The Secret of Success for Independent and Thriving Hospitals?

https://www.definitivehc.com/hospital-data/the-secret-of-success-for-independent-and-thriving-hospitals?source=newsltr-blog&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=06-20-17

Image result for rural hospitals

Consolidation remains a major trend in the healthcare industry, especially among hospitals. In 2016, there were 102 announced partnership and transaction deals, compared to 66 in 2010, according to a Kaufman, Hall & Associates analysis. In the current climate of declining reimbursements and greater emphasis on value-based care, many hospital executives see mergers as a necessary way of reigning in costs and benefiting from economies of scale. Yet, a significant number of acute care hospitals remain independent and even thrive. A recent article highlighted Marin General Hospital, which separated from Sutter in 2008 but has performed well enough on its own to fund construction of a new $400 million replacement hospital. What do high-performing independent hospitals have in common? An analysis of Definitive Healthcare data suggests independent hospitals with consistently strong operating margins have limited competition from other facilities, high discharge volumes, and a greater proportion of private payers.

Under the analysis, a high-performing hospital was classified as a facility with a median operating margin of at least four percent during a five-year period from 2011 to 2015, as four percent is often cited as the traditional minimum necessary for a hospital to be able to raise capital effectively. 143 out of around 1,450 independent hospitals met this condition, according to Definitive Healthcare data. Of them, 67 were non-profit, 56 were proprietary (for-profit) companies, and 30 were government owned.

A favorable payor mix and higher-than-average discharge volume appear to be the most common characteristics among the selected hospitals. The median payor mix for independent hospitals was 38 percent private/other, 6 percent Medicaid, and 51 percent Medicare, compared to 50 percent private, 6 percent Medicaid, and 41 percent Medicare at hospitals with median margins over four percent. The greater percentage of private payors means higher reimbursement rates per procedure and can reflect the presence of a more affluent patient base. The larger volume of discharges compared to the overall median, 1,662 to 792, also helps explain their higher margins. Despite the trend towards outpatient treatment, inpatient care is still necessary and tends to be more profitable for hospitals. Some facilities actually witnessed discharge increases from 2011 to 2015, possibly indicating a growing area population, but they were the minority and the trend did not always coincide with a stable operating margin.

Geography also appears to be an important factor. Isolated hospitals with limited competition have a natural advantage, being the only source of inpatient care within the immediate area. Some independent critical access hospitals, which by definition are geographically isolated, do have strong margins, but so do many regular acute care hospitals. Of the top 10 non-critical access facilities by median operating margin, eight are located at least 15 miles from the next-closest hospital, making them the primary destinations in terms of convenience and emergency care for local residents.

The company status of independent hospitals is also associated with high profitability. While proprietary hospitals constituted only around 10 percent of all independent hospitals, they were 37 percent of all those with median margins over four percent. In addition, they tended to have the highest margins overall. Of the top 30 hospitals by median margin, only three identified as non-profits or government-owned hospitals. Nearly all were specialty hospitals, which are generally more profitable than acute-care hospitals as they usually have more favorable payor mixes and focus on a single high-margin specialty, such as surgery or orthopedics. Non-profits came next, while government-owned facilities were the least likely to have strong margins. Of course, the margin of a government-owned hospital is less significant due to its ability to leverage tax revenues to support operations.

While financially strong independent hospitals appear to benefit largely from circumstances beyond their control, such as patient income, insignificant competition, and fundamental organizational structure, they are not a guarantee of success. Previous research, such as that here, has identified other characteristics that are equally if not more critical to an independent hospitals’ fortunes. Among them are strong business and clinical planning, high levels of cooperation with both local providers and national institutions (such as those covering specialty consults and clinical trials access), and capable leadership. Obviously, such qualities are easier described than achieved, but if attained, could be enough to create a strong, thriving hospital even in spite of unfavorable geography, payor mixes, or organization type.

Despite A Growing Appetite, Buffet-Style Flat-Fee Clinics Shutter In Seattle

http://khn.org/news/despite-a-growing-appetite-buffet-style-flat-fee-clinics-shutter-in-seattle/?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53324518&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9WGq5KJnKg9Yj-_X9TKSyfzgZJEAJxEAS8-dm9gJC-B1iLTYB_GLl2ZfN2wigraRXz7fdxS0K__eUeIkIHKvnhmMuD0g&_hsmi=53324518

In recent years, a small but growing number of practices embraced a buffet approach to primary care, offering patients unlimited services for a modest flat fee instead of billing them a la carte for every office visit and test. But after a pioneering practice shut its doors earlier this month, some question whether “direct primary care,” as it’s called, can succeed.

Many doctors and patients say they like the arrangement. Direct primary care practices typically don’t accept insurance, which frees physicians from treatment preapprovals and claims paperwork. They say that allows them more time and energy for their patients. Patients can consult with their doctor or a nurse practitioner as often they need to, typically for around $100 a month. (Some employers buy the service for their workers.) Patients need to carry a regular insurance plan for hospitalization, specialists and other services. In the long run, the result should be better patient health and lower health care costs overall.

But some health care experts are concerned that the set-up encourages the “worried well” to get more care than they need. They describe unlimited primary care as a blunt instrument that doesn’t necessarily improve the odds that patients will get evidence-based services that improve their health. Others argue it’s important to find a way to provide cost-effective primary care within the health insurance context, not outside it.

Although only a sliver of practices do direct primary care, the number is on the rise, said Shawn Martin, a senior vice president at the American Academy of Family Physicians. He puts the figure at about 3 percent.

Seattle-based Qliance, founded in 2007, was an early leader in this type of care. With startup funding from high-profile investors Jeff Bezos and Michael Dell, by 2015 the company was serving 35,000 patients at several clinics in the Seattle area, including individuals, workers at companies like Expedia and Comcast and Medicaid patients through a contract with the state’s Medicaid insurer. The company said medical claims for Qliance patients were 20 percent lower than those of other patients because Qliance members went to the emergency room less often, were hospitalized less frequently and saw fewer specialists, among other things.

By early 2017, though, Qliance was faltering. The company had lost some large employer clients, and its patient base had shrunk to 13,000. On June 15, it closed five of its clinics. Dr. Erika Bliss, the company’s CEO, said that in general the market is reluctant to pay what it takes for primary care to flourish, and in some cases payers were resistant to rewarding the company, even when Qliance exceeded targets on quality and savings. She will continue to operate one site that provides occupational health for Seattle firefighters.

“The bottom line is it’s not for free,” she said. “You can’t do this for $25 [per person] per month. If we start doing it for $50 to $100 per month then we can start doing serious primary care.”

The closure took January Gens by surprise. A Qliance patient for a couple of years, Gens, 45, had worked with her primary care doctor there to manage crippling pain from endometriosis. The $79 monthly fee was worth every penny, she thought. She had been able to reduce the dosage of some of her medications and was awaiting a referral to start physical therapy when she learned that Qliance was shutting down. Now she’s not sure what she’ll do.

“I had felt very lucky to have found Qliance, to know I had a doctor and could always be seen when needed without causing more damage to the family budget,” Gens said. “Now it’s just gone.”

But for people who are generally healthy and without symptoms that need to be diagnosed, “unlimited primary care is no guarantee that the services that are provided will improve the health of those people,” he said.Patients who have chronic conditions that need ongoing management may benefit from direct primary care, said Dr. A. Mark Fendrick, an internist who directs the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design.

As an example, Fendrick noted that the annual checkup, one of the most popular primary care services, isn’t clinically helpful for most people, according to the Choosing Wisely initiative, a program of the ABIM Foundation that identifies overused and unnecessary medical services.

An examination of research related to direct primary care practices found that they charged patients an average $77.38 per month. “Concierge” medical practices are similar to direct primary care, but their monthly fees are typically higher — averaging $182.76 — and they generally bill insurers for their services, the study found. However, the study, published in the November-December 2015 issue of the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, concluded that there was a paucity of data related to the quality of care provided by these practices.

Some analysts say that while they’re sympathetic to doctors’ frustration with large numbers of patients, insurance companies’ intrusion into patient care and billing hassles, the answer isn’t to turn their backs on insurance.

“I think absolutely this type of care could be done inside insurance, but it means we have to learn how to pay within the system for the things that doctors should be doing and are doing in direct primary care,” said Robert Berenson, a fellow at the Urban Institute.

As things stand now, the direct-care model can create difficulties for some patients. Take the situation where someone goes to his direct primary care provider for an earache, but antibiotics don’t work and he needs to be referred to an ear, nose and throat specialist. That patient, who likely has a high-deductible plan to provide non-primary care services, will probably be on the hook financially for the entire cost of care provided by the specialist rather than insurance paying a share.

Qliance’s Bliss scoffs at the idea that patients may get stuck paying more out-of-pocket if they have direct primary care. Most people these days have high-deductible health plans, she said. “The reality is that unless you have Medicaid, you are on the hook no matter what.”

Offering unlimited primary care inside the insurance system is no guarantee of success in any case. One such experiment, a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare called Harken Health with clinics in the Chicago and Atlanta areas, announced it will shut down at the end of the year.

The company confirmed that it would phase out membership at the end of the year but didn’t respond to a request for further comment.

The New War On Sepsis

The New War On Sepsis

Dawn Nagel, a nurse at St. Joseph Hospital in Orange, Calif., knew she was going to have a busy day, with more than a dozen patients showing signs of sepsis. They included a 61-year-old mechanic with diabetes. An elderly man recovering from pneumonia. A new mom whose white blood cell count had shot up after she gave birth.

Nagel is among a new breed of nurses devoted to caring for patients with sepsis, a life-threatening condition that occurs when the body’s attempt to fight an infection causes widespread inflammation. She has a clear mission: identify and treat those patients quickly to minimize their chance of death. Nagel administers antibiotics, draws blood for testing, gives fluids and closely monitors her charges — all on a very tight timetable.

“We are the last line of defense,” Nagel said. “We’re here to save lives. If we are not closely monitoring them, they might get sicker and go into organ failure before you know it.”

Sepsis is the leading cause of death in U.S. hospitals, according to Sepsis Alliance, a nationwide advocacy group based in San Diego. More than 1 million people get severe sepsis each year in the U.S, and up to 50 percent of them die from it. It is also one of the most expensive conditions for hospitals to treat, costing $24 billion annually.

Most hospitals in the U.S. have programs aimed at reducing sepsis, but few have designated sepsis nurses and coordinators like St. Joseph’s. That needs to change, said Tom Ahrens, who sits on the advisory board of Sepsis Alliance.

“From a clinical point of view, from a cost point of view, they make a huge impact,” said Ahrens, a research scientist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis.

Trump Budget, Revised AHCA, Credit Negatives for NFP Hospitals

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/trump-budget-revised-ahca-credit-negatives-nfp-hospitals?spMailingID=11188911&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NjY1MzYzS0&spJobID=1180412845&spReportId=MTE4MDQxMjg0NQS2#

Image result for hospital credit ratings

The one-two punch of massive cuts to Medicaid that are proposed in both the new budget and the House Republicans’ revised American Healthcare Act would result in cuts of close to $1 trillion over 10 years, analysis shows.

Cutting Medicaid by more than $860 million over the next decade would be a credit negative for states and not-for-profit hospitals, both of which would be left scrambling for alternative funding to cover the loss, according to a new report from Moody’s Investors Service.

Last week the Trump administration unveiled a budget proposal that includes $610 billion in cuts to core Medicaid services, and an additional $250 million in reductions to Medicaid expansion programs created under the Affordable Care Act.

The following day, the Congressional Budget Office released its scoring of the revised American Health Care Act – the Republican plan to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and estimated that it would reduce Medicaid spending by $834 million through 2026.

“The proposals significantly change the longstanding Medicaid financing system and are credit negative for states and not-for-profit hospitals,” Moody’s said in an issues brief.

For states that don’t have the luxury of ignoring budget imbalances, the changes would increase pressure to either kick people off Medicaid, increase the state share of Medicaid funding, or cut payments to hospitals and other providers, Moody’s says.

Hospitals, particularly those serving a high mix of Medicaid patients, could expect to see reimbursement cuts and more cases of uncompensated care as Medicaid patients lose the coverage they’d gained under the ACA’s expansion.

Medicaid is already a significant budget burden for states, consuming between 7% to 34% of state revenue and averaging 16%.

Under the ACA, bad debt expense at not-for-profit hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid eligibility declined on average by 15% to 20% since 2014, enhancing these hospitals’ cash flow. Similarly, the gains in insurance coverage lowered the nationwide uninsured rate to approximately 11%, with uninsured rates even lower in states that expanded their Medicaid rolls, Moody’s says.

“Although the budget would give states limited new flexibility to adjust their Medicaid programs, the measure overall reflects a significant cost shift away from federal funding to states,” Moody’s says. “This cost shift is significant and would force states to make difficult decisions about safety-net spending for hospitals that serve large numbers of indigent patients.”

NYC Health + Hospitals cuts 476 positions amid financial pressure

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/nyc-health-hospitals-cuts-476-positions-amid-financial-pressure/444136/

Dive Brief:

  • NYC Health + Hospitals on Friday cut 476 management positions, which will reduce the current six layers of managers to four and is expected to save the health system $60 million, several news outlets reported.
  • The largest U.S. public health system cut 396 managers and eliminated 80 unfilled positions.
  • The system expects the job cuts to lead to $60 million in savings in fiscal year 2018.

Dive Insight:

The announcement of the health system’s massive restructuring day came after a $673 million loss was posted for Q3 2017. H+H interim President and CEO Stanley Brezenoff said in a statement the restructuring will reduce “unnecessary layers of management.” The health system will now be able to “better direct resources where we need them most —  at the front line of patient care.” It also cut 70 employees in February.

Revenue increased by 1.8% to $6.7 billion during the third quarter. Yet system officials said net patient service revenues dropped by 9%. The reasons behind the drop were “lower payments from the disproportionate share hospital (DSH) and upper payment limit programs,” according to the healthcare system of 11 hospitals.

At that time, H+H predicted that it would cut its $779 million budget gap this year and end with $185 million cash in hand. In April, the health system announced a redesign of its management structure after losing $776 million for the first half of FY 17, but said at that time that they did not expect layoffs.

Hospitals are facing financial issues across the country. Safety net hospitals like H+H may soon face even more difficulties. H+H has a large Medicaid population and potential cuts in President Donald Trump’s budget and the American Health Care Act – the GOP’s proposed bill to replace the Affordable Care Act – could send millions off of Medicaid. This would mean a system like H+H may soon face more uncompensated care.

H+H is looking for ways to improve its finances. One way is through a new Epic revenue cycle system that officials in May said will “improve efficiency and ensure that the health system is collecting the maximum amount of revenue for the services it delivers.” They expect it will improve clinical documentation, reduce claims denials and accelerate reimbursements.

Longitudinal Patient Care Remains a Challenge Despite Commitment to Value-Based Care Delivery Competencies

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/quality/longitudinal-patient-care-remains-challenge-despite-commitment-value-based-care-delivery?spMailingID=11171271&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1180162832&spReportId=MTE4MDE2MjgzMgS2#

Image result for longitudinal patient care

Provider organizations’ ability to deliver longitudinal value-based care for patients remains a work in progress.

Survey results from the 2017 HealthLeaders Media Value-Based Readiness: Setting the Right Pace survey reveal that the majority of respondents currently demonstrate a broad commitment to developing care delivery competencies to prepare for value-based care.

For example, the top three care delivery areas that respondents say that their organization has committed to developing or has already developed competencies to prepare for value-base care are care coordination/guiding patients to appropriate care (79%), clinical integration (73%), and broader access to care (68%), and the top five areas all receive a response greater than 65%.

On the other hand, longitudinal patient care (40%) is low on the list of responses and is the only area below a 50% response, although its result is up nine points over last year’s survey.

The response for this critical area indicates the early stage at which most respondents currently reside in the transition to value-based care.

Note that as providers continue to commit to developing care delivery competencies to prepare for value-based care, longitudinal patient care will play an increasingly important role as providers manage patient care over longer periods of time and across multiple care settings.

Survey results also reveal that respondents are confident in their ability to deliver value-based care within the various areas of care delivery.

For example, 73% say that their level of ability is very strong (20%) or somewhat strong (53%) for broader access to care, 72% say that their level of ability is very strong (21%) or somewhat strong (51%) for clinical integration, and 72% say that their level of ability is very strong (20%) or somewhat strong (52%) for care coordination/guiding patients to appropriate care.

However, longitudinal patient care receives the lowest rating for respondent organizations’ ability to deliver value-based care in this area. For example, 54% of respondents indicate that this is very weak (11%) or somewhat weak (43%), an indication that it remains a work in progress for respondents.

Market power matters

Market power matters

Image result for competitive market muscle

It’s the clash of titans.

In January the Massachusetts the Group Insurance Commission (GIC) — the state agency that provides health insurance to nearly a half-million public employees, retirees, and their families — voted to cap provider payments at 160% of Medicare rates. Ignoring Medicare (~1M enrollees) and Medicaid (~1.6M enrollees), the GIC is the largest insurance group in the state.  According to reporting from The Boston Globe, the cap would be binding on a small number of concentrated providers, including Partners HealthCare, one of the largest hospital systems in the state.

David Anderson summed the development up perfectly.

The core of the fight is a big payer (the state employee plan) wants to use its market power to get a better rate from a set of powerfully concentrated providers who have used their market power to get very high rates historically.

Anderson also pointed to a relevant, recent study that illustrates how a specific payer’s and provider’s market power jointly affect prices. In Health Affairs, Eric Roberts, Michael Chernew, and J. Michael McWilliams studied the phenomenon directly, which has rarely been done. Most prior work aggregate market power or prices across providers or payers in markets.

Their source of price data was FAIR Health, which includes claims data from about 60 insurers across all states and D.C. In a county-level analysis, the authors crunched 2014 data for just ten of those insurers that offered PPO and POS plans and that did not have solely capitated contracts. These ten insurers represent 15% of commercial market enrollment. They then looked at prices paid by these insurers to providers in independent office settings for evaluation and management CPT codes 99213, 99214, and 99215. These span moderate length visits to longer visits for more complex patients and collectively represent 21% of FAIR Health captured claims.

They computed insurer market share based on within-county enrollment. They computed a provider group’s market share as the county proportion of provider taxpayer identification numbers (TIN) associated with that group’s National Provider Identifier (NPI) — basically the size of group in terms of number of physicians.

Some of the findings are illustrated in the charts below and are largely consistent with expectations. For all three CPT codes, insurers with greater market shares tend to pay lower prices. That’s shown just below. The biggest price drop occurs when moving from <5% to 5-15% market share. Greater market share than that is associated with still lower prices, but not by as much. For example, insurers with <5% market share pay an average of $86 for CPT code 99213; insurers with 5-15% market share pay 18% less and insurers with ≥15% just a few percent less than that. It’s roughly the same story for other CPT codes.

Healthcare Triage News: Knee Surgery Doesn’t Improve Outcomes, but We Still Do A LOT of Them

Healthcare Triage News: Knee Surgery Doesn’t Improve Outcomes, but We Still Do A LOT of Them

Image result for Healthcare Triage News: Knee Surgery Doesn’t Improve Outcomes, but We Still Do A LOT of Them

The news tells us that arthroscopic surgery for knee arthritis and meniscal tears isn’t worth it. Healthcare Triage told you that a while ago. What’s new? This is Healthcare Triage News.

 

Sema4, a Mount Sinai spinout, launches with a focus on genomics

Sema4, a Mount Sinai spinout, launches with a focus on genomics

dna, genomics

New York City, New York-based Mount Sinai Health System has launched a new spinout company: Sema4.

The for-profit startup has been created from numerous parts of Mount Sinai’s Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences and the Icahn Institute for Genomics and Multiscale Biology.

Pronounced “semaphore,” the company will utilize genomic and clinical data to transform overall clinical diagnostics. By combining everything from predictive modeling to open access data, it aims to be able to better treat and diagnose diseases.

Sema4 will be run by Eric Schadt, the chair of the Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences and the founding director of the Icahn Institute for Genomics and Multiscale Biology.

Schadt initially came to Mount Sinai about five years ago and has since helped grow its footprint in big data and genomics. But the current landscape presented an opportune time to create Sema4.

As genomic testing becomes more complex, Schadt explained, it came down to a few questions for Mount Sinai: “How do we scale all of this? How do we aggregate and manage really large scales of data and compute on it? The decision was that it’s better done as an independent company still in partnership with Sinai,” he told MedCity in a phone interview.

Mount Sinai and Sema4 will continue to be heavily involved with each other. Sema4 is the provider of all genetic testing services for Mount Sinai. And Mount Sinai will play a key role in technology development, data mining and data integration for Sema4.

“We’ll have a very, very intimate relationship,” Schadt said. “But now we are an independent, for-profit company that is presently wholly owned by Mount Sinai.”

Mount Sinai has made a large investment in Sema4 and is currently the company’s sole investor. Over the next 12 to 18 months, the startup will use those funds to grow its business, particularly its sales and marketing teams.

But after time, Sema4 will begin raising additional capital to boost the genetic testing and data sciences portions of its business.

“Once we’re stood up as a company and have our footing that way, we’ll be in a better position to more aggressively pursue the information side, and that’ll take an even bigger investment,” Schadt said.

He did not share any specific numbers with MedCity about how much Sema4 will be looking to raise.

Currently, reproductive health is a major focus area for the startup. But moving forward, Schadt said Sema4 wants to increase its involvement in the oncology space. Additionally, the company has set its sights on using digital health tools to better engage patients.

Prior to Sema4, Mount Sinai’s AppLab and Mount Sinai Innovation Partners launched a startup called Responsive Health for app distribution platform RxUniverse.

Recipe for Successful Health System M&A: Ensure Focus on Execution of Transaction Does Not Undermine Key Long-Term Strategic Imperatives

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/recipe-successful-health-system-ma-ensure-focus-execution-transaction-does-not-undermine?spMailingID=11163372&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1180078976&spReportId=MTE4MDA3ODk3NgS2

Image result for strategic imperatives

The evolving U.S. healthcare landscape, perhaps more now than ever before, requires that health system executives possess varied and deep skill sets. Not only must executives navigate the changing political and macroeconomic landscape, including the repeal-and-replace uncertainty, but in execution of their well-intentioned strategic transactions, health system leaders must remain focused on the original strategic imperatives and objectives to help ensure long-term, sustainable success. Of 140 surveyed participants, 61% believe their organization’s merger, acquisition or partnership activity will increase within the next three years.

Commonly, a decision is made to move forward on an appropriate strategic transaction and then senior leadership assigns a multidisciplinary deal team to consummate such. The majority (74%) of surveyed participants cite both financial/operational and clinical/care delivery equally as the primary objective when deciding to transact. Prior to commencement, successful healthcare organizations will have gone through a lengthy strategic planning process, developed a list of strategic imperatives and had such approved by their board of trustees. Some of these strategic imperatives may include: the Triple Aim, relevance/attractiveness with employers and payers, alignment of incentives, ability to manage the resulting organization as a system versus a loose federation, and the stickiness and sustainability of the resulting system.

A breakdown in the deal consummation process that results in the strategic imperatives not maintaining primacy but being subordinated or ignored may result in a nice press release or closing ceremony but when measured by the test of time, the transaction may not deliver expected and necessary sustaining strategic benefits. This is exacerbated in complex M&A transactions and strategic partnerships. Such complex transactions cannot be managed in a manner similar to important but more routine operational or capital initiatives (e.g., construction of a new bed tower or implementation of a staff reduction initiative) facing healthcare organizations. Senior leadership must help ensure that the strategic benefits of a transaction do not become deemphasized due to deal fatigue, completion of task bias, arbitrary deadlines, and other pressures that work against the deal team obtaining optimal outcomes.

Healthcare leaders must help ensure that the strategic imperatives are effective guardrails of the deal team’s efforts and not lost in the difficult and dynamic transaction negotiation and consummation process. A successful approach focuses less on arbitrary timelines or goals and embraces an accountability process that monitors the deal progress and documentation to help ensure a true north heading. Effective leaders must remain laser-focused on the strategic imperatives and not allow completion and execution of the deal to subordinate the foundation of the original strategic mandate.