According to unnamed Axios sources, UnitedHealth Group’s Optum has signed a deal to acquire the independent 500-physician multispecialty group, which operates more than 30 clinic locations and one of the largest ambulatory surgery centers in Texas. With more than 41,000 enrollees, Kelsey-Seybold controls 8 percent of the lucrative Medicare Advantage market in the Houston metro area.
In January 2020, private equity firm TPG Capital made a minority investment in the 73-year-old group, valuing it at $1.3B, to help expand its footprint. Should the current deal come to fruition, Kelsey-Seybold’s physicians would join the ranks of over 60K physicians owned by, or exclusively affiliated with, Optum.
The Gist: Fresh off last year’s acquisition of 700-physician, Boston-based Atrius Health, Optum is continuing its buying spree of large physician groups with a history of managing risk. It will be interesting to see how quickly UnitedHealth Group can combine its Optum-owned physician assets with its commercial insurance platform to create a compelling, lower-cost option for employers and Medicare Advantage enrollees—building on the model of its Harmony network in Southern California.
Of note, Kelsey-Seybold and United Healthcare have offered a co-branded insurance product for years, and UHG executives have said they plan to roll out Harmony in Texas and Seattle next.
Kelsey-Seybold is one a dwindling number of very large, independent multispecialty groups, andits sale to Optum may have other groups wondering about their ability to remain independent in an increasingly concentrated healthcare market.
UnitedHealth Group’s Optum announced plans to acquire publicly traded, postacute care behemoth LHC Group for $5.4B. The Lafayette, LA-based company, which had $2.2B in revenue last year, operates more than 550 home health locations, 170 hospice sites, and 12 long-term acute care hospitals across 37 states, reaching 60 percent of the country’s Medicare-eligible seniors. LHC also has more than 430 hospital joint venture partners.
The Gist: This deal will greatly expand Optum’s ability toprovide home-based and long-term care, with the goal of moving more care for the insurer’s Medicare Advantage enrollees to lower-cost settings. The acquisition puts Optum’s home healthcare portfolio on par with competitor Humana, which has been the leader in amassing home-based and postacute care assets, and recently moved to take full control of home health provider Kindred at Home. LHC will be part of a growing portfolio of care assets managed by Optum Health, which also includes the company’s owned physician assets.
Success in lowering cost of care will require Optum to integrate referrals and care management across a rapidly expanding portfolio—and ensure its physician base has confidence in these new models of care.
Since the for-profit system acquired six-hospital, Asheville, NC-based Mission Health in February 2019, there has been a series of reports about cascading community impacts, including a large physician exodus from the system. Local news outlet Asheville Watchdog counts 223 doctors who are no longer included in the system’s online directory, which currently lists about 1,600 physicians; HCA has also reportedly reduced health system staff by over 12 percent since the acquisition. Former Mission doctors say that patient care at the system is suffering, and that HCA doesn’t place the same value on primary care that Mission Health physicians historically did.
The Gist:The cultural shift from 130 years as a nonprofit community fixture to for-profit health system subsidiary has been rocky for Mission. Even before the HCA deal had been finalized, Mission physicians expressed concerns about how the company would implement its lean staffing and operational “playbook”. These expected changes were surely compounded by COVID-related staffing challenges.
Physician stakeholders who feel uncertain about the impact of an impending merger can sometimes use their voice to stymie health system combinations (see Beaumont Health’s failed merger with Advocate Aurora Health), but may alsovote with their feet when dissatisfied with new ownership, leaving critical gaps in patient care.
The Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department are seeking comments on ways merger guidelines should be updated, and physicians are raising concerns about private equity-backed buyouts of provider practices.
The FTC and the Justice Department announced in January that they’re seeking to revamp merger guidelines for businesses. Comments on how to “modernize the merger guidelines to better detect and prevent anticompetitive deals,” can be submitted to the agencies through April 21.
Comments are pouring in from physicians. Many of the comments are anonymous, but the commenters self-identify as physicians.
The physicians’ top concern are private equity-backed buyouts, according to an analysis by Law360. They’re also concerned by the profit-first attitude of healthcare and consolidation in the industry, according to the report.
The comments are coming in as private equity firms continue to buy up physician practices.
Private equity firms acquired 59 physician practices in 2013, and that number increased to 136 practices by 2016, according to a research letter published in JAMA.
Dialysis giant Fresenius Medical Care is creating a new $2.4B company by combining its US value-based care division, Fresenius Health Partners, with nephrologist network InterWell Health, and digital-first kidney care startup Cricket Health. Cricket Health CEO Robert Sepucha is set to lead the new company, which will be named InterWell Health, assuming the deal closes in the second half of 2022 as expected.
The Gist:This move will enable Fresenius to move further up the renal care delivery chain, managing patients with earlier stage chronic kidney disease before they need dialysis. Fresenius says the new company will more than triple its total addressable market in the US, from $50B to around $170B.
Seeing an opportunity to disrupt the dialysis market, which has been dominated by for-profit giants Fresenius and DaVita, significant capital has been flowing to numerous disruptors in the kidney care space who aim to bring care closer to consumers. Medicare, which spends nearly $115B annually on chronic kidney disease, is testing new payment models aimed at delaying the need for dialysis, as well as moving care into patients’ homes.
But whether Fresenius’s latest moves will make a significant difference in lowering the cost of kidney care remains to be seen.
Insurers, retailers, and other healthcare companies vastly exceed health system scale, dwarfing even the largest hospital systems. The graphic above illustrates how the largest “mega-systems” lag other healthcare industry giants, in terms of gross annual revenue.
Amazon and Walmart, retail behemoths that continue to elbow into the healthcare space, posted 2021 revenue that more than quintuples that of the largest health system, Kaiser Permanente. The largest health systems reported increased year-over-year revenue in 2021, largely driven by higher volumes, as elective procedures recovered from the previous year’s dip.
However, according to a recent Kaufman Hall report, while health systems, on average, grew topline revenue by 15 percent year-over-year, they face rising expenses, and have yet to return to pre-pandemic operating margins.
Meanwhile, the larger companies depicted above, including Walmart, Amazon, CVS Health, and UnitedHealth Group, are emerging from the pandemic in a position of financial strength, and continue to double down on vertical integration strategies, configuring an array of healthcare assets into platform businesses focused on delivering value directly to consumers.
A National Bureau of Economic Research working paper found that higher-priced hospitals in competitive markets were associated with lower patient mortality—flying in the face of the common policy narrative that higher-priced care is not higher quality. However, in more concentrated, less-competitive healthcare markets (in which over two-thirds of the nation’s hospitals are located), the study found no correlation between price and quality. Authors of the study analyzed patient outcomes from more than 200K admissions among commercially insured patients, transported by ambulance to about 1,800 hospitals between 2007 and 2014.
The Gist: As hospitals have consolidated, prices have risen by about 30 percent between 2015 to 2019, leading policy experts and regulators to search for ways to rein in price inflation.
While there continues to be widespread consensus that industry consolidation has resulted in unsustainable cost growth, the new study’s findings bring a bit of welcome nuance around impact on quality and outcomes to an otherwise one-sided, price-centric policy narrative.
“Follow the money,” was the advice of Deep Throat to the Watergate journalists. But now, new Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan says that’s not enough when analyzing monopolies in both healthcare and rest of the economy. Follow the algorithms and follow the power, too, not just the money.
We all know how monopolies harm consumers with higher prices. But monopolies and powerful corporations cause harm in other ways. Some examples:
Facebook using algorithms that “wire” teenage girls to engage with it (and boost Facebook’s profits) but “probably” hurt their mental health
Remington Arms baiting insecure men to buy guns as a badge of masculinity, with tragic results in the case of the Sandy Hook mass murder.
Not all of these examples are linked directly to potentially illegal anticompetitive activities. But all are linked to the exercise of insufficiently checked corporate power. Commissioner Khan has signaled that she will consider such harms when analyzing mergers and other potentially anticompetitive activities.
This expanded view of anticompetitive harm is a departure from Robert Bork’s more narrow approach to antitrust enforcement taken by the F.T.C. since publication of Bork’s 1978 book The Antitrust Paradox. Bork noted that in many cases, mergers resulted in economies of scale that lowered prices for consumers. By his standard, such mergers were permissible as benefiting the consumer.
But now Commissioner Khan – and others like-minded theorists called neo-Brandeisians – point to the other harmful effects beyond the seeming benefit of lower prices. For example, the flip-side of a monopoly’s position as seller is its monopsony as a purchaser of labor. If there is only one big potential employer, workers do not have a competitive labor market, depressing their bargaining power and wages. In the digital economy there is also potential jeopardy to data privacy and security, and coercion to use certain digital products. Think the teenage girls on Instagram.
Employees of a single powerful employer are also inhibited from rocking the boat with innovations, critiques, or whistleblowing. This enervates a truly competitive marketplace.
Commissioner Khan views the antitrust issue not as being one of bigness but rather of power, power that reduces true competition. Beyond merely looking at prices, she seeks to identify and quantify the other elements of power and competition.
This blog has implicated healthcare monopolies as one direct cause of relentless increases in spending. It has also embraced the view of Steven Brill that “over the last five decades a new ‘best and brightest’ meritocracy rigged not only healthcare, but also the entire American financial, legal, and political system to build ‘moats’ of protection to perpetuate their wealth and power.”
Commissioner Khan is now highlighting a key mechanism – anticompetitive political and financial power — by which healthcare corporations rig healthcare and by which other corporations have blocked reform in pursuit of short-sighted profits. She summarizes the remedy:
If you allow unfettered monopoly power to concentrate, its power can rival that of the state., right? And historically, the antitrust laws have a rich tradition and rich history, and a key goal was to ensure that our commercial sphere was characterized by the same types of checks and balances and protections against concentration of economic power that we had set up in our political and governance sphere. And so the desire to kind of check those types of concentrations of power, I think, is deep in the American tradition.
While many hospitals face financial hardships and rising expenses from the COVID-19 pandemic, several large health systems ended 2021 with profits above $1 billion.
These big health systems attributed the financial performance to several factors, including bigger investment gains and higher-acuity patients.
Seven health systems that posted net income of $1 billion last year:
1. Pittsburgh-based UPMC, an integrated delivery system with 40 hospitals, recorded a net income of $1.1 billion in 2021, driven by an operating income of $843 million and nonoperating gains of $810 million.
2. AdventHealth, a 48-hospital system based in Altamonte Springs, Fla., recorded a net income of $1.5 billion in 2021. The net income included an operating income of $994.6 million and investment gains of $517.7 million. In 2020, the health system’s net income was $914.8 million.
3. Cleveland Clinicreported a 66.7 percent increase in net income for the 12 months ended Dec. 31. The 19-hospital system saw its net income hit $2.2 billion, including an operating income of $746.3 million and investment gains of $1.4 billion.
4. Rochester, Minn.-based Mayo Clinic’s net income for 2021 was $3.6 billion, up from $2.5 billion a year earlier. The results included an operating income of $1.2 billion.
5. Driven by strong investment gains, Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanenterecorded a net income of $8.1 billion in 2021, an increase of $1.7 billion from 2020. The sharp rise in net income from the integrated delivery system with 39 hospitals included $7.5 billion in other income, including investment gains, and $611 million in operating income for 2021.
6. Nashville, Tenn.-based HCA Healthcare, a 182-hospital system, reported a net income of $7.7 billion in 2021, including investment gains and operating profits.
7. Tenet Healthcare, a 60-hospital system based in Dallas, reported net income of $1.5 billion on revenues of $19.5 billion in 2021. Tenet ended the 12-month period with an operating income of $2.9 billion, up from $2 billion recorded one year before. It also recorded losses on nonoperating activities and said its results for the year ending Dec. 31 included a pretax gain of $406 million associated with the divestiture of five Miami area hospitals, as well as stimulus funds totaling $205 million.
HENRY KOTULA 