Patient experience measures declined nationwide in 2022, though some hospitals are showing early signs of improvement.
Below are 72 hospital patient experience benchmarks based on national HCAHPS measures from CMS. Data was collected from hospitals in calendar year 2022 and published on CMS’ Provider Data Catalog Nov. 8. Learn more about the methodology here.
Communication with hospital staff
Nurses always communicated well: 79%
Nurses sometimes or never communicated well: 5%
Nurses usually communicated well: 16%
Nurses always treated them with courtesy and respect: 85%
Nurses sometimes or never treated them with courtesy and respect: 3%
Nurses usually treated them with courtesy and respect: 12%
Nurses always listened carefully: 76%
Nurses sometimes or never listened carefully: 5%
Nurses usually listened carefully: 19%
Nurses always explained things so they could understand: 75%
Nurses sometimes or never explained things so they could understand: 6%
Nurses usually explained things so they could understand: 19%
Physicians always communicated well: 79%
Physicians sometimes or never communicated well: 5%
Physicians usually communicated well: 16%
Physicians always treated them with courtesy and respect: 85%
Physicians sometimes or never treated them with courtesy and respect: 4%
Physicians usually treated them with courtesy and respect: 11%
Physicians always listened carefully: 78%
Physicians sometimes or never listened carefully: 6%
Physicians usually listened carefully: 16%
Physicians always explained things so they could understand: 74%
Physicians sometimes or never explained things so they could understand: 7%
Physicians usually explained things so they could understand: 19%
Responsiveness of hospital staff
Patients always received help as soon as they wanted: 65%
Patients sometimes or never received help as soon as they wanted: 11%
Patients usually received help as soon as they wanted: 24%
Patients always received call button help as soon as they wanted: 64%
Patients sometimes or never received call button help as soon as they wanted: 10%
Patients usually received call button help as soon as they wanted: 26%
Patients always received bathroom help as soon as they wanted: 66%
Patients sometimes or never received bathroom help as soon as they wanted: 11%
Patients usually received bathroom help as soon as they wanted: 23%
Communication about medicines
Staff always explained medicines before giving it to them: 62%
Staff sometimes or never explained: 20%
Staff usually explained: 18%
Staff always explained what new medications were for: 75%
Staff sometimes or never explained new medications: 10%
Staff usually explained new medications: 15%
Staff always explained possible side effects: 48%
Staff sometimes or never explained possible side effects: 31%
Staff usually explained possible side effects: 21%
Discharge information
Yes, staff did give patients information about what to do during their recovery at home: 86%
No, staff did not give patients information: 14%
No, staff did not give patients information about help after discharge: 16%
Yes, staff did give patients information about help after discharge: 84%
No, staff did not give patients information about possible symptoms: 13%
Yes, staff did give patients information about possible symptoms: 87%
Patients who agree they understood their care when they left the hospital: 43%
Patients who disagree or strongly disagree they understood their care when they left the hospital: 6%
Patients who strongly agree they understood their care when they left the hospital: 51%
Cleanliness of hospital environment
Room was always clean: 72%
Room was sometimes or never clean: 10%
Room was usually clean: 18%
Quietness of hospital environment
Always quiet at night: 62%
Sometimes or never quiet at night: 10%
Usually quiet at night: 28%
Transition of care
Patients who agree that staff took their preferences into account: 47%
Patients who disagree or strongly disagree that staff took their preferences into account: 8%
Patients who strongly agree that staff took their preferences into account: 45%
Patients who agree they understood their responsibilities when they left the hospital: 43%
Patients who disagree or strongly disagree they understood their responsibilities when they left the hospital: 6%
Patients who strongly agree they understood their responsibilities when they left the hospital: 51%
Patients who agree they understood their medications when they left the hospital: 37%
Patients who disagree or strongly disagree they understood their medications when they left the hospital: 5%
Patients who strongly agree they understood their medications when they left the hospital: 58%
Overall hospital rating
Patients who gave a rating of six or lower: 9%
Patients who gave a rating of seven or eight : 21%
Patients who gave a rating of nine or 10: 70%
Patients probably would not or definitely would not recommend the hospital: 6%
Yes, patients would definitely recommend the hospital: 69%
Yes, patients would probably recommend the hospital: 25%
There is a local urgent care chain that we frequented regularly when my kids were young and cycling through rounds of ear infections and strep throat. The experience was always solid, driven by online scheduling, efficient operations, and good customer service.
A few years ago, the clinics were bought by a local health system. We recently visited one for the first time post-acquisition, when my now teenage son needed to rule out a broken bone from a sports injury. This experience at the same urgent care left a very different impression.
In contrast to the “easy in, easy out” experience I expected, we sat in an exam room for hours, even though the place was not crowded. While this could be due to the staffing challenges pervasive across the industry, other elements of the acquisition left a different impression.
Gone was the advertised cash pricing (and I’m anticipating a higher bill once we get one). The new patient self-registration system was overly complex, built for a hospital, not an immediate care setting.
The only signs of “systemness”? Multiple prompts to sign up for the health system’s MyChart patient portal (not interested, they have few facilities close by), and a printed referral to an employed orthopedic surgeon a forty-minute drive from home (with no guidance as to whether or when we should seek it, given that no bones were broken).
A few days ago, a scheduler from the system called to book the appointment. With no inquiry as to whether my son’s pain had improved, the interaction felt like a business transaction, not clinical follow-up. I declined.
Just because a care site is acquired by a health system, that doesn’t mean that patients will feel any value from its being part of a system.
Right or wrong, my impression was that health system ownership has made for a worse experience: inefficient, more complicated, and possibly more expensive.
Nothing about the visit gave me confidence that there was a benefit to following up with an affiliated provider. The health system had failed to earn our referral.
Systems buy assets like urgent care to create entry points that will generate downstream demand and hopefully build loyalty to the brand. But capturing that must start with delivering an excellent experience in every encounter, not merely changing the name on the building.
I have been both a frontline officer and a staff officer at a health system. I started a solo practice in 1977 and cared for my rheumatology, internal medicine and geriatrics patients in inpatient and outpatient settings. After 23 years in my solo practice, I served 18 years as President and CEO of a profitable, CMS 5-star, 715-bed, two-hospital healthcare system.
From 2015 to 2020, our health system team added 0.6 years of healthy life expectancy for 400,000 folks across the socioeconomic spectrum. We simultaneously decreased healthcare costs 54% for 6,000 colleagues and family members. With our mentoring, four other large, self-insured organizations enjoyed similar measurable results. We wanted to put our healthcare system out of business. Who wants to spend a night in a hospital?
During the frontline part of my career, I had the privilege of “Being in the Room Where It Happens,” be it the examination room at the start of a patient encounter, or at the end of life providing comfort and consoling family. Subsequently, I sat at the head of the table, responsible for most of the hospital care in Southwest Florida. [1]
Many folks commenting on healthcare have never touched a patient nor led a large system. Outside consultants, no matter how competent, have vicarious experience that creates a different perspective.
At this point in my career, I have the luxury of promoting what I believe is in the best interests of patients — prevention and quality outcomes. Keeping folks healthy and changing the healthcare industry’s focus from a “repair shop” mentality to a “prevention program” will save the industry and country from bankruptcy. Avoiding well-meaning but inadvertent suboptimal care by restructuring healthcare delivery avoids misery and saves lives.
RESPONDING TO AN ATTACK
Preemptive reinvention is much wiser than responding to an attack. Unfortunately, few industries embrace prevention. The entire healthcare industry, including health systems, physicians, non-physician caregivers, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical firms, and medical insurers, is stressed because most are experiencing serious profit margin squeeze. Simultaneously the public has ongoing concerns about healthcare costs. While some medical insurance companies enjoyed lavish profits during COVID, most of the industry suffered. Examples abound, and Paul Keckley, considered a dean among long-time observers of the medical field, recently highlighted some striking year-end observations for 2022. [2]
Recent Siege Examples
Transparency is generally good but can and has led to tarnishing the noble profession of caring for others. Namely, once a sector starts bleeding, others come along, exacerbating the exsanguination. Current literature is full of unflattering public articles that seem to self-perpetuate, and I’ve highlighted standout samples below.
The Federal Government is the largest spender in the healthcare industry and therefore the most influential. Not surprisingly, congressional lobbying was intense during the last two weeks of 2022 in a partially successful effort to ameliorate spending cuts for Medicare payments for physicians and hospitals. Lobbying spend by Big Pharma, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, American Hospital Association, and American Medical Association are all in the top ten spenders again. [3, 4, 5] These organizations aren’t lobbying for prevention, they’re lobbying to keep the status quo.
Concern about consistent quality should always be top of mind. “Diagnostic Errors in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review,” shared by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, compiled 279 studies showing a nearly 6% error rate for the 130 million people who visit an ED yearly. Stroke, heart attack, aortic aneurysm, spinal cord injury, and venous thromboembolism were the most common harms. The defense of diagnostic errors in emergency situations is deemed of secondary importance to stabilizing the patient for subsequent diagnosing. Keeping patients alive trumps everything. Commonly, patient ED presentations are not clear-cut with both false positive and negative findings. Retrospectively, what was obscure can become obvious. [6, 7]
Spending mirrors motivations. The Wall Street Journal article “Many Hospitals Get Big Drug Discounts. That Doesn’t Mean Markdowns for Patients” lays out how the savings from a decades-old federal program that offers big drug discounts to hospitals generally stay with the hospitals. Hospitals can chose to sell the prescriptions to patients and their insurers for much more than the discounted price. Originally the legislation was designed for resource-challenged communities, but now some hospitals in these programs are profiting from wealthy folks paying normal prices and the hospitals keeping the difference. [8]
“Hundreds of Hospitals Sue Patients or Threaten Their Credit, a KHN Investigation Finds. Does Yours?” Medical debt is a large and growing problem for both patients and providers. Healthcare systems employ collection agencies that typically assess and screen a patient’s ability to pay. If the credit agency determines a patient has resources and has avoided paying his/her debt, the health system send those bills to a collection agency. Most often legitimately impoverished folks are left alone, but about two-thirds of patients who could pay but lack adequate medical insurance face lawsuits and other legal actions attempting to collect payment including garnishing wages or placing liens on property. [9]
“Hospital Monopolies Are Destroying Health Care Value,” written by Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) in The Hill, includes a statement attributed to Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, “that the law which facilitates consolidation ends in a conspiracy against the public to raise prices.” The country has seen over 1,500 hospital mergers in the past twenty years — an example of horizontal consolidation. Hospitals also consolidate vertically by acquiring physician practices. As of January 2022, 74 percent of physicians work directly for hospitals, healthcare systems, other physicians, or corporate entities, causing not only the loss of independent physicians but also tighter control of pricing and financial issues. [10] The healthcare industry is an attractive target to examine. Everyone has had meaningful healthcare experiences, many have had expensive and impactful experiences. Although patients do not typically understand the complexity of providing a diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis, the care receiver may compare the experience to less-complex interactions outside healthcare that are customer centric and more satisfying.
PROFIT-MARGIN SQUEEZE
Both nonprofit and for-profit hospitals must publish financial statements. Three major bond rating agencies (Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service, and S & P Global Ratings) and other respected observers like KaufmanHall, collate, review, and analyze this publicly available information and rate health systems’ financial stability.
One measure of healthcare system’s financial strength is operating margin, the amount of profit or loss from caring for patients. In January of 2023 the median, or middle value, of hospital operating margin index was -1.0%, which is an improvement from January 2022 but still lags 2021 and 2020.
Erik Swanson, SVP at KaufmanHall, says 2022,
“Is shaping up to be one of the worst financial years on record for hospitals. Expense pressures — particularly with the cost of labor — outpaced revenues and drove poor performance. While emergency department visits and operating room minutes increased slightly, hospitals struggled to discharge patients due to internal staffing shortages and shortages at post-acute facilities,” [11]
Another force exacerbating health system finance is the competent, if relatively new retailers (CVS, Walmart, Walgreens, and others) that provide routine outpatient care affordably. Ninety percent of Americans live within ten miles of a Walmart and 50% visit weekly. CVS and Walgreens enjoy similar penetration. Profit-margin squeeze, combined with new convenient options to obtain routine care locally, will continue disrupting legacy healthcare systems.
Providers generate profits when patients access care. Additionally, “easy” profitable outpatient care can and has switched to telemedicine. Kaiser-Permanente (KP), even before the pandemic, provided about 50% of the system’s care through virtual visits. Insurance companies profit when services are provided efficiently or when members don’t use services. KP has the enviable position of being both the provider and payor for their members. The balance between KP’s insurance company and provider company favors efficient use of limited resources. Since COVID, 80% of all KP’s visits are virtual, a fact that decreases overhead, resulting in improved profit margins. [12]
On the other hand, KP does feel the profit-margin squeeze because labor costs have risen. To avoid a nurse labor strike, KP gave 21,000 nurses and nurse practitioners a 22.5% raise over four years. KP’s most recent quarter reported a net loss of $1.5B, possibly due to increased overhead. [13]
The public, governmental agencies, and some healthcare leaders are searching for a more efficient system with better outcomes
at a lower cost. Our nation cannot continue to spend the most money of any developed nation and have the worst outcomes. In a globally competitive world, limited resources must go to effective healthcare, balanced with education, infrastructure, the environment, and other societal needs. A new healthcare model could satisfy all these desires and needs.
Even iconic giants are starting to feel the pain of recent annual losses in the billions. Ascension Health, Cleveland Clinic, Jefferson Health, Massachusetts General Hospital, ProMedica, Providence, UPMC, and many others have gone from stable and sustainable to stressed and uncertain. Mayo Clinic had been a notable exception, but recently even this esteemed system’s profit dropped by more than 50% in 2022 with higher wage and supply costs up, according to this Modern Healthcare summary. [14]
The alarming point is even the big multigenerational health system leaders who believed they had fortress balance sheets are struggling. Those systems with decades of financial success and esteemed reputations are in jeopardy. Changing leadership doesn’t change the new environment.
Nonprofit healthcare systems’ income typically comes from three sources — operations, namely caring for patients in ways that are now evolving as noted above; investments, which are inherently risky evidence by this past year’s record losses; and philanthropy, which remains fickle particularly when other investment returns disappoint potential donors. For-profit healthcare systems don’t have the luxury of philanthropic support but typically are more efficient with scale and scope.
The most stable and predictable source of revenue in the past was from patient care. As the healthcare industry’s cost to society continues to increase above 20% of the GDP, most medically self-insured employers and other payors will search for efficiencies. Like it or not, persistently negative profit margins will transform healthcare.
Demand for nurses, physicians, and support folks is increasing, with many shortages looming near term. Labor costs and burnout have become pressing stresses, but more efficient delivery of care and better tools can ameliorate the stress somewhat. If structural process and technology tools can improve productivity per employee, the long-term supply of clinicians may keep up. Additionally, a decreased demand for care resulting from an effective prevention strategy also could help.
Most other successful industries work hard to produce products or services with fewer people. Remember what the industrial revolution did for America by increasing the productivity of each person in the early 1900s. Thereafter, manufacturing needed fewer employees.
PATIENTS’ NEEDS AND DESIRES
Patients want to live a long, happy and healthy life. The best way to do this is to avoid illness, which patients can do with prevention because 80% of disease is self-inflicted. When prevention fails, or the 20% of unstoppable episodic illness kicks in, patients should seek the best care.
The choice of the “best care” should not necessarily rest just on convenience but rather objective outcomes. Closest to home may be important for take-out food, but not healthcare.
Care typically can be divided into three categories — acute, urgent, and elective. Common examples of acute care include childbirth, heart attack, stroke, major trauma, overdoses, ruptured major blood vessel, and similar immediate, life-threatening conditions. Urgent intervention examples include an acute abdomen, gall bladder inflammation, appendicitis, severe undiagnosed pain and other conditions that typically have positive outcomes even with a modest delay of a few hours.
Most every other condition can be cared for in an appropriate timeframe that allows for a car trip of a few hours. These illnesses can range in severity from benign that typically resolve on their own to serious, which are life-threatening if left undiagnosed and untreated. Musculoskeletal aches are benign while cancer is life-threatening if not identified and treated.
Getting the right diagnosis and treatment for both benign and malignant conditions is crucial but we’re not even near perfect for either. That’s unsettling.
In a 2017 study,
“Mayo Clinic reports that as many as 88 percent of those patients [who travel to Mayo] go home [after getting a second opinion] with a new or refined diagnosis — changing their care plan and potentially their lives. Conversely, only 12 percent receive confirmation that the original diagnosis was complete and correct. In 21 percent of the cases, the diagnosis was completely changed; and 66 percent of patients received a refined or redefined diagnosis. There were no significant differences between provider types [physician and non-physician caregivers].” [15]
The frequency of significant mis- or refined-diagnosis and treatment should send chills up your spine. With healthcare we are not talking about trivial concerns like a bad meal at a restaurant, we are discussing life-threatening risks. Making an initial, correct first decision has a tremendous influence on your outcome.
Sleeping in your own bed is nice but secondary to obtaining the best outcome possible, even if car or plane travel are necessary. For urgent and elective diagnosis/treatment, travel may be a
good option. Acute illness usually doesn’t permit a few hours of grace, although a surprising number of stroke and heart attack victims delay treatment through denial or overnight timing. But even most of these delayed, recognized illnesses usually survive. And urgent and elective care gives the patient the luxury of some time to get to a location that delivers proven, objective outcomes, not necessarily the one closest to home.
Measuring quality in healthcare has traditionally been difficult for the average patient. Roadside billboards, commercials, displays at major sporting events, fancy logos, name changes and image building campaigns do not relate to quality. Confusingly, some heavily advertised metrics rely on a combination of subjective reputational and lagging objective measures. Most consumers don’t know enough about the sources of information to understand which ratings are meaningful to outcomes.
Arguably, hospital quality star ratings created by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are the best information for potential patients to rate hospital mortality, safety, readmission, patient experience, and timely/effective care. These five categories combine 47 of the more than 100 measures CMS publicly reports. [16]
A 2017 JAMA article by lead author Dr. Ashish Jha said:
“Found that a higher CMS star rating was associated with lower patient mortality and readmissions. It is reassuring that patients can use the star ratings in guiding their health care seeking decisions given that hospitals with more stars not only offer a better experience of care, but also have lower mortality and readmissions.”
The study included only Medicare patients who typically are over 65, and the differences were most apparent at the extremes, nevertheless,
“These findings should be encouraging for policymakers and consumers; choosing 5-star hospitals does not seem to lead to worse outcomes and in fact may be driving patients to better institutions.” [17]
Developing more 5-star hospitals is not only better and safer for patients but also will save resources by avoiding expensive complications and suffering.
As a patient, doing your homework before you have an urgent or elective need can change your outcome for the better. Driving a
couple of hours to a CMS 5-star hospital or flying to a specialty hospital for an elective procedure could make a difference.
Business case studies have noted that hospitals with a focus on a specific condition deliver improved outcomes while becoming more efficient. [18] Similarly, specialty surgical areas within general hospitals have also been effective in improving quality while reducing costs. Mayo Clinic demonstrated this with its cardiac surgery department. [19] A similar example is Shouldice Hospital near Toronto, a focused factory specializing in hernia repairs. In the last 75 years, the Shouldice team has completed four hundred thousand hernia repairs, mostly performed under local anesthesia with the patient walking to and from the operating room. [20] [21]
THE BOTTOM LINE
The Mayo Brother’s quote, “The patient’s needs come first,” is more relevant today than when first articulated over a century ago. Driving treatment into distinct categories of acute, urgent, and elective, with subsequent directing care to the appropriate facilities, improves the entire care process for the patient. The saved resources can fund prevention and decrease the need for future care. The healthcare industry’s focus has been on sickness,
not prevention. The virtuous cycle’s flywheel effect of distinct categories for care and embracing prevention of illness will decrease misery and lower the percentage of GDP devoted to healthcare.
Editor’s note: This is a multi-part series on reinventing the healthcare industry. Part 2 addresses physicians, non-physician caregivers, and communities’ responses to the coming transformation.
The health of a community is measured by the health of its individual members, and the health of its members depends on their access to local, high-quality medical care. Health coverage is a key indicator of the health and wellness of an individual. When people have health insurance, they have greater access to care, reduced mortality, and better health outcomes, according to a report from the American Hospital Association.
However, the current approach taken by some of the nation’s largest health insurers, or payers, is putting this at jeopardy as payers focus on profits and quarterly earnings, strip rates and put the long-term viability of health systems at risk. With hospitals in the middle of the worst economic performance in decades, it is time for payers to own up to how their actions negatively impact the communities and those they claim to serve.
As a physician and the chief of population health at a large metro-area health system, Northeast Georgia Health System, my patients’ ability to readily access medical care at our facilities — and have that care be covered by insurance — matters greatly. Any disruption in a patient’s experience, such as restricting access to care by their health plan or going out of network with an insurance company, can wreak havoc on population health. It’s no secret that many health systems across the country have felt the weight of increased administrative and contractual burdens from health insurers as denial rates continue to creep upwards.
Health insurance companies, like the nation’s largest, UnitedHealthcare, have seen profits soar in recent years. UnitedHeatlhcare’s profits were up 28 percent during the third quarter of 2022 – achieving a profit of $5.3 billion in just those three months – before closing the year at $28.4 billion in net earnings in 2023. Elevance (formerly Anthem), Cigna, and Aetna have also posted record profits recently.
We have seen the impact of the pressure payers are putting on hospitals across the country. Nearly 200 hospitals have closed since 2005, according to the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina. Many of these hospitals have closed because they failed to receive fair contracted rates from large payers and thus were insolvent.
Community benefits like charity care, health education and economic impact are provided by hundreds of hospitals nationally, but that impact is at risk if they are not fairly compensated for the services they provide.
Since the early days of the pandemic, the healthcare industry has faced seemingly insurmountable challenges to ensure access to high-quality care. While healthcare providers have performed admirably in the face of these challenges, patients are still seeing access challenges that are impacting their behaviors — which can lead to challenges in the long run.
In the 2022 BDO Patient Experience Survey, they sought to learn how patients feel about their providers and healthcare experience — from making appointments and interacting with care providers, to how patients access health insurance and who patients turn to for routine care.
From the survey of over 3,000 U.S. adults, they came across a few key takeaways:
1. Delaying routine care is the new norm
Americans face a troubling dilemma: While 92% have health insurance and 91% have a regular care provider, 58% admit to delaying routine medical care in the past 12 months.
For routine (non-emergency) care, 69% of respondents report seeing a primary care physician and 12% routinely visit primary care nurse/nurse practitioner or physician assistant. Just 9% do not have a provider for routine medical care. Our survey found that Americans use a wide variety of health insurance options with employer-sponsored insurance (32%) being the most popular, followed by Medicare (28%), Medicaid (14%) and individual private insurance (7%). While 8% report having no health insurance, even those with insurance faced significant barriers to care.
Of those who delayed seeking medical care in the past 12 months, 30% cite unaffordability due to high out-of-pocket costs and 19% say they could not afford to seek care due to a lack of insurance. In addition to the high costs of medical care, many Americans struggle with a lack of cost transparency.
2. Cost transparency is a continuing problem
Nearly a third of Americans (31%) have never tried to obtain cost estimates for medical care. When patients do not know what healthcare will cost, many avoid seeking necessary care. A critical way we can improve patient access to healthcare is to understand how patients like to obtain cost estimates.
Of patients surveyed who have sought cost estimates, most prefer to reach out to a person, with 38% preferring to contact their insurance provider and 37% opting to ask the healthcare provider’s administrative staff. On the digital side, 31% say they obtained cost estimates by looking at online patient portals and 27% look to health provider or medical facility websites.
3. Most patients experience frustration when seeking and receiving care
We know that long appointments lead times and high costs cause patients to put off care — but how do patients feel about the actual care they receive? 69% of Americans experience frustration during routine medical appointments, with having to wait for a late provider (29%), not getting enough time with the provider (22%) and having too much paperwork to fill out (21%) being the most common frustrations.
When providers make it easier for patients to receive care, their efforts are noticed. Patients say providers make care more accessible by offering telehealth appointments (32%), reaching out to proactively schedule appointments (29%), offering walk-in appointments (27%) and implementing online/self-service scheduling (23%).
Patients are facing a challenging care environment — and so are providers. Fortunately, there are ways that providers can improve access and the care experience for their patients without breaking their budgets.
Hospitals in the United States are on track for their worst financial year in decades. According to a recent report, median hospital operating margins were cumulatively negative through the first eight months of 2022. For context, in 2020, despite unprecedented losses during the initial months of COVID-19, hospitals still reported median eight-month operating margins of 2 percent—although these were in large part buoyed by federal aid from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
The recent, historically poor financial performance is the result of significant pressures on multiple fronts. Labor shortages and supply-chain disruptions have fueled a dramatic rise in expenses, which, due to the annually fixed nature of payment rates, hospitals have thus far been unable to pass through to payers. At the same time, diminished patient volumes—especially in more profitable service lines—have constrained revenues, and declining markets have generated substantial investment losses.
While it’s tempting to view these challenges as transient shocks, a rapid recovery seems unlikely for a number of reasons. Thus, hospitals will be forced to take aggressive cost-cutting measures to stabilize balance sheets. For some, this will include department or service line closures; for others, closing altogether. As these scenarios unfold, ultimately, the costs will be borne by patients, in one form or another.
Hospitals Face A Difficult Road To Financial Recovery
There are several factors that suggest hospital margins will face continued headwinds in the coming years. First, the primary driver of rising hospital expenses is a shortage of labor—in particular, nursing labor—which will likely worsen in the future. Since the start of the pandemic, hospitals have lost a total of 105,000 employees, and nursing vacancieshave more than doubled. In response, hospitals have relied on expensive contract nurses and extended overtime hours, resulting in surging wage costs. While this issue was exacerbated by the pandemic, the national nursing shortage is a decades-old problem that—with a substantial portion of the labor force approaching retirement and an insufficient supply of new nurses to replace them—is projected to reach 450,000 by 2025.
Second, while payment rates will eventually adjust to rising costs, this is likely to occur slowly and unevenly. Medicare rates, which are adjusted annually based on an inflation projection, are already set to undershoot hospital costs. Given that Medicare doesn’t issue retrospective corrections, this underadjustment will become baked into Medicare prices for the foreseeable future, widening the gap between costs and payments.
This leaves commercial payers to make up the difference. Commercial rates are typically negotiated in three- to five-year contract cycles, so hospitals on the early side of a new contract may be forced to wait until renegotiation for more substantial pricing adjustments. “Negotiation” is also the operative term here, as payers are under no obligation to offset rising costs. Instead, it is likely that the speed and degree of price adjustments will be dictated by provider market share, leaving smaller hospitals at a further disadvantage. This trend was exemplified during the 2008 financial crisis, in which only the most prestigious hospitals were able to significantly adjust pricing in response to historic investment losses.
Finally, economic uncertainty and the threat of recession will create continued disruptions in patient volumes, particularly with elective procedures. Although health care has historically been referred to as “recession-proof,” the growing prevalence of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and more aggressive cost-sharing mechanisms have left patients more exposed to health care costs and more likely to weigh these costs against other household expenditures when budgets get tight. While this consumerist response is not new—research on previous recessions has identified direct correlations between economic strength and surgical volumes—the degree of cost exposure for patients is historically high. Since 2008, enrollment in HDHPs has increased nearly four-fold, now representing 28 percent of all employer-sponsored enrollments. There’s evidence that this exposure is already impacting patient decisions. Recently, one in five adults reported delaying or forgoing treatment in response to general inflation.
Taken together, these factors suggest that the current financial pressures are unlikely to resolve in the short term. As losses mount and cash reserves dwindle, hospitals will ultimately need to cut costs to stem the bleeding—which presents both challenges and opportunities.
Direct And Indirect Consequences For Cost, Quality, And Access To Care
Inevitably, as rising costs become baked into commercial pricing, patients will face dramatic premium hikes. As discussed above, this process is likely to occur slowly over the next few years. In the meantime, the current challenges and the manner in which hospitals respond will have lasting implications on quality and access to care, particularly among the most vulnerable populations.
Likely Effects On Patient Experience And Quality Of Care
Insufficient staffing has already created substantial bottlenecks in outpatient and acute-care facilities, resulting in increased wait times, delayed procedures, and, in extreme cases, hospitals diverting patients altogether. During the Omicron surge, 52 of 62 hospitals in Los Angeles, California, were reportedly diverting patients due to insufficient beds and staffing.
The challenges with nursing labor will have direct consequences for clinical quality. Persistent nursing shortages will force hospitals to increase patient loads and expand overtime hours, measures that have been repeatedly linked to longer hospital stays, more clinical errors, and worse patient outcomes. Additionally, the wave of experienced nurses exiting the workforce will accelerate an already growing divide between average nursing experience and the complexity of care they are asked to provide. This trend, referred to as the “Experience-Complexity Gap,” will only worsen in the coming years as a significant portion of the nursing workforce reaches retirement age. In addition to the clinical quality implications, the exodus of experienced nurses—many of whom serve in crucial nurse educator and mentorship roles—also has feedback effects on the training and supply of new nurses.
Staffing impacts on quality of care are not limited to clinical staff. During the initial months of the pandemic, hospitals laid off or furloughed hundreds of thousands of nonclinical staff, a common target for short-term payroll reductions. While these staff do not directly impact patient care (or billed charges), they can have a significant impact on patient experience and satisfaction. Additionally, downsizing support staff can negatively impact physician productivity and time spent with patients, which can have downstream effects on cost and quality of care.
Disproportionate Impacts On Underserved Communities
Reduced access to care will be felt most acutely in rural regions. A recent report found that more than 30 percent of rural hospitals were at risk of closure within the next six years, placing the affected communities—statistically older, sicker, and poorer than average—at higher risk for adverse health outcomes. When rural hospitals close, local residents are forced to travel more than 20 miles further to access inpatient or emergency care. For patients with life-threatening conditions, this increased travel has been linked to a 5–10 percent increase in risk of mortality.
Rural closures also have downstream effects that further deteriorate patient use and access to care. Rural hospitals often employ the majority of local physicians, many of whom leave the community when these facilities close. Access to complex specialty care and diagnostic testing is also diminished, as many of these services are provided by vendors or provider groups within hospital facilities. Thus, when rural hospitals close, the surrounding communities lose access to the entire care continuum. As a result, individuals within these communities are more likely to forgo treatment, testing, or routine preventive services, further exacerbating existing health disparities.
In areas not affected by hospital closures, access will be more selectively impacted. After the 2008 financial crisis, the most common cost-shifting response from hospitals was to reduce unprofitable service offerings. Historically, these measures have disproportionately impacted minority and low-income patients, as they tend to include services with high Medicaid populations (for example, psychiatric and addiction care) and crucial services such as obstetrics and trauma care, which are already underprovided in these communities. Since 2020, dozens of hospitals, both urban and rural, have closed or suspended maternity care. Similar to closure of rural hospitals, these closures have downstream effects on local access to physicians or other health services.
Potential For Productive Cost Reduction And The Need For A Measured Policy Response
Despite the doom-and-gloom scenario presented above, the focus on hospital costs is not entirely negative. Cost-cutting measures will inevitably yield efficiencies in a notoriously inefficient industry. Additionally, not all facility closures negatively impact care. While rural facility closures can have dire consequences in health emergencies, studies have found that outcomes for non-urgent conditions remained similar or actually improved.
Historically, attempts to rein in health care spending have focused on the demand side (that is, use) or on negotiated prices. These measures ignore the impact of hospital costs, which have historically outpaced inflation and contributed directly to rising prices. Thus, the current situation presents a brief window of opportunity in which hospital incentives are aligned with the broader policy goals of lowering costs. Capitalizing on this opportunity will require a careful balancing act from policy makers.
In response to the current challenges, the American Hospital Association has already appealed to Congress to extend federal aid programs created in the CARES Act. While this would help to mitigate losses in the short term, it would also undermine any positive gains in cost efficiency. Instead of a broad-spectrum bailout, policy makers should consider a more targeted approach that supports crucial community and rural services without continuing to fund broader health system inefficiencies.
The establishment of Rural Emergency Hospitals beginning in 2023 represents one such approach to eliminating excess costs while preventing negative patient consequences. This rule provides financial incentives for struggling critical access and rural hospitals to convert to standalone emergency departments instead of outright closing. If effective, this policy would ensure that affected communities maintain crucial access to emergency care while reducing overall costs attributed to low-volume, financially unviable services.
Policies can also help promote efficiencies by improving coverage for digital and telehealth services—long touted as potential solutions to rural health care deserts—or easing regulations to encourage more effective use of mid-level providers.
Conclusion
The financial challenges facing hospitals are substantial and likely to persist in the coming years. As a result, health systems will be forced to take drastic measures to reduce costs and stabilize profit margins. The existing challenges and the manner in which hospitals respond will have long-term implications for cost, quality, and access to care, especially within historically underserved communities. As with any crisis, though, they also present an opportunity to address industrywide inefficiencies. By relying on targeted, evidence-based policies, policy makers can mitigate the negative consequences and allow for a more efficient and effective system to emerge.
In a concerning New York Times article, reporter Gina Kolata relates the findings of a recent Health Affairs study that convened focus groups of physicians to anonymously discuss the ways they provide—or too often, don’t provide—care to disabled patients. Many admitted to avoiding seeing patients in wheelchairs and complained about having to provide accommodations to speech-impaired patients, citing the high costs of adapting their clinic operations while dealing with disruptions to workflow. People with disabilities interviewed for the article, including Harvard professor of medicine Dr. Lisa Iezzoni, who ran the study, found its results confirmed impressions of widespread bias against the disabled, which is pervasive across healthcare.
The Gist: Reducing disparities in access and quality of care for disabled people often receives less attention than reducing economic, racial, and gender disparities. What’s revealing about this piece is how these disparities among disabled patients manifest, ranging from personal biases (physicians not wanting or knowing how to care for certain groups of disabled people) to structural challenges (constraints of time, money, and facilities needed for proper care). However, for disabled patients, these factors result in an often substandard and unacceptable healthcare experience, which must be addressed head-on by physician and health system leaders.
We’re fortunate to be privy to many of the big, complex strategic issues being discussed in health system boardrooms and executive meetings these days: care model innovations, new investments in technology, the digital revolution in care, market-shaping partnerships, the future of the healthcare workforce, and on and on. It’s a precarious and strategically critical moment for incumbent systems in many ways. But we’re often reminded that the nuts and bolts of running hospital facilities still demands attention, even at a board level.
Case in point: the perennial discussion about what otherwise seems like a minor issue—parking. You’d be shocked how often parking comes up in board-level discussions (partly because many board members are older, active users of hospital services, who spend significant time looking for a place to park). We’ve been witness to knock-down, drag-out arguments about whether to charge for parking, and why more parking isn’t available for patients, physicians, and others.
At first it seems like a trivial issue, but of course it isn’t. In reality, it’s a tangible example of how much patient experience matters in the design and operation of healthcare delivery. We’ve also found it’s a useful analogy in explaining to leaders why “frictionless access” should be at the heart of digital patient experience as well—a poorly-designed digital “front door” can be just as frustrating as not being able to find an inexpensive and convenient place to park before a medical appointment.
Delivering reliable, affordable, high-quality care is critical, but getting the small experiential details (like parking) right can be incredibly impactful. Next time you visit a medical facility, think about what the parking experience is telling you about how “patient-centered” your provider really is.
HENRY KOTULA 