An article published this week in Stat documents private equity’s move into the cardiovascular space. There’s reason to suspect private equity ownership could exacerbate cardiology’s overuse problem, according to several cardiologists and researchers. Studies has found private equity acquisition results in more patients, more visits per patient, and higher charges.
Outpatient atherectomies have become a poster child for overutilization, with the volume billed to Medicare more than doubling from 2011-2021.
The Gist: Fueled by the growing number of states allowing outpatient cardiac catheterization, all signs point to cardiovascular practices being the next specialty courted for PE rollups.
However, the service line brings more complexities to deal structure and future returns than recent targets like dermatology and orthopedics. Heart and vascular groups are more heterogeneous, and less profitable medical management of conditions like congestive heart failure accounts for a greater portion of patient volume. Much more of the medical group business is intertwined with inpatient care, and, unlike other proceduralists, around 80 percent of cardiologists are already employed by health systems. While that doesn’t mean health systems are safe from cardiologists seceding for the promise of PE windfalls,
the closer PE firms get to the “heart” of medicine, the more they’ll find their standard playbook at odds with the broad spectrum of care that cardiovascular specialists provide—and the more they’ll find that partnering with local hospitals will be non-negotiable to maintain the book of business.
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.
The beleaguered digital health company announced on Monday that its previously proposed arrangement to go private via a deal with Swiss-based neurotechnology company MindMaze will not happen, offering no further details. That deal was arranged by AlbaCore Capital Group, which had secured a loan for Babylon in May to implement the transaction.
Babylon said that it will now exit its core US businesses, which consist mostly of value-based agreements with health plans, and will continue to seek a buyer for its Meritage Medical Network, a California-based independent practice association (IPA) comprised of approximately 1,800 physicians.
Babylon said it may have to file for bankruptcy if it can’t secure additional funding or reach another deal to divest.
The Gist:Babylon isone of the starkest digital health “boom-and-bust” stories thus far. Despite the fact that the company overpromised and under-delivered in both the US and abroad, it was able to raise—and then lose—billions of dollars in just a few short years after going public in October 2021 via a special purpose acquisition corporation (SPAC) merger. It remains to be seen who will buy Babylon’s attractive IPA asset. Presumablyinsurers, retailers, health systems and other players are evaluating a purchase, either to enter or expand their provider footprint into Northern and Central California.
The U.S. health system is big and getting bigger. It is labor intense, capital intense, and highly regulated. Each sector operates semi-independently protected by local, state and federal constraints that give incumbents advantages and dissuade insurgents.
Competition has been intramural:
Growth by horizontal consolidation within sectors has been the status quo for most to meet revenue and influence targets. In tandem, diversification aka vertical consolidation and, for some, globalization in each sector has distanced bigger players from smaller:
insurers + medical groups + outpatient facilities + drug benefit managers
retail pharmacies + primary & preventive care + health & wellbeing services + OTC products/devices
regulated medical devices + OTC products for clinics, hospitals, homes, workplaces and schools.
The landscape is no man’s land for the faint of heart but it’s golden for savvy private investors seeking gain at the expense of the system’s dysfunction and addictions—lack of price transparency, lack of interoperability and lack of definitive value propositions.
What’s ahead?
Everyone in the U.S. health system is aware that funding is becoming more scarce and regulatory scrutiny more intense, but few have invested in planning beyond tomorrow and the day after. Unlike drug and device manufacturers with global markets and long-term development cycles, insurers and providers are handicapped. Insurers respond by adjusting coverage, premiums and co-pays annually. Providers—hospitals, physicians, long-term care providers and public health programs– have fewer options. For most, long-range planning is a luxury, and even when attempted, it’s prone to self-protection and lack of objectivity.
Changes to the future state of U.S. healthcare are the result of shifts in these domains:
They apply to every sector in healthcare and define the context for the future of each organization, sector and industry as a whole:
The Clinical Domain: How health, diseases and treatments are defined and managed where and by whom; how caregivers and individuals interact; how clinical data is accessed, structured and translated through AI enabled algorithms; how medication management and OTC are integrated; how social determinants are recognized and addressed by caregivers and communities: and so on. The clinical domain is about more than doctors, nurses, facilities and pills.
The Technology Domain: How information technologies enable customization in diagnostics and treatments; how devices enable self-care; how digital platforms enable access; how systemness facilitates integration of clinical, claims and user experience data; how operating environments shift to automation lower unit costs; how sites of care emerge; how caregivers are trained and much more. Proficiency in the integration of technologies is the distinguishing feature of organizations that survive and those that don’t. It is the glue that facilitates systemness and key to the system’s transformation.
The Regulatory Domain: How affordability, value, competition, choice, healthcare markets, not-for-profit and effectiveness are defined; how local, state and federal laws, administrative orders by government agencies and executive actions define and change compliance risks; how elected officials assess and mitigate perceived deficiencies in a sector’s public accountability or social responsibility; how courts adjudicate challenges to the status quo and barriers to entry by outsiders/under-served populations; how shareholder ownership in healthcare is regulated to balance profit and the public good; et al. Advocacy on behalf of incumbents geared to current regulatory issues (especially in states) is compulsory table stakes requiring more attention; evaluating potential regulatory environment shifts that might fundamentally change the way a system is structured, roles played, funded and overseen is a luxury few enjoy.
The Capital Domain: how needed funding for major government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s, Military, Veterans, HIS, Dual Eligibles et al) is accessed and structured; how private investment in healthcare is encouraged or dissuaded; how monetary policies impact access to debt; how personal and corporate taxes impact capitalization of U.S. healthcare; how value-based programs reduce unnecessary costs and improve system effectiveness; how the employer tax exemption fares long-term as employee benefits shrink; how U.S. system innovations are monetized in global markets; how insurers structure premiums and out of pocket payments: et al. The capital domain thinks forward to the costs of capital it deploys and anticipated returns. But inputs in the models are wildly variable and inconsistent across sectors: hospitals/health systems vs. global private equity healthcare investors vs. national insurers’ capital strategies vary widely and each is prone to over-simplification about the others.
The Consumer Domain: how individuals, households and populations perceive and use the system; how they assess the value of their healthcare spending; how they vote on healthcare issues; how and where they get information; how they assess alternatives to the status quo; how household circumstances limit access and compromise outcomes; et al. The original sin of the U.S, health system is its presumption that it serves patients who are incapable/unwilling to participate effectively and actively in their care. Might the system’s effectiveness and value proposition be better and spending less if consumerization became core to its future state?
For organizations operating in the U.S. system, staying abreast of trends in these domains is tough. Lag indicators used to monitor trends in each domain are decreasingly predictive of the future. Most Boards stay focused on their own sector/subsector following the lead of their management and thought leadership from their trade associations. Most are unaware of broader trends and activities outside their sector because they’re busy fixing problems that impact their current year performance. Environmental assessments are too narrow and short-sighted. Planning processes are not designed to prompt outside the box thinking or disciplined scenario planning. Too little effort is invested though so much is at risk.
It’s understandable. U.S. healthcare is a victim of its success; maintaining the status quo is easier than forging a new path, however obvious or morally clear. Blaming others and playing the victim card is easier than corrective actions and forward-thinking planning.
In 10 years, the health system will constitute 20% of the entire U.S. economy and play an outsized role in social stability. It’s path to that future and the greater good it pursues needs charting with open minds, facts and creativity. Society deserves no less.
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”.
In January 2023, the Rockefeller Institute published a three-part blog series on trends to watch in healthcare in 2023. The series covered broad issues related to the healthcare workforce, economy, and health policy, and highlighted internal industry changes and trends in service delivery, quality, and equity.
Here, we provide a recap and mid-year update on those trends.
The Public Health Emergency:
In January, we anticipated the COVID-19 federal public health emergency (PHE) would end at some point during the year and its ending would impact the industry by rolling back flexibilities and programs that were temporarily put in place to combat the pandemic. The end of the PHE, while not a “trend” per se, held significant potential to alter the trajectory of trends in healthcare coverage, access, and care delivery that were occurring during the pandemic.
Mid-year Update: As predicted, the PHE was not renewed and ended on May 11, 2023. The most notable impact of the non-renewal of the PHE was the end of continuous Medicaid public health insurance coverage. The Kaiser Family Foundation’s Medicaid Enrollment Tracker shows that, as of July 5, 2023, 1,652,000 Medicaid enrollees were disenrolled by the District of Columbia and 28 states reporting data. For context, this means that 39% of people with a completed renewal were disenrolled in reporting states, though disenrollment rates varied significantly across those states from 16 percent in Virginia to 75 percent in South Carolina. The eligibility redetermination process that can lead to a potential disenrollment is being conducted differently in each state with some states moving quickly to make redeterminations and others doing the process more deliberately over the course of the year with a clear intent to avoid shedding people from the Medicaid program because of an inability to submit administrative paperwork.
The process for eligibility renewals will continue to play out over the course of the next year since states have until mid-2024 to update all Medicaid enrollees’ eligibility status. Also notable are some changes made under the purview of the PHE that persist despite the emergency’s conclusion. For example, access to COVID-19 vaccinations and certain COVID-19 treatments generally have not been affected. Some telehealth flexibilities that were allowed under the PHE are also staying in effect, at least until the end of 2024.
Healthcare Workforce Shortages:
Prior to the pandemic, larger demographic trends in society were already impacting the supply of the healthcare workforce. The number of people aging and needing healthcare services was growing while the number of people available to provide care was not keeping pace thus creating a long-term healthcare workforce shortage.
Mid-year Update:The workforce shortage continues. As outlined in a May 23rd Becker’s Hospital Review article, several sources point to a continued shortage. They include a report that says the US could see a deficit of 200,000 to 450,000 registered nurses by 2025. Within the next five years, another report also projects a shortage of more than 3.2 million lower-wage healthcare workers, such as medical assistants, home health aides, and nursing assistants. As a result, some healthcare providers are becoming more creative in their efforts to counteract the workforce shortage: creating alumni networks from which to recruit or providing other benefits to their workforce, such as housing or educational assistance. Policymakers can help counteract the negative impacts of the workforce shortage through a variety of strategies. With the shortage expected to continue, it will be important to enact additional policies that bolster the workforce.
Price Inflation:
As we noted, price inflation was significant in 2022 but was not unique to the health sector.Inflation was particularly exacerbated by the re-opening of the economy after the pandemic, the continued war in Ukraine, and supply chain challenges.
Mid-year Update: Prices for many consumer goods and services increased faster than usual, with overall inflation reaching a four-decade high in mid-2022. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported inflation rates have slowed, with overall prices growing by 6 percent in February 2023 compared to the previous year. Interestingly, prices for medical care increased only 2.3 percent. Similarly, BLS reported that the average price of health care in the United States increased by 0.7 percent in the 12 months ending May 2023, following a previous increase of 1.1 percent. The slower price growth in healthcare compared to other sectors of the economy is highly unusual,[i] and while inflation is not easily influenced by state-level policymakers’ actions alone, the trend is still worth monitoring to better understand the impacts on healthcare access and quality. As of early July, the latest predictions from PwC are that healthcare costs will rise 7% in 2024.
Declining Margins at Hospitals:
Previous analysis by the consulting firm Kaufman Hall predicted that more than half of all hospitals would have negative margins at the end of 2022. As we noted, this was due to such factors as higher-than-normal expenses for staff, supplies, and pharmaceuticals and lower revenues.
Mid-year Update: The latest report from Kaufman Hall offers data that shows a reversal in this trend for the first part of 2023. May was the third consecutive month in which hospital margins were positive after operating in the red for most of 2022. The return to normal is largely driven by revenues that are more in line with pre-pandemic levels. With revenues returning to more normal levels, expenses will be particularly important to watch for the remainder of 2023. If hospital expenses continue to outweigh revenues, policymakers may need to evaluate the financial health of providers and the potential impact that may have on access to services for patients.
Private Equity in Healthcare:
We predicted that private equity (PE) would continue to grow in healthcare, pointing to a PwC consulting report that indicated that PE companies still had plenty of “dry powder,” or money, to invest in 2023.
Mid-year Update:There has been a slowdown in private equity deals over the last year. But it is notable that there were still 200 private equity deals in healthcare in the first quarter of 2023, according to PitchBook’s healthcare services report released in May 2023. While lower than the year before, this is still considered active when compared to pre-pandemic PE dealmaking. Because of the waning of the pandemic and stability returning to the healthcare sector, it is more likely that PE deals stabilize in 2023. And some industry predictions indicate that dealmaking will bounce back further in the second half of 2023. As noted in our previous blog, it will be important to monitor the proliferation of PE in healthcare and determine its impact on healthcare markets, care delivery, innovation, and quality.
Consolidations:
Like many other industries, consolidations of all sorts have been happening in healthcare. The consolidations are both vertical—combining two or more stages of production normally operated by separate companies into one company, such as when hospitals or insurers employ physicians and/or acquire physician practices or other entities like pharmacies—and horizontal—combining organizations that provide the same or similar services, such as hospitals acquiring hospitals.
Mid-year Update: Consolidations of all sorts of healthcare entities continued in 2023 with some of the biggest potential consolidations yet. Those include the proposed merger of two major bi-coastal health system providers: Geisinger, based in Pennsylvania, and Kaiser, based in California. Although the deal must still go through regulatory approval, if completed, the two systems will create a nonprofit that will look to add five or six more systems nationally over the next five years. Other notable consolidations include the finalization of tech-giant Amazon’s purchase of One Medical, a primary care network. And Optum, one of the largest conglomerates that is a subsidiary of United Health Group, increased its net revenue growth by 25% to $54.1 billion in the first quarter of 2023, primarily due to more patients visiting OptumHealth clinics and growth in OptumRx pharmacy scripts processed. Optum’s growth is likely to continue in 2023 as they expect to add another 10,000 physicians. Case in point, in February of this year, Optum paid an undisclosed sum for Crystal Run Healthcare, a network of nearly 400 providers in New York. A goal of consolidation has been better coordination of patient care for improved outcomes and value. Results have been mixed and it is therefore an important trend for policymakers and researchers to monitor and to ensure the impacts are positive.
Alternate Payment Models:
Alternate payment models (APMs) in healthcare have been expanding especially since enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010. They are primarily being developed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) which has driven payment policy (including APMs) in the two big government healthcare programs: Medicaid and Medicare. There have been several iterations of APMs—over 50 models—but the one common theme is that all of them generally seek to reward better care.
Mid-year Update: Since the start of 2023, the most notable expansion of the trend toward more alternate payment models was CMMI’s introduction of a new primary care-focused APM called Making Care Primary. In addition to this model, it is expected that the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS), which oversees the operation of these two large public health insurance programs, will introduce more new payment models in 2023, including one that allows states to manage the total cost of care in a given region. This may take various forms, including something akin to Maryland’s global budget, which is used statewide. Since the total cost of care model has yet to be officially revealed, this trend and the emergence of any new developments is worth watching in the second half of 2023. Policymakers can learn from these various payment models and use them to inform the plans implemented in their own state or region in order to improve healthcare.
Attention to Health Equity:
A notable aspect of the pandemic was the disparate impact it had on people of color and other marginalized groups. In response, policymakers and providers began paying more attention to the underlying cause of these disparities. In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to focus federal resources and attention on reducing health disparities.
Mid-year Update: Increased attention to health equity in healthcare has continued. Ernst and Young, an international consulting group, released its first-ever report on the state of health equity in the United States, which involved a survey of over 500 providers to begin tracking their methods for, and progress in, addressing health disparities. More recently, in June 2023, The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) announced that it will be adding a certification program for healthcare organizations specifically targeted towards improving health equity. While attention to equity has grown, what will be interesting to watch in the second half of 2023 is the degree to which such efforts are having an impact on actually reducing disparities. Understanding the impacts of various interventions can help policymakers expand efforts that are effective.
Digital TeleHealth Delivery Expansion:
The use of digital health expanded dramatically from 2020 to 2022 as social distancing practices were adopted and telehealth options became more widely available. As noted in our blog series, digital health “includes mobile health (mHealth), health information technology (IT), wearable devices, telehealth and telemedicine, and personalized medicine.” It also includes, “mobile medical apps and software that support the clinical decisions doctors make every day to do artificial intelligence and machine learning.”
Mid-year Update: At the end of 2022 and the start of 2023, the ability to infuse capital to drive the expansion of digital health seemed tenuous, in part due to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). As noted by the publication Pitchbook and CB Insights, venture capital funding in the digital health space totaled $7.5 billion in 2022, a 57 percent year-over-year drop. Although the fast pace of investment in digital health may have slowed since its explosion during the pandemic, the expansion of digital health continues. Our January blog suggested that areas such as behavioral health, care at home, and maternal health were areas to watch. In 2023, digital access is expanding in other areas, such as in-home urgent primary care to allow for the treatment of complex injuries and illnesses with the goal of reducing emergency department visits. And other important digital health deals are still occurring: health tech startup Florence picked up Zipnosis from Bright Health to expand its virtual care capabilities. And with the launch of consumer-facing tech products, such as Chat GPT and Apple Vision Pro in the first half of 2023, additional opportunities for applying such technologies in healthcare may fuel further expansion of digital health. Policies that are developed in the future may want to support the growth of such innovation, while also being mindful to monitor the potential impacts on care.
Expansion of Non-Traditional Providers:
In January, we noted an emergence of companies in healthcare whose genesis was something other than healthcare. The blog pointed to examples of how companies such as Walgreens, CVS, and Amazon were expanding their offerings in healthcare.
Mid-year Update:Non-traditional entities continue to expand in the healthcare space. Notable examples include the recent acquisitions and expansions made by CVS. One of these expansions is being done through its affiliation with the insurance company, Aetna. Through Aetna, CVS has entered the insurance exchange market in four more states in 2023, in addition to the 12 states in which it already operates. CVS also closed a deal in the first half of 2023 to acquire Oak Street Health for over $10 billion. And, in March 2023, CVS announced it had officially acquired Signify Health, a digital telehealth company that enables more care to occur in-home. As noted earlier, Amazon officially completed its deal to acquire OneMedical and United Health Group is working on expanding its use of value-based care through a partnership with Walmart. Monitoring the impact of these emerging companies in healthcare will be important for policymakers that have historically only focused on more traditional providers, such as hospitals. These non-traditional entrants, in many cases, are large organizations with substantial resources and their impact may be just as significant if not greater than traditional providers.
Conclusion
These trends merit close attention in the second half of 2023. As healthcare takes on new shapes, the implications for those in the sector and all who depend on it will be huge. In addition, there are important implications for state and federal policymakers who will need to consider how these trends impact access, affordability, and quality of health care, so they can determine whether and how government might help to accelerate beneficial innovations, invest in promising trends, prevent or reverse harmful trends, and monitor the impacts on consumers.
A detailed report, published by a group of organizations including the American Antitrust Institute, provides one of the highest-quality examinations of 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, and 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. (Check out figure 3B at the bottom of page 20 in the report to see if you live in one of those markets.)
The study also found an association between PE practice acquisitions and higher healthcare prices and per-patient expenditures. In highly concentrated markets, certain specialties, like gastroenterology, saw prices rise by as much as 18 percent.
The Gist: As the report highlights, one of the greatest barriers to assessing PE’s impact on physician practices is the lack of transparency around acquisitions and ownership structures. This analysis brings us closer to understanding the scope of the issue, and makes a strong case for regulatory and legislative intervention.
Recent proposed changes to federal premerger disclosure requirements offer a good start, but many practice acquisitions are still too small to flag review, and slowing future acquisitions will do little to unwind the market concentration already emerging.
PE is also not the sole actor contributing to healthcare consolidation, and proposed remedies may target the activities of payers and health systems considered anti-competitive as well.
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.
Health systems are ramping up investments in ambulatory surgery centers and forming joint ventures with outpatient partners to accelerate the development of new centers. The trend is picking up steam as complex procedures increasingly move to ASCs, which are steadily growing as the preferred site of service for physicians, patients and payers.
Tenet Healthcare, one of the largest for-profit health systems in the country, has been paying close attention to outpatient migration for years and has cemented itself as the leader in the ASC space. It now operates more than 445 ASCs — the most of any health system — and 24 surgical hospitals, according to its first-quarter earnings report.
United Surgical Partners International, Tenet’s ASC company, strengthened its footing in the ASC market after its $1.2 billion acquisition of Towson, Md.-based SurgCenter Development and its more than 90 ASCs in December 2021. Over the next several years, USPI will inject more than $250 million into ASC mergers and acquisitions and work with SurgCenter to develop at least 50 more ASCs, according to terms of the transaction.
The SurgCenter acquisition was completed shortly after Tenet sold five Florida hospitals to Dallas-based Steward Health Care for $1.1 billion. In 2022, Tenet also acquired Dallas-based Baylor Scott & White Health’s 5 percent equity position in USPI to own 100 percent of the company’s voting shares and paid $78 million to acquire ownership of eight Compass Surgical Partners ASCs.
These ASC investments and hospital sales make it clear that CEO Saum Sutaria, MD, sees surgery centers to become Tenet’s main growth driver in the coming years. Dr. Sutaria has described USPI as the company’s “gem for the future,” and aims to have 575 to 600 ASCs by the end of 2025.
While Tenet continues to increase its ASC market share, its closest competitor is Deerfield, Ill.-based SCA Health, which UnitedHealth Group’s Optum acquired for $2.3 billion several years ago.
SCA has more than 320 ASCs, but has expanded its focus on value-based care under Optum and is doubling down on supporting physicians across the specialty care continuum rather than operating as an ASC company “singularly focused on partnering with surgeons in their ASCs,” SCA CEO Caitlin Zulla told Becker’s.
While Tenet may operate the most ASCs among health systems, it lags behind Optum in terms of the number of physicians it employs. Optum is now affiliated with more than 70,000 physicians, making it the largest employer of physicians in the country, and is continuing to add to that through mergers and acquisitions.
Nashville, Tenn.-based HCA Healthcare, another for-profit system, employs or is affiliated with more than 47,000 physicians, but is also ramping up its surgery center portfolio. HCA comprises 2,300 ambulatory care facilities, including more than 150 ASCs, freestanding emergency rooms, urgent care centers and physician clinics, according to its first-quarter earnings report.
Like Tenet and Optum, HCA is heavily focused on expanding its outpatient portfolio. The company ended 2021 with 125 ASCs, four more than it had at the end of 2020, and added more than 25 ASCs last year. It is focused on both developing and acquiring surgery centers in the coming years.
The other big ASC operators include Nashville, Tenn.-based AmSurg, with more than 250 surgery centers, and Brentwood, Tenn.-based Surgery Partners, with more than 120 centers. Surgery Partners spent about $250 million on ASCs acquisitions last year and recently signed collaboration agreements with two large health systems —- Salt Lake City-based Intermountain Health and Columbus-based OhioHealth.
Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente has 62 freestanding ASCs and outpatient surgery departments on its hospital campuses, a spokesperson for the health system told Becker’s.
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.”
HENRY KOTULA 