Thought of the Day – Great Minds
Cartoon – Pre-existing Condition
Cartoon – Cash Flow Best Practices
Cartoon – Our Cash Flow Problem
A Different Way of Thinking About Hospital Closures
For several decades, the economics, demographics, and technology of healthcare have been fueling a trend toward closure of inpatient hospitals.
In the past ten years, from 2014 through 2023, 229 hospitals closed without being converted into other facilities, while only 118 new hospitals opened, according to data provided by MedPAC in its March 2020 and March 2024 reports to Congress.
Rural closures have generated significant concern—justifiably so due to the risk of reduced access to care. Of the 229 hospitals that closed in the past decade, 68 were rural, with an additional 48 closing and converting into other types of care facilities, according to the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina. Although the number of rural closures is high, the numbers also show that the issue is by no means confined to rural areas.
Continued closures appear to be inevitable.
Kaufman Hall’s research shows that a significant number of hospitals have signs of financial distress, with 40 percent losing money from operations and many more with unsustainably low margins. In 2023, almost one-third of announced hospital transactions involved a distressed party—the highest percentage in the past five years.
The circumstances leading to hospital closures are as serious as they are familiar: rising operating expenses, labor shortages, shifts from inpatient to outpatient care, high-cost technology, flattening reimbursement, an aging population, and population migration.
At the same time these forces are driving some hospitals toward financial distress, they can also create clinical and even safety concerns—including inpatient volume that is reduced to the point where quality may be compromised and an inability to maintain aging physical plants.
These forces are inexorable. Attempting to maintain the status quo is simply not a viable strategy. Unfortunately, a desire to protect the status quo is often what health systems encounter when attempting to close a hospital. This impulse toward protectionism is understandable. Community groups are concerned about losing access to care. Labor groups are worried about losing jobs. Political leaders are concerned about both, and about the continued economic strength of their localities.
In too many cases, these understandable concerns have the unintended consequence of keeping open a hospital that no longer effectively serves its community. In other cases, they make the process of necessary change unnecessarily painful and protracted.
The challenge for healthcare executives and community leaders alike is to figure out a new path forward—one that creates a clinically, operationally, and economically viable approach to providing needed access to high quality care but offers an alternative to complete hospital closure or to a facility continuing to exist in a state of distress.
Recently, we came across a man named Scott Keller, who has spent the past 28 years shaping and implementing what looks to me like a creative and workable path forward for many communities facing hospital closures.
The intellectual underpinning of Scott’s approach is to combine community health, economic development, and neighborhood planning. Through that lens, Scott and his team at Dynamis look to transform hospitals that are no longer viable into community hubs that he calls “Healthy Villages®.”
These hubs address a range of community needs that include some traditional healthcare services, but also social and other community services. They bring these services together—under one roof and extending into the neighborhood—into a careful system that creates an opportunity to develop new care models built on the foundation of value-based, population-based care, prioritizing health, prevention, and elimination of disparities and barriers to care. The aim is to treat the whole person in a walkable, thriving community.
At a macro level, Scott’s approach involves consolidating treatment services into a fraction of the square footage of the existing facility and leasing the remaining space to partners focused on social determinants of health, much like a successful multifaceted retail environment creates an excellent consumer experience.
From there, the hub integrates with other neighborhood partners such as senior housing providers, financial institutions for social-impact financing, and education providers to support workforce training.
Scott explained to us that the approach can be applied in settings from challenged urban neighborhoods to rural towns, at scales from neighborhoods to full towns, and in concert with initiatives such as a health system’s service-line planning. In addition, some of these hubs have unique sources of funding that support the community, funding not typically available to a traditional hospital.
Perhaps the most attractive quality of Scott’s approach is to shift the conversation about a distressed hospital from the binary close-or-don’t close to a thoughtful consideration of what it means to deliver healthcare in a setting that has difficulty supporting a particular hospital.
In doing so, Scott helps us focus on the true issue at hand. America’s economic, demographic, and technological forces are aligned in certain markets to challenge the adequacy of the traditional hospital. The question is not whether this group of hospitals will change, but how they will change.
In too many instances and too many locations, that hospital change becomes an enemy to be fought against, resulting in a transformation that is protractedly painful and that often ends poorly for all concerned. Scott’s approach is a welcome example of how organizations and communities, rather than clinging to the status quo, can apply creative thinking, broad participation, and systematic planning to shape a future that may turn out to be not an enemy, but a real and lasting improvement.
Financial Literacy: A Leadership Prerequisite
https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/blog/financial-literacy-leadership-prerequisite
In last month’s blog, we discussed the importance of financial planning, both for internal audiences—including the leadership team and the board of trustees—and for external audiences—including prospective students and their families, rating agencies, alumni and other stakeholders. This month, in the first of a series of blogs focused on key finance-related issues, we’re turning our attention to a broader and deeper internal audience, asking the question, “What is your institution’s financial literacy?”
The terms described in this blog will be very familiar to members of college and university finance teams and to many institutional leaders as well.
The point is that these terms should be familiar to as many individuals as possible throughout the institution: they form the foundation of a basic financial literacy that every college and university should foster across its faculty and staff.
What is financial literacy?
Financial literacy is the ability to understand where an institution stands at any given time with respect to key elements of its balance sheet and income statement. To state it simply, financial literacy means an understanding of the vital signs that describe the financial health of the institution. In medicine, the basic vital signs are body temperature, pulse rate, respiration rate, and blood pressure. In finance, the vital signs include measures of unrestricted cash, revenue, expenses, debt, and risk.
In medicine, there are professionals whose job is to dig deeper if any of the body’s vital signs are deteriorating. Similarly in finance, it is the job of the CFO and finance team to monitor the vital signs of the institution’s financial health and to seek causes and solutions of current troubles or to use changes in the vital signs to address potential future issues. For most of us—in medicine or finance—the goal should be a basic understanding of what the vital signs measure and whether they point to good health.
There are some key considerations for each financial vital sign:
- Unrestricted Cash. The critical question related to unrestricted cash (also termed liquidity) is whether the institution has enough accessible liquidity to meet its daily expenses if its cash flow was unexpectedly interrupted. Days cash on hand is a balance sheet metric that is typically used to assess this issue: days cash on hand literally measures how long unrestricted cash reserves could cover the institution’s operating costs if its cash flow suddenly stopped.
The emphasis on “accessible liquidity” is an important element of this financial vital sign: it speaks to the ability to distinguish between institutional wealth versus liquidity. In higher education, an endowment can be an important source of the institution’s wealth, but many of the funds within an endowment cannot be easily accessed—they are, by and large, not liquid funds or are highly restricted as to their use. Readily available, unrestricted cash reserves are what an institution must rely on to meet its day-to-day expenses should cash flow be interrupted or reduced.
- Revenue. Because an institution needs to maintain or grow its cash reserves and allocate them sparingly, the amount of revenue coming in—from tuition and fees and from other sources of additional income (see below)—is also an important vital sign. An institution should obviously be taking in enough revenue to cover its expenses without drawing on its cash reserves.
Additionally, however, given continued growth in expenses, revenue growth (through enrollment growth, student mix, and/or program mix) is a significant measure of ongoing vitality.
Financial health is also enhanced if an institution does not rely too heavily on a single revenue source. For schools with an endowment, for example, the amount of income the endowment can generate to support operations is an important source of additional income. More generally, additional income can come from such auxiliary revenue sources as residential fees, fundraising, special events, concessions, and a host of other sources. These additional revenue sources, while potentially small on an individual basis, can be material on a cumulative basis.
- Expenses. How much does it cost to produce the education that a college or university provides to its students? If that cost is approaching—or worse, surpassing—the net tuition revenue and additional income that the institution brings in, what is being done—or could be done—to reduce those costs? Expenses are perhaps most similar to body temperature in medical vital signs; if they get too high, they must be brought down before the health of the institution begins to decline. And the measure of expenses should be viewed overall for the institution as well as on a per student basis to communicate the “value” of different student types to the organization.
- Debt. Debt is an essential component of the funding of significant capital projects that colleges and universities must undertake to maintain updated and competitive facilities. Just as most people need to take out a mortgage to afford a home purchase—spreading the cost of the home over a multiyear payment period—so too do institutions often need debt to finance large capital expenditures. But the amount of debt (also termed “leverage”) can also be an indicator of the institution’s financial health. That health begins to decline if the amount of debt relative to an institution’s assets or annual income grows too large, or if the amount required to pay for the debt (i.e., to meet the scheduled principal and interest payments—the debt service) puts too much of a burden on the cash flow generated from the institution’s day-to-day operations. If the debt service becomes too high relative to cash flow, the institution may face onerous legal requirements, or even default, which may severely constrain its ability to provide the range of programs desired and expected by its student population.
- Risk. Risk is an indicator that identifies potential weaknesses in any of the preceding indicators that could jeopardize the institution’s financial health. For basic financial literacy, only the most significant risks need to be identified: over-reliance on tuition revenue in a market with declining enrollments, for example, or over-reliance on endowment income in the event of market instability. Once an institution consistently measures its risks, it can begin to determine what level of risk is appropriate and address strategies to manage that risk.
Why does financial literacy matter?
Promoting financial literacy throughout an institution cultivates a common understanding of financial health that provides context for leadership’s decisions and a common language to address issues. If tuition revenue is declining, for example, financially literate faculty members should better understand the need to prioritize academic programs that not only meet the academic needs of their students, but also can draw more students or produce healthier margins. If cost-cutting measures are required to reduce expenses, financially literate staff should understand the genesis of the need for reductions and why the institution cannot simply draw on its endowment to close the gap. Furthermore, acknowledging and describing the most significant risks an institution faces using a common language makes clear the need for action if one or more of those risks begins to materialize.
Financial literacy is also an important tool for cultivating the next generation of faculty leaders. When faculty members rise to leadership positions, it is essential that they understand that academic growth and strategic initiatives cannot succeed without sufficient resources to support them, or if they cannot generate the revenue needed to cover—or exceed—their costs.
By promoting financial literacy across the institution, the institution can help ensure that future leaders are acquiring the foundation needed for them to grow into informed decision-makers who understand the need to maintain the institution’s financial health.
The state of state physician noncompete bans
https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/blog/gist-weekly-may-17-2024
With the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issuing a final rule last month that bans noncompete agreements nationwide, the graphic above is our attempt to categorize the current status of complex state noncompete laws that affect physicians.
Except in the event of a business sale, five states—California, North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Oklahoma—ban all noncompete agreements for all employees, and at least 19 states either ban them for physicians or place varying limits on them for physicians.
Examples of these limits include a narrow law in Florida that allows noncompetes to be voided if there is only one employer of a physician specialty in a county, and a Tennessee law that only permits physician noncompetes that bar a physician from practicing at facilities where their former employer provides services.
As a noncompete agreement can restrict a physician’s ability to practice near a former employer for years, bans on physician noncompete agreements have been shown to improve community access to care. One study found that, compared to places that allow them, places that banned noncompetes for physicians saw increased physician employment, the opening of more physician practices, and a lower likelihood of practice closures.
Should the new FTC ban survive the mounting legal challenges it faces, its effect on the physician labor market may be limited, as not-for-profit organizations fall outside the FTC’s traditional enforcement jurisdiction. However, the agency has indicated a willingness to reevaluate an entity’s not-for-profit status and stated that “some portion” of tax-exempt hospitals could fall under the final rule’s purview.
Days Cash on Hand Does Not Tell the Full Liquidity Story
https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/blog/days-cash-hand-does-not-tell-full-liquidity-story
Days cash on hand is one of the most important metrics in hospital credit analysis. The ratio calculates an organization’s unrestricted cash and investments relative to daily operating expenses.
Here’s a computation commonly used to calculate days cash on hand:
[Unrestricted cash and investments*365 days] / [Annual operating expenses – non-cash expenses]
Math aside, let’s unpack what days cash on hand really tells us. Days cash on hand gives an indication of a hospital’s flexibility and financial health. Essentially, it tells us how long a hospital could continue to operate if cash flow were to stop. From a ratings perspective, the higher the days cash, the better, to create a cushion or rainy-day fund for unexpected events.
While the sheer abatement of cash flow feels like a doomsday scenario, we don’t have to look far back to see examples. The shutdown in the early days of Covid and the recent Change Healthcare cyberattack are examples of events that can materially impact cash flow. While these may be considered extreme, there are plenty of more common events that can disrupt cash flow, including a delay in supplemental funding, an IT installation, a change in Medicare fiscal intermediary, an escalation in construction costs, or the bankruptcy of a payer.
Size and diversified business enterprises can impact days cash on hand. For example, small hospitals with outsized cash positions relative to operations often report a dizzying level of days cash on hand. Health systems with wholly owned health plans often show lower days cash when compared to like-sized peers without health plans. Analysts will also review a hospital’s cash-to-debt ratio, which is an indication of leverage and compares absolute unrestricted cash to long-term obligations. Cash-to-debt creates a more comparable ratio across the portfolio.
In the years leading up to the pandemic, the days cash on hand median increased steadily as the industry went through a period of stable financial performance and steady equity market returns. Hospitals took advantage of an attractive debt market to fund large capital projects or reimburse for prior capital spending. The median crested over 200 days. As discussed during our March 20, 2024, rating agency webinar, days cash median for 2023 is expected to decline or remain flat at best, not because of an increase in capital spending or deficit operations, but because daily expenses (mainly driven by labor) will grow faster than absolute cash. Expenses will outrun the bear, so to speak.
Days cash on hand will remain a pillar liquidity ratio for the industry, but equally important is the concept of liquidity. Days cash on hand doesn’t tell the whole story regarding liquidity. A hospital may compute that it has, say, 200 days cash on hand, but that calculation is based on total unrestricted cash and investments, which usually includes long-term investment pools. A sizable portion of that 200 days may not be accessible on a daily basis.
Recall that during the 2008 liquidity crisis, many hospitals had large portions of their unrestricted investment pools tied up in illiquid investments. When you needed it the most, you couldn’t get it. 2008 was a watershed moment that starkly showed the difference between wealth and liquidity and the growing importance of the latter. Days cash on hand didn’t necessarily mean “on hand.” Many hospitals scrambled for liquidity, which came in the form of expensive bank lines because liquidating equity investments in a down market would come at a huge cost.
Nearly overnight, daily liquidity became a fundamental part of credit analysis.
While the events were different, Covid and Change Healthcare followed the same fact pattern: crisis occurred, cash flow abated, and hospitals scrambled for liquidity, drawing on lines of credit to fund operating needs. Within a quick minute healthcare went “back to the future,” and undoubtedly, there will be another liquidity crisis ahead.
Rating reports now include information on investment allocation and diversification within those investments, and report new ratios such as monthly liquidity to total cash and investments. A hospital with below average days cash on hand or cash-to-debt may receive more attention in the rating report regarding immediately accessible funds.
Irrespective of a high or low cash position or rating category, providing rating analysts with a schedule highlighting where management would turn to when liquidity is needed would be well received. For example, do you draw on lines of credit, hit depository accounts, pause capital, extend payables, or liquidate investments, and in what order? Some health systems are taking this a step further with an in-depth sophisticated analysis to quantify their operating risks and size their liquidity needs accordingly, which we call Strategic Resource Allocation. This analysis would boost an analyst’s confidence in management’s preparedness for the next crisis with the segmenting of true cash “on hand.” It would also help ensure that, when the next crisis arrives, management will know where to turn to maintain liquidity and meet daily cash needs.
Cartoon – Plan “A”
Hospital Price Transparency: Is the Juice worth the Squeeze?
Last week, RAND issued its latest assessment of hospital prices concluding…
“In 2022, across all hospital inpatient and outpatient services (including both facility and related professional claims), employers and private insurers paid, on average, 254% of what Medicare would have paid for the same services at the same facilities. State-level median prices have remained stable across the past three study rounds: 254 %of Medicare prices in 2018 (Round 3), 246%in 2020 (Round 4), and 253% in 2022 (Round 5—the current study).”
Like clockwork, the American Hospital Association issued its “Rebuke” of the report:
“In what is becoming an all too familiar pattern, the RAND Corporation’s latest hospital price report oversells and underwhelms. Their analysis — which despite much heralded data expansions — still represents less than 2% of overall hospital spending. This offers a skewed and incomplete picture of hospital spending. In benchmarking against woefully inadequate Medicare payments, RAND makes an apples-to-oranges comparison that presents an inflated impression of what hospitals are actually getting paid for delivering care while facing continued financial and other operational challenges.
In addition to the ongoing flaw of relying on a self-selected sample of data, their analysis is suspiciously silent on the hidden influence of commercial insurers in driving up health care costs for patients….”
It’s the 5th Edition of RAND’s Employer Transparency Report, each featuring slight methodology changes using Sage Transparency Commercial Claims Data developed for the Employer Forum of Indiana.
The debate over hospital prices is not new nor is RAND the only investigator. Since the Trump administration enacted its Executive Order 13877 (Improving Price and Quality Transparency in American Healthcare) June 24, 2019, numerous organizations have introduced price transparency tools to enable hospital price shopping i.e. Turquoise, Milliman, Leapfrog et al. The Biden administration continued the rule increasing its penalties for non-compliance and Congress has passed 3 laws with bipartisan support widening its application.
However, best-case results reflected as articulated by Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, have not been realized:
“App developers will go crazy developing shopping tools for patients, and patients will use those tools to search for the best deals. The public availability of prices will shame high-priced hospitals into lowering their prices because they’ll be so embarrassed.”
My take:
Academic researchers and economists have concluded that hospital price transparency has not led to reduced heath spending overall nor lower hospital prices. Per a recent systematic review: “No evidence was found for impact on the outcomes volume, availability or affordability. The overall lack of evidence on policies promoting price transparency is a clear call for further research… Price-aware patients chose less costly services that led to out-of-pocket cost savings and savings for health insurers; however, these savings did not translate into reductions in aggregate healthcare spending. Disclosure of list prices had no effect, however disclosure of negotiated prices prompted supply-side competition which led to decreases in prices for shoppable services.”
Per Wall Street Journal actuaries, hospital price increases account for 23% of annual health spending increases but vary widely based on factors other than their underlying costs. Determining how hospital prices are set remains beyond the scope of conventional pricing models.
Nonetheless, hospital price transparency is here to stay: public attention is likely to grow and sources– both accurate and misleading– will multiply. It’s safe for elected officials because it’s popular with voters. Per Patient Rights Advocate survey (December 2023), 93% of adults think hospitals should be required to post all prices ahead of scheduled services. It’s clearly seen as foundational to the Federal Trade Commission doctrines of consumer protection and competition. And it’s important to privately insured consumers—the majority of Americans– since 73% of their claims are for “shoppable services” though they trust payers more than hospitals for estimates of their out-of-pocket obligations in these transactions (61% vs. 22%).
In July 2018, I wrote:” Arguing price transparency in healthcare is a misguided effort is like arguing against clean air and healthy eating: it’s senseless.” It’s still true. Making the case that price transparency has a long way to go based on current offerings and utilization is legitimate.
The price transparency movement is gaining momentum in healthcare: though it still lacks widespread impact on spending today, it soon will.”
Hospitals are 30% of total U.S. health spending and almost 40% of the population uses at least one hospital service every year. Promoting “whole person care,” while touting quality war while disregarding affordability and price transparency for consumers seems inconsistent. Enabling consumers to easily access accurate prices—not just out-of-pocket estimates– is imperative for hospitals seeking long-term relevance and sustainability. And state and federal lawmakers, along with employers, should structure benefits that reward consumers directly for shopping discipline instead of allowing insurers to benefit alone.
Is the Juice worth the Squeeze for hospital price transparency efforts? To date, proponents say yes, opponents say no, and each side has valid concern about use by consumers. But unless one believes the role of consumers as purchasers and users of the system’s service will diminish in coming years, the safe bet is hospital price transparency will play a bigger role.
HENRY KOTULA 