
Cartoon – Trickle on Your Heads Theory



Boston-based Brigham and Women’s Hospital may ask more employees to voluntarily leave their jobs just three months after offering buyouts to 1,600 employees, according to The Boston Globe.
“We are considering a respectful way to minimize any potential involuntary reduction in force by inviting some employees who may wish to leave the Brigham to voluntarily separate from the organization,” the hospital said in a statement to The Boston Globe. “When we announced the voluntary retirement opportunity in April, we indicated that additional reductions in force would likely be necessary.”
When Brigham and Women’s announced the buyout offer in April, the organization said it is profitable but facing pressure amid shrinking payments from government and commercial insurers and growing labor costs. Buyouts were only offered to employees age 60 or older. The offer includes one year of base pay and health insurance for up to 20 months.
About 45 percent of those eligible have applied for the buyout, according to The Boston Globe.
A hospital spokesperson told The Boston Globe the hospital hasn’t decided how many and which employees to extend the buyout offer to.
Brigham and Women’s is owned by Boston-based Partners HealthCare and has approximately 18,000 employees.

As ACA repeal and replace efforts stall, significant uncertainty remains surrounding how federal policy will affect nonprofit healthcare organizations, leading to a negative sector outlook for healthcare, according to Fitch Ratings.
The uncertainty and negative outlook comes as the Trump administration looks for ways to weaken the ACA even if the health reform law is not repealed.
Nonprofit hospitals experienced declines in uncompensated care under the ACA because of an increase in healthcare coverage due to Medicaid expansion, rollout of healthcare exchanges and allowing children to stay on their parent’s health insurance plan until age 26.
While repeal efforts cause uncertainty for hospitals, current discussions regarding a bipartisan healthcare bill could be beneficial for nonprofit hospitals. A bipartisan effort could potentially reduce the insurance premium price hikes, according to Fitch.

The following hospital and health system CFO moves were reported by Becker’s Hospital Review since July 20.
1. Dallas-based Parkland Health and Hospital System named Richard Humphrey executive vice president and CFO.
2. Providence St. Joseph Health, the organization formed through the merger of Renton, Wash.-based Providence Health & Services and Irvine, Calif.-based St. Joseph Health, named Venkat Bhamidipati executive vice president and CFO.
3. Dennis Laraway, executive vice president and CFO of Houston-based Memorial Hermann, will join Phoenix-based Banner Health as CFO on Sept. 29.
4. Gainesville-based Northeast Georgia Health System named Brian D. Steines as its new CFO.
5. Albuquerque, N.M.-based Presbyterian Healthcare Services appointed Roger Larsen senior vice president and CFO.
http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/5-hospitals-with-strong-finances-080117.html
Here are five hospitals and health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions according to recent reports from Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings.
Note: This is not an exhaustive list. Hospital and health system names were compiled from recent credit rating reports and are listed in alphabetical order.
1. Coral Gables-based Baptist Health South Florida has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with S&P. The system maintained key balance sheet metrics and generated better-than-projected financial results in fiscal year 2016, according to S&P.
2. Carolinas HealthCare System has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The Charlotte, N.C.-based system has a track record of good financial performance, strong balance sheet metrics and a large scope of operations with multiple hospitals. Moody’s expects Carolinas HealthCare System to maintain stable leverage metrics while continuing to generate financial results at current levels.
3. Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. CHOA is a leading provider of high acuity pediatric care in the Atlanta area and has favorable leverage metrics and a track record of strong margins and liquidity, according to Moody’s.
4. Cleveland Clinic Health System has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The system has a track record of meeting operating challenges to sustain strong cash flow, exceptional fundraising capabilities, strong liquidity and a growing ability to leverage an international brand into revenue diversification, according to Moody’s. The debt rating agency expects Cleveland Clinic to manage execution risks of multiple strategies, as demonstrated in the past.
5. Broomfield, Colo.-based SCL Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The system’s operating performance improved in fiscal year 2015, and SCL has sustained those results, according to Fitch. The system has manageable capital needs in the near term, a stable liquidity position and geographic diversity, with 12 hospitals in five markets across three states.
![]()
The Senate Health Committee will begin holding bipartisan hearings the first week of September on how to stabilize and strengthen the individual insurance market, the panel’s top Democrat and Republican announced Tuesday.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) — the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — said the goal is for the panel to craft a bipartisan, short-term proposal by mid-September, as insurers must finalize how much their premiums will cost by the end of that month.
“We need to put out the fire in these collapsing markets wherever these markets are,” Alexander said at the beginning of a HELP Committee hearing on nominations.
The committee plans to discuss the issue with insurance commissioners, patients, insurance companies, governors and healthcare experts. The committee’s staff will beginning preparing for the hearings this week, Alexander said.
The panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said she welcomed the bipartisan hearings and appreciated Alexander’s willingness to work with her on the issue. Alexander and Murray have previously crafted bipartisan deals, such as a rewrite of the No Child Left Behind Act last congressional session.
The move comes as some Senate GOP leaders are openly admitting they don’t see a path forward on their seven-years long campaign pledge to repeal ObamaCare, at least for now, after a scaled-down repeal bill failed to pass the upper chamber early Friday morning.
Still, in a press conference Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell noted the vehicle to repeal ObamaCare hasn’t yet expired.
“We’re continuing to score some of the options on healthcare [from] Senator Portman, Senator Cruz, Senator Graham, Senator Cassidy,” he said.
Even before last week’s vote, some Republicans have called for an open and bipartisan process. Others have said that letting Alexander and Murray work on healthcare in committee is at least one path worth pursuing.
“We’re not adverse to that,” Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 3 Senate Republican said early Friday morning, after the skinny repeal bill failed.
“I just don’t have high hopes that we’re going to get anything that really solves the problems that we think exist with ObamaCare today,” Thune said.
Stabilizing the individual market could be one area of bipartisanship, though it’s already drawn ire from conservatives who argue that any action would be providing bailouts to insurance companies.
The bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, consisting of 43 Republicans and Democrats, unveiled proposals to fix problems with the Affordable Care Act on Monday. Included in the list was congressional funding for cost-sharing reduction payments.
Insurers have been pleading with Congress for long-term certainty that they’ll continue to receive crucial payments compensating them for subsidizing out-of-pocket costs for certain consumers. Without them, premiums on the ObamaCare exchanges would spike, insurers warn.
The Trump administration has been funding these cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers on a monthly basis. In tweets over the weekend, President Trump threatened to cancel the payments, which total $7 billion in fiscal 2017, if Republicans don’t pass a healthcare bill. White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said Sunday a decision would come this week.
“He’s going to make that decision this week, and that’s a decision that only he can make,” Conway said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Alexander said he has urged the president to continue CSR payments through September to give Congress time to work out a short-term solution.

President Trump took to Twitter this week to threaten insurance companies that he may withhold crucial government payments in an effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act.
It’s not the first time the president has threatened to cut off these payments to insurers, which he refers to as “BAILOUTS.
But these payments aren’t designed to compensate insurers for business failures. Rather, they reimburse insurance companies for discounts the law requires them to give to low-income people who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchanges. The federal money that goes to insurers in these payments, known as cost-sharing reductions, or CSRs, offsets the money insurers lose by lowering the deductibles and co-payments they require of these policyholders.
Trump, who is angry that the Congress failed to pass a law to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, is wielding his threat to withhold these CSRs — which could cause chaos in the insurance markets – in hopes of forcing lawmakers back to the table to try again to get rid of the health care law.
The next cost-sharing payments are due to be paid in a few weeks and the president has said he’ll announce this week whether he’ll pay the money or keep it in the Treasury.
“In the absence of the CSR, the rate increases could be astonishing,” says Dr. Marc Harrison, CEO of Intermountain Healthcare, which operates nonprofit hospitals and clinics and insures more than 800,000 people across Utah.
“We’ll see [the number of] people who are uninsured, or functionally uninsured, go way, way up,” he adds.
Harrison says he and his company filed two sets of proposed rates for policies sold on the insurance exchange next year. If the president cuts off the cost-sharing payments, he says, the rates will be much higher.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the payments, if they’re all made, will total $7 billion this year. Margaret Murray is CEO of the Association for Community Affiliated Plans, which represents these “safety net health plans” aimed at people with lower incomes. She says she has been in touch with the Department of Health and Human Services to urge them to fund the payments.
“Should the payments cease, insurers will be required to fund cost-sharing reductions on their own,” Murray says. If that happens, “they will either raise their rates – our plans indicate that it could be by up to 23 percent – to compensate for these losses, or they will withdraw from the markets altogether.”
If Trump does decide to stop making the payments, it may end up costing the U.S. Treasury more, while insurance companies who remain in the markets could do just fine.
That’s because insurance companies will charge more in premiums to make up for the lost payments. And that will lead the Treasury to spend more on subsidies to policyholders who qualify, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Oliver Wyman.
If those subsidies go up enough, more people could be lured into the exchange markets.
Here’s the wonky reason why:
The Obamacare exchanges require insurance policies to conform to one of four “metal” levels — bronze, silver, gold or platinum — which coincide with how much an individual is expected to pay in premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. A bronze plan covers about 60 percent of a customer’s health care costs, with relatively low monthly premiums, while a platinum plan will cost more each month but pay 90 percent of total health costs.
The law provides income-based tax credits to people to buy insurance, and those credits are calculated based on the price of silver plans. Last year about 85 percent of people who bought Obamacare insurance got a credit, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
People with the lowest incomes also get those discounted deductibles and co-payments if they buy a silver plan; and then the government reimburses insurers through CSR payments.
If Trump decides not to make those payments, insurance companies are likely to raise rates about 19 percent, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
That means subsidies will have to rise for many people to meet those higher premiums. Some people may take that bigger subsidy to buy a cheaper policy — and many could even get insurance for free, according to Oliver Wyman, because premiums on bronze plans probably would not rise as much as those on silver plans.
The higher subsidies could cost the government as much as $2.3 billion in 2018, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt. Levitt notes that Congress could end the ambiguity over the payments by appropriating the money for them.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in an interview with Reuters that he thinks Congress will do just that.
“I’m for helping the poor; always have been,” Hatch said. “And I don’t think they should be bereft of health care.”
The reason CSRs are in limbo at all is because House Republican who did not want Obamacare to succeed sued the administration, claiming the payments to insurers were illegal because they had not appropriated money for them.
A federal judge agreed, but the Obama administration appealed. When Trump took the White House he continued the appeal, to allow lawmakers time to pass a bill to repeal Obamacare and make the payments disappear altogether.
Now that that effort has failed, the lawsuit and the cost-sharing money are once again in play.