Category Archives: Tax Exempt Debt

The Implications of Losing Access to Tax-Exempt Financing

Posted on by • Posted in Credit Downgrade, Credit Management, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Credit Upgrade, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty, Tax Exempt Debt, Tax Exempt Status, Tax-Exempt Status • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/implications-losing-access-tax-exempt-financing

On January 17, 2025, a list of potential cost reductions to the federal budget was released by Republicans on the House Budget Committee. The list is long and covers the federal budget waterfront, but it spends considerable time focusing on reductions to healthcare spending. This laundry list of cost reductions is important because the highest priority of the Trump administration is a further reduction in federal taxes. A reduction in taxes would, of course, reduce federal revenue; if federal expenses are not proportionately reduced then the federal deficit will increase. When the deficit increases then the federal debt must increase and at that point the overall impact on the American economy becomes concerning and possibly damaging. There has already been much public speculation as to how the Federal Reserve might react to such a scenario.

It is not possible right now to highlight and describe all of the House budget proposals, but one proposal absolutely stands out: The suggestion to eliminate the tax-exempt status for interest payments on all municipal bonds, or potentially in a more targeted manner, for private activity bonds, including those issued by not-for-profit hospitals. Siebert Williams Shank, an investment banking firm, described the elimination of tax exemption for municipal bonds as “the most alarming of the proposed reforms impacting non-profit and municipal issuers.”[1] This is certainly true for hospitals, since over the past 60 years the growth and capability of America’s hospitals has been substantially constructed on the foundation of flexible and relatively inexpensive tax-exempt debt. Given all of this, it is not too early to begin speculating on the impact of the elimination of tax-exempt debt on hospital finances and strategy.

We should also point out that a separate topic is under discussion, related to the potential loss of not-for-profit status for hospitals and health systems. Such a maneuver could potentially expose hospitals to income taxes, property taxes, and higher funding costs. For now, that is beyond the scope of this blog but may be something we write about in future posts.

Below is a series of important questions related to the elimination of tax-exempt financing and some speculations on the overall impact:

  1. What immediately happens if 501(c)(3) hospitals lose the ability to issue tax-exempt bonds? Let’s treat fixed rate debt first. Assume for now that only newly issued debt would be affected and that all currently outstanding tax-exempt fixed rate debt would remain tax-exempt. We could see an effort to apply any changes retroactively to existing bonds, but we view that as unlikely. Therefore, our current expectation is that outstanding fixed-rate debt would not see a change in interest expense.

    However, it is possible that outstanding floating rate debt would immediately begin to trade based on the taxable equivalent. Historically the tax-exempt floating rate index trades at about 65% of the taxable index. The difference between the tax-exempt and taxable floating rate indices in the current market is 175 basis points. For every $100 million of debt, this would increase interest expense by $1.75m annually.
  2. How would new hospital debt be issued? New debt would be issued in the municipal market on a taxable basis or in the corporate taxable market. The taxable municipal market would need to adapt and expand to accommodate a significant level of new issuance. The concern in the corporate taxable market is greater. Currently, the corporate market requires issuance of significant dollar size and generally the issuer brings significant name recognition to the market. Many hospitals may have difficulty meeting the issuance size of the corporate debt market and/or the necessary market recognition. As such, smaller and less frequent issuers would expect to pay a penalty of 25-50 basis points for issuing in the corporate market.
  3. If tax-exempt debt goes away will certain hospitals be advantaged and others disadvantaged? Larger hospitals with national or regional name recognition that issue bonds with sufficiently large transaction size and frequency will likely borrow at better terms and lower rates. Smaller- to medium-sized hospitals may find borrowing much more difficult, and borrowing may come with more problematic terms and/or amortization schedules and likely higher interest rates.
  4. Will borrowing costs go up? The cost of funds for new borrowings would increase for all hospital borrowers. For a typical A-rated hospital, annual interest expense would increase by approximately 30%. For example, in the current market, on $100 million of new debt, average annual interest expense would increase by $815,000 annually.
  5. Will debt capacity go down? All other things being equal, interest rates will go up and hospital debt capacity will go down. Also, if the taxable market shortens amortization schedules, then that will decrease overall debt capacity as well.
  6. What would the impact of the elimination of tax-exempt debt be on synthetic fixed rate structures? Hospitals have long employed derivative structures to hedge interest rate risk on outstanding variable rate bonds and loans. The loss of tax-exemption for outstanding variable rate bonds and loans would precipitate an adjustment to taxable rates, but corresponding swap cash flows are not designed to adjust. Interest rate risk is hedged, but tax reform risk is not. The net effect to borrowers would be an increase in cost similar to the cost contemplated above for variable rate bonds.
  7. What are the rating implications of the elimination of the tax-exempt market? Rating implications will be varied. Hospitals with strong financial performance and liquidity are likely to absorb the increased interest expense of a taxable borrowing with little to no rating impact. In fact, over the past decade, many larger health systems in the AA rating categories have successfully issued debt in the taxable market without rating implications despite a higher borrowing rate. Even amid the pandemic chaos of 2021, numerous AA and A rated systems issued sizable, taxable debt offerings to bolster liquidity as proceeds were for general corporate purposes and not restricted by a third-party, such as a bond trustee.

    Lower-rated hospitals with modest performance and below-average liquidity will be at greater risk for a downgrade. These hospitals may not be able to absorb the increased interest expense and maintain their ratings. While interest expense is typically a small percentage of a hospital’s total expenses, it is a use of cash flow.

    We do not anticipate the rating agencies will take wholesale downgrade action on the rated portfolio as there would likely be a phase-in period before the elimination occurs. Rather, we expect the rating agencies will take a measured approach with a case-by-case evaluation of each rated organization through the normal course of surveillance, as they did during the pandemic and liquidity crisis in 2008. A dialogue on capital budgets and funding sources, typically held at the end of a rating meeting, would be moved to the top of the agenda, as it will have a direct impact on long-term viability.
  8. How would the loss of the tax-exempt market impact the pace of consolidation in the hospital industry? If a hospital cannot afford the taxable market, then large capital projects would need to be funded through cash and operations. This inevitably will limit organizational liquidity, which will lead to downward rating pressure. Some hospitals, in such a situation, will be unable to both fund capital and adequately serve their local community and, therefore, will need to find a partner who can. We anticipate that the loss of the tax-exempt bond market will lead to further consolidation in the industry.

Let’s indulge in one last bit of speculation. What is the probability that Congress will pass legislation that eliminates tax-exempt financing? Sources in Washington tell us that it is premature to wager on any of the items put forth by the Budget Committee. And it should be noted that over the years the elimination of tax-exempt financing has been proposed on several occasions and never advanced in Congress. However, one well-informed source noted that as the tax and related legislation moves forward, there is likely to be significant horse-trading (especially in the House) to secure the necessary votes to pass the entire package. What happens during that horse-trading process is anybody’s guess. So the best advice to our hospital readership right now is to not take anything for granted. But be absolutely assured that the maintenance of tax-exempt financing is an essential strategic component for the successful future of America’s hospitals.

What Trump and the GOP have planned for healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Block Grants, Medicaid Eligibility, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Work Requirements, Medicare, Medicare 340B Drug Discount Program, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cuts, Medicare Denials, Medicare Hospital Fund, Medicare Payment, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), Medicare Reimbursement, Medicare Site Neutral Payment, Project 2025, State of the Union, Tax Exempt Debt, Tax Exempt Status • Leave a comment
https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/what-trump-and-gop-have-planned-healthcare?leadId=1234536&mkt_tok=NDIwLVlOQS0yOTIAAAGYKMuOSDpr4HmVgwoir-sctcWYrTCmAMidk2ElOKJYQgYV2OewZexaTT7OGNmdoOgJX4esGPrurXZW_6oPMprQ0Mc5ph-PR7Pcrbc3LivGTNmd

Health systems are rightly concerned about Republican plans to cut Medicaid spending, end ACA subsidies and enact site neutral payments, says consultant Michael Abrams, managing partner of Numerof, a consulting firm.

“Health systems have reason to worry,” Abrams said shortly after President Donald Trump was inaugurated on Monday. 

While Trump mentioned little about healthcare in his inauguration speech, the GOP trifecta means spending cuts outlined in a one-page document released by Politico and another 50-pager could get a majority vote for passage.

Of the insurers, pharmaceutical manufacturers and health systems that Abrams consults with, healthcare systems are the ones that are most concerned, Abrams said.

At the top of the Republican list targeting $4 trillion in healthcare spending is eliminating an estimated $2.5 billion from Medicaid. 

“There’s no question Republicans will find savings in Medicaid,” Abrams said.

Medicaid has doubled its enrollment in the last couple of years due to extended benefits made possible by the Affordable Care Act, despite disenrolling 25 million people during the redetermination process at the end of the public health emergency, according to Abrams.

Upward of 44 million people, or 16.4% of the non-elderly U.S. population are covered by an Affordable Care Act initiative, including a record high of 24 million people in ACA health plans and another 21.3 million in Medicaid expansion enrollment, according to a KFF report. Medicaid expansion enrollment is 41% higher than in 2020.

The enhanced subsidies that expanded eligibility for Medicaid and doubled the number of enrollees are set to expire at the end of 2025 and Republicans are likely to let that happen, Abrams said. Eliminating enhanced federal payments to states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA are estimated to cut the program by $561 billion.

If enhanced subsidies end, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the number of people who will become uninsured will increase by 3.8 million each year between 2026 and 2034. 

The enhanced tax subsidies for the ACA are set to expire at the end of 2025. This could result in another 2.2 million people losing coverage in 2026, and 3.7 million in 2027, according to the CBO.

WHY THIS MATTERS

For hospitals, loss of health insurance coverage means an increase in sicker, uninsured patients visiting the emergency department and more uncompensated care.

“Health systems are nervous about people coming to them who are uninsured,” Abrams said. “There will be people disenrolled.”

The federal government allowed more people to be added to the Medicaid rolls during the public health emergency to help those who lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic, Numerof said. Medicaid became an open-ended liability which the government wants to end now that the unemployment rate is around 4.2% and jobs are available.

An idea floating around Congress is the idea of converting Medicaid to a per capita cap and providing these funds to the states as a block grant, Abrams said. The cost of those programs would be borne 70% by the federal government and 30% by states.

This fixed amount based on a per person amount would save money over the current system of letting states report what they spent.

Another potential change under the new administration includes site neutral Medicare payments to hospitals for outpatient services.

The HFMA reported the site neutral policy as a concern in a list it published Monday of preliminary federal program cuts totaling more than $5 trillion over 10 years. The 50-page federal list is essentially a menu of options, the HFMA said, not an indication that programs will actually be targeted leading up to the March 14 deadline to pass legislation before federal funding expires.

Other financial concerns for hospitals based on that list include: the elimination of the tax exemption for nonprofit hospitals, bringing in up to $260 billion in estimated 10-year savings; and phasing out Medicare payments for bad debt, resulting in savings of up to $42 billion over a decade.

Healthcare systems are the ones most concerned over GOP spending cuts, according to Abrams. Pharmacy benefit managers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also remain on edge as to what might be coming at them next.

THE LARGER TREND

President Donald Trump mentioned little about healthcare during his inauguration speech on Monday.

Trump said the public health system does not deliver in times of disaster, referring to the hurricanes in North Carolina and other areas and to the fires in Los Angeles.

Trump also mentioned giving back pay to service members who objected to getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

He also talked about ending the chronic disease epidemic, without giving specifics.

“He didn’t really talk about healthcare even in the campaign,” Abrams said.

However, in his consulting work, Abrams said, “The common thread is the environment is changing quickly,” and that healthcare organizations need to do the same “in order to survive.”

Is the Tax Exemption for Not-for-Profit Hospitals at Risk?

Posted on by • Posted in American Hospital Association (AHA), Community Benefit, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Monopoly Behavior, Non-Profit Healthcare Industry, Private Equity, Tax Exempt Debt, Tax Exempt Status • Leave a comment
Is the Tax Exemption for Not-for-Profit Hospitals at Risk?

Last Thursday, Seattle-based Providence Health System announced it is refunding nearly $21 million in medical bills paid by low-income residents of Washington and erasing $137 million more in outstanding debt for others. Other systems are likely to follow as pressure con mounts on large, not-for-profit systems to modify their business practices in sensitive areas like patient debt collection, price transparency, executive compensation, investment activities and others.

Not-for profit systems control the majority of the 2,987 nongovernment not-for-profit community hospitals in the U.S. Some lawmakers think it’s time to revisit to revisit the tax exemption. It has the attention of the American Hospital Association which lists “protecting not-for-profit hospitals’ the tax-exempt status” among its 15 Advocacy Priorities in 2024 (it was not on their list in 2023).

Background:  Per a recent monograph in Health Affairs: “The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses the Community Benefit Standard (CBS), a set of 10 holistically analyzed metrics, to assess whether nonprofit hospitals benefit community health sufficiently to justify their tax-exempt status. Nonprofit hospitals risk losing their tax exemption if assessed as underinvesting in improving community health. This exemption from federal, state, and local property taxes amounts to roughly $25 billion annually.

However, accumulating evidence shows that many nonprofit hospitals’ investments in community health meet the letter, but not the spirit, of the CBS.

Indeed, a 2021 study showed that for every $100 in total expenses nonprofit hospitals spend just $2.30 on charity care (a key component of community benefit)—substantially less than the $3.80 of every $100 spent by for-profit hospitals. A 2022 study looked at the cost of caring for Medicaid patients that goes unreimbursed and is therefore borne by the hospital (another key component of community benefit); the researchers found that nonprofit hospitals spend no more than for-profit hospitals ($2.50 of every $100 of total expense).”

In its most recent study, the AHA found the value of CBS well-in-excess of the tax exemption by a factor of 9:1. But antagonism toward the big NFP systems has continued to mount and feelings are intense…

  • Insurers think NFP systems exist to gain leverage in markets & states over insurers in contract negotiations and network design. They’ll garner support from sympathetic employers and lawmakers, federal anti-consolidation and price transparency rulings and in the court of public opinion where frustration with the system is high.
  • State officials see the mega- NFP systems as monopolies that don’t deserve their tax exemptions while the state’s public health, mental health and social services programs struggle.
  • Some federal lawmakers think the NFP systems are out of control requiring closer scrutiny and less latitude. They think the tax exemption qualifiers should be re-defined, scrutinized more aggressively and restricted.
  • Well-publicized investments by NFP systems in private equity backed ventures has lent to criticism among labor unions and special interests that allege systems have abandoned community health for Wall Street shareholders.
  • Investor-owned multi-hospital operators believe the tax exemption is an unfair advantage to NFPs while touting studies showing their own charity care equivalent or higher.
  • Other key NFP and public sector hospital cohorts cry foul: Independent hospitals, academic medical centers, safety-net (aka ‘essential’) hospitals, rural health clinics & hospitals, children’s hospitals, rural health providers, public health providers et al think they get less because the big NFPs get more.
  • And the physicians, nurses and workforces employed by Big NFP systems are increasingly concerned by systemization that limits their wages, cuts their clinical autonomy and compromises their patients’ health.

My take:

The big picture is this: the growth and prominence of multi-hospital systems mirrors the corporatization in most sectors of the economy: retail, technology, banking, transportation and even public utilities. The trifecta of community stability—schools, churches and hospitals—held out against corporatization, standardization and franchising that overtook the rest. But modernization required capital, the public’s expectations changed as social media uprooted news coverage and regulators left doors open for “new and better” that ceded local control to distant corporate boards.

Along the way, investor-owned hospitals became alternatives to not-for-profits, and loose networks of hospitals that shared purchasing and perhaps religious values gave way to bigger multi-state ownership and obligated groups.

The attention given large NFP hospital systems like Providence and others is not surprising. These brands are ubiquitous. Their deals with private equity and Big Tech are widely chronicled in industry journalism and passed along in unfiltered social media. And their collective financial position seems strong:  Moody’s, Fitch, Kaufman Hall and others say utilization has recovered, pandemic recovery is near-complete and, despite lingering concerns about workforce issues, growth in their core businesses plus diversification in new businesses are their foci. (See Hospital Section below).

I believe not-for-profit hospital systems are engines for modernizing health delivery in communities and a lightening rod for critics who think their efforts more self-serving than for the public good.

Most consumers (55%) think they earn their tax exemption but 34% have mixed feelings and 10% disagree. (Keckley Poll November 20, 2023). That’s less than a convincing defense.

That’s why the threat to the tax exemption risk is real, and why every organization must be prepared. Equally important, it’s why AHA, its state associations and allies should advance fresh thinking about ways re-define CBS and hardwire the distinction between organizations that exist for the primary purpose of benefiting their shareholders and those that benefit health and wellbeing in their communities.

PS: Must reading for industry watchers is a new report from by Health Management Associates (HMA) and Leavitt Partners, an HMA company, with support from Arnold Ventures. The 70-page report provides a framework for comparing the increasingly crowned field of 120 entities categorized in 3 groups: Hybrids (6.9 million), Delivery (5.8 million) and Enablers 17.5 million

“At the start of the movement, value-based arrangements primarily involved traditional providers and payers engaging in relatively straight-forward and limited contractual arrangements. In recent years, the industry has expanded organically to include a broader ecosystem of risk-bearing care delivery organizations and provider enablement entities with capabilities and business models aligned with the functions and aims of accountable care…Inclusion criteria for the 120 VBD entities included in this analysis were:

  • 1-Serve traditional Medicare, MA, and/or Medicaid populations. Entities that are focused solely on commercial populations were excluded
  • 2-Operate in population-based, total cost of care APMs—not only bundled payment models.
  • 3- Focus on primary care and/or select specialties that are relevant to total cost of care models (i.e., nephrology, oncology, behavioral health, cardiology, palliative care). Those exclusively focused on specialty areas geared toward episodic models (e.g., MSK) were excluded. –
  • 4-Share accountability for cost and quality outcomes. Business models must be aligned with provider performance in total cost of care arrangements. Vendors that support VBP but do not share accountability for outcomes were excluded.

HMA_VBP-Entity-Landscape-Report_1.31.2024-updated.pdf (healthmanagement.com) February 2024

What Makes A Non-Profit Hospital?

Posted on by • Posted in Community Benefit, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Tax Exempt Debt, Tax Exempt Status, Tax Status, Tax-Exempt Status • Leave a comment

What Makes A Non-Profit Hospital?

Image result for What Makes A Non-Profit Hospital?

What are non-profit hospitals and what is the community benefit standard?

Recently, several news outlets including ProPublica, Kaiser Health News, and Wall Street Journal have published stories on non-profit hospitals’ medical debt collection practices and the effects on low income patients. These news stories prompted me to take a closer look at non-profit hospitals, their tax-exempt status, the community benefits they must fulfill to qualify for it, and the impact on care.

This is the first piece of two posts that consider the requirements that non-profit hospitals need to fulfill to qualify for their tax-exempt status and the impact of these standards on non-profit hospitals and the communities they seek to serve.

Has the definition of a non-profit hospital evolved over time?

Short answer: yes.

To date, non-profit hospitals have significantly benefited from their tax-exempt status, saving $24.6 billion in taxes in 2011. Originally, hospitals were granted tax-exempt status because of affiliations with religious institutions and for serving a charitable purpose. It wasn’t necessarily related to medical care. However, in 1956, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) implemented the charity care standard requiring hospitals to offer uncompensated care to patients unable to pay in order to qualify as a charitable organization under Internal Revenue Code 501c3.

Many believed charity care would no longer be necessary after the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Policymakers assumed the two programs would ensure insurance coverage for most people, obviating the need for a charity care standard. This wasn’t the case, and over the next decade, two events led to the elimination of the charity care standard and the introduction of its successor, the community benefit standard, in 1969.

First, the House of Representatives released a report citing concerns about the execution of the charity care standard and its effectiveness. Second, a hospital that did not provide free or discounted health care mounted a legal challenge. The hospital asserted that, because it had an emergency room open to all community members, it was already providing a charitable service and should qualify for non-profit, or 501c3, status. The courts agreed with the hospital, stating that the provision of an open-access emergency room promoted the health of the community. This fulfilled a charitable purpose according to its legal definition. Ultimately, the IRS agreed with the court’s decision and deemed it necessary to change the charity care standard to accommodate this decision.

Consequently, the IRS issued Ruling 69-545, introducing the community benefit standard. From its implementation and onwards instead of being judged solely on the provision of free or discounted care, a hospital’s 501c3 status would be based on whether it “promoted the health of a broad class of individuals in the community,” including but not limited to just providing free or discounted care.

In 2010, additional requirements were included in the community benefit standard. Non-profit hospitals are now required to perform a community health needs assessment every three years and have both an accessible Financial Assistance Policy and Emergency Medical Care Policy (a charge limit for people who qualify for financial assistance and a billings) and a collections system that determines if individuals are eligible for financial assistance prior to engaging in extraordinary collection actions (applies to all emergency and medically necessary care).

What does non-profit status mean for hospitals?

Short answer: tax-exempt with charity donations required.

Most hospitals in the United States are recognized as charitable organizations, with 78 percent qualifying for 501c3 status. This means they are exempt from most taxes and benefit from tax-deductible charity donations and tax-exempt bond financing but they must meet general Internal Revenue Code requirements, including the community benefit standard aimed at improving the health of the surrounding community.

A variety of activities qualify as community benefits. Some examples are charity care, unreimbursed costs through means-tested programs (Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, etc.), unreimbursed health professions education, unfunded research, and cash and in-kind contributions for community benefits. Hospitals must submit IRS Form 990 Schedule H annually to demonstrate their community benefit expenditures and maintain their 501c3 designations.

Are non-profit hospitals behaving like their for-profit counterparts?

Short answer: often times, yes.

Seven of the ten most profitable hospitals in the country are non-profits. Many of these exhibit for-profit characteristics such as being part of a larger hospital system, being located in urban areas, and not having a teaching program.

But these aren’t the only features of non-profit hospitals that resemble for-profits. A study conducted by the Kellogg School of Management found that non-profits regularly behaved like for-profits after financial shocks. In response to financial crises, non-profits cut back on unprofitable services to offset losses instead of increasing prices. This is not what we expect; the study authors argue that we should expect them to do the latter — forgoing financial gain by starting with lower prices with room to increase in times of financial stress. That they don’t suggests that non-profits are already maximizing profits, similar to for-profit hospitals.

While it is unusual for non-profit hospitals to experience large financial profits, it does happen. The question is whether these gains are then reinvested into the hospital’s charity care and community health and wellbeing initiatives.

How much of a non-profit hospital’s revenue goes back into care and its community?

Short answer: some.

Herring, et al. found that, on average, 7.6 percent of non-profit hospitals’ 2012 total expenses were community benefit expenditures, 3 percent were unreimbursed Medicaid costs, and about 2 percent were charity care. (These findings are consistent with past studies.)

In some cases, non-profit hospitals receive tax benefits that far outweigh their community benefit investments. For example, in fiscal year 2011-2012, the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center made approximately $1 billion in profits, spent less than $20 million on charity care, and received $200 million in tax benefits. Cases like these have increased public scrutiny on hospitals’ non-profit status and whether current 501c3 requirements go far enough to ensure that hospitals provide sufficient charity care and community benefits.

Non-profit hospitals maintain their tax exempt status through the fulfillment of the community benefits standard. In the next piece we will look at the impact of these standards on the hospitals and the communities they serve.

 

Another reality check on hospital beds

Posted on by • Posted in Conflicts of Interest, Fee for Service Reimbursement, Financial Incentives, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Tax Exempt Debt, Tax Exempt Status, Tax-Exempt Status, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-1a6dd9a6-5198-4abf-812f-dbf8dd8e67cb.html

Image result for reality check

Hospital beds are not filling up like they used to, but that doesn’t mean hospitals want their beds to be empty, Axios’ Bob Herman reports.

What they’re saying: Even though more patients are being treated in outpatient clinics rather than hospitals, “we’ll still be able to keep our beds pretty full,” Don Scanlon, chief financial officer at Mount Sinai Health System, said this week at an investor lunch held at Goldman Sachs headquarters in New York City.

Details: Mount Sinai, a not-for-profit hospital system based in Manhattan with $5 billion in annual revenue, is preparing to sell $475 million in bonds, and was making its pitch to bondholders about why buying that debt would be a good deal.

Between the lines: Mount Sinai’s discharges have trended down, but the hospital doesn’t want to lose the bigger dollars tied to inpatient stays. And the system wants to reassure municipal investors they will see returns.

  • As a result, Mount Sinai has invested more money in outpatient centers in other parts of New York that serve as “feeders” for its main city hospitals, Scanlon said.

The bottom line: Mount Sinai, Trinity Health, Banner Health and a host of other hospital systems have openly touted plans to boost or retain admissions even though they say they want to keep people out of the hospital. This is a fundamental disconnect between “value-based care” and the system’s financial incentives.

Go deeper: How banks and law firms make millions from hospital debt

 

Trinity Health may issue $1.7 billion in debt

Posted on by • Posted in Debt Refinancing, Health System, Hospital Industry, Tax Exempt Debt, Taxable Bonds • Leave a comment

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/finance/trinity-health-may-issue-17-billion-debt?utm_source=modern-healthcare-daily-dose-tuesday&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190924&utm_content=article3-readmore

Image result for mountain of money

Trinity Health, based in Livonia, Mich., is considering the refinancing of $1.7 billion in debt, with $1.4 billion of that amount likely to take the form of taxable bonds.

The debt under consideration for refinancing represents about 22% of the system’s $6.3 billion in total long-term debt.

The remaining $300 million in debt may or may not be issued as a tax-exempt security, but would be issued to cover the cost of the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of new and existing Trinity Health facilities or the refinancing of such expenditures, according to a municipal bond filing.

Not-for-profit hospitals typically borrow in the tax-exempt market but because of new refunding restrictions or depending on market conditions, they may elect to borrow in what is typically a higher cost environment.

In February, Trinity issued $383 million worth of tax-exempt fixed-rate hospital revenue with $78.9 million of that used for refunding of bonds. During the first nine months of fiscal 2019, which ended March 31, Trinity reported $14.3 billion in operating revenue and profit of $457.9 million, according to Modern Healthcare’s financial database.

Earlier this month, Trinity and an anesthesia group reached a settlement following a contract dispute, reported Crain’s Detroit Business.

In August, the system named Cassandra Willis-Abner as senior vice president of diversity and inclusion and chief experience officer; Marcus Shipley as Trinity’s chief information officer and senior vice president of innovation; and Dr. Mouhanad Hammami its senior vice president of safety net transformation, community benefit, and community health and well-being.