Another round of debate over hospital consolidation

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Antitrust, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions, Monopoly, Monopoly Behavior, Out of Pocket Expenses, Quality, Quality of Care • Leave a comment

Image result for Another round of debate over hospital consolidation
 
Are hospital mergers a good thing or a bad thing?

Much of the answer to that question depends on what happens after the merger—does the combined organization provide better, more efficient care, or does it use its increased leverage to raise prices? Yet another round of back and forth on this issue took place this week, as the American Hospital Association (AHA) released the results of a study it commissioned from economic analysis firm Charles River Associates (CRA), while a group of academic antitrust specialists countered with their own briefing in response.

The AHA study, based on interviews with select health system leaders and econometric analysis by CRA, shows (surprise, surprise) that consolidation decreases hospital expenses by 2.3 percent, reduces mortality and readmissions, and reduces revenue per admission by 3.5 percent—indicating that the “savings” from consolidation are being passed along to purchasers. The economists, including Martin Gaynor at Carnegie Mellon, Zack Cooper at Yale, and Leemore Dafny at Harvard, countered in their briefing (surprise, surprise) that CRA’s research was biased in favor of hospitals, and cited numerous academic studies that indicate that hospital consolidation drives overall healthcare costs higher.

Beyond the predictable debate, our view is that consolidation can and should lead to better quality and lower prices—but that it largely hasn’t delivered on that promise. The prospect of “integrated care” that’s often touted by consolidation advocates hasn’t materialized in most places, both because hospital executives haven’t pushed hard enough on strategies to produce it, and because the market lacks sufficient incentives to encourage it.

Judge approves $55M sale of Hahnemann residency programs

Posted on by • Posted in Academic Medical Center, Bankruptcy, Chapter 11, Creditors, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Lawsuit, Residency Programs • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/judge-approves-55m-sale-of-hahnemann-residency-programs.html

Image result for Judge approves $55M sale of Hahnemann residency programs

Bankruptcy judge approves sale of Hahnemann residency slots
 
This week a Federal judge ruled that the owner of Hahnemann University Hospital could move forward with the sale of the system’s more than 550 residency slots as part of a plan to pay off creditors. The training slots will be sold to a consortium of health systems led by Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals for $55M. Hahnemann had previously agreed to sell the positions to Reading, PA-based Tower Health before they were outbid by the Jefferson consortium, who will keep the majority of the positions—and new physician labor—in the Philadelphia area.

The judge noted the difficulty of the decision, saying it was the kind of case that would “cause a judge to lie awake at night”. The ruling is huge win for debtors, and a blow to the Federal government, which strongly opposed the sale and has seven days to appeal.

Should it stand, the case could set the precedent that residents and the positions they hold are an asset that can be negotiated for and sold. Interns and residents provide low-cost labor that is essential for 24/7 coverage in many large hospitals, and the complex system of allocating and funding of residency training slots is a funds transfer from the Federal government to health systems.

Allowing hospitals to sell those slots to the highest bidder could undermine the stability of urban hospitals, particularly those who are investor-owned, as owners look to maximize short-term profits.

 

 

 

‘We have not lost our way’: Kaiser CEO’s memo to staff after Labor Day protests

Posted on by • Posted in Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Labor Spend Management, Labor Union, Strike • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/we-have-not-lost-our-way-kaiser-ceo-s-memo-to-staff-after-labor-day-protests.html

Image result for 'We have not lost our way'

Bernard J. Tyson, chairman and CEO of Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente, sent a memo to his staff Sept. 3 to address Labor Day protests employees held in five cities amid threats of a potential nationwide strike.  

In the memo, obtained by Becker’s Hospital Review, Mr. Tyson claims leaders of the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers used the protests to “deliver a false narrative” and “misconstrue what is really happening with [contract] negotiations.”

SEIU-UHW is one of the 16 international unions representing Kaiser employees, and one of three unions that form the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions. The coalition’s bargaining team and Kaiser have been negotiating a new contract for workers, as the current contract is set to expire this month. The coalition alleges Kaiser is using unfair labor practices and prioritizing profits over patients. Last month, union members voted to authorize a nationwide strike that would affect more than 80,000 Kaiser employees nationwide.

“Kaiser Permanente has put multiple options on the table for Coalition/SEIU-UHW leadership to consider, and we remain open to these options within the established parameters consistent with all our 60 unions,” Mr. Tyson wrote in the memo. The 16 international unions that represent Kaiser employees are divided into 60 local unions, each of which has its own contract.

Mr. Tyson said Kaiser has always been committed to working collaboratively and forging positive relationships with the unions representing its 165,000 employees.

“Going forward, we will respond more definitively to allegations against our organization’s stellar brand and reputation. We have not lost our way,” Mr. Tyson wrote. “We have an incredible workforce and will always treat them with dignity and respect, along with offering market competitive wages and benefits fit for the times.”

 

 

 

 

AHA says hospital mergers are good — economists say otherwise

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, American Hospital Association (AHA), Health Policy, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions, Monopoly, Monopoly Behavior, Quality, Quality of Care • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/aha-says-hospital-mergers-are-good-economists-say-otherwise.html

Image result for hospital market power

The American Hospital Association released a report stating that hospital acquisitions allow providers to provide better care at a lower cost to patients.

The report, which revisited an analysis concluding similar results three years ago, found acquisitions decrease cost due to the increased size of a combined system as well as clinical standardization.

Specifically, the AHA said hospital acquisitions lead to a 2.3 percent reduction in annual operating expenses at acquired hospitals. The study also said readmission and mortality rates decline at merging hospitals, and acquired hospitals see revenues per admission decline 3.5 percent, suggesting “savings that accrue to merging hospitals are passed on to patients and their health plans.”

However, the AHA’s findings — which were largely based on interviews with leaders of 10 health systems who weren’t randomly surveyed — contradict a wealth of economic data published that argues the opposite.

Last year, researchers found hospitals in monopoly markets, compared to hospitals in markets with four or more competitors, have prices that are 12 percent higher. In markets with four or more competitors, hospitals have lower prices and take on more financial risk, researchers said. Another independent analysis found hospital prices rise after hospitals combine. Researchers have also questioned whether consolidation really leads to better quality.

 

US health care: An industry too big to fail

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Pharmaceutical Industry, Price Transparency, Pricing, Social Good, Transparency • Leave a comment

https://theconversation.com/us-health-care-an-industry-too-big-to-fail-118895

Image result for US health care: An industry too big to fail

As I spoke recently with colleagues at a conference in Florence, Italy about health care innovation, a fundamental truth resurfaced in my mind: the U.S. health care industry is just that. An industry, an economic force, Big Business, first and foremost. It is a vehicle for returns on investment first and the success of our society second.

This is critical to consider as presidential candidates unveil their health care plans. The candidates and the electorate seem to forget that health care in our country is a huge business.

Health care accounts for almost 20% of GDP and is a, if not the, job engine for the U.S. economy. The sector added 2.8 million jobs between 2006 and 2016, higher than all other sectors, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects another 18% growth in health sector jobs between now and 2026. Big Business indeed.

This basic truth separates us from every other nation whose life expectancy, maternal and infant mortality or incidence of diabetes we’d like to replicate or, better still, outperform.

As politicians and the public they serve grapple with issues such as prescription drug prices, “surprise” medical bills and other health-related issues, I believe it critical that we better understand some of the less visible drivers of these costs so that any proposed solutions have a fighting chance to deflect the health cost curve downward.

As both associate chief medical officer for clinical integration and director of the center for health policy at the University of Virginia, I find that the tension between a profit-driven health care system and high costs occupies me every day.

The power of the market

Housing prices are market-driven. Car prices are market-driven. Food prices are market-driven.

And so are health care services. That includes physician fees, prescription drug prices and non-prescription drug prices. So is the case for hospital administrator salaries and medical devices.

All of these goods or services are profit-seeking, and all are motivated to maximize profits and minimize the cost of doing business. All must adhere to sound business principles, or they will fail. None of them disclose their cost drivers, or those things that increase prices. In other words, there are costs that are hidden to consumers that manifest in the final unit prices.

To my knowledge, no one has suggested that Rolls-Royce Motor Cars should price its cars similarly to Ford Motor Company. The invisible hand of “the market” tells Rolls Royce and Ford what their vehicles are worth.

Prescription drugs pricing has different rules

Ford can (they won’t) tell you precisely how much each vehicle costs to produce, including all the component parts that they acquire from other firms. But this is not true of prescription drugs. How much a novel therapeutic costs to develop and bring to market is a proverbial black box. Companies don’t share those numbers. Researchers at the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development have estimated the costs to be as high as US$2.87 billion, but that number has been hotly debated.

What we can reliably say is that it’s very expensive, and a drug company must produce new drugs to stay in business. The millions of research and development(R&D) dollars invested by Big Pharma has two aims. The first is to bring the “next big thing” to market. The second is to secure the almighty patent for it.

U.S. drug patents typically last 20 years, but according to the legal services website Upcounsel.com: “Due to the rigorous amount of testing that goes into a drug patent, many larger pharmaceutical companies file several patents on the same drug, aiming to extend the 20-year period and block generic competitors from producing the same drug.” As a result, drug firms have 30, 40-plus years to protect their investment from any competition and market forces to lower prices are not in play.

Here’s the hidden cost punchline: concurrently, several other drugs in their R&D pipelines fail along the way, resulting in significant product-specific losses . How is a poor firm to stay afloat? Simple, really. Build those costs and losses into the price of the successes. Next thing you know, insulin is nearly US$1,500 for a 20-milliliter vial, when that same vial 15 years ago was about $157.

It’s actually a bit more complicated than that, but my point is that business principles drive drug prices because drug companies are businesses. Societal welfare is not the underlying use. This is most true in the U.S., where the public doesn’t purchase most of the pharmaceuticals – private individuals do, albeit through a third party, an insurer. The group purchasing power of 300 million Americans becomes the commercial power of markets. Prices go up.

The cost of doing business, er, treating

I hope that most people would agree that physicians provide a societal good. Whether it’s in the setting of a trusted health confidant, or the doctor whose hands are surgically stopping the bleeding from your spleen after that jerk cut you off on the highway, we physicians pride ourselves on being there for our patients, no matter what, insured or not.

Allow me to state two fundamental facts that often seem to elude patient and policymaker alike. They are inextricably linked, foundational to our national dialogue on health care costs and oft-ignored: physicians are among the highest earners in America, and we make our money from patients. Not from investment portfolios, or patents. Patients.

Like Ford or pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, physician practices also need to achieve a profit margin to remain in business. Similarly, there are hidden-to-consumer costs as well; in this case, education and training. Medical school is the most expensive professional degree money can buy in the U.S. The American Association of Medical Colleges reports that median indebtedness for U.S. medical schools was $200,000.00 in 2018, for the 75% of us who financed our educations rather than paying cash.
Our “R&D” – that is, four years each of college and medical school, three to 11 years of post doctoral training costs – gets incorporated into our fees. They have to. Just like Ford Motors. Business 101: the cost of doing business must be factored into the price of the good or service.

For policymakers to meaningfully impact the rising costs of U.S. health care, from drugs to bills to and everything in between, they must decide if this is to remain an industry or truly become a social good. If we continue to treat and regulate health care as an industry, we should continue to expect surprise bills and expensive drugs.

It’s not personal, it’s just…business. The question before the U.S. is: business-as-usual, or shall we get busy charting a new way of achieving a healthy society? Personally and professionally, I prefer the latter.