Health systems facing an uphill battle for MA lives

https://mailchi.mp/66ebbc365116/the-weekly-gist-june-11-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

Fighting an Uphill Battle? - Zeteo 3:16

A number of the regional health systems we work with have either launched or are planning to launch their own Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The good news is the breathless enthusiasm among hospitals for getting into the insurance business that followed the advent of risk-based contracting has been tempered in recent years.

Early strategies, circa 2012-15, involved health systems rushing into the commercial group and individual markets, only to run up against fierce competition from incumbent Blues plans, and an employer sales channel characterized by complicated relationships with insurance brokers. 

Slowly, a lightbulb has gone off among system strategists that MA is where the focus should be, given demographic and enrollment trends, and the fact that MA plans can be profitable with a smaller number of lives than commercial plans. It’s also a space that rewards investments in care management, as MA enrollees tend to be “sticky”, remaining with one plan for several years, which gives population health interventions a chance to reap benefits.

But as systems “skate to where the puck is going” with Medicare risk, they’re confronting a new challenge: slow growth. Selling a Medicare insurance plan is a “kitchen-table sale”, involving individual consumer purchase decisions, rather than a “wholesale sale” to a group market purchaser. That means that consumer marketing matters more—and the large national carriers are able to deploy huge advertising budgets to drive seniors toward their offerings. 

Regional systems are often outmatched in this battle for MA lives, and we’re beginning to hear real frustration with the slow pace of growth among provider systems that have invested here. Patience will pay off, but so will scale, most likely—the bigger the system, the bigger the investment in marketing can be. (Although even large, national health systems are still dwarfed by the likes of UnitedHealthcare, CVS Health, and Humana.)

Look for the pursuit of MA lives to further accelerate the trend toward consolidation among regional health systems.

Healthcare M&A heats up in first quarter

https://mailchi.mp/66ebbc365116/the-weekly-gist-june-11-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

Judging from the level of deal activity across healthcare in the first quarter of this year, post-pandemic euphoria is truly taking hold. After a substantial, COVID-related dip across most of last year, healthcare M&A began to accelerate in the fourth quarter of 2020, and hit a new high in the first quarter of 2021—up 19 percent. While all sectors saw an uptick in deal flow, the level of activity was particularly high among physician groups, as well as in the behavioral health and “e-health” spaces.

Although hospital deal activity waned somewhat in the first quarter, the average value of deals increased: the average seller size by revenue was $676M, around 70 percent above historical year-end averages. This reflects a shift from bolt-on acquisitions by health systems looking to add isolated assets, to larger health systems seeking to combine their portfolios. Private equity continues to fuel a large portion of deal activity, especially in the behavioral health and physician group space, contributing to an 87 percent surge in the physician sector

We’d expect this flurry of M&A activity to persist—especially among physician groups and hospitals—as organizations seek financial security after a turbulent year, and as larger players look to scale their market presence and diversify revenue streams. 

One Medical buying Medicare-focused Iora in $2.1B deal

Announcing Iora | One Medical

Dive Brief:

  • Google-backed One Medical is acquiring Medicare-focused primary healthcare chain Iora Health for $2.1 billion in an all-stock trade deal, the companies announced Monday.
  • The buy will give One Medical presence in 28 markets, covering about 40% of the U.S. population and is expected to generate annual revenue at $350 million by 2025. The deal will add about $700 billion in total addressable market, according to an investor presentation.
  • Under the terms of the deal, which is expected to close in the late third quarter or fourth quarter of this year, Iora stockholders will own about 27% of the combined company. One person from Iora will join One Medical’s board and Iora co-founder and CEO Rushika Fernandopulle will become One Medical’s chief innovation officer.

Dive Insight:

The acquisition aligns two key players in part of the value-based care movement that eschews traditional payer-provider arrangements in favor of a concierge membership model. Iora’s concentration in the Medicare population and related participation in CMS’ direct contracting model could be key reasons for coming under One Medical’s sights.

Jefferies analysts said they viewed the transaction as positive, particularly considering both companies’ tech and data capabilities. “Given tech orientation and emphasis on outcomes, we expect substantial derivative value from combining data and developing better treatment programs with superior outcomes across [longitudinal] care. We see this as a clear clinical and applied advantage,” they wrote.

Both companies base their business on value-based models, which some in the industry worry have suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic as cash-strapped providers avoid the risk of models not based on fee-for-service. The Biden administration’s director at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation said recently the movement is at “a critical juncture” and that more mandatory models are likely forthcoming.

One Medical has faced challenges as of late, after a first quarter that saw losses double what was expected and a controversy over COVID-19 vaccine distribution that sparked a congressional investigation. The company, however, has forged ahead in deals, including a new partnership with Baylor Scott & White.

And on the Q1 call with investors, executives highlighted a membership increase of 31% year over year.

One Medical, founded in 2007, lead the pack of recent healthcare IPOs, going public in January 2020.

The company touts its direct-to-consumer model buts also contracts directly with employers and partners with several health systems. CFO Bjorn Thaler told Healthcare Dive at the time of the IPO its pitch to investors focused on highlighting a differentiated model.

“[W]e provide the member with a very, very valuable service. They don’t have to wait 29 days to get care. They can get care oftentimes in an instant, digitally,” he said.

Boston-based Iora, which was founded in 2011, has raised nearly $350 million over seven funding rounds, according to Crunchbase. It has contracts with major payers including UnitedHealthcare, Cigna and Humana.

The deal extends One Medical into full-risk Medicare reimbursement. Iora began the direct contracting model in April across all its markets. The program ties reimbursement to spending and quality for all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries across a geographic region.

About 60% of Iora’s members are in the fast-growing Medicare Advantage program, which has now reached about 40% of the Medicare population.

Iora had expected revenue this year to reach nearly $300 million and as of the first quarter had 38,000 members, compared to nearly 600,000 members at One Medical, according to the investor presentation.

One Medical stock was trending slightly down in early morning trading Monday.

Sentara, Cone Health nix merger

Norfolk, Va.-based Sentara Healthcare and Greensboro, N.C.-based Cone Health have abandoned plans to merge into an $11.5 billion system, the organizations said in a joint statement June 2. 

The health systems said they mutually agreed to end the plans late last week. Leaders said they believe their respective organizations will be better served by remaining independent. 

The two healthcare systems announced plans to combine last August. The deal would have formed an $11.5 billion system with 17 hospitals in Virginia and North Carolina.  

“Sentara Healthcare and Cone Health are high performing, well respected, community-focused organizations. Those similarities served as the basis for efforts toward an affiliation. I am confident that this mutual decision will not alter either organization’s ongoing commitment to meet the needs of our respective communities,” Howard Kern, president and CEO of Sentara, said in a prepared statement. “I have no doubt that Cone Health will remain a top tier health system and will continue to pursue new and innovative ways to provide value for North Carolinians for years to come.”

“We appreciate the efforts of Sentara to work with Cone Health to determine whether an affiliation of our two high-performing organizations is in the best interest of those we serve. Recently, in the final analysis, we mutually decided that we can best serve our communities by remaining independent organizations,” Terry Akin, CEO of Cone Health, said in the news release. 

10 health systems with strong finances

How to assess the financial strength of an insurance company | III

Here are 10 health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to reports from Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings.

1. St. Louis-based BJC HealthCare has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with S&P. The health system has a leading market share and highly regarded reputation, particularly for its flagship hospitals that are affiliated with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, S&P said. The health system consistently has produced stable earnings and cash flow, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the credit rating agency. 

2. Cleveland Clinic has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook from Moody’s. The credit rating agency said the health system benefits from its reputation as an international brand, which will allow it to grow revenue outside of the Ohio market. Moody’s said it maintains good cash flow margins and therefore very strong liquidity.

3. Fountain Valley, Calif.-based MemorialCare has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has a strong financial profile and maintains high liquidity, Fitch said. The credit rating agency expects the system to generate cash flows of approximately 7 percent in the years after fiscal 2021. 

4. Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Novant Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has a solid market position in four regions and strong financial metrics that support the rating. The credit rating agency said Novant Health’s acquisition of New Hanover Regional Medical Center in Wilmington, N.C., will benefit the system financially and strategically in the long term.

5. OhioHealth has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook from Moody’s. The credit rating agency said the health system has a leading market position with several growth opportunities in an attractive market and a favorable payer market that contributes to stability. Moody’s also said OhioHealth’s ongoing cost reductions and management discipline will continue to support strong margins and liquidity levels. 

6. Rady Children’s Hospital and Health Center in San Diego has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The credit rating agency said that Rady Children’s has an extremely high market share in San Diego County and benefits from its status as a regional referral center for tertiary and quaternary pediatric services. The health system also has very strong liquidity, Moody’s said. 

7. Stanford (Calif.) Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The credit rating agency said the hospital has a broad reach and benefits, as it is a clinical destination for high-acuity services, a largely favorable service area and a close relationship with Stanford University. Fitch said it expects the health system’s post-2021 EBITDA margin to be closer to its historical 11 percent operating margin. 

8. Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Mich., has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The credit rating agency said the health system has a stable operating performance and strong balance sheet metrics. In particular, the system generated positive margins even without federal relief aid in fiscal year 2020. Moody’s added that the health system will continue to benefit from a strong market share for patient care in western Michigan. 

9. SSM Health in St. Louis has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The credit rating agency said it has a strong financial profile and a solid market presence in multiple states with no dependence on any one location. Fitch also said its expanding health plan is a credit positive. 

10. Birmingham, Ala.-based UAB Medicine has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The credit rating agency said the health system has high patient demand, strong margins and a leading market share in Birmingham. The credit rating agency expects UAB Medicine to generate strong cash flow in fiscal year 2021.

CommonSpirit and Essentia call off 14-hospital deal following nurse complaints

Dive Brief:

  • CommonSpirit Health and Essentia Health have called off a deal for Essentia to acquire 14 CommonSpirit facilities in North Dakota and Minnesota, the two Catholic systems announced Tuesday.
  • The deal, nixed just four months after being announced, would have doubled the size of Duluth, Minn.-based Essentia’s hospital network. One of the facilities up for grabs, CHI St. Alexius Medical Center, is a tertiary hospital and the other 13 are critical access hospitals. The deal would also have included associated clinics and living communities.
  • The systems did not provide details as to why they scrapped the deal in their release, and an Essentia representative did not respond to a request for comment by time of publication.

Dive Insight:

CommonSpirit and Essentia signed a letter of intent in January to explore the sale, but talks have now fizzled following months of deliberation.

“While we share a similar mission, vision, values and strong commitment to sustainable rural healthcare, CommonSpirit and Essentia were unable to come to an agreement that would serve the best interests of both organizations, the people we employ and the patients we serve,” a joint statement from the two systems said.

Earlier this month, more than 700 nurses and medical workers filed a petition noting their concern over the deal. In the petition, the Minnesota Nurses Association and employees at Essentia and CommonSpirit said they feared layoffs and restricted access to patient care resulting from the acquisition.

Nurses cited Essentia’s partnership with Mercy Hospital in Moose Lake, Minn., last summer, which they claimed hurt the quality of patient care.

“Ever since the takeover, we’ve lost numerous staff, causing shortages in how we care for patients,” a nurse wrote in a news release about the petition May 4. “We don’t want CHI’s hospitals and clinics to lay off workers, cut the services they offer or close entirely.”

Essentia did not respond to a request for comment about whether workers’ concerns affected the decision to call off the deal.

Hospitals maintain consolidation betters the patient experience and improves care quality, but numerous studies have suggested that’s not the case. One from early last year published in the New England Journal of Medicine found acquired hospitals actually saw moderately worse patient experience, along with no change in 30-day mortality or readmission rates, while another from 2019 found mergers and acquisitions drive up prices for consumers.

Despite that, provider mergers and acquisitions have continued at a rapid clip even during COVID-19, as hospitals look to divest underperforming assets and bulk up market share in more lucrative geographies. The letter of intent CommonSpirit signed with Essentia suggests the roughly 140-hospital system is taking stock of its smaller rural facilities.

Chicago-based CommonSpirit was formed in 2019 by the merger of nonprofit giants Catholic Health Initiatives and Dignity Health. The nonprofit giant was hit hard by the pandemic, losing $550 million in the 2020 fiscal year.

UnitedHealth’s Surgical Care Affiliates fires back at DOJ in collusion case

Senate narrowly confirms new head of Justice Department's criminal  division, who worked for Russian bank | PBS NewsHour

Surgical Care Affiliates, which is part of UnitedHealth Group’s Optum division, hit back at the Department of Justice’s defense of a federal case accusing SCA of agreeing with competitors to not poach senior-level employees.

In a May 14 proposed reply brief supporting its bid to dismiss the case, SCA argued the Justice Department’s defense is unlawful and violates due process rights.

“The government seeks to criminally prosecute as a per se Sherman Act violation an alleged agreement not to solicit another company’s employees, even though no court in history has ever definitively found such an agreement unlawful under any mode of analysis,” according to the proposed reply brief. “Not only is this kind of agreement not illegal per se, but subjecting a practice to per se condemnation for the first time in a criminal prosecution would violate bedrock guarantees of due process.” [emphasis in original]

In January, a federal grand jury charged SCA and its related entities, which own and operate outpatient medical care centers, with entering and engaging in conspiracies with other healthcare companies to suppress competition between them for the services of senior-level employees. 

In an email statement to Becker’s Hospital Review, SCA said at the time of the charges: “This matter involves alleged conduct seven years before UnitedHealth Group acquired SCA and does not involve any SCA ambulatory surgery centers, their joint owners, physician partners, current leadership or any other UnitedHealth Group companies. SCA disagrees with the government’s position, and will vigorously defend itself against these unjustified allegations.”

The charges are the first from the department’s antitrust division in its ongoing investigation into employee allocation agreements. Violators of the Sherman Act can face a maximum $100 million fine, or twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by victims if the amount is greater than the maximum. 

Private equity acquisitions targeted large, high-margin hospitals over 15-year period

Private-Equity Cash Piles Up as Takeover Targets Get Pricier - WSJ

From 2003 to 2017, private equity firms focused their acquisition crosshairs on larger hospitals with higher operating margins and greater patient charge-to-cost ratios, according to a new review of healthcare investments published in Health Affairs.

These private equity (PE)-owned hospitals also saw greater increases to their operating margins and charge-to-cost ratios over the course of the 15-year study period than their non-PE-owned counterparts.

Combined with a decrease in all-personnel staffing ratios, the study’s researchers said these data make a case for further investigation into how PE investment may be influencing operational decisions to boost profits and secure favorable exits.

“[Short-term acute care] hospitals’ large size, stable cashflow environment and prevalence of valuable fixed assets (that is, properties) make them highly desirable targets for acquisition, researchers wrote in Health Affairs. “Broadly speaking, PE acquisition of hospitals invites questions about the alignment of the financial incentives necessary to achieve high-quality clinical outcomes.”

To inform that discussion, the researchers reviewed PE deal data collected by Pitchbook, CB Insights and Zephyr. They also collected information on hospital characteristics and financials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System database and the American Hospital Association’s Annual Survey.

Their efforts yielded 42 PE acquisitions involving 282 different hospitals during the 15-year time period. These deals were most frequent among hospitals in Mid-Atlantic and Southern states.

Of note, 161 of the acquired hospitals were tied to a single deal: Bain Capital, Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts and Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity’s roughly $33 billion (more than $21 billion cash, $11.7 billion debt) acquisition of HCA Healthcare in 2007.

The study outlined differences between the PE-acquired hospitals and others that were not acquired before any of the deals (in 2003) and after (in 2017).

Nearly three-quarters of hospitals acquired by PE were for-profit in 2003, versus about a quarter of those that were not acquired, the researchers wrote. By 2017, those respective proportions had increased to 92.3% and 25.3%.

Acquired hospitals were significantly larger in terms of beds and total discharges both in 2003 and in 2017. In fact, while acquired hospitals increased in size during the 15-year window, other hospitals decreased in beds and discharges by 2017.

Nurse staffing ratios were similar on both ends of the study period for both categories of hospitals. However, all-staff ratios were lower among the soon-to-be-acquired hospitals in 2003 and saw a slight decrease over the years, whereas hospitals that had not been acquired instead recorded an increase over time.

In terms of financials, the researchers reviewed measures including net patient revenue per discharge, total operating expenses per discharge and the percentage of discharges paid out by Medicaid. Differences among these three areas were not significant with the exception of a larger 15-year increase in total operating expenses per discharge among non-PE hospitals.

The primary financial differences between the PE and non-PE hospitals were instead found among the organizations’ percent operating margins and charge-to-cost ratio, the researcher wrote.

In 2003, both measures were higher among the soon-to-be acquired hospitals. By 2017, the percent operating margin and charge-to-cost ratio increased 66.5% and 105% among the PE-acquired hospitals, respectively, versus changes of -3.8% and 54.2% for the non-PE hospitals.

These and the study’s other findings outline the playbook an investor could follow to identify a profitable hospital and increase its margins, the researchers wrote.

“Post-acquisition, these hospitals appeared to continue to boost profits by restraining growth in cost per patient, in part by limiting staffing growth,” they wrote.

The trends affirm findings published in a 2020 JAMA Internal Medicine study, which similarly tied PE acquisition to moderate income and charge-to-cost ratio increases over the same time period, the researchers wrote.

The data also contrast “the prevailing narrative” that PE investors target distressed businesses to extract value for a quick turnaround sale, they wrote. Outside of a few outlier acquisitions, the researchers said that PE’s goal for short-term acute care hospitals appears to be the opposite—operations refinement and further profit improvements among potential top performers.

Still, the differing structure of PE investments warrants questions as to whether these groups are promoting high-quality outcomes alongside their high margins, Anaeze Offodile II, M.D., an assistant professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the study’s lead author, said during an accompanying Health Affairs podcast.

In contrast to the public market, PE investments often lean on leveraged buyouts that are higher risk and higher reward, he said. Partners are targeting a three-to-seven-year exit window for their investments and often need to hit 20% to 30% annualized returns.

More investigation is needed to determine whether these economic incentives come in tandem with better care or are instead hindering patient outcomes, he said.

“The question becomes ‘Are there unintended consequences or tradeoffs invited due to pursuit of profitability?’” Offodile said during the podcast. “I think someone could make the same argument that if there is a value enhancement strategy by PE firms, then it behooves them to actually raise the level of care delivery up because that enhances the value and engineers a better sale.

“In seeing that sort of exploratory result and how it challenged the prevailing narrative, we’re glad that we took this sort of [setting the] stage approach, and I look [forward] to seeing what we find—which we’re doing now—with respect to quality, spending, access domains,” he said.

HCA to sell 4 Georgia hospitals for $950M

Tenet says it's on schedule to bring in $1B in proceeds through divestitures  - MedCity News

HCA Healthcare will divest four of its hospitals in Georgia for about $950 million, the Nashville, Tenn.-based hospital system said May 3. 

The for-profit provider will sell the four facilities to Piedmont Healthcare, a nonprofit health system based in Atlanta. 

The four hospitals are the 310-bed Eastside Medical Center in Snellville; the 119-bed Cartersville Medical Center; and the two-hospital Coliseum Health System, which includes 310-bed Coliseum Medical Centers in Mason and 103-bed Coliseum Northside in Mason. Piedmont will also assume ownership of a behavioral health facility owned by the Coliseum Health System. 

HCA said the transaction will provide strategic value as it increases its financial flexibility to invest in its core markets. 

The two health systems expect the transaction to close in the third quarter of 2021. It still needs regulatory approvals.