Category Archives: Strategic Imperative

In Healthcare, Near-Sightedness is “Normalcy”

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Consolidation, Integrated Delivery System, Leadership Vision, Medicare Advantage, Strategic Imperative, Strategic Leadership, Strategy and Transformation, Strategy Sustainable Long Term • Leave a comment
In Healthcare, Near-Sightedness is “Normalcy”

Like everyone else, I am thankful the election end is in sight and a degree of “normalcy” might return. By next week, we should know who will sit in the White House, the 119th Congress and 11 new occupants of Governors’ offices. But a return to pre-election normalcy in politics is a mixed blessing.

“Normalcy” in our political system means willful acceptance that our society is hopelessly divided by income, education, ethnic and political views. It’s benign acceptance of a 2-party system, 3-branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) and federalism that imposes limits on federal power vis a vis the Constitution.

Our political system’ normalcy counts success by tribal warfare and election wins. Normalcy is about issues de jour prioritized by each tribe, not longer-term concern for the greater good in our country. Normalcy in our political system is near-sightedness—winning the next election and controlling public funds.

Comparatively, “normalcy” in U.S. healthcare is also tribal:

while the majority of U.S. adults believe the status quo is not working well but recognize its importance, each tribe has a different take on its future. The majority of the public think price transparency, limits on consolidation, attention to affordability and equitable access are needed but the major tribes—hospitals, insurers, drug companies, insurers, device-makers—disagree on how changes should be made. And each is focused on short-term issues of interest to their members with rare attention to longer-term issues impacting all.

Near-sightedness in healthcare is manifest in how executives are compensated, how partnerships are formed and how Boards are composed.

Organizational success is defined by 1-access to private capital (debt, private equity, strategic investors), 2-sustainnable revenue-growth, 4- scalable costs, 4-opportunities for consolidation (the exit strategy of choice for most) and 5-quarterly earnings. A long-term view of the system’s future is rarely deliberated by boards save attention to AI or the emergence of Big Tech. A vision for an organization’s future based on long-term macro-trends and outside-in methodologies is rare: long-term preparedness is “appreciated” but near-term performance is where attention is vested.

It pays to be near-sighted in healthcare: our complex regulatory processes keep unwelcome change at bay and our archaic workforce rules assure change resistance. …until it doesn’t. Industries like higher education, banking and retailing have experienced transformational changes that take advantage of new technologies and consumer appetite for alternatives that are new and better. The organizations winning in this environment balance near-sightedness with market attentiveness and vision.

Looking ahead, I have no idea who the winners and losers will be in this election cycle. I know, for sure, that…

  • The final result will not be known tomorrow and losers will challenge the results.
  • Short-term threats to the healthcare status quo will be settled quickly. First up: Congress will set aside Medicare pay cuts to physicians (2.8%) scheduled to take effect in January for the 5th consecutive year. And “temporary” solutions to extend marketplace insurance subsidies, facilitate state supervision of medication abortion services and telehealth access will follow quickly.
  • Think tanks will be busy producing white papers on policy changes supported by their funding sponsors.
  • And trade associations will produce their playbooks prioritizing legislative priorities and relationship opportunities with state and federal officials for their lobbyists.

Near-term issues for each tribe will get attention: the same is true in healthcare. Discussion about and preparation for healthcare’s longer-term future is a rarity in most healthcare C suites and Boardrooms. Consider these possibilities:

  • Medicare Advantage will be the primary payer for senior health: federal regulators will tighten coverage, network adequacy, premiums and cost sharing with enrollees to private insurers reducing enrollee choices and insurer profits.
  • To address social determinants of health, equitable access and comprehensive population health needs, regional primary care, preventive and public health programs will be fully integrated.
  • Large, organized groups/networks of physicians will be the preferred “hubs” for health services in most markets.
  • Interoperability will be fully implemented.
  • Physicians will unionize to assert their clinical autonomy and advance their economic interests.
  • The federal government (and some states) will limit tax exemptions for profitable not-for-profit health systems.
  • The prescription drug patent system will be modernized to expedite time-to-market innovations and price-value determinations.
  • The health insurance market will focus on individual (not group) coverage.
  • Congress/states will impose price controls on prescription drugs and hospital services.
  • Employers will significantly alter their employee benefits programs to reduce their costs and shift accountability to their employees. Many will exit altogether.
  • Regional integrated health systems that provide retail, hospital, physician, public health and health insurance services will be the dominant source of services.
  • Alternative-payment models used by Medicare to contract with providers will be completely overhauled.
  • Consumers will own and control their own medical records.
  • Consolidation premised on community benefits, consumer choices and lower costs will be challenged aggressively and reparation pursued in court actions.
  • Voters will pass Medicare for All legislation.

And many others.

A process for defining of the future of the U.S. health system and a bipartisan commitment by hospitals, physicians, drug companies, insurers and employers to its implementation are needed–that’s the point. 

Near-sightedness in our political system and in our health, system is harmful to the greater good of our society and to the voters, citizens, patients, and beneficiaries all pledge to serve.

As respected healthcare marketer David Jarrard wrote in his blog post yesterday “As the aggravated disunity of this political season rises and falls, healthcare can be a unique convener that embraces people across the political divides, real or imagined. Invite good-minded people to the common ground of healthcare to work together for the common good that healthcare must be.”

Thinking and planning for healthcare’s long-term future is not a luxury: it’s an urgent necessity. It’s also not “normal” in our political and healthcare systems.

Fitch says lower operating margins may be the new normal for nonprofit hospitals

Posted on by • Posted in Credit Downgrade, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Debt Capacity, Debt Levels, Debt Service, Debt Service Coverage Ratio, Financial Reserves, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Margin Drivers, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Outpatient Migration, Strategic Imperative • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/09f9563acfcf/gist-weekly-february-2-2024?e=d1e747d2d8

On Monday, Fitch Ratings, the New York City-based credit rating agency, released a report predicting that the US not-for-profit hospital sector will see average operating margins reset in the one-to-two percent range, rather than returning to historical levels of above three percent. 

Following disruptions from the pandemic that saw utilization drop and operating costs rise, hospitals have seen a slower-than-expected recovery.

But, according to Fitch, these rebased margins are unlikely to lead to widespread credit downgrades as most hospitals still carry robust balance sheets and have curtailed capital spending in response. 

The Gist: As labor costs stabilize and volumes return, the median hospital has been able to maintain a positive operating margin for the past ten months. 

But nonprofit hospitals are in a transitory period, one with both continued challenges—including labor costs that rebased at a higher rate and ongoing capital restraints—and opportunities—including the increase in outpatient demand, which has driven hospital outpatient revenue up over 40 percent from 2020 levels.

While the future margin outlook for individual hospitals will depend on factors that vary greatly across markets, organizations that thrive in this new era will be the ones willing to pivot, take risks, and invest heavily in outpatient services.

Health systems risk being reduced to their core

Posted on by • Posted in Competition, Competition on Price, Core Business, Core Competencies, Core Services, Cost Management, Cost Structure, Cost Variation, Cost-Effective, Disruption, Financial Stewardship, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Margin Drivers, Operating Performance, Strategic Alignment, Strategic Imperative, Strategic Leadership, Strategy, Strategy and Transformation, Streamlining Operations • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/9b1afd2b4afb/the-weekly-gist-december-1-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

This week’s graphic features our assessment of the many emerging competitive challenges to traditional health systems.

Beyond inflation and high labor costs, health systems are struggling because competitors—ranging from vertically integrated payers to PE-backed physician groups—are effectively stripping away profitable services and moving them to lower-cost care sites. The tandem forces of technological advancement, policy changes, and capital investment have unlocked the ability of disruptors to enter market segments once considered safely within health system control. 

While health systems’ most-exposed services, like telemedicine and primary care, were never key revenue sources (although they are key referral drivers), there are now more competitors than ever providing diagnostics and ambulatory surgery, which health systems have relied on to maintain their margins. 

Moving forward, traditional systems run the risk of being “crammed down” into a smaller portfolio of (largely unprofitable) services: the emergency department, intensive care unit, and labor and delivery. 

Health systems cannot support their operations by solely providing these core services, yet this is the future many will face if they don’t emulate the strategies of disruptors by embracing the site-of-care shift, prioritizing high-margin procedures, rethinking care delivery within the hospital, and implementing lower-cost care models that enable them to compete on price.

The Conundrum facing Not-for-Profit Hospital Systems

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Community Benefit, Competition, Conundrum, Executive Compensation, For-Profit, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership Vision, Non-Profit Healthcare Industry, Private Equity, Public Perception, Public Understanding, Strategic Imperative, Strategic Leadership, Tax Exempt Status • Leave a comment
The Conundrum facing Not-for-Profit Hospital Systems

Does hospital ownership matter? According to a study published last week in Health Affairs Scholar, NOT MUCH. That’s a problem for not-for-profit hospitals who claim otherwise.

58% of U.S. hospitals are not-for-profit hospitals; the rest are public (19%) or investor-owned (24%). In recent months, not-for-profit systems have faced growing antagonism from regulators and critics who challenge the worthwhileness of their tax exemptions and reasonableness of the compensation paid their top executives.

The lion’s share of this negative attention is directed at large, not-for-profit hospital system operators. Case in point: last week, Banner Health (AZ) joined the ranks of high-profile operators taken to task in the Arizona Republic for their CEO’s compensation contrasting it to not-for-profit sectors in which compensation is considerably lower.

Unflattering attention to NFP hospitals, especially the big-name systems, is unlikely to subside in the near-term. U.S. healthcare has become a winner-take-all battleground increasingly dominated by large-scale, investor-owned interests in hospitals, medical groups, insurance, retail health in pursuit of a piece of the $4.6 trillion pie. 

The moral high ground once the domain of not-for-profit hospitals is shaky.

The NYU study examined whether hospital ownership influenced decisions made by consumers: they found “Fewer than one-third of respondents (29.5%) indicated that hospital status had ever been relevant to them in making decisions about where to seek care…significantly more important to respondents who indicated the lowest health literacy—74.7% of whom answered the key question affirmatively—than it was for people who indicated high health literacy, of whom only 18.3% found hospital ownership status to be relevant…also considerably more relevant for people working in health care than for those who did not work in health care (61.0% vs 24.5%)…

We found little evidence that hospital nonprofit status influenced Americans’ decisions about where to seek care. Ownership status was relevant for fewer than 30% of respondents and preference was greatest overall for public hospitals. Only 30–45% of respondents could correctly identify the ownership status of nationally recognized hospitals, and fewer than 30% could identify their local hospitals.

These findings suggest that contract failure does not currently provide a justification of nonprofit hospitals’ value; further scrutiny of tax exemption for nonprofit hospitals is warranted.”

Are NFP hospitals concerned? YES. It’s reality as systems address near term operational challenges and long-term questions about their strategies.

Last weekend, I facilitated the 4th Annual Chief Strategy Officers Roundtable in Austin TX sponsored by Lumeris. The group consisted of senior-level strategists from 11 not-for-profit systems and one for-profit. In one session, each reacted to 50 future state scenarios in terms of “likelihood” and “disruptive impact” in the NEAR term (3-5 years) and LONG TERM (8-10 years) using a 1 to 10 scale with 10 HI.

From these data and the discussion that followed, there’s consensus that the U.S. healthcare market is unlikely to change dramatically long-term, their short-term conditions will be tougher and their challenges unique.

  • ‘Near-term cost containment is a priority. Hospitals are here-to-stay, but operating them will be harder.’
  • ‘Increased scale and growth are necessary imperatives for their systems.’
  • ‘Hospital systems will compete in a market wherein private capital and investor ownership will play a growing role, insurers will be hostile and value will the primary focus of cost-reduction by purchasers and policymakers.’
  • ‘Distinctions between not-for-profit and for-profit hospitals are significant.’
  • ‘Conditions for hospitals will be tougher as insurers play a stronger hand in shaping the future.’

Given the NYU study findings (above) concluding NFP ownership has marginal impact on hospital choices made by consumers, it’s understandable NFPs are anxious.

My take:

The issues facing not-for-profit hospitals in the U.S. are unique and complex. Per the commentary of the CSOs, their market conditions are daunting and major changes in their structure, funding and regulation unlikely.

That means lack of public understanding of their unique role is a conundrum. 

Paul

PS: Issues about CEO compensation in healthcare are touchy and often unfair.

In every major NFP system, comp is set by the Independent Board Compensation Committee with outside consultative counsel. The vast majority of these CEOs aren’t in the job for the money joining their workforce in pursuit of the unique higher calling afforded service leaders in NFP 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.

Is the Traditional Hospital Strategy Aging Out?

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Business Case, Business Model, Financial Distress, Financial Performance, Financial Reserves, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Leadership Culture, Leadership Intent, Leadership Legacy, Leadership Values, Leadership Vision, Leadership Will, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Model, Operating Performance, Strategic Alignment, Strategic Imperative, Strategic Issue, Strategic Leadership, Strengths, Value, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/traditional-hospital-strategy-aging-out

On October 1, 1908, Ford produced the first Model T automobile. More than 60 years later, this affordable, mass produced, gasoline-powered car was still the top-selling automobile of all time. The Model T was geared to the broadest possible market, produced with the most efficient methods, and used the most modern technology—core elements of Ford’s business strategy and corporate DNA.

On April 25, 2018, almost 100 years later, Ford announced that it would stop making all U.S. internal-combustion sedans except the Mustang.

The world had changed. The Taurus, Fusion, and Fiesta were hardly exciting the imaginations of car-buyers. Ford no longer produced its U.S. cars efficiently enough to return a suitable profit. And the internal combustion technology was far from modern, with electronic vehicles widely seen as the future of automobiles.

Ford’s core strategy, and many of its accompanying products, had aged out. But not all was doom and gloom; Ford was doing big and profitable business in its line of pickups, SUVs, and -utility vehicles, led by the popular F-150.

It’s hard to imagine the level of strategic soul-searching and cultural angst that went into making the decision to stop producing the cars that had been the basis of Ford’s history. Yet, change was necessary for survival. At the time, Ford’s then-CEO Jim Hackett said, “We’re going to feed the healthy parts of our business and deal decisively with the areas that destroy value.”

So Ford took several bold steps designed to update—and in many ways upend—its strategy. The company got rid of large chunks of the portfolio that would not be relevant going forward, particularly internal combustion sedans. Ford also reorganized the company into separate divisions for electric and internal combustion vehicles. And Ford pivoted to the future by electrifying its fleet.

Ford did not fully abandon its existing strategies. Rather, it took what was relevant and successful, and added that to the future-focused pivot, placing the F-150 as the lead vehicle in its new electric fleet.

This need for strategic change happens to all large organizations. All organizations, including America’s hospitals and health systems, need to confront the fact that no strategic plan lasts forever.

Over the past 25-30 years, America’s hospitals and health systems based their strategies on the provision of a high-quality clinical care, largely in inpatient settings. Over time, physicians and clinics were brought into the fold to strengthen referral channels, but the strategic focus remained on driving volume to higher-acuity services.

More recently, the longstanding traditional patient-physician-referral relationship began to change. A smarter, internet-savvy, and self-interested patient population was looking for different aspects of service in different situations. In some cases, patients’ priority was convenience. In other cases, their priority was affordability. In other cases, patients began going to great lengths to find the best doctors for high-end care regardless of geographic location. In other cases, patients wanted care as close as their phone.

Around the country, hospitals and health systems have seen these environmental changes and adjusted their strategies, but for the most part only incrementally. The strategic focus remains centered on clinical quality delivered on campus, while convenience, access, value, affordability, efficiency, and many virtual innovations remain on the strategic periphery.

Health system leaders need to ask themselves whether their long-time, traditional strategy is beginning to age out. And if so, what is the “Ford strategy” for America’s health systems?

The questions asked and answered by Ford in the past five years are highly relevant to health system strategic planning at a time of changing demand, economic and clinical uncertainty, and rapid innovation. For example, as you view your organization in its entirety, what must be preserved from the existing structure and operations, and what operations, costs, and strategies must leave? And which competencies and capabilities must be woven into a going-forward structure?

America’s hospitals and health systems have an extremely long history—in some cases, longer than Ford’s. With that history comes a natural tendency to stick with deeply entrenched strategies. Now is the time for health systems to ask themselves, what is our Ford F150? And how do we “electrify” our strategic plan going forward?

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.

Value-based Care

Posted on by • Posted in Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Artificial Intelligence, Board, Electronic Health Record (EHR), Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Stakeholder Communication, Strategic Imperative, Strategy, Strategy Development, Value Based Care Model • Leave a comment
Frontline Voices: What Artificial Intelligence and Value-based Models mean for Not-for-Profit Hospitals and Health Systems

Context: 

Value-based care is widely accepted as key to the health system’s transformation. Changing provider incentives from volume to value and engaging provider organizations in risk-sharing models with payers (including Medicare) are means to that end. But implementation vis a vis value-based models has produced mixed results thus far and current financial pressures facing providers (esp. hospitals) have stymied momentum in pursuit of value in healthcare. Last week, CMS indicated it intends to continue its value-based insurance design (VBID) model which targets insurers, and last month announced continued commitment to its bundled payment and ACO models. But they’re considered ‘works in process’ that, to date, have attracted early adopters with mixed results.

Questions:

What’s ahead for the value agenda in healthcare? Is it here to stay or will something replace it? How is your organization adapting?

Key takeaways from Discussion:

  • ‘Not-for-profit hospitals and health systems are fighting to survive: near-term investments in value-based models are unlikely unless they’re associated with meaningful near-term savings that hospitals and physicians realize. Unlike investor-owned systems and private-equity backed providers, NFP systems face unique regulatory constraints, increasingly limited access to capital hostile treatment in media coverage and heavy-handed treatment by health insurers.’
  • ‘Demonstrating value in healthcare remains its most important issue but implementing policies that advance a system-wide definition of value and business models that create a fair return on investment for risk-taking organizations are lacking. The value agenda must be adopted by commercial payers, employers and Medicaid and not limited to/driven by Medicare-alone.’
  • ‘The ACO REACH model is promising but hospitals are hesitant to invest in its implementation unless compelled by direct competitive threats and/or market share leakage. It involves a high level of financial risk and relationship stress with physicians if not implemented effectively.’
  • ‘Health insurers are advantaged over provider organizations in implementing value-strategies: they have data, control of provider networks and premium dollars.’
  • ‘Any and all value models must directly benefit physicians: burnout and frustration are palpable, and concern about income erosion is widespread.’
  • ‘Value in healthcare is a long-term aspirational goal: getting there will be tough.’

My take:

Hospitals, health systems, medical groups and other traditional providers are limited in their abilities to respond to opportunities in AI and value-based models by near-term operating margin pressures and uncertainty about their finances longer-term. Risk avoidance is reality in most settings, so investments in AI-solutions and value-based models must produce near-term ROI: that’s reality. Outsiders that operate in less-regulated environments with unlimited access to capital are advantaged in accessing and deploying AI and value-based model pursuits. Thus, partnerships with these may be necessary for most traditional providers.

AI is tricky for providers:

Integration of AI capabilities in hospitals and medical practices will produce added regulator and media scrutiny about data security and added concern for operational transparency. It will also prompt added tension in the workforce as new operational protocols are implemented and budgets adapted.  And cooperation with EHR platforms—EPIC, Meditech, Cerner et al—will be essential to implementation. But many think that unlikely without ‘forced’ compliance.

Value-based models:

Participation in value-based models is a strategic imperative: in the near term, it adds competencies necessary to network design and performance monitoring, care coordination, risk and data management. Longer-term, it enables contracting directly with commercial payers and employers—Medicare alone will not drive the value-imperative in US healthcare successfully. Self-insured employers, private health insurers, and consumers will intensify pressure on providers for appropriate utilization, lower costs, transparent pricing, guaranteed outcome and satisfying user experiences. They’ll force consumerism and value into the system and reward those that respond effectively.

The immediate implications for all traditional provider organizations, especially not-for-profit health systems like the 11 who participated in Chicago last week, are 4:

  • Education: Boards, managers and affiliated clinicians need ongoing insight about generative AI and value-based models as they gain traction in the industry.
  • Strategy Development: Strategic planning models must assess the impacts of AI and value-based models in future-state scenario plans.
  • Capital: Whether through strategic partnerships with solution providers or capital reserves, investing in both of these is necessary in the near-term. A wait-and-see strategy is a recipe for long-term irrelevance.
  • Stakeholder Communication: Community leaders, regulators, trading partners, health system employees and media will require better messaging that’s supported by verifiable facts (data). Playing victim is not a sustainable communications strategy.

Generative AI and value-based models are the two most compelling changes in U.S. healthcare’s future. They’re not a matter of IF, but how and how soon.

The shrinking book of “profitable” health system business 

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Business Case, Business Model, Business Transformations, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Leadership Vision, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Model, Operating Performance, Service Line Profitability, Service Line Rationalization, Strategic Change, Strategic Imperative, Strategic Issue, Strategic Leadership, Strategy • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/89b749fe24b8/the-weekly-gist-february-17-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

This week, a health system CFO referenced the thoughts we shared last week about many hospitals rethinking physician employment models, and looking to pull back on employing more doctors, given current financial challenges. He said, “We’ve employed more and more doctors in the hope that we’re building a group that will allow us to pivot to total cost management.

But we can’t get risk, so we’ve justified the ‘losses’ on physician practices by thinking we’re making it up with the downstream volume the medical group delivers.

But the reality now is that we’re losing money on most of that downstream business. If we just keep adding doctors that refer us services that don’t make a margin, it’s not helping us.” 


While his comment has myriad implications for the physician organization, it also highlights a broader challenge we’ve heard from many health system executives: a smaller and smaller portion of the business is responsible for the overall system margin.

While the services that comprise the still-profitable book vary by organization (NICU, cardiac procedures, some cancer management, complex orthopedics, and neurosurgery are often noted), executives have been surprised how quickly some highly profitable service lines have shifted. One executive shared, “Orthopedics used to be our most profitable service line. But with rising labor costs and most of the commercial surgeries shifting outpatient, we’re losing money on at least half of it.”

These conversations highlight the flaws in the current cross-subsidy based business model. Rising costs, new competitors, and a challenging contracting environment have accelerated the need to find new and sustainable models to deliver care, plan for growth and footprint—and find a way to get paid that aligns with that future vision.