When the cycle turns: Healthcare Subsectors Ranked by Vulnerability to Economic Downturn




Related image

S&P: Hospitals vulnerable to recession as healthcare sector stays defensive

The healthcare sector remains defensive but has become increasingly vulnerable to an economic downturn because of deteriorating ratings, comparatively higher leverage and greater industry disruption, analysts at S&P Global Ratings said in a new report.

Healthcare companies’ issuer credit ratings are becoming more vulnerable to a cyclical downturn in comparison to prior recessions, according to the rating agency, which also said that proposals from the U.S. government are threatening the sector’s creditworthiness.

Credit quality has fallen considerably since the last recession in the healthcare sector — where products and services continue to show a largely inelastic demand — with 66% of healthcare companies carrying B ratings, according to the April 29 analysis.

Ratings estimates that about 20% of for-profit healthcare companies have investment-grade issuer credit ratings, in comparison to 54% in 2005. The rating agency believes this transition shows an increase in smaller and mainly private equity-owned healthcare issuers.

Hospitals among subsectors most vulnerable to economic slowdown

The subsectors most vulnerable to an economic downturn are hospitals, healthcare service providers and hospital staffing services, based on leverage metrics and relatively higher disruption in comparison to other subsectors, the rating agency added.

Ratings analysts said companies like Tenet Healthcare Corp., Prospect Medical Holdings Inc. and HCA Healthcare Inc. would be affected by a potential rise in uncompensated care — with patients opting for lower cost options — since insurance coverage tends to decline as unemployment rates increase during a recession. In addition, healthcare companies such as Acadia Healthcare Co. Inc. and WP CityMD Bidco LLC would be highly exposed to reimbursement rates based on Medicaid and Medicare plans.

The healthcare segment at highest risk in an economic downturn is temporary nurse staffing, which is highly sensitive to cyclicality, more so than part-time physician staffing and full-time employment.

Pharmacy benefit managers, often called the drug middlemen or PBMs, such as CVS Health Corp. and Aetna Health Holdings LLC, which are responsible for negotiating drug prices between drug companies and insurers are also at risk of exposure to a downturn.

The Trump administration wants to end the safe harbor protections, which permit PBMs to collect rebates, by Jan. 1, 2020, and move the U.S. to a fixed-fee discount model.

Ratings analysts believe healthcare companies with a portfolio of research and development, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biologics manufacturing will be more insulated and can expect steady demand during a recession, which will help achieve astrong revenue base.

Companies like Pfizer Inc., Amgen Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. may be at the receiving end of a slight shift in the sector, which will see customers increasingly preferring lower-cost generic and biosimilar alternatives. In addition, increased usage of high-deductible insurance plans will bolster switches to lower-cost options.

Life sciences companies like Danaher Corp., Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and PerkinElmer Inc. mostly see repeat sales of their products, and since there is an increase in the use of diagnostic tests, the life sciences subsector would be more resilient in an economic downturn.

Medical devices companies Baxter International Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Becton Dickinson and Co. and Hologic Inc. should expect consistent demand though there is some exposure to patient and hospital admission volumes.

However, Ratings analysts believe the medical devices subsector “does not have a large target on its back, in terms of cost control, versus the pharmaceutical industry.”

Given the mostly inelastic demand in the healthcare sector, McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health Inc., Owens & Minor Inc. and other such companies in the drugs and medical products’ distribution segment will be largely insulated from the economic downturn, Ratings analysts added.





Hospitals Stand to Lose Billions Under ‘Medicare for All’

For a patient’s knee replacement, Medicare will pay a hospital $17,000. The same hospital can get more than twice as much, or about $37,000, for the same surgery on a patient with private insurance.

Or take another example: One hospital would get about $4,200 from Medicare for removing someone’s gallbladder. The same hospital would get $7,400 from commercial insurers.

The yawning gap between payments to hospitals by Medicare and by private health insurers for the same medical services may prove the biggest obstacle for advocates of “Medicare for all,” a government-run system.

If Medicare for all abolished private insurance and reduced rates to Medicare levels — at least 40 percent lower, by one estimate — there would most likely be significant changes throughout the health care industry, which makes up 18 percent of the nation’s economy and is one of the nation’s largest employers.

Some hospitals, especially struggling rural centers, would close virtually overnight, according to policy experts.

Others, they say, would try to offset the steep cuts by laying off hundreds of thousands of workers and abandoning lower-paying services like mental health.

he prospect of such violent upheaval for existing institutions has begun to stiffen opposition to Medicare for all proposals and to rattle health care stocks. Some officials caution that hospitals providing care should not be penalized in an overhaul.

Dr. Adam Gaffney, the president of Physicians for a National Health Program, warned advocates of a single-payer system like Medicare for all not to seize this opportunity to extract huge savings from hospitals. “The line here can’t be and shouldn’t be soak the hospitals,” he said.

“You don’t need insurance companies for Medicare for all,” Dr. Gaffney added. “You need hospitals.”

Soaring hospital bills and disparities in care, though, have stoked consumer outrage and helped to fuel populist support for proposals that would upend the current system. Many people with insurance cannot afford a knee replacement or care for their diabetes because their insurance has high deductibles.

Proponents of overhauling the nation’s health care argue that hospitals are charging too much and could lower their prices without sacrificing the quality of their care. High drug prices, surprise hospital bills and other financial burdens from the overwhelming cost of health care have caught the attention (and drawn the ire) of many in Congress, with a variety of proposals under consideration this year.

But those in favor of the most far-reaching changes, including Senator Bernie Sanders, who unveiled his latest Medicare for all plan as part of his presidential campaign, have remained largely silent on the question of how the nation’s 5,300 hospitals would be paid for patient care. If they are paid more than Medicare rates, the final price tag for the program could balloon from the already stratospheric estimate of upward of $30 trillion over a decade. Senator Sanders has not said what he thinks his plan will cost, and some proponents of Medicare for all say these plans would cost less than the current system.

The nation’s major health insurers are sounding the alarms, and pointing to the potential impact on hospitals and doctors. David Wichmann, the chief executive of UnitedHealth Group, the giant insurer, told investors that these proposals would “destabilize the nation’s health system and limit the ability of clinicians to practice medicine at their best.”

Hospitals could lose as much as $151 billion in annual revenues, a 16 percent decline, under Medicare for all, according to Dr. Kevin Schulman, a professor of medicine at Stanford University and one of the authors of a recent article in JAMA looking at the possible effects on hospitals.

“There’s a hospital in every congressional district,” he said. Passing a Medicare for all proposal in which hospitals are paid Medicare rates “is going to be a really hard proposition.”

Richard Anderson, the chief executive of St. Luke’s University Health Network, called the proposals “naïve.” Hospitals depend on insurers’ higher payments to deliver top-quality care because government programs pay so little, he said.

“I have no time for all the politicians who use the health care system as a crash-test dummy for their election goals,” Mr. Anderson said.

The American Hospital Association, an industry trade group, is starting to lobby against the Medicare for all proposals. Unlike the doctors’ groups, hospitals are not divided. “There is total unanimity,” said Tom Nickels, an executive vice president for the association.

“We agree with their intent to expand coverage to more people,” he said. “We don’t think this is the way to do it. It would have a devastating effect on hospitals and on the system over all.”

Rural hospitals, which have been closing around the country as patient numbers dwindle, would be hit hard, he said, because they lack the financial cushion of larger systems.

Big hospital systems haggle constantly with Medicare over what they are paid, and often battle the government over charges of overbilling. On average, the government program pays hospitals about 87 cents for every dollar of their costs, compared with private insurers that pay $1.45.

Some hospitals make money on Medicare, but most rely on higher private payments to cover their overall costs.

Medicare, which accounts for about 40 percent of hospital costs compared with 33 percent for private insurers, is the biggest source of hospital reimbursements. The majority of hospitals are nonprofit or government-owned.

The profit margins on Medicare are “razor thin,” said Laura Kaiser, the chief executive of SSM Health, a Catholic health system. In some markets, her hospitals lose money providing care under the program.

She says the industry is working to bring costs down. “We’re all uber-responsible and very fixated on managing our costs and not being wasteful,” Ms. Kaiser said.

Over the years, as hospitals have merged, many have raised the prices they charge to private insurers.

“If you’re in a consolidated market, you are a monopolist and are setting the price,” said Mark Miller, a former executive director for the group that advises Congress on Medicare payments. He describes the prices paid by private insurers as “completely unjustified and out of control.”

Many hospitals have invested heavily in amenities like single rooms for patients and sophisticated medical equipment to attract privately insured patients. They are also major employers.

“You would have to have a very different cost structure to survive,” said Melinda Buntin, the chairwoman for health policy at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. “Everyone being on Medicare would have a large impact on their bottom line.”

People who have Medicare, mainly those over 65 years old, can enjoy those private rooms or better care because the hospitals believed it was worth making the investments to attract private patients, said Craig Garthwaite, a health economist at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. If all hospitals were paid the same Medicare rate, the industry “should really collapse down to a similar set of hospitals,” he said.

Whether hospitals would be able to adapt to sharply lower payments is unclear.

“It would force health care systems to go on a very serious diet,” said Stuart Altman, a health policy professor at Brandeis University. “I have no idea what would happen. Nor does anyone else.”

But proponents should not expect to save as much money as they hope if they cut hospital payments. Some hospitals could replace their missing revenue by charging more for the same care or by ordering more billable tests and procedures, said Dr. Stephen Klasko, the chief executive of Jefferson Health. “You’d be amazed,’ he said.

While both the Medicare-for-all bill introduced by Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington, and the Sanders bill call for a government-run insurance program, the Jayapal proposal would replace existing Medicare payments with a whole new system of regional budgets.

“We need to change not just who pays the bill but how we pay the bill,” said Dr. Gaffney, who advised Ms. Jayapal on her proposal.

Hospitals would be able to achieve substantial savings by scaling back administrative costs, the byproduct of a system that deals with multiple insurance carriers, Dr. Gaffney said. Under the Jayapal bill, hospitals would no longer be paid above their costs, and the money for new equipment and other investments would come from a separate pool of money.

But the Sanders bill, which is supported by some Democratic presidential candidates including Senators Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, does not envision a whole new payment system but an expansion of the existing Medicare program. Payments would largely be based on what Medicare currently pays hospitals.

Some Democrats have also proposed more incremental plans. Some would expand Medicare to cover people over the age of 50, while others wouldn’t do away with private health insurers, including those that now offer Medicare plans.

Even under Medicare for all, lawmakers could decide to pay hospitals a new government rate that equals what they are being paid now from both private and public insurers, said Dr. David Blumenthal, a former Obama official and the president of the Commonwealth Fund.

“It would greatly reduce the opposition,” he said. “The general rule is the more you leave things alone, the easier it is.”




12 health systems with strong finances



Here are 12 health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to recent reports from Moody’s Investors Service, Fitch Ratings and S&P Global Ratings.

1. Dallas-based Baylor Scott & White Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has strong cash flow margins, and its favorable demographics will contribute to volume and revenue growth, according to Moody’s.

2. Newark, Del.-based Christiana Care has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has solid margins and a robust balance sheet, according to Moody’s.

3. Durham, N.C.-based Duke University Health System has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system is a leading provider of tertiary and quaternary services and has solid margins and cash levels, according to Moody’s.

4. Chicago-based Northwestern Memorial HealthCarehas an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. Moody’s expects that the health system’s operating model and comprehensive IT systems will enable it to execute growth strategies while maintaining strong margins.

5. Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Novant Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The credit rating agency expects Novant to continue generating strong cash flow margins in favorable markets.

6. Boston-based Partners HealthCare has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s and an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with S&P. The health system has an excellent reputation in the clinical and research spaces, a long track record of fundraising, and adequate balance sheet measures, according to Moody’s.

7. St. Louis-based SSM Health Care has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. SSM has a strong financial profile, and Fitch expects the system to continue growing unrestricted liquidity and to maintain improved operational performance.

8. Appleton, Wis.-based ThedaCare has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has a leading market share in a stable service area and strong operating performance, according to Fitch.

9. Cincinnati-based TriHealth has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. Fitch expects the health system to maintain good operating ratios, leading to liquidity growth.

10. Iowa City-based University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The system’s strong brand and position as the only academic medical center in Iowa will continue to translate into strong market share and high patient demand, according to Moody’s.

11. York, Pa.-based WellSpan Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has a leading market position in south-central Pennsylvania and a strong financial profile, according to Fitch.

12. Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has a leading market position in Connecticut, with a broad reach for tertiary and quaternary patients from throughout the state, and strong brand recognition, according to Moody’s.





A robust job market bolstering employer-sponsored plans, Baby Boomers transitioning to Medicare Advantage, and ACA exchanges attracting new payers are good signs for health plans in the coming year.


Consolidations among larger payers makes it harder for smaller players to enter the market or sustain a presence.

Payment reforms around the ACA will continue to drive more cross-sector collaboration among payers and providers.

Despite the uncertainty over the future of the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. health insurance sector remains stable heading into 2019, according to a new analysis by S&P Global Ratings.

“A combination of still-favorable business conditions, financial factors, and diminished near-term legislative uncertainty balances our concerns relating to merger and acquisition activity, elevated policy risk, and re-emergent legal overhang,” said S&P analyst Joseph Marinucci.

Strong job growth is bolstering commercial markets, aging Baby Boomers are driving Medicare Advantage growth, states are shifting their high acuity populations into managed Medicaid, and the ACA exchanges are stabilizing and attracting new competitors, S&P said.

“We assess capital and liquidity as strong or better for most of our rated U.S. health insurers, which supports balance-sheet strength,” Marinucci said. “U.S. health insurers’ operating performance reflects sustained earnings strength and improved earnings quality.”

However, Marinucci said that profitability could moderate somewhat this year.

M&As remain a key rating factor, especially with larger transaction sizes, raising concerns about financial leverage, integration, and cultural compatibility. Consolidations, joint ventures, and partnering among larger insurers are defragmenting the sector, allowing the big insurers to build scale, “and create more touch points as the trend toward consumerism gains traction.”

This is making it harder for newer and smaller players to enter the market or sustain their presence,” S&P said. “As a result, we continue to see larger health insurers taking a bigger share of the marketplace, and smaller players being displaced or struggling to achieve profitable growth as the competitive gap widens.”

“Although the mid-term elections removed a good deal of legislative uncertainty for the industry, policy risk remains elevated given the administration’s preference for ACA alternatives,” S&P said.

In addition, S&P says that payment and delivery reforms mandated in the ACA around value-based care will continue to drive greater cross-sector collaboration among payers and providers.





8 health systems with strong finances


Here are eight hospitals and health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to recent reports from Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings.

Note: This is not an exhaustive list. Hospital and health system names were compiled from recent credit rating reports and are listed in alphabetical order.

1. Dallas-based Baylor Scott & White Health has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has strong cash flow margins and its favorable demographics will contribute to volume and revenue growth, according to Moody’s.

2. Orange, Calif.-based Children’s Hospital of Orange County has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The hospital has a strong financial profile, and Fitch expects its capital-related ratios to improve.

3. Newark, Del.-based Christiana Care has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has solid margins and a robust balance sheet, according to Moody’s.

4. Fort Worth, Texas-based Cook Children’s Medical Center has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The hospital has a strong market position and solid operating performance, according to Moody’s.

5. Durham, N.C.-based Duke University Health System has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system is a leading provider of tertiary and quaternary services and has solid margins and cash levels, according to Moody’s.

6. St. Louis-based SSM Health Care has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. SSM has a strong financial profile, and Fitch expects the system to continue growing unrestricted liquidity and to maintain improved operational performance.

7. Appleton, Wis.-based ThedaCare has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has a leading market share in a stable service area and strong operating performance, according to Fitch.

8. Cincinnati-based TriHealth has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. Fitch expects the health system to maintain good operating ratios leading to liquidity growth.


Fitch: Nonprofit hospital balance sheet metrics improve, operating margins don’t


Image result for hospital credit ratings


U.S. nonprofit hospitals continue to struggle with operating margins, but key balance sheet metrics have improved, according to Fitch Ratings.

Fitch’s 2018 hospital median report, based on audited 2017 data, shows operating margins declined for the second consecutive year in every rating category. The 2017 median operating margin was 1.9 percent compared to 2.8 percent in 2016.

But the agency said key balance sheet metrics, such as days cash on hand, cash to debt and leverage, got better and are at all-time highs. For example, the median days cash on hand climbed from 195.5 in 2016 to 213.9 in 2017, and cash to debt increased to 159 percent from 142.8 percent year over year.
“Despite this apparent contradiction — which may be temporary in nature — the clear signal through the noise is that operating margins remain under pressure for the second year in a row, indicating ongoing stress in the sector,” Fitch said.

The agency said the ongoing operating margin struggles are attributable to salary and wage expense pressures, increasing pharmaceutical costs, and the shift from fee-for-service to value-based care.

Fitch finalized rating criteria changes for nonprofit hospitals revenue debt in January, which focus more on balance sheet strength compared to operating profitability. Even with declining operating margins, Fitch said its median rating for nonprofit hospitals remains ‘A.”

But “should operational pressures continue for an extended period of time, even strong balance sheets will begin to come under pressure,” said Fitch Senior Director Kevin Holloran.



450 hospitals at risk of potential closure, Morgan Stanley analysis finds


Related image

More than 15 percent of U.S. hospitals have weak financial metrics or are at risk of potential closure, according to Business Insider, which cited a recent report from Morgan Stanley.

Morgan Stanley analyzed data from more than 6,000 hospitals and found 600 of the hospitals were “weak” based on criteria for margins for earnings before interest and other items, occupancy and revenue, according to Bloomberg. The analysis revealed another 450 hospitals were at risk of potential closure, according to Business Insider

Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kansas, Tennessee and Pennsylvania had the highest concentration of hospitals in the “at risk” pool, according to the report.

Industry M&A may be no savior as the pace of hospital closures, particularly in hard-to-reach rural areas, seems poised to accelerate.

Hospitals have been closing at a rate of about 30 a year, according to the American Hospital Association, and patients living far from major cities may be left with even fewer hospital choices as insurers push them toward online providers like Teladoc Inc. and clinics such as CVS Health Corp’s MinuteClinic.

Morgan Stanley analysts led by Vikram Malhotra looked at data from roughly 6,000 U.S. private and public hospitals and concluded eight percent are at risk of closing; another 10 percent are considered “weak.” The firm defined weak hospitals based on criteria for margins for earnings before interest and other items, occupancy and revenue. The “at risk” group was defined by capital expenditures and efficiency, among others.

The next year to 18 months should see an increase in shut downs, Malhotra said in a phone interview.

The risks are coming following years of mergers and acquisitions. The most recent deal saw Apollo Global Management LLC swallowing rural hospital chain LifePoint Health Inc. for $5.6 billion last month. Apollo declined to comment on the deal; LifePoint has until Aug. 22 to solicit other offers. Consolidation among other health-care players, such as CVS’s planned takeover of insurer Aetna Inc., could also pressure hospitals as payers push patients toward outpatient services.

There are already a lot of hospitals with high negative margins, consultancy Veda Partners health care policy analyst Spencer Perlman said, and that’s going to become unsustainable. Rural hospitals with a smaller footprint may have less room to negotiate rates with managed care companies and are often hobbled by more older and poorer patients.

Also wearing away at margins are technological improvements that allow patients to get more surgeries and imaging done outside of the hospital. They are also likely to be forced to pay more to attract and retain doctors in key areas, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jason McGorman said.

They “are getting eaten alive from these market trends,” Perlman cautioned.

Future M&A options could be too late — buyers may hesitate as debt laden operators like Community Health Systems Inc. and Tenet Healthcare Corp. focus on selling underperforming sites to reduce leverage, Morgan Stanley’s Zachary Sopcak said.

The light at the end of the tunnel is some hospitals are rising to the occasion, Perlman said. Some acute care facilities are restructuring as outpatient emergency clinics with free-standing emergency departments. “Microhospitals,” or facilities with ten beds or less, are another trend that may hold promise.


Montefiore Health scores $1.2 billion financing deal that will add $600 million to flagship hospital’s balance sheet


Credit: Google Street View


The financing package is a hybrid of taxable and nontaxable bonds that will reimburse the system for more than $350 million in capital projects.

Montefiore Health System has landed a $1.2 billion financing deal with the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York that will add roughly $600 million of cash to Montefiore Medical Center’s coffers.

The bonds issued by DASNY were 30-year revenue bonds that were used to pay down $315 million in prior bonds insured by the Federal Housing Administration, including bonds backed by securities guaranteed by the Government National Mortgage Association. The new bonds issued also reimburse Montefiore for $357 million in past capital project spending on its facilities and take advantage of low interest rates in the market, the system said.

The system confirmed that the revenue bonds were secured by a pledge of gross receipts of Montefiore Medical Center and a mortgage on the Moses Division’s primary care facilities and its two parking garages. The new bonds were used to refinance existing bonds and loans as well as reimburse the health system for prior capital expenditures.

“The financing benefits the system by refinancing front-loaded debt to achieve a more level debt service structure and implements a flexible financing structure that can support future initiatives,” a spokesperson said.

According to a recent report from Moody’s Investors Service, the proceeds of the Series 2018 bonds will be used to refinance existing debt including FHA insured bonds, and will add about $600 million of cash to MMC’s balance sheet.

Moody’s assigned an initial Baa2 rating to Montefiore Obligated Group’s $1.2 billion in revenue bonds, which are a hybrid of both taxable and nontaxable bonds. Moody’s also gave a rating outlook of stable.

“Montefiore Obligated Group’s Baa2 rating reflects Moody’s belief that Montefiore Health System will maintain a leading market position in the Bronx, supported by its clinical excellence and its flagship position as the primary teaching hospital for the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (AECOM). Montefiore’s rating also reflects its experience with value based contracting, which will be aided by integration with its large base of faculty practice and primary care physicians,” Moody’s said.

“With this bond rating, Montefiore can continue our leadership in developing risk-based care and delivering care in the most appropriate settings at the right time. In the rating, Montefiore was noted for its clinical excellence, care, and its ability to attract internationally renowned physician scientists, complementing Albert Einstein College of Medicine’s long history of pioneering medical research,” Montefiore said in a statement.

Moody’s also cautioned that the system’s “keen commitment to its community and surrounding counties” could mean uncertainty, as some of MHS’s affiliated hospitals will experience losses despite state funding. The agency also said the med school’s financial issues will require cash support from Montefiore and unusually high levels of Medicaid and a “heavily unionized” workforce will also strain the system’s margins.

Montefiore is a major medical system in the New York metro area that includes three inpatient campuses with 1,558 licensed beds in the Bronx, as well as several other affiliated organizations in Westchester, Rockland and Orange Counties. Its hospitals include the 292-bed White Plains Hospital, 121-bed Montefiore Mount Vernon Hospital, 223-bed lMontefiore New Rochelle Hospital, 375-bed Nyack Hospital, 242-bed St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital, and 150-bed Burke Rehabilitation Hospital. Montefiore Medicine Academic Health System is the parent above MHS that controls its Albert Einstein College of Medicine.


Independent monitor to oversee New Jersey hospital’s finances after 4-notch downgrade by Fitch


Image result for university hospital of newark

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy issued an executive order directing the state’s health commissioner to appoint an independent monitor to oversee expenditures and the level of care provided at University Hospital in Newark, N.J.

The action comes after the public hospital’s bond rating was downgraded four notches by Fitch Ratings due to financial difficulties. The hospital also recently received a failing grade on quality of care from the Leapfrog Group and attempted to reduce its pediatric bed count without state approval, according to a press release from Mr. Murphy’s office.

“Given the scope of the problems found at University Hospital, these immediate actions are necessary to ensure the facility can continue providing the highest level of care to the community while it gets its fiscal house in order and improves its healthcare quality,’” said Mr. Murphy.

New Jersey Health Commissioner Shereef Elnahal, MD, appointed Judy Persichilli, BSN, RN, to serve as monitor. Ms. Persichilli is a veteran healthcare executive who most recently served as president of Livonia, Mich.-based CHE Trinity Health.


13 latest hospital credit rating downgrades


Image result for fitch ratings


The following nine hospital credit rating downgrades occurred in the last month. They are listed below in alphabetical order.

1. Boone Hospital Center (Columbia, Mo.) — from “A” to “A-” (Fitch)

2. Dignity Health (San Francisco) — from “A” to “A-” (Fitch)

3. El Paso (Texas) County Hospital District — from “AA-” to “A-” (Fitch)

4. Infirmary Health System (Mobile, Ala.) — from “A-” to “BBB+” (S&P)

5. King’s Daughters Medical Center (Ashland, Ky.) — from “A-” to “BBB-” (Fitch)

6. Lafayette (La.) General Health System — from “A-” to “BBB+” (Fitch)

7. Lahey Health System (Burlington, Mass.) — from “A” to “BBB+” (Fitch)

8. Lexington Medical Center (West Columbia, S.C.) — from “A+” to “BB+” (Fitch)

9. MedStar Health (Columbia, Md.) — from “A” to “A-” (Fitch)

10. Parkland Health and Hospital System (Dallas) — from “AA” to “AA-” (S&P)

11. Spartanburg (S.C.) Regional Health Services District — from “A” to “BBB” (Fitch)

12. St. John’s Riverside Hospital (Yonkers, N.Y.) — from “BB-” to “B-” (S&P)

13. University Hospital (Newark, N.J.) — from “BBB” to “BB-” (Fitch)

With the slew of downgrades from Fitch, it is important to note that the agency updated its credit rating criteria Jan. 9, 2018, for U.S. nonprofit hospitals and health systems. Under the updated criteria, the credit agency places a heightened emphasis on leverage and liquidity ratios and also considers operating leases and net pension liabilities debt equivalents.

Fitch reviewed 138 credit ratings, or about half of its portfolio of hospitals and health systems, due to the criteria changes. During the review, 25 hospitals (about 9 percent) were downgraded. Fitch does not believe the slew of downgrades is indicative of a wider, downward trend.