In just 2020, deaths from gun violence cost the U.S. healthcare system $290 million, or about $6,400 per patient, according to a report from the Commonwealth Fund. These costs are mostly covered by Medicaid and other government insurance programs.
The U.S. healthcare system sees about 30,000 inpatient hospital stays and 50,000 emergency room visits due to gun violence each year, leading to more than $1 billion in initial medical costs, according to a new analysis.
The Commonwealth Fund published these results last week and relied on three data sources for its analysis: the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study, the Small Arms Survey and the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Even after leaving the hospital, patients are faced with challenges. A year after a gun injury, medical spending rises about $2,495 per person per month. In addition, those who suffer firearm injuries are more likely to form mental health challenges and substance use disorders.
“The impact of gun violence reaches far beyond the hospital room,” the analysis states.
Firearm-related deaths are increasing, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2021, almost 49,000 Americans died from firearms, compared to 45,000 in 2020.
Additional findings from the report include:
In 2019, the U.S. had a higher rate of firearm deaths than any other country. Its rate of firearm deaths was almost five times as much as France, the second-highest country.
Eight times more people in the U.S. died from firearm violence in 2019 compared to Canada, the second-highest country.
More people died from self-harm by firearm in the U.S. than any other country in 2019, more than three times higher than France and Switzerland.
More women were killed by guns in the U.S. than any other country in 2019.
In the U.S., there are 67 million more firearms than people. That difference is higher than the population of the United Kingdom, which has 66.2 million people.
In the U.S., 52% of people who are admitted to hospitals for firearm injuries are Black, 29% are White, 14% are Hispanic and 5% are another race or ethnicity. Black Americans account for 50% of firearm injury hospital costs, while White Americans account for 27%, Hispanic Americans account for 17% and other races or ethnicities account for 6%.
About 48% of firearm-related inpatient hospital stays are in the American South, while 20% are in the Midwest, 20% are in the West and 12% are in the Northeast. The South accounts for 44% of firearm injury hospital costs, while the West accounts for 26%, the Midwest accounts for 18% and the Northeast accounts for 11%.
After 18 years as CEO in Kaiser Permanente, I set my sights on improving the heatlh of the nation, hoping to find a way to achieve the same quality, technology and affordability our medical group delivered to 5 million patients on both coasts.
That quest launched the Fixing Healthcare podcast in 2018, and it inspired interviews with dozens of leaders, thinkers and doers, both in and around medicine. These experts shared innovative ideas and proven solutions for achieving (a) superior quality, (b) improved patient access, (c) lower overall costs, and (d) greater patient and clinician satisfaction.
Which of the hundreds of ideas presented remain most promising?
Why, after five years and so many excellent solutions, has our nation experienced such limited improvements in healthcare?
And finally, how will these great ideas become reality?
To answer the first question, I offer 15 of the best Fixing Healthcare recommendations so far. Some quotes have been modified for clarity with links to all original episodes (and transcripts) included.
Fixing the business of medicine
1. Malcolm Gladwell, journalist and five-time bestselling author: “In other professions, when people break rules and bring greater economic efficiency or value, we reward them. In medicine, we need to demonstrate a consistent pattern of rewarding the person who does things better.”
2. Richard Pollack, CEO of the American Hospital Association (AHA): “I hope in 10 years we have more integrated delivery systems providing care, not bouncing people around from one unconnected facility to the next. I would hope that we’re in a position where there’s a real focus on ensuring that people get care in a very convenient way.”
Eliminating burnout
3. Zubin Damania, aka ZDoggMD, hospitalist and healthcare satirist: “In the culture of medicine, specialists view primary care as the weak medical students, the people who couldn’t get the board scores or rotation honors to become a specialist. Because why would you do primary care? It’s miserable. You don’t get paid enough. It’s drudgery. We must change these perceptions.”
4. Devi Shetty, India’s leading heart surgeon and founder of Narayana Health: “When you strive to work for a purpose, which is not about profiting yourself, the purpose of our action is to help society, mankind on a large scale. When that happens, cosmic forces ensure that all the required components come in place and your dream becomes a reality.”
5. Jonathan Fisher, cardiologist and clinician advocate: “The problem we’re facing in healthcare is that clinicians are all siloed. We may be siloed in our own institution thinking that we’re doing it best. We may be siloed in our own specialty thinking that we’re better than others. All of these divides need to be bridged. We need to begin the bridging.”
Making medicine equitable
6. Jen Gunter, women’s health advocate and “the internet’s OB-GYN”: “Women are not listened to by doctors in the way that men are. They have a harder time navigating the system because of that. Many times, they’re told their pain isn’t that serious or their bleeding isn’t that heavy. We must do better at teaching women’s health in medicine.”
7. Amanda Calhoun, activist, researcher and anti-racism educator: “A 2015 survey showed that white residents and medical students still thought Black people feel less pain, which is wild to me because Black is a race. It’s not biological. This is actually an historical belief that persists. One of the biggest things we can do as the medical system is work on rebuilding trust with the Black community.”
Addressing social determinants of health
8. Don Berwick, former CMS administrator and head of 100,000 Lives campaign: “We know where the money should go if we really want to be a healthy nation: early childhood development, workplaces that thrive, support to the lonely, to elders, to community infrastructures like food security and transportation security and housing security, to anti-racism and criminal-justice reform. But we starve the infrastructures that could produce health to support the massive architecture of intervention.”
9. David T. Feinberg, chairman of Oracle Health: “Twenty percent of whether we live or die, whether we have life in our years and years in our life, is based on going to good doctors and good hospitals. We should put the majority of effort on the stuff that really impacts your health: your genetic code, your zip code, your social environment, your access to clean food, your access to transportation, how much loneliness you have or don’t have.”
Empowering patients
10. Elisabeth Rosenthal, physician, author and editor-in-chief of KHN: “To patients, I say write about your surprise medical bills. Write to a journalist, write to your local newspaper. Hospitals today are very sensitive about their reputations and they do not want to be shamed by some of these charges.”
11. Gordon Chen, ChenMed CMO: “If you think about what leadership really is, it’s influence. Nothing more, nothing less. And the only way to achieve better health in patients is to get them to change their behaviors in a positive way. That behavior change takes influence. It requires primary care physicians to build relationship and earn trust with patients. That is how both doctors and patients can drive better health outcomes.”
Utilizing technology
12. Vinod Khosla, entrepreneur, investor, technologist: “The most expensive part of the U.S. healthcare system is expertise, and expertise can relatively be tamed with technology and AI. We can capture some of that expertise, so each oncologist can do 10 times more patient care than they would on their own without that help.”
13. Rod Rohrich, influential plastic surgeon and social media proponent: “Doctors, use social media to empower your audience, to educate them, and not to overwhelm them. If you approach social media by educating patients about their own health, how they can be better, how can they do things better, how they can find doctors better, that’s a good thing.”
Rethinking medical education
14. Marty Makary, surgeon and public policy researcher: “I would get rid of all the useless sh*t we teach our medical students and residents and fellows. In the 16 years of education that I went through, I learned stuff that has nothing to do with patient care, stuff that nobody needs to memorize.”
15. Eric Topol, cardiologist, scientist and AI expert: “It’s pretty embarrassing. If you go across 150 medical schools, not one has AI as a core curriculum. Patients will get well versed in AI. It’s important that physicians stay ahead, as well.”
Great ideas, but little progress
Since 2018, our nation has spent $20 trillion on medical care, navigated the largest global pandemic in a century and developed an effective mRNA vaccine, nearly from scratch. And yet, despite all this spending and scientific innovation, American medicine has lost ground.
American life expectancy has dropped while maternal mortality rates have worsened. Clinician burnout has accelerated amid a growing shortage of primary care and emergency medicine physicians. And compared to 12 of its wealthiest global peers, the United States spends nearly twice as much per person on medical care, but ranks last in clinical outcomes.
Guests on Fixing Healthcare generally agree on the causes of stagnating national progress.
Healthcare system giants, including those in the drug, insurance and hospital industries, find it easier to drive up prices than to prevent disease or make care-delivery more efficient. Over the past decade, they’ve formed a conglomerate of monopolies that prosper from the existing rules, leaving them little incentive to innovate on behalf of patients. And in this era of deep partisan divide, meaningful healthcare reforms have not (and won’t) come from Congress.
Then who will lead the way?
Industry change never happens because it should. It happens when demand and opportunity collide, creating space for new entrants and outsiders to push past the established incumbents. In healthcare, I see two possibilities:
1. Providers will rally and reform healthcare
Doctors and hospitals are struggling. They’re struggling with declining morale and decreasing revenue. Clinicians are exiting the profession and hospitals are shuttering their doors. As the pain intensifies, medical group leaders may be the ones who decide to begin the process of change.
The first step would be to demand payment reform.
Today’s reimbursement model, fee-for-service, pays doctors and hospitals based on the quantity of care they provide—not the quality of care. This methodology pushes physicians to see more patients, spend less time with them, and perform ever-more administrative (billing) tasks. Physicians liken it to being in a hamster wheel: running faster and faster just to stay in place.
Instead, providers of care could be paid by insurers, the government and self-funded businesses directly, through a model called “capitation.” With capitation, groups of providers receive a fixed amount of money per year. That sum depends on the number of enrollees they care for and the amount of care those individuals are expected to need based on their age and underlying diseases.
This model puts most of the financial risk on providers, encouraging them to deliver high-quality, effective medical care. With capitation, doctors and hospitals have strong financial incentives to prevent illnesses through timely and recommended preventive screenings and a focus on lifestyle-medicine (which includes diet, exercise and stress reduction). They’re rewarded for managing patients’ health and helping them avoid costly complications from chronic diseases, such as heart attacks, strokes and cancer.
Capitation encourages doctors from all specialties to collaborate and work together on behalf of patients, thus reducing the isolation physicians experience while ensuring fewer patients fall through the cracks of our dysfunctional healthcare system. The payment methodology aligns the needs of patients with the interests of providers, which has the power to restore the sense of mission and purpose medicine has lost.
Capitation at the delivery-system level eliminates the need for prior authorization from insurers (a key cause of clinician burnout) and elevates the esteem accorded to primary care doctors (who focus on disease prevention and care coordination). And because the financial benefits are tied to better health outcomes, the capitated model rewards clinicians who eliminate racial and gender disparities in medical care and organizations that take steps to address the social determinants of health.
2. Major retailers will take over
If clinicians don’t lead the way, corporate behemoths like Amazon, CVS and Walmart will disrupt the healthcare system as we know it. These retailers are acquiring the insurance, pharmacy and direct-patient-care pieces needed to squeeze out the incumbents and take over American healthcare.
Each is investing in new ways to empower patients, provide in-home care and radically improve access to both in-person and virtual medicine. Once generative AI solutions like ChatGPT gain enough computing power and users, tech-savvy retailers will apply this tool to monitor patients, enable healthier lifestyles and improve the quality of medical care compared to today.
When Fixing Healthcare debuted five years ago, none of the show’s guests could have foreseen a pandemic that left more than a million dead. But, had our nation embraced their ideas from the outset, many of those lives would have been saved. The pandemic rocked an already unstable and underperforming healthcare system. Our nation’s failure to prevent and control chronic disease resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths from Covid-19. Outdated information technology systems, medical errors and disparities in care caused hundreds of thousands more. As a nation, we could have done much better.
With the cracks in the system widening and the foundation eroding, disruption in healthcare is inevitable. What remains to be seen is whether it will come from inside or outside the U.S. healthcare system.
One of the great things about my job is getting the opportunity to talk with healthcare CEOs around the country on a regular basis.
Lately, every CEO I talk with tells me how hard it is to run a healthcare organization in 2023.
These are people with long experience, people who over time have pushed the right buttons and pulled the right levers to make their organizations successful and to give their communities the care they need.
Hearing these recent comments from CEOs takes us back to the concept of “wicked problems,” which we’ve referred to in the past, and suggests that the current hospital operating environment is overwhelmed by wicked problems.
As a reminder, the wicked problem concept was developed in 1973 by social scientists Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber.
Unlike math problems, wicked problems have no single, correct solution. In fact, a solution that improves one aspect of a wicked problem usually makes another aspect of the problem worse.
Poverty is a common example of a wicked problem.
According to Rittel and Webber, all wicked problems have these five characteristics:
They are hard to define.
It’s hard to know when they are solved.
Potential solutions are not right or wrong, only better or worse.
There is no end to the number of solutions or approaches to a wicked problem.
There is no way to test the solution to a wicked problem—once implemented, solutions are not easily reversable, and those solutions affect many people in profound ways.
Healthcare is one of our nation’s critical wicked problems, and the broad and persistent effects of COVID have made that problem worse.
Like all wicked problems, the wicked problem of healthcare can be defined in many different ways and from many different perspectives.
If we were to frame the wicked problem of healthcare just in the context of hospitals and health systems coming off of their worst financial year in memory, it could look something like this:
Hospitals and health systems need to make a margin in order to carry out their “duty of care”—that is, their responsibility to improve health for communities, which increasingly include public health undertakings.
However, in 2022, more than half of hospitals in America had negative margins due largely to macroeconomic factors related to labor, inflation, utilization, and insufficient revenue growth.
The actions then needed to improve financial performance likely involve reducing labor costs and eliminating unprofitable services.
But these solutions in the hospital world are seen as another wicked problem, and actions taken to improve financial and clinical operations are often cautiously approached in order to protect the organization’s duty of care.
As you can see, the very actions to solve the wicked problem of provider healthcare may likely make aspects of the strategic problem worse.
Everyone reading this blog is dedicated to solving these and other wicked problems related to health and healthcare and the provision of sufficient care to the American community.
Solutions to healthcare’s wicked problems are never clear, and those solutions are not easily tested and eventually can affect many.
And in the wicked problem lexicon, once uncertain solutions have been implemented they are very hard to undo.
And healthcare’s many and varied dissatisfied stakeholders demand rapid solutions and then complain loudly when those solutions fall short, as any one solution inevitably will when the problem is as wicked as the current healthcare environment.
This is the new role of healthcare leaders: solvers of wicked problems.
Healthcare debt issuance remains incredibly light. How long can a capital-intensive industry tolerate limited capital generation? Is pressure building to some tipping point when the need for capital and liquidity will outweigh defending a credit-rating position or avoiding what seems like high-cost debt? The sector generated a lot of internal and external capital in 2020-2021, but the falloff across all channels has been dramatic and residual resource positions are deteriorating.
The Need for Enterprise Performance Improvement
Recent economic releases—jobs report to CPI to PPI to retail sales—all suggest that the Federal Reserve’s efforts to bring inflation into line are yielding slower than hoped for results. The expectation is continued Fed tightening (higher rates), with a range of voices suggesting the Fed will be forced to push rates high enough to trigger a recession. Every restaurant and shop in the small town I live near has a “we’re hiring” sign in its window and each was jam-packed with very active consumers this past Presidents’ Day weekend. If success in taming inflation requires a broad-based hiring and economic slowdown, it feels like we have a long way to go.
Markets keep doing their thing, which frequently seems disconnected from the Fed’s thing. Both 30-year Treasuries and MMD are just starting to bump up against 30-year averages, the 10-year Treasury has moved higher over the past several weeks but remains below Effective Fed Funds, and the Chicago Fed’s National Financial Conditions Index continues to suggest relatively accommodative overall financial conditions.
While I question the depth and reliability of fixed income markets, the funding environment doesn’t seem as bad as the very low debt issuance activity would suggest. Channeling Shakespeare, it seems that “the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves,”
meaning that low debt issuance is coming out of healthcare’s very profound resource problem rather than externalities.
I concluded a long time ago that not-for-profit healthcare credit and capital management is about strategic resource allocation. Healthcare leaders continuously rebalance the allocation of resources embedded in operations, credit position, and retained fixed and financial assets; and there has never been as challenging a resource generation and allocation moment as the one we are in and are likely to remain in for an extended period.
The scary version of all this is that not-for-profit healthcare has entered a resource chasm that will fundamentally degrade the sector’s credit and capital foundation.
COVID and inflation have combined to expose the brittleness of the healthcare resource chassis. The engine—operations—is bumping up against the dual pressures of:
Labor-scarcity-driven strains on converting customer demand into realized financial resources; and
A business model that doesn’t allow the efficient transfer of increased costs onto customers.
The result is unprecedented resource compression that leads to dramatically lower internal and external capital formation;
existential covenant threats; and the temptation, if not the necessity, to use retained wealth (i.e., spend down balance sheet) to support current operations versus funding growth or protecting long-term resiliency.
Every organization must aggressively identify and pursue operating performance improvement initiatives. But every organization needs to extend the idea of performance improvement to balance sheet, with the goal of addressing three total enterprise considerations:
What Is Our Resource Portfolio?What is the catalogue of resources available to the organization? What form are those resources in? What is the roster of demands on those resources and is there balance or imbalance between the two? What are the consequences of imbalance and the costs of moving to balance?
What Are Our Resource Priorities?How dependent is your organization on balance sheet to achieve success? Is balance sheet a critical liquidity or credit buffer against elevated operating and strategic volatility—the bridge between today and a successfully implemented operations performance improvement plan? Is it a source of external capital to fund strategic initiatives or defend overall liquidity? Is it an actual funding source and is this a departure from past practice? Is it an independent and alternative source of (non-operating) cash flow? Is the balance sheet role changing and what does that mean to operations, credit, resiliency, etc.?
How Should Our Resources Be Positioned? Are balance sheet resources in their best form or is there a benefit from converting them into something different (like cash)? Will performance improvement initiatives alter positioning conclusions and, if so, does that improvement occur over an acceptable time frame? Can various resources be successfully converted today or are there cost or other impediments?
The need is to move out of siloed and into integrated and enterprise-centric performance improvement, which requires one consistent resource allocation mindset applied across operations, liabilities, real estate holdings, financial asset holdings, and every other class of organizational resources.
The need is to transition from thinking that balance sheet and operations can be disconnected thoughts to seeing them as two sides of the same coin.
Covenant threats continue to escalate, all centered on how reduced resource generation impacts debt service coverage.
We reiterate that it is critical for every organization to understand how its specific covenants work and to have a rolling forecast on expected performance.
As an example, many organizations now have coverage covenants where default requires two consecutive years of below the coverage ratio. This is an unconditionally good thing, but many of these same organizations may face a consultant call-in at year one and some of them may also confront year-two limitations on additional debt, merger, sale, disposition of assets, and a host of other important management levers. So, the good thing has conditions that are essential to understand and, perhaps, get ahead of. We have a robust library of covenant-related thought leadership on our website—ranging from written content to webinars—and our team is always ready to help.
Wednesday’s inflation print showed a March increase of 0.1% versus February and a year-over-year increase of 5.0%, both of which were better than expected. Markets rallied following the news, at least until the specter of recession caused a reversal of equity gains. The game remains the same: markets want easy money and inflation plus unemployment plus recession equals Fed policy and interest rate levels. Memories of the long 1970s slog through declining and then accelerating inflation levels suggest that it’s too early to declare victory (5.00% is still a long way from the Fed’s 2.00% target range). Nevertheless, hopes increased that the Fed may truly be at or very near the end of its tightening cycle.
Unsustainable Trends
The web version of The Wall Street Journal got rid of its special section on the “2023 Bank Turmoil,” which is a sign that we’re past the worst of this chapter in the Dickensian saga in which our financial system hero navigates all sorts of unfortunate characters and events in search of a new “normal.” Banking distrust ripples continue, with various clients sharing the work they are doing to peel back layers of counterparty risk to understand whether threats loom in downstream financial dependencies. Our regulatory infrastructure has shown itself to be a mile wide and an inch deep, which fuels the kind of skepticism about the reliability of designated watchdogs that leads to self-directed risk assessments.
At one level, this is a helpful and important exercise. The credit and financing structure of any complex healthcare organization is just another supply chain, and it is good to understand how yours works and whether there are vulnerabilities that should be investigated. But it is equally important to assess whether the progression of COVID to inflation to Silicon Valley Bank has caused your organization to drift from risk management into retrenchment. Organizations naturally migrate along a risk continuum as they shift between prioritizing returns or resiliency. The important question isn’t which of these bookends is right, but rather what shapes the migration; the defining event is the journey, and
the critical Board and C-suite conversation is whether your risk management program is enabling or constraining future growth.
We continue to monitor the extraordinary decline in not-for-profit healthcare debt issuance. Sources we rely on show healthcare public debt issuance through Q1 2023 down almost 70% versus Q1 2022. Similar data sources aren’t available, but anecdotal input from our team suggests a comparable drop-off in healthcare real estate as well as alternative funding channels. At the same time, although margins have recently improved, operating cash flow across the sector has been weak over the past 12-18 months. If capital formation from internal and external sources is a sign of vibrancy, healthcare is listless.
The primary culprit isn’t rates; the sector has raised capital in much higher rate environments with fewer financing channels (including most of the pre-2008 era). Instead, the rationale most frequently advanced is concern about the reaction from key credit market constituents during this time of unprecedented operating disruption. Of course, this makes sense, but sitting underneath this basic rationale is the question of what might be called “capital deployment conviction.” Long experience confirms that organizations armed with a growth thesis they believe in aren’t shy about “selling” their story to rating agencies and investors and are willing to suffer adverse outcomes on rates, ratings, or covenants, if that is the price of growth. This isn’t happening right now, which introduces the troubling idea that issuance trends are about much more than credit management.
No matter the root cause, recent capital formation is not sustainable.
Good risk management leads to caution in challenging times, but being too careful elevates the probability that temporary problems become permanent. $2.8 billion in quarterly external capital formation ($11.2 billion annualized—pause and let that annualized amount sink in) is not sufficient to maintain the not-for-profit healthcare sector’s care delivery infrastructure, especially when internal capital generation is equally anemic. But introduce any competitive paradigm and the underinvestment that accompanies this level of capital formation becomes a harbinger of hard times to come. To riff on Aristotle, capitalism abhors a vacuum, and organizations looking to avoid rating pressure today may be elevating the risk of competitive pressure tomorrow; and it is easier to cope with and eventually recover from rating pressure than it is to confront the long-term consequences of well-capitalized and aggressive competitors. Retrenchment might be the right risk management choice in times of crisis, but once that crisis moderates that same strategy can quickly become a risk driver.
Machiavelli, Sun-Tzu, Napoleon, George Washington, and other great tacticians all advanced some variation of the idea that “the best defense is a good offense.” In the world of risk response, this means that the better choice isn’t to de-risk and hibernate but rather to continuously reposition available risk capacity so that you keep the organization moving forward. Star Trek’s philosopher-king Captain James Tiberius Kirk captured the sentiment best when he said, “the best defense is a good offense, and I intend to start offending right now.”
While getting back on the capital horse is important, clearing rates, relative value ratios, risk premia, and flexibility drivers have all reset over the past 12-18 months, so recalibrating a good capital formation program requires reassessment and may lead to very different tactics.
This means that a critical step is to get organized around funding parameters:
debt versus real estate versus other channels; MTI versus non-MTI; tax-exempt versus taxable; public versus private; fixed versus floating. The other important part of this is gaining conviction about capital structure risk versus flexibility: do you want to retain flexibility at the “cost” of incurring the market risk embedded in short-tenor or floating rate structures or do you want to sell flexibility in exchange for capital structure risk reduction?
Welcome to the “Lessons from the C-suite” series, featuring Advisory Board President Eric Larsen’s conversations with the most influential leaders in healthcare.
In this edition, Bill Gassen, President and CEO of Sanford Health and James Hereford, President and CEO of Fairview Health Services talk with Eric about the planned merger that will create the 11th largest health system in the United States that would span North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota.
The two CEOs describe the urgency and intent behind the merger, why not all disruptors are equally disruptive, and why it takes more than size to harness scale in healthcare.
Question: Bill and James, let’s jump right in. The two of you are architecting one of the most significant health system mergers of 2023 — a combination of Sanford Health and Fairview, which on its completion, will result in the 11th largest health system in the US. The discussions have attracted, understandably, a lot of interest and scrutiny not just in each of your communities, but nationally. Some may not be aware, but this is not the first time that Sanford and Fairview have considered coming together. Bill, let’s start with you – why is this time different?
Gassen: Eric, you’re right. This is not the only time our two organizations have considered the idea of merging. James and I, and our respective boards and organizations, have examined every element of the union and are confident that this is the right time to proceed. We have executed a Letter of Intent (LOI) and submitted an HSR filing that has been reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The parties provided substantial amounts of information to the FTC and the HSR process and it is now complete. There is an unwavering commitment from our respective leaders and our organizations to see this through.
It is a false choice for anyone to believe that James or I or anybody else has the benefit of sitting back and saying, well, maybe I’ll just maintain the world that I live in today. The healthcare status quo is gone. What is in front of us is taking the steps needed to ensure that we can continue to provide the best possible service for our patients, employees, and communities. Taking control over our destiny. We want to come together in a merger between our two organizations to put us in a position to fundamentally change and to be an agent for the modernization of the way care is delivered into the future. Our organizations exist only to serve patients, employees, and our communities. That is not up for debate. What we have in front of us is a decision to make that better for generations to come.
Hereford: I think Bill articulated that very well. Our purpose is to combine to improve and sustain our ability to offer world class healthcare. It is not simply a function of scale, you have to combine that with an intent to drive change, to improve value, and to innovate. And that’s a rare thing to have that intent. We have that intent today.
Avoiding the ‘Noah’s Ark’ problem
Q: Let’s go a bit deeper into the horizontal consolidation among health systems. This isn’t a new phenomenon — in fact, our $1.4 trillion hospital sector is already massively consolidated, with the top 100 systems controlling almost $900 billion in revenue. But with this degree of concentration, a lot of disillusionment: we just haven’t seen compelling or provable quality improvements, let alone the scale of cost reductions projected. Some of this might be what I call the “Noah’s Ark” problem—two of everything (two CEOs, two headquarters, two EHRs, etc.) … in other words, very little rationalization of back-office infrastructure or staffing.
I think about the proposed Sanford-Fairview merger differently. I might even characterize it as more a “vertical” merger, instead of “horizontal” — a combination of different and complementary capabilities instead of overlapping or competing ones — including Sanford’s proprietary health plan and virtual hospital investments, bringing Fairview’s specialty pharmacy and post-acute companies into the combination — for example. Am I thinking about this the right way?
Gassen: I think your characterization is right, Eric. We are different but very complementary organizations. We are contiguous as it relates to geography, but there is no overlap. We serve distinctly different populations in a similar part of the country. Roughly two-thirds of the patients who have been served today at Sanford Health come to us from a rural community. While most of those who Fairview serves come from much more densely populated urban communities. Both of those subsets of our population are experiencing similar challenges. There’s a need for financial sustainability, both on the provider side as well as on the patient side of the house.
When you think about our service mix, there are a number of complementary areas that make our union additive. Specialty and subspecialty expertise at Fairview coupled with a robust primary care backbone from Sanford plus our Virtual Care initiative and significant philanthropic investment will come together to create powerful healthcare solutions.
The fact that at Sanford alone we have $350 million solely dedicated to, and available for, scaling virtual care is amazing. And when you think about applying that investment to Sanford and Fairview, the opportunities are limitless. We’re going to be able to serve both our rural and urban communities, allowing us to truly transform the way in which healthcare is delivered and experienced in this part of the country.
And for those outside our orbit, they’ll say, “I want to partner with a combined Sanford Fairview” because that is much more attractive. And at the end of the day, partnering with us means that we’re all in a better position to transform the way in which we deliver care, how care is accessed, and how quality is improved. And do it in a financially sustainable way that allows us to deliver equitable care to more people in the upper Midwest.
Hereford: Here’s why scale matters: If you’re one hospital and you drive an innovation that requires a capital of investment of $1 million, that’s an expensive solution. But if you’ve got 100 hospitals, the size of that investment you made on a scale basis is much smaller. Therefore, your ability to drive the needed level of innovation is expanded significantly. To truly improve healthcare delivery, we must challenge ourselves to do things differently, but you have to have a certain level of scale to be able to do that.
Health system transformation must happen now
Q:I want to expand on the earlier point you made that the old health system status quo is forever gone. 2022, for health systems, was something of an Armageddon year — the worst on record with 11 out of 12 months with negative margins; supply chain costs up 17% versus pre-pandemic; health systems collectively spending an extra $125 billion on Labor last year compared to 2021. So not a great “state of the union” for acute-care centric health systems. How does this macroeconomic backdrop factor into your planning?
Hereford: Conceptually, cognitively, I would offer that hospital CEOs probably all know that the good old days are gone. But you don’t see organizations responding as if they’re gone. And we’re on the precipice of a significant cliff. The fundamental things that have defined healthcare and not-for-profit healthcare for decades have fundamentally shifted. We need to change in response.
We’re going to have 80,000 people when we combine. The challenge for us as leaders is going to be how do we shift the mindset and change the way we think about care delivery while maintaining essential services that persist with challenging economics. We are a high capital, low margin business that is critical to society.
Gassen: James, it’s as you and I talk about a lot. We don’t get the benefit of hitting pause, taking a year to revamp the industry because it’s 24 by 7 by 365. There are no breaks.
And while we’re doing that and while we are delivering essential services, the 45,000 incredible caregivers at Sanford and the 35,000 incredible caregivers at Fairview, collectively, are going to figure out how we evolve together as a unified organization to continue to elevate that critical work of patient care. And we don’t get reimbursed for a lot of those services. But those are essential services that people need.
If we want to be able to meet the needs of vulnerable patients and communities, we must face the increased pressure to lower costs and increase scale to drive positive margins. Those areas are few and far between in not-for-profit healthcare delivery. So, it necessitates that we continue to evolve and think differently about the work that we do driving down costs.
Larsen:And that’s increasingly becoming difficult — even for big players. I’ve been writing ruefully about the “billion-dollar club” — preeminent health systems like Ascension, MGB and Cleveland Clinic each posting more than a billion dollars in total losses (and even more in some cases, e.g., $4.5 billion for Kaiser). But Sanford, in contrast, is one of just a small handful of health systems that somehow managed to end 2022 in the black, with a $188 million operating income last year. Bill, any reflections on how you and the team did that?
Gassen: We count ourselves very, very blessed to be among the few who had the opportunity to experience positive margins in 2022. I would give first and foremost credit to an exceptionally talented team inside and outside the organization. They do a wonderful job of focusing their attention on that which matters most, which is patient care.
It’s also a very well-constructed organization from the ground up. We benefit coming into both the pandemic and then through the financial headwinds in 2022 with a well-diversified set of assets and geographies. On the acute side it’s largely contained across Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota.
In Minnesota, and across those above geographies, we have a great complement of assets across our provider sponsored health plan, hospitals, clinics, post-acute care, as well as our research enterprise, all of which, collectively, allowed us to do a better job than some of our peers at weathering that “economic storm” you mentioned earlier.
But, most importantly, it’s just the time that we’ve had to mature as an organization. And with that time, we’ve integrated more deeply as one singular operating company. Sanford Health is not a holding company. The decisions that we make, we make as one singular integrated system and that is a part of that special sauce that’s allowed us to be successful.
Everything that I’ve described has just given us a little bit of a head start and now it’s incumbent upon us to maximize that time.
The imagined and real disruption in healthcare
Q:Bill, you mentioned time is of the essence. And so far, we’ve mostly localized our discussion today talking about health system-specific competitive issues, which makes sense. But it also makes sense to lift up and survey the healthcare ecosystem outside of health systems and note the fact that even when Sanford and Fairview combine and represent $14 billion in revenue, it will still be comparatively tiny to some of the non-traditional players seeking to disrupt healthcare. We have trillion-dollar market cap companies like Amazon investing aggressively into the primary care, pharmacy, and home enablement spaces. We have Fortune 10 companies like UnitedHealth Group and CVS-Aetna vertically integrating and building out sophisticated ambulatory delivery systems. And we have retailers like Walmart and Best Buy transitioning into parts of the healthcare delivery chain as well. So, while Sanford-Fairview will be sizable by most conventional healthcare metrics, it has some pretty formidable competition. How do you assess the new competitive landscape emerging?
Hereford: So, I thought a lot about this because I do think it’s one of the most significant aspects of our industry right now. The opportunity for a CVS-Aetna is that they are proximate to a lot of people in the US. And there’s a lot of things that they could do for patients with a simple presentation of acute symptoms or for fairly simple chronic disease and stabilization. But that is not what drives the cost of health care in the US. It’s when people get very sick.
People receiving specialist care in hospitals are having complex procedures. They’re being treated for complex cancers. And we’re doing an amazing job of advancing the science and the technologies that we can apply to that. But that doesn’t happen in a drug store. That does not happen in a store front primary care office. That happens in organizations like ours. Our challenge is to create the same level of convenience, the same level of access, or partner in a smart way to achieve that.
Our job is to think about total cost of care within the context of delivering very complex care. That isn’t simply a function of primary care and that, I think, is our fundamental challenge. We can translate that into real total cost of care savings.
Gassen: For James and me, in our respective roles and responsibilities, this is our incredibly rewarding and incredibly difficult work. Because those other organizations aren’t required to provide care to everyone. They’re not required to provide free care. They’re not required to be able to provide services for which there is no margin. We don’t get to cherry pick.
It’s our responsibility to really be all things from a healthcare delivery perspective to all people, which means that we are always going to be challenged with how we do that in a financially sustainable way. I think it’s the beauty of where we find ourselves as an industry because out of that necessity comes that innovation that we’ve been talking about here because we can’t continue at current course and speed.
Larsen:When we start to talk about giants in healthcare we tend to index on their size and market cap and, as a result, we lump vertically integrating players and technology companies under the same umbrella. I think that’s a mistake. You have focused healthcare payers like CVS Aetna and UHG that are combining their underwriting business (and ownership of the premium dollar) with an ambulatory delivery network, with an emphasis on home and virtual care. To me that’s a very real and consequential development – and very different from what Big Tech is aspiring to do in our space.
Hereford: Eric, I agree.The world is so clearly changing and that is where the market and a number of very large healthcare organizations are betting. I do think that people who see the overall size of the healthcare marketplace and say “we want to be a part of that” but without any clear way of making sustainable margins.
Gassen: In contrast with the large public companies, as a not-profit health care system, it’s a fact of life that we operate on thin margins. But there are a lot of dollars floating around for other players in the healthcare ecosystem. Which to your point, is why people get enticed to enter into the healthcare space. Our goal with the transaction is to remain financially solid, with the resources needed to invest in our communities, while staying true to our non-profit mission.
Larsen:Your comments, Bill, underscore the power of being a ‘payvider’ in healthcare, which of course Sanford is. You’re in rarefied company — only a dozen or so health systems can claim this, and they have one thing in common — a very mature health plan function (average age of 44 years). So Intermountain, Geisinger, Kaiser, Sentara, Sanford and a small handful of others fit this bill. I presume a major part of the envisioned benefit of the merger is extending Sanford Health plan into Fairview. Can I get you both to comment on that?
Gassen: I certainly agree with you Eric about the importance of being a “payvider.” And of course, I’d also say there is a scale component to that, too. Today our health plan only has 220,000 covered lives. But it is a very valuable and strategic component of the larger Sanford Health system.
As we come together with Fairview into a combined system, we now have the opportunity to bring the Sanford Health plan and its additional options and opportunities for members to a much larger community. And one that’s backed by a combined system. It offers greater choices for the two million people across North Dakota, South Dakota, and Western Minnesota.
When we do that, it puts us in the best possible position to coordinate care that allows for the best outcomes, and as a consequence, also results in a better financial position for us. And so, when we think ahead to the opportunity to now apply the infrastructure that we’ve built to the greater Twin Cities market and beyond to bring that together with the care delivery assets and expertise of Fairview Health Services, we get really excited about the opportunities we unlock not just for the combined organization, but for importantly, for all the members within that community.
Healthcare’s technology paradox
Q:The above commentary on scaling out to wider geographies and connecting and transforming care brings me to the paradox of digital health. One of the only bright lights to come out of the pandemic was what I would characterize as a “Renaissance moment” in digital health — unprecedented funding ($72 billion globally in 2021 alone) fueling the creation of almost 13,000 digital startups, spanning new diagnostics, therapeutics, clinical/non-clinical workflow, care augmentation, you name it. And while we’re now seeing a rough contraction, with lots of companies starved for capital and struggling to sell into healthcare incumbents, we are going to see some winners and some transformational platforms emerge.
The question is, will healthcare incumbents like health systems be able to take advantage of this? The data are sobering — it takes an estimated 23 months for a health system to deploy a digital health technology (once it signs a contract). And while technology tends to be deflationary — lowers costs as it augments productivity — that just hasn’t happened in healthcare, as costs inexorably keep going up. How will the combined Sanford-Fairview tackle this? Who wants to go first?
Hereford: Let me start because I want to respond to something you said, Eric. You’re right, technology has been deflationary in other sectors but only since about 1995. In the 1990s many books in that period were asking “why are we investing all this money in technology across all sectors and we’re not seeing productivity improvements?”
But out of that question came reengineering — where companies started to reconfigure processes and workflows as opposed to just applying technologies. Only then did they see the deflationary benefits of greater efficiencies from technologies. So, I think that has a lot to do with how we’ve applied technology. We’ve had federal stimulus to apply technology, but it’s to apply technology for its own sake. Not to challenge how we use technology to make it easier to be a doctor or nurse. How do we use technology to make people more effective and therefore more efficient?
Gassen: I think that change, especially fundamental shifts, and changes to a business won’t happen until you absolutely have to. And that’s human nature.
The challenge ahead of us is to interrogate how we as an industry interact with our patients and ask, “How can we fundamentally tear that down to the studs and rebuild it better and fit for today?”
But I also want to be clear about why we’re here as a health system. Our reality is that there is a patient at the end of every single decision that we make. So, we must be extremely careful about how we look at processes and implement change. We know they’re rarely perfect, but oftentimes we do deliver the best outcome for the patient. Our job is to be able to make the right change without causing harm.
Larsen:Bill, we’ve made the argument together in past conversations that this same creation moment for digital health solutions beautifully aligns to address the conventional disadvantages of American rural medicine: insufficient infrastructure (hospitals, surgery centers, etc.) and a scarcity of clinicians and non-clinicians for the workforce. Digital health holds the promise to turn those deficits into advantages. And, you know, Sanford’s been a pioneer in launching a $350 million virtual hospital. Perhaps you can unpack this.
Gassen: I’d say our work here really has its origins in the unwavering belief that one zip code should not determine the level of care that a person receives. Every patient has the right to access world class care. So, it’s incumbent upon us, those of us who find ourselves in the privileged position to be in leadership in healthcare delivery organizations like Sanford and Fairview, to take the necessary steps to deploy the appropriate resources and to find the right partners to ensure that whether you’re living in the most rural parts of the heartland or an urban center, you get the best quality care possible.
We take great pride in the fact that our organization was built on the belief that we know many of our patients choose to live in rural America. Two-thirds of the patients today at Sanford Health, whom we have the privilege of serving, come to us from rural America.
It’s with that front and center, the Virtual Care initiative at Sanford Health is allowing us the opportunity to deliver world class care. It’s about making certain that through basically all facets of digital transformation, we leverage our resources to extend excellence in primary care, in specialty and subspecialty care, and offer those individuals access to that care close to home.
The vision for us is to ensure that those who choose to live in rural America are not forced to sacrifice access to high quality, dependable care. That’s at the core of both our beliefs and actions.
Larsen:And James, I think you’ve been one of the most progressive CEOs in the industry on thinking about capitalizing on digital health, innovation and partnering with capital allocators. And we talked about a few of them — leading VCs like Thrive or SignalFire who are partnering broadly with health systems — and finding ways to shorten the innovation cycle.
Hereford: It comes back to intent and purpose. Our job is to make sure that everybody can access high quality care and so the opportunity is to really think about the commonalities and leverage that across both rural America, urban communities, suburbs, exurbs, etc. The other thing that I think is often overlooked in your Cambrian explosion is the volume of scientific advancements over the last two decades.
I love the hypothetical of a medical student who learned everything about medicine in 1950 and how fast the volume of clinical knowledge would have doubled then. They would have had about 50 years before the knowledge base doubled. Today, an amazing medical student with the ambition to learn the entire body of clinical knowledge would have about seven months to see it doubled. That’s how fast medicine is advancing.
We built this industry based on highly specialized, incredibly smart, incredibly committed people who can master these topics. This volume of information on clinical care theory, the body of knowledge on clinical application, all layered on to how the business of care works is cognitive overload. We have got to give them better tools. We have got to help support them. I think we’re in a unique place to be able to really do something about it and create real solutions for people.
Gassen: Where we’re at right now necessitates that. And again, thinking a level deeper as it relates to rural America, the opportunity is so incredibly ripe because it’s necessary. The only way that we’re going to be able to scale to the level we need is to leverage and maximize technology. And so therein creates that opportunity and that necessity makes us a very fertile ground for organizations to come in and partner with us, to be able to extend those services.
The current deal’s state of play
Q:So, we started our conversation about the merger and went broad to talk about industry trends and the wider landscape. But I do want to circle back to a couple of the outstanding specifics of the merger. Sanford and Fairview are merging. What will the University of Minnesota’s relationship be with the merged organization?
Gassen: Both James and I firmly believe, and have articulated in our conversation with you today, the virtues of bringing Sanford Health and Fairview Health services together are absolutely essential to ensuring the delivery of world class healthcare in the upper Midwest. And we are committed to creating the right relationship with the University of Minnesota for it to pursue its mission.
Hereford: We’ve always said that we wanted the University to be part of what we’re building. And, the University of Minnesota has indicated their desire to purchase the academic assets of the system and we stand ready to engage with them to support that. If that is the path that they pursue and can get state funding to support, then we can work with them to determine the nature of the relationship between the new system and the University of Minnesota.
Larsen:And how about the other partners and players in the landscape? I’m thinking of the Minnesota Attorney General, the FTC, etc.
Gassen: We’ve engaged the elected officials across the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota, and we’ve continued to keep them apprised. We’ve also worked very closely with regulators and are happy to report that following its review, the Federal Trade Commission cleared the transaction and the HSR process is complete.
At this point in time, we are working closely with Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office in the state of Minnesota to ensure that he has sufficient information to complete his analysis under antitrust and charities laws to ensure that he’s continuing to protect the interests of all Minnesotans. We remain very engaged and look forward to the conclusion of that work.
The future focus of leadership
Q:Ok, I’d like to round out this conversation with a look to the future. Can you foreshadow your division of labor…where you will be converging and where will you be dividing and conquering as CEOs?
Hereford: One of the great positives of this deal and one of the great signals of the quality of the rationale here is that Bill and I went into this with the question: How do we set this up to be successful over the long term?
You may have noticed Bill and I are different ages. Bill has a lot more runway than I have, so it was not a difficult decision on my part to say “look, it’s important for me to help with the transition because it’s a big deal, right? And it’s not going to be over in a year.” But I can be that bridging function to help support the transition. This is a long-term play and Bill’s the person who’s going to be able to be in the seat to really see that through.
And given my interests I can take on the innovation that we’re talking about and how we make the membrane of this organization a little more permeable and a little bit more friendly to partners, while also being very demanding of partners in terms of the value they create, and we create within the system.
I’m really excited about the opportunity to do that. I do think the way that we have approached this is a very enlightened approach.
Gassen: Standing on the shoulders of James’ comments, one of the many aspects that makes this merger unique is the collegiality and foresight from our respective boards that see how incredibly valuable it is to be able to have co-CEOs working together, focusing first and foremost on ensuring that we’re bringing together the two organizations as one integrated, transformative healthcare delivery organization. I think James and I get up every morning with the goal of making sure that that happens every single day.
And it’s not just that James will work on the innovation piece because it brings him joy and energy but also, it’s where he has a deep level of experience and expertise. I get to focus more of my time and energy on the day-to-day of the two organizations coming together.
Together, James and I will be able to jointly balance the combination of the two organizations with day-to-day delivery and the transformative opportunities for us because of the unique nature of our backgrounds and expertise.
Hereford: And I think that’s a real advantage for the organization. I’m sure there are going be times when I’ll say “Bill, we’ve got to change. You’ve got to do this”. And he’s going to say “yeah, but I can’t do that. I can’t make that kind of change.”
But that’s the kind of dialogue that this structure sets up for us to hold that tension productively as opposed to responding to the tyranny of the urgent, which is ever present in a large health care delivery system. Transformation of care delivery systems will require the ability to manage those competing dynamics. I really appreciate both the structure but also how Bill is approaching this.
Gassen: I do think that what we just described here will prove to be one of the finer distinguishing factors that allows us to really be successful. Because you do oftentimes find yourself with a choice between A or B. And for us we get to choose C — “all of the above” — and go forward and do that.
HENRY KOTULA 