Done deal: Princeton HealthCare joins Penn Medicine

https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2018/01/09/penn-medicine-merges-with-princeton-healthcare.html

Image result for Done deal: Princeton HealthCare joins Penn Medicine

The University of Pennsylvania Health System’s biggest push ever into New Jersey became official Tuesday with its addition of Princeton HealthCare System.

“The joining together of Princeton HealthCare System and Penn Medicine represents an exciting new chapter in Penn Medicine’s growth,” said Ralph W. Muller, CEO of the Penn Health System. “[Princeton Healthcare] has an impressive reputation for providing high-quality care to patients close to home, and innovating in many types of community-based health and wellness initiatives. Now, we can offer a powerful partnership to patients throughout the region [Princeton HealthCare] serves, continuing the services they already depend on, coupled with access to world-class care for complex conditions and innovative clinical trials available at Penn Medicine.”

Princeton Healthcare — which operates the 319-bed University Medical Center of Princeton at Plainsboro, the 110-bed Princeton House Behavioral Health facility in Princeton, a home care division and a physician network — first reached a tentative agreement to join the Penn Health System in 2016. The two organizations spent more than a year going through the now-completed regulatory review process, which included getting the support of the state Attorney General’s Office and state Department of Health, and the approval of state Superior Court’s Chancery Division.

“This is a significant day in our history, and we look forward to being an even stronger organization, clinically and financially, as we continue to fulfill our almost century-old mission of serving this community,” said Princeton HealthCare President and CEO Barry S. Rabner. “We could not ask for a better partner than Penn Medicine.”

Rabner repeated the community members will continue to receive high-quality care locally, and added they also “will benefit from easier access to the latest medical breakthroughs, cutting-edge technologies and specialized clinical expertise—both here and elsewhere in the Penn Medicine system.”

Princeton Healthcare, which employs about 3,000 workers and has an active medical staff of more than 1,100 physicians, is based about 40 miles north of Philadelphia. As part of the transaction, the names of the health system and its affiliates will change. The system will be Penn Medicine Princeton Health. The hospital’s new name will be Penn Medicine Princeton Medical Center.

“Our trustees engaged community members, physicians and employees in a thorough, two-year process to evaluate and select a partner,” said Kim Pimley, Princeon HealthCare’s board chairwoman. “In Penn Medicine, we found a partner that shares our values. Together, we can make world-class care more accessible to the people in the communities we serve.”

Penn Medicine consists of the Raymond and Ruth Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pennsylvania Health System, which together form a $6.7 billion enterprise. The Penn Health System’s patient care facilities include: The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Pennsylvania Hospital, Chester County Hospital; Lancaster General Health; Penn Wissahickon Hospice; and Pennsylvania Hospital. It also operates Good Shepherd Penn Partners, a long-term hospital and rehabilitation care provider created through a partnership between Good Shepherd Rehabilitation Network and Penn Medicine. The health system also operates a network of outpatient and physician practice sites throughout the region, including Penn Medicine Cherry Hill and Penn Medicine Woodbury Heights in South Jersey.

Court records associated with the transaction provided the following narrative about how the two health systems came together.

Princeton HealthCare spent several years evaluating potential strategic options and partners before signing its deal with Penn. Its first step was initiating a competitive process of evaluating potential partners and partnership structures during the summer of 2015. Wells Fargo was brought in as a consultant and the firm identified 19 potential strategic partners, initiated contact with 17, and, sent a confidential draft and non-disclosure agreement to 11 organizations that expressed an interest in a fully-integrated strategic partnership.

By the end of 2015, Wells Fargo sent a formal request for proposal to nine potential strategic partners that best satisfied Princeton HealthCare’s “guiding principles.” Six potential partners provided a written response to the formal request for a proposal by February 2016.  Princeton HealthCare narrowed the field to three “preferred partners” – Penn Medicine, a second Pennsylvania health system and a New Jersey-based health system. The identities of the other potential partners were not disclosed.

After more detailed proposals were submitted by the three potential partners, Princeton HealthCare’s strategic planning committee voted in May 2016 to recommend that the system enter into exclusive negotiations with the Penn Health System for three key reasons:

  • “Penn Medicine has the human, scientific, educational, financial and clinical resources necessary to enable Princeton HealthCare to provide the highest level of accessible care to the communities it serves long into the future. Penn Medicine has demonstrated that it shares Princeton Healthcare’s values;
  • “A partnership with Penn Medicine will enhance Princeton HealthCare’s ability to expand its clinical programs, care coordination and information technology and to provide its patients with better access to medical breakthroughs, clinical trials, cutting edge technologies and more specialized clinical expertise; and
  • “For more than two centuries, Penn Medicine has been committed to the highest standards of patient care, education and research. Penn Medicine’s commitment has been recognized across the nation.”

Princeton HealthCare entered into a non-binding letter of intent to join the Penn Health System in July 2016. A former affiliation agreement was signed in December 2016.

According to court records, the proposed transaction will not result in the payment of any purchase price or the sale of assets. Penn Health System has committed to spending a minimum of $200 million to fund “strategic capital projects for the benefit of the residents of the communities served by Princeton HealthCare and to improve the financial performance of Princeton HealthCare and its affiliates during the five-year period after the deal closes. Penn Health System has also committed to spend at least $12 million per year for “routine capital expenditures” on the University Medical Center’s campus.

The deal, according to court records, also involves Penn Health system assuming financial responsibility for Princeton HealthCare’s outstanding debt and pension obligations. All donor-restricted gifts made to Princeton HealthCare and its foundation will continue to be held and used for purposes consistent with the donor’s intent. In addition, after the closing, any gifts received by Princeton HealthCare through local fund-raising efforts will be used locally for the benefit of Princeton Healthcare and its affiliates. The deal stipulates Princeton HealthCare’s governing board will retain the right to approve any closure or relocation of any licensed health care facilities for six years following the closing of the proposed transaction.

 

Podcast: ‘What The Health?’ While You Were Celebrating …

https://khn.org/news/podcast-what-the-health-while-you-were-celebrating/?utm_campaign=KFF-2018-The-Latest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=59811229&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–JERFINvucriGGpU1rflJEeJxuQPVDm8Wxcl7b-PGXeAoVUch8Oz-J5zdRyTzl09wIqr9zHKJO6Lrp-P6xvIdaGh3oKQ&_hsmi=59811229

Image result for Podcast: ‘What The Health?’ While You Were Celebrating …

The year in health policy has already begun: The Trump administration Thursday released a long-awaited regulation aimed at making it easier for small businesses and others to form “association health plans.” Now advocates and opponents will be able to weigh in with more specific recommendations.

Meanwhile, in December, the health policy focus was on the tax bill and its repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate” penalty for most people who don’t have health insurance. But some recent key court decisions could reshape the benefits millions of people receive as part of their health coverage.

This week’s “What the Health?” guests are Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Paige Winfield Cunningham of The Washington Post, Alice Ollstein of Talking Points Memo and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

They discuss these topics, as well as the prospects for pending health legislation on Capitol Hill.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • The Trump administration’s decision to expand association health plans faces a number of obstacles, including the lack of good oversight in many states and the poor track record of many past plans.
  • Consumer advocates fear that growth of association plans could leave many consumers without adequate benefits because some plans will not cover the same essential benefits that Obamacare plans guarantee. They also are concerned that healthy customers will migrate to the new plans and leave the ACA’s marketplace plans with an abundance of enrollees who are ill.
  • The prospects of the bill to stabilize the individual insurance market sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) appear to be dimming.
  • Two federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration rule to change the ACA’s contraception mandate. The decisions, though, are not based on the policy but on faulty rule-making.
  • In another highly watched court case, a federal judge has ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has until 2019 to set new rules on what employers can require of workers in their wellness programs.

Understanding the Intersection of Medicaid and Work

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/understanding-the-intersection-of-medicaid-and-work/?utm_campaign=KFF-2018-The-Latest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=59811229&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–JERFINvucriGGpU1rflJEeJxuQPVDm8Wxcl7b-PGXeAoVUch8Oz-J5zdRyTzl09wIqr9zHKJO6Lrp-P6xvIdaGh3oKQ&_hsmi=59811229

Image result for medicaid

Medicaid is the nation’s public health insurance program for people with low incomes. Overall, the Medicaid program covers one in five Americans, including many with complex and costly needs for care. Historically, nonelderly adults without disabilities accounted for a small share of Medicaid enrollees; however, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded coverage to nonelderly adults with income up to 138% FPL, or $16,642 per year for an individual in 2017. As of December 2017, 32 states have implemented the ACA Medicaid expansion.1 By design, the expansion extended coverage to the working poor (both parents and childless adults), most of whom do not otherwise have access to affordable coverage. While many have gained coverage under the expansion, the majority of Medicaid enrollees are still the “traditional” populations of children, people with disabilities, and the elderly.

Some states and the Trump administration have stated that the ACA Medicaid expansion targets “able-bodied” adults and seek to make Medicaid eligibility contingent on work. Under current law, states cannot impose a work requirement as a condition of Medicaid eligibility, but some states are seeking waiver authority to do so.  These types of waiver requests were denied by the Obama administration, but the Trump administration has indicated a willingness to approve such waivers. This issue brief provides data on the work status of the nearly 25 million non-elderly adults without SSI enrolled in Medicaid (referred to as “Medicaid adults” throughout this brief) to understand the potential implications of work requirement proposals in Medicaid.  Key takeaways include the following:

  • Among Medicaid adults (including parents and childless adults — the group targeted by the Medicaid expansion), nearly 8 in 10 live in working families, and a majority are working themselves. Nearly half of working Medicaid enrollees are employed by small firms, and many work in industries with low employer-sponsored insurance offer rates.
  • Among the adult Medicaid enrollees who were not working, most report major impediments to their ability to work including illness or disability or care-giving responsibilities.
  • While proponents of work requirements say such provisions aim to promote work for those who are not working, these policies could have negative implications on many who are working or exempt from the requirements. For example, coverage for working or exempt enrollees may be at risk if enrollees face administrative obstacles in verifying their work status or documenting an exemption.

Data Findings

Among nonelderly adults with Medicaid coverage—the group of enrollees most likely to be in the workforce—nearly 8 in 10 live in working families, and a majority are working themselves. Because policies around work requirements would be intended to apply to primarily to nonelderly adults without disabilities, we focus this analysis on adults whose eligibility is not based on receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI, see methods box for more detail). Data show that among the nearly 25 million non-SSI adults (ages 19-64) enrolled in Medicaid in 2016, 6 in 10 (60%) are working themselves (Figure 1). A larger share, nearly 8 in 10 (79%), are in families with at least one worker, with nearly two-thirds (64%) with a full-time worker and another 14% with a part-time worker; one of the adults in such families may not work, often due to caregiving or other responsibilities.

Because states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA cover adults with family incomes at higher levels than those that did not, adults in Medicaid expansion states are more likely to be in working families or working themselves than those in non-expansion states (Table 1). Adults who are younger, male, Hispanic or Asian were more likely to be working than those who are older, female, or White, Black, or American Indian, respectively (Figure 2 and Table 2). Not surprisingly, adults with more education or better health were more likely to work than others (Figure 3 and Table 2). Perhaps reflecting job market conditions, those living in the South were less likely to work than those in other areas, though similar rates of enrollees in urban and rural areas were working (Table 2). 

Most Medicaid enrollees who work are working full-time for the full year, but their annual incomes are still low enough to qualify for Medicaid. Among adult Medicaid enrollees who work, the majority (51%) worked full-time (at least 35 hours per week) for the entire year (at least 50 weeks during the year) (Table 3).2Most of those who work for only part of the year still work for the majority of the year (26 weeks or more). By definition (that is, in order to meet Medicaid eligibility criteria), these individuals are working low-wage jobs. For example, an individual working full-time (40 hours/week) for the full year (52 weeks) at the federal minimum wage would earn an annual salary of just over $15,000 a year, or about 125% of poverty, below the 138% FPL maximum targeted by the ACA Medicaid expansion.

Many Medicaid enrollees working part-time face impediments to finding full-time work.  Among adult Medicaid enrollees who work part-time, many cite economic reasons such as inability to find full-time work (10%) or slack business conditions (11%) as the reason they work part-time versus full-time. Other major reasons are attendance at school (14%) or other family obligations (14%).

Nearly half of working adult Medicaid enrollees are employed by small firms, and many work in industries with low employer-sponsored coverage offer rates.  Working Medicaid enrollees work in firms and industries that often have limited employer-based coverage options. More than four in ten adult Medicaid enrollees who work are employed by small firms with fewer than 50 employees that will not be subject to ACA penalties for not offering coverage (Figure 4). Further, many firms do not offer coverage to part-time workers. Four in ten Medicaid adults who work are employed in industries with historically low insurance rates, such as the agriculture and service industries. A closer look by specific industry shows that one-third of working Medicaid enrollees are employed in ten industries, with one in 10 enrollees working in restaurants or food services (Figure 5). The Medicaid expansion was designed to reach low-income adults left out of the employer-based system, so, it is not surprising that among those who work, most are unlikely to have access to health coverage through a job.

Among the adult Medicaid enrollees who were not working, most report major impediments to their ability to work.  Even though individuals qualifying for Medicaid on the basis of a disability through SSI were excluded from this group, more than one-third of those not working reported that illness or disability was the primary reason for not working. SSI disability criteria are stringent and can take a long time to establish. People can have physical and/or mental health disabilities that interfere with their ability to work, or to work full-time, without those impairments rising to the SSI level of severity. Other analysis indicates that nearly nine in ten (88%) non-SSI Medicaid adults who reports not working due to illness or disability has a functional limitation, and more than two-thirds (67%) have two or more chronic conditions such as arthritis or asthma.3

30% of non-working Medicaid adults reported that they did not work because they were taking care of home or family; 15% were in school; 6% were looking for work and another 9% were retired (Figure 6). Women accounted for 62% of Medicaid enrollees who were not working in 2016, and parents with children under the age of 6 accounted for 17%.

Policy Implications

Under current law, states cannot impose a work requirement as a condition of Medicaid eligibility. As with other core requirements, the Medicaid statute sets minimum eligibility standards, and states are able to expand coverage beyond these minimum levels. Prior to the ACA, individuals had to meet not only income and resource requirements but also categorical requirements to be eligible for the program. These categorical requirements provided coverage pathways for adults who were pregnant women or parents as well as individuals with disabilities, but other adults without dependent children were largely excluded from coverage. The ACA was designed to fill in gaps in coverage and effectively eliminate these categorical eligibility requirements by establishing a uniform income threshold for most adults. States are not allowed to impose other eligibility requirements that are not in the law.

Some states have proposed tying Medicaid eligibility to work requirements using waiver authority that may be approved by the Trump Administration. Under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act, the Secretary of HHS can waive certain provisions of Medicaid as long as the Secretary determines that the initiative is a “research and demonstration project” that “is likely to assist in promoting the objectives” of the program. The Obama administration did not approve waivers that would condition Medicaid eligibility on work on the grounds that they did not meet the waiver test to further the purpose of the program which is to provide health coverage. The Trump Administration has indicated a willingness to approve waivers to require work.

Research shows that Medicaid expansion has not negatively affected labor market participation, and some research indicates that Medicaid coverage supports work. comprehensive review of research on the ACA Medicaid expansion found that there is no significant negative effect of the ACA Medicaid expansion on employment rates and other measures of employment and employee behavior (such as transitions from employment to non-employment, the rate of job switches, transitions from full- to part-time employment, labor force participation, and usual hours worked per week). In addition, focus groupsstate studies, and anecdotal reports highlight examples of Medicaid coverage supporting work and helping enrollees transition into new careers. For example, individuals have reported that receiving medication for conditions like asthma or rheumatoid arthritis through Medicaid is critical in supporting their ability to work.  Addressing barriers to work requires adequate funding and supports.  While TANF spending on work activities and supports is critiqued by some as too low, it exceeds estimates of state Medicaid program spending to implement a work requirement.

Implementing work requirements can create administrative complexity and put coverage at risk for eligible enrollees who are working or who may be exempt.  States can incur additional costs and demands on staff, and some eligible people could lose coverage.  While work requirements are intended to promote work among those not working, coverage for those who are working could be at risk if beneficiaries face administrative obstacles in verifying their work status or documenting an exemption.  In addition, some individuals who may be exempt may face challenges in navigating an exemption which could also put coverage at risk.

Hospital CFOs: 3 things demanding your attention in 2018

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/hospital-cfos-3-things-demanding-your-attention-in-2018.html

Image result for hospital CFO concerns

From managing new risk-based payment models to navigating an uncertain regulatory environment, healthcare industry finance leaders face many challenges this year, making it difficult to determine which initiatives to prioritize.

To simplify and focus, below are three areas hospital and health system CFOs should prioritize in 2018, according to a new study from Kaufman Hall. For the study, Kaufman Hall surveyed CFOs and other senior finance executives from more than 350 hospitals, health systems and other healthcare organizations across the nation from Oct. 2 to Oct. 27, 2017. Of the respondents, 69 percent were from multihospital health systems, 19 percent were from standalone hospitals, 4 percent were from medical groups and 8 percent were from health plans or other organization types.

1. Cost reduction initiatives. Nearly 30 percent of the respondents said identifying and managing cost reduction initiatives is the most important performance management activity for their organizations. “CFOs recognize the urgency of generating cost improvements, but are struggling with data, processes, and tools due to their lack of structure, transparency, accuracy, and hence, creditability,” according to Kaufman Hall. Seventy percent of survey respondents said their organizations do not use cost measurement tools, or use tools that are too simplistic or provide inaccurate data.

A reliable cost accounting solution can help healthcare organizations manage cost-reduction initiatives. “It must provide flexibility and transparency of costing model elements and a fluid ability to support strategic and financial planning,” according to Kaufman Hall. “A trusted cost accounting tool enables modeling and forecasting of utilization, labor and other costs, and insights into current costs at a patient or service line level.”

2. Financial planning. More than 50 percent of respondents said operational budgeting and forecasting, cost management and efficiency, and reporting and analysis to support decision-making as top initiatives. To improve in these areas, hospital leaders need to have clear goals that are communicated across the organization, according to Kaufman Hall. However, further improvement is needed to ensure transparency and accountability, as nearly half of respondents said their organizations do not closely track targets across the organization to help achieve financial goals.

“Progress is being made in improving financial planning processes, analytics, and tools in order to ensure best-possible organizational performance,” according to Kaufman Hall. “But CFOs and other finance leaders must focus on the areas that will generate the most significant returns.” Kaufman Hall recommends hospitals and health systems examine whether they have the financial resources and talent to successfully implement and operate clinical and administrative tools; support ongoing data collection and management; drive data analytics; and integrate the results with broader organizational plans.

3. Budget processes. The budget process at most healthcare organizations is time consuming, and budget assumptions are often outdated by the time they are published. Although the majority of respondents (69 percent) said their organization’s budget process takes more than three months from initial rollout to board presentation, CFOs recognize there is room for improvement in this area. Forty-seven percent of respondents said their budget cycles do not leave ample time for value-added analysis that can inform strategic decisions.

“Finance leaders are and should be considering different approaches to budgeting, not just simple tweaks to the existing process,” according to Kaufman Hall, and many healthcare organizations are doing just that. Thirty-one percent of respondents said their organizations plan to start using rolling forecasting in the near future to give them the ability to adjust projections and strategies to remain in sync with long-term financial plans.

Access the full Kaufman Hall report here.