Category Archives: Value Proposition

U.S. Healthcare in 2025 and Beyond: Three Major Predictions

Posted on by • Posted in Consumer Price Index (CPI), Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Future, Future State, Inflation, Market Outlook, Market Trends, Private Equity, Value Based Care Model, Value Creation, Value Journey, Value Proposition • Leave a comment
U.S. Healthcare in 2025 and Beyond: Three Major Predictions

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  • 35 states and Washington, D.C., operate CON programs; in 12 states, CONs have been repealed.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.  

Why Walgreens’ US Health President Is ‘Bullish’ on the Role of Retail in Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in Consumer Care Consumption Patterns, Consumer Engagement, Consumer Experience, Consumer Marketing, Consumer Preferences, Consumerism, Convenience, Convenient Access, Patient Experience, Patient Satisfaction, Primary Care, Primary Care Delivery Model, Primary Care Strategy, Retail Clinic, Retail Healthcare, Retail Pharmacy, Value Proposition, Walgreens • Leave a comment

During a fireside chat at AHIP 2024, Mary Langowski, executive vice president and president of U.S. healthcare at Walgreens Boots Alliance, said she sees a bright future for retail in healthcare.

Retailers are facing several headwinds in healthcare in 2024. Walmart and Dollar General both recently ended healthcare endeavors, and CVS Health is reportedly looking for a private equity partner for Oak Street Health (which it acquired in 2023). VillageMD, which is backed by Walgreens, is shuttering numerous clinics.

Still, Mary Langowski, executive vice president and president of U.S. healthcare at Walgreens Boots Alliance, sees a strong future for retailers in healthcare.

“I happen to be very bullish on the role of retail in healthcare and frankly, having a very central role in healthcare,” she said. “And part of that is because over 80% of people want health and wellness offerings in a pharmacy and in a retail setting. Consumers want the ease, they want the convenience of it. And those are important things to keep in mind, that demand is there.”

Langowski, who joined Walgreens in March, made these comments during a Tuesday fireside chat at the AHIP 2024 conference held in Las Vegas. She added that what the industry is seeing is not an “evolution” of whether retailers will exist in healthcare, but a shift around what the “right model is going to be.” 

“We really think that if you take our core assets, … we can be a really good partner to not just one provider entity but many, many provider entities and payers across the United States,” Langowski said. “We’re everywhere. We’re in the community, we’re digitally inclined. I think a strategy for us is less capital-intensive, capital-light and very scaled models.”

She also told the health plans in the audience that she wants to collaborate more. She said she sees retail as a “really critical entry point” in the healthcare system.

“We have people using their pharmacists two times more than any doctor and Medicare patients see us eight times more than their physician,” Langowski declared. “We’re not doing enough together to take advantage of those moments where we can engage people and we can create interventions way earlier in their healthcare disease state.”

Langowski noted that insurers are under a lot of pressure, including rising costs, regulatory issues and challenges contracting with providers. However, Walgreens’ assets are “highly complementary” to insurers’ assets, she said. 

“We aren’t going to do what you do. You don’t do what we do, but we work really well together,” she said. “And what it will take is being clever about the commercial and economic model and I believe there are multiple ways to create win-win scenarios where everybody does well. Most importantly, patients get healthier and they have a much better and much more seamless experience with the system.”

Health System Chief Strategy Officer Roundtable Assessment: ‘The Near-Term is Tough, the Long-Term is Uncertain and the Deck is Stacked against Hospitals’

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Chief Strategy Officer, Competition, Competition on Price, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Leadership Transformation, Leadership Vision, Private Equity, Regulation, Regulatory Pressures, Reputation, Transition to Value-Based Healthcare, Value Based Care Model, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
https://paulkeckley.com/the-keckley-report/2023/12/4/health-system-chief-strategy-officer-roundtable-assessment-the-near-term-is-tough-the-long-term-is-uncertain-and-the-deck-is-stacked-against-hospitals/

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.

Six Majority Beliefs about the U.S. Health System Compromise its Value Proposition

Posted on by • Posted in Abortion, ACA, Health System, Healthcare Industry, Healthcare Reform, Interest Rates, Misinformation, Political Differences, Political Lobbying, Politics, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Value Proposition • Leave a comment
Six Majority Beliefs about the U.S. Health System Compromise its Value Proposition

Last week was notable for healthcare because current events thrust it into the limelight…

Hospitals and emergency responders in Maine: Media attention to Gaza and the Speaker-less U.S. House of Representatives was temporarily suspended as the deaths of 18 in the U.S.’ 36h mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine took center stage. The immediate overload on Lewiston’s Central Maine Medical Center and Mass General where the 13 injured were treated (including 4 still hospitalized) drew media attention—largely gone by Friday when the shooter’s death by suicide was confirmed.

The New Speaker of the House: The GOP House of Representatives elected Mike Johnson, the 4-term Representative from Shreveport to the post vacant since October 3.

Johnson is no stranger to partisan positions on healthcare issues. As Chairman of the conservative-leaning Republican Steering Committee from 2019-2021, he led the group’s platform to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and supports a national restriction on abortions despite Senate GOP Leader McConnell’s preference it be left to states to decide.

With the prospect of a government shutdown November 17 due to inaction on the FY2024 federal budget, the 52-year-old lawyer faces delicate maneuvering around $106 billion proposed for Israel, the Ukraine, Taiwan and border security alongside appropriations for the health system that consumes 28% of entire federal outlays.

Health organizational business strategy announcements: Friction between physicians and hospital officials in Asheville (Mission) and Minnesota (Allina) attracted national coverage and brought attention to staffing, cultural and financial circumstances in these prominent organizations. —and on the heels of the Kaiser Permanente strike settlement. The divorce from Mass General by Dana Farber in Boston and announcements by GNC, Best Buy, Optum (re-branding NaviHealth) and Sanofi hit last week’s news cycle.

And indirectly, the 3Q 2023 GDP report by the Department of Commerce raised eyebrows: it was up 4.9%–far higher than expected prompting speculation that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will raise interest rates (again) at its meeting this week or next month. That means borrowing costs for struggling hospitals, nursing homes and consumers needing loans will go up along with household medical debt.

As news cycles go, this one was standard fare for healthcare: with the exception of business plan announcements by organizations or as elements of tragedies like Lewiston, Gaza or a pandemic,

the business of the health system—how it operates is largely uncovered and often subject to misinformation or disinformation.

That’s the problem: it’s background noise to most voters who can be stoked to action over a single issue when prompted by special interests (i.e., Abortion rights, surprise billing, price transparency et al) but remain inattentive and marginally informed about the bigger role it plays in our communities and country and where it’s heading long-term.

The narrative common to most boils down to these:

  • The U.S. health system is good, but it’s complicated. ‘How good’ depends on your insurance and your health—both are key.
  • The U.S. health system is expensive and profitable. It pays its executives well and its frontline workers unfairly.
  • The delivery system focuses on the sick and injured; prevention and public health matter less.
  • Hospitals and physicians are vital to the system; health insurers keep their costs down.
  • The U.S. system pays lip service to “customer service” and ‘engaged consumers.” It is spin not supported by actions.
  • The U.S. system needs to change dramatically.

In the next 3 weeks, attention will be on the federal budget: healthcare will be in the background unless temporarily an element of a mass tragedy. Each trade group will tout its accomplishments to regulators and pimp their advocacy punch list. Each company will gin-out news releases and commentary about the future of the system will default to think tanks and focused on a single issue of interest.

That’s the problem. In this era of social media, polarization, and mass transparency, these old ways of communicating no longer work. Left unattended, they undermine the value proposition on which the U.S. system is based.

The Changing Definition of “Payer”

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Industry, Pay-vider, Payer Contracting, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare, Value-Based Senior Care, Vertical Integration • Leave a comment

Click to access Industry_Insights_8.22.23.pdf

Payers have historically been the financial support for patients receiving
medical care. Through scale, predictive analytics and actuarial insights, large
insurers have been able to smoothly calibrate pricing and earnings so that
members have health coverage no matter the economic environment. Over time different insurance
products such as Medicare Advantage, managed Medicaid, Commercial insurance, and self-funded
benefits were created to provide optionality for consumers. The demand for more services under one
umbrella has resulted in six large public insurers, known collectively as the “Nationals.” As for-profit
public entities, these organizations have utilized M&A to drive growth by acquiring smaller health
plans. This horizontal consolidation has grown membership and diversified their membership
geographically, as well as by line of business. The diversification enables these Nationals to reduce
volatility in earnings, which eases concerns of public investors, while sustaining top line growth each
year. However, with the changing tide in healthcare business models, payers have begun to look
elsewhere for new growth opportunities.


The emergence of value-based care has garnered significant interest within the healthcare
ecosystem. Consumers of healthcare value their personalized interactions with their providers /
doctors and are typically somewhat agnostic about their payer. The payers have come to the
realization that to further drive profits, they must create stickiness with their members by aligning with
the providers that are delivering the care. Collaboration between the payers and providers will help
increase the efficiencies in care management and drive unnecessary costs out the care delivery
process, when fully integrated. By being “closer” to the patients, payers can use the data from
providers to create valuable insights that proactively address a patient’s needs before catastrophic,
high-cost treatments are required. This trend of vertical integration, turning payers to pay-(pro)viders,
has started to play out and should be beneficial to patients, payers, providers, investors, and U.S.
healthcare as a whole.


UnitedHealthcare recently closed its $5.4 billion acquisition of LHC Group in February 2023. LHC
Group provides home health solutions and community-based care to over 12 million patients
annually in their homes. This acquisition is UnitedHealthcare’s opportunity to increase patient
engagement for the high acuity populations that LHC Group traditionally services. UnitedHealthcare
also announced the acquisition of Amedisys, another home health and hospice provider, for $3.3
billion in 2023. UnitedHealthcare will be able to leverage the expertise from these two organizations,
while utilizing its data analytical capabilities to synchronize care efficiently and effectively. As the
U.S. population continues to age, optimizing care for seniors will be a key focal point for the
healthcare services industry.

CVS Health acquired Oak Street Health, a primary care provider that specializes in value-based
care, for $10.6 billion in 2023. This acquisition will help CVS Health address costs and patient health
in underserved communities that Oak Street Health currently services. CVS Health also acquired
Signify Health, a technology and services company that focuses on care at home, in 2023 for $8 billion. The acquisitions of Oak Street Health and Signify Health will expand CVS Health’s healthcare delivery arm as it looks to become a one-stop shop for all patient’s needs.

As other payers see the value, both in better health outcomes and economics, created through the vertical integration of services by their competitors, they too will follow the trend. The definition of the payer will continue to evolve, and healthcare consumers will increasingly receive lower cost of care, greater accessibility to care and preferential outcomes into the future. It will be exciting to see
which pay-vider acts next and capitalizes on this opportunity.

How to convince the board that it’s time to merge

Posted on by • Posted in Board, CEO, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Investing, Investment, Leadership, Leadership Vision, Market Consolidation, Mergers & Acquisitions, Out of Market Growth, Return on Investment, Value Proposition • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/27e58978fc54/the-weekly-gist-august-11-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

This week we had a conversation with a health system executive who has been wondering how to make the case to his board for expansion beyond the existing markets where the organization operates.

Like many, he’s confronting declining margin performance, and feeling pressure to combine with another system—joining the wave of cross-market consolidation that’s been dominating discussion among system CEOs recently.

His concern was that his locally governed board may be putting an artificial brake on growth, not seeing value of expansion beyond their market for the community they serve.

That’s a valid point—how does it help a Busytown resident if the local health system expands to operate in Pleasantville? Shouldn’t Busytown Health System just focus its resources and time on improving performance at home, and wouldn’t it represent a loss to Busytown if Pleasantville got investment dollars that could have been spent locally?

That’s a question raised by the “super-regional” or national strategies being pursued by many large systems today, and one worth thinking about. 

Whenever a system grows outside its geography, there should be a solid argument that additional scale will reap returns for its existing operations, from better efficiency, better access to innovation and talent, better access to capital, or the like.

Those are legitimate reasons for out-of-market growth and consolidation, as long as the systems involved are diligent in pursuing them.

But local boards are right to hold executives accountable for making the case for growth, and ensuring that growth creates value for local patients and purchasers.

Is the Traditional Hospital Strategy Aging Out?

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Business Case, Business Model, Financial Distress, Financial Performance, Financial Reserves, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Leadership Culture, Leadership Intent, Leadership Legacy, Leadership Values, Leadership Vision, Leadership Will, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Model, Operating Performance, Strategic Alignment, Strategic Imperative, Strategic Issue, Strategic Leadership, Strengths, Value, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/traditional-hospital-strategy-aging-out

On October 1, 1908, Ford produced the first Model T automobile. More than 60 years later, this affordable, mass produced, gasoline-powered car was still the top-selling automobile of all time. The Model T was geared to the broadest possible market, produced with the most efficient methods, and used the most modern technology—core elements of Ford’s business strategy and corporate DNA.

On April 25, 2018, almost 100 years later, Ford announced that it would stop making all U.S. internal-combustion sedans except the Mustang.

The world had changed. The Taurus, Fusion, and Fiesta were hardly exciting the imaginations of car-buyers. Ford no longer produced its U.S. cars efficiently enough to return a suitable profit. And the internal combustion technology was far from modern, with electronic vehicles widely seen as the future of automobiles.

Ford’s core strategy, and many of its accompanying products, had aged out. But not all was doom and gloom; Ford was doing big and profitable business in its line of pickups, SUVs, and -utility vehicles, led by the popular F-150.

It’s hard to imagine the level of strategic soul-searching and cultural angst that went into making the decision to stop producing the cars that had been the basis of Ford’s history. Yet, change was necessary for survival. At the time, Ford’s then-CEO Jim Hackett said, “We’re going to feed the healthy parts of our business and deal decisively with the areas that destroy value.”

So Ford took several bold steps designed to update—and in many ways upend—its strategy. The company got rid of large chunks of the portfolio that would not be relevant going forward, particularly internal combustion sedans. Ford also reorganized the company into separate divisions for electric and internal combustion vehicles. And Ford pivoted to the future by electrifying its fleet.

Ford did not fully abandon its existing strategies. Rather, it took what was relevant and successful, and added that to the future-focused pivot, placing the F-150 as the lead vehicle in its new electric fleet.

This need for strategic change happens to all large organizations. All organizations, including America’s hospitals and health systems, need to confront the fact that no strategic plan lasts forever.

Over the past 25-30 years, America’s hospitals and health systems based their strategies on the provision of a high-quality clinical care, largely in inpatient settings. Over time, physicians and clinics were brought into the fold to strengthen referral channels, but the strategic focus remained on driving volume to higher-acuity services.

More recently, the longstanding traditional patient-physician-referral relationship began to change. A smarter, internet-savvy, and self-interested patient population was looking for different aspects of service in different situations. In some cases, patients’ priority was convenience. In other cases, their priority was affordability. In other cases, patients began going to great lengths to find the best doctors for high-end care regardless of geographic location. In other cases, patients wanted care as close as their phone.

Around the country, hospitals and health systems have seen these environmental changes and adjusted their strategies, but for the most part only incrementally. The strategic focus remains centered on clinical quality delivered on campus, while convenience, access, value, affordability, efficiency, and many virtual innovations remain on the strategic periphery.

Health system leaders need to ask themselves whether their long-time, traditional strategy is beginning to age out. And if so, what is the “Ford strategy” for America’s health systems?

The questions asked and answered by Ford in the past five years are highly relevant to health system strategic planning at a time of changing demand, economic and clinical uncertainty, and rapid innovation. For example, as you view your organization in its entirety, what must be preserved from the existing structure and operations, and what operations, costs, and strategies must leave? And which competencies and capabilities must be woven into a going-forward structure?

America’s hospitals and health systems have an extremely long history—in some cases, longer than Ford’s. With that history comes a natural tendency to stick with deeply entrenched strategies. Now is the time for health systems to ask themselves, what is our Ford F150? And how do we “electrify” our strategic plan going forward?

America’s Hospitals Need a Makeover

Posted on by • Posted in Financial Distress, Financial Instability, Financial Performance, Financial Stewardship, Financial Strength, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Leadership Implementation, Leadership Vision, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Model, Operating Performance, Restructure, Strategic Change, Strategic Imperative, Strategic Leadership, Transformation, Transformation Strategy, Turnaround, Turnaround Plan, Value Proposition • Leave a comment
https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/americas-hospitals-need-makeover?utm_source=mkto&utm_campaign=ken-weekly-blog&utm_medium=em&utm_term=230614&mkt_tok=NjU0LUNOWS0yMjQAAAGMWS9ZAaPCcQa93WPgO_WoUyj-E-eYX9hWxy7LscI1NCpx8dTV71jKu61_wuIefSJE83x84WPLHZdDDUbWi-xRaBc8Fk6dIFOnN4lJoQ-bPSv1

A couple of months ago, I got a call from a CEO of a regional health system—a long-time client and one of the smartest and most committed executives I know. This health system lost tens of millions of dollars in fiscal year 2022 and the CEO told me that he had come to the conclusion that he could not solve a problem of this magnitude with the usual and traditional solutions. Pushing the pre-Covid managerial buttons was just not getting the job done.

This organization is fiercely independent. It has been very successful in almost every respect for many years. It has had an effective and stable board and management team over the past 30 to 40 years.

But when the CEO looked at the current situation—economic, social, financial, operational, clinical—he saw that everything has changed and he knew that his healthcare organization needed to change as well. The system would not be able to return to profitability just by doing the same things it would have done five years or 10 years ago. Instead of looking at a small number of factors and making incremental improvements, he wanted to look across the total enterprise all at once. And to look at all aspects of the enterprise with an eye toward organizational renovation.

I said, “So, you want a makeover.”

The CEO is right. In an environment unlike anything any of us have experienced, and in an industry of complex interdependencies, the only way to get back to financial equilibrium is to take a comprehensive, holistic view of our organizations and environments, and to be open to an outcome in which we do things very differently.

In other words, a makeover.

Consider just a few areas that the hospital makeover could and should address:

There’s the REVENUE SIDE: Getting paid for what you are doing and the severity of the patient you are treating—which requires a focus on clinical documentation improvement and core revenue cycle delivery—and looking for any material revenue diversification opportunities.

There is the relationship with payers: Involving a mix of growth, disruption, and optimization strategies to increase payments, grow share of wallet, or develop new revenue streams.

There’s the EXPENSE SIDE: Optimizing workforce performance, focusing on care management and patient throughput, rethinking the shared services infrastructure, and realizing opportunities for savings in administrative services, purchased services, and the supply chain. While these have been historic areas of focus, organizations must move from an episodic to a constant, ongoing approach.

There’s the BALANCE SHEET: Establishing a parallel balance sheet strategy that will create the bridge across the operational makeover by reconfiguring invested assets and capital structure, repositioning the real estate portfolio, and optimizing liquidity management and treasury operations.

There is NETWORK REDESIGN: Ensuring that the services offered across the network are delivered efficiently and that each market and asset is optimized; reducing redundancy, increasing quality, and improving financial performance.

There is a whole concept around PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION: Developing a deep understanding of how the various components of your business perform, and how to optimize, scale back, or partner to drive further value and operational performance.

Incrementalism is a long-held business approach in healthcare, and for good reason. Any prominent change has the potential to affect the health of communities and those changes must be considered carefully to ensure that any outcome of those changes is a positive one. Any ill-considered action could have unintended consequences for any of a hospital’s many constituencies.

But today, incrementalism is both unrealistic and insufficient.

Just for starters, healthcare executive teams must recognize that back-office expenses are having a significant and negative impact on the ability of hospitals to make a sufficient operating margin. And also, healthcare executive teams must further realize that the old concept of “all things to all people” is literally bringing parts of the hospital industry toward bankruptcy.

As I described in a previous blog post, healthcare comprises some of the most wicked problems in our society—problems that are complex, that have no clear solution, and for which a solution intended to fix one aspect of a problem may well make other aspects worse.

The very nature of wicked problems argues for the kind of comprehensive approach that the CEO of this organization is taking—not tackling one issue at a time in linear fashion but making a sophisticated assessment of multiple solutions and studying their potential interdependencies, interactions, and intertwined effects.

My colleague Eric Jordahl has noted that “reverting to a 2019 world is not going to happen, which means that restructuring is the only option. . . . Where we are is not sustainable and waiting for a reversion is a rapidly decaying option.”

The very nature of the socioeconomic environment makes doing nothing or taking an incremental approach untenable. It is clearly beyond time for the hospital industry makeover.

UnitedHealth Group (UHG) starts bidding war for Amedisys

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Industry, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Inpatient Care, Market Consolidation, Market Trends, Mergers & Acquisitions, UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare, Vertical Consolidation, Vertical Integration, Vertical Merger, Vertical Mergers • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/a93cd0b56a21/the-weekly-gist-june-9-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

On Monday, Minnetonka, MN-based UHG’s Optum division made a $3.3B all-cash offer to acquire Baton Rouge, LA-based Amedisys, one of the country’s largest home health companies. 

Optum’s bid came several weeks after Bannockburn, IL-based Option Care Health, a home health company specialized in drug and infusion services, offered to purchase Amedisys in an all-stock transaction valued at $3.6B. Amedisys itself acquired hospital-at-home company Contessa Health for $250M in 2021. While its Board of Directors is now evaluating whether UHG has made a “Superior Proposal”, a UHG acquisition of Amedisys would likely be subject to significant regulatory oversight, as the payer recently closed on its purchase of home health company and Amedisys-competitor LHC Group in a deal that was heavily scrutinized by the Federal Trade Commission. 

The Gist: UHG, the nation’s largest health insurer, is on a tear to bring the country’s largest home health providers under its Optum umbrella—and it has the deep pockets to outbid nearly anyone else trying to do the same.

While some questioned the value of an Option Care-Amedisys combination, UHG would get to plug another asset into its scaled continuum of home-based care, allowing it to steer beneficiaries away from high-cost post acute care and continue to increase profitable intercompany eliminations. 

If UHG’s bid for Amedisys is accepted, it would also gain its first hospital-at-home asset in Contessa, providing it with the opportunity to fully redirect—and reduce—its inpatient care spend. 

Academic Medicine: Where Privilege Compounds Organizational Dysfunction

Posted on by • Posted in Academic Medical Center, Affordability, Competition, Consumerism, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medical Education, Quality of Care, Specialty Care, Tax Exempt Status, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
Academic Medicine: Where Privilege Compounds Organizational Dysfunction

Academic medicine combines healthcare with higher education, the two sectors of the American economy that have exhibited outsized cost growth during the past 50 years. The result is a stunning disconnection between the business practices of academic medical centers (AMCs) and the supply-demand dynamics reshaping healthcare delivery.

Market, technological and regulatory forces are pushing the healthcare industry to deliver higher-value care that generates better outcomes at lower costs. A parallel movement is shifting resources out of specialty and acute care services into primary, preventive, behavioral health and chronic disease care services. In the process, care delivery is decentralizing and becoming more consumer-centric.

AMCs Double Down

Counter to these trends, academic medicine is doubling down on high-cost, centralized, specialty-focused care delivery. Privilege has its price. Several AMCs — including Mass General Brigham, IU Health, UCSF, Ohio State and UPMC — are undertaking multibillion-dollar expansions of their existing campuses. Collectively, AMCs expect American society to fund their continued growth and profitability irrespective of cost, effectiveness and contribution to health status.

Despite being tax-exempt and having access to a large pool of free labor (residents), AMCs charge the highest treatment prices in most markets. [1] Archaic formulas allocate residency “slots” and lucrative Graduate Medical Education payments (over $20 billion annually) disproportionately into specialty care and more-established AMCs. Given their cushy funding arrangements, it’s no wonder AMCs fight vigorously to maintain an out-of-date status quo.

Legacy practices from the early 1900s still dominate medical education, medical research and clinical care. Like tenured faculty, academic physicians manage their practices with little interference. Clinical deans rule their departments with a free hand. With few exceptions, interdisciplinary coordination is an oxymoron. The result is fragmented care delivery that tolerates duplication, medical error and poor patient service.

Irresistible consumerism confronts immovable institutional inertia. As exhibited by substantial operating losses at many AMCs, their foundations are beginning to crack. [2]

Medicine’s Rise from Poverty to Prosperity 

In his 1984 Pulitzer Prize-winning work, Paul Starr chronicles the social transformation of American medicine during the 19th and 20th centuries. Prior to the 1900s, doctors had low social status. Most care took place in the home. Pay was low. The profession lacked professional standards. There were too many quacks. Most doctors lived hand-to-mouth.

As the century turned, several cultural, economic, scientific and legal developments converged to elevate the profession’s status in American society. Stricter licensing reduced the supply of physicians and closed most existing medical schools. Legislation and legal rulings restricted corporate ownership of medical practices and enshrined physicians’ operating autonomy. Scientific breakthroughs gave medicine more healing power.

Through the decades that followed, the American Medical Association and state medical societies frustrated external attempts to control medical delivery externally and institute national health insurance. They insisted on fee-for-service payment and the absolute right of patients to choose their doctors. These are causal factors underlying healthcare’s skyrocketing cost increases, growing from 5% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 1960 to over 18% in 2021.

Academic and community-based physicians have always had a tenuous relationship. Status and prestige accompany academic affiliations. Academic practices require referrals from community physicians but rarely consult with them on treatment protocols. For their part, community physicians marvel at the lack of market awareness exhibited by academic practices. They have tolerated one another to perpetuate collective physician control over healthcare operations.

Incomes and prestige for both community and academic physicians rose as the medical profession limited practitioner supply, established payment guidelines, encouraged specialization, controlled service delivery and socialized capital investment. One hundred years later, the business of healthcare still exhibits these characteristics. Gleaming new medical centers testify to the profession’s success in socializing capital investment and maintaining autonomy over hospital operations.

Entrenched beliefs and behaviors explain why most hospitals, despite their high construction costs, are largely deserted after 4 p.m. and on weekends. They explain the maldistribution of facilities and practitioners. They explain the overdevelopment of specialty care. They explain the underinvestment in preventive care, mental health services and public health.

Value-Focused Backlash Portends Reckoning

These beliefs and behaviors are contributing to AMC’s current economic dislocation. Dependent upon public subsidies and premium treatment payments to maintain financial sustainability, high-cost AMCs are particularly vulnerable to value-based competitors.

The marketplace is attacking inefficient clinical care with tech-savvy, consumer-friendly business models. Care delivery is decentralizing even as many AMCs invest more heavily in campus-based medicine. A market-based reckoning confronts academic medicine.

A visit up north illustrates the general unwillingness of academic physicians to accept market realities and their continued insistence on maintaining full control over the academic medical enterprise. It’s like watching a train wreck occur in slow motion.

Minnesota Madness

After experiencing severe economic distress, the University of Minnesota sold its University of Minnesota Medical Center (UMMC) to Fairview Health in 1997. Fairview currently operates UMMC in partnership with the University of Minnesota Physicians (UMP) under the banner of M Health Fairview.

In September 2022, Sanford Health and Fairview Health signed a letter of intent to merge. The new combined company would bear the Sanford name with its headquarters in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Despite the opportunity to double its catchment area for specialty referrals, the University and UMP oppose the merger with Sanford. They fear out-of-state ownership could compromise the integrity of UMMC’s operations.

Fairview wants the Sanford merger to help it address massive operating losses resulting, in part, from its contractual arrangements with UMP. Negotiations between the parties have become acrimonious. Amid the turmoil, the University and UMP announced in January 2023 their intention to acquire UMMC from Fairview and build a new state-of-the-art medical center on the University’s Minneapolis campus.

The University has named this proposal “MPact Health Care Innovation.” It calls for the Minnesota state legislature to fund the multibillion-dollar cost of acquiring, building and operating the new medical enterprise. Typical of academic medical practices, UMP expects external sources to pony up the funding to support their high-cost centralized business model while they continue to call the shots.

The arrogance and obliviousness of the University’s proposal is staggering. Minnesota struggles with rising rates of chronic disease and inequitable healthcare access for low-income urban and rural communities. The idea that a massive governmental investment in academic medicine will “bridge the past and future for a healthier Minnesota” as the MPact tagline proclaims is ludicrous.

Out of Touch

Like the rest of the country, Minnesota is experiencing declining life expectancy. Despite spending more than double the average per-capita healthcare cost of other wealthy countries, the United States scores among the worst in health status measures. Spending more on high-end academic medicine won’t change these dismal health outcomes. Spending more on preventive care, health promotion and social determinants of health could.

The real gem in the University of Minnesota’s medical enterprise is its medical school. It has trained 70% of the state’s physicians. It ranks third and fourth nationally in primary care and family medicine. It is advancing a progressive approach to interdisciplinary and multi-professional care.

If the Minnesota state legislature really wants to advance health in Minnesota, it should expand funding for the University’s aligned health schools and community-based programs without funding the acquisition and expansion of the University’s clinical facilities.

No Privilege Without Performance

Our nation must stop enabling academic medicine’s excesses. Funding AMCs’ insatiable appetite for facilities and specialized care delivery is counterproductive. It is time for academic medicine to embrace preventive health, holistic care delivery and affordable care access.

Privilege comes with responsibility. AMCs that resist the pivot to value-based care and healthier communities deserve to lose market relevance.

America has the means to create a healthier society. It requires shifting resources out of healthcare into public health. We must have the will to make community-based health networks a reality. It starts by saying no to needless expansion of acute care facilities.