What a wild end to the year it was for Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI.
In the span of five white-knuckle days in November, the head of Silicon Valley’s most advanced generative AI company was fired by his board of directors, replaced by not one but two different candidates, hired to lead Microsoft’s AI-research efforts and, finally, rehired back into his CEO position at OpenAI with a new board.
A couple weeks later, TIME selected him “CEO of the Year.” Altman’s saga is more than a tale of tech-industry intrigue. His story provides three valuable lessons for not only aspiring and current healthcare leaders, but also everyone who works with and depends on them.
1. Agree On The Goal, Define It, Then Pursue It Tirelessly
OpenAI’s governance structure presented a unique case: a not-for-profit board, whose stated mission was to protect humanity, found itself overseeing an enterprise valued at more than $80 billion. Predictably, this setup invited conflict, as the company’s humanitarian mission began to clash with the commercial realities of a lucrative, for-profit entity.
But there’s little evidence the bruhaha resulted from Altman’s financial interests. According to IRS filings, the CEO’s salary was only $58,333 at the time of his firing, and he reportedly owns no stock.
While Altman clearly knows the company needs to raise money to fund the creation of ever-more-powerful AI tools, his primary goal doesn’t appear to revolve around maximizing shareholder value or his own wealth.
In fact, I believe Altman and the now-disbanded board shared a common mission: to save humanity. The problem was that the parties were 180 degrees apart when it came to defining how exactly to protect humanity.
Altman’s path to saving humanity involved racing forward as fast as possible. As CEO, he understands generative AI’s potential to radically enhance productivity and alleviate threats like world hunger and climate change.
By contrast, the board feared that breakneck AI development could spiral out of control, posing a threat to human existence. Rather than perceiving AGI (artificial general intelligence) as a savior, much of the board worried that a self-learning system might harm humanity.
This dichotomy pitted a CEO intent on changing the world against a board intent to progress at a cautious, incremental pace.
For Healthcare Leaders: Like OpenAI, American healthcare leaders share a common goal. Be they doctors, insurers or government health agencies, all tout the importance of “value-based care” (VBC), which in general terms, constitutes a financial and care-delivery model based on paying healthcare professionals for the quality of clinical outcomes they achieve rather than the quantity of services they provide. But despite agreeing on the target, leaders differ on what it means and how best to accomplish it. Some think of VBC as “pay for performance,” whereby doctors are paid small incentives based on metrics around prevention and patient satisfaction. These programs fail because clinicians ignore the metrics without incentives and total health suffers.
Other leaders believe VBC means paying insurers a set, annual, upfront fee to provide healthcare to a population of patients. This, too, fails since the insurers turn around and pay doctors and hospitals on a fee-for-service basis, and implement restrictive prior authorization requirements to keep costs down.
Instead of making minor financial tweaks that keep falling short of the goal, leaders who want to transform American medicine must play to win. This will require them to move quickly and completely away from fee-for-service payments (which rewards volume of care) to capitation at the delivery-system level (rewarding superior results by prepaying doctors and hospitals directly without insurers playing the part of middlemen).
Like OpenAI’s former board members, today’s healthcare leaders are playing “not to lose.” They avoid making big changes because they fear the backlash of risk-averse providers. But anything less than all in won’t make a dent given the magnitude of problems. To be effective, leaders must make hard decisions, accept the risks and be confident that once the changes are in place, no one will want to go back to the old ways of doing things.
2. Hire Visionary Leaders Who Inspire Boldly
Many tech-industry commentators have drawn comparisons between Altman and Steve Jobs. Both leaders possess(ed) the rare ability to foresee a better future and turn their visions into reality. And both demonstrate(d) passion for exceeding people’s wants and expectations—not for their own benefit but because they believe in a greater mission and purpose.
Altman and Jobs are what I call visionary leaders, who push their organizations and people to accomplish remarkable outcomes few could’ve believed possible. These types of leaders always challenge conservative boards.
When the OpenAI board realized it’s hard to constrain a CEO like Sam Altman, they fired him.
On day one of that decision, the board might have assumed their action would protect humanity and, therefore, earn the approval of OpenAI’s employees. But the story took a sharp turn when nearly all the company’s 770 workers signed a letter to the board in support of Altman, threatening to quit unless (a) their visionary leader was brought back immediately and (b) the board resigned.
Five days after the battle began, the board was facing a rebellion and had little choice but to back down.
For Healthcare Leaders: The American healthcare system is struggling. Half of Americans say they can’t afford their out-of-pocket expenses, which max out at $16,000 for an insured family. American health is languishing with average life expectancy virtually unchanged since the start of this century. Maternal and infant mortality rates in the U.S. are double what they are in other wealthy nations. And inside medicine, burnout runs rampant. Last year, 71,000 physicians left the profession.
Visionary leadership, often sidelined in favor of the status quo, is crucial for transformative change. In healthcare, boards typically prioritize hiring CEOs with the ability to consolidate market control and achieve positive financial results rather than the ability to drive excellence in clinical outcomes. The consequence for both the providers and recipients of care proves painful.
Like OpenAI’s employees, healthcare professionals want leaders who are genuine, who have the courage to abandon bureaucratic safety in favor of innovative solutions, and who can ignite their passion for medicine. For a growing number of clinicians, the practice of medicine has become a job, not a mission. Without that spark, the future of medicine will remain bleak.
3. Embrace Transformative Technology
OpenAI’s board simultaneously promoted and feared ChatGPT’s potential. In this era of advanced technology, the dilemma of embracing versus restraining innovation is increasingly common.
The board could have shut down OpenAI or done everything in its power to advance the AI. It couldn’t, however, do both. When organizations in highly competitive industries try to strike a safe “balance,” choosing the less-contentious middle ground, they almost always fail to accomplish their goals.
For Healthcare Leaders: Despite being data-driven scientists, healthcare professionals often hesitate to embrace information technologies. Having been burned by tools like electronic healthcare records, which were designed to maximize revenue and not to facilitate medical care, their skepticism is understandable.
But generative AI is different because it has the potential to simultaneously increase quality, accessibility and affordability. This is where technology and skilled leadership must combine forces. It’s not enough for leaders to embrace generative AI. They must also inspire clinicians to apply it in ways that promote collaboration and achieve day-to-day operational efficiency and effectiveness. Without both, any other operational improvements will be incremental and clinical advances minimal at best.
If the boards of directors and other similar decision-making bodies in healthcare want their organizations to lead the process of change, they’ll need to select and support leaders with the vision, courage, and skill to take radical and risky leaps forward. If not, as OpenAI’s narrative demonstrates, they and their organizations will become insignificant and be left behind.
The following is the philosophy of Charles Schulz, the creator of the ‘Peanuts’ comic strip.
You don’t have to actually answer the questions. Just ponder on them. Just read it straight through, and you’ll get the point.
1. Name the five wealthiest people in the world.
2. Name the last five Heisman trophy winners.
3. Name the last five winners of the Miss America pageant.
4. Name ten people who have won the Nobel or Pulitzer Prize.
5. Name the last half dozen Academy Award winners for best actor and actress.
6. Name the last decade’s worth of World Series winners.
How did you do?
The point is, none of us remember the headliners of yesterday.
These are no second-rate achievers.
They are the best in their fields.
But the applause dies.
Awards tarnish …
Achievements are forgotten.
Accolades and certificates are buried with their owners.
Here’s another quiz. See how you do on this one:
1. List a few teachers who aided your journey through school.
2. Name three friends who have helped you through a difficult time.
3. Name five people who have taught you something worthwhile.
4. Think of a few people who have made you feel appreciated and special.
5. Think of five people you enjoy spending time with.
Easier?
The lesson:
The people who make a difference in your life are not the ones with the most credentials, the most money or the most awards. They simply are the ones who care the most.
This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr Brian Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.
Welcome, Dr Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.
Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.
History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals
Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.
The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.
Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.
The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.
The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.
Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.
Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?
Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership.I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.
Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership
Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?
Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.
Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.
They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.
We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.
Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.
For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.
Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.
Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals
One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.
Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.
When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.
What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.
I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.
Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That’s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.
Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.
Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.
Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.
Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.
Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.
I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.
Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.
Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It’s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I’ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage —these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That’s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.
Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals
Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.
There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.
In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.
Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.
For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.
Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.
Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.
Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.
Miller: I don’t think we do know that.
Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.
Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.
The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.
In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.
Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians
Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.
Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.
Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.
Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.
I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.
When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.
Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”
Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.
Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.
Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There’s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.
Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.
If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.
Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?
My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.
I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.
All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.
We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.
I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.
The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.
Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.
We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.
Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.
The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.
Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.
Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.
Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.
Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.
Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus
Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?
Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.
The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.
Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.
Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.
Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.
I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.
Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.
Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.
Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.
Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.
Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.
Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series.
Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 – 2017, Dr Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).
The U.S. economy added 216,000 jobs last month while the unemployment rate held at 3.7%, the Labor Department said on Friday.
Why it matters:
The final snapshot of the 2023 labor market shows hot hiring — the latest sign that the American job market continues to defy expectations of a slowdown.
The figure is well-above the roughly 170,000 jobs economists expected.
The big picture:
The Federal Reserve has hinted it likely won’t raise interest rates again with encouraging signs that inflation is easing and the labor market is cooling.
That concludes an aggressive rate hiking cycle that began in 2022 and lasted through much of last year.
For now, however, there is little evidence those rate hikes translated into pain for workers in 2022.
American consumers, however, remain dissatisfied with the economy — a problem that may continue to weigh on the Biden White House as the 2024 election heats up.
Details:
Friday’s jobs report shows the labor market stayed strong. Hiring increased in sectors including government, health care, and construction. Transportation and warehousing shed jobs.
Average hourly earnings, a measure of wages, rose by 0.4% last month. Compared to the prior year, average hourly earnings rose 4.1%.
The share of the population with in the labor force — that is, with a job or looking for one — was 62.5% in December, roughly 0.3 percentage point less than the prior month.
The Labor Department also said the economy added a combined 71,000 fewer jobs than initially estimated in October and November.
The bottom line:
The hotter-than-expected jobs figures are one of several more key economic reports due before Federal Reserve officials meet at the end of the month.
Health systems are recovering from the worst financial year in recent history. We surveyed strategic planners to find out their top priorities for 2024 and where they are focusing their energy to achieve growth and sustainability. Read on to explore the top six findings from this year’s survey.
Research questions
With this survey, we sought the answers to five key questions:
How do health system margins, volumes, capital spending, and FTEs compare to 2022 levels?
How will rebounding demand impact financial performance?
How will strategic priorities change in 2024?
How will capital spending priorities change next year?
Bigger is Better for Financial Recovery
What did we find?
Hospitals are beginning to recover from the lowest financial points of 2022, where they experienced persistently negative operating margins. In 2023, the majority of respondents to our survey expected positive changes in operating margins, total margins, and capital spending. However, less than half of the sample expected increases in full-time employee (FTE) count. Even as many organizations reported progress in 2023, challenges to workforce recovery persisted.
40%
Of respondents are experiencing margins below 2022 levels
Importantly, the sample was relatively split between those who are improving financial performance and those who aren’t. While 53% of respondents projected a positive change to operating margins in 2023, 40% expected negative changes to margin.
One exception to this split is large health systems. Large health systems projected above-average recovery of FTE counts, volume, and operating margins. This will give them a higher-than-average capital spending budget.
Why does this matter?
These findings echo an industry-wide consensus on improved financial performance in 2023. However, zooming in on the data revealed that the rising tide isn’t lifting all boats. Unequal financial recovery, especially between large and small health systems, can impact the balance of independent, community, and smaller providers in a market in a few ways. Big organizations can get bigger by leveraging their financial position to acquire less resourced health systems, hospitals, or provider groups. This can be a lifeline for some providers if the larger organization has the resources to keep services running. But it can be a critical threat to other providers that cannot keep up with the increasing scale of competitors.
Variation in financial performance can also exacerbate existing inequities by widening gaps in access. A key stakeholder here is rural providers. Rural providers are particularly vulnerable to financial pressures and have faced higher rates of closure than urban hospitals. Closures and consolidation among these providers will widen healthcare deserts. Closures also have the potential to alter payer and case mix (and pressure capacity) at nearby hospitals.
Volumes are decoupled from margins
What did we find?
Positive changes to FTE counts, reduced contract labor costs, and returning demand led the majority of respondents in our survey to project organizational-wide volume growth in 2023. However, a significant portion of the sample is not successfully translating volume growth to margin recovery.
44%
Of respondents who project volume increases also predict declining margins
On one hand, 84% of our sample expected to achieve volume growth in 2023. And 38% of respondents expected 2023 volume to exceed 2022 volume by over 5%. But only 53% of respondents expected their 2023 operating margins to grow — and most of those expected that the growth would be under 5%. Over 40% of respondents that reported increases in volume simultaneously projected declining margins.
Why does this matter?
Health systems struggled to generate sufficient revenue during the pandemic because of reduced demand for profitable elective procedures. It is troubling that despite significant projected returns to inpatient and outpatient volumes, these volumes are failing to pull their weight in margin contribution. This is happening in the backdrop of continued outpatient migration that is placing downward pressure on profitable inpatient volumes.
There are a variety of factors contributing to this phenomenon. Significant inflationary pressures on supplies and drugs have driven up the cost of providing care. Delays in patient discharge to post-acute settings further exacerbate this issue, despite shrinking contract labor costs. Reimbursements have not yet caught up to these costs, and several systems report facing increased denials and delays in reimbursement for care. However, there are also internal factors to consider. Strategists from our study believe there are outsized opportunities to make improvements in clinical operational efficiency — especially in care variation reduction, operating room scheduling, and inpatient management for complex patients.
Strategists look to technology to stretch capital budgets
What did we find?
Capital budgets will improve in 2024, albeit modestly. Sixty-three percent of respondents expect to increase expenditures, but only a quarter anticipate an increase of 6% or more. With smaller budget increases, only some priorities will get funded, and strategists will have to pick and choose.
Respondents were consistent on their top priority. Investments in IT and digital health remained the number one priority in both 2022 and 2023. Other priorities shifted. Spending on areas core to operations, like facility maintenance and medical equipment, increased in importance. Interest in funding for new ambulatory facilities saw the biggest change, falling down two places.
Why does this matter?
Capital budgets for health systems may be increasing, but not enough. With the high cost of borrowing and continued uncertainty, health systems still face a constrained environment. Strategists are looking to get the biggest bang for their buck. Technology investments are a way to do that. Digital solutions promise high impact without the expense or risk of other moves, like building new facilities, which is why strategists continue to prioritize spending on technology.
The value proposition of investing in technology has changed with recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), and our respondents expressed a high level of interest in AI solutions. New applications of AI in healthcare offer greater efficiencies across workforce, clinical and administrative operations, and patient engagement — all areas of key concern for any health system today.
Building is reserved for those with the largest budgets
What did we find?
Another way to stretch capital budgets is investing in facility improvements rather than new buildings. This allows health systems to minimize investment size and risk. Our survey found that, in general, strategists are prioritizing capital spending on repairs and renovation while deprioritizing building new ambulatory facilities.
When the responses to our survey are broken out by organization type, a different story emerges. The largest health systems are spending in ways other systems are not. Systems with six or more hospitals are increasing their overall capital expenditures and are planning to invest in new facilities. In contrast, other systems are not increasing their overall budgets and decreasing investments in new facilities.
AMCs are the only exception. While they are decreasing their overall budget, they are increasing their spending on new inpatient facilities.
Why does this matter?
Health systems seek to attract patients with new facilities — but only the biggest systems can invest in building outpatient and inpatient facilities. The high ranking of repairs in overall capital expenditure priorities suggests that all systems are trying to compete by maintaining or improving their current facilities. Will renovations be enough in the face of expanded building from better financed systems? The urgency to respond to the pandemic-accelerated outpatient shift means that building decisions made today, especially in outpatient facilities, could affect competition for years to come. And our survey responses suggest that only the largest health system will get the important first-mover advantage in this space.
AMCs are taking a different tack in the face of tight budgets and increased competition. Instead of trying to compete across the board, AMCs are marshaling resources for redeployment toward inpatient facilities. This aligns with their core identity as a higher acuity and specialty care providers.
Partnerships and affiliations offer potential solutions for health systems that lack the resources for building new facilities. Health systems use partnerships to trade volumes based on complexity. Partnerships can help some health systems to protect local volumes while still offering appropriate acute care at their partner organization. In addition, partnerships help health systems capture more of the patient journey through shared referrals. In both of these cases, partnerships or affiliations mitigate the need to build new inpatient or outpatient facilities to keep patients.
Eighty percent of respondents to our survey continued to lose patient volumes in 2023. Despite this threat to traditional revenue, health systems are turning from revenue diversification practices. Respondents were less likely to operate an innovation center or invest in early-stage companies in 2023. Strategists also reported notably less participation in downside risk arrangements, with a 27% decline from 2022 to 2023.
Why does this matter?
The retreat from revenue diversification and risk arrangements suggests that health systems have little appetite for financial uncertainty. Health systems are focusing on financial stabilization in the short term and forgoing practices that could benefit them, and their patients, in the long term.
Strategists should be cautious of this approach. Retrenchment on innovation and value-based care will hold health systems back as they confront ongoing disruption. New models of care, patient engagement, and payment will be necessary to stabilize operations and finances. Turning from these programs to save money now risks costing health systems in the future.
Market intelligence and strategic planning are essential for health systems as they navigate these decisions. Holding back on initiatives or pursuing them in resource-constrained environments is easier when you have a clear course for the future and can limit reactionary cuts.
Advisory Board’s long-standing research on developing strategy suggests five principles for focused strategy development:
Strategic plans should confront complexity. Sift through potential future market disruptions and opportunities to establish a handful of governing market assumptions to guide strategy.
Ground strategy development in answers to a handful of questions regarding future competitive advantage. Ask yourself: What will it take to become the provider of choice?
Communicate overarching strategy with a clear, coherent statement that communicates your overall health system identity.
A strategic vision should be supported by a limited number of directly relevant priorities. Resist the temptation to fill out “pro forma” strategic plan.
Pair strategic priorities with detailed execution plans, including initiative roadmaps and clear lines of accountability.
Strategists align on a strategic vision to go back to basics
What did we find?
Despite uneven recovery, health systems widely agree on which strategic initiatives they will focus more on, and which they will focus less on. Health system leaders are focusing their attention on core operations — margins, quality, and workforce — the basics of system success. They aim to achieve this mandate in three ways. First, through improving efficiency in care delivery and supply chain. Second, by transforming key elements of the care delivery system. And lastly, through leveraging technology and the virtual environment to expand job flexibility and reduce administrative burden.
Health systems in our survey are least likely to take drastic steps like cutting pay or expensive steps like making acquisitions. But they’re also not looking to downsize; divesting and merging is off the table for most organizations going into 2024.
Why does this matter?
The strategic priorities healthcare leaders are working toward are necessary but certainly not easy. These priorities reflect the key challenges for a health system — margins, quality, and workforce. Luckily, most of strategists’ top priorities hold promise for addressing all three areas.
This triple mandate of improving margins, quality, and workforce seems simple in theory but is hard to get right in practice. Integrating all three core dimensions into the rollout of a strategic initiative will amplify that initiative’s success. But, neglecting one dimension can diminish returns. For example, focusing on operational efficiency to increase margins is important, but it’ll be even more effective if efforts also seek to improve quality. It may be less effective if you fail to consider clinicians’ workflow.
Health systems that can return to the basics, and master them, are setting a strong foundation for future growth. This growth will be much more difficult to attain without getting your house in order first.
Vendors and other health system partners should understand that systems are looking to ace the basics, not reinvent the wheel. Vendors should ensure their products have a clear and provable return on investment and can map to health systems’ strategic priorities. Some key solutions health systems will be looking for to meet these priorities are enhanced, easy-to-follow data tools for clinical operations, supply chain and logistics, and quality. Health systems will also be interested in tools that easily integrate into provider workflow, like SDOH screening and resources or ambient listening scribes.
Going back to basics
Craft your strategy
1. Rebuild your workforce.
One important link to recovery of volume is FTE count. Systems that expect positive changes in FTEs overwhelmingly project positive changes in volume. But, on average, less than half of systems expected FTE growth in 2023. Meanwhile, high turnover, churn, and early retirement has contributed to poor care team communication and a growing experience-complexity gap. Prioritize rebuilding your workforce with these steps:
Recover: Ensure staff recover from pandemic-era experiences by investing in workforce well-being. Audit existing wellness initiatives to maximize programs that work well, and rethink those that aren’t heavily utilized.
Recruit: Compete by addressing what the next generation of clinicians want from employment: autonomy, flexibility, benefits, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Keep up to date with workforce trends for key roles such as advance practice providers, nurses, and physicians in your market to avoid blind spots.
Retain: Support young and entry-level staff early and often while ensuring tenured staff feel valued and are given priority access to new workforce arrangements like hybrid and gig work. Utilize virtual inpatient nurses and virtual hubs to maintain experienced staff who may otherwise retire. Prioritize technologies that reduce the burden on staff, rather than creating another box to check, like ambient listening or asynchronous questionnaires.
2. Become the provider of choice with patient-centric care.
Becoming the provider of choice is crucial not only for returning to financial stability, but also for sustained growth. To become the provider of choice in 2024, systems must address faltering consumer perspectives with a patient-centric approach. Keep in mind that our first set of recommendations around workforce recovery are precursors to improving patient-centered care. Here are two key areas to focus on:
Front door: Ensure a multimodal front door strategy. This could be accomplished through partnership or ownership but should include assets like urgent care/extended hour appointments, community education and engagement, and a good digital experience.
Social determinants of health: A key aspect of patient-centered care is addressing the social needs of patients. Our survey found that addressing SDOH was the second highest strategic priority in 2023. Set up a plan to integrate SDOH screenings early on in patient contact. Then, work with local organizations and/or build out key services within your system to address social needs that appear most frequently in your population. Finally, your workforce DEI strategy should focus on diversity in clinical and leadership staff, as well as teaching clinicians how to practice with cultural humility.
3. Recouple volume and margins.
The increasingly decoupled relationship between volume and margins should be a concern for all strategists. There are three parts to improving volume related margins: increasing volume for high-revenue procedures, managing costs, and improving clinical operational efficiency.
Revenue growth: Craft a response to out-of-market travel for surgery. In many markets, the pool of lucrative inpatient surgical volumes is shrinking. Health systems are looking to new markets to attract patients who are willing to travel for greater access and quality. Read our findings to learn more about what you need to attract and/or defend patient volumes from out-of-market travel.
Cost reduction: Although there are many paths health systems can take to manage costs, focusing on tactics which are the most likely to result in fast returns and higher, more sustainable savings, will be key. Some tactics health systems can deploy include preventing unnecessary surgical supply waste, making employees accountable for their health costs, and reinforcing nurse-led sepsis protocols.
Clinical operational efficiency: The number one strategic priority in 2023, according to our survey, was clinical operational efficiency, no doubt in response to faltering margins. Within this area, the top place for improvement was care variation reduction (CVR). Ensure you’re making the most out of CVR efforts by effectively prioritizing where to spend your time. Improve operational efficiency outside of CVR by improving OR efficiency and developing protocols for complex inpatient management.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has vowed to protect New Yorkers from medical debt, limit hospitals’ ability to sue patients and expand financial assistance programs as part of her 2024 State of the State.
Ms. Hochul aims to introduce legislation that would curb hospitals’ ability to sue patients earning less than 400% of the federal poverty level ($120,000 for a family of four).
The legislation would also expand hospital financial assistance programs for low-income New Yorkers, limit the size of monthly payments and interest charged for medical debt, among other protections to improve access to financial assistance and mitigate the effects of medical debt.
“More than 700,000 New Yorkers have medical debt in collections. Individuals with medical debt are less likely to seek necessary medical care and report being forced to cut back on critical social determinants of health, including food, heat, and rent,” Ms. Hochul’s office said in a Jan. 2 news release. “As a result, substantial debt levels threaten not only the financial stability of many individuals and families, but also undermine the state’s commitment to improving health equity and health outcomes.”
The governor also aims to eliminate insulin cost-sharing through proposed legislation and provide financial relief to New Yorkers and improve adherence to these medications. With 1.58 million New Yorkers diagnosed with diabetes, Ms. Hochul’s office estimates this initiative will save about $14 million in 2025 alone.
“Too many New Yorkers today must overextend their finances to afford critical healthcare, like insulin, and to pay everyday expenses, like rent,” New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Adrienne Harris said. “When an individual is forced to choose between the two, deprioritizing their health impacts their lives, their families, and ultimately increases costs across the healthcare system. The alternative is no better. Without enough cash to cover all expenses, New Yorkers have turned to buy now, pay later products, racking up debt with companies that have operated without guardrails in this state for too long.”
West Reading, Pa.-based Tower Health has turned down a $706 million offer from StoneBridge Healthcare, a hospital turnaround firm, making this the fourth purchase offer rejected by the system since 2021.
StoneBridge received an email from Andrew Turnbull, a managing director at Houlihan Lokey, an investment bank that works with Tower Health, saying that there had been a board meeting and the firm’s offer had been rejected, Joshua Nemzoff, CEO of StoneBridge Healthcare, told Becker’s.
“I’m not sure what they’re thinking. We have requested multiple board meetings, but we’ve never had a chance to meet with the board. We’ve just gotten emails back saying they’re rejecting the offer,” Mr. Nemzoff said.
WoodBridge, a nonprofit sister organization to StoneBridge, initially shared a nonbinding agreement in principle with Tower Health, which included the intent to purchase the system’s assets.
“We’ve given them a number of other offers. I think the last one was more than a year ago. They’ve lost $400 million in operations in the last two years, and they’re $1.8 billion in revenue and $1.5 billion in debt, and 30 days of cash,” Mr. Nemzoff told Becker’s.
Tower Health initially turned down a $675 million offer from StoneBridge in November 2022. In partnership with Allentown, Pa.-based Lehigh Valley Health Network, the firm also made two conditional offers to acquire the system’s assets for $600 million in 2021, which were also rejected.
“Given their cash position and given their extraordinary amount of debt, I think our plan is just to frankly to wait for them to go bankrupt and show up in court for the auction. I think that’s going to happen next year,” Mr. Nemzoff said.
StoneBridge was formed in 2020. The firm currently does not own or operate any hospitals. Like StoneBridge, WoodBridge has also not completed any hospital deals, Mr. Nemzoff told Becker’s.
The new year is always an ideal time for healthcare leaders to reflect on the state of our industry and their own organizations, as well as the challenges and opportunities ahead.
As the CEO of a large health system, I always like to reflect on one basic question at the end of each year: Are we staying true to our mission?
Certainly, maintaining an organization’s financial health must always be a priority but we should also never lose sight of our core purpose. In a business like ours that has confronted and endured a global pandemic and immense financial struggles over the past several years, I recognize it’s increasingly difficult to maintain our focus on mission while trying to find ways to pay for rising labor and supply costs, infrastructure improvements needed to remain competitive and other pressures on our day-to-day operations.
After all, the investments we need to make to promote community wellness, mental health, environmental sustainability and health equity receive little or no reimbursement, negatively impacting our financial bottom lines. During an era of unprecedented expansion of Medicaid and Medicare, we get less and less relief from commercial insurers, whose denial and delay tactics for reimbursing medical claims continue to erode the stability of many health systems and hospitals, especially those caring for low-income communities.
Despite those enormous pressures, it’s imperative that we continue to support underserved communities, military veterans struggling with post-traumatic stress, and intervention programs that help deter gun violence and addiction.
The list of other worthy investments goes on and on: charity care to uninsured or underinsured patients who can’t pay their medical bills, funding for emergency services that play such a critical role during public health emergencies, nutritional services for families struggling to put food on the table, programs that combat human trafficking and support women’s health, the LGBTQIA+ community and global health initiatives that aid Ukraine, the Middle East and other countries torn apart by war, famine and natural disasters.
We must also recognize the key role of healthcare providers as educators. School-based mental health programs are saving lives by identifying children exhibiting suicidal behaviors, anger management issues and other troublesome behaviors. School outreach efforts have the added benefit of helping health systems and hospitals address their own labor shortages by introducing young people to career paths that will help shape the future healthcare workforce.
Without a doubt, the “to-do” list of community health initiatives that support our mission is daunting. We can’t do it all alone, but as the largest employers in cities and towns across America, health systems and hospitals can serve as a catalyst to get all sectors of our society — government, businesses, schools, law enforcement, churches, social service groups and other community-based organizations — to recognize that “health” goes far beyond the delivery of medical care.
The health of individuals, families and communities hinges on the prevalence of good-paying jobs, decent and affordable housing, quality education, access to healthy foods, medical care, transportation, clean air and water, low prevalence of crime and illicit drugs, and numerous other variables that typically depend on the zip codes where we live. Those so-called social determinants of health are the driving factors that enable communities and the people who live there to either prosper or struggle, resulting in disparities that are the underlying cause of why so many cities and towns across the country fall into economic decay and become havens for crime and hotbeds for gun violence, which shamefully is now the leading cause of death for children and adolescents.
To revive these underserved communities, many of which are in our own backyards, we have to look at all of the socioeconomic issues they struggle with through the prism of health and use the collective resources of all stakeholders to bring about positive change.
Health is how we work together to build a sense of community. Having a healthy community also requires everyone doing what they can to tone down the political rhetoric and social media-fueled anger that is polarizing our society. Health is bringing back a sense of civility and respect in our public discourse, and promoting the values of honesty, decency and integrity.
As healthcare providers and respected business leaders, we should all make a New Year’s resolution to stay true to our mission and do what we can within our communities to bring oxygen to hope, optimism and a healthier future.
HENRY KOTULA 