Category Archives: Market Power

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.

 

 

 

 

8 health systems with strong finances

Posted on by • Posted in Balance Sheet, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Financial Ratios, Financial Viability, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Outlook, Market Power, Market Share, Net Income, Nonoperating Income, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/8-health-systems-with-strong-finances-0713.html?utm_medium=email

Here are eight 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. Baylor Scott & White Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with S&P. The health system has an expansive and growing market position in Texas, healthy operating performance and robust cash flow, S&P said. The health system’s financial cushion positions it well for its COVID-19 response, according to the credit rating agency.

2. South Bend, Ind.-based Beacon Health System has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. Beacon is the acute care leader in its northern Indiana service area and has a track record of strong operating margins, Fitch said. The credit rating agency expects Beacon to return to strong operating margins and sustain strong liquidity, despite pressure from the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. Boston Children’s Hospital has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The hospital has a preeminent reputation as the top children’s hospital in the U.S., robust cash reserves and strong fundraising capabilities, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects the hospital’s exceptional market position and robust liquidity to help it return to pre-COVID-19 levels to support proposed increases in leverage and capital investments.

4. Carle Foundation, a three-hospital system based in Urbana, Ill., has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has a very strong financial profile, and Fitch expects it to sustain profitable operating margins after managing through the pandemic.

5. Salt Lake City-based Intermountain Healthcare has an “AA+” rating and stable outlook with Fitch and an “Aa1” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has a leading market position, low debt levels and strong absolute and relative cash levels, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects Intermountain will be able to substantially return to and sustain pre-COVID-19 volume levels and margins.

6. Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating agency said Kaiser has a leading market share in California and other key markets, and its operational profile is arguably the most emulated model of healthcare delivery in the nation.

7. New York City-based Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with S&P. The hospital has robust fundraising capabilities, an advantageous payer mix and has expanded its ambulatory footprint, providing additional revenue diversity, S&P said.

8. Tacoma, Wash.-based MultiCare Health System has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s and an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch.. The 10-hospital system has an extensive footprint, a track record of successfully executing on multiple projects and strategic ventures concurrently and good financial management, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects MultiCare to return to stronger operating results after recovering from disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

Navigating a Post-Covid Path to the New Normal with Gist Healthcare CEO, Chas Roades

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Board, Board Assessment, Board Competency, Board Engagement, Brand Loyalty, Branding, Business to Consumer Model, Capitation, Cash, Cash Reserves, Competition, Consumer Loyalty, Consumer Trust, Consumerism, Coronavirus, Corporate Overhead, Corporate Strategy, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Crisis, Crisis Management, Cross Subsidy Model, Debt Service, Decision Making, Demographics, Disruption, Disruptive Technology, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Efficiency, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Fee for Service Reimbursement, Financial Incentives, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Focus, Governance, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Job, Job Market, Job Search, Job Security, KPI Dashboards, Labor Spend Management, Leadership, Leadership Alignment, Leadership Trust, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Share, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty, Medical Group, Member Health, Mergers & Acquisitions, Net Income, Nonoperating Income, Objectivity, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Physician, Physician Employment, Physician Independent Network (IPA), Physician Multispecialty Network, Physician Practice Management, Price Transparency, Pricing, Primary Care Delivery Model, Primary Care Loyalty, Private Equity, Profit Model, Quality, Quality of Care, Safety, Strategic Alignment, Strategic Leadership, Strategy, Streamlining Operations, Supply Chain, Surprise Bills, Telemedicine, Trust, Trusted Brand, Truth, Value, Value Creation, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Reality, Virtual Visit, Workplace Safety • Leave a comment

https://www.lrvhealth.com/podcast/?single_podcast=2203

Covid-19, Regulatory Changes and Election Implications: An Inside ...Chas Roades (@ChasRoades) | Twitter

Healthcare is Hard: A Podcast for Insiders; June 11, 2020

Over the course of nearly 20 years as Chief Research Officer at The Advisory Board Company, Chas Roades became a trusted advisor for CEOs, leadership teams and boards of directors at health systems across the country. When The Advisory Board was acquired by Optum in 2017, Chas left the company with Chief Medical Officer, Lisa Bielamowicz. Together they founded Gist Healthcare, where they play a similar role, but take an even deeper and more focused look at the issues health systems are facing.

As Chas explains, Gist Healthcare has members from Allentown, Pennsylvania to Beverly Hills, California and everywhere in between. Most of the organizations Gist works with are regional health systems in the $2 to $5 billion range, where Chas and his colleagues become adjunct members of the executive team and board. In this role, Chas is typically hopscotching the country for in-person meetings and strategy sessions, but Covid-19 has brought many changes.

“Almost overnight, Chas went from in-depth sessions about long-term five-year strategy, to discussions about how health systems will make it through the next six weeks and after that, adapt to the new normal. He spoke to Keith Figlioli about many of the issues impacting these discussions including:

  • Corporate Governance. The decisions health systems will be forced to make over the next two to five years are staggeringly big, according to Chas. As a result, Gist is spending a lot of time thinking about governance right now and how to help health systems supercharge governance processes to lay a foundation for the making these difficult choices.
  • Health Systems Acting Like Systems. As health systems struggle to maintain revenue and margins, they’ll be forced to streamline operations in a way that finally takes advantage of system value. As providers consolidated in recent years, they successfully met the goal of gaining size and negotiating leverage, but paid much less attention to the harder part – controlling cost and creating value. That’s about to change. It will be a lasting impact of Covid-19, and an opportunity for innovators.
  • The Telehealth Land Grab. Providers have quickly ramped-up telehealth services as a necessity to survive during lockdowns. But as telehealth plays a larger role in the new standard of care, payers will not sit idly by and are preparing to double-down on their own virtual care capabilities. They’re looking to take over the virtual space and own the digital front door in an effort to gain coveted customer loyalty. Chas talks about how it would be foolish for providers to expect that payers will continue reimburse at high rates or at parity for physical visits.
  • The Battleground Over Physicians. This is the other area to watch as payers and providers clash over the hearts and minds of consumers. The years-long trend of physician practices being acquired and rolled-up into larger organizations will significantly accelerate due to Covid-19. The financial pain the pandemic has caused will force some practices out of business and many others looking for an exit. And as health systems deal with their own financial hardships, payers with deep pockets are the more likely suitor.”

 

 

 

 

Highmark, HealthNow New York enter affiliation agreement

Posted on by • Posted in Antitrust, Health Insurance Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions • Leave a comment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/highmark-healthnow-new-york-enter-affiliation-agreement?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRJMk9UYzVZVFl4Tm1VMSIsInQiOiJ0aElzSllzTkpISWNIcU13ZXErNVdPSzU3K05cLzRVY2FEWFMycDNHZTZcLzlTYUo3UVNNQXd3ZjlwZXlFbVA3c3NQTHI0NFhqcjhFNk1VUXc4aVlnYW9aSnFVOVIydEFqWG5weWdEc2Viall1elwvK0RIRWtEajhPWGw3TEFTNDlkUCJ9&mrkid=959610

Insurers Highmark, HealthNow New York join forces, predict better ...

Highmark is expanding its reach into New York through an affiliation with HealthNow New York.

The acquisition is pending regulatory approval, the two Blues insurers announced Tuesday. Should it be finalized, HealthNow’s plans will continue to operate locally as Highmark BlueCross BlueShield of Western New York and Highmark BlueShield of Northeastern New York.

HealthNow will bring nearly 1 million additional members into the Highmark fold and boasted $2.8 billion in revenue for 2019. It will join the fourth largest Blues organization in the country, building on Highmark’s 5.6 million members and $18 billion in operating revenue for 2019.

David Holmberg, Highmark’s CEO, said on a call with reporters that Highmark has been pursuing a “focused growth strategy of working with like-minded partners” to improve care quality and affordability.

“We believe together Highmark and HealthNow can be transformational as we prepare healthcare for the next generation of people in all of our regions,” Holmberg said.

Highmark entered intro similar affiliations to expand into Delaware and West Virginia.

HealthNow will maintain its Buffalo headquarters as well as offices in the Albany area and will maintain a significant amount of local autonomy, executives said on the call. The boards of both insurers have unanimously signed off on the deal.

Dave Anderson, CEO of HealthNow, will remain at the helm once the two insurers have integrated. Anderson told reporters that uniting with Highmark allows it to maintain its community-based presence and approach while tapping into the scale of the larger health plan.

He said the affiliation has been in the works for more than two and a half years, but the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted just how critical the additional scale would be to filling some of the gaps exposed as the virus spread.

So while COVID-19 wasn’t on either company’s radar as talks began, the pandemic did play a key role in underscoring the value of uniting, Anderson said.

“COVID has essentially emphasized the strategy that we put in place,” he said.

The insurers did not offer an estimated timeline for the affiliation to be completed.

 

 

 

Beaumont, Advocate Aurora explore merger

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

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/beaumont-advocate-aurora-explore-merger.html?utm_medium=email

Advocate Aurora Health, Beaumont Health Exploring Partnership ...

Beaumont Health announced it is in partnership talks with Advocate Aurora Health on June 17, less than one month after canceling a plan to merge with Akron, Ohio-based Summa Health. 

Southfield, Mich.-based Beaumont and Advocate Aurora, which has dual headquarters in Downers Grove, Ill., and Milwaukee, said they began partnership discussions in late 2019 but paused talks to allow both organizations to focus on the COVID-19 pandemic. On June 17, the health systems signed a nonbinding letter of intent to create a health system that would span across Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois.

Though talks are still in early stages, the health systems have already agreed to an equal one-third governance representation of any future partnership between Beaumont, Advocate Health Care and Aurora Health Care, which merged in 2018 to create Advocate Aurora Health.

Beaumont President and CEO John Fox said the system is excited to explore the partnership with Advocate Aurora.

“The potential opportunity to leverage the strength and scale of a regional organization while maintaining a local focus and strong presence in Michigan as a leader and major employer is important to us,” Mr. Fox said in a news release.

Advocate Aurora President and CEO Jim Skogsbergh described the potential deal as a “unique opportunity.”

“Beaumont Health has built a strong reputation for clinical excellence, education and research,” Mr. Skogsbergh said in a news release. “This is a unique opportunity to explore a partnership with a like-minded, purpose-driven organization.”

 

 

 

 

Tower Health cutting 1,000 jobs as COVID-19 losses mount

Posted on by • Posted in Cash, Cash Reserves, Coronavirus, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Employee Benefits, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Financially Distressed, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Job, Job Market, Job Search, Job Security, Labor Spend Management, Leadership, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions, Net Income, Nonoperating Income, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Pandemic, The CARES Act, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.inquirer.com/business/health/tower-health-hospital-layoffs-covid-19-20200616.html

Tower Health cutting 1,000 jobs as COVID-19 losses mount

Tower Health on Tuesday announced that it is cutting 1,000 jobs, or about 8 percent of its workforce, citing the loss of $212 million in revenue through May because of the coronavirus restrictions on nonurgent care.

Fast-growing Tower had already furloughed at least 1,000 employees in April. It’s not clear how much overlap there is between the furloughed employees, some of whom have returned to work, and the people who are now losing their jobs permanently. Tower employs 12,355, including part-timers.

“The government-mandated closure of many outpatient facilities and the suspension of elective procedures caused a 40 percent drop in system revenue,” Tower’s president and chief executive, Clint Matthews, wrote in an email to staff. “At the same time, our spending increased for personal protective equipment, staff support, and COVID-related equipment needs.”

Despite the receipt of $66 million in grants through the federal CARES Act, Tower reported an operating loss of $91.6 million in the three months ended March 31, according to its disclosure to bondholders.

Tower, which is anchored by Reading Hospital in Berks County, expanded most recently with the December acquisition of St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in a partnership with Drexel University. Tower paid $50 million for the hospital’s business, but also signed a long-term lease with a company that paid another $65 million for the real estate.

In 2017, Tower paid $418 million for five community hospitals in Southeastern Pennsylvania — Brandywine in Coatesville, Chestnut Hill in Philadelphia, Jennersville Regional in West Grove, Phoenixville in Phoenixville, and Pottstown Memorial Medical Center, now called Pottstown Hospital, in Pottstown.

Tower’s goal was to remain competitive as bigger systems — the University of Pennsylvania Health System and Jefferson Health from the Southeast, Lehigh Valley Health Network and St. Luke’s University Health Network from the east and northeast, and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center from the west — encroached on its Berk’s county base.

Tower had set itself a difficult task in the best of times, but COVID-19 has made it significantly harder for the nonprofit, which had an operating loss of $175 million on revenue of $1.75 billion in the year ended June 30, 2019.

Because health systems have high fixed costs for buildings and equipment needed no matter how many patients are coming through the door, it’s hard for them to limit the impact of the 30% to 50% collapse in demand caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

“Hospitals and all other health service providers were hit with this disruption with lightning speed, forcing the industry to learn in real time how to handle a situation for which there was no playbook,” Standard & Poor’s analysts David P. Peknay and Suzie R. Desai said in a research report last month.

Tower’s said positions will be eliminated in executive, management, clinical, and support areas.

The cuts include consolidations of clinical operations. Tower plans to close Pottstown Hospital’s maternity unit, which employs 32 nurses and where 359 babies were born in 2018, according to the most recent state data. Tower also has maternity units at Reading Hospital in West Reading and at Phoenixville Hospital.

Tower is aiming to trim expenses by $230 million over the next two years, Matthews told staff.

Like many other health systems, Tower has taken advantage of federal programs to ensure that it has ample cash in the bank to run its businesses. Tower has deferred payroll taxes, temporarily sparing $25 million. It received $166 million in advanced Medicare payments in April.

In the private sphere, Tower obtained a $40 million line of credit in April for St. Chris, which has lost $23.6 million on operations since Tower and Drexel bought it in December. Last month, Tower said it was in the final stages of negotiating a deal to sell and then lease back 24 medical office buildings. That was expected to generate $200 million in cash for Tower.

 

 

 

 

INSIGHT: Health-Care M&A Post-Pandemic—Opportunities, Not Opportunism

Posted on by • Posted in Balance Sheet, Cash, Cash Reserves, Communication, Coronavirus, Executive Compensation, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Outlook, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions, Pandemic, Public Perception, Severance Compensation, Stakeholder, Strategy • Leave a comment

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/insight-health-care-m-a-post-pandemic-opportunities-not-opportunism

INSIGHT: Health-Care M&A Post-Pandemic—Opportunities, Not Opportunism

The Covid-19 pandemic has devastated the health-care industry. In addition to the tragedies that the pandemic has brought, health systems have universally experienced severe and rapid deterioration of their bottom lines due to plummeting patient volumes, pausing of high margin elective surgical procedures, and increased expenses.

By some estimates, health system losses will be around $200 billion by the end of June and revenues have dropped by around 50 percent. As a result of the financial uncertainty caused by the pandemic, many hospital and health systems terminated or delayed potential transactions as they focused on managing the crisis and protecting their workforces and communities.

But this may just be the calm before a big M&A storm.

Rise in M&A Activity

Through our work as legal and communications counselors, we have seen preliminary M&A activity rise in recent weeks, with providers exploring and negotiating transactions, including several that have not yet been publicly announced.

Some systems are looking to capitalize on the time between the end of the first wave of Covid-19 and a potential resurgence in the fall to get letters of intent finalized and announced. This coming M&A activity presents legal and communications challenges when the national spotlight is firmly on health systems.

Providers are starting to resurrect deals that were paused during the initial period of the Covid-19 crisis, including Community Health System’s sale of Abilene Regional Medical Center and Brownwood Regional Medical Center to Hendrick Health System.

Some systems are seeking new strategic partners, such as Lake Health in Ohio, and New Hanover Regional Medical Center in North Carolina, which resumed its recent RFP response process after a pause.

Still others are looking for new opportunities consistent with pre-Covid growth strategies, as adjusted for pandemic-related developments and challenges.

More Consolidation

Larger and more financially robust health systems are expected to weather the crisis, whereas smaller systems and hospitals with less cash and tighter operating margins, including rural and critical access hospitals, may be facing insolvency, closure, and bankruptcy. This creates a scenario where one party is financially distressed as a result of the pandemic and needs to partner with or join another system to survive. These circumstances will likely fuel increased consolidation in the health-care industry.

For a struggling provider, joining a larger system can offer much-needed financial commitments, access to capital, disciplined management structure, economies of scale for purchasing and improved IT infrastructure, among many other strategic benefits. A well-positioned system, even if financially weakened due to pandemic challenges, will be able to negotiate favorable deal terms if it has significant strategic value to its prospective partner.

Communications Strategy is Important

As providers explore and execute partnerships, they must implement a stakeholder and communications strategy that focuses on benefits for each side given the new financial reality. Doing so will minimize criticism of opportunism by the acquiring system—and best position a definitive agreement and successful deal.

An effective communications strategy will emphasize how the proposed transaction will maintain or improve quality or affordability, ensure access to care for communities and address financial challenges faced by health systems as a result of the pandemic.

Health systems should articulate how their M&A activity will stabilize affected health systems, allow them to manage the Covid-19 crisis and future pandemics, and continue to meet the overall care needs of the community. It can also highlight how these partnerships will facilitate continued care in a market, which otherwise might lose a valuable health-care resource, as well as the positive economic benefits the transaction will bring for local communities.

Communications that support the vision, rationale and benefits of a deal will also need to be relevant to the regulatory bodies whose approval may be required.

Public perception and support of health-care providers have been extremely positive during the pandemic to date, as evidenced by homemade banners, balcony tributes, and praise on social media. Health systems and their staffs have borne personal risk and financial pain by focusing on patients and public health at the expense of all else. This goodwill can be valuable as health systems seek stakeholder and community support for their transactions.

That goodwill can also quickly be forgotten.

As health systems race to the altar to beat out competitors for M&A targets and other strategic relationships, it is critical that they are thoughtful in structuring their deals and justifying the activity.

For example, acquisitions and partnerships involving substantial outlays of capital and lucrative executive compensation or severance packages will be viewed negatively if undertaken by a system that instituted large compensation reductions across the system or even furloughed or laid off employees during the pandemic.

As the dust begins to settle from the first wave of Covid-19, it is clear that there will be drastic changes to how health systems do business. The pandemic will also create financial winners and losers. Hospitals and health systems must think proactively about a strategy for growth as opportunities with willing transaction partners arise.

But being proactive must be balanced against appearing to be opportunistic or taking advantage of the worst health crisis in our lifetimes. To maintain their goodwill and reputations, health systems should continue to do deals for the right reasons and for the benefit of their communities.