Late last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a final rule establishing a new administrative dispute resolution process for the 340B drug discount program.
A panel, composed of government experts from the Office of Pharmacy Affairs, will resolve claims raised by covered entity providers about drugmakers overcharging them for 340B drugs, as well as claims from pharmaceutical companies that covered entities are diverting or duplicating discounts improperly. The new process, which will go into effect in mid-June, allows the panel to review claims on issues related to those pending in federal court. It’s intended to be “more accessible, administratively feasible, and timely” than a prior process established by HHS in 2020 that was paused after legal challenges.
The Gist:
This new 340B dispute resolution process is likely to see extensive use, as battles between providers and drugmakers over the drug discount program have heated up significantly in recent years. There are more than 50 ongoing court cases related to the program, many of which concern actions taken by at least 20 major drugmakers to restrict 340B sales to contract pharmacies. Although this new process may provide more effective dispute resolution, none of its decisions can be considered final until courts have settled the myriad cases before them.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of U.S. healthcare, the tug-of-war between payers and providers is continually intensifying, raising the stakes on the strategic maneuvers that shape the industry’s financial and operational dynamics.
The crux of the issue lies in the increasingly sophisticated strategies employed by insurance companies to deny claims: a move that ostensibly aims to safeguard their bottom lines, often at the expense of provider sustainability and patient access.
The rise in denial rates is more than a mere statistic; it’s a symptom of a broader systemic challenge that calls for strategic foresight and robust expertise. In this intricate environment, providers face numerous administrative challenges, working to balance clinical decisions with financial sustainability.
Drawn from in-depth proprietary analytics, clinical regulatory expertise and decades of experience, CorroHealth addresses what is needed to successfully combat payer denial tactics. Broader industry trends, such as the shift towards value-based care and the increasing emphasis on patient-centric models, will continue to disrupt the historic provider business model. CorroHealth’s insights offer a beacon for steering through these turbulent waters. Their strategic recommendations, from optimizing contract negotiations to leveraging data analytics to managing payer denials, to formalizing escalation paths, reflect a comprehensive approach to mitigating the adverse effects of ever-shifting payer denial tactics.
Delving deeper into the anatomy of payer denials reveals a long-term pattern of deliberate complexity designed to wear down provider resilience. By dissecting the layers of denial management, from initial claim submission to final resolution, CorroHealth uncovers pivotal areas where targeted interventions dramatically shift outcomes in favor of healthcare providers.
This process involves a granular analysis of denial codes, predictive analytics to pre-empt possible denials and rigorous training staff to maneuver through the intricate appeals process effectively.
Taking a proactive stance towards payer contract management, their approach emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing the fine print and negotiating terms that anticipate and mitigate denial strategies. CorroHealth advocates on the providers’ behalf for clearer definitions of medical necessity, timely filing limits and transparent appeal processes. By equipping providers with negotiation tactics grounded in comprehensive data analysis and a deep understanding of payer methodologies, their contracts become a tool for protection against denials, rather than a source of vulnerability.
Woven throughout this work is CorroHealth’s commitment to advancing the dialogue between payers and providers toward a more equitable healthcare system. Through forums, partnerships and collaborative initiatives, CorroHealth bridges the gap between these two entities, fostering an environment where mutual understanding and respect pave the way for innovative solutions to longstanding challenges.
Hospitals and health systems require an experienced partner to navigate the complexities of the healthcare landscape, balancing financial sustainability with top-tier patient care. CorroHealth offers a comprehensive suite of solutions to address challenges associated with payer denials, enabling providers to recover lost revenues and uphold the fundamental goal of accessible, high-quality patient care. Beyond financial strategies and operational adjustments, the narrative calls for a more productive and transparent dialogue between payers and providers. This aims to encourage an ecosystem where financial sustainability and high-quality patient care are complementary facets of holistic healthcare delivery.
Facing these challenges, the importance of strategic partnerships becomes increasingly vital for healthcare providers. Such alliances are indispensable in maneuvering through the complex healthcare landscape and are strengthened by CorroHealth’s comprehensive understanding of the payer-provider dynamic and dedication to fostering innovation. A collaborative approach is essential for progressing towards a healthcare system characterized by greater equity and efficiency.
The industry stands at an existential crossroads. The insights and strategies shared by CorroHealth serve as a testament to the company’s expertise and its dedication to shaping a future where healthcare is accessible, affordable and effective for all.
Since 2022, S&P Global Ratings has tracked an increase in violations of debt agreements as macro economic pressures and low operating margins challenge providers.
Dive Brief:
The number of nonprofit health systems violating their financial agreements with lenders or investors has increased since 2022 as providers struggle to meet debt obligations amid challenging operating conditions, according to a new report from credit agency S&P Global Ratings.
This year, nonprofits will continue to be at heightened risk of violating covenant agreements, or conditions of debt that are put in place by lenders. Recently, the most common violations among nonprofits have been debt service coverage — the amount of days-cash-on-hand to debt ratios — as the sector continues to weather high expenses and weak revenues.
Most nonprofits have recently received extra time to remedy finances in the form of waivers or forbearance agreements, but other systems have merged with more financially stable organizations to meet lending agreements, according to the report.
Dive Insight:
Financial covenant violations among nonprofits began to increase at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the early stages of the pandemic, violations were often tied to one-time pressures on operating income, such as mandatory stoppages of services.
However, violations have since evolved and now reflect nonprofits’ struggles with ongoing labor shortages and inflationary pressures, according to the report.
Providers in the speculative rating category were more likely to have violated financial covenants over the past two years and accounted for 60% of violations in S&P’s rated universe.
Last Tuesday (April 23), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a 570-page final rule in a partisan 3-2 vote prohibiting employers from binding most American workers to post-employment non-competition agreements (the “Final Rule”):
“Pursuant to sections 5 and 6(g) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) is issuing the Non-Compete Clause Rule (“the final rule”). The final rule provides that it is an unfair method of competition—and therefore a violation of section 5—for persons to, among other things, enter into non-compete clauses (“non-competes”) with workers on or after the final rule’s effective date. With respect to existing non-competes—i.e., non-competes entered into before the effective date—the final rule adopts a different approach for senior executives than for other workers. For senior executives (in policy setting/executive positions who earned more than $151,164 last year), existing non-competes can remain in force, while existing non-competes with other workers are not enforceable after the effective date.” (p.1)
“Concerns about non-competes have increased substantially in recent years in light of empirical research showing that they tend to harm competitive conditions in labor, product, and service markets. … When a company interferes with free competition for one of its former employee’s services, the market’s ability to achieve the most economically efficient allocation of labor is impaired. Moreover, employee-noncompetition clauses can tie up industry expertise and experience and thereby forestall new entry… competes by employers tends to negatively affect competition in labor markets, suppressing earnings for workers across the labor force—including even workers not subject to noncompete. This research has also shown that non-competes tend to negatively affect competition in product and service markets, suppressing new business formation and innovation… Yet despite the mounting empirical and qualitative evidence confirming these harms and the efforts of many States to ban them, non-competes remain prevalent in the U.S. economy. Based on the available evidence, the Commission estimates that approximately one in five American workers—or approximately 30 million workers—is subject to a non-compete. The evidence also indicates that employers frequently use non-competes even when they are unenforceable under State law.” (p.6)
On its home page, the FTC says “with a comprehensive ban on new non-competes, Americans could see an increase in wages, new business formation, reduced health care costs and more.”(www.ftc.gov)
The rule takes effect 120 days following its publication in the Federal Register and is applicable to every employer including specified operations in not-for-profit organizations (which represents the majority of hospitals, nursing homes and others). The agency noted it received 26,000 comment letters since the proposed rule was published January 19, 2023 including significant reaction from healthcare organizations. By the end of last week, two lawsuits were filed: one by the Chamber of Commerce in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the second by a global tax services and software company in the Northern District of Texas – each challenging the Final Rule and arguing that the FTC lacked the authority. Others are likely to follow and its implementation will be delayed as arguments about its merits and the FTC’s standing to make the rule find their way thru the courts.
Special attention to hospitals and physicians in the rule
Notably, the use of non-competes in healthcare is a central theme in the rule, particularly in tax-exempt hospital and medical practice settings. Noting that one in 5 workers (30 million) and up to 45% of physicians work under non-compete agreements today, the Commissioners illustrated the need for the rule by inserting vignettes from 14 workers in their introduction: 4 of these were healthcare workers– 2 physicians and employees of a hospital and electronic health record provider (p.11-13). Throughout its exhaustive commentary, the Commissioners took issue with assertions by healthcare organizations about the potential negative consequences of the rule citing lack of empirical evidence to justify opposition claims. References to tax-exempt hospitals, their for-profit activities and their employment arrangements with physicians are frequent in the commentary justifying the application of the rule as follows:
“Many commenters representing healthcare organizations and industry trade associations stated that the Commission should exclude some or all of the healthcare industry from the rule because they believe it is uniquely situated in various ways. The Commission declines to adopt an exception specifically for the healthcare industry. The Commission is not persuaded that the healthcare industry is uniquely situated in a way that justifies an exemption from the final rule. The Commission finds use of non-competes to be an unfair method of competition that tends to negatively affect labor and product and services markets, including in this vital industry; the Commission also specifically finds that non-competes increase healthcare costs. Moreover, the Commission is unconvinced that prohibiting the use of non-competes in the healthcare industry will have the claimed negative effects.” (p.303)
Not surprisingly rule, responses from the hospital trade groups were swift, direct and harshly critical:
American Hospital Association (www.aha.org):” The FTC’s final rule banning non-compete agreements for all employees across all sectors of the economy is bad law, bad policy, and a clear sign of an agency run amok. The agency’s stubborn insistence on issuing this sweeping rule — despite mountains of contrary legal precedent and evidence about its adverse impacts on the health care markets — is further proof that the agency has little regard for its place in our constitutional order. Three unelected officials should not be permitted to regulate the entire United States economy and stretch their authority far beyond what Congress granted it–including by claiming the power to regulate certain tax-exempt, non-profit organizations. The only saving grace is that this rule will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities.”
Federation of American Hospitals (www.fah.org):“This final rule is a double whammy. In n a time of constant health care workforce shortages, the FTC’s vote today threatens access to high-quality care for millions of patients.”
By contrast, the American Medical Association (www.ama-assn.org) response was positive, linking its support for the rule to AMA’s ethical principles of physician independence and clinical autonomy.
Four implicit messages to healthcare are evident in the rule
It is unlikely the rule will become law in its current form. Opposing trade groups, employers dependent on non-competes for protections of trade secrets and business relationships and many others will actively pursue its demise in courts actions. But a review of the text makes clear the FTC is intensely focused on competition and consumer protections in healthcare akin to its ongoing challenges to hospital consolidation.
Four messages emerge from the text of the rule:
1-‘The healthcare industry is a business which needs more regulation to protect consumers and its workforce by lowering costs and stimulating competition. ‘
“Many commenters representing healthcare organizations and industry trade associations stated that the Commission should exclude some or all of the healthcare industry from the rule because they believe it is uniquely situated in various ways. The Commission declines to adopt an exception specifically for the healthcare industry. The Commission is not persuaded that the healthcare industry is uniquely situated in a way that justifies an exemption from the final rule. The Commission finds use of non-competes to be an unfair method of competition that tends to negatively affect labor and product and services markets, including in this vital industry; the Commission also specifically finds that non-competes increase healthcare costs. Moreover, the Commission is unconvinced that prohibiting the use of non-competes in the healthcare industry will have the claimed negative effects.” (p.373)
2-‘Physicians play a unique role in healthcare and deserve protection.’
“Some healthcare businesses and trade organizations opposing the rule argued that, without non-competes, physician shortages would increase physicians’ wages beyond what the commenters view as fair. The commenters provided no empirical evidence to support these assertions, and the Commission is unaware of any such evidence. Contrary to commenters’ claim that the rule would increase physicians’ earnings beyond a “fair” level, the weight of the evidence indicates that the final rule will lead to fairer wages by prohibiting a practice that suppresses workers’ earnings by preventing competition; that is, the final rule will simply help ensure that wages are determined via fair competition. The Commission also notes that it received a large number of comments from physicians and other healthcare workers stating that non-competes exacerbate physician shortages.” (p.157)
“Hundreds of physicians and other commenters in the healthcare industry stated that non-competes negatively affect physicians’ ability to provide quality care and limit patient access to care, including emergency care. Many of these commenters stated that non-competes restrict physicians from leaving practices and increase the risk of retaliation if physicians object to the practices’ operations, poor care or services, workload demands, or corporate interference with their clinical judgment. Other commenters from the healthcare industry said that, like other industries, non-competes bar competitors from the market and prevent providers from moving to or starting competing firms, thus limiting access to care and patient choice. Physicians and physician organizations said non-competes contribute to burnout and job dissatisfaction, and said burnout negatively impacts patient care.” (p.202)
“…the Commission notes that while the study finds that non-competes make physicians more likely to refer patients to other physicians within their practice—increasing revenue for the practice—it makes no findings on the impact on the quality of patient care. The Commission further notes that pecuniary benefits to a firm cannot justify an unfair method of competition.” (p.206)
3.’Tax exempt hospitals that operate like for-profit entities deserve special scrutiny from regulators and are thus subject to the rule’s provisions.’
“Merely claiming tax-exempt status in tax filings is not dispositive. At the same time, if the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) concludes that an entity does not qualify for tax-exempt status, such a finding would be meaningful to the Commission’s analysis of whether the same entity is a corporation under the FTC Act.” (p.53)
“As stated in Part II.E, entities claiming tax exempt status are not categorically beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction, but the Commission recognizes that not all entities in the healthcare industry fall under its jurisdiction. “(p.374)
“While the Commission shares commenters’ concerns about consolidation in healthcare, it disagrees with commenters’ contention that the purported competitive disadvantage to for-profit entities stemming from the final rule would exacerbate this problem. As some commenters stated, the Commission notes that hospitals claiming tax-exempt status as nonprofits are under increasing public scrutiny. Public and private studies and reports reveal that some such hospitals are operating to maximize profits, paying multi-million-dollar salaries to executives, deploying aggressive collection tactics with low-income patients, and spending less on community benefits than they receive in tax exemptions.943 Economic studies by FTC staff demonstrate that these hospitals can and do exercise market power and raise prices similar to for-profit hospitals.944 Thus, as courts have recognized, the tax-exempt status as nonprofits of merging hospitals does not mitigate the potential for harm to competitive conditions.” (p.383)
“Conversely, many commenters vociferously opposed exempting entities that claim tax exempt status as nonprofits from coverage under the final rule. Several commenters contended that, in practice, many entities that claim tax-exempt status as nonprofits are in fact “organized to carry on business for [their] own profit or that of [their] members” such that they are “corporations” under the FTC Act. These commenters cited reports by investigative journalists to contend that some hospitals claiming tax-exempt status as nonprofits have excess revenue and operate like for-profit entities. A few commenters stated that consolidation in the healthcare industry is largely driven by entities that claim tax-exempt status as nonprofits as opposed to their for-profit competitors, which are sometimes forced to consolidate to compete with the larger hospital groups that claim tax-exempt status as nonprofits. Commenters also contended that many hospitals claiming tax-exempt status as nonprofits use self-serving interpretations of the IRS’s “community benefit” standard to fulfill requirements for tax exemption, suggesting that the best way to address unfairness and consolidation in the healthcare industry is to strictly enforce the IRS’s standards and to remove the tax-exempt status of organizations that do not comply. An academic commenter argued that the distinction between for-profit hospitals and nonprofit hospitals has become less clear over time, and that the Commission should presumptively treat hospitals claiming nonprofit tax-exempt status as operating for profit unless they can establish that they fall outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction.” (p.377-378)
“After carefully considering commenters’ arguments, the Commission declines to exempt for-profit healthcare employers or to exempt the healthcare industry altogether.” (p.380)
4. ‘The net impact of non-compete agreements is harmful to the workforce and the public. ‘
“The Commission finds that with respect to these workers, these practices are unfair methods of competition in several independent ways:
The use of non-competes is restrictive and exclusionary conduct that tends to negatively affect competitive conditions in labor markets.
The use of non-competes is restrictive and exclusionary conduct that tends to negatively affect competitive conditions in product and service markets.
The use of non-competes is exploitative and coercive conduct that tends to negatively affect competitive conditions in labor markets.
The use of non-competes is exploitative and coercive conduct that tends to negatively affect competitive conditions in product and service markets.” (p.105)
“The Commission notes that the vast majority of comments from physicians and other stakeholders in the healthcare industry assert that non-competes result in worse patient care. The Commission further notes that the American Medical Association discourages the use of non-competes because they “can disrupt continuity of care, and may limit access to care.” In addition, there are alternatives for improving patient choice and quality of care, and for retaining physicians, that burden competition to a much less significant degree than non-competes…commenters asserted that a ban on non-competes would upend healthcare labor markets, thereby exacerbating healthcare workforce shortages, especially in rural and underserved areas. A medical society argued that non-competes can allow groups to meet contractual obligations to hospitals, as physicians leaving can prevent the group from ensuring safe care. As the Commission notes, there are not reliable empirical studies of these effects, and these commenters do not provide any. However, the Commission notes that the rule will increase labor mobility generally, which makes it easier for firms to hire qualified workers.” (p.208)
“The Commission also noted that in three States—California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma—employers generally cannot enforce non-competes, so they must protect their investments using one or more of these less restrictive alternatives…Commenters provide no empirical evidence, and the Commission is unaware of any such evidence, to support the theory that prohibiting non-competes would increase consolidation or raise prices. “384
The bottom line:
Odds are this rule will not become law anytime soon allowing healthcare organizations to consider alternatives to the non-competes they use. Work-arounds for protection of intellectual property, talent acquisition, employment agreements are likely as HR professionals, benefits and compensation consultancies huddle to consider what’s next.
Those that operate in 3 states (CA, ND, OK) already face state reg’s limiting non-competes and more states are adding measures. As noted in the rule, the health systems in these states have not been debilitated by non-compete limitations nor empirical evidence of public/worker harm produced, so no harm no foul.
The bigger takeaways from this rule for healthcare—especially hospitals—are 2:
The rule may fuel already growing antipathy between the workforce and senior management. Physicians are frustrated and burned out. Mid-level clinicians, techs and nurses are not happy. The hourly workforce is insecure. The hospital workplace—its clinics, programs and services—is not a happy place these days. The rule might fuel increased union organizing activity among some work groups at a critical time when demand is high, utilization is increasing, resources are stretched, reimbursement is shrinking and conditions for solvency and sustainability in question for rural, safety net and community hospitals in areas of declining population. And employed physicians will push-back harder against pressure from their hospital and private equity partners to work harder and produce more. The rule gives physicians a moral premise on which to oppose employer demands, whether the rule is implemented in its current form or not.
And the second equally notable takeaway is the rule’s specific attention to tax-exempt hospitals that operate as “for-profit” organizations. The FTC Commissioners question their tax exemptions and their investor-owned competitors are happy they noticed. They’re joined by investigations in 5 Committee’s of Congress with Bipartisan support for a fresh look at their bona fide eligibility despite strong pushback by the American Hospital Association and others.
This rule was introduced as a proposed rule last year with a comment period of 90 days allowed. Fifteen months and 26,000 comments later, it’s the latest reminder that the future of healthcare is everyone’s business and hospitals and physicians see that future state differently.
In its summation, the FTC estimates that this final rule will lead to new business formation growing by 2.7% per year, create 8,500 additional new businesses annually, produce 17,000-29,000 patents for innovation, increase earnings for workers and lower health care costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade. Maybe.
What’s clear is that the FTC and regulators in DC and many states are watching the industry closely and many aren’t buying what we’re selling.
M&A Volume Up in Q1 2024 vs. Q1 2023: $10 billion Target Revenues
The number of hospital and health system M&A deals announced in the first quarter of 2024 was significantly higher than in the same period in 2023: 18 announced transactions with $10 billion in total revenues for the targets vs. 12 deals in Q1 2023 with a total of $3.4 billion in revenues for the targets. The 81 deals announced in the last 12 months is the highest it has been over the last few years, building upon the recent momentum of hospital and health system mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures across the country.
Other observations by the Cain Brothers M&A team:
Significant number of for-profit conversions to not-for-profit (e.g., divestitures by Tenet and HCA)
Significant number of divestitures by national systems to regional health systems
Accelerated closing timeline for 3 deals in CA: closed in 30-60 days — prior to new hospital merger review process going into effect April 1, 2024 in CA
Q1 2024 total volume of 18 transactions with $10 billion in revenues for targets vs. $3.4 billion for Q1 2023 This quarter saw transformative deals that may reshape how healthcare is delivered, reflecting creative partnerships that continue to form in a changing healthcare environment. Academic medical centers continue to make investments in assets of high strategic value to expand their clinical, teaching, and research capabilities. Large regional systems were quite active, with large cross regional mergers and smaller strategic acquisitions. With the Consumer Price Index (CPI) holding steady with the previous quarter, alleviation of supply cost pressures will benefit health system financials and allow them to deploy more capital.
In early January, General Catalyst’s healthcare investment subsidiary, Health Assurance Transformation Corporation (“HATCo”), announced its intent to acquire Summa Health, one of the largest integrated health delivery systems in Ohio. This announcement made waves in the healthcare industry, not just because of the size of the acquisition, but because it is the first major health system investment for newly formed HATCo. General Catalyst, a venture capital firm formed in 2000, is known for its investments in global companies including Airbnb, Warby Parker, Snap, and Kayak. General Catalyst launched HATCo in October 2023 as a vehicle to enable health systems to enhance technological health capabilities, improve financial results, and assist in meeting the shift to value based care, creating a sustainable and quality-driven healthcare model for providers and patients.
Under the terms of the deal, Summa Health will become a subsidiary of HATCo and transition from a not-for-profit to a for-profit corporation. A community foundation will be formed to continue to invest in the social determinants of health to enhance community outcomes in the Akron-Canton region. With its first acquisition, HATCo aims to become a chassis for future acquisitions and growth for General Catalyst. The deal is expected to close by the end of 2024.
Academic medical centers were active acquirers in the first quarter of 2024. On the West Coast, two University of California systems announced acquisitions from for-profit operators. In January, UCLA Health announced it is the process to acquire West Hills Hospital and Medical Center from HCA. The 260-bed hospital is located in the San Fernando Valley, north of Los Angeles, and will be UCLA’s first acute care hospital in the area. In February, UC Irvine Health signed a definitive agreement to acquire Tenet’s Pacific Coast Network, which include four hospitals in Los Angeles and Orange counties (see below for transaction multiples). The acquisition greatly expands UCI Health’s presence and inpatient bed capacity to complement their flagship UCI Medical Center in Orange. These deals come off the heels of two other University of California deals announced in 2023; UC San Diego Health’s acquisition of Alvarado Hospital from Prime Healthcare, and UCSF’s announcement to acquire two San Francisco hospitals from Dignity Health, further demonstrating the UC system’s mandate to grow and provide greater access to care in California.
Further east, the University of Minnesota announced in February its intent to reacquire the University of Minnesota Medical Center from Fairview Health. The University of Minnesota Regents voted to support a nonbinding letter of intent with Fairview that would provide the ability for the University’s eventual ownership of the medical center by 2027. The University of Minnesota previously sold the medical center to Fairview in 1997.
In January, Penn Medicine announced it intends to acquire Doylestown Health, a single-hospital system in Bucks County, PA. The seventh hospital for Penn Medicine, the acquisition of Doylestown Health follows a trend of expansion for Penn Medicine, with the acquisition of Chester County Hospital, Lancaster General Health, and Princeton Health all within the past 10 years. The transactions by academic health systems this quarter continue to follow the trend of AMC expansion through development of new entry points into their care network, investments in community health, and developing the ability to expand their teaching and research capabilities.
In addition to the sale of its Pacific Coast Network to UC Irvine Health, Tenet also sold Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center and Twin Cities Community Hospital to Adventist Health in California. The two hospitals, located in San Luis Obispo County in Central California, were sold to Adventist Health for approximately $550 million, implying a Revenue and EBITDA multiple of 1.6x and 14.5x, respectively. The Pacific Coast Network transaction to UCI Health announced in February came with a $975 million price tag, reflecting a 1.0x multiple of revenue and 13.7x multiple of EBITDA. These transactions follow trends of Tenet’s strategic divestitures in high value deals and reflect a broader trend of acquisitions of targets of high strategic value to health systems. It is worth noting that part of the reason for higher multiples in these California transactions is that buying is still cheaper than the high cost to build.
Regional expansion continued this quarter in the Northeast with Nuvance Health’s announcement in February that it will be joining Northwell Health. With seven hospitals in Nuvance and the largest in the State of New York with Northwell, the organizations would merge to form an integrated healthcare delivery system of 28 hospitals, 15,000 physicians, and over 1,000 care sites. In July 2023, Nuvance received a credit downgrade from Moody’s driven by weakened operating performance and reduced liquidity. As stated by both organizations, the merger also allows Northwell to expand into Connecticut while making significant investments in Nuvance’s existing clinical care footprint.
On the other hand, a number of regional mergers in recent years have been called off, including this quarter with the cancellation of the proposed merger between Essential Health and Marshfield Clinic. Previously announced in July 2023, the health systems formally ended merger discussions in January, determining that the affiliation was not the right path for the organizations. Marshfield previously paused merger discussions with Gundersen Health System in 2019.
There were also a number of single hospital acquisitions and tuck-in transactions for larger systems. Below are highlights of a few other notable transactions announced this quarter:
In February, St. Louis- based Mercy announced its plans to acquire Via Christi Hospital, its related physicians and other ancillary healthcare locations from Ascension. 152-bed Via Christi hospital will be Mercy’s third hospital in Kansas, as Mercy continues to grow westward. In 2023, Mercy acquired SoutheastHEALTH followed by its acquisition of Hermann Area District Hospital.
In January, Northern New Jersey health systems, CarePoint Health and Hudson Regional Hospital announced they are seeking to form a new combined entity that will merge the for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals together. Hudson Health System will be the new namesake of the four hospital system. Under the proposed agreement, two of the four hospitals will remain not-for-profit safety net hospitals. The unique arrangement comes after the New Jersey Department of Health confirmed that CarePoint was in financial distress and began to work with local government leaders on a solution. CarePoint executive leaders confirmed the arrangement with Hudson Regional will improve the organization’s operational and financial strength.
Also in New Jersey, Atlantic Health System announced in January its intent to merge with Saint Peter’s Healthcare. Atlantic Health, located in Morristown, NJ, is a seven-hospital health system with locations across New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Saint Peter’s Healthcare is a catholic not-forprofit system with a 478-bed flagship hospital in New Brunswick, NJ. The announcement follows a 2022 judgment by the FTC to block a proposed merger between Saint Peter’s Healthcare and RWJBarnabas Health, citing the deal would cause anti-competitive concerns with merging New Brunswick’s only two hospitals.
WellSpan Health signed a definitive agreement to acquire Evangelical Community Hospital, a 131-bed acute care hospital in Lewisburg, PA. With the pending acquisition, the hospital will become WellSpan Evangelical Hospital and will continue to serve the Central Susquehanna Valley. WellSpan is an eight-hospital system, serving six counties in Pennsylvania and two counties in Maryland. The deal is expected to close in July.
Each quarter, health system acquirers typically cite the need to grow and the desire to enchance clinical outcomes as motivating factors for deal activity. On the other hand, as we are seeing play out in real time, financial challenges area key driver of M&A for sellers.California-based Pipeline Health faces financial challenges as it retrenches its existing portfolio. In late 2023, Pipeline exited the Texas market driven by unsustainable financial losses. This example highlights the need for health systems to match mission-driven growth objectives with the reality of a harsh and volitile operating environment.
Portfolio rationalization,AMCs with the capital to make big bets, and inter-regional consolidations are major trends that will continue into 2024. With an election looming and an uncertain healthcare and regulatory landscape, affiliation opportunities will need to be thoughtful and metric driven.
Economists say in an ideal world, different hospitals will specialize in different forms of care while others — particularly in rural areas — will focus on providing basic services.
Why it matters:
The hospital of the future will likely mean a significantly different patient experience, in ways both obvious (it’ll have better technology) and potentially disruptive (it could require more travel).
“My own view of what it’s going to look like in the longer run is much, much fewer hospitals that are much, much bigger,” said Yale’s Cooper.
Where it stands:
Many health systems are already cutting service lines — maternity care is a common one — or closing altogether, especially rural hospitals.
To some extent, that may be OK, some experts say. The reality created by shifting demographics is that some places just don’t have the population necessary to support certain services.
Not only do the economics not work, but a handful of specialized procedures every year probably isn’t enough to keep providers well-trained.
Between the lines:
Instead of consolidation, there should be more of a divergence between hospitals that provide basic care to local communities and those that specialize in more complex care, Cooper said.
That model, of course, would mean many patients would have to travel for certain care instead of receiving it at their local hospital.
And as technology broadlychanges the consumer experience, patients will have similar expectations for their care.
“People’s gold standard is buying stuff on Amazon at 2 in the morning, and when they compare their health care experience, they say, ‘Why can’t my health care experience be more like that?'” Kaufman said.
Emerging medical technologies will also impact the care that people receive, and hospitals are positioning themselves at the forefront of that change.
“Patients right now — and in the future — can expect more care delivery that is driven by 3D modeling; predictive analytics; advanced robotics for surgeries and treatments; and personalized therapies based on genomics,” American Hospital Association president and CEO Rick Pollack wrote in a blog post last year.
Yes, but:
Hospitals that serve higher populations of vulnerable people, who are more likely to have lower-paying government insurance, are the most financially exposed.
That means if they don’t adapt, care could become even less accessible for these patients.
Some economists’ ideal version of the future may mean lower profits for health systems.
Hospitals “should do what they do best, which is inpatient care and emergency care … and other people should do things that they do best, like the physicians working together as a multi-specialty group but not part of the hospital,” said Johns Hopkins’ Anderson.
“They wouldn’t make the substantial profits they’re making, but for the nonprofits, that’s not the goal,” he added.
The bottom line:
“Is there going to be disruption? Yes,” Cooper said. “I think there’s a romanticism about local hospitals. They’re where our kids were born and where our parents spent their final days.”
“But I firmly believe the local hospital of the future is not doing everything for everyone.”
Hospitals’ business models are being upended by fundamental changes within the health care system, including one that presents a pretty existential challenge: People have far more options to get their care elsewhere these days.
Why it matters:
Health systems’ responses to major demographic, social and technological change have been controversial among policymakers and economists concerned about the impact on costs and competition.
Communities depend on having at least some emergency services available, making the survival of hospitals’ core services crucial.
But without adaptation — which is already underway in some cases — hospitals may be facing deep red balance sheets in the not-too-distant future, leading to facility closures and shutteredservices.
The big picture:
Many hospitals have recovered from the sector’s post-pandemic financial slump, which was driven primarily by staffing costs and inflation. But systemic, long-term trends will continue to challenge their traditional business model.
Many of the services that are shifting toward outpatient settings — like oncology, diagnostics and orthopedic care — are the ones that typically make hospitals the most money and effectively subsidize less profitable departments.
When hospitals lose these higher-margin services, “you’re starving the system that needs profits to provide services that we all might need, but particularly uninsured or underinsured people might need,” said UCLA professor Jill Horwitz.
And hospitals have long claimed that much higher commercial insurance rates make up for what they say are inadequate government rates.
But as the population ages and moves out of employer-sponsored health plans, fewer people will have commercial insurance, forcing hospitals to either cut costs or find new sources of revenue.
By the numbers:
Consulting firms are projecting a bleak decade for health systems.
Oliver Wyman recently predicted that under the status quo, hospitals will need to reduce their expenses by 15-20% by 2030 “to stay viable.”
Boston Consulting Group last year projected that health systems’ annual financial shortfall will total more than $200 billion by 2027, and their operating margins will have dropped by 10 percentage points.
To break even in 2027, a “typical” health system would need payment rate increases of between 5-8% annually — twice the rate growth over the last decade, according to BCG. If the load is borne solely by private insurers, hospitals will need a 10-16% year-over-year increase.
Between the lines:
This is the lens through which to view health systems’ spree of mergers and acquisitions, which have increasingly drawn criticism from policymakers, regulators and economists as being anticompetitive.
For better orworse, when hospitals have a larger market share, they are in a better position to negotiate and bring in more patients, and they can dilute some of the financial pain of poorer-performing facilities.
And when they acquire physician practices or other outpatient clinics, they’re still getting paid for delivering care even when patients aren’t receiving it in a traditional hospital setting.
“I think the hospitals have sort of said … ‘We can keep doing things the same way and we can just merge and get higher markups,'” said Yale economist Zack Cooper. “That push to consolidate is saying, ‘Let’s not move forward, let’s dig in.'”
Yes, but:
A big bonus of outpatient care is that it’s supposed to be cheaper. But when hospitals charge more for care than an independent physician’s office would have, or they tack on facility fees, costs don’t go down.
“They’ve protected their portfolio, and that’s added to the cost of health care,” said Johns Hopkins professor Gerard Anderson.
The other side:
Hospitals are typically on the losing end of negotiations with insurers right now, thanks to how large insurers have become, and are “in an extremely difficult competitive position,” said Ken Kaufman, co-founder of consulting agency Kaufman Hall.
Criticizing their mergers and acquisitions as anticompetitive is a “complete misunderstanding of the situation,” he said, and moving toward a new care model will take “an incredible amount of resources.”
Reality check:
Hospitals account for 30% of the country’s massive health spending tab, and they’ll have to be at the forefront of any real efforts to contain costs.
They’re also anchors in their communities and are powerful lobbyists, which helps explain why Congress has struggled to modestly reduce what Medicare pays hospital outpatient departments.
Long-term debt has long been a staple in healthcare, but many hospitals and health systems are responding to the increasing cost of debt and debt service in the rising rates environment.
Highly levered health systems are looking to sell hospitals, facilities or business lines to reduce their debt leverage and secure long-term sustainability, which creates significant growth opportunities for systems with balance sheets on a more solid financial footing.
Forty-three health systems ranked by their long-term debt:
Note: This is not an exhaustive list. The following long-term debt figures are taken from each health system’s most recent financial report.
At the Annual Meeting of the American Hospital Association in DC last week, its all-out attack on “corporate insurance” was a prominent theme. In the meeting recap, AHA CEO Rick Pollack made the influential organization’s case:
“This year, there was special focus on educating policymakers that our health care system is suffering from multiple chronic conditions.These include continued government underpayment, cyberattacks, workforce shortages, broken supply chains, access to behavioral health, and irresponsible behavior by corporate commercial health insurance companies, among others — that put access to services in serious jeopardy.”
The AHA’s declaration of war came on the heels of last week’s Congressional investigation of Change Healthcare’ (UnitedHealth Group subsidiary) cybersecurity breech and the widely-noticed earnings release by Elevance (aka Anthem) that featured prominently its plans to build a $4 billion business unit focused on primary care and chronic care management. Per company CEO Gail Boudreaux:
“This will help us continue through having a focus on advanced primary care; it’s still very much focused on our chronic patients and complex patients. We are still building specialty care enablement, which is another very important component of what we’re trying to prime through… In time, Elevance Health will have full ownership of what we expect will be a leading platform for value-based care delivery and physician enablement at scale.”
To industry watchers, the war is no surprise.
It’s been simmering for years but most recently inflamed as operating margins for most hospitals eroded while profits among corporate insurers led by Big 6 (UnitedHealth, Humana, CVS-Aetna, Elevance, Cigna, Centene) swelled at double-digit rates.
To outsiders, it’s not quite so clear.
Big names (Brands) are prominent in both. Corporatization seems embedded in the business models for both. And both appear complicit in well-documented beliefs that the health system is failing as unnecessary higher costs make it less accessible, affordable and effective.
As the War intensifies, each combatant is inclined to make their cases aggressively contrasting “us” against “them.” Here’s where things stand today:
Consideration
Hospitals
Corporate Insurers
Advantage
Public Standing
Hospitals enjoy relatively strong public support but growing discontent about their costs, prices and household affordability. Hospitals blame insurers & drug companies for increasing health costs.Increased attention to affordability, value and low prices is a threat.
Insurers enjoy reasonably high support among middle & high-income consumers who think it necessary to their financial security. Insurers blame drug companies, hospitals and unhealthy consumer behaviors for increased health costs.
It’s a tossup. Though polls show trust in hospitals is higher than insurers, both are declining especially among younger, urban and low-middle income consumers
Regulatory positioning
Scrutiny of business practices & the impact of consolidation on consumer prices, workforce wage compression, competition et al is significant and increasing in 5 Congressional Committees and 3 Federal agencies. Hospitals also face state and local regulatory challenges around pricing, community benefits, et al.
Compliance with plan transparency rules, prior authorization requirements, Medicare Advantage marketing & coverage, and antitrust are targets. Levels of Congressional attention to business practices are relatively low. Insurers are primarily overseen by states, so the regulatory landscape varies widely except.
Insurers enjoy regulatory advantages today not withstanding current attention to UnitedHealth Group. Hospitals are “soft targets” for state legislatures, Congress and investigators in state and federal agencies.
Confidence of capital markets in their core businesses: Hospitals: inpatient, outpatient careInsurers: group & individual coverage, claims data commercialization
The acute sector, especially rural & systems operating in low-growth markets, face insurmountable headwinds due to reimbursement cuts, value-based purchasing initiatives by Medicare and private insurers and clinical innovations that drive demand away from inpatient care. Hospital Outpatient services are profitable for the near term despite growing competition from privately investors.
The consolidation of power, financial strength & influence among the corporate insurers is assuring to lenders & investors who value their performance and support their vertical integration expansion role.
Lenders and investors favor “corporate insurers” over others. The potential (likelihood) that hospitals will lose on high profile revenue-enhancer issues (facility fees, site neutral payments, et al) and restrict tax exemptions for NFP hospital operators is concerning to the capital markets.
Relationships with Physicians
Hospitals employ 58% of physicians directly & relate to all. Regulations (i.e. Stark Laws, et al), capital deployment for hospital programs and administrative overhead are factors of high importance to physicians seeking clinical autonomy & financial security. Hospitals are a viable option to physicians seeking income security though not without concern.
Insurers employment of physicians plus contractual relationships with network physicians are transactional. Physicians inclined toward business relationships with “corporate insurers” believe their role in healthcare’s future is more stable than that of hospitals based on the belief hospitals are wasteful and non-responsive to physician input.
Hospitals enjoy a relationship advantage with most physicians. Corporate insurers enjoy a transactional relationship with physicians that’s premised on shared views about the future of the system vs. hospitals that focus on protecting the past. Hospitals enjoy a near-term advantage but the long-term is uncertain.
Unity of voice
Relatively strong around “chronic ailments” of the system but unclear about long-term destination and limited to universal hospital concerns (i.e. 340B) vs. cohort issues (tax exemptions for not for profits). The delineations between not-for-profit, investor-owned and public/government restricts the strength of hospital voice overall as each seeks unique recognition and regulatory protections.
Corporate insurers have corporate boards, broader membership, stronger balance sheets and scale. Their messaging is customized to their key customers and influencers and aligned with but not controlled by their trade groups. And they direct considerable resources to their proprietary messaging strategies.
Corporate insurers have fewer constraints in their messaging and enjoy an advantage in opining to issues that resonate with consumers (prices, quality, value).
Long-term Vision for the U.S. Health System
A private connected system of health in which hospitals coordinate and provide services for patients across the continuum of their care: preventive, chronic, acute and long-term.
A private system of comprehensive, customized products and services that operates efficiently, effectively and in the interests of all consumers.
The public and Congress aren’t sure which is better positioned to develop a “new” system of health.
This war has been simmering. It’s now a blaze. The outcome is uncertain despite the considerable resources both will spend to win.
Stay tuned.
Paul
P.S. Last week, I participated in Scottsdale Institute’s Annual Leadership Summit in Arizona. It’s 62 institutional members and corporate partners include most of the major not-for-profit health systems and the biggest names in healthcare information technology solutions.
I left with two strong impressions I’ll share:
1-How GenAI and HCIT influence the future of healthcare services delivery is very much speculative but no-less certain. It’s a work in process for everyone.
2- To navigate its evolution, knowledge sharing (and mistake sharing) among those in the trenches is essential. SI afforded a great venue for both, and also a platform for those of us who are easily overwhelmed by all this to ask honest questions and get candid answers.
HENRY KOTULA 