Category Archives: Strategic Change

8 Reasons Hospitals must Re-think their Future

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Affordability, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Inflation, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Media Backlash, Medical Debt, Medicare Funding, Medicare Payment, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Margin Drivers, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Physician Compensation, Physician Discontent, Physician Shortage, Physician Workforce, Strategic Change, Strategy, Strategy and Transformation, Surprise Bills, Survival Mode, Sustainable, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
8 Reasons Hospitals must Re-think their Future

Today is the federal income Tax Day. In 43 states, it’s in addition to their own income tax requirements. Last year, the federal government took in $4.6 trillion and spent $6.2 trillion including $1.9 trillion for its health programs. Overall, 2023 federal revenue decreased 15.5% and spending was down 8.4% from 2022 and the deficit increased to $33.2 trillion. Healthcare spending exceeded social security ($1.351 trillion) and defense spending ($828 billion) and is the federal economy’s biggest expense.

Along with the fragile geopolitical landscape involving relationships with China, Russia and Middle East, federal spending and the economy frame the context for U.S. domestic policies which include its health system. That’s the big picture.

Today also marks the second day of the American Hospital Association annual meeting in DC. The backdrop for this year’s meeting is unusually harsh for its members:

Increased government oversight:

Five committees of Congress and three federal agencies (FTC, DOJ, HHS) are investigating competition and business practices in hospitals, with special attention to the roles of private equity ownership, debt collection policies, price transparency compliance, tax exemptions, workforce diversity, consumer prices and more.

Medicare payment shortfall: 

CMS just issued (last week) its IPPS rate adjustment for 2025: a 2.6% bump that falls short of medical inflation and is certain to exacerbate wage pressures in the hospital workforce. Per a Bank of American analysis last week, “it appears healthcare payrolls remain below pre-pandemic trend” with hospitals and nursing homes lagging ambulatory sectors in recovering.”

Persistent negative media coverage:

The financial challenges for Mission (Asheville), Steward (Massachusetts) and others have been attributed to mismanagement and greed by their corporate owners and reports from independent watchdogs (Lown, West Health, Arnold Ventures, Patient Rights Advocate) about hospital tax exemptions, patient safety, community benefits, executive compensation and charity care have amplified unflattering media attention to hospitals.

Physicians discontent: 

59% of physicians in the U.S. are employed by hospitals; 18% by private equity-backed investors and the rest are “independent”. All are worried about their income. All think hospitals are wasteful and inefficient. Most think hospital employment is the lesser of evils threatening the future of their profession. And those in private equity-backed settings hope regulators leave them alone so they can survive. As America’s Physician Group CEO Susan Dentzer observed: “we knew we’re always going to need hospitals; but they don’t have to look or operate the way they do now. And they don’t have to be predicated on a revenue model based on people getting more elective surgeries than they actually need. We don’t have to run the system that way; we do run the healthcare system that way currently.”

The Value Agenda in limbo:

Since the Affordable Care Act (2010), the CMS Center for Innovation has sponsored and ultimately disabled all but 6 of its 54+ alternative payment programs. As it turns out, those that have performed best were driven by physician organizations sans hospital control. Last week’s release of “Creating a Sustainable Future for Value-Based Care: A Playbook of Voluntary Best Practices for VBC Payment Arrangements.” By the American Medical Association, the National Association of ACOs (NAACOs) and AHIP, the trade group representing America’s health insurance payers is illustrative. Noticeably not included: the American Hospital Association because value-pursuers think for hospitals it’s all talk.

National insurers hostility:  

Large, corporate insurers have intensified reimbursement pressure on hospitals while successfully strengthening their collective grip on the U.S. health insurance sector. 5 insurers control 50% of the U.S. health insurance market: 4 are investor owned. By contrast, the 5 largest hospital systems control 17% of the hospital market: 1 is investor-owned. And bumpy insurer earnings post-pandemic has prompted robust price increases: in 2022 (the last year for complete data and first year post pandemic), medical inflation was 4.0%, hospital prices went up 2.2% but insurer prices increased 5.9%.

Costly capital: 

The U.S. economy is in a tricky place: inflation is stuck above 3%, consumer prices are stable and employment is strong. Thus, the Fed is not likely to drop interest rates making hospital debt more costly for hospitals—especially problematic for public, safety net and rural hospitals. The hospital business is capital intense: it needs $$ for technologies, facilities and clinical innovations that treat medical demand. For those dependent on federal funding (i.e. Medicare), it’s unrealistic to think its funding from taxpayers will be adequate.  Ditto state and local governments. For those that are credit worthy, capital is accessible from private investors and lenders. For at least half, it’s problematic and for all it’s certain to be more expensive.

Campaign 2024 spotlight:

In Campaign 2024, healthcare affordability is an issue to likely voters. It is noticeably missing among the priorities in the hospital-backed Coalition to Strengthen America’s Healthcare advocacy platform though 8 states have already created “affordability” boards to enact policies to protect consumers from medical debts, surprise hospital bills and more.

Understandably, hospitals argue they’re victims. They depend on AHA, its state associations, and its alliances with FAH, CHA, AEH and other like-minded collaborators to fight against policies that erode their finances i.e. 340B program participation, site-neutral payments and others. They rightfully assert that their 7/24/365 availability is uniquely qualifying for the greater good, but it’s not enough. These battles are fought with energy and resolve, but they do not win the war facing hospitals.

AHA spent more than $30 million last year to influence federal legislation but it’s an uphill battle. 70% of the U.S. population think the health system is flawed and in need of transformative change. Hospitals are its biggest player (30% of total spending), among its most visible and vulnerable to market change.

Some think hospitals can hunker down and weather the storm of these 8 challenges; others think transformative change is needed and many aren’t sure. And all recognize that the future is not a repeat of the past.

For hospitals, including those in DC this week, playing victim is not a strategy. A vision about the future of the health system that’s accessible, affordable and effective and a comprehensive plan inclusive of structural changes and funding is needed. Hospitals should play a leading, but not exclusive, role in this urgently needed effort.

Lacking this, hospitals will be public utilities in a system of health designed and implemented by others.

Cain Bros House Calls Kickstarting Innovation (Part 2)

Posted on by • Posted in Differentiation, Disruption, Disruptive Technology, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Innovation, Innovative Care Models, Payvider, Private Equity, Restructure, Return on Investment, Strategic Advantage, Strategic Alignment, Strategic Change, Strategic Leadership, Strategic Resource Allocation, Strategy and Transformation, Strategy Sustainable Long Term • Leave a comment
Cain Bros House Calls Kickstarting Innovation (Part 2)

This is Part 2 of a series by Cain Brothers about the first-ever collaboration conference between health systems and private equity (PE) investment firms. Part 1 of this series addressed the conference’s who, what and where. This commentary will focus on the why. We will explore the underlying forces uniting health systems with private equity during this period of unprecedented industry disruption.

Why Health Systems and PE Need Each Other

On June 13 and 14, 2023, Cain Brothers hosted the first-ever collaboration conference between health systems and private equity (PE) investment firms. Timing, market dynamics and opportunity aligned. The conference was an over-the-moon success. Along with its sponsors, Cain Brothers will seek to expand the conference and align initiatives through the coming years.

Why Now? Healthcare is Stuck and Needs Solutions

As a society, the U.S. is spending ever-higher amounts of money while its population is getting sicker. A maldistribution of facilities and practitioners creates inequitable access to healthcare services in lower-income communities with the highest levels of chronic disease.

New competitors and business models along with unfavorable macro forces, including high inflation, aging demographics and deteriorating payer mixes, are fundamentally challenging health systems’ status quo business practices.

Over the last 50 years, healthcare funding has shifted dramatically away from individuals and toward commercial and governmental payers. In 1970, individual out-of-pocket spending represented 36.5% of total healthcare spending. Today, it is just over 10%.

Governments, particularly the federal government, have become healthcare’s largest payers, funding over 40% of healthcare’s projected $4.7 trillion expenditure in 2023. Individual patients often get lost in the massive payment shuffle between payers and providers.

Meanwhile, governments’ pockets are emptying. As a percentage of GDP, U.S. government debt obligations have grown from 55% in 2001 to 124% currently. With rising interest rates and the commensurate increase in debt service costs, as well as an aging population, there is little to suggest that new funding sources will emerge to fund expansive healthcare expenditures. Scarcity reigns where resources for healthcare providers were once plentiful.

As a consequence, the healthcare industry is entering a period of more fundamental economic limitations. Delaying transformation and expecting society to fund ongoing excess expenditure is not a sustainable long-term strategy. Current economic realities are forcing a dramatic reallocation of resources within the healthcare industry.

The healthcare industry will need to do more with less. Pleading poverty will fall on deaf ears. There will be winners and losers. The nation’s acute care footprint will shrink. For these reasons, health systems are experiencing unprecedented levels of financial distress. Indeed, parts of the system appear on the verge of collapse, particularly in medically underserved rural and urban communities.

More of the same approaches will yield more of the same dismal results. Waking up to this existential challenge, enlightened health systems have become more open to new business models and collaborative partnerships.

Necessity Stimulates Innovation

Two disruptive and value-based business models are on the verge of achieving critical mass. They are risk-bearing “payvider” companies (e.g. Kaiser, Oak Street Health and others) and consumer-friendly, digital-savvy delivery platforms (e.g. OneMedical and innumerable point-solution companies).

Value-based care providers and their investors have the scars and bruises to show for challenging entrenched business practices reliant on fee-for-service (FFS) business models and administrative services only (ASO) contracting. Incumbents have protected their privileged market position well through market leverage and outsized political influence.

Despite market resistance, “payvider” and digital platform companies are emerging from the proverbial “innovators’ chasm.” More early adopters, including those health systems attending the Nashville conference, are embracing value-creating business models. The chart below illustrates the well-trodden path innovation takes to achieve market penetration.

Ironically, during this period of industry disruption, health systems understand they need to deliver greater value to customers to maintain market relevance. It will require great execution and overcoming legacy practices to develop business platforms that incorporate the following value-creating capabilities:

  • Decentralized care delivery (to make care more accessible and lower cost).
  • Root-cause treatment of chronic conditions.
  • Integrated physical and mental healthcare services.
  • Consistent, high-quality consumer experience.
  • Coordinated service delivery.
  • Standardized protocols that improve care quality and outcomes.
  • A truly patient/customer-centric operating orientation.

It’s not what to do, it’s how to get it done that creates the vexing conundrum. Solutions require collaboration. Platform business models replete with strategic partnerships are emerging. Paraphrasing an African proverb, it’s going to take a village to fix healthcare. That’s why the moment for health systems and PE firms to collaborate is now.

PE to the Rescue?

Private equity has become the dominant investment channel for business growth across industries and nations. According to a recent McKinsey report, PE has more than $11.7 trillion in assets under management globally. This is a massive number that has grown steadily. PE changes markets. It turbocharges productivity. It is a relentless force for value creation.

By investing in a wide spectrum of asset classes, private equity has become a vital source of investment returns for pensions, endowments, sovereign wealth funds and insurance companies. Healthcare, given its size and inefficiencies, is a target-rich environment for PE investment and returns. This explains the PE’s growing interest in working with health systems to develop mutually beneficial, value-creating healthcare enterprises.

Despite reports to the contrary, PE firms must invest for the long term. Unlike the stock market, where investors can buy and sell a stock within a matter of seconds, PE firms do not have that luxury. To generate a return, they must acquire and grow businesses over a period of years to create suitable exit strategies.

Money talks. By definition, all buyers of new companies value their purchase more than the capital required for the acquisition. In making purchase decisions, buyers evaluate businesses’ past performance. They also assess how the new business will perform under their stewardship. PE or PE-backed acquirers also consider which future buyers will be most likely acquire the company after a five-plus year development period.

PE’s investment approach can align well with health systems looking to create sustainable long-term businesses tied to their brands and market positioning. PE firms buy and build companies that attract customers, employees and capital over the long term, far beyond their typical five- to seven-year ownership period. Health systems that partner with PE firms to develop companies are the logical acquirers of those companies if they succeed in the marketplace. In this way, a rising valuation creates value for both health systems and their PE partners.

It is important to note that not all PE are created the same. Like health systems, PE firms differ in size, market orientation, investment theses, experience and partner expectations. Given this inherent diversity, it takes time, effort and a shared commitment to value creation for health systems and PE firms to determine whether to become strategic partners. Not all of these partnerships will succeed, but some will succeed spectacularly.

For health system-PE partnerships to work, the principals must align on strategic objectives, governance, performance targets and reporting guidelines. Trust, honest communication and clear expectations are the key ingredients that enable these partnerships to overcome short-term hurdles on the road to long-term success.

Conclusion: Time to Slay Healthcare’s Dragons

Market corrections are hard. As a nation, the U.S. has invested too heavily in hospital-centric, disease-centric, volume-centric healthcare delivery. The result is a fragmented, high-cost system that fails both consumers and caregivers. The marketplace is working to reallocate resources away from failing business practices and into value-creating enterprises that deliver better care outcomes at lower costs with much less friction.

Progressive health systems and PE firms share the goal of creating better healthcare for more Americans. Cain Brothers is committed to advancing collaboration between health systems and PE-backed companies. In addition to the Nashville conference, the firm has combined its historically separate corporate and non-profit coverage groups to foster idea exchange, expand sector understanding and deliver higher value to clients.

The ability to connect and collaborate effectively with private equity to advance business models will differentiate winning health systems. In a consolidating industry, this differentiation is a prerequisite for sustaining competitiveness. It’s adapt or die time. Health systems that proactively embrace transformation will control their future destiny. Those that fail to do so will lose market relevance.

The future of healthcare is not a zero-sum equation. Markets evolve by creating more complex win-win arrangements that create value for customers. No industry requires restructuring more than healthcare. As a nation and an industry, we have the capacity to fix America’s broken healthcare system. The real question is whether we have the collective will, creativity and resourcefulness to power the transformation. We believe the answer to that question is yes.

Paraphrasing Rev. Theodore Parker, the economic arc of the marketplace is long but it bends toward value. Together, health systems and PE firms can power value-creation and transformation more effectively than either sector can do independently. Each needs the other to succeed. Slaying healthcare’s dragons will not be easy but it is doable. It’s going to take a village to fix healthcare.

Thinking Long-Term: Changes in Five Domains will Impact the Future of the U.S. System but Most are Not Prepared

Posted on by • Posted in Change, Change Mindset, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty, Private Equity, Regulation, Regulatory Pressures, Strategic Change, Strategic Imperative, Strategic Leadership, Strategy Sustainable Long Term • Leave a comment
Thinking Long-Term: Changes in Five Domains will Impact the Future of the U.S. System but Most are Not Prepared

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
  • hospitals + employed physicians + insurance plans + venture/private equity investing in start-ups
  • biotech + pharma + clinical data warehousing,
  • 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.

The Physician Employment Model, Continued

Posted on by • Posted in Customer Acquisition, Customer Loyalty, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Labor Spend Management, Physician, Physician Compensation, Physician Employment, Strategic Attention, Strategic Change, Strategic Imperative, Strategic Issue • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/physician-employment-model-continued

From time to time the blogging process stimulates a conversation between the author and the audience. This type of conversation occurred after the publication of my recent blog, “The Hospital Makeover—Part 2.” This blog focused entirely on the current problems, financial and otherwise, of the hospital physician employment model. I received responses from CEOs and other C-suite executives and those responses are very much worth adding to the physician employment conversation. Hospital executives have obviously given the physician employment strategy considerable thought.

One CEO noted that, looking back from a business perspective, physician employment was not actually a doctor retention strategy but, in the long run, more of a customer acquisition and customer loyalty strategy.

The tactic was to employ the physician and draw his or her patients into the hospital ecosystem. And by extension, if the patient was loyal to the doctor, then the patient would also be loyal to the hospital. Perhaps this approach was once legitimate but new access models, consumerism, and the healthcare preferences of at least two generations of patients have challenged the strategic validity of this tactic.

The struggle now—and the financial numbers validate that struggle—is that the physician employment model has become extraordinarily expensive and, from observation, does not scale.

Therefore, the relevant business question becomes what are the most efficient and durable customer acquisition and loyalty models now available to hospitals and health systems?

A few more physician employment observations worth sharing:

  • Primary Care. The physician employment model has generally created a one-size-fits all view of primary care. Consumers, however, want choice. They want 32 flavors, not just vanilla. Alternative primary care models need to match up to fast-changing consumer preferences.
  • Where Physician Employment Works. In general, the employment model has worked where doctor “shift work” is involved. This includes facility-based specialists such as emergency physicians, anesthesiologists, and hospitalists.
  • Chronic Care Management. Traditional physician employment models that drive toward doctor-led physical clinics have generally not led to the improved monitoring and treatment of chronic care patient problems. As a result, the chronic care space will likely see significant disruption from virtual and in-home tools.

All in all, the four very smart observations detailed above continue the hospital physician employment conversation. Please feel free to add your thoughts on this or on other topics of hospital management which may be of interest to you. Thanks for reading.

Entering the next “golden age” of medical innovation

Posted on by • Posted in Cancer Treatment, Clinical Innovation, CRISPR Gene Therapy, CRISPRs, Disruptive Technology, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Innovation, Innovative Care Models, Medical Innovation, mRNA-based Vaccines, Strategic Change, Strategy, Strategy Clinical, Strategy Demand-Driven, Strategy Development, Weight Loss Drugs • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/7f59f737680b/the-weekly-gist-june-30-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

The New York Times Magazine published an encouraging piece about the impressive series of recent medical breakthroughs, many of which have been in the works for decades. 

Challenging the conventional wisdom that disruptive scientific breakthroughs have slowed over time, the article points out that the last five years of medicine have featured the rollout of mRNA vaccines, the first instance of a person receiving CRISPR gene therapy, and development of next-generation cancer treatment and weight-loss drugs. 

The Gist: The expanding innovation pipeline not only brings excitement and optimism for patients and physicians, but also has the potential to dramatically impact long-established care delivery pathways. 

Case in point: used at scale, new weight loss drugs could curb obesity-related chronic diseases and joint replacements—while possibly increasing the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and cancer as more people live longer lives. 

Providers planning for facility and other long-term investments must think through scenarios about how these early, but very promising, innovations could alter demand and shift care delivery needs over coming decades.

America’s Hospitals Need a Makeover

Posted on by • Posted in Financial Distress, Financial Instability, Financial Performance, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Leadership Implementation, Leadership Vision, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Model, Operating Performance, Restructure, Strategic Change, Strategic Imperative, Strategic Leadership, Transformation, Transformation Strategy, Turnaround, Turnaround Plan, Value Proposition • Leave a comment
https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/americas-hospitals-need-makeover?utm_source=mkto&utm_campaign=ken-weekly-blog&utm_medium=em&utm_term=230614&mkt_tok=NjU0LUNOWS0yMjQAAAGMWS9ZAaPCcQa93WPgO_WoUyj-E-eYX9hWxy7LscI1NCpx8dTV71jKu61_wuIefSJE83x84WPLHZdDDUbWi-xRaBc8Fk6dIFOnN4lJoQ-bPSv1

A couple of months ago, I got a call from a CEO of a regional health system—a long-time client and one of the smartest and most committed executives I know. This health system lost tens of millions of dollars in fiscal year 2022 and the CEO told me that he had come to the conclusion that he could not solve a problem of this magnitude with the usual and traditional solutions. Pushing the pre-Covid managerial buttons was just not getting the job done.

This organization is fiercely independent. It has been very successful in almost every respect for many years. It has had an effective and stable board and management team over the past 30 to 40 years.

But when the CEO looked at the current situation—economic, social, financial, operational, clinical—he saw that everything has changed and he knew that his healthcare organization needed to change as well. The system would not be able to return to profitability just by doing the same things it would have done five years or 10 years ago. Instead of looking at a small number of factors and making incremental improvements, he wanted to look across the total enterprise all at once. And to look at all aspects of the enterprise with an eye toward organizational renovation.

I said, “So, you want a makeover.”

The CEO is right. In an environment unlike anything any of us have experienced, and in an industry of complex interdependencies, the only way to get back to financial equilibrium is to take a comprehensive, holistic view of our organizations and environments, and to be open to an outcome in which we do things very differently.

In other words, a makeover.

Consider just a few areas that the hospital makeover could and should address:

There’s the REVENUE SIDE: Getting paid for what you are doing and the severity of the patient you are treating—which requires a focus on clinical documentation improvement and core revenue cycle delivery—and looking for any material revenue diversification opportunities.

There is the relationship with payers: Involving a mix of growth, disruption, and optimization strategies to increase payments, grow share of wallet, or develop new revenue streams.

There’s the EXPENSE SIDE: Optimizing workforce performance, focusing on care management and patient throughput, rethinking the shared services infrastructure, and realizing opportunities for savings in administrative services, purchased services, and the supply chain. While these have been historic areas of focus, organizations must move from an episodic to a constant, ongoing approach.

There’s the BALANCE SHEET: Establishing a parallel balance sheet strategy that will create the bridge across the operational makeover by reconfiguring invested assets and capital structure, repositioning the real estate portfolio, and optimizing liquidity management and treasury operations.

There is NETWORK REDESIGN: Ensuring that the services offered across the network are delivered efficiently and that each market and asset is optimized; reducing redundancy, increasing quality, and improving financial performance.

There is a whole concept around PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION: Developing a deep understanding of how the various components of your business perform, and how to optimize, scale back, or partner to drive further value and operational performance.

Incrementalism is a long-held business approach in healthcare, and for good reason. Any prominent change has the potential to affect the health of communities and those changes must be considered carefully to ensure that any outcome of those changes is a positive one. Any ill-considered action could have unintended consequences for any of a hospital’s many constituencies.

But today, incrementalism is both unrealistic and insufficient.

Just for starters, healthcare executive teams must recognize that back-office expenses are having a significant and negative impact on the ability of hospitals to make a sufficient operating margin. And also, healthcare executive teams must further realize that the old concept of “all things to all people” is literally bringing parts of the hospital industry toward bankruptcy.

As I described in a previous blog post, healthcare comprises some of the most wicked problems in our society—problems that are complex, that have no clear solution, and for which a solution intended to fix one aspect of a problem may well make other aspects worse.

The very nature of wicked problems argues for the kind of comprehensive approach that the CEO of this organization is taking—not tackling one issue at a time in linear fashion but making a sophisticated assessment of multiple solutions and studying their potential interdependencies, interactions, and intertwined effects.

My colleague Eric Jordahl has noted that “reverting to a 2019 world is not going to happen, which means that restructuring is the only option. . . . Where we are is not sustainable and waiting for a reversion is a rapidly decaying option.”

The very nature of the socioeconomic environment makes doing nothing or taking an incremental approach untenable. It is clearly beyond time for the hospital industry makeover.

Headwinds facing Not for Profit Hospital Systems are Mounting: What’s Next?

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Board, Community Benefit, Financial Distress, Financial Performance, Financial Stewardship, Financial Transparency, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Leadership Vision, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Trends, Price Transparency, Strategic Change, Tax Exempt Status • Leave a comment
Headwinds facing Not for Profit Hospital Systems are Mounting: What’s Next? (Corrected Edition)

Correction: An earlier version incorrectly referenced a Texas deal between Houston Methodist and Baylor Scott and White.  News about deals is sensitive and unnecessarily disruptive to reputable organizations like these. I sourced this news from a reputable deal advisor: it was inaccurate. My apology!

Congressional Republicans and the White House spared Main Street USA the pain of defaulting on the national debt last week. No surprise.

Also not surprising: another not-for-profit-mega deal was announced:

  • St. Louis, MO-based BJC HealthCare and Kansas City, MO-based Saint Luke’s Health System announced their plan to form a $9.5B revenue, 28-hospital system with facilities in Missouri, Kansas, and Illinois.

This follows recent announcements by four other NFP systems seeking the benefits of larger scale:

  • Gundersen Health System & Bellin Health (Nov 2022): 11 hospitals, combined ’22 revenue of $2.425B
  • Froedtert Health & ThedaCare (Apr 2023 LOI): 18 hospitals, combined ’22 revenues of $4.6B

And all these moves are happening in an increasingly dicey environment for large, not-for-profit hospital system operators:

  • Increased negative media attention to not-for-profit business practices that, to critics, appear inconsistent with a “NFP” organization’s mission and an inadequate trade for tax exemptions each receives.
  • Decreased demand for inpatient services—the core business for most NFP hospital operations. Though respected sources (Strata, Kaufman Hall, Deloitte, IBIS et al) disagree somewhat on the magnitude and pace of the decline, all forecast decreased demand for traditional hospital inpatient services even after accounting for an increasingly aging population, a declining birthrate, higher acuity in certain inpatient populations (i.e. behavioral health, ortho-neuro et al) and hospital-at-home services.
  • Increased hostility between national insurers and hospitals over price transparency and operating costs.
  • Increased employer, regulator and consumer concern about the inadequacy of hospital responsiveness to affordability in healthcare.
  • And heightened antitrust scrutiny by the FTC which has targeted hospital consolidation as a root cause of higher health costs and fewer choices for consumers. This view is shared by the majorities of both parties in the House of Representatives.

In response, Boards and management in these organizations assert…

  • Health Insurers—especially investor-owned national plans—enjoy unfettered access to capital to fund opportunistic encroachment into the delivery of care vis a vis employment of physicians, expansion of outpatient services and more.
  • Private equity funds enjoy unfettered opportunities to invest for short-term profits for their limited partners while planning exits from local communities in 6 years or less.
  • The payment system for hospitals is fundamentally flawed: it allows for underpayments by Medicaid and Medicare to be offset by secret deals between health insurers and hospitals. It perpetuates firewalls between social services and care delivery systems, physical and behavioral health and others despite evidence of value otherwise. It requires hospitals to be the social safety net in every community regardless of local, state or federal funding to offset these costs.

These reactions are understandable. But self-reflection is also necessary. To those outside the hospital world, lack of hospital price transparency is an excuse. Every hospital bill is a surprise medical bill. Supporting the community safety net is an insignificant but manageable obligation for those with tax exemption status.  Advocacy efforts to protect against 340B cuts and site-neutral payment policies are about grabbing/keeping extra revenue for the hospital. What is means to be a “not-for-profit” anything in healthcare is misleading since moneyball is what all seem to play. And short of government-run hospitals, many think price controls might be the answer.

My take:

The headwinds facing large not-for-profit hospitals systems are strong. They cannot be countered by contrarian messaging alone.

What’s next for most is a new wave of operating cost reductions even as pre-pandemic volumes are restored because the future is not a repeat of the past. Being bigger without operating smarter and differently is a recipe for failure.

What’s necessary is a reset for the entire US health system in which not-for-profit systems play a vital role. That discussion should be led by leaders of the largest NFP systems with the full endorsements of their boards and support of large employers, physicians and public health leaders in their communities.

Everything must be on the table: funding, community benefits, tax exemption, executive compensation, governance, administrative costs, affordability, social services, coverage et al. And mechanisms for inaction and delays disallowed.

It’s a unique opportunity for not-for-profit hospitals. It can’t wait.

The extraordinary decline in not-for-profit healthcare debt issuance

Posted on by • Posted in Capital Formation, Competition, Financial Instability, Financial Performance, Financial Pressure, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Retrenchment, Strategic Change, Strategic Leadership, Strategy • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/55e7cecb9d73/the-weekly-gist-may-12-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

Last month, Eric Jordahl, Managing Director of Kaufman Hall’s Treasury and Capital Markets practice, blogged about the dangers of nonprofit healthcare providers’ extremely conservative risk management in today’s uncertain economy.

Healthcare public debt issuance in the first quarter of 2023 was down almost 70 percent compared to the first quarter of 2022. While not the only funding channel for not-for-profit healthcare organizations,

the level of public debt issuance is a bellwether for the ambition of the sector’s capital formation strategies.

While health systems have plenty of reasons to be cautious about credit management right now, it’s important not to underrate the dangers of being too risk averse. As Jordahl puts it: “Retrenchment might be the right risk management choice in times of crisis, but once that crisis moderates that same strategy can quickly become a risk driver.” 

The Gist: Given current market conditions, there are a host of good reasons why caution reigns among nonprofit health systems, but this current holding pattern for capital spending endangers their future competitiveness and potentially even their survival. 

Nonprofit systems aren’t just at risk of losing a competitive edge to vertically integrated payers, whom the pandemic market treated far more kindly in financial terms, but also to for-profit national systems, like HCA and Tenet, who have been flywheeling strong quarterly results into revamped growth and expansion plans. 

Health systems should be wary of becoming stuck on defense while the competition is running up the score.

In healthcare’s game of Monopoly, one player will control the board

Posted on by • Posted in Disruption, Disruptive Technology, High Deductible Health Plans, Monopoly, Outcomes, Private Equity, Retail Clinic, Retail Healthcare, Retail Pharmacy, Social Determinants of Health, Strategic Advantage, Strategic Alignment, Strategic Change, Strategy • Leave a comment
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/healthcares-game-monopoly-one-player-control-board-robert-pearl-m-d-/?midToken=AQHcpzuK5TbmJA&midSig=15hcmCTnmMeqI1&trk=eml-email_series_follow_newsletter_01-newsletter_content_preview-0-readmore_button_&trkEmail=eml-email_series_follow_newsletter_01-newsletter_content_preview-0-readmore_button_-null-fll5j~lfqr90y7~j8-null-null&eid=fll5j-lfqr90y7-j8

In healthcare, as in life, people devote a lot of time and attention to the way things should be. They’d be better off focusing on what actually could be.

As an example, 57% to 70% of American voters believe our nation “should” adopt a single-payer healthcare system like Medicare For All. Likewise, public health advocates insist that more of the nation’s $4 trillion healthcare budget “should” be spent on combating the social determinants of health: things like housing insecurity, low-wage jobs and other socioeconomic stresses. Neither of these ideas will happen, nor will dozens of positive healthcare solutions that “should” happen.

When the things that should happen don’t, there’s always a reason. In healthcare, the biggest roadblock to change is what I call the conglomerate of monopolies, which includes hospitals, drug companies, private-equity-staked physicians and commercial health insurers. These powerful entities exert monopolistic control over the delivery and financing of the country’s medical care. And they remain fiercely opposed to any change in healthcare that would limit their influence or income.

This article concludes my five-part series on medical monopolies with an explanation of why (a) “should” won’t happen in healthcare but (b) industrywide disruption will.

Why government won’t lead the way

With the U.S. Senate split 51-49 and with virtually no chance of either party securing the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster, Congress will, at most, tinker with the medical system. That means no Medicare For All and no radical redistribution of healthcare funds.

Even if elected officials started down the path of major reform, healthcare’s incumbents would lobby, threaten to withhold campaign contributions (which have exceeded $700 million annually for the past three years) and swat down any legislative effort that might harm their interests.

In American politics, money talks. That won’t change soon, even if voters believe it should.

American employers won’t lead, either

Private payers wield significant power and influence of their own. In fact, the Fortune 500 represents two-thirds of the U.S. GDP, generating more than $16 trillion in revenue. And they provide health insurance to more than half the American population.

With all that clout, you’d think business executives would demand more from healthcare’s conglomerate of monopolies. You might assume they’d want to push back against the prevailing “fee for service” payment model, replacing it with a form of reimbursement that rewards doctors and hospitals for the quality (not quantity) of care they provide. You’d think they would insist that employees get their care through technologically advanced, multispecialty medical groups, which deliver superior outcomes when compared to solo physician practices.

Instead, companies take a more passive position. In fact, employers are willing to shoulder 5% to 6% increases in insurance premiums each year (double their average rate of revenue growth) without putting up much or any resistance.

One reason they tolerate hefty rate hikes—rather than battling insurers, hospitals and doctors— involves a surprising truth about insurance premiums. Business leaders have figured out how to transfer much of their added premium costs to employees in the form of high-deductible health plans. A high deductible plan forces the beneficiary to pay “first dollar” for their medical care, which significantly reduces the premium cost paid by the employer.

Businesses also realize that high deductibles will only financially burden employees who experience an unexpected, catastrophic illness or accident. Meaning, most workers won’t feel the sting in a typical year. As for employees with ongoing, expensive medical problems, employers typically don’t mind watching them walk out the door over high out-of-pocket costs. Their departures only reduce the company’s medical spend in future years.

Finally, businesses know that employee medical costs are tax deductible, which cushions the impact of premium increases. So, what starts as a 6% annual increase ends up costing employees 3%, the government 1% and businesses only 2%. In today’s strong labor market, which boasts the lowest unemployment rate in 54 years, businesses are reluctant to demand changes from healthcare’s biggest players—regardless of whether they should.

Leading the healthcare transformation

If there were a job opening for “Leader of the American Healthcare Revolution,” the applicant pool would be shallow.  

Elected officials would shy away, fearing the loss of campaign contributions. Businesses and top executives would pass on the opportunity, preferring to shift insurance costs to employees and the government. Patients would feel overwhelmed by the task and the power of the incumbents. Doctors, nurses and hospitals—despite their frustrations with the current system—would want to take small steps, fearful of the conglomerate of monopolies and the risks of disruptive change.

To revolutionize American medicine, a leader must possess three characteristics:

  1. Sufficient size and financial reserves to disrupt the entire industry (not just a small piece of it).
  2. Presence across the country to leverage economies of scale.
  3. Willingness to accept the risks of radical change in exchange for the potential to generate massive profits.

Whoever leads the way won’t make these investments because it “should happen.” They will take the chance because the upside is dramatically better than sitting on the sidelines.

The likely winner: American retailers

Amazon, CVS, Walmart and other retail giants are the only entities that fit the revolutionary criteria above. In healthcare’s game of monopoly, they’re the ones willing to take high-stakes risks and capable of disrupting the industry.

For years, these retailers have been acquiring the necessary game pieces (including pharmacy services, health-insurance capabilities and innovative care-delivery organizations) to someday take over American healthcare.

CVS Health owns health insurer Aetna. It bought value-based care company Signify Health for $8 billion, along with national primary care provider OakStreet Health for $10.6 billion. Walmart recently entered into a 10-year partnership with the nation’s largest insurance company, UnitedHealth, gaining access to its 60,000 employed physicians. Walmart then acquired LHC, a massive home-health provider. Finally, Amazon recently purchased primary-care provider One Medical for $3.9 billion and maintains close ties with nearly all of the country’s self-funded businesses.

Harvard business professor Clay Christensen noted that disruptive change almost always comes from outsiders. That’s because incumbents cling to overly expensive and inefficient systems. The same holds true in American healthcare.

The retail giants can see that healthcare is exorbitantly priced, uncoordinated, inconvenient and technologically devoid. And they recognize the hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue and they could earn by offering a consumer-focused, highly efficient alternative.

How will the transformation happen?

Initially, I believe the retail giants will take a two-pronged approach. They’ll (a) continue to promote fee-for-service medical services through their pharmacies and retail clinics (in-store and virtual) while (b) embracing every opportunity to grow their market share in Medicare Advantage, the capitated option for people over age 65.

And within Medicare Advantage, they’ll look for ways to leverage sophisticated IT systems and economies of scale, thus providing care that is better coordinated, technologically supported and lower cost than what’s available now.

Rather than including all community doctors in their network, they’ll rely on their own clinicians, augmented by a limited cohort of the highest-performing medical groups in the area. And rather than including every hospital as an inpatient option, they’ll contract with highly respected centers of excellence for procedures like heart surgery, neurosurgery, total-joint replacement and transplants, trading high volume for low prices.

Over time, they’ll reach out to self-funded businesses to offer proven, superior clinical outcomes, plus guaranteed, lower total costs. Then they’ll make a capitated model their preferred insurance plan for all companies and individuals. Along the way, they’ll apply consumer-driven medical technologies, including next generations of ChatGPT, to empower patients, provide continuous care for people with chronic diseases and ensure the medical care provided is safe and most efficacious.

Tommy Lasorda, the long-time manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, once remarked, “There are three types of people. Those who watch what happens, those that make it happen and those who wonder what just happened.”

Lasorda’s quip describes healthcare today. The incumbents are watching closely but failing to see the big picture as retailer acquire medical groups and home health capabilities. The retail giants are making big moves, assembling the pieces needed to completely transform American medicine as we think of it today. Finally, tens of thousands of clinicians and thousands of hospital administrators are either ignoring or underestimating the retail giants. And, when they get left behind, they’ll wonder: What just happened?

The conglomerate of monopolies rule medicine today. Amazon, CVS and Walmart believe they should rule. And if I had to bet on who will win, I’d put my money on the retail giants.