Category Archives: Hospital Industry

What Trump and the GOP have planned for healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Block Grants, Medicaid Eligibility, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Work Requirements, Medicare, Medicare 340B Drug Discount Program, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cuts, Medicare Denials, Medicare Hospital Fund, Medicare Payment, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), Medicare Reimbursement, Medicare Site Neutral Payment, Project 2025, State of the Union, Tax Exempt Debt, Tax Exempt Status • Leave a comment
https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/what-trump-and-gop-have-planned-healthcare?leadId=1234536&mkt_tok=NDIwLVlOQS0yOTIAAAGYKMuOSDpr4HmVgwoir-sctcWYrTCmAMidk2ElOKJYQgYV2OewZexaTT7OGNmdoOgJX4esGPrurXZW_6oPMprQ0Mc5ph-PR7Pcrbc3LivGTNmd

Health systems are rightly concerned about Republican plans to cut Medicaid spending, end ACA subsidies and enact site neutral payments, says consultant Michael Abrams, managing partner of Numerof, a consulting firm.

“Health systems have reason to worry,” Abrams said shortly after President Donald Trump was inaugurated on Monday. 

While Trump mentioned little about healthcare in his inauguration speech, the GOP trifecta means spending cuts outlined in a one-page document released by Politico and another 50-pager could get a majority vote for passage.

Of the insurers, pharmaceutical manufacturers and health systems that Abrams consults with, healthcare systems are the ones that are most concerned, Abrams said.

At the top of the Republican list targeting $4 trillion in healthcare spending is eliminating an estimated $2.5 billion from Medicaid. 

“There’s no question Republicans will find savings in Medicaid,” Abrams said.

Medicaid has doubled its enrollment in the last couple of years due to extended benefits made possible by the Affordable Care Act, despite disenrolling 25 million people during the redetermination process at the end of the public health emergency, according to Abrams.

Upward of 44 million people, or 16.4% of the non-elderly U.S. population are covered by an Affordable Care Act initiative, including a record high of 24 million people in ACA health plans and another 21.3 million in Medicaid expansion enrollment, according to a KFF report. Medicaid expansion enrollment is 41% higher than in 2020.

The enhanced subsidies that expanded eligibility for Medicaid and doubled the number of enrollees are set to expire at the end of 2025 and Republicans are likely to let that happen, Abrams said. Eliminating enhanced federal payments to states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA are estimated to cut the program by $561 billion.

If enhanced subsidies end, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the number of people who will become uninsured will increase by 3.8 million each year between 2026 and 2034. 

The enhanced tax subsidies for the ACA are set to expire at the end of 2025. This could result in another 2.2 million people losing coverage in 2026, and 3.7 million in 2027, according to the CBO.

WHY THIS MATTERS

For hospitals, loss of health insurance coverage means an increase in sicker, uninsured patients visiting the emergency department and more uncompensated care.

“Health systems are nervous about people coming to them who are uninsured,” Abrams said. “There will be people disenrolled.”

The federal government allowed more people to be added to the Medicaid rolls during the public health emergency to help those who lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic, Numerof said. Medicaid became an open-ended liability which the government wants to end now that the unemployment rate is around 4.2% and jobs are available.

An idea floating around Congress is the idea of converting Medicaid to a per capita cap and providing these funds to the states as a block grant, Abrams said. The cost of those programs would be borne 70% by the federal government and 30% by states.

This fixed amount based on a per person amount would save money over the current system of letting states report what they spent.

Another potential change under the new administration includes site neutral Medicare payments to hospitals for outpatient services.

The HFMA reported the site neutral policy as a concern in a list it published Monday of preliminary federal program cuts totaling more than $5 trillion over 10 years. The 50-page federal list is essentially a menu of options, the HFMA said, not an indication that programs will actually be targeted leading up to the March 14 deadline to pass legislation before federal funding expires.

Other financial concerns for hospitals based on that list include: the elimination of the tax exemption for nonprofit hospitals, bringing in up to $260 billion in estimated 10-year savings; and phasing out Medicare payments for bad debt, resulting in savings of up to $42 billion over a decade.

Healthcare systems are the ones most concerned over GOP spending cuts, according to Abrams. Pharmacy benefit managers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also remain on edge as to what might be coming at them next.

THE LARGER TREND

President Donald Trump mentioned little about healthcare during his inauguration speech on Monday.

Trump said the public health system does not deliver in times of disaster, referring to the hurricanes in North Carolina and other areas and to the fires in Los Angeles.

Trump also mentioned giving back pay to service members who objected to getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

He also talked about ending the chronic disease epidemic, without giving specifics.

“He didn’t really talk about healthcare even in the campaign,” Abrams said.

However, in his consulting work, Abrams said, “The common thread is the environment is changing quickly,” and that healthcare organizations need to do the same “in order to survive.”

Pace of Downgrades Slowed in 2024: Five Key Takeaways

Posted on by • Posted in Credit Downgrade, Credit Management, Credit Ratings, Credit Upgrade, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Outlook, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/blog/pace-downgrades-slowed-2024-five-key-takeaways

Downgrades continued to outpace upgrades in 2024 although at a lower rate than in 2023. When combining the rating actions of the three rating agencies, the number of downgrades (95) declined while the number of upgrades (37) increased, compared to 116 and 33, respectively, in 2023. Many of the downgrades reflected ongoing expense pressure that exceeded revenue growth, even as volumes headed back to pre-pandemic levels and the use of contract labor declined. Other downgrades reflected outsized increases in debt to fund pivotal growth strategies. Most of the upgrades reflected mergers of lower-rated hospitals into higher-rated systems. Rating affirmations remained the majority rating action in 2024, as in prior years.

Key takeaways include:

  1. The ratio of downgrades to upgrades narrowed at Moody’s (2.0-to-1 in 2024 from 3.2-to-1 in 2023) and Fitch (1.5-to-1 from 3.5-to-1). S&P saw a wider spread in the ratio: 4.5-to-1 in 2024 from 3.8-to-1 in 2023.
  2. Downgrades reflected a wide swath of hospitals, from small independent providers to large regional systems. Large academic medical centers and children’s hospitals saw downgrades, even with exclusive tertiary services that provided differentiation with payers. Shared, recurring downgrade factors included weaker financial performance, payer mix shifts to more governmental and less commercial, and thinner reserves. Many of the downgrades were concentrated along the two coasts: California and the Pacific Northwest and New York and Pennsylvania. Many of the ratings were already in low or below investment grade categories.
  3. Multi-notch downgrades continued in 2024, ranging from two to four notch movements in one rating action. One of the hospitals that experienced a four-notch downgrade subsequently defaulted on an interest payment (Jackson Hospital & Clinics, AL). Multi-notch upgrades reflected mergers into higher-rated systems, the largest being a seven-notch upgrade of a small, single-site hospital into a 19-hospital system in the Midwest.
  4. Five hospitals experienced multiple rating actions in 2024, with rating committees convening not once but two and three times during the year. These were distressed credits whose financial performance and reserve levels dropped materially from quarter to quarter, a characteristic of high-yield or speculative rated borrowers.
  5. While some of the upgrades followed mergers, other upgrades reflected improved financial performance and stable or growing liquidity. Likewise, some of the upgraded hospitals began receiving new supplemental funds known as Direct Payment Programs (DPPs). Unlike other supplemental funds, DPPs are subject to annual federal and state approval, making their long-term reliability uncertain. Numerous types of providers saw upgrades—including academic medical centers, independent hospitals and regional health systems—and were located across the U.S. Most of the upgraded hospitals (excluding those involved in mergers) were already investment grade.

As in past years, rating affirmations represented the overwhelming majority of rating actions in 2024. This is welcome news for the industry as many hospitals and health systems will turn to the bond market to borrow for their capital projects. Investors’ view of the industry should be bolstered by the change in industry outlooks. S&P moved to Stable from Negative and Fitch moved to Neutral from Deteriorating in December 2024, joining Moody’s revision to Stable from Negative in 2023.

We expect rating affirmations will again be the majority rating action in 2025. However, even with the stability viewed by the agencies, we expect downgrades to outpace upgrades given a growing reliance on government payers, labor challenges and a competitive environment. Policy and funding changes will also cast uncertainty into the mix in 2025 and may cause credit deterioration in future years.

Senate report slams private equity’s ownership of hospitals

Posted on by • Posted in Bankruptcy, Financial Performance, Financial Stewardship, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Mergers & Acquisitions, Private Equity, Profit, Profit Motive, Public Interest, Sign of the Times • Leave a comment
https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/senate-report-slams-private-equitys-ownership-hospitals?leadId=1234536&mkt_tok=NDIwLVlOQS0yOTIAAAGX5dZKgjLBathxCQDLHz6aD3H4kLZLqWzQePWFKSc-dJ1Jif2kvx5AgcBeaH8LNPehMioSSucV5Syej2RAxHpF4CiLR5zfJW28bPAFJQpVzAC2

A bipartisan Senate report on private equity ownership of two health systems shows PE investment puts a priority of profit over patient health and hospital finances.

A yearlong investigation found that patient care deteriorated at both systems, while private equity owners received millions, according to the Senate Budget Committee’s bipartisan staff report, “Profits Over Patients: The Harmful Effects of Private Equity on the U.S. Health Care System.”

The investigation was led by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Ranking Member Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa.

WHY THIS MATTERS

The report centered on the hospital Ottumwa Regional Health Center in Iowa and its operating company, Lifepoint Health in Tennessee.

Private equity company Apollo Global Management owns Lifepoint Health.

The investigation expanded to include other entities, including PE firm Leonard Green & Partners and hospital operator Prospect Medical Holdings, in which Leonard Green & Partners held a majority stake. Leonard Green & Partners (LGP) is a private equity firm in Los Angeles that owns hospitals under Prospect Medical Holdings (PMH).

“LGP and PMH’s primary focus was on financial goals rather than quality of care at their hospitals, leading to multiple health and safety violations as well as understaffing and the closure of several hospitals,” the report said.

The investigation originated from questions over the role, if any, private equity played in a series of patient sexual assaults by a nurse practitioner at the Iowa hospital. In 2022, a nurse practitioner fatally overdosed on drugs acquired at the hospital. Police discovered the nurse had sexually assaulted nine incapacitated female patients over a two-year period, the report said.

Prospect Medical Holdings owns and operates hospitals in urban and suburban areas, primarily on the East and West Coasts, including Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and California.

It is a previously public traded company that went private in 2010 when LGP acquired a 61% majority stake. During the course of LGP’s majority ownership, Prospect Medical Holdings acquired 16 hospitals over a span of four years. PMH has operated a total of 21 unique hospitals, the report said.

Apollo has a 97% ownership stake in Lifepoint Health, a company that owns and operates acute care hospitals in predominantly rural areas. This includes Ottumwa Regional Health Center. Apollo owns around 220 hospitals nationwide, making it the single largest private equity owner of hospitals in the United States, the report said.

Ottumwa has been under PE ownership since 2010, when it was acquired by the PE-owned hospital operator RegionalCare, which was later acquired by Apollo.

KEY FINDINGS

The report’s key findings show that LGP controlled the Prospect Medical Holding board of directors, which incentivized management to satisfy financial goals regardless of patient outcomes.

“According to documents obtained by the committee, discussion amongst PMH and LGP leadership during board meetings centered around profits, costs, acquisitions, managing labor expenses and increasing patient volume – with little or no discussion of patient outcomes or quality of care.”

Current PMH leadership has overseen the closure of eight hospitals, with three-fourths coming during or directly after LGP’s majority ownership, including four in Texas and two in Pennsylvania.

Several hospitals suffered from labor cuts, decreased patient capacity, unsafe building maintenance and financial distress, the report said.

Despite this, LGP took home $424 million of the $645 million that PMH paid out in dividends and preferred stock redemption, in addition to over $13 million in fees, leaving PMH in severe financial distress.

In order to pay investors dividend distributions, PMH was forced to take on hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, running out of cash and defaulting on its loans, the report said.

ORHC’s PE owned companies, including Lifepoint Health, have failed to fulfill at least seven promises, including legally binding ones made to Ottumwa, including those related to growth, physician recruitment, routine capital expenditures, charity care, patient satisfaction and continuation of services.

Patient volumes have decreased, likely due to long wait times in the ER, outgoing transfers, insufficient staffing and a lack of specialists, the report said. This has also resulted from having a poor reputation in the community.

Because of financial harm, OTHC is dependent on Lifepoint Health to pay its expenses.

However, Lifepoint pays Apollo $9.2 million annually in management fees, as well as a 1% transaction fee each time Lifepoint completes an acquisition, which included a $55 million fee in relation to the acquisition of Lifepoint Health in 2018.

THE LARGER TREND

PE and other private funds had less than $1 trillion in managed assets in 2004, but now manage more than $13 trillion globally. PE firms create affiliated funds with money raised from investors, such as pension funds, foundations and insurance companies. The intention is generating returns for their investors within a short period of time.

PE has grown in healthcare. In the 2010s investors spent more than $1 trillion. By 2021 PE investment had reached an all-time high of 515 deals valued at $151 billion.

ON THE RECORD

“Recent peer reviewed studies have generally found negative consequences for general acute care hospitals during the first three years of PE ownership as compared to non-PE owned hospitals, including lower quality of care, increased transfers to other hospitals, decreased staffing and higher prices,” the report said.

Rating Agencies Upgrade Not-for-Profit Hospital Outlook

Posted on by • Posted in Balance Sheet, Cash, Cash Flow, Cash Management, Cash Reserves, Challenge, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Key Metrics, Key Performance Indicators, Key Ratios, Market Outlook, Net Income, Net Patient Service Revenue, Non-Profit Healthcare Industry, Nonoperating Income, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Margin Drivers, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/infographic/rating-agencies-upgrade-not-profit-hospital-outlook

In late 2023, S&P Global and Fitch Ratings viewed the not-for-profit (NFP) hospital sector as negative or deteriorating, reflecting the difficult financial position many were in following the pandemic.

In recent weeks, S&P and Fitch upgraded their 2025 sector outlook for NFP hospitals to stable and neutral respectively, joining Moody’s Ratings, which held stable from last year.

This week’s graphic illustrates the rating agencies’ latest views on NFP hospitals, which point to a promising but uneven recovery for the industry.

Overall, the reports detail that stronger balance sheets, solid revenues, and improved demand have reduced the likelihood of covenant violations and strengthened NFP hospitals’ positions. 

However, challenges persist that could impede further progress. The labor market, payer environment, antitrust enforcement, and a new administration all present complications for the continued recovery of NFP hospitals. Nonetheless, the reports indicate significant improvement for the industry since the post-pandemic ratings downturn.

Fitch’s report noted that the share of NFP hospitals with a stable outlook has reached a three-year high. Meanwhile, S&P reported that there are now almost twice as many NFP hospitals with favorable outlooks compared to unfavorable ones, a dramatic flip from 2023, which had a 3.1:1 ratio of unfavorable to favorable outlooks. 

These ratings changes reflect the hard work put in by NFP hospitals across the country to improve their financial performance and find new ways to serve their communities sustainably. 

However, the recovery remains “shaky” and incomplete, and hospitals still face a long road ahead as they reconfigure to a new normal.

The Two Events that Changed U.S. Healthcare for Everyone

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Affordability, Board, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicare, Price Transparency, Private Equity, Profit, Profit Motive, Skinny Health Plans, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment
The Two Events that Changed U.S. Healthcare for Everyone

In late 2025, two events reset the U.S. health system’s future at least through 2026 and possibly beyond:

  • November 5, 2024: The Election: Its post-mortem by pollsters and pundits reflects a country divided and unsettled: 22 Red States, 7 Swing States and 21 Blue States. But a solid majority who thought the country was heading in the wrong direction and their financial insecurity driving voters to return the 45th President to the White House. With slim majorities in the House and Senate, and a short-leash before mid-term elections November 3, 2026, the Trump team has thrown out ‘convention’ in their setting policies and priorities for their second term. That includes healthcare.
  • December 4, 2024: The Murder of a Health Executive : The murder of Brian Thompson, United Healthcare CEO, sparked hostility toward health insurers and a widespread backlash against the corporatization of the U.S. health system. While UHG took the most direct hit for its aggressiveness in managing access and coverage disputes, social media and mainstream journalists exposed what pollsters affirmed—the majority of American’s distrust the health system, believing it puts its profits above their needs. And their polls indicate animosity is highest among young adults, in lower income households and among members of its own workforce.

These events provide the backdrop for what to expect this year and next. Four directional shifts seem to underly actions to date and announced plans:

  • From elitism to populism: Key personnel and policy changes will draw less from Ivy League credentials, DC connections and recycled federal health agency notables and more from private sector experience, known disruptors and unconventional thought leaders. Notably, the new Chairs of the 7 Congressional Committees that control healthcare regulation, funding and policy changes in the 119th Congress represent LA, AL, WV, ID, VA, MO & KY constituents—hardly Ivy League territory.
  • From workforce disparities to workforce modernization: The Departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, Commerce and Treasury will attempt to suspend/modify regulatory mandates and entities they deem derived from woke ideology. The Trump team will replace them with policies that enable workforce de-regulation and modernization in the private sector. Hiring quotas, non-compete contracts, DEI et al will get a fresh look in the context of technology-enabled workplaces and supply-demand constraints. The HR function in every organization will become ground zero for Trump Healthcare 2.0 system transformation.
  • From western medicine to whole person wellbeing: HHS Secretary Nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” pledges war on ultra-processed foods. CMS’ designee Mehmet Oz advocates for vitamins, supplements and managed care. FDA nominee Marty Makary, a Hopkins surgeon, is a RFKJ ally in the “Health Freedom” movement promoting suspicion about ‘mainstream medicine’ and raising doubts about vaccination efficacy for children and low-risk adults. NIH nominee Jay Bhattacharya, director of Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging, opposed Covid-19 lockdowns and is critical of vaccine policies. Collectively, this four-some will challenge conventional western (allopathic) medicine and add wide-range of non-traditional interventions that are a safe and cost-effective to the treatment arsenal for providers and consumers. The food supply will be a major focus: HHS will work closely with the USDA (nominee Brooke Rollins, currently CEO of the America First Policy Institute, to reduce the food chain’s dependence on ultra-processed foods in public health.
  • From DC dominated health policies to states: The 2022 Supreme Court’ Dobbs decision opened the door for states to play the lead role in setting policies for access to abortion for their female citizens. It follows federalism’s Constitutional preference that Washington DC’s powers over states be enumerated and limited. Thus, state provisions about healthcare services for its citizens will expand beyond their already formidable scope. Likely actions in some states will include revised terms and conditions that facilitate consolidation, allowance for physician owned hospitals and site-neutral payments, approval of “skinny” individual insurance policies that do not conform to the Affordable Care Act’s qualified health plan spec’s, expanded scope of practice for nurse practitioners, drug price controls and many others. At least for the immediate future, state legislatures will be the epicenters for major policy changes impacting healthcare organizations; federal changes outside appropriations activity are unlikely.

Transforming the U.S. health system is a bodacious ambition for the incoming Trump team. Early wins will be key—like expanding price transparency in every healthcare sector, softening restrictions on private equity investments, targeted cuts in Medicaid and Medicare funding and annulment of the Inflation Reduction Act. In tandem, it has promised to cut Federal government spending by $2 trillion and lower prices on everything including housing and healthcare—the two spending categories of highest concern to the working class. Healthcare will figure prominently in Team Trump’s agenda for 2025 and posturing for its 2026 mid-term campaign. And equally important, healthcare costs also figure prominently in quarterly earnings reports for companies that provide employee health benefits forecast to be 8% higher this year following a 7% spike the year prior. Last year’s 23% S&P growth is not expected to repeat this year raising shareholder anxiety and the economy’s long-term resilience and the large roles housing and healthcare play in its performance.

My take:

The 2024 election has been called a change election. That’s unwelcome news to most organizations in healthcare, especially the hospitals, physicians, post-acute providers and others who provide care to patients and operate at the bottom of the healthcare pyramid.

Equipping a healthcare organization to thoughtfully prepare for changes amidst growing uncertainty requires extraordinary time and attention by management teams and their Boards. There are no shortcuts. Before handicapping future state scenario possibilities, contingencies and resource requirements, a helpful starting point is this: On the four most pressing issues facing every U.S. healthcare company/organization today, Boards and Management should discuss…

  • Trust: On what basis can statements about our performance be verified? Is the data upon which our trust is based readily accessible? Does the organization’s workforce have more or less trust than outside stakeholders? What actions are necessary to strengthen/restore trust?
  • Purpose: Which stakeholder group is our organization’s highest priority? What values & behaviors define exceptional leadership in our organization? How are they reflected in their compensation?
  • Affordability: How do we measure and monitor the affordability of our services to the consumers and households we ultimately depend? How directly is our organization’s alignment of reducing cost reduction and pass-through savings to consumers? Is affordability a serious concern in our organization (or just a slogan)?
  • Scale: How large must we be to operate at the highest efficiency? How big must we become to achieve our long-term business goals?

This week, thousands of healthcare’s operators will be in San Francisco (JPM Healthcare Conference), Naples (TGI Leadership Conference) and in Las Vegas (Consumer Electronics Show) as healthcare begins a new year. No one knows for sure what’s ahead or who the winners and losers will be.  What’s for sure is that healthcare will be in the spotlight and its future will not be a cut and paste of its past.

PS: The parallels between radical changes facing the health system and other industries is uncanny. College athletics is no exception. As you enjoy the College Football Final Four this weekend, consider its immediate past—since 2021, the impact of Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) monies on college athletics, and its immediate future–pending regulation that will codify permanent revenue sharing arrangements (to be implemented 2026-2030) between college athletes, their institutions and sponsors. What happened to the notion of student athlete and value of higher education? Has the notion of “not-for-profit” healthcare met a similar fate? Or is it all just business?

In Healthcare, Most think We’re Shrewd and They’re Screwed

Posted on by • Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Excessive Executive Compensation, Executive Compensation, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Misinformation, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network, Price Transparency, Profit, Profit Motive, Public Health Crisis, Public Opinion, Public Oversight, Public Perception, Public Trust, State of the Union, Underinsured • Leave a comment
In Healthcare, Most think We’re Shrewd and They’re Screwed

I never met Brian Thompson. His senseless death is first and foremost a human tragedy.

Second, it’s a business story that continues to unfold. Speculation about the shooter’s motive and whereabouts runs rampant.

But media attention has seized on a larger theme: the business of health insurance and its role in U.S. healthcare. 

Headlines like these illustrate the storyline that has evolved in response to the killing: health insurance is part of a complicated industry where business practices are often geared to corporate profit.

In this coverage and social media postings, health insurer denials are the focal point: journalists and commentators have seized on the use of Artificial intelligence-based tools used by plans like United, Cigna, Aetna and most others to approve/deny claims and Thompson’s role as CEO of UHG’s profitable insurance division.

The bullet-casing etchings “Deny. Defend. Depose” is now a T-shirt whistle to convey a wearer’s contempt for corporate insurers and the profit-seeking apparatus in U.S. healthcare. 

Laid bare in the coverage of Brian’s death is this core belief: the majority of Americans think the U.S. health system is big business and fundamentally flawed.

As noted in last week’s Gallup Poll, and in previous polling by Pew, Harris, Kaiser Family Foundation and Keckley, only one in three Americans believe the health system performs well. Accessibility, costs, price transparency and affordability are dominant complaints. They believe the majority of health insurers, hospitals and prescription drug companies put their financial interests above the public’s health and wellbeing. They accept that the health system is complex and expensive but feel helpless to fix it.

This belief is widely held: its pervasiveness and intensity lend to misinformation and disinformation about the system and its business practices. 

Data about underlying costs and their relationship to prices are opaque and hard to get. Clinical innovation and quality of care are understood in the abstract: self-funded campaigns touting Top 100 recognition, Net Promoter Scores are easier. The business of healthcare financing and delivery is not taught: personal experiences with insurers, hospitals, physicians and drugs are the basis for assessing the system’s effectiveness…and those experiences vary widely based on individual/household income, education, ethnicity and health status.  

The majority accept that operators in every sector of healthcare apply business practices intended to optimize their organization’s finances. Best practices for every insurer, hospital, drug/device manufacturer and medical practice include processes and procedures to maximize revenues, minimize costs and secure capital for growth/innovation. 

But in healthcare, the notion of profit remains problematic: how much is too much? and how an organization compensates its leaders for results beyond short-term revenue/margin improvement are questions of growing concern to a large and growing majority of consumers.

In every sector, key functions like these are especially prone to misinformation, disinformation and public criticism:

  • Among insurers, provider credentialing, coverage allowance and denial management, complaint management and member services, premium pricing and out-of-pocket risks for enrollees, provider reimbursement, prior authorization, provider directory accuracy, the use of AI in plan administration and others.
  • Among hospitals, price setting, employed physician compensation, 340B compliance, price and cost transparency, revenue-cycle management and patient debt collection, workforce performance composition, evaluation and compensation, integration of AI in clinical and administrative decision-making, participation in gainsharing/alternative payment programs, clinical portfolio and others.
  • And across every sector, executive compensation and CEO pay, Board effectiveness, and long-term strategies that balance shareholder interests with broader concern for the greater good.

The bottom line:

The public is paying attention to business practices in healthcare. The death of Brian Thompson opened the floodgate for criticism of health insurers and the U.S. healthcare industry overall. It cannot be ignored. The public thinks industry folks are shrewd operators and they’re inclined to conclude they’re screwed as a result.

The Misadventures of Primary Care

Posted on by • Posted in Amazon Care, Amazon Clinic, Amazon Pharmacy, Amazonification of Healthcare, CVS Health, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Primary Care, Primary Care Delivery Model, Primary Care Strategy, Primary Care Workforce, Private Equity, Walgreens, Walmart • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/misadventures-primary-care

Innovation in the American economy over the past 30 years has been nothing short of stunning—one remarkable technological advance after another. Industry by industry and product by product, corporate innovation has profoundly changed the way we navigate our economic and consumer lives. From this context of technological and innovative change came the corporate belief that healthcare could be “significantly improved” through the same application of aggressive corporate strategy and innovation.

So along came Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, and Amazon with all the resources in the world and with the best intentions to contemporize primary care.

The goals of all this were front and center: change the definition of the healthcare gatekeeper, lower costs, improve quality, and create a much more consumer-friendly care experience. Yet here we see that American business has proven—once again—that the best intentions, the smartest ideas, and a lot of money are still no guarantee of commercial success. How quickly the corporate retail re-invention of primary care all came apart.

Between 2017 and 2022, retail clinic claims grew 200%, spiking particularly during the pandemic, according to Healthcare Finance. And yet now, Walmart has abandoned its primary care strategy, Walgreens is pulling back significantly—even after announcing significant expansion plans as little as a year ago—and CVS is facing uncertainty after a leadership shakeup.

Under corporate leadership and strategy, primary care has become a catalog of woes. Let’s unpack that catalog.

Walmart opened its first health center in 2019, offering a range of basic services with prices posted. At first, it focused on patients who could pay cash, but eventually evolved to accept a range of insurance plans. Walmart brought a level of strategic aggression to its primary care initiative by announcing in 2023 it would nearly double the number of clinics it operated. But in an abrupt about face, the megaretailer shuttered all 51 primary care locations in April, citing an unsustainable business model with an inability to maximize revenue and adequately control expenses.

Walgreens, on the other hand, opted to invest in existing providers. In 2020 and 2021, Walgreens spent $6.2 billion on the primary care clinic chain VillageMD, establishing it as the majority owner. In 2022, Walgreens sunk another $3.5 billion, through a mix of debt and equity, into VillageMD’s $8.9 billion acquisition of Summit Health. Walgreens, like Walmart, suffered for its primary care investments. The company was forced to take a $5.8 billion write-down on Village MD in the second quarter of this year.

During an October 15 earnings call, Walgreens CEO Tim Wentworth said the company “is reorienting to its legacy strength as a retail pharmacy-led company,” according to the Wall Street Journal. “We are in the early stages of a turnaround that will take time.” And that comment came with the potential closure of 1,200 Walgreens retail locations, following on the heels of 160 primary care clinic closures earlier this year.

CVS, too, has not been immune to primary care turbulence, as CVS Health CEO Karen Lynch was forced to step down last month after presiding over an expansion of healthcare clinics but then closing dozens of them in California and New England. CVS’s strategic approach revolved around its $10.6 billion acquisition of Oak Street Health in 2023 and its intention to expand primary care in 1,100 MinuteClinics. That strategy now seems to be up in the air with the departure of Ms. Lynch. The CVS board is now suggesting an approach that may involve a spinoff of its insurance and pharmacy benefits manager units, Aetna and Caremark.

Amazon, however, at the moment shows no signs of abandoning its foray into primary care. Rather than focusing its efforts on solely brick-and-mortar locations, Amazon organized its primary care strategy around the 2023 $3.9 billion acquisition of One Medical, a concierge-style service designed to facilitate both in-person and virtual visits. While Amazon’s primary care strategy remains somewhat opaque, it seems to revolve around partnering with employers and health systems to cultivate primary care patient loyalty through a membership program that builds on the Amazon Prime brand.

Each company took a slightly different approach to primary care, but all four planned to leverage their exceptional size to achieve profitability.

Interestingly, scale has not been sufficient to solve the challenges of primary care. American Medical Association President Bruce A. Scott wrote recently: “If retail giants can’t make today’s care delivery model work financially, how on earth can physicians in private practice?” It’s no wonder the ongoing shortage of about 20,000 primary care physicians is expected to persist. A recent AAMC report found that by 2036, that number could double.

Primary care has been unsuccessful as a transactional business; retailers sell goods at a set price and send customers on their way. In healthcare, payment models are nowhere near as straightforward. Patients, particularly in areas where access to care is limited, may have continuous, rather than episodic, needs. All of this complexity has seemed to add up to higher costs and lower margins. Primary care seems to require a much more complex business model, one robust enough to remain patient as that business model experiments with various approaches or is vast enough to offset losses with other lines of revenue.

So where does all of the above lead us? Are there any useful conclusions or lessons to be learned? Maybe so.

  1. Primary care is an essential component of any hospital system of care. Done right, it acts as both an important gatekeeper and as a trusting component of the continuity of healthcare service.
  2. At the moment, there is not enough primary care to meet the demand. Stories abound of patients whose longtime primary care physicians retire and said physicians cannot be replaced without a great effort—or often not at all.
  3. Right now, the economics of primary care don’t work as a standalone service. Many have tried and—regardless of whether they were big or small, for profit or not-for-profit—this essential patient-centered service can only operate when subsidized by a larger enterprise. Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS have all tired of those subsidies.
  4. The overall healthcare system and its quality of care and delivery is significantly damaged by the current state of primary care. Too many patients receive delayed diagnosis and treatment and slow or little necessary follow-up. Patients that should be seen in the office are instead funneled to the emergency room. Care, of course, remains well-intentioned but often is instead inconsistent and chaotic. Conditions that might have been deftly managed instead become chronic.
  5. All this leads to the importance of not giving up on primary care. Patients prefer to be seen in the primary care ecosystem. They tend to trust that level of care and attention. Patients also prefer to be seen in-person when they are feeling particularly poorly, and they appreciate prompt answers about concerning health issues. What this all suggests is that we are at a moment when hospitals need to double down on the primary care dilemma. Primary care needs to be examined as an essential component of the overall enterprise-wide strategic plan both clinically and—especially—financially.

Corporate America, with all of its economic power and resources and scale, has found primary care to be a confounding and, so far, unsuccessful business model. So, after all of the recent noise and promises and slide decks, the problem and promise of primary care is back in the mission-driven hands of America’s not-for-profit hospitals—exactly where it should have been all along.

The Four Core Beliefs of Hospital-Employed Physicians

Posted on by • Posted in Employee Physicians, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Physician Compensation, Physician Leadership, Physician Reimbursement, Physician Workforce • Leave a comment
The Four Core Beliefs of Hospital-Employed Physicians

In my report June 10, I wrote: “The major sources of physician discontent are administrative hassles and unwelcome clinical oversight that create dissonance. They conflict with a false sense of autonomy that the majority of physicians imagined when choosing medicine. Cuts to reimbursement, participation in alternative payment models and medical inflation are manifestations of a system in which ‘suits’ are intruders who make rules, exact handsome salaries, generate corporate profits and distance physicians from patient care purposely… “

This assessment remains true today. Discontent among physicians is palpable and it’s magnified by a growing sense of financial despair among many clinicians. And it poses a unique challenge to hospitals that now employ more than half of America’s physician workforce.

In the “good ole days”, hospitals provided a place for physicians to ply their trade. They were credentialled to practice their chosen specialty, granted special parking, food and amenities and treated as the hospital’s most welcome customer. Made sense: physicians controlled most patient decisions about the hospital services they use. Physicians controlled the hospital’s revenue, sustainability and bonuses earned by administrators. Insurers brought privately-insured patients to doctors who charged them 1.6-2.5 times what Medicare paid and physician income was not threatened. That was then. This is now.

Today, insurers play a larger role. Consumer expectations have changed. Policymakers are paying more attention. And demand has shifted from inpatient services to outpatient, home and office settings for health and wellbeing services in addition to acute care. And the current forecast by CMS through 2032 predicts spending for hospitals will increase at a compound rate of 5.7% vs. 5.6% for physicians adding more hospital-physician financial tension to the system. Both well-above inflation and CDP growth prompting heightened pressure to spend less.

In anticipation, consolidation of hospitals into multi-hospital systems has been a staple in recent years: only 1 in 5 hospitals is independent these days, and most of these are small, rural or otherwise destined to independence for their uncertain future. Whether public, investor-owned or not-for-profit (or tax exempt as some prefer), the economic realities of running hospitals coupled with the regulatory constraints imposed by state and federal law forced all to re-think their future. And, for most, employing physicians directly was a means to an end of staying alive while the dust settles.

But the unintended consequence of physician employment is soured relationships between the employed physicians and their hospital:

their financial and emotional security has become tangled up by interactions with hospital leaders and former peers appointed to oversee their work.

And their views about their hospital have morphed to negativity based on four underlying beliefs:

  • Hospitals spend too much on overhead and executive salaries and not enough on direct patient care.
  • Hospitals are run poorly: we could run them better but they don’t listen to us.
  • Hospitals get rate increases from Medicare and physicians get screwed.
  • Hospitals need us more than we need them. But they don’t understand that.

On March 9, 2024, President Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, which included a 2.93% update to the CY 2024 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Conversion Factor (CF) for dates of service March 9 through December 31, 2024. But physicians saw that as not enough since their overhead increased even more. And for 2025, CMS is proposing to reduce average payment rates under the MPFS by 2.93% compared to the average amount reimbursed for these services in CY 2024 based on CY 2025 MPFS conversion factor decrease of $0.93 (or 2.8%) from the current CY 2024 conversion factor.

Understandably, physicians are upset. They’re not delusional that private insurers will make up the difference nor imagining hospitals will divert funds their way from brick, stick and tech priorities. But they’re speaking out expressing their views to anyone who’ll listen.

For hospitals that employ physicians, the issue of their financial anxiety requires urgent attention–not as one of many alongside 340B, site neutral payments and others but as the one at the top of the list. The issue is not whether physician income relative to other professions and average households is high. The issue is about managing physician expectations about their livelihood realistically and practically while improving their clinical acumen as professionals.

The core beliefs held by employed physicians about their hospitals may not be fair, objective or accurate, but they’re no less deeply felt and impactful. Hospital boards and C suite leaders would be well-served to refresh plans accordingly.

The hospital finance misconception plaguing C-suites

Posted on by • Posted in Access, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Complex, Cost Management, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Economics, Healthcare Industry, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Non-Profit Healthcare Industry, State of the Union • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/the-hospital-finance-misconception-plaguing-c-suites.html?origin=BHRSUN&utm_source=BHRSUN&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G

Health systems have a big challenge: rising costs and reimbursement that doesn’t keep up with inflation. The amount spent on healthcare annually continues to rise while outcomes aren’t meaningfully better.

Some people outside of the industry wonder: Why doesn’t healthcare just act more like other businesses?

“There seems to be a widely held belief that healthcare providers respond the same as all other businesses that face rising costs,” said Cliff Megerian, MD, CEO of University Hospitals in Cleveland. “That is absolutely not true. Unlike other businesses, hospitals and health systems cannot simply adjust prices in response to inflation due to pre-negotiated rates and government mandated pay structures. Instead, we are continually innovating approaches to population health, efficiency and cost management, ensuring that we maintain delivery of high quality care to our patients.”

Nonprofit hospitals are also responsible for serving all patients regardless of ability to pay, and University Hospitals is among the health systems distinguished as a best regional hospital for equitable access to care by U.S. News & World Report.

“This commitment necessitates additional efforts to ensure equitable access to healthcare services, which inherently also changes our payer mix by design,” said Dr. Megerian. “Serving an under-resourced patient base, including a significant number of Medicaid, underinsured and uninsured individuals, requires us to balance financial constraints with our ethical obligations to provide the highest quality care to everyone.”

Hospitals need adequate reimbursement to continue providing services while also staffing the hospital appropriately. Many hospitals and health systems have been in tense negotiations with insurers in the last 24 months for increased pay rates to cover rising costs.

“Without appropriate adjustments, nonprofit healthcare providers may struggle to maintain the high standards of care that patients deserve, especially when serving vulnerable populations,” said Dr. Megerian. “Ensuring fair reimbursement rates supports our nonprofit industry’s aim to deliver equitable, high quality healthcare to all while preserving the integrity of our health systems.”

Industry outsiders often seek free market dynamics in healthcare as the “fix” for an expensive and complicated system. But leaving healthcare up to the normal ebbs and flows of businesses would exclude a large portion of the population from services. Competition may lead to service cuts and hospital closures as well, which devastates communities.

“A misconception is that the marketplace and utilization of competitive business model will fix all that ails the American healthcare system,”

said Scot Nygaard, MD, COO of Lee Health in Ft. Myers and Cape Coral, Fla.

“Is healthcare really a marketplace, in which the forces of competition will solve for many of the complex problems we face, such as healthcare disparities, cost effective care, more uniform and predictive quality and safety outcomes, mental health access, professional caregiver workforce supply?”

Without comprehensive reform at the state or federal level, many health systems have been left to make small changes hoping to yield different results. But, Dr. Nygaard said, the “evidence year after year suggests that this approach is not successful and yet we fear major reform despite the outcomes.”

The dearth of outside companies trying to enter the healthcare space hasn’t helped. People now expect healthcare providers to function like Amazon or Walmart without understanding the unique complexities of the industry.

“Unlike retail, healthcare involves navigating intricate regulations, providing deeply personal patient interactions and building sustained trust,” said Andreia de Lima, MD, chief medical officer of Cayuga Health System in Ithaca, N.Y. “Even giants like Walmart found it challenging to make primary care profitable due to high operating costs and complex reimbursement systems. Success in healthcare requires more than efficiency; it demands a deep understanding of patient care, ethical standards and the unpredictable nature of human health.”

So what can be done?

Tracea Saraliev, a board member for Dominican Hospital Santa Cruz (Calif.) and PIH Health said leaders need to increase efforts to simplify and improve healthcare economics.

“Despite increased ownership of healthcare by consumers, the economics of healthcare remain largely misunderstood,” said Ms. Saraliev. “For example, consumers erroneously believe that they always pay less for care with health insurance. However, a patient can pay more for healthcare with insurance than without as a result of the negotiated arrangements hospitals have with insurance companies and the deductibles of their policy.”

There is also a variation in cost based on the provider, and even with financial transparency it’s a challenge to provide an accurate assessment for the cost of care before services. Global pricing and other value-based care methods streamline the price, but healthcare providers need great data to benefit from the arrangements.

Based on payer mix, geographic location and contracted reimbursement rates, some health systems are able to thrive while others struggle to stay afloat. The variation mystifies some people outside of the industry.

“Healthcare economics very much remains paradoxical to even the most savvy of consumers,” said Ms. Saraliev.

Senator urges Pennsylvania AG to intervene in Crozer sale

Posted on by • Posted in Attorney General, Financial Stewardship, Financial Transparency, Financial Viability, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Merger Conditions, Mergers & Acquisitions, Oversight, Public Interest, Public Oversight, Transparency • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/senator-urges-pennsylvania-ag-to-intervene-in-crozer-sale.html?origin=CFOE&utm_source=CFOE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G

Pennsylvania state Sen. Tim Kearney has raised concerns about the lack of transparency and details around the planned sale of Upland, Pa.-based Crozer Health and has called on the state attorney general to step in and conduct a thorough analysis of the deal, the Daily Times reported Aug. 22.

Earlier this month, Los Angeles-based Prospect Medical Holdings and CHA Partners signed a letter of intent for CHA to acquire Crozer. The proposed deal would involve transitioning Crozer’s four hospitals back to nonprofit status.

“Prospect’s proposed sale of Crozer to CHA Partners LLC exemplifies the need for state oversight of hospital sales, as both entities appear to have histories of burning public partners despite demanding hefty subsidies,” Mr. Kearney said in a statement shared with Becker’s.

Unlike many other states, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General lacks statutory authority to deeply evaluate these deals, according to Mr. Kearney. 

“While the AG’s legal settlement with Prospect gives them some oversight of this deal, the legislature needs to provide the AG with greater authority to protect hospitals and the communities that depend on them,” he said. “If the choice is CHA or closure, then we need some assurances that they will be a responsible organization and not just a profiteering speculator.”

Prospect, a for-profit company, plans to sell nine of its 16 hospitals in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Connecticut and is also being investigated by the Justice Department for alleged violations of the False Claims Act. A spokesperson for Prospect told Becker’s the system will continue to cooperate with the investigation, but feels that the allegations have no merit. 

CHA did not respond to Becker’s request for comment.