23 health systems with strong finances

Here are 23 health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to reports from credit rating agencies Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service released in 2024.

Avera Health has an “AA-” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Sioux Falls, S.D.-based system’s strong operating risk and financial profile assessments, and significant size and scale, Fitch said.  

Cedars-Sinai Health System has an “AA-” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Los Angeles-based system’s consistent historical profitability and its strong liquidity metrics, historically supported by significant philanthropy, Fitch said. 

Children’s Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Dallas-based system’s continued strong performance from a focus on high margin and tertiary services, as well as a distinctly leading market share, Moody’s said.    

Children’s Hospital Medical Center of Akron (Ohio) has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the system’s large primary care physician network, long-term collaborations with regional hospitals and leading market position as its market’s only dedicated pediatric provider, Moody’s said. 

Children’s Hospital of Orange County has an “AA-” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Orange, Calif.-based system’s position as the leading provider for pediatric acute care services in Orange County, a position solidified through its adult hospital and regional partnerships, ambulatory presence and pediatric trauma status, Fitch said. 

Cook Children’s Medical Center has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The ratings agency said the Fort Worth Texas-based system will benefit from revenue diversification through its sizable health plan, large physician group, and an expanding North Texas footprint.   

El Camino Health has an “AA” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Mountain View, Calif.-based system’s strong operating profile assessment with a history of generating double-digit operating EBITDA margins anchored by a service area that features strong demographics as well as a healthy payer mix, Fitch said. 

JPS Health Network has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Fort Worth, Texas-based system’s sound historical and forecast operating margins, the ratings agency said. 

Mass General Brigham has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Somerville, Mass.-based system’s strong reputation for clinical services and research at its namesake academic medical center flagships that drive excellent patient demand and help it maintain a strong market position, Moody’s said. 

McLaren Health Care has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Grand Blanc, Mich.-based system’s leading market position over a broad service area covering much of Michigan, the ratings agency said. 

Med Center Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Bowling Green, Ky.-based system’s strong operating risk assessment and leading market position in a primary service area with favorable population growth, Fitch said.  

Novant Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The ratings agency said the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based system’s recent acquisition of three South Carolina hospitals from Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare will be accretive to its operating performance as the hospitals are highly profited and located in areas with growing populations and good income levels. 

Oregon Health & Science University has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Portland-based system’s top-class academic, research and clinical capabilities, Moody’s said.  

Orlando (Fla.) Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the health system’s strong and consistent operating performance and a growing presence in a demographically favorable market, Fitch said.  

Presbyterian Healthcare Services has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Albuquerque, N.M.-based system’s rating is driven by a strong financial profile combined with a leading market position with broad coverage in both acute care services and health plan operations, Fitch said. 

Rush University System for Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Chicago-based system’s strong financial profile and an expectation that operating margins will rebound despite ongoing macro labor pressures, the rating agency said. 

Saint Francis Healthcare System has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Cape Girardeau, Mo.-based system’s strong financial profile, characterized by robust liquidity metrics, Fitch said. 

Saint Luke’s Health System has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The Kansas City, Mo.-based system’s rating was upgraded from “A1” after its merger with St. Louis-based BJC HealthCare was completed in January. 

Salem (Ore.) Health has an”AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the system’s dominant marketing positive in a stable service area with good population growth and demand for acute care services, Fitch said. 

Seattle Children’s Hospital has an “AA” rating and a stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the system’s strong market position as the only children’s hospital in Seattle and provider of pediatric care to an area that covers four states, Fitch said.  

SSM Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The St. Louis-based system’s rating is supported by a strong financial profile, multistate presence and scale with good revenue diversity, Fitch said. 

University of Colorado Health has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Aurora-based system’s rating reflects a strong financial profile benefiting from a track record of robust operating margins and the system’s growing share of a growth market anchored by its position as the only academic medical center in the state, Fitch said. 

Willis-Knighton Medical Center has an “AA-” rating and positive outlook with Fitch. The outlook reflects the Shreveport, La.-based system’s improving operating performance relative to the past two fiscal years combined with Fitch’s expectation for continued improvement in 2024 and beyond. 

42 health systems ranked by operating margins

Health system operating margins improved in 2023 after a tumultuous 2022. Increased revenue from rebounding patient volumes helped offset the high costs of labor and supplies for many systems, but some continue to face challenges turning a financial corner. 

In a Feb. 21 analysis, Kaufman Hall noted that too many hospitals are losing money but high-performing hospitals are faring far better, “effectively pulling away from the pack.” 

Average operating margins have see-sawed over the last 12 months, from a -1.2% low in February 2023 to 5.5% highs in June and December. In February, average operating margins dropped to 3.96% before the Change Healthcare data breach, which has impacted claims processing.

Here are 42 health systems ranked by operating margins in their most recent financial results.

Editor’s note: The following financial results are for the 12 months ending Dec. 31, 2023, unless otherwise stated. 

1. Tenet Healthcare (Dallas)

Revenue: $20.55 billion
Expenses: $18.31 billion
Operating income/loss: $2.5 billion 
(*Includes grant income and equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates)
Operating margin: 12.2%

2. HCA Healthcare (Nashville, Tenn.)

Revenue: $65 billion
Expenses: $57.3 billion
Operating income/loss: $7.7 billion
Operating margin: 11.8%

3. Universal Health Services (King of Prussia, Pa.)

Revenue: $14.3 billion
Expenses: $13.1 billion
Operating income/loss: $1.2 billion
Operating margin: 8.4% 

4. Baylor Scott & White (Dallas)

*Results for the first six months ending Dec. 31
Revenue: $7.6 billion
Expenses: $7 billion
Operating income/loss: $634 million
Operating margin: 8.3%

5. NYU Langone (New York City)

*Results for the 12 months ending Aug. 31
Revenue: $8.3 billion
Expenses: $7.7 billion
Operating income/loss: $686.2 million
Operating margin: 8.3%

6. Orlando (Fla.) Health

*Results for the 12 months ending Sept. 30
Revenue: $6.1 billion
Expenses: $5.6 billion
Operating income/loss: $491.3 million
Operating margin: 8.1%

7. Community Health Systems (Franklin, Tenn.)

Revenue: $12.5 billion
Expenses: $11.5 billion
Operating income/loss: $957 million
Operating margin: 7.7% 

8. Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minn)

Revenue: $17.9 billion
Expenses: $16.8 billion
Operating income/loss: $1.1 billion 
Operating margin: 6%

9. Sanford Health (Sioux Falls, S.D.)

Revenue: $7.2 billion
Expenses: $6.8 billion
Operating income/loss: $402.2 million
Operating margin: 5.6%

10. Stanford Health Care (Palo Alto, Calif.)

*Results for the 12 months ending Aug. 31
Revenue: $7.9 billion
Expenses: $7.5 billion
Operating income/loss: $414.9 million
Operating margin: 5.3%

11. Christus Health (Irving, Texas)

*For the 12 months ending June 30 
Revenue: $7.8 billion
Expenses: $7.5 billion
Operating income/loss: $324.5 million
Operating margin: 4.2%

12. IU Health (Indianapolis)

Revenue: $8.6 billion
Expenses: $8.3 billion
Operating income/loss: $343 million
Operating margin: 4%

13. Northwestern Medicine (Chicago)

*Results for the 12 months ending Sept. 31
Revenue: $8.7 billion
Expenses: $8.4 billion
Operating income/loss: $352.3 million
Operating margin: 4%

14. BJC HealthCare (St. Louis)

Revenue: $6.9 billion
Expenses: $6.8 billion
Operating income/loss: $141.6 million
Operating margin: 2%

15. Banner Health (Phoenix)

Revenue: $14.1 billion
Expenses: $13.8 billion
Operating income/loss: $282.8 million
Operating margin: 2%

16. Norton Healthcare (Louisville, Ky.)

Revenue: $4 billion
Expenses: $3.8 billion
Operating income/loss: $76.3 million
Operating margin: 1.9%

17. Montefiore Health (New York City)

Revenue: $7.7 billion
Expenses: $7.6 billion
Operating income/loss: $93.9 million
Operating margin: 1.2%

18. Penn State Health (Hershey, Pa.)

*Results for the first six months ending Dec. 31
Revenue: $2.1 billion
Expenses: $2 billion
Operating income/loss: $22.9 million
Operating margin: 1.1%

19. Prisma Health (Greenville, S.C.)

*For the 12 months ending Sept. 30
Revenue: $6 billion
Expenses: $5.9 billion
Operating income/loss: $67.1 million
Operating margin: 1.1%

20. HonorHealth (Scottsdale, Ariz.)

Revenue: $3.1 billion
Expenses: $3 billion
Operating income/loss: $32.8 million
Operating margin: 1.1%

21. Henry Ford Health (Detroit)

Revenue: $7.8 billion
Expenses: $7.7 billion
Operating income/loss: $80.5 million
Operating margin: 1%

22. Intermountain Health (Salt Lake City)

Revenue: $16.1 billion
Expenses: $15.2 billion
Operating income/loss: $137 million
Operating margin: 0.9%

23. Advocate Health (Charlotte, N.C.)

*For the nine months ending Sept. 30
Revenue: $22.83 billion
Expenses: $22.75 billion
Operating income/loss: $79.4 million
Operating margin: 0.4%

24. Cleveland Clinic

Revenue: $14.5 billion
Expenses: $13.7 billion
Operating income/loss: $64.3 million
Operating margin: 0.4%

25. OSF HealthCare (Peoria, Ill.)

*For the 12 months ending Sept. 30
Revenue: $4.1 billion
Expenses: $4.1 billion
Operating income/loss: $1.2 million
Operating margin: 0%

26. CommonSpirit (Chicago) 

*Results for the first six months ending Dec. 31
Revenue: $18.69 billion
Expenses: $18.63 billion
Operating income/loss: ($46 million)
Operating margin: (0.2%)

27. Kaiser Permanente (Oakland, Calif.)

Revenue: $100.8 billion
Expenses: $100.5 billion
Operating income/loss: $329 million
Operating margin: (0.3% margin) 

28. Mass General Brigham (Boston)

*Results for the 12 months ended Sept. 30
Revenue: $18.8 billion
Expenses: $18.7 billion
Operating income/loss: ($48 million)
Operating margin: (0.3%)

29. Geisinger Health (Danville, Pa.)

Revenue: $7.7 billion
Expenses: $7.8 billion
Operating income/loss: ($37 million)
Operating margin: (0.5%)

30. SSM Health (St. Louis)

Revenue: $10.5 billion
Expenses: $10.6 billion
Operating income/loss: ($58.5 million)
Operating margin: (0.6%)

31. UPMC (Pittsburgh)

Revenue: $27.7 billion
Expenses: $27.9 billion
Operating income/loss: ($198 million)
Operating margin: (0.7%)

32. Scripps Health (San Diego)

*For the 12 months ending Sept. 30
Revenue: $4.3 billion
Expenses: $4.3 billion
Operating income/loss: ($36.6 million)
Operating margin: (0.9%)

33. Ascension (St. Louis)

*Results for the first six months ending Dec. 31
Revenue: $15.01 billion
Expenses: $15.03 billion
Operating income/loss: ($155.2 million)
Operating margin: (1%)

34. Bon Secours Mercy Health (Cincinnati)

Revenue: $12.2 billion
Expenses: $12.4 billion
Operating income/loss: ($123.9 million)
Operating margin: (1%)

35. ProMedica (Toledo, Ohio)

Revenue: $3.3 billion
Expenses: $3.1 billion
Operating income/loss: ($44.5 million)
Operating margin: (1.3%)

36. Beth Israel Lahey Health (Cambridge, Mass.)

*Results for the 12 months ending Sept. 30
Revenue: $7.7 billion
Expenses: $7.8 billion
Operating income/loss: ($131.2 million)
Operating margin: (1.7%)

37. Geisinger (Danville, Pa.)

*Results for the nine months ending Sept. 30,
Revenue: $5.7 billion
Expenses: $2.3 billion
Operating income/loss: ($104.4 million)
Operating margin: (1.8%)

38. Premier Health (Dayton, Ohio)

Revenue: $2.3 billion
Expenses: $2.4 billion
Operating income/loss: ($85.3 million)
Operating margin: (3.7%)

39. Allegheny Health Network (Pittsburgh)

Revenue: $4.7 billion
Expenses: $4.2 billion
Operating income/loss: ($172.7 million)
Operating margin: (3.7% margin) 

40. Providence (Renton, Wash.)

Revenue: $28.7 billion
Expenses: $29.9 billion
Operating income/loss: ($1.2 billion)
Operating margin: (4.2%)

41. Tufts Medicine (Boston)

*Results for the 12 months ending Sept. 30
Revenue: $2.6 billion
Expenses: $2.8 billion
Operating income/loss: ($171 million)
Operating margin: (6.6%)

42. Allina Health (Minneapolis)

Revenue: $5.2 billion
Expenses: $5.5 billion
Operating income/loss: ($352.6 million)
Operating margin: (6.8%)

UPMC back in the red with $198M operating loss, -0.7% margin

Pittsburgh-based UPMC reported a $198 million operating loss (-0.7% margin) in 2023, down from a $162 million gain (0.6% margin) in 2022, according to financial documents published Feb. 28.

UPMC attributed the swing from operating income to loss to various factors, including increased labor and supply costs, increases in medical claims expense due to higher utilization and certain legal settlements. 

Revenue for the health system increased 8.5% year over year to $27.7 billion and expenses rose 10% to $27.9 billion. Under expenses, labor costs increased 6.4% to $9.7 billion and supply costs were up 11% to $7.4 billion.

After accounting for nonoperating items, such as investment returns, UPMC ended 2023 with a $31 million net loss, compared to a $1 billion net loss the previous year. 

As of Dec. 31, UPMC had more than $9.5 billion in cash and investments, $3.2 billion of which was held by its regulated health and captive insurance companies.

The Numbers Behind the Numbers

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/numbers-behind-national-hospital-flash-report

U.S. Hospital YTD Operating Margin Index November 2021-December 2023

The observations and questions from this chart are both interesting and required reading for hospital executives:

  • Why were hospitals profitable at the 4% plus level through the worst of the 2021 Covid period?
  • What exactly happened between December of 2021 and January of 2022 that resulted in a profitability decrease from a positive 4.2% to a negative 3.4%?
  • Despite the best efforts of hospital executives, overall operating margins were negative throughout calendar year 2022 and did not return to positive territory until March of 2023.
  • Hospital margins remained positive throughout 2023 and into 2024. However, overall margins have remained below those experienced in both 2021 and in the pre-Covid year of 2019.

The above questions and observations have proven interesting, and the ongoing numbers have proven quite useful in many quarters of healthcare. But recently I was talking with Erik Swanson, who is the leader of the Kaufman Hall Flash Report and our executive behind the data, numbers, and statistics. Erik and I were speculating about all of the above observations, but our key speculation was whether the 2023 operating margin results actually reflected a hospital financial turnaround or, in fact, were there “numbers behind the numbers” that told a different and much more nuanced story. So Erik and I asked different questions and took a much deeper dive into the Flash Report numbers. The results of that dive were quite telling:

  1. Too many hospitals are still losing money. Despite the fact that the Operating Margin Index median for 2023 and into 2024 was over 2%, when you look harder at the Flash Report data, you find that 40% of American hospitals continue to lose money from operations into 2024.
  2. There is a group of hospitals that have substantially recovered financially. Interestingly, the data shows over time that the high-performing hospitals in the country are doing better and better. They are effectively pulling away from the pack.
  3. This leads to the key question: Why are high-performing hospitals doing better? It turns out that several key strategic and managerial moves are responsible for high-performing hospitals’ better and growing operating profitability:
    • Outpatient revenue. Hospitals with higher and accelerating outpatient revenue were, in general, more profitable.
    • Contract labor. Hospitals that have lowered their percentage of contract labor most quickly are now showing better operating profitability.
    • An important managerial fact. The Flash Report found that hospitals with aggressive reductions in contract labor were also correlated to rising wage rates for full-time employees. In other words, rising wage rates have appeared to attract and retain full-time staff which, in turn, has allowed those hospitals to reduce contract labor more quickly, all of which has led to higher profitability.
    • Average length of stay. No surprise here. A lower average length of stay is correlated to improved profitability. Those hospitals that have hyper-focused on patient throughput, which has led to appropriate and prompt patient discharge, have also proven this to be a positive financial strategy.
  4. Lower financial performers have financially stagnated throughout the pandemic. The data shows that throughout the pandemic, hospitals with good financial results improved those results, but of more consequence, hospitals with poor financial performance saw that performance worsen. The Flash Report documents that the poorest financially performing hospitals currently show negative operating margins ranging from negative 4% to negative 19%. Continuation of this level of financial performance is not only unstainable but also makes crucial re-investment in community healthcare impossible.
  5. The urban hospital/rural hospital myth. A popular and often quoted hospital comparison is that there is an observable financial divide between urban and rural hospitals. Erik Swanson and I found that recent data does not support this common perception. When you compare “all rurals” to “all urbans” on the basis of average operating margin, no statistically significant difference emerges. However, what does emerge—and is a very important statistical observation—is that the lowest performing 20% of rural hospitals are, in fact, generating much lower margins then their urban counterparts this year. It is at this lowest level of rural hospital performance where the real damage is being done. 
  6. Rural hospitals and obstetrics. The data does confirm one very important American healthcare issue: Obstetrics and delivery services are one of the leading money losers of all hospital service offerings. And the data further confirms that rural hospitals are closing obstetric departments with more frequency in order to protect the financial viability of the overall rural hospital enterprise. This is a health policy issue of major and growing consequence.

The point here is that data, numbers, and statistics matter both to setting long-term social health policy agendas and to the strategic management of complex provider organizations. But the other point is that the quality and depth of the analysis is an equally important part of the process. A first glance at the numbers may suggest one set of outcomes. However, a deeper, more careful and penetrating analysis may reveal critical quantitative conclusions that are much more telling and sophisticated and can accurately guide first-class organizational decision-making. Hopefully the analytics here are a good example of this very point.

Fitch says lower operating margins may be the new normal for nonprofit hospitals

https://mailchi.mp/09f9563acfcf/gist-weekly-february-2-2024?e=d1e747d2d8

On Monday, Fitch Ratings, the New York City-based credit rating agency, released a report predicting that the US not-for-profit hospital sector will see average operating margins reset in the one-to-two percent range, rather than returning to historical levels of above three percent. 

Following disruptions from the pandemic that saw utilization drop and operating costs rise, hospitals have seen a slower-than-expected recovery.

But, according to Fitch, these rebased margins are unlikely to lead to widespread credit downgrades as most hospitals still carry robust balance sheets and have curtailed capital spending in response. 

The Gist: As labor costs stabilize and volumes return, the median hospital has been able to maintain a positive operating margin for the past ten months. 

But nonprofit hospitals are in a transitory period, one with both continued challenges—including labor costs that rebased at a higher rate and ongoing capital restraints—and opportunities—including the increase in outpatient demand, which has driven hospital outpatient revenue up over 40 percent from 2020 levels.

While the future margin outlook for individual hospitals will depend on factors that vary greatly across markets, organizations that thrive in this new era will be the ones willing to pivot, take risks, and invest heavily in outpatient services.

Three Must-Haves for Every Rating Presentation

Creating a great rating agency presentation is imperative to telling your story. I’ve probably seen a thousand presentations across the past three decades and I can say without a doubt that a great presentation will find its way into the rating committee. Show me a crisp, detailed, well-organized presentation, and I’ll show you a ratings analyst who walks away with high confidence that the management team can navigate the industry challenges ahead.

During the pandemic, Kaufman Hall recommended that hospitals move financial performance to the top of the presentation agenda. Better presentations chronicled the immediate, “line item by line item” steps management was taking to stop the financial bleeding and access liquidity. We still recommend this level of detail in your presentations, but as many hospitals relocate their bottom line, management teams are now returning to discussing longer-term strategy and financial performance in their presentations.

Beyond the facts and figures, many hospitals ask me what the rating analysts REALLY want to know. Over those one thousand presentations I’ve seen, the presentations that stood out the most addressed the three themes below:

  1. What makes your organization essential? Hospitals maintain limited price elasticity as Medicare and Medicaid typically comprise at least half of patient service revenue, leaving only a small commercial slice to subsidize operations. The ability to negotiate meaningful rate increases with payers will largely rest on the ability to prove why the hospital is a “must-have” in the network. In other words, a health plan that can’t sell a product without a hospital in its network is the definition of essential. This conversation now also includes Medicare Advantage plans as penetration rates increase rapidly across the country. Essentiality may be demonstrated by distinct services, strong clinical outcomes and robust medical staff, multiple access points across a certain geography, or data that show the hospital is a low-cost alternative compared to other providers. Volume trends, revenue growth, and market share show that essentiality. A discussion on essentiality is particularly needed for independent providers who operate in crowded markets.
  2. What makes your financial performance durable? Many hospitals are showing a return to better performance in recent quarters. Showing how your organization will sustain better financial results is important. Analysts will want to know what the new “run rate” is and why it is durable. What are the undergirding factors that make the better margins sustainable? Drivers may include negotiated rate increases from commercial payers and revenue cycle improvements. On the expense side, a well-chronicled plan to achieve operating efficiencies should receive material airtime in the presentation, particularly regarding labor. It is universally understood that high labor costs are a permanent, structural challenge for hospitals, so any effort to bend the labor cost curve will be well received. Management should also isolate non-recurring revenue or expenses that may drive results, such as FEMA funds or 340B settlements. To that end, many states have established new direct-to-provider payment programs which may be meaningful for hospitals. Expect questions on whether these funds are subject to annual approval by the state or CMS. The analysts will take a sharpened pencil to a growing reliance on these funds. 

    The durability of financial performance should be represented with highly detailed multi-year projections complete with computed margin, debt, and liquidity ratios. Know that analysts will create their own conservative projections if these are not provided, which effectively limits your voice in the rating committee. 

    We also recommend that hospitals include a catalogue of MTI and bank covenants in the presentation. Complying with covenants are part of the agreement that hospitals make with their lenders, and it is the organization’s responsibility to report how it’s performing against these covenants. General philosophy on headroom to covenants also provides insight to management’s operating philosophy. For example, is it the organization’s goal to have narrow, adequate, or ample headroom to the covenants and why? As the rating agencies will tell you, ratings are not solely based on covenant performance, but all rating factors influence your ability to comply with the covenants.
  3. What makes your capital plan affordable? Every rating committee will ask what the hospital’s future capital needs are and how those capital needs will be supported by cash flow, also known as “capital capacity.” To answer that question, a hospital must understand what it can afford, based on financial projections. Funding sources may require debt, which requires a debt capacity analysis with goals on debt burden, coverage, and liquidity targets. Over the years, better presentations explain the organization’s capital model, outline the funding sources, and discuss management’s tolerance for leverage.

There is always a lot to cover when meeting with the rating agencies and a near endless array of metrics and indicators to provide. As I’ve written before, how you tell the story is as important as the story itself. If you can weave these three themes throughout the presentation, then you will have a greater shot at having your best voice heard in rating committee.

Healthcare CFOs explore M&A, automation and service line cuts in 2024

Companies grappling with liquidity concerns are looking to cut costs and streamline operations, according to a new survey.

Dive Brief:

  • Over three-quarters of healthcare chief financial officers expect to see profitability increases in 2024, according to a recent survey from advisory firm BDO USA. However, to become profitable, many organizations say they will have to reduce investments in underperforming service lines, or pursue mergers and acquisitions.
  • More than 40% of respondents said they will decrease investments in primary care and behavioral health services in 2024, citing disruptions from retail players. They will shift funds to home care, ambulatory services and telehealth that provide higher returns, according to the report.
  • Nearly three-quarters of healthcare CFOs plan to pursue some type of M&A deal in the year ahead, despite possible regulatory threats.

Dive Insight:

Though inflationary pressures have eased since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare CFOs remain cognizant of managing costs amid liquidity concerns, according to the report.

The firm polled 100 healthcare CFOs serving hospitals, medical groups, outpatient services, academic centers and home health providers with revenues from $250 million to $3 billion or more in October 2023.

Just over a third of organizations surveyed carried more than 60 days of cash on hand. In comparison, a recent analysis from KFF found that financially strong health systems carried at least 150 days of cash on hand in 2022.

Liquidity is a concern for CFOs given high rates of bond and loan covenant violations over the past year. More than half of organizations violated such agreements in 2023, while 41% are concerned they will in 2024, according to the report. 

To remain solvent, 44% of CFOs expect to have more strategic conversations about their economic resiliency in 2024, exploring external partnerships, options for service line adjustments and investments in workforce and technology optimization.

The majority of CFOs surveyed are interested in pursuing external partnerships, despite increased regulatory roadblocks, including recent merger guidance that increased oversight into nontraditional tie-ups. Last week, the FTC filed its first healthcare suit of the year to block the acquisition of two North Carolina-based Community Health Systems hospitals by Novant Health, warning the deal could reduce competition in the region.

Healthcare CFOs explore tie-ups in 2024

Types of deals that CFOs are exploring, as of Oct. 2023.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aiFBJ/1

Most organizations are interested in exploring sales, according to the report. Financially struggling organizations are among the most likely to consider deals. Nearly one in three organizations that violated their bond or loan covenants in 2023 are planning a carve-out or divestiture this year. Organizations with less than 30 days of cash on hand are also likely to consider carve-outs.

Organizations will also turn to automation to cut costs. Ninety-eight percent of organizations surveyed had piloted generative AI tools in a bid to alleviate resource and cost constraints, according to the consultancy. 

Healthcare leaders believe AI will be essential to helping clinicians operate at the top of their licenses, focusing their time on patient care and interaction over administrative or repetitive tasks,” authors wrote. Nearly one in three CFOs plan to leverage automation and AI in the next 12 months.

However, CFOs are keeping an eye on the risks. As more data flows through their organizations, they are increasingly concerned about cybersecurity. More than half of executives surveyed said data breaches are a bigger risk in 2024 compared to 2023.

Downgrades Topple Upgrades: 5 Key Takeaways from Rating Activity in 2023

As expected, 2023 saw a material increase in downgrades over 2022 while the number of upgrades declined from the prior year. Volume showed favorable growth for many hospitals during 2023 although some indicators remained below pre-pandemic levels. Other hospitals reported a payer mix shift toward more Medicare as the population continued to age and Medicare Advantage plans gained momentum at the expense of commercial revenues. Continued labor challenges drove expense growth, even with many organizations reporting a reduction in temporary labor, as permanent hires pressured salary and benefit expenses. Some of the downgrades reflected pronounced operating challenges that led to covenant violations while others were due to a material increase in leverage viewed to be too high for the rating category.

Figure1: Downgrades at Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch

Here are five key takeaways:

  1. The ratio of downgrades to upgrades reached a high level for all three rating agencies: Moody’s, 3.2-to-1; S&P: 3.8-to-1; and Fitch: 3.5-to-1. In 2022, the ratio crested just above 2.0-to-1 at the highest among the three firms.
  2. Downgrades covered a wide swath of hospitals, ranging from single-site general acute care facilities to academic medical centers as well as large regional and multistate systems. Many of the hospital downgrades were concentrated in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. All rating categories saw downgrades, although the majority were clustered in the Baa/BBB and lower categories.
  3. Multi-notch downgrades were mainly relegated to ratings that were already deep into speculative grade. Multi-notch upgrades were due to mergers or acquisitions where the debt was guaranteed by or added to the legal borrowing group of the higher rated system.
  4. Upgrades reflected fundamental improvement in financial performance and debt service coverage along with strengthening balance sheet indicators. Like the downgraded organizations, upgraded hospitals and health systems ranged from single-site hospitals to expansive, super-regional systems. Some of the upgrades reflected mergers into higher-rated systems.
  5. The wide span between downgrades to upgrades in 2023 would suggest that the credit gap between highly rated hospitals (say, the “A” or “Aa/AA” category) compared to “Baa/BBB” and speculative grade is widening. That said, given that rating affirmations remain the predominant rating activity annually, the rating agencies reported only a subtle shift in the overall distribution of ratings since the beginning of the pandemic in their panel discussion at Kaufman Hall’s October 2023 Healthcare Leadership Conference.

One person’s prediction for 2024?

It’s a safe bet that downgrades will outpace upgrades given the persistent challenges, although the ratio may narrow if the improvement in current performance holds. That said, the rating agencies are maintaining mixed views for 2024. S&P and Fitch are sticking with negative and deteriorating outlooks, respectively, while Moody’s has revised its outlook to stable, anticipating that the rough times of 2022 are behind us.

All three rating agencies predict that we are not out of the woods yet when it comes to covenant challenges, especially in the lower rating categories or for those organizations that report a second year of covenant violations.

What to expect in US healthcare in 2024 and beyond

A new perspective on how technology, transformation efforts, and other changes have affected payers, health systems, healthcare services and technology, and pharmacy services.

The acute strain from labor shortages, inflation, and endemic COVID-19 on the healthcare industry’s financial health in 2022 is easing. Much of the improvement is the result of transformation efforts undertaken over the last year or two by healthcare delivery players, with healthcare payers acting more recently. Even so, health-system margins are lagging behind their financial performance relative to prepandemic levels. Skilled nursing and long-term-care profit pools continue to weaken. Eligibility redeterminations in a strong employment economy have hurt payers’ financial performance in the Medicaid segment. But Medicare Advantage and individual segment economics have held up well for payers.

As we look to 2027, the growth of the managed care duals population (individuals who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare) presents one of the most substantial opportunities for payers. On the healthcare delivery side, financial performance will continue to rebound as transformation efforts, M&A, and revenue diversification bear fruit. Powered by adoption of technology, healthcare services and technology (HST) businesses, particularly those that offer measurable near-term improvements for their customers, will continue to grow, as will pharmacy services players, especially those with a focus on specialty pharmacy.

Below, we provide a perspective on how these changes have affected payers, health systems, healthcare services and technology, and pharmacy services, and what to expect in 2024 and beyond.

The fastest growth in healthcare may occur in several segments

We estimate that healthcare profit pools will grow at a 7 percent CAGR, from $583 billion in 2022 to $819 billion in 2027. Profit pools continued under pressure in 2023 due to high inflation rates and labor shortages; however, we expect a recovery beginning in 2024, spurred by margin and cost optimization and reimbursement-rate increases.

Several segments can expect higher growth in profit pools:

  • Within payer, Medicare Advantage, spurred by the rapid increase in the duals population; the group business, due to recovery of margins post-COVID-19 pandemic; and individual
  • Within health systems, outpatient care settings such as physician offices and ambulatory surgery centers, driven by site-of-care shifts
  • Within HST, the software and platforms businesses (for example, patient engagement and clinical decision support)
  • Within pharmacy services, with specialty pharmacy continuing to experience rapid growth

On the other hand, some segments will continue to see slow growth, including general acute care and post-acute care within health systems, and Medicaid within payers (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1

Several factors will likely influence shifts in profit pools. Two of these are:

Change in payer mix. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage, and particularly the duals population, will continue to grow. Medicare Advantage enrollment has grown historically by 9 percent annually from 2019 to 2022; however, we estimate the growth rate will reduce to 5 percent annually from 2022 to 2027, in line with the latest Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) enrollment data.1 Finally, the duals population enrolled in managed care is estimated to grow at more than a 9 percent CAGR from 2022 through 2027.

We also estimate commercial segment profit pools to rebound as EBITDA margins likely return to historical averages by 2027. Growth is likely to be partially offset by enrollment changes in the segment, prompted by a shift from fully insured to self-insured businesses that could accelerate as employers seek to cut costs if the economy slows. Individual segment profit pools are estimated to expand at a 27 percent CAGR from 2022 to 2027 as enrollment rises, propelled by enhanced subsidies, Medicaid redeterminations, and other potential favorable factors (for example, employer conversions through the Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangement offered by the Affordable Care Act); EBITDA margins are estimated to improve from 2 percent in 2022 to 5 to 7 percent in 2027. On the other hand, Medicaid enrollment could decline by about ten million lives over the next five years based on our estimates, given recent legislation allowing states to begin eligibility redeterminations (which were paused during the federal public health emergency declared at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic2).

Accelerating value-based care (VBC). Based on our estimates, 90 million lives will be in VBC models by 2027, from 43 million in 2022. This expansion will be fueled by an increase in commercial VBC adoption, greater penetration of Medicare Advantage, and the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) model in Medicare fee-for-service. Also, substantial growth is expected in the specialty VBC model, where penetration in areas like orthopedics and nephrology could more than double in the next five years.

VBC models are undergoing changes as CMS updates its risk adjustment methodology and as models continue to expand beyond primary care to other specialties (for example, nephrology, oncology, and orthopedics). We expect established models that offer improvements in cost and quality to continue to thrive. The transformation of VBC business models in response to pressures from the current changes could likely deliver outsized improvement in cost and quality outcomes. The penetration of VBC business models is likely to lead to shifts in health delivery profit pools, from acute-care settings to other sites of care such as ambulatory surgical centers, physician offices, and home settings.

Payers: Government segments are expected to be 65 percent larger than commercial segments by 2027

In 2022, overall payer profit pools were $60 billion. Looking ahead, we estimate EBITDA to grow to $78 billion by 2027, a 5 percent CAGR, as the market recovers and approaches historical trends. Drivers are likely to be margin recovery of the commercial segment, inflation-driven incremental premium rate rises, and increased participation in managed care by the duals population. This is likely to be partially offset by margin compression in Medicare Advantage due to regulatory pressures (for example, risk adjustment, decline in the Stars bonus, and technical updates) and membership decline in Medicaid resulting from the expiration of the public health emergency.

We estimate increased labor costs and administrative expenses to reduce payer EBITDA by about 60 basis points in 2023. In addition, health systems are likely to push for reimbursement rate increases (up to about 350 to 400 basis-point incremental rate increases from 2023 to 2027 for the commercial segment and about 200 to 250 basis points for the government segment), according to McKinsey analysis and interviews with external experts.3

Our estimates also suggest that the mix of payer profit pools is likely to shift further toward the government segment (Exhibit 2). Overall, the profit pools for this segment are estimated to be about 65 percent greater than the commercial segment by 2027 ($36 billion compared with $21 billion). This shift would be a result of increasing Medicare Advantage penetration, estimated to reach 52 percent in 2027, and likely continued growth in the duals segment, expanding EBITDA from $7 billion in 2022 to $12 billion in 2027.

Exhibit 2

Profit pools for the commercial segment declined from $18 billion in 2019 to $15 billion in 2022. We now estimate the commercial segment’s EBITDA margins to regain historical levels by 2027, and profit pools to reach $21 billion, growing at a 7 percent CAGR from 2022 to 2027. Within this segment, a shift from fully insured to self-insured businesses could accelerate in the event of an economic slowdown, which prompts employers to pay greater attention to costs. The fully insured group enrollment could drop from 50 million in 2022 to 46 million in 2027, while the self-insured segment could increase from 108 million to 113 million during the same period.

Health systems: Transformation efforts help accelerate EBITDA recovery

In 2023, health-system profit pools continued to face substantial pressure due to inflation and labor shortages. Estimated growth was less than 5 percent from 2022 to 2023, remaining below prepandemic levels. Health systems have undertaken major transformation and cost containment efforts, particularly within the labor force, helping EBITDA margins recover by up to 100 basis points; some of this recovery was also volume-driven.

Looking ahead, we estimate an 11 percent CAGR from 2023 to 2027, or total EBITDA of $366 billion by 2027 (Exhibit 3). This reflects a rebound from below the long-term historical average in 2023, spurred by transformation efforts and potentially higher reimbursement rates. We anticipate that health systems will likely seek reimbursement increases in the high single digits or higher upon contract renewals (or more than 300 basis points above previous levels) in response to cost inflation in recent years.

Exhibit 3

Measures to tackle rising costs include improving labor productivity and the application of technological innovation across both administration and care delivery workflows (for example, further process standardization and outsourcing, increased use of digital care, and early adoption of AI within administrative workflows such as revenue cycle management). Despite these measures, 2027 industry EBITDA margins are estimated to be 50 to 100 basis points lower than in 2019, unless there is material acceleration in performance transformation efforts.

There are some meaningful exceptions to this overall outlook for health systems. Although post-acute-care profit pools could be severely affected by labor shortages (particularly nurses), other sites of care might grow (for example, non-acute and outpatient sites such as physician offices and ambulatory surgery centers). We expect accelerated adoption of VBC to drive growth.

HST profit pools will grow in technology-based segments

HST is estimated to be the fastest-growing sector in healthcare. In 2021, we estimated HST profit pools to be $51 billion. In 2022, according to our estimates, the HST profit pool shrank to $49 billion, reflecting a contracting market, wage inflation pressure, and the drag of fixed-technology investment that had not yet fulfilled its potential. Looking ahead, we estimate a 12 percent CAGR in 2022–27 due to the long-term underlying growth trend and rebound from the pandemic-related decline (Exhibit 4). With the continuing technology adoption in healthcare, the greatest acceleration is likely to happen in software and platforms as well as data and analytics, with 15 percent and 22 percent CAGRs, respectively.

Exhibit 4

In 2023, we observed an initial recovery in the HST market, supported by lower HST wage pressure and continued adoption of technology by payers and health systems searching for ways to become more efficient (for example, through automation and outsourcing).

Three factors account for the anticipated recovery and growth in HST. First, we expect continued demand from payers and health systems searching to improve efficiency, address labor challenges, and implement new technologies (for example, generative AI). Second, payers and health systems are likely to accept vendor price increases for solutions delivering measurable improvements. Third, we expect HST companies to make operational changes that will improve HST efficiency through better technology deployment and automation across services.

Pharmacy services will continue to grow

The pharmacy market has undergone major changes in recent years, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the establishment of partnerships across the value chain, and an evolving regulatory environment. Total pharmacy dispensing revenue continues to increase, growing by 9 percent to $550 billion in 2022,4 with projections of a 5 percent CAGR, reaching $700 billion in 2027.5 Specialty pharmacy is one of the fastest growing subsegments within pharmacy services and accounts for 40 percent of prescription revenue6; this subsegment is expected to reach nearly 50 percent of prescription revenue in 2027 (Exhibit 5). We attribute its 8 percent CAGR in revenue growth to increases in utilization and pricing as well as the continued expansion of pipeline therapies (for example, cell and gene therapies and oncology and rare disease therapies) and expect that the revenue growth will be partially offset by reimbursement pressures, specialty generics, and increased adoption of biosimilars. Specialty pharmacy dispensers are also facing an evolving landscape with increased manufacturer contract pharmacy pressures related to the 340B Drug Pricing Program. With restrictions related to size and location of contract pharmacies that covered entities can use, the specialty pharmacy subsegment has seen accelerated investment in hospital-owned pharmacies.

Exhibit 5

Retail and mail pharmacies continue to face margin pressure and a contraction of profit pools due to reimbursement pressure, labor shortages, inflation, and a plateauing of generic dispensing rates.7 Many chains have recently announced8 efforts to rationalize store footprints while continuing to augment additional services, including the provision of healthcare services.

Over the past year, there has also been increased attention to broad-population drugs such as GLP-1s (indicated for diabetes and obesity). The number of patients meeting clinical eligibility criteria for these drugs is among the largest of any new drug class in the past 20 to 30 years. The increased focus on these drugs has amplified conversations about care and coverage decisions, including considerations around demonstrated adherence to therapy, utilization management measures, and prescriber access points (for example, digital and telehealth services). As we look ahead, patient affordability, cost containment, and predictability of spending will likely remain key themes in the sector. The Inflation Reduction Act is poised to change the Medicare prescription Part D benefit, with a focus on reducing beneficiary out-of-pocket spending, negotiating prices for select drugs, and incentivizing better management of high-cost drugs. These changes, coupled with increased attention to broad-population drugs and the potential of high-cost therapies (such as cell and gene therapies), have set the stage for a shift in care and financing models.


The US healthcare industry faced demanding conditions in 2023, including continuing high inflation rates, labor shortages, and endemic COVID-19. However, the industry has adapted. We expect accelerated improvement efforts to help the industry address its challenges in 2024 and beyond, leading to an eventual return to historical-average profit margins.

1 hospital operator among Bloomberg’s ‘Companies to Watch’

HCA Healthcare is the single hospital operator that Bloomberg identifies as one of “50 Companies to Watch in 2024.” 

“From Alphabet and BYD to Eli Lilly and Vivendi, keep an eye on these global stocks this year,” the outlet proposes for the 50 companies out of the 2,000 firms assessed. Bloomberg analysts highlighted the companies as those warranting a closer look, based on “contrarian views and upcoming catalysts for change such as new leadership, asset sales or acquisitions, and plans for new products and services.” 

With 182 hospitals and more than 37,000 hospital bedsBloomberg analyst Glen Losev said HCA “faces cost and revenue challenges that point to a reduction in its operating margin. Wages are increasing, especially for nurses, as are non-labor costs because of general inflation. And fewer physician visits indicate softening demand for care in areas such as elective surgeries.”

HCA is tied to an estimated 5% increase to its revenue in 2024 with a market cap of $72 billion. 

The company posted $47.66 billion in revenue for the first nine months of 2023 compared to $44.73 billion in the same period of 2022. Its fourth quarter earnings are due later this month. 

Other healthcare companies recognized by Bloomberg as worth watching are Novo Nordisk, BeiGene, Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly. Weight loss drug possibilities drive potential for Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, with estimated revenue increases of 22% and 16%, respectively.