Category Archives: Private Equity

Company behind Joe Namath Medicare Advantage ads has long rap sheet of misconduct

Posted on by • Posted in Bankruptcy, Corporate Liability, Corporate Responsibility, Health Insurance Industry, Investments, Marketing Deceptive, Medicare Advantage, Pension, Pension Funding, Pension Public, Private Equity, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) • Leave a comment

https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/company-behind-namath-ads-has-long

Former New York Jets superstar Joe Namath can be seen every year during Medicare open enrollment hocking plans that tell seniors how great their life would be if only they signed up for a Medicare Advantage plan. From October 15 to December 7 last year alone, Joe Namath ads ran 3,670 times, according to iSpot, which tracks TV advertising.

But the company behind those ads, now called Blue Lantern Health, and their products, HealthInsurance.com and the Medicare Coverage Helpline, have an expansive rap sheet of misconduct, including prosecutions by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, and a recent bankruptcy filing that critics say is designed to jettison the substantial legal liabilities the firm has incurred. In September 2023, the company became Blue Lantern; before that, it was called Benefytt; and before that, Health Insurance Innovations. Forty-three state attorneys general had settled with the company in 2018, with it paying a $3.4 million fine. A close associate of the company, Steven Dorfman, has also been prosecuted by the FTC, in addition to the Department of Justice. 

Namath himself has a bit of a checkered past when it comes to his business associates—in the early 1970s, he co-owned a bar frequented by members of the Colombo and Lucchese crime families, according to reporting at the time cited in a 2004 biography.  Due to the controversy surrounding the bar, Namath was forced by the NFL Commissioner to sell his interest in it. Last year, it was revealed that Namath had employed a prolific pedophile coach at his football camp, also in the 1970s, and the 80-year-old ex-quarterback is now being sued by one of the coach’s victims. 

The Namath ads are the main illustration of the behemoth Medicare Advantage marketing industry, which is designed to herd seniors into Medicare Advantage plans that restrict the doctors and hospitals that seniors can go to and the procedures they can access through the onerous “prior authorization” process, and it costs the federal government as much as $140 billion annually compared to traditional Medicare. Over half of seniors—nearly 31 million people—are now in Medicare Advantage, and there is little understanding of the drawbacks of the program. Seniors are aware that they may receive modest gym or food benefits but typically do not realize that they may be giving up their doctors, their specialists, their outpatient clinics, and their hospitals in favor of an in-network alternative that may be lower quality and farther away.

How so many seniors are lured into Medicare Advantage

Blue Lantern—with its powerful private equity owner Madison Dearborn—may be the key to understanding how so many people have been ushered into Medicare Advantage—and the pitfalls that private equity’s rapid entrance into health care can create for ordinary Americans.

While Blue Lantern is just one company, it is a Rosetta Stone for everything that is wrong with American health care today—fraud, profiteering, lawbreaking, no regard for patient care—where only the public comes out the loser. 

Blue Lantern uses TV ads and, at least until regulators began poking around, a widespread telemarketing operation, being one of the main firms charged with generating “leads” that are then sold to brokers and insurers, as Medicare Advantage plans are banned from cold-calling. Court filings reviewed by HEALTH CARE Un-Covered allege that after legal discovery, Blue Lantern (then known as Benefytt) at minimum dialed seniors over 17 million times, potentially in violation of federal law that requires telemarketers to properly identify themselves and who they are working for—ultimately, in this case, insurers that generate huge profits from Medicare Advantage.

The Namath ads have been running since 2018 when the company was named Health Insurance Innovations—the same year the FTC began prosecuting Simple Health Plans, along with its then-CEO Steven Dorfman. The Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel identified Health Insurance Innovations as a “successor” to Simple Health Plans. After five years of likely exceptionally costly litigation, for which Dorfman is represented by jet-set law firm DLA Piper, on February 9, the FTC won a $195 million judgment against Simple Health Plans and Dorfman. The FTC alleged in 2019 that Dorfman had lied to the court when he said that he did not control any offshore accounts. The FTC found $20 million, but the real number is probably higher. 

Friends in high places 

In February 2020, Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, said that the Namath ads might not “look or sound like the future of health care,” but that they represented “real savings, real options” for older Americans. 

In March 2020, Health Insurance Innovations (HII) changed its name to Benefytt, and in August 2020, it was acquired by Madison Dearborn Partners. Madison Dearborn has close ties to the Illinois Democratic elite, pumping over $916,000 into U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel’s campaigns for Congress and mayor of Chicago.

In September 2021, HII settled a $27.5 million class action lawsuit. The 230,000 victims received an average payout of just $80.  

In July 2022, the SEC charged HII/Benefytt and its then-CEO Gavin Southwell with making fraudulent representations to investors about the quality of the health plans it was marketing. “HII and Southwell…told investors in earnings calls and investor presentations that HII’s consumer satisfaction was 99.99 percent and state insurance regulators received very few consumer complaints regarding HII. In reality, HII tracked tens of thousands of dissatisfied consumers who complained that HII’s distributors made misrepresentations to sell the health insurance products, charged consumers for products they did not authorize and failed to cancel plans upon consumers’ requests,” the SEC found, with HII/Benefytt and Southwell ultimately paying a $12 million settlement in November 2022. 

By August 2022, Benefytt had paid $100 million to settle allegations that it had fraudulently directed people into “sham” health care plans. “Benefytt pocketed millions selling sham insurance to seniors and other consumers looking for health coverage,” the FTC’s Director of Consumer Protection, Samuel Levine, said at the time. 

Bankruptcy and another name change

In May 2023, Benefytt declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy—where the company seeks to continue to exist as a going concern, as opposed to Chapter 9, when the company is stripped apart for creditors—in the Southern District of Texas. The plan of bankruptcy was approved in August. The Southern Texas Bankruptcy Court has been mired in controversy in recent months as one of the two judges was revealed to be in a romantic relationship with a woman employed by a firm, Jackson Walker, that worked in concert with the major Chicago law firm Kirkland and Ellis to move bankruptcy cases to Southern Texas and monopolize them under a friendly court. While the other judge on the two-judge panel handled the Benefytt case, Jackson Walker and Kirkland and Ellis were retained by Benefytt, and the fees paid to Jackson Walker by Benefytt were delayed by the court as a result of the controversy.

In September 2023, Benefytt exited bankruptcy and became Blue Lantern. 

The August approval of the bankruptcy plan was vocally opposed by a group of creditors who had sued Benefytt over violations of the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act (TCPA). The creditors asserted that Benefytt had substantial liabilities, with millions of calls made where Benefytt did not identify the ultimate seller—Medicare Advantage plans run by UnitedHealth, Humana, and other firms prohibited from directly contacting people they have no relationship with—and violations fined at $1,500 per willful violation. 

Attorneys for those creditors stated in a filing reviewed by HEALTH CARE Un-Covered that Madison Dearborn always planned “to steer Benefytt into bankruptcy,” if they were unable to resolve the substantial liabilities they owed under the TCPA. 

Madison Dearborn “knew that Benefytt’s TCPA liabilities exceeded its value, but purchased Benefytt anyway, for the purpose of trying to quickly extract as much money and value as they could before those liabilities became due,”

the August 25, 2023, filing stated on behalf of Wes Newman, Mary Bilek, George Moore, and Robert Hossfeld, all plaintiffs in proposed TCPA class action suits. The filing went on to say that the bankruptcy was inevitable “if—after siphoning off any benefit from the illegal telemarketing alleged herein—[Madison Dearborn] could not obtain favorable settlements or dismissals for the telemarketing-related lawsuits against Benefytt.”

Under the bankruptcy plan, Blue Lantern/Benefytt is released from the TCPA claims, but individuals harmed can affirmatively opt-out of the release, which is why the bankruptcy court justified its approval. Over 7 million people—the total numbers in Benefytt’s database, according to the plaintiffs—opting out of the third-party release is an enormous administrative hurdle for plaintiffs’ lawyers to pass, massively limiting the likelihood of success of any class-action litigation against Blue Lantern going forward. 

Their attorney, Alex Burke, stated in court that “[t]his bankruptcy is an intentional and preplanned continuation of a fraud.” His statement was before 3,670 more Namath ads ran during 2023 open enrollment. 

In response to requests for comment from HEALTH CARE un-covered, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services did not answer questions about Benefytt and why the company was simply not barred from the Medicare Advantage market altogether. 

Corporations have used the bankruptcy process in recent years to free themselves from criminal and civil liability, with opioid marketer Purdue Pharma being the most prominent recent example. The Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of Purdue’s third-party releases currently, with a decision expected in late spring.

The role that private equity plays in keeping Benefytt going cannot be overstated.

Without Madison Dearborn or another private equity firm eager to take on such a risky business with such a long history of legal imbroglios, it is almost certain that Benefytt would no longer exist—and the Joe Namath ads would disappear from our televisions. Instead, Madison Dearborn keeps them going, suckering seniors into Medicare Advantage plans. 

This is part and parcel of the ongoing colonization by private equity into America’s health care system. Private equity is making a major play into Medicare Advantage.

It has pumped billions of dollars into purchasing hospitals. It has invested in hospice care. It is gobbling up doctors’ groups. It is acquiring ambulance companies. It is hoovering up nurse staffing firms. It is making huge investments into health tech. It is in nursing homes. And it is in health insurance. Nothing about America’s health care system is untouched by private equity.

That’s a problem, experts say.

“I’ve been screaming at the TV every time Joe Namath gets on—it is not an official Medicare website,” said Laura Katz Olson, a professor of political science at Lehigh University who has written on private equity’s role in the health care system.

“Private equity has so much money to deploy, which is far more than they have opportunities to buy. As such, they are desperately looking for opportunities to invest. There’s a lot of money in Medicare Advantage—it’s guaranteed money from the federal government, which makes it perfect for the private equity playbook.”

Eileen Appelbaum, the co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who has also studied private equity’s role in health care, concurred that private equity was a perfect fit for Medicare marketing organizations.

“I think basically the whole privatized Medicare situation is ready for all kinds of exploitation and misrepresentations and denying people the coverage that they need,” she said. “My email is inundated with these totally misleading ads. Private equity  took a look at this and said, “look at that, it’s possible to do something that’s misleading and make a lot of money.”

Madison Dearborn receives a large portion of its capital from public pension funds like the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and the Washington State Investment Fund—people who are dependent on Medicare. Appelbaum said that the pension funds exercise little oversight over their investments in private equity. “Pension funds may have the name of the company that they are invested in, they’re told that it’s ‘part of our health care investment portfolio,’ but they don’t find out what they really do until there’s a scandal.

It is amazing that pension funds give so much money to private equity with so little information about how their money is being spent.”

Walgreens’ VillageMD exits the Florida market

Posted on by • Posted in Cost Reduction, Disruption, Innovation, Investor Expectations, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Patience, Primary Care, Private Equity, Walgreens, Walk-in Clinics • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/f9bf1e547241/gist-weekly-february-23-2024?e=d1e747d2d8

Walgreens announced this week that it will be shutting down all of its Florida-based VillageMD primary care clinics. Fourteen clinics in the Sunshine State have already closed, with the remaining 38 expected to follow by March 15.

This move comes in the wake of a $1B cost-cutting initiative announced by Walgreens executives last fall, which included plans to shutter at least 60 VillageMD clinics across five markets in 2024.

Last month VillageMD exited the Indiana market, where it was operating a dozen clinics.

Despite downsizing its primary-care footprint, Walgreens says it remains committed to its expansion into the healthcare delivery sector, having invested $5.2B in VillageMD in 2021 and purchased Summit Health-CityMD for $9B through VillageMD in 2023. 

The Gist: Having made significant investments in provider assets, Walgreens now faces the difficult task of creating an integrated and sustainable healthcare delivery model, which takes time. 

Unlike long-established healthcare providers who feel more loyal to serving their local communities, nontraditional healthcare providers like Walgreens can more easily pick and choose markets based on profitability.

While this move is disruptive to VillageMD patients in Florida and the other markets it’s exiting, Walgreens seems to be answering to its investors, who have been dissatisfied with its recent earnings.

Cano Health files for bankruptcy

Posted on by • Posted in Bankruptcy, Disruption, Disruptive Technology, Financial Stewardship, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Innovation, Medicare Advantage, Primary Care, Primary Care Delivery Model, Primary Care Strategy, Private Equity • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/1e28b32fc32e/gist-weekly-february-9-2024?e=d1e747d2d8

On Sunday, Miami, FL-based Cano Health, a Medicare Advantage (MA)-focused primary care clinic operator, filed for bankruptcy protection to reorganize and convert around $1B of secured debt into new debt.

The company, which went public in 2020 via a SPAC deal worth over $4B, has now been delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. After posting a $270M loss in Q2 of 2023, Cano began laying off employees, divesting assets, and seeking a buyer. As of Q3 2023, it managed the care of over 300K members, including nearly 200K in Medicare capitation arrangements, at its 126 medical centers. 

The Gist: 

Like Babylon Health before it, another “tech-enabled” member of the early-COVID healthcare SPAC wave is facing hard times. While the low interest rate-fueled trend of splashy public offerings was not limited to healthcare, several prominent primary care innovators and “insurtechs” from this wave have struggled, adding further evidence to the adages that healthcare is both hard and difficult to disrupt.

Given that Cano sold its senior-focused clinics in Texas and Nevada to Humana’s CenterWell last fall, Cano may draw interest from other organizations looking to expand their MA footprints.

A Ground-Breaking Transaction

Posted on by • Posted in Challenge, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Fee for Service Reimbursement, For-Profit, Health System, Innovation, Mergers & Acquisitions, Private Equity, Shift, Shift to Capitated Payment Models, Value-Based Healthcare, Venture Capital • Leave a comment

Click to access 0f8248d1-e2b5-4b59-b9dc-6af2e3e969f4.pdf

In mid-January, General Catalyst (GC) and Summa Health announced the
signing of a non-binding LOI for GC to acquire Summa, which, if
consummated, would be a groundbreaking transaction. Summa Health is a
vertically integrated not-for-profit health system located in Akron, Ohio that operates acute care hospitals, a network of health care services, a physician group practice, and a health plan. Like much of the health system sector, Summa has found the operating environment for the past couple of years to be challenging.


GC is a venture capital firm that had approximately $25B in assets under management at the end of 2022, across a dozen fund families and a number of sectors, including its Health Assurance funds, that have a stated mission of “creating a more proactive, affordable & equitable system of care.”


Health Assurance has investments in more than 150 digital health companies worldwide and has implemented working relationships with more than a dozen of the country’s most noteworthy health systems and hospital operators.


In October, GC announced the formation of a new venture called the Health Assurance
Transformation Corporation (HATCo), for the purpose of providing financial and operational advisory assistance to health systems, including using GC’s suite of digital health companies. At that time, HATCo announced plans to buy a health system in order to drive transformation in the delivery of care by leveraging technology, updating workforce/staffing models, and becoming more proactive in creating revenue streams for health systems.

Their plans included an intent to streamline operations
and find efficiencies using technology, as well as implementing value-based payment models,
including fully capitated risk contracts to incentivize better utilization management, an initiative that requires significant data analytics.


GC had been looking for a system with market relevance and a sweet spot in terms of size – big enough to have a full complement of services, but nimble enough to accept significant change. In Summa, it has also found a system that maintains its own health plan, which GC can use to help accelerate the shift to capitated models.


The transaction that Summa and GC are contemplating is a new and innovative attempt at
addressing the underlying problems that plague the acute care industry.

In particular, 1) a continued
reliance on fee-for-service revenue when reimbursement has been pressured from every angle and rate increases have failed to keep pace with the rising cost of providing care, 2) capital to fund a growing list of competing needs, and 3) the challenges of staffing for quality in a tight market for clinical labor. Summa appears to be banking on the idea that GC and the data- and technology driven solutions that reside within their portfolio companies can ease those pressures.


HATCo’s proposed purchase of Summa requires a conversion of the health system to for profit. The purchase price of the health system will contribute to the corpus for a large foundation that will address social determinants of health in the Akron community, and the operating entities would become subsidiaries of HATCo.


HATCo has stated publicly that it will continue Summa’s existing charity care commitment, that Summa’s existing management team will stay in place, and the health system Board will continue to have local community representation. HATCo has also emphasized that
it plans to hold Summa for an extended period and have it serve as a digital innovation testing ground and incubation site for new healthcare IT, where it believes that aligning incentives will drive financial improvement and better care.


Innovative approaches to meaningful problems should be applauded but there is skepticism.

Will bottom line pressures affect the quality of care?

Will the typical investment horizon of venture capital align with the time frames needed to prove these solutions are taking hold?

Health system evolution has traditionally been measured in decades, rather than the 5-7 year hold periods that private capital prefers. There are also perceived conflicts to consider as Summa will be paying the GC-owned companies for their services.
Acute care hospitals are central elements of their communities and their constituents are broader than most companies, often including large workforces, union leadership, politicians, government regulators, and of course patients and their families.

This transaction will receive significant scrutiny with any number of constituents taking issue with a health system’s purchase by a venture capital firm. One hurdle is the conversion process itself, which requires review and approval by the Ohio Attorney General and regulators may want to impose restrictions on GCs ability to operate that are incompatible with its plans. The hurdles to closing are daunting, but the challenges facing health systems are equally daunting.

And while this proposed combination may not come to fruition, the need for innovative solutions remains.

What’s going on at Steward Health Care?

Posted on by • Posted in Audit, Audited Financial Statements, Auditor External, Bankruptcy, Debt Capacity, Debt Structure, Financial Stewardship, Financial Transparency, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, For-Profit, Health System, Leverage, Management, Management Company, Monetize, Physician Leadership, Private Equity • Leave a comment
https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/steward-health-care-distress/706940/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%20Weekly%20Roundup:%20Healthcare%20Dive:%20Daily%20Dive%2002-17-2024&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive%20Weekender

The physician-led healthcare network formed to save hospitals from financial distress. Now, hospitals in its own portfolio need bailing out after years of alleged mismanagement.

Steward Health Care formed over a decade ago when a private equity firm and a CEO looking to disrupt a regional healthcare environment teamed up to save six Boston-based hospitals from the brink of financial collapse. Since that time, Steward has expanded from a handful of facilities to become the largest physician-led for-profit healthcare network in the country, operating 33 community hospitals in eight states, according to its own corporate site.

However, Steward has also found itself once again on the precipice of failure. 

The health system has been emanating signs of distress since late last year. Its landlord says Steward owes over $50 million in unpaid debts. A federal lawsuit alleges Steward defrauded the Medicare program. Steward has closed hospitals in Massachusetts and Texas, and publicly contracted restructuring advisors in January, fueling speculation about a potential bankruptcy filing.

Steward’s ongoing issues in Massachusetts have played out in regional media outlets in recent weeks. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey warned there would be no bailout for Steward in an interview on WBUR’s Radio Boston.  

Worries about financial problems prompted Boston-based Mass General Brigham to pull doctors from Steward-owned Holy Family Hospital late last month. Steward has also been accused of mismanaging other facilities.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health said it is investigating concerns raised about Steward facilities and began conducting daily site inspections at some Steward sites to ensure patient safety beginning Jan. 31.

However, the tide may have begun to change. Steward executives said on Feb. 2 they had secured a deal to stabilize operations and keep Massachusetts hospitals open — for now. Steward will receive bridge financing under the deal and consider transferring ownership of one or more hospitals to other companies, a Steward spokesperson confirmed to Healthcare Dive on Feb. 7.

While politicians welcomed the news, some say Steward’s long term outlook in the state is uncertain. Other politicians sought answers for how a prominent system could seemingly implode overnight. 

“I am cautiously optimistic at this point that [Steward] will be able to remain open, because it’s really critical they do,” said Brockton City Councilor Phil Griffin. “But they owe a lot of people a lot of money, so we’ll see.” 

Built on financial engineering

Steward Health Care was created in October 2010, when private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management purchased failing Caritas Christi Health Care for $895 million. Steward CEO Ralph de la Torre, who stayed on from his post as president of CCHC, wanted to revolutionize healthcare in the region. His strategy was to woo patients away from larger health systems by recruiting their physicians and offering routine, inpatient care for a fraction of the price.

However, the business model wasn’t immediately a financial success. Steward didn’t turn a profit between 2011 and 2014, according to a 2015 monitoring report from the Massachusetts attorney general. Instead, Steward’s debt increased from $326 million in 2011 to $413 million at the end of the 2014 fiscal year, while total liabilities ballooned to $1.4 billion in the same period as Steward engaged in real estate sale and leaseback plays. 

Under the 2010 deal, Steward agreed to assume Caritas’ debt and carry out $400 million in capital expenditures over four years to upgrade the hospitals’ infrastructure. However, that capital expenditure could come in part from financial engineering, such as monetizing Steward’s own assets, according to Zirui Song, associate professor of health care policy and medicine at the Harvard Medical School who has studied private equity’s impact on healthcare since 2019.

Cerberus did not contribute equity into Steward after making its initial investment of $245.9 million, according to the December 2015 monitoring report. Meanwhile, according to reporting at the time, de la Torre wanted to expand Steward. Steward was on its own to raise funds.

To generate cash, Steward engaged in another leaseback play, selling its properties to Alabama-based real estate investment trust Medical Properties Trust for $1.25 billion in 2016. Steward used the funds to pay back its remaining obligations to Cerberus and expand beyond Massachusetts, acquiring 18 hospitals from IASIS Healthcare in 2017.

Such deals are typically short-sighted, Song explained. When hospitals sell their property, they voluntarily forfeit their most valuable assets and tend to be saddled with high rent payments.

Cerberus exited its Steward play in 2020, $800 million richer. Steward lost more than $800 million between 2017 and 2020.

A pattern of poor performance

Healthcare Dive spoke with four workers across Steward’s portfolio who said Steward’s emphasis on the bottom line negatively impacted the company’s operations for years. 

Terra Ciurro worked in the emergency department at Steward Health Care-owned Odessa Regional Medical Center in January 2022 as a travel nurse. She recalled researching Steward and being attracted to the fact the company was physician owned.

“I remember thinking, ‘That’s all I need to know. Surely, doctors will have their heart in the right place,’” Ciurro said. “But yeah — that’s not the experience I had at all.”

The emergency department was “shabby, rundown and ill-equipped,” and management didn’t fix broken equipment that could have been hazardous, she said. Nine weeks into her 13-week contract and three hours before Ciurro was scheduled to work, Ciurro said her staffing agency called to cut her contract unceremoniously short. Steward hadn’t paid its bills in six months, and the agency was pulling its nurses, she said she was told. 

In Massachusetts, Katie Murphy, president of the Massachusetts Nurses Association, which represents more than 3,000 registered nurses and healthcare professionals who work in eight Steward hospitals, said there were “signals” that Steward facilities had been on the brink of collapse for “well over a year.”  

Steward hospitals are often “significantly” short staffed and lack supplies from the basics, like dressings, to advanced operating room equipment, said Murphy. While most hospitals in the region got a handle on staffing and supply shortages in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, at Steward hospitals shortages “continued to accelerate,” Murphy said.

A review of Steward’s finances by BDO USA, a tax and advisory firm contracted last summer by the health system itself to demonstrate it was solvent enough to construct a new hospital in Massachusetts, showed Steward had a liquidity problem. The health system had few reserves on hand last year to pay down its debts owed to vendors, possibly contributing to the shortages. The operator carried only 10.2 days of cash on hand in 2023. In comparison, most healthy nonprofit hospital systems carried 150 days of cash on hand or more in 2022, according to KFF.

One former finance employee, who worked for Steward beginning around 2018, said that the books were routinely left unbalanced during her tenure. Each month, she made a list of outstanding bills to determine who must be paid and who “we can get away with holding off” and paying later. 

Food, pharmaceuticals and staff were always paid, while all other vendors were placed on an “escalation list,” she said. Her team prioritized paying vendors that had placed Steward on a credit hold.

The worker permanently soured on Steward when she said operating room staff had to “make do” without a piece of a crash cart — which is used in the event of a heart attack, stroke or trauma. 

She stopped referring friends to Steward facilities, telling them “Don’t go — if you can go anywhere else, don’t go [to Steward], because there’s no telling if they’ll have the supplies needed to treat you.” 

Away from regulatory review

Massachusetts officials maintain that it hasn’t been easy to see what was happening inside Steward.

Steward is legally required to submit financial data to the MA Center for Health Information and Analysis (CHIA) and to the Massachusetts Registration of Provider Organizations Program (MA-RPO Program), according to a spokesperson from the Health Policy Commission, which analyzes the reported data. Under the latter requirement, Steward is supposed to provide “a comprehensive financial statement, including information on parent entities and corporate affiliates as applicable.” 

However, Steward fought the requirements. During Stuart Altman’s tenure as the chair of the Commission from 2012 to 2022, Altman told Healthcare Dive that the for-profit never submitted documents, despite CHIA levying fines against Steward for non-compliance. Steward even sued CHIA and HPC for relief against the reporting obligations.

Steward is currently appealing a superior court decision and order from June 2023 that required it to comply with the financial reporting requirements and produce audited financial reports that cover the full health system, Mickey O’Neill, communications director for the HPC told Healthcare Dive. As of Feb. 6, Steward’s non-compliance remained ongoing, O’Neill said.

Without direct insight into Steward’s finances, the state was operating at a disadvantage, said John McDonough, professor of the practice of public health at The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He added that some regulators saw a crisis coming generally, “but the timing was hard to predict.” 

Altman gives his team even more of a pass for not spotting the Steward problem.

“There was no indication while I was there that Steward was in deep trouble,” Altman said. Although Steward was the only hospital system that failed to report financial data to the HPC, that alone had not raised red flags for him. “[CEO] Ralph [de la Torre] was just a very contrarian guy. He didn’t do a lot of things.”

Song and his co-author, Sneha Kannan, a clinical research fellow at Harvard Medical School, are hopeful that in the future, regulatory agencies can make better use of the data they collect annually to track changes in healthcare performance over time. They can potentially identify problem operators before they become crises. 

“State legislators, even national legislators, are not in the habit of comparing hospitals’ performances on [quality] measures to themselves over time — they compare to hospitals’ regional partners,” Kannan said. “Legislators, Medicare, [and] CMS has access to that information.” 

However, although there’s interest from regulators in scrutinizing healthcare quality more closely — particularly when private equity gets involved — a streamlined approach to analyzing such data is still a “ways off,” according to the pair. For now, all parties interviewed for this piece agreed that the best way to avoid being caught off guard by a failing system was to know how such implosions could occur. 

“If there’s a lesson from [Steward],” McDonough ventured, “it is that the entire state health system and state government need to be much more wary of all for-profits.”

The great Medicare Advantage marketing scam: How for-profit health insurers convince seniors to enroll in private Medicare plans

Posted on by • Posted in Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Marketing Deceptive, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Insurance Brokers, Private Equity • Leave a comment

https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/the-great-medicare-advantage-marketing

Jayne Kleinman is bombarded with Medicare Advantage promotions every open enrollment period — even though she has no interest in leaving traditional Medicare, which allows seniors to choose their doctors and get the care they want without interference from multi-billion-dollar insurance companies. 

“My biggest problem with being barraged is that so many of the ads were inaccurate,” Kleinman, a retired social services professional in New Haven County, Connecticut, told HEALTH CARE un-covered.

“They neglect to say that the amount of coverage you get is limited. They don’t talk about what you are losing by leaving traditional Medicare. It feels like insurance companies are manipulating us to get Medicare Advantage plans sold so that they can control the system, as opposed to treating us like human beings.” 

Seniors face a torrent of Medicare Advantage advertising: an analysis by KFF found 9,500 daily TV ads during open enrollment in 2022. A recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that 30% of seniors received seven or more phone calls weekly from Medicare Advantage marketers during the most recent open enrollment (Oct. 15 to Dec. 7) for 2024 coverage.

In 2023, a critical milestone was passed: over half of seniors are now enrolled in privatized Medicare Advantage plans. The marketing for these plans nearly always fails to mention how hard it is to return to traditional Medicare once you are in Medicare Advantage, and that the MA plans have closed provider networks and require prior authorization for medical procedures. Instead, the marketing emphasizes the fringe benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans like gym memberships. 

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, criticized the widespread and predatory marketing of Medicare Advantage in a report in November 2022 and has continued to pressure the Biden administration to do more to address the problem. 

The report said that consumer complaints about Medicare Advantage marketing more than doubled from 2020 to 2021 to 41,000. It cites cases such as that of an Oregon man whose switch to Medicare Advantage meant he could no longer afford his prescription drugs, as well as a 94-year-old woman with dementia in a rural area who bought a Medicare Advantage plan that required her to obtain care miles further from her residence than she had to travel before. 

When open enrollment began last fall, it was “the start of a marketing barrage as marketing middlemen look to collect seniors’ information in order to bombard them with direct mail, emails, and phone calls to get them to enroll,” Wyden stated in a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which was signed by the other Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee. 

Just three weeks after Wyden sent the letter, CMS released a proposed rule reforming Medicare Advantage practices that the main lobby group for Medicare Advantage plans, the Better Medicare Alliance, endorsed. 

But key recommendations by Wyden were missing, including a ban on list acquisition by Medicare Advantage third-party marketing organizations, which includes brokers, and banning brokers that call beneficiaries multiple times a day for days in a row.

Among the prominent third-party marketing organizations is TogetherHealth, a subsidiary of Benefytt Technologies, which runs ads featuring former football star Joe Namath.

In August 2022, the Federal Trade Commission forced Benefytt to repay $100 million for fraudulent activities. The month before, the Securities and Exchange Commission levied more than $12 million in fines against Benefytt.

But CMS continues to allow Benefytt to work as a broker. Benefytt is owned by Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm with ties to former Chicago mayor and current Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel. Benefytt collects leads on potential customers, which they then sell to brokers and insurers to aggressively target seniors. CMS did not provide comment as to why they had not blocked Benefytt’s continuing work as a third-party marketing organization for Medicare. 

Two different rounds of rule-making on Medicare Advantage marketing in 2023 instead focused on such reforms as reining in exaggerated claims and excessive broker compensation. 

The enormous profits generated by Medicare Advantage plans — costing the federal government as much as $140 billion annually in overpayments to private companies — explains what drives the aggressive and often unethical marketing practices, said David Lipschutz, an associate director at the Center for Medicare Advocacy. 

“The fact is, there is an increasingly imbalanced playing field between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare,” he said. “Medicare Advantage is being favored in many ways. Medicare Advantage plans are paid more than what traditional Medicare spends on a given beneficiary.

Those factors combined with the fact that they generate such profits for insurance companies, leads to those companies doing everything they can to maximize enrollment.”

Adding to the problem, Lipschutz argued, was the enormous influence of the health insurance industry in Washington. Health insurers spent more than $33 million lobbying Washington in just the first three quarters of 2023 alone. 

“There is no real organized lobby for traditional Medicare, or organized advertising efforts,” he said. “During open enrollment, 80% of Medicare-related ads have to do with Medicare Advantage. We regularly encounter very well-educated and savvy folks who are tripped up by advertising and lured in by the bells and whistles. The deck is stacked against the consumer.”

Private equity firms have made a large investment in the Medicare Advantage brokerage and marketing sector, in addition to Madison Dearborn’s acquisition of Benefytt. Bain Capital, which Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) co-founded, invested $150 million in Enhance Health, a Medicare Advantage broker, in 2021.

The CEO of EasyHealth, another private equity-backed brokerage, told Modern Healthcare in 2021 that “Insurance distribution is our Trojan horse into healthcare services.”

As federal law requires truth in advertising, a group of advocacy organizations–led by the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Disability Rights Connecticut, and the National Health Law Project–cited what they considered blatantly deceptive marketing by UnitedHealthcare to people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, in a complaint to CMS. 

UnitedHealthcare had purchased ads in the Hartford Courant asking seniors in large bold-faced type: “Eligible for Medicare and Medicaid? You could get more with UnitedHealthcare.” 

People who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid due to their income level are better off in traditional Medicare than Medicare Advantage given that Medicaid covers their out-of-pocket costs, meaning that they have wide latitude to choose their doctors, hospitals and medical procedures.

Sheldon Toubman, an attorney with Disability Rights Connecticut who worked to draft the complaint, framed the ad in the broader context of poor marketing practices by the Medicare Advantage industry. 

“I have been aware for a long time of basically fraudulent advertising in the MA insurance industry,” Toubman told HEALTH CARE un-covered. “There’s an overriding misrepresentation — they tell you how great Medicare Advantage is, and never the downsides. 

“There are two big downsides of going out of traditional Medicare:

They don’t tell you that you give up the broad Medicare provider network, which has nearly every doctor. And should you need expensive medical care in Medicare Advantage, you will learn there are prior authorization requirements. Traditional Medicare does almost no prior authorization, so you don’t have that obstacle. They don’t ever tell you any of that,” he said.

But it is marketing to dual-eligible individuals that is arguably the most problematic, Toubman argued. “They have Medicare and they are also low income. Because they are low-income, they also have Medicaid.

“Medicaid is a broader program — it covers a lot of things that Medicare doesn’t cover.

In Connecticut, 92,000 dual-eligible seniors have been ‘persuaded’ to sign up for Medicare Advantage. What’s outrageous about the marketing is they get you to sign up by offering extra services. … If you look at the ad in the Hartford Courant, it says you could get more, with the only real benefit being $130 per month toward food. But you now have this problem of a more limited provider network and prior authorization. UnitedHealth is doing false advertising.”

It’s a nationwide problem, Toubman said. “All insurers are doing this everywhere. We’re asking CMS and the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a nationwide investigation of this kind of problem. The failure to tell people that they give up their broader Medicare network — they don’t tell anybody that.”

For Jayne Kleinman, the unending ads are about one thing only: insurance industry profits. “Medicare Advantage has been strictly based on the people who make millions of dollars at the top of the company making more,” she said. “It’s all about money, not about you as an individual. Every time I saw an ad I’d get angry every single time — because I felt they were misleading people. The Medicare Advantage insurers are trying to scam people out of an interest of making money.”

Is the Tax Exemption for Not-for-Profit Hospitals at Risk?

Posted on by • Posted in American Hospital Association (AHA), Community Benefit, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Monopoly Behavior, Non-Profit Healthcare Industry, Private Equity, Tax Exempt Debt, Tax Exempt Status • Leave a comment
Is the Tax Exemption for Not-for-Profit Hospitals at Risk?

Last Thursday, Seattle-based Providence Health System announced it is refunding nearly $21 million in medical bills paid by low-income residents of Washington and erasing $137 million more in outstanding debt for others. Other systems are likely to follow as pressure con mounts on large, not-for-profit systems to modify their business practices in sensitive areas like patient debt collection, price transparency, executive compensation, investment activities and others.

Not-for profit systems control the majority of the 2,987 nongovernment not-for-profit community hospitals in the U.S. Some lawmakers think it’s time to revisit to revisit the tax exemption. It has the attention of the American Hospital Association which lists “protecting not-for-profit hospitals’ the tax-exempt status” among its 15 Advocacy Priorities in 2024 (it was not on their list in 2023).

Background:  Per a recent monograph in Health Affairs: “The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses the Community Benefit Standard (CBS), a set of 10 holistically analyzed metrics, to assess whether nonprofit hospitals benefit community health sufficiently to justify their tax-exempt status. Nonprofit hospitals risk losing their tax exemption if assessed as underinvesting in improving community health. This exemption from federal, state, and local property taxes amounts to roughly $25 billion annually.

However, accumulating evidence shows that many nonprofit hospitals’ investments in community health meet the letter, but not the spirit, of the CBS.

Indeed, a 2021 study showed that for every $100 in total expenses nonprofit hospitals spend just $2.30 on charity care (a key component of community benefit)—substantially less than the $3.80 of every $100 spent by for-profit hospitals. A 2022 study looked at the cost of caring for Medicaid patients that goes unreimbursed and is therefore borne by the hospital (another key component of community benefit); the researchers found that nonprofit hospitals spend no more than for-profit hospitals ($2.50 of every $100 of total expense).”

In its most recent study, the AHA found the value of CBS well-in-excess of the tax exemption by a factor of 9:1. But antagonism toward the big NFP systems has continued to mount and feelings are intense…

  • Insurers think NFP systems exist to gain leverage in markets & states over insurers in contract negotiations and network design. They’ll garner support from sympathetic employers and lawmakers, federal anti-consolidation and price transparency rulings and in the court of public opinion where frustration with the system is high.
  • State officials see the mega- NFP systems as monopolies that don’t deserve their tax exemptions while the state’s public health, mental health and social services programs struggle.
  • Some federal lawmakers think the NFP systems are out of control requiring closer scrutiny and less latitude. They think the tax exemption qualifiers should be re-defined, scrutinized more aggressively and restricted.
  • Well-publicized investments by NFP systems in private equity backed ventures has lent to criticism among labor unions and special interests that allege systems have abandoned community health for Wall Street shareholders.
  • Investor-owned multi-hospital operators believe the tax exemption is an unfair advantage to NFPs while touting studies showing their own charity care equivalent or higher.
  • Other key NFP and public sector hospital cohorts cry foul: Independent hospitals, academic medical centers, safety-net (aka ‘essential’) hospitals, rural health clinics & hospitals, children’s hospitals, rural health providers, public health providers et al think they get less because the big NFPs get more.
  • And the physicians, nurses and workforces employed by Big NFP systems are increasingly concerned by systemization that limits their wages, cuts their clinical autonomy and compromises their patients’ health.

My take:

The big picture is this: the growth and prominence of multi-hospital systems mirrors the corporatization in most sectors of the economy: retail, technology, banking, transportation and even public utilities. The trifecta of community stability—schools, churches and hospitals—held out against corporatization, standardization and franchising that overtook the rest. But modernization required capital, the public’s expectations changed as social media uprooted news coverage and regulators left doors open for “new and better” that ceded local control to distant corporate boards.

Along the way, investor-owned hospitals became alternatives to not-for-profits, and loose networks of hospitals that shared purchasing and perhaps religious values gave way to bigger multi-state ownership and obligated groups.

The attention given large NFP hospital systems like Providence and others is not surprising. These brands are ubiquitous. Their deals with private equity and Big Tech are widely chronicled in industry journalism and passed along in unfiltered social media. And their collective financial position seems strong:  Moody’s, Fitch, Kaufman Hall and others say utilization has recovered, pandemic recovery is near-complete and, despite lingering concerns about workforce issues, growth in their core businesses plus diversification in new businesses are their foci. (See Hospital Section below).

I believe not-for-profit hospital systems are engines for modernizing health delivery in communities and a lightening rod for critics who think their efforts more self-serving than for the public good.

Most consumers (55%) think they earn their tax exemption but 34% have mixed feelings and 10% disagree. (Keckley Poll November 20, 2023). That’s less than a convincing defense.

That’s why the threat to the tax exemption risk is real, and why every organization must be prepared. Equally important, it’s why AHA, its state associations and allies should advance fresh thinking about ways re-define CBS and hardwire the distinction between organizations that exist for the primary purpose of benefiting their shareholders and those that benefit health and wellbeing in their communities.

PS: Must reading for industry watchers is a new report from by Health Management Associates (HMA) and Leavitt Partners, an HMA company, with support from Arnold Ventures. The 70-page report provides a framework for comparing the increasingly crowned field of 120 entities categorized in 3 groups: Hybrids (6.9 million), Delivery (5.8 million) and Enablers 17.5 million

“At the start of the movement, value-based arrangements primarily involved traditional providers and payers engaging in relatively straight-forward and limited contractual arrangements. In recent years, the industry has expanded organically to include a broader ecosystem of risk-bearing care delivery organizations and provider enablement entities with capabilities and business models aligned with the functions and aims of accountable care…Inclusion criteria for the 120 VBD entities included in this analysis were:

  • 1-Serve traditional Medicare, MA, and/or Medicaid populations. Entities that are focused solely on commercial populations were excluded
  • 2-Operate in population-based, total cost of care APMs—not only bundled payment models.
  • 3- Focus on primary care and/or select specialties that are relevant to total cost of care models (i.e., nephrology, oncology, behavioral health, cardiology, palliative care). Those exclusively focused on specialty areas geared toward episodic models (e.g., MSK) were excluded. –
  • 4-Share accountability for cost and quality outcomes. Business models must be aligned with provider performance in total cost of care arrangements. Vendors that support VBP but do not share accountability for outcomes were excluded.

HMA_VBP-Entity-Landscape-Report_1.31.2024-updated.pdf (healthmanagement.com) February 2024

The rising danger of private equity in healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in Adverse Events, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Financialization of Health, Health Insurance Industry, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Joint Liability, Management Company, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Trends, Mergers & Acquisitions, Ownership Transparency, Private Equity, Regulation, Social Responsibility, Tax Loopholes • Leave a comment
The rising danger of private equity in healthcare

Private equity (PE) acquisitions in healthcare have exploded in the past decade. The number of private equity buyouts of physician practices increased six-fold from 2012-2021. At least 386 hospitals are now owned by private equity firms, comprising 30% of for-profit hospitals in the U.S. 

Emerging evidence shows that the influence of private equity in healthcare demands attention. Here’s what’s in the latest research.

What is private equity?

There are a few key characteristics that differentiate private equity firms from other for-profit companies. At a 2023 event hosted by the NIHCM Foundation, Assistant Professor of Health Care Management at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania Dr. Atul Gupta explained these factors:

  1. Financial engineering. PE firms primarily use debt to finance acquisitions (that’s why they’re often known as “leveraged buyouts”). But unlike in other acquisitions, this debt is placed on the balance sheet of the the target company (ie. the physician practice or hospital). 
  2. Short-term goals. PE firms make the majority of their profits when they sell, and they look to exit within 5-8 years. That means they generally look for ways to cut costs quickly, like reducing staff or selling real estate. 
  3. Moral hazard. PE companies can make a big profit even if their target firm goes bankrupt. This is different from most investments where the success of the investor depends on how well the target company does.

The nature of private equity itself has serious implications for healthcare, in which the health of communities depends on the long-term sustainability and quality improvement of hospitals and physician practices. But are these concerns borne out in the real world?   

PE acquisition and adverse events

A recent study in JAMA from researchers at Harvard Medical School and the University of Chicago analyzed patient mortality and the prevalence of adverse events at hospitals acquired by private equity compared to non-acquired hospitals. The study used Medicare claims from more than 4 million hospitalizations from 2009-2019, comparing claims at 51 PE-acquired hospitals and 249 non-acquired hospitals to serve as controls.

In-hospital mortality decreased slightly at PE-acquired hospitals compared to controls, but not 30-day mortality. This may be because the patient mix at PE-acquired hospitals shifted more toward a lower-risk group, and transfers to other acute care hospitals increased. 

However, there were concerning results for patient safety. The rate of adverse events at PE-acquired hospitals compared to control hospitals increased by 25%, including a 27% increase in falls, 38% increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), and double the rate of surgical site infections. The authors found the rates of CLABSI and surgical site infections at PE-acquired hospitals alarming because overall surgical volume and central line placements actually decreased. 

What could be behind these higher rates of adverse events after PE acquisition? In a Washington Post op-ed, Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the School of Public Health at Brown University, writes that it’s down to two things: staffing levels and adherence to patient safety protocols. “Both cost money, and it is not a stretch to connect cuts in staffing and a reduced focus on patient safety with an increased risk of harm for patients,” he writes.   

Social responsibility impact

Private equity acquisitions may have a negative effect on patient safety, but what about social responsibility? In a recent report from PE Stakeholder on the impact of Apollo Global Management’s reach into healthcare, the authors use the Lown Institute Hospitals Index to understand hospitals owned by Apollo perform on social responsibility. Lifepoint Health, a health system owned by Apollo, was ranked 222 out of 296 systems on social responsibility nationwide. And in Virginia, North Carolina, and Arizona, some of the worst-ranked hospitals in the state for social responsibility are those owned by Lifepoint Health, the PE Stakeholder report shows.

Apollo Global Management is the second largest private equity firm in the United States, with $598 billion total assets under management, according to the report. The PE stakeholder report outlines concerning practices by Apollo, including putting high levels of debt that lowers hospitals’ credit ratings and increases their interest rates, cutting staff and essential healthcare services, and selling off real estate for a quick buck. If we care about hospital social responsibility we should clearly be concerned about private equity acquisitions. 

The bigger picture

Private equity buyouts did not come from out of nowhere, so what does this trend tell us about our healthcare system? PE acquisitions are in many ways a symptom of larger issues in healthcare, such as increasing administrative burden, tight margins, and lack of regulation on consolidation. For owners of private physician practices that face a lot of administrative work, deciding to sell to a PE firm to reduce this workload and focus on patient care (not to mention, getting a hefty payout) is a tempting proposal. 

In the Washington Post, Ashish Jha describes what made his colleague decide to sell his practice to a PE firm: “The price he was getting was very good, and he was happy to outsource the headache of running the business (managing billing, making sure there was adequate coverage for nights and weekends, etc.).”

“In many ways, private equity is both a response to and an accelerator of broader health system trends – one in which consolidation is happening quickly, care is being delivered by larger and larger entities, and corporate influence is growing.”Jane M. Zhu, MD, MPP, MSHP, Associate Professor of Medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, at NIHCM Foundation Event

PE buyouts are also indicative of a larger trend, what some researchers call the “financialization” of health. As Dr. Joseph Bruch at the University of Chicago and colleagues describe in the New England Journal of Medicine, financialization refers to the “transformation of public, private, and corporate health care entities into salable and tradable assets from which the financial sector may accumulate capital.”  

Financialization is a sort of merging of the financial and healthcare sectors; not only are financial actors like private equity buying up healthcare providers, but healthcare institutions are also acting like financial firms. For example, 22 health systems have investment arms, including nonprofit system Ascension, which has its own private equity operation worth $1 billion. The financialization of healthcare is also reflected in the boards of nonprofit hospitals. A 2023 study of US News top-ranked hospitals found that a plurality of their board members (44%) were from the financial sector. 

What we can do about it?

What can we do to mitigate harms caused by PE acquisitions? In Health Affairs Forefront, executive director of Community Catalyst Emily Stewart and executive director of the Private Equity Stakeholder Project Jim Baker provide some policy ideas to stop the “metastasizing disease” of private equity:

  • Joint Liability. Currently PE firms can put all of their debt on the balance sheet of the firm they acquire, letting them off the hook for this debt and making it harder for the acquired company to succeed. “Requiring private equity firms to share in the responsibility of the debt…would prevent them from making huge profits while they are saddling hospitals and nursing homes with debts that ultimately impact worker pay and cut off care to patients,” write Stewart and Baker.
  • Regulate mergers. Private equity acquisitions often go under the radar because the acquisitions are small enough to not be reported to authorities. But the U.S. Federal Trade Commission could be more aggressive in evaluating mergers and buyouts by PE, as they have done recently in Texas, where a PE firm has been buying up numerous anesthesia practices. 
  • Transparency of PE ownership. It can be hard to know when hospitals are bought by a PE firm. The Department of Health and Human Services could require disclosure of PE ownership for hospitals as they have done for nursing homes.
  • Remove tax loopholes. The carried interest loophole allows PE management fees to be taxed at as capital gains, which is a lower rate than corporate income. Closing this loophole would remove a big incentive that makes PE buyouts so attractive for firms.  

“It is clear that the problem is not the lack of solutions but rather the lack of political will to take on private equity,” write Steward and Baker.

We need not to not only stem the tide of PE acquisitions sweeping through healthcare, but address the financialization of healthcare more broadly, to put patients back at the center of our health system.

3 huge healthcare battles being fought in 2024

Posted on by • Posted in Abortion, Abortion Rights, Affordability, Artificial Intelligence Generative, Big Pharma, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Market Outlook, Market Trends, Mifepristone, Modern Medicine, Pharmaceutical Industry, Physician Patient Relationship, Physician Practice Acquisition, Price Transparency, Private Equity, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court • Leave a comment

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/3-huge-healthcare-battles-being-fought-2024-robert-pearl-m-d–aguvc/?trackingId=z4TxTDG7TKq%2BJqfF6Tieug%3D%3D

Three critical healthcare struggles will define the year to come with cutthroat competition and intense disputes being played out in public:

1. A Nation Divided Over Abortion Rights

2. The Generative AI Revolution In Medicine

3. The Tug-Of-War Over Healthcare Pricing American healthcare, much like any battlefield, is fraught with conflict and turmoil. As we navigate 2024, the wars ahead seem destined to intensify before any semblance of peace can be attained. Let me know your thoughts once you read mine.

Modern medicine, for most of its history, has operated within a collegial environment—an industry of civility where physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and others stayed in their lanes and out of each other’s business.

It used to be that clinicians made patient-centric decisions, drugmakers and hospitals calculated care/treatment costs and added a modest profit, while insurers set rates based on those figures. Businesses and the government, hoping to save a little money, negotiated coverage rates but not at the expense of a favored doctor or hospital. Disputes, if any, were resolved quietly and behind the scenes.

Times have changed as healthcare has taken a 180-degree turn. This year will be characterized by cutthroat competition and intense disputes played out in public. And as the once harmonious world of healthcare braces for battle, three critical struggles take centerstage. Each one promises controversy and profound implications for the future of medicine:

1. A Nation Divided Over Abortion Rights

For nearly 50 years, from the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 to its overruling by the 2022 Dobbs case, abortion decisions were the province of women and their doctors. This dynamic has changed in nearly half the states.

This spring, the Supreme Court is set to hear another pivotal case, this one on mifepristone, an important drug for medical abortions. The ruling, expected in June, will significantly impact women’s rights and federal regulatory bodies like the FDA.

Traditionally, abortions were surgical procedures. Today, over half of all terminations are medically induced, primarily using a two-drug combination, including mifepristone. Since its approval in 2000, mifepristone has been prescribed to over 5 million women, and it boasts an excellent safety record. But anti-abortion groups, now challenging this method, have proposed stringent legal restrictions: reducing the administration window from 10 to seven weeks post-conception, banning distribution of the drug by mail, and mandating three in-person doctor visits, a burdensome requirement for many. While physicians could still prescribe misoprostol, the second drug in the regimen, its effectiveness alone pales in comparison to the two-drug combo.

Should the Supreme Court overrule and overturn the FDA’s clinical expertise on these matters, abortion activists fear the floodgates will open, inviting new challenges against other established medications like birth control.

In response, several states have fortified abortion rights through ballot initiatives, a trend expected to gain momentum in the November elections. This legislative action underscores a significant public-opinion divide from the Supreme Court’s stance. In fact, a survey published in Nature Human Behavior reveals that 60% of Americans support legal abortion.

Path to resolution: Uncertain. Traditionally, SCOTUS rulings have mirrored public opinion on key social issues, but its deviation on abortion rights has failed to shift public sentiment, setting the stage for an even fiercer clash in years to come. A Supreme Court ruling that renders abortion unconstitutional would contradict the principles outlined in the Dobbs decision, but not all states will enact protective measures. As a result, America’s divide on abortion rights is poised to deepen.

2. The Generative AI Revolution In Medicine

A year after ChatGPT’s release, an arms race in generative AI is reshaping industries from finance to healthcare. Organizations are investing billions to get a technological leg up on the competition, but this budding revolution has sparked widespread concern.

In Hollywood, screenwriters recently emerged victorious from a 150-day strike, partially focused on the threat of AI as a replacement for human workers. In the media realm, prominent organizations like The New York Times, along with a bevy of celebs and influencers, have initiated copyright infringement lawsuits against OpenAI, the developer of ChatGPT.

The healthcare sector faces its own unique battles. Insurers are leveraging AI to speed up and intensify claim denials, prompting providers to counter with AI-assisted appeals.

But beyond corporate skirmishes, the most profound conflict involves the doctor-patient relationship. Physicians, already vexed by patients who self-diagnose with “Dr. Google,” find themselves unsure whether generative AI will be friend or foe. Unlike traditional search engines, GenAI doesn’t just spit out information. It provides nuanced medical insights based on extensive, up-to-date research. Studies suggest that AI can already diagnose and recommend treatments with remarkable accuracy and empathy, surpassing human doctors in ever-more ways.

Path to resolution: Unfolding. While doctors are already taking advantage of AI’s administrative benefits (billing, notetaking and data entry), they’re apprehensive that ChatGPT will lead to errors if used for patient care. In this case, time will heal most concerns and eliminate most fears. Five years from now, with ChatGPT predicted to be 30 times more powerful, generative AI systems will become integral to medical care. Advanced tools, interfacing with wearables and electronic health records, will aid in disease management, diagnosis and chronic-condition monitoring, enhancing clinical outcomes and overall health.

3. The Tug-Of-War Over Healthcare Pricing

From routine doctor visits to complex hospital stays and drug prescriptions, every aspect of U.S. healthcare is getting more expensive. That’s not news to most Americans, half of whom say it is very or somewhat difficult to afford healthcare costs.

But people may be surprised to learn how the pricing wars will play out this year—and how the winners will affect the overall cost of healthcare.

Throughout U.S. healthcare, nurses are striking as doctors are unionizing. After a year of soaring inflation, healthcare supply-chain costs and wage expectations are through the roof. A notable example emerged in California, where a proposed $25 hourly minimum wage for healthcare workers was later retracted by Governor Newsom amid budget constraints.

Financial pressures are increasing. In response, thousands of doctors have sold their medical practices to private equity firms. This trend will continue in 2024 and likely drive up prices, as much as 30% higher for many specialties.

Meanwhile, drug spending will soar in 2024 as weight-loss drugs (costing roughly $12,000 a year) become increasingly available. A groundbreaking sickle cell disease treatment, which uses the controversial CRISPR technology, is projected to cost nearly $3 million upon release.

To help tame runaway prices, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will reduce out-of-pocket costs for dozens of Part B medications “by $1 to as much as $2,786 per average dose,” according to White House officials. However, the move, one of many price-busting measures under the Inflation Reduction Act, has ignited a series of legal challenges from the pharmaceutical industry.

Big Pharma seeks to delay or overturn legislation that would allow CMS to negotiate prices for 10 of the most expensive outpatient drugs starting in 2026.

Path to resolution: Up to voters. With national healthcare spending expected to leap from $4 trillion to $7 trillion by 2031, the pricing debate will only intensify. The upcoming election will be pivotal in steering the financial strategy for healthcare. A Republican surge could mean tighter controls on Medicare and Medicaid and relaxed insurance regulations, whereas a Democratic sweep could lead to increased taxes, especially on the wealthy. A divided government, however, would stall significant reforms, exacerbating the crisis of unaffordability into 2025.

Is Peace Possible?

American healthcare, much like any battlefield, is fraught with conflict and turmoil. As we navigate 2024, the wars ahead seem destined to intensify before any semblance of peace can be attained.

Yet, amidst the strife, hope glimmers: The rise of ChatGPT and other generative AI technologies holds promise for revolutionizing patient empowerment and systemic efficiency, making healthcare more accessible while mitigating the burden of chronic diseases. The debate over abortion rights, while deeply polarizing, might eventually find resolution in a legislative middle ground that echoes Roe’s protections with some restrictions on how late in pregnancy procedures can be performed.

Unfortunately, some problems need to get worse before they can get better. I predict the affordability of healthcare will be one of them this year. My New Year’s request is not to shoot the messenger.

Apollo’s 220-hospital ‘stranglehold’ harms patients and workers, report alleges

Posted on by • Posted in Do No Harm, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Trends, Mergers & Acquisitions, Private Equity • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/apollos-hospital-stranglehold-harms-patients-and-workers-report-alleges.html?origin=CFOE&utm_source=CFOE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G

Private equity firm Apollo Global Management’s ownership of two large health systems — Louisville, Ky.-based ScionHealth and Brentwood, Tenn.-based Lifepoint Health — downgrades hospital services, hurts workers and puts patients at risk, according to a study published Jan. 11 by the Private Equity Stakeholder Project.

Since acquiring Lifepoint in 2018 and spinning off ScionHealth in 2021, Apollo has consolidated ownership of 220 hospitals in 36 states, with a workforce of about 75,000 employees. Many of the hospitals have experienced service cuts, layoffs, poor quality ratings and regulatory investigations, according to the report. 

The report comes amid rising scrutiny of private equity hospital ownership. 

In December, the Senate Budget Committee launched an investigation into the effects of private equity ownership on hospitals that specifically mentioned Apollo’s ownership of Lifepoint. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse requested “documents and detailed answers” about certain hospital transactions and the degree to which private equity firms are calling the shots at hospitals. 

A Harvard Medical School-led study published Dec. 26 in JAMA also found that hospitals that are bought by private equity-backed companies are less safe for patients. On average, patients at private equity-purchased facilities had 25.4% more hospital-acquired conditions, according to the study. 

“Apollo’s purchase of these hospital systems follows a disturbing pattern of harm caused by the growing influence of private equity in the healthcare sector,” PESP Healthcare Director Eileen O’Orady, said in a news release. “Private equity’s utmost priority to maximize short-term profit over the long-term viability of the companies it controls leads to excessive debt, cost cutting, worse outcomes for patients and deteriorating working conditions for employees. Apollo’s management of its hospitals seems to follow the usual playbook.”

The study, “Apollo’s Stranglehold on Hospitals Harms Patients and Healthcare Workers,” was developed in conjunction with the American Federation of Teachers and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Click here to access the full report.

Apollo, Lifepoint and ScionHealth did not respond to Becker’s request for comment.