What all these health care mergers mean for patients

The health care industry is on a mergers-and-acquisitions bender right now. But, as my colleague Bob Herman reports this morning, it’s not clear whether all of that consolidation will leave patients any better off.

  • Five proposed megamergers have been announced just within the past few weeks. They would create the top two largest non-profit hospital systems in the country. The proposed CVS-Aetna deal alone would be creating a giant pharmacy chain, clinic operator, pharmacy benefit manager and health insurer — all under one roof.

Why now? As more Baby Boomers age into Medicare and more low-income families gain coverage through the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, hospitals are taking on a lot more patients whose bills get paid by the government.

  • Merging into bigger, more concentrated health systems gives them more bargaining power with private insurance, where they can command higher rates than what they get from Medicare and Medicaid

Yes, but: The risk to the broader system is that health care companies might see savings from mergers, but people won’t feel the benefits.

  • “If you become too big, you don’t have the incentives to turn that into lower prices for consumers. That’s sort of the sticking point for when the merger gets out of hand for its size and scope,” says Tim Greaney, a former Department of Justice antitrust official who’s now a health law professor at the UC Hastings.

Image result for axios

AARP: Congress must prevent ‘sudden cut’ to Medicare in 2018

AARP: Congress must prevent ‘sudden cut’ to Medicare in 2018

Image result for medicare cuts

The AARP is urging House and Senate leaders to waive congressional rules so the Republican tax bill doesn’t trigger deep cuts to Medicare.

If Republicans pass their tax bill, which would add an estimated $1 trillion to the federal deficit, congressional “pay-as-you-go” rules would require an immediate $150 billion in mandatory spending cuts to offset the impact.

“The sudden cut to Medicare provider funding in 2018 would have an immediate and lasting impact, including fewer providers participating in Medicare and reduced access to care for Medicare beneficiaries,” AARP said in a letter sent to congressional leaders Thursday.

Under the bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Medicare would be faced with a $25 billion cut in fiscal 2018.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have promised the cuts won’t happen.

In a joint statement sent just ahead of the Senate vote on the tax bill last week, Ryan and McConnell said there is “no reason to believe that Congress would not act again to prevent a sequester, and we will work to ensure these spending cuts are prevented.”

Lawmakers have voted numerous times in the past to waive the rule, and even House conservatives have said they’ll likely support a waiver once the tax bill passes.

“I can’t imagine any scenario where there’s not a waiver for PAYGO,” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said Wednesday. “It’s using a hammer when maybe a scalpel would do.”

But in the Senate at least, Republicans will need the support of Democrats to waive the rules. So far, they have been reluctant to offer it.

 

Ryan eyes push for ‘entitlement reform’ in 2018

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/363642-ryan-pledges-entitlement-reform-in-2018?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12524

Image result for cutting entitlements

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday said House Republicans will aim to cut spending on Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs next year as a way to trim the federal deficit.

“We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” Ryan said during an interview on Ross Kaminsky’s talk radio show.

Health-care entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid “are the big drivers of debt,” Ryan said, “so we spend more time on the health-care entitlements, because that’s really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.”

Ryan said he’s been speaking privately with President Trump, who is beginning to warm to the idea of slowing the spending growth in entitlements.

During his campaign, Trump repeatedly promised not to cut Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security.

“I think the president is understanding choice and competition works everywhere, especially in Medicare,” Ryan said.

House and Senate Republicans are currently working on their plans for tax reform, which are estimated to add more than $1 trillion to the deficit. Democrats have voiced concerns that the legislation could lead to cuts to the social safety net.

Ryan is one of a growing number of GOP leaders who have mentioned the need for Congress to cut entitlement spending next year.

Last week, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said that once the tax bill was done, “welfare reform” was up next.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), last week, said “instituting structural changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future” will be the best way to reduce spending and generate economic growth.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told Bloomberg TV that “the most important thing we can do with respect to the national debt, what we need to do, is obviously reform current entitlement programs for future generations.”

Ryan also mentioned that he wants to work on changing the welfare system, and Republicans have in the past expressed a desire to add work requirements to programs such as food stamps.

Speaking on the Senate floor while debating the tax bill last week, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said he had a “rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything.”

His comments were echoed by Ryan.

“We have a welfare system that’s trapping people in poverty and effectively paying people not to work,” Ryan said Wednesday. “We’ve got to work on that.”

 

Tax Reform Hurts Hospital Financing, Patients Will Bear The Cost

https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2017/12/07/tax-reform-hurts-hospital-bond-financings-with-you-bearing-the-cost/#1ec402147b9e

There are 450 dense pages in the legislation recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives to change the tax code and another 467 in the Senate version. It is sweeping and complex. Most people understandably focus on the new individual rates: will it save or cost them money?

But with both 30-plus years of public finance experience and as a former Congressional aide, I approach this tax code legislation differently. I ask, how might some of the other proposed changes affect the lives of the average American?

While I found many parts of the proposed law are likely to have a pronounced impact, there was one I focused on in particular. Buried deep — on Page 288, Subtitle G, Section 3601, starting on Line 13 to be exact — was a provision eliminating the ability of local community hospitals to borrow money at favorable tax-exempt rates.

It is technical financial stuff; even my eyes glaze over a bit.

But let me break it down for you: Did you spend any time in a hospital this year? Or maybe a family member, friend, or loved one did?

You probably answered yes. I know I did. Almost everyone knows someone who was recently in a hospital. Some are big, internationally known institutions like the Mayo Clinic. Others, such as Baylor University Medical Center, are teaching facilities. Some have religious affiliations — Catholic Health Initiatives is a good example. But most likely the hospital you were thinking about was your local community hospital. There are more than 4,800 community hospitals around the nation. While there are some large ones, most are just small hospitals, like the 25-bed Pawnee Valley Community Hospital in Larned, Kansas, with doctors and nurses working hard to serve rural communities across America.

Nearly 80% of these community hospitals are not-for-profits. That means they operate to provide essential public services — no shareholders, no private owners. Any money they make goes back into the facility and the community.

To keep their facilities and medical services up to date, most not-for-profit hospitals need millions of dollars. To get that kind of money, they need to borrow. Providing this money is a large but surprisingly little known part of Wall Street.  It is called the municipal bond market.

The municipal bond market, all $3.7 trillion of it, is where Wall Street meets Main Street. State and local governments, not-for-profits, and other public-service governmental authorities use this market to borrow money to build bridges, maintain roads, keep tap water flowing, toilets flushing, and a host of other public services we use every day and usually take for granted.

When a municipality, agency or hospital borrows, it sells bonds to investors. A bond is like when you go to the bank to get a mortgage. Just like you promise to repay the mortgage at a certain interest rate, a hospital promises to pay investors both their initial investment (principal) and interest (coupon).

Both investors and borrowers like the municipal bond market for several reasons, but the two main ones are that the municipal bond market is tax-exempt and it lends money for 30 years. Investors buying the bonds don’t pay taxes on the interest they receive. Because tax-exempt interest rates are usually lower than, say, the taxable interest rates that corporations borrow at, not-for-profits like your local community hospital get to borrow at lower rates, saving money that can be used to provide care, buy new technology, or to keep charges down. Savings can total in the millions of dollars.

The implications of this borrowing tax-status change are substantial. Big, well-known companies such as Microsoft or Apple have no problem issuing their taxable bonds to investors around the world. But a small community hospital? It doesn’t have that kind of size or name recognition to attract investors at interest rates that would be as low as the previous tax exempt rates.

With higher rates, potentially at less favorable terms and shorter repayment schedules, many hospitals might find themselves facing budget problems. Increased borrowing costs might mean having to increase charges for services or not having money for necessary medical equipment upgrades. Not only might patients end up paying more, but also it is equally possible insurance coverage, be it private, Medicare, or Medicaid, won’t reimburse for the higher charges. Patients might have to pay a lot more out-of-pocket.

So while others may think they are pocketing more money with the new individual tax rates, keep in mind the implications of other parts of the proposed tax changes.  They may cost you more than you’re saving.

 

Docs: It’s Time to Certify Specialists in Telemedicine

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/physician-leaders/docs-its-time-certify-specialists-telemedicine?spMailingID=12525418&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1300773426&spReportId=MTMwMDc3MzQyNgS2

Image result for telemedicine

Virtual medicine practice is more than technological competence. A doctor who proposed the idea of telemedicine certification advocates why this is so.

As medicine sees advancements in technology and expansion of knowledge in care delivery, specialties and their commensurate board certifications continue to proliferate.

With telemedicine use and applications growing, a premier candidate for this process may be a specialty representing the “medical virtualist,” proposed two physicians at New York-Presbyterian (NYP) in a recent JAMA Viewpoint.

Paper coauthor Michael Nochomovitz, MD, chief clinical integration and network development officer at NYP, offers his insights on this topic.

The following transcript has been lightly edited.

HealthLeaders Media: What motivated you to share this idea?

Michael Nochomovitz, MD: Telemedicine started out with coughs, colds, rashes—easy things. But now with the technology improving and remote monitoring expanding, the need for a more sophisticated approach has become apparent.

A telemedicine visit isn’t the same as FaceTiming your cousin. It involves a true medical interaction that needs to be defined and categorized, and there are a number of people around the country who have set standards of their own, but they haven’t made any consensus because it’s too early.

Having said that, there are going to be people who do this for a living. There will be a career where you don’t touch a patient, and there will have to be a set of core competencies that will need to be codified.

HLM: Were you surprised by the level of reaction to your article?

Nochomovitz, MD: I don’t know. This is the first time the idea of a new specialty has actually gone public. We coined the phrase “medical virtualist,” and now people are chewing on the concept.

I think one of the reasons JAMA published it is that the idea is new and somewhat disruptive, and it’s unclear where it goes from here and how it will impact the rest of healthcare.

We’re excited by the response because the discussion is so needed.

There isn’t a major healthcare organization in the United States that doesn’t have telemedicine and telehealth as a priority. Now there almost needs to be a pause—a timeout—and ask what we are going to expect from the doctors who do this.

HLM: What is your response to those who say that a telemedicine certification and specialty are unnecessary?

Nochomovitz, MD: Those who say it’s not necessary just haven’t done enough of it, and they haven’t been exposed enough to the complexity of doing telemedicine with complicated patients.

HLM: What are some of the core competencies needed for medical virtualists?

Nochomovitz, MD: One important idea is that of “webside manner.” Doctors that see patients in an office each have a different personality. Some doctors are engaging; some are not. That will be exaggerated in a remote visit.

There are techniques that need to be taught on how people speak, where they look, how they engage, what they look for, how they reassure patients, how they address technical glitches, and how they recognize that a particular issue is not within the scope of the telehealth visit without making the patient nervous.

Keep in mind that with increased use of remote monitoring, doctors are going to have much more information at their disposal, and the physicians have to use some skill to put together the patient’s complaint, the patient’s appearance, and all of this additional information about the patient’s prior or current activity. It’s a different way of looking at the doctor-patient interaction.

HLM: If a certification were to become a reality, do you think it would deter physicians from pursuing telemedicine?

Nochomovitz, MD: Provided that the process is not overly onerous, I think that certainly the new generation will embrace it because technology is so engaging. And we’re so used to using it in our daily lives that we have a blurring of the edges between lifestyle technology commodities and applications in healthcare.

I don’t think there’s going to be a problem with adoption. Doctors will want to do it right.

Scripps Sees ‘Sober Warning,’ Slashes CEO Positions

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/scripps-sees-%E2%80%98sober-warning%E2%80%99-slashes-ceo-positions?spMailingID=12525418&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1300773426&spReportId=MTMwMDc3MzQyNgS2#

Image result for balancing act

Organizational overhaul prompted by signs of ‘harder times to come.’

Scripps Health failed to meet its operating budget last fiscal year for the first time in 15 years, prompting the San Diego-based health system to restructure its executive team and look to cut corporate services costs by $30 million.

Although the system remains on solid financial footing, the news came as “a sober warning of harder times to come,” Scripps president and CEO Chris Van Gorder wrote in a memo to staff and physicians last week. The memo, which Scripps released in full to HealthLeaders Media, was as much a rallying cry as it was a bulletin of somber news.

“We can sit back and fool ourselves into thinking change is not really needed, and risk the consequences,” Van Gorder wrote. “Or like our founders, we can have the courage to boldly move ahead and do what’s needed for our patients, our community and their legacy.”

The memo outlined several organizational changes coming to Scripps in the next 30-60 days, including the following:

  • CEOs: Rather than keeping a CEO at each Scripps hospital, the system will establish three regional CEOs.
  • COOs: In the absence of a CEO, COOs will take over daily operations at each hospital.
  • Corporate services: Scripps will look to cut costs on corporate services by $30 million. It will evaluate a shared-services model for corporate services to improve accountability.

The southern region—which will get one of the three new CEO positions—includes Scripps Mercy San Diego and Chula Vista, overseen by current CEO Tom Gammiere. The northern region will include sites in Encinitas, Green, and La Jolla, which are overseen by CEOs Carl J. EtterRobin B. Brown Jr., and Gary G. Fybel, respectively. The third region will comprise Scripps ancillary services.

It appears Etter, Brown, and Fybel are the most likely candidates to fill the new northern-region CEO and ancillary-services CEO positions. It’s possible, though, that Scripps could bring in outside talent, promote from within, or even shift Gammiere to the northern region. This is an overhaul, after all.

Scripps Not Alone

In his memo last week, Van Gorder noted that Scripps is far from the only healthcare organization to face the kind of financial pressures that prompted these changes.

“Hospitals and health systems across the country, small and large, are being affected in similar ways,” he wrote, citing two peer institutions: Partners HealthCare and the Cleveland Clinic.

Partners HealthCare, based in Boston, reported an operating loss of $108 million last year, Van Gorder noted. Last spring, Partners offered buyouts to 1,600 workers at its Brigham and Women’s Hospital and announced plans to cut costs by more than $600 million over three years, as The Boston Globereported.

“This is an effort fundamentally to change not our values and our culture, but how we manage ourselves, how we focus on efficiency, the patient experience, the service we deliver, and try to be reflective of the pressures of being efficient,” Partners CFO Peter K. Markell told the Globe.

Cleveland Clinic, meanwhile, saw its operating income slump 71% last year, Van Gorder noted. The clinic’s president and CEO, Toby Cosgrove, MD, said the healthcare challenges putting pressure on systems these days are “unprecedented in their size, speed, and scope.”

Harvard Business Review (HBR) and other publications have covered the problem, Van Gorder told his team, noting that declining reimbursement rates are squeezing healthcare organizations nationwide.

“For the past decade, the consensus strategy among hospital and health-system leaders has been to achieve scale in regional markets via mergers and acquisitions, to make medical staffs employees, and to assume more financial risk in insurance contracts and sponsored health plans,” HBR’s Jeff Goldsmith wrote in October. “In the past 18 months, the bill for this strategy has come due, posing serious financial challenges for many leading U.S. health systems.”

CMS makes it official: Two mandatory bundled-pay models canceled

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20171130/NEWS/171139986?utm_source=modernhealthcare&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20171130-NEWS-171139986&utm_campaign=dose

Image result for medicare bundled payments

The CMS has finalized its decision to toss two mandatory bundled-payment models and cut down the number of providers required to participate in a third.

Only 34 geographic areas will be required to participate in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model, or CJR, according to a rulemaking released Thursday. Initially, 67 geographic areas were supposed to participate.

Up to 470 hospitals are expected to continue to operate under the model. That includes the CMS’ estimate that 60 to 80 hospitals will voluntarily participate in CJR. Originally, 800 acute-care hospitals would have participated under the program.

With so many hospitals getting a reprieve, the CMS estimates the model will save $106 million less over the next three years versus what it would have saved if CJR had remained mandatory for all 67 geographic areas. The model is now expected to save $189 million over those years instead of $295 million.

The rule comes weeks after the CMS finalized a proposal to allow knee-replacement surgeries to take place in outpatient settings. When the proposal was released in July, some questioned if it was an attempt to undermine the CJR model.

The CMS has also finalized plans to cancel the Episode Payment Models and the Cardiac Rehabilitation Incentive Payment Model, which were scheduled to begin on Jan. 1, 2018. Eliminating these models gives the CMS greater flexibility to design and test innovations that will improve quality and care coordination across the inpatient and post-acute-care spectrum, the agency said.

These cardiac pay models were estimated to save Medicare $170 million collectively over five years.

The agency acknowledged that some hospitals wanted the models to continue on a voluntary basis, as they had already invested resources to launch them, but said those arguments were not detailed enough for the agency to do so.

“We note that commenters did not provide enough detail about the hiring status or educational and licensing requirements of any care coordinator positions they may have created and filled for us to quantify an economic impact for these case coordination investments,” the CMS said.

On average, hospitals have five full-time employees, including clinical staff, tracking and reporting quality measures under value-based models, according to the AHA. They are also spending approximately $709,000 annually on the administrative aspects of quality reporting.

More broadly, the average community hospital spends $7.6 million annually on administrative costs to meet a subset of federal mandates that cut across quality reporting, record-keeping and meaningful use compliance, according to the trade group.

Ultimately, the CMS decided to not alter the design of these models to allow for voluntary participation since that would potentially involve restructuring the model, payment methodologies, financial arrangement provisions and quality measures, and it did not believe that such alterations would offer providers enough time to prepare for the changes before the planned Jan. 1, 2018 start date.

The CMS acknowledged that hospitals and other stakeholders have voiced concerns that the Trump administration may not be as committed to value-based care as the Obama administration, but it insists that’s not true. The CMS said the Trump administration just believes voluntary models are the better way to go.

“We take seriously the commenters’ concerns about the urgency of continuing our movement toward value-based care in order to accommodate an aging population with increasing levels of chronic conditions,” the agency said in the rule. “We continue to believe that value-based payment methodologies will play an essential role in lowering costs and improving quality of care, which will be necessary in order to maintain Medicare’s fiscal solvency.”

 

Fitch issues negative outlook for nonprofit hospitals: 4 things to know

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/fitch-issues-negative-outlook-for-nonprofit-hospitals-4-things-to-know.html

Image result for negative hospital outlook

Fitch Ratings’ outlook on the nonprofit healthcare sector is negative for 2018, as the sector faces regulatory, political and competitive challenges.

Here are four things to know about Fitch’s outlook on the sector.

1. Fitch expects nonprofit hospitals and health systems’ profitability to continue to weaken over the next year. “Growth in Medicare and Medicaid volumes are weakening provider payer mixes at a time when providers are moving from volume-based reimbursement in greater numbers,” said Fitch Senior Director Kevin Holloran.

2. Fitch said several factors could adversely affect lower-rated hospitals’ operating performance in 2018, including growing pressure on salaries and continued erosion in payer mix.

3. The proposed tax overhaul bill, which would hamper nonprofit hospitals’ ability to issue tax-exempt revenue, could further pressure the industry, according to Fitch.

4. Although the nonprofit healthcare sector outlook is negative, Fitch maintained its stable outlook for ratings of healthcare issuers. “Fitch anticipates our revised criteria for the acute care sector will be published early next year, which should lead to an above-average, but still balanced, degree of rating movement during the year,” the debt rating agency said.

Dignity Health, CHI Announce Major Merger Deal

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/dignity-health-chi-announce-major-merger-deal?spMailingID=12518385&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1300681161&spReportId=MTMwMDY4MTE2MQS2#

Related imageRelated image

After a year of negotiations, Dignity Health and Catholic Health Initiatives have signed a definitive agreement to merge operations.

The new, as-yet unnamed health system will be one of the largest in the nation, including more than 700 care sites and 139 hospitals, approximately 159,000 employees and more than 25,000 physicians and other advanced practice clinicians.

 

Hospital Market Consolidation

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/54-health-systems-with-the-most-hospitals.html

Image result for hospital consolidation

The following health systems contain the most short-term acute care hospitals in the United States.

The number of short-term acute care hospitals is based on data from the American Hospital Directory, which is based on hospitals’ CMS cost reports. Data was accessed Dec. 4. The list includes nonprofit, public and for-profit organizations. There are 54 organizations listed here; numbering does not serve as a ranking or reflect ties in the number of hospitals.

Note: Figures reflect facilities that fall under the category of “short term acute care” as defined by CMS. Numbers do not include psychiatric, rehabilitation, children’s, critical access, long-term or “other” types of hospitals, and may differ from systems’ marketing materials.

1. HCA Healthcare (Nashville, Tenn.) — 174
2. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (Washington, D.C.) — 143
3. Community Health Systems (Franklin, Tenn.) — 119
4. Ascension Health (St. Louis) — 78
5. Tenet Healthcare (Dallas) — 59
6. LifePoint Health (Brentwood, Tenn.) — 45
7. Trinity Health (Livonia, Mich.) — 44
8. Prime Healthcare Services (Ontario, Calif.) — 42
9. Providence Health & Services (Renton, Wash.) — 41
10. Kaiser Permanente (Oakland, Calif.) — 39
11. Dignity Health (San Francisco) — 36
12. Catholic Health Initiatives (Englewood, Colo.) — 34
13. Steward Health Care System (Boston) — 32
14. Adventist Health System (Winter Park, Fla.) — 31
15. Indian Health Service (Rockville, Md.) — 31
16. UPMC (Pittsburgh) — 29
17. Universal Health Services (King of Prussia, Pa.). — 28
18. Christus Health (Irving, Texas) — 26
19. Quorum Health (Brentwood, Tenn.) — 26
20. Sutter Health (Sacramento, Calif.) — 26
21. Baylor Scott & White Health (Dallas) — 20
22. Banner Health (Phoenix) — 19
23. Mercy Health (Cincinnati) — 18
24. SSM Health (St. Louis) — 18
25. Intermountain Healthcare (Salt Lake City) — 17
26. Mercy (Chesterfield, Mo.) — 17
27. UnityPoint Health (Des Moines, Iowa) — 17
28. Northwell Health (Great Neck, N.Y.) — 16
29. Prospect Medical Holdings (Los Angeles) — 15
30. Adventist Health (Roseville, Calif.) — 14
31. Centura Health (Englewood, Colo.) — 14
32. Aurora Health Care (Milwaukee) — 13
33. BayCare Health System (Clearwater, Fla.) — 13
34. Franciscan Health (Mishawaka, Ind.) — 13
35. Memorial Hermann (Houston) — 13
36. Texas Health Resources (Arlington) — 13
37. Ardent Health Services (Nashville, Tenn.) — 12
38. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp. (Memphis) — 12
39. Cleveland Clinic — 12
40. Duke LifePoint (Brentwood, Tenn.) — 12
41. Hospital Sisters Health System (Springfield, Ill.) — 12
42. Sentara Healthcare (Norfolk, Va.) — 12
43. Bon Secours Health System (Marriottsville, Md.) — 11
44. Carolinas HealthCare System (Charlotte, N.C.) — 11
45. Hackensack Meridian Health (Edison, N.J.) — 11
46. Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minn.) — 11 (includes short-term acute care hospitals in Rochester, Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., as well as those part of Mayo Clinic Health System)
47. McLaren Health Care (Flint, Mich.) — 11
48. NYC Health + Hospitals (New York City) — 11
49. Presence Health (Chicago) — 11
50. RWJBarnabas Health (West Orange, N.J.) — 11
51. Advocate Health Care (Downers Grove, Ill) — 10
52. Allina Health (Minneapolis) — 10
53. Novant Health (Winston-Salem, N.C.) — 10
54. University Hospitals (Cleveland) — 10