This week, the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees begins work on the reconciliation bill they hope to complete by Memorial Day. Healthcare cuts are expected to figure prominently in the committee’s work.
And in San Diego, America’s Physician Groups (APG) will host its spring meeting “Kickstarting Accountable Care: Innovations for an Urgent Future” featuring Presidential historian Dorris Kearns Goodwin and new CMS Innovation Center Director Abe Sutton. Its focus will be the immediate future of value-based programs in Trump Healthcare 2.0, especially accountable care organizations (ACOs) and alternative payment models (APMs).
Central to both efforts is the administration’s mandate to reduce federal spending which it deems achievable, in part, by replacing fee for services with value-based payments to providers from the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs.
The CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) is the government’s primary vehicle to test and implement alternative payment programs that reduce federal spending and improve the quality and effectiveness of services simultaneously.
Pledges to replace fee-for-service payments with value-based incentives are not new to Medicare. Twenty-five years ago, they were called “pay for performance” programs and, in 2010, included in the Affordable Care as alternative payment models overseen by CMMI.
But the effectiveness of APMs has been modest at best: of 50+ models attempted, only 6 proved effective in reducing Medicare spending while spending $5.4 billion on the programs. Few were adopted in Medicaid and only a handful by commercial payers and large self-insured employers. Critics argue the APMs were poorly structured, more costly to implement than potential shared savings payments and sometimes more focused on equity and DEI aims than actual savings.
The question is how the Mehmet Oz-Abe Sutten version of CMMI will approach its version of value-based care, given modest APM results historically and the administration’s focus on cost-cutting.
Context is key:
Recent efforts by the Trump Healthcare 2.0 team and its leadership appointments in CMS and CMMI point to a value-agenda will change significantly. Alternative payment models will be fewer and participation by provider groups will be mandated for several. Measures of quality and savings will be fewer, more easily measured and and standardized across more episodes of care. Financial risks and shared savings will be higher and regulatory compliance will be simplified in tandem with restructuring in HHS, CMS and CMMI to improve responsiveness and consistency across federal agencies and programs.
Sutton’s experience as the point for CMMI is significant. Like Adam Boehler, Brad Smith and other top Trump Healthcare 2.0 leaders, he brings prior experience in federal health agencies and operating insight from private equity-backed ventures (Honest Health, Privia, Evergreen Nephrology funded through Nashville-based Rubicon Founders). Sutton’s deals have focused on physician-driven risk-bearing arrangements with Medicare with funding from private investors.
The Trump Healthcare 2.0 team share a view that the healthcare system is unnecessarily expensive and wasteful, overly-regulated and under-performing. They see big hospitals and drug companies as complicit—more concerned about self-protection than consumer engagement and affordability.
They see flawed incentives as a root cause, and believe previous efforts by CMS and CMMI veered inappropriately toward DEI and equity rather than reducing health costs.
And they think physicians organized into risk bearing structures with shared incentives, point of care technologies and dependable data will reduce unnecessary utilization (spending) and improve care for patients (including access and affordability).
There’s will be a more aggressive approach to spending reduction and value-creation with Medicare as the focus: stronger alternative payment models and expansion of Medicare Advantage will book-end their collective efforts as Trump Healthcare 2.0 seeks cost-reduction in Medicare.
What’s ahead?
Trump Healthcare 2.0 value-based care is a take-no prisoners strategy in which private insurers in Medicare Advantage have a seat at their table alongside hospitals that sponsor ACOs and distribute the majority of shared savings to the practicing physicians. But the agenda will be set, and re-set by the administration and link-minded physician organizations like America’s Physician Groups and others that welcome financial risk-sharing with Medicare and beyond.
The results of the Trump Healthcare 2.0 value agenda will be unknown to voters in the November 2026 mid-term but apparent by the Presidential campaign in 2028. In the interim, surrogate measures for performance—like physician participation and projected savings–will be used to show progress and the administration will claim success. It will also spark criticism especially from providers who believe access to needed specialty care will be restricted, public and rural health advocates whose funding is threatened, teaching and clinical research organizations who facing DOGE cuts and regulatory uncertainty, patient’s right advocacy groups fearing lack of attention and private payers lacking scalable experience in Medicare Advantage and risk-based relationships with physicians.
Last week, the American Medical Association named Dr. John Whyte its next President replacing widely-respected 12-year CEO/EVP Jim Madara. When he assumes this office in July, he’ll inherit an association that has historically steered clear of major policy issues but the administration’s value-based care agenda will quickly require his attention.
Physicians including AMA members are restless:
At last fall’s House of Delegates (HOD), members passed a resolution calling for constraints on not-for-profit hospital’ tax exemptions due to misleading community benefits reporting and more consistency in charity care reporting by all hospitals.
The majority of practicing physicians are burned-out due to loss of clinical autonomy and income pressures—especially the 75% who are employees of hospitals and private-equity backed groups. And last week, the American College of Physicians went on record favoring “collective action” to remedy physician grievances. All impact the execution of the administration’s value-based agenda.
Arguably, the most important key to success for the Trump Healthcare 2.0 is its value agenda and physician support—especially the primary care physicians on whom the consumer engagement and appropriate utilization is based. It’s a tall order.
The Trump Healthcare 2.0 value agenda is focused on near-term spending reductions in Medicare. Savings in federal spending for Medicaid will come thru reconciliation efforts in Congress that will likely include work-requirements for enrollees, elimination of subsidies for low-income adults and drug formulary restrictions among others. And, at least for the time being, attention to those with private insurance will be on the back burner, though the administration favors insurance reforms adding flexible options for individuals and small groups.
The Trump Healthcare 2.0 value-agenda is disruptive, aggressive and opportunistic for physician organizations and their partners who embrace performance risk as a permanent replacement for fee for service healthcare. It’s a threat to those that don’t.
This week, the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees begins work on the reconciliation bill they hope to complete by Memorial Day. Healthcare cuts are expected to figure prominently in the committee’s work.
And in San Diego, America’s Physician Groups (APG) will host its spring meeting “Kickstarting Accountable Care: Innovations for an Urgent Future” featuring Presidential historian Dorris Kearns Goodwin and new CMS Innovation Center Director Abe Sutton. Its focus will be the immediate future of value-based programs in Trump Healthcare 2.0, especially accountable care organizations (ACOs) and alternative payment models (APMs).
Central to both efforts is the administration’s mandate to reduce federal spending which it deems achievable, in part, by replacing fee for services with value-based payments to providers from the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs. The CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) is the government’s primary vehicle to test and implement alternative payment programs that reduce federal spending and improve the quality and effectiveness of services simultaneously.
Pledges to replace fee-for-service payments with value-based incentives are not new to Medicare. Twenty-five years ago, they were called “pay for performance” programs and, in 2010, included in the Affordable Care as alternative payment models overseen by CMMI. But the effectiveness of APMs has been modest at best: of 50+ models attempted, only 6 proved effective in reducing Medicare spending while spending $5.4 billion on the programs. Few were adopted in Medicaid and only a handful by commercial payers and large self-insured employers. Critics argue the APMs were poorly structured, more costly to implement than potential shared savings payments and sometimes more focused on equity and DEI aims than actual savings.
The question is how the Mehmet Oz-Abe Sutten version of CMMI will approach its version of value-based care, given modest APM results historically and the administration’s focus on cost-cutting.
Context is key:
Recent efforts by the Trump Healthcare 2.0 team and its leadership appointments in CMS and CMMI point to a value-agenda will change significantly. Alternative payment models will be fewer and participation by provider groups will be mandated for several. Measures of quality and savings will be fewer, more easily measured and and standardized across more episodes of care. Financial risks and shared savings will be higher and regulatory compliance will be simplified in tandem with restructuring in HHS, CMS and CMMI to improve responsiveness and consistency across federal agencies and programs.
Sutton’s experience as the point for CMMI is significant. Like Adam Boehler, Brad Smith and other top Trump Healthcare 2.0 leaders, he brings prior experience in federal health agencies and operating insight from private equity-backed ventures (Honest Health, Privia, Evergreen Nephrology funded through Nashville-based Rubicon Founders). Sutton’s deals have focused on physician-driven risk-bearing arrangements with Medicare with funding from private investors.
The Trump Healthcare 2.0 team share a view that the healthcare system is unnecessarily expensive and wasteful, overly-regulated and under-performing. They see big hospitals and drug companies as complicit—more concerned about self-protection than consumer engagement and affordability. They see flawed incentives as a root cause, and believe previous efforts by CMS and CMMI veered inappropriately toward DEI and equity rather than reducing health costs. And they think physicians organized into risk bearing structures with shared incentives, point of care technologies and dependable data will reduce unnecessary utilization (spending) and improve care for patients (including access and affordability).
There’s will be a more aggressive approach to spending reduction and value-creation with Medicare as the focus: stronger alternative payment models and expansion of Medicare Advantage will book-end their collective efforts as Trump Healthcare 2.0 seeks cost-reduction in Medicare.
What’s ahead?
Trump Healthcare 2.0 value-based care is a take-no prisoners strategy in which private insurers in Medicare Advantage have a seat at their table alongside hospitals that sponsor ACOs and distribute the majority of shared savings to the practicing physicians. But the agenda will be set, and re-set by the administration and link-minded physician organizations like America’s Physician Groups and others that welcome financial risk-sharing with Medicare and beyond.
The results of the Trump Healthcare 2.0 value agenda will be unknown to voters in the November 2026 mid-term but apparent by the Presidential campaign in 2028. In the interim, surrogate measures for performance—like physician participation and projected savings–will be used to show progress and the administration will claim success. It will also spark criticism especially from providers who believe access to needed specialty care will be restricted, public and rural health advocates whose funding is threatened, teaching and clinical research organizations who facing DOGE cuts and regulatory uncertainty, patient’s right advocacy groups fearing lack of attention and private payers lacking scalable experience in Medicare Advantage and risk-based relationships with physicians.
Last week, the American Medical Association named Dr. John Whyte its next President replacing widely-respected 12-year CEO/EVP Jim Madara. When he assumes this office in July, he’ll inherit an association that has historically steered clear of major policy issues but the administration’s value-based care agenda will quickly require his attention.
Physicians including AMA members are restless: at last fall’s House of Delegates (HOD), members passed a resolution calling for constraints on not-for-profit hospital’ tax exemptions due to misleading community benefits reporting and more consistency in charity care reporting by all hospitals. The majority of practicing physicians are burned-out due to loss of clinical autonomy and income pressures—especially the 75% who are employees of hospitals and private-equity backed groups. And last week, the American College of Physicians went on record favoring “collective action” to remedy physician grievances. All impact the execution of the administration’s value-based agenda.
Arguably, the most important key to success for the Trump Healthcare 2.0 is its value agenda and physician support—especially the primary care physicians on whom the consumer engagement and appropriate utilization is based. It’s a tall order.
The Trump Healthcare 2.0 value agenda is focused on near-term spending reductions in Medicare. Savings in federal spending for Medicaid will come thru reconciliation efforts in Congress that will likely include work-requirements for enrollees, elimination of subsidies for low-income adults and drug formulary restrictions among others. And, at least for the time being, attention to those with private insurance will be on the back burner, though the administration favors insurance reforms adding flexible options for individuals and small groups.
The Trump Healthcare 2.0 value-agenda is disruptive, aggressive and opportunistic for physician organizations and their partners who embrace performance risk as a permanent replacement for fee for service healthcare. It’s a threat to those that don’t.
With days before voters decide the composition of the 119th U.S. Congress and the next White House occupant, the immediate future for U.S. healthcare is both predictable and problematic:
It’s predictable that…
1-States will be the epicenter for healthcare legislation and regulation; federal initiatives will be substantially fewer.
At a federal level, new initiatives will be limited: continued attention to hospital and insurer consolidation, drug prices and the role of PBMs, Medicare Advantage business practices and a short-term fix to physician payments are likely but little more. The Affordable Care Act will be modified slightly to address marketplace coverage and subsidies and CMSs Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) will test new alternative payment models even as doubt about their value mounts. But “BIG FEDERAL LAWS” impacting the U.S. health system are unlikely.
But in states, activity will explode: for example…
In this cycle, 10 states will decide their abortion policies joining 17 others that have already enacted new policies.
3 will vote on marijuana legalization joining 24 states that have passed laws.
24 states have already passed Prescription Drug Pricing legislation and 4 are considering commissions to set limits.
40 have expanded their Medicaid programs
35 states and Washington, D.C., operate CON programs; in 12 states, CONs have been repealed.
14 have legislation governing mental health access.
5 have passed or are developing commissions to control health costs.
And so on.
Given partisan dysfunction in Congress and the surprising lack of attention to healthcare in Campaign 2024 (other than abortion coverage), the center of attention in 2025-2026 will be states. In addition to the list above, attention in states will address protections for artificial intelligence utilization, access to and pricing for weight loss medications, tax exemptions for not-for-profit health systems, telehealth access, conditions for private equity ownership in health services, constraints on contract pharmacies, implementation of site neutral payments, new 340B accountability requirements and much more. In many of these efforts, state legislatures and/or Governors will go beyond federal guidance setting the stage for court challenges, and the flavor of these efforts will align with a state’s partisan majorities: as of September 30th, 2024, Republicans controlled 54.85% of all state legislative seats nationally, while Democrats held 44.19%. Republicans held a majority in 56 chambers, and Democrats held the majority in 41 chambers. In 2024, 27 states are led by GOP governors and 23 by Dems and 11 face voters November 5. And going into the election, 22 states are considered red, 21 are considered blue and 7 are tagged as purple.
The U.S. Constitution affirms Federalism as the structure for U.S. governance: it pledges the pursuit of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as its purpose but leaves the lion’s share of responsibilities to states to figure out how. Healthcare may be federalism’s greatest test.
2-Large employers will take direct action to control their health costs.
Per the Kaiser Family Foundation’s most recent employer survey, employer health costs are expected to increase 7% this year for the second year in a row. Willis Towers Watson, predicts a 6.4% increase this year on the heels of a 6% bump last year. The Business Group on Health, which represents large self-insured employers, forecasts an 8% increase in 2025 following a 7% increase last year. All well-above inflation, ages and consumer prices this year.
Employers know they pay 254% of Medicare rates (RAND) and they’re frustrated. They believe their concerns about costs, affordability and spending are not taken seriously by hospitals, physicians, insurers and drug companies. They see lackluster results from federal price transparency mandates and believe the CMS’ value agenda anchored by accountable care organizations are not achieving needed results. Small-and-midsize employers are dropping benefits altogether if they think they can. For large employers, it’s a different story. Keeping health benefits is necessary to attract and keep talent, but costs are increasingly prohibitive against macro-pressures of workforce availability, cybersecurity threats, heightened supply-chain and logistics regulatory scrutiny and shareholder activism.
Maintaining employee health benefits while absorbing hyper-inflationary drug prices, insurance premiums and hospital services is their challenge. The old playbook—cost sharing with employees, narrow networks of providers, onsite/near site primary care clinics et al—is not working to keep up with the industry’s propensity to drive higher prices through consolidation.
In 2025, they will carefully test a new playbook while mindful of inherent risks. They will use reference pricing, narrow specialty specific networks, technology-enabled self-care and employee gainsharing to address health costs head on while adjusting employee wages. Federal and state advocacy about Medicare and Medicaid funding, insurer and hospital consolidation and drug pricing will intensify. And some big names in corporate America will step into a national debate about healthcare affordability and accountability.
Employers are fed up with the status quo. They don’t buy the blame game between hospitals, insurers and drug companies. And they don’t think their voice has been heard.
3-Private equity and strategic investors will capitalize on healthcare market conditions.
The plans set forth by the two major party candidates feature populist themes including protections for women’s health and abortion services, maintenance/expansion of the Affordable Care Act and prescription drug price controls. But the substance of their plans focus on consumer prices and inflation: each promises new spending likely to add to the national deficit:
Per the Non-Partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, over the next 10 years, the Trump plan would add $7.5 trillion to the deficit; the Harris plan would add $3.5 trillion.
Per the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, Harris’ proposals would add $1.2 trillion to the national deficits over 10 years and Trump’s proposals would add $5.8 trillion over the same period
Per the Congressional Budget Office, federal budget deficit for FY2024 which ended September 30 will be $1.8 trillion– $139 billion more than FT 2023. Revenues increased by an estimated $479 billion (or 11 percent). Revenues in all major categories, but notably individual income taxes, were greater than they were in fiscal year 2023. Outlays rose by an estimated $617 billion (or 10 percent). The largest increase in outlays was for education ($308 billion). Net outlays for interest on the public debt rose by $240 billion to total $950 billion.
The federal government spent $6.75 trillion in 2024, a 10% increase from the prior year. Spending on Social Security (22% of total spending) and healthcare programs (28.5% of total spending) also increased substantially. The U.S. debt as of Friday was $37.77 trillion, or $106 thousand per citizen.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that federal debt held by the public averaged 48.3 % of GDP for the half century ending in 2023– far above its historic average. It projects next year’s national debt will hit 100% for the first time since the US military build-up in the second world war. And it forecast the debt reaching 122.4% in 2034 potentially pushing interest payments from 13% of total spending this year to 20% or more.
Adding debt is increasingly cumbersome for national lawmakers despite campaign promises, and healthcare is rivaled by education, climate and national defense in seeking funding through taxes and appropriations. Thus, opportunities for private investors in healthcare will increase dramatically in 2025 and 2026. After all, it’s a growth industry ripe for fresh solutions that improve affordability and cost reduction at scale.
Combined, these three predictions foretell a U.S. healthcare system that faces a significant pressure to demonstrate value.
They require every healthcare organization to assess long-term strategies in the likely context of reduced funding, increased regulation and heightened attention to prices and affordability. This is problematic for insiders accustomed to incrementalism that’s protected them from unwelcome changes for 3 decades.
Announcements last week by Walgreens and CVS about changes to their strategies going forward reflect the industry’s new normal: change is constant, success is not. In 2025, regardless of the election outcome, healthcare will be a major focus for lawmakers, regulators, employers and consumers.
Last Friday, Greensboro, NC-based Cone Health announced that it signed a definitive agreement to join Risant Health, Kaiser Permanente’s not-for-profit subsidiary.
Launched in April 2023, Risant aims to acquire and support not-for-profit health systems focused on value-based care.
If the deal is approved by regulators, Cone Health, a $2.8B not-for-profit system with five hospitals and an insurance arm, would join Danville, PA-based Geisinger as Risant’s second member.
As part of the deal, Risant will invest an undisclosed sum into Cone, but Cone will continue to operate independently, retaining its branding, leadership, and ability to work with multiple insurers. The two parties expect to close the deal in the next six months.
The Gist: Like Geisinger, Cone has a strong track record of value-based care, including a 15K-member health plan and a high-performing accountable care organization.
Neither Risant nor Kaiser has operations in North Carolina, a state currently seeing strong population growth.
Risant has previously said that is looking to acquire four or five more systems in addition to Geisinger, in order to reach a combined revenue target of $30-35B over the next five years.
Permanente grabbed everyone’s attention last year when it said it was creating Risant Health, a new and vague entity that acquired Geisinger and had plans to scoop up at least four more health systems that are focused on “value-based care.”
Well, nothing has happened since then, at least publicly. Instead, everyone has been playing the parlor game of guessing who those next systems could be. There are some rumblings that the next deal could be announced in the near future. After reading some recent hospital financial reports, it’s clear there are a handful of systems that mirror Geisinger’s shaky trajectory and could find themselves in Kaiser’s crosshairs.
But Kaiser is being very deliberate in its next targets. “The old phrase, ‘Measure twice, cut once’ — Kaiser will measure four or five times before they cut,” said Kevin Holloran, a senior director at Fitch Ratings who leads the company’s nonprofit health care group.
By picking Geisinger as its first acquisition, Kaiser has established some criteria for future Risant targets.Read my story to learn which health systems could fit the mold.
A new perspective on how technology, transformation efforts, and other changes have affected payers, health systems, healthcare services and technology, and pharmacy services.
The acute strain from labor shortages, inflation, and endemic COVID-19 on the healthcare industry’s financial health in 2022 is easing. Much of the improvement is the result of transformation efforts undertaken over the last year or two by healthcare delivery players, with healthcare payers acting more recently. Even so, health-system margins are lagging behind their financial performance relative to prepandemic levels. Skilled nursing and long-term-care profit pools continue to weaken. Eligibility redeterminations in a strong employment economy have hurt payers’ financial performance in the Medicaid segment. But Medicare Advantage and individual segment economics have held up well for payers.
As we look to 2027, the growth of the managed care duals population (individuals who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare) presents one of the most substantial opportunities for payers. On the healthcare delivery side, financial performance will continue to rebound as transformation efforts, M&A, and revenue diversification bear fruit. Powered by adoption of technology, healthcare services and technology (HST) businesses, particularly those that offer measurable near-term improvements for their customers, will continue to grow, as will pharmacy services players, especially those with a focus on specialty pharmacy.
Below, we provide a perspective on how these changes have affected payers, health systems, healthcare services and technology, and pharmacy services, and what to expect in 2024 and beyond.
The fastest growth in healthcare may occur in several segments
We estimate that healthcare profit pools will grow at a 7 percent CAGR, from $583 billion in 2022 to $819 billion in 2027. Profit pools continued under pressure in 2023 due to high inflation rates and labor shortages; however, we expect a recovery beginning in 2024, spurred by margin and cost optimization and reimbursement-rate increases.
Several segments can expect higher growth in profit pools:
Within payer, Medicare Advantage, spurred by the rapid increase in the duals population; the group business, due to recovery of margins post-COVID-19 pandemic; and individual
Within health systems, outpatient care settings such as physician offices and ambulatory surgery centers, driven by site-of-care shifts
Within HST, the software and platforms businesses (for example, patient engagement and clinical decision support)
Within pharmacy services, with specialty pharmacy continuing to experience rapid growth
On the other hand, some segments will continue to see slow growth, including general acute care and post-acute care within health systems, and Medicaid within payers (Exhibit 1).
Several factors will likely influence shifts in profit pools. Two of these are:
Change in payer mix. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage, and particularly the duals population, will continue to grow. Medicare Advantage enrollment has grown historically by 9 percent annually from 2019 to 2022; however, we estimate the growth rate will reduce to 5 percent annually from 2022 to 2027, in line with the latest Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) enrollment data.1 Finally, the duals population enrolled in managed care is estimated to grow at more than a 9 percent CAGR from 2022 through 2027.
We also estimate commercial segment profit pools to rebound as EBITDA margins likely return to historical averages by 2027. Growth is likely to be partially offset by enrollment changes in the segment, prompted by a shift from fully insured to self-insured businesses that could accelerate as employers seek to cut costs if the economy slows. Individual segment profit pools are estimated to expand at a 27 percent CAGR from 2022 to 2027 as enrollment rises, propelled by enhanced subsidies, Medicaid redeterminations, and other potential favorable factors (for example, employer conversions through the Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangement offered by the Affordable Care Act); EBITDA margins are estimated to improve from 2 percent in 2022 to 5 to 7 percent in 2027. On the other hand, Medicaid enrollment could decline by about ten million lives over the next five years based on our estimates, given recent legislation allowing states to begin eligibility redeterminations (which were paused during the federal public health emergency declared at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic2).
Accelerating value-based care (VBC). Based on our estimates, 90 million lives will be in VBC models by 2027, from 43 million in 2022. This expansion will be fueled by an increase in commercial VBC adoption, greater penetration of Medicare Advantage, and the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) model in Medicare fee-for-service. Also, substantial growth is expected in the specialty VBC model, where penetration in areas like orthopedics and nephrology could more than double in the next five years.
VBC models are undergoing changes as CMS updates its risk adjustment methodology and as models continue to expand beyond primary care to other specialties (for example, nephrology, oncology, and orthopedics). We expect established models that offer improvements in cost and quality to continue to thrive. The transformation of VBC business models in response to pressures from the current changes could likely deliver outsized improvement in cost and quality outcomes. The penetration of VBC business models is likely to lead to shifts in health delivery profit pools, from acute-care settings to other sites of care such as ambulatory surgical centers, physician offices, and home settings.
Payers: Government segments are expected to be 65 percent larger than commercial segments by 2027
In 2022, overall payer profit pools were $60 billion. Looking ahead, we estimate EBITDA to grow to $78 billion by 2027, a 5 percent CAGR, as the market recovers and approaches historical trends. Drivers are likely to be margin recovery of the commercial segment, inflation-driven incremental premium rate rises, and increased participation in managed care by the duals population. This is likely to be partially offset by margin compression in Medicare Advantage due to regulatory pressures (for example, risk adjustment, decline in the Stars bonus, and technical updates) and membership decline in Medicaid resulting from the expiration of the public health emergency.
We estimate increased labor costs and administrative expenses to reduce payer EBITDA by about 60 basis points in 2023. In addition, health systems are likely to push for reimbursement rate increases (up to about 350 to 400 basis-point incremental rate increases from 2023 to 2027 for the commercial segment and about 200 to 250 basis points for the government segment), according to McKinsey analysis and interviews with external experts.3
Our estimates also suggest that the mix of payer profit pools is likely to shift further toward the government segment (Exhibit 2). Overall, the profit pools for this segment are estimated to be about 65 percent greater than the commercial segment by 2027 ($36 billion compared with $21 billion). This shift would be a result of increasing Medicare Advantage penetration, estimated to reach 52 percent in 2027, and likely continued growth in the duals segment, expanding EBITDA from $7 billion in 2022 to $12 billion in 2027.
Profit pools for the commercial segment declined from $18 billion in 2019 to $15 billion in 2022. We now estimate the commercial segment’s EBITDA margins to regain historical levels by 2027, and profit pools to reach $21 billion, growing at a 7 percent CAGR from 2022 to 2027. Within this segment, a shift from fully insured to self-insured businesses could accelerate in the event of an economic slowdown, which prompts employers to pay greater attention to costs. The fully insured group enrollment could drop from 50 million in 2022 to 46 million in 2027, while the self-insured segment could increase from 108 million to 113 million during the same period.
Health systems: Transformation efforts help accelerate EBITDA recovery
In 2023, health-system profit pools continued to face substantial pressure due to inflation and labor shortages. Estimated growth was less than 5 percent from 2022 to 2023, remaining below prepandemic levels. Health systems have undertaken major transformation and cost containment efforts, particularly within the labor force, helping EBITDA margins recover by up to 100 basis points; some of this recovery was also volume-driven.
Looking ahead, we estimate an 11 percent CAGR from 2023 to 2027, or total EBITDA of $366 billion by 2027 (Exhibit 3). This reflects a rebound from below the long-term historical average in 2023, spurred by transformation efforts and potentially higher reimbursement rates. We anticipate that health systems will likely seek reimbursement increases in the high single digits or higher upon contract renewals (or more than 300 basis points above previous levels) in response to cost inflation in recent years.
Measures to tackle rising costs include improving labor productivity and the application of technological innovation across both administration and care delivery workflows (for example, further process standardization and outsourcing, increased use of digital care, and early adoption of AI within administrative workflows such as revenue cycle management). Despite these measures, 2027 industry EBITDA margins are estimated to be 50 to 100 basis points lower than in 2019, unless there is material acceleration in performance transformation efforts.
There are some meaningful exceptions to this overall outlook for health systems. Although post-acute-care profit pools could be severely affected by labor shortages (particularly nurses), other sites of care might grow (for example, non-acute and outpatient sites such as physician offices and ambulatory surgery centers). We expect accelerated adoption of VBC to drive growth.
HST profit pools will grow in technology-based segments
HST is estimated to be the fastest-growing sector in healthcare. In 2021, we estimated HST profit pools to be $51 billion. In 2022, according to our estimates, the HST profit pool shrank to $49 billion, reflecting a contracting market, wage inflation pressure, and the drag of fixed-technology investment that had not yet fulfilled its potential. Looking ahead, we estimate a 12 percent CAGR in 2022–27 due to the long-term underlying growth trend and rebound from the pandemic-related decline (Exhibit 4). With the continuing technology adoption in healthcare, the greatest acceleration is likely to happen in software and platforms as well as data and analytics, with 15 percent and 22 percent CAGRs, respectively.
In 2023, we observed an initial recovery in the HST market, supported by lower HST wage pressure and continued adoption of technology by payers and health systems searching for ways to become more efficient (for example, through automation and outsourcing).
Three factors account for the anticipated recovery and growth in HST.First, we expect continued demand from payers and health systems searching to improve efficiency, address labor challenges, and implement new technologies (for example, generative AI). Second, payers and health systems are likely to accept vendor price increases for solutions delivering measurable improvements. Third, we expect HST companies to make operational changes that will improve HST efficiency through better technology deployment and automation across services.
Pharmacy services will continue to grow
The pharmacy market has undergone major changes in recent years, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the establishment of partnerships across the value chain, and an evolving regulatory environment. Total pharmacy dispensing revenue continues to increase, growing by 9 percent to $550 billion in 2022,4 with projections of a 5 percent CAGR, reaching $700 billion in 2027.5Specialty pharmacy is one of the fastest growing subsegments within pharmacy services and accounts for 40 percent of prescription revenue6; this subsegment is expected to reach nearly 50 percent of prescription revenue in 2027 (Exhibit 5). We attribute its 8 percent CAGR in revenue growth to increases in utilization and pricing as well as the continued expansion of pipeline therapies (for example, cell and gene therapies and oncology and rare disease therapies) and expect that the revenue growth will be partially offset by reimbursement pressures, specialty generics, and increased adoption of biosimilars. Specialty pharmacy dispensers are also facing an evolving landscape with increased manufacturer contract pharmacy pressures related to the 340B Drug Pricing Program. With restrictions related to size and location of contract pharmacies that covered entities can use, the specialty pharmacy subsegment has seen accelerated investment in hospital-owned pharmacies.
Retail and mail pharmacies continue to face margin pressure and a contraction of profit pools due to reimbursement pressure, labor shortages, inflation, and a plateauing of generic dispensing rates.7Many chains have recently announced8 efforts to rationalize store footprints while continuing to augment additional services, including the provision of healthcare services.
Over the past year, there has also been increased attention to broad-population drugs such as GLP-1s (indicated for diabetes and obesity). The number of patients meeting clinical eligibility criteria for these drugs is among the largest of any new drug class in the past 20 to 30 years. The increased focus on these drugs has amplified conversations about care and coverage decisions, including considerations around demonstrated adherence to therapy, utilization management measures, and prescriber access points (for example, digital and telehealth services). As we look ahead, patient affordability, cost containment, and predictability of spending will likely remain key themes in the sector.The Inflation Reduction Act is poised to change the Medicare prescription Part D benefit, with a focus on reducing beneficiary out-of-pocket spending, negotiating prices for select drugs, and incentivizing better management of high-cost drugs. These changes, coupled with increased attention to broad-population drugs and the potential of high-cost therapies (such as cell and gene therapies), have set the stage for a shift in care and financing models.
The US healthcare industry faced demanding conditions in 2023, including continuing high inflation rates, labor shortages, and endemic COVID-19. However, the industry has adapted. We expect accelerated improvement efforts to help the industry address its challenges in 2024 and beyond, leading to an eventual return to historical-average profit margins.
On November 2-3 in Austin, I moderated the 4th Annual CSO Roundtable* in which Chief Strategy/Growth Officers from 12 mid-size and large multi-hospital systems participated. The discussion centered on the future: the issues and challenges they facing their organizations TODAY and their plans for their NEAR TERM (3-5 years) and LONG-TERM (8-10 years) future. Augmenting the discussion, participants rated the likelihood and level of disruptive impact for 50 future state scenarios using the Future State Diagnostic Survey. *
Five themes emerged from this discussion:
1-Major change in the structure and financing of U.S. health system is unlikely.
CSOs do not believe Medicare for All will replace the current system. They anticipate the existing public-private delivery system will continue with expanded government influence likely.
Public funding for the system remains problematic: private capital will play a larger role.
CSOs think it is unlikely the public health system will be fully integrated into the traditional delivery system (aka health + social services). Most hospital systems are expanding their outreach to public health programs in local markets as an element of their community benefits strategy.
CSOs recognize that states will play a bigger role in regulating the system vis a vis executive orders and referenda on popular issues. Price controls for hospitals and prescription drugs, restraints on hospital consolidation are strong possibilities.
Consensus: conditions for hospitals will not improve in the immediate and near-term. Strategies for growth must include all options.
2-Health costs, affordability and equitable access are major issues facing the health industry overall and hospitals particularly.
CSOs see equitable access as a compliance issue applicable to their workforce procurement and performance efforts and to their service delivery strategy i.e., locations, patient experiences, care planning.
CSOs see reputation risk in both areas if not appropriately addressed in their organizations.
CSOs do not share a consensus view of how affordability should be defined or measured.
There is consensus among CSOs that hospitals have suffered reputation damage as a result of inadequate price transparency and activist disinformation campaigns. Executive compensation, non-operating income, discrepancies in charity care and community benefits calculations and patient “sticker shock” are popular targets of criticism.
CSO think increased operating costs due to medical inflation, supply chain costs including prescription drugs, and labor have offset their efforts in cost reduction and utilization gains.
CSO’s are focusing more of their resources and time in support of acute clinical programs where streamlining clinical processes and utilization increases are achievable near-term.
Consensus: the current financing of the system, particularly hospitals, is a zero-sum game. A fundamental re-set is necessary.
3-The regulatory environment for all hospitals will be more challenging, especially for not-for-profit health systems.
Most CSOs think the federal regulatory environment is hostile toward hospitals. They expect 340B funding to be cut, a site neutral payment policy in some form implemented, price controls for hospital services in certain states, increased federal and state constraints on horizontal consolidation vis a vis the FTC and State Attorneys General, and unreasonable reimbursement from Medicare and other government program payers.
CSOs believe the challenges for large not-for-profit hospital systems are unique: most CSOs think not-for-profit hospitals will face tighter restrictions on their qualification for tax-exempt status and tighter accountability of their community benefits attestation. Most expect Congress and state officials to increase investigations about for-profit activities, partnerships with private equity, executive compensation and other issues brought to public attention.
CSOs think rural hospital closures will increase without significant federal action.
Consensus: the environment for all hospitals is problematic, especially large, not-for-profit multi-hospitals systems and independent rural facilities.
4-By contrast, the environment for large, national health insurers, major (publicly traded) private equity sponsors and national retailers is significantly more positive.
CSOs recognize that current monetary policy by the Fed coupled with tightening regulatory restraints for hospitals is advantageous for national disruptors. Scale and access to capital are strategic advantages enjoyed disproportionately by large for-profit operators in healthcare, especially health insurers and retail health.
CSOs believe publicly traded private equity sponsors will play a bigger role in healthcare delivery since they enjoy comparably fewer regulatory constraints/limitations, relative secrecy in their day-to-day operations and significant cash on hand from LPs.
CSOs think national health insurer vertical consolidation strategies will increase noting that all operate integrated medical groups, pharmacy benefits management companies, closed networks of non-traditional service providers (i.e. supplemental services like dentistry, home care, et al) and robust data management capabilities.
CSOs think national retailers will expand their primary care capabilities beyond traditional “office-based services” to capture market share and widen demand for health-related products and services
Consensus: national insurers, PE and national retailers will leverage their scale and the friendly regulatory environment they enjoy to advantage their shareholders and compete directly against hospital and medical groups.
5-The system-wide shift from volume to value will accelerate as employers and insurers drive lower reimbursement and increased risk sharing with hospitals and medical groups.
CSOs think the pursuit of value by payers is here to stay. However, they acknowledge the concept of value is unclear but they expect HHS to advance standards for defining and measuring value more consistently across provider and payer sectors.
CSOs think risk-sharing with payers is likely to increase as employers and commercial insurers align payment models with CMS’ alternative payment models: the use of bundled payments, accountable care organizations and capitation is expected to increase.
CSOs expect network performance and data management to be essential capabilities necessary to an organization’s navigation of the volume to value transition. CSOs want to rationalize their current acute capabilities by expanding their addressable market vis a vis referral management, diversification, centralization of core services, primary and preventive health expansion and aggressive cost management.
Consensus: successful participation in payer-sponsored value-based care initiatives will play a bigger role in health system strategy.
My take:
The role of Chief Strategy Officer in a multi-hospital system setting is multi-functional and unique to each organization. Some have responsibilities for M&A activity; some don’t. Some manage marketing, public relations and advocacy activity; others don’t. All depend heavily on market data for market surveillance and opportunity assessments. And all have frequent interaction with the CEO and Board, and all depend on data management capabilities to advance their recommendations about risk, growth and the future. That’s the job.
CSOs know that hospitals are at a crossroad, particularly not-for-profit system operators accountable to the communities they serve. In the 4Q Keckley Poll, 55% agreed that “the tax exemption given not-for-profit hospitals is justified by the community benefits they provide” but 45% thought otherwise. They concede their competitive landscape is more complicated as core demand shifts to non-hospital settings and alternative treatments and self-care become obviate traditional claims-based forecasting. They see the bigger players getting bigger: last week’s announcements of the Cigna-Humana deal and expansion of the Ascension-LifePoint relationship cases in point. And they recognize that their reputations are under assault: the rift between Modern Healthcare and the AHA over the Merritt Research ’s charity care study (see Hospital section below) is the latest stimulant for not-for-profit detractors.
In 1937, prominent literary figures Laura Riding and Robert Graves penned a famous statement in an Epilogue Essay that’s especially applicable to hospitals today: “the future is not what it used to be.”
For CSO’s, figuring that out is both worrisome and energizing.
Five years ago, I started the Fixing Healthcare podcast with the aim of spotlighting the boldest possible solutions—ones that could completely transform our nation’s broken medical system.
But since then, rather than improving, U.S. healthcare has fallen further behind its global peers, notching far more failures than wins.
In that time, the rate of chronic disease has climbed while life expectancy has fallen, dramatically. Nearly half of American adults now struggle to afford healthcare. In addition, a growing mental-health crisis grips our country. Maternal mortality is on the rise. And healthcare disparities are expanding along racial and socioeconomic lines.
Reflecting on why few if any of these recommendations have been implemented, I don’t believe the problem has been a lack of desire to change or the quality of ideas. Rather, the biggest obstacle has been the immense size and scope of the changes proposed.
To overcome the inertia, our nation will need to narrow its ambitions and begin with a few incremental steps that address key failures. Here are three actionable and inexpensive steps that elected officials and healthcare leaders can quickly take to improve our nation’s health:
1. Shore Up Primary Care
Compared to the United States, the world’s most-effective and highest-performing healthcare systems deliver better quality of care at significantly lower costs.
One important difference between us and them: primary care.
In most high-income nations, primary care makes up roughly half of the physician workforce. In the United States, it accounts for less than 30% (with a projected shortage of 48,000 primary care physicians over the next decade).
Primary care—better than any other specialty—simultaneously increases life expectancy while lowering overall medical expenses by (a) screening for and preventing diseases and (b) helping patients with chronic illness avoid the deadliest and most-expensive complications (heart attack, stroke, cancer).
But considering that it takes at least three years after medical school to train a primary care physician, to make a dent in the shortage over the next five years the U.S. government must act immediately:
The first action is to expand resident education for primary care. Congress, which authorizes the funding, would allocate $200 million annually to create 1,000 additional primary-care residency positions each year. The cost would be less than 0.2% of federal spending on healthcare.
The second action requires no additional spending. Instead, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which covers the cost of care for roughly half of all American adults, would shift dollars to narrow the $108,000 pay gap between primary care doctors and specialists. This will help attract the best medical students to the specialty.
Together, these actions will bolster primary care and improve the health of millions.
2. Use Technology To Expand Access, Lower Costs
A decade after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 30 million Americans are without health insurance while tens of millions more are underinsured, limiting access to necessary medical care.
Furthermore, healthcare is expected to become even less affordable for most Americans. Without urgent action, national medical expenditures are projected to rise from $4.3 trillion to $7.2 trillion over the next eight years, and the Medicare trust fund will become insolvent.
With costs soaring, payers (businesses and government) will resist any proposal that expands coverage and, most likely, will look to restrict health benefits as premiums rise.
Almost every industry that has had to overcome similar financial headwinds did so with technology. Healthcare can take a page from this playbook by expanding the use of telemedicine and generative AI.
At the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, telehealth visits accounted for 69% of all physician appointments as the government waived restrictions on usage. And, contrary to widespread fears at the time, patients and doctors rated the quality, convenience and safety of these virtual visits as excellent. However, with the end of Covid-19, many states are now restricting telemedicine, particularly when clinicians practice in a different state than the patient.
To expand telemedicine use—both for physical and mental health issues—state legislators and regulators will need to loosen restrictions on virtual care. This will increase access for patients and diminish the cost of medical care.
It doesn’t make sense that doctors can provide treatment to people who drive across state lines, but they can’t offer the same care virtually when the individual is at home.
Similarly, physicians who faced a shortage of hospital beds during the pandemic began to treat patients in their homes. As with telemedicine, the excellent quality and convenience of care drew praise from clinicians and patients alike.
Building on that success, doctors could combine wearable devices and generative AI tools like ChatGPT to monitor patients 24/7. Doing so would allow physicians to relocate care—safely and more affordably—from hospitals to people’s homes.
Translating this technology-driven opportunity into standard medical practice will require federal agencies like the FDA, NIH and CDC to encourage pilot projects and facilitate innovative, inexpensive applications of generative AI, rather than restricting their use.
3. Reduce Disparities In Medical Care
American healthcare is a system of haves and have-nots, where your income and race heavily determine the quality of care you receive.
Black patients, in particular, experience poorer outcomes from chronic disease and greater difficulty accessing state-of-the-art treatments. In childbirth, black mothers in the U.S. die at twice the rate of white women, even when data are corrected for insurance and financial status.
Generative AI applications like ChatGPT can help, provided that hospitals and clinicians embrace it for the purpose of providing more inclusive, equitable care.
Previous AI tools were narrow and designed by researchers to mirror how doctors practiced. As a result, when clinicians provided inferior care to Black patients, AI outputs proved equally biased. Now that we understand the problem of implicit human bias, future generations of ChatGPT can help overcome it.
The first step will be for hospitals leaders to connect electronic health record systems to generative AI apps. Then, they will need to prompt the technology to notify clinicians when they provide insufficient care to patients from different racial or socioeconomic backgrounds. Bringing implicit bias to consciousness would save the lives of more Black women and children during delivery and could go a long way toward reversing our nation’s embarrassing maternal mortality rate (along with improving the country’s health overall).
The Next Five Years
Two things are inevitable over the next five years. Both will challenge the practice of medicine like never before and each has the potential to transform American healthcare.
First, generative AI will provide patients with more options and greater control. Faced with the difficulty of finding an available doctor, patients will turn to chatbots for their physical and psychological problems.
Already, AI has been shown to be more accurate in diagnosing medical problems and even more empathetic than clinicians in responding to patient messages. The latest versions of generative AI are not ready to fulfill the most complex clinical roles, but they will be in five years when they are 30-times more powerful and capable.
Second, the retail giants (Amazon, CVS, Walmart) will play an ever-bigger role in care delivery. Each of these retailers has acquired primary care, pharmacy, IT and insurance capability and all appear focused on Medicare Advantage, the capitated option for people over the age of 65. Five years from now, they will be ready to provide the businesses that pay for the medical coverage of over 150 million Americans the same type of prepaid, value-based healthcare that currently isn’t available in nearly all parts of the country.
American healthcare can stop the current slide over the next five years if change begins now. I urge medical leaders and elected officials to lead the process by joining forces and implementing these highly effective, inexpensive approaches to rebuilding primary care, lowering medical costs, improving access and making healthcare more equitable.
The beleaguered digital health company announced on Monday that its previously proposed arrangement to go private via a deal with Swiss-based neurotechnology company MindMaze will not happen, offering no further details. That deal was arranged by AlbaCore Capital Group, which had secured a loan for Babylon in May to implement the transaction.
Babylon said that it will now exit its core US businesses, which consist mostly of value-based agreements with health plans, and will continue to seek a buyer for its Meritage Medical Network, a California-based independent practice association (IPA) comprised of approximately 1,800 physicians.
Babylon said it may have to file for bankruptcy if it can’t secure additional funding or reach another deal to divest.
The Gist:Babylon isone of the starkest digital health “boom-and-bust” stories thus far. Despite the fact that the company overpromised and under-delivered in both the US and abroad, it was able to raise—and then lose—billions of dollars in just a few short years after going public in October 2021 via a special purpose acquisition corporation (SPAC) merger. It remains to be seen who will buy Babylon’s attractive IPA asset. Presumablyinsurers, retailers, health systems and other players are evaluating a purchase, either to enter or expand their provider footprint into Northern and Central California.
Kaiser Permanente on Wednesday announced it is acquiring Geisinger Health, and Geisinger will operate independently under a new subsidiary of Kaiser called Risant Health.
Deal details
The combination of the two companies will need to be reviewed by federal and state agencies, but if approved, the two companies will have more than $100 billion in combined annual revenue.
Geisinger will operate independently as part of Risant Health, which will be headquartered in Washington, D.C. and will be led by Geisinger president and CEO Jaewon Ryu. The health systems said they intend to acquire four or five more hospital systems to fold into Risant in an effort to reach $30 billion to $35 billion in total revenue over the next five years.
In an interview, Ryu and Kaiser chair and CEO Greg Adams said Risant will specifically target hospital systems already working to move into value-based care.
According to Adams, Risant Health “is a way to really ensure that not-for-profit, value-based community health is not only alive but is thriving in this country.”
“If we can take much of what is in our value-based care platform and extend that to these leading community health systems, then we extend our mission,” Adams said. “We reach more people, we drive greater affordability for health care in this country.”
Why we’re ‘cautiously optimistic’ about this acquisition
Just when you thought healthcare couldn’t get more interesting, Kaiser and Geisinger announce their union through newly established Risant Health. At first pass, it is hard to see a downside with this deal — and that’s something that raises my “spidey-senses.”
Kaiser and Geisinger are coming together through a vehicle that could allow them to clear an increasingly skeptical Federal Trade Commission. It affords two health systems — both in comparatively weaker financial positions than before the pandemic — the ability to get bigger through the merger. Its pitch is decidedly hospital- (and in the future provider) led, with Geisinger retaining its brand and elevating its CEO to the head of Risant. It also gives Geisinger and future partners the latitude to pursue their own payer relationships.
In addition, it is ostensibly a play to increase providers’ control over the nature and pace of value-based care (VBC) adoption. In its press release, Kaiser acknowledges that its closed network model of care management hasn’t scaled well to other markets. And Geisinger, with its own health plan and a track-record of developing its own VBC incentives, is no neophyte and brings a clear wealth of expertise.
Without a doubt, the offer to future partners is compelling: “Come for the size and stay for the value-based care.” But like all things in life, it’s all in the details. And that’s where my “spidey-sense” kicks in.
Partnership and affiliation models alone do not make the hard work of VBC easier. While this emerging group could become a valuable, provider-led clearing house for VBC concepts, applying them in communities remains a stubborn challenge that requires individual work and leadership.
The true test of the concept will come when the first new partner joins. How they decide to participate and whether the model has the right mix of scale and flexibility is what I’ll be watching closely. The overall objective and success measure of this endeavor remains somewhat opaque, but I would say that the concept has real legs here. Right now, I’m leaning toward “cautiously optimistic.”
HENRY KOTULA 