Category Archives: Strategic Resource Allocation

Days Cash on Hand Does Not Tell the Full Liquidity Story

Posted on by • Posted in Cash to Debt Ratio, Credit Quality, Credit Rating Committee, Credit Rating Process, Credit Ratings, Days Cash on Hand, Financial Ratios, Financial Reserves, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Liquidity, Strategic Resource Allocation • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/blog/days-cash-hand-does-not-tell-full-liquidity-story

Days cash on hand is one of the most important metrics in hospital credit analysis. The ratio calculates an organization’s unrestricted cash and investments relative to daily operating expenses.

Here’s a computation commonly used to calculate days cash on hand:

[Unrestricted cash and investments*365 days] / [Annual operating expenses – non-cash expenses]

Math aside, let’s unpack what days cash on hand really tells us. Days cash on hand gives an indication of a hospital’s flexibility and financial health. Essentially, it tells us how long a hospital could continue to operate if cash flow were to stop. From a ratings perspective, the higher the days cash, the better, to create a cushion or rainy-day fund for unexpected events.

While the sheer abatement of cash flow feels like a doomsday scenario, we don’t have to look far back to see examples. The shutdown in the early days of Covid and the recent Change Healthcare cyberattack are examples of events that can materially impact cash flow. While these may be considered extreme, there are plenty of more common events that can disrupt cash flow, including a delay in supplemental funding, an IT installation, a change in Medicare fiscal intermediary, an escalation in construction costs, or the bankruptcy of a payer.

Size and diversified business enterprises can impact days cash on hand. For example, small hospitals with outsized cash positions relative to operations often report a dizzying level of days cash on hand. Health systems with wholly owned health plans often show lower days cash when compared to like-sized peers without health plans. Analysts will also review a hospital’s cash-to-debt ratio, which is an indication of leverage and compares absolute unrestricted cash to long-term obligations. Cash-to-debt creates a more comparable ratio across the portfolio.

In the years leading up to the pandemic, the days cash on hand median increased steadily as the industry went through a period of stable financial performance and steady equity market returns. Hospitals took advantage of an attractive debt market to fund large capital projects or reimburse for prior capital spending. The median crested over 200 days. As discussed during our March 20, 2024, rating agency webinar, days cash median for 2023 is expected to decline or remain flat at best, not because of an increase in capital spending or deficit operations, but because daily expenses (mainly driven by labor) will grow faster than absolute cash. Expenses will outrun the bear, so to speak.

Days cash on hand will remain a pillar liquidity ratio for the industry, but equally important is the concept of liquidity. Days cash on hand doesn’t tell the whole story regarding liquidity. A hospital may compute that it has, say, 200 days cash on hand, but that calculation is based on total unrestricted cash and investments, which usually includes long-term investment pools. A sizable portion of that 200 days may not be accessible on a daily basis.

Recall that during the 2008 liquidity crisis, many hospitals had large portions of their unrestricted investment pools tied up in illiquid investments. When you needed it the most, you couldn’t get it. 2008 was a watershed moment that starkly showed the difference between wealth and liquidity and the growing importance of the latter. Days cash on hand didn’t necessarily mean “on hand.” Many hospitals scrambled for liquidity, which came in the form of expensive bank lines because liquidating equity investments in a down market would come at a huge cost.

Nearly overnight, daily liquidity became a fundamental part of credit analysis.

While the events were different, Covid and Change Healthcare followed the same fact pattern: crisis occurred, cash flow abated, and hospitals scrambled for liquidity, drawing on lines of credit to fund operating needs. Within a quick minute healthcare went “back to the future,” and undoubtedly, there will be another liquidity crisis ahead.

Rating reports now include information on investment allocation and diversification within those investments, and report new ratios such as monthly liquidity to total cash and investments. A hospital with below average days cash on hand or cash-to-debt may receive more attention in the rating report regarding immediately accessible funds.

Irrespective of a high or low cash position or rating category, providing rating analysts with a schedule highlighting where management would turn to when liquidity is needed would be well received. For example, do you draw on lines of credit, hit depository accounts, pause capital, extend payables, or liquidate investments, and in what order? Some health systems are taking this a step further with an in-depth sophisticated analysis to quantify their operating risks and size their liquidity needs accordingly, which we call Strategic Resource Allocation. This analysis would boost an analyst’s confidence in management’s preparedness for the next crisis with the segmenting of true cash “on hand.” It would also help ensure that, when the next crisis arrives, management will know where to turn to maintain liquidity and meet daily cash needs.

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.

Tenet, HCA, Optum compete for market share in emerging battleground

Posted on by • Posted in Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASC), Competition, For-Profit, Investment Strategy, Investments, Investor Owned, Outpatient Care, Outpatient Medical Management, Outpatient Migration, Outpatient Surgery, Private Equity, Strategic Attention, Strategic Resource Allocation, Strategic Target Monitoring, Strategy, Strategy National • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/tenet-hca-optum-compete-for-market-share-of-emerging-battleground.html?utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter

Health systems are ramping up investments in ambulatory surgery centers and forming joint ventures with outpatient partners to accelerate the development of new centers. The trend is picking up steam as complex procedures increasingly move to ASCs, which are steadily growing as the preferred site of service for physicians, patients and payers. 

Tenet Healthcare, one of the largest for-profit health systems in the country, has been paying close attention to outpatient migration for years and has cemented itself as the leader in the ASC space. It now operates more than 445 ASCs — the most of any health system — and 24 surgical hospitals, according to its first-quarter earnings report. 

United Surgical Partners International, Tenet’s ASC company, strengthened its footing in the ASC market after its $1.2 billion acquisition of Towson, Md.-based SurgCenter Development and its more than 90 ASCs in December 2021. Over the next several years, USPI will inject more than $250 million into ASC mergers and acquisitions and work with SurgCenter to develop at least 50 more ASCs, according to terms of the transaction. 

The SurgCenter acquisition was completed shortly after Tenet sold five Florida hospitals to Dallas-based Steward Health Care for $1.1 billion. In 2022, Tenet also acquired Dallas-based Baylor Scott & White Health’s 5 percent equity position in USPI to own 100 percent of the company’s voting shares and paid $78 million to acquire ownership of eight Compass Surgical Partners ASCs.

These ASC investments and hospital sales make it clear that CEO Saum Sutaria, MD, sees surgery centers to become Tenet’s main growth driver in the coming years. Dr. Sutaria has described USPI as the company’s “gem for the future,” and aims to have 575 to 600 ASCs by the end of 2025.

While Tenet continues to increase its ASC market share, its closest competitor is Deerfield, Ill.-based SCA Health, which UnitedHealth Group’s Optum acquired for $2.3 billion several years ago. 

SCA has more than 320 ASCs, but has expanded its focus on value-based care under Optum and is doubling down on supporting physicians across the specialty care continuum rather than operating as an ASC company “singularly focused on partnering with surgeons in their ASCs,” SCA CEO Caitlin Zulla told Becker’s.

While Tenet may operate the most ASCs among health systems, it lags behind Optum in terms of the number of physicians it employs. Optum is now affiliated with more than 70,000 physicians, making it the largest employer of physicians in the country, and is continuing to add to that through mergers and acquisitions.

Nashville, Tenn.-based HCA Healthcare, another for-profit system, employs or is affiliated with more than 47,000 physicians, but is also ramping up its surgery center portfolio. HCA comprises 2,300 ambulatory care facilities, including more than 150 ASCs, freestanding emergency rooms, urgent care centers and physician clinics, according to its first-quarter earnings report. 

Like Tenet and Optum, HCA is heavily focused on expanding its outpatient portfolio. The company ended 2021 with 125 ASCs, four more than it had at the end of 2020, and added more than 25 ASCs last year. It is focused on both developing and acquiring surgery centers in the coming years. 

The other big ASC operators include Nashville, Tenn.-based AmSurg, with more than 250 surgery centers, and Brentwood, Tenn.-based Surgery Partners, with more than 120 centers. Surgery Partners spent about $250 million on ASCs acquisitions last year and recently signed collaboration agreements with two large health systems —- Salt Lake City-based Intermountain Health and Columbus-based OhioHealth. 

Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente has 62 freestanding ASCs and outpatient surgery departments on its hospital campuses, a spokesperson for the health system told Becker’s. 

The Not-for-Profit Healthcare Resource Chasm

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Capital Formation, Capital Formation Program, Debt Covenant Default, Debt Issuance, Debt Service Covenants, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Performance Improvement, Public Debt Issuance, Resource Portfolio, Resource Priorities, Strategic Balance Sheet Management, Strategic Resource Allocation • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/blog/not-profit-healthcare-resource-chasm

Current Funding Environment

Healthcare debt issuance remains incredibly light. How long can a capital-intensive industry tolerate limited capital generation? Is pressure building to some tipping point when the need for capital and liquidity will outweigh defending a credit-rating position or avoiding what seems like high-cost debt? The sector generated a lot of internal and external capital in 2020-2021, but the falloff across all channels has been dramatic and residual resource positions are deteriorating.

The Need for Enterprise Performance Improvement

Recent economic releases—jobs report to CPI to PPI to retail sales—all suggest that the Federal Reserve’s efforts to bring inflation into line are yielding slower than hoped for results. The expectation is continued Fed tightening (higher rates), with a range of voices suggesting the Fed will be forced to push rates high enough to trigger a recession. Every restaurant and shop in the small town I live near has a “we’re hiring” sign in its window and each was jam-packed with very active consumers this past Presidents’ Day weekend. If success in taming inflation requires a broad-based hiring and economic slowdown, it feels like we have a long way to go.

Markets keep doing their thing, which frequently seems disconnected from the Fed’s thing. Both 30-year Treasuries and MMD are just starting to bump up against 30-year averages, the 10-year Treasury has moved higher over the past several weeks but remains below Effective Fed Funds, and the Chicago Fed’s National Financial Conditions Index continues to suggest relatively accommodative overall financial conditions.

While I question the depth and reliability of fixed income markets, the funding environment doesn’t seem as bad as the very low debt issuance activity would suggest. Channeling Shakespeare, it seems that “the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves,”

meaning that low debt issuance is coming out of healthcare’s very profound resource problem rather than externalities.

I concluded a long time ago that not-for-profit healthcare credit and capital management is about strategic resource allocation. Healthcare leaders continuously rebalance the allocation of resources embedded in operations, credit position, and retained fixed and financial assets; and there has never been as challenging a resource generation and allocation moment as the one we are in and are likely to remain in for an extended period.

The scary version of all this is that not-for-profit healthcare has entered a resource chasm that will fundamentally degrade the sector’s credit and capital foundation.

COVID and inflation have combined to expose the brittleness of the healthcare resource chassis. The engine—operations—is bumping up against the dual pressures of:

  1. Labor-scarcity-driven strains on converting customer demand into realized financial resources; and
  2. A business model that doesn’t allow the efficient transfer of increased costs onto customers.

The result is unprecedented resource compression that leads to dramatically lower internal and external capital formation;

existential covenant threats; and the temptation, if not the necessity, to use retained wealth (i.e., spend down balance sheet) to support current operations versus funding growth or protecting long-term resiliency.

Every organization must aggressively identify and pursue operating performance improvement initiatives. But every organization needs to extend the idea of performance improvement to balance sheet, with the goal of addressing three total enterprise considerations:

  1. What Is Our Resource Portfolio? What is the catalogue of resources available to the organization? What form are those resources in? What is the roster of demands on those resources and is there balance or imbalance between the two? What are the consequences of imbalance and the costs of moving to balance?
  2. What Are Our Resource Priorities? How dependent is your organization on balance sheet to achieve success? Is balance sheet a critical liquidity or credit buffer against elevated operating and strategic volatility—the bridge between today and a successfully implemented operations performance improvement plan? Is it a source of external capital to fund strategic initiatives or defend overall liquidity? Is it an actual funding source and is this a departure from past practice? Is it an independent and alternative source of (non-operating) cash flow? Is the balance sheet role changing and what does that mean to operations, credit, resiliency, etc.?
  3. How Should Our Resources Be Positioned? Are balance sheet resources in their best form or is there a benefit from converting them into something different (like cash)? Will performance improvement initiatives alter positioning conclusions and, if so, does that improvement occur over an acceptable time frame? Can various resources be successfully converted today or are there cost or other impediments?

The need is to move out of siloed and into integrated and enterprise-centric performance improvement, which requires one consistent resource allocation mindset applied across operations, liabilities, real estate holdings, financial asset holdings, and every other class of organizational resources.

The need is to transition from thinking that balance sheet and operations can be disconnected thoughts to seeing them as two sides of the same coin.

Covenant threats continue to escalate, all centered on how reduced resource generation impacts debt service coverage.

We reiterate that it is critical for every organization to understand how its specific covenants work and to have a rolling forecast on expected performance.

As an example, many organizations now have coverage covenants where default requires two consecutive years of below the coverage ratio. This is an unconditionally good thing, but many of these same organizations may face a consultant call-in at year one and some of them may also confront year-two limitations on additional debt, merger, sale, disposition of assets, and a host of other important management levers. So, the good thing has conditions that are essential to understand and, perhaps, get ahead of. We have a robust library of covenant-related thought leadership on our website—ranging from written content to webinars—and our team is always ready to help.