Despite strong patient interest, only 8% are offered no- or low-interest loans

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/despite-strong-patient-interest-only-8-are-offered-no-or-low-interest-loans.html

Image result for cash transfusion

A majority of healthcare providers fail to discuss pricing and payment options prior to providing care, despite patient demands, according to the HealthFirst Financial Patient Survey.

The survey, conducted by ORC International, took place Aug. 7-9 among 1,011 adults.

Here are seven findings from the survey.

1. The survey found 77 percent of respondents believe it’s “important” or “very important” they know healthcare costs prior to care, and more than half of respondents (53 percent) want to discuss financing options prior to treatment.

2. Additionally, a majority of respondents (63 percent) indicated it was “important” or “very important” for providers to publish prices of common procedures.

3. But only 18 percent of respondents said any of their healthcare providers had discussed patient financing options with them at all in the past two years.

4. More than half of respondents (57 percent) reported it’s “important” or “very important” their healthcare provider offer no-interest payment extension options. But only 8 percent of respondents received zero- or low-interest financing from a healthcare provider, according to the survey.

5. Respondents also indicated availability of payment programs affect their choice in provider. The survey found 40 percent of millennials, ages 18 to 36, would be “very likely” or “likely” to change providers if another provider offered low- or zero- interest financing for medical payments, and 29 percent of respondents overall indicated they would change to a provider with attractive payment programs.

6. Patients seek these discussions and options as they are concerned about medical costs. The survey found 42 percent of respondents are “very concerned” or “concerned” about being able to cover out-of-pocket medical bills in the next two years. More than half of respondents (54 percent) with annual income of less than $35,000 said the same.

7. HealthFirst Financial said 53 percent of respondents indicated they are worried about being able to pay a medical bill of less than $1,000. For a bill of that amount, the survey also found 52 percent of respondents would initially have interest in a multiyear, no-interest financing option from their healthcare provider.

Access the full survey here.

Courage: Critical Leadership Characteristic

http://johngself.com/self-perspective/2013/01/courage-critical-leadership-characteristic/#.WbggUciGMdU

Related image

Our new year is bringing ample challenges to the healthcare industry, from strategies to deal with the Affordable Care Act, to the realities that deficit reduction will require additional cuts in Medicare reimbursement to providers.

Congress is still in denial about the biggest problem with deficit spending – Medicare, but healthcare executives should not draw any hope that they will somehow escape the pain.

Cuts in payments inevitably will spark conflict on a national basis, as various healthcare groups bicker over how to divide the smaller financial pie.  These “who wins and who loses financial conflicts” will almost certainly “trickle down” to local relationships between hospitals, physicians, and other providers.  When money is involved, there will always be tension, and tension will lead to conflict.

This tension, and the conflicts that surface, will be the second biggest contributor to CEO turnover during the next five years, after the Baby Boomer retirement effect.  Today, annual hospital CEO turnover is about 17 percent.  I predict that will escalate to more than 20 percent in that five-year timeframe.

As I considered these probable developments, I began to rethink my beliefs regarding the competencies and ideal characteristics of the senior leaders who run hospitals.

As I thought about this over the holidays, I realized that the leadership characteristic that kept moving to the top of my list was courage.  Yes, communication and relationship management, industry knowledge and business skills are all critical, as is integrity, but I think courage is very important.

These next several years will produce unprecedented change.  This change, in addition to concerns about finances, will produce enormous unrest as we redefine how healthcare must be delivered.  Hard choices, very hard choices, will be the norm.

These tumultuous times will require leaders who are smart, who possess a deep understanding of healthcare operations who are proven performers, and who are excellent communicators.  But more importantly, these men and women must have the courage, the courage to promote innovation and change.  They must possess the courage to do the right thing when, career-wise, it would be easier to take the easy way out.

The Hidden Dangers of Leading Change

http://johngself.com/self-perspective/2017/09/hidden-dangers-leading-change/?utm_source=Self+Perspective+from+JohnGSelf+%2B+Partners%2C+Inc.&utm_campaign=3b361ba89c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_70effc545f-3b361ba89c-88600789#.Wbge8ciGMdU

 

People hate change. They dislike it so much that otherwise nice people will resort to some uncharacteristic behaviors — gossiping, lying and personal defamation against the person leading the change. This is a real threat to senior executives, especially those involved in organizational turnarounds.

Important progress can be slowed or derailed. Executive careers can be tarnished if not ruined.

This negative phenomenon is not new. In fact, evidence can be found in the Old Testament of the Bible. What is new is that we live in a digital age where malicious rumors and gossip can be spread, sometimes anonymously, over the Internet like wind-fed wildfire. It can blow up so fast that an unsuspecting, perhaps naive, executive can be tried and convicted before they are aware that the malignant campaign to discredit them even exists. Their attention, after all, is focused on more pressing issues.

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, including the opponents of change, those who typically use a leader’s weaknesses to stop that which they distrust and makes them uncomfortable. Now here is where I think executives can and must do a better job in protecting themselves against repetitional attacks — they must become more self aware and to begin using the digital tools and modern communications strategies to their advantage. Unfortunately, far too many CEOs, especially those who engage in challenging business turnarounds, are so focused on their plan that they fail to insulate themselves from the inevitable pushback. In fact, it is surprising how many CEOs reject any involvement in social media activities until they have lost their job and are looking for a new one.

Years ago, during the course of a major CEO search, an extraordinarily qualified candidate disclosed a background issue that was potentially problematic. He was such a superb candidate that I refused to eliminate this individual from the field. I disclosed it to the board of directors and, with an open mind and the recognition of this person’s outsized talent, they asked me to vet the issue more thoroughly. In the end, he got the job. Ultimately we made the decision to disclose the background issue, no longer material to leadership performance, because we knew that those who would most certainly oppose the changes that had to be made — some entrenched employee groups — would use it against the executive when it inevitably surfaced. They would have attacked the leader using the information as a blunt weapon to slow or halt changes and they would most certainly have accused the board of an unconscionable cover-up. We neutralized that issue and this executive went on to lead a highly successful turnaround.

The advantage in this situation is that we knew about the issue and took action. Far too often executives are the last to learn that they are the targets of a smear campaign. They frequently find themselves in a reactive mode and that alone can aggravate the bad optics even more.

Hospital Impact—The only thing clear about healthcare policy is the continued lack of clarity

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/hospital-impact-only-thing-clear-about-healthcare-policy-continuing-lack-clarity?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWldFeE1XUXlPRFE0TlRneCIsInQiOiJ5dzRsZ1IwekxcL2FMZnN3NkJIOHZGbnpNV1RPcmtMNmdPd1MwV0RLUXNBSXl6QzJnK0s0NktPVzBLOUtRRjF1K0puZzZMZG95dERnN2VUcVRpeForakRVZVJsXC9GWllyU1g1Rk9ZY2pERVRQcjVyT1wvQkMycXdobjd5UnNKa2p3NiJ9

Executive looking out window

For healthcare leaders, it’s discouraging that federal policy decisions seem to be made at the last minute without much planning or consideration of unintended consequences.

I spent my Labor Day vacation in Monterrey, California, watching the waves crash into the sand and wondering what the future of healthcare will look like in the coming months and years. Some clarity is emerging that we have not seen in the past, and I feel comfortable making some observations and predictions:

  • Congress will not revisit the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act before the end of the year. It is simply dealing with far too many other issues—passing a budget, raising the debt ceiling, approving disaster aid for Harvey and Irma, not to mention its desire for tax reform—that lawmakers must address.
  • While the Senate HELP committee is attempting a bipartisan effort to shore up the ACA, the issues listed above will make it almost impossible for such a law to be passed during this session.
  • The leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services ideologically opposes the very concept of the ACA and is also responsible for implementing the law. The tension between those two facts will lead to confusion and uncertainty for those of us in healthcare.
  • The passage of the ACA changed the terms of debate around healthcare reform. Granting health insurance to more than 20 million Americans has now shifted public opinion so that a solid majority believes the federal government should ensure that its citizens have insurance.
  • The ACA is not failing, but going forward it can be undermined without congressional action.

As a former anatomic pathologist, I am always interested in postmortem examination of failures, and the failure of Republicans to repeal the ACA ranks high in any list of stunning political disasters. Pundits have identified several possible causes:

  • Republicans never had a clear replacement plan or goal.
  • Taking away benefits from 22 million Americans is politically unpopular.
  • The ACA was not in a “death spiral.”
  • The president did not exert necessary leadership to get GOP senators to support his unpopular position.
  • Republican governors who had expanded Medicaid did not support the effort.
  • Organized opposition to repeal led to most Americans not supporting repeal.

Autopsy results always arrive too late for those of us who are still alive, and it is more important for those of us in healthcare to interpret the mixed messages coming out of HHS and Congress so that our organizations can continue to care for patients under the current system.

HHS seems willing and eager to let states experiment with healthcare reform. Alaska has received approval for $323 million over five years to subsidize insurance carriers and stabilize its individual ACA marketplace. Iowa is likely to receive approval for a radical 1332 waiver approach to healthcare reform in the Hawkeye state, and other states are preparing waiver submissions.

Meanwhile, HHS actions that seem to undermine the ACA include refusing to guarantee cost-sharing reduction subsidies to insurance companies and slashing the budget to support ACA enrollment for 2018. HHS recently announced advertising budget cuts of 90% for 2018 and the navigator program cuts of 40%.

A recent study—detailed in a post on The Incidental Economist blog—compared Kentucky ACA enrollment under a Democratic governor who supported advertising and a Republican governor who cut advertising. It found that lack of TV advertising led to 450,000 fewer page views on the ACA website and 20,000 fewer unique visits to the enrollment website.

ACA supporters, meanwhile, have recently put together a private enrollment campaign for 2018 to fill in the gap created by HHS decisions, Axios reported.

Last week, the Senate HELP Committee heard from state insurance commissioners and governorsabout ideas to stabilize the ACA marketplaces. They include:

  • Funding the cost-sharing reduction subsidies to insurance companies.
  • Facilitating reinsurance programs.
  • Expanding the ACA 1332 waiver programs to let states innovate.
  • Funding enrollment activities such as advertising and navigator programs.

Although health policy experts largely support these recommendations, it is hard to see how such a divided Congress could pass such proposals. Even if such legislation were approved, it would likely come too late to impact health insurance company decisions for 2018.

So, as of early September, we are left with the ACA continuing to be the law of the land, but with those in charge of the federal government not entirely supporting its success. Healthcare organizations have difficulty caring for patients when the rules keep changing and when clarity is hard to come by. It is also discouraging that decisions seem to be made at the last minute without much planning or consideration for unintended consequences.

That said, we still need to keep taking care of patients. My advice is to:

  • Continue to prepare for the transition from fee-for-service to value-based payments, but be aware that the Trump administration might slow down this process.
  • Continue to cut unnecessary costs.
  • Continue to improve the measurable quality of the care you give.
  • Participate in efforts in your individual states to innovate through waiver programs.
  • Collaborate with your physicians who are confused by all the uncertainty.
  • Keep up to date with the frequent changes that nobody can predict.

 

 

Moody’s downgrades UPMC to ‘A1’

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/moody-s-downgrades-upmc-to-a1.html

Image result for university of pittsburgh medical center

 

Moody’s Investors Service downgraded Pittsburgh-based UPMC from “Aa3” to “A1,” affecting $2.9 billion of debt.

In addition, Moody’s downgraded UPMC-Hamot’s bonds, which are parity obligations for UMPC, from “Aa3” to “A1.”

The downgrade is a result of several factors including UPMC’s rapid expansion project, high execution risk following the acquisition of Harrisburg, Pa.-based PinnacleHealth and a new service area with high competition. Moody’s also acknowledged UPMC’s increased debt burden, below average financial performance and suppressed margins. Offsetting an additional notch downgrade is UPMC’s strong market position, integration of various hospital acquisitions and core competency in acute care management.

The outlook is negative, reflecting Moody’s expectation that UPMC’s rapid expansion may pose financial and cultural stress.

Banner Health secures $550M bond to finance construction of two hospitals

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/facilities-management/banner-health-secures-550m-bond-to-finance-construction-of-two-hospitals.html

Image result for hospital construction

Phoenix-based Banner Health secured a $550 million revenue bond issue to finance the construction of two new teaching hospitals in Tucson, Ariz., and Phoenix, according to Az Central.  

The bonds will be used to help finance $325 million of a new 16-story patient tower currently under construction at Banner University Medical Center in Phoenix, and another $225 million will finance the construction of a nine-story tower at Banner University Medical Center in Tucson.

When the construction is completed in Phoenix, the tower will house 256 inpatient beds, an emergency department, trauma center, operating rooms and lab space. The 16-story tower is expected to be completed by October 2018.

The new hospital tower in Tucson will replace the current hospital, include 200 patient rooms and provide new laboratories, operating rooms and diagnostic centers, according to The Daily Wildcat.

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved the bond issue Sept. 6. Banner Health is obligated to pay off the bonds, under the agreement.