The ARP comes to the rescue of the ACA, for now

https://mailchi.mp/b0535f4b12b6/the-weekly-gist-march-12-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

ACA Enrollment is BACK, BIGTIME! Here's *10* important things to remember  to help you #GetCovered! | ACA Signups

On Thursday, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021 into law, committing nearly $1.9T of federal spending to boost the nation’s recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. In addition to direct payments to American families, extension of unemployment benefits, several anti-poverty measures, and aid to state and local governments, the plan also contains several key healthcare measures.

Approved by Congress on a near party-line vote using the budget reconciliation process, the law includes the broadest expansion of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) to date. It extends subsidies for upper-middle income individuals to purchase coverage on the Obamacare exchanges, caps premiums for those higher earners at a substantially lower level, and boosts subsidies for those at the lower end of the income scale.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that expanded ACA subsidies in the ARP will result in 2.5M more Americans gaining coverage in the next two years. Fully subsidized COBRA coverage for workers who lost their jobs due to COVID is also extended through the end of September, which the CBO estimates will benefit an additional 2M unemployed Americans.

The ARP also puts in place new support for Medicaid, enhancing coverage for home-based care, maternity services, and COVID testing and vaccination, and providing new incentives for the 12 states which haven’t yet expanded Medicaid eligibility under the ACA to do so. In addition to the ACA’s 90 percent match for those states’ Medicaid expansion populations, the lucky dozen will also receive a 5 percent bump to federal matching for the rest of their Medicaid populations should they choose to expand.
 
Three policy changes of keen interest to providers were left out of the final version of the bill. First, while a special relief fund of $8.5B was created for rural providers, there was no additional allocation of relief funds for hospitals and other providers, similar to the $178B allocated by the CARES Act, despite initial proposals of up to $35B in additional funding. (Around $25B of the initial round of provider relief is still unspent.) Second, the ARP did not extend or alter the repayment schedule for advance payments to providers made last year, in spite of industry pressure to implement more favorable repayment conditions. Finally, the new law does not extend last year’s pause on sequester-related cuts to Medicare reimbursement, although the House is expected to consider a separate measure to address that issue next week.

Notably, the coverage-related provisions of the ARP are only temporary, lasting through September of next year. That sets up the 2022 midterm elections as yet another campaign cycle dominated by promises to uphold and protect the Affordable Care Act—by then a 12-year-old law bolstered by this week’s COVID recovery legislation.

4 recent health system credit rating downgrades

Rating agencies brace for backlash after rash of downgrades | Financial  Times

The following four health system credit rating downgrades occurred in the past three months. They are listed in alphabetical order. 

1. Mercy Hospital (Iowa City, Iowa) — from “Ba3” to “B1” (Moody’s Investors Service)
The downgrade to B1 reflects the near term challenges that Mercy will face following the large operating loss in fiscal 2020, narrow headroom to the debt service covenant in fiscal 2020 and the pronounced December COVID surge, creating headwinds to retire to historical levels of stronger financial performance,” Moody’s said. 

2. NYC Health + Hospitals — from “AA-” to “A+” (Fitch Ratings) 
The downgrade of the NYCHCC bonds is tied to the downgrade of the city’s IDR to ‘AA-‘ from ‘AA’, and reflects Fitch’s expectation that the impact of the coronavirus and related containment measures will have a longer-lasting impact on New York’s economic growth than most other parts of the country,” Fitch said.

3. The Methodist Hospitals (Gary, Ind.) — from “BBB” to “BBB-” (Fitch Ratings)
The downgrade to ‘BBB-‘ is based on continued operating constraints after significant losses in 2017 through 2019. Interim nine-month fiscal 2020 operating income results, despite the pandemic, reflect an early stabilization trend but at weaker levels that are more consistent with the prior three years,” Fitch said.

4. Tower Health (West Reading, Pa.) — from “BB+” to “BB-” (S&P Global Ratings); from “BB+” to “B+” (Fitch Ratings)
“The two-notch downgrade reflects our view of Tower Health’s continued significant operating losses through the interim period ended Dec. 31, 2020, which have been higher than expected, coupled with recent resignations of members of the senior management team,” said S&P Global Ratings credit analyst Anne Cosgrove.

Debt default risk for hospitals drops from 2020 high

UAE firms face default risk as customers delay payments | Business Insurance

The likelihood that U.S. hospitals will default on debt within the next year fell significantly since the 2020 peak amid the early days of the pandemic, according to a March 10 report from S&P Global Market Intelligence. 

In 2020, the median default odds jumped to 8.1 percent. However, as of March 8, the probability of default rate fell to 0.9 percent. 

Samuel Maizel, a partner from law firm Dentons, told S&P Global that many hospitals operate on razor-thin margins, and they are seeing less cash flow amid the pandemic as patients shy away from receiving care, but stimulus funds should help avert a tidal wave of hospital bankruptcies in the next year.

“They’re sitting on a lot of cash, which gives them a cushion, even though they’re continuing to lose money,” Mr. Maizel told S&P Global. 

S&P said that as stimulus funds dry up other pressures may challenge healthcare facilities.

6 hospitals laying off workers

China Employee Layoff Laws

The financial challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic forced hundreds of hospitals across the nation to furlough, lay off or reduce pay for workers, and others have had to scale back services or close.

Lower patient volume, canceled elective procedures and higher expenses tied to the pandemic have created a cash crunch for hospitals, and hospitals are taking a number of steps to offset financial damage. Executives, clinicians and other staff are taking pay cuts, capital projects are being put on hold, and some employees are losing their jobs. More than 260 hospitals and health systems furloughed workers in the last year, and dozens of others have implemented layoffs.

Below are six hospitals and health systems that are laying off employees in the next 2 months. Some of the layoffs were attributed to financial strain caused by the pandemic. 

1. Sacramento, Calif.-based Sutter Health is laying off hundreds of employees, most of whom work in information technology. In a filing with the state, Sutter said it plans to lay off 277 employees on April 2. The 277 jobs being eliminated include 92 analysts, 43 engineers and 28 project managers, according to the Sacramento Business Journal, citing the system’s filing with California’s Employment Development Department. 

2. Plattsburgh, N.Y.-based Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital plans to cut 60 jobs. The hospital, which is facing a $6.5 million deficit in fiscal year 2021, said the cuts include 10 people who were laid off or had permanent hour reductions, 12 people who are planning retirement, and the rest are open positions that will not be filled. 

3. Hialeah (Fla.) Hospital is closing its maternity ward and laying off 62 employees April 5, according to a notice filed with the state. Most of those affected by the layoffs are registered nurses.

4. The outgoing owners of Providence Behavioral Health Hospital in Holyoke, Mass., are laying off the hospital’s 151 employees, effective April 20, according to MassLive. Trinity Health of New England, part of Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health,  is selling the hospital to Health Partners New England, which plans to take over the hospital April 20. 

5. Olympia Medical Center in Los Angeles is slated to close March 31. The closure will result in the layoffs of about 450 employees.

6. Minneapolis-based Children’s Minnesota is laying off 150 employees, or about 3 percent of its workforce. Children’s Minnesota cited several reasons for the layoffs, including the financial hit from the COVID-19 pandemic. Some layoffs occured in December and the rest will occur at the end of March. 

Sutter’s $575M antitrust settlement gains preliminary approval

Sutter Health, CA Reach $575M Settlement Over Anti-Trust Concerns

Dive Brief:

  • A San Francisco Superior Court judge has granted preliminary approval of the $575 million settlement agreement Sutter Health reached in the antitrust case that alleges it drove up healthcare prices in Northern California through anticompetitive practices.
  • A hearing for final approval of the settlement has been set for July 19, according to the judge’s order issued Tuesday.
  • Now, class members, or certain self-funded payers in California, will be notified of the preliminary approval and may object to part or all of the settlement agreement.

Dive Insight:

This preliminary approval comes more than a year after Sutter Health first agreed to settle the case with the plaintiffs, including California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, now nominee for HHS secretary, and a grocer’s union.

To put the settlement and all its elements in motion, it must first be approved by a judge. Tuesday’s order moves the case one step closer to final approval.

That 2019 settlement came on the eve of a court case that was supposed to lay out in open court how the regional powerhouse’s practices led to higher healthcare costs.

Even though the settlement averted a trial, it was designed to force Sutter to change some of these practices. As part of the settlement, Sutter agreed to stop “all-or-nothing” contracting and instead allow insurers and other payers to contract with some, but not all, of Sutter’s facilities.

The settlement is also designed to limit what patients pay out-of-network in an effort to shield them from exorbitant, surprise medical bills.

Sutter Health has tried to delay the $575 million antitrust settlement, citing the fallout from the novel coronavirus that has squeezed providers, including Sutter.

The health system, though battered by the pandemic’s fallout, was still able to post net income of $134 million for 2020, in part thanks to investment income. However, it did report an operating loss of $321 million as expenses outpaced revenue. Sutter said it was launching a sweeping review of its finances and operations as a result.

The litigation was first initiated in 2014 when the grocer’s union, joined by other plaintiff’s, filed suit against Sutter’s practices. It ultimately drew the attention of Becerra’s office.

Providence posts $306M loss in 2020 after patient revenue takes hit from COVID-19

Providence posts $306M loss in 2020 after patient revenue takes hit from  COVID-19 | FierceHealthcare

Providence Health posted a $306 million operating loss for 2020 as the system’s patient service revenue declined by nearly $1 billion due to COVID-19.

Providence struggled with a major decline in patient volumes, which were down 9% compared to 2019 and led to a 5% decline in net patient service revenue.

While volumes have recovered since an initial decline at the onset of the pandemic, “operational recovery continues to be variable and market-specific as the pandemic continues across our footprint,” the 51-hospital system said in its earnings report released late Monday.

Providence generated $25.6 billion in operating revenue in 2020, slightly above the $25 billion that it generated the year before. However, Providence’s expenses shot up to $25.9 billion, a major spike from the $24.8 billion it paid for in 2019. This led to an operating deficit of $306 million.

A major reason was the system’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which Providence got a jump start on as it was the first U.S. hospital system to treat a patient with the virus.

“The impact included a significant reduction in revenue, coupled with an increase in costs incurred for [personal protective equipment] and pharmaceuticals, and increases in labor costs for staffing to serve those impacted by the virus,” Providence’s report said.

Net patient service revenue was $19 billion for 2020, down by nearly $1 billion from the $19.9 billion it posted in 2019.

Providence’s non-operating income totaled $1 billion in 2020 compared to $1.1 billion the previous year. The non-operating income, which is made up of investment gains, helped to “recoup operating losses resulting from the pandemic and offset reimbursement shortfalls from Medicaid and Medicare coverage, allowing us to serve vulnerable populations while balancing our financial standing,” the report said.

Providence’s operating earnings before interest, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) was $1.1 billion, or 4.4% of its operating revenues. This was a decline from the $1.6 billion (6.2%) in EBITDA for 2019.

The system also got $957 million in relief funding under the CARES Act, which partly offset the losses from lower volumes, the report said.

Providence is an outlier among other larger for and not-for-profit systems that ended 2020 in the black. For instance, Mayo Clinic posted a net operating income of $728 million, helped by $587 million in donations and a massive increase in business from its lab division to help provide COVID-19 tests.

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center also posted a $1 billion profit for 2020 thanks to a boost of enrollment in its insurance business.

Healthcare AI investment will shift to these 5 areas in the next 2 years: survey

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the pace of artificial intelligence adoption, and healthcare leaders are confident AI can help solve some of today’s toughest challenges, including COVID-19 tracking and vaccines.

The majority of healthcare and life sciences executives (82%) want to see their organizations more aggressively adopt AI technology, according to a new survey from KPMG, an audit, tax and advisory services firm.

Healthcare and life sciences (56%) business leaders report that AI initiatives have delivered more value than expected for their organizations. However, life sciences companies seem to be struggling to select the best AI technologies, according to 73% of executives.

As the U.S. continues to navigate the pandemic, life sciences business leaders are overwhelmingly confident in AI’s ability to monitor the spread of COVID-19 cases (94%), help with vaccine development (90%) and aid vaccine distribution (90%).

KPMG’s AI survey is based on feedback from 950 business or IT decision-makers across seven industries, with 100 respondents each from healthcare and life sciences companies.

Despite the optimism about the potential for AI, executives across industries believe more controls are needed and overwhelmingly believe the government has a role to play in regulating AI technology. The majority of life sciences (86%) and healthcare (84%) executives say the government should be involved in regulating AI technology.

And executives across industries are optimistic about the new administration in Washington, D.C., with the majority believing the Biden administration will do more to help advance the adoption of AI in the enterprise.

“We are seeing very high levels of support this year across all industries for more AI regulation. One reason for this may be that, as the technology advances very quickly, insiders want to avoid AI becoming the ‘Wild Wild West.’ Additionally, a more robust regulatory environment may help facilitate commerce. It can help remove unintended barriers that may be the result of other laws or regulations, or due to lack of maturity of legal and technical standards,” said Rob Dwyer, principal, advisory at KPMG, specializing in technology in government.

Healthcare and pharma companies seem to be more bullish on AI than other industries are.

The survey found half of business leaders in industrial manufacturing, retail and tech say AI is moving faster than it should in their industry. Concerns about the speed of AI adoption are particularly pronounced among small companies (63%), business leaders with high AI knowledge (51%) and Gen Z and millennial business leaders (51%).

“Leaders are experiencing COVID-19 whiplash, with AI adoption skyrocketing as a result of the pandemic. But many say it’s moving too fast. That’s probably because of current debate surrounding the ethics, governance and regulation of AI.  Many business leaders do not have a view into what their organizations are doing to control and govern AI and may fear risks are developing,” Traci Gusher, principal of artificial intelligence at KPMG, said in a statement.

Future AI investment

Healthcare organizations are ramping up their investments in AI in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In a Deloitte survey, nearly 3 in 4 healthcare organizations said they expect to increase their AI funding, with executives citing making processes more efficient as the top outcome they are trying to achieve with AI.

Healthcare executives say current AI investments at their organizations have focused on electronic health record (EHR) management and diagnosis.

To date, the technology has proved its value in reducing errors and improving medical outcomes for patients, according to executives. Around 40% of healthcare executives said AI technology has helped with patient engagement and also to improve clinical quality. About a third of executives said AI has improved administrative efficiency. Only 18% said the technology helped uncover new revenue opportunities.

But AI investments will shift over the next two years to prioritize telemedicine (38%), robotic tasks such as process automation (37%) and delivery of patient care (36%), the survey found. Clinical trials and diagnosis rounded out the top five investment areas.

At life sciences companies, AI is primarily deployed during the drug development process to improve record-keeping and the application process, the survey found. Companies also have leveraged AI to help with clinical trial site selection.

Moving forward, pharmaceutical companies will likely focus their AI investments on discovering new revenue opportunities in the next two years, a pivot from their current strategy focusing on increasing profitability of existing products, according to the survey. About half of life sciences executives say their organizations plan to leverage AI to reduce administrative costs, analyze patient data and accelerate clinical trials.

Industry stakeholders are taking steps to advance the use of AI and machine learning in healthcare.

The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) created a working group two years ago to develop some standardization on definitions and characteristics of healthcare AI. Last year, the CTA working group developed a standard that creates a common language so industry stakeholders can better understand AI technologies. A group also recently developed a new standard to advance trust in AI solutions.

On the regulatory front, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last month released its first AI and machine learning action plan, a multistep approach designed to advance the agency’s management of advanced medical software. The action plan aims to force manufacturers to be more rigorous in their evaluations, according to the FDA.

Jefferson Health and Einstein Healthcare merger moves forward after FTC withdraws challenge

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/jefferson-health-and-einstein-healthcare-network-merger-moves-forward-after-ftc-withdraws-0

Jefferson Health and Einstein Healthcare Network merger clear final hurdle after  FTC will no longer challenge - 6abc Philadelphia

Jefferson’s hospital network will grow to 18 locations with Einstein’s three general acute care hospitals and an inpatient rehabilitation hospital.

The merger between Pennsylvania-based Jefferson Health and Einstein Healthcare Network can now close after the Federal Trade Commission voted to withdraw its opposition to the deal, Jefferson Health announced this week.

The deal is now expected to be finalized within the next six months.

Earlier this year, the FTC voted 4-0 to voluntarily dismiss its appeal to the Third Circuit of the district court, according to the commission’s case summary.

Once the deal is complete, Jefferson’s network of hospitals will grow to 18 with the addition of Einstein’s three general acute care hospitals and an inpatient rehabilitation hospital.

WHY IT MATTERS

Merger plans were first announced in 2018 in a deal estimated to be worth $599 million.

The FTC initially blocked the merger because it believed it would reduce competition in the Philadelphia and Montgomery counties.

It alleged the deal would give the two health systems control of at least 60% of the inpatient general acute care hospital services market in North Philadelphia, at least 45% of that market in Montgomery County, and at least 70% of the inpatient acute rehabilitation services market in the Philadelphia area.

But late last year, a federal judge blocked the FTC’s attempt to stop the merger. Judge Gerald Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania wrote that the FTC failed to demonstrate that there’s a credible threat of harm to competition. He pointed to other competitors in the region, such as Penn Medicine, Temple Health and Trinity Health Mid-Atlantic.

The FTC and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania attempted to appeal the court’s decision, but after Jefferson and Einstein filed a motion to withdraw the case, the commission unanimously voted to drop its appeal.

THE LARGER TREND

The FTC is taking a closer look at healthcare mergers and acquisitions to better understand how physician practice and healthcare facility mergers affect competition. Earlier this year, it sent orders to Aetna, Anthem, Florida Blue, Cigna, Health Care Service Corporation and United Healthcare to share patient-level claims data for inpatient, outpatient and physician services across 15 states from 2015 through 2020.

Although M&A activity was down in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Kaufman Hall called the 79 transactions that did take place “remarkable” for falling within the range of the 92 deals from the year before.

The analysts expect activity to ramp up moving forward, however. They predict that as health systems evaluate their business strategies post-pandemic, those in strong positions will take advantage of other systems’ divestitures to grow their capabilities and expand into new markets.

ON THE RECORD

“We are excited to have Einstein and Jefferson come together, as our shared vision will enable us to improve the lives of patients, the health of our communities and enhance our health education and research capabilities,” said Ken Levitan, the interim president and CEO of Einstein Healthcare Network.

“By bringing our resources together, we can offer those we care for – particularly the historically underserved populations in Philadelphia and Montgomery County – even greater access to high-quality care.”

A large pay gap exists between independent and hospital-employed doctors

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/large-pay-gap-exists-between-independent-and-hospital-employed-doctors

Physician practices with more female doctors have smallest gender pay gaps  | Healthcare Finance News

The payment gap was $63,000 for primary care doctors, $178,000 for medical specialists and $150,000 for surgeons.

Doctors who work for hospital outpatient facilities get much higher payments for their services from Medicare than doctors who practice independently, according to a new study.

The research, based on Medicare claims data from 2010-2016, found that the program’s payments for doctors’ work were, on average, $114,000 higher per doctor per year when billed by a hospital than when billed by a doctor’s independent practice.

Published in Health Services Research, results found that the amount Medicare would pay for outpatient care at doctors’ offices would have been 80% higher if the services had been billed by a hospital outpatient facility. In 2010, the average set of Medicare services independent doctors performed annually for patients was worth $141,000, but charging for the same group of services would have grossed $240,000 if a hospital outpatient facility billed for them.

The payment difference varied by specialty. The payment gap was $63,000 for primary care doctors, $178,000 for medical specialists and $150,000 for surgeons.

Moreover, the study found the differential grew over time. From 2010-2016, the average difference between hospital outpatient and private practice payments grew from 80% higher to 99% higher.

WHAT’S THE IMPACT?

The main reason for these large payment differences: facility fees. For each service a doctor performs, Medicare pays hospital outpatient facilities both a fee for the doctor’s work and a fee for the facility, whereas private practices receive only doctor fees.

Although the doctor fees are a bit lower in hospital outpatient locations, the facility fees more than make up for the difference, and the total payments to hospitals are reflected in higher doctor salaries and bonuses.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has been trying to correct this imbalance for years with policies that would pay both sites the same amount. In 2015, the Bipartisan Budget Act authorized CMS to impose site-neutral payments but grandfathered existing hospital outpatient facilities. Later, CMS expanded the equal payments to other hospital outpatient facilities, but the American Hospital Association sued to overturn this regulation.

In July 2020, the Appeals Court sided with HHS. The American Hospital Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges said they would seek to have the ruling overturned.

The groups filed for a petition for a rehearing, which was denied.

In February, the Supreme Court acknowledged the AHA’s request for judicial review. The government response was due by March 15, but on March 3, Norris Cochran, acting Secretary of Health and Human Service asked for an extension until April 14 to file the government’s response, according to court documents.

The significant difference between Medicare payments to hospital outpatient facilities and independent offices has encouraged hospitals and health systems to buy doctor practices, but the study noted that good research about this has been lacking up to now.

It found little evidence of a direct relationship linking the size of the pay gap between hospital outpatient facilities and independent offices, with hospitals buying doctor practices, in particular medical specialties. But it did find that doctors whose services had larger pay gaps were more likely to have a hospital buy their practice than doctors whose services had a smaller pay gap.

In an accompanying commentary, Dr. Michael Chernew of Harvard Medical School in Boston said the study had found that the ability of hospitals and employed doctors to earn more from Medicare had resulted in a greater amount of integration.

THE LARGER TREND

However, the authors pointed out that the Medicare payment difference is only one of many factors that have contributed to the huge increase in the share of doctors employed at hospitals over the past decade. For example, they found a higher probability of a doctor going to work for a hospital in highly concentrated hospital markets and rural areas.

Other studies, they said, have established that some health systems use integration with doctors’ offices as a bargaining chip with commercial health insurance plans. Also, some doctors may find that independent practice is less viable than it used to be for a variety of reasons.

It has also been suggested that many younger doctors prefer hospital employment to private practice because they crave economic security and work-life balance.

It’s been estimated that even the payments to hospitals vs. doctors could save CMS $11 billion over 10 years. But the paper illustrates that the payment disparities can also create broader market distortions because consolidation of hospitals and doctors’ offices has been shown to lead to higher prices overall.

Hospitals will likely continue to have staffing shortages despite falling COVID-19 cases

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/hospitals-will-likely-continue-have-staffing-shortages-despite-falling-covid-19-cases

Hospitals will likely continue to have staffing shortages despite falling  COVID-19 cases | Healthcare Finance News

Estimations show that between now and March 20, 7% of U.S. counties will experience “significant strains” on their hospital workforces.

Despite recent declines in coronavirus cases nationwide, many hospitals may still have workforce shortages over the next 30 days due to COVID-19 hospitalizations, according to estimates from George Washington University.

The university’s Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity recently launched its COVID-19 County Workforce Estimator, which predicts that between now and March 20, 7% of U.S. counties will experience “significant strains” on their hospital workforces. It attributes the strain to long-standing staffing problems with the added pressure of the pandemic.

It also predicts that 209 counties will need to implement crisis workforce strategies due to its analysis that ICU doctors in those counties will be forced to take care of 24 or more patients at a time. Hospitals in those locations will likely need to use non-ICU-trained staff to help care for patients, the analysis said.

Further, the tool suggests that 12 counties will need to use contingency workforce strategies that include adding more patients per team, float pools and overtime due to COVID-19 hospitalization rates of 25% or more.

While it estimates a portion of counties will face staffing strains over the next month, the estimator calculated that 2,189 counties will be able to maintain normal workforce strategies due to COVID-19 hospitalization rates of 25% or less.

An additional 736 counties either did not have a hospital or didn’t have enough data to assess potential COVID-19 workforce strains.

The estimator tool was built in collaboration with Premier, a healthcare improvement company, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and IQVIA, a healthcare data and analytics organization.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Healthcare staffing shortages have been a worry for some time now due to the nation’s increasingly aging population, but COVID-19 has only added to the concern.

Even before the pandemic, studies predicted physician staffing shortages by upwards of 140,000 by 2030, as well as shortages in-home health aides, nursing assistants, nurse practitioners and medical lab technicians by 2025.

Labor experts suggest hospitals develop a proactive response to staff shortages, and the George Washington estimator was designed to do exactly that, according to Clese Erikson, the principal investigator on the project and deputy director of the Health Equity Workforce Research Center.

Local leaders and hospital administrators can use the tool to gauge their county’s ability to care for COVID-19 hospitalized patients and others who need critical care services.

THE LARGER TREND

Outside of the ICU, many hospitals are also experiencing nursing shortages for several reasons, including the possibility that nurses could get $150 an hour to be a traveling nurse versus the $48 an hour they are paid as hospital staff.

In other cases, nurses had to choose between work and having children at home while schools were not holding in-person sessions. Some nurses who were close to retirement chose to leave while others left for work outside of acute care settings.

On top of workforce shortages, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led many healthcare workers to experience strains on their mental health, including anxiety, stress, depression and loneliness.

ON THE RECORD

“The shortages could occur just as public health officials warn that variants of the coronavirus are spreading in the United States and could trigger a sharp rise in the number of Americans infected,” Erikson said.

“Our new online estimator will help county and local public health officials project shortages in the near future and take steps to help keep staffing at safe levels.”