Sacramento, California-based Sutter Health crossed the finish line strong but ultimately wrapped up 2022 with a $249 million net loss, a substantial decline from the $1.1 billion profit of 2021.
A $628 million dip in investment income, a $578 million decrease in net unrealized gains and losses on investments and the $208 million disaffiliation of Samuel Merritt University all contributed to the nonprofit’s year-over-year decline.
Still, the tally is a $289 million improvement over the $538 million net loss the system had reported at the year’s nine-month mark.
The loss was also blunted by a 12-month operating income of $278 million—a bump over the $199 million operating income of 2021 and a feather in Sutter’s cap at a time when several other major nonprofit systems are reporting hundreds of millions in operating losses.
“Our operating financial performance has put Sutter in a position to reinvest more within the system, which can help support even higher quality, equitable healthcare for patients throughout California,” CEO and President Warner Thomas said in a press release.
Sutter’s total operating revenues rose 3.9% year over year to $14.8 billion in 2022. This was just ahead of the 3.3% increase to $14.5 billion in total operating expenses. The system wrote in a release that “like other healthcare organizations around the country,” it was not immune from inflationary pressures on expenses like wages and benefits or supplies.
However, the strong results of its 2021 financial recovery initiative and patient volumes “returning to near-2019 levels by year’s end” give Sutter “a stable base to invest in the future,” the system said.
Renton, Wash.-based Providence had its second downgrade in less than a week amid higher expenses that helped lead to steeper-than-expected losses and an expectation of a multiyear recovery.
The rating downgrade from “A+” to “A” applies to the system’s long-term rating as well as to various bonds it holds, S&P Global said March 21. The outlook is negative.
“The negative outlook reflects our view of the steep operating losses that management must address over the next year to put the organization on a path to better cash flow and break-even margins,” S&P said.
The rating downgrade follows a similar move by Fitch March 17.
Positive fundamentals such as its diversified services and robust strategic plan, as well as its leading market positions in all seven of its regionally centered markets, stands Providence in good stead, S&P added.
Providence, a 51-hospital system, recently reported a fiscal 2022 operating loss of $1.7 billion.
The Medicare Advisory Payment Commission recommends a higher-than-current-law fee-for-service payment update in 2024 for acute care hospitals and positive payment updates for clinicians paid under the physician fee schedule. It recommends reductions in base payment rates for skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.
MedPAC gave Congress recommendations on payment rates in both traditional fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage for 2024, satisfying a legislative mandate comparing per enrollee spending in both programs.
MedPAC estimates that Medicare spends 6% more for MA enrollees than it would spend if those enrollees remained in fee-for-service Medicare.
In their March 2023 Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy, commissioners said they were acutely aware of how providers’ financial status and patterns of Medicare spending varied in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID-19 and were also aware of higher and more volatile cost increases.
However, they’re statutorily charged to evaluate available data to assess whether Medicare payments are sufficient to support the efficient delivery of care and ensure access to care for Medicare’s beneficiaries, commissioners said.
FEE-FOR-SERVICE RATE RECOMMENDATIONS
MedPAC’s payment update recommendations are based on an assessment of payment adequacy, beneficiaries’ access to and use of care, the quality of the care, the supply of providers, and their access to capital, the report said. As well as higher payments for acute care hospitals and clinicians, MedPAC recommends positive rates for outpatient dialysis facilities.
It recommends providing additional resources to acute care hospitals and clinicians who furnish care to Medicare beneficiaries with low incomes. It also recommends a positive payment update in 2024 for hospice providers concurrent with wage adjusting and reducing the hospice aggregate Medicare payment cap by 20%.
It recommends negative updates, which are reductions in base payment rates, for skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.
Acute care
For acute care hospitals paid under the inpatient prospective payment system, commissioners recommend adding $2 billion to current disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments and distributing the entire amount using a commission-developed “Medicare SafetyNet Index” to direct funding to those hospitals that provide care to large shares of low-income Medicare beneficiaries.
This recommendation got pushback from America’s Essential Hospitals.
“We appreciate the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission’s desire to define safety net hospitals for targeted support, but the commission’s Medicare safety net index (MSNI) could have the perverse effect of shifting resources away from hospitals that need support the most,” said SVP of Policy and Advocacy Beth Feldpush. “The MSNI methodology fails to account for all the nation’s safety net hospitals by overlooking uncompensated care and care provided to non-Medicare, low-income patients – especially Medicaid beneficiaries. Any practical definition of a safety net provider must consider the care of Medicaid and uninsured patients, yet the MSNI misses on both counts.”
Feldpush urged policymakers to develop a federal designation of safety net hospitals and to reject the MSNI.
“Further, policymaking for these hospitals should supplement, rather than redistribute, existing Medicare DSH funding, which reflects a congressionally sanctioned, well-established methodology,” she said.
Physicians and clinicians
For clinicians, the commission recommends that Medicare make targeted add-on payments of 15% to primary care clinicians and 5% to all other clinicians for physician fee schedule services provided to low-income Medicare beneficiaries.
The American Medical Association commended MedPAC, but also said that an update tied to just 50% of the Medicare Economic Index would cause physician payment to chronically fall even further behind increases in the cost of providing care. AMA president Dr. Jack Resneck Jr. urged Congress to pass legislation providing for an annual inflation-based payment update.
MedPAC has long championed a physician payment update tied to the Medicare Economic Index, Resneck said. Physicians have faced the cost of inflation, the COVID-19 pandemic and growing expenses to run medical practices, jeopardizing access to care, particularly in rural and underserved areas.
“Not only have Medicare payments failed to respond adequately, but physicians saw a 2% payment reduction for 2023, creating an additional challenge at a perilous moment,” Resneck said. “As one of the only Medicare providers without an inflationary payment update, physicians have waited a long time for this change. When adjusted for inflation, Medicare physician payment has effectively declined 26% from 2001 to 2023. These increasingly thin or negative operating margins disproportionately affect small, independent, and rural physician practices, as well as those treating low-income or other historically minoritized or marginalized patient communities. Our workforce is at risk just when the health of the nation depends on preserving access to care.”
The AMA and 134 other health organizations wrote to congressional leaders urging for a full inflation-based update to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.
MGMA’s SVP of Government Affairs Anders Gilberg said, “Today’s MedPAC report recommends Congress provide an inflationary update to the Medicare base payment rate for physician and other health professional services of 50% of the Medicare Economic Index (MEI), an estimated annual increase of 1.45% for 2024. In the best of times such a nominal increase would not cover annual medical practice cost increases. In the current inflationary environment, it is grossly insufficient.”
MGMA urged Congress to pass legislation to provide an annual inflationary update based on the full MEI.
Ambulatory surgical centers and long-term care hospitals
Previously, the commission considered an annual update recommendation for ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). However, because Medicare does not require ASCs to submit data on the cost of treating beneficiaries, the commissioners said they had no new significant data to inform an ASC update recommendation for 2024.
Commissioners also previously considered an annual update recommendation for long-term care hospitals (LTCHs). But as the number of cases that qualify for payment under Medicare’s prospective payment system for LTCHs has fallen, they said they have become increasingly concerned about small sample sizes in the analyses of this sector.
“As a result, we will no longer provide an annual payment adequacy analysis for LTCHs but will continue to monitor that sector and provide periodic status reports,” they said in the report.
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE
Commissioners said that overall, indicators point to an increasingly robust MA program. In 2022, the MA program included over 5,200 plan options, enrolled about 29 million Medicare beneficiaries (49% of eligible beneficiaries), and paid MA plans $403 billion (not including Part D drug plan payments).
In 2023, the average Medicare beneficiary has a choice of 41 plans offered by an average of eight organizations. Further, the level of rebates that fund extra benefits reached a record high of about $2,350 per enrollee, on average.
Medicare payments for these extra benefits – which are not covered for beneficiaries in FFS – have more than doubled since 2018. For 2023, the average MA plan bid to provide Medicare Part A and Part B benefits was 17% less than FFS Medicare would be projected to spend for those enrollees.
However, the benefits from MA’s lower cost relative to FFS spending are shared exclusively by the companies sponsoring MA plans and MA enrollees (in the form of extra benefits). The taxpayers and FFS Medicare beneficiaries (who help fund the MA program through Part B premiums) do not realize any savings from MA plan efficiencies.
Medicare should not continue to overpay MA plans, MedPAC said. Over the past few years, the commission has made recommendations to address coding intensity, replace the quality bonus program and establish more equitable benchmarks, which are used to set plan payments, the report said. All of these would stem Medicare’s excess payments to MA plans, helping to preserve Medicare’s solvency and sustainability while maintaining beneficiary access to MA plans and the extra benefits they can provide.
PART D
Medicare’s cost-based reinsurance continues to be the largest and fastest growing component of Part D spending, totaling $52.4 billion, or about 55% of the total, according to the report.
As a result, the financial risk that plans bear, as well as their incentives to control costs, has declined markedly. The value of the average basic benefit that is paid to plans through the capitated direct subsidy has plummeted in recent years.
In 2023, direct subsidy payments averaged less than $2 per member per month, compared with payments of nearly $94 per member, per month, for reinsurance. To help address these issues, in 2020 the commission recommended substantial changes to Part D’s benefit design to limit enrollee out-of-pocket spending; realign plan and manufacturer incentives to help restore the role of risk-based, capitated payments; and eliminate features of the current program that distort market incentives.
In 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which included numerous policies related to prescription drugs. One such provision is a redesign of the Part D benefit with many similarities to the commission’s recommended changes.
The changes adopted in the IRA will be implemented over the next several years, and are likely to alter the drug-pricing landscape, commissioners said.
Tax exemptions for nonprofit hospitals amounted to $27.6 billion in value for 2020, according to new data from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Federal tax exemptions in 2020 made up $14.5 billion and state and local tax-exemptions amounted to $13.2 billion. Combined, the $27.6 billion represents 43 percent of net income earned by nonprofit hospitals in 2020, the foundation found.
Nonprofit hospitals may see renewed or heightened scrutiny of their tax-exempt status due in part to how much the value of tax-exemption has grown in recent years. The foundation’s analysis shows the value of tax exemption grew from about $20 billion in 2011 to about $27.6 billion in 2020 — a 41 percent increase.
“The rising value of tax exemption means that federal, state, and local governments have been forgoing increasing amounts of revenue over time to provide tax benefits to nonprofit hospitals, crowding out other uses of those funds,” KFF analysts wrote. “This has raised questions about whether nonprofit facilities provide sufficient benefit to their communities to justify this tax benefit.”
The $27.6 billion in estimated value of tax exemption exceeded nonprofit hospitals’ total estimated charity care costs of $16 billion in 2020, although KFF points out that charity care makes up one portion of nonprofit hospitals’ community benefits.
2020 was a standout year with the largest single-year increase — $4 billion — to the value of nonprofit hospitals’ tax-exemption. KFF analysts note that while COVID-19 caused disruptions that lowered net income from patient care, government relief funds and increased charitable contributions and investment income “more than offset those losses” and increased net income increased the value of not having to pay federal and state income taxes.
“Even when setting aside the strong financial performance of nonprofit hospitals in 2020 as a potential outlier, total net income among nonprofit facilities increased from $19.4 billion in 2011 to $47.0 billion in 2019, a 143 percent increase, before jumping to $64.5 billion in 2020,” the analysts wrote. “Although we are not able to directly observe the value of the real estate owned by hospitals, the estimated value of exemption from local property taxes — which is based on our analysis of property taxes paid by for-profit hospitals — increased by 29 percent from 2011 to 2019. Finally, the supply expenses in our analysis increased by 44 percent and charitable contributions increased by 49 percent from 2011 to 2019.”
Melinda Hatton, general counsel for the the American Hospital Association, shared the following statement with Becker’s in response to the KFF analysis:
“A more comprehensive report by the international firm EY has consistently found that the value of hospitals’ federal tax exemption was far outstripped by the community benefits provided. In the most recent analysis, the value was 9 to 1: for every one dollar in tax exemption hospitals provided nine dollars of community benefit.
“A narrow reading of community benefit limited to financial assistance misses the important work hospitals do to close the pervasive gaps between federal reimbursements for care and the actual cost of care as well as the many other benefits hospitals provide directly to their communities. Whether it is public health activities, such as clinics and testing, training for the next generation of caregivers or efforts to prevent illness, including wellness education or more hand-on efforts to improve living conditions, hospitals continually give back to the communities they serve.”
At least five health systems announced changes to executive ranks and administration teams in February and March.
The changes come as hospitals continue to grapple with financial challenges, leading some organizations to cut jobs and implement other operational adjustments. Changes to executive ranks include reorganizing executive responsibilities and executive appointments.
The following changes were announced within the last two months and are summarized below, with links to more comprehensive coverage of the changes.
1. Philadelphia-based Penn Medicine is eliminating administrative positions. The change is part of a reorganization plan to save the health system $40 million annually, the Philadelphia Business Journal reported March 13. Kevin Mahoney, CEO of the University of Pennsylvania Health System, told Penn Medicine’s 49,000 employees last week that changes include the elimination of a “small number of administrative positions which no longer align with our key objectives,” according to the publication. The memo did not indicate the exact number of positions that were eliminated.
2. Sovah Health, part of Brentwood, Tenn.-based Lifepoint Health, has eliminated the COO positions at its Danville and Martinsville, Va., campuses. The responsibilities of both COO roles will now be spread across members of the existing administrative team.
3. Cox Medical Group, a subsidiary of Springfield, Mo.-based CoxHealth, has made several leadership changes to support the health system’s new operating model. The new model is focused on key service lines — such as cardiovascular services, orthopedics and primary care. Four things to know.
4. Valley Health, a six-hospital health system based in Winchester, Va., eliminated 31 administrative positions. The job cuts are part of the consolidation of the organization’s leadership team and administrative roles. They were announced internally on Feb. 28.
5. Roseville, Calif.-based Adventist Health will transition from seven networks of care to five systemwide to reduce costs and strengthen operations, according to a Feb. 15 news release shared with Becker’s. Under the reorganization, the health system will have separate networks for Northern California, Central California, Southern California, Oregon and Hawaii. The reorganization will result in job cuts, including reducing administration by more than $100 million.
During one of our regular check-ins with a health system CEO this week, the conversation took a turn for the existential. Lamenting the difficult economic situation in the industry, the continued shift of care to ambulatory disruptors, and the mounting pressure to dial back money-losing services, he shared that he was starting to question the fundamental business model.
“Many years ago, we set out to become an integrated delivery system. But I’m not sure we’ve succeeded at any of those things: we’re not integrated enough, we don’t act like a system, and we don’t seem to be delivering the kind of care consumers want.” A stark admission, but one that could apply to many large health systems across the industry.
In theory, those three “legs of the stool” should create a virtuous flywheel: greater integration across the care continuum (perhaps in a risk-bearing model, but not necessarily) ought to allow systems to deliver quality care at the right place, right time. And a system-oriented approach ought to allow for efficiencies and cost-savings that enable care to be delivered at lower cost to patients.
Instead, the three components often create a vicious spiral: care that’s not coordinated across an integrated continuum, with little success at leveraging system-level efficiencies, resulting in unnecessary, duplicative, and variable-quality care delivery at excessive cost.
Capturing the value of integrated delivery systems will ultimately require hard work, and not just lip service, on all three pieces. Meanwhile, scaling a broken model will only exacerbate the problems of organizations that are neither integrated, nor systemic, nor delivering care that is high value.
On Thursday, Des Moines, IA-based UnityPoint Health and Albuquerque, NM-based Presbyterian Healthcare Services revealed they have signed a letter of intent to explore a merger. The UnityPoint and Presbyterian brands would continue to operate in their local regions, but the combined system would manage $11B in annual revenue, over 40 hospitals, and nearly 3K physicians and advanced practice clinicians.
The Gist: A UnityPoint and Presbyterian link up would seem to follow the playbook of the recently closed Advocate Aurora and Atrium merger. Mergers between large, noncontiguous health systems are currently popular as a means to achieve the benefits of scale without tripping the alarms of federal antitrust regulators.
UnityPoint has been seeking a merger partner for years; most recently its plan to combine with Sanford Health fell through in 2019. It may have found a like-minded partner in Presbyterian, as both systemshave made significant investments in risk, including establishing mature ACOs, developing their own Medicare Advantage plans, and expanding their hospital at home programs.
We’re expecting to see a number of these cross-state system mergers announced over the course of 2023, as large regional players seek combinations that allow them to scale into super-regional, or even national, delivery platforms.
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) quietly released joint revisions to three healthcare antitrust policy statements which it now considers “overly permissive”. While two of the policies date back to the 1990s and relate to information sharing, the most significant, published in 2011, stated that certain ACOs were “highly unlikely to raise significant competitive concerns”. Instead, the FTC and DOJ say their policy will be to review these arrangements on a case-by-case basis.
The Gist: While unlikely to alter the ACO landscape significantly, this new guidance signals a departure from Obama-era policies that gave outsized priority to ACO development in cost-reduction efforts. Until now, ACOs were passed over for scrutiny, while regulators focused on more traditional hospital mergers in an attempt to prevent outsized market leverage.
Moving forward, the Biden administration must strike a delicate balance between policies that encourage greater coordination amongst independent healthcare entities working together to improve patient care and lower costs, and the market leverage that such coordination can generate.
Unsurprisingly, given the mounting economic pressures many health systems are facing, we’re beginning to hear more discussions among executives about outsourcing non-core services as a way of containing costs. Whether it’s contracting with an outside company for things like laundry and dietary services, or more extensive outsourcing to vendors for revenue cycle and IT services (such as the much-ballyhooed partnerships with Optum that have grabbed headlines recently), we’ve seen a resurgence of interest in finding ways to offload key areas of non-clinical operations.
In some ways it makes sense: we’ll stick to our knitting, and let someone else handle areas that they’re probably better at. But a recent comment from one system CEO captured our concern about the outsourcing trend. “For us, outsourcing is like Lucy and the football…we’ve been here before.
What we’ve learned is the complexity of managing the vendor relationship often outweighs any potential cost savings. And in the end, we never seem to garner enough savings to make it worth the effort.”
As to the broader “partnerships” around revenue cycle, IT, and population health, she added, “We’d never give up control of those aspects of the business—they’re too important. Plus, I’m not sure how you’d ever unwind it once you’d let your own staff become employed by a vendor.” We’ll be keeping a close eye on these outsourcing deals as the year goes on, and we’d love to hear your experience with the strategy as well.
We’ve updated our annual comparison of the relative size of the largest healthcare companies, with the graphic below comparing 2022 revenues to 2019 for a sense of how different companies and industry sectors weathered the pandemic.
The annual revenues of the five largest health systems in 2022 pale in comparison to the industry’s true giants—and the gap only widened over the pandemic. The largest health systems averaged just 5 percent annual growth since 2019, while the largest companies in each other healthcare subsector have grown revenues by over 10 percent annually.
Unsurprisingly, the pandemic drove Pfizer’s revenue to a record $100B in 2022—over half of that was driven by the company’s COVID vaccine and antiviral treatment, Paxlovid. Amazon’s 2022 revenue was nearly double its pre-COVID level. While very little of that growth came from healthcare, it enabled the company to fund investments like its all-cash $3.9B purchase of One Medical, which closed this week.
Even the nation’s largest health systems cannot compete with that kind of firepower, and looking beyond revenue paints an even more difficult picture. According to Kaufman Hall, although the median hospital has grown its revenue by 15 percent, it has seen expenses climb 20 percent, and lost 26 percent of margin since 2019.
HENRY KOTULA 