CHS sees net loss narrow to $110M, pursues $2B hospital divestiture plan

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/chs-sees-net-loss-narrow-to-110m-pursues-2b-hospital-divestiture-plan.html

Image result for CHS sees net loss narrow to $110M, pursues $2B hospital divestiture plan

Franklin, Tenn.-based Community Health Systems, which operates 119 hospitals, saw its net loss shrink in the second quarter of 2018 as the company continues to refine its hospital portfolio.

CHS said revenues dipped to $3.56 billion in the second quarter of 2018, down 14 percent from $4.14 billion in the same period of the year prior. The decline was largely attributable to CHS operating 24 fewer hospitals in the second quarter of 2018 than in the same period of 2017. On a same-hospital basis, revenues climbed 3.3 percent year over year.

After factoring in operating expenses and one-time charges, CHS ended the second quarter of 2018 with a net loss attributable to stockholders of $110 million. That’s compared to the second quarter of 2017, when the company recorded a net loss of $137 million.

“Our second quarter results reflect progress in our key areas of strategic focus, most notably improvements in same-store operating results, progress on divestitures and successful refinancings,” said CHS Chairman and CEO Wayne T. Smith in an earnings release.

As part of a turnaround plan put into place in 2016, CHS announced plans in 2017 to sell off 30 hospitals. The company completed the divestiture plan Nov. 1. To further reduce its debt, CHS intends to sell another group of hospitals with combined revenues of $2 billion. The company has already made progress toward that goal.

During 2018, CHS has completed seven hospital divestitures and entered into definitive agreements to sell five others. CHS said it continues to receive interest from potential buyers for certain hospitals.

“As we complete additional divestitures this year, we believe our portfolio will become stronger, and more of our resources can be directed to markets where we have the greatest opportunities to drive incremental growth,” Mr. Smith said.

CHS’ long-term debt totaled $13.67 billion as of June 30, a decrease from $13.88 billion as of the end of last year.

 

Can A Community Hospital Stick To Its Mission When It Goes For-Profit?

http://radio.wpsu.org/post/can-community-hospital-stick-its-mission-when-it-goes-profit

Proponents of hospital mergers say the change can help struggling nonprofit hospitals "thrive," with an infusion of cash to invest in updated technology and top clinical staff. But research shows the price of care, especially for low-income patients, usually rises when a hospital joins a for-profit corporation.

Mission Health, the largest hospital system in western North Carolina, provided $100 million in free charity care last year. This year, it has partnered with 17 civic organizations to deliver care for substance abuse by people who are low-income.

Based in bucolic Asheville, the six-hospital system also screens residents for food insecurity; provides free dental care to children in rural areas via the “ToothBus” mobile clinic; helps the homeless find permanent housing and encourages its 12,000 employees to volunteer at schools, churches and nonprofit groups.

Asheville residents say the hospital is an essential resource.

“Mission Health helped saved my life,” says Susan ReMine, a 68-year-old Asheville resident for 30 years who now lives in nearby Fletcher, N.C. She was in Mission Health’s main hospital in Asheville for three weeks last fall with kidney failure. And, from 2006 to 2008, a Mission Health-supported program called Project Access provided ReMine with free care after she lost her job because of illness.

After 130 years as a nonprofit with deep roots in the community, Mission Health announced in March that it was seeking to be bought by HCA Healthcare, the nation’s largest for-profit hospital chain. HCA owns 178 hospitals in 20 states and the United Kingdom.

The pending sale reflects a controversial national trend in the U.S. as hospitals consolidate at an accelerating pace and the cost of health care continues to rise.

“We understand the business reasons [for the deal], but our overwhelming concern is the price of health care,” says Ron Freeman, chief financial officer at Ingles Markets, a supermarket chain headquartered in Asheville with 200 stores in six states.

“Will HCA after a few years start to press the hospital to make more profit by raising prices? We don’t know,” Freeman says.

And the local newspaper, the Citizen Timeseditorialized in March: “How does it help to join a corporation where nearly $3 billion that could have gone to health care instead was recorded as profit? … We would feel better were Western North Carolina’s leading health-care provider to remain master of its own fate.”

Across the U.S., the acquisition of nonprofit hospitals by corporations is raising concern among some advocates for patients and communities.

“The main motivation of for-profit companies is to grow so they can cut costs, get paid more and maximize profits,” says Suzanne Delbanco, executive director of the Catalyst for Payment Reform, an employer-led health care think tank and advocacy group. “They are not as focused on improving access to care or the community’s overall health.”

Merger mania across the U.S.

From 2013 to 2017, nearly 1 in 5 of the nation’s 5,500-plus hospitals were acquired or merged with another hospital, according to Irving Levin Associates, a health care analytics firm in Norwalk, Conn. Industry analysts say for-profit hospital companies are poised to grow more rapidly as they buy up both for-profits and nonprofits — potentially altering the character and role of public health-oriented nonprofits.

Nonprofit hospitals are exempt from state and local taxes. In return, they must provide community services and care to poor and uninsured patients — a commitment that is honored to varying degrees nationwide.

Of the nation’s 4,840 general hospitals that aren’t run by the federal government, 2,849 are nonprofit, 1,035 are for-profit and 956 are owned by state or local governments, according to the American Hospital Association.

In 2017, 29 for-profit companies bought 18 for-profit hospitals and 11 not-for-profits, according to an analysis for Kaiser Health News by Irving Levin Associates.

Sales can go the other way, too: 53 nonprofit hospital companies bought 18 for-profits as well as 35 nonprofits in 2017.

A recent report by Moody’s Investors Service predicted stable growth for for-profit hospital companies, saying they are well-positioned to demand higher rates from insurers and have less exposure to the lower rates paid by government insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. In contrast, a second Moody’s report downgraded — from stable to negative — its 2018 forecast for the not-for-profit hospital sector.

‘We wanted to thrive, and not just survive’

Ron Paulus, Mission Health’s president and CEO, says he and the hospital’s 19-member board concluded last year that the future of Mission Health was iffy at best without a merger.

HCA declined to make anyone available for an interview but provided this written statement: “We are excited about the prospect of a transaction that would allow us to support the caliber of care they [Mission Health hospitals] have been providing.”

Driving Mission Health’s decision, Paulus says, were strained finances and the board’s strong feeling that the hospital needed to invest in new technology, modern data management tools and top clinical talent.

“We wanted to thrive and not just survive,” he says. “I had a healthy dose of skepticism about HCA at first. But I think we made the right decision.”

During the past four years, Paulus says, the company has had to cut costs — from between $50 million and $80 million a year — to preserve an “acceptable operating margin.” The forecast for 2019 and 2020, he says, saw the gap between revenue and expenses rising to $150 million a year.

Miriam Schwarz, executive director of the Western Carolina Medical Society, says many physicians in the area were surprised by the move and “are trying to grapple with the shift.”

“There’s concern about the community benefits, but also job loss,” Schwarz says. Still, she adds, the doctors in her region “do recognize that the hospital must become more financially secure.”

Weighed against community concerns is the prospect of a large nonprofit foundation created by the deal. Depending on the final price, the foundation could have close to $2 billion in assets.

Creation of such foundations is common when for-profit companies buy nonprofit hospitals or insurance companies. Paulus says the foundation created from Mission Health could generate $50 million or more a year to — among other initiatives — “test new care models such as home-based care … and address the causes of poor health in the community in the first place.”

In addition, HCA will have to pay upward of $10 million in state and local taxes.

Mixed results

Industry analysts say the hospital merger and consolidation trend nationwide is inevitable given the powerful forces afoot in health care.

That includes pressure to lower prices and costs and improve quality, safety and efficiency; to modernize information technology systems and equipment; and to do more to improve overall health.

But academics and consumer advocates say hospital consolidation yields mixed results. While mergers — especially purchases by for-profit companies — provide much-needed capital and financial stability, competition is stifled, and that’s often led to higher prices.

Martin Gaynor, a professor of economics and health policy at Carnegie Mellon University, and colleagues examined 366 hospital mergers from 2007 to 2011 and found that prices were, on average, 12 percent higher in areas where one hospital dominated the market versus areas with at least four rivals. Another recent study found that 90 percent of U.S. cities today have a “highly concentrated” hospital market. Asheville is one, and Mission Health is dominant there.

“The evidence is overwhelming at this point,” Gaynor says. “Mergers solve some problems for hospitals, but they don’t make health care less expensive or better. In fact, prices usually go up.”

Mission Health CEO Paulus says he believes HCA is committed to restraining price increases and the growth in costs.

If no obstacles arise, Paulus says, HCA’s purchase of Mission Health would be formalized in August and finalized in November or December, pending state regulatory approval.

 

 

 

Rising Uninsured Rate Expected to Stress Margins of Nonprofit Providers

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/rising-uninsured-rate-expected-stress-margins-nonprofit-providersImage result for Uninsured

More than 4 million people have lost coverage in the past two years, including many lower-income adults. That could prove problematic for safety net hospitals in the near future.

The ongoing efforts to destabilize the Affordable Care Act will adversely affect the operating margins of not-for-profit healthcare providers, according to a new analysis from S&P Global.

S&P analyst Allison Bretz said that over time, “a growing uninsured population could be a credit negative for not-for-profit hospitals and health systems, as these facilities would likely see an uptick in self-pay patients, charity care and bad debt.”

Two years into the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back the ACA, the uninsured population has risen from about 12.7% in 2016 to 15.5% in 2018.

A study by The Commonwealth Fund estimates that 4 million people have lost health insurance since 2016, and that the uninsured rate among lower-income adults rose from 21% in 2016 to 25.7% this spring.


“This will be most acute at safety-net providers and other providers with a high concentration of Medicaid patients, as that population is most vulnerable to many of these changes,” Bretz said in remarks accompanying the report.

Beth Feldpush, senior vice president of policy and advocacy for America’s Essential Hospitals, said the report “underscores concerns we’ve had since last year’s attempts to repeal the ACA and, now, with piecemeal changes that have weakened the law.”

“Many of the people who lose coverage seek care at our hospitals, which adds to uncompensated costs and puts more pressure on our members’ already low operating margins,” Feldpush said. “Because essential hospitals, by their mission, turn no one away, this could prove financially unsustainable for some.

Although active efforts to repeal the ACA in Congress have slowed in the past year, it is facing one of its greatest threats, as a federal judge in Texas hears a lawsuit brought by 20 states that challenges the constitutionality of the sweeping healthcare law.

For-profit, Payer Outlook Stable

While the rising uninsured rate could prove challenging for not-for-profit providers, S&P analyst David Peknay said it should have little effect on for-profit providers.

“The for-profit companies we rate have been reporting some increase in uninsured patients, consistent with national trends, but the impact on ratings is also currently immaterial,” he said.

The losses in covered lives for health insurance companies is offset by other factors, said S&P analyst Joseph Marinucci.

“A key contributing factor is the sustained migration of the government-sponsored insurance segments toward coordinated care (Medicare Advantage and managed Medicaid), which is expanding the market opportunity for health insurers,” Marinucci said.

“We expect ratings in the insurance sector to remain relatively stable in the near term despite the growth in the number of working-age uninsured individuals,” he said.

 

 

 

 

 

What does “profit” mean for U.S. hospitals?

http://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1193?journalCode=hlthaff

Image result for hospital profitability

The issue: More than half of U.S. hospitals lose money, at least on patient care. But some hospitals are very profitable, with the top 10 earning more than $163 million, the authors report. Crunching the data points to some important factors in whether hospitals make or lose money, including whether they are part of a large hospital group, enjoy market or regional dominance, and have a higher proportion of patients covered by private insurance.

The takeaway: A hospital’s status as a nonprofit or for-profit has virtually no significance when it come to the question of making money—but other factors, like local market power, make a big difference.

To identify the characteristics of the most profitable US hospitals, we examined the profitability of acute care hospitals in fiscal year 2013, measured as net income from patient care services per adjusted discharge. Based on Medicare Cost Reports and Final Rule Data, the median hospital lost $82 for each such discharge. Forty-five percent of hospitals were profitable, with 2.5 percent earning more than $2,475 per adjusted discharge. The ten most profitable hospitals, seven of which were nonprofit, each earned more than $163 million in total profits from patient care services. Hospitals with for-profit status, higher markups, system affiliation, or regional power, as well as those located in states with price regulation, tended to be more profitable than other hospitals. Hospitals that treated a higher proportion of Medicare patients, had higher expenditures per adjusted discharge, were located in counties with a high proportion of uninsured patients, or were located in states with a dominant insurer or greater health maintenance organization (HMO) penetration had lower profitability than hospitals that did not have these characteristics. These findings can inform policy reforms, while providing a baseline against which to measure the impact of any subsequent reforms.

A nation of McHospitals?

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/11/08/hospital-chains-dominate-health-care-000574

Franchises-Lede-ByNeilWebb.jpg

For years, the nation’s hospital chains worked to get bigger, bigger, bigger. In the 1980s and 1990s, for-profit companies like HCA and Tenet emerged as juggernauts, snapping up local hospitals and opening clinics in one town after another. Their ambitious not-for-profit cousins, the big academic medical centers like Harvard-affiliated Partners Healthcare, scooped up smaller rivals in response. Just four years ago, the Tennessee-based Community Health Systems spent $7.6 billion to buy a competitor and become the nation’s largest for-profit hospital company, with more than 200 hospitals in 29 states.

Today, in any town or city, in any region of the country, you’ll almost certainly see the same scenario: Only a handful of hospitals, sometimes owned and operated by a company thousands of miles away.

As the pace and scale of consolidation picked up, the outcome long appeared inevitable: an American future in which a handful of hospital chains dominate American health care, with brands like Tenet and Catholic Health Initiatives and the Mayo Clinic competing for patients the way Panera and Chipotle and the Olive Garden compete for diners.

But something happened on the way to becoming a nation of McHospitals. That ambitious growth, driven by dreams of dominating a transformed health care landscape and recently fueled by Obamacare revenues, hit a wall.

In the past year, two of the nation’s three largest for-profit hospital systems, Tenet and Community Health Systems, began selling off dozens of their hospitals while entertaining bids to break up their entire companies. Prominent not-for-profit chains like Partners Healthcare are reporting nine-digit losses. Even Mayo Clinic is pulling back from some rural locations in the Midwest.

In part, the shift is just a typical business cycle working its way through the health care industry. “There are these testosterone-driven waves of deal making” in health care, said Jeff Goldsmith, a hospital consultant. “And then there are waves of post-coital regret that follow.”

But in part, the change is driven by policy decisions being made in Washington — how health care is paid for, and who has access to it. And as that shift unfolds, it’s raising questions that will shape American health care for a generation: What will the future of hospital ownership look like? What should it look like?

Even at the height of merger mania, no one could quite agree on whether the McHospital trend was a good thing or not. Some people — mostly in the hospital industry — argued that consolidation was long overdue, and that large companies’ deeper pockets and economies of scale would keep costs down and improve the quality of care for patients. Obamacare gave hospitals financial incentives to manage entire populations, rather than just get paid patient-by-patient — an effort that required building big data sets and buying up other services too, like physician practices.

But others were concerned about the growing concentration of ownership of the nation’s hospitals by a shrinking number of companies. It put local hospitals’ decades-long relationship with their communities at risk, as important local institutions started reporting to shareholders or distant nonprofit boards. These worriers foresaw a future in which just a handful of chains competed to carve out the most lucrative segments of health care, like cardiac procedures and orthopedic surgery, and offered substandard care for everyone else. And despite the chains’ promises, years of reports have shown that when hospitals combine, their prices tend to go up.

Providers’ growing market power has “been the leading reason for the [rise] in health care spending” for decades, Bob Berenson, a former Carter and Clinton administration official said in 2015. (“And in conventional political circles,” he added, “it’s still being overlooked.”)

But the changes underway are starting to transform the nature of the hospital itself — and could open the door to a landscape even more different than we imagine.

Radical shifts

The direction of the American hospital has shifted radically over time. Initially, hospitals were charity wards where the poor went to die. But as cities grew, and health care became more expensive and capital-intensive, hospitals became destinations for wealthier patients: Top hospitals were the ones that could afford the latest medical technologies and perform the most complex surgeries. The creation of Medicare in 1967 fueled new revenue and attracted more competitors, leading to the birth of major chains.

Today, about two-thirds of the nation’s 5,000 hospitals are parts of chains, up from about half of hospitals just 15 years ago, and the share of for-profit hospitals has steadily climbed — more than one in five hospitals are now owned by investors, rather than run as a not-for-profit or by the government. Established hospitals are grappling with how to balance institutional advantages like high-end facilities and expensive technologies with the need to stay nimble and adapt to health care’s changes. It’s a hard balance to strike, and after a few boom years, the industry is experiencing its worst financial performance since the great recession.

It’s always been expensive to own and operate a hospital. Preparing for possible emergencies requires round-the-clock staffing and immense sunk costs. Most major hospitals also try to offer dozens of different business lines, from cardiac surgery to behavioral health care — but that’s only gotten harder as niche competitors chip away at the most lucrative high-end services. It also got pricier thanks to the latest merger mania, as hospital chains collectively took on billions of dollars in debt to buy up their competitors and acquire other services, like physician offices.

An industry that had already consolidated in the 1980s and 1990s — seeking new efficiencies and to get bigger when negotiating with insurance companies — received new incentives under Obamacare, as millions of newly insured patients entered the market and hospital chains raced to capture the new customers. But the Affordable Care Act also accelerated changes to health care payments in ways that made hospitals seem a little outmoded.

Medicare, other federal programs and insurance companies are increasingly shifting away from fee-for-service reimbursement — in which doctors and hospitals are rewarded for the number of procedures they perform — toward “alternative payment models” with more incentives for follow-up care and improved long-term outcomes. That’s encouraged hospitals to make new investments, like buying up nursing homes and hiring more workers to deliver home-based and long-term care. Some hospital leaders are actively talking about trying not to fill their beds, which would’ve sounded like heresy in the industry just a decade ago.

Charlie Martin, a legendary health care investor who founded two hospital companies, said the old model is doomed as new technologies allow care to be delivered outside of the hospital — leaving behind large, costly facilities that are better suited to 1990 than 2020.

“Half the business that’s in there is going to go away,” Martin said. “This is going to be a beatdown like we’ve never seen before.”

Martin said he’s now investing in services like post-acute care and home health, which are more agile and positioned to take advantage of the changes in payment. In this emerging world, a low-cost aide who can keep an elderly patient out of the hospital may end up being more profitable for Martin than paying a team of doctors when that patient breaks a hip and needs days of hospital care.

“The hospitals of today are too expensive to be health care facilities” in the long run, Martin said. “I can’t carry the carcass around.” (He added that consolidation’s benefits are overrated. “There are other ways to get scale now, like purchasing groups” that allow hospitals to get bulk discounts despite not having a common owner, Martin argued. “A lot of the advantages that came through the multihospital systems are now available for anybody.”)

Too big to fail?

So, are big hospitals — and big hospital chains — destined to go the way of Sears, an institution decimated by smaller and nimbler competitors? Not necessarily. There’s still a viable path — and often a need — for big hospitals themselves, typically the largest employers in their cities and towns. While fee-for-service payment is slowly getting phased down, it isn’t going away overnight, if ever. A decade after policymakers began pushing hospitals to adopt alternative payment models, those models still represent less than 30 percent of payments to the average health care provider. Fee-for-service remains the most common way of getting paid.

And local hospitals have an advantage that many businesses don’t: They’re often so important to their towns and cities that lawmakers and other local leaders don’t want to let them fail, even if their margins suffer. And in markets where there isn’t much competition, hospitals continue to charge huge rates that have very little connection to quality of care. Yale researcher Zack Cooper and colleagues have found that hospitals with effective monopolies have prices more than 15 percent higher than hospitals in markets with four or more competitors.

What that all means: The hospitals that Martin and others see as lumbering dinosaurs don’t all need to evolve to virtual campuses just yet. No one’s forcing them to. The old model of going to a hospital for surgery and other intensive services will persist for years or decades, barring major technological leaps ahead, and it may stay lucrative for the most prominent, dominant facilities. There’s no easy, obvious disruptor that wants to start building hospitals and compete for these services, at least for these now.

So then the question is: Who’s going to own them? Many experts think the near future, at least, will belong to regional health systems. They’re able to take advantage of local monopolies that allow them to raise prices, while not being burdened by the debt and expenses that can go along with aggressive acquisitions of national chains. And from North Carolina to California, many of these local chains continue to thrive and edge out national competitors with better financial performance. Indiana University Health System last month announced it’s expanding into Fort Wayne, the state’s second-largest city, even as Community Health Systems – a national chain that operates a hospital network in the city – has seen local profits fall and anger rise, as doctors and employers claim the chain has neglected its facilities and should sell hospitals that have become dirty and dingy. (Community’s president told doctors in 2016 that the chain would pull out of Fort Wayne, Bloomberg reported, although the company rejected a subsequent buyout offer and now says it’s committed to staying.)

What’s good for these regional chains may not be good for patients or the insurance system that pays for their care, though, as lower levels of competition mean higher prices. Martin Gaynor, an economist at Carnegie Mellon and former FTC official who studies consolidation, points to UPMC’s decision this month to spend $2 billion to build three new specialty hospitals in the Pittsburgh area, further cementing its control of the local market — even if experts question whether large, specialty facilities are needed at all. “Don’t forget that residents of Western Pennsylvania are the ones who will mostly pay for this,” Gaynor tweeted after the announcement.

“There’s a near-stranglehold on these markets by dominant health systems,” said Gaynor, noting that many regions get carved up between two or three major chains. “Some means need to be developed to free that up.”

It’s not clear how that would happen or who wants to do it. The Trump administration has gestured toward unlocking those markets, with a few lines in a recent executive orderpromising to limit “excessive consolidation.” The Federal Trade Commission under the Obama administration also jumped in to aggressively block hospital mergers, too. But taking on the hospital industry has been viewed as a political nonstarter for years. And hospitals don’t have much reason to loosen their own monopolies, at least in the short run.

There’s an intriguing possibility that some consultants are wrestling with: What if a company like Walmart or Apple decides to go for the health care market — and really go for it, as executives from each company have hinted in the past — and set up outpatient centers in their stores around the country. Hospitals would suddenly face new pressures from a well-capitalized competitor that already gets a lot of foot traffic, like Walmart, or has been ruthlessly committed to growth, like Apple. Patients frustrated with the traditional medical system might start opting for these retail alternatives, disrupting the entire chain of how Americans get care.

A dramatic move like that would shake up how health care is delivered. It would also flip the paradigm. Rather than hospitals desperately trying to expand and establish themselves as a national brand, an existing national brand — not a health care brand, but a big consumer brand — could suddenly have a health care presence in many major markets.

But a move like that remains some distance off. Walmart’s effort to quickly scale up small retail health clinics has stalled. Apple has publicly flirted with investing in a health care facility for so long, it raises the question of why the company hasn’t.

And that points to the most likely outcome for hospitals in the next 30 years. Boring as it may be, many of them aren’t going anywhere. No one else is competing for the expensive, high-end services that only hospitals can offer. They’re still too big to fail — just so long as they don’t get any bigger.

 

CHS to sell additional hospitals worth $2B in revenue

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/chs-to-sell-additional-hospitals-worth-2b-in-revenue.html

Image result for hospital divestiture

 

Franklin, Tenn.-based Community Health Systems completed its 30-hospital divestiture plan Nov. 1. Now, the company expects to sell another group of its hospitals with combined revenue of $2 billion, Chairman and CEO Wayne Smith said during a third quarter earnings call.

To improve its finances and reduce its heavy debt load, CHS put a turnaround plan into place last year. As part of the initiative, the company announced in early 2017 that it intended to sell off 30 hospitals. In August, CHS extended its divestiture plan. The company said it would sell a group of hospitals with combined revenue of $1.5 billion in addition to the 30 hospitals already announced.

With the sales last week of Highlands Regional Medical Center in Sebring, Fla., and Merit Health Northwest Mississippi in Clarksdale, Mr. Smith said the 30 hospital divestitures are complete, and the company is once again expanding its divestiture plan.

“We are now pursuing sale transaction of hospitals accounting for at least $2 billion of net revenue, which has increased from $1.5 billion last quarter,” Mr. Smith said.

Mr. Smith said the company has signed several letters of intent for the hospitals in the next group of divestitures, accounting for more than $1.2 billion in net revenue.

“Our goal is to emerge from this process with a sustainable group of hospitals that are positioned for long-term success and growth,” he said.

With the help of proceeds from the hospital sales, CHS brought down its long-term debt load to $13.9 billion in the third quarter of this year, from $14.8 billion in the same period of 2016.

The company ended the most recent quarter with a net loss of $110 million on revenues of $3.67 billion. That’s compared to the third quarter of 2016, when the company posted a net loss of $79 million on revenues of $4.38 billion.

Moody’s: Shareholder pressure may lead Tenet to make drastic changes

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/moody-s-shareholder-pressure-may-lead-tenet-to-make-drastic-changes.html

Image result for tenet healthcare

Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare has sufficient liquidity and plenty of flexibility from a debt covenant perspective to give the company time to improve its operations or change its strategic direction before it needs to undertake material refinancing, according to a Moody’s Investors Service report.

While Tenet’s leverage is high, its next maturity is $500 million in March 2019. “We believe Tenet can repay this with a combination of cash, which will be increasing due to proceeds from anticipated asset sales, and use of its $1 billion revolving credit facility,” said Moody’s.

The company has no amortizing debt requiring periodic payments, and its bond indentures include no financial maintenance covenants or debt incurrence covenants, according to Moody’s.

Moody’s also noted Tenet’s earnings have longer-term growth potential. Although Tenet’s facilities are generally located in highly competitive urban areas, these areas have growing populations. Across all service areas, Moody’s views Tenet’s ambulatory surgery center business as having higher growth prospects than its acute care hospitals.

Despite financial flexibility, Tenet is facing increasing shareholder pressure, which Moody’s said may lead the company to take more drastic measures, such as larger asset sales or even the sale of the entire company.