Category Archives: Leadership

In Defense of Value: A Response to Ken Kaufman

Posted on by • Posted in Business Model, Change, Consumer Focus, Consumer Preferences, Consumer-Centric, Consumerism, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Restructure, Strategic Change, Strategy, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
https://mcusercontent.com/8a4bf5d1617f86a90e5a909f0/files/9ab01dec-37fb-e32e-1fe2-55f1869be8a3/4sightHealth.A_Response_to_Kaufman.MCC.10_11_22.03.pdf?utm_source=4sight+Health+Readers&utm_campaign=b15a593847-CMS+Misdirection_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_96b6d85309-b15a593847-147498402
In an Oct. 5, 2022, commentary, Ken Kaufman offers a full-throated and heartfelt defense of non-profit healthcare during a time of significant financial hardship. Ken describes 2022 as “the worst financial year for hospitals in memory.” His concern is legitimate. The foundations of the nonprofit healthcare business model appear to be collapsing. I’ve known and worked with Ken Kaufman for decades. He is the life force behind Kaufman Hall, a premier financial and strategic advisor to nonprofit hospitals and health systems. The American Hospital Association uses Kaufman Hall’s analysis of hospitals’ underlying financial trends to support its plea for Congressional funding. Beyond the red ink, Ken laments the “media free-for-all challenging the tax-exempt status, financial practices, and ostensible market power of not-for-profit hospitals and health systems.” He is referring to three recent investigative reports on nonprofits’ skimpy levels of charity care (Wall Street Journal), aggressive collection tactics (New York Times) and 340B drug purchasing program abuses (New York Times). Ken has never been timid about expressing his opinions. He’s passionate, partisan and proud. His defense of nonprofit healthcare chronicles their selfless care of critically ill patients, the 24/7 demands on their resources and their commitment to treating the uninsured. These “must have clinical services…don’t just magically appear.” Nonprofit healthcare needs “our support and validation in the face of extreme economic conditions and organizational headwinds. ”Given his personality, it’s not surprising that Ken’s strident rhetoric in defending nonprofit healthcare reminds me of the famous “You can’t handle the truth” exchange between Lieutenant Kaffee (Tom Cruise) and Colonel Jessup (Jack Nicholson) from the 1992 movie “A Few Good Men.” Kaffee presses Jessup on whether he ordered a “code red” that led to the death of a soldier under his command. When Kaffee declares he’s entitled to the truth, Jessup erupts,… I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man that rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you say, “thank you” and be on your way. Should American society just say “thank you” to nonprofit healthcare and provide the massive incremental funding required to sustain their current operations?
Truth and Consequences
(Download PDF here)The social theorist Thomas Sowell astutely observed, “If you want to help someone, tell them the truth. If you want to help yourself, tell them what they want to hear.” In this commentary, Ken Kaufman is telling nonprofit healthcare exactly what they want to hear. The truth is more nuanced, troubling and inconvenient. Healthcare now consumes 20 percent of the national economy and the American people are sicker than ever. Despite the high healthcare funding levels, the CDC recently reported in U.S. life expectancy dropped almost a full year in 2021. Other wealthy nations experienced increases in life expectancy. Combining 2020 and 2021, the 2.7-year drop in U.S. life expectancy is the largest since the early 1920s. During an interview regarding the September 28, 2022, White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, Senator Cory Booker highlighted two facts that capture America’s healthcare dilemma. One in three government dollars funds healthcare expenditure. Half of Americans suffer from diabetes or pre-diabetes.As a nation, we’re chasing our tail by prioritizing treatment over prevention. Particularly in low-income rural and urban communities, there is a breathtaking lack of vital primary care, disease management and mental health services. Instead of preventing disease, our healthcare system has become adept at keeping sick people alive with a diminished life quality. There is plenty of money in the system to amputate a foot but little to manage the diabetes that necessitates the amputation. Despite mission statements to the contrary, nonprofit healthcare follows the money. The only meaningful difference between nonprofit and for-profit healthcare is tax status. Each seeks to maximize treatment revenues by manipulating complex payment formularies and using market leverage to negotiate higher commercial payment rates. According to Grandview Research, the market for revenue cycle management in 2022 is $140.4 billion and forecasted to grow at a 10% annual rate through 2030. By contrast, Ibis World forecasts the U.S. automobile market to grow 2.6% in 2022 to reach $100.9 billion. Unbelievably, in today’s America, processing medical claims is far more lucrative than manufacturing and selling cars and trucks. According to CMS’s National Expenditure Report for 2020, hospitals (31%) and physicians and clinical services (20%) accounted for over half of national healthcare expenditures. This included $175 billion allocated to providers through the CARES Act. Despite the massive waste embedded within healthcare delivery, the CARES Act funding gave providers the illusion that America would continue to fund its profligate and often ineffective operations. It’s not at all surprising that healthcare providers now want, even expect, more emergency funding. Change is hard. Not even during COVID did providers give up their insistence on volume-based payment. Providers did not embrace proven virtual care and hospital-at-home business practices until CMS guaranteed equivalent payment to existing in-hospital/clinic service provision. Even with parity payment and the massive CARES Act funding, there was uneven care access for COVID patients. Particularly in low-income communities, tens of thousands died because they did not receive appropriate care. More of the same approach to healthcare delivery will yield more of the same dismal results. Healthcare providers have had over a decade to advance value-based care (VBC). I define VBC as the right care at the right time in the right place at the right price. Instead of pursuing VBC, providers have doubled-down on volume-driven business models that attract higher-paying commercially-insured patients. Despite the relative ease of migrating service provision to lower-cost settings, providers insist on operating high-cost, centralized delivery models (think hospitals). They want society, writ large, to continue paying premium prices for routine care. It’s time to stop. As a country, we need less healthcare and more health.
A Fourth Question
(Download PDF here)

When I give speeches to healthcare audiences, I typically begin with three yes-or-no questions about U.S. healthcare to establish the foundation for my subsequent observations. Here they are. Question #1: The U.S. spends 20% of its economy on healthcare. The big country with the next highest percentage spend is France at 12%. How many believe we need to spend more than 20% of our economy to provide great healthcare to everyone in the country? No one ever raises their hand. Question #2: The CDC estimates that 90% of healthcare expenditure goes to treat individuals with chronic disease and mental health conditions. How many believe we’re winning the war against chronic disease and mental health conditions? No one ever raises their hand. Question #3: Given the answer to the previous two questions, how many believe the system needs to shift resources from acute and specialty care into health promotion, primary care, chronic disease management and behavioral health? Everyone raises their hands. This short exercise is quite revealing. It demonstrates that healthcare doesn’t have a funding problem. It has a distribution problem. It also demonstrates that providers aren’t adequately addressing our most critical healthcare challenge, exploding chronic disease and mental health conditions. Finally, the industry needs major restructuring.

The real questions about reforming healthcare are less about what to reform and more about how to undertake reform. The increasing media scrutiny that Ken Kaufman references as well as growing consumer frustrations with healthcare service provision, demonstrate that healthcare is losing the battle for America’s hearts and minds.

Markets are unforgiving. The operating losses most nonprofit providers are experiencing reflect a harsh reality. Their current business models are not sustainable. An economic reckoning is underway. The long arc of economics points toward value. As healthcare deconstructs, the nation’s acute care footprint will shrink, hospitals will close and value-based care delivery will advance. The process will be messy.

The devolving healthcare marketplace led me to ask a fourth question recently in Nashville during a keynote speech to the Council of Pharmacy Executives and Suppliers. Here it is. Question #4: As the healthcare system reforms, will that process be evolutionary (reflecting incremental change) or revolutionary (reflecting fundamental change). Two-thirds voted that the change would be revolutionary. That response is just one data point but it reflects why post-COVID healthcare reform is different than the reform efforts that have preceded it. The costs of maintaining status-quo healthcare are simply too high. From a policy perspective, either market-driven healthcare reforms will drive better outcomes at lower costs (that’s my hope) or America will shift to a government-managed healthcare system like those in Germany, France and Japan.

Like Ken Kaufman, I admire frontline healthcare workers and believe we need to make their vital work less burdensome. I also sympathize with health system executives who are struggling to overcome legacy business practices and massive operating deficits. Unfortunately, most are relying on revenue-maximizing playbooks rather than reconfiguring their operations to advance consumerism and value-based care delivery.

Unlike Ken Kaufman, I believe it’s time for some tough love with nonprofit healthcare providers. Payers must tie new incremental funding to concrete movement into value-based care delivery. This was the argument Zeke Emanuel, Merrill Goozner and I made in a two-part commentary (part 1; part 2) in Health Affairs earlier this year. It’s also why the HFMA, where I serve on the Board, has made “cost effectiveness of health (CEoH)” its new operating mantra.

While this truth may be hard, it also is liberating. Freeing nonprofit organizations from their attachment to perverse payment incentives can create the impetus to embrace consumerism and value. Kinder, smarter and affordable care for all Americans will follow.

Debating the best way to Chase Commercial Market Share

Posted on by • Posted in Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Leadership Alignment, Leadership Vision, Market Share, Market Trends, Marketing, Strategy, Value Creation, Value Proposition, Value-Based Contracting, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/e60a8f8b8fee/the-weekly-gist-september-23-2022?e=d1e747d2d8

Cross-subsidy economics are increasingly challenged for America’s hospitals. Aging Baby Boomers are moving from commercial insurance to Medicare, decreasing the share of patients with lucrative private coverage, and insurers are increasingly reticent to provide the rate increases providers need to make up for the worsening mix.

At a recent executive retreat, one health system debated the best strategies to increase their capture of commercial volume. Most of the conversation focused on traditional market-based tactics to increase access and awareness in fast-growing, higher income areas of their service region.

For instance, the system’s chief marketing officer was pushing to increase advertising in the rapidly expanding suburbs, and advocated building ambulatory surgery centers in a wealthy area of town with a boom of new home construction. 
 
The chief strategy officer shared a different perspective, supporting an employer-focused strategy. His logic: “In most businesses, the CEO and the janitor have the same benefit plans. If we only focus on the wealthy parts of town, we’re missing a big portion of the workers with good insurance.” He advocated for a new round of direct-to-employer contracting outreach, hoping to steer workers to high-value primary and specialty care solutions.

In reality, any system looking to move commercial share will need to do both—but even the best playbook for building commercial volume is unlikely to close the growing cross-subsidy gap. To maintain profitability in the long term, health systems must reduce costs for managing Medicare patients by delivering lower-cost care in lower-cost settings, with lower-cost staff.    

Companies mull benefits of interim CFOs

Posted on by • Posted in Career Interims, CFO, Interim CFO, Interim Executives, Interim Resources, Leadership, Leadership Crisis, Leadership Skill Sets, Leadership Transition, Perspective, Recruiting, Talent Management • Leave a comment
https://www.cfodive.com/news/companies-mull-benefits-interim-cfos-competitive-executive-market/632484/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202022-09-23%20CFO%20Dive%20%5Bissue:44744%5D&utm_term=CFO%20Dive

Interim CFOs can cut through politics to help navigate companies through murky waters, experts say.

As they face financial difficulties, leadership crises or other inter-company developments, many firms have ceded their financial reins to interim executives over recent months.

Retailer Bed, Bath & Beyond quickly named their chief accounting officer as interim CFO following the death of their previous financial head earlier in September, for example, while real estate investment trust (REIT) Tanger’s chief accounting officer also recently served a stint as their interim financial head after the REIT ousted their previous CFO, a 28-year company veteran.

One of the reasons to tap an interim CFO is simply to provide peace of mind for the company and its shareholders while the search to find a more permanent candidate is ongoing, said Shawn Cole, president of boutique executive search firm Cowen Partners in a recent interview.

While some searches are as short as 38 days, the majority of executive searches can take between four to six months, a period where remaining without financial leadership is untenable. Firms seeking interims must still consider several key factors when choosing such an executive, however, Cole said.

Companies seeking external candidates, for example — which can be due to inter-company turmoil or, as is often the case, because the company may lack the bench strength to pull forward an internal candidate, Cole noted — should take care to consider “professional interims” for the position as opposed to an unattached CFO, he advised.

“I would just be very cautious that you are not just hiring an unemployed CFO,” Cole said. “There’s plenty of wonderful professional interim CFOs out there that are excellent at consulting. You don’t necessarily want to get yourself into a position where you are engaging just an unemployed CFO, that needs a job.”

Getting a fresh perspective

Bringing in an external interim can also grant companies benefits they may not see with internal candidates, for that matter, explained Mike Harris, CEO of Patina Solutions. Patina, which focuses primarily on placing interim executvies, was acquired by fellow executive search company Korn Ferry this past April.

It can help other executives, notably the CEO, to get “fresh perspectives and viewpoints,” he said.

“If someone is coming in for six months they can tell it like it is, they can come in and make a quick assessment,” he said. “Candidly, it does take out the politics if you’re in there on a limited basis.”

Similar to Cole, Harris pointed to a growing population of what Harris terms as “career interims,” who are working in that capacity because they enjoy the flexibility of movement — they get to go in and get critical projects done for the company, he said.

Turning to an external interim can also help companies execute on particular goals such as a restructuring, said Harris, nothing that what companies need from someone taking on the position for six months could be “very different” than what firms may be looking for out of a permanent CFO. Their short tenure means interims can be “very objective” and have a “big impact” at a company in a short period of time, he said.

“The reason [interims are] usually coming in there is because they have something in their background that’s going to be very helpful for the situation that company is facing,” he said.

Companies may also take advantage of an interim CFOs’ skills as a sort of mentorship for their existing CFO — the executive in the permanent seat may lack M&A or other key experience, for example, that an interim may be able to provide during their short-term tenure.

Tapping insider knowledge

Pulling forward internal candidates to fill the CFO gap can also have benefits for firms if possible, as such candidates have intimate knowledge of the companies’ status and needs that outside executives may lack.  

This may be the case for struggling payment processor PayPal, another example of a firm who recently appointed an interim CFO — moving Gabrielle Rabinovitch, their SVP of capital markets into the seat for a second time after the newly-minted CFO departed for medical leave.

In PayPal’s case, the company needs “stability” in its financial chair, which has been lacking since the departure of its previous CFO John Rainey to retailer Walmart, said Josh Crist, managing director for Crist|Kolder Associates.

“It may be time to think about a young internal player as an interim,” Crist wrote in an email regarding PayPal’s CFO woes. “Institutional knowledge should be key given strategic issues the company faces.”

Such a candidate may prove to be a permanent fit at the company, for that matter, he said.

“I believe the current interim might actually be correct for the full time gig! I believe they need an internal player who has seen the nuts and bolts/knows the operating and strategic plan and can help execute,” Crist wrote in an email. “I don’t believe they need a high-level strategist.”

The future of the CFO seat

While companies must carefully consider what it is they are seeking out of an interim — or even a permanent — CFO candidate, qualified executives also have their pick of potential options as the market for executive talent grows more competitive.

CFOs who would have potentially retired or left their current roles years earlier, but were stymied by the pandemic, have now begun to do so, contributing to a narrowing of the potential talent pool. For that matter, the list of responsibilities handed to modern CFOs has grown over recent years, but companies may not have fully adjusted their leadership structure accordingly, Cole said.   

“The CFO is no longer the chief accounting officer,” Cole said. “They really effectively should be the right hand to the CEO. While many companies have increased demands of the CFO, they haven’t necessarily brought the CFO into that light. And so I think companies that can show a CFO candidate that they will have a position of significance of their organization, be that strategic business partner to the CEO, I think that goes a long way.”