Here are 30 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.
Children’s Minnesota has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Minneapolis-based system’s strong balance sheet, robust liquidity position and dominant pediatric market position, Fitch said.
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The rating is supported by its national and international reputation in clinical services and research, Moody’s 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.
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The Newport Beach, Calif.-based system’s rating is supported by its strong operating risk assessment, leading market position in its immediate service area and strong financial profile,” Fitch said.
Inspira Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects Fitch’s expectation that the Mullica Hill, N.J.-based system will return to strong operating cash flows following the operating challenges of 2022 and 2023, as well as the successful integration of Inspira Medical Center of Mannington (formerly Salem Medical Center).
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.
Nicklaus Children’s Hospital has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating is supported by the Miami-based system’s position as the “premier pediatric hospital in South Florida with a leading and growing market share,” 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.
St. Elizabeth Medical Center has an “AA” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The rating reflects the Edgewood, Ky.-based system’s strong liquidity, leading market position and strong financial management, Fitch said.
Stanford Health Care has an “Aa3” rating and positive outlook with Moody’s. The rating reflects the Palo Alto, Calif.-based system’s clinical prominence, patient demand and its location in an affluent and well insured market, Moody’s 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.
Since 2022, S&P Global Ratings has tracked an increase in violations of debt agreements as macro economic pressures and low operating margins challenge providers.
Dive Brief:
The number of nonprofit health systems violating their financial agreements with lenders or investors has increased since 2022 as providers struggle to meet debt obligations amid challenging operating conditions, according to a new report from credit agency S&P Global Ratings.
This year, nonprofits will continue to be at heightened risk of violating covenant agreements, or conditions of debt that are put in place by lenders. Recently, the most common violations among nonprofits have been debt service coverage — the amount of days-cash-on-hand to debt ratios — as the sector continues to weather high expenses and weak revenues.
Most nonprofits have recently received extra time to remedy finances in the form of waivers or forbearance agreements, but other systems have merged with more financially stable organizations to meet lending agreements, according to the report.
Dive Insight:
Financial covenant violations among nonprofits began to increase at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the early stages of the pandemic, violations were often tied to one-time pressures on operating income, such as mandatory stoppages of services.
However, violations have since evolved and now reflect nonprofits’ struggles with ongoing labor shortages and inflationary pressures, according to the report.
Providers in the speculative rating category were more likely to have violated financial covenants over the past two years and accounted for 60% of violations in S&P’s rated universe.
Some health systems have recovered from the pandemic much better than others, and those with healthier margins tend to be the ones that made a stronger push into outpatient care.
By the numbers:
There’s a wildly large and growing difference between the operating margins of top-performing health systems and those at the bottom, according to Kaufman Hall data shared with Axios. (Go deeper on their analysis.)
“The hospitals that are not performing well are performing worse, but the hospitals that are recovering are performing extremely well,” firm co-founder Kaufman told Axios.
“I would say hospitals that are not doing particularly well … they’re not capturing that outpatient work, or at least not at the level that they need to,” he added.
Yes, but:
Operating margin is only one measure of a hospital’s financial health, and total margins are often much higher, said Anderson, the Johns Hopkins professor.
“You diversify where there is potential profit, and they have moved into all sorts of things where there is profit,” he added.“They have a whole portfolio of ways to make money now that they didn’t have 20 years [ago].”
Some experts also say that hospitals aren’t disciplined about keeping costs down.
“I think partly what happened over time is that … investments were not treated as investments, but as costs,” said Cooper, the Yale economist.
Today is the federal income Tax Day. In 43 states, it’s in addition to their own income tax requirements. Last year, the federal government took in $4.6 trillion and spent $6.2 trillion including $1.9 trillion for its health programs. Overall, 2023 federal revenue decreased 15.5% and spending was down 8.4% from 2022 and the deficit increased to $33.2 trillion. Healthcare spending exceeded social security ($1.351 trillion) and defense spending ($828 billion) and is the federal economy’s biggest expense.
Along with the fragile geopolitical landscape involving relationships with China, Russia and Middle East, federal spending and the economy frame the context for U.S. domestic policies which include its health system. That’s the big picture.
Today also marks the second day of the American Hospital Association annual meeting in DC. The backdrop for this year’s meeting is unusually harsh for its members:
Increased government oversight:
Five committees of Congress and three federal agencies (FTC, DOJ, HHS) are investigating competition and business practices in hospitals, with special attention to the roles of private equity ownership, debt collection policies, price transparency compliance, tax exemptions, workforce diversity, consumer prices and more.
Medicare payment shortfall:
CMS just issued (last week) its IPPS rate adjustment for 2025: a 2.6% bump that falls short of medical inflation and is certain to exacerbate wage pressures in the hospital workforce. Per a Bank of American analysis last week, “it appears healthcare payrolls remain below pre-pandemic trend” with hospitals and nursing homes lagging ambulatory sectors in recovering.”
Persistent negative media coverage:
The financial challenges for Mission (Asheville), Steward (Massachusetts) and others have been attributed to mismanagement and greed by their corporate owners and reports from independent watchdogs (Lown, West Health, Arnold Ventures, Patient Rights Advocate) about hospital tax exemptions, patient safety, community benefits, executive compensation and charity care have amplified unflattering media attention to hospitals.
Physicians discontent:
59% of physicians in the U.S. are employed by hospitals; 18% by private equity-backed investors and the rest are “independent”. All are worried about their income. All think hospitals are wasteful and inefficient. Most think hospital employment is the lesser of evils threatening the future of their profession. And those in private equity-backed settings hope regulators leave them alone so they can survive. As America’s Physician Group CEO Susan Dentzer observed: “we knew we’re always going to need hospitals; but they don’t have to look or operate the way they do now. And they don’t have to be predicated on a revenue model based on people getting more elective surgeries than they actually need. We don’t have to run the system that way; we do run the healthcare system that way currently.”
The Value Agenda in limbo:
Since the Affordable Care Act (2010), the CMS Center for Innovation has sponsored and ultimately disabled all but 6 of its 54+ alternative payment programs. As it turns out, those that have performed best were driven by physician organizations sans hospital control. Last week’s release of “Creating a Sustainable Future for Value-Based Care: A Playbook of Voluntary Best Practices for VBC Payment Arrangements.” By the American Medical Association, the National Association of ACOs (NAACOs) and AHIP, the trade group representing America’s health insurance payers is illustrative. Noticeably not included: the American Hospital Association because value-pursuers think for hospitals it’s all talk.
National insurers hostility:
Large, corporate insurers have intensified reimbursement pressure on hospitals while successfully strengthening their collective grip on the U.S. health insurance sector. 5 insurers control 50% of the U.S. health insurance market: 4 are investor owned. By contrast, the 5 largest hospital systems control 17% of the hospital market: 1 is investor-owned. And bumpy insurer earnings post-pandemic has prompted robust price increases: in 2022 (the last year for complete data and first year post pandemic), medical inflation was 4.0%, hospital prices went up 2.2% but insurer prices increased 5.9%.
Costly capital:
The U.S. economy is in a tricky place: inflation is stuck above 3%, consumer prices are stable and employment is strong. Thus, the Fed is not likely to drop interest rates making hospital debt more costly for hospitals—especially problematic for public, safety net and rural hospitals. The hospital business is capital intense: it needs $$ for technologies, facilities and clinical innovations that treat medical demand. For those dependent on federal funding (i.e. Medicare), it’s unrealistic to think its funding from taxpayers will be adequate. Ditto state and local governments. For those that are credit worthy, capital is accessible from private investors and lenders. For at least half, it’s problematic and for all it’s certain to be more expensive.
Campaign 2024 spotlight:
In Campaign 2024, healthcare affordability is an issue to likely voters. It is noticeably missing among the priorities in the hospital-backed Coalition to Strengthen America’s Healthcare advocacy platform though 8 states have already created “affordability” boards to enact policies to protect consumers from medical debts, surprise hospital bills and more.
Understandably, hospitals argue they’re victims. They depend on AHA, its state associations, and its alliances with FAH, CHA, AEH and other like-minded collaborators to fight against policies that erode their finances i.e. 340B program participation, site-neutral payments and others. They rightfully assert that their 7/24/365 availability is uniquely qualifying for the greater good, but it’s not enough. These battles are fought with energy and resolve, but they do not win the war facing hospitals.
AHA spent more than $30 million last year to influence federal legislation but it’s an uphill battle. 70% of the U.S. population think the health system is flawed and in need of transformative change. Hospitals are its biggest player (30% of total spending), among its most visible and vulnerable to market change.
Some think hospitals can hunker down and weather the storm of these 8 challenges; others think transformative change is needed and many aren’t sure. And all recognize that the future is not a repeat of the past.
For hospitals, including those in DC this week, playing victim is not a strategy. A vision about the future of the health system that’s accessible, affordable and effective and a comprehensive plan inclusive of structural changes and funding is needed. Hospitals should play a leading, but not exclusive, role in this urgently needed effort.
Lacking this, hospitals will be public utilities in a system of health designed and implemented by others.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 beds, Bloomberg 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.
Health systems are recovering from the worst financial year in recent history. We surveyed strategic planners to find out their top priorities for 2024 and where they are focusing their energy to achieve growth and sustainability. Read on to explore the top six findings from this year’s survey.
Research questions
With this survey, we sought the answers to five key questions:
How do health system margins, volumes, capital spending, and FTEs compare to 2022 levels?
How will rebounding demand impact financial performance?
How will strategic priorities change in 2024?
How will capital spending priorities change next year?
Bigger is Better for Financial Recovery
What did we find?
Hospitals are beginning to recover from the lowest financial points of 2022, where they experienced persistently negative operating margins. In 2023, the majority of respondents to our survey expected positive changes in operating margins, total margins, and capital spending. However, less than half of the sample expected increases in full-time employee (FTE) count. Even as many organizations reported progress in 2023, challenges to workforce recovery persisted.
40%
Of respondents are experiencing margins below 2022 levels
Importantly, the sample was relatively split between those who are improving financial performance and those who aren’t. While 53% of respondents projected a positive change to operating margins in 2023, 40% expected negative changes to margin.
One exception to this split is large health systems. Large health systems projected above-average recovery of FTE counts, volume, and operating margins. This will give them a higher-than-average capital spending budget.
Why does this matter?
These findings echo an industry-wide consensus on improved financial performance in 2023. However, zooming in on the data revealed that the rising tide isn’t lifting all boats. Unequal financial recovery, especially between large and small health systems, can impact the balance of independent, community, and smaller providers in a market in a few ways. Big organizations can get bigger by leveraging their financial position to acquire less resourced health systems, hospitals, or provider groups. This can be a lifeline for some providers if the larger organization has the resources to keep services running. But it can be a critical threat to other providers that cannot keep up with the increasing scale of competitors.
Variation in financial performance can also exacerbate existing inequities by widening gaps in access. A key stakeholder here is rural providers. Rural providers are particularly vulnerable to financial pressures and have faced higher rates of closure than urban hospitals. Closures and consolidation among these providers will widen healthcare deserts. Closures also have the potential to alter payer and case mix (and pressure capacity) at nearby hospitals.
Volumes are decoupled from margins
What did we find?
Positive changes to FTE counts, reduced contract labor costs, and returning demand led the majority of respondents in our survey to project organizational-wide volume growth in 2023. However, a significant portion of the sample is not successfully translating volume growth to margin recovery.
44%
Of respondents who project volume increases also predict declining margins
On one hand, 84% of our sample expected to achieve volume growth in 2023. And 38% of respondents expected 2023 volume to exceed 2022 volume by over 5%. But only 53% of respondents expected their 2023 operating margins to grow — and most of those expected that the growth would be under 5%. Over 40% of respondents that reported increases in volume simultaneously projected declining margins.
Why does this matter?
Health systems struggled to generate sufficient revenue during the pandemic because of reduced demand for profitable elective procedures. It is troubling that despite significant projected returns to inpatient and outpatient volumes, these volumes are failing to pull their weight in margin contribution. This is happening in the backdrop of continued outpatient migration that is placing downward pressure on profitable inpatient volumes.
There are a variety of factors contributing to this phenomenon. Significant inflationary pressures on supplies and drugs have driven up the cost of providing care. Delays in patient discharge to post-acute settings further exacerbate this issue, despite shrinking contract labor costs. Reimbursements have not yet caught up to these costs, and several systems report facing increased denials and delays in reimbursement for care. However, there are also internal factors to consider. Strategists from our study believe there are outsized opportunities to make improvements in clinical operational efficiency — especially in care variation reduction, operating room scheduling, and inpatient management for complex patients.
Strategists look to technology to stretch capital budgets
What did we find?
Capital budgets will improve in 2024, albeit modestly. Sixty-three percent of respondents expect to increase expenditures, but only a quarter anticipate an increase of 6% or more. With smaller budget increases, only some priorities will get funded, and strategists will have to pick and choose.
Respondents were consistent on their top priority. Investments in IT and digital health remained the number one priority in both 2022 and 2023. Other priorities shifted. Spending on areas core to operations, like facility maintenance and medical equipment, increased in importance. Interest in funding for new ambulatory facilities saw the biggest change, falling down two places.
Why does this matter?
Capital budgets for health systems may be increasing, but not enough. With the high cost of borrowing and continued uncertainty, health systems still face a constrained environment. Strategists are looking to get the biggest bang for their buck. Technology investments are a way to do that. Digital solutions promise high impact without the expense or risk of other moves, like building new facilities, which is why strategists continue to prioritize spending on technology.
The value proposition of investing in technology has changed with recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), and our respondents expressed a high level of interest in AI solutions. New applications of AI in healthcare offer greater efficiencies across workforce, clinical and administrative operations, and patient engagement — all areas of key concern for any health system today.
Building is reserved for those with the largest budgets
What did we find?
Another way to stretch capital budgets is investing in facility improvements rather than new buildings. This allows health systems to minimize investment size and risk. Our survey found that, in general, strategists are prioritizing capital spending on repairs and renovation while deprioritizing building new ambulatory facilities.
When the responses to our survey are broken out by organization type, a different story emerges. The largest health systems are spending in ways other systems are not. Systems with six or more hospitals are increasing their overall capital expenditures and are planning to invest in new facilities. In contrast, other systems are not increasing their overall budgets and decreasing investments in new facilities.
AMCs are the only exception. While they are decreasing their overall budget, they are increasing their spending on new inpatient facilities.
Why does this matter?
Health systems seek to attract patients with new facilities — but only the biggest systems can invest in building outpatient and inpatient facilities. The high ranking of repairs in overall capital expenditure priorities suggests that all systems are trying to compete by maintaining or improving their current facilities. Will renovations be enough in the face of expanded building from better financed systems? The urgency to respond to the pandemic-accelerated outpatient shift means that building decisions made today, especially in outpatient facilities, could affect competition for years to come. And our survey responses suggest that only the largest health system will get the important first-mover advantage in this space.
AMCs are taking a different tack in the face of tight budgets and increased competition. Instead of trying to compete across the board, AMCs are marshaling resources for redeployment toward inpatient facilities. This aligns with their core identity as a higher acuity and specialty care providers.
Partnerships and affiliations offer potential solutions for health systems that lack the resources for building new facilities. Health systems use partnerships to trade volumes based on complexity. Partnerships can help some health systems to protect local volumes while still offering appropriate acute care at their partner organization. In addition, partnerships help health systems capture more of the patient journey through shared referrals. In both of these cases, partnerships or affiliations mitigate the need to build new inpatient or outpatient facilities to keep patients.
Eighty percent of respondents to our survey continued to lose patient volumes in 2023. Despite this threat to traditional revenue, health systems are turning from revenue diversification practices. Respondents were less likely to operate an innovation center or invest in early-stage companies in 2023. Strategists also reported notably less participation in downside risk arrangements, with a 27% decline from 2022 to 2023.
Why does this matter?
The retreat from revenue diversification and risk arrangements suggests that health systems have little appetite for financial uncertainty. Health systems are focusing on financial stabilization in the short term and forgoing practices that could benefit them, and their patients, in the long term.
Strategists should be cautious of this approach. Retrenchment on innovation and value-based care will hold health systems back as they confront ongoing disruption. New models of care, patient engagement, and payment will be necessary to stabilize operations and finances. Turning from these programs to save money now risks costing health systems in the future.
Market intelligence and strategic planning are essential for health systems as they navigate these decisions. Holding back on initiatives or pursuing them in resource-constrained environments is easier when you have a clear course for the future and can limit reactionary cuts.
Advisory Board’s long-standing research on developing strategy suggests five principles for focused strategy development:
Strategic plans should confront complexity. Sift through potential future market disruptions and opportunities to establish a handful of governing market assumptions to guide strategy.
Ground strategy development in answers to a handful of questions regarding future competitive advantage. Ask yourself: What will it take to become the provider of choice?
Communicate overarching strategy with a clear, coherent statement that communicates your overall health system identity.
A strategic vision should be supported by a limited number of directly relevant priorities. Resist the temptation to fill out “pro forma” strategic plan.
Pair strategic priorities with detailed execution plans, including initiative roadmaps and clear lines of accountability.
Strategists align on a strategic vision to go back to basics
What did we find?
Despite uneven recovery, health systems widely agree on which strategic initiatives they will focus more on, and which they will focus less on. Health system leaders are focusing their attention on core operations — margins, quality, and workforce — the basics of system success. They aim to achieve this mandate in three ways. First, through improving efficiency in care delivery and supply chain. Second, by transforming key elements of the care delivery system. And lastly, through leveraging technology and the virtual environment to expand job flexibility and reduce administrative burden.
Health systems in our survey are least likely to take drastic steps like cutting pay or expensive steps like making acquisitions. But they’re also not looking to downsize; divesting and merging is off the table for most organizations going into 2024.
Why does this matter?
The strategic priorities healthcare leaders are working toward are necessary but certainly not easy. These priorities reflect the key challenges for a health system — margins, quality, and workforce. Luckily, most of strategists’ top priorities hold promise for addressing all three areas.
This triple mandate of improving margins, quality, and workforce seems simple in theory but is hard to get right in practice. Integrating all three core dimensions into the rollout of a strategic initiative will amplify that initiative’s success. But, neglecting one dimension can diminish returns. For example, focusing on operational efficiency to increase margins is important, but it’ll be even more effective if efforts also seek to improve quality. It may be less effective if you fail to consider clinicians’ workflow.
Health systems that can return to the basics, and master them, are setting a strong foundation for future growth. This growth will be much more difficult to attain without getting your house in order first.
Vendors and other health system partners should understand that systems are looking to ace the basics, not reinvent the wheel. Vendors should ensure their products have a clear and provable return on investment and can map to health systems’ strategic priorities. Some key solutions health systems will be looking for to meet these priorities are enhanced, easy-to-follow data tools for clinical operations, supply chain and logistics, and quality. Health systems will also be interested in tools that easily integrate into provider workflow, like SDOH screening and resources or ambient listening scribes.
Going back to basics
Craft your strategy
1. Rebuild your workforce.
One important link to recovery of volume is FTE count. Systems that expect positive changes in FTEs overwhelmingly project positive changes in volume. But, on average, less than half of systems expected FTE growth in 2023. Meanwhile, high turnover, churn, and early retirement has contributed to poor care team communication and a growing experience-complexity gap. Prioritize rebuilding your workforce with these steps:
Recover: Ensure staff recover from pandemic-era experiences by investing in workforce well-being. Audit existing wellness initiatives to maximize programs that work well, and rethink those that aren’t heavily utilized.
Recruit: Compete by addressing what the next generation of clinicians want from employment: autonomy, flexibility, benefits, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Keep up to date with workforce trends for key roles such as advance practice providers, nurses, and physicians in your market to avoid blind spots.
Retain: Support young and entry-level staff early and often while ensuring tenured staff feel valued and are given priority access to new workforce arrangements like hybrid and gig work. Utilize virtual inpatient nurses and virtual hubs to maintain experienced staff who may otherwise retire. Prioritize technologies that reduce the burden on staff, rather than creating another box to check, like ambient listening or asynchronous questionnaires.
2. Become the provider of choice with patient-centric care.
Becoming the provider of choice is crucial not only for returning to financial stability, but also for sustained growth. To become the provider of choice in 2024, systems must address faltering consumer perspectives with a patient-centric approach. Keep in mind that our first set of recommendations around workforce recovery are precursors to improving patient-centered care. Here are two key areas to focus on:
Front door: Ensure a multimodal front door strategy. This could be accomplished through partnership or ownership but should include assets like urgent care/extended hour appointments, community education and engagement, and a good digital experience.
Social determinants of health: A key aspect of patient-centered care is addressing the social needs of patients. Our survey found that addressing SDOH was the second highest strategic priority in 2023. Set up a plan to integrate SDOH screenings early on in patient contact. Then, work with local organizations and/or build out key services within your system to address social needs that appear most frequently in your population. Finally, your workforce DEI strategy should focus on diversity in clinical and leadership staff, as well as teaching clinicians how to practice with cultural humility.
3. Recouple volume and margins.
The increasingly decoupled relationship between volume and margins should be a concern for all strategists. There are three parts to improving volume related margins: increasing volume for high-revenue procedures, managing costs, and improving clinical operational efficiency.
Revenue growth: Craft a response to out-of-market travel for surgery. In many markets, the pool of lucrative inpatient surgical volumes is shrinking. Health systems are looking to new markets to attract patients who are willing to travel for greater access and quality. Read our findings to learn more about what you need to attract and/or defend patient volumes from out-of-market travel.
Cost reduction: Although there are many paths health systems can take to manage costs, focusing on tactics which are the most likely to result in fast returns and higher, more sustainable savings, will be key. Some tactics health systems can deploy include preventing unnecessary surgical supply waste, making employees accountable for their health costs, and reinforcing nurse-led sepsis protocols.
Clinical operational efficiency: The number one strategic priority in 2023, according to our survey, was clinical operational efficiency, no doubt in response to faltering margins. Within this area, the top place for improvement was care variation reduction (CVR). Ensure you’re making the most out of CVR efforts by effectively prioritizing where to spend your time. Improve operational efficiency outside of CVR by improving OR efficiency and developing protocols for complex inpatient management.
The nation’s largest for-profit hospital systems by revenue — HCA Healthcare, Community Health Systems, Tenet Healthcare and Universal Health Services —reported mixed results during the third quarter of 2023, despite announcing strong demand for patient services.
With the exception of HCA, each operator reported lower profits in the third quarter compared with the same period last year. Health systems CHS and HCA reported earnings that fell short of Wall Street expectations for revenue.
Major operators posted declining profits in the third quarter compared to the same period in 2022
Q3 net income in millions, by operator
Health System
Profit
Percent Change YOY
Community Health Systems
$−91
−117%
HCA Healthcare
$1,800
59%
Tenet Healthcare
$101
−23%
Universal Health Services
$167
−9%
Admissions rose across the board compared to the same period last year: Same facility equivalent admissions rose4.1% at HCA , 3.7% at CHS and 0.6% at Tenet,and adjusted admissions at acute hospitals rose 6.8% at UHS.
Although the for-profit operators began cost containment strategies earlier this year — recognizing that rising expenses, including costs of salary and wages, were pressuring hospital profitability post-pandemic — expenses also rose, with growth in salaries and benefit costs once again pressuring most operators’ revenue.
Hospital operators faced new challenges this quarter, executives said, including increased physician staffing fees and what hospital executives characterizedas aggressive behavior from payers.
Hospitals highlight rising physician fees
Rising physician fees were a topic of concern on earnings calls this quarter, with executives reporting fees that were 15% to 40% higher compared with the same period last year.
Third-party staffing firms charge hospitals physician fees, a percentage of physicians’ salaries, on top of the salaries themselves. Physician fees are separate but related to contract labor costs, which plagued hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic as they attempted to stem staffing shortages.
Hospitals typically contract specialty hospitalist roles — like anesthesiologists, radiologists and emergency department physicians — and incur associated staffing costs.
Physician fees at HCA, the country’s largest hospital chain, grew 20% year over year in the third quarter, according to CFO Bill Rutherford.
Physician fees were up by as much as 40% at UHS — making up 7.6% of totaloperating expenses this quarter and surpassing the company’s initial projections for the year,CEOMarc Miller said during an earnings call. Historically, physician fees accounted for about 6% of UHS’ total expenses.
Likewise, Franklin, Tennessee-based CHS attributed some of its third-quarter losses to “increased rates for outsourced medical specialists,” according to a release on the operator’s earnings.
Tenet CEO Saum Sutaria noted that physician fee expenses were up 15% year over year, but said on an earnings call that the operator had spied rising physician fees during the pandemic, and had begun efforts to contain costs — including restructuring staffing contracts and in-sourcing critical physician services.
As a result, physician fee costs at Tenet had remained “relatively flat” from the second quarter to the third quarter this year, according to the Sutaria.
Physician fee increases may be a delayed consequence of the No Surprises Act, which went into effect in January of last year, experts say.
On an earnings call, UHS CFO Steve Filton said “the industry has largely had to reset itself” in wake of the law. Tenet and CHS executives echoed the sentiment, noting that the law had disrupted staffing firms’ business models and complicated payment processes.
The No Surprises Act prevents patients who unknowingly receive out-of-network care at an in-network facility from being stuck with unexpectedbills. However, the act has had unintended ripple effects, experts say.
Staffing firms and hospitals allege that the arbitration process created to resolve disputes between providers and insurers is unbalanced and incentivizes insurers to withhold reimbursement for care. In an August survey, over half of doctors reported insurers have either ignored decisions made by arbitrators or declined to pay claims in full.
In other cases, a backlog prevents claims from being adjudicated at all. Last year, the CMS found the federal arbitration process had only reached a payment determination in 15% of cases. Federal regulators have been forced to pause and restart the arbitration process multiple times in the wake of federal court decisions challenging arbitration methodology.
Although the act went into effect more than a year ago, many hospitals are just now feeling the strain, saidLoren Adler, associate director at the Brookings Institute’s Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy.
That’s because most insurers, hospitals and medical groups operate on three-year contracts, according to Adler. Staffing firms, which have struggled since the No Surprises Act was enacted, have passed on costs to hospitals as contracts come up for negotiation and insurers charge firms higher rates.
In the face of rising costs, some hospitals may opt to follow Tenet and CHS and in-source physicians — either to retain contracts with physicians who worked with firms that have folded or because the passing of the No Surprises Act makes outsourcing less attractive.
CHS hired 500 physicians from staffing firm American Physician Partners after the company collapsed in July. CFO Kevin Hammons said on an earnings call that hiring the physicians had saved CHS “approximately $4 million sequentially compared to the subsidy payments previously paid” to the staffing firm.
However, in-sourcing may not be an effective cost containment strategy for all operators. HCA reported it was hemorrhaging money following its first-quarter majority stake purchase of staffing firm Valesco, which brought about 5,000 physicians onto its payroll. HCA CEO Sam Hazen said the system expects to lose $50 million per quarter on the venture through 2024, citing low payments as the primary issue.
Payer problems
Hospital executives also tied quarterly losses to aggressive behavior from insurers during third-quarter earnings calls.
UHS executives said payers were improperly denying high volumes of claims and disrupting payments to its hospitals, with UHS’ Miller characterizing insurers as “increasingly aggressive” during the third quarter. Though insurers had reduced their number of claims audits, denials and patient status changes during the early stages of the pandemic, payers were increasing denials and reviews, according to UHS’ Filton.
Tenet’s Sutaria said that claims denials were “excessive and inappropriate” during a third-quarter earnings call, adding that the hospital system was working to push back on the volume of claims denials.
Their number one strategy is to provide “excellent documentation” to refute denials quickly, Sutaria said.
Still, excessive claims denials can drive up administrative costs for hospitals, according to Matthew Bates, managing director at Kaufman Hall.
“That denial creates a lot more work, because now I have to deal with that bill two, three, four times to get through the denial process,” Bates said. “It starts to rapidly eat into the operating margins… [becoming] both a cashflow problem and an administrative costs burden.”
Executives across the four for-profit operators said they planned to negotiate with insurers to receive more favorable rates and limit the number of denials in subsequent quarters.
HCA’s Hazen said that it was important for HCA to maintain its in-network status with insurers “to avoid the surprise billing and that [independent dispute resolution] process,” but that it would work with its payers to get “reasonable rates” going forward.
Claim denials are increasing, especially in Medicare Advantage, and it’s affecting hospital’s revenue cycles and patient care.
“We definitely are seeing an increase in denials,” said Sherri Liebl, executive director of Revenue Cycle, CentraCare Health, a large multispecialty system in Minnesota. CareCare has two acute care hospitals, seven Critical Access Hospitals and 30 standalone clinics, many of them in rural areas.
CentraCare reported a positive margin this year, but in no way realizes the profits of insurers, especially the national insurers where Liebl is having the most difficulty with claims.
CentraCare’s goal in its cost to collect – not all-around denials – is to be at 2%. The health system is closer to 7% on its cost to collect.
“The cost for our organization is exorbitant,” Lieble said.
Much of the blame for denials is falling to artificial intelligence being used in algorithms to deny claims.
UnitedHealthcare has been sued in a class action lawsuit that alleges the insurer unlawfully used an artificial intelligence algorithm to deny rehabilitative care to sick Medicare Advantage patients.
Cigna has also been suedfor allegedly using algorithms to deny claims. The lawsuit claims the Cigna PXDX algorithm enables automatic denials for treatments that do not match preset criteria, evading the legally required individual physician review process.
A Cigna Healthcare spokesperson said the vast majority of claims reviewed through PXDX are automatically paid, and that the PXDX process does not involve algorithms, AI or machine learning, but a simple sorting technology that has been used for more than a decade to match up codes. Claims declined for payment via PXDX represent less than 1% of the total volume of claims, the spokesperson said.
Industry consultant Adam Hjerpe, who formerly worked for UnitedHealth Group, said there’s nothing new about payers using artificial intelligence. AI has been used for 20 years in robotic processes, statements in Excel and algorithms, he said.
Everybody is working with good intent, Hjerpe said. There are reasonable controls in place to avoid fraud and abuse.
Claims are being denied for missing information, or for the information being out of sequence, or for the claim giving an incomplete picture of the care.
“We don’t want care delayed,” he said.
Nobody wins in claims denials, said Susan Taylor, Pega’s vice president of Healthcare and Life Sciences.
While payers save money in the short-term, in the long-term, the best arrangement is to have payers and providers work together to prevent denials, said Taylor, who has worked in healthcare for more than 25 years, starting on the health system side before moving into IT.
“There are more claims of note being denied,” Taylor said. “If you look at the ecosystem, there are a lot of opportunities for error.”
The solution is building an agility layer to streamline workflows throughout the revenue cycle, from initial claim submission to the complex denials processing stage.
WHY THIS MATTERS
Liebl said that denials have increased over the past two years and that there’s also been an uptick in payer audits months after payment has been made.
Insurers want justification for why CentraCare should keep its payments, and this is especially true for Medicare Advantage claims, she said.
One insurer said the claim didn’t meet inpatient criteria and downgraded the claim to an observation patient.
“We have a pretty good success rate as far as being able to justify we did the right care,” Liebl said.
Asked what’s driving the higher denial rates Lieble said, “Everybody wants to keep margins and expand their business. I think it comes down to profit margins, trying to keep profit margins high; we’re just trying to stay afloat.”
To combat denials and work with payers, CentraCare founded a joint operating committee to have successful partnerships. They’ve been more successful with the local Minnesota plans than the national plans, but Liebl is optimistic, she said.
“I am hopeful we can create partnerships …” she said. “Some of the denials we receive are against their payer policy. We need to be able to hold payers accountable.”
Larger health systems have a little more clout, and CentraCare is able to partner with other health systems through the Minnesota Hospital Association.
What’s being lost in all this is the patient, Liebl said. Sometimes a patient is getting a bill up to a year after a procedure.
“Sometimes the patient focus is lost when we work through some of this,” she said.
“They keep our money longer,” Liebl said. “They hold our money hostage. We have denials sitting out there for 300 days. It’s a lot of administrative burden on our part. We’ve spent a lot of money just to get the money in the door. Finally when that claim has been resolved, it’s a year later. No one wins? I think there is some winning going on one side.”
HENRY KOTULA 