Category Archives: Market Consolidation

Seeking standards, not standardization

Posted on by • Posted in Health System, Market Consolidation, Standards, Systemness, Value Creation, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/325cd862d7a7/the-weekly-gist-march-13-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Image result for standards vs standardization

We’ve been working with a number of our members on the topic of “systemness”: helping think through how health systems can (finally) make progress on creating value from consolidation, moving from being a holding company of assets to a true, functioning system of care.

One critical aspect of that work is standardization—making sure that, where appropriate, operational and clinical processes are uniform across different clinics, hospitals and markets. That’s one of the core sources of corporate value for any company—it would be crazy for GE to make refrigerators differently in Hyderabad, India than in Louisville, KY, for instance. Of course, delivering healthcare is more complex than making refrigerators, and (as we point out in our work on systemness) there needs to be a certain zone of allowable variability in many operational and clinical areas.

Along these lines, a phrase that one physician executive used in a meeting recently caught my attention: he said what he tries to achieve are “standards, not standardization”. In other words, setting clinical and operational standards (for example, how much a knee implant should cost) rather than fully standardizing elements of care (what knee implant must our surgeons use).

Of course, there are lots of things that should be completely standardized across the system—especially in “back office” areas like marketing, HR, revenue cycle, and legal. And some clinical work can be standardized as well: care protocols and agreed-upon pathways for treatment. But allowing variability in clinical practice requires a more flexible approach—one built on standards that clinicians can build consensus around—rather than on rigid standardization. We’ll have more to share about our systemness work in weeks to come—it’s a critical topic for executives as cost pressures mount, and questions about the value of health system scale abound.

 

 

 

UnitedHealth likely to keep squeezing physician staffing firms

Posted on by • Posted in Anesthesia, Balance Billing, Emergency Care, Emergency Room Staffing, Health Insurance Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Share, Neonatology, Obstetrics, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network, Private Equity, Surprise Bills, Venture Capital • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/unitedhealth-likely-to-keep-squeezing-physician-staffing-firms/573679/

Image result for UnitedHealth likely to keep squeezing physician staffing firms

The nation’s largest private insurer has been terminating its contracts with physician staffing firms in a bid to extract lower prices, part of a years-long pattern analysts say could spur other payers to follow.

UnitedHealthcare contends it is simply trying to curb the rising cost of healthcare by driving out high-cost providers that charge far more than the median rate in its network. The payer said it had hoped to keep these firms in network “at rates that reflect fair market prices,” a UnitedHealthcare spokesperson told Healthcare Dive.

The most recent action targeted Mednax, a firm that provides specialty services including anesthesia, neonatology and high-risk obstetrics in both urban and rural areas. United cut Mednax contracts in four states, pushing those providers out of network, potentially putting patients at risk of balance bills.

United also recently canceled its in-network contracts with U.S. Anesthesia Partners in Texas, starting in April, which caused Moody’s to change its outlook to negative for the provider group because the contracts represent 10% of its annual consolidated revenue.

These latest moves to end relationships with certain physician staffing firms seem to have escalated in recent years, Sarah Kahn, a credit analyst for S&P Global, told Healthcare Dive.

Since the insurer’s 2018 tussle with ER staffing firm Envision, “it’s sort of ramped up and become more aggressive and more abrupt and more pervasive,” Kahn said of the contract disputes.

 

United said the volume of negotiations it’s involved in has not changed in recent years, and added that it expects to renegotiate the same amount of contracts in 2020 that it did in 2019. However, United pointed a finger at a small number of physician staffing firms, backed by private equity, that are attempting to apply pressure on United to preserve the same high rates.

Private equity firms have been increasingly interested in healthcare over the past few years, accelerating acquisitions of medical practices from 2013 to 2016. Private equity acquired 355 physician practices, representing 1,426 sites of care and more than 5,700 physicians over that time frame, according to recent research in JAMA. The firms had a particular focus on anesthesiology with 69 practices acquired, followed by emergency physicians at 43.

Mednax is a publicly traded company. But Envision is owned by investment firm KKR; TeamHealth is owned by private equity firm Blackstone; and U.S. Anesthesia Partners is backed by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe.

 

Proposed legislation around surprise billing may be influencing United’s actions, Kailash Chhaya, vice president and senior analyst at Moody’s, told Healthcare Dive. Congress has been weighing legislation that seeks to eliminate surprise billing, mainly through two vehicles, either using benchmark rates or arbitration.

If Congress ultimately decides on a bill that uses benchmark rates, or ties reimbursement for out-of-network providers to a benchmark rate (or average), it would benefit insurers like United to lower its average rate for certain services, Chhaya said. One way to do that is to end relationships with high-cost providers.

“It would help payers like UnitedHealth if that benchmark rate is low,” Chhaya said.

In late 2018, United threatened to drop Envision from its network, alleging the firm’s rates were responsible for driving up healthcare costs, according to a letter the payer sent hundreds of hospitals across the country. United and Envision eventually agreed to terms, but United seemed to outmuscle Envision as the deal secured “materially lower payment rates for Envision” that resulted in lower earnings, S&P Global analysts wrote in a recent report.

In 2019, United began terminating its contracts with TeamHealth, which has a special focus on emergency medicine. The terminations affect two-thirds of TeamHealth’s contracts through July 1. The squeeze from United caused Moody’s to also change Team Health’s outlook to negative as an eventual agreement would likely mean lower reimbursement and lower profitability for company, the ratings agency said.

“They’re trying to lower their payments to providers. Period,” David Peknay, director at S&P Global, told Healthcare Dive.​

 

Data shows prices — not usage — is driving healthcare spending. Physician staffing firms are frequently used for ER services and the ER and outpatient surgery experienced the largest growth in spending between 2014 and 2018, according to data from the Health Care Cost Institute.

United said it had been negotiating with TeamHealth since 2017 and does not believe TeamHealth should be paid significantly more than other in-network ER doctors for the same services. United alleges its median rate for chest pains is $340. But if a TeamHealth doctor provides the care it charges $1,508.​

“As Team Health continues to see more aggressive and inappropriate behavior by payors to either reduce, delay, or deny payments, we have increased our investment in legal resources to address specific situations where we believe payor behavior is inappropriate or unlawful,” according to a statement provided to Healthcare Dive.

TeamHealth said it will not balance bill patients in the interim.

 

The pressure from payers, particularly United, is unlikely to relent. The payer insures more than 43 million people in the U.S. through its commercial and public plans.

“I don’t think anyone is safe from such abrupt terminations,” Kahn said. However, United disputes the characterization of abruptly terminating contracts and says in many cases it has been negotiating with providers to no avail.

Likely targets in the future may include firms with a focus on emergency services, which tend to be high-cost areas, S&P’s analysts said. In their latest report, Kahn and Peknay pointed to The Schumacher Group, which is the third-largest player in emergency staffing services. However, it commands a market share of less than 10%, far less than its rivals Envision and TeamHealth.

Smaller firms may not be able to weather the pressure as effectively as very large staffing organizations.

For those smaller groups, it may be wise for them “to sit tight on their cash or prepare from some pressure,” Kahn said.

Although some believe it may influence other payers to follow suit, Dean Ungar, vice president and senior analyst with Moody’s, said United may be uniquely placed to exert this pressure because it has its own group of providers it can use and considerable scale.

“They are better positioned to play hardball,” Ungar said.

 

 

 

 

5 numbers that show the dominance of Epic

Posted on by • Posted in Electronic Health Record (EHR), Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Information Technology, Market Consolidation, Market Power • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/ehrs/5-numbers-that-show-the-dominance-of-epic.html?utm_medium=email

Image result for epic ehr market share dominance

 

Here are five quick notes on Epic and the EHR market.

1. More than 250 million patients have electronic records in Epic.

2. Epic has 28 percent of the acute care hospital market, according to a KLAS report.

3. There were 163 hospitals with 500-plus beds that used Epic in 2018, the most recent year reported. The second most-used EHR in that group was Cerner, with 77 hospitals that have 500 or more beds.

4. Epic implementation among small practices is increasing as those practices with one to 10 physicians join or affiliate with larger organizations. Among those groups, 93 percent said Epic Community Connect is part of their organization’s long-term plans and 93 percent said they would purchase the software again, according to KLAS.

5. Over the past five years, at least 11 hospitals and health systems switched from Cerner to Epic, including most recently AdventHealth in Florida and Atrium Health in North Carolina.

 

619-bed California hospital to join Cedars-Sinai Health System

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

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

Image result for 619-bed California hospital to join Cedars-Sinai Health System

Huntington Hospital in Pasadena, Calif., has signed a letter of intent to join Los Angeles-based Cedars-Sinai Health System.

The organizations signed the agreement March 9 after a strategic review by a special committee of Huntington Hospital’s board of directors. The letter of intent calls for investments in 619-bed Huntington Hospital’s information technology, ambulatory services and physician development.

“Huntington Hospital’s longstanding commitment to the community, its reputation for quality and its outstanding physicians, nurses and other staff make it a very good fit for Cedars-Sinai Health System,” Vera Guerin, chair of Cedars-Sinai Health System’s board of directors, said in a news release. “Collaborations and sharing of resources throughout the health system will further strengthen Huntington’s ability to serve the community for decades to come.”

Leaders said Cedars-Sinai Health System and Huntington Hospital are working toward finalizing a definitive agreement. The transaction is subject to closing conditions and regulatory approvals.

 

 

Consolidation increasing stakes for payer-provider contract disputes, study finds

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Market Consolidation, Market Failure, Market Power, Market Uncertainty, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/payer-issues/consolidation-increasing-stakes-for-payer-provider-contract-disputes-study-finds.html?utm_medium=email

Image result for market consolidation

As more providers and insurers consolidate, the chances that both sides will run into disagreements over their in-network contracts have heightened, according to a report from the Center on Health Insurance Reforms from the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. 

For the report, researchers reviewed insurance laws across six states, based on geographic diversity and recent high-profile payer-provider conflicts that took place there: California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas. Some high-profile conflicts in the states include UnitedHealthcare and Houston Methodist; Pittsburgh-based Highmark Health and UPMC; Cigna and San Francisco-based Dignity Health; Cigna and Asheville, N.C.-based Mission Hospital; and Cigna and Irving, Texas-based Christus Health.

In interviews with regulators and insurers, researchers found both agreed that the more providers and payers consolidate, the higher the stakes for contract disputes. This will expose more consumers to care disruptions and higher out-of-pocket costs, they said. Several regulators warned that a greater number of high-profile contract disputes will take place in the future. 

State officials and insurers offered several recommendations for improving the patient experience through contract disputes, including providing members with advanced notice of possible contract termination and requiring insurers to hold their enrollees harmless if they can’t access necessary care elsewhere.

 

Massive benefits consulting merger in the works

Posted on by • Posted in Antitrust, Competition, Health Insurance Industry, Health Plan, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions, Pharmacy Benefits Management • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-f4216088-ea87-4fb4-ae0b-ab76f9368c8d.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Image result for Massive benefits consulting merger in the works aon willis towers watson

Aon is proposing to buy Willis Towers Watson in an all-stock transaction that would combine the second- and third-largest insurance brokerages, Bob writes.

Why it matters: Employers hire Aon and Willis Towers Watson to help them choose health plans and pharmacy benefit managers for their workers, but the major consultants don’t always steer companies toward the best deals.

  • Combining into the largest consulting house on Earth will give Aon that much more power over employers.

What’s next: The two companies don’t expect to close the deal until the first half of 2021, indicating they know antitrust regulators will be closely scrutinizing this.

 

 

Ever-Rising Health Costs Worsen California’s Coronavirus Threat

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Coronavirus, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Health Insurance Benefit Design, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Share, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

Ever-Rising Health Costs Worsen California’s Coronavirus Threat

Image result for Ever-Rising Health Costs Worsen California’s Coronavirus Threat

As California and the nation prepare for the spread of the new coronavirus disease known as COVID-19, it is important to be reminded of another significant threat to the health of our people: the high costs of health care.

It is striking that one of the first steps policymakers must consider in the wake of an outbreak is waiving consumer cost sharing such as copays and co-insurance for coronavirus testing and treatment. Why? We’ve known for decades that the use of patient cost sharing is a blunt instrument that leads people to skimp on necessary services. In an era when the average deductible facing a working family in California now exceeds $2,700, it’s not hard to imagine how many people missed detection and treatment opportunities because they could not afford to pay for them.

The discussion around COVID-19 cost sharing is a reminder that coronavirus testing and treatment is not the only thing Californians forgo because of cost. The latest CHCF health policy poll found that in the last year, more than half of California families delayed or skipped care due to cost, including avoiding recommended medical tests or treatments, cutting medication doses in half, or postponing physical or mental health care. These practices are spreading, and they are making us sicker. Forty-three percent of those who postponed care said it made their conditions worse.

A close look at the survey data (PDF) shows that many Californians experience these problems, regardless of their health insurance status, income, or residence in high- or low-cost regions. And worries over health care costs are even more widely shared. More than two-thirds of state residents are worried about medical bills and out-of-pocket costs, including almost 60% of those with employer-sponsored insurance. These concerns reflect two unfortunate realities: We are all vulnerable to disease, and no one is immune from ruinous medical bills because of it.

A key reason for the growth in cost-related problems and worries for California families is the rise in underlying expenses within our health care system. Economists point to several factors that drive systemwide expenses, including new medical technologies and Californians’ health status. But none of these factors explains away the overall rise and dramatic variation in prices for the same procedures in different parts of the state, even after controlling for the complexity of the procedure and underlying costs like physician wages.

CHCF surveys of employer-sponsored insurance over the last decade show how much of this rise is being shifted to working California families in the form of higher insurance premiums and deductibles. The chart below shows the cumulative increase of inflation and wages along with premiums and deductibles for the average California family covered by a preferred provider organization (PPO) in a workplace health plan. While wage growth has barely kept pace with inflation, family premiums increased at more than twice that rate. It is especially striking that deductibles increased almost four times as much as wages.

California will not be an affordable place to live and raise a family unless it confronts the problem of unjustified, underlying health care costs. Expanding health insurance coverage, increasing subsidies, and limiting out-of-pocket expenses solve immediate problems, but sustained progress demands that we reduce systemwide expenditures for services that are not making Californians any healthier. Evidence suggests the opportunity for savings is significant.

In his state budget (PDF) released in January, California Governor Gavin Newsom proposed establishing an Office of Health Care Affordability to address underlying health care cost trends and to develop strategies and cost targets for different sectors of the health care industry. Other states have established offices or cost commissions of this type. A recent CHCF publication examined how four states have structured and empowered their commissions to successfully do this work.

As we confront the public health threat of COVID-19, we must remember that widespread cost-related access problems and worries already afflict most families in the state. In ways that few people anticipated before this year, this cost issue isn’t just a problem for strapped families — it’s a threat to the well-being of every last one of us.

 

 

 

 

FTC to block Philadelphia area health system merger in 1st big hospital challenge in 3 years

Posted on by • Posted in Antitrust, Competition, District Court, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions, Monopoly, Monopoly Behavior, Preliminary Injunction, Restraining Order • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/ftc-to-block-philadelphia-area-health-system-merger-in-1st-big-hospital-cha/573165/

Dive Brief:

  • The Federal Trade Commission has moved to block the proposed merger between two nonprofit Pennsylvania health systems over anticompetitive concerns in its first challenge to hospital M&A in more than three years.
  • Jefferson Health and Albert Einstein Healthcare Network both provide inpatient general acute care and inpatient acute rehabilitation services in Philadelphia County and Montgomery County. A marriage between the two systems, which agreed to definitively merge in September 2018, would harm patients because the two systems would no longer compete for patients and for inclusion in payer networks, the FTC says.
  • Jefferson and Einstein defended the deal Thursday in a joint statement provided to Healthcare Dive, saying they remain “confident our merger will result in continued high-quality care for our consumers.”

Dive Insight:

FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson has pledged to be tougher on hospital deals in 2020, including reviewing previously closed deals to see if they’ve delivered on promised cost and quality metrics. The last time the FTC questioned a major hospital merger was in 2016, when it urged Virginia and Tennessee not to approve the union of large operators Mountain States Health Alliance and Wellmont. The push was unsuccessful, and the two coalesced into rural system Ballad Health.

The deal, first announced in March 2018, has stagnated over the past two years as it was scrutinized by regulators at the FTC and Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro.

“This merger would eliminate the competitive pressure that has driven quality improvements and lowered rates,” Ian Conner, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. The rivalry between the two nonprofit players for market dominance has resulted in upgraded medical facilities and technological investments, but that progress could stall if Jefferson and Albert Einstein combined, FTC said.

Jefferson and Einstein boast a combined roughly $5.9 billion in annual revenue, along with 18 hospitals, more than 50 outpatient and urgent care centers and a handful of rehab and post-acute facilities. Jefferson, the bigger player, has 14 hospitals across South Jersey and Philadelphia, Montgomery and Bucks counties.

The regulators said they will soon file a formal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the merger, Jefferson and Einstein would control at least 60% of the inpatient general acute care services market in North Philadelphia, and 45% in Montgomery. That includes services like medical or surgical diagnostics and treatments requiring an overnight stay.

Jefferson and Einstein manage six of the eight inpatient rehab facilities for recovering from serious, acute conditions in the Philadelphia region, and would control at least 70% of that market if combined.

The hospitals said their marriage represents a “creative effort” to increase access at a time when safety net hospitals are struggling.

“We believe we have presented a strong and comprehensive case as to how the merger would benefit the patients we serve and advance our academic mission without reducing competition for healthcare services,” the systems, which have had an academic partnership for more than two decades, said.

Several studies have debunked theories that bigger is better in terms of quality of care when it comes to health systems.

FTC plans to seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent Jefferson and Albert Einstein from consummating the merger pending an administrative trial scheduled to being in September this year.  

 

 

Why Are Nonprofit Hospitals So Highly Profitable?

Posted on by • Posted in Charity Care, Community Benefit, Executive Compensation, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Market Consolidation, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions, Monopoly, Monopoly Behavior, Social Determinants of Health, Tax Exempt Status, Tax-Exempt Status • Leave a comment

Image result for WHY ARE NONPROFIT HOSPITALS SO HIGHLY PROFITABLE?

These institutions receive tax exemptions for community benefits that often don’t really exist.

“So, how much money do you guys make if I do that test you’re ordering for me?” This is a question I hear frequently from my patients, and it’s often followed by some variant of, “I thought hospitals were supposed to be nonprofit.”

Patients are understandably confused. They see hospitals consolidating and creating vast medical empires with sophisticated marketing campaigns and sleek digs that resemble luxury hotels. And then there was the headline-grabbing nugget from a Health Affairs study that seven of the 10 most profitable hospitals in America are nonprofit hospitals.

Hospitals fall into three financial categories. Two are easy to understand: There are fully private hospitals that mostly function like any other business, responsible to shareholders and investors. And there are public hospitals, which are owned by state or local governments and have obligations to care for underserved populations. And then there are “private nonprofit” hospitals, which include more than half of our hospitals.

Nearly all of the nation’s most prestigious hospitals are nonprofits. These are the medical meccas that come to mind when we think of the best of American medicine — Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Mass General.

The nonprofit label comes from the fact that they are exempt from federal and local taxes in exchange for providing a certain amount of “community benefit.”

Nonprofit hospitals have their origins in the charity hospitals of the early 1900s, but over the last century they’ve gradually shifted from that model. Now their explosive growth has many questioning how we define “nonprofit” and what sort of responsibility these hospitals have to the communities that provide this financial dispensation.

It’s time to rethink the concept of nonprofit hospitals. Tax exemption is a gift provided by the community and should be treated as such. Hospitals’ community benefit should be defined more explicitly in terms of tangible medical benefits for local residents.

It actually isn’t much of a surprise that nonprofit hospitals are often more profitable than for-profit hospitals. If a private business doesn’t have to pay taxes, its expenses will be lower. Additionally, because nonprofit hospitals are defined as charitable institutions, they can benefit from tax-free contributions from donors and tax-free bonds for capital projects, things that for-profit hospitals cannot take advantage of.

The real question surrounding nonprofit hospitals is whether the benefits to the community equal what taxpayers donate to these hospitals in the form of tax-exempt status.

On paper, the average value of community benefits for all nonprofits about equals the value of the tax exemption, but there is tremendous variation among individual hospitals, with many falling short. There is also intense disagreement about how those community benefits are calculated and whether they actually serve the community in question.

Charity medical care is what most people think of when it comes to a community benefit, and before 1969 that was the legal requirement for hospitals to qualify for tax-exempt status. In that year, the tax code was changed to allow for a wide range of expenses to qualify as community benefits. Charitable care became optional and it was left up to the hospitals to decide how to pay back that debt. Hospitals could even declare that accepting Medicaid insurance was a community benefit and write off the difference between the Medicaid payment and their own calculations of cost.

An analysis by Politico found that since the full Affordable Care Act coverage expansion, which brought millions more paying customers into the field, revenue in the top seven nonprofit hospitals (as ranked by U.S. News & World Report) increased by 15 percent, while charity care — the most tangible aspect of community benefit — decreased by 35 percent.

Communities are often conflicted about the nonprofit hospitals in their midst. Many of these institutions are enormous employers — sometimes the largest employer in town — but the economic benefits do not always trickle down to the immediate neighborhoods. It is not unusual to see a stark contrast between these gleaming campuses and the disadvantaged neighborhoods that surround them.

In some communities, nonprofit hospitals are beloved institutions with a history of caring for generations of families. In other communities, the sums of money devoted to lavish expansions, aggressive advertising and eye-popping executive compensation are a source of irritation.

The average chief executive’s package at nonprofit hospitals is worth $3.5 million annually. (According to I.R.S. regulations, “No part of their net earnings is allowed to inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.”) From 2005 to 2015, average chief executive compensation in nonprofit hospitals increased by 93 percent. Over that same period, pediatricians saw a 15 percent salary increase. Nurses got 3 percent.

A number of communities that think nonprofit hospitals take more than they give back have started to sue. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center fought off one lawsuit from the city’s mayor to revoke its tax-exempt status. Last year it faced another from the Pennsylvania attorney general, alleging that the medical center, valued at $20 billion, did not fulfill “its obligation as a public charity” (the lawsuit was dismissed).

Morristown Hospital in New Jersey lost most of its property-tax exemption because it was found to be behaving as a for-profit institution. The judge in the case wrote that if all nonprofit hospitals operated like this, then “modern nonprofit hospitals are essentially legal fictions.”

It’s important to recognize the extreme variance in hospitals’ financial status. Many nonprofit hospitals, especially in rural areas, struggle mightily; scores of rural hospitals have closed — and hundreds more are teetering — leading to spikes in local death rates. At the other end are hospitals that earn several thousand dollars in profit per patient.

The most profitable nonprofit hospitals tend to be part of huge health care systems. Consolidations are one of the driving forces behind the towering profits, because monopoly hospitals are known to charge more than nonmonopoly hospitals.

Should these highly profitable institutions be exempt from the taxes that pay for local roads, police services, fire protection and 911 services? Should local residents have to pay for the garbage collection for institutions that can afford multimillion-dollar salaries for top executives?

Tax exemption needs to be redefined. Low-impact projects such as community health fairs that function more like marketing shouldn’t be allowed as part of the calculation. Nor should things that primarily benefit the institution, like staff training.

Additionally, hospitals should not be allowed to declare Medicaid “losses” as a community benefit. While it’s true that Medicaid typically pays less than private insurance companies, Medicaid plays a crucial role for private insurance markets by acting as a high-risk pool for patients with severe illness and disability. Hospitals benefit mightily from this taxpayer-funded arrangement. These large medical centers also enthusiastically accept taxpayer money for research, something that burnishes their image and bolsters their rankings. That enthusiasm needs to be mandated to extend toward Medicaid patients and the face value of their insurance.

The I.R.S. states that charitable hospitals “must be organized and operated exclusively for specific tax-exempt purposes.” Thus charitable care should be front and center. Spending on social determinants of health can also be a legitimate community benefit, but the community that is footing the tax break needs to have a forceful say in how this money is spent, rather than leave it solely up to the hospital.

As many policy scholars have noted, tax exemption is a blunt instrument. For struggling hospitals, particularly in communities with a shortage of health care resources, tax exemption can make sense. In medically saturated areas, where profits and executive compensation approach Wall Street levels, tax exemption should raise eyebrows.

If society decides that tax exemption is a worthwhile means to improve health — and it certainly can be — then our regulations need to be far stricter and more explicitly tied to community health. As the United States continues to fall behind its international peers in terms of health outcomes in local communities, there is certainly no lack of opportunity.

 

 

 

Five Healthcare Industry Changes to Watch in 2020

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Consumerism, Data Governance, Data Management, Data Ownership, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, HIPAA, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Trends, Privacy, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment

https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/news/five-healthcare-industry-changes-watch-2020

Innovation

Industry experts expect significant changes to shake up the healthcare landscape in the next few years, which will affect both health insurers and providers. Many are the result of a shift toward value-based care, a move toward decreased care in hospital settings, technological advances, and other forces.

Here’s a look at what can payers and providers can expect to occur, why each change is occurring, and how payers and providers can prepare for each change:

1. A shift in healthcare delivery from hospital to ambulatory settings

Healthcare delivery will continue to move from inpatient to outpatient facilities. “More surgeries and diagnostic procedures that historically have required an inpatient hospital stay can now be performed more safely and efficiently in an outpatient setting,” says Stephen A. Timoni, JD, an attorney and partner at the law firm Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, in Westfield, New Jersey, who represents healthcare providers in areas of reimbursement and managed care contracting. A growing volume of outpatient care will be provided in ambulatory surgery centers, primary care clinics, retail clinics, urgent care centers, nurse managed health centers, imaging facilities, emergency departments, retail clinics, and patients’ homes.

This change is occurring as the result of clinical innovations, patient preferences, financial incentives, electronic health records, telemedicine, and an increased focus on improving quality of care and clinical outcomes. “The upward trend in value-based payment models is also influencing this shift, with the goal of reducing the cost of care and improving the overall patient experience,” Timoni says.

Payers and providers can prepare for this shift by analyzing and forecasting the cost and reimbursement implications of providing care in outpatient settings compared to inpatient settings. They should continue to analyze changing patient demographics, consumer preferences, and satisfaction trends, Timoni says. Collecting and analyzing data regarding quality and clinical outcomes as the result of changes in delivery of care from inpatient to outpatient is also key. Healthcare providers should develop effective strategies to grow capacity and infrastructure for outpatient services and invest in innovative mobile technologies, diagnostic tools, and telemedicine systems.

2. Consolidation will continue industry wide

More healthcare entities will continue to merge together. “Even though the number of available partners for transactions is shrinking, new deals pop up all the time because smaller entities are being targeted or entities that had been holding out are now changing their position,” says Matthew Fisher, JD, partner and chair of the Health Law Group at Mirick O’Connell, a law firm in Westborough, Massachusetts. Increased consolidation will result in higher healthcare prices as larger sized institutions use their size to their advantage. Another impact will be narrowing the field of contracting options, which will result in greater dominance by fewer entities in a market.

This change is occurring because industry stakeholder believes that consolidation is the way to survive in a healthcare landscape still being shaped by the ACA. “The belief is that value-based care models require single unified entities as opposed to more contractual-based ventures to succeed,” Fisher says. Another factor is that momentum for consolidations across the industry has continued to build and no player wants to be left behind.

Along these lines, Timoni says that consolidation has been motivated by the evolving and challenging commercial and government reimbursement models which include lower fee-for-service payment rates, value-based payment components, and incentives to move care from inpatient to outpatient settings. “Basic economic theory suggests that consolidation of hospitals and physicians enables these combined providers to charge higher prices to private payers as the result of a lack of competition,” Timoni says. “Likewise, combined insurers are able to charge higher premiums to their subscribers.”

Payers and providers can prepare for this change by evaluating their operations and determining whether consolidation with another entity is advantageous. “This requires assessing an entity’s operations and the risks of consolidation,” Fisher says.

Timoni advises payers and providers to monitor the consolidation landscape and develop effective merger and acquisition strategies. These strategies should focus on optimizing economies of scale to reduce costs and finding the best partners to achieve improved quality of care and effectively manage population health.

3. Protecting data privacy

Ongoing attention will be given to protecting the privacy of healthcare data. New laws, at both the federal and state levels, will be considered that could introduce new regulatory requirements, Fisher says.

While a federal law in an election year may be doubtful, individual states are proceeding. The California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), intended to enhance privacy rights and consumer protection, will become effective in 2020, for example. Even though the CCPA doesn’t cover all healthcare data, healthcare organizations will still collect additional information that could be subject to CCPA, which means more compliance obligations, Fisher says. Other states are considering how to jump on the privacy legislation bandwagon, which means that regulatory requirements will increase. “Even in the absence of legislation, payers and providers can expect individuals to assert concerns and use public pressure to drive increased attention to privacy issues,” Fisher says.

Meanwhile, debates around what is meant by privacy continue to evolve, Fisher continues. A backlash against the non-transparent sharing of healthcare data and arguable profiteering is creating anger among patients and other groups. Simultaneously, data breaches continue to be reported on a daily basis. Add in that healthcare is a prime target, and all of the factors point to healthcare needing to do more to protect data.

Payers and providers can embrace increased data privacy by focusing on existing compliance efforts, which will require taking time to better understanding HIPAA. “Ignoring or only making superficial efforts to respect data privacy is insufficient,” Fisher says. “Merely doing what is legally permissible may not be good enough.”

4. Consumerization of healthcare

As patients assume more financial responsibility for their healthcare costs due to higher premiums, co-pays, co-insurance, and deductibles, they have become more concerned with the value of the care they receive as well as cost. Patients will likely demand improved access to clearer benefits, billing, and network information to improve transparency, says Brooks Dexter, MBA, Los Angeles-based managing director and head of the healthcare M&A advisory practice at Duff & Phelps, a global consultancy firm.

“Healthcare providers must follow suit to meet value expectations and deliver more consumer-friendly services or may risk losing market share to innovative new healthcare arrangements, such as direct primary care, which offer convenient and quality care with simplified medical billing,” Dexter says. Some ways to do this are to offer better patient portals, expanded hours, improved access, and clear procedure pricing. Despite the trend, payers and providers will most likely continue to resist CMS’ efforts to force greater cost transparency by requiring hospitals to post payer-specific negotiated charges for common services that can be shopped.

Furthermore, Peter Manoogian, principal at ZS, a consulting firm focused on healthcare in Boston, says that the voices of older adults will become comparatively louder as this rapidly growing segment becomes more tech-savvy. The Trump Administration supports increased use of Medicare Advantage and expanding consumer choices. Plan options will reach a record high this year and create an unprecedented amount of choices for this population. The average number of plans a beneficiary has access to this year will be 28, up by a whopping 50% from 2017. What’s more, new entrants that boast a customer-driven approach such as Oscar Health are entering the fray in major markets such as New York and Houston.

Health plans need to be laser focused on improving their understanding and engagement of their customers—who are evolving themselves. “To stay ahead of the change, health plans need access to the right data coupled with leading-edge analytics and technology to continuously mine insights on what members are seeking in their healthcare experience, how patients and providers interact throughout their healthcare journey, and how to meet the needs of future healthcare customers,” Manoogian says.

Health plans will need to take more of a retail focus than what they’re accustomed to, Manoogian says. The bar for providing a great experience and retaining members will also increase.

5. More technological innovations will emerge

Technological innovation will continue to dramatically and rapidly change the manner in which healthcare is delivered, resulting in more personalized care, improved clinical outcomes and patient experience, and overall quality of life. “Information systems, mobile technology, high-tech digital devices, and electronic medical records will allow payers and providers to accurately measure clinical outcomes and effectively manage the continuum of medical care and their population’s overall health,” Timoni says.

One specific way that care will change is that providers will start seeing telehealth play a more critical role in care delivery as the brick-and-mortar, in-person care model becomes less common. “Telehealth will grow past a nice-to-have tool into a standard of care, particularly for low-risk and predictable appointments,” says Cindy Gaines, MSN, RN, clinical leader, Population Health Management, Philips, a company focused on transforming care through collaborative health management in Alpharetta, Georgia. This transformation will enable providers to better tailor their care to patients’ unique needs, while increasing patient autonomy and engagement.

Technological innovations are occurring due to booming private sector interest and investment in medical technology innovation. “Patients are demanding real-time health information, personalized medicine, higher quality of care, and convenient treatment options,” Timoni says. “Payers are demanding more detailed and expansive outcomes data to scientifically manage the reimbursement system to lower costs and improve their subscribers’ health. The medical and information technology fields are attracting more high-skilled workers, who will continue to drive innovation to new levels as long as investor interest is sustained.”

Regarding the increased use of telehealth, Gaines says that many appointments that occur in a hospital today can take place outside of the hospital. And, as the healthcare industry increasingly moves toward value-based care, providers need to extend their line-of-sight outside of a hospital’s four walls. For example, a low-risk follow-up appointment after an operation is usually mostly dialogue and has a predictable outcome—it could be conducted electronically. “By filling up hospitals with visits that could occur virtually, it makes it harder for patients who need face-to-face healthcare access to get it,” she says.

A lack of insurance coverage is a major impediment to telehealth adoption for most health systems. Therefore, providers should pair guaranteed reimbursement opportunities with change management workflows to advance these efforts, Gaines says. They would also be smart to leverage their patients’ everyday devices to manage their care, whether it’s on their smart phone, a fitness watch, or voice assistant.

To embrace technological innovation, payers and providers must continue to be educated and aware of the expanding medical technology landscape and develop technology investment and deployment strategies. “Consider investing and participating in technology venture capital funds and partnering with private sector technology manufacturers and research institutions,” Timoni says.