This week we showcase data from a recent American Antitrust Institute study on the growth of private equity (PE)-backed physician practices, and the impact of this growth on market competition and healthcare prices.
From 2012 to 2021, the annual number of practice acquisitions by private equity groups increased six-fold, especially in high-margin specialties. During this same time period, the number of metropolitan areas in which a single PE-backed practice held over 30 percent market share rose to cover over one quarter of the country.
These “hyper-concentrated” markets are especially prevalent in less-regulated states with fast-growing senior populations, like Arizona, Texas, and Florida.
The study also found an association between PE practice acquisitions and higher healthcare prices. In highly concentrated markets, certain specialties, like gastroenterology, were able to raise prices rise by as much as 18 percent.
While new Federal Trade Commission proposals demonstrate the government’s renewed interest in antitrust enforcement, it may be too little, too late to mitigate the impact of specialist concentration in many states.
An investigative piece published this month by ProPublica documents how it came to be that nearly 60 percent of healthcare providers report being charged fees to receive electronic payments from insurers.
The fees, which can be as high as five percent of total reimbursement, were briefly forbidden by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), before the agency reversed its policy in 2018. The article follows one dogged physician’s efforts to uncover why CMS allows these fees. His voluminous stream of public records requests revealed a highly coordinated pressure campaign, mounted by the insurance industry through one particularly influential regulator-turned-lobbyist.
While the American Medical Association has urged the Biden administration to protect physicians from these fees, and the Veterans Health Administration is refusing to pay them, CMS is so far maintaining the position that electronic-payment claims-processing fees are permissible.
The Gist: Through partnerships with payment companies, who charge double the average fees of electronic bank transfers and share the spoils of their “virtual credit cards”, insurers are essentially using the same business model as credit card companies, skimming revenue from physician payments just as Visa and MasterCard do to merchants.
With the increasing consolidation of both insurers and claims processors, physicians are left with little recourse but to pay these fees, as nonelectronic payments come with infrastructure costs and payment delays.
While the shift to electronic payments spurred on by the Affordable Care Act was supposed to improve efficiency, this article offers yet another example of how efficiency gains can be captured by industry middlemen before they can be translated into provider and consumer benefits.
Shorter contracts, noncompete agreements and increased emphasis on value-based components are among the shifts occurring in physician contracts as hospitals and medical groups build recruitment pipelines and offer incentives to retain physicians.
Changes in how physician contracts are layered echoes a trend that has been occurring in the labor market itself. Physicians are increasingly opting for employed opportunities and contracts within those models are changing accordingly.
From 2019 to 2021, more than 108,700 physicians left private practice for employment opportunities, with 58,200 physicians joining hospitals. About three in four physicians are now employed by hospitals, health systems, private-equity-owned groups, payers or other corporate entities.
The rising costs of private practice, increasing administrative burdens and reimbursement hurdles are also making solo practice a challenging model for many physicians today.
Fewer large medical groups are offering salaries with production bonuses, according to an AMN Healthcare report on physician and advanced practitioner recruiting incentives. The company’s 2017 report found that 75 percent of contracts featured a salary with production bonus, while only 17 percent had a straight salary.
Some medical groups have stopped offering production bonuses because they found that the straight salary model has less ambiguity and is less likely to cause friction with physicians, according to the report.
AMN also found that a relatively high percentage of academic medical centers do not offer the salary with production bonus model, which may account for the decline in the use of this compensation structure in its report.
Income guarantees, which are essentially loans that must be repaid generally (but can be forgiven over time) are used to establish physicians in solo or small independent practices. Income guarantees were once the standard contract model, but as the number of private practices has declined, so has the use of income guarantees, according to the report..
Health systems continue to rethink physician contracts as healthcare continues its shift away from fee for service, but challenges remain when it comes to compensation in these models. Systems at the forefront of this shift are developing ways to incentivize physicians in value-based care as the trend towards team-based compensation gains traction and fosters collaboration among providers.
A physician who has led the primary care enterprise for a large health system for over twenty years told us he’s never seen physician morale as low as it is now:
“Burnout is bad across the board for all specialties, but I’m having a really hard time finding the bright spots for primary care”.
We recalled a recent survey of primary care physicians that confirmed his observations, with 61 percent of doctors stating that primary care is “crumbling”. But it struck us that we’ve been seeing these kinds of dire surveys about the state of primary care for the entire quarter-century we’ve been doing this work.
What’s different now?
He posited one critical change. Ten years ago, during the heyday of accountable care, primary care was central to health system strategy. Systems were devoting resources to converting practices to patient-centered medical homes. “We felt like primary care was at the heart of transforming health systems, and that we were finally getting resources to help patients,” he shared.
“Now it feels like the health system has moved away from ‘value’, the focus is all on specialists and growing procedure volume again, and we’re being treated as a cost center and told to cut staff and up our referral targets.”
We agree. Although large independent primary care groups continue to command record valuations, overall, the transition to value has slowed, and work burden has increased given staffing shortages.
Where could optimism come from now?
We both agreed that workflow innovations to ease documentation burden and help the transition to virtual care appear closer to reality than ever before.
And the increased focus on “consumerism” has many systems recognizing that primary care is the first—and principal—touchpoint for most patients and will be key to winning consumer loyalty.
We recently spoke with a health system COO who wanted help playing out scenarios regarding the relationship between specialist physicians and their private equity (PE) partners. The system is located in one of the markets referenced in a recent study that has some of the highest levels of private equity ownership in the country. One physician group, whose doctors provide almost all the system’s coverage for a key specialty, has worked with PE partners for five years, and the relationship is not going well. “We’re hearing that many of the younger doctors want to leave. And many of the others are close to retirement,” he shared.
“We’re really concerned about what could happen if the group implodes.” The key issue: the doctors signed very restrictive noncompete agreements when they sold their practice, which could prohibit them from working in the market.
The health system would consider bringing some of the doctors into their employed medical group, but executives are worried this might be impossible for the duration of the noncompete agreements. “If these doctors can’t stay locally, we might have to rebuild that specialty from scratch. And I can’t imagine how disruptive that would be,” he worried.
When the FTC announced a proposed rule earlier this year that would ban employers from imposing noncompete agreements, many health systems reacted with alarm, fearing the that the freedom to move would lead to frequent bidding wars, ultimately driving up the cost of physician talent in the market.
But the situation shows how perspectives would change depending on who holds the noncompete.
Mid-sized markets like this one, where coverage for several specialties may come from single groups, are particularly vulnerable. Regardless, this situation highlights the need to diversify physician relationships to guard against getting caught in a “coverage crisis”.
From time to time the blogging process stimulates a conversation between the author and the audience. This type of conversation occurred after the publication of my recent blog, “The Hospital Makeover—Part 2.” This blog focused entirely on the current problems, financial and otherwise, of the hospital physician employment model. I received responses from CEOs and other C-suite executives and those responses are very much worth adding to the physician employment conversation. Hospital executives have obviously given the physician employment strategy considerable thought.
One CEO noted that, looking back from a business perspective, physician employment was not actually a doctor retention strategy but, in the long run, more of a customer acquisition and customer loyalty strategy.
The tactic was to employ the physician and draw his or her patients into the hospital ecosystem. And by extension, if the patient was loyal to the doctor, then the patient would also be loyal to the hospital. Perhaps this approach was once legitimate but new access models, consumerism, and the healthcare preferences of at least two generations of patients have challenged the strategic validity of this tactic.
The struggle now—and the financial numbers validate that struggle—is that the physician employment model has become extraordinarily expensive and, from observation, does not scale.
Therefore, the relevant business question becomes what are the most efficient and durable customer acquisition and loyalty models now available to hospitals and health systems?
A few more physician employment observations worth sharing:
Primary Care. The physician employment model has generally created a one-size-fits all view of primary care. Consumers, however, want choice. They want 32 flavors, not just vanilla. Alternative primary care models need to match up to fast-changing consumer preferences.
Where Physician Employment Works. In general, the employment model has worked where doctor “shift work” is involved. This includes facility-based specialists such as emergency physicians, anesthesiologists, and hospitalists.
Chronic Care Management. Traditional physician employment models that drive toward doctor-led physical clinics have generally not led to the improved monitoring and treatment of chronic care patient problems. As a result, the chronic care space will likely see significant disruption from virtual and in-home tools.
All in all, the four very smart observations detailed above continue the hospital physician employment conversation. Please feel free to add your thoughts on this or on other topics of hospital management which may be of interest to you. Thanks for reading.
Physician income has not kept pace with inflation and administrative costs prompting 70% to leave private practice. Half are now employed by hospitals and another 20% by private equity-backed practice managers. Both trends began before the pandemic in response to tougher financial conditions for physicians across all specialties. While hospitals held their own at the sector level, physicians lost ground. Per CMS’ NHE analysis, from 2000 to 2021:
Spending in hospitals increased from 30.4% of total spending to 31.4%
Spending for prescription drugs was essentially unchanged from 8.95% to8.88%
Public health spending. increased slightly from 3.2% of total spending to 4.4%.
But spending for physician services shrank from 21.1% to 15.6%.
In tandem with the erosion of finances for medical practices, investments in medical practices by private equity grew. Per Pitchbook, there have been 874 practice acquisitions by PE/Venture backed sponsors in the last 12 years with 20 in the first half of this year alone. Most of these are small ($7.53 million/transaction) and most involve a tuck-in to an existing PE backed platform (i.e., Privia, Sheridan, et al). Rightfully, physicians point out that while hospitals and drug companies have protected their piece of the health care pie successfully for 20 years while physicians have lost ground.
Physicians are not happy and burnout is pervasive. The employment of physicians in hospital and private equity settings has not made life happier for physicians. Per Medscape’s most recent assessment, burnout increased to 53% in 2022–up from 47% in 2021 and 26% since 2018. More than one in five physicians (22%) reported experiencing depression—up from 15% since 2018. They’re anxious about the future and increasingly sensitive to compensation comparisons with professions that require less training and earn more. They’re suspicious of consultants, lawyers and bankers whose experience is limited but fees inexplicably high They’re incensed by executive compensation in hospitals, drug companies, and health insurer settings they deem overpaid and overhyped. And they resent execs in for-profit and private equity companies who achieve astronomical wealth via their stock-option packages earned on the backs of the physicians they control.
The realities are these:
Physicians lack a strong voice. The American Medical Association’s membership includes less than a third of active-practice physicians. It is increasingly under-fire for under-representing primary and preventive health providers in its government-authorized monopoly on coding, its lobbying efforts against scope of practice expansion for APNs and pharmacists, its opposition to medical training innovations that could significantly improve the readiness and effectiveness of the physician workforce and more. The AMA’s influence is strong on a shrinking number of issues and increasingly resonate out of touch on issues that resonate with voters and lawmakers (expanded scope of practice for nurses and pharmacists, price and outcome transparency, et al).
Physicians operate in a buyers’ market but behave like it’s a sellers’ market. Physicians are trained to think of themselves as the hub of a system in which what they say determines what everyone else does…including patients. They are conditioned in medical school, residency and practice to be self-centered and resist efforts via data, clinical practice redesign or even “value-based incentives” to change their behaviors. They despise the notions of price transparency, cost effectiveness and outcome-based comparisons to their peers while calling for more accountability from hospitals, insurers and drug companies. They discount notions of consumerism and self-care and believe report cards over-rate patient experiences since medical practice is uniquely complicated.
Most live in a buyers’ market mentality unwilling/unable to see the sellers’ market healthcare has become. Otherwise, price transparency would be prevalent, operating hours and support services more conducive to the needs of patients and digital investments to maintain connectivity significant…but most don’t.
My take:
The U.S. economy will be testy for the 12 months: bringing down inflation will require interest rate hikes. Unemployment will increase slightly, wage inflation will slow, and the 2024 election cycle will draw unwelcome attention to healthcare spending and its affordability as root causes of growing financial insecurity in American households.
Given this backdrop, the profession of medicine faces a tipping point: become an integral part of the system’s solution or a vestige of its past. That solution should address medicine’s role in…
Addressing affordability for households and patients and the direct role it plays.
Integrating generative AI into more accurate diagnostics and more accessible, efficient treatment methods.
Embracing transparency about medical services pricing, costs, outcomes, business relationships and conflicts of interest.
Creating care plans around individualized social determinants of health and distinctions in populations.
Streamlining medical training toward competency-based lifelong learning, data-driven technology support, a team-based delivery and ‘whole person’ orientation to individuals.
Accepting full accountability for their effectiveness in reducing unnecessary costs and spending, increasing equitable access and engaging consumers in self-care.
How value-based and alternative payment models figure into this is anyone’s guess. Some physician organizations (AAPG, NAACO, et al) are all-in for expansion of these while others note their lackluster results to date. And physician calls for a replacement to RVU-based conversion-factor will grow louder as Congress revisits MACRA and how Medicare pays physicians.
These are important and require urgent attention, but they do not elevate the profession to its rightful place at the center of system transformation.
I hold the profession of medicine in high regard. I respect and trust my physicians—Ben, Ben and Blake are trusted friends in my personal journey to health. But their profession as a whole appears stuck in the past and unable to play a central role in the health system transformation. Until and unless new physician leaders with fresh thinking about the entire system step up, the profession’s role will continue to erode.
Playing the victim card and blame game against Medicare, hospitals, insurers, drug companies and everyone else they deem unworthy will not solve the health system’s problems.
I believe conditions are right for physicians to seize the moral high ground and lead the needed reset of the health system but most aren’t ready.
Two important reports released last Wednesday point to a disconnect in how policymakers are managing the U.S. economy and how the health economy fits.
Report One: The Federal Reserve Open Market Meeting
At its meeting last week, the Governors of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) voted unanimously to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 5% to 5.25%–the first time since last March that the Fed has concluded a policy meeting without raising interest rates.
In its statement by Chairman Powell, the central bank left open the possibility of additional rate hikes this year which means interest rates could hit 5.6% before trending slightly lower in 2024.
In conjunction with the (FOMC) meeting, meeting participants submitted projections of the most likely outcomes for each year from 2023 to 2025 and over the longer run:
Median
2023
2024
2025
Longer Run
Longer Run Range
% Change in GDP
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.8
1.6-2.5
Unemployment rate &
4.1
4.5
4.5
4.0
3.6-4.4
PCE Inflation rate
3.2
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.0
Core PCE Inflation
3.9
2.6
2.2
*
*
*Longer-run projections for core PCE inflation are not collected.
Notes re: the Fed’s projections based on these indicators:
The GDP (a measure of economic growth) is expected to increase 1% more this year than anticipated in its March 2023 analysis while estimates for 2024 were lowered just slightly by 0.1%. Economic growth will continue but at a slower pace.
The unemployment rate is expected to increase to 4.1% by the end of 2023, a smaller rise in joblessness than the previous estimate of 4.5%. (As of May, the unemployment rate was 3.7%). Unemployment is returning to normalcy impacting the labor supply and wages.
inflation: as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, will be 3.2% at the end of 2023 vs. 3.3% they previously projected. By the end of 2024, it expects inflation will be 2.5% reaching 2.1% at the end of 2025. Its 2.0% target is within reach on or after 2025 barring unforeseen circumstances.
Core inflation projections, which excludes energy and food prices, increased: the Fed now anticipates 3.9% by the end of 2023–0.3% above the March estimate. Price concerns will continue among consumers.
Based on these projections, two conclusions about nation’s monetary policy may be deduced the Fed’s report and discussion:
The Fed is cautiously optimistic about the U.S. economy in for the near term (through 2025) while acknowledging uncertainty exists.
Interest rates will continue to increase but at a slower rate than 2022 making borrowing and operating costs higher and creditworthiness might also be under more pressure.
Report Two: CMS
On the same day as the Fed meeting, the actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released their projections for overall U.S. national healthcare spending for the next several years:
“CMS projects that over 2022-2031, average annual growth in NHE (5.4%) will outpace average annual growth in gross domestic product (GDP) (4.6%), resulting in an increase in the health spending share of GDP from 18.3% in 2021 to 19.6% in 2031. The insured percentage of the population is projected to have reached a historic high of 92.3% in 2022 (due to high Medicaid enrollment and gains in Marketplace coverage). It is expected to remain at that rate through 2023. Given the expiration of the Medicaid continuous enrollment condition on March 31, 2023 and the resumption of Medicaid redeterminations, Medicaid enrollment is projected to fall over 2023-2025, most notably in 2024, with an expected net loss in enrollment of 8 million beneficiaries. If current law provisions in the Affordable Care Act are allowed to expire at the end of 2025, the insured share of the population is projected to be 91.2%. In 2031, the insured share of the population is projected to be 90.5%, similar to pre-pandemic levels.”
The report includes CMS’ assumptions for 4 major payer categories:
Medicare Part D: Several provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are expected to result in out-of-pocket savings for individuals enrolled in Medicare Part D. These provisions have notable effects on the growth rates for total out-of-pocket spending for prescription drugs, which are projected to decline by 5.9% in 2024, 4.2% in 2025, and 0.2% in 2026.
Medicare: Average annual expenditure growth of 7.5% is projected for Medicare over 2022-2031. In 2022, the combination of fee-for-service beneficiaries utilizing emergent hospital care at lower rates and the reinstatement of payment rate cuts associated with the Medicare Sequester Relief Act of 2022 resulted in slower Medicare spending growth of 4.8% (down from 8.4% in 2021).
Medicaid: On average, over 2022-2031, Medicaid expenditures are projected to grow by 5.0%. With the end of the continuous enrollment condition in 2023, Medicaid enrollment is projected to decline over 2023-2025, with most of the net loss in enrollment (8 million) occurring in 2024 as states resume annual Medicaid redeterminations. Medicaid enrollment is expected to increase and average less than 1% through 2031, with average expenditure growth of 5.6% over 2025-2031.
Private Health Insurance: Over 2022-2031, private health insurance spending growth is projected to average 5.4%. Despite faster growth in private health insurance enrollment in 2022 (led by increases in Marketplace enrollment related to the American Rescue Plan Act’s subsidies), private health insurance expenditures are expected to have risen 3.0% (compared to 5.8% in 2021) due to lower utilization growth, especially for hospital services.
And for the 3 major recipient/payee categories:
Hospitals: Over 2022-2031, hospital spending growth is expected to average 5.8% annually. In 2023, faster growth in hospital utilization rates and accelerating growth in hospital prices (related to economy wide inflation and rising labor costs) are expected to lead to faster hospital spending growth of 9.3%. For 2025-2031, hospital spending trends are expected to normalize (with projected average annual growth of 6.1%) as there is a transition away from pandemic public health emergency funding impacts on spending.
Physicians and Clinical Services: Growth in physician and clinical services spending is projected to average 5.3% over 2022-2031. An expected deceleration in growth in 2022, to 2.4% from 5.6% in 2021, reflects slowing growth in the use of services following the pandemic-driven rebound in use in 2021. For 2025-2031, average spending growth for physician and clinical services is projected to be 5.7%, with an expectation that average Medicare spending growth (8.1%) for these services will exceed that of average Private Health Insurance growth (4.6%) partly as a result of comparatively faster growth in Medicare enrollment.
Prescription Drugs: Total expenditures for retail prescription drugs are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 4.6% over 2022-2031. For 2025-2031, total spending growth on prescription drugs is projected to average 4.8%, reflecting the net effects of key IRA provisions: Part D benefit enhancements (putting upward pressure on Medicare spending growth) and price negotiations/inflation rebates (putting downward pressure on Medicare and out-of-pocket spending growth).
Thus, CMS Actuaries believe spending for healthcare will be considerably higher than the growth of the overall economy (GDP) and inflation and become 19.6% of the total US economy in 2031. And it also projects that the economy will absorb annual spending increases for hospitals (5.8%) physician and clinical services (5.3%) and prescription drugs (4.6%).
My take:
Side-by-side, these reports present a curious projection for the U.S. economy through 2031: the overall economy will return to a slightly lower-level pre-pandemic normalcy and the healthcare industry will play a bigger role despite pushback from budget hawks preferring lower government spending and employers and consumers frustrated by high health prices today.
They also point to two obvious near-term problems:
1-The Federal Reserve pays inadequate attention to the healthcare economy. In Chairman Powell’s press conference following release of the FOMC report, there was no comment relating healthcare demand or spending to the broader economy nor a question from any of the 20 press corps relating healthcare to the overall economy. In his opening statement (below), Chairman Powell reiterated the Fed’s focus on prices and called out food, housing and transportation specifically but no mention of healthcare prices and costs which are equivalent or more stressful to household financial security:
“Good afternoon. My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people…My colleagues and I are acutely aware that high inflation imposes hardship as it erodes purchasing power, especially for those least able to meet the higher costs of essentials like food, housing, and transportation. We are highly attentive to the risks that high inflation poses to both sides of our mandate, and we are strongly committed to returning inflation to our 2% objective.”
2-Congress is reticent to make substantive changes in Medicare and other healthcare programs despite its significance in the U.S. economy. It’s politically risky. In the June 2 Congressional standoff to lift the $31.4 debt ceiling, cuts to Medicare and Social Security were specifically EXCLUDED. Medicare is 12% of mandated spending in the 2022 federal budget and is expected to grow from a rate of 4.8% in 2022 to 8% in 2023—good news for investors in Medicare Advantage but concerning to consumers and employers facing higher prices as a result.
Even simplifying the Medicare program to replace its complicated Parts A, B, C, and D programs or addressing over-payments to Medicare Advantage plans (in 2022, $25 billion per MedPAC and $75 billion per USC) is politically tricky. It’s safer for elected officials to support price transparency (hospitals, drugs & insurers) and espouse replacing fee for service payments with “value” than step back and address the bigger issue: how should the health system be structured and financed to achieve lower costs and better health…not just for seniors or other groups but everyone.
These two realities contribute to the disconnect between the Fed and CMS. Looking back 20 years across 4 Presidencies, two economic downturns and the pandemic, it’s also clear the health economy’s emergence did not occur overnight as the Fed navigated its monetary policy. Consider:
National health expenditures were $1.366 trillion (13.3% of GDP) in 2000 and $4.255 billion in 2021 (18.3% of the GDP). This represents 210% increase in nominal spending and a 37.5% increase in the relative percentage of the nation’s GDP devoted to healthcare. No other sector in the economy has increased as much.
In the same period, the population increased 17% from 282 million to 334 million while per capita healthcare spending increased 166% from $4,845 to $12,914. This disproportionate disconnect between population and health spending growth is attributed by economists to escalating unit costs increases for the pills, facilities, technologies and specialty-provider services we use—their underlying cost escalation notably higher than other industries.
There were notable changes in where dollars were spent: hospitals were unchanged (from $415 billion/30.4% of total spending to $1.323 trillion/31.4% of total spending), physician services shrank (from $288.2 billion/21.1% of total spending to 664.6 billion/15.6% pf total spending), prescription drugs were unchanged (from $122.3 billion/8.95% to $378 billion/8.88% of total spending) and public health increased slightly (from $43 billion/$3.2% of total spending to $187.6 billion/4.4% of total spending).
And striking differences in sources of funding: out of pocket spending shrank from $193.6/14.2% of payments to $433 billion/10.2% % of payments; private insurance shrank from $441 billion/32.3% of payments to $1.21 trillion/28.4% of total payments; Medicare grew from $224.8 billion/16.5% of payments to $900.8 billion/21.2% of payments; Medicaid + CHIP grew from $203.4 billion/14.9% to $756.2 billion/17.8% of payments; and Veterans Health grew from $19.1 billion/1.4% of payments to $106.0 billion/2.5% of payments.
Thus, if these trends continue…
Aggregate payments to providers from government programs will play a bigger role and payments from privately insured individuals and companies will play a lesser role.
Hospital price increases will exceed price increases for physician services and prescription drugs.
Spending for healthcare will (continue to) exceed overall economic growth requiring additional funding from taxpayers, employers and consumers AND/OR increased dependence on private investments that require shareholder return AND/OR a massive restructure of the entire system to address its structure and financing.
What’s clear from these reports is the enormity of the health economy today and tomorrow, the lack of adequate attention and Congressional Action to address its sustainability and the range of unintended, negative consequences on households and every other industry if left unattended. It’s illustrative of the disconnect between the Fed and CMS: one assumes it controls the money supply while delegating to the other spending and policies independent of broader societal issues and concerns.
The health economy needs fresh attention from inside and outside the industry. Its impact includes not only the wellbeing of its workforce and services provided its users. It includes its direct impact on household financial security, community health and the economic potential of other industries who get less because healthcare gets more.
Securing the long-term sustainability of the U.S. economy and its role in world affairs cannot be appropriately addressed unless its health economy is more directly integrated and scrutinized. That might be uncomfortable for insiders but necessary for the greater good. Recognition of the disconnect between the Fed and CMS is a start!
Marco Fernandez, M.D., says he was blindsided in 2021 when his anesthesiology group, Midwest Anesthesia Partners in Arlington Heights, Illinois, lost two hospital contracts in two weeks to private equity-owned anesthesiology groups. What was more surprising to Fernandez, the group’s president, was that the person contracting on behalf of the private-equity group was an executive board member for the American Society of Anesthesiologists. “I was in disbelief,” Fernandez said.
Fernandez and his colleagues at Midwest Anesthesia Partners and three other anesthesiology groups subsequently started the Association for Independent Medicine (AIM) to push back against private equity-owned takeovers. Take Medicine Back was formed by emergency medicine physicians for similar reasons.
Private-equity firms are investing in or buying healthcare providers across the spectrum —nursing homes, home health agencies, hospitals and physician practices. “It’s in every aspect of health,” Eileen O’Grady, research and campaign director for healthcare at the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, said during a session about private equity at the Association of Health Care Journalists’ annual meeting in March.
Private-equity firms share common characteristics, O’Grady told the journalists. They typically want to double or triple their investment before selling in four to seven years, she said. They often rely on leveraged buyouts and heavy debt to finance their purchase. Another common tactic is to buy small companies and “roll them up” up into larger organizations.
Some private-equity firms use the sale-leaseback model, which involves selling an organization’s real estate and leasing it back to the organization. It may provide an infusion of cash from the sale, but real estate is often a healthcare organization’s biggest asset. O’Grady said she is most troubled by the practice of dividend recapitalizations, which she called “one of the most inexcusable practices of PE (private-equity) firms.” Dividend recapitalizations involve the organization taking on a loan secured by its healthcare business and using some proceeds to pay the private-equity firm a cash dividend, O’Grady explained. This is expensive, as loan funds must be repaid with interest. She shared one example: A hospital system took out a $1.2 billion loan, paying the private equity firm $457 million in dividends. “The hospitals were on the hook to pay that back, while the hospitals were also suffering profound quality issues. There was no value to anyone but the private- equity firm with this transaction.”
Fernandez said that when private equity takes over medical practices, quality suffers. “The cost of care is not going down. The quality is not going up. It’s quite the reverse,” he said. He is hoping AIM can help physicians who want to stay independent. When private- equity firms buy up practices or takes contracts, “there are very few options. You either have to leave the city or just work for them.”
Tomorrow, America’s Physician Groups (APG) will kick-off its Annual Spring Conference “Going the Distance” in San Diego with breakout sessions focused on wide ranging operational issues and 3 general sessions that address restoring trust in the profession, lessons from the pandemic and Medicare Advantage.
Next Thursday, the American Medical Association (AMA) will kick off its 5-day House of Delegates session in Chicago with a plethora of resolutions and votes on the docket and committee reports on issues like the ethical impact of private equity on physicians in private equity owned practices, health insurer payment integrity and much more.
These meetings are coincident with the expected resolution of the debt-ceiling dispute in Congress which essentially leaves current Medicare and Medicaid payments to physicians and others in tact through 2025. So, for at least the time being, surprises in insurer payments to physicians are not anticipated.
Nonetheless, it’s a critical time for APG and AMA as their members face unparalleled market pressures:
Trust in the profession has eroded. Media attention to its bad actors has expanded.
Settings have changed: the majority now work as employees of large groups owned by hospitals or private equity sponsors.
Consumer (patient) expectations about physician quality, access and service are more exacting.
Technologies that improve precision in diagnostics and therapies and integration of social determinants in care planning have altered where, how and by whom care is delivered.
Affordability and lack of price transparency are fundamental concerns for U.S. consumers (and voters), employers and Congress. While drug PBMs, hospitals and health insurers are a focus of attention, physicians are not far behind.
Private equity and retail giants are creatine formidable competition in primary and specialty care.
Media coverage of “bad actors” engaged in fraudulent activity (i.e. unnecessary care, medications, et al) has increased.
Operating losses in hospitals remain significant limiting hospital investments in their employed medical practices.
Both organizations remain steadfast in the belief that the future for U.S. healthcare is physician centric:
For APG, it’s anchored in a core belief that changing payer incentives from fee-for-service to value is the essential means toward the system’s long-term sustainability and effectiveness. (APG represents 335 physician organizations)
For AMA, “true north” is the profession’s designated role as caregivers and stewards of the public’s health and wellbeing. (AMA’s membership includes 22% of the nation’s 1.34 million practicing physicians, medical students and residents).
But market conditions have taken their toll on physician psyche even as CMS has altered its value agenda.
Physicians are highly paid professionals. Per Sullivan Cotter and Kaufman Hall, their finances took a hit during the pandemic and their finances in 2022-2023 has been stymied by inflationary pressures. Thus, most worry about their income and they’re hyper-sensitive to critics of their compensation.
Fueling their frustration, virtually all believe insurance companies are reimbursement bullies, hospitals spend too much on executive salaries (aka suits) and administration and not enough on patient care and patients are increasingly difficult and unreasonable. Most think the profession hasn’t done enough to protect them and 65% say they’re burned out. That’s where APG and AMA find themselves relative to their members.
My take:
The backdrop for the APG and AMA meetings in the next 2 weeks could not be more daunting. Inflationary pressures dog the health economy as each advances an advocacy agenda suitable to their member’s needs.
But something is missing: a comprehensive, coherent, visionary view of the health system’s future in the next 10-20 years wherein physicians will play a key role.
That view should include…
How value and affordability are defined and actualized in policies and practice.
How the caregiver workforce is developed, composed and evaluated based on shifting demand.
How incentives should be set and funding sourced and rationalized across all settings and circumstances of service.
How consumerism can be operationalized.
How prices and costs in every sector (including physician services) can become readily accessible.
How a seamless system of health can be built.
How physician training and performance can be modernized to participate effectively in the system’s future.
The U.S. health system’s future is not a repeat of its past. Recognizing this, physicians and the professional associations like APG and AMA that serve them have an obligation to define its future state NOW.
Some physicians are on the brink of despair; others are at the starting line ready to take on the challenge.
HENRY KOTULA 