A recent physician survey conducted by strategic healthcare communications firm Jarrard Inc. uncovered a startling finding: only 36 percent of physicians employed by or affiliated with not-for-profit health systems trust that their system’s leaders are honest and transparent. In contrast, a slight majority of physicians working with investor-owned health systems and practices answered that question in the opposite.
Overall, only around half of physicians trust their organization’s leaders when it comes to financial, operational, and patient care decision-making. Unsurprisingly, doctors put the most trust in peer physicians, by a wide margin.
The Gist: While the numbers, especially for nonprofit systems, are stark, this survey reflects an on-the-ground reality felt at health systems in recent years. Physician fatigue has spiked in the wake of the pandemic.
And health system-physician relationships are also being disrupted by cost pressures, payer and investor acquisitions, and the shift of care to ambulatory settings. We’ve heard from physicians that, compared to hospital owners, investor-backed systems provide greater transparency and clearer financial goals centered around the success of the business.
That physicians trust their peers so highly suggests a path forward: provide physician leaderswith greater transparency into system performance and agency over strategy, with clear goals and metrics.
Last week the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed thirteen new merger guidelines that, if finalized, would provide federal regulators greater ability to scrutinize mergers across all industries, including healthcare.
The guidelines expand which mergers could be potentially illegal and therefore worth probing, including those with lower monetary value and those in which the newly combined organization would control 30 percent or greater market share, and would increase scrutiny on transactions that are part of a series of multiple acquisitions by an organization. They also seek to limit the ability of an organization to justify an acquisition on the grounds that the weaker party in the deal would be unable to continue to operate. Comments on the guidelines are being accepted until September 18.
The Gist: To date, federal regulators have struggled to prevent non-traditional mergers between companies that provide different services, operate in different markets, or are below the monetary threshold for review.
The proposed guidelines would significantly increase FTC and DOJ scrutiny at all levels of hospital mergers, and also jeopardize physician and other care asset acquisitions by health systems, payers, and private equity-backed organizations. They are the latest from the Biden Administration in a recent, multi-part push to reduce consolidation through greater antitrust enforcement.
This effort includes last month’s proposal to add additional reporting requirements for mergers outlined in the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, as well as the FTC’s move earlier this month to withdraw two antitrust policy statements focused on healthcare markets that both agencies say are now “outdated.” Those now-rescinded statements provided guidance on antitrust safety zones, including for accountable care organizations participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program and for mergers between two hospitals in which one is much smaller.
In January 2023, the Rockefeller Institute published a three-part blog series on trends to watch in healthcare in 2023. The series covered broad issues related to the healthcare workforce, economy, and health policy, and highlighted internal industry changes and trends in service delivery, quality, and equity.
Here, we provide a recap and mid-year update on those trends.
The Public Health Emergency:
In January, we anticipated the COVID-19 federal public health emergency (PHE) would end at some point during the year and its ending would impact the industry by rolling back flexibilities and programs that were temporarily put in place to combat the pandemic. The end of the PHE, while not a “trend” per se, held significant potential to alter the trajectory of trends in healthcare coverage, access, and care delivery that were occurring during the pandemic.
Mid-year Update: As predicted, the PHE was not renewed and ended on May 11, 2023. The most notable impact of the non-renewal of the PHE was the end of continuous Medicaid public health insurance coverage. The Kaiser Family Foundation’s Medicaid Enrollment Tracker shows that, as of July 5, 2023, 1,652,000 Medicaid enrollees were disenrolled by the District of Columbia and 28 states reporting data. For context, this means that 39% of people with a completed renewal were disenrolled in reporting states, though disenrollment rates varied significantly across those states from 16 percent in Virginia to 75 percent in South Carolina. The eligibility redetermination process that can lead to a potential disenrollment is being conducted differently in each state with some states moving quickly to make redeterminations and others doing the process more deliberately over the course of the year with a clear intent to avoid shedding people from the Medicaid program because of an inability to submit administrative paperwork.
The process for eligibility renewals will continue to play out over the course of the next year since states have until mid-2024 to update all Medicaid enrollees’ eligibility status. Also notable are some changes made under the purview of the PHE that persist despite the emergency’s conclusion. For example, access to COVID-19 vaccinations and certain COVID-19 treatments generally have not been affected. Some telehealth flexibilities that were allowed under the PHE are also staying in effect, at least until the end of 2024.
Healthcare Workforce Shortages:
Prior to the pandemic, larger demographic trends in society were already impacting the supply of the healthcare workforce. The number of people aging and needing healthcare services was growing while the number of people available to provide care was not keeping pace thus creating a long-term healthcare workforce shortage.
Mid-year Update:The workforce shortage continues. As outlined in a May 23rd Becker’s Hospital Review article, several sources point to a continued shortage. They include a report that says the US could see a deficit of 200,000 to 450,000 registered nurses by 2025. Within the next five years, another report also projects a shortage of more than 3.2 million lower-wage healthcare workers, such as medical assistants, home health aides, and nursing assistants. As a result, some healthcare providers are becoming more creative in their efforts to counteract the workforce shortage: creating alumni networks from which to recruit or providing other benefits to their workforce, such as housing or educational assistance. Policymakers can help counteract the negative impacts of the workforce shortage through a variety of strategies. With the shortage expected to continue, it will be important to enact additional policies that bolster the workforce.
Price Inflation:
As we noted, price inflation was significant in 2022 but was not unique to the health sector.Inflation was particularly exacerbated by the re-opening of the economy after the pandemic, the continued war in Ukraine, and supply chain challenges.
Mid-year Update: Prices for many consumer goods and services increased faster than usual, with overall inflation reaching a four-decade high in mid-2022. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported inflation rates have slowed, with overall prices growing by 6 percent in February 2023 compared to the previous year. Interestingly, prices for medical care increased only 2.3 percent. Similarly, BLS reported that the average price of health care in the United States increased by 0.7 percent in the 12 months ending May 2023, following a previous increase of 1.1 percent. The slower price growth in healthcare compared to other sectors of the economy is highly unusual,[i] and while inflation is not easily influenced by state-level policymakers’ actions alone, the trend is still worth monitoring to better understand the impacts on healthcare access and quality. As of early July, the latest predictions from PwC are that healthcare costs will rise 7% in 2024.
Declining Margins at Hospitals:
Previous analysis by the consulting firm Kaufman Hall predicted that more than half of all hospitals would have negative margins at the end of 2022. As we noted, this was due to such factors as higher-than-normal expenses for staff, supplies, and pharmaceuticals and lower revenues.
Mid-year Update: The latest report from Kaufman Hall offers data that shows a reversal in this trend for the first part of 2023. May was the third consecutive month in which hospital margins were positive after operating in the red for most of 2022. The return to normal is largely driven by revenues that are more in line with pre-pandemic levels. With revenues returning to more normal levels, expenses will be particularly important to watch for the remainder of 2023. If hospital expenses continue to outweigh revenues, policymakers may need to evaluate the financial health of providers and the potential impact that may have on access to services for patients.
Private Equity in Healthcare:
We predicted that private equity (PE) would continue to grow in healthcare, pointing to a PwC consulting report that indicated that PE companies still had plenty of “dry powder,” or money, to invest in 2023.
Mid-year Update:There has been a slowdown in private equity deals over the last year. But it is notable that there were still 200 private equity deals in healthcare in the first quarter of 2023, according to PitchBook’s healthcare services report released in May 2023. While lower than the year before, this is still considered active when compared to pre-pandemic PE dealmaking. Because of the waning of the pandemic and stability returning to the healthcare sector, it is more likely that PE deals stabilize in 2023. And some industry predictions indicate that dealmaking will bounce back further in the second half of 2023. As noted in our previous blog, it will be important to monitor the proliferation of PE in healthcare and determine its impact on healthcare markets, care delivery, innovation, and quality.
Consolidations:
Like many other industries, consolidations of all sorts have been happening in healthcare. The consolidations are both vertical—combining two or more stages of production normally operated by separate companies into one company, such as when hospitals or insurers employ physicians and/or acquire physician practices or other entities like pharmacies—and horizontal—combining organizations that provide the same or similar services, such as hospitals acquiring hospitals.
Mid-year Update: Consolidations of all sorts of healthcare entities continued in 2023 with some of the biggest potential consolidations yet. Those include the proposed merger of two major bi-coastal health system providers: Geisinger, based in Pennsylvania, and Kaiser, based in California. Although the deal must still go through regulatory approval, if completed, the two systems will create a nonprofit that will look to add five or six more systems nationally over the next five years. Other notable consolidations include the finalization of tech-giant Amazon’s purchase of One Medical, a primary care network. And Optum, one of the largest conglomerates that is a subsidiary of United Health Group, increased its net revenue growth by 25% to $54.1 billion in the first quarter of 2023, primarily due to more patients visiting OptumHealth clinics and growth in OptumRx pharmacy scripts processed. Optum’s growth is likely to continue in 2023 as they expect to add another 10,000 physicians. Case in point, in February of this year, Optum paid an undisclosed sum for Crystal Run Healthcare, a network of nearly 400 providers in New York. A goal of consolidation has been better coordination of patient care for improved outcomes and value. Results have been mixed and it is therefore an important trend for policymakers and researchers to monitor and to ensure the impacts are positive.
Alternate Payment Models:
Alternate payment models (APMs) in healthcare have been expanding especially since enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010. They are primarily being developed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) which has driven payment policy (including APMs) in the two big government healthcare programs: Medicaid and Medicare. There have been several iterations of APMs—over 50 models—but the one common theme is that all of them generally seek to reward better care.
Mid-year Update: Since the start of 2023, the most notable expansion of the trend toward more alternate payment models was CMMI’s introduction of a new primary care-focused APM called Making Care Primary. In addition to this model, it is expected that the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS), which oversees the operation of these two large public health insurance programs, will introduce more new payment models in 2023, including one that allows states to manage the total cost of care in a given region. This may take various forms, including something akin to Maryland’s global budget, which is used statewide. Since the total cost of care model has yet to be officially revealed, this trend and the emergence of any new developments is worth watching in the second half of 2023. Policymakers can learn from these various payment models and use them to inform the plans implemented in their own state or region in order to improve healthcare.
Attention to Health Equity:
A notable aspect of the pandemic was the disparate impact it had on people of color and other marginalized groups. In response, policymakers and providers began paying more attention to the underlying cause of these disparities. In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to focus federal resources and attention on reducing health disparities.
Mid-year Update: Increased attention to health equity in healthcare has continued. Ernst and Young, an international consulting group, released its first-ever report on the state of health equity in the United States, which involved a survey of over 500 providers to begin tracking their methods for, and progress in, addressing health disparities. More recently, in June 2023, The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) announced that it will be adding a certification program for healthcare organizations specifically targeted towards improving health equity. While attention to equity has grown, what will be interesting to watch in the second half of 2023 is the degree to which such efforts are having an impact on actually reducing disparities. Understanding the impacts of various interventions can help policymakers expand efforts that are effective.
Digital TeleHealth Delivery Expansion:
The use of digital health expanded dramatically from 2020 to 2022 as social distancing practices were adopted and telehealth options became more widely available. As noted in our blog series, digital health “includes mobile health (mHealth), health information technology (IT), wearable devices, telehealth and telemedicine, and personalized medicine.” It also includes, “mobile medical apps and software that support the clinical decisions doctors make every day to do artificial intelligence and machine learning.”
Mid-year Update: At the end of 2022 and the start of 2023, the ability to infuse capital to drive the expansion of digital health seemed tenuous, in part due to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). As noted by the publication Pitchbook and CB Insights, venture capital funding in the digital health space totaled $7.5 billion in 2022, a 57 percent year-over-year drop. Although the fast pace of investment in digital health may have slowed since its explosion during the pandemic, the expansion of digital health continues. Our January blog suggested that areas such as behavioral health, care at home, and maternal health were areas to watch. In 2023, digital access is expanding in other areas, such as in-home urgent primary care to allow for the treatment of complex injuries and illnesses with the goal of reducing emergency department visits. And other important digital health deals are still occurring: health tech startup Florence picked up Zipnosis from Bright Health to expand its virtual care capabilities. And with the launch of consumer-facing tech products, such as Chat GPT and Apple Vision Pro in the first half of 2023, additional opportunities for applying such technologies in healthcare may fuel further expansion of digital health. Policies that are developed in the future may want to support the growth of such innovation, while also being mindful to monitor the potential impacts on care.
Expansion of Non-Traditional Providers:
In January, we noted an emergence of companies in healthcare whose genesis was something other than healthcare. The blog pointed to examples of how companies such as Walgreens, CVS, and Amazon were expanding their offerings in healthcare.
Mid-year Update:Non-traditional entities continue to expand in the healthcare space. Notable examples include the recent acquisitions and expansions made by CVS. One of these expansions is being done through its affiliation with the insurance company, Aetna. Through Aetna, CVS has entered the insurance exchange market in four more states in 2023, in addition to the 12 states in which it already operates. CVS also closed a deal in the first half of 2023 to acquire Oak Street Health for over $10 billion. And, in March 2023, CVS announced it had officially acquired Signify Health, a digital telehealth company that enables more care to occur in-home. As noted earlier, Amazon officially completed its deal to acquire OneMedical and United Health Group is working on expanding its use of value-based care through a partnership with Walmart. Monitoring the impact of these emerging companies in healthcare will be important for policymakers that have historically only focused on more traditional providers, such as hospitals. These non-traditional entrants, in many cases, are large organizations with substantial resources and their impact may be just as significant if not greater than traditional providers.
Conclusion
These trends merit close attention in the second half of 2023. As healthcare takes on new shapes, the implications for those in the sector and all who depend on it will be huge. In addition, there are important implications for state and federal policymakers who will need to consider how these trends impact access, affordability, and quality of health care, so they can determine whether and how government might help to accelerate beneficial innovations, invest in promising trends, prevent or reverse harmful trends, and monitor the impacts on consumers.
As first half 2023 financial results are reported and many prepare for a busy last half, strategic planning for healthcare services providers and insurers point to 4 issues requiring attention in every boardroom and C suite:
Private equity maturity wall:
The last half of 2023 (and into 2024) is a buyer’s market for global PE investments in healthcare services: 40% of PE investments in hospitals, medical groups and insurtech will hit their maturity wall in the next 12 months. Valuations of companies in these portfolios are below their targeted range; limited partner’ investing in PE funds is down 28% from pre-pandemic peak while fund raising by large, publicly traded, global funds dominate fund raising lifting PE dry powder to a record $3.7 trillion going into the last half of 2023.
In the U.S. healthcare services market, conditions favor well-capitalized big players—global private equity funds and large cap aggregators (i.e., Optum, CVS, Goldman Sachs, Blackstone et al) who have $1 trillion to invest in deals that enhance their platforms. Deals done via special purpose acquisition corporations (SPACS) and smaller PE funds in physicians, hospitals, ambulatory services and others are especially vulnerable. (see Bain and Pitchbook citations below). Addressing the growing role of large-cap PE and strategic investors as partners, collaborators, competitors or disruptors is table stakes for most organizations recognizing they have the wind at their backs.
Consolidation muscle by DOJ and FTC:
Healthcare is in the crosshair of the FTC and DOJ, especially hospitals and health insurers. Hospital markets have become increasingly concentrated: only 12% of the 306 Hospital Referral Regions is considered unconcentrated vs. 23% in 2008. In the 384 insurance markets, 23% are unconcentrated, down from 35% in 2020. Wages for healthcare workers are lower, prices for consumers are higher and choices fewer in concentrated markets prompting stricter guidelines announced last week by the oversight agencies. Big hospitals and big insurers are vulnerable to intensified scrutiny. (See Regulatory Action section below).
Defamatory attacks on nonprofit health systems:
In the past 3 years, private, not-for-profit multi-hospital systems have been targeted for excess profits, inadequate charity care and executive compensation. Labor unions (i.e., SEIU) and privately funded foundations (i.e., West, Arnold Venture, Lown Institute) have joined national health insurers in claims that NFP systems are price gaugers undeserving of the federal, state and local tax exemptions they enjoy. It comes at a time when faith in the U.S. health system is at a modern-day low (Gallup), healthcare access and affordability concerns among consumers are growing and hospital price transparency still lagging (36% are fully compliant with the 2021 Executive Order).
Notably, over the last 20 years, NFP hospitals have become less dominant as a share of all hospitals (61% in 2002 vs. 58% last year) while investor-owned hospitals have shown dramatic growth (from 15% in 2002 to 24% last year). Thus, the majority of local NFP hospitals have joined systems creating prominent brands and market dominance in most regions. But polling indicates many of these brands is more closely associated with “big business” than “not-for-profit health” so they’re soft targets for critics. It is likely unflattering attention to large, NFP systems will increase in the next 12 months prompting state and federal regulatory actions and erosion of public support. (See New England Journal citation in Quotables below)
Campaign 2024 healthcare rhetoric:
Republican candidates will claim healthcare is not affordable and blame Democrats. Democrats will counter that the Affordable Care Act’s expanded coverage and the Biden administration’s attack on drug prices (vis a vis the Inflation Reduction Act) illustrate their active attention to healthcare in contrast to the GOP’s less specific posturing.
Campaigns in both parties will call for increased regulation of hospitals, prescription drug manufacturers, health insurers and PBMs. All will cast the health industry as a cesspool for greed and corruption, decry its performance on equitable access, affordability, price transparency and improvements in the public’s health and herald its frontline workers (nurses, physicians et al) as innocent victims of a system run amuck.
To date, 16 candidates (12 R, 3 D, 1 I) have announced they’re candidates for the White House while campaigns for state and local office are also ramping up in 46 states where local, state and national elections are synced. Healthcare will figure prominently in all. In campaign season, healthcare is especially vulnerable to misinformation and hyper-attention to its bad actors. Until November 5, 2024, that’s reality.
My take:
These issues frame the near-term context for strategic planning in every sector of U.S. healthcare. They do not define the long-term destination of the system nor roles key sectors and organizations will play. That’s unknown.
What’s known for sure is that AI will modify up to 70% of the tasks in health delivery and financing and disrupt its workforce.
Black Swans like the pandemic will prompt attention to gaps in service delivery and inequities in access.
People will be sick, injured, die and be born.
And the economics of healthcare will force uncomfortable discussions about its value and performance.
In the U.S. system, attention to regulatory issues is a necessary investment by organizations in every state and at the federal level. Details about these efforts is readily accessible on websites for each organization’s trade group. They’re the rule changes, laws and administrative actions to which all are attentive. They’re today’s issues.
Less attention is given the long-term. That focus is often more academic than practical—much the same as Robert Oppenheimer’s early musings about the future of nuclear fusion. But the Manhattan Project produced two bombs (Little Boy and Fat Man) that detonated above the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, triggering the end of World War II.
The four issues above should be treated as near and present dangers to the U.S. health system requiring attention in every organization. But responses to these do not define the future of the U.S. system. That’s the Manhattan Project that’s urgently needed in our system.
Peter Drucker, the hall of fame management guru, once famously said that the hardest business organization to run in America was a hospital. If that comment was true so many years ago, imagine what Drucker would have to say about the difficulty of hospital management right now.
Hospital financial performance suffered significantly in 2022 and recovery during 2023 has been quite slow. This trend suggests the question,
“What steps are hospital C-suites taking to recover pre-Covid financial stability?”
Erik Swanson manages all analyses for our monthly Kaufman Hall Flash Report and he and I speculated that an industry-wide hospital recovery could not be achieved without reductions in force across the hospital ecosystem. Some research on our part determined that no official organization tracks hospital layoffs over time but we wondered if we could use our Flash Report data, which is provided to us by Syntellis Performance Solutions, to reach an informed conclusion.
What we were able to do was prepare three types of charts, as follows:
The first chart measures net employee percentage change by month. This chart shows whether overall hospital employment is increasing or decreasing over time and by how much.
The second chart attempts to establish the median turnover for hospitals over an annual period and then measure the deviation from that turnover rate. A greater deviation from what might be termed “normal turnover” suggests that an increasing number of hospitals are using reductions in force to more quickly reduce the cost of doing business.
The third chart shows average FTEs per occupied bed on a comparative basis looking at month-to-month and year-to-year statistics.
The first chart, Net Employee Percentage Change by Month, begins at January 1, 2018, and continues to March 1, 2023 (Figure 1). Overall additions to hospital employment remained generally positive through January 1, 2020. Overall hospital employment then went generally negative from March 2020 (the onset of Covid restrictions) to March 2022. The reductions in hospital employees during this period were likely the result of the “great resignation” during the worst of the Covid pandemic. But then, from July 2022 to March 2023, overall hospital employees demonstrated by the Flash Report dropped dramatically with an overall 2% decrease at the March 2023 date. This statistic suggests more than simply increased hospital turnover, but rather a formal layoff process initiated across many hospital organizations, along with aggressive management of contract labor.
Figure 1: Net Employee Percentage Change by Month
The second chart demonstrates the deviation from expected turnover at levels of 2x, 3x, 4x, and 5x by number of hospitals (Figure 2). No matter which measure you examine, the deviation of employees from expected turnover spiked significantly in April 2023 and even more so in May 2023. This again suggests the aggressive management of labor costs that likely could not occur without the intentional reduction of actual positions and/or the cost of these positions.
Figure 2: Number of Hospitals with Deviations from Expected Turnover at 2x, 3x, 4x, and 5x the Median
The last chart provides a remarkable set of observations (Figure 3). FTEs per adjusted occupied bed (AOB) declined by 8.3% between June 2023 and July 2023. The year-over-year variation for July 2023 was a decline of 11.01%. Our data further reveals that the FTE per AOB statistic has declined in five of the past six months on a month-over-month basis.
Figure 3: Median Change in FTEs per Adjusted Occupied Bed by Month
The conclusion here is that the return of the hospital industry to pre-Covid financial results has been no walk in the park. 2022 was, of course, a dismal financial year for the hospital industry. And while 2023 has shown improvement, the usual management steps to recovery have been only moderately effective. The data and analysis above demonstrate that C-suites across America are moving to stronger measures to assure the financial survivability and competitiveness of their organizations.
There is no revenue solve here, or at least not in the current environment: costs must come down and they must come down materially. From the sense and the trend of the data it would seem that hospital executive teams get the joke.
Value-based healthcare, the holy grail of American medicine, has three parts: excellent clinical quality, convenient access and affordability for all.
And as with the holy grail of medieval legend, the quest for value-based care has been filled with failure.
In the 20th century, U.S. medical groups and hospital systems could—at best—achieve two elements of value-based care, but always at the sacrifice of the third. Until recently, American medicine lacked the clinical knowhow, technology and operational excellence to accomplish all three, simultaneously. We now have the tools. The only thing missing is “system-ness.”
What Is System-ness?
System-ness is the effective and efficient coordination of healthcare’s many parts: outpatient and inpatient, primary and specialty care, financing and care delivery, prevention and treatment.
By bringing these disparate pieces together within a well-functioning system, healthcare providers have the opportunity to maximize clinical outcomes, weed out waste, lower overall costs and provide greater levels of convenience and access.
Who Are The Search Parties?
In the future, system-ness will be the variable that determines whether healthcare transformation is led by (a) incumbent health systems like Kaiser Permanente and Geisinger Health or (b) the retail giants like Amazon, CVS and Walmart. The latter group has become an ever-growing threat in the healthcare arms race, quickly amassing their own (though still modest) systems of care through billion-dollar acquisitions.
Although both the incumbents and new entrants will struggle to implement value-based care on a national scale, the victor stands to earn hundreds of billions of dollars in added revenue and tens of billions in profits.
To better understand the power of system-ness, and the challenges all organizations will face in providing it, here are three examples of value-based-care solutions implemented successfully by Kaiser Permanente.
1. Preventing Problems, Managing Disease
Research demonstrates that preventive medicine and early intervention reduce heart attacks, strokes and cancer. Yet our nation falls far short in these areas when compared to its global peers.
One example is hypertension, the leading cause of strokes and a major contributor to heart attacks. With help from doctors, nearly all patients can keep high blood pressure under control. Yet, nationally, hypertension is controlled only 60% of the time.
We see similarly poor rates of performance when it comes to prevention and screening for cancers of the colon, breast and lung.
Undoing these troubling trends requires system-ness. In Kaiser Permanente, 90% of patients had their blood pressure controlled and were screened for cancer. Getting there required a comprehensive electronic health record, a willingness for every doctor (regardless of specialty) to focus on prevention, leadership that communicated the value of prevention and a salary structure that rewarded group excellence.
2. Continuous Care, Without Interruption
Most doctors’ offices are open Monday to Friday during normal business hours—only one-fourth of the time that a medical problem might occur.
At night and on weekends, patients have no choice but to visit ERs. There, they often wait hours for care, surrounded by people with communicable diseases. Their non-emergent problems generate bills 12-times higher than if they’d waited to be seen in a doctor’s office.
There’s a better way. In large-enough medical groups, hundreds of clinicians can provide round-the-clock care on a rotating, virtual basis—using video to assess patients and make evidence-based recommendations.
This approach, pioneered by physicians in the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical group, solved the patient’s problem immediately 70% of the time without a trip to the ER and, for the other 30%, enabled coordination of medical care with the ER staff.
3. Specialized Medicine, Immediate Attention
When a primary care physician needs added expertise (from a dermatologist, urologist or orthopedist), it’s usually the responsibility of the patient to make their own specialty appointments, check with insurance for coverage and provide their medical records.
This takes hours or days to coordinate and can delay care by weeks, resulting in avoidable complications.
But in a well-structured system, there’s no need to wait. Using telehealth tools at Kaiser Permanente, primary care doctors can connect instantly with dozens of different specialists—often while the patient is still in the exam room. Once connected, the specialist evaluates the patient and provides immediate expertise.
This way, care is not only faster and less expensive, but also better coordinated. Data from within Kaiser Permanente show that these virtual consultations resolve the patient’s problem 40% of the time without having to schedule another appointment. For the other 60%, the diagnostic process can begin immediately.
The Foundations For System-ness
Few organizations in the U.S. can or do offer these system-based improvements. Doing so requires skilled physician leadership, a shift in the financial model and a willingness to accept risk.
In fact, most organizations across the U.S. that claim to operate “value-based” systems actually rely on doctors who are scattered across the community, disconnected from each other and paid on the basis of volume (fee-for-service) rather than value (capitation).
As a result, patient care is fragmented and uncoordinated, leading to repeated tests and ineffective treatments, thus increasing medical costs and compromising medical outcomes.
Value-based care (superior quality, access and affordability) requires teams of clinicians working together as one—all paid on a capitated basis.
Without capitation, dermatologists will insist on seeing every patient in their office where they can bill insurance five-times more than with a tele-dermatology visit. And gastroenterology specialists will insist that all patients have colonoscopy rather than recommending low-risk patients do a safe, convenient, at-home colon cancer screening (called a fecal immunochemical test or “FIT”) at 5% of the cost.
In these cases, individual doctors don’t consciously make care inconvenient for patients. Rather, it is the only choice they have when working in a fee-for-service payment model. Ultimately, system-ness is best achieved when health systems are integrated, prepaid, tech-enabled and physician-led.
Amazon, CVS, Walmart Know About Systems
These three companies are global leaders in “system-ness,” at least in retail. Combined, they have a market cap of $1.88 trillion, employ 3.4 million Americans and are looking to take a slice of U.S. healthcare’s $4.3 trillion annual expenditures.
Already, they manage complex order-entry and fulfillment systems. They use technology to streamline everything from customer service to supply-chain management. They are led through a clear and effective reporting structure.
In terms of competing for healthcare’s holy grail, these are huge competitive advantages compared to today’s uncoordinated, individualized, leaderless healthcare industry.
As retailers vie to bring their system knowhow to American medicine, they are acquiring the pieces needed to compete with the healthcare incumbents. They’ve spent tens of billions of dollars on medical groups that are committed to value-based care (One Medical, Oak Street Health, etc.). They’ve also spent massive sums on home-health companies (Signify) and on pharmacies (PillPak), along with expanding their in-store, at-home and online care options. Many of these care-delivery subsidiaries are focused on Medicare Advantage, the capitated half of Medicare where financial success is dependent on high quality medical care provided at lower cost.
What’s more, all these retailers have a national presence with brick-and mortar facilities in nearly every community in the country—a leg up on nearly every existing health system.
Who Will Win—And Why?
Trying to pick the victor in the battle to transform American medicine at this point is like selecting the winner of a heavy-weight championship boxing match after three evenly matched rounds. Intangibles like stamina, courage and willingness to absorb pain have yet to be tested.
In The Innovator’s Dilemma, the late Clayton Christensen examined historical battles between incumbent organizations and new entrants. After analyzing dozens of industries, he concluded new entrants routinely become the victors because the incumbents move too slowly and fail to embrace the need for major change.
And from that perspective, if I had to wager, I’d put my money on the retail giants.
But there’s an even more worrisome potential outcome: neither those inside nor outside of healthcare will make the necessary investments or accept the risk of leading systemic change. As a result, the movement toward value-based healthcare will stall and die.
In that context, purchasers of healthcare (businesses, the government and patients) will encounter a difficult reality: over the next eight years, medical costs will nearly double, creating an unaffordable and unsustainable scenario. As a result, our nation will likely experience reduced medical coverage, increased rationing, ever-longer delays for care and a growth in health disparities.
If that day arrives, our country will regret its inaction.
In behavioral economics, the sunk cost fallacy describes the tendency to carry on with a project or investment past the point where cold logic would suggest it is not working out. Given human nature, the existence of the sunk cost fallacy is not surprising. The more resources—time, money, emotions—we devote to an effort, the more we want it to succeed, especially when the cause is an important one.
Under normal circumstances, the sunk cost fallacy might qualify as an interesting but not especially important economic theory. But at the moment, given that 2022 will likely be the worst financial year for hospitals since 2008 and given that the hospital revenue/expense relationship seems to be entirely broken, there is little that is theoretical about the sunk cost fallacy. Instead, the sunk cost fallacy becomes one of the most important action ideas in the hospital industry’s absolutely necessary financial recovery.
Historically, cases of the sunk cost fallacy can be relatively easy to spot. However, in real time, cases can be hard to identify and even harder to act on. For hospital organizations that are subsidizing underperforming assets, identifying and acting on these cases is now essential to the financial health of most hospital enterprises.
For example, perhaps the asset that isunderperforming is a hospital acquired by a health system. (Although this same concept could apply to a service line or a related service such as a skilled nursing facility, ambulatory surgery center, or imaging center.) The costs associated with integrating an acquired hospital into a health system are typically significant. And chances are, if the hospital was struggling prior to the acquisition, the purchaser made substantial capital investments to improve the performance.
As time goes on, if the financial performance of the entity in question continues to fall short, hospital executives may be reluctant to divest the asset because of their heavy investment in it.
This understandable tendency can lead the acquiring organization to throw good money after bad. After all, even when an asset is underperforming, it can’t be allowed to deteriorate. In the case of hospitals, that’s not just a matter of keeping weeds from sprouting in the parking lot. The health system often winds up supporting an underperforming hospital with both working capital and physical capital, which compounds the losses.
And the costs don’t stop there, because other assets in the system are supporting the underperforming asset. This de facto cross-subsidy has been commonplace in hospital organizations for decades. Such a cross subsidy was probably never sustainable, but it is even less so in the current challenging financial environment.
This is a transformative period in American healthcare, when hospital organizations are faced with the need to fundamentally reinvent themselves both financially and clinically. The opportunity costs of supporting assets that don’t have an appropriate return are uniquely high in such an environment. This is true whether the underperforming asset is a hospital in a smaller system, multiple hospitals in a larger system, or a service line within a hospital.
The money that is being funneled off to support underperforming assets may be better directed, for example, toward realigning the organization’s portfolio away from inpatient care and toward growth strategies. In some cases, the resources may be needed for more immediate purposes, such as improving cash flow to support mission priorities and avoiding downgrades of the organization’s credit rating.
The underlying principle is straightforward:
When a hospital supports too many low-performing assets, the capital allocation process becomes inefficient. Directing working capital and capital capacity toward assets that are dilutive to long-term financial success means that assets that are historically or potentially accretive don’t receive the resources they need to grow and thrive. The underlying principle is a clear lose-lose.
In the highly challenging current environment, it is especially important for boards and management to recognize the sunk cost fallacy and determine the right size of their hospital organizations—both clinically and financially.
Some leadership teams may determine that their organizations are too big, or too big in the wrong places, and need to be smaller in order to maximize clinical and balance-sheet strength. Other leadership teams may determine that their organizations are not large enough to compete effectively in their fast-changing markets or in a fast-changing economy.
Organizational scale is a strategy that must be carefully managed. A properly sized organization maximizes its chances of financial success in this very difficult inflationary period. Such an organization invests consistently in its best performing assets and reduces cross-subsidies to services and products that have outlived their opportunity for clinical or financial success.
Executives may see academic economic theory as arcane and not especially relevant. However, we have clearly entered a financial moment when paying attention to the sunk cost fallacy will be central to maintaining, or recovering, the financial, clinical, and mission strength of America’s hospitals.
In an era of significant medical debt, rising healthcare costs and delayed treatments, our current healthcare system is ripe for solutions that alleviate the burden of paying patient bills.
Enter embedded finance. While not a new concept by any stretch – it has long existed in retail – fintechs and traditional banks are determined to give patients more options and a fundamentally better experience in the way they pay for healthcare services. In doing so, a financially strained domestic healthcare system stands to benefit from increased cash flow, improved health equity and optimized patient engagement.
Simply put, embedded finance is the integration of financial services – such as payment, lending, banking and insurance features – into another company’s normal service or products. We have all undoubtedly come across these offerings in our daily lives as consumers. Think private label credit cards with retail chains or airlines, digital wallet purchase options at the Amazon checkout, a buynow-pay-later (BNPL) plan from Affirm or Klarna, or insurance obtained from a car rental.
The goal of embedded finance:
is to improve a user’s experience by accessing financial services without leaving a brand’s platform. By layering application programming interface (API)-driven fintech or banking capabilities on top of a website or mobile app for, say, a hospital patient portal, the bundled solution allows the user to stay on one website or application to complete a financial transaction. Doing so removes friction in the experience and delivers a breadth of contextual information that a provider or payer can use to prompt further action on the patient’s medical journey.
The implications for embedded finance in healthcare are vast and benefit every stakeholder across the revenue cycle value chain:
Patients: Flexibility and convenience to better structure and plan bill payment while receiving greater access to financial options and additional services that improve the care experience such as reminders and health tracking
Providers: Faster and higher rates of collections coupled with ongoing patient dialogue that cements loyalty, affords clinicians the opportunity to suggest customized treatment options, and improves revenue composition and potential valuation
Payers: More efficient claims processing cycle, automated processes and improved data security
The burden of patient bills and increasing medical costs are not new to our system. Yet there has been a confluence of fundamental changes that make embedded finance particularly attractive in healthcare going forward, including increased smartphone usage and Internet penetration, COVID19 adoption of fintech products across healthcare settings, rising inflation rates that reduce a patient’s ability to pay and the adoption of mobile-based apps among younger, digitally native consumers and lower income patients.
These tailwinds support a massive addressable market as healthcare is expected to comprise approximately 23% of a U.S. embedded finance industry set to exceed $230 billion by 2025, or a 10x increase from $23 billion in 2020.
Significant attention and capital investment are accelerating the rise of embedded finance in healthcare.
Punctuated by attractive elements at the intersection of technology, financial services and healthcare sectors, nimble fintech companies and large financial institutions alike are competing for market presence. For example, pioneering healthcare-focused fintech PayZen closed $220 million in fresh capital in late 20223, while banks such as Wells Fargo and Synchrony have launched the popular medical-focused credit cards Health Advantage and CareCredit, respectively. Cain Brothers’ parent company, KeyBank, has also advanced an embedded strategy to provide healthcare digital innovation at scale and enhance patient experiences by acquiring XUP Payments in 2021. The resulting U.S. landscape for healthcare embedded finance is one that is evolving rapidly and that we are monitoring closely for investment and eventual M&A consolidation.
With expanding options around the type of medical care received and where it is received, we expect the financial tools at a patient’s disposal to garner significant attention in the years to come.
Embedded finance is a leading solution positioned to improve health equity and the financial well-being of millions of patients across the U.S., as well as fuel sector growth. Just as we’re accustomed now to buying pretty much anything with a few clicks, so too will embedded finance become a ubiquitous part of the healthcare landscape.
From time to time the blogging process stimulates a conversation between the author and the audience. This type of conversation occurred after the publication of my recent blog, “The Hospital Makeover—Part 2.” This blog focused entirely on the current problems, financial and otherwise, of the hospital physician employment model. I received responses from CEOs and other C-suite executives and those responses are very much worth adding to the physician employment conversation. Hospital executives have obviously given the physician employment strategy considerable thought.
One CEO noted that, looking back from a business perspective, physician employment was not actually a doctor retention strategy but, in the long run, more of a customer acquisition and customer loyalty strategy.
The tactic was to employ the physician and draw his or her patients into the hospital ecosystem. And by extension, if the patient was loyal to the doctor, then the patient would also be loyal to the hospital. Perhaps this approach was once legitimate but new access models, consumerism, and the healthcare preferences of at least two generations of patients have challenged the strategic validity of this tactic.
The struggle now—and the financial numbers validate that struggle—is that the physician employment model has become extraordinarily expensive and, from observation, does not scale.
Therefore, the relevant business question becomes what are the most efficient and durable customer acquisition and loyalty models now available to hospitals and health systems?
A few more physician employment observations worth sharing:
Primary Care. The physician employment model has generally created a one-size-fits all view of primary care. Consumers, however, want choice. They want 32 flavors, not just vanilla. Alternative primary care models need to match up to fast-changing consumer preferences.
Where Physician Employment Works. In general, the employment model has worked where doctor “shift work” is involved. This includes facility-based specialists such as emergency physicians, anesthesiologists, and hospitalists.
Chronic Care Management. Traditional physician employment models that drive toward doctor-led physical clinics have generally not led to the improved monitoring and treatment of chronic care patient problems. As a result, the chronic care space will likely see significant disruption from virtual and in-home tools.
All in all, the four very smart observations detailed above continue the hospital physician employment conversation. Please feel free to add your thoughts on this or on other topics of hospital management which may be of interest to you. Thanks for reading.
Mountain View, Calif.-based El Camino Health ended the first quarter with an impressive operating margin of 10.2 percent when many health systems saw their margins hover above zero or fall into the red. The system’s revenue for the quarter totaled $131,290.
For the nine months ended March 31, the two-hospital system posted an operating gain of $141.4 million on revenue of just over $1 billion.
However, like most health systems, El Camino’s expenses are substantially higher than the same period last year, increasing 10.6 percent year over year for the nine months ending March 31, 2023, to $881.9 million.
The system is making a conscious effort to march down labor costs while also placing a significant emphasis on retention. In June, El Camino agreed a deal to increase pay for nurses by 16 percent over three years.
“Like nearly all hospitals, our nursing staff comprises the largest part of our workforce. With the recruitment of a single nurse estimated to be nearly $60,000, our primary strategy to reduce labor costs is to focus on decreasing turnover,” El Camino CEO Dan Woods told Becker’s.
“Our turnover rate for nurses is just about 8 percent while the turnover rate nationally is still running at 22 percent.”
In March, the system also received a credit rating upgrade from Moody’s, which noted the system’s “superlative cash metrics and operating performance.” Fitch Ratings also revised El Camino’s outlook to positive in February, noting that the system has a history of generating double-digit operating EBITDA margins, driven by a solid market position that features strong demographics and a very healthy payer mix.
HENRY KOTULA 