The 6 challenges facing health care in 2023—and how to handle them

With input from stakeholders across the industry, Modern Healthcare outlines six challenges health care is likely to face in 2023—and what leaders can do about them.

1. Financial difficulties

In 2023, health systems will likely continue to face financial difficulties due to ongoing staffing problems, reduced patient volumes, and rising inflation.

According to Tina Wheeler, U.S. health care leader at Deloitte, hospitals can expect wage growth to continue to increase even as they try to contain labor costs. They can also expect expenses, including for supplies and pharmaceuticals, to remain elevated.

Health systems are also no longer able to rely on federal Covid-19 relief funding to offset some of these rising costs. Cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates could also negatively impact revenue.

“You’re going to have all these forces that are counterproductive that you’re going to have to navigate,” Wheeler said.

In addition, Erik Swanson, SVP of data and analytics at Kaufman Hall, said the continued shift to outpatient care will likely affect hospitals’ profit margins.

“The reality is … those sites of care in many cases tend to be lower-cost ways of delivering care, so ultimately it could be beneficial to health systems as a whole, but only for those systems that are able to offer those services and have that footprint,” he said.

2. Health system mergers

Although hospital transactions have slowed in the last few years, market watchers say mergers are expected to rebound as health systems aim to spread their growing expenses over larger organizations and increase their bargaining leverage with insurers.

“There is going to be some organizational soul-searching for some health systems that might force them to affiliate, even though they prefer not to,” said Patrick Cross, a partner at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath. “Health systems are soliciting partners, not because they are on the verge of bankruptcy, but because they are looking at their crystal ball and not seeing an easy road ahead.”

Financial challenges may also lead more physician practices to join health systems, private-equity groups, larger practices, or insurance companies.

“Many independent physicians are really struggling with their ability to maintain their independence,” said Joshua Kaye, chair of U.S. health care practice at DLA Piper. “There will be a fair amount of deal activity. The question will be more about the size and specialty of the practices that will be part of the next consolidation wave.”

3. Recruiting and retaining staff

According to data from Fitch Ratings, health care job openings reached an all-time high of 9.2% in September 2022—more than double the average rate of 4.2% between 2010 and 2019. With this trend likely to continue, organizations will need to find effective ways to recruit and retain workers.

Currently, some organizations are upgrading their processes and technology to hire people more quickly. They are also creating service-level agreements between recruiting and hiring teams to ensure interviews are scheduled within 48 hours or decisions are made within 24 hours.

Eric Burch, executive principal of operations and workforce services at Vizient, also predicted that there will be a continued need for contract labors, so health systems will need to consider travel nurses in their staffing plans.

“It’s really important to approach contract labor vendors as a strategic partner,” Burch said. “So when you need the staff, it’s a partnership and they’re able to help you get to your goals, versus suddenly reaching out to them and they don’t know your needs when you’re in crisis.”

When it comes to retention, Tochi Iroku-Malize, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), said health systems are adequately compensated for their work and have enough staff to alleviate potential burnout.

AAFP also supports legislation to streamline prior authorization in the Medicare Advantage program and avoid additional cuts to Medicare payments, which will help physicians provide care to patients with less stress.

4. Payer-provider contract disputes

A potential recession, along with the ensuing job cuts that typically follow, would limit insurers’ commercial business, which is their most profitable product line. Instead, many people who lose their jobs will likely sign up for Medicaid plans, which is much less profitable.

Because of increased labor, supply, and infrastructure costs, Brad Ellis, senior director at Fitch Ratings, said providers could pressure insurers into increasing the amount they pay for services. This will lead insurers to passing these increased costs onto members’ premiums.

Currently, Ellis said insurers are keeping an eye on how legislators finalize rules to implement the No Surprise Act’s independent resolution process. Regulators will also begin issuing fines for payers who are not in compliance with the law’s price transparency requirement.

5. Investment in digital health

Much like 2022, investment in digital health is likely to remain strong but subdued in 2023.

“You’ll continue to see layoffs, and startup funding is going to be hard to come by,” said Russell Glass, CEO of Headspace Health.

However, investors and health care leaders say they expect a strong market for digital health technology, such as tools for revenue cycle management and hospital-at-home programs.

According to Julian Pham, founding and managing partner at Third Culture Capital, he expects corporations such as CVS Health to continue to invest in health tech companies and for there to be more digital health mergers and acquisitions overall.

In addition, he predicted that investors, pharmaceutical companies, and insurers will show more interest in digital therapeutics, which are software applications prescribed by clinicians.

“As a physician, I’ve always dreamed of a future where I could prescribe an app,” Pham said. “Is it the right time? Time will tell. A lot needs to happen in digital therapeutics and it’s going to be hard.”

6. Health equity efforts

This year, CMS will continue rolling out new health equity initiatives and quality measurements for providers and insurers who serve marketplace, Medicare, and Medicaid beneficiaries. Some new quality measures include maternal health, opioid related adverse events, and social need/risk factor screenings.

CMS, the Joint Commission, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance are also partnering together to establish standards for health equity and data collection.

In addition, HHS is slated to restore a rule under the Affordable Care Act that prohibits discrimination based on a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation. According to experts, this rule may conflict with recently passed state laws that ban gender-affirming care for minors.

“It’s something that’s going to bear out in the courts and will likely lack clarity. We’ll see differences in what different courts decide,” said Lindsey Dawson, associate director of HIV policy and director of LGBTQ health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “The Supreme Court acknowledged that there was this tension. So it’s an important place to watch and understand better moving forward.”

The dire state of hospital finances (Part 1: Hospital of the Future series)

About this Episode

The majority of hospitals are predicted to have negative margins in 2022, marking the worst year financially for hospitals since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.

In Part 1 of Radio Advisory’s Hospital of the Future series, host Rachel (Rae) Woods invites Advisory Board experts Monica WestheadColin Gelbaugh, and Aaron Mauck to discuss why factors like workforce shortages, post-acute financial instability, and growing competition are contributing to this troubling financial landscape and how hospitals are tackling these problems.

Links:

As we emerge from the global pandemic, health care is restructuring. What decisions should you be making, and what do you need to know to make them? Explore the state of the health care industry and its outlook for next year by visiting advisory.com/HealthCare2023.

Pennsylvania hospital group to stop accepting Aetna insurance next year

Allentown, Pa.-based Lehigh Valley Health Network, which operates 13 hospitals and numerous care sites in Eastern Pennsylvania, will largely stop accepting Aetna insurance in 2023, Morning Call reported Nov. 10.

The move will be effective from March 13, LVHN said in a letter to employees. It comes after years of Aetna refusing to pay for care or delaying care for patients, the health group claimed.

LVHN, which has contracted with Aetna for 20 years, has been in dispute with the insurance company before, the report said. Back in 2000, the hospital group threatened to cut ties with Aetna over a dispute over care reimbursements. 

Some Aetna coverage will remain for emergency care or for serious treatments such as cancer care, according to the letter.

LVHN declined to comment to Morning Call, and Aetna could not be reached, the report said.

More details on the story, which comes at a time when people are enrolling in new healthcare plans, can be found here.

Payer mix in the nation’s top 19 hospitals

Becker’s calculated the payer mix within the nation’s top ranked hospitals to determine the share of their patients covered under commercial plans, Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, uninsured/bad debt and charity care.

The 2019 data released April 5 is from the coverage, cost and value team at the National Academy for State Health Policy in collaboration with Houston-based Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

Payer mix in the nation’s top 19 hospitals:

(1) Mayo Clinic Hospital — Rochester, Minn.

Commercial: 50 percent 

Medicare: 33 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 9 percent 

Medicaid: 7 percent

Charity care: 1 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 0 percent 

(2) Cleveland Clinic Hospital

Commercial: 45 percent 

Medicare: 24 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 17 percent 

Medicaid: 12 percent 

Charity care: 1 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 1 percent 

(3) Ronald Reagan UC Los Angeles Medical Center

Commercial: 45 percent 

Medicare: 27 percent 

Medicaid: 18 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 8 percent 

Charity care: 0 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 0 percent 

(4) Johns Hopkins Hospital — Baltimore

Commercial: 46 percent 

Medicare: 28 percent 

Medicaid: 22

Medicare Advantage: 2 percent

Uninsured / Bad debt: 2 percent 

Charity Care: 1 percent 

(5) Massachusetts General Hospital — Boston

Commercial: 48 percent 

Medicare: 32 percent 

Medicaid: 11 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 7 percent

Charity care: 1 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 1 percent 

(6) Cedars-Sinai Medical Center — Los Angeles

Commercial: 42 percent 

Medicare: 41 percent 

Medicaid: 10 percent

Medicare Advantage: 6 percent

Charity care: 1 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 0 percent 

(7) NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital — New York City

Commercial: 34 percent

Medicaid: 25 percent 

Medicare: 22 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 17 percent 

Charity Care: 1 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 1 percent 

(8) NYU Langone Hospital — New York City

Commercial: 42 percent 

Medicare: 25 percent 

Medicaid: 19 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 6 percent 

Charity care: 1 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 0 percent 

(9) UC San Francisco Medical Center 

Commercial: 42 percent

Medicaid: 25 percent 

Medicare: 25 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 5 percent 

Charity Care: 1 percent  

Uninsured / Bad debt: 0 percent

(10) Northwestern Memorial Hospital — Chicago

Commercial: 52 percent  

Medicare: 27 percent 

Medicaid: 11 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 7 percent 

Charity care: 2 percent

Uninsured / Bad debt: 1 percent

(11) Michigan Medicine — Ann Arbor

Commercial: 53 percent 

Medicare: 20 percent 

Medicaid: 14 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 11 percent 

Charity care: 1 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 1 percent 

(12) Stanford Hospital — Palo Alto, Calif.

Commercial: 46 percent 

Medicare: 34 percent 

Medicaid: 13 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 7 percent 

Charity care: 0  

Uninsured / Bad debt: 0 

(13) Penn Presbyterian Medical Center — Philadelphia

Commercial: 46 percent

Medicare: 29 percent 

Medicaid: 13 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 12 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 1 percent 

Charity Care: 0 

(14) Brigham and Women’s Hospital — Boston

Commercial: 53 percent 

Medicare: 30 percent

Medicaid: 10 percent

Medicare Advantage: 6 percent 

Charity Care: 1 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 1 percent

(15) Mayo Clinic Hospital — Phoenix

Commercial: 51 percent

Medicare: 42 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 4 percent 

Medicaid: 3 percent 

Charity Care: 1 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 0 percent 

(16) Houston Methodist Hospital

Commercial: 43 percent 

Medicare: 33 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 18 percent 

Charity care:3 percent 

Medicaid: 2 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 1 percent

(17 — tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital — St. Louis

Commercial: 43 percent 

Medicare: 29 percent

Medicare Advantage: 13 percent

Medicaid: 10 percent

Charity care: 4 percent 

Uninsured / Bad debt: 1 percent 

(17 — tie) Mount Sinai Hospital — New York City

Commercial: 33 percent 

Medicaid: 28 percent 

Medicare: 22 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 15 percent 

Charity care: 1 percent

Uninsured / Bad debt: 0 percent 

(18) Rush University Medical Center — Chicago

Commercial: 41 percent 

Medicare: 31 percent  

Medicaid: 20 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 6 percent 

Charity care: 2 percent

Uninsured / Bad debt: 1 percent

(19) Vanderbilt University Medical Center — Nashville, Tenn.

Commercial: 47 percent  

Medicare: 20 percent 

Medicaid: 18 percent 

Medicare Advantage: 10 percent

Charity care: 4 percent

Uninsured / Bad debt: 1 percent 

Why insurers, health systems are breaking up

Insurers and health systems across the U.S. have been at odds during the most recent cycle of contract negotiations, and terminated contracts are affecting thousands of patients.

As hospitals continue to recover financially from the COVID-19 pandemic and deal with higher supply costs and employee wages, many organizations have tightening margins and hope to negotiate higher rates with insurers as a result. Hospitals are also pointing to rising inflation as a reason for needing higher rates.

One recent example is Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Broward Health’s public breakup with UnitedHealthcare. Thousands of the insurer’s beneficiaries went out of network with Broward April 1 after the two sides failed to agree on a new contract. Broward reportedly asked UnitedHealthcare for a pay increase to the same level UnitedHealthcare pays other South Florida health systems.

UnitedHealthcare said Broward’s rate increase request would amount to 88 percent higher reimbursement for its providers in the next four years, which the insurer said was “unreasonable.” Negotiations continue, but patients are out of network in the meantime.

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi and the University of Mississippi Medical Center let their contract expire April 1 after they failed to agree on pay rate increases, according to the Clarion Ledger. The medical center treated more than 50,000 patients in the 18 months before the contract expiration.

LouAnn Woodward, MD, vice chancellor for health affairs and dean of the medical center’s school of medicine, said the health system wants “fair reimbursement” from Blue Cross & Blue Shield to reinvest in its facilities and programs. The insurer said the medical center wanted a 30 percent overall rate increase, including a 50 percent increase for some services, according to the newspaper report.

Physician groups and surgery centers aren’t immune from insurer conflicts. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois terminated its contract with Springfield (Ill.) Clinic late last year, knocking 100,000 beneficiaries out of network.

Payer contracts, physician pay still anchored in fee-for-service

The healthcare industry has made some strides in the “journey to value” across the last decade, but in reality, most health systems and physician groups are still very much entrenched in fee-for-service incentives.

While many health plans report that significant portions of their contract dollars are tied to cost and quality performance, what plans refer to as “value” isn’t necessarily “risk-based.” 

The left-hand side of the graphic below shows that, although a majority of payer contracts now include some link to quality or cost, over two-thirds of those lack any real downside risk for providers. 

Data on the right show a similar parallel in physician compensation. While the majority of physician groups have some quality incentives in their compensation models, less than a tenth of individual physician compensation is actually tied to quality performance. 

Though myriad stakeholders, from the federal government to individual health systems and physician groups, have collectively invested billions of dollars in migrating to value-based payment over the last decade, we are still far from seeing true, performance-based incentives translate into transformation up and down the healthcare value chain.