Asexpected, 2023 saw a material increase in downgrades over 2022 while the number of upgrades declined from the prior year. Volume showed favorable growth for many hospitals during 2023 although some indicators remained below pre-pandemic levels. Other hospitals reported a payer mix shift toward more Medicare as the population continued to age and Medicare Advantage plans gained momentum at the expense of commercial revenues. Continued labor challenges drove expense growth, even with many organizations reporting a reduction in temporary labor, as permanent hires pressured salary and benefit expenses. Some of the downgrades reflected pronounced operating challenges that led to covenant violations while others were due to a material increase in leverage viewed to be too high for the rating category.
Figure1: Downgrades at Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch
Here are five key takeaways:
The ratio of downgrades to upgrades reached a high level for all three rating agencies: Moody’s, 3.2-to-1; S&P: 3.8-to-1; and Fitch: 3.5-to-1. In 2022, the ratio crested just above 2.0-to-1 at the highest among the three firms.
Downgrades covered a wide swath of hospitals, ranging from single-site general acute care facilities to academic medical centers as well as large regional and multistate systems. Many of the hospital downgrades were concentrated in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. All rating categories saw downgrades, although the majority were clustered in the Baa/BBB and lower categories.
Multi-notch downgrades were mainly relegated to ratings that were already deep into speculative grade. Multi-notch upgrades were due to mergers or acquisitions where the debt was guaranteed by or added to the legal borrowing group of the higher rated system.
Upgrades reflected fundamental improvement in financial performance and debt service coverage along with strengthening balance sheet indicators. Like the downgraded organizations, upgraded hospitals and health systems ranged from single-site hospitals to expansive, super-regional systems. Some of the upgrades reflected mergers into higher-rated systems.
The wide span between downgrades to upgrades in 2023 would suggest that the credit gap between highly rated hospitals (say, the “A” or “Aa/AA” category) compared to “Baa/BBB” and speculative grade is widening. That said, given that rating affirmations remain the predominant rating activity annually, the rating agencies reported only a subtle shift in the overall distribution of ratings since the beginning of the pandemic in their panel discussion at Kaufman Hall’s October 2023 Healthcare Leadership Conference.
One person’s prediction for 2024?
It’s a safe bet that downgrades will outpace upgrades given the persistent challenges, although the ratio may narrow if the improvement in current performanceholds. That said, the rating agencies are maintaining mixed views for 2024. S&P and Fitch are sticking with negative and deteriorating outlooks, respectively, while Moody’s has revised its outlook to stable, anticipating that the rough times of 2022 are behind us.
All three rating agencies predict that we are not out of the woods yet when it comes to covenant challenges, especially in the lower rating categories or for those organizations that report a second year of covenant violations.
The lawsuit filed in federal court seeks to represent thousands of other UPMC employees.
Dive Brief:
A nurse is suing the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center for allegedly leveraging its monopoly control over the employment market in Pennsylvania to keep wages down and prevent workers from leaving for competitors, all while increasing their workload.
The lawsuit, filed late last week in a federal court, seeks class action status to represent other staff at the nonprofit health system. Plaintiff Victoria Ross, who worked as a nurse at UPMC Hamot in Erie, Pennsylvania, seeks damages and is asking the judge to enjoin UPMC from continuing its unfair business practices.
If granted class action status, the lawsuit could represent thousands of current and former UPMC workers, including registered nurses, medical assistants and orderlies. UPMC has denied the allegations in statements to other outlets but did not respond to a request for comment by time of publication.
Dive Insight:
UPMC has grown steadily over the past few decades into the largest private employer in Pennsylvania, employing 95,000 workers overall.
From 1996 to 2018, the system acquired 28 competing healthcare providers, greatly expanding its market power, according to the lawsuit. The acquisitions also shrunk the availability of healthcare services. Over the same period, UPMC closed four hospitals and downsized operations in three other facilities, eliminating 1,800 full- and part-time jobs, the lawsuit said.
UPMC relied on “draconian” mobility restrictions and labor law violations to lock employees into lower pay and subcompetitive working conditions, according to the 44-page complaint.
Specifically, the system enacted restraints like noncompete clauses and “do-not-rehire blacklists” to stop workers from leaving. Meanwhile, UPMC allegedly suppressed workers’ labor law rights to prevent them from unionizing.
“Each of these restraints alone is anticompetitive, but combined, their effects are magnified.UPMC wielded these restraints together as a systemic strategy to suppress worker bargaining power and wages,” the lawsuit said. “As a result, UPMC’s skilled healthcare workers were required to do more while earning less — while they were also subjected to increasingly unfair and coercive workplace conditions.”
According to the complaint, UPMC has faced 133 unfair labor practice charges since 2012, and 159 separate allegations. Roughly 74% of the violations were related to workers’ efforts to unionize, the lawsuit said.
Meanwhile, UPMC workers’ wages have fallen at a rate of 30 to 57 cents per hour on average compared to other hospital workers for every 10% increase in UPMC’s market share, said the lawsuit, citing a consultant’s economic analysis.
The lawsuit also noted that UPMC’s staffing ratios have been decreasing, even as staffing ratios on average have increased at other Pennsylvania hospitals.
The alleged labor abuses and UPMC’s market power are linked, according to the complaint.
“Had UPMC been subject to competitive market forces, it would have had to raise wages to attract more workers and provide higher staffing levels in order to avoid degrading the care it provided to its patients, and in order to prevent losing patients to competitors who could provide better quality care,” the lawsuit said.
UPMC is facing similar labor allegations. In May, two unions filed a complaint asking the Department of Justice to investigate labor abuses at the nonprofit.
Hospitals were plagued by staffing shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many facilities still bemoan the difficulty of hiring and retaining full-time workers, and point to shortages (of nurses in particular) as the reason for overworked employees and poor staffing ratios.
Yet some studies suggest that’s not the case. One recent analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data found employment in hospitals — including registered nurses — is now slightly higher than it was at the start of the pandemic.
Despite the controversy, UPMC — which now operates 40 hospitals with annual revenue of $26 billion — continues to try and expand its market share. Late last year, the system signed a definitive agreement to acquire Washington Health Care Services, a Pennsylvania system with more than 2,000 employees and two hospitals. The deal faces pushback from local unions.
Nearly 50% of U.S. adults report struggling to keep up with the cost of healthcare, with four in ten ringing in the new year with medical debt. Medical debt is a major burden that often forces people to delay–and sometimes forgo–access to care. Not only do outstanding medical bills undermine health, but they also represent the most common type of collections, with estimates ranging anywhere from $81 to $140 billion.
With problematic hospital practices gaining national media attention – including rejecting appointments for patients with outstanding medical bills and going so far as to sue such patients – the issue of medical debt is front and center for many Americans.
A glimpse into the state of hospital billing practices
Hospital watchdogs have started collecting valuable data on hospital billing practices to inform patients about these practices and potentially put pressure on hospitals to improve.
In an effort to capture the varied nature of hospital billing and collection practices, the Lown Institute is building a database of financial assistance policies and billing and collection practices across 2,500 hospitals with the support of Arnold Ventures. Initial results are expected to be available in mid-2024 with a full report issued in 2025.
Also interested in evaluating the current state of hospital’s financial practices, in 2021, the Leapfrog Group added questions to their hospital survey around billing and collections. Researchers from the Leapfrog Group, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine published a recent analysis of this data in JAMAwhere they found that many hospitals are still falling short when it comes to billing ethics. Although the data set of 2,270 hospitals was not nationally representative, it provides an interesting glimpse into the billing practices of some U.S. hospitals.
Here are the key takeaways:
754 hospitals (33.2%) reported that they “take legal action against patients for late payment or insufficient payment of a medical bill.” Rural hospitals were 38% more likely than urban hospitals to take legal action against patients.
1,020 (44.9%) hospitals did not routinely send patients itemized bills within 30 days of final claims adjudication or date of service for patients without insurance.
125 (5.5%) hospitals did not provide access to billing representatives capable of investigating billing errors, offering price adjustment, and establishing payment plans.
Ultimately, only 38% of surveyed hospitals reported meeting all three proposed billing quality standards. Interestingly, hospitals with worse Leapfrog safety grades were less likely to meet all three billing standards compared to hospitals with better grades. It’s not clear what’s behind this pattern, but it could be an issue of capacity (hospitals with more resources and staff have an easier time abiding by safety protocol and billing standards), or potentially profiteering (hospitals more concerned with making money may be both understaffing hospitals and suing patients).
So, how can we encourage better billing practices and reduce harm caused by medical debt?
The JAMA study authors recommend standardizing measurement and reporting of hospital billing practices to “increase accountability, reduce variation in billing practices, and reduce barriers in access to care in the US.”
Some states are taking these recommendations to the policy-level, working to make healthcare more affordable for patients. To date, eight states limit medical debt interest and two states restrict credit reporting of medical debt. Current policy proposals on the docket include New York’s Senate Bill S5909B, which seeks to ban hospitals from suing patients making less than 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL).
This research is important to not only provide further insight into how hospitals financially support, or undermine, their patients, but also inform policy efforts to improve healthcare affordability and hospital accountability moving forward.
We’ve been getting more and more questions about our Fair Share Spending work that assesses whether hospitals are giving back enough in financial assistance and community health investments to justify their generous tax breaks. Two new reports—one from a United States Senate committee and one from the American Hospitals Association—delve into this space and provide very different views. Here’s what you need to know.
Sanders report calls out hospitals
Nonprofit hospitals receive an estimated $28 billion in total tax breaks each year, but give back far less in meaningful community benefits. A Lown Institute report found that nonprofit hospitals received $14 billion more in tax breaks than they spent on financial assistance and community health programs in 2020, what we call a Fair Share Deficit. About three quarters of hospitals failed to give back to their communities in amounts commensurate with their tax exemption.
In August, four US Senators sent letters to the IRS asking for clarification on how hospitals are complying with the community benefit standard. And this week majority staff of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, chaired by Senator Bernie Sanders, released a report showing how some large hospital systems spend little on financial assistance, despite paying their CEOs whopping 8-figure salaries.
The Sanders report highlights examples of nonprofit hospitals engaging in aggressive billing activities such as sending patients’ medical debt to collections and denying care to patients with outstanding medical debt. The report also adds a new analysis of how much the 16 largest nonprofit hospital systems spend on financial assistance (free and discounted care for patients who can’t afford to pay). They find that 12 of these systems spent less than $0.02 for each dollar in revenue on financial assistance, and six gave less than $0.01.
The report also called attention to “massive salaries” for some system CEOs, like Commonspirit whichpaid their CEO $35 million in 2021. Lown Institute data shows vast inequities at some hospitals, with some CEOs making up to 60 times what other hospital workers make.
This underinvestment in financial assistance causes real harm to patients. When hospitals charge patients for care they can’t afford, patients go into debt and often sacrifice basic needs and avoid additional care. An estimated 100 million Americans are in medical debt, and most owe at least some to hospitals.If hospitals paid off their $14 billion fair share deficit, it would be enough to erase the debt of 18 million Americans, which would be a huge step forward for fairness in the country.
AHA provides opposing view
The American Hospitals Association just published their analysis of hospital community benefit spending, finding that hospitals spent $130 billion in 2020, amounting to 15.5% of hospital expenses. That’s far more than other studiesestimate.
How can the AHA estimate be so different? The answer depends on what’s being counted as a “community benefit.” When you imagine programs to improve community health, you might think of free immunizations, health fairs and educational classes, food pantries and other nutritional assistance, investments in affordable housing, healthcare for the homeless, etc. However, spending on those types of programs made up only 1.8% of hospital expenses in 2020, according to the AHA’s report.
Financial assistance, free or discounted care for eligible patients, is another important category of community benefit spending. But the AHA report doesn’t break out this amount on its own; instead, they lump it in together with Medicaid shortfall and other unreimbursed costs of government programs.
While it’s important that hospitals care for patients with Medicaid, the “shortfall” they report does not go towards tangible community programs or into the pockets of patients. Instead, this is an accounting item related to the discounted prices in Medicaid. Hospitals offer discounts on care to insurers all the time, but these aren’t considered community benefits–why should Medicaid discounts be any different? Most hospitals already make up this shortfall from public insurers by charging private insurers more than their costs of care. The same goes for Medicare shortfall, which the AHA report also includes in their total, despite this not even being considered a “community benefit” by the IRS.
The AHA report also includes bad debt, which is money the hospital expected to get from patients but never received. The AHA argues this spending is a benefit to the community because many patients who don’t pay would have qualified for financial assistance. However, in the real world, policies on financial assistance vary widely and getting access to it can be easy or hard. If a hospital goes to great lengths to make their financial assistance application simple and accessible, and give more in assistance as a result, that should be rewarded. On the other hand, if hospitals make getting assistance hard and hound low-income patients to pay their bills or send their debt to collection agencies, that hardly seems like a “community benefit.”
What can policymakers do?
The Sanders report adds to existing evidence that nonprofit hospitals could do much more to improve community health and earn their tax-exempt status. How can federal policymakers improve transparency and incentives around the community benefit standard? See some of our key recommendations for Congress on this issue.
Private equity (PE) acquisitions in healthcare have exploded in the past decade. The number of private equity buyouts of physician practices increased six-fold from 2012-2021. At least 386 hospitals are now owned by private equity firms, comprising 30% of for-profit hospitals in the U.S.
Emerging evidence shows that the influence of private equity in healthcare demands attention. Here’s what’s in the latest research.
What is private equity?
There are a few key characteristics that differentiate private equity firms from other for-profit companies. At a 2023 event hosted by the NIHCM Foundation, Assistant Professor of Health Care Management at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania Dr. Atul Gupta explained these factors:
Financial engineering. PE firms primarily use debt to finance acquisitions (that’s why they’re often known as “leveraged buyouts”). But unlike in other acquisitions, this debt is placed on the balance sheet of the the target company (ie. the physician practice or hospital).
Short-term goals. PE firms make the majority of their profits when they sell, and they look to exit within 5-8 years. That means they generally look for ways to cut costs quickly, like reducing staff or selling real estate.
Moral hazard. PE companies can make a big profit even if their target firm goes bankrupt. This is different from most investments where the success of the investor depends on how well the target company does.
The nature of private equity itself has serious implications for healthcare, in which the health of communities depends on the long-term sustainability and quality improvement of hospitals and physician practices. But are these concerns borne out in the real world?
PE acquisition and adverse events
A recent study in JAMA from researchers at Harvard Medical School and the University of Chicago analyzed patient mortality and the prevalence of adverse events at hospitals acquired by private equity compared to non-acquired hospitals. The study used Medicare claims from more than 4 million hospitalizations from 2009-2019, comparing claims at 51 PE-acquired hospitals and 249 non-acquired hospitals to serve as controls.
In-hospital mortality decreased slightly at PE-acquired hospitals compared to controls, but not 30-day mortality. This may be because the patient mix at PE-acquired hospitals shifted more toward a lower-risk group, and transfers to other acute care hospitals increased.
However, there were concerning results for patient safety. The rate of adverse events at PE-acquired hospitals compared to control hospitals increased by 25%, including a 27% increase in falls, 38% increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), and double the rate of surgical site infections. The authors found the rates of CLABSI and surgical site infections at PE-acquired hospitals alarming because overall surgical volume and central line placements actually decreased.
What could be behind these higher rates of adverse events after PE acquisition? In a Washington Post op-ed, Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the School of Public Health at Brown University, writes that it’s down to two things: staffing levels and adherence to patient safety protocols. “Both cost money, and it is not a stretch to connect cuts in staffing and a reduced focus on patient safety with an increased risk of harm for patients,” he writes.
Social responsibility impact
Private equity acquisitions may have a negative effect on patient safety, but what about social responsibility? In a recent report from PE Stakeholder on the impact of Apollo Global Management’s reach into healthcare, the authors use the Lown Institute Hospitals Index to understand hospitals owned by Apollo perform on social responsibility. Lifepoint Health, a health system owned by Apollo, was ranked 222 out of 296 systems on social responsibility nationwide. And in Virginia, North Carolina, and Arizona, some of the worst-ranked hospitals in the state for social responsibility are those owned by Lifepoint Health, the PE Stakeholder report shows.
Apollo Global Management is the second largest private equity firm in the United States, with $598 billion total assets under management, according to thereport. The PE stakeholder report outlines concerning practices by Apollo, including putting high levels of debt that lowers hospitals’ credit ratings and increases their interest rates, cutting staff and essential healthcare services, and selling off real estate for a quick buck. If we care about hospital social responsibility we should clearly be concerned about private equity acquisitions.
The bigger picture
Private equity buyouts did not come from out of nowhere, so what does this trend tell us about our healthcare system? PE acquisitions are in many ways a symptom of larger issues in healthcare, such as increasing administrative burden, tight margins, and lack of regulation on consolidation. For owners of private physician practices that face a lot of administrative work, deciding to sell to a PE firm to reduce this workload and focus on patient care (not to mention, getting a hefty payout) is a tempting proposal.
In the Washington Post, Ashish Jha describes what made his colleague decide to sell his practice to a PE firm: “The price he was getting was very good, and he was happy to outsource the headache of running the business (managing billing, making sure there was adequate coverage for nights and weekends, etc.).”
“In many ways, private equity is both a response to and an accelerator of broader health system trends – one in which consolidation is happening quickly, care is being delivered by larger and larger entities, and corporate influence is growing.”Jane M. Zhu, MD, MPP, MSHP, Associate Professor of Medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, at NIHCM Foundation Event
PE buyouts are also indicative of a larger trend, what some researchers call the “financialization” of health. As Dr. Joseph Bruch at the University of Chicago and colleagues describe in the New England Journal of Medicine, financialization refers to the “transformation of public, private, and corporate health care entities into salable and tradable assets from which the financial sector may accumulate capital.”
Financialization is a sort of merging of the financial and healthcare sectors; not only are financial actors like private equity buying up healthcare providers, but healthcare institutions are also acting like financial firms. For example, 22 health systems have investment arms, including nonprofit system Ascension, which has its own private equity operation worth $1 billion. The financialization of healthcare is also reflected in the boards of nonprofit hospitals. A 2023 study of US News top-ranked hospitals found that a plurality of their board members (44%) were from the financial sector.
What we can do about it?
What can we do to mitigate harms caused by PE acquisitions? In Health Affairs Forefront, executive director of Community Catalyst Emily Stewart and executive director of the Private Equity Stakeholder Project Jim Baker provide some policy ideas to stop the “metastasizing disease” of private equity:
Joint Liability. Currently PE firms can put all of their debt on the balance sheet of the firm they acquire, letting them off the hook for this debt and making it harder for the acquired company to succeed. “Requiring private equity firms to share in the responsibility of the debt…would prevent them from making huge profits while they are saddling hospitals and nursing homes with debts that ultimately impact worker pay and cut off care to patients,” write Stewart and Baker.
Regulate mergers. Private equity acquisitions often go under the radar because the acquisitions are small enough to not be reported to authorities. But the U.S. Federal Trade Commission could be more aggressive in evaluating mergers and buyouts by PE, as they have done recently in Texas, where a PE firm has been buying up numerous anesthesia practices.
Transparency of PE ownership. It can be hard to know when hospitals are bought by a PE firm. The Department of Health and Human Services could require disclosure of PE ownership for hospitals as they have done for nursing homes.
Remove tax loopholes. The carried interest loophole allows PE management fees to be taxed at as capital gains, which is a lower rate than corporate income. Closing this loophole would remove a big incentive that makes PE buyouts so attractive for firms.
“It is clear that the problem is not the lack of solutions but rather the lack of political will to take on private equity,” write Steward and Baker.
We need not to not only stem the tide of PE acquisitions sweeping through healthcare, but address the financialization of healthcare more broadly, to put patients back at the center of our health system.
Private equity firm Apollo Global Management’s ownership of two large health systems — Louisville, Ky.-based ScionHealth and Brentwood, Tenn.-based Lifepoint Health — downgrades hospital services, hurts workers and puts patients at risk, according to a study published Jan. 11 by the Private Equity Stakeholder Project.
Since acquiring Lifepoint in 2018 and spinning off ScionHealth in 2021, Apollo has consolidated ownership of 220 hospitals in 36 states, with a workforce of about 75,000 employees. Many of the hospitals have experienced service cuts, layoffs, poor quality ratings and regulatory investigations, according to the report.
The report comes amid rising scrutiny of private equity hospital ownership.
In December, the Senate Budget Committee launched an investigation into the effects of private equity ownership on hospitals that specifically mentioned Apollo’s ownership of Lifepoint. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse requested “documents and detailed answers” about certain hospital transactions and the degree to which private equity firms are calling the shots at hospitals.
A Harvard Medical School-led study published Dec. 26 in JAMA also found that hospitals that are bought by private equity-backed companies are less safe for patients. On average, patients at private equity-purchased facilities had 25.4% more hospital-acquired conditions, according to the study.
“Apollo’s purchase of these hospital systems follows a disturbing pattern of harm caused by the growing influence of private equity in the healthcare sector,” PESP Healthcare Director Eileen O’Orady, said in a news release. “Private equity’s utmost priority to maximize short-term profit over the long-term viability of the companies it controls leads to excessive debt, cost cutting, worse outcomes for patients and deteriorating working conditions for employees. Apollo’s management of its hospitals seems to follow the usual playbook.”
The study, “Apollo’s Stranglehold on Hospitals Harms Patients and Healthcare Workers,” was developed in conjunction with the American Federation of Teachers and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Clickhere to access the full report.
Apollo, Lifepoint and ScionHealth did not respond to Becker’s request for comment.
The National Labor Relations Board has certified the union election of more than 130 Allina Health doctors at Mercy and Unity Hospitals, nearly a year after they voted to join the Doctors Council Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
The certification follows objections from the Minneapolis-based nonprofit health system, which said that physicians active in the union drive held supervisor or managerial positions and may have unlawfully pressured colleagues into supporting the union. The NLRB rejected that claim.
It’s another victory for Doctors Council SEIU at Allina facilities. In October, more than 500 Allina doctors, physician assistants and nurse practitioners at over 60 facilities voted to join the union, according to NLRB documents.
Dive Insight:
Allina doctors and physician assistants said that chronic understaffing, high levels of burnout and compromised patient safety due to the corporatization of care motivated them to seek union representation.
“We have been seeing the shift of healthcare control going to corporations and further and further away from patient voices and patient advocacy. That really fell apart during the pandemic,” said Allina physician Liz Koffel during a press conference on Aug. 15 announcing primary care physicians’ unionization drive.
In a statement to Healthcare Dive, an Allina spokesperson said the system had “committed to taking steps to make sure the National Labor Relations Board’s process was fair to all involved,” and that it would not take further procedural action against the union.
Across the country, physicians’ feelings of limited autonomy is driving similar interest in unionization, according to John August, director of healthcare labor relations at Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
“Frankly, I’ve never seen anything like it in my whole career — where so many people are saying exactly the same thing at the same time, from a profession that heretofore has been essentially not unionized,” he said.
Doctors are increasingly working in consolidated hospitals owned by larger health systems or private equity firms. They report consolidation limits the influence they have on their day-to-day jobs, according to a December study from the Physician Advocacy Institute.
In addition, other options, such as physician-owned practices, are disappearing, with the percentage of owned practices falling 13% between 2012 and 2022, according to an analysis from the American Medical Association.
Elsewhere in the healthcare industry, unionization and strikes have led to gains for workers.
By the end of this week, we’ll know a lot more about the economic trajectory for U.S. healthcare in 2024: it may cause indigestion.
Digesting deal announcements and industry prognostics from last week’s 42nd JPM conference in San Francisco. Notably, with the exceptions of promising conditions for weight loss drugs, artificial intelligence and biotech IPOs, the outlook is cautionary for providers and inviting for insurers and retail health. Expanded conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza loom as threats. The U.S. trade relationship with China and its growing tension with Taiwan poses an immediate threat to the U.S. healthcare supply chain for raw materials in drugs, OTC products, disposables. U.S. public opinion about its institutions is arguably shaped in part in social media: TikTok is owned by Chinese internet tech company ByteDance and operates in 150 countries. The 16 not for profit health system presentations at JPM sounded a chorus in unison: ‘our core business—hospital care– is not sustainable. We need deals with private capital to stay afloat.’ By contrast, national insurers and retailers sang a different tune: ‘the market is receptive to our products and services that are cheaper, better and more easily accessed through digital platforms. The status quo is outdated’.
Digesting results from today’s Iowa GOP Caucus which serves as a gatekeeper for Presidential candidate wannabes. In the run-up to Campaign 2024, polls show voters interested in abortion rights and affordability. But specific health system reforms have not surfaced to date in this election cycle and understandably: per the November 2023 Keckley Poll, 76% of U.S. adults agree that “Most politicians avoid healthcare issues because solutions are complicated and they fear losing votes” vs. 6% who disagree. Thus, the Iowa results might narrow the President contestant pool, but it will do little to clarify U.S. health policies in 2025 and beyond.
Digesting takeaways from the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. The annual confab draws world leaders and big-name consultancies and bankers who want to rub elbows with them. It’s notable that the WEF pre-conference Global Risk Survey indicated growing concern about a looming “global catastrophe” and its agenda includes sessions on women’s health, misinformation and artificial intelligence—all central to healthcare’s future. The world is small: 8 billion inhabitants in 195 countries. There’s growing global attention to healthcare and recognition that the integration of social services (nutrition, housing, transportation, et al) and elimination of structural barriers that limit access are necessary to the effectiveness of their systems. The U.S. lacks both though it’s the world’s most expensive system. Thus, U.S.-based solutions to enhance clinical efficacy for specialty care are accessible to global markets at prices significantly lower than what U.S. taxpayers pay because their government’s refuse to pay U.S. rates.
Digesting where Congress lands this week on the fiscal 2024 budget. A deal was reached tentatively yesterday on a short-term funding bill that would avert a partial government shutdown this Friday. The $1.6 trillion continuing resolution funds the government through March 1 and March 8 and includes $886B for defense and $704B for other total discretionary programs. While payments for social security and Medicare are not impacted, most other federal health programs are impacted and therefore caught in the Congressional crossfire between budget hawks wary of the ballooning federal deficit ($34 trillion) and progressives who think the federal government spends too much on the ‘have’s’ and not enough, including health and social services, on its ‘have not’s.’ And this deal is TENTATIVE!
My take:
The cumulative effect of these events in economic indigestion for the entire U.S. economy and especially for those of us who work in its healthcare industry. So, for the balance of 2024, the realities for U.S. healthcare are these:
Public support for the health system is eroding. Trust and confidence in the U.S. health system is low. No sector in U.S. healthcare is immune though some (community hospitals, public health programs, independent physicians) are more favorably viewed than others. Confidence in government agencies (CDC, FDA, CMS) is fractured due to misinformation and disinformation. ‘Not-for-profit’ designation is a meaningful distinction to some but secondary to characteristics more readily understood and valued.
Federal policies toward healthcare are increasingly antagonistic. They’re popular and in most cases, bipartisan. Federal policies that expand price transparency (drugs, hospitals, health insurance), constrain on consolidation (horizontal) and private equity investing, expose/reduce conflicts of interest, address workforce resilience (compensation, work-rules) and protect consumers will be prominent. Beyond these, court actions and budgetary negotiations will define/refine federal health policies. Notably, the rumored DOJ antitrust action against Apple will be a closely watched barometer as will the government’s attention toward Microsoft given its leading role in ChatGPT and AI platform Copilot et al.
The big players enjoy advantages over smaller players. It’s a buyer’s market for them. The corporatization of U.S. healthcare has rewarded big operators in each sector and punished smaller, independent operators. More regulation, higher operating costs, escalating administrative complexity and shifting demand require capital that’s increasingly unaffordable/inaccessible to less credit-worthy players. In 2024, in every sector, bigger fish will eat the smaller as readily-accessible private capital is deployed to welcoming sellers. But mechanisms whereby ‘independents’ are protected and growing disparity in how care is financed and delivered will be a prominent concern to policymakers.
Regrettably, an off-the-shelf Pepto-Bismol is not available to the U.S. system. It is complex, fragmented, inequitable and expensive, but also profitable for many who benefit from the status quo.
So, the conclusion that can be deduced from the four events this week is this: economic indigestion in U.S. healthcare will persist this year and beyond because there is no political will nor industry appetite to fix it. Darwinism aka ‘survival of the fittest’ is its destiny unless….???
Patient experience measures declined nationwide in 2022, though some hospitals are showing early signs of improvement.
Below are 72 hospital patient experience benchmarks based on national HCAHPS measures from CMS. Data was collected from hospitals in calendar year 2022 and published on CMS’ Provider Data Catalog Nov. 8. Learn more about the methodology here.
Communication with hospital staff
Nurses always communicated well: 79%
Nurses sometimes or never communicated well: 5%
Nurses usually communicated well: 16%
Nurses always treated them with courtesy and respect: 85%
Nurses sometimes or never treated them with courtesy and respect: 3%
Nurses usually treated them with courtesy and respect: 12%
Nurses always listened carefully: 76%
Nurses sometimes or never listened carefully: 5%
Nurses usually listened carefully: 19%
Nurses always explained things so they could understand: 75%
Nurses sometimes or never explained things so they could understand: 6%
Nurses usually explained things so they could understand: 19%
Physicians always communicated well: 79%
Physicians sometimes or never communicated well: 5%
Physicians usually communicated well: 16%
Physicians always treated them with courtesy and respect: 85%
Physicians sometimes or never treated them with courtesy and respect: 4%
Physicians usually treated them with courtesy and respect: 11%
Physicians always listened carefully: 78%
Physicians sometimes or never listened carefully: 6%
Physicians usually listened carefully: 16%
Physicians always explained things so they could understand: 74%
Physicians sometimes or never explained things so they could understand: 7%
Physicians usually explained things so they could understand: 19%
Responsiveness of hospital staff
Patients always received help as soon as they wanted: 65%
Patients sometimes or never received help as soon as they wanted: 11%
Patients usually received help as soon as they wanted: 24%
Patients always received call button help as soon as they wanted: 64%
Patients sometimes or never received call button help as soon as they wanted: 10%
Patients usually received call button help as soon as they wanted: 26%
Patients always received bathroom help as soon as they wanted: 66%
Patients sometimes or never received bathroom help as soon as they wanted: 11%
Patients usually received bathroom help as soon as they wanted: 23%
Communication about medicines
Staff always explained medicines before giving it to them: 62%
Staff sometimes or never explained: 20%
Staff usually explained: 18%
Staff always explained what new medications were for: 75%
Staff sometimes or never explained new medications: 10%
Staff usually explained new medications: 15%
Staff always explained possible side effects: 48%
Staff sometimes or never explained possible side effects: 31%
Staff usually explained possible side effects: 21%
Discharge information
Yes, staff did give patients information about what to do during their recovery at home: 86%
No, staff did not give patients information: 14%
No, staff did not give patients information about help after discharge: 16%
Yes, staff did give patients information about help after discharge: 84%
No, staff did not give patients information about possible symptoms: 13%
Yes, staff did give patients information about possible symptoms: 87%
Patients who agree they understood their care when they left the hospital: 43%
Patients who disagree or strongly disagree they understood their care when they left the hospital: 6%
Patients who strongly agree they understood their care when they left the hospital: 51%
Cleanliness of hospital environment
Room was always clean: 72%
Room was sometimes or never clean: 10%
Room was usually clean: 18%
Quietness of hospital environment
Always quiet at night: 62%
Sometimes or never quiet at night: 10%
Usually quiet at night: 28%
Transition of care
Patients who agree that staff took their preferences into account: 47%
Patients who disagree or strongly disagree that staff took their preferences into account: 8%
Patients who strongly agree that staff took their preferences into account: 45%
Patients who agree they understood their responsibilities when they left the hospital: 43%
Patients who disagree or strongly disagree they understood their responsibilities when they left the hospital: 6%
Patients who strongly agree they understood their responsibilities when they left the hospital: 51%
Patients who agree they understood their medications when they left the hospital: 37%
Patients who disagree or strongly disagree they understood their medications when they left the hospital: 5%
Patients who strongly agree they understood their medications when they left the hospital: 58%
Overall hospital rating
Patients who gave a rating of six or lower: 9%
Patients who gave a rating of seven or eight : 21%
Patients who gave a rating of nine or 10: 70%
Patients probably would not or definitely would not recommend the hospital: 6%
Yes, patients would definitely recommend the hospital: 69%
Yes, patients would probably recommend the hospital: 25%
Healthcare is big business. That’s why JP Morgan Chase is hosting its 42nd Healthcare Conference in San Francisco starting today– the same week Congress reconvenes in DC with the business of healthcare on its agenda as well. The predispositions of the two toward the health industry could not be more different.
Context: the U.S. Health System in the Global Economy
Though the U.S. population is only 4% of the world total, our spending for healthcare products and services represents 45% of global healthcare market. Healthcare is 17.4% of U.S. GDP vs. an average of 9.6% for the economies in the 37 other high-income economies of the world. It is the U.S.’ biggest private employer (17.2 million) accounting for 24% of total U.S. job growth last year (BLS). And it’s a growth industry: annual health spending growth is forecast to exceed 4%/year for the foreseeable future and almost 5% globally—well above inflation and GDP growth. That’s why private investments in healthcare have averaged at least 15% of total private investing for 20+ years. That’s why the industry’s stability is central to the economy of the world.
The developed health systems of the world have much in common: each has three major sets of players:
Service Providers: organizations/entities that provide hands-on services to individuals in need (hospitals, physicians, long-term care facilities, public health programs/facilities, alternative health providers, clinics, et al). In developed systems of the world, 50-60% of spending is in these sectors.
Innovators: organizations/entities that develop products and services used by service providers to prevent/treat health problems: drug and device manufacturers, HIT, retail health, self-diagnostics, OTC products et al. In developed systems of the world, 20-30% is spend in these.
Administrators, Watchdogs & Regulators: Organizations that influence and establish regulations, oversee funding and adjudicate relationships between service providers and innovators that operate in their systems: elected officials including Congress, regulators, government agencies, trade groups, think tanks et al. In the developed systems of the world, administration, which includes insurance, involves 5-10% of its spending (though it is close to 20% in the U.S. system due to the fragmentation of our insurance programs).
In the developed systems of the world, including the U.S., the role individual consumers play is secondary to the roles health professionals play in diagnosing and treating health problems. Governments (provincial/federal) play bigger roles in budgeting and funding their systems and consumer out-of-pocket spending as a percentage of total health spending is higher than the U.S. All developed and developing health systems of the world include similar sectors and all vary in how their governments regulate interactions between them. All fund their systems through a combination of taxes and out-of-pocket payments by consumers. All depend on private capital to fund innovators and some service providers. And all are heavily regulated.
In essence, that makes the U.S. system unique are (1) the higher unit costs and prices for prescription drugs and specialty services, (2) higher administrative overhead costs, (3) higher prevalence of social health issues involving substance abuse, mental health, gun violence, obesity, et al (4) the lack of integration of our social services/public health and health delivery in communities and (5) lack of a central planning process linked to caps on spending, standardization of care based on evidence et al.
So, despite difference in structure and spending, developed systems of the world, like the U.S. look similar:
The Current Climate for the U.S. Health Industry
The global market for healthcare is attractive to investors and innovators; it is less attractive to most service providers since their business models are less scalable. Both innovator and service provider sectors require capital to expand and grow but their sources vary: innovators are primarily funded by private investors vs. service providers who depend more on public funding. Both are impacted by the monetary policies, laws and political realities in the markets where they operate and both are pivoting to post-pandemic new normalcy. But the outlook of investors in the current climate is dramatically different than the predisposition of the U.S. Congress toward healthcare:
Healthcare innovators and their investors are cautiously optimistic about the future. The dramatic turnaround in the biotech market in 4Q last year coupled with investor enthusiasm for generative AI and weight loss drugs and lower interest rates for debt buoy optimism about prospects at home and abroad. The FDA approved 57 new drugs last year—the most since 2018. Big tech is partnering with established payers and providers to democratize science, enable self-care and increase therapeutic efficacy. That’s why innovators garner the lion’s share of attention at JPM. Their strategies are longer-term focused: affordability, generative AI, cost-reduction, alternative channels, self-care et al are central themes and the welcoming roles of disruptors hardwired in investment bets. That’s the JPM climate in San Franciso.
By contrast, service providers, especially the hospital and long-term care sectors, are worried. In DC, Congress is focused on low-hanging fruit where bipartisan support is strongest and political risks lowest i.e.: price transparency, funding cuts, waste reduction, consumer protections, heightened scrutiny of fraud and (thru the FTC and DOJ) constraints on horizontal consolidation to protect competition. And Congress’ efforts to rein in private equity investments to protect consumer choice wins votes and worries investors. Thus, strategies in most service provider sectors are defensive and transactional; longer-term bets are dependent on partnerships with private equity and corporate partners. That’s the crowd trying to change Congress’ mind about cuts and constraints.
The big question facing JPM attendees this week and in Congress over the next few months is the same: is the U.S. healthcare system status quo sustainable given the needs in other areas at home and abroad?
Investors and organizations at JPM think the answer is no and are making bets with their money on “better, faster, cheaper” at home and abroad. Congress agrees, but the political risks associated with transformative changes at home are too many and too complex for their majority.
For healthcare investors and operators, the distance between San Fran and DC is further and more treacherous than the 2808 miles on the map.
The JPM crowd sees a global healthcare future that welcomes change and needs capital; Congress sees a domestic money pit that’s too dicey to handle head-on–two views that are wildly divergent.
HENRY KOTULA 