A Blues plan (finally) deals a health system in on full risk

Image result for global capitation

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBS-MA) announced this week that it plans to launch a new extension of its long-standing value-based payment program, the Alternative Quality Contract (AQC), which ties physician payments to the total cost of care delivered to their patients. In the first arrangement of its kind in the AQC program, BCBS-MA will pilot a similar, capitation-like approach with South Weymouth, MA-based South Shore Health, an independent health system serving southeastern Massachusetts.

As we described in a blog post on the AQC earlier this year, the broader program is structured around physician networks and their primary care practices, which bear two-way, upside-downside risk for the cost of care for patients attributed to them. Participating practices also have the ability to earn sizeable bonuses based on their performance on a number of quality metrics. The new approach is intended to experiment with putting the hospital directly at risk, encouraging it to reduce unnecessary admissions and other high-cost care by collaborating with physicians and other care providers.

While full details of the plan were not released, the agreement was described as a pilot program, to test the model of so-called “global budgeting” for hospitals. A similar approach to paying hospitals has been in place in Maryland for several years, as part of that state’s Federal waiver program. Notably, the CEO of South Shore Health, Dr. Gene Green, previously served as President of Suburban Hospital in Bethesda, MD, and in a press release stated, “What’s so encouraging about this partnership is that the provider and the payer are finally coming together at the same table with the same goal: drive down costs without affecting quality of care”.

The move is noteworthy because health plans—and particularly BCBS carriers—have historically been reluctant to share true risk with hospitals, for a variety of reasons. Some have claimed that hospitals lack the ability to manage commercial risk, while others have worried about the strategic implications of enabling health systems to move into the commercial risk market, fearing new competition for employer contracting.

For the most part, carriers have preferred to limit risk-based programs to physician practices, encouraging doctors to manage total cost of care by limiting referrals to high-cost specialists and hospitals. To the extent health plans have “shared risk” with hospitals, it has typically been in the form of performance-based bonuses added onto fee-for-service payments.

That phenomenon has served to stall the broader transition to provider risk envisioned by the authors of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in creating the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) and its much-debated accountable care organizations (ACOs). The new BCBS-MA pilot with South Shore Health will be closely watched by BCBS leaders across the country.

It’s no accident that the first such pilot in the AQC program is with a smaller, independent system that operates in the shadow of the dominant Partners Healthcare system, an arrangement unlikely to raise competitive concerns among BCBS-MA executives.

IN SEARCH OF INSURANCE SAVINGS, CONSUMERS CAN GET UNWITTINGLY WEDGED INTO NARROW-NETWORK PLANS

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/search-insurance-savings-consumers-can-get-unwittingly-wedged-narrow-network-plans?utm_source=silverpop&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ENL_181101_LDR_BRIEFING%20(1)&spMailingID=14541829&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1520057837&spReportId=MTUyMDA1NzgzNwS2

Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans

Despite federal rules requiring plans to keep up-to-date directories, consumers may lack access to clear information about which health plans have ‘narrow networks’ of providers or which hospitals and doctors are in or out of an insurer’s network.

As a breast cancer survivor, Donna Catanuchi said she knows she can’t go without health insurance. But her monthly premium of $855 was too high to afford.

“It was my biggest expense and killing me,” said Catanuchi, 58, of Mullica Hill, N.J.

A “navigator” who helps people find coverage through the Affordable Care Act found a solution. But it required Catanuchi, who works part time cleaning offices, to switch to a less comprehensive plan, change doctors, drive farther to her appointments and pay $110 a visit out-of-pocket — or about three times what she was paying for her follow-up cancer care.

She now pays $40 a month for coverage, after she qualified for a substantial government subsidy.

Catanuchi’s switch to a more affordable but restrictive plan reflects a broad trend in insurance plan design over the past few years. The cheaper plans offer far narrower networks of doctors and hospitals and less coverage of out-of-network care. But many consumers are overwhelmed or unaware of the trade-offs they entail, insurance commissioners and policy experts say.

With enrollment for ACA health plans beginning Nov. 1, they worry that consumers too often lack access to clear information about which health plans have “narrow networks” of medical providers or which hospitals and doctors are in or out of an insurer’s network, despite federal rules requiring plans to keep up-to-date directories.

“It’s very frustrating for consumers,” said Betsy Imholz, who represents the advocacy group Consumers Union at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. “Health plan provider directories are often inaccurate, and doctors are dropping in and out all the time.”

These more restrictive plans expose people to larger out-of-pocket costs, less access to out-of-network specialists and hospitals, and “surprise” medical bills from unforeseen out-of-network care.

More than 14 million people buy health insurance on the individual market — largely through the ACA exchanges, and they will be shopping anew this coming month.

TREND APPEARS TO BE SLOWING

For 2018, 73 percent of plans offered through the exchanges were either health maintenance organizations (HMOs) or exclusive provider organizations (EPOs), up from 54 percent in 2015.

Both have more restrictive networks and offer less out-of-network coverage compared with preferred provider organizations (PPOs), which represented 21 percent of health plans offered through the ACA exchanges in 2018, according to Avalere, a health research firm in Washington, D.C.

PPOs typically provide easier access to out-of-network specialists and facilities, and partial — sometimes even generous — payment for such services.

Measured another way, the number of ACA plans offering any out-of-network coverage declined to 29 percent in 2018 from 58 percent in 2015, according to a recent analysis by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

For example, in California, HMO and EPO enrollment through Covered California, the state’s exchange, grew from 46 percent in 2016 to 70 percent in 2018, officials there said. Over the same period, PPO enrollment declined from 54 percent to 30 percent.

In contrast, PPOs have long been and remain the dominant type of health plan offered by employers nationwide. Forty-nine percent of the 152 million people and their dependents who were covered through work in 2018 were enrolled in a PPO-type plan. Only 16 percent were in HMOs, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual survey of employment-based health insurance.

The good news for people buying health insurance on their own is that the trend toward narrow networks appears to be slowing.

“When premiums shot up over the past few years, insurers shifted to more restrictive plans with smaller provider networks to try and lower costs and premiums,” said Chris Sloan, a director at Avalere. “With premium increases slowing, at least for now, that could stabilize.”

Some research supports this prediction. Daniel Polsky, a health economist at the University of Pennsylvania, found that the number of ACA plans nationwide with narrow physician networks declined from 25 percent in 2016 to 21 percent in 2017.

Polsky is completing an analysis of 2018 plans and expects the percent of narrow network plans to remain “relatively constant” for this year and into 2019.

“Fewer insurers are exiting the marketplace, and there’s less churn in the plans being offered,” said Polsky. “That’s good news for consumers.”

Insurers may still be contracting with fewer hospitals, however, to constrain costs in that expensive arena of care, according to a report by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. It found that 53 percent of plans had narrow hospital networks in 2017, up from 48 percent in 2014.

“Narrow networks are a trade-off,” said Paul Ginsburg, a health care economist at the Brookings Institution. “They can be successful when done well. At a time when we need to find ways to control rising health care costs, narrow networks are one legitimate strategy.”

Ginsburg also notes that there’s no evidence to date that the quality of care is any less in narrow versus broader networks, or that people are being denied access to needed care.

Mike Kreidler, Washington state’s insurance commissioner, said ACA insurers in that state “are figuring out they can’t get away with provider networks that are inadequate to meet people’s needs.”

“People have voted with their feet, moving to more affordable choices like HMOs but they won’t tolerate draconian restrictions,” Kreidler said.

The state is stepping in, too. In December 2017, Kreidler fined one insurer — Coordinated Care — $1.5 million for failing to maintain an adequate network of doctors. The state suspended $1 million of the fine if the insurer had no further violations. In March 2018, the plan was docked another $100,000 for similar gaps, especially a paucity of specialists in immunology, dermatology and rheumatology. The $900,000 in potential fines continues to hang over the company’s head.

Centene Corp, which owns Coordinated Care, has pledged to improve its network.

Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Jessica Altman said she expects residents buying insurance in the individual marketplace for 2019 to have a wider choice of providers in their networks.

“We think and hope insurers are gradually building more stable networks of providers,” said Altman.

NEW STATE LAWS

Bad publicity and recent state laws are pushing insurers to modify their practices and shore up their networks.

About 20 states now have laws restricting surprise bills or balance billing, or which mandate mediation over disputed medical bills, especially those stemming from emergency care.

Even more have rules on maintaining accurate, up-to-date provider directories.

The problem is the laws vary widely in the degree to which they “truly protect consumers,” said Claire McAndrew, a health policy analyst at Families USA, a consumer advocacy group in Washington, D.C. “It’s a patchwork system with some strong consumer protections and a lot of weaker ones.”

“Some states don’t have the resources to enforce rules in this area,” said Justin Giovannelli, a researcher at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “That takes us backward in assuring consumers get coverage that meets their needs.”

 

 

PATIENT LEAKAGE CAN SINK YOUR REVENUES BY 20% OR MORE

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/patient-leakage-can-sink-your-revenues-20-or-more

A majority of hospital executives recognize patient leakage as a problem that’s costing their respective systems, but few have taken steps to properly address it.


KEY TAKEAWAYS

Reducing patient leakage should be a top priority for CFOs in 2019, according to Scott Vold, CEO of Fibroblast.

The survey found most executives recognize the challenge of patient leakage but few have done anything to stem its effects.

Nearly one in five executives report losing more than 20% on patient leakage annually.

More than four out of five healthcare executives report that patient leakage is a serious problem facing their organizations, though not many have implemented solutions to curb the dilemma, according to a new survey from Fibroblast, commissioned by Sage Growth Partners.

Patient leakage occurs when a patient referral that should stay inside a health network ends up leaving for another or a patient that should receive care in the network but doesn’t follow through on the care.

Among the numerous financial challenges that healthcare executives face, patient leakage is a quandary with a clinical angle that requires immediate action to stem the tide and recoup lost revenues.

WHO’S AWARE OF PATIENT LEAKAGE:

  • 87% of executives say it’s a high priority
  • 23% don’t track it
  • 20% don’t know where or why it happens

Just over one-third of polled executives reported that they understand where and why patient leakage occurs, with 60% saying they don’t follow up with patients to determine if they received care from the physician they were referred to.

WHAT PATIENT LEAKAGE COSTS ANNUALLY:

  • 43% of executives say they’ve lost 10% or more of revenues
  • 23% say they don’t know how much they’re losing
  • 19% say they’ve lost 20% or more

Scott Vold, CEO of Fibroblast, the company which commissioned the Sage Growth Partners survey, told HealthLeaders that patient leakage goes beyond the traditional financial challenges CFOs face because it poses a risk to the value-based care model due to patients developing an event that is more acute than it should’ve been had they received care. 

“If it’s not already, reducing patient leakage, including the referral management process, should be their top priority for 2019,” Vold said. “They need to take thoughtful yet aggressive steps to do it. The good news is that it is an addressable problem that can be fixed and can have an enormous financial and strategic impact in a relatively short amount of time.”

WHAT’S AT FAULT AND WHO WILL FIX IT:

  • 57% of executives are somewhat satisfied with their EMRs
  • 19% say they are not satisfied
  • 69% say patient leakage is handled by more than one person
  • 19% say they plan to purchase a third-party solution
  • Only 2% currently have one in place

 

HHS set to implement long-delayed 340B final rule in January

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/finance/hhs-set-to-implement-long-delayed-340b-final-rule-jan-1?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkdKbFptRXdPV1pqTnpJMCIsInQiOiJ2ZjdFZXBBODZKcnQ3R2h2bnJTWHB0cFFcL013WTQrSlljK1A5V1YxUWxreSt2M0ZLUU1qV2ZaaUM4M3J1N3o3RVpJdlJGVlpjb1dNeGExejk3TE00RVVaYTl5NVwvaCt4YVNnTXFmYUliSVBhbTQyaHhQc0x1ZTZlTjRmVnBpWXYxIn0%3D&mrkid=959610

Image result for 340b drug pricing program

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include a response from 340B Health and the American Hospital Association.

HHS is planning an about-face on the long-delayed rule that would set price ceilings and monetary penalties in the 340B program, moving up its start date by several months. 

The Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice (PDF) saying that it intended to finally implement the rule on Jan. 1, cutting off seven months of time from a previously announced July 1 start date.

The rule—which would set price ceilings for drugs and punish pharmaceutical companies that knowingly overcharge 340B hospitals—has been delayed five times by the Trump administration, most recently in June. The final rule was first issued in January 2017. 

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) said the delays were necessary as it needed more time to implement the rule properly and wanted to fully explore possible alternatives or supplemental regulations.

The most recent delay was fueled in part because HHS has made addressing the rising cost of drugs a key priority, and officials were concerned that implementing the rule could impact actions taken under the “American Patients First” plan.

The start date was moved up to Jan. 1, HRSA said in the notice, because it “determined that the finalization of the 340B ceiling price and civil monetary penalty rule will not interfere with the department’s development of these comprehensive policies.” 

Four national healthcare organizations sued HHS in September over the delays to the final rule. The American Hospital Association (AHA), America’s Essential Hospitals (AEH), the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and 340B Health all signed on to the suit, which claims that the repeated delays violate the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Since the rule was first proposed in 2015, there has been ample time to notify stakeholders and tweak the plan, the groups argued.

“The department’s proffered rationales for their successive delays have shifted and been inconsistent,” according to the lawsuit. 

340B Health said in a statement emailed to FierceHealthcare that the group is “encouraged” to see HHS responding to the suit.

“These rules were ordered by Congress more than eight years ago based on clear, documented evidence of overcharging by drug companies of 340B hospitals, clinics, and health centers,” interim CEO Maureen Testoni said. “The time for delay is over and now it is time for action.”

AHA echoed the sentiment, saying it hopes HHS “sticks by the commitment” to roll out the rule.

“The rule also requires that HHS make pricing information available online to 340B hospitals and other providers,” General Counsel Melinda Hatton said in a statement. “We strongly encourage HHS to publish that website promptly, which is critical to enforcement of the 340B program, as soon as possible after January 1.”

HHS has also taken aim at the 340B program by significantly slashing its payment rate. In a rule that took effect at the beginning of fiscal year 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services cut the rate from up to 6% above the average sales price for a drug to 22.5% less than the average sales price.

All told, the change will cut $1.6 billion in drug discount payments. AHA, AEH and AAMC are also challenging that policy in court

 

Hospital bankruptcies continue to skyrocket: 3 things to know

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/hospital-bankruptcies-continue-to-skyrocket-3-things-to-know.html?origin=ceoe&utm_source=ceoe

Image result for hospital bankruptcy

More than 20 hospitals have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy since 2016, according to an Oct. 30 report from the law firm Polsinelli.

The Polsinelli-TrBK Distress Indices Report details how healthcare trends have affected the U.S. economy. Researchers determined that while the economy, specifically Chapter 11 bankruptcies across all industries and the real estate industry, have remained stable during the past several quarters, healthcare exhibited consistently high levels of distress during eight of the last 11 quarters.

To compile the report, researchers use Chapter 11 bankruptcy data as a proxy for measuring financial distress in the overall U.S. economy and breakdowns of distress specifically in real estate and healthcare.

Here are three things to know from the report:

1. Southwestern states have been hit the hardest by healthcare bankruptcy filings. For example, increased competition, insurance payer pressure and overexpansion contributed to Neighbors Legacy Holdings in Houston, a freestanding emergency facility operator with more than 30 facilities, to file for bankruptcy earlier this year.

2. While general Chapter 11 bankruptcies have decreased 53 percent from the 2010 benchmark, healthcare industry distress increased by 305 percent during the same period.

3. The law firm’s Health Care Services Distress Research Index was 405 for the third quarter of 2018, an increase of 65 points from the second quarter of 2018. The third-quarter figures represent a year-over-year increase of 82 points.

To learn more, click here.

Optum360, WayStar Named Top Revenue Cycle Management Vendors

https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/optum360-waystar-named-top-revenue-cycle-management-vendors?eid=CXTEL000000093912&elqCampaignId=7317&elqTrackId=b566a68ee4ca448cbae4e33dba12d73c&elq=417892aa1b094ce0984687d5214e2145&elqaid=7737&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=7317

Revenue cycle management vendors

 

Health systems preferred Optum360 for end-to-end healthcare revenue cycle management software and outsourcing, while physician practices favored Waystar.

 – The eighth annual revenue cycle management technology and outsourcing solutions survey from Black Book recently uncovered the top client-rated healthcare revenue cycle management vendors for health systems, hospitals, and physician practices.

The market research company polled nearly 4,500 hospital and health system CFOs, VPs of Finance and Revenue Cycle Management (RCM), Controllers, Business Officer Managers, and other financial staff. Another 3,660 physician office business managers and 941 staff from outpatient, alternative care, clinics, IDN physician practices, and ancillary facilities also participated in the 2018 ratings.

The survey showed that providers are investing in healthcare revenue cycle management solutions as health system margins shrink to less than three percent nationwide and providers in all settings transition away from fee-for-service.

“The latest wave of challenges accompanying the shift to value-based care find most providers navigating through empowering virtual health, initiating highly patient positive experiences and sinking margins,” stated Black Book’s Managing Partner Doug Brown. Revenue cycle management is now the most pressing strategic focus in health systems nationwide with system transformation vendors, solutions optimization consultants and RCM outsourcing firms in huge demand.”

Based on 18 indicators of client experience, loyalty, and customer satisfaction, the survey revealed the top-rated RCM solutions for various parts across the entire healthcare revenue cycle.

In terms of end-to-end revenue cycle management software, health systems and large hospital chains preferred Optum360, followed by Waystar, Change Healthcare, Recondo, and Conifer.

Health systems named Optum360 as their top end-to-end revenue cycle management software solution for the second year in a row.

Waystar and Optum360 also took top spots for hospitals with 101 to 200 beds, while small hospitals favored the RCM software from Trubridge and large hospitals ranked Change Healthcare as number one.

Physician practices and groups rated Waystar as their top RCM software vendor, followed by Change Healthcare, Allscripts, Cerner RevWorks, and athenaCollect.

Optum360 was also the highest ranked revenue cycle management outsourcing solution for health systems and large hospital chains shifting their financial and business functions outside of their organizations.

However, top revenue cycle outsourcing solutions was a mixed bag for standalone hospitals and physician practices.

Small hospitals identified Trubridge as their top outsourcing solution, while medium-sized hospitals preferred Gebbs and large hospitals liked Cognizant Trizetto.

R1 RCM was the highest rated end-to-end RCM outsourcing solution among physician practices and groups.

Additionally, the survey found the highest ranked vendors for other parts of the healthcare revenue cycle, including patient payments, provider contract management, and claims and denials management. Notable rankings included:

  • Patient payment solutions: InstaMed
  • Complex claims solutions: Cognizant Bolder
  • Patient access solutions: Recondo Technology
  • Hospital claims and denials management: Experian Health
  • Physician claims clearinghouse: Cognizant Trizetto
  • Patient payment analytics: RevSpring
  • Provider contract management systems: nThrive
  • Revenue recovery solutions: Revint Solutions
  • RCM optimization consultants: Hayes Management Consulting
  • RCM business intelligence and decision support: Dimension Insight

Provider organizations of all sizes are seeking healthcare revenue cycle management solutions to optimize all parts of their financial and business processes.

Revenue cycle management optimization was a top priority for hospitals, according to a September 2017 Black Book survey. Almost three-quarters of struggling hospitals prioritized revenue cycle management over other initiatives key to the value-based reimbursement transition, including population health, data analytics, and patient engagement.

The hospital and physician practice leaders surveyed said they planned to allocate 2018 capital resources for revenue cycle management upgrades, including dashboards, data analytics, and business intelligence solutions.

Revenue cycle management optimization investments are likely to continue well into the near future as provider organizations face more competition, greater patient financial responsibility, and a shifting healthcare environment.

“Healthcare providers will have no choice but to evaluate and optimize their solutions end-to-end in a future state that leverages analytics and enhanced connectivity with payers, all keeping pace with the advances in healthcare technology,” Black Book’s Brown stated in 2017.

 

Feds are ready to claw back billions from Medicare insurers

https://www.axios.com/cms-clawback-medicare-advantage-audits-health-insurance-92edb13e-5abd-4527-8503-c0c74b501d58.html

A person picks up a medical chart from a long row in a cabinet.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is ready to charge ahead with broad audits of Medicare Advantage plans, which could result in companies paying back billions of taxpayers dollars to the federal government.

The big picture: The threat of these federal audits has existed for several years, but the audits haven’t led to large clawbacks yet. CMS now has an estimate of those improper payments to insurers: almost $14.4 billion in 2017, or 7% of Medicare Advantage spending from that year.

Show less

How it works: The federal government pays Medicare Advantage companies monthly amounts based on how sick their enrollees are. Insurers code the conditions people have, and the more health problems someone has, the more insurers get paid.

  • But regulators are conducting “risk adjustment data validation” (RADV) audits that compare patient medical codes submitted by health insurers with the actual codes that doctors put in patient medical records.
  • The goal is to see if Medicare Advantage insurers are exaggerating people’s health conditions to get higher payments.
  • An investigation from the Center for Public Integrity detailed how the industry has manipulated these so-called “risk scores.”

Driving the news: New proposed regulations lay out the federal government’s legal authority for the audits.

  • CMS says it will audit the diagnoses of about 200 people in any given health plan and then extrapolate the results across the insurer’s entire Medicare Advantage population — leading to potentially large clawbacks for insurers that improperly code conditions.
  • An accompanying federal analysis separately found that coding errors in the traditional Medicare program have no bearing on how Medicare Advantage insurers are paid, and thus RADV audits should not adjust for those discrepancies. The analysis, in essence, pokes a hole in a recent federal ruling that favored insurers.

The bottom line: CMS appears ready to step on the gas and recoup money it believes the industry has bilked from taxpayers. Health insurers have long been frightened of RADV audits — every major publicly traded insurer lists the audits as a top “risk factor” in their annual filings to investors.

  • “CMS has a strong requirement to ensure accuracy of payments because of the magnitude of dollars flying around,” said Jessica Smith, a consultant at Gorman Health Group who studies risk adjustment.

Between the lines: Health insurers have successfully fought off or watered down these audits since they were first proposed. The industry almost certainly will work to weaken any final regulation.

  • America’s Health Insurance Plans — the industry’s leading lobbying group, which has made Medicare Advantage a priority as more insurers rely on the program for revenue — has already warned the audits must be “sound” and “legally appropriate.”

 

 

M&A, debt dampen US healthcare risk profile, report finds

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/ma-debt-dampen-us-healthcare-risk-profile-report-finds/540922/

Image result for M&A, debt dampen US healthcare risk profile, report finds

Dive Brief:

  • Demand for healthcare products and services has helped to keep wind in the sales of U.S. healthcare companies, but continuing deal activity and increasing issuance of high-grade bonds to fund large strategic acquisitions and capital projects is causing credit ratings to trend south, Fitch Ratings reports
  • Regulatory changes, pricing pressures, pushes from activist investors and low interest rates will likely spark more horizontal mergers and acquisitions, as well as vertically integrated deals, according to the ratings agency.
  • “We view M&A and investor appetite for high quality paper, particularly during the late stages of the economic cycle, as major contributors to the risk in investment-grade bond issuance,” Fitch says. “However, prospects of enhanced cash flow generation and greater efficiencies of scale are not fully offsetting increased leverage and this is altering the long-term credit risk profile of the sector.”

Dive Insight:

Other pressures fueling healthcare M&A include technological innovation and consumer-centricity, according to a recent PwC report. The largest deal in the third quarter of 2018 was RCCH Healthcare Partner’s $5.6 billion purchase of LifePoint Health. The quarter also saw HCA Healthcare pick up Mission Health for $1.5 billion.

Overall, though, the quarter marked the fewest number of deals since the first quarter of 2017. Value of deals also declined compared to the same period the previous year.

The slowdown in M&A includes deals among hospitals and health systems. The third period saw just 18 deals, 38% fewer than the 29 in Q3 2017, according to Kaufman Hall. The turndown suggests providers are looking at options other than mergers and acquisitions to achieve strategic aims.

Over the past 10 years, the number of investment grade bonds in healthcare has been growing at an 18% compound annual growth rate, nearly tripling in size to $609 billion by the end of September, according to Fitch. Currently, 58% of those outstanding bonds in the sector have ratings in the BBB category, compared with 1% at the end of 2009.

Roughly half of all outstanding IG bonds in healthcare are held by 10 companies, including CVS Health and Cigna. CVS took out $40 billion in loans to help fund its $67.5 billion purchase of Aetna, resulting in an A/rating watch negative. Cigna issued $20 billion worth of bonds to help cover its $67 billion acquisition of Express Scripts. Cigna’s current credit rating is BBB/RWN.

Fewer than 10% of BBB-rated companies have a BBB/negative rating. Among those are two medtech companies, Becton Dickinson and Bio-Rad Laboratories.

Fitch recently lowered Cardinal Health’s rating BBB+/negative to BBB/stable over concerns of higher than usual leverage following recent deal activity.

Moody’s Investor Services this year revised its outlook for the nonprofit and public hospitals sector from stable to negative. Moody’s warned facilities are “on an unsustainable path” due to high spending and low growth of revenues. 

 

CHS sees massive Q3 net loss amid weak volume, aftershocks of HMA settlement

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/chs-sees-massive-q3-net-loss-amid-weak-volume-aftershocks-of-hma-settlemen/540868/

Credit: Rebecca Pifer / Healthcare Dive, Yahoo Finance data

 

Dive Brief:

  • Community Health Systems reported third quarter net operating revenues of $3.5 billion, a 5.9% decrease compared with $3.7 billion from the same period last year but slightly higher than analyst expectations.
  • In its earnings release after market close Monday, the Franklin, Tennessee-based hospital operator also disclosed a massive shareholder loss in the quarter of $325 million, or $2.88 per diluted share. CHS had a net loss of $110 million, or $0.98 per diluted share, in Q3 2017.
  • Lower volume was partially to blame, as the quarter saw a 12.4% decrease in total admissions and a 12.2% decrease in total adjusted admissions compared with the same period in 2017. The report also pointed the finger at the financial aftershocks of its troubled purchase of Health Management Associates (HMA), along with loss from early extinguishment of debt, restructuring and taxes.

Dive Insight:

CHS, one of the largest publicly traded hospital companies in the U.S., reported its highest operating cash flow since the second quarter of 2015, according to Jefferies. The third quarter figure of $346 million is also significantly higher than the $114 million from the same quarter last year.

Similarly, volume and revenue didn’t tank as heavily on a same-store basis as they did overall. Same-facility admissions decreased just 2.3% (adjusted admissions by 0.8%) compared with a year ago. Net operating revenues actually increased by 3.2% during the quarter compared with last year, beating analyst expectations.

But declining admissions show how hospital operators continue to struggle under the fierce headwinds 2018 has blown their way so far. CHS is clearly not immune, as the 117-hospital system faces ongoing operational challenges, bringing in financial advisers earlier this year to restructure its copious long-term debt.

The 20-state hospital operator continues to deal with the fiscal fallout from its roughly $7.6 billion acquisition of Florida hospital chain HMA in 2014. The Department of Justice accused the 70-facility HMA of violating the Stark Law and the anti-kickback statute for financial gain between 2008 and 2012, activities CHS reportedly was aware of prior to the merger.

Just last month, CHS announced a $262 million settlement agreement ending the DOJ investigation into HMA’s misconduct. However, that liability was adjusted during the third quarter and, taking into account interest, now totals $266 million. The fee will reportedly be paid by the end of this year.

The settlement also slapped an additional $23 million tax bill on the 19,000-bed system under recent changes to the U.S. tax code.

But that’s not the only regulatory brouhaha CHS has dealt with this quarter.

Since August, CHS has been under civil investigation over EHR adoption and compliance. Annual financial filings show that the company received more than $865 million in EHR incentive payments between 2011 and 2017 through the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, payments that investigators believe may have been overly inflated.

To deal with the burden, CHS has continued its portfolio-pruning strategy into the third quarter (although a recent Morgan Stanley report notes the system has a very high concentration of weak facilities, and those at risk of closing, relative to its peers). 

During 2018 so far, CHS has sold nine hospitals and entered into definitive agreements to divest five more. The earnings report also divulged CHS is pursuing additional sale opportunities involving hospitals with a combined total of at least $2 billion in annual net operating revenues during 2017, taken in tandem with the hospitals already sold.

The ongoing transactions are currently in various stages of negotiation, the report notes, but CHS “continues to receive interest from potential acquirers.”

CHS is cast in a better light when balance sheet adjustment and non-cash expenses are discarded, as well. Adjusted EBITDA was $372 million compared with $331 million for the same period in 2017, representing a 12.4% increase and suggesting the company can still generate cash flow for its owners in a more friendly atmosphere than the one Q3 provided.

But, though Q2 results were a bright spot in an otherwise gloomy year for the massive hospital operator, its shares have lost about 30% of their value since the beginning of the year (compared to the S&P 500’s decline of roughly 0.5%).

Jefferies believes that CHS should improve its balance sheet and drive positive same-store volume growth, along with speeding up divestitures to raise cash to pay down debt, in order to improve its stock performance.

 

 

A Sense of Alarm as Rural Hospitals Keep Closing

The potential health and economic consequences of a trend associated with states that have turned down Medicaid expansion.

Hospitals are often thought of as the hubs of our health care system. But hospital closings are rising, particularly in some communities.

“Options are dwindling for many rural families, and remote communities are hardest hit,” said Katy Kozhimannil, an associate professor and health researcher at the University of Minnesota.

Beyond the potential health consequences for the people living nearby, hospital closings can exact an economic toll, and are associated with some states’ decisions not to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Since 2010, nearly 90 rural hospitals have shut their doors. By one estimate, hundreds of other rural hospitals are at risk of doing so.

In its June report to Congress, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found that of the 67 rural hospitals that closed since 2013, about one-third were more than 20 miles from the next closest hospital.

study published last year in Health Affairs by researchers from the University of Minnesota found that over half of rural counties now lack obstetric services. Another study, published in Health Services Research, showed that such closures increase the distance pregnant women must travel for delivery.

And another published earlier this year in JAMA found that higher-risk, preterm births are more likely in counties without obstetric units. (Some hospitals close obstetric units without closing the entire hospital.)

Ms. Kozhimannil, a co-author of all three studies, said, “What’s left are maternity care deserts in some of the most vulnerable communities, putting pregnant women and their babies at risk.

In July, after The New York Times wrote about the struggles of rural hospitals, some doctors responded by noting that rising malpractice premiums had made it, as one put it, “economically infeasible nowadays to practice obstetrics in rural areas.”

Many other types of specialists tend to cluster around hospitals. When a hospital leaves a community, so can many of those specialists. Care for mental health and substance use are among those most likely to be in short supply after rural hospital closures.

The closure of trauma centers has also accelerated since 2001, and disproportionately in rural areas, according to a study in Health Affairs. The resulting increased travel time for trauma cases heightens the risk of adverse outcomes, including death.

Another study found that greater travel time to hospitals is associated with higher mortality rates for coronary artery bypass graft patients.

In many communities, hospitals are among the largest employers. They also draw other businesses to an area, including those within health care and others that support it (like laundry and food services, or construction).

A study in Health Services Research found that when a community loses its only hospital, per capita income falls by about 4 percent, and the unemployment increases by 1.6 percentage points.

Not all closures are problematic. Some are in areas with sufficient hospital capacity. Moreover, in many cases hospitals that close offer relatively poorer quality care than nearby ones that remain open. This forces patients into higher-quality facilities and may offset negative effects associated with the additional distance they must travel.

Perhaps for these reasons, one study published in Health Affairs found no effect of hospital closures on mortality for Medicare patients. Because it focused on older patients, the study may have missed adverse effects on those younger than 65. Nevertheless, the study found that hospital closings were associated with reduced readmission rates, which is regarded as a sign of increased quality. So it seems consolidating services at larger hospitals can sometimes help, not harm, patients.

“There are real trade-offs between consolidating expertise at larger centers versus maintaining access in local communities,” said Karen Joynt Maddox, a cardiologist and health researcher with the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and an author of the study. “The problem is that we don’t have a systematic approach to determine which services are critical to provide locally, and which are best kept at referral centers.”

Many factors can underlie the financial decision to close a hospital. Rural populations are shrinking, and the trend of hospital mergers and acquisitions can contribute to closures as services are consolidated.

Another factor: Over the long term, we are using less hospital care as more services are shifted to outpatient settings and as inpatient care is performed more rapidly. In 1960, an average appendectomy required over six days in the hospital; today one to two days is the norm.

Part of the story is political: the decision by many red states not to take advantage of federal funding to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act. Some states cited fiscal concerns for their decisions, but ideological opposition to Obamacare was another factor.

In rural areas, lower incomes and higher rates of uninsured people contribute to higher levels of uncompensated hospital care — meaning many people are unable to pay their hospital bills. Uncompensated care became less of a problem in hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid.

In a Commonwealth Fund Issue Brief, researchers from Northwestern Kellogg School of Management found that hospitals in Medicaid expansion states saved $6.2 billion in uncompensated care, with the largest reductions in states with the highest proportion of low-income and uninsured patients. Consistent with these findings, the vast majority of recent hospital closings have been in states that have not expanded Medicaid.

In every year since 2011, more hospitals have closed than opened. In 2016, for example, 21 hospitals closed, 15 of them in rural communities. This month, another rural hospital in Kansas announced it was closing, and next week people in Kansas, and in some other states, will vote in elections that could decide whether Medicaid is expanded.

Richard Lindrooth, a professor at the University of Colorado School of Public Health, led a study in Health Affairs on the relationship between Medicaid expansion and hospitals’ financial health. Hospitals in nonexpansion states took a financial hit and were far more likely to close. In the continuing battle within some states about whether or not to expand Medicaid, “hospitals’ futures hang in the balance,” he said.