In Las Vegas this week, 10,000 healthcare entrepreneurs, investors, purchasers and industry onlookers are gathered to celebrate the business of U.S. healthcare. It follows the inaugural Nashville Healthcare Sessions last month that drew a crowd to Music City touting “the premier healthcare conference set in the most relevant, exciting, and welcoming city in the south.“
Besides their locations and exceptional marketing, three notable themes are prominent that speak volumes about where this industry is:
1- The focus is systemness—integrated, connected, data-driven and scalable. Traditional divides that separate health and social services, hospitals and insurers, biotherapeutics and companion diagnostics are obsolete and access to private capital and swift execution vitals. And embedded in systemness is an expanded role of human resources that create workforces that are right-sized, diverse, AI-enabled and productive. 2-Technologies focused on end user value are gaining traction. Solutions that enable better, quicker, more accurate and affordable transactions with consumers are prominent. While traditional providers—hospitals, physicians, long-term care providers and public health programs– see HIT and AI investments as ways to make their work more efficient and satisfying, disruptors are focused on the untapped consumer market that’s dissatisfied with the status quo. 3-Access to smart capital is key. The venture capital and private equity markets in healthcare services are weathering corrections that have deflated returns and forced many to pullback or exit. The possibility of regulatory reforms involving greater transparency, carried interest restrictions and minimum hold periods means stronger funds with experienced operating partners and stable LP funding will be advantaged. In Vegas, they’ll be working the hallways to find tuck-ins for their platform bets and courting not-for-profit hospitals needing non-operating income to fund their growth and diversification efforts.
Those attending recognize the U.S. health industry faces unprecedented challenges:
Growing employer activism against lack of price transparency and inexplicably high unit costs for hospital care, prescription drugs, insurer overhead and mal-effect of consolidation in each sector.
Medical inflation that’s persistent but disproportionately absorbed by fewer and fewer employers and individuals who lack bargaining power.
Value-based purchasing activities that have failed to achieve desired cost containment goals.
Public dissatisfaction with the “system” and growing receptivity to alternatives.
Growing hostility in media coverage about hospitals, especially large not-for-profit hospitals, deemed to be profitable and wasteful.
Increased tension between providers (hospitals, medical groups) and insurers.
Increased regulation in states and court rulings that change (or have the potential to alter) how care is defined, provided, funded and legally authorized.
HLTH and Session attendees recognize the uncertainties of the political, economic and global markets in which healthcare operates. Israel will be front of mind to all as the fast-paced HLTH proceedings continue this week.
The root causes of the system’s poor performance are understood and considered: they’re daunting. But that does not impede the willingness of private investors to make bets presuming the future of the U.S. healthcare is not a repeat of its past.
Contrary to pop culture, what happens in Vegas this week will not stay in Vegas: that’s the point. The health system is not working well. While some HLTH and Sessions attendees are no doubt focused on incremental innovations to improve the performance of their legacy organizations, others are looking beyond. And, if industries akin to healthcare like financial services and higher education are instructive, the latter are better prepared to respond than the former.
PS: Nearly 50 years to the day after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel was again taken by surprise by a sudden attack. Unlike the series of clashes with Palestinian forces in Gaza over the past few years, this appears to be a full-scale conflict mounted by Hamas and its allies including Iran.
Thousands are dead, more are injured and the health systems in both will be overwhelmed by the need. Health systems matter!
Politicians, economists, auto industry analysts and main street business owners are closely watching the UAW strike that began at midnight last Thursday. Healthcare should also pay attention, especially hospitals. medical groups and facility operators where workforce issues are mounting.
Auto manufacturing accounts for 3% of America’s GDP and employs 2.2 million including 923,000 in frontline production. It’s high-profile sector industry in the U.S. with its most prominent operators aka “the Big Three” operating globally. Some stats:
The US automakers sold an estimated 13.75 million new and 36.2 million used vehicles in 2022.
The total value of the US car and automobile manufacturing market is $104.1 billion in 2023:
9.2 million US vehicles were produced in 2021–a 4.5% increase from 2020 and 11.8% of the global total ranking only behind China in total vehicle production.
As of 2020, 91.5% of households report having access to at least one vehicle.
There were 290.8 million registered vehicles in the United States in 2022—21% of the global market.
Americans spend $698 billion annually on the combination of automobile loans and insurance.
By comparison, the healthcare services industry in the U.S.—those that operate facilities and services serving patients—employs 9 times more workers, is 29 times bigger ($104 Billion vs. $2.99 trillion/65% of total spend) and 6 times more integral in the overall economy (3% vs. 18.3% of GDP).
Surprisingly, average hourly wages are similar ($31.07 in auto manufacturing vs. $33.12 in healthcare per BLS) though the range is wider in healthcare since it encompasses licensed professionals to unskilled support roles. There are other similarities:
Each industry enjoys ubiquitous presence in American household’ discretionary. spending.
Each faces workforce issues focused on pay parity and job security.
Each is threatened by unwelcome competitors, disruptive technologies and shifting demand complicating growth strategies.
Each is dependent on capital to remain competitive.
And each faces heightened media scrutiny and vulnerability to misinformation/disinformation as special interests seek redress or non-traditional competitors seek advantage.
Ironically, the genesis of the UAW dispute is not about wages; it is about job security as electric-powered vehicles that require fewer parts and fewer laborers become the mainstay of the sector. CEO compensation and the corporate profits of the Big Three are talking points used by union leaders to galvanize sympathizer antipathy of “corporate greed” and unfair treatment of frontline workers.
But the real issue is uncertainty about the future: will auto workers have jobs and health benefits in their new normal?
In healthcare services sectors—hospitals, medical groups, post-acute care facilities, home-care et al—the scenario is similar: workers face an uncertain future but significantly more complicated. Corporate greed, CEO compensation and workforce discontent are popular targets in healthcare services media coverage but the prominence of not-for-profit organizations in healthcare services obfuscates direct comparisons to for-profit organizations which represents less than a third of the services economy. For example, CEO compensation in NFPs—a prominent target of worker attention—is accounted differently for CEOs in investor-owned operations in which stock ownership is not treated as income until in options are exercised or shares sold. Annual 990 filings by NFPs tell an incomplete story nonetheless fodder for misinformation.
The competitive landscape and regulatory scrutiny for healthcare services are also more complicated for healthcare services. Unlike auto manufacturing where electric vehicles are forcing incumbents to change, there’s no consensus about what the new normal in U.S. healthcare services will be nor a meaningful industry-wide effort to define it. Each sector is defining its own “future state” based on questionable assumptions about competitors, demand, affordability, workforce requirements and more. Imagine an environmental scan in automakers strategy that’s mute on Tesla, or mass transit, Zoom, pandemic lock-downs or energy costs?
While the outlook for U.S. automakers is guardedly favorable, per Moody’s and Fitch, for not-for-profit health services operators it’s “unsustainable” and “deteriorating.”
Nonetheless, the parallels between the current state of worker sentiment in the U.S. auto manufacturing and healthcare services sectors are instructive. Auto and healthcare workers want job security and higher pay, believing their company executives and boards but corporate profit above their interests and all else. And polls suggest the public’s increasingly sympathetic to worker issues and strikes like the UAW more frequent.
Ultimately, the UAW dispute with the Big Three will be settled. Ultimately, both sides will make concessions. Ultimately, the automakers will pass on their concession costs to their customers while continuing their transitions to electric vehicles.
In health services, operators are unable to pass thru concession costs due to reimbursement constraints that, along with supply chain cost inflation, wipe out earnings and heighten labor tension.
So, the immediate imperatives for healthcare services organizations seem clear as labor issues mount and economics erode:
Educate workers—all workers—is a priority. That includes industry trends and issues in sectors outside the organization’s current focus.
Define the future. In healthcare services, innovators will leverage technology and data to re-define including how health is defined, where it’s delivered and by whom. Investments in future-state scenario planning is urgently needed.
Address issues head-on: Forthrightness about issues like access, prices, executive compensation, affordability and more is essential to trustworthiness.
Stay tuned to the UAW strike and consider fresh approaches to labor issues. It’s not a matter of if, but when.
PS: I drive an electric car—my step into the auto industry future state. It took me 9 hours last Thursday to drive 275 miles to my son’s wedding because the infrastructure to support timely battery charges in route was non-existent. Ironically, after one of three self-charges for which I paid more than equivalent gas, I was prompted to “add a tip”. So, the transition to electric vehicles seems certain, but it will be bumpy and workers will be impacted.
The future state for healthcare is equally frought with inadequate charging stations aka “systemness” but it’s inevitable those issues will be settled. And worker job security and labor costs will be significantly impacted in the process.
Value-based healthcare, the holy grail of American medicine, has three parts: excellent clinical quality, convenient access and affordability for all.
And as with the holy grail of medieval legend, the quest for value-based care has been filled with failure.
In the 20th century, U.S. medical groups and hospital systems could—at best—achieve two elements of value-based care, but always at the sacrifice of the third. Until recently, American medicine lacked the clinical knowhow, technology and operational excellence to accomplish all three, simultaneously. We now have the tools. The only thing missing is “system-ness.”
What Is System-ness?
System-ness is the effective and efficient coordination of healthcare’s many parts: outpatient and inpatient, primary and specialty care, financing and care delivery, prevention and treatment.
By bringing these disparate pieces together within a well-functioning system, healthcare providers have the opportunity to maximize clinical outcomes, weed out waste, lower overall costs and provide greater levels of convenience and access.
Who Are The Search Parties?
In the future, system-ness will be the variable that determines whether healthcare transformation is led by (a) incumbent health systems like Kaiser Permanente and Geisinger Health or (b) the retail giants like Amazon, CVS and Walmart. The latter group has become an ever-growing threat in the healthcare arms race, quickly amassing their own (though still modest) systems of care through billion-dollar acquisitions.
Although both the incumbents and new entrants will struggle to implement value-based care on a national scale, the victor stands to earn hundreds of billions of dollars in added revenue and tens of billions in profits.
To better understand the power of system-ness, and the challenges all organizations will face in providing it, here are three examples of value-based-care solutions implemented successfully by Kaiser Permanente.
1. Preventing Problems, Managing Disease
Research demonstrates that preventive medicine and early intervention reduce heart attacks, strokes and cancer. Yet our nation falls far short in these areas when compared to its global peers.
One example is hypertension, the leading cause of strokes and a major contributor to heart attacks. With help from doctors, nearly all patients can keep high blood pressure under control. Yet, nationally, hypertension is controlled only 60% of the time.
We see similarly poor rates of performance when it comes to prevention and screening for cancers of the colon, breast and lung.
Undoing these troubling trends requires system-ness. In Kaiser Permanente, 90% of patients had their blood pressure controlled and were screened for cancer. Getting there required a comprehensive electronic health record, a willingness for every doctor (regardless of specialty) to focus on prevention, leadership that communicated the value of prevention and a salary structure that rewarded group excellence.
2. Continuous Care, Without Interruption
Most doctors’ offices are open Monday to Friday during normal business hours—only one-fourth of the time that a medical problem might occur.
At night and on weekends, patients have no choice but to visit ERs. There, they often wait hours for care, surrounded by people with communicable diseases. Their non-emergent problems generate bills 12-times higher than if they’d waited to be seen in a doctor’s office.
There’s a better way. In large-enough medical groups, hundreds of clinicians can provide round-the-clock care on a rotating, virtual basis—using video to assess patients and make evidence-based recommendations.
This approach, pioneered by physicians in the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical group, solved the patient’s problem immediately 70% of the time without a trip to the ER and, for the other 30%, enabled coordination of medical care with the ER staff.
3. Specialized Medicine, Immediate Attention
When a primary care physician needs added expertise (from a dermatologist, urologist or orthopedist), it’s usually the responsibility of the patient to make their own specialty appointments, check with insurance for coverage and provide their medical records.
This takes hours or days to coordinate and can delay care by weeks, resulting in avoidable complications.
But in a well-structured system, there’s no need to wait. Using telehealth tools at Kaiser Permanente, primary care doctors can connect instantly with dozens of different specialists—often while the patient is still in the exam room. Once connected, the specialist evaluates the patient and provides immediate expertise.
This way, care is not only faster and less expensive, but also better coordinated. Data from within Kaiser Permanente show that these virtual consultations resolve the patient’s problem 40% of the time without having to schedule another appointment. For the other 60%, the diagnostic process can begin immediately.
The Foundations For System-ness
Few organizations in the U.S. can or do offer these system-based improvements. Doing so requires skilled physician leadership, a shift in the financial model and a willingness to accept risk.
In fact, most organizations across the U.S. that claim to operate “value-based” systems actually rely on doctors who are scattered across the community, disconnected from each other and paid on the basis of volume (fee-for-service) rather than value (capitation).
As a result, patient care is fragmented and uncoordinated, leading to repeated tests and ineffective treatments, thus increasing medical costs and compromising medical outcomes.
Value-based care (superior quality, access and affordability) requires teams of clinicians working together as one—all paid on a capitated basis.
Without capitation, dermatologists will insist on seeing every patient in their office where they can bill insurance five-times more than with a tele-dermatology visit. And gastroenterology specialists will insist that all patients have colonoscopy rather than recommending low-risk patients do a safe, convenient, at-home colon cancer screening (called a fecal immunochemical test or “FIT”) at 5% of the cost.
In these cases, individual doctors don’t consciously make care inconvenient for patients. Rather, it is the only choice they have when working in a fee-for-service payment model. Ultimately, system-ness is best achieved when health systems are integrated, prepaid, tech-enabled and physician-led.
Amazon, CVS, Walmart Know About Systems
These three companies are global leaders in “system-ness,” at least in retail. Combined, they have a market cap of $1.88 trillion, employ 3.4 million Americans and are looking to take a slice of U.S. healthcare’s $4.3 trillion annual expenditures.
Already, they manage complex order-entry and fulfillment systems. They use technology to streamline everything from customer service to supply-chain management. They are led through a clear and effective reporting structure.
In terms of competing for healthcare’s holy grail, these are huge competitive advantages compared to today’s uncoordinated, individualized, leaderless healthcare industry.
As retailers vie to bring their system knowhow to American medicine, they are acquiring the pieces needed to compete with the healthcare incumbents. They’ve spent tens of billions of dollars on medical groups that are committed to value-based care (One Medical, Oak Street Health, etc.). They’ve also spent massive sums on home-health companies (Signify) and on pharmacies (PillPak), along with expanding their in-store, at-home and online care options. Many of these care-delivery subsidiaries are focused on Medicare Advantage, the capitated half of Medicare where financial success is dependent on high quality medical care provided at lower cost.
What’s more, all these retailers have a national presence with brick-and mortar facilities in nearly every community in the country—a leg up on nearly every existing health system.
Who Will Win—And Why?
Trying to pick the victor in the battle to transform American medicine at this point is like selecting the winner of a heavy-weight championship boxing match after three evenly matched rounds. Intangibles like stamina, courage and willingness to absorb pain have yet to be tested.
In The Innovator’s Dilemma, the late Clayton Christensen examined historical battles between incumbent organizations and new entrants. After analyzing dozens of industries, he concluded new entrants routinely become the victors because the incumbents move too slowly and fail to embrace the need for major change.
And from that perspective, if I had to wager, I’d put my money on the retail giants.
But there’s an even more worrisome potential outcome: neither those inside nor outside of healthcare will make the necessary investments or accept the risk of leading systemic change. As a result, the movement toward value-based healthcare will stall and die.
In that context, purchasers of healthcare (businesses, the government and patients) will encounter a difficult reality: over the next eight years, medical costs will nearly double, creating an unaffordable and unsustainable scenario. As a result, our nation will likely experience reduced medical coverage, increased rationing, ever-longer delays for care and a growth in health disparities.
If that day arrives, our country will regret its inaction.
We spoke this week with a medical group president looking to deploy a more consistent consumer experience across his health system’s physician practices, beginning with primary care.
The discussion quickly turned to two large primary care practices, acquired several years ago, whose doctors are extremely resistant to change. “These guys have built a fee-for-service model that has been extremely lucrative,” the executive shared. “It was a battle getting them on centralized scheduling a few years ago, and now they’re pushing back against telemedicine.”
With ancillary income included, many of these “entrepreneurial” primary care doctors are making over $700K annually, while the rest of the system’s full-time primary care physicians average around $250K.
The situation raises several questions. Standardized access and consistent experience are foundational to consumer strategy; in the words of one CEO, if our system’s name is on the door, any of our care sites should feel like they are part of the same system, from the patient’s perspective.
But how can we get physicians on board with “systemization” if they think it puts their income at risk? Should the system guarantee income to “keep them whole”, and for how long? And is it possible to create consensus across a group of doctors with a three-fold disparity in income, and widely divergent interests? While there are no easy answers, putting patients and consumers first must be the guiding goal of the system.
We’ve been working with a number of our members on the topic of “systemness”: helping think through how health systems can (finally) make progress on creating value from consolidation, moving from being a holding company of assets to a true, functioning system of care.
One critical aspect of that work is standardization—making sure that, where appropriate, operational and clinical processes are uniform across different clinics, hospitals and markets. That’s one of the core sources of corporate value for any company—it would be crazy for GE to make refrigerators differently in Hyderabad, India than in Louisville, KY, for instance. Of course, delivering healthcare is more complex than making refrigerators, and (as we point out in our work on systemness) there needs to be a certain zone of allowable variability in many operational and clinical areas.
Along these lines, a phrase that one physician executive used in a meeting recently caught my attention: he said what he tries to achieve are “standards, not standardization”. In other words, setting clinical and operational standards (for example, how much a knee implant should cost) rather than fully standardizing elements of care (what knee implant must our surgeons use).
Of course, there are lots of things that should be completely standardized across the system—especially in “back office” areas like marketing, HR, revenue cycle, and legal. And some clinical work can be standardized as well: care protocols and agreed-upon pathways for treatment. But allowing variability in clinical practice requires a more flexible approach—one built on standards that clinicians can build consensus around—rather than on rigid standardization. We’ll have more to share about our systemness work in weeks to come—it’s a critical topic for executives as cost pressures mount, and questions about the value of health system scale abound.
HENRY KOTULA 