Special Report: Physicians on the Brink or At the Starting Line?

Tomorrow, America’s Physician Groups (APG) will kick-off its Annual Spring Conference “Going the Distance” in San Diego with breakout sessions focused on wide ranging operational issues and 3 general sessions that address restoring trust in the profession, lessons from the pandemic and Medicare Advantage.

Next Thursday, the American Medical Association (AMA) will kick off its 5-day House of Delegates session in Chicago with a plethora of resolutions and votes on the docket and committee reports on issues like the ethical impact of private equity on physicians in private equity owned practices, health insurer payment integrity and much more.

These meetings are coincident with the expected resolution of the debt-ceiling dispute in Congress which essentially leaves current Medicare and Medicaid payments to physicians and others in tact through 2025. So, for at least the time being, surprises in insurer payments to physicians are not anticipated.

Nonetheless, it’s a critical time for APG and AMA as their members face unparalleled market pressures:

  • Trust in the profession has eroded. Media attention to its bad actors has expanded.
  • Settings have changed: the majority now work as employees of large groups owned by hospitals or private equity sponsors.
  • Consumer (patient) expectations about physician quality, access and service are more exacting.
  • Technologies that improve precision in diagnostics and therapies and integration of social determinants in care planning have altered where, how and by whom care is delivered.
  • Affordability and lack of price transparency are fundamental concerns for U.S. consumers (and voters), employers and Congress. While drug PBMs, hospitals and health insurers are a focus of attention, physicians are not far behind.
  • Private equity and retail giants are creatine formidable competition in primary and specialty care.
  • Media coverage of “bad actors” engaged in fraudulent activity (i.e. unnecessary care, medications, et al) has increased.
  • Operating losses in hospitals remain significant limiting hospital investments in their employed medical practices.

Both organizations remain steadfast in the belief that the future for U.S. healthcare is physician centric:

  • For APG, it’s anchored in a core belief that changing payer incentives from fee-for-service to value is the essential means toward the system’s long-term sustainability and effectiveness. (APG represents 335 physician organizations)
  • For AMA, “true north” is the profession’s designated role as caregivers and stewards of the public’s health and wellbeing. (AMA’s membership includes 22% of the nation’s 1.34 million practicing physicians, medical students and residents).

But market conditions have taken their toll on physician psyche even as CMS has altered its value agenda.

Physicians are highly paid professionals. Per Sullivan Cotter and Kaufman Hall, their finances took a hit during the pandemic and their finances in 2022-2023 has been stymied by inflationary pressures. Thus, most worry about their income and they’re hyper-sensitive to critics of their compensation.

Fueling their frustration, virtually all believe insurance companies are reimbursement bullies, hospitals spend too much on executive salaries (aka suits) and administration and not enough on patient care and patients are increasingly difficult and unreasonable. Most think the profession hasn’t done enough to protect them and 65% say they’re burned out. That’s where APG and AMA find themselves relative to their members.

My take:

The backdrop for the APG and AMA meetings in the next 2 weeks could not be more daunting. Inflationary pressures dog the health economy as each advances an advocacy agenda suitable to their member’s needs.

But something is missing: a comprehensive, coherent, visionary view of the health system’s future in the next 10-20 years wherein physicians will play a key role.

That view should include…

  • How value and affordability are defined and actualized in policies and practice.
  • How the caregiver workforce is developed, composed and evaluated based on shifting demand.
  • How incentives should be set and funding sourced and rationalized across all settings and circumstances of service.
  • How consumerism can be operationalized.
  • How prices and costs in every sector (including physician services) can become readily accessible.
  • How a seamless system of health can be built.
  • How physician training and performance can be modernized to participate effectively in the system’s future.

The U.S. health system’s future is not a repeat of its past.  Recognizing this, physicians and the professional associations like APG and AMA that serve them have an obligation to define its future state NOW.

Some physicians are on the brink of despair; others are at the starting line ready to take on the challenge.

Envision Healthcare filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Physician staffing firm Envision Healthcare filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this week, but will “continue operating its business as usual” so that the company can “provide patients with the high-quality care they require.”

Envision Healthcare files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

On Monday, Envision Healthcare filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. Following the filing, all of the company’s debt — except for a revolving credit facility for working capital — will be cancelled, totaling around $5.6 billion.

In a news release, Envision said several events have placed significant pressure on its finances since it was acquired by private equity (PE) firm KKR for $10 billion in 2018.

“The lingering impacts from COVID-19 on volume and labor costs, the delays resulting from tactics and recalcitrance by Envision’s largest insurance payors, and the ongoing regulatory uncertainty caused by the flawed implementation of the No Surprises Act have proven too much,” said Paul Keglevic, Envision’s chief restructuring officer.

Throughout the pandemic, healthcare staffing firms struggled to find enough workers to meet patient demand, especially in the highly competitive contract labor market, Modern Healthcare reports.

While Envision said it filed for bankruptcy because it is not generating enough revenue to cover its expenses and debt, it currently has $665 million of cash in the bank. According to the filing, the company expects those funds to help it exit bankruptcy faster.

“The decision to file these chapter 11 cases now, while the debtors have ample cash on hand, will ensure that the company can continue to provide patients with the high-quality care they require,” Keglevic said in the filings.

The company has entered a Restructuring Support Agreement (RSA), with plans to operate normally during the restructuring. Pending court approval, Envision said it will tap into cash collateral from ongoing operations to cover costs, “including supplier obligations and employee wages, salaries, and benefits during the restructuring process.”

“This will enable the company to continue operating its business as usual throughout the process and provide support to critical partners, including clinicians, hospitals, vendors and suppliers,” the company said.

Under the RSA, the company will divide its primary businesses, AMSURG and Envision Physician Services, which will be owned by their respective lenders. 

Does Envision’s bankruptcy spell trouble for other PE investments?

Envision isn’t like other medical group PE investments

As we discussed in a previous expert insight, PE investments in physician practices aren’t a monolith. Many different types of medical groups receive investments, and PE firms have a range of healthcare sector experience and business practices. 

Envision is an example of an outlier in all of these areas. First, their physician services are all hospital-based, with a heavy emphasis on emergency medicine — this contrasts with the predominant wave of physician practice investment in ambulatory practices. KKR only has one other physician practice investment, and their healthcare portfolio is rather limited.

Most importantly, Envision’s business model was reliant on exploiting questionable business practices and loopholes, which were heavily impacted by the No Surprises Act.

So, this bankruptcy isn’t an indictment of PE investment in physician groups. It just shows that healthcare organizations are not immune to being caught on their bad business practices — though PE, which is already struggling in the court of public opinion, won’t be helped by Envision’s demise.

What Envision’s bankruptcy means

Envision’s bankruptcy shines a light on trends we’ve been watching with hospital-based medicine that make financial solvency challenging: the strain of uninsured patients on revenue, workforce shortages driving up labor costs, and COVID-related volume impacts, to name a few.

What’s different with the average health system compared to Envision? While clearly rife with inefficiencies, health systems have mechanisms to self-correct.

Envision’s business model was not an innovation on care design or delivery.

It was a model taking advantage of pricing distortions and patients who are not in a position to shop for emergency care. That model inherently has limited running room.

On the physician practice front, Envision’s bankruptcy highlights the challenging business environment PE firms choose to enter when they invest in physician practices. Medical groups are a low-margin business, and the running room on cost savings has a low ceiling.

While many of the highest profile PE investments in physician groups come from firms with a long track record in the physician space, it remains to be seen whether the return on their investments will be high enough to satisfy investors.

The spotlight on large, heavily resourced healthcare organizations is not going away anytime soon. In fact, as consolidation continues, new investors enter the forefront, and organizations diversify the type of assets they acquire, that spotlight is only getting brighter.

CVS Health exits clinical trial business

https://mailchi.mp/73102bc1514d/the-weekly-gist-may-19-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

On Wednesday, CVS revealed plans to phase out its clinical trials unit by December 2024. The company launched the business line in 2021, building off its successful participation engaging CVS patrons in COVID vaccine and treatment studies.

With 40 percent of Americans living near a CVS pharmacy, the company had hoped to facilitate the decentralization of the clinical trials business, recruiting patients who lived in markets without academic medical centers, with goals to engage 10M patients across 150 research sites. However, to date it has only enrolled 33K participants, just over 10 percent of its COVID vaccine volunteer patient cohort. 

The Gist: While CVS appears to be focusing on its faster-growing Medicare Advantage and provider businesses, following its expensive acquisitions of Oak Street Health and Signify Health, the promise for decentralized clinical research remains. 

Traditional clinical trials often suffer from low participation; recruiting from more diverse populations would improve enrollment and could enhance the quality of research conducted. 

Decentralization is also a win for patients, providing access to clinical trials for lower-income patients who may have difficulty regularly traveling to academic centers. Other players, ranging from startups to retail giants like Walmart and Walgreens, remain active in this space. While we hope they may bring new models to market, they will likely evaluate their programs against similar business decisions and profit objectives. 

National ASC chains look to dominate growing market

https://mailchi.mp/73102bc1514d/the-weekly-gist-may-19-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

As care continues to shift to lower cost ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), the graphic above looks at recent growth and consolidation in the ASC market. 

From 2012 to 2022, the five largest operators increased their collective ownership of ASC facilities from 17 to 21 percent, and were responsible for over 50 percent of total facility growth in that period. 

While physicians still fully own over half of the nation’s ASCs, the national chains tend to run larger, multispecialty facilities responsible for an outsized proportion of procedures and revenue. 

The likes of Tenet, Optum, and HCA are betting big on ASCs, banking on projections that the market will grow by over 60 percent in the next seven years. 

(Though AmSurg’s parent company, Envision Healthcare, filed for bankruptcy, AmSurg is buying Envision’s remaining ASCs to retain its significant foothold in the market.)

While many high-revenue specialties, notably orthopedics and gastroenterology, have already seen a significant shift to ASCs, cardiology is one of the most promising service lines for ASC growth, with some predicting that a third of cardiology procedures will be performed in ambulatory settings in the next few years. 

The shift of surgeries from hospitals to ASCs is daunting for health systems, who stand to lose half or more of the revenue from each case—if they’re able keep the procedure within the system. 

In the meantime, low-cost ASC operators will continue to add new facilities that deliver high margins to fuel their growth.

The rise and fall of Babylon Health in the United Kingdom

https://mailchi.mp/73102bc1514d/the-weekly-gist-may-19-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

Published last Sunday in TheTimes of London,

this article traces how the once-darling Babylon Health became an “unmitigated disaster”, for which the UK’s National Health Services (NHS) has paid a significant price. 

Babylon used its vision for a privatized NHS with slashed wait times and AI-powered treatment to boost its public offering, via a special-purpose acquisition company, with a $4.2B valuation in June 2021. Many of its promises have been revealed to be overly ambitious, if not doomed from the start, with its AI-powered diagnostics and funding model proving especially flawed.

A pivot to managed care in the US failed to stem a tide of mounting losses, and the company announced plans to go private last week. 

The Gist: There are myriad lessons from the demise of Babylon, a marquis example of a “digital-first” healthcare startup that burned through capital and crashed with the end of the era of cheap money:

virtual care isn’t a magic wand to reduce wait times, and healthcare startups (and their investors) should think as much about the path to profitability as they do about rapid growth. 

While Babylon did have its finger on the pulse of promising technologies, it applied them irresponsibly: for patients, inaccurate AI diagnoses could be worse than no care at all.

Amid the current AI frenzy, healthcare would benefit from more “slow AI”, developed with clinical and scientific collaboration and rigorous academic study design and testing, over “fast AI”, with pressure to generate returns for private investors pushing entrepreneurs to rapidly develop and deploy technology. 

What Hospital Systems Can Take Away From Ford’s Strategic Overhaul

On today’s episode of Gist Healthcare Daily, Kaufman Hall co-founder and Chair Ken Kaufman joins the podcast to discuss his recent blog that examines Ford Motor Company’s decision to stop producing internal-combustion sedans, and talk about whether there are parallels for health system leaders to ponder about whether their traditional strategies are beginning to age out.

Not for Profit Health Systems are Soft Targets: Here’s Why

Large, not-for-profit hospitals/health systems are getting a disproportionate share of unflattering attention these days. Last week was no exception: Here’s a smattering of their coverage:

Approximate Savings from Lowering Indiana Not-for-Profit Commercial Hospital Facility Prices to 260% of Medicare March 20, 2023 https://employersforumindiana.org/media/resources/Savings-from-Lowering-Indiana-Not-for-profit-Commercial-Hospital-Facility-Prices.

Jiang et al “Factors Associated with Hospital Commercial Negotiated Price for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Brain” JAMA Network Open March 21. 2023;6(3):e233875. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.3875

Not-for-profit benefits top charity care levels for hospitals: report Bond Buyer March 22, 2023 www.bondbuyer.com/news/not-for-profit-benefits-top-charity-care-levels-for-hospitals-report

What’s Behind Losses At Large Nonprofit Health Systems? Health Affairs March 24, 2023 www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/s-behind-losses-large-nonprofit-health-systems

Whaley et al What’s Behind Losses At Large Nonprofit Health Systems? Health Affairs March 24, 2023 10.1377/forefront.20230322.44474

A Pa. hospital’s revoked property tax exemption is a ‘warning shot’ to other nonprofits, expert says KYW Radio Philadelphia March 24, 2023 ww.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-pa-hospital-s-revoked-property-tax-exemption-is-a-warning-shot-to-other-nonprofits-expert-says

These hospitals are ‘not for profit’ but very wealthy — should the state get more of their cash? News Sentinel March 26, 2023 www.news-sentinel.com/news/local-news/2019/09/26/kevin-leininger-these-hospitals-are-not-for-profit-but-very-wealthy-should-the-state-get-more-of-their-cash

These come on the heals of the Medicare Advisory Commission’s (MedPAC) March 2023 Report to Congress advising that all but safety-net hospitals are in reasonably good shape financially (contrary to industry assertions) and increased lawmaker scrutiny of “ill-gotten gains” in healthcare i.e., Moderna’s vaccine windfall, Medicare Advantage overpayments and employer activism about hospital price-gauging in several states.

Like every sector in healthcare, hospitals enter budget battles with good stories to tell about cost-reductions and progress in price transparency compliance. But in the current political and economic environment, large, not-for-profit hospitals and health systems seem to be targets of more adverse coverage than others as illustrated above. Like many NFP institutions in society (higher education, organized religion, government), erosion of trust is palpable. Not-for-profit hospitals and health systems are no exception.

The themes emerging from last week’s coverage are familiar:

  • ‘Not-for-profit hospitals/health systems, do not provide value commensurate with the tax exemptions they get.’
  • ‘Not for profit hospitals & health systems take advantage of their markets and regulations to create strong brands and generate big profits.’.
  • ‘Not for profit hospitals & health systems charge more than investor-owned hospitals: the victims are employers and consumers who pay higher-than-necessary prices for their services.’
  • ‘NFP operators invest in risky ventures: when the capital market slumps, they are ill-prepared to manage. Risky investments, not workforce and supply chain issues, are the root causes of NFP financial stress. They’re misleading the public purposely.’
  • ‘Executives in NFP systems are overpaid and patient collection policies are more aggressive than for-profits. NFP boards are ineffective.’

The stimulants for this negative attention are equally familiar:

  • Proprietary studies by think tanks, trade associations, labor unions and consultancies designed to “prove a point” for/against not-for-profit hospitals/health systems.
  • Government reports about hospital spending, waste, fraud, workforce issues, patient safety, concentration and compliance with transparency rules.
  • Aggressive national/local reporting by journalists inclined to discount NFP messaging.
  • Public opinion polls about declining trust in the system and growing concern about price transparency, affordability and equitable access.
  • Politicians who use soundbites and dog whistles about NFP hospitals to draw attention to themselves.

The cumulative effect of these is confusion, frustration and distrust of not-for-profit hospitals and health systems. Most believe not-for-profit hospitals/health systems do not own the moral high ground they affirm to regulators and their communities (though religiously-affiliated systems have an edge). Most are unaware that more than half of all hospitals (54%) are not-for-profit and distinctions between safety net, rural, DSH, teaching and other forms of NFP ownership are non-specific to their performance.

What’s clear to the majority is that hospitals are expensive and essential. They’re soft targets representing 31.1% of the health system’s total spend ($4.3 trillion in 2021) increasing 4.9% annually in the last decade while inflation and GDP growth were less.

So why are not-for-profit systems bearing the brunt of hospital criticism?

Simply put: many NFP systems act more like Big Business than shepherds of community health. In fact, 4 of the top 10 multi-hospital system operators is investor owned: HCA (184), CHS (84), LifePoint (84), Tenet (65). In addition, 3 others are in the top 50: Ardent (30), UHS (26), Quorum (22). So, corporatization of hospital care using private capital and public markets for growth is firmly entrenched in the sector exposing not-for-profit operators to competition that’s better funded and more nimble.  And, per industry studies, not-for-profits tend to stay in markets longer and operate unprofitable services more frequently than their investor-owned competitors. But does this matter to insurers, community leaders, legislators, employers, hospital employees and physicians? Some but not much.

My take:

There are no easy answers for not-for-profit hospitals/heath systems. The issue is about more than messaging and PR. It’s about more than Medicare reimbursement (7.5% below cost), protecting programs like 340B, keeping tax exemptions and maintaining barriers against physician-owned hospitals. The issue is NOT about operating income vs. investment income: in every business, both are essential and in each, economic cycles impact gains/losses. Each of these is important but only band-aids on an open wound in U.S. healthcare.

Near-term (the next 2 years), opportunities for not-for-profit hospitals involve administrative simplification to reduce costs and improve the efficiencies and effectiveness of the workforce. Clinical documentation using ChatGPT/Bard-like tools can have a massive positive impact—that’s just a start. Advocacy, public education and Board preparedness require bigger investments of time and resources. But that’s true for every hospital, regardless of ownership. These are table stakes to stay afloat.

The longer-term issue for NFPs is bigger:

It’s about defining the future of the U.S. health system in 2030 and beyond—the roles to be played and resources necessary for it to skate to where the puck is going. It’s about defining the role played by private employers and whether they’ll pay 220% more than Medicare pays to keep providers and insurers solvent. It’s about how underserved and unhealthy people are managed. It’s about defining systemness in healthcare and standardizing processes. It’s about defining sources of funding and optimal use of resources. Not-for-profit systems should drive these discussions in the communities they serve and at a national level.

MedPAC’s 17 member Commission will play a vital role, but equally important to this design process are inputs from employers, consumers and thought leaders who bring fresh insight. Until then, not-for-profit health systems will be soft targets for unflattering media because protecting the status quo is paramount to insiders who benefit from its dysfunction. Incrementalism defined as innovation is a recipe for failure.

It’s time to begin a discussion about the future of the U.S. health system—all of it, not just high-profile sectors like not-for-profit hospitals/health systems who are currently its soft target.

Affordable Care Act 2.0: New Trends and Issues, New Urgency

Thursday marks the 13th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act– perhaps the most consequential healthcare legislation since LBJ’s passage of the Medicare Act in 1965. Except in healthcare circles, it will probably go unnoticed.

World events in the Ukraine and China President Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia will grab more media attention. At home, the ripple effects of Silicon Valley Bank’s bankruptcy and the stability of the banking system will get coverage and former President Trump’s arrest tomorrow will produce juicy soundbites from partisans and commentators. Thus, the birthday of Affordable Care Act, will get scant attention.

That’s regrettable: it offers an important context for navigating the future of the U.S. health system. Having served as an independent facilitator between the White House and private sector interests in 2009-2010, I recall vividly the events leading to its passage and the Supreme Court challenge that affirmed it:

  • The costs and affordability of healthcare and growing concern about the swelling ranks of uninsured were the issues driving its origin. Both political parties and every major trade group agreed on the issues; solving them not so easy.
  • Effective messaging from special interests about the ACA increased awareness of the law and calcified attitudes for or against. Misinformation/disinformation about the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” morphed to a national referendum on insurance coverage and the cost-effectiveness of the ACA’s solution (Medicaid expansion, subsidies and insurance marketplaces). ‘Death panels. government run healthcare and Obamacare’ labels became targets for critics: spending by special interests opposed to the law dwarfed support by 7 to 1. Differences intensified: Emotions ran high. I experienced it firsthand. While maintaining independence and concerns about the law, I received death threats nonetheless. Like religion, the ACA was off-limits to meaningful discussion (especially among the majority who hadn’t read it).
  • And after Scott Brown’s election to the vacant Massachusetts seat held by Ted Kennedy in January, 2010, the administration shifted its support to a more-moderate Senate Finance Committee version of the law that did not include a public option or malpractice reforms in the House version. Late-night lobbying by White House operatives resulted in a House vote in favor of the Senate version with promises ‘it’s only the start’. Through amendments, executive orders, administrative actions and appropriations, it would evolve with the support of the Obama team. It passed along party lines with the CBO offering an optimistic view it would slow health cost escalation by reducing administrative waste, implementation of comparative effectiveness research to align evidence with care, increased insurance coverage, changing incentives for hospitals and physicians and more.

The Affordable Care Act dominated media coverage from August 2009 to March 2010. In the 2010 mid-term election, it was the issue that catapulted Republicans to net gains of 7 in the Senate, 63 in the House and 6 in Governor’s offices. And since, Republicans in Congress have introduced “Repeal and Replace” legislation more than 60 times, failing each time.

Today, public opinion about the ACA has shifted modestly: from 46% FOR and 40% against in 2010 to 55% FOR and 42% against now (KFF). The national uninsured rate has dropped from 15.5% to 8.6% and Medicaid has been expanded in 39 states and DC. Lower costs, increased affordability and quality improvements owing to the ACA have had limited success.

Key elements of the ACA have not lived up to expectations i.e. the Patient Centered Outcome Research Institute, the National Quality Strategy, Title V National Healthcare Workforce Task Force, CMMI’s alternative payment models and achievement of Level 3 interoperability goals vis a vis ONCHIT, CHIME et al. So, as the 2024 political season starts, the ACA will get modest attention by aspirants for federal office because it addressed big problems with blunt instruments. Most recognize it needs to be modernized based on trends and issues relevant to healthcare in 2030 and beyond.

Trends like…

  • Self-diagnostics and treatment by consumers (enabled by ChatGPT et al).
  • Data-driven clinical decision-making.
  • Integration of non-allopathic methodologies.
  • The science of wellbeing.
  • Complete price, cost and error transparency.
  • Employer and individual insurance coverage optimization.
  • And others.

Issues like….

  • The role and social responsibility of private equity in ownership and operation of services in healthcare delivery and financing.
  • The regulatory framework for local hospitals vs. Regional/nation health systems, and between investor-owned and not-for-profit sponsorship.
  • The role and resources for guided self-care management and virtual-care.
  • Innovations in care delivery services to vulnerable populations using technologies and enhanced workforce models.
  • Modernization of regulatory environments and rules of competition for fully integrated health systems, prescription drug manufacturers, health insurers, over-the counter therapies, food as medicine, physician ownership of hospitals, data ownership, tech infomediaries that facilitate clinical decision-making, self-care, professional liability and licensing and many others.
  • Integration of public health and local health systems.
  • The allocation of capital to the highest and best uses in the health system.
  • The sustainability of Medicare and role of Medicare Advantage.
  • The regulatory framework for disruptors”.
  • And many others.

These trends are not-easily monitored nor are the issues clear and actionable. Most are inadequately addressed or completely missed in the ACA.

Complicating matters, the political environment today is more complicated than in 2010 when the ACA became law. The economic environment is more challenging: the pandemic, inflation and economic downturn have taken their toll. Intramural tensions in key sectors have spiked as each fights for control and autonomy i.e. primary care vs. specialty medicine, investor-owned vs. not-for-profit hospitals, retail medicine & virtual vs. office-based services, carve-outs, direct contracting et al . Consolidation has widened capabilities and resources distancing big organizations from others. Today’s media attention to healthcare is more sophisticated. Employers are more frustrated. And the public’s confidence in the health system is at an all-time low.

“ACA 2.0” is necessary to the system’s future but unlikely unless spearheaded by community and business leaders left out of the 1.0 design process. The trends and issues are new and complicated, requiring urgent forward thinking.

Has U.S. Healthcare Reached its Tipping Point?

At a meeting with hospital system CEOs last Wednesday, one asked: “has healthcare reached the tipping point?”  I replied ‘not yet but it’s getting close.’

I iterated factors that make these times uniquely difficult in every sector:

  • An uncertain economy that’s unlikely to fully recover until next year.
  • The growth of Medicaid and Medicare coverage that shifts their financial shortfall to employers and taxpayers who are fed up and pushing back.
  • A vicious political environment that rewards partisan brinksmanship and focus-group tested soundbites to manipulate voters on complex issues in healthcare.
  • The growing domination of Big Business in each sector that have used acquisitions + corporatization to their advantage.
  • The widening role of private equity in funding non-conventional solutions that disrupt the status quo (and the uncertain future for many of these).
  • The federal courts system that’s increasingly the arbiter over access, fairness, quality and freedoms in healthcare.
  • The lingering impact of the pandemic.
  • And growing public disgust and distrust as the system’s altruism and good will is undermined by pervasive concern for profit.

Unprecedented! But events like those last week prompt hitting the pause button: not everyone pays attention to healthcare like many of us. The slaughter of 6 innocents in Nashville hit close to home: it’s about guns, mental health and life and death. The appeal of tech-giants to press the pause button on Generative AI for at least 6 months was sobering. The ravage of tornados that left thousands insecure without food, housing or hope seemed unfair. Mounting tensions with Russia and complex negotiations with China that reminded us that the U.S. competes in a global economy.  And President Trump’s court appearance tomorrow will stoke doubt about our justice system at a time when it’s role in healthcare and society is expanding.

I am a healthcare guy. I am prone to see the world through the lens of the U.S. health industry and keen to understand its trends, tipping points and future. There’s plenty to watch: this week will be no exception. The punch list is familiar:

  • Medicaid coverage: Many will be watching the fallout of from state redetermination requirements for Medicaid coverage starting as soon as this week with disenrollment in Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, New Hampshire and South Dakota.
  • Medicare Advantage: Health insurers will be modifying their Medicare Advantage strategies to adapt to CMS’ risk adjustment and Value-based Insurance Design modifications announced last week.
  • Prescription drug prices: PBMs and drug companies will face growing skepticism as Senate and House committees continue investigations about price gauging and collusion. Hospitals will be making adjustments to higher operating losses as states cut their Medicaid rolls.
  • Technology: The 7500 VIVA attendees will be doing follow-up to secure entrées for their technologies and solutions among prospective buyers.
  • Physicians: And physicians will intensify campaigns against insurers and hospitals now seen as adversaries while lobbying Congress for more money and greater income opportunities i.e., physician-owned hospitals.
  • Hospitals: On the offense against site-neutral payments, physician owned hospitals, drug prices and inadequate reimbursement from health insurers.

All will soldier on but the food fights in healthcare and broader headwinds facing the industry suggest a tipping point might be near.

I am not a fatalist: the future for healthcare is brighter than its past, but not for everyone. Strategies predicated on protecting the past are obsolete. Strategies that consider consumers incapable of active participation in the delivery and financing of their care are archaic. Strategies that depend on unbridled consolidation and opaque pricing are naïve. And strategies that limit market access for non-traditional players are artifacts of the gilded age gone by when each sector protected its own against infidels outside.

These times call for two changes in every board room and C Suite in of every organization in healthcare:

Broader vision: Understanding healthcare’s future in the broader context of American society, democracy and capitalism: Beltway insiders and academics prognosticate based on lag indicators that are decreasingly valid for forecasting. Media pundits on healthcare fail to report context and underpinnings. Management teams are operating under short-term financial incentives lacking longer-term applicability. Consultants are telling C suites what they want to hear. And boards are being mis-educated about trends of consequence that matter. Understanding the future and building response scenarios is out of sight and out of mind to insiders more comfortable being victims than creators of the new normal.

Board leadership: Equipping boards to make tough decisions: Governance in healthcare is not taken seriously unless an organization’s investors are unhappy, margins are shrinking or disgruntled employees create a stir. Few have a systematic process for looking at healthcare 10 years out and beyond their business. Every Board must refresh its thinking about what tomorrow in healthcare will be and adjust. It’s easier for board to approve plans for the near-term than invest for the long-term: that’s why outsiders today will be tomorrow’s primary incumbents.

So, is U.S healthcare near its tipping point? I don’t know for sure, but it seems clear  the tipping point is nearer than at any point in its history. It’s time for fresh thinking and new players.

Walgreens healthcare division boosts retail giant’s second-quarter earnings

Dive Brief:

  • Walgreens’ growing U.S. healthcare segment is continuing to bolster the retail health chain’s financial performance. The business, which includes value-based provider VillageMD, recorded $1.6 billion in sales in the second quarter, an increase of $1.1 billion from last year.
  • VillageMD sales were up 30%, including a boost from its recent acquisition of medical group Summit Health. Specialty pharmacy Shields Health Solutions grew sales 41%, while at-home care provider CareCentrix’s sales were up 25%.
  • Thanks in part to a jump in revenue in its healthcare segment, Walgreens’ results beat Wall Street expectations even as profit declined more than 20% amid lower COVID-19 vaccine volumes and test sales, higher salary costs, opioid litigation charges and costs associated with its $3.5 billion investment in its Summit acquisition.

Dive Insight:

Walgreens has been working to expand its business scope beyond pharmacies to more consumer-centric healthcare, and has acquired a number of companies to build out its growing U.S. healthcare division.

In its earnings results for the second quarter ended Feb. 28, the business reported gross profit of $32 million, as income from Shields and CareCentrix was offset by VillageMD expansion costs. VillageMD added 133 clinics compared to the second quarter last year.

In November, Walgreens agreed to acquire healthcare provider Summit through VillageMD. The almost $9 billion deal closed in January and included investments from Cigna’s health services division Evernorth.

“With the closing of VillageMD’s acquisition of Summit Health, [Walgreens] is now one of the largest players in primary care,” CEO Roz Brewer said in the company’s earnings release on Tuesday.

VillageMD also acquired a Connecticut-based medical group in March for an undisclosed amount. That group, called Starling Physicians, operates more than 30 primary care and multi-specialty practices across the state.

Starling “will contribute heavily to revenue and EBITDA growth in the second half of 2023,” said Walgreens CFO James Kehoe on a Tuesday morning call with investors. “Overall, the primary care business and the specialty care business is doing really, really well.”

Despite the recent deals, Walgreens is moving beyond its peak investment period in healthcare, management said on the call. VillageMD, for example, plans to concentrate growth and investments in specific markets where it can be “hyper-relevant” moving forward, according to Walgreens President John Standley.