Category Archives: Strategy and Transformation

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.

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.

An Open Letter to Hospital Boards of Directors: Long-Term Strategic Planning needs Your Attention

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Board Chairman, Board Competency, Board Engagement, Board Purpose, Board Weakness, Board Workload, Leadership, Leadership Implementation, Leadership Transformation, Leadership Vision, Strategic Leadership, Strategic Plan, Strategy and Transformation, Strategy Sustainable Long Term • Leave a comment
An Open Letter to Hospital Boards of Directors: Long-Term Strategic Planning needs Your Attention

As 2023 comes to an end and prognostics for 2024 pepper Inboxes, high anxiety is understandable. The near-term environment for hospitals, especially public hospitals and not-for-profit health systems, is tepid at best: despite the November uptick in operating margins to 2% (Fitch, Syntellis), the future for hospitals is uncertain and it’s due to more than payer reimbursement, labor costs and regulatory changes.

Putting lipstick on the pig serves no useful purpose:

though state hospital associations, AHA, FAH, AEH and others have been effective in fending off unwelcome threats ranging from 340B cuts, site neutral payments and others at least temporarily, the welcoming environment for hospitals in the throes of the pandemic has been replaced by animosity and distrust.

The majority of the population believes U.S. the health system is heading in the wrong direction and think hospitals are complicit (See Polling data from Gallup and Keckley Poll below). They believe the system puts its profit above patient care and welcome greater transparency about prices and business practices. In states like Colorado (hospital expenditure report), Minnesota (billing and collection), and Oregon (nurse staffing levels), new regulations feed the public’s appetite for hospital accountability alongside bipartisan Congressional efforts to limit tax exemptions and funding for hospitals.

It’s a tsunami hospital boards must address if they are to carry out their fiduciary responsibilities:

  • Set Direction: The organization’s long-term strategy in the context of its vision, mission and values.
  • Secure Capital: The amount and sourcing of capital necessary to execute the strategy.
  • Hire a Competent CEO and Give Direction: Boards set direction; CEOs execute.

Regretfully, near-term pressures on hospitals have compromised long-term strategic planning in which the Board play’s the central role. But most hospital boards lack adequate preparedness to independently assess the long-term future for their organization i.e. analysis of trends and assumptions that cumulatively reshape markets, define opportunities and frame possible destinations for hospitals drawn from 5 zones of surveillance:

  • Clinical innovations.
  • Technology capabilities.
  • Capital Market Access and Deployment.
  • Regulatory Policy Changes.
  • Consumer Values, Preferences and Actions.

In reality, the near-term issues i.e. labor and supply chain costs, insurer reimbursement, workforce burnout et al—dominate board meetings; long-range strategic planning is relegated to an annual retreat where the management team and often a consultant present a recommendation for approval. But in many organizations, the long-term strategic plans (LTSPs) fall short:

  • Most LTSPs offer an incomplete assessment of clinical innovations and technologies that fundamentally alter how health services will be provided, where and by whom.
  • Most LTSPs are based on an acute-centric view of “the future” and lack input about other sectors and industries where the healthcare market is relevant and alternative approaches are executed.
  • Most LTSPs are aspirational and short on pragmatism. Risks are underestimated and strengths over-estimated.
  • Most LTSPs are designed to affirm the preferences of the hospital CEO without the benefit of independent, studied review and discussion with the board.
  • Most LTSPs don’t consider all relevant ‘future state’ options despite the Board’s fiduciary obligation to assure they do.
  • Most rely on data that’s inadequate/incomplete/misleading, especially in assessing how and chare capital markets are accessing and deploying capital in healthcare services.
  • Most LTSPs are not used as milestones for monitoring performance nor are underlying assumptions upon which LRSPs are based revisited.

My take:

The Board’s role in Long-Range Strategic Planning is, in many ways, it’s most important. It is the basis for deciding the capital requirements necessary to its implementation and the basis for hiring, keeping and compensating the CEO. But in most hospitals, the board’s desire to engage more directly around long-term strategy for the organization is not addressed. Understandable…

  • Boards are getting more media attention these days, and it’s usually in an unflattering context. Disclosures of Board malperformance in high profile healthcare organizations like Theranos, Purdue and others has been notable. Protocols for responding among Board members in investor-owned organizations is a priority, but less-so in many not-for-profit settings including hospitals often caught by surprise by media.
  • And Board members are asking for their organizations to engage them in more in strategy development. In the latest National Association of Corporate Directors’ survey, 81% of directors cited “oversight of strategic execution” and 80% “oversight of strategy development” as their top concerns from a list of 13 options. Hospital boards are no exception: they want to be engaged and cringe when treated as rubber stamps.

Hospital boards intuitively understand that surviving/thriving in 2024 is important but no guarantee of long-term stability given sobering realities with long-term impact:

  • The core business of hospitals–inpatient, outpatient and emergency services—is subject to market constraints on its prices, consumer and employer expectations and non-traditional competition. Bricks, sticks and clicks strategies will be deployed in a regulatory environment that’s agnostic to an organization’s tax status and competition is based on value that’s measured and publicly comparable.
  • The usefulness of artificial intelligence will widen in healthcare services displacing traditional operating models, staffing and resource allocation priorities.
  • Big tech (Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet (GOOG), Amazon (AMZN), Meta (META), Tesla (TSLA) and Nvidia (NVDA)—collectively almost 60% of all S&P 500 gains in 2023—will play a direct and significant role in how the healthcare services industry responds to macro-opportunities and near-term pressures. They’re not outside looking in; they’re inside looking out.
  • Private capital will play a bigger role in the future of the system and in capitalizing hospital services. Expanded scale and wider scope will be enabled through partnerships with private capital and strategic partners requiring governance and leadership adaptation. And, the near-term hurdles facing PE—despite success in fund-raising—will redirect their bets in health services and expectations for profits.
  • State and federal regulatory policies and compliance risks will be more important to execution. Growth through consolidation will face bigger hurdles, transparency requirements in all aspects of operations will increase and business-as-usual discontinued.
  • The scale, scope and effectiveness of an organization’s primary and preventive health services will be foundational to competing: managing ‘covered lives’, reducing demand, integrating social determinants and behavioral health, enabling consumer self-care, leveraging AI and enabling affordability will be key platform ingredients that enable growth and sustainability.
  • Media attention to hospital business practices including the role Boards play in LRSPs will intensify.

Granted: the issues facing hospitals are reliably short-term: as Congress returns next week, for instance, funding for the FDA, Community Health Center Fund, Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education Program, National Health Services Corps and Veterans Health is not authorized and $16 billion in cuts to Medicaid disproportionate share payments remains unsettled, so the short-term matters.

But arguably, engaging the hospital board in longer term planning is equally important. It’s not a luxury.

Happy New Year. Buckle up!

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.

Listening and Learning

Posted on by • Posted in Blood Test, Board, Imperative, Leadership, Leadership Culture, Leadership Learning, Leadership Listens, Leadership Vision, Learning, Learning Critical, Learning Systems, Strategy, Strategy and Transformation, Thought Platform • Leave a comment
https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/healthcare-organizational-thought-platform?utm_source=mkto&utm_campaign=ken-weekly-blog&utm_medium=em&utm_term=231004&mkt_tok=NjU0LUNOWS0yMjQAAAGOmfYfjNcEKZN4LsbxaaDgp9L2ca6QT7CPo1ssHqCrrqIJwKqdH4wwHgcV9CIebWu6slcj9TbqCi64weMHKALrkZt0OKNiUvl4rBMjSxL9B10V

Something I have been writing about and speaking about recently is how difficult it is to operate a hospital in post-Covid America.

The line-up of management and governing obstacles includes both old and new healthcare issues:

  • Financial instability
  • Ongoing labor disruption
  • Remnants of significant healthcare inflation
  • Payer chaos
  • A continuing pivot from inpatient to outpatient services
  • The endless introduction of alternative care options (CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Amazon, and now Costco)

It takes considerable hard thinking within executive suites to figure out the best way forward; to find the best roadmap through—at a minimum—the six obstacles outlined above. And as I have noted in my recent speaking engagements, a solution to one of these obstacles might actually make others of these obstacles more difficult to solve.

I have in recent weeks been looking for a “thought platform” that can assist hospital C-suite executives in resetting managerial expectations and operational initiatives—expectations and initiatives that can more effectively cope with the current and distressingly difficult environment.

Moving the hospital organizational thought platform from its 2019 managerial themes to a more relevant platform that better suits the challenges of 2023 is a managerial problem all of its own. Simply telling a large and very complex healthcare organization to stop thinking in pre-Covid terms is not likely to accomplish much. Before you can establish the organizational thought platform that best guides your hospital forward, you will need a leadership team that is committed to creating a “listening and learning” healthcare company.

A good tool for making your way to a listening and learning organization and eventually to a new and more relevant thought platform is the book The First 90 Days: Proven Strategies for Getting Up to Speed Faster and Smarter, by Michael D. Watkins.

Mr. Watkins is a co-founder of Genesis Advisers and a professor at the IMD Business School in Lausanne, Switzerland. The First 90 Days was originally published in 2003 as a guide to business executives moving into new senior positions of major responsibility. But the book also contains general management advice which is relevant not only to new jobs, but also to executives struggling with fast-changing and especially difficult market conditions.

One of the most compelling chapters in The First 90 Days is a chapter that focuses on the absolute importance of executive learning and the need to accelerate that learning.

While Professor Watkins was making a general business point, I would suggest that the need to accelerate executive learning and listening was never more important than in the “right now” post-Covid healthcare environment. Professor Watkins posed a series of critical leadership learning questions that I have modified to reflect the complex operating conditions of the 2023 hospital.

From that perspective, here are six critical learning questions for the hospital leadership team:

  1. How effective are you as a hospital leader at learning about your current job and how that current job is changing?
  2. What is your learning agenda for your current assignment? Have your day-to-day responsibilities changed so dramatically that you no longer know what you need to know?
  3. Given questions one and two, how should you go about gaining better insight?
  4. What is the best structure for being a top-flight learner within your organization? Note that this is a question that has both individual and organizational implications.
  5. What support is there within your organization for ongoing day-to-day learning? Note this should not be viewed as “training.” This is how executives “learn” through constant interaction with their changing jobs and changing market conditions. We are headed here not toward “skillsets” but toward “learned strategies and insights.” The difference is material.
  6. Professor Watkins suggests creating a learning agenda that relates directly to an ongoing learning plan. What don’t you know right now and how are you going to learn what you don’t know? And, importantly, how has the healthcare macroeconomy made your job more difficult and why?

One of my last blogs focused on the importance of vision and strategy in the post-Covid hospital recovery process; the importance of reinventing the hospital of the future that best fits into a rapidly changing marketplace. This marketplace requires entirely new skillsets and functions on top of changing shared experiences and perceived social values. Finding the right going-forward strategy and vision is the first imperative.

But without executive learning and listening that leads directly to organizational-wide learning and listening, the chances of finding your way to that highest and best and most effective vision and strategy will be greatly diminished.

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.

What CEOs want CFOs to focus on

Posted on by • Posted in Capital Financing, CEO, CFO, Cost Reduction, Focus, Investment, Investments, Leadership Intent, Performance Management, Revenue Growth, Strategy, Strategy and Transformation, Transformation • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/what-ceos-want-cfos-to-focus-on.html?origin=CFOE&utm_source=CFOE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G

Fifty-four percent of CFOs say that their CEOs are asking them to focus on cost reduction while 40 percent indicate that their CEOs want them honing in on strategy and transformation, according to Deloitte’s “CFO Signals Survey 2Q 2023.”

More than one-quarter of CFOs in the survey reported that their CEOs are asking them to focus on working capital efficiency and risk management while over one-third of CFOs said their CEOs want them focused on strategy and transformation, performance management, revenue growth, investment and capital/financing. 

Since 2010, Deloitte has surveyed leading CFOs representing some of North America’s largest companies to provide insight into the business environment, company priorities and expectations, finance priorities and CFOs’ priorities. 

Participating CFOs represent diversified, large companies, with 81 percent of respondents reporting revenue in excess of $1 billion. Twenty-three percent are from companies with more than $10 billion in annual revenue, according to Deloitte.