A detailed report, published by a group of organizations including the American Antitrust Institute, provides one of the highest-quality examinations of the growth of private equity (PE)-backed physician practices, and the impact of this growth on market competition and healthcare prices.
From 2012 to 2021, the annual number of practice acquisitions by private equity groups increased six-fold, and the number of metropolitan areas in which a single PE-backed practice held over 30 percent market share rose to cover over one quarter of the country. (Check out figure 3B at the bottom of page 20 in the report to see if you live in one of those markets.)
The study also found an association between PE practice acquisitions and higher healthcare prices and per-patient expenditures. In highly concentrated markets, certain specialties, like gastroenterology, saw prices rise by as much as 18 percent.
The Gist: As the report highlights, one of the greatest barriers to assessing PE’s impact on physician practices is the lack of transparency around acquisitions and ownership structures. This analysis brings us closer to understanding the scope of the issue, and makes a strong case for regulatory and legislative intervention.
Recent proposed changes to federal premerger disclosure requirements offer a good start, but many practice acquisitions are still too small to flag review, and slowing future acquisitions will do little to unwind the market concentration already emerging.
PE is also not the sole actor contributing to healthcare consolidation, and proposed remedies may target the activities of payers and health systems considered anti-competitive as well.
Earlier this week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposal to remedy its four years of payment cuts to the more than 1,600 hospitals participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program through one-time, lump-sum payments that will total roughly $9B.
In 2018, CMS reduced drug reimbursement to 340B covered-entity hospitals by nearly 30 percent, in an attempt to align reimbursement with hospitals’ actual drug acquisition costs. The Supreme Court overturned those cuts in 2022, ruling that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had violated rulemaking procedure. As CMS rulemaking on Medicare payment must be budget-neutral, the agency will offset the remedy payments with a 0.5 percent cut to all hospitals for non-drug items and services covered under the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) over the next 16 years. Stakeholders have until September 5th to comment on the proposed rule. Once the final rule is published later this year, CMS plans to repay 340B participant hospitals within 60 days of their application for remedy.
The Gist: After worries about how last year’s Supreme Court ruling would be implemented, 340B participant hospitals will be relieved to receive their payment corrections up front instead of over time, especially given current margin challenges.
But while this issue is now set to be resolved, other critical decisions about the 340B program’s fate are pending before courts. Earlier this year, Bayer and EMD Serono became the 20th and 21st drugmakers to restrict discounts to contract pharmacies, following an appellate court decision in January that sided with the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Meanwhile, appellate courts in other jurisdictions are set to hear at least two more cases on the issue, amid conflicting rulings about whether HHS can enforce contract pharmacy discounts.
Here is a summary of recent credit downgrades and outlook revisions for hospitals and health systems.
The downgrades and downward revisions reflect continued operating challenges many nonprofit systems are facing, with multiyear recovery processes expected.
Downgrades:
Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health: Operating weakness and elevated debt contributed to the downgrade of bonds held by Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health, Moody’s said May 5. The bond rating slipped from “Aa3” to “A1,” and the outlook was revised to stable from negative.
The system saw a second downgrade as its default rating and that on a series of bonds were revised one notch to “A+” from “AA-” amid continued operating woes, Fitch said June 28.
Not only have there been three straight years of such challenges, but the operating environment continues to cast a pall into the second quarter of the current fiscal year, Fitch said.
UC Health (Cincinnati): The system was downgraded on a series of bonds, Moody’s said May 10.
The move, which involved a lowering from a “Baa2” to “Baa3” grade, refers to such bonds with an overall value of $580 million.
In February, UC Health suffered a similar downgrade from “A” to “BBB+” on its overall rating and on some bonds because of what S&P Global termed “significantly escalating losses.”
UNC Southeastern (Lumberton, N.C.): The system, which is now part of the Chapel Hill, N.C.-based UNC Health network, saw its ratings on a series of bonds downgraded to “BB” amid operating losses and sustained weakness in its balance sheet, S&P Global said June 23.
While UNC Southeastern reported an operating loss of $74.8 million in fiscal 2022, such losses have continued into fiscal 2023 with a $15 million loss as of March 31, S&P Global said. The system had earlier been placed on CreditWatch but that was removed with this downgrade.
Butler (Pa.) Health: The system, now merged with Greensburg, Pa.-based Excela Health to form Independence Health System, saw its credit rating downgraded significantly, falling from “A” to “BBB.”
The move reflects continued operating challenges and low patient volumes, Fitch said June 26.
Such operating challenges, including low days of cash on hand, could result in potential default of debt covenants, Fitch warned.
Outlook revisions:
Redeemer Health (Meadowbrook, Pa.): The system had its outlook revised to negative amid “persistent operating losses,” Fitch Ratings said June 14. The health system, anchored by a 260-bed acute care hospital, reported a $37 million operating loss in the nine months ending March 31, Fitch said.
Thomas Jefferson University (Philadelphia): The June 9 downward revision of its outlook, which includes both the health system and the university’s academic sector, was due to sustained operating weakness, S&P Global said.
IU Health (Indianapolis): While it saw ratings affirmed at “AA,” the 16-hospital system had its outlook downgraded amid persistent inflationary pressures and large capital expense, Fitch said May 31.
UofL Health (Louisville, Ky.): Slumping operating income and low days of cash on hand (42.8 as of March 31) contributed to S&P Global revising its outlook for the six-hospital system to negative May 24.
As hospital leaders convene in Seattle this weekend for the American Hospital Association Leadership Summit, their future is uncertain.
Last week’s court decision in favor of hospitals shortchanged by the 340B drug program and 1st half 2023 improvement in operating margins notwithstanding, the deck is stacked against hospitals—some more than others. And they’re not alone: nursing homes and physician practices face the same storm clouds:
Decreased reimbursement from government payers (Medicare and Medicaid) coupled with heightened tension with national health insurers seeking bigger discounts and direct control of hospital patient care.
Persistent medical-inflation driving costs for facilities, supplies, wages, technologies, prescription drugs and professional services (legal, accounting, marketing, et al) higher than reimbursement increases by payers.
Increased competition across the delivery spectrum from strategic aggregators, private equity and health insurers diversifying into outpatient, physician services et al.
Increased discontent and burnout among doctors, nurses and care teams who feel unappreciated, underpaid and overworked.
Escalating media criticism of not-for-profit hospitals/health system profitability, debt collection policies, lack of price transparency, consolidation, executive compensation, charity care, community benefits and more.
Declining trust in the system across the board.
Most hospitals soldier on: they’re aware of these and responding as best they can. But most are necessarily focused only on the near-term: bed needs, workforce recruitment and staffing, procurement costs for drugs and supplies and so on. Some operate in markets less problematic than others, but the trends hold true directionally in every one of America’s 290 HRR markets.
Planning for the long-term is paralyzed by the tyranny of the urgent:
survival and sustainability in 2023 and making guarded bets about 2024 dominate today’s plans. That’s reality. Though the healthcare pie is forecast to get bigger, it’s being carved up by upstarts pursuing profitable niches and mega-players with deep pockets and a take-no-prisoners approach to their growth strategies. The result is an industry nearing meltdown.
Each traditional sector thinks it’s moral virtue more honorable than others. Each blames the other for avoidable waste and inaction in weeding out its bad actors. Each is pays lip service to “value-based care” and “system transformation” while doubling-down on making sure changes are incremental and painless for the near-term. And each believes the long-term destination of the system will be different than the past but no two agree on what that is.
Hospitals control 31% of the spend directly and as much as 43% with their employed physicians included. So, they’re a logical focus of attention from outsiders. Whether not for profit, public or investor owned, all are thought to be expensive and non-transparent and increasingly many are seen as ‘Big Business’ with excessive profits. Complaints about heavy-handed insurer reimbursement and price-gauging by drug companies fall on death ears in most communities. That’s why most are focused on near-term survival and few have the luxury or tools to plan for the future.
As a start, answers to the questions below in the 3-5 (mid-term) and 8–10-year (long-term) time frames is imperative for every hospital leadership team and Board:
Is the status quo sustainable? With annual spending projected to increase at 5.4%/year through 2031– well above population and economic growth rates overall– will employers remain content to pay 224% of Medicare rates to produce profits for hospitals, doctors, drug and device makers and insurers? Will they continue to pass these costs through to their customers and employees while protecting their tax exemptions or will alternative strategies prompt activism? Might employers drive system transformation by addressing affordability, effectiveness, consumer self-care and systemness et al. with impunity toward discomfort created for insiders? Or, might voters reject the status quo in subsequent state/federal elections in favor of alternatives with promised improvement? And who will the winners and losers be?
Are social determinants a core strategy or distraction? 70% of costs in the health system are directly attributable to social needs unmet—food insecurity. loneliness et al. But in most communities, programs addressing SDOH and public health programs that serve less-privileged populations are step-children to better funded hospitals and retail services targeted to populations that can afford them. Is the destination incremental bridges built between local providers and public health programs to satisfy vocal special interest groups OR comprehensive integration of SDOH in every domain of operation? Private investors are wading into SDOH if they’re attached to a risk-based insurance programs like Medicare Advantage and others, but sparingly in other settings. Does the future necessitate re-definition of “community benefits” or new regulations prompting providers, drug companies and payers to fair-share performance. Is the future modest improvement in the “Health or Human Services” status quo OR is system of “Health and Social Services” that’s fully integrated? And might interoperability and connectivity in the entire population become “true north” for tech giants and EHR juggernauts seeking to evade anti-trust constraint and demonstrate their commitment to the greater good? There’s no debate that SDOH is central to community health and wellbeing but in most communities, it’s more talk than walk. Yesterday, SDOH was about risk factors; today, it’s about low-income populations who lack insurance; tomorrow, it’s everyone.
How should the health system of the future be funded? The current system of funding is a mess: In 2021, the federal government and households accounted for the largest shares of national health spending (34 % and 27%, respectively), followed by private businesses (17%), state and local governments (15%), and other private revenues (7%). It will spend $4.66 trillion, employ 19 million and impact every citizen (and non-citizen) directly. But 4 of 10 households have unpaid medical bills. Big employers in certain industries provide rich benefits while half of small businesses provide none. Medicare depends on employer payroll taxes for the lion’s share of its Part A (Hospital) funding exposing the “trust fund” to a shortfall in 2028 and insolvency fears…and so on. Increased public funding via taxes is problematic and debt is more costly as interest rates go up and the municipal bond market tightens. Voters and private employers don’t seem inclined to pay higher taxes for healthcare–:is it worth $13,998 per capita today? $20,426 in 2031? Will high-cost inpatient care and specialty drugs become regulated public utilities in which access and pricing is tightly controlled and directly funded by government? Will private investors and strategic aggregators be required to take invest in community benefits to offset the disproportionate costs borne by hospitals, public health clinics and others? Is there a better formula for funding U.S. healthcare? Other systems of the world spend more on social services and preventive health and less on specialty care. They spend a third less and get comparable if not better outcomes though each is stretched to deal with medical inflation. And in most, government funding is higher, private funding lower and privileged populations have access to private services they pay for directly. Where do we start, and who demands the question be answered?
How will innovations in therapeutics and information technology change how individuals engage with the system? Artificial intelligence will directly impact 60% of the traditional health delivery workforce, negating jobs for many/most. Non-allopathic therapies, technology-enabled self-care, precision medicines, non-invasive and minimally invasive surgical techniques are changing change how care is delivered, by whom and where. Thus, lag indicators based on visits, procedures, admissions and volume are increasingly useless. How will demand be defined in the future? Who will own the data and how will it be accessed? And how will the rights of patients (consumers) be protected in courts and in communities? In the future, information-driven healthcare will be much more than encounter data from medical records and claims-based analyses from payers. It will be sourced globally, housed centrally and accessed by innovators and consumers to know more about their health now and next. Within 10 years, generative AI coupled with therapeutic innovation will fundamentally change roles, payments and performance measurement in every domain of healthcare. Proficiency in leveraging the two will anchor system reputations and facilitate significant market share shifts to high value, high outcome, lower cost alternatives…whether local or not.
How will regulators and court decisions enact fair competition, consumer choices and antitrust protections? The current political environment is united around reforms that encourage price transparency and affordability. FTC and DOJ leaders are aligned on healthcare oversight with a decided bent toward heightened enforcement and tighter scrutiny of proposed deals (both vertical and horizontal integration). But their leaders’ terms are subject to political appointments and elections: that’s an unknown. And while recent rulings of the conservative leaning Supreme Court are problematic to many in healthcare, their rulings are perhaps more predictable than policies, rules and regulations directly impacted by election results.
For hospital leaders gathering in Seattle this week, and in local board meetings nationwide, necessary attention is being given the near-term issues all face. But longer-term issues lurk: the future does not appear a modernized version of the past for anyone in U.S. healthcare, especially hospitals. And among hospitals, fundamental precepts—like tax exemptions for “not-for-profit” hospitals, community benefits and charity care in exchange for tax exemption, EMTALA et al. regulations that require access without pre-condition are among many that will re-surface as the long-term view of the health system is re-considered.
To that end, the questions above deserve urgent discussion in every hospital board room and C suite. Trade-offs aren’t clear, potential future state hospital scenarios are not discreet and winners and losers unknown. But a fact-driven process recognizing a widening array of players with deep pockets and fresh approaches is necessary.
That’s the amount you arrive at if you multiply the number of physicians employed by hospitals and health systems (approximately 341,200 as of January 2022, according to data from the Physicians Advocacy Institute and Avalere) by the median $306,362 subsidy—or loss—reported in our Q1 2023 Physician Flash Report.
Subsidizing physician employment has been around for a long time and such subsidies were historically justified as a loss leader for improved clinical services, the potential for increased market share, and the strengthening of traditionally profitable services.
But I am pretty sure the industry did not have $104 billion in losses in mind when the physician employment model first became a key strategic element in the hospital operating model. However, the upward reset in expenses brought on by the pandemic and post-pandemic inflation has made many downstream hospital services that historically operated at a profit now operate at breakeven or even at a loss. The loss leader physician employment model obviously no longer works when it mostly leads to more losses.
This model is clearly broken and in demand of a near-term fix. Perhaps the critical question then is how to begin? How to reconsider physician employment within the hospital operating plan?
Out of the box, rethink the physician productivity model. Our most recent Physician Flash Report data shows that for surgical specialties, there was a median $77 net patient revenue per provider wRVU. For the same specialties, there was a median $80 provider paid compensation per provider wRVU. In other words, before any other expenses are factored in, these specialties are losing $3 per wRVU on paid compensation alone. Getting providers to produce more wRVUs only makes the loss bigger.
It’s the classic business school 101 problem.
If a factory is losing $5 on every widget it produces, the answer is not to produce more widgets. Rather, expenses need to come down, whether that is through a readjustment of compensation, new compensation models that reward efficiency, or the more effective use of advanced practice providers.
Second, a number of hospital CEOs have suggested to me that the current employed physician model is quite past its prime. That model was built for a system of care that included generally higher revenues, more inpatient care, and a greater proportion of surgical vs. medical admissions. But overall, these trends were changing and then were accelerated by the Covid pandemic. Inpatient revenue has been flat to down. More clinical work continues to shift to the outpatient setting and, at least for the time being, medical admissions have been more prominent than before the pandemic.
Taking all this into account suggests that in many places the employed physician organizational and operating model is entirely out of balance. One would offer the calculated guess that there are too many coaches on the team and not enough players on the field. This administrative overhead was seemingly justified in a different loss leader environment but now it is a major contributor to that $104 billion industry-wide loss previously calculated.
Finally, perhaps the very idea of physician employment needs to be rethought.
My colleagues Matthew Bates and John Anderson have commented that the “owner” model is more appealing to physicians who remain independent then the “renter” model. The current employment model offers physicians stability of practice and income but appears to come at the cost of both a loss of enthusiasm and lost entrepreneurship. The massive losses currently experienced strongly suggest that new models are essential to reclaim physician interest and establish physician incentives that result in lower practice expenses, higher practice revenues, and steadily reduced overall subsidies.
Please see this blog as an extension of my last blog, “America’s Hospitals Need a Makeover.”It should be obvious that by analogy we are not talking about a coat of paint here or even new appliances in the kitchen.
The financial performance of America’s hospitals has exposed real structural flaws in the healthcare house. A makeover of this magnitude is going to require a few prerequisites:
Don’t start designing the renovation unless you know specifically where profitability has changed within your service lines and by explicitly how much. Right now is the time to know how big the problem is, where those problems are located, and what is the total magnitude of the fix.
The Board must be brought into the discussion of the nature of the physician employment problem and the depth of its proposed solutions. Physicians are not just “any employees.” They are often the engine that runs the hospital and must be afforded a level of communication that is equal to the size of the financial problem. All of this will demand the Board’s knowledge and participation as solutions to the physician employment dilemma are proposed, considered, and eventually acted upon.
The basic rule of home renovation applies here as well: the longer the fix to this problem is delayed the harder and more expensive the project becomes. The losses set out here certainly suggest that physician employment is a significant contributing factor to hospitals’ current financial problems overall. It would be an understatement to say that the time to get after all of this is right now.
The New York Times Magazine published an encouraging piece about the impressive series of recent medical breakthroughs, many of which have been in the works for decades.
Challenging the conventional wisdom that disruptive scientific breakthroughs have slowed over time, the article points out that the last five years of medicine have featured the rollout of mRNA vaccines, the first instance of a person receiving CRISPR gene therapy, and development of next-generation cancer treatment and weight-loss drugs.
The Gist: The expanding innovation pipeline not only brings excitement and optimism for patients and physicians, but also has the potential to dramatically impact long-established care delivery pathways.
Case in point: used at scale, new weight loss drugs could curb obesity-related chronic diseases and joint replacements—while possibly increasing the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and cancer as more people live longer lives.
Providers planning for facility and other long-term investments must think through scenarios about how these early, but very promising, innovations could alter demand and shift care delivery needs over coming decades.
Five recent Supreme Court rulings have reset the context for U.S. jurisprudence for years to come and open a can of worms for healthcare operators.
Last year’s SCOTUS decision ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (June 24, 2022) set the tone: in its 6-3 decision, the high court determined that that access to abortion is a state issue, not federal thus nullifying the 50-year-old legal precedent in Roe v. Wade and reversing 2 lower court rulings.
On June 1, 2023, in the United States v. Supervalu, petitioners sued SuperValu and Safeway under the False Claims Act (FCA) alleging they defrauded the Medicare and Medicaid by knowingly filing false claims. Essentially, the plaintiffs sought financial remedy because the retailers’ prices were not explicitly and specifically “usual and customary” prices. In its unanimous ruling, SCOTUS agreed that “the phrase ‘usual and customary’ is open to interpretation, but reasoned that “such facial ambiguity alone is not sufficient to preclude a finding that respondents knew their claims were false.”
On June 29, 2023, in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the court ruled 6-3 that affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of NC that consider an applicant’s race in college admissions are unconstitutional.
On June 30, 2023, in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023) By a vote of 6-3, SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment right of free speech prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
On June 30, 2023, in Department of Education v. Brown: By a unanimous vote, SCOTUS ruled that the 2 plaintiffs lacked standing to “Article III standing to assert a procedural challenge to the student-loan debt-forgiveness plan adopted by the Secretary of Education pursuant to Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act).” In effect, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit because it felt Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor (plaintiffs) did not prove that any injury suffered from not having their loans forgiven. Therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to address their procedural claim.
Each of these is specific to a circumstance but collectively they expose industries like healthcare to greater compliance risk, potential court challenges and operational complexity. Here’s an example:
The 58-year-old Kennedy-era legal precedent of affirmative action to redress racial inequity was the focus in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. SCOTUS essentially sided with plaintiffs who argued affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantee. In healthcare, research shows access to the healthcare system is disproportionately inaccessible to persons of color, especially if they’re poor. They improve when individuals are treated by clinicians of the same race but only about 5% of doctors in America are Black, compared to 12% of the general population and only 6% of doctors in the U.S. are Hispanic while the group accounts for nearly almost 20% of the general population.
Notwithstanding the uncanny similarities between higher education and healthcare (both have raised prices above GDP and overall inflation rates for 2 decades, both jealously protect their reputations against outside transparency and unflattering report cards, both feature competition between public and private institutions and both face questions about the value of their efforts), the issue of diversity is central in both. Affirmative action is a means to that end, but at least for now and in higher education, it’s not constitutional.
Might workforce diversity and clinician training efforts be stymied by the prospect of court challenges? Might “affirmative action” in healthcare be replaced by “holistic review” to enable consideration of an applicant’s life or quality of character as some conservative jurists have suggested?
My take:
Affirmative action per the example above is only one of many constructs widely accepted in healthcare today where court challenges may alter the future. Individual rights and free speech including online medical advice, the role of state governments, fraud and abuse and other domains are equally exposed.
It’s clear this court is not threatened by legal precedent nor cautious about public opinion on touchy issues. Thus, immediate imperatives for healthcare organizations are these:
Revisit legal precedents on which the ways we operate are based: Roles and responsibilities in US healthcare are sacrosanct and protected by legal precedent: Physicians diagnose and treat; others don’t. Insurers pay claims but don’t practice medicine. Not for profit hospitals serve community needs in exchange for tax-exemption. Public health programs that serve the poor are funded by local and state governments. Employer sponsored benefits underwrite the system’s profitability and fund its hospital Part A obligations and so on. Might a conservative court revisit these in the context of the constitution’s “general welfare” purpose and redirect its focus, roles and structure?
Revisit terms and phrases where consensus is presumed but specific definition is lacking: Just as SCOTUS recognized ambiguity in applying terms like “usual and customary” in its Supervalu-Safeway ruling, it is likely to challenge other widely used phrases used in healthcare that often lack specific referents i.e., quality, safety, efficacy, effectiveness, community benefit, charity care, evidence-based care, cost-effectiveness, not-for-profit, competition, value” and many others. Might SCOTUS force the industry to more specifically define its most widely used phrases in order to justify its claims?
For everyone in healthcare, these rulings open a can of worms. Compliance risk assessments, scenario plan updates required!
Here are 45 health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to reports from credit rating agencies Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global in 2023.
Note: This is not an exhaustive list. Health system names were compiled from credit rating reports.
1. AdventHealth has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Altamonte Springs, Fla.-based system’s strong financial profile, characterized by still-adequate liquidity and moderate leverage, typically strong and highly predictable profitability, Fitch said.
2. AnMed Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Anderson, S.C.-based system has maintained strong performance through the COVID-19 pandemic and current labor market pressures, Fitch said.
3. Atrium Health has an “AA-” and stable outlook with S&P Global. The Charlotte, N.C.-based system’s rating reflects a robust financial profile, growing geographic diversity and expectations that management will continue to deploy capital with discipline.
4. Banner Health has an “AA-” and stable outlook with Fitch. The Phoenix-based system’s rating highlights the strength of its core hospital delivery system and growth of its insurance division, Fitch said.
5. BayCare Health System has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Tampa, Fla.-based system’s rating reflects its excellent financial profile supported by its leading market position in a four-county area and the ability to sustain a solid operating outlook in the face of inflationary sector headwinds, Fitch said.
6. Beacon Health System has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the strength of the South Bend, Ind.-based system’s balance sheet, the rating agency said.
7. Berkshire Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Pittsfield, Mass.-based system has a strong financial profile, solid liquidity and modest leverage, according to Fitch.
8. Cape Cod Healthcare has an “AA-” and stable outlook with Fitch. The Hyannis, Mass.-based system’s rating reflects a dominant market position in its service area and historically solid operating results, the rating agency said.
9. Carle Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Urbana, Ill.-based system’s distinctly leading market position over a broad service area, Fitch said.
10.CaroMont Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with S&P Global. The Gastonia, N.C.-based system has a healthy financial profile and robust market share in a competitive region.
11. CentraCare has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The St. Cloud, Minn.-based system has a leading market position, and its management’s focus on addressing workforce pressures, patient access and capacity constraints will improve operating margins over the medium term, Fitch said.
12. Children’s Minnesota has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Minneapolis-based system’s broad reach within the region continues to support long-term sustainability as a market leader and preferred provider for children’s health care, Fitch said.
13. Concord (N.H.) Hospital has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the strength of Concord’s leverage and liquidity assessment and Fitch’s assessment that two recently acquired hospitals will be strategically and financially accretive.
14. Cone Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the expectation that the Greensboro, N.C.-based system will gradually return to stronger results in the medium term, the rating agency said.
15. Cottage Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Santa Barbara, Calif.-based system’s leading market position and broad reach in a service area that exhibits modest population growth but consistently high demand for acute care services, Fitch said.
16. El Camino Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Mountain View, Calif.-based 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, Fitch said.
17. Froedtert Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Milwaukee-based system’s maintenance of a strong, albeit compressed, operating performance and a robust liquidity position, Fitch said.
18. Hackensack Meridian Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Edison, N.J.-based system’s rating is supported by its strong presence in its large and demographically favorable market, Fitch said.
19. Harris Health System has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Houston-based system has a “very strong” revenue defensibility, primarily based on the district’s significant taxing margin that provides support for operations and debt service, Fitch said.
20. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Newport Beach, Calif.-based system’s rating is supported by a leading market position in its immediate area and very strong financial profile, Fitch said.
21. IU Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Indianapolis-based system has a long track record of strong operating margins and an overall credit profile that is supported by a strong balance sheet, the rating agency said.
22. Inspira Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Mullica Hill, N.J.-based system’s rating reflects its leading market position in a stable service area and a large medical staff supported by a growing residency program, Fitch said.
23. Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Palo Alto, Calif.-based hospital’s role as a nationally known, leading children’s hospital, Fitch said. It also benefits from resilient clinical volumes and a solid market position, as well as its relationship with Stanford University and Stanford Health Care.
24. Kaiser Permanente has an “AA-” and stable outlook with Fitch. The Oakland, Calif.-based system’s rating is driven by a strong financial profile, which is maintained despite a challenging operating environment in fiscal year 2022.
25. Mayo Clinic has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The Rochester, Minn.-based system’s credit profile characterized by its excellent reputations for clinical services, research and education, Moody’s said.
26. McLaren Health Care has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Grand Blanc, Mich.-based system has a leading market position over a broad service area covering much of Michigan and a track-record of profitability despite sector-wide market challenges in recent years, Fitch said.
27. MemorialCare has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Fountain Valley, Calif.-based system’s strong financial profile and excellent leverage metrics despite its weaker operating performance, Fitch said.
28. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects Fitch’s expectation that the New York City-based system’s national and international reputation as a premier cancer hospital will continue to support growth in its leading and increasing market share for its specialty services.
29. Midland (Texas) Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects Midland’s exceptional market position and limited competition for acute-care services and growing outpatient services, Fitch said.
30. Munson Healthcare has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the strength of the Traverse City, Mich.-based system’s market position and its leverage and liquidity profiles.
31. North Mississippi Health Services has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Tupelo-based system’s rating reflects its very strong cash position and strong market position, Fitch said.
32. Novant Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Winston-Salem, N.C.-based system has a highly competitive market share in three separate North Carolina markets, Fitch said, including a leading position in Winston-Salem (46.8 percent) and second only to Atrium Health in the Charlotte area.
33. NYC Health + Hospitals has an “AA-” rating with Fitch. The New York City system is the largest municipal health system in the country, serving more than 1 million New Yorkers annually in more than 70 patient locations across the city, including 11 hospitals, and employs more than 43,000 people.
34. Orlando (Fla.) Health has an “AA-” and stable outlook with Fitch. The system’s upgrade from “A+” reflects the continued strength of the health system’s operating performance, growth in unrestricted liquidity and excellent market position in a demographically favorable market, Fitch said.
35. The Queen’s Health System has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Honolulu-based system’s rating reflects its leading state-wide market position, historically strong operating performance and diverse revenue streams, the rating agency said.
36. Rush System for Health has an “AA-” and stable outlook with Fitch. The Chicago-based system has a strong financial profile despite ongoing labor issues and inflationary pressures, Fitch said.
37. Saint Francis Healthcare System has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Cape Girardeau, Mo.-based system enjoys robust operational performance and a strong local market share as well as manageable capital plans, Fitch said.
38. Salem (Ore.) Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The system has a “very strong” financial profile and a leading market share position, Fitch said.
39. Stanford Health Care has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Palo Alto, Calif.-based system’s rating is supported by its extensive clinical reach in the greater San Francisco and Central Valley regions and nationwide/worldwide destination position for extremely high-acuity services, Fitch said.
40. SSM Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The St. Louis-based system has a strong financial profile, multi-state presence and scale, with solid revenue diversity, Fitch said.
41. St. Clair Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Pittsburgh-based system’s strong financial profile assessment, solid market position and historically strong operating performance, the rating agency said.
42. UCHealth has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Aurora, Colo.-based system’s margins are expected to remain robust, and the operating risk assessment remains strong, Fitch said.
43. University of Kansas Health System has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with S&P Global. The Kansas City-based system has a solid market presence, good financial profile and solid management team, though some balance sheet figures remain relatively weak to peers, the rating agency said.
44. WellSpan Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The York, Pa.-based system has a distinctly leading market position across several contiguous counties in central Pennsylvania, and management’s financial stewardship and savings initiatives will continue to support sound operating cash flow margins when compared to peers, Moody’s said.
45. Willis-Knighton Health System has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Shreveport, La.-based system has a “dominant inpatient market position” and is well positioned to manage operating pressures, Fitch said.
A number of hospitals and health systems are trimming their workforces or jobs due to financial and operational challenges.
Below are workforce reduction efforts or job eliminations that were announced within the past year and/or take effect later in 2023.
Editor’s Note: This webpage was updated June 30 and will continue to be updated.
1. Coral Gables-based Baptist Health South Florida is offering its executives at the director level and above a “one-time opportunity” to apply for voluntary separation, according to a June 29 Miami Herald report. Decisions on buyout applications will be made during the summer.
2. MultiCare Health System, a 12-hospital organization based in Tacoma, Wash., will lay off 229 employees, or about 1 percent of its 23,000 staff members, including about two dozen leaders, as part of cost-cutting efforts, the health system said June 29. The layoffs primarily affect support departments, such as marketing, IT and finance.
3. Greensburg, Pa.-based Independence Health System laid off 53 employees and has cut 226 positions — including resignations, retirements and elimination of vacant positions — since January, The Butler Eagle reported June 28. The 226 reductions began at the executive level, with 13 manager positions terminated in March.
4. Billings (Mont.) Clinic will lay off workers as part of a restructuring plan to address financial and operational headwinds in today’s healthcare environment, the organization confirmed. The layoffs are expected to affect approximately 27 or fewer positions.
5. Melbourne, Fla.-based Health First is eliminating some positions and leaving open ones vacant, Florida Today reported June 21. Seventeen jobs will be cut and 36 will be left unfilled, according to Paula Just, the health system’s chief experience officer.
6. Pittsburgh-based Highmark Health laid off 118 employees on June 21, including two from Allegheny Health Network, a spokesperson for the health system told Becker’s. The layoffs follow the health system’s cutbacks in March and April, according to the Pittsburgh Business Times. Highmark laid off 141 workers earlier this year.
7. Vibra Hospital of Western Massachusetts, a long-term-acute care hospital in Springfield, will lay off 87 employees by Aug. 15 ahead of the facility’s planned closure. About 30 patients will be relocated to Baystate Health’s Valley Springs Behavioral Health Hospital in Holyoke, Mass., which will open in August.
8. Cortez, Colo.-based Southwest Memorial Hospital laid off nine people to help ensure the hospital is staffed appropriately, and create financial stability for the future, a spokesperson confirmed to Becker’s. The spokesperson, Chuck Krupa, said the layoffs occurred June 14 and included administrative workers. No bedside care positions were affected.
9. Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital in Valencia, Calif., is making “a little over 100” layoffs amid financial challenges, spokesperson Patrick Moody confirmed to Becker’s. Mr. Moody said the layoffs affect workers “in a wide range of hospital departments.” This includes some management-level employees. The hospital, which has about 1,800 employees total, is not providing specific numbers for specific job titles or departments.
10. Dartmouth Health is laying off 75 workers and eliminating 100 job vacancies. The layoffs came after the Lebanon, N.H.-based health system implemented a performance improvement plan in November.
11. Seattle Children’s is eliminating 135 leader roles, citing financial challenges. The management restructuring and reduction affects 1.5 percent of employees across the organization.
12. White Rock (Texas) Medical Center laid off 30 workers across 28 departments. The layoffs include clinical and administrative roles.
13. Jackson, Miss.-based St. Dominic Health Services is laying off 157 workers and ending behavioral health services. The reduction represents 5.5 percent of the hospital’s workforce.
14. Danville, Pa.-based Geisinger laid off 47 employees from its IT department. The reduction is part of a restructuring plan to offset high labor and supply costs.
15. Cascade Behavioral Health Hospital in Tukwila, Wash., is winding down operations and laying off 288 employees. The 137-bed psychiatric facility is slated to close by July 31.
16. Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance is laying off 69 employees, reducing the hours of 15 others and eliminating 170 open positions, according to The Boston Globe. The reductions are primarily in management, administrative and support areas, a health system spokesperson told Becker’s.
17. Wenatchee, Wash.-based Confluence Health has eliminated its chief operating officer amid restructuring efforts and financial pressures, the health system confirmed to Becker’s May 16.
18. Conemaugh Memorial Medical Center, a Duke LifePoint hospital in Johnstown, Pa., has laid off less than 1 percent of its workforce, the hospital confirmed to Becker’s May 15.
19. Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system based in Indianapolis, plans to cut an unspecified number of jobs as it restructures its workforce and makes organizational changes. The health system confirmed the job cuts in a statement shared with Becker’s on May 11. It did not say how many jobs would be cut or which positions would be affected.
20. New Orleans-based Ochsner Health eliminated 770 positions, or about 2 percent of its workforce, on May 11. This is the largest layoff to date for the health system.
21. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center eliminated the positions of 131 employees and cut about two dozen other jobs at related Cedars-Sinai facilities, a spokesperson confirmed via a statement shared with Becker’s May 7. The Los Angeles-based organization said reductions represent less than 1 percent of the workforce and apply to management and non-management roles primarily in non-patient care jobs.
22. Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health is eliminating about 60 positions. A statement from RRH said the changes affect less than one-half percent of the system population, mostly in nonclinical and management positions.
23. Memorial Health System laid off fewer than 90 people, or less than 2 percent of its workforce.The Gulfport, Miss.-based health system said May 2 that most of the affected positions are nonclinical or management roles, and the majority do not involve direct patient care.
24. Monument Health laid off at least 80 employees, or about 2 percent of its workforce. The Rapid City, S.D.-based system said positions are primarily corporate service roles and will not affect patient services. Unfilled corporate service positions were also eliminated.
25. Habersham Medical Center in Demorest, Ga., laid off four executives. The layoffs are part of cost-cutting measures before the hospital joins Gainesville-based Northeast Georgia Health System in July, nowhaberbasham.com reported April 27.
26. Scripps Health is eliminating 70 administrative roles, according to WARN documents filed by the San Diego-based health system in March. The layoffs take effect May 8 and affect corporate positions in San Diego and La Jolla, Calif.
27. Trinity Health Mid-Atlantic, part of Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health, eliminated fewer than 40 positions, a spokesperson confirmed to Becker’s April 24. The layoffs represent 0.5 percent of the health system’s approximately 7,000-person workforce.
28. PeaceHealth eliminated 251 caregiver roles across multiple locations. The Vancouver, Wash.-based health system said affected roles include 121 from Shared Services, which supports its 16,000 caregivers in Washington, Oregon and Alaska.
29. Toledo, Ohio-based ProMedica plans to lay off 26 skilled nursing support staff. The layoffs, effective in June, affect 20 employees who work remotely across the U.S, and six who work at the ProMedica Summit Center in Toledo, according to a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification filed April 18. Most affected positions support sales, marketing and administrative functions for the skilled nursing facilities, Promecia told Becker’s.
30. Northern Inyo Healthcare District, which operates a 25-bed critical access hospital in Bishop, Calif., anticipates eliminating about 15 positions, or less than 4 percent of its 460-member workforce, by April 21, a spokesperson confirmed to Becker’s. The layoffs include nonclinical roles within support and administration, according to a news release. No further details were provided about specific positions affected.
31. West Reading, Pa.-based Tower Health is eliminating 100 full-time equivalent positions. The move will affect 45 individuals, according to an April 13 news release the health system shared with Becker’s. The other 55 positions are either recently vacated or involve individuals who plan to retire in the coming weeks and months.
32. Grand Forks, N.D.-based Altru Health is trimming its executive team as its new hospital project moves forward. The health system is trimming its executive team from nine to six and incentivizing 34 other employees to take early retirement.
33. Tacoma, Wash.-based Virginia Mason Franciscan Health laid off nearly 400 employees, most of whom are in non-patient-facing roles. The job cuts affected less than 2 percent of the health system’s 19,000-plus workforce.
34. Katherine Shaw Bethea Hospital in Dixon, Ill., will lay off 20 employees, citing financial headwinds affecting health organizations across the U.S. It will also leave other positions unfilled to reduce expenses amid rising labor and supply costs and reductions in payments by insurance plans. Affected employees largely work in administrative support areas and not direct patient care.
35. Danbury, Conn.-based Nuvance Health will close a 100-bed rehabilitation facility in Rhinebeck, N.Y., resulting in 102 layoffs. The layoffs are effective April 12, according to the Daily Freeman.
36. Charleston, S.C.-based MUSC Health University Medical Center laid off an unspecified number of employees from its Midlands hospitals in the Columbia, S.C. area. Division President Terry Gunn also resigned after the facilities missed budget expectations by $40 million in the first six months of the fiscal year, The Post and Courier reported March 30.
37. Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Novant Health laid off about 50 workers, including C-level executives, the health system confirmed to Becker’s March 29. The layoffs affected Jesse Cureton, the health system’s executive vice president and chief consumer officer since 2013; Angela Yochem, its executive vice president and chief transformation and digital officer since 2020; and Paula Dean Kranz, vice president of innovation enablement and executive director of the Novant Health Innovation Labs.
38. Penn Medicine Lancaster (Pa.) General Health eliminated fewer than 65 jobs, or less than 1 percent of its workforce of about 9,700, the health system confirmed to Becker’s March 30. The layoffs include support, administrative and executive roles, and COVID-19-related support staff, spokesperson John Lines said, according to lancasteronline.com. Mr. Lines did not provide a specific number of affected workers.
39. McLaren St. Luke’s Hospital in Maumee, Ohio, will lay off 743 workers, including 239 registered nurses, when it permanently closes this spring. Other affected roles include physical therapists, radiology technicians, respiratory therapists, pharmacists and pharmacy support staff, and nursing assistants. The hospital’s COO is also affected, and a spokesperson for McLaren Health Care told Becker’s other senior leadership roles are also affected.
40. Bellevue, Wash.-based Overlake Medical Center and Clinics laid off administrative staff, the health system confirmed to the Puget Sound Business Journal. The layoffs, which occurred earlier this year, included 30 workers across Overlake’s human resources, information technology and finance departments, a spokesperson said, according to the publication. This represents about 6 percent of the organization’s administrative workforce. Overlake’s website says it employs more than 3,000 people total.
41. Columbia-based University of Missouri Health Care is eliminating five hospital leadership positions across the organization, spokesperson Eric Maze confirmed to Becker’s March 20. Mr. Maze did not specify which roles are being eliminated saying that the organization won’t address individual personnel actions. According to MU Health Care, the move is a result of restructuring “to better support patients and the future healthcare needs of Missourians.”
42. Greensboro, N.C.-based Cone Health eliminated 68 senior-level jobs. The job eliminations occurred Feb. 21, Cone Health COO Mandy Eaton told The Alamance News. Of the 68 positions eliminated, 21 were filled. Affected employees were offered severance packages.
43. The newly merged Greensburg, Pa.-based organization made up of Excela Health and Butler Health System eliminated 13 filled managerial jobs. The affected employees and positions are from across both sides of the new organization, Tom Chakurda, spokesperson for the Excela-Butler enterprise, confirmed to Becker’s. The positions were in various support functions unrelated to direct patient care.
44. Crozer Health, a four-hospital system based in Upland, Pa., is laying off roughly 215 employees amid financial challenges. The system announced the layoffs March 15 as part of its “operational restructuring plan” that “focuses on removing duplication in administrative oversight and discontinuing underutilized services.” Affected employees represent about 4 percent of the organization’s workforce.
45. 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.
46. Sovah Health, part of Brentwood, Tenn.-based Lifepoint Health, 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.
47. 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.
48. Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Health System said it would lay off 346 employees, representing less than 3 percent of its employee base.
50. Roseville, Calif.-based Adventist Health plans to go from seven networks of care to five systemwide to reduce costs and strengthen operations. The reorganization will result in job cuts, including reducing administration by more than $100 million.
51. Arcata, Calif.-based Mad River Community Hospital is cutting 27 jobs as it suspends home health services.
52. Hutchinson (Kan.) Regional Medical Center laid off 85 employees, a move tied to challenges in today’s healthcare environment.
53. Oklahoma City-based OU Health eliminated about 100 positions as part of an organizational redesign to complete the integration from its 2021 merger.
54. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center announced it would lay off to reduce costs amid widespread hospital financial challenges. The layoffs are spread across 14 sites in New York City, and equate to about 1.8 percent of Memorial Sloan’s 22,500 workforce.
55. St. Louis-based Ascension completed layoffs in Texas, the health system confirmed in January. A statement shared with Becker’s says the layoffs primarily affected nonclinical support roles. The health system declined to specify to Becker’s the number of employees or positions affected.
57. Chillicothe, Ohio-based Adena Health System announced it would eliminate 69 positions — 1.6 percent of its workforce — and send 340 revenue cycle department employees to Ensemble Health Partners’ payroll in a move aimed to help the health system’s financial stability.
58. Ascension St. Vincent’s Riverside in Jacksonville, Fla., will end maternity care at the hospital, affecting 68 jobs, according to a Workforce Adjustment and Retraining Notification filed with the state Jan. 17. The move will affect 62 registered nurses as well as six other positions.
59. Visalia, Calif.-based Kaweah Health said it aimed to eliminate 94 positions as part of a new strategy to reduce labor costs. The job cuts come in addition to previously announced workforce reductions; the health system already eliminated 90 unfilled positions and lowered its workforce by 106 employees.
60. Oklahoma City-based Integris Health said it would eliminate 200 jobs to curb expenses. The eliminations include 140 caregiver roles and 60 vacant jobs.
61. Toledo, Ohio-based ProMedica announced plans to lay off 262 employees, a move tied to its exit from a skilled-nursing facility joint venture late last year. The layoffs will take effect between March 10 and April 1.
62. Employees at Las Vegas-based Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center were notified of layoffs coming to the facility, which will transition to a freestanding emergency department. There are 970 employees affected. Desert Springs is part of the Valley Health System, a system owned and operated by King of Prussia, Pa.-based Universal Health Services.
63. Philadelphia-based Jefferson Health plans to go from five divisions to three in an effort to flatten management and become more efficient. The reorganization will result in an unspecified number of job cuts, primarily among executives.
64. Pikeville (Ky.) Medical Center said it would lay off 112 employees as it outsources its environmental services department. The 112 layoffs were effective Jan. 1, 2023.
65. Southern Illinois Healthcare, a four-hospital system based in Carbondale, announced it would eliminate or restructure 76 jobs in management and leadership. The 76 positions fall under senior leadership, management and corporate services. Included in that figure are 33 vacant positions, which will not be filled. No positions in patient care are affected.
66. Citing a need to further reduce overhead expenses and support additional investments in patient care and wages, Traverse City, Mich.-based Munson Health said it would eliminate 31 positions and leave another 20 jobs unfilled. All affected positions are in corporate services or management. The layoffs represent less than 1 percent of the health system’s workforce of nearly 8,000.
67. West Reading, Pa.-based Tower Health on Nov. 16 laid off 52 corporate employees as the health system shrinks from six hospitals to four. The layoffs, which are expected to save $15 million a year, account for 13 percent of Tower Health’s corporate management staff.
68. Sioux Falls, S.D.-based Sanford Health announced layoffs affecting an undisclosed number of staff in October, a decision its CEO said was made “to streamline leadership structure and simplify operations” in certain areas. The layoffs primarily affect nonclinical areas.
69. St. Vincent Charity Medical Center in Cleveland closed its inpatient and emergency room care Nov. 11, four days before originally planned — and laid off 978 workers in doing so. After the transition, the Sisters of Charity Health System will offer outpatient behavioral health, urgent care and primary care.
Hospital finances showed signs of stabilizing in May amid slightly improving operating margins, declining expenses and notable increases in outpatient visits.
The median Kaufman Hall Year-To-Date Operating Margin Index reflecting actual margins was 0.3% in May.
The National Hospital Flash Report uses both actual and budget data over the last three years, sampled from more than 900 hospitals on a recurring monthly basis from Syntellis Performance Solutions.
The sample of hospitals for this report is representative of all hospitals in the United States both geographically and by bed size. Additionally, hospitals of all types are represented, from large academic to small critical access. Advanced statistical techniques are used to standardize data, identify and handle outliers, and ensure statistical soundness prior to inclusion in the report.
While this report presents data in the aggregate, Syntellis Performance Solutions also has real-time data down to individual department, jobcode, paytype, and account levels, which can be customized into peer groups for unparalleled comparisons to drive operational decisions and performance improvement initiatives.
Key Takeaways
Hospitals broke even in April. The median operating margin for hospitals was 0% in April, leaving most hospitals with little to no financial wiggle room.
Volumes dropped while lengths of stay increased. Hospital volumes dropped across the board—including inpatient and outpatient. Emergency department volumes were the least affected.
Effects of Medicaid disenrollment could be materializing. Hospitals experienced increases in bad debt and charity care in April. Combined with anemic patient volumes, experts note this data could illustrate the effects of the start of widespread disenrollment from Medicaid following the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Inflation continued to throttle hospital finances. Labor costs jumped in April and the costs of goods and services continued to be well above pre-pandemic levels. Though expenses generally fell in April, revenues declined at a faster rate.
National Non-Operating Results
Key Observations
At their May meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) raised the benchmark borrowing rate another 25 basis points, setting the range to 5.00-5.25% and marking the 10th consecutive hike in the cycle as well as a 16-year high
Fed officials acknowledged discussion of a potential pause in tightening while leaving wiggle room, saying “rates are going to come down” over a long period of time while also warning inflation “continues to run high” and the Fed will be taking a “data-dependent approach”
The consumer price index (CPI) rose 0.4% in April, a 4.9% increase year-over-year, an annual pace of inflation below 5% for the first time in two years
The labor market continued to show resilience in April as U.S. nonfarm payrolls grew by 253,000 and unemployment fell back to a 53-year low of 3.4%
Strong inflation, a robust labor market, continued banking sector woes, and a debt ceiling standoff further complicates credit conditions and may challenge the Fed to stabilize financial markets
Equities in April, as measured by the S&P 500, were up 1.5% in April and 8.6% YTD despite downbeat economic data, reoccurring banking sector fears, and mixed earnings
HENRY KOTULA 