HCA Healthcare is the single hospital operator that Bloomberg identifies as one of “50 Companies to Watch in 2024.”
“From Alphabet and BYD to Eli Lilly and Vivendi, keep an eye on these global stocks this year,” the outlet proposes for the 50 companies out of the 2,000 firms assessed. Bloomberg analysts highlighted the companies as those warranting a closer look, based on “contrarian views and upcoming catalysts for change such as new leadership, asset sales or acquisitions, and plans for new products and services.”
With 182 hospitals and more than 37,000 hospital beds, Bloomberg analyst Glen Losev said HCA “faces cost and revenue challenges that point to a reduction in its operating margin. Wages are increasing, especially for nurses, as are non-labor costs because of general inflation. And fewer physician visits indicate softening demand for care in areas such as elective surgeries.”
HCA is tied to an estimated 5% increase to its revenue in 2024 with a market cap of $72 billion.
The company posted $47.66 billion in revenue for the first nine months of 2023 compared to $44.73 billion in the same period of 2022. Its fourth quarter earnings are due later this month.
Other healthcare companies recognized by Bloomberg as worth watching are Novo Nordisk, BeiGene, Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly. Weight loss drug possibilities drive potential for Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, with estimated revenue increases of 22% and 16%, respectively.
Health systems are recovering from the worst financial year in recent history. We surveyed strategic planners to find out their top priorities for 2024 and where they are focusing their energy to achieve growth and sustainability. Read on to explore the top six findings from this year’s survey.
Research questions
With this survey, we sought the answers to five key questions:
How do health system margins, volumes, capital spending, and FTEs compare to 2022 levels?
How will rebounding demand impact financial performance?
How will strategic priorities change in 2024?
How will capital spending priorities change next year?
Bigger is Better for Financial Recovery
What did we find?
Hospitals are beginning to recover from the lowest financial points of 2022, where they experienced persistently negative operating margins. In 2023, the majority of respondents to our survey expected positive changes in operating margins, total margins, and capital spending. However, less than half of the sample expected increases in full-time employee (FTE) count. Even as many organizations reported progress in 2023, challenges to workforce recovery persisted.
40%
Of respondents are experiencing margins below 2022 levels
Importantly, the sample was relatively split between those who are improving financial performance and those who aren’t. While 53% of respondents projected a positive change to operating margins in 2023, 40% expected negative changes to margin.
One exception to this split is large health systems. Large health systems projected above-average recovery of FTE counts, volume, and operating margins. This will give them a higher-than-average capital spending budget.
Why does this matter?
These findings echo an industry-wide consensus on improved financial performance in 2023. However, zooming in on the data revealed that the rising tide isn’t lifting all boats. Unequal financial recovery, especially between large and small health systems, can impact the balance of independent, community, and smaller providers in a market in a few ways. Big organizations can get bigger by leveraging their financial position to acquire less resourced health systems, hospitals, or provider groups. This can be a lifeline for some providers if the larger organization has the resources to keep services running. But it can be a critical threat to other providers that cannot keep up with the increasing scale of competitors.
Variation in financial performance can also exacerbate existing inequities by widening gaps in access. A key stakeholder here is rural providers. Rural providers are particularly vulnerable to financial pressures and have faced higher rates of closure than urban hospitals. Closures and consolidation among these providers will widen healthcare deserts. Closures also have the potential to alter payer and case mix (and pressure capacity) at nearby hospitals.
Volumes are decoupled from margins
What did we find?
Positive changes to FTE counts, reduced contract labor costs, and returning demand led the majority of respondents in our survey to project organizational-wide volume growth in 2023. However, a significant portion of the sample is not successfully translating volume growth to margin recovery.
44%
Of respondents who project volume increases also predict declining margins
On one hand, 84% of our sample expected to achieve volume growth in 2023. And 38% of respondents expected 2023 volume to exceed 2022 volume by over 5%. But only 53% of respondents expected their 2023 operating margins to grow — and most of those expected that the growth would be under 5%. Over 40% of respondents that reported increases in volume simultaneously projected declining margins.
Why does this matter?
Health systems struggled to generate sufficient revenue during the pandemic because of reduced demand for profitable elective procedures. It is troubling that despite significant projected returns to inpatient and outpatient volumes, these volumes are failing to pull their weight in margin contribution. This is happening in the backdrop of continued outpatient migration that is placing downward pressure on profitable inpatient volumes.
There are a variety of factors contributing to this phenomenon. Significant inflationary pressures on supplies and drugs have driven up the cost of providing care. Delays in patient discharge to post-acute settings further exacerbate this issue, despite shrinking contract labor costs. Reimbursements have not yet caught up to these costs, and several systems report facing increased denials and delays in reimbursement for care. However, there are also internal factors to consider. Strategists from our study believe there are outsized opportunities to make improvements in clinical operational efficiency — especially in care variation reduction, operating room scheduling, and inpatient management for complex patients.
Strategists look to technology to stretch capital budgets
What did we find?
Capital budgets will improve in 2024, albeit modestly. Sixty-three percent of respondents expect to increase expenditures, but only a quarter anticipate an increase of 6% or more. With smaller budget increases, only some priorities will get funded, and strategists will have to pick and choose.
Respondents were consistent on their top priority. Investments in IT and digital health remained the number one priority in both 2022 and 2023. Other priorities shifted. Spending on areas core to operations, like facility maintenance and medical equipment, increased in importance. Interest in funding for new ambulatory facilities saw the biggest change, falling down two places.
Why does this matter?
Capital budgets for health systems may be increasing, but not enough. With the high cost of borrowing and continued uncertainty, health systems still face a constrained environment. Strategists are looking to get the biggest bang for their buck. Technology investments are a way to do that. Digital solutions promise high impact without the expense or risk of other moves, like building new facilities, which is why strategists continue to prioritize spending on technology.
The value proposition of investing in technology has changed with recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), and our respondents expressed a high level of interest in AI solutions. New applications of AI in healthcare offer greater efficiencies across workforce, clinical and administrative operations, and patient engagement — all areas of key concern for any health system today.
Building is reserved for those with the largest budgets
What did we find?
Another way to stretch capital budgets is investing in facility improvements rather than new buildings. This allows health systems to minimize investment size and risk. Our survey found that, in general, strategists are prioritizing capital spending on repairs and renovation while deprioritizing building new ambulatory facilities.
When the responses to our survey are broken out by organization type, a different story emerges. The largest health systems are spending in ways other systems are not. Systems with six or more hospitals are increasing their overall capital expenditures and are planning to invest in new facilities. In contrast, other systems are not increasing their overall budgets and decreasing investments in new facilities.
AMCs are the only exception. While they are decreasing their overall budget, they are increasing their spending on new inpatient facilities.
Why does this matter?
Health systems seek to attract patients with new facilities — but only the biggest systems can invest in building outpatient and inpatient facilities. The high ranking of repairs in overall capital expenditure priorities suggests that all systems are trying to compete by maintaining or improving their current facilities. Will renovations be enough in the face of expanded building from better financed systems? The urgency to respond to the pandemic-accelerated outpatient shift means that building decisions made today, especially in outpatient facilities, could affect competition for years to come. And our survey responses suggest that only the largest health system will get the important first-mover advantage in this space.
AMCs are taking a different tack in the face of tight budgets and increased competition. Instead of trying to compete across the board, AMCs are marshaling resources for redeployment toward inpatient facilities. This aligns with their core identity as a higher acuity and specialty care providers.
Partnerships and affiliations offer potential solutions for health systems that lack the resources for building new facilities. Health systems use partnerships to trade volumes based on complexity. Partnerships can help some health systems to protect local volumes while still offering appropriate acute care at their partner organization. In addition, partnerships help health systems capture more of the patient journey through shared referrals. In both of these cases, partnerships or affiliations mitigate the need to build new inpatient or outpatient facilities to keep patients.
Eighty percent of respondents to our survey continued to lose patient volumes in 2023. Despite this threat to traditional revenue, health systems are turning from revenue diversification practices. Respondents were less likely to operate an innovation center or invest in early-stage companies in 2023. Strategists also reported notably less participation in downside risk arrangements, with a 27% decline from 2022 to 2023.
Why does this matter?
The retreat from revenue diversification and risk arrangements suggests that health systems have little appetite for financial uncertainty. Health systems are focusing on financial stabilization in the short term and forgoing practices that could benefit them, and their patients, in the long term.
Strategists should be cautious of this approach. Retrenchment on innovation and value-based care will hold health systems back as they confront ongoing disruption. New models of care, patient engagement, and payment will be necessary to stabilize operations and finances. Turning from these programs to save money now risks costing health systems in the future.
Market intelligence and strategic planning are essential for health systems as they navigate these decisions. Holding back on initiatives or pursuing them in resource-constrained environments is easier when you have a clear course for the future and can limit reactionary cuts.
Advisory Board’s long-standing research on developing strategy suggests five principles for focused strategy development:
Strategic plans should confront complexity. Sift through potential future market disruptions and opportunities to establish a handful of governing market assumptions to guide strategy.
Ground strategy development in answers to a handful of questions regarding future competitive advantage. Ask yourself: What will it take to become the provider of choice?
Communicate overarching strategy with a clear, coherent statement that communicates your overall health system identity.
A strategic vision should be supported by a limited number of directly relevant priorities. Resist the temptation to fill out “pro forma” strategic plan.
Pair strategic priorities with detailed execution plans, including initiative roadmaps and clear lines of accountability.
Strategists align on a strategic vision to go back to basics
What did we find?
Despite uneven recovery, health systems widely agree on which strategic initiatives they will focus more on, and which they will focus less on. Health system leaders are focusing their attention on core operations — margins, quality, and workforce — the basics of system success. They aim to achieve this mandate in three ways. First, through improving efficiency in care delivery and supply chain. Second, by transforming key elements of the care delivery system. And lastly, through leveraging technology and the virtual environment to expand job flexibility and reduce administrative burden.
Health systems in our survey are least likely to take drastic steps like cutting pay or expensive steps like making acquisitions. But they’re also not looking to downsize; divesting and merging is off the table for most organizations going into 2024.
Why does this matter?
The strategic priorities healthcare leaders are working toward are necessary but certainly not easy. These priorities reflect the key challenges for a health system — margins, quality, and workforce. Luckily, most of strategists’ top priorities hold promise for addressing all three areas.
This triple mandate of improving margins, quality, and workforce seems simple in theory but is hard to get right in practice. Integrating all three core dimensions into the rollout of a strategic initiative will amplify that initiative’s success. But, neglecting one dimension can diminish returns. For example, focusing on operational efficiency to increase margins is important, but it’ll be even more effective if efforts also seek to improve quality. It may be less effective if you fail to consider clinicians’ workflow.
Health systems that can return to the basics, and master them, are setting a strong foundation for future growth. This growth will be much more difficult to attain without getting your house in order first.
Vendors and other health system partners should understand that systems are looking to ace the basics, not reinvent the wheel. Vendors should ensure their products have a clear and provable return on investment and can map to health systems’ strategic priorities. Some key solutions health systems will be looking for to meet these priorities are enhanced, easy-to-follow data tools for clinical operations, supply chain and logistics, and quality. Health systems will also be interested in tools that easily integrate into provider workflow, like SDOH screening and resources or ambient listening scribes.
Going back to basics
Craft your strategy
1. Rebuild your workforce.
One important link to recovery of volume is FTE count. Systems that expect positive changes in FTEs overwhelmingly project positive changes in volume. But, on average, less than half of systems expected FTE growth in 2023. Meanwhile, high turnover, churn, and early retirement has contributed to poor care team communication and a growing experience-complexity gap. Prioritize rebuilding your workforce with these steps:
Recover: Ensure staff recover from pandemic-era experiences by investing in workforce well-being. Audit existing wellness initiatives to maximize programs that work well, and rethink those that aren’t heavily utilized.
Recruit: Compete by addressing what the next generation of clinicians want from employment: autonomy, flexibility, benefits, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Keep up to date with workforce trends for key roles such as advance practice providers, nurses, and physicians in your market to avoid blind spots.
Retain: Support young and entry-level staff early and often while ensuring tenured staff feel valued and are given priority access to new workforce arrangements like hybrid and gig work. Utilize virtual inpatient nurses and virtual hubs to maintain experienced staff who may otherwise retire. Prioritize technologies that reduce the burden on staff, rather than creating another box to check, like ambient listening or asynchronous questionnaires.
2. Become the provider of choice with patient-centric care.
Becoming the provider of choice is crucial not only for returning to financial stability, but also for sustained growth. To become the provider of choice in 2024, systems must address faltering consumer perspectives with a patient-centric approach. Keep in mind that our first set of recommendations around workforce recovery are precursors to improving patient-centered care. Here are two key areas to focus on:
Front door: Ensure a multimodal front door strategy. This could be accomplished through partnership or ownership but should include assets like urgent care/extended hour appointments, community education and engagement, and a good digital experience.
Social determinants of health: A key aspect of patient-centered care is addressing the social needs of patients. Our survey found that addressing SDOH was the second highest strategic priority in 2023. Set up a plan to integrate SDOH screenings early on in patient contact. Then, work with local organizations and/or build out key services within your system to address social needs that appear most frequently in your population. Finally, your workforce DEI strategy should focus on diversity in clinical and leadership staff, as well as teaching clinicians how to practice with cultural humility.
3. Recouple volume and margins.
The increasingly decoupled relationship between volume and margins should be a concern for all strategists. There are three parts to improving volume related margins: increasing volume for high-revenue procedures, managing costs, and improving clinical operational efficiency.
Revenue growth: Craft a response to out-of-market travel for surgery. In many markets, the pool of lucrative inpatient surgical volumes is shrinking. Health systems are looking to new markets to attract patients who are willing to travel for greater access and quality. Read our findings to learn more about what you need to attract and/or defend patient volumes from out-of-market travel.
Cost reduction: Although there are many paths health systems can take to manage costs, focusing on tactics which are the most likely to result in fast returns and higher, more sustainable savings, will be key. Some tactics health systems can deploy include preventing unnecessary surgical supply waste, making employees accountable for their health costs, and reinforcing nurse-led sepsis protocols.
Clinical operational efficiency: The number one strategic priority in 2023, according to our survey, was clinical operational efficiency, no doubt in response to faltering margins. Within this area, the top place for improvement was care variation reduction (CVR). Ensure you’re making the most out of CVR efforts by effectively prioritizing where to spend your time. Improve operational efficiency outside of CVR by improving OR efficiency and developing protocols for complex inpatient management.
The post-pandemic labor force has 1.5 million fewer individuals with some post-secondary education short of a bachelor’s degree. This shortfall is hitting healthcare hardest, affecting wages and qualification levels among jobholders.
Job vacancies requiring a post-secondary certificate or associate degree, particularly in healthcare, remain high. The mismatch between the supply of workers with this education level and the ongoing demand for them is leading to increased wages and greater reliance on more educated workers, according to a December 2023 bulletin from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
Five takeaways from the bank’s report:
1. Before the pandemic, job openings across educational groups moved together and subsequently peaked together in mid-2022. Since then, while vacancies for most groups have fallen, the number of job vacancies requiring some college education remains 60% above its pre-pandemic level.
2. Vacancies for jobs requiring some college education are concentrated in healthcare. As of August 2023, about 50% of all open jobs posted in 2023 that required an associate degree or non-degree certificate were in healthcare.
3. As a result of the high demand, healthcare employers are turning to more educated workers to fill positions with requirements for some college education. Healthcare employment among workers with some college education has dropped by about 400,000 since 2019; healthcare employment among workers with a bachelor’s degree or more has increased by 600,000.
4. Combined, these factors can place upward pressure on healthcare wages. The supply-demand mismatch can lead employers to offer higher wages to competitively attract qualified workers. Employers turning to workers with more education, who are generally more expensive, will increase the average wage in these occupations.
5. From 2019 to 2023, overall wages for healthcare workers rose by nearly 25%, an increase the bank partially attributes to both increased wages within educational groups and composition effects. The shift in employment toward higher-educated workers accounts for an additional 2.7 percentage points of the total wage increase, for instance.
Not long ago, I opened a new box of cereal and found a lot fewer flakes than usual. The plastic bag inside was barely three-quarters full.
This wasn’t a manufacturing error. It was an example of shrinkflation.
Following years of escalating prices (to offset higher supply-chain and labor costs), packaged-goods producers began facing customer resistance. So, rather than keep raising prices, big brands started giving Americans fewer ounces of just about everything—from cereal to ice cream to flame-grilled hamburgers—hoping no one would notice.
This kind of covert skimping doesn’t just happen at the grocery store or the drive-thru lane. It’s been present in American healthcare for more than a decade.
What Happened To Healthcare Prices?
With the passage of the Medicare and Medicaid Act in 1965, healthcare costs began consuming ever-higher percentages of the nation’s gross domestic product.
In 1970, medical spending took up just 6.9% of the U.S. GDP. That number jumped to 8.9% in 1980, 12.1% in 1990, 13.3% in 2000 and 17.2% in 2010.
This trajectory is normal for industrialized nations. Most countries follow a similar pattern: (1) productivity rises, (2) the total value of goods and services increases, (3) citizens demand better care, newer drugs, and more access to doctors and hospitals, (4) people pay more and more for healthcare.
But does more expensive care equate to better care and longer life expectancy? It did in the United States from 1970 to 2010. Longevity leapt nearly a decade as healthcare costs rose (as a percentage of GDP).
Then American Healthcare Hit A Ceiling
Beginning in 2010, something unexpected happened. Both of these upward trendlines—healthcare inflation and longevity—flattened.
Spending on medical care still consumes roughly 17% of the U.S. GPD—the same as 2010. Meanwhile, U.S. life expectancy in 2020 (using pre-pandemic data) was 77.3 years—about the same as in 2010 when the number was 78.7 years.
How did these plateaus occur?
Skimping On U.S. Healthcare
With the passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, healthcare policy experts hoped expansions in health insurance coverage would lead to better clinical outcomes, resulting in fewer heart attacks, strokes and cancers. Their assumption was that fewer life-threatening medical problems would bring down medical costs.
That’s not what happened. Although the rate of healthcare inflation did, indeed, slow to match GDP growth, the cost decreases weren’t from higher-quality medical care, drug breakthroughs or a healthier citizenry. Instead, it was driven by skimping.
To illustrate this, here are three ways that skimping reduces medical costs but worsens public health:
1. High-Deductible Health Insurance
In the 20th century, traditional health insurance included two out-of-pocket expenses. Patients paid a modest upfront fee at the point of care (in a doctor’s office or hospital) and then a portion of the medical bill afterward, usually totaling a few hundred dollars.
Both those numbers began skyrocketing around 2010 when employers adopted high-deductible insurance plans to offset the rising cost of insurance premiums (the amount an insurance company charges for coverage). With this new model, workers pay a sizable sum from their own pockets—up to $7,050 for single coverage and $14,100 for families—before any health benefits kick in.
Insurers and businesses argue that high-deductible plans force employees to have more “skin in the game,” incentivizing them to make wiser healthcare choices.
But instead of promoting smarter decisions, these plans have made care so expensive that many patients avoid getting the medical assistance they need.Nearly half of Americans have taken on debt due to medical bills. And 15% of people with employer-sponsored health coverage (23 million people) have seen their health get worse because they’ve delayed or skipped needed care due to costs.
And when it comes to Medicaid, the government-run health program for individuals living in poverty, doctors and hospitals are paid dramatically lower rates than with private insurance.
As a result, even though the nation’s 90 million Medicaid enrollees have health insurance, they find it difficult to access care because an increasing number of physicians won’t accept them as patients.
2. Cost Shifting
Unlike with private insurers, the U.S. government unilaterally sets prices when paying for healthcare. And in doing so, it transfers the financial burden to employers and uninsured patients, which leads to skimping.
To understand how this happens, remember that hospitals pay the same amount for doctors, nurses and medicines, regardless of how much they are paid (by insurers) to care for a patient. If the dollars reimbursed for some patients don’t cover the costs, then other patients are charged more to make up the difference.
Two decades ago, Congress enacted legislation to curb federal spending on healthcare. This led Medicare to drastically reduce how much it pays for inpatient services. Consequently, private insurers and uninsured patients now pay double and sometimes triple Medicare rates for hospital services, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.
These higher prices generate heftier out-of-pocket expenses for privately insured individuals and massive bills for the uninsured, forcing millions of Americans to forgo necessary tests and treatments.
3. Delaying, Denying Care
Insurers act as the bridge between those who pay for healthcare (businesses and the government) and those who provide it (doctors and hospitals). To sell coverage, they must design a plan that (a) payers can afford and (b) providers of care will accept.
When healthcare costs surge, insurers must either increase premiums proportionately, which payers find unacceptable, or find ways to lower medical costs. Increasingly, insurers are choosing the latter. And their most common approach to cost reduction is skimping through prior authorization.
Originally promoted as a tool to prevent misuse (or overuse) of medical services and drugs, prior authorization has become an obstacle to delivering excellent medical care. Insurers know that busy doctors will hesitate to recommend costly tests or treatments likely to be challenged. And even when they do, patients weary of the wait will abandon treatment nearly one-third of the time.
This dynamic creates a vicious cycle: costs go down one year, but medical problems worsen the next year, requiring even more skimping the third year.
The Real Cost Of Healthcare Skimping
Federal actuaries project that healthcare expenses will rise another $3 trillion over the next eight years, consuming nearly 20% of the U.S. GDP by 2031.
But given the challenges of ongoing inflation and rapidly rising national debt, it’s more plausible that healthcare’s share of the GDP will remain at around 17%.
This outcome won’t be due to medical advancements or innovative technologies, but rather the result of greater skimping.
For example, consider that Medicare decreased payments to doctors 2% this year with another 3.3% cut proposed for 2024. And this year, more than 10 million low-income Americans have lost Medicaid coverage as states continue rolling back eligibility following the pandemic. And insurers are increasingly using AI to automate denials for payment.
Currently, the competitive job market has business leaders leery of cutting employee health benefits. But as the economy shifts, employees should anticipate paying even more for their healthcare.
The truth is that our healthcare system is grossly inefficient and financially unsustainable. Until someone or something disrupts that system, replacing it with a more effective alternative, we will see more and more skimping as our nation struggles to restrain medical costs.
Around 400 primary and urgent care physicians, along with 150 nurse practitioners and physician assistants, employed by Minneapolis, MN-based Allina Health System have voted to unionize with the Service Employees International Union, forming the largest private-sector union of physicians in the country.
Allina, which operates 12 hospitals across Minnesota and Wisconsin, already saw over 100 inpatient physicians at its Mercy Hospital vote to unionize earlier this year. While Mercy’s physicians organized against pressure to adhere to the hospital’s new length-of-stay guidelines, this larger group of clinic-based providers say they are motivated by chronic understaffing that they claim has caused burnout and threatened patient safety. Allina Health laid off 350 workers this summer after posting a nearly $200M operating loss in 2022.
The Gist:When health systems originally recruited physicians into their newly developed employed medical groups, many pitched the arrangement as more of a partnership than traditional employment.
However, now that a majority of the nation’s physicians are employed by hospitals, some physicians are rethinking their relationships with their employers.
Only six percent of doctors were unionized in 2021, but a recent spate of unionization efforts by residents and physicians suggest that number is on the rise.
Health systems hoping to address physicians’ concerns and unionization activity should note that the motivating factors cited by organizing physicians surround working conditions, including a lack of support staff and professional autonomy, rather than personal wage demands.
Earlier this month, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill that puts all full- and part-time California healthcare workers, including all ancillary support staff, on a path to earning $25 per hour.
While wage increases will begin phasing in next year, the timeline for implementation depends on facility type and other factors like payer mix. Large health systems and dialysis centers have until 2026 to fully implement the new wage, while rural, independent hospitals and those with high public payer mixes, as well as other clinical facilities, have more time to comply.
The law, which replaces the $15.50 state minimum wage for all workers, is projected to impact over 469K healthcare workers in the state, potentially including 50K who already earn more than $25 per hour but are forecasted to receive wage increases to maintain their pay premiums. Strongly backed by California healthcare unions, the law ultimately received the support of the California Hospital Association on the grounds that it will “create stability and predictability for hospitals” by preempting local wage and compensation measures active in many California cities.
The Gist:On the heels of a tentatively successful labor negotiation with Kaiser Permanente—which would raise the system’s hourly minimum wage to $25—California healthcare unions have flexed their might for another win.
While this new law directly benefits healthcare workers earning less than $25 an hour, itsknock-on effects will extend to those earning above that to avoid pay compression, as well as to workers in other industries that draw from the same labor pool.
The mandated higher pay may provide California healthcare employers with a recruitment edge (and lure talent away from neighboring states), but higher costs will exacerbate the margin challenges plaguing many hospitals in the state.
Hospitals and health systems are seeing some signs of stabilization in 2023 following an extremely difficult year in 2022. Workforce-related challenges persist, however, keeping costs high and contributing to issues with patient access to care. The percentage of respondents who report that they have run at less than full capacity at some time over the past year because of staffing shortages, for example, remains at 66%, unchanged from last year’s State of Healthcare Performance Improvement report. A solid majority of respondents (63%) are struggling to meet demand within their physician enterprise, with patient concerns or complaints about access to physician clinics increasing at approximately one-third (32%) of respondent organizations.
Most organizations are pursuing multiple strategies to recruit and retain staff. They recognize, however, that this is an issue that will take years to resolve—especially with respect to nursing staff—as an older generation of talent moves toward retirement and current educational pipelines fail to generate an adequate flow of new talent. One bright spot is utilization of contract labor, which is decreasing at almost two-thirds (60%) of respondent organizations.
Many of the organizations we interviewed have recovered from a year of negative or breakeven operating margins. But most foresee a slow climb back to the 3% to 4% operating margins that help ensure long-term sustainability, with adequate resources to make needed investments for the future. Difficulties with financial performance are reflected in the relatively high percentage of respondents (24%) who report that their organization has faced challenges with respect to debt covenants over the past year, and the even higher percentage (34%) who foresee challenges over the coming year. Interviews confirmed that some of these challenges were “near misses,” not an actual breach of covenants, but hitting key metrics such as days cash on hand and debt service coverage ratios remains a concern.
As in last year’s survey, an increased rate of claims denials has had the most significant impact on revenue cycle over the past year. Interviewees confirm that this is an issue across health plans, but it seems particularly acute in markets with a higher penetration of Medicare Advantage plans. A significant percentage of respondents also report a lower percentage of commercially insured patients (52%), an increase in bad debt and uncompensated care (50%), and a higher percentage of Medicaid patients (47%).
Supply chain issues are concentrated largely in distribution delays and raw product and sourcing availability. These issues are sometimes connected when difficulties sourcing raw materials result in distribution delays. The most common measures organizations are taking to mitigate these issues are defining approved vendor product substitutes (82%) and increasing inventory levels (57%). Also, as care delivery continues to migrate to outpatient settings, organizations are working to standardize supplies across their non-acute settings and align acute and non-acute ordering to the extent possible to secure volume discounts.
Survey Highlights
98% of respondents are pursuing one or more recruitment and retention strategies
90%have raised starting salaries or the minimum wage
73%report an increased rate of claims denials
71% are encountering distribution delays in their supply chain
70%are boarding patients in the emergency department or post-anesthesia care unit because of a lack of staffing or bed capacity
66% report that staffing shortages have required their organization to run at less than full capacity at some time over the past year
63% are struggling to meet demand for patient access to their physician enterprise
60% see decreasing utilization of contract labor at their organization
44%report that inpatient volumes remain below pre-pandemic levels
32% say that patients concerns or complaints about access to their physician enterprise are increasing
24%have encountered debt covenant challenges during the past 12 months
None of our respondents believe that their organization has fully optimized its use of the automation technologies in which it has already invested
The law, which was heavily backed by healthcare unions, is expected to affect approximately 469,000 healthcare workers and will be phased in over the next several years.
Dive Brief:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a law raising the minimum wage for thousands of healthcare workers in the state from $15.50 an hour to $25 per hour.
State lawmakers argued in the law’s text that competitive wages are necessary to attract and retain healthcare workers who provide critical services, noting that “even before the COVID pandemic, California was facing an urgent and immediate shortage of healthcare workers, adversely impacting the health and well-being of Californians.”
Although wage increases will begin rolling out next year, the timeline for implementation depends on facility type. Large health systems with more than 10,000 workers and dialysis clinics must implement the law fully by 2026, while rural independent hospitals and those with a high mix of Medi-Cal and Medicare patients have until 2033 to implement the new wage minimums.
Dive Insight:
The law, backed by California healthcare unions, broadly defines healthcare workers as full-time or contract employees of a healthcare facility, including those in roles supporting the provision of healthcare, such as janitors, clerical workers, food service workers and medical billing personnel.
The wage increase is projected to impact approximately 469,000 employees, many of whom are currently living on the margins, according to an analysis from the University of California, Berkeley’s Labor Center.
Newsom signed the bill into law on the same day that Kaiser Permanente unions announced they had secured a tentative $25 per hour minimum wage for over 60,000 California-based Kaiser employees, pending ratification from members. California healthcare workers were represented by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West president Dave Regan during Kaiser bargaining.
In Senate analyses of the minimum wage bill conducted in May and September, lawmakers said thatSEIU-UHW’s organizing elsewhere in the state had motivated the state-level analysis of pay. The unionspearheaded several similar local ordinances last year, including inLos Angeles and San Diego.
SEIU California, which sponsored the bill, released a statement on Friday saying that raising healthcare workers’ wages is a matter of equity. Three out of four workers who will see increases in wages thanks to the new law are women, and 76% are workers of color, according to SEIU California. Almost half of all healthcare workers affected are Latino, the union said.
“Governor Newsom signed SB 525 into law because he heard our call for change to a status quo that has left us exhausted and struggling to pay our bills,” Dr. Kelley Butler, resident physician at San Francisco General Hospital and member of SEIU California, said in a statement. “I’m proud of our collective advocacy as a union and proud of our Governor for doing right by the California healthcare workforce and the patients it serves.”
The law went through several edits since the beginning of the legislative session to make it more palatable to healthcare facilities, which largely opposed its passage earlier this year. An earlier version of the bill, debated in May, tasked all healthcare providers with instituting the new minimum by June 2025.
The final version of the law has a phase-in approach that grants some workers the new minimum by 2026 and leaves others waiting ten years to reap the full sum. Healthcare facilities that are in financial distress can also apply for a waiver program to temporarily delay payroll hikes. Tribal clinics are excluded from the new pay requirements entirely.
The California Hospital Association, a lobbying organization, ultimately supported the law, saying in a statement that it provided “stability and predictability for hospitals” by providing more reasonable phase-in requirements and “preempting city and county minimum wage measures for 10 years and local compensation measures for six years.”
The dialysis industry also got on board after lawmakers added an amendment which prevents SEIU from pushing for ballot measures targeting dialysis centers. The union’s unsuccessful lobbying for changes in the dialysis industry has cost the healthcare industry over 100 million dollars in recent years, according to reporting from CalMatters.
On Wednesday, 75K Kaiser Permanente (KP) healthcare workers in five states and Washington, DC walked off the job as part of the largest healthcare strike in US history.
The striking workers are a diverse group, based mostly in California, that includes support staff, X-ray technicians, medical assistants, and pharmacy workers. They will continue their work stoppage until Saturday morning, though union leadership is threatening an even larger strike in November if a new contract agreement is not reached by then.
Their employment contract expired on September 30th, and while negotiations have progressed on issues like shift-payment differentials and employee training investments, union leaders and KP executives remain at odds over key wage increase demands, with the unions asking for a $25 national minimum wage, and KP proposing $21.
The company has sought to minimize disruptions to patient care during the strike, bringing in temporary labor to keep critical infrastructure open, but has told its members to expect some non-urgent procedures to be rescheduled, some clinic and pharmacy operating hours to be reduced, and call center wait times to be lengthy.
The Gist: Kaiser Permanente has enjoyed solid relations with its unions for decades, making this strike a significant break from precedent,fueled by post-pandemic burnout and staffing shortages.
While KP is keeping all essential services open, care disruptions are inevitable with around one third of its total workforce on strike.
The stakes of these labor negotiations extend far beyond just KP and its employees, as union success could inspire other unionized healthcare workers to adopt similar tactics and demands. (Case in point: Employees at eleven Tenet Healthcare facilities in California represented by SEIU-UHW, one of the unions representing striking KP workers, just voted to authorize their own strike.)
While happening alongside high-profile strikes in other industries, labor unrest is a troubling trend for health systems, whose margins remain well below historical levels amid persistently high labor and supply expenses.
Picketing began Wednesday at Kaiser Permanente hospitals as some 75,000 health care workers went on strike in Virginia, California and three other states over wages and staffing shortages, marking the latest major labor unrest in the United States.
Kaiser Permanente is one of the country’s larger insurers and health care system operators, with 39 hospitals nationwide. The nonprofit company, based in Oakland, California, provides health coverage for nearly 13 million people, sending customers to clinics and hospitals it runs or contracts with to provide care.
The Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions, representing about 85,000 of the health system’s employees nationally, approved a strike for three days in California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, and for one day in Virginia and Washington, D.C.
A cheer went up from union members outside Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center when the strike deadline arrived before dawn.
The strikers include licensed vocational nurses, home health aides and ultrasound sonographers, as well as technicians in radiology, X-ray, surgical, pharmacy and emergency departments.
Doctors are not participating, and Kaiser says its hospitals, including emergency rooms, will remain open during the picketing. The company said it was bringing in thousands of temporary workers to fill gaps during the strike. But the strike could lead to delays in getting appointments and non-urgent procedures being rescheduled.
It comes amid unprecedented worker organizing — from strike authorizations to work stoppages — within multiple industries this year, including, transportation, entertainment and hospitality.
Wednesday’s strike is the latest one for the health care industry this year as it continues to confront burnout with the heavy workloads — problems that were exacerbated greatly by the pandemic.
Unions representing Kaiser workers in August asked for a $25 hourly minimum wage, as well as increases of 7% each year in the first two years and 6.25% each year in the two years afterward.
They say understaffing is boosting the hospital system’s profits but hurting patients, and executives have been bargaining in bad faith during negotiations.
“They’re not listening to the frontline health care workers,” said Mikki Fletchall, a licensed vocational nurse based in a Kaiser medical office in Camarillo, California. “We’re striking because of our patients. We don’t want to have to do it, but we will do it.”
Kaiser has proposed minimum hourly wages of between $21 and $23 next year depending on the location.
Since 2022, the hospital system has hired 51,000 workers and has plans to add 10,000 more people by the end of the month.
Kaiser Permanente reported $2.1 billion in net income for this year’s second quarter on more than $25 billion in operating revenue. But the company said it still was dealing with cost headwinds and challenges from inflation and labor shortages.
Kaiser executive Michelle Gaskill-Hames defended the company and said its practices, compensation and retention are better than its competitors, even as the entire sector faces the same challenges.
“Our focus, for the dollars that we bring in, are to keep them invested in value-based care,” said Gaskill-Hames, president of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Hospitals of Southern California and Hawaii.
She added that Kaiser only faces 7% turnover compared to the industry standard of 21%, despite the effects of the pandemic.
“I think coming out of the pandemic, health care workers have been completely burned out,” she said. “The trauma that was felt caring for so many COVID patients, and patients that died, was just difficult.”
The workers’ last contract was negotiated in 2019, before the pandemic.
Hospitals generally have struggled in recent years with high labor costs, staffing shortages and rising levels of uncompensated care, according to Rick Gundling, a senior vice president with the Healthcare Financial Management Association, a nonprofit that works with health care finance executives.
Most of their revenue is fixed, coming from government-funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Gundling noted. He said that means revenue growth is “only possible by increasing volumes, which is difficult even under the best of circumstances.”
Workers calling for higher wages, better working conditions and job security, especially since the end of the pandemic, have been increasingly willing to walk out on the job as employers face a greater need for workers.
The California legislature has sent Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom a bill that would increase the minimum wage for the state’s 455,000 health care workers to $25 per hour over the next decade. The governor has until Oct. 14 to decide whether to sign or veto it.
HENRY KOTULA 