8 hospitals with strong finances

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/8-hospitals-with-strong-finances-112117.html

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

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

1. Downers Grove, Ill.-based Advocate Health Care has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has a strong market position, healthy liquidity, moderate leverage and good debt metrics, according to Moody’s.

2. Phoenix-based Banner Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has a solid market position, adequate liquidity and healthy capital spending, according to Fitch.

3. Milwaukee-based Children’s Hospital and Health System has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The system has a strong balance sheet and is the dominant provider of tertiary and quaternary pediatric services in southeastern Wisconsin, according to Moody’s.

4. Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas, has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The hospital has a strong market position, favorable leverage metrics and a solid liquidity position, according to Moody’s.

5. Mercy Health in Cincinnati has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s and an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with S&P. The health system has solid debt service coverage and strong balance sheet metrics, according to Moody’s.

6. Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The hospital has a strong market position, solid cash flow and healthy revenue growth, according to Moody’s.

7. Iowa City-based University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics has as “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has a broad market with growing patient volumes and geographic reach for its high-acuity services. Moody’s expects the health system’s expense control initiatives to continue to gain traction through fiscal year 2018.

8. Philadelphia-based University of Pennsylvania Health System has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has a strong market position, solid operating margins and limited debt burden, according to Moody’s.

 

Sexual abuse scandals: What hospitals can learn from high-profile Hollywood, government cases of harassment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/sexual-abuse-scandals-what-hospitals-can-learn-from-high-profile-hollywood-government?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRBeE5EQTFaREJqWVRJMiIsInQiOiJnUXl5b3pxcXlaRVo0Nm51UVcxOXdXd3IybE96SnNuOVhaNzR6UjBUMDMxdUJUN2h0MzlpNXdPRFdwcVwvS0MwQk1SSWdjMFM3T3FuN2tnbThoNjVzVmg2V0NEQmdrOXFcL05BQ1dRWCtkeExsbGxMTWJaMjUyMlwvUklJcGErd1BiYiJ9&mrkid=959610&utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

Female nurse looking stressed

While media attention has focused on the accusations of sexual misconduct among Hollywood heavy hitters, television personalities and politicians, the healthcare industry isn’t immune to misbehavior in the workplace.

Indeed, one of the biggest payouts for workplace harassment occurred in 2012 when Mercy General Hospital in California and its parent company, Catholic Healthcare West (now Dignity Health), were ordered to pay more than $167 million to Ani Chopourian, a former physician’s assistant who says she was fired after she complained of sexually inappropriate conduct, bullying and retaliation, in addition to inferior patient care by surgeons.

While USA Today reported that the judge later vacated the award after attorneys on both sides negotiated a settlement, the large payout should serve as a wake-up call to hospital leaders that they can’t ignore complaints of misconduct in the workplace.

The recent high-profile cases that have made national headlines also offers lessons to healthcare leaders. Lawyers say leaders must:

  • Establish policies that address disruptive behavior: Healthcare organizations must foster a culture of teamwork and the need for a safe, cooperative workplace, Anne Murphy, a Bloomberg Law advisory board member and partner at Hinckley Allen in Boston, told Bloomberg BNA.
  • Be willing to investigate complaints, even if they involve a high-profile physician: Hospital leaders must be willing and able to identify and avoid sexual harassment claims and apply the policies equally to everyone. Employees must feel safe to report complaints and leaders must be willing to address those complaints and not sweep them under the rug.

    “Healthcare entities must take these actions in spite of the prospect of losing a significant revenue generator or a critical skill in a single physician,” wrote Katherine Dudley Helms in National Law Review. “Failing to address the situation creates legal liability and sends a loud negative message to employees regarding the importance the organization places on its workforce versus certain key employees.”

  • Develop an action plan to address complaints: David Jarrard, president and CEO of Jarrard, Phillips, Cate & Hancock in Brentwood, Tennessee, told Bloomberg BNA that organization must have plans in place just as they would other responses to natural disasters or mass shootings.
  • Be aware of red flags: Sexual harassment claims shouldn’t come as a surprise. Often, gossip spreads among employees, so leaders should keep their ears open, Jarrard said. He told the publication that senior leaders must be visible and engaged with employees and patients.

    “Hospital leaders might hear about suspect behavior simply by getting out of their offices and walking the hospital’s hallways,” he said.

  • Monitor social media accounts: Jarrard also said that accusations of misconduct often will appear in social media platforms so leaders should monitor accounts for mentions of their organizations. This way they may be able to intervene before the situation becomes worse.
  • Consider peer intervention: Clinical leaders might be able to diffuse a situation by talking to the person accused of misconduct over coffee and before a formal complaint is filed, according to the article.

“Now is an excellent time to remind your employees of your refusal to accept this behavior,” said Helms in the National Law Review piece. “Remind employees and supervisory personnel of your harassment policies, and refresh your sexual harassment training.”

 

13 health systems leading employment in their states

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/human-capital-and-risk/13-health-systems-leading-employment-in-their-states.html

Related image

Wal-Mart is the largest employer across 22 states, according to 24/7 Wall St. After the retail behemoth, hospitals are the largest employer in 14 states.

Here are the 13 health systems that are the largest employers in the state in which they operate.

Note: Providence Health & Services is the largest employer in two states — Alaska and Oregon. The rest of the systems lead employment in the state in which they are headquartered.

  1. Avera Health (Sioux Falls, S.D.)
  2. Christiana Care Health System (Wilmington, Del.)
  3. Intermountain Healthcare (Salt Lake City)
  4. Johns Hopkins Institutions (Baltimore)
  5. Lifespan (Providence, R.I.)
  6. Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minn.)
  7. Partners HealthCare (Boston)
  8. Providence Health & Services (Renton, Wash.)
  9. Sanford Health (Fargo, N.D.)
  10. St. Luke’s Health System (Boise, Idaho)
  11. University of Vermont Medical Center (Burlington)
  12. UPMC (Pittsburgh)
  13. Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health System

 

CHS in negotiations to extend nearly $2B in debt

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/chs-in-negotiations-to-extend-nearly-2b-in-debt.html

Image result for ship taking on water

Franklin, Tenn.-based Community Health Systems is in talks with a group of bondholders led by Franklin Resources, an asset management company, to extend approximately $2 billion in bonds due in 2019, people familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal.

The company is in talks to swap the 2019 unsecured notes for debt secured by its assets, one person familiar with the matter told WSJ. This type of transaction would be difficult for CHS to complete, as the company can only issue about $1 billion in new secured debt without permission from its lenders to waive a covenant in its revolver loans.

Extending the debt due in 2019 is only a short-term solution because CHS faces billions of dollars in debt maturities from 2020 to 2023, according to the report.

CHS put a financial turnaround plan into place last year, which included selling 30 hospitals to reduce its heavy debt load. The company completed the divestiture plan earlier this month. With the help of proceeds from the hospital sales, CHS brought down its long-term debt load to $13.9 billion in the third quarter of this year, from $14.8 billion in the same period of 2016.

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

 

Puerto Rico’s Dire Health-Care Crisis

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/puerto-ricos-health-care-crisis-is-just-beginning/544210/

Image result for puerto rico hospitals

It’s been two months since Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico, but nearly 10 percent of the island’s 3.4 million residents still don’t have access to clean, safe water. Half of the electric grid is still out of service, which has made it difficult to safely store food or medicines that need to be refrigerated. The outages have also left many residents vulnerable to heat exposure; temperatures remain in the high 80s on the island.

There’s also growing concern that Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program — which covers nearly half of Puerto Ricans — will soon run out of money to pay doctors and hospitals. The territory’s governor has asked the Trump administration to waive Puerto Rico’s share of Medicaid costs, and some Democratic senators have made similar appeals.

 

 

Fitch affirms ‘AA-‘ on Virtua Health’s revenue bonds

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/fitch-affirms-aa-on-virtua-health-s-revenue-bonds.html

Related image

Fitch Ratings affirmed its “AA-” rating on Marlton, N.J.-based Virtua Health’s revenue bonds, affecting a total of $605 million of debt.

The affirmation is a result of several factors, including the health system’s solid liquidity growth, strong market position, favorable operating margins, sizable clinical platform and moderate debt burden.

The outlook is stable.

 

Sutter Health destroyed 192 boxes of evidence in antitrust case, judge says

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/sutter-health-destroyed-192-boxes-of-evidence-in-antitrust-case-judge-says/511300/

Dive Brief:

  • A California superior court judge ruled that Sutter Health intentionally destroyed 192 boxes of documents that were involved in a lawsuit involving employers and labor unions that alleged the health system abused its market power and charged inflated prices, reported California Healthline.
  • The United Food and Commercial Workers and its Employers Benefit Trust initially filed the case in 2014 alleging that Sutter Health required health plans to include all Sutter hospitals in networks.
  • San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow said that Sutter knew the evidence “was relevant to antitrust issues” and the company was “grossly reckless.” A Sutter spokeswoman told California Healthline that the incident was a “mistake made as part of a routine destruction of old paper records.”

Dive Insight:

The recent ruling doesn’t put Sutter Health in a great light. The nonprofit system of 24 hospitals based in Sacramento reportedly destroyed documents related to the case —  and its actions miffed the judge in the case.

Of course, this issue goes beyond destroying records, Sutter Health and California. The case involves a growing health system that allegedly increased prices to employers and employees while gaining a larger market foothold.

Mergers and acquisitions continue to become a common way for health systems to reduce costs, resolve inefficiencies and gain a larger market share. However, having one system own a large part of the healthcare market also inflates healthcare prices. Brent Fulton, assistant adjunct professor at Petris Center in the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, recently wrote in a Health Affairs article “reviews of studies of hospital markets have found that concentrated markets are associated with higher hospital prices, with price increases often exceeding 20% when mergers occur in such markets.”

Sutter Health holds more than 45% of the healthcare market share in six Northern California counties. That gives the system leverage over employers. If employers don’t come to an agreement with Sutter Health, employees have limited options in those counties. Sutter Health charges about 25% higher than other California hospitals, according to the University of Southern California.

Those costs are higher if that care is considered out-of-network. Last year, Sutter Health allegedly asked employers to waive their rights to sue and to agree to arbitration following a court ruling that employers and health plans can seek class-action status in a lawsuit pertaining overcharges against Sutter Health. Those who didn’t agree were threatened to lose access to discounted in-network prices and pay higher out-of-network costs.

The court filing states the parties should not expect further orders in the case until after mid-December. Industry experts are awaiting the results as the trend of M&A continues and stakeholders question who the activity is benefiting: the companies or the patient?

 

Why Major Hospitals Are Losing Money By The Millions

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2017/11/07/hospitals-losing-millions/#67f501c67b50

Related image

 

A strange thing happened last year in some the nation’s most established hospitals and health systems. Hundreds of millions of dollars in income suddenly disappeared.

This article, part two of a series that began with a look at primary care disruption, examines the economic struggles of inpatient facilities, the even harsher realities in front of them, and why hospitals are likely to aggravate, not address, healthcare’s rising cost issues.

According to the Harvard Business Review, several big-name hospitals reported significant declines and, in some cases, net losses to their FY 2016 operating margins. Among them, Partners HealthCare, New England’s largest hospital network, lost $108 million; the Cleveland Clinic witnessed a 71% decline in operating income; and MD Anderson, the nation’s largest cancer center, dropped $266 million.

How did some of the biggest brands in care delivery lose this much money? The problem isn’t declining revenue. Since 2009, hospitals have accounted for half of the $240 billion spending increase among private U.S. insurers. It’s not that increased competition is driving price wars, either. On the contrary, 1,412 hospitals have merged since 1998, primarily to increase their clout with insurers and raise prices. Nor is it a consequence of people needing less medical care. The prevalence of chronic illness continues to escalate, accounting for 75% of U.S. healthcare costs, according to the CDC.

Part Of The Problem Is Rooted In The Past

From the late 19th century to the early 20th, hospitals were places the sick went to die. For practically everyone else, healthcare was delivered by house call. With the introduction of general anesthesia and the discovery of powerful antibiotics, medical care began moving from people’s homes to inpatient facilities. And by the 1950s, some 6,000 hospitals had sprouted throughout the country. For all that expansion, hospital costs remained relatively low. By the time Medicare rolled out in 1965, healthcare consumed just 5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Today, that number is 18%.

Hospitals have contributed to the cost hike in recent decades by: (1) purchasing redundant, expensive medical equipment and generating excess demand, (2) hiring highly paid specialists to perform ever-more complex procedures with diminishing value, rather than right-sizing their work forces, and (3) tolerating massive inefficiencies in care delivery (see “the weekend effect”).

How Hospital CEOs See It

Most hospital leaders acknowledge the need to course correct, but very few have been able to deliver care that’s significantly more efficient or cost-effective than before. Instead, hospitals in most communities have focused on reducing and eliminating competition. As a result, a recent study found that 90% of large U.S. cities were “highly concentrated for hospitals,” allowing those that remain to increase their market power and prices.

Historically, such consolidation (and price escalation) has enabled hospitals to offset higher expenses. As of late, however, this strategy is proving difficult. Here’s how some leaders explain their recent financial struggles:

“Our expenses continue to rise, while constraints by government and payers are keeping our revenues flat.”

Brigham Health president Dr. Betsy Nabel offered this explanation in a letter to employees this May, adding that the hospital will “need to work differently in order to sustain our mission for the future.”

A founding member of Partners HealthCare in Boston, Brigham & Women’s Hospital (BWH) is the second-largest research hospital in the nation, with over $640 million in funding. Its storied history dates back more than a century. But after a difficult FY 2016, BWH offered retirement buyouts to 1,600 employees, nearly 10% of its workforce.

Three factors contributed to the need for layoffs: (1) reduced reimbursements from payers, including the Massachusetts government, which limits annual growth in healthcare spending to 3.6%, a number that will drop to 3.1% next year, (2) high capital costs, both for new buildings and for the hospital’s electronic health record (EHR) system, and (3) high labor expenses among its largely unionized workforce.

“The patients are older, they’re sicker … and it’s more expensive to look after them.”

That, along with higher labor and drug costs, explained the Cleveland Clinic’s economic headwinds, according to outgoing CEO Dr. Toby Cosgrove. And though he did not specifically reference Medicare, years of flat reimbursement levels have resulted in the program paying only 90% of hospital costs for the “older,” “sicker” and “more expensive” patients.

Of note, these operating losses occurred despite the Clinic’s increase in year-over-year revenue. Operating income is on the upswing in 2017, but it remains to be seen whether the health system’s new CEO can continue to make the same assurances to employees as his predecessor that, “We have no plans for workforce reduction.”

“Salaries and wages and … and increased consulting expenses primarily related to the Epic EHR project.”

Leaders at MD Anderson, the largest of three comprehensive cancer centers in the United States, blamed these three factors for the institution’s operational losses. In a statement, executives attributed a 77% drop in adjusted income last August to “a decrease in patient revenues as a result of the implementation of the new Epic Electronic Health Record system.”

Following a reduction of nearly 1,000 jobs (5% of its workforce) in January 2017, and the resignation of MD Anderson’s president this March, a glimmer of hope emerged. The institution’s operating margins were in the black in the first quarter of 2017, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Making Sense Of Hospital Struggles

The challenges confronting these hospital giants mirror the difficulties nearly all community hospitals face. Relatively flat Medicare payments are constraining revenues. The payer mix is shifting to lower-priced patients, including those on Medicaid. Many once-profitable services are moving to outpatient venues, including physician-owned “surgicenters” and diagnostic facilities. And as one of the most unionized industries, hospitals continue to increase wages while drug companies continue raising prices – at three times the rate of healthcare inflation.

Though these factors should inspire hospital leaders to exercise caution when investing, many are spending millions in capital to expand their buildings and infrastructure with hopes of attracting more business from competitors. And despite a $44,000 federal nudge to install EHRs, hospitals are finding it difficult to justify the investment. Digital records are proven to improve patient outcomes, but they also slow down doctors and nurses. According to the annual Deloitte “Survey of US Physicians,” 7 out of 10 physicians report that EHRs reduce productivity, thereby raising costs.

Harsh Realities Ahead For Hospitals

Although nearly every hospital talks about becoming leaner and more efficient, few are fulfilling that vision. Given the opportunity to start over, our nation would build fewer hospitals, eliminate the redundancy of high-priced machines, and consolidate operating volume to achieve superior quality and lower costs.

Instead, hospitals are pursuing strategies of market concentration. As part of that approach, they’re purchasing physician practices at record rates, hoping to ensure continued referral volume, regardless of the cost.

Today, commercial payers bear the financial brunt of hospital inefficiencies and high costs but, at some point, large purchasers will say “no more.” These insurers may soon get help from the nation’s largest purchaser, the federal government. Last month, President Donald Trump issued an executive order with language suggesting the administration and federal agencies may seek to limit provider consolidation, lower barriers to entry and prevent “abuses of market power.”

With pressure mounting, hospital administrators find themselves wedged deeper between a rock and a hard place. They know doctors, nurses, and staff will fight the changes required to boost efficiency, especially those that involve increasing productivity or lowering headcount. But at the same time, their bargaining power is diminishing as health-plan consolidation continues. The four largest insurance companies now own 83% of the national market.

What’s more, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced last week a $1.6 billion cut to certain Medicare Part B drug payments along with reduced reimbursements for off-campus hospital outpatient departments in 2018. CMS said these moves will “provide a more level playing field for competition between hospitals and physician practices by promoting greater payment alignment.”

The American healthcare system is stuck with investments that made sense decades ago but that now result in hundreds of billions of dollars wasted each year. Hospitals are a prime example. That’s why we shouldn’t count on hospital administrators to solve America’s cost challenges.

Change will need to come from outside the traditional healthcare system. The final part of this series explores three potential solutions and highlights the innovative companies leading the effort.

 

Hospital revenue cycles improving, but denials are up

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/hospital-revenue-cycles-improving-but-denials-are-up/511014/

Image result for insurance denials

Dive Brief:

  • Recycle cycle performance for hospitals and health systems is improving, but there are still major risks. These risks include increased denial write-offs, bad debt and inefficiencies, such as the costs associated with collecting from patients, according to Advisory Board’s recent Revenue Cycle Survey.
  • A median 350-bed hospital lost $3.5 million in increased denial write-offs from payers over the past four years, according to the report.
  • Jim Lazarus, national partner of technology at Advisory Board, said revenue cycle benchmarks are “encouraging,” but they also show “the risks of complacency.”

Dive Insight:

Advisory Board’s biennial survey reviewed four critical performance indicators. The researchers found mixed results. Denials remain an issue for hospitals, which wrote off 90% more uncollectable denials compared to six years ago.

The report also highlights downstream challenges. The median hospital successful denial appeals rate over the past two years:

  • Dropped from 56% to 45% for commercial payers
  • Fell from 51% to 41% for Medicaid
  • Increased from 50% to 64% for Medicare and Medicare Advantage

Advisory Board predicted that denials will remain an issue as an increasing number of them “are based on medical necessity rather than technical or demographic error.”

James Green, national partner of consulting at Advisory Board, said hospitals and health systems need strategies to address denials proactively.  “The wide range of denials performance among health systems — spanning 3% of net patient revenue between high and low performers — amounts to a $10 million swing for a median 350-bed hospital. Appeals are becoming increasingly difficult, so health systems should focus on approaches such as improved documentation and authorization processes,” said Green.

Another issue for health systems and hospitals is cash flow. In a bit of good news, the median performance for net accounts receivable days improved 8% between 2015 and 2017. However, Advisory Board warned the gains may be partially caused by write-offs and other factors, which can reduce accounts receivable and pose other challenges.

In another bit of good news, expanded coverage via the Affordable Care Act reduced hospital bad debt. However, that is offset by more and higher patient deductibles. Hospitals in Medicaid expansion states performed better regarding less bad debt, but high-deductible health plans (HDHP) increased unpaid patient obligations across all states regardless of whether they expanded Medicaid.

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study found that the average deductible for people with employer-based health insurance increased from $303 in 2006 to $1,505 in 2017.

Advisory Board said the increase of HDHPs shows hospitals and health systems need to focus on patient collections, particularly at the point of service (POS). The report said a median 350-bed hospital could increase collections from $800,000 to nearly $3 million by improving POS collections. Advisory Board added that systems that collect upfront often give patients discounts, which result in a 90% increase in POS collections compared to those that do not offer discounts.

The cost of collections is an issue that continues to plague health systems. The median cost to collect has remained at 3% over the past four years, but that is higher than what it cost a decade ago. Advisory Board said reducing those costs are critical given the softening hospital margin trends in the past year. Health systems have also not realized cost improvements despite consolidation and centralized revenue cycle functions.

“While, for example, patient access is difficult to centralize, other functions present good opportunities, such as coding, billing, collections, denials and payer contracting, especially given their high operational costs for these functions,” said Christopher Kerns, executive director of research at Advisory Board.

Lower reimbursements and inpatient services coupled with a payer push for more outpatient services and patients taking on more responsibility for out-of-pocket costs is causing hospitals and health systems to figure out ways to survive. While Advisory Board mentioned suggestions to improve revenue cycle, some systems have instead decided mergers and acquisitions and divestitures are a better way to go.

Going those routes to improve financial footing has their own set of barriers. For instance, mergers and acquisitions reduce expenses for hospitals, but they can also cut revenue and hurt margins in the first two years, according to a recent report by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, in collaboration with Healthcare Financial Management Association.

As the Advisory Board report shows, there is some good news concerning hospital revenue cycles. However, hospitals must continue to improve patient collections as well as reduce payer denials — in a cost-effective manner — if they can expect to remain viable.

 

Hospital groups, health systems sue HHS to halt $1.6B in payment cuts

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/hospital-groups-health-systems-sue-hhs-to-halt-1-6b-in-payment-cuts.html

Image result for us district court of district of columbia

Three hospital groups and three provider organizations sued HHS Monday in an attempt to stop payment cuts for drugs purchased through the 340B Drug Pricing Program.

The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was filed by the following hospital groups: the American Hospital Association, America’s Essential Hospitals and the Association of American Medical Colleges. The groups were joined in the lawsuit by three health systems: Brewer, Maine-based Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems; Detroit-based Henry Ford Health System; and Hendersonville, N.C.-based Park Ridge Health.

Earlier this month, CMS released its 2018 Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System rule, which finalizes a proposal to pay hospitals 22.5 percent less than the average sales price for drugs purchased through the 340B program. That’s compared to the current payment rate of average sales price plus 6 percent. This change would reduce Medicare payments to hospitals by $1.6 billion.

The lawsuit argues the 340B provisions of the OPPS final rule violate the Social Security Act and should be set aside. The lawsuit further alleges the 340B provisions are outside of the HHS secretary’s statutory authority.

The hospital groups and health systems are seeking an injunction that would prohibit HHS from implementing the 340B provisions of the OPPS final rule pending resolution of the lawsuit.

“From its beginning, the 340B Drug Pricing Program has been critical in helping hospitals stretch scarce federal resources to enhance comprehensive patient services and access to care,” said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the AHA. “CMS’s decision to cut Medicare payments for so many hospitals for drugs covered under the 340B program will dramatically threaten access to healthcare for many patients, including uninsured and other vulnerable populations. This lawsuit will prevent these significant cuts from moving forward.”