Category Archives: Market Consolidation

The Future of Hospitals in Post-COVID America (Part 1): The Market Response

Posted on by • Posted in Balance Sheet, Capitation, Cash, Cash Reserves, Change, Change Agent, Change Management, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Competition, Consumer Loyalty, Consumer Preferences, Consumer-Centered Care Pathway, Consumerism, Deferred Healthcare, Disruption, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Fee for Service Reimbursement, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Investment Banking, Job, Job Loss, Job Market, Job Search, Job Security, Liquidity, Marginal Effects, Market Consolidation, Medical Group, Mergers & Acquisitions, Net Income, Net Patient Service Revenue, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Paycheck Protection Program, Physician, Physician Practice Management, Physician Practice Valuation, Population Health, Preexisting Conditions, Primary Care, Private Equity, Public Health, Status Quo, Strategic Leadership, Strategy, Telemedicine, The CARES Act, Transition to Value-Based Healthcare, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Value-Based Healthcare, Vertical Integration, Virtual Care Strategy, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Hospital, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment

Click to access CBC_72_08052020_Final.pdf

 

[Readers’ Note: This is the first of two articles on the Future of Hospitals in Post-COVID America. This article
examines how market forces are consolidating, rationalizing and redistributing acute care assets within the
broader industry movement to value-based care delivery. The second article, which will publish next month,
examines gaps in care delivery and the related public policy challenges of providing appropriate, accessible
and affordable healthcare services in medically-underserved communities.]

In her insightful 2016 book, The Gray Rhino: How to Recognize and Act on the Obvious Dangers We Ignore,
Michelle Wucker coins the term “Gray Rhinos” and contrasts them with “Black Swans.” That distinction is
highly relevant to the future of American hospitals.

Black Swans are high impact events that are highly improbable and difficult to predict. By contrast, Gray
Rhinos are foreseeable, high-impact events that we choose to ignore because they’re complex, inconvenient
and/or fortified by perverse incentives that encourage the status quo. Climate change is a powerful example
of a charging Gray Rhino.

In U.S. healthcare, we are now seeing what happens when a Gray Rhino and a Black Swan collide.
Arguably, the nation’s public health defenses should anticipate global pandemics and apply resources
systematically to limit disease spread. This did not happen with the coronavirus pandemic.

Instead, COVID-19 hit the public healthcare infrastructure suddenly and hard. This forced hospitals and health systems to dramatically reduce elective surgeries, lay off thousands and significantly change care delivery with the adoption of new practices and services like telemedicine.

In comparison, many see the current American hospital business model as a Gray Rhino that has been charging toward
unsustainability for years with ever-building momentum.

Even with massive and increasing revenue flows, hospitals have long struggled with razor-thin margins, stagnant payment rates and costly technology adoptions. Changing utilization patterns, new and disruptive competitors, pro-market regulatory rules and consumerism make their traditional business models increasingly vulnerable and, perhaps, unsustainable.

Despite this intensifying pressure, many hospitals and health systems maintain business-as-usual practices because transformation is so difficult and costly. COVID-19 has made the imperative of change harder to ignore or delay addressing.

For a decade, the transition to value-based care has dominated debate within U.S. healthcare and absorbed massive strategic,
operational and financial resources with little progress toward improved care outcomes, lower costs and better customer service. The hospital-based delivery system remains largely oriented around Fee-for-Service reimbursement.

Hospitals’ collective response to COVID-19, driven by practical necessity and financial survival, may accelerate the shift to value-based care delivery. Time will tell.

This series explores the repositioning of hospitals during the next five years as the industry rationalizes an excess supply of acute care capacity and adapts to greater societal demands for more appropriate, accessible and affordable healthcare services.

It starts by exploring the role of the marketplace in driving hospital consolidation and the compelling need to transition to value-based care delivery and payment models.

COVID’s DUAL SHOCKS TO PATIENT VOLUME

Many American hospitals faced severe financial and operational challenges before COVID-19. The sector has struggled to manage ballooning costs, declining margins and waves of policy changes. A record 18 rural hospitals closed in 2019. Overall, hospitals saw a 21% decline in operating margins in 2018-2019.

COVID intensified those challenges by administering two shocks to the system that decreased the volume of hospital-based activities and decimated operating margins.

The first shock was immediate. To prepare for potential surges in COVID care, hospitals emptied beds and cancelled most clinic visits, outpatient treatments and elective surgeries. Simultaneously, they incurred heavy costs for COVID-related equipment (e.g. ventilators,PPE) and staffing. Overall, the sector experienced over $200 billion in financial losses between March and June 20204.

The second, extended shock has been a decrease in needed but not necessary care. Initially, many patients delayed seeking necessary care because of perceived infection risk. For example, Emergency Department visits declined 42% during the early phase of the pandemic.

Increasingly, patients are also delaying care because of affordability concerns and/or the loss of health insurance. Already, 5.4 million people have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance. This will reduce incremental revenues associated with higher-paying commercial insurance claims across the industry. Additionally, avoided care reduces patient volumes and hospital revenues today even as it increases the risk and cost of future acute illness.

The infusion of emergency funding through the CARES Act helped offset some operating losses but it’s unclear when and even whether utilization patterns and revenues will return to normal pre-COVID levels. Shifts in consumer behavior, reductions in insurance coverage, and the emergence of new competitors ranging from Walmart to enhanced primary care providers will likely challenge the sector for years to come.

The disruption of COVID-19 will serve as a forcing function, driving meaningful changes to traditional hospital business models and the competitive landscape. Frankly, this is long past due. Since 1965, Fee-for-Service (FFS) payment has dominated U.S. healthcare and created pervasive economic incentives that can serve to discourage provider responsiveness in transitioning to value-based care delivery, even when aligned to market demand.

Telemedicine typifies this phenomenon. Before COVID, CMS and most health insurers paid very low rates for virtual care visits or did not cover them at all. This discouraged adoption of an efficient, high-value care modality until COVID.

Unable to conduct in-person clinical visits, providers embraced virtual care visits and accelerated its mass adoption. CMS and
commercial health insurers did their part by paying for virtual care visits at rates equivalent to in-person clinic visits. Accelerated innovation in care delivery resulted.

 

THE COMPLICATED TRANSITION TO VALUE

Broadly speaking, health systems and physician groups that rely almost exclusively on activity-based payment revenues have struggled the most during this pandemic. Vertically integrated providers that offer health insurance and those receiving capitated payments in risk-based contracts have better withstood volume losses.

Modern Healthcare notes that while provider data is not yet available, organizations such as Virginia Care Partners, an integrated network and commercial ACO; Optum Health (with two-thirds of its revenue risk-based); and MediSys Health Network, a New Yorkbased NFP system with 148,000 capitated and 15,000 shared risk patients, are among those navigating the turbulence successfully. As the article observes,

…providers paid for value have had an easier time weathering the storm…. helped by a steady source of
income amid the chaos. Investments they made previously in care management, technology and social
determinants programs equipped them to pivot to new ways of providing care.

They were able to flip the switch on telehealth, use data and analytics to pinpoint patients at risk for
COVID-19 infection, and deploy care managers to meet the medical and nonclinical needs of patients even
when access to an office visit was limited.

Supporting this post-COVID push for value-based care delivery, six former leaders from CMS wrote to Congress in
June 2020 calling for providers, commercial insurers and states to expand their use of value-based payment models to
encourage stability and flexibility in care delivery.

If value-based payment models are the answer, however, adoption to date has been slow, limited and difficult. Ten
years after the Affordable Care Act, Fee-for-Service payment still dominates the payer landscape. The percentage of
overall provider revenue in risk-based capitated contracts has not exceeded 20%

Despite improvements in care quality and reductions in utilization rates, cost savings have been modest or negligible.
Accountable Care Organizations have only managed at best to save a “few percent of Medicare spending, [but] the
amount varies by program design.”

While most health systems accept some forms of risk-based payments, only 5% of providers expect to have a majority
(over 80%) of their patients in risk-based arrangements within 5 years.

The shift to value is challenging for numerous reasons. Commercial payers often have limited appetite or capacity for
risk-based contracting with providers. Concurrently, providers often have difficulty accessing the claims data they need
from payers to manage the care for targeted populations.

The current allocation of cost-savings between buyers (including government, employers and consumers), payers
(health insurance companies) and providers discourages the shift to value-based care delivery. Providers would
advance value-based models if they could capture a larger percentage of the savings generated from more effective
care management and delivery. Those financial benefits today flow disproportionately to buyers and payers.

This disconnection of payment from value creation slows industry transformation. Ultimately, U.S. healthcare will not
change the way it delivers care until it changes the way it pays for care. Fortunately, payment models are evolving to
incentivize value-based care delivery.

As payment reform unfolds, however, operational challenges pose significant challenges to hospitals and health
systems. They must adopt value-oriented new business models even as they continue to receive FFS payments. New
and old models of care delivery clash.

COVID makes this transition even more formidable as many health systems now lack the operating stamina and
balance sheet strength to make the financial, operational and cultural investments necessary to deliver better
outcomes, lower costs and enhanced customer service.

 

MARKET-DRIVEN CONSOLIDATION AND TRANSFORMATION

Full-risk payment models, such as bundled payments for episodic care and capitation for population health, are the
catalyst to value-based care delivery. Transition to value-based care occurs more easily in competitive markets with
many attributable lives, numerous provider options and the right mix of willing payers.

As increasing numbers of hospitals struggle financially, the larger and more profitable health systems are expanding
their networks, capabilities and service lines through acquisitions. This will increase their leverage with commercial
payers and give them more time to adapt to risk-based contracting and value-based care delivery.

COVID also will accelerate acquisition of physician practices. According to an April 2020 MGMA report, 97% of
physician practices have experienced a 55% decrease in revenue, forcing furloughs and layoffs15. It’s estimated the
sector could collectively lose as much as $15.1 billion in income by the end of September 2020.

Struggling health systems and physician groups that read the writing on the wall will pro-actively seek capital or
strategic partners that offer greater scale and operating stability. Aggregators can be selective in their acquisitions,
seeking providers that fuel growth, expand contiguous market positions and don’t dilute balance sheets.

Adding to the sector’s operating pressure, private equity, venture investors and payers are pouring record levels of
funding into asset-light and virtual delivery companies that are eager to take on risk, lower prices by routing procedures
and capture volume from traditional providers. With the right incentives, market-driven reforms will reallocate resources
to efficient companies that generate compelling value.

As this disruption continues to unfold, rural and marginal urban communities that lack robust market forces will
experience more facility and practice closures. Without government support to mitigate this trend, access and care gaps
that already riddle American healthcare will unfortunately increase.

 

WINNING AT VALUE

The average hospital generates around $11,000 per patient discharge. With ancillary services that can often add up to
more than $15,000 per average discharge. Success in a value-based system is predicated on reducing those
discharges and associated costs by managing acute care utilization more effectively for distinct populations (i.e.
attributed lives).

This changes the orientation of healthcare delivery toward appropriate and lower cost settings. It also places greater
emphasis on preventive, chronic and outpatient care as well as better patient engagement and care coordination.
Such a realignment of care delivery requires the following:

 A tight primary care network (either owned or affiliated) to feed referrals and reduce overall costs through
better preventive care.

 A gatekeeper or navigator function (increasingly technology-based) to manage / direct patients to the most
appropriate care settings and improve coordination, adherence and engagement.

 A carefully designed post-acute care network (including nursing homes, rehab centers, home care
services and behavioral health services, either owned or sufficiently controlled) to manage the 70% of
total episode-of-care costs that can occur outside the hospital setting.

 An IT infrastructure that can facilitate care coordination across all providers and settings.

Quality data and digital tools that enhance care, performance, payment and engagement.

Experience with managing risk-based contracts.

 A flexible approach to care delivery that includes digital and telemedicine platforms as well as nontraditional sites of care.

Aligned or incentivized physicians.

Payer partners willing to share data and offload risk through upside and downside risk contracts.

Engaged consumers who act on their preferences and best interests.

 

While none of these strategies is new or controversial, assembling them into cohesive and scalable business models is
something few health systems have accomplished. It requires appropriate market conditions, deep financial resources,
sophisticated business acumen, operational agility, broad stakeholder alignment, compelling vision, and robust
branding.

Providers that fail to embrace value-based care for their “attributed lives” risk losing market relevance. In their relentless pursuit of increasing treatment volumes and associated revenues, they will lose market share to organizations that
deliver consistent and high-value care outcomes.

CONCLUSION: THE CHARGING GRAY RHINO

America needs its hospitals to operate optimally in normal times, flex to manage surge capacity, sustain themselves
when demand falls, create adequate access and enhance overall quality while lowering total costs. That is a tall order
requiring realignment, evolution, and a balance between market and policy reform measures.

The status quo likely wasn’t sustainable before COVID. The nation has invested heavily for many decades in acute and
specialty care services while underinvesting, on a relative basis, in primary and chronic care services. It has excess
capacity in some markets, and insufficient access in others.

COVID has exposed deep flaws in the activity-based payment as well as the nation’s underinvestment in public health.
Disadvantaged communities have suffered disproportionately. Meanwhile, the costs for delivering healthcare services
consume an ever-larger share of national GDP.

Transformational change is hard for incumbent organizations. Every industry, from computer and auto manufacturing to
retailing and airline transportation, confronts gray rhino challenges. Many companies fail to adapt despite clear signals
that long-term viability is under threat. Often, new, nimble competitors emerge and thrive because they avoid the
inherent contradictions and service gaps embedded within legacy business models.

The healthcare industry has been actively engaged in value-driven care transformation for over ten years with little to
show for the reform effort. It is becoming clear that many hospitals and health systems lack the capacity to operate
profitably in competitive, risk-based market environments.

This dismal reality is driving hospital market valuations and closures. In contrast, customers and capital are flowing to
new, alternative care providers, such as OneMedical, Oak Street Health and Village MD. Each of these upstart
companies now have valuations in the $ billions. The market rewards innovation that delivers value.

Unfortunately, pure market-driven reforms often neglect a significant and growing portion of America’s people. This gap has been more apparent as COVID exacts a disproportionate toll on communities challenged by higher population
density, higher unemployment, and fewer medical care options (including inferior primary and preventive care infrastructure).

Absent fundamental change in our hospitals and health systems, and investment in more efficient care delivery and
payment models, the nation’s post-COVID healthcare infrastructure is likely to deteriorate in many American
communities, making them more vulnerable to chronic disease, pandemics and the vicissitudes of life.

Article 2 in our “Future of Hospitals” series will explore the public policy challenges of providing appropriate, affordable and accessible healthcare to all American communities.

 

 

 

State of the Union: by Paul Field

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Accountability, Blame, Core Values, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Democracy, Economic Crisis, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Evidence-based Leadership, Evidence-Based Plan, Evidence-Based Policy, False Hope, False Narrative, Federal Reserve, Free Speech, Freedom, Freedom of the Press, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Honesty, Integrity, Interest Rates, Leadership, Leadership Culture, Leadership Integrity, Leadership Political, Leadership Trust, Leadership Vision, Leadership Will, Market Consolidation, Market Failure, Market Outlook, Market Power, Misinformation, Misinterpret, Mislead, Misleading, Mistake, Mistrust, Mixed Message, Partisanship, Preexisting Conditions, Protest, Responsibility, Scapegoat, School Reopening, Scientists, Socialism, Transparency, Trust, Truth, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Wishful Thinking • Leave a comment

Image may contain: text that says 'Whoever Paul Field is he hit the nail on the head. Field PM own opinion, but you post Everyone entitled silly "Welcome Socialism... You Socialism. the wealthiest, geographically advantaged, productive people. about This failure our, "Booming economy," modest challenges. tis the market dissonance stores, farmers/producers and crisis about corporations needing emergency bailout longest history ending interest with being unable equipped provide healthcare, time post profits. crisis response depending antiquated systems nobody remembers operate. But all, politicization the for the benefit of education, science, natural lifestyles, lifestyles, charity, compassion, virtually else for brief gain gutted our society.'

Canceled elective procedures putting pressure on nation’s hospitals

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, American Hospital Association (AHA), Bankruptcy, Cash, Cash Reserves, Cash-Flow Improvements, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Crisis, Crisis Management, Deferred Healthcare, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economic Stimulus, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Emergency Care, Employee Benefits, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Evidence-based Leadership, Evidence-Based Plan, Evidence-Based Policy, Financial Pressure, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Labor Spend Management, Liquidity, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Medicare Advance Payments, Mergers & Acquisitions, Mortality, National Strategy, Net Income, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Outpatient Care, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Reorganization, Supply Chain, The CARES Act • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/canceled-elective-procedures-putting-pressure-nations-hospitals

U.S. Hospitals Brace for 'Tremendous Strain' from New Virus - JEMS

Even upticks in COVID-19 patients haven’t made up for the revenue losses, since reimbursement for those services is comparatively slim.

Elective procedures are in a strange place at the moment. When the COVID-19 pandemic started to ramp up in the U.S., many of the nation’s hospitals decided to temporarily cancel elective surgeries and procedures, instead dedicating the majority of their resources to treating coronavirus patients. Some hospitals have resumed these surgeries; others resumed them and re-cancelled them; and still others are wondering when they can resume them at all.

In a recent HIMSS20 digital presentation, Reenita Das, a senior vice president and partner at Frost and Sullivan, said that during the pandemic, plastic surgery activity declined by 100%, ENT surgeries declined by 79%, cardiovascular surgeries declined by 53% and neurosurgery surgeries declined by 57%.

It’s hard to overstate the financial impact this is likely to have on hospitals’ bottom lines. Just this week, American Hospital Association President and CEO Rick Pollack, pulling from Kaufman Hall data, said the cancellation of elective surgeries is among the factors contributing to a likely industry-wide loss of $120 billion from July to December alone. When including data from earlier in the pandemic, the losses are expected to be in the vicinity of $323 billion, and half of the nation’s hospitals are expected to be in the red by the end of the year.

Doug Wolfe, cofounder and managing partner of Miami-based law firm Wolfe Pincavage, said this has amounted to a “double-whammy” for hospitals, because on top of elective procedures being cancelled, the money healthcare facilities received from the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act was an advance on future Medicare payments – which is coming due. While hospitals perform fewer procedures, they will now have to start paying that money back.

All hospitals are hurting, but some are in a more precarious position than others.

“Some hospital systems have had more cash on hand and more liquidity to withstand some of the financial pressure some systems are facing,” said Wolfe. “Traditionally, the smaller hospital systems in the healthcare climate we face today have faced a lot more financial pressure. They’re not able to control costs the same way as a big system. The smaller hospitals and systems were hurting to begin with.”

LOWER REVENUE, HIGHER COSTS

Some hospitals, especially ones in hot spots, are seeing a surge in COVID-19 patients. While this has kept frontline healthcare workers scrambling to care for scores of sick Americans, COVID-19 treatments are not reimbursed at the same level as surgeries. Hospital capacity is being stretched with less lucrative services.

“Some hospitals may be filling up right now, but they’re filling up with lower-reimbursing volume,” said Wolfe. “Inpatient stuff is lower reimbursement. It’s really the perfect storm for hospitals.”

John Haupert, CEO of Grady Health in Atlanta, Georgia, said this week that COVID-19 has had about a $115 million negative impact on Grady’s bottom line. Some $70 million of that is related to the reduction in the number of elective surgeries performed, as well as dips in emergency department and ambulatory visits. 

During one week in March, Grady saw a 50% reduction in surgeries and a 38% reduction in ER visits. The system is almost back to even in terms of elective and essential surgeries, but due to a COVID-19 surge currently taking place in Georgia, it has had to suspend those services once again. ER visits have only come back about halfway from that initial 38% dip, and the system is currently operating at 105% occupancy.

“Part of what we’re seeing there is reluctance from patients to come to hospitals or seek services,” said Haupert. “Many have significantly exacerbated chronic disease conditions.”

Patient hesitation has been an ongoing problem, as has the associated cost of treating coronavirus patients, said Wolfe.

“When they were ramping up to resume the elective stuff, there was a problem getting patients comfortable,” he said. “And the other thing was that the cost of treating patients in this environment has gone up. They’ve put up plexiglass everywhere, they have more wiping-down procedures, and all of these things add cost and time. They need to add more time between procedures so they can clean everything … so they’re able to do less, and it costs more to do less. Even when elective procedures do resume, it’s not going back to the way it was.”

Most hospitals have adjusted their costs to mitigate some of the financial hit. Even some larger systems, such as 92-hospital nonprofit Trinity Health in Michigan, have taken to measures such as laying off and furloughing workers and scaling back working hours for some of its staff. At the top of the month, Trinity announced another round of layoffs and furloughs – in addition to the 2,500 furloughs it announced in April – citing a projected $2 billion in revenue losses in fiscal year 2021, which began on June 1.

Hospitals are at the mercy of the market at the moment, and Wolfe anticipates there could be an uptick in mergers and consolidation as organizations look to partner with less cash-strapped entities. 

“Whether reorganization will work remains to be seen, but there will definitely be a fallout from this,” he said.

 

 

 

 

California AG conditionally approves $350M sale of nonprofit to Prime Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in Access & Quality of Healthcare, Asset Purchase Agreement, Bankruptcy, Collective Bargaining, Community, Community Benefit, Community Hospital, Financial Pressure, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, For-Profit, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Labor Union, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions, State Attorney Generals (AG) • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/california-ag-conditionally-approves-350m-sale-st-francis-medical-center-prime-healthcare

Prime Healthcare, CEO Prem Reddy settle false-claims suit for $65M

Prime will acquire St. Francis for a net of $350 million, with a $200 million base cash price and $60 million for accounts receivable.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has conditionally approved Verity Health’s application to transfer ownership of St. Francis Medical Center to Prime Healthcare. The Attorney General’s decision follows an earlier decision by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Central District of California granting Verity’s request to reject the existing collective bargaining agreements which impose legacy cost structures that it said contributed to bankruptcy.

Becerra noted that his approval of the sale of St. Francis to Prime Healthcare “protect(s) access to care for the Los Angeles communities served” by St. Francis.

“The COVID-19 public health crisis has brought home the importance of having access to lifesaving hospital care nearby in our communities,” he said. “St. Francis Medical Center is not just an asset, it is an indispensable neighbor, it is the workers who serve the patients, and the doctors who save lives. We conditionally approve this sale to keep it that way.”

Prime Healthcare has built a reputation for saving financially distressed hospitals across the U.S., touting improved clinical quality. Healthgrades said Prime had hospitals named among the nation’s 100 best 53 times, and has been the recipient of several Patient Safety Excellence Awards.

The Attorney General’s office conducted an exhaustive review of the transaction for the past several months and carefully considered public input on the proposed transaction. The Attorney General’s approval includes conditions for the sale which Prime is currently reviewing. Pending a final ruling by the Bankruptcy Court, the transaction is expected to be completed this summer.

THE LARGER TREND

In early April, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court approved the Asset Purchase Agreement for the sale of St. Francis Medical Center to Prime. Under the agreement, Prime will acquire St. Francis for a net consideration of over $350 million, including a $200 million base cash price and $60 million for accounts receivable. In addition, Prime has committed to invest $47 million in capital improvements and extend offers of employment to nearly all staff.

The court also recently granted Verity’s request to reject the existing collective bargaining agreements with two unions that represent associates at St. Francis Medical Center, SEIU and UNAC. The court noted that Prime Healthcare was the only party to submit a qualifying bid for St. Francis and that without rejecting the existing CBAs, “St. Francis would not continue to operate as a going concern, and all of the UNAC (and SEIU) represented employees would lose their jobs.”

The court also noted that Prime and Verity had made multiple efforts to negotiate in good faith with the unions, and the parties devoted “hundreds of hours to negotiations,” but ultimately were unable to agree on new CBAs. Further, the court determined that one of the reasons for the hospital’s bankruptcy was the “legacy cost structure imposed by the existing CBAs.”

It then staid that the proposals were rejected “without good cause” by the unions. Prime said it negotiated in good faith and proposed increasingly generous offers to UNAC and SEIU with wages far above its existing agreements at its Los Angeles-area hospitals. Prime’s latest offer to SEIU maintained existing wages for roughly 90% of SEIU members, and increased wages for some of them. Prime said these wages would be substantially higher than those recently voted by SEIU members at three of Prime’s Los Angeles hospitals.

ON THE RECORD

“Receiving conditional approval is an important step in ensuring Prime is able to preserve the St. Francis mission for the benefit of associates, members of the medical staff and most importantly the patients and Southeast Los Angeles community that has relied on St. Francis for 75 years,” said Rich Adcock, CEO of Verity Health.

“We are honored to be selected to continue the St. Francis legacy and are working to review the conditions and finalize the sale as quickly as possible,” said Dr. Sunny Bhatia, CEO, Region I and chief medical officer of Prime Healthcare. “St. Francis’ mission is especially critical during this pandemic and we honor the service of all caregivers. Prime has already started investments at St. Francis that will enhance patient care as we commit to continue every service line, community benefit program, charity care and expand new services to the community.”

 

 

 

619-bed California hospital to join Cedars-Sinai

Posted on by • Posted in Antitrust, Board, Definitive Agreement, Due Diligence, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Share, Mergers & Acquisitions • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/619-bed-california-hospital-to-join-cedars-sinai.html?utm_medium=email

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center halts use of heart compressor device ...Contact Huntington Hospital | Huntington Hospital

 

Huntington Hospital in Pasadena, Calif., has entered into a definitive agreement to join Los Angeles-based Cedars-Sinai Health System, roughly four months after the organizations signed a letter of intent to explore an affiliation. 

The agreement calls for investments in 619-bed Huntington Hospital’s information technology, ambulatory services and physician development. Under the agreement, Huntington Hospital would be governed by a local board and its philanthropy and volunteer support would be locally controlled, the organizations said.

“On behalf of everyone at Huntington Hospital, we are all very pleased to have reached this important milestone,” said Jaynie Studenmund, chair of the Huntington Hospital board of directors, in a news release. “We pledge to work cooperatively with all the relevant parties and believe that this proposed affiliation is in the best interest of all of our stakeholders and the greater San Gabriel Valley community.”

The definitive agreement will now be submitted for regulatory review and approval. The review process is expected to take several months.

 

 

12-hospital CHI Franciscan-Virginia Mason system would be part of CommonSpirit under new deal

Posted on by • Posted in Antitrust, Competition, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions, Monopoly • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/12-hospital-chi-franciscan-virginia-mason-system-would-be-part-of-commonspirit-under-new-deal.html?utm_medium=email

CHI Franciscan and Virginia Mason moving toward merger | Tacoma ...

Washington health systems CHI Franciscan and Virginia Mason agreed to explore a combination through a joint operating company that would be part of CommonSpirit Health, the organizations said July 16. 

The proposed 12-hospital system would include more than 250 care sites and nearly 5,000 employed and affiliated providers. Combining the two systems would allow Tacoma-based CHI Franciscan and Seattle-based Virginia Mason to “shape healthcare nationally,” according to Virginia Mason CEO Gary Kaplan, MD. He told Becker’s Hospital Review in an interview that the organizations “envision creating a health system of the future.”

Ketul Patel, the CEO of CHI Franciscan and president of the Pacific Northwest division at parent system CommonSpirit Health, said in the same interview that, “Together, we’re going to not only be able to boast that we have the largest access point in the state, but we are going to be the largest and best-quality [system] in the state of Washington. We’re in a unique place to scaling and being a showcase for the entire country.” 

Dr. Kaplan and Mr. Patel would serve as co-CEOs of the organization, and the health system’s board would have equal representation from both organizations.

Quality and innovation are major focuses of the proposed deal. Virginia Mason is one of only 32 hospitals in the U.S. and the only hospital in Washington to receive an A grade in quality and patient safety from The Leapfrog Group every spring and fall since the organization started publishing grades. All but two of CHI Franciscan’s hospitals received A rankings from Leapfrog this spring, Dr. Kaplan said. Outside of that, Virginia Mason and CHI Franciscan draw patients nationally for cardiology and complex spine programs, Mr. Patel said.

Dr. Kaplan said details of the deal will be hammered out as the organizations move toward a final agreement, with hopes to finalize the process by the end of the year. The joint operating company would be in addition to the organizations’ prior relationships, which include partnerships in obstetrics and women’s health, as well as radiation oncology.

No financial information about the proposal was disclosed. Virginia Mason reported total revenues of $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2019, while Chicago-based CommonSpirit’s totaled nearly $21 billion.

 

 

 

 

American patients can’t shop their way to a low cost healthcare system

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Antitrust, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, Lawsuit, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Trends, Monopoly Behavior, Price Transparency • Leave a comment

American patients can’t shop their way to a low cost healthcare system

Hospital price transparency is a distraction from policies that could reduce costs without burdening patients, say Jamie Daw and Adam Sacarny.

 

The prices that hospitals charge privately insured patients in the US have long been shrouded in secrecy. These prices—which are negotiated between hospitals and private insurers—vary widely: the price for the same blood test could vary 39-fold within Tampa, Florida and the cost of a cesarean delivery varies by up to $24 000 in San Francisco, California.

A recent federal court decision stands to shine a light on opaque hospital pricing in the US. In a lawsuit brought forward by the American Hospital Association, a federal judge upheld a regulation issued by the Trump administration that will soon require hospitals to post a wealth of information on payment rates online.

This policy seems intuitive: in other sectors of the economy, consumers usually know the price of a service or product before they purchase it. By comparing prices, consumers can shop around and save money. In turn, sellers anticipate that behavior and are incentivized to keep prices low. Who wouldn’t want a virtuous circle like that in healthcare? 

The Trump administration argues that hospital price transparency will encourage value in healthcare by helping patients and employers find lower prices, while pressuring hospitals to cut them further. However, the potential effects—and who stands to benefit—are not so straightforward.

 

Firstly, giving consumers information on prices doesn’t necessarily mean that they will respond by seeking lower cost services. Studies have consistently found that patients tend not to use price transparency tools, and their effects on healthcare spending are small or nonexistent. Why? Shopping for healthcare services is often complicated or impossible. 

 

Many of the most expensive services are for emergencies where there is little scope for patients to shop.

Even when a patient has time to compare prices for non-urgent procedures or tests, the complexity of healthcare payment systems and insurance products makes it next to impossible for a patient to preemptively calculate what they would personally pay for an encounter. Establishing that amount requires patients to know the cost-sharing parameters of their insurance plan, the set of services they will use during the encounter, and how aggressively the hospital will bill for those services.

Insurance also obscures patients’ incentives to shop by insulating them from healthcare prices.

While patients can be given strong incentives to shop—and an increasing number of American workers are enrolled in high deductible health plans with this aim—these incentives are created by hoisting financial risk on patients. This financially burdens American families and can result in patients forgoing appropriate care.

 

Beyond the challenges posed by patient shopping, the empirical evidence supporting price transparency is weak.

It could even backfire. Economists have pointed out that in sectors with low competition, price transparency can facilitate collusion and lead to higher prices. This fear was borne out in Denmark when authorities began publishing the prices of ready-mixed cement. Prices proceeded to converge and rise, and the authorities eventually abandoned the idea. The most hopeful evidence in the US healthcare system comes from New Hampshire, where prices for medical imaging fell by 3% after the state established a price transparency website. But even effects of this magnitude, while beneficial, would only make a tiny dent in lowering US healthcare costs. 

 

Price transparency efforts reflect a broad trend for American policy makers to turn to consumer-driven strategies to reduce healthcare costs.

These strategies are built on the assumption that patients ought to be responsible for navigating their way to high quality, low cost healthcare. However, the challenges faced by patients in assessing the complex cost-quality tradeoffs in healthcare limit the potential for price transparency to have the impact that the administration advertises.

Perhaps more troubling is that these efforts could distract policy makers from addressing the main drivers of US healthcare prices, such as rapid and ongoing consolidation. Concentrated hospital markets are becoming the norm in the US and are strongly associated with higher prices. Antitrust actions, such as preventing hospital mergers, could reduce and reverse consolidation, likely leading to lower prices.

Another option for policy makers is to assume a greater regulatory role over healthcare prices, including introducing price caps and an all-payer rate setting. A Supreme Court decision made it much more difficult for state governments to collect the data that would undergird these efforts. As a result, the information released under the transparency rule may end up being more useful for states considering new price regulations than for patients shopping for healthcare services.

 

If we want to reduce prices without burdening patients with financial risk, then policy makers need to address the emerging causes of rising healthcare costs directly. Efforts to control costs are most likely to succeed when policy makers tackle the structural drivers behind the most expensive health system in the world.

 

 

 

 

Sutter loses bid to delay $575M antitrust settlement approval

Posted on by • Posted in Antitrust, Health System, High Prices, Hospital Industry, Lawsuit, Lawsuit Settlement, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Uncertainty, Monopoly Behavior, Pandemic, State Attorney Generals (AG), State Superior Court • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/sutter-loses-bid-to-delay-575m-antitrust-settlement-approval/581393/

Dive Brief:

  • A San Francisco Superior Court judge on Thursday denied Sutter Health’s request to delay preliminary approval of a $575 million antitrust settlement with California amid the uncertainty and financial upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • The approval process and settlement agreement are flexible enough to continue as scheduled and the needs of the plaintiffs — a union that operates a trust for employee healthcare benefits and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra — to see the health system’s behavior change are pressing, Judge Anne-Christine Massullo wrote in her order.
  • In a statement Thursday, Becerra applauded the court’s decision. “Sutter’s practices harmed California’s healthcare market by charging higher prices unrelated to quality or cost of care,” he said. “They did that long before the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no period of time that medical providers, like Sutter, should be able to carry out such destructive market practices.”

Dive Insight:

Sutter, like health systems throughout the country, has taken a significant hit to its bottom line as the pandemic forced lucrative elective procedures to be put off for weeks earlier this year. The company posted a net loss of more than $1 billion in the first quarter of this year.

It said the financial losses from the COVID-19 crisis could force it to close or divest hospitals. In its June argument to delay the settlement approval, Sutter said the agreement’s cap or chargemaster prices could be too low “to cover the unprecedented and unforeseeable increases in expenditures to respond to COVID-19 particularly given declining revenue.”

But the judge did not agree, saying the court is “not persuaded that the proposed injunction will interfere with Sutter’s ability, or the broader healthcare system’s ability, to provide patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Massullo continued: “To the extent that a provision of the proposed injunction poses a threat to patient care or the public interest during the COVID-19 pandemic, or as a result of some other presently unforeseen circumstance, any party may seek a modification of the offending provision if and when such a modification becomes appropriate.”

The preliminary approval hearing is now set for Aug. 12 and Aug. 13, according to multiple news reports.

Sutter avoided a jury trial late last year by agreeing to the settlement, which in addition to the $575 million payout includes stipulations like ceasing contracts that require all of its facilities be in an insurer’s network or none of them. The system, however, did not admit guilt as part of the agreement.

 

 

 

FTC, Justice Department have new guidelines for vertical mergers

Posted on by • Posted in Antitrust, Competition, Dept of Justice (DOJ), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Horizontal Merger, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions, Monopoly, Monopoly Behavior, Vertical Merger • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/ftc-justice-department-have-new-guidelines-for-vertical-mergers.html?utm_medium=email

Trump Administration Updates Vertical Merger Guidelines - Multichannel

Guidance on vertical mergers got its first major overhaul from the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice in more than 35 years under new joint guidelines published June 30.

Vertical mergers are those that combine firms or assets at different stages of the same supply chain, such as healthcare company CVS Health’s acquisition of insurer Aetna. Previously proposed mergers like that of insurers Humana and Aetna would be considered horizontal.

FTC Chairman Joe Simon said in a news release that the new guidances “are an important step forward in maintaining vigorous antitrust enforcement, and reaffirm our commitment to challenge vertical mergers that are anticompetitive and would harm American consumers.”

Leaders said that the guidelines explain FTC and Justice Department investigative practices and will give the business community clarity about antitrust concerns, such as the type of evidence the FTC and Justice Department review and how they define markets.

To read the full guidelines, click here. 

 

 

 

 

 

Despite COVID-19, less dramatic decline in Q2 M&A than expected, Kaufman Hall reports

Posted on by • Posted in Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Mergers & Acquisitions, Pandemic, Strategy • Leave a comment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/despite-covid-less-dramatic-decline-q2-m-a-than-expected-kaufman-hall-reports?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RJMlpqWTNPREJtTmpGaSIsInQiOiJ0enNDdXU5R0ZEdUJmSE1GcXl5UHd4VjdcL1FQcWE3ckN2YmhLVUhnazNFNlhUOEdLQndTcnRnXC9TbWNzWDhZMW5KWEhtMUxJRDRFdG1uXC84NGVhTHZ5QklGK0Fyc2dadXVcL0phNWFaVGY1SGlVVzN6NFRxVlRLOE9mRmdHR2VmdDgifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610

Mergers and acquisitions deals consolidation

While the COVID-19 pandemic has done a financial number on organizations across the healthcare industry, it did not stymie mergers and acquisition deals as much as anticipated, according to a new report.

Kaufman Hall officials said in their latest M&A report that deals in the second quarter declined in comparison to the same quarter a year earlier.

However, they said, two “transformational” deals announced in June pushed the quarter to a far less dramatic decline in deal activity relative to the underlying performance measures in the sector—and could even indicate deals will ramp up in the near future.

“I don’t think there could’ve been any sort of realistic expectations of what might’ve happened as a result of the pandemic,” the report’s author Anu Singh, managing director and leader of the mergers, acquisitions and partnerships practice, told Fierce Healthcare.

“I think there was a feeling that because of what this would do to financial performance and maybe the trajectory of the industry participants themselves, there was a thought this would perhaps significantly slow down transaction activity as well,” Singh said. “And, as the quarter played out, there was not a significant … drop in the level of activity.”

Deals in the second quarter included Steward Health Care’s acquisition by a group of affiliated physicians and Advocate Aurora Health proposed a merger with Beaumont Health. Lifespan and Care New England Health System in Rhode Island also resumed partnership talks.

“What we were, perhaps, a little surprised to see is there still was large scale transformational system partnership. There still was large portfolios of for-profit or hospital management companies looking to retool their portfolio,” Singh said. “There still was a need for community hospitals to look upwards to find the benefits of larger health systems.”

Overall, the report says, there were 14 deals in the second quarter, down from 19 deals in the same quarter a year earlier and down from 29 deals in the first quarter of 2020.

The report also found:

  • At more than $800 million, the second quarter had one of the highest figures for average size of seller by revenue ever recorded by Kaufman Hall. The historic high previous recorded in 2018 was $409 million.
  • Total transacted revenue for the quarter was just over $12 billion.
  • Nine of the 14 transactions were by for-profit hospital and health systems. None of the transactions in the last quarter were completed by academic medical centers or religiously affiliated health systems.

Impact of COVID-19

So what does the second quarter say about the potential future impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on deals? Singh wrote that while health systems paused their activities for a while, the pandemic may also have “strengthened their rationale” for partnering up in the first place.

Like leaders in many other sectors, healthcare leaders are reevaluating their business and may be examining their healthcare delivery models, Singh said.

The pandemic may have been a catalyst for more organizations to work together to serve patients, which could support reevaluation of the potential for future deals. As an example, Singh pointed in the report to Lifespan and Care New England, which had suspended talks for a potential deal in 2019 but restarted talks after the two systems began “working together in unprecedented ways,” in response to the crisis.

Finally, for-profit health systems have continued to reshape their portfolios over the quarter, with six of the 14 transactions representing divestitures by major for-profit health systems including Community Health Systems, Quorum and HCA.

“For many organizations, it’s going to serve as a reminder or a catalyst that there is safety in scale,” Singh said. “There is safety in being part of a large system that has more deployable resources and maybe more capabilities to deal with situations like that.”