasury’s Tax Exempt & Government Entities Division a laundry list of information related to nonprofits’ tax filings from the last several years, including “a list of the most commonly reported community benefit activities that qualified a nonprofit hospital for tax exemptions in FY2021 and FY2022.”
They also sought lists of the nonprofit hospitals that were flagged, penalized or had their tax-exempt status revoked for violating community benefit standard requirements.
In another letter to the Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, they asked the auditor to update their upcoming reviews to evaluate existing standards for financial assistance policy and other “practices that reduce unnecessary medical debt from patients who qualify for free or discounted care.”
The lawmakers also asked the inspector general to explore how often nonprofit hospitals bill patients with “gross charges” and to make sure the IRS is doing enough to ensure hospitals are making “’reasonable efforts’ to determine whether individuals are eligible for financial assistance before initiating extraordinary collection actions.”
Both letters from the senators gave the tax regulators 60 days to provide the requested information.
Kaiser Permanente built on 2023’s strong start with $2.08 billion of net income during the quarter ended June 30, bringing its midyear total to about $3.29 billion, the integrated system announced late Friday.
Operating income was also strong at $741 million (2.9% margin) and raised the organization’s six-month performance to $974 million (1.9% margin).
The numbers are both a sequential improvement and a stark turnaround from 2022. By the midpoint of that year, Kaiser Permanente was reporting a $1.3 billion net loss for the quarter and an $89 million operating gain (0.4% margin). Across 2022’s first half, the system had been down a total of $2.26 billion and added just $17 million from operations (0.0% margin).
The Oakland, California-based nonprofit is likely safe from repeating the nearly $4.5 billion net loss and $1.3 billion operating loss of full-year 2022.
Leadership, however, noted that the integrated system historically sees higher operating margins during the first half of the year “due in part to the annual enrollment cycle and seasonal care.”
“Our second-quarter financial results reflect operational improvements that, together with our ongoing expense reduction efforts, will help us face additional financial pressures in the second half of the year,” Kathy Lancaster, executive vice president and chief financial officer at Kaiser Permanente, said in a release. “The process of building our financial performance back to pre-pandemic levels requires that we continue to redesign our cost structure to support investments in our facilities, technology and people while staying competitive in a dynamic healthcare marketplace.”
Kaiser Permanente reported $25.17 billion in operating revenues for the second quarter, a 7.2% increase year over year. Operating expenses increased 4.5% year-over-year to $24.42 billion.
“Like all health systems, Kaiser Permanente is experiencing ongoing cost headwinds and volatility driven by inflation, labor shortages, and the lingering effects of the pandemic on access to care and service,” the system wrote in a release.
Kaiser Permanente’s membership has increased by more than 81,000 members since the start of the year and sits at almost 12.7 million as of June 30. The organization noted that it has kicked off an outreach campaign for Medicaid members “to ensure they have critical enrollment information as states go through the mandated process of eligibility redetermination.”
The largest impact on Kaiser Permanente’s bottom line came from investments. Owing to “favorable financial market conditions,” the organization recorded $1.34 billion in “other income and expense,” nearly a full reversal of the $1.39 billion loss on the same line item it’d logged during the same period last year.
The system’s capital spending reached $824 million for the quarter, which was up from $789 million during the second quarter of 2022 but a pullback from the first quarter of 2023’s $930 million.
“The post-pandemic financial pressures have led many in the industry to cut back on care and service,” CEO Greg Adams said in an accompanying statement. “At Kaiser Permanente, we remain focused on improving access and affordability for our patients, members and communities, which requires continued investment in care and coverage. … I want to thank all employees and physicians for turning the disruptions and challenges of the past three years into opportunities to make our healthcare system stronger and more equitable, with improved outcomes for all.”
Kaiser Permanente is the largest nonprofit health system in the country by revenue with more than $95 billion in annual revenues. As of June 30, it spanned 39 hospitals, 622 medical offices and 43 clinics in addition to its millions of covered health plan members.
Earlier in the year the system highlighted efforts to trim administrative and discretionary spending as well as a workforce push that improved clinical hiring by 15% year over year. It is in the midst of negotiating a new labor contract covering 85,000 unionized healthcare workers who are seeking workforce development investments and higher staffing levels across clinical settings.
The organization is also working toward its high-profile acquisition of fellow integrated nonprofit Geisinger Health, which Kaiser Permanente said would be the first step toward a cross-country value-based care organization called Risant Health.
A federal drug discount program for safety-net providers that’s been a perennial source of fierce disputes among health care industry powerhouses is back in the spotlight, with billions of dollars at stake.
The big picture:
Separate but coinciding issues are generating renewed focus on the decades-old 340B program, which requires that drugmakers give large discounts on outpatient drugs to health care providers serving low-income patients.
A Biden administration proposal to issue hefty back payments due to 340B providers, drugmakers’ efforts to limit discounts, and rebooted congressional interest in broader reforms are again igniting debate about the program’s scope.
Context:
The Supreme Court last year unanimously sided with hospitals who challenged a nearly 30% reduction to their 340B payments by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that began under the Trump administration.
In response to the court decision, CMS last month announced a $9 billion plan to repay 340B providers that’s generated some controversy. While 340Bhospitals are happy they’re getting paid back, industry groups are upset that the payments are funded by clawing back money to other hospitals.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is battling drugmakers in court over restrictions they’ve placed on where hospitals can use their 340B discounts.
A bipartisan group of senators this summer also released a request for information on how to improve stability and oversight within the program.
Hospitals could face further cutbacks if Congress or the courts place new limits on 340B.
Flashback:
The 340B program began in 1992 to help providers serving patient populations who struggled to afford their prescription drugs. It allowshospitals and other safety-net providers like community health clinics to save an average of 25% to 50% on drug purchases, according to the federal government.
When hospitals partner with off-site pharmacies to dispense drugs, the pharmacies also benefit financially from 340B savings.
The program has grown significantly since its inception, increasing from 8,100 participating safety-net providers in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020.
Between the lines:
The expansive program growth has drawn lawmakers’ scrutiny and complaints from pharmaceutical companies, who accuse providers of using the program to pad their profits rather than help vulnerable patients. Providers dispute those accusationsand say the program helps them stretch limited federal resources.
More than 20 drug companies have placed restrictions on when providers can use 340B discounts at off-site pharmacies. Drug companies say the limits help prevent them from having to give duplicate discounts, which occurswhen both the provider and state Medicaid agency receive a discount on the same drug.
The Biden administration asked several drugmakers to lift their 340B restrictions and threatened fines if they don’t comply.
Several drugmakers have sued the administration, arguing federal officials didn’t have the right to stop them from limiting discounts. One appellate judge ruled in favor of drugmakers earlier this year, and two other cases are pending in federal appellate courts.Experts say the cases could go all the way to the Supreme Court.
As the legal fight plays out, 340B providers are urging Congress to approve new measures to prevent drugmakers from restricting access to discounts.
The other side: Drugmakers, meanwhile, want lawmakers to tightenhospital eligibility standards and place stronger limits on how 340B pharmacies can profit from the program.
Of note: Rural hospitals, some of which were spared from the 340B cuts made years ago, are especially concerned about the hit they would takefrom CMS’ proposed funding clawbacks.
Rural facilities today rely heavilyon 340B to offset other financial losses, Brock Slabach, chief operations officer at the National Rural Health Association, told Axios.
“You can’t get out of this problem without harming those who were helped,” Slabach said.
What we’re watching: Expect to keep hearing about 340B in the coming months.
CMS still needs to finalize the 340B repayment planafter the public comment ends Sept. 5.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will issue rulings on whether the Biden administration can reverse drugmakers’340B restrictions.
Congress could take up a serious reform effort following the Senate’s information request, though that would take time.
Seniors face more than $50 billion in unpaid medical bills, many of which they shouldn’t have to pay, according to a federal watchdog report.
In an all-too-common scenario, medical providers charge elderly patients the full price of an expensive medical service rather than work with the insurer that is supposed to cover it. If the patient doesn’t pay, the provider sends the bill into collections, setting off a round of frightening letters, humiliating phone calls and damaging credit reports.
That is one conclusion of a recent report titled Medical Billing and Collections Among Older Americans, from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The report recounts a horror story from a patient in southern Pennsylvania over a hospital visit, which should have been covered by insurance.
“I never received a bill from anyone,” the patient said in a 2022 complaint. Then came a phone call from a collection agency. “The woman on the phone started off aggressively screaming at me,” saying the patient owed $2,300.
“I told her there must be some mistake, that both Medicare and my supplement insurance would have covered it. It has in the past. She started screaming, very loud, ‘If you don’t pay me right now, I will put this on your credit report.’ I told her, ‘If you keep screaming at me, I will hang up.’ She continued, so I hung up.”
Nearly 4 million seniors reported unpaid medical bills in 2020, even though 98 percent of them had insurance, the report found. Medicare, the national health insurance program, was created to protect older Americans from burdensome medical expenses.
Total unpaid medical debt for seniors rose from $44.8 billion in 2019 to $53.8 billion in 2020, even though older adults reported fewer doctor visits and lower out-of-pocket costs in 2020.
Medical debt among seniors is rising partly because health care costs are going up, agency officials said. But much of the $53.8 billion is cumulative, they said, debt carried over from one year to the next. Figures for 2020 were the latest available.
Millions of older Americans are covered by both Medicare and Medicaid, a second federal insurance program for people of limited means. Federal and state laws widely prohibit health care providers from billing those patients for payment beyond nominal copays.
Yet, those low-income patients are more likely than wealthier seniors to report unpaid medical bills. The agency’s findings suggest that health care companies are billing low-income seniors “for amounts they don’t owe.” The findings draw from census data and consumer complaints collected between 2020 and 2022.
Many complaints depict medical providers and collection agencies relentlessly pursuing seniors for payment on bills that an insurance company has rejected over an error, rather than correcting the error and resubmitting the claim.
“Many of these errors likely are avoidable or fixable,” the report states, “but only a fraction of rejected claims are adjusted and resubmitted.”
When a patient points out the error, the creditors might agree to fix it, only to ignore that pledge and double down on the debt collection effort.
An Oklahoma senior recounted a collection agency nightmare that followed a hospital stay. After paying all legitimate bills, the patient discovered new charges from a collection agency on a credit report. In subsequent months, additional charges appeared.
The patient assembled billing statements and correspondence, hoping to clear the bogus charges. “I then proceeded to spend every weekday, all day, for two weeks on the phone, trying to find out who was billing me and why,” the patient said in a 2021 complaint.
The Oklahoman eventually paid the bills, “even though I don’t owe them.” Then, more charges appeared.
“Nice racket they have going,” the patient quipped.
As anyone with health insurance knows, medical providers occasionally charge patients for services that should have been covered by the insurer. Someone forgets to submit the claim, or types the wrong billing code or omits crucial documentation. Some providers charge patients more than the negotiated rate, a discounted fee set between the provider and insurer.
Americans spend hours of their lives disputing such charges. But many seniors aren’t up to the task.
“It’s tiring to have multiple conversations, sitting on the phone for an hour, chasing representatives,” said Genevieve Waterman, director of economic and financial security at the National Council on Aging.
“I think technology is outpacing older adults,” she said. “If you don’t have the digital literacy, you’re going to get lost.”
Older adults are more likely than younger people to have multiple chronic health conditions, which can require more detailed insurance documentation and face greater scrutiny, yielding more billing errors and denied claims, the federal report says.
Seniors are also more likely to rely on more than one insurance plan. As of 2020, two-thirds of older adults with unpaid medical bills had two or more sources of insurance.
Multiple insurers means a more complex billing process, making it harder for either patient or provider to file a claim and see that it is paid. With Medicaid, “you have 50 states, plus the territories,” said one official from the federal agency, speaking on condition of anonymity. “They each have their own billing system.”
In an analysis of Medicare complaints filed between 2020 and 2022, the agency found that 53 percent involved debt collectors seeking money the patient didn’t owe. In a smaller share of cases, patients reported that collection agents threatened punitive action or made false statements to press their case.
The complaints “illustrate how difficult it is to identify an inaccurate bill, learn where it originated, and correct other people’s mistakes,” the report states. “Some providers refuse to talk to consumers because the account has already been referred to collections. Even when providers seem willing to correct their own mistakes, debt collectors may continue attempting to collect a debt that is not owed and refuse to stop reporting inaccurate data.”
Rather than carry on a fight with collection agents over multiple rounds of calls and correspondence, many seniors become ensnared in a “doom loop,” the report says, convinced their appeal is hopeless. They pay the erroneous bill.
“I think some people get to the point where they just throw up their hands and give up a credit card number just to make the problem go away,” said Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the Program on Medicare Policy at KFF.
Debt takes a toll on the mental and physical health of seniors, research has shown. Older adults with debt are more prone to a range of ailments, including hypertension, cancer and depression.
As the Oklahoma patient said, recalling a years-long battle over unpaid bills, “It nearly sent me back to the hospital.”
The U.S. health system is big and getting bigger. It is labor intense, capital intense, and highly regulated. Each sector operates semi-independently protected by local, state and federal constraints that give incumbents advantages and dissuade insurgents.
Competition has been intramural:
Growth by horizontal consolidation within sectors has been the status quo for most to meet revenue and influence targets. In tandem, diversification aka vertical consolidation and, for some, globalization in each sector has distanced bigger players from smaller:
insurers + medical groups + outpatient facilities + drug benefit managers
retail pharmacies + primary & preventive care + health & wellbeing services + OTC products/devices
regulated medical devices + OTC products for clinics, hospitals, homes, workplaces and schools.
The landscape is no man’s land for the faint of heart but it’s golden for savvy private investors seeking gain at the expense of the system’s dysfunction and addictions—lack of price transparency, lack of interoperability and lack of definitive value propositions.
What’s ahead?
Everyone in the U.S. health system is aware that funding is becoming more scarce and regulatory scrutiny more intense, but few have invested in planning beyond tomorrow and the day after. Unlike drug and device manufacturers with global markets and long-term development cycles, insurers and providers are handicapped. Insurers respond by adjusting coverage, premiums and co-pays annually. Providers—hospitals, physicians, long-term care providers and public health programs– have fewer options. For most, long-range planning is a luxury, and even when attempted, it’s prone to self-protection and lack of objectivity.
Changes to the future state of U.S. healthcare are the result of shifts in these domains:
They apply to every sector in healthcare and define the context for the future of each organization, sector and industry as a whole:
The Clinical Domain: How health, diseases and treatments are defined and managed where and by whom; how caregivers and individuals interact; how clinical data is accessed, structured and translated through AI enabled algorithms; how medication management and OTC are integrated; how social determinants are recognized and addressed by caregivers and communities: and so on. The clinical domain is about more than doctors, nurses, facilities and pills.
The Technology Domain: How information technologies enable customization in diagnostics and treatments; how devices enable self-care; how digital platforms enable access; how systemness facilitates integration of clinical, claims and user experience data; how operating environments shift to automation lower unit costs; how sites of care emerge; how caregivers are trained and much more. Proficiency in the integration of technologies is the distinguishing feature of organizations that survive and those that don’t. It is the glue that facilitates systemness and key to the system’s transformation.
The Regulatory Domain: How affordability, value, competition, choice, healthcare markets, not-for-profit and effectiveness are defined; how local, state and federal laws, administrative orders by government agencies and executive actions define and change compliance risks; how elected officials assess and mitigate perceived deficiencies in a sector’s public accountability or social responsibility; how courts adjudicate challenges to the status quo and barriers to entry by outsiders/under-served populations; how shareholder ownership in healthcare is regulated to balance profit and the public good; et al. Advocacy on behalf of incumbents geared to current regulatory issues (especially in states) is compulsory table stakes requiring more attention; evaluating potential regulatory environment shifts that might fundamentally change the way a system is structured, roles played, funded and overseen is a luxury few enjoy.
The Capital Domain: how needed funding for major government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s, Military, Veterans, HIS, Dual Eligibles et al) is accessed and structured; how private investment in healthcare is encouraged or dissuaded; how monetary policies impact access to debt; how personal and corporate taxes impact capitalization of U.S. healthcare; how value-based programs reduce unnecessary costs and improve system effectiveness; how the employer tax exemption fares long-term as employee benefits shrink; how U.S. system innovations are monetized in global markets; how insurers structure premiums and out of pocket payments: et al. The capital domain thinks forward to the costs of capital it deploys and anticipated returns. But inputs in the models are wildly variable and inconsistent across sectors: hospitals/health systems vs. global private equity healthcare investors vs. national insurers’ capital strategies vary widely and each is prone to over-simplification about the others.
The Consumer Domain: how individuals, households and populations perceive and use the system; how they assess the value of their healthcare spending; how they vote on healthcare issues; how and where they get information; how they assess alternatives to the status quo; how household circumstances limit access and compromise outcomes; et al. The original sin of the U.S, health system is its presumption that it serves patients who are incapable/unwilling to participate effectively and actively in their care. Might the system’s effectiveness and value proposition be better and spending less if consumerization became core to its future state?
For organizations operating in the U.S. system, staying abreast of trends in these domains is tough. Lag indicators used to monitor trends in each domain are decreasingly predictive of the future. Most Boards stay focused on their own sector/subsector following the lead of their management and thought leadership from their trade associations. Most are unaware of broader trends and activities outside their sector because they’re busy fixing problems that impact their current year performance. Environmental assessments are too narrow and short-sighted. Planning processes are not designed to prompt outside the box thinking or disciplined scenario planning. Too little effort is invested though so much is at risk.
It’s understandable. U.S. healthcare is a victim of its success; maintaining the status quo is easier than forging a new path, however obvious or morally clear. Blaming others and playing the victim card is easier than corrective actions and forward-thinking planning.
In 10 years, the health system will constitute 20% of the entire U.S. economy and play an outsized role in social stability. It’s path to that future and the greater good it pursues needs charting with open minds, facts and creativity. Society deserves no less.
HENRY KOTULA 