Missouri nonprofit health systems BJC HealthCare, Saint Luke’s targeting $10B merger


BJC HealthCare of St. Louis and Saint Luke’s Health System of Kansas City are exploring a merger that would yield a 28-hospital, $10 billion, integrated, academic health system, the nonprofits announced Wednesday.

The two have signed a nonbinding letter of intent and “are working toward reaching a definitive agreement in the coming months” with a targeted close before the end of the year, they said. The cross-market deal would be subject to regulatory review and other customary closing conditions.

“Together with Saint Luke’s, we have an exciting opportunity to reinforce our commitment to providing extraordinary care to Missourians and our neighboring communities,” BJC HealthCare President and CEO Richard Liekweg said in the announcement. “Amid the rapidly changing health care landscape, this is the right time to build on our established relationship with Saint Luke’s. With an even stronger financial foundation, we will further invest in our teams, advance the use of technologies and data to support our providers and caregivers and improve the health of our communities.”

Both systems are based in Missouri but “serve distinct geographic markets,” they said.

St. Louis-based BJC Healthcare’s footprint is spread across the greater St. Louis, southern Illinois and southeast Missouri regions. It comprises 14 hospitals including two (Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Children’s) affiliated with Washington University School of Medicine. It also operates multiple health service organizations providing home health, long-term care, workplace health and other offerings.

Kansas City, Missouri-based Saint Luke’s is a faith-based system with 14 hospitals and more than 100 offices throughout western Missouri and parts of Kansas. It also provides home care and hospice, adult and children’s behavioral care and a senior living community.

Should the deal close, both systems would continue to serve their existing markets and maintain their branding. The joined organization would be run from dual headquarters with BJC’s Liekweg as CEO but an initial board chair hailing from Saint Luke’s.

The organizations said their combination will expand the services available to patients and provide an estimated $1 billion in annual community benefits. The arrangement would also fuel clinical and academic research while supporting greater workforce investment.

“Our integrated health system, with complementary expertise and team of world-class physicians and caregivers, will set a new national standard for medical education and research,” Saint Luke’s President and CEO Melinda Estes, M.D., said in the announcement. “Through our decade-long relationship as a member of the BJC Collaborative, we’ve established mutual trust and respect, so the opportunity to come together as a single integrated system that can accelerate innovation to better serve patients is a logical next step.”

Years of health system consolidation have led to increased scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers, who have worried that mergers can harm competition. To date, however, efforts to block announced deals have been limited to situations where the parties are operating in the same geographic markets.

Larger, cross-market deals like BJC and Saint Luke’s have become more common in the past year, potentially due to the opportunity to distribute operational risks with limited regulatory scrutiny, analysts have noted.

Multiple health policy researchers have warned that these deals are relatively understudied and, according to some prior analyses, very rarely translate to the quality and consumer cost savings often touted by health systems.

What Kaiser’s Acquisition Of Geisinger Means For Us All

Healthcare’s most recent billion-dollar deal took the industry by surprise, leaving medical experts and hospital leaders grappling to comprehend its implications.

In case you missed it, California-based Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Hospitals, which make up the insurance and facilities half of Kaiser Permanente, announced the acquisition of Geisinger, a Pennsylvania-based health system once acknowledged by President Obama for delivering “high-quality care.”

Upon regulatory approval, Geisinger will become the first organization to join Risant Health, Kaiser Foundation’s newly created $5 billion subsidiary. According to Kaiser, the aim is to build “a portfolio of likeminded, nonprofit, value-oriented, community-based health systems anchored in their respective communities.” 

Having spent 18 years as CEO of The Permanente Medical Group, the half of Kaiser Permanente responsible for the delivery of medical care, I took great interest in the announcement. And I wasn’t alone. My phone rang off the hook for weeks with calls from reporters, policy experts and healthcare executives.

After hundreds of conversations, here are the three most common questions I received about the acquisition—and the implications for doctors, insurers, health-system competitors and patients all over the country.

Question 1: Why did Kaiser acquire Geisinger?

Most callers wanted to know about Kaiser’s motivation, figuring there must’ve been more to the acquisition than the press release indicated. Although I don’t have inside information, I believe they were right. Here’s why:

Kaiser Permanente has a long and ongoing reputation for delivering nation-leading care. The organization has consistently earned the highest quality and patient-satisfaction rankings from the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), Leapfrog Group, JD Power and Medicare.

And yet, despite a 78-year history, dozens of hospitals and 13 million members across eight states, Kaiser Permanente is still considered a coastal—not national—health system. It maintains a huge market share in California and a strong presence in the Mid-Atlantic states, yet the organization has failed repeatedly to replicate that success in other geographies.

With that context, I see two compelling reasons why the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Hospitals wish to become a national brand:

  1. Influence. Elected officials and regulatory bodies often turn to healthcare’s biggest players to set legislative agendas and carve out national policy. At that table, there are a limited number of seats. By shedding its reputation as a “local” health system, Kaiser could earn one.
  2. Survival. In recent years, companies like Amazon, CVS and Walmart have been scooping up organizations that provide primary care, telehealth, home health and specialty care services. These “retail giants” are spending up to $13 billion per acquisition. And they’re consuming already-successful healthcare companies like One Medical, Oak Street Health, Signify, Pill Pack and many others. Like an army preparing for war, these corporate behemoths are amassing the components needed to battle the traditional healthcare incumbents and ultimately oust them entirely.

The Geisinger deal expands Kaiser’s footprint, adding 600,000 patients, 10 hospitals and 100 specialty and primary care clinics. These assets lend gravitas, even though Geisinger also comes with a 2022 operating loss of $239 million.

The lesson to draw from this first question is clear: size matters. The days of solo physicians and stand-alone hospitals are over. Nostalgia for medicine’s folksy, home-spun past is understandable but futile. To survive, healthcare players must get bigger quickly or team up with someone who can. That insight leads to the next question and lesson.

Question 2: How much value will Kaiser give Geisinger?

Almost everyone I’ve spoken with understands Kaiser’s desire for greater national influence, but they’re less sure how this deal will affect Geisinger Health.

Geisinger’s Pennsylvania-based hospitals and clinics have been locked in territorial battles for years with surrounding health systems. More recently, the pandemic, combined with staffing shortages and national inflation, have challenged Geisinger’s clinical performance and eroded its bottom line.

Assuming Kaiser plans to invest roughly $1 billion in each of the four to five health systems it’s planning to acquire, that surge in cash inflow will provide Geisinger with temporary financial safety. But the bigger question is how will Kaiser improve Geisinger’s value-proposition enough to grow its market share?

In public comments, Kaiser leaders spoke of the acquisition as an opportunity for Risant to “improve the health of millions of people by increasing access to value-based care and coverage, and raising the bar for value-based approaches that prioritize patient quality outcomes.”

Many of the experts I spoke with understand Kaiser’s value intent. But they question how Kaiser can could deliver on that promise since The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG) wasn’t involved in the deal.

If, hypothetically, Kaiser and Permanente leaders were to strike a deal to collaborate in the future, TPMG’s physician leaders could bring tremendous knowledge, experience and expertise to the table. Otherwise, I agree with those who’ve expressed doubt that Kaiser, alone, will be able to significantly improve Geisinger’s clinical performance.

Health plans and insurance companies play an important role in financing medical care. They possess rich data on performance and can offer incentives that boost access to higher-quality care. But insurers don’t work directly with individual doctors to coordinate medical care or advance clinical solutions on behalf of patients. And without strong physician leadership, the pace of positive change slows to a crawl. As a example, research conducted within The Permanente Medical Group found that it takes only three years to turn a proven clinical advance into standard practice—that’s nearly six times faster than the national average.

For decades, the secret sauce for Kaiser Permanente has been the cohesive success of its three parts: Kaiser Health Plan, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and The Permanente Medical Group.

And KP’s results speak for themselves:

  • 90% control of hypertension for members (compared to 60% for the rest of the country)
  • 30% fewer deaths from heart attack and stroke (compared to the rest of the country)
  • 20% fewer deaths from colon cancer

The big lesson: insurance, by itself, doesn’t drive major improvements in medicine. It must be a combined effort between forward-looking insurers and innovative, high-performing clinicians.

But there’s another takeaway here for doctors everywhere: now is the time to join forces with other clinicians in your community. Together, you can collaborate to improve clinical quality. You can augment access and make care more affordable for patients. Simultaneously, this is the time for the insurers and the retail giants to figure out which medical groups can deliver the best care and make the best partners. Neither side will flourish alone. And this leads to a third question and lesson.

Question 3: Will the deal work?

Almost all of my conversations ended with this query. I say it’s too early to tell. But as I look years down the road, one part of the deal, in particular, gives me doubt.

Today, Geisinger uses a hybrid reimbursement model—blending both “value-based” care payments with traditional “fee-for-service” insurance plans. In addition to offering its own coverage, it contracts with a variety of other insurance companies. Rarely have I seen this scattered approach succeed.

Most healthcare observers understand the inherent flaw in the “fee for service” (FFS) model is also its greatest appeal to providers: the more you do the more you earn. FFS is how nearly all financial transactions take place in America (i.e., provide a service, earn a fee). In medicine, however, this financial model results in frequent over-testing and over-treatment with minimal if any improvement in clinical outcomes, according to researchers.

The “value-based” alternative to FFS involves prepaying for care—a model often referred to as “capitation.” In short, capitation involves a single fee, paid upfront for all the medical care provided to a defined population of patients for one year based on their age and health status. The better an organization at preventing disease and avoiding complications from chronic illness, the greater its success in both clinical quality and affordability.

Within the small world of capitated healthcare payments, there’s an important element that often gets overlooked. It makes a big difference who receives that lump-sum payment.

In the case of Kaiser Permanente, capitated payments are made directly to the medical group and the physicians who are responsible for providing care. In almost every other health system, an insurance company collects capitated payments but then pays the medical providers on a fee-for-service basis. Even though the arrangement is referred to as capitated, the incentives are overwhelmingly tied to the volume of care (not the value of that care).

In a mixed-payment model, doctors and hospitals invariably prioritize the higher paying FFS patients over the capitated ones. When I think about these conflicting incentives, I’m reminded of a prominent medical group in California. It had a main entrance for its fee-for-service patients and a second, smaller one off to the side for capitated patients.

I doubt the time spent with the patient—or the overall care provided—was equal for both groups. When income is based on quantity of care, not quality, clinicians focus more on treating the complications of chronic disease and medical errors rather than preventing them in the first place. Geisinger has walked this tightrope in the past, but as economic pressures mount, I fear doctors will find the two sets of incentives conflicting and difficult to navigate.

The big lesson: as financial pressures mount, the most effective approaches of the past will likely fail in the future. All healthcare organizations will need to make a decision: keep trying to drive volume and prices up through FFS or shift to capitation. Getting caught in the middle is a prescription for failure.

Examining the healthcare acquisitions made by Amazon and CVS, it’s clear these giants have decided to move aggressively toward a model more like Kaiser Permanente’s—one that brings insurance, pharmacy, physicians and sophisticated IT systems under one roof. These companies, along with Walmart, are aggressively marching down a path toward capitation, focusing on Medicare Advantage (the value-based option for Americans 65+) as an entry point.

So far, Geisinger has hedged its bets by maintaining a hybrid revenue stream. I doubt they can do so successfully in the future. That brings us to a final question.

The biggest question remaining  

Over the next decade, hospital systems, insurers and retailers will battle for healthcare supremacy. The most recent Kaiser-Geisinger deal reflects an industry that’s undergoing massive change as health systems face intensifying pressure to remain relevant.  

The most important issue to resolve is whether these shifts will ultimately help or harm patients. I’m optimistic for a positive outcome.

Whether or not the retail giants displace the incumbents, they will redefine what it takes to win. For all their faults, companies like Amazon and Walmart care a lot about meeting the needs of customers—a mindset rarely found in today’s healthcare world. As these companies grow ever larger, they’ll place consumer-oriented demands on doctors and hospitals. This will require care providers to deliver higher quality care at more affordable prices.

The retailers will only do deals with the best of the best. And they’ll kick the underachievers to the curb. They’ll use their sophisticated IT systems to better coordinate and innovate medical care. Insurers, hospitals and doctors who fail to keep up will be left behind.

Over time, patients will find themselves with far more choices and control than they have today. And I’m optimistic that will be good for the health of our nation.

Physicians Band Together to Fend Off Private-Equity Firms

Marco Fernandez, M.D., says he was blindsided in 2021 when his anesthesiology group, Midwest Anesthesia Partners in Arlington Heights, Illinois, lost two hospital contracts in two weeks to private equity-owned anesthesiology groups. What was more surprising to Fernandez, the group’s president, was that the person contracting on behalf of the private-equity group was an executive board member for the American Society of Anesthesiologists. “I was in disbelief,” Fernandez said.

Fernandez and his colleagues at Midwest Anesthesia Partners and three other anesthesiology groups subsequently started the Association for Independent Medicine (AIM) to push back against private equity-owned takeovers. Take Medicine Back was formed by emergency medicine physicians for similar reasons.

Private-equity firms are investing in or buying healthcare providers across the spectrum —nursing homes, home health agencies, hospitals and physician practices. “It’s in every aspect of health,” Eileen O’Grady, research and campaign director for healthcare at the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, said during a session about private equity at the Association of Health Care Journalists’ annual meeting in March.

Private-equity firms share common characteristics, O’Grady told the journalists. They typically want to double or triple their investment before selling in four to seven years, she said. They often rely on leveraged buyouts and heavy debt to finance their purchase. Another common tactic is to buy small companies and “roll them up” up into larger organizations.

Some private-equity firms use the sale-leaseback model, which involves selling an organization’s real estate and leasing it back to the organization. It may provide an infusion of cash from the sale, but real estate is often a healthcare organization’s biggest asset. O’Grady said she is most troubled by the practice of dividend recapitalizations, which she called “one of the most inexcusable practices of PE (private-equity) firms.” Dividend recapitalizations involve the organization taking on a loan secured by its healthcare business and using some proceeds to pay the private-equity firm a cash dividend, O’Grady explained. This is expensive, as loan funds must be repaid with interest. She shared one example: A hospital system took out a $1.2 billion loan, paying the private equity firm $457 million in dividends. “The hospitals were on the hook to pay that back, while the hospitals were also suffering profound quality issues. There was no value to anyone but the private- equity firm with this transaction.”

Fernandez said that when private equity takes over medical practices, quality suffers. “The cost of care is not going down. The quality is not going up. It’s quite the reverse,” he said. He is hoping AIM can help physicians who want to stay independent. When private- equity firms buy up practices or takes contracts, “there are very few options. You either have to leave the city or just work for them.”

Kaiser+Geisinger: Our take on the formation of Risant Health

Kaiser Permanente  on Wednesday announced it is acquiring Geisinger Health, and Geisinger will operate independently under a new subsidiary of Kaiser called  Risant Health.

Deal details

The combination of the two companies will need to be reviewed by federal and state agencies, but if approved, the two companies will have more than $100 billion in combined annual revenue.

Geisinger will operate independently as part of Risant Health, which will be headquartered in Washington, D.C. and will be led by Geisinger president and CEO Jaewon Ryu. The health systems said they intend to acquire four or five more hospital systems to fold into Risant in an effort to reach $30 billion to $35 billion in total revenue over the next five years.

In an interview, Ryu and Kaiser chair and CEO Greg Adams said Risant will specifically target hospital systems already working to move into value-based care.

According to Adams, Risant Health “is a way to really ensure that not-for-profit, value-based community health is not only alive but is thriving in this country.”

“If we can take much of what is in our value-based care platform and extend that to these leading community health systems, then we extend our mission,” Adams said. “We reach more people, we drive greater affordability for health care in this country.”

Why we’re ‘cautiously optimistic’ about this acquisition 

Just when you thought healthcare couldn’t get more interesting, Kaiser and Geisinger announce their union through newly established Risant Health. At first pass, it is hard to see a downside with this deal — and that’s something that raises my “spidey-senses.”

Kaiser and Geisinger are coming together through a vehicle that could allow them to clear an increasingly skeptical  Federal Trade Commission. It affords two health systems — both in comparatively weaker financial positions than before the pandemic — the ability to get bigger through the merger. Its pitch is decidedly hospital- (and in the future provider) led, with Geisinger retaining its brand and elevating its CEO to the head of Risant. It also gives Geisinger and future partners the latitude to pursue their own payer relationships.

In addition, it is ostensibly a play to increase providers’ control over the nature and pace of value-based care (VBC) adoption. In its press release, Kaiser acknowledges that its closed network model of care management hasn’t scaled well to other markets. And Geisinger, with its own health plan and a track-record of developing its own VBC incentives, is no neophyte and brings a clear wealth of expertise.

Without a doubt, the offer to future partners is compelling: “Come for the size and stay for the value-based care.” But like all things in life, it’s all in the details. And that’s where my “spidey-sense” kicks in.

Partnership and affiliation models alone do not make the hard work of VBC easier. While this emerging group could become a valuable, provider-led clearing house for VBC concepts, applying them in communities remains a stubborn challenge that requires individual work and leadership.

The true test of the concept will come when the first new partner joins. How they decide to participate and whether the model has the right mix of scale and flexibility is what I’ll be watching closely. The overall objective and success measure of this endeavor remains somewhat opaque, but I would say that the concept has real legs here. Right now, I’m leaning toward “cautiously optimistic.”

The imperative to “parallel process” mergers and integration


Given the somewhat frantic pace at which transactions are happening in healthcare these days, with insurers buying up primary care assets, private equity firms rolling up specialty practices, hospital systems looking to consolidate, and everyone circling around digital players, it’s little surprise that we’ve begun to hear some angst among health system executives about their ability to keep pace.

“Some of these disruptors are focused entirely on M&A strategies,” one CEO told us recently. “My team still has to run a complex health system at the same time. It takes us forever to get deals done.”

The concern is legitimate: for many health systems, M&A has been a one-at-a-time proposition. Evaluating and completing an acquisition takes many months, if not a year or more—and the integration of even a relatively small entity into a larger health system often takes longer. 
There is a growing sentiment that the pace of single, sequential mergers and acquisitions will not allow health systems to keep pace. 

One CFO shared, “We did a large merger a decade ago, and we’re just at the point of feeling like we act as a single system. We’re looking at one or two others, and we can’t delay the next opportunity because we’re still working to integrate the last.

His strategy: systems aiming to build a super-regional organization should “rapidly build the network and integrate it once you have all the pieces”. It’s a strategy, he said, that is serving vertically integrated payers like CVS and UHG well. To keep pace in a consolidating market, health systems must maintain a pipeline of potential partners that fit with their vision. But we’re also wary of “saving” all the integration until the deals are done.

Rather, health systems looking to rapidly expand must be able to “parallel process” multiple acquisitions and integration. With smaller financial reserves compared to payer behemoths, health systems need mergers to generate value more quickly. And moreover, as providers are held to a higher standard by regulators, new partnerships will benefit from demonstrating value to consumers and communities.  

USA Health has Signed an Agreement to Acquire Providence Health System from Ascension

The University of South Alabama Health Care Authority has announced plans to acquire Providence Health System from St. Louis-based Ascension. The transaction is subject to routine regulatory approval as well as customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the fall of 2023.   

About the Transaction

USA Health engaged Cain Brothers, a division of KeyBanc Capital Markets, to serve as their strategic financial advisor based on its deep academic medicine and health system sector knowledge. USA Health and Providence have a longstanding relationship and the transaction will help the organizations enhance access to high quality healthcare in the Mobile community and further USA Health’s ability to fulfill its tripartite mission of education, research, and clinical care. The transaction expands USA Health’s footprint in the greater Mobile market, ensuring that the community has access to sustainable, quality healthcare long into the future.

About USA Health

USA Health is located in Mobile, AL, and stands as the only academic health system along the upper Gulf Coast. The system is comprised of nearly 30 care delivery locations, including USA Health University Hospital, the USA Health Mitchell Cancer Institute, USA Health Children’s & Women’s Hospital, a Level I trauma center, a comprehensive stroke center, and a Level III NICU. USA Health employs 3,900 clinical and nonclinical staff members, including 180 academic physicians who serve dual roles treating patients and teaching the next generation of medical doctors.

About Providence Health System

Mobile, AL-based Providence Hospital, which was founded in 1854 by the Daughters of Charity, is a full-service 349 bed hospital with 24/7 emergency care, a Level III trauma center, an outpatient diagnostic center, and a freestanding rehabilitation and wellness center. In addition to the hospital, Providence operates related sites of care throughout the greater Mobile community, including the physician practices of Ascension Medical Group. Providence became part of Ascension in 1999 when the Daughters of Charity and Sisters of St. Joseph Health System merged to form Ascension.

About Ascension

Ascension is one of the nation’s leading not-for-profit and Catholic health systems, with a mission of delivering compassionate, personalized care to all with special attention to persons living in poverty and those most vulnerable. Ascension includes approximately 37,000 aligned providers and operates more than 2,600 sites of care – including 138 hospitals in 19 states.

CHS looking for more M&A, share price slumps

Franklin, Tenn.-based CHS, which reported a net loss of $20 million in the first quarter on revenues of $3.1 billion, is on the hunt for new acquisitions just as it is also in discussions to sell off more assets.

“We are considering further opportunities to expand our portfolio,” CEO Tim Hingtgen said in a webcast discussing first-quarter results.

Selling off certain assets would also help balance the system and further reduce some of its debt, President and CFO Kevin Hammons confirmed on the call.

“Moreover, we may give consideration to divesting certain additional hospitals and non-hospital businesses,” CHS said in an SEC filing. “Generally, these hospitals and non-hospital businesses are not in one of our strategically beneficial services areas, are less complementary to our business strategy and/or have lower operating margins. In addition, we continue to receive interest from potential acquirers for certain of our hospitals and non-hospital businesses.”

The health system, which operates 79 hospitals in 15 states, has agreed to sell four more hospitals effective Jan. 1, the filing stated.

CHS recently completed the $92 million sale of Oak Hill, W.Va.-base Plateau Medical Center to Charleston, W.Va.-based Vandalia Health. It also finalized on Jan. 3 an $85 million sale of its former 122-bed facility in Ronceverte, W.Va, also to Vandalia Health.

CHS shares were trading at $6.24 before its results were released. It is currently trading at approximately $3.70.

15 healthcare mergers and acquisitions making headlines in April

Here are 15 major hospital and healthcare merger and acquisition-related transactions from April:

  1. Brentwood, Tenn.-based Quorum Health is selling Waukegan, Ill.-based Vista Medical Center East to American Healthcare Systems, the Lake County News-Sun reported April 28. The hospital will change hands by May 31. American Healthcare Systems is based in Los Angeles.
  2. West Virginia will soon likely see a combined four-hospital system as Huntington-based Mountain Health Network, Marshall Health and Marshall University seek to combine. The combination should be completed by the end of this year.
  3. Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health continues to push for the acquisition of three hospitals owned by private equity-backed Prospect Medical Holdings. The system made its case to the state’s certificate of need committee as to why it is better placed to acquire the three sites.
  4. Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente agreed to acquire Geisinger Health in a deal that will make the Danville, Pa.-based health system the first to join Risant Health, a new nonprofit organization created by the Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. The newly formed entity, which still has to be approved by regulators, would eventually look to acquire four to six other systems.
  5. Mobile, Ala.-based University of South Alabama confirmed April 19 it is buying Ascension Providence Hospital in the city in an $85 million transaction that includes the hospital’s clinics.
  6. The Oregon Health Authority on April 13 approved Roseville, Calif.-based Adventist Health‘s acquisition of the Mid-Columbia Medical Center in The Dalles, Ore., according to the Columbia Community Connection.
  7. Lumberton, N.C.-based UNC Health Southeastern is transitioning two of its business areas, seeking to sell a long-term care facility and transferring its current outpatient hospice program.
  8. Salt Lake City-based Intermountain Health is partnering with two Idaho hospitals as a minority investor. The 33-hospital system is investing in Idaho Falls Community Hospital and 43-bed Mountain View Hospital, also based in Idaho Falls.
  9. Two Wisconsin health systems — Froedtert Health and ThedaCare — signed a letter of intent to merge into a single system. Milwaukee-based Froedtert and Neenah-based ThedaCare announced the plan to combine April 11 with the goal to close the deal by the end of the year.
  10. Franklin, Tenn.-based Community Health Systems has struck agreements to sell four hospitals across three states in 2023.
  11. Mechanicsburg, Pa.-based Select Medical has acquired Vibra Hospital of Richmond, a 63-bed acute care facility in Richmond, Va. Terms were not disclosed. The hospital, which will take up the name Select Specialty Hospital-Richmond, will continue to provide post-ICU medical care for chronic and critically ill patients requiring long-term care, according to an April 5 release.
  12. Carle Health has added three Peoria, Ill.-based UnityPoint Health-Central Illinois hospitals into its system. The closing, which took place April 1, integrates Methodist, Proctor and Pekin hospitals under Carle, along with 76 clinics and Methodist College, according to an April 3 news release from Carle Health. Urbana, Ill.-based Carle Health now has eight hospitals in its system following the deal’s closing.
  13. Ann Arbor-based University of Michigan Health acquired Lansing, Mich.-based Sparrow Health System to become a $7 billion health system with more than 200 sites of care.
  14. Franklin, Tenn.-based Community Health Systems completed a $92 million sale of Oak Hill, W.Va.-based Plateau Medical Center to Charleston, W.Va.-based Vandalia Health. The healthcare giant closed on the transaction April 1.
  15. South Arkansas Regional Hospital signed a definitive agreement to acquire El Dorado-based Medical Center of South Arkansas from subsidiaries of Community Health Systems. The deal is expected to close in the summer.

Kaiser Permanente to acquire Geisinger, form company to operate other nonprofit systems

Dive Brief:

  • Kaiser Permanente is acquiring Geisinger Health and forming a new nonprofit to buy and operate other value-oriented nonprofit systems, the organizations announced Wednesday.
  • The new nonprofit, Risant Health, will operate separately from Kaiser Permanente. Geisinger will become part of Risant but maintain its own name and mission, according to a press release.
  • Geisinger president and CEO Jaewon Ryu will be CEO of Risant as the transaction closes, subject to regulatory review. Risant will have its headquarters in Washington, D.C..

Dive Insight:

Risant represents an opportunity for Kaiser, which currently operates in eight states and Washington, D.C., to expand its reach nationwide through targeted acquisitions of nonprofit community health systems, as smaller hospitals continue to struggle in a difficult operating environment.

About half of all U.S. hospitals finished last year with negative margins, according to consultancy Kaufman Hall.

Kaiser, which reported $95 billion in revenue in 2022, plans to spend $5 billion on Risant over the next five years, and add five or six health systems to Risant over that period, according to reports.

Kaufman Hall said recently it expects a “new wave of transaction activity” and a growing number of cross-regional partnerships.

Pennsylvania-based Geisinger has 10 hospital campuses and a health plan that covers more than 500,000 members. It has more than 25,000 employees. Both Geisinger and Kaiser reported operating losses last year, as supply and labor expenses rose.

Kaiser in 2022 posted a $4.5 billion net loss, compared to a prior-year gain of $8.1 billion.

Federal and state regulators still need to approve the deal, the financial terms of which were not disclosed. It’s likely to face a high bar for approval as regulators more aggressively scrutinize hospital mergers.

‘The false choice of sitting back’: A conversation with Bill Gassen and James Hereford

Welcome to the “Lessons from the C-suite” series, featuring Advisory Board President Eric Larsen’s conversations with the most influential leaders in healthcare.

In this edition, Bill Gassen, President and CEO of Sanford Health and James Hereford, President and CEO of Fairview Health Services talk with Eric about the planned merger that will create the 11th largest health system in the United States that would span North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota.

The two CEOs describe the urgency and intent behind the merger, why not all disruptors are equally disruptive, and why it takes more than size to harness scale in healthcare.

Question: Bill and James, let’s jump right in. The two of you are architecting one of the most significant health system mergers of 2023 — a combination of Sanford Health and Fairview, which on its completion, will result in the 11th largest health system in the US. The discussions have attracted, understandably, a lot of interest and scrutiny not just in each of your communities, but nationally. Some may not be aware, but this is not the first time that Sanford and Fairview have considered coming together. Bill, let’s start with you – why is this time different?

Gassen: Eric, you’re right. This is not the only time our two organizations have considered the idea of merging. James and I, and our respective boards and organizations, have examined every element of the union and are confident that this is the right time to proceed. We have executed a Letter of Intent (LOI) and submitted an HSR filing that has been reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The parties provided substantial amounts of information to the FTC and the HSR process and it is now complete. There is an unwavering commitment from our respective leaders and our organizations to see this through.

It is a false choice for anyone to believe that James or I or anybody else has the benefit of sitting back and saying, well, maybe I’ll just maintain the world that I live in today. The healthcare status quo is gone. What is in front of us is taking the steps needed to ensure that we can continue to provide the best possible service for our patients, employees, and communities. Taking control over our destinyWe want to come together in a merger between our two organizations to put us in a position to fundamentally change and to be an agent for the modernization of the way care is delivered into the future. Our organizations exist only to serve patients, employees, and our communities. That is not up for debate. What we have in front of us is a decision to make that better for generations to come.

Hereford: I think Bill articulated that very well. Our purpose is to combine to improve and sustain our ability to offer world class healthcare. It is not simply a function of scale, you have to combine that with an intent to drive change, to improve value, and to innovate. And that’s a rare thing to have that intent. We have that intent today.

Avoiding the ‘Noah’s Ark’ problem

Q: Let’s go a bit deeper into the horizontal consolidation among health systems. This isn’t a new phenomenon — in fact, our $1.4 trillion hospital sector is already massively consolidated, with the top 100 systems controlling almost $900 billion in revenue. But with this degree of concentration, a lot of disillusionment: we just haven’t seen compelling or provable quality improvements, let alone the scale of cost reductions projected. Some of this might be what I call the “Noah’s Ark” problem—two of everything (two CEOs, two headquarters, two EHRs, etc.) … in other words, very little rationalization of back-office infrastructure or staffing.

I think about the proposed Sanford-Fairview merger differently. I might even characterize it as more a “vertical” merger, instead of “horizontal” — a combination of different and complementary capabilities instead of overlapping or competing ones — including Sanford’s proprietary health plan and virtual hospital investments, bringing Fairview’s specialty pharmacy and post-acute companies into the combination — for example. Am I thinking about this the right way?

Gassen: I think your characterization is right, Eric. We are different but very complementary organizations. We are contiguous as it relates to geography, but there is no overlap. We serve distinctly different populations in a similar part of the country. Roughly two-thirds of the patients who have been served today at Sanford Health come to us from a rural community. While most of those who Fairview serves come from much more densely populated urban communities. Both of those subsets of our population are experiencing similar challenges. There’s a need for financial sustainability, both on the provider side as well as on the patient side of the house.

When you think about our service mix, there are a number of complementary areas that make our union additive. Specialty and subspecialty expertise at Fairview coupled with a robust primary care backbone from Sanford plus our Virtual Care initiative and significant philanthropic investment will come together to create powerful healthcare solutions.

The fact that at Sanford alone we have $350 million solely dedicated to, and available for, scaling virtual care is amazing. And when you think about applying that investment to Sanford and Fairview, the opportunities are limitless. We’re going to be able to serve both our rural and urban communities, allowing us to truly transform the way in which healthcare is delivered and experienced in this part of the country.

And for those outside our orbit, they’ll say, “I want to partner with a combined Sanford Fairview” because that is much more attractive. And at the end of the day, partnering with us means that we’re all in a better position to transform the way in which we deliver care, how care is accessed, and how quality is improved. And do it in a financially sustainable way that allows us to deliver equitable care to more people in the upper Midwest.

Hereford: Here’s why scale matters: If you’re one hospital and you drive an innovation that requires a capital of investment of $1 million, that’s an expensive solution. But if you’ve got 100 hospitals, the size of that investment you made on a scale basis is much smaller. Therefore, your ability to drive the needed level of innovation is expanded significantly. To truly improve healthcare delivery, we must challenge ourselves to do things differently, but you have to have a certain level of scale to be able to do that.

Health system transformation must happen now

Q: I want to expand on the earlier point you made that the old health system status quo is forever gone. 2022, for health systems, was something of an Armageddon year — the worst on record with 11 out of 12 months with negative margins; supply chain costs up 17% versus pre-pandemic; health systems collectively spending an extra $125 billion on Labor last year compared to 2021. So not a great “state of the union” for acute-care centric health systems. How does this macroeconomic backdrop factor into your planning?

Hereford: Conceptually, cognitively, I would offer that hospital CEOs probably all know that the good old days are gone. But you don’t see organizations responding as if they’re gone. And we’re on the precipice of a significant cliff. The fundamental things that have defined healthcare and not-for-profit healthcare for decades have fundamentally shifted. We need to change in response.

We’re going to have 80,000 people when we combine. The challenge for us as leaders is going to be how do we shift the mindset and change the way we think about care delivery while maintaining essential services that persist with challenging economics. We are a high capital, low margin business that is critical to society.

Gassen: James, it’s as you and I talk about a lot. We don’t get the benefit of hitting pause, taking a year to revamp the industry because it’s 24 by 7 by 365. There are no breaks.

And while we’re doing that and while we are delivering essential services, the 45,000 incredible caregivers at Sanford and the 35,000 incredible caregivers at Fairview, collectively, are going to figure out how we evolve together as a unified organization to continue to elevate that critical work of patient care. And we don’t get reimbursed for a lot of those services. But those are essential services that people need.

If we want to be able to meet the needs of vulnerable patients and communities, we must face the increased pressure to lower costs and increase scale to drive positive margins. Those areas are few and far between in not-for-profit healthcare delivery. So, it necessitates that we continue to evolve and think differently about the work that we do driving down costs.

Larsen: And that’s increasingly becoming difficult — even for big players. I’ve been writing ruefully about the “billion-dollar club” — preeminent health systems like Ascension, MGB and Cleveland Clinic each posting more than a billion dollars in total losses (and even more in some cases, e.g., $4.5 billion for Kaiser). But Sanford, in contrast, is one of just a small handful of health systems that somehow managed to end 2022 in the black, with a $188 million operating income last year. Bill, any reflections on how you and the team did that?

Gassen: We count ourselves very, very blessed to be among the few who had the opportunity to experience positive margins in 2022. I would give first and foremost credit to an exceptionally talented team inside and outside the organization. They do a wonderful job of focusing their attention on that which matters most, which is patient care.

It’s also a very well-constructed organization from the ground up. We benefit coming into both the pandemic and then through the financial headwinds in 2022 with a well-diversified set of assets and geographies. On the acute side it’s largely contained across Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota.

In Minnesota, and across those above geographies, we have a great complement of assets across our provider sponsored health plan, hospitals, clinics, post-acute care, as well as our research enterprise, all of which, collectively, allowed us to do a better job than some of our peers at weathering that “economic storm” you mentioned earlier.

But, most importantly, it’s just the time that we’ve had to mature as an organization. And with that time, we’ve integrated more deeply as one singular operating company. Sanford Health is not a holding company. The decisions that we make, we make as one singular integrated system and that is a part of that special sauce that’s allowed us to be successful.

Everything that I’ve described has just given us a little bit of a head start and now it’s incumbent upon us to maximize that time.

The imagined and real disruption in healthcare

Q: Bill, you mentioned time is of the essence. And so far, we’ve mostly localized our discussion today talking about health system-specific competitive issues, which makes sense. But it also makes sense to lift up and survey the healthcare ecosystem outside of health systems and note the fact that even when Sanford and Fairview combine and represent $14 billion in revenue, it will still be comparatively tiny to some of the non-traditional players seeking to disrupt healthcare. We have trillion-dollar market cap companies like Amazon investing aggressively into the primary care, pharmacy, and home enablement spaces. We have Fortune 10 companies like UnitedHealth Group and CVS-Aetna vertically integrating and building out sophisticated ambulatory delivery systems. And we have retailers like Walmart and Best Buy transitioning into parts of the healthcare delivery chain as well. So, while Sanford-Fairview will be sizable by most conventional healthcare metrics, it has some pretty formidable competition. How do you assess the new competitive landscape emerging?

Hereford: So, I thought a lot about this because I do think it’s one of the most significant aspects of our industry right now. The opportunity for a CVS-Aetna is that they are proximate to a lot of people in the US. And there’s a lot of things that they could do for patients with a simple presentation of acute symptoms or for fairly simple chronic disease and stabilization. But that is not what drives the cost of health care in the US. It’s when people get very sick.

People receiving specialist care in hospitals are having complex procedures. They’re being treated for complex cancers. And we’re doing an amazing job of advancing the science and the technologies that we can apply to that. But that doesn’t happen in a drug store. That does not happen in a store front primary care office. That happens in organizations like ours. Our challenge is to create the same level of convenience, the same level of access, or partner in a smart way to achieve that.

Our job is to think about total cost of care within the context of delivering very complex care. That isn’t simply a function of primary care and that, I think, is our fundamental challenge. We can translate that into real total cost of care savings.

Gassen: For James and me, in our respective roles and responsibilities, this is our incredibly rewarding and incredibly difficult work. Because those other organizations aren’t required to provide care to everyone. They’re not required to provide free care. They’re not required to be able to provide services for which there is no margin. We don’t get to cherry pick.

It’s our responsibility to really be all things from a healthcare delivery perspective to all people, which means that we are always going to be challenged with how we do that in a financially sustainable way. I think it’s the beauty of where we find ourselves as an industry because out of that necessity comes that innovation that we’ve been talking about here because we can’t continue at current course and speed.

Larsen: When we start to talk about giants in healthcare we tend to index on their size and market cap and, as a result, we lump vertically integrating players and technology companies under the same umbrella. I think that’s a mistake. You have focused healthcare payers like CVS Aetna and UHG that are combining their underwriting business (and ownership of the premium dollar) with an ambulatory delivery network, with an emphasis on home and virtual care. To me that’s a very real and consequential development – and very different from what Big Tech is aspiring to do in our space.

Hereford: Eric, I agree.The world is so clearly changing and that is where the market and a number of very large healthcare organizations are betting. I do think that people who see the overall size of the healthcare marketplace and say “we want to be a part of that” but without any clear way of making sustainable margins.

Gassen: In contrast with the large public companies, as a not-profit health care system, it’s a fact of life that we operate on thin margins. But there are a lot of dollars floating around for other players in the healthcare ecosystem. Which to your point, is why people get enticed to enter into the healthcare space. Our goal with the transaction is to remain financially solid, with the resources needed to invest in our communities, while staying true to our non-profit mission.

Larsen: Your comments, Bill, underscore the power of being a ‘payvider’ in healthcare, which of course Sanford is. You’re in rarefied company — only a dozen or so health systems can claim this, and they have one thing in common — a very mature health plan function (average age of 44 years). So Intermountain, Geisinger, Kaiser, Sentara, Sanford and a small handful of others fit this bill.  I presume a major part of the envisioned benefit of the merger is extending Sanford Health plan into Fairview. Can I get you both to comment on that?

Gassen: I certainly agree with you Eric about the importance of being a “payvider.”  And of course, I’d also say there is a scale component to that, too. Today our health plan only has 220,000 covered lives. But it is a very valuable and strategic component of the larger Sanford Health system.

As we come together with Fairview into a combined system, we now have the opportunity to bring the Sanford Health plan and its additional options and opportunities for members to a much larger community. And one that’s backed by a combined system. It offers greater choices for the two million people across North Dakota, South Dakota, and Western Minnesota.

When we do that, it puts us in the best possible position to coordinate care that allows for the best outcomes, and as a consequence, also results in a better financial position for us. And so, when we think ahead to the opportunity to now apply the infrastructure that we’ve built to the greater Twin Cities market and beyond to bring that together with the care delivery assets and expertise of Fairview Health Services, we get really excited about the opportunities we unlock not just for the combined organization, but for importantly, for all the members within that community.

Healthcare’s technology paradox

Q: The above commentary on scaling out to wider geographies and connecting and transforming care brings me to the paradox of digital health. One of the only bright lights to come out of the pandemic was what I would characterize as a “Renaissance moment” in digital health — unprecedented funding ($72 billion globally in 2021 alone) fueling the creation of almost 13,000 digital startups, spanning new diagnostics, therapeutics, clinical/non-clinical workflow, care augmentation, you name it. And while we’re now seeing a rough contraction, with lots of companies starved for capital and struggling to sell into healthcare incumbents, we are going to see some winners and some transformational platforms emerge.

The question is, will healthcare incumbents like health systems be able to take advantage of this?  The data are sobering — it takes an estimated 23 months for a health system to deploy a digital health technology (once it signs a contract). And while technology tends to be deflationary — lowers costs as it augments productivity — that just hasn’t happened in healthcare, as costs inexorably keep going up. How will the combined Sanford-Fairview tackle this? Who wants to go first?

Hereford: Let me start because I want to respond to something you said, Eric. You’re right, technology has been deflationary in other sectors but only since about 1995. In the 1990s many books in that period were asking “why are we investing all this money in technology across all sectors and we’re not seeing productivity improvements?”

But out of that question came reengineering — where companies started to reconfigure processes and workflows as opposed to just applying technologies. Only then did they see the deflationary benefits of greater efficiencies from technologies. So, I think that has a lot to do with how we’ve applied technology. We’ve had federal stimulus to apply technology, but it’s to apply technology for its own sake. Not to challenge how we use technology to make it easier to be a doctor or nurse. How do we use technology to make people more effective and therefore more efficient?

Gassen: I think that change, especially fundamental shifts, and changes to a business won’t happen until you absolutely have to. And that’s human nature.

The challenge ahead of us is to interrogate how we as an industry interact with our patients and ask, “How can we fundamentally tear that down to the studs and rebuild it better and fit for today?”

But I also want to be clear about why we’re here as a health system. Our reality is that there is a patient at the end of every single decision that we make. So, we must be extremely careful about how we look at processes and implement change. We know they’re rarely perfect, but oftentimes we do deliver the best outcome for the patient. Our job is to be able to make the right change without causing harm.

Larsen: Bill, we’ve made the argument together in past conversations that this same creation moment for digital health solutions beautifully aligns to address the conventional disadvantages of American rural medicine: insufficient infrastructure (hospitals, surgery centers, etc.) and a scarcity of clinicians and non-clinicians for the workforce. Digital health holds the promise to turn those deficits into advantages. And, you know, Sanford’s been a pioneer in launching a $350 million virtual hospital. Perhaps you can unpack this.

Gassen: I’d say our work here really has its origins in the unwavering belief that one zip code should not determine the level of care that a person receives. Every patient has the right to access world class care. So, it’s incumbent upon us, those of us who find ourselves in the privileged position to be in leadership in healthcare delivery organizations like Sanford and Fairview, to take the necessary steps to deploy the appropriate resources and to find the right partners to ensure that whether you’re living in the most rural parts of the heartland or an urban center, you get the best quality care possible.

We take great pride in the fact that our organization was built on the belief that we know many of our patients choose to live in rural America. Two-thirds of the patients today at Sanford Health, whom we have the privilege of serving, come to us from rural America.

It’s with that front and center, the Virtual Care initiative at Sanford Health is allowing us the opportunity to deliver world class care. It’s about making certain that through basically all facets of digital transformation, we leverage our resources to extend excellence in primary care, in specialty and subspecialty care, and offer those individuals access to that care close to home.

The vision for us is to ensure that those who choose to live in rural America are not forced to sacrifice access to high quality, dependable care. That’s at the core of both our beliefs and actions.

Larsen: And James, I think you’ve been one of the most progressive CEOs in the industry on thinking about capitalizing on digital health, innovation and partnering with capital allocators. And we talked about a few of them — leading VCs like Thrive or SignalFire who are partnering broadly with health systems — and finding ways to shorten the innovation cycle.

Hereford: It comes back to intent and purpose. Our job is to make sure that everybody can access high quality care and so the opportunity is to really think about the commonalities and leverage that across both rural America, urban communities, suburbs, exurbs, etc. The other thing that I think is often overlooked in your Cambrian explosion is the volume of scientific advancements over the last two decades.

I love the hypothetical of a medical student who learned everything about medicine in 1950 and how fast the volume of clinical knowledge would have doubled then. They would have had about 50 years before the knowledge base doubled. Today, an amazing medical student with the ambition to learn the entire body of clinical knowledge would have about seven months to see it doubled. That’s how fast medicine is advancing.

We built this industry based on highly specialized, incredibly smart, incredibly committed people who can master these topics. This volume of information on clinical care theory, the body of knowledge on clinical application, all layered on to how the business of care works is cognitive overload. We have got to give them better tools. We have got to help support them. I think we’re in a unique place to be able to really do something about it and create real solutions for people.

Gassen: Where we’re at right now necessitates that. And again, thinking a level deeper as it relates to rural America, the opportunity is so incredibly ripe because it’s necessary. The only way that we’re going to be able to scale to the level we need is to leverage and maximize technology. And so therein creates that opportunity and that necessity makes us a very fertile ground for organizations to come in and partner with us, to be able to extend those services.

The current deal’s state of play

Q: So, we started our conversation about the merger and went broad to talk about industry trends and the wider landscape. But I do want to circle back to a couple of the outstanding specifics of the merger. Sanford and Fairview are merging. What will the University of Minnesota’s relationship be with the merged organization?

Gassen: Both James and I firmly believe, and have articulated in our conversation with you today, the virtues of bringing Sanford Health and Fairview Health services together are absolutely essential to ensuring the delivery of world class healthcare in the upper Midwest. And we are committed to creating the right relationship with the University of Minnesota for it to pursue its mission.

Hereford: We’ve always said that we wanted the University to be part of what we’re building. And, the University of Minnesota has indicated their desire to purchase the academic assets of the system and we stand ready to engage with them to support that. If that is the path that they pursue and can get state funding to support, then we can work with them to determine the nature of the relationship between the new system and the University of Minnesota.

Larsen: And how about the other partners and players in the landscape? I’m thinking of the Minnesota Attorney General, the FTC, etc.

Gassen: We’ve engaged the elected officials across the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota, and we’ve continued to keep them apprised. We’ve also worked very closely with regulators and are happy to report that following its review, the Federal Trade Commission cleared the transaction and the HSR process is complete.

At this point in time, we are working closely with Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office in the state of Minnesota to ensure that he has sufficient information to complete his analysis under antitrust and charities laws to ensure that he’s continuing to protect the interests of all Minnesotans. We remain very engaged and look forward to the conclusion of that work.

The future focus of leadership

Q: Ok, I’d like to round out this conversation with a look to the future. Can you foreshadow your division of labor…where you will be converging and where will you be dividing and conquering as CEOs?

Hereford: One of the great positives of this deal and one of the great signals of the quality of the rationale here is that Bill and I went into this with the question: How do we set this up to be successful over the long term?

You may have noticed Bill and I are different ages. Bill has a lot more runway than I have, so it was not a difficult decision on my part to say “look, it’s important for me to help with the transition because it’s a big deal, right? And it’s not going to be over in a year.” But I can be that bridging function to help support the transition. This is a long-term play and Bill’s the person who’s going to be able to be in the seat to really see that through.

And given my interests I can take on the innovation that we’re talking about and how we make the membrane of this organization a little more permeable and a little bit more friendly to partners, while also being very demanding of partners in terms of the value they create, and we create within the system.

I’m really excited about the opportunity to do that. I do think the way that we have approached this is a very enlightened approach.

Gassen: Standing on the shoulders of James’ comments, one of the many aspects that makes this merger unique is the collegiality and foresight from our respective boards that see how incredibly valuable it is to be able to have co-CEOs working together, focusing first and foremost on ensuring that we’re bringing together the two organizations as one integrated, transformative healthcare delivery organization. I think James and I get up every morning with the goal of making sure that that happens every single day.

And it’s not just that James will work on the innovation piece because it brings him joy and energy but also, it’s where he has a deep level of experience and expertise. I get to focus more of my time and energy on the day-to-day of the two organizations coming together.

Together, James and I will be able to jointly balance the combination of the two organizations with day-to-day delivery and the transformative opportunities for us because of the unique nature of our backgrounds and expertise.

Hereford: And I think that’s a real advantage for the organization. I’m sure there are going be times when I’ll say “Bill, we’ve got to change. You’ve got to do this”. And he’s going to say “yeah, but I can’t do that. I can’t make that kind of change.”

But that’s the kind of dialogue that this structure sets up for us to hold that tension productively as opposed to responding to the tyranny of the urgent, which is ever present in a large health care delivery system. Transformation of care delivery systems will require the ability to manage those competing dynamics. I really appreciate both the structure but also how Bill is approaching this.

Gassen: I do think that what we just described here will prove to be one of the finer distinguishing factors that allows us to really be successful. Because you do oftentimes find yourself with a choice between A or B. And for us we get to choose C — “all of the above” — and go forward and do that.