Still no deal as UNC Health Care and Carolinas HealthCare continue secret talks

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article191010834.html

Image result for Still no deal as UNC Health Care and Carolinas HealthCare continue secret talks

A UNC special committee missed its first deadline to review whether a proposed partnership between UNC Health Care System and Carolinas HealthCare would be good for the residents of North Carolina.

The UNC system’s Board of Governors formed the special committee in November to review the mega-deal that would transform the state’s health care landscape and raise questions about the future operations of UNC Health Care System and UNC’s School of Medicine, which are owned by the state. The special committee had planned to meet as often as necessary to complete its review by Wednesday and previously conducted several meetings in closed session.

As of Wednesday, however, Chapel Hill-based UNC and Charlotte-based Carolinas had not submitted a proposed business agreement for the special committee to review. The sensitive negotiations are being conducted in utmost secrecy.

“We hope we can finalize deal terms by the end of the first quarter of 2018,” UNC Health Care spokesman Phil Bridges said by email. “This is a complicated deal, and we are taking our time to get things right for both entities.

“We understand, however, that the Board of Governors’ special committee has adjusted its deadline to complete the review by the end of January,” he said. “We are not behind schedule.”

The hospital partnership, proposed in August, would create one of the largest health care systems and academic research centers in the country, with more than 50 hospitals and 90,000 employees. The two organizations say that legally it would not be a merger because they would not transfer assets out of the state’s control.

The joint operating company would be overseen by an independent board of directors whose members would be nominated by Carolinas HealthCare and by UNC Health Care. Bill Roper, CEO of UNC Health Care, would be the executive chairman of the new independent board; Gene Woods, CEO of Carolinas HealthCare, would be CEO of the new joint operating company.

UNC spokesman Joshua Ellis was unable to provide answers on Wednesday about the status of the negotiations.

This month, the special committee hired Texas health care attorney Jerry Bell Jr. to help vet the proposed joint operating company. Bell represents hospitals, academic medical centers, medical schools and other health care networks on a wide variety of matters, including mergers and acquisitions, business transactions, as well as federal and state regulatory issues.

It’s unclear what authority UNC’s Board of Governors has to review, or potentially to block, the formation of the proposed joint operating committee if it were to conclude that the proposed arrangement would harm the UNC Health Care System and UNC’s medical school. Roper has said the decision on whether to combine with Carolinas rests with UNC Health Care System’s board of directors, of which he is a member.

But the formation of the special committee by UNC’s Board of Governors suggests they expect to play some role. Under state law, the UNC Health Care System reports to the Board of Governors, which appoints the system’s CEO and half of the 24 members of its board of directors. But the UNC Board of Governors would not have direct control of the independent board that would oversee the UNC-Carolinas joint operating company.

The special committee’s members come from UNC’s Board of Governors: auto parts magnate O. Temple Sloan III; health care attorney Carolyn Coward; Leo Daughtry, a Smithfield lawyer and former longtime state lawmaker; Doyle Parrish, founder of Summit Hospitality Group, a hotel management business in Raleigh; Randall Ramsey, founder and president of Jarrett Bay Boatworks in Beaufort; and corporate lawyer W. Louis Bissette Jr.

Because the details of the proposal are not known, the partnership has evoked only general concerns over higher health care prices. Such worries are typical when hospitals consolidate because giant hospital networks have more leverage in negotiating higher reimbursement rates from health insurance companies. The insurers pass on those higher costs to their customers.

North Carolina’s attorney general Josh Stein has said he is examining whether the proposed deal would harm health care competition in the state, but state lawmakers have largely been silent on the issue.

After the deal was announced at the end of August, Republican state Sen. Jeff Tarte expressed concerns that the partnership was the prelude to a full merger that would one day leave UNC Health Care owned by the larger Carolinas HealthCare. But earlier this month, Tarte, a retired health care business consultant from Cornelius, said the issue is not a topic of discussion among lawmakers, unless “it’s very high up and only a few people” are involved.

When asked if the legislature will review the deal, N.C. Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger’s press secretary, Amy Auth, emailed: “We’d prefer not to put the cart before the horse.”

 

Penn State Health, Highmark Health sign $1B value-based care network deal

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/finance/penn-state-health-highmark-health-new-partnership?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkRNMlpEbGlNRE14TkRBMSIsInQiOiJqOUkyVmdwaVwvZGVYODBOK2h5ZHhIT1UxS1owUTdheXJXU1pkeU1VQVNXTTFjOWpCNTlwNml1Uk81YlBjb2FjWkVtd21CMjJFR3pneURrN0NvdXlWbG5reFh5Y2VpUXVsbDZKRVRMeUtxVnFhNEFvWHlIdXkwSUtKMzVQU1BFVEQifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610

Business executives shaking hands

Penn State Health and Highmark Health have inked a $1 billion deal to form a value-based community care network that aims to improve population health and protect market share by keeping more patients in the region, especially for complex care.

Anchored by the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, the plan also calls for collaboration with community physicians and will include new facilities and co-branded health insurance products.

The move doesn’t affect existing agreements: Penn State Health can still partner with other health insurance companies, and Highmark will continue to partner with other providers.

“Penn State Health will offer more primary, specialty and acute care locations across central Pennsylvania so that [patients] will have easier access to our care, right in the communities where they live,” A. Craig Hillemeier, CEO of Penn State Health, said in an announcement. “Our two organizations share the belief that people facing life-changing diagnoses should be able to get the care they need as close to home as possible.”

Highmark Health will join Penn State as a member of Penn State Health with a minority interest. The payer will get up to three seats on the 15-member board of directors.

“We want to collaborate with forward-thinking partners who, like us, are committed to creating a positive healthcare experience for members and patients,” Highmark Health CEO David Holmberg said in the announcement.

Value-based care and population health continue to drive deals such as this one, including in the competitive Pennsylvania market. Earlier this year, PinnacleHealth announced that it would partner with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the state’s largest integrated health system, and also agreed to acquire four Central Pennsylvania hospitals from Community Health Systems.

 

When hospitals merge, you pay the bill

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/17/when-hospitals-merge-you-pay-editorials-debates/953998001/

Image result for large hospital mergers

 

Mega medical chains could be hazardous to your health: Our view

Health insurers are not the most beloved companies. They deny claims, bury people in paperwork, and generally make life more difficult.

But a good case can be made that America’s health care woes lie more with its providers than its insurers. Some communities are served by a single hospital or group of specialists. Some patients are reliant on a single drug. That gives these businesses enormous leverage to hike prices.

In theory, insurance companies hold down costs by driving hard bargains with providers. In reality, they find it difficult to do so.

OPPOSING VIEW: Health care mergers benefit patients

UnitedHealth Group is the largest private health insurer, with about 11% of the overall market. Everyone else is less than 10% (though in local and regional markets there is more concentration).

That makes these insurers plenty big enough to beat up on consumers, but too small to take on powerful providers.

The result: In the USA, 18 cents of every dollar spent goes to health care each year. In other developed countries, health care expenditures are much less, in the range of 10 to 12 cents per dollar.

Which makes recent trends in the hospital industry all the more troubling. Two major hospital chains, Ascension and Providence St. Joseph Health, are in talks to merge, a move that would create a 191-hospital colossus operating in 27 states.

This comes on top of a raft of other hospital mergers and announced mergers. That they have been in the non-profit space, including a proposed chain of 139 Catholic-run hospitals, does not change the economics.

These massive businesses run much as their for-profit brethren — and will put pressure on for-profits to merge as well. That won’t be good for consumers, or the ridiculously high premium the American economy pays for a health care system that lacks effective cost controls.

Not all mergers in health care are problematic. The proposed combination of CVS, the owner of drug stores and walk-in clinics, with Aetna, a major insurer, holds intriguing possibilities for efficiencies and more comprehensive tracking of health care decisions.

It could also be argued that there should be more consolidation among insurance companies. This might not be a hugely popular concept, but it would give them more leverage to say no to costly increases demanded by hospitals and other potent health care providers.

At the very least, it’s time to take a critical eye to the mega hospital empires being erected. They could be very hazardous to your health.

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

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

 

CVS merger with Aetna: Health care cure or curse?

https://theconversation.com/cvs-merger-with-aetna-health-care-cure-or-curse-88670?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20December%206%202017%20-%2089557547&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20December%206%202017%20-%2089557547+CID_461096d86af0ad8c2eedceabf8b8a42f&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=CVS%20merger%20with%20Aetna%20Health%20care%20cure%20or%20curse

The announcement that CVS plans to acquire Aetna for US$69 billion raises hope and concerns.

The transaction would create a new health care giant. Aetna is the third-largest health insurer in the United States, insuring about 46.7 millionpeople.

CVS operates 9,700 pharmacies and 1,000 MinuteClinics. A decade ago, it also purchased Caremark and now operates CVS/Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager, a type of business that administers drug benefit programs for health plans. CVS/Caremark is one of the three largest pharmacy benefits managers in the United States. Along with ExpressScripts and OptummRXTogether, these three control at least 80 percent of the market.

Should American consumers be happy or concerned about the proposed merger? As a professor of health law and bioethics, I see compelling arguments on both sides.

Good for consumers, or for the companies?

CVS and Aetna assert they are motivated by a desire to improve services for consumers and that the merger will lower health care costs and improve outcomes.

Many industry experts have postulated, however, that financial gain is at the heart of the deal.

CVS has suffered declining profits as consumers turn to online suppliers for drugs. Reports that Amazon is considering entry into the pharmacy business raise the specter of increasingly fierce competition.

The merger would provide CVS with guaranteed business from Aetna patients and allow Aetna to expand into new health care territory.

The heart of the deal

The merger would eliminate the need for a pharmacy benefits manager because CVS would be part of Aetna.

Pharmacy benefits managers, which sprang up in the early 2000s in response to rising costs of care, administer drug benefit programs for health plans. Most large employers contract with pharmacy benefits managers that are different from their health insurers.

Nevertheless, a consolidation along the lines of a CVS/Caremark and Aetna merger would not be unprecedented. The nation’s largest health insurance company, United Healthcare, operates its own pharmacy benefits manager, OptumRx.

Pharmacy benefits managers process and pay prescription drug claims, negotiate with manufacturers for lower drug prices, and can employ other cost-saving mechanisms. They thus act as intermediaries between the insurer and pharmacies.

They also make a lot of money. They have been controversial in recent years for how they do so, allegedly keeping a keener focus on profits than on patients.

The merger has not been finalized and requires approval from government regulators, which isn’t always easy to get. In 2016 the U.S. Department of Justice sued to block two health insurer mergers: one between Aetna and Humana and a second between Anthem and Cigna. The government objected on antitrust grounds, arguing that the mergers would unduly restrict competition. Both efforts were abandoned.

CVS and Aetna argue that their proposed merger is different. It is a vertical rather than a horizontal merger, which means that it would combine companies providing different services for patients (insurance and filling prescriptions) rather than two companies doing the same thing.

However, the Trump administration is currently opposing another vertical merger, that between AT&T and Time Warner. It is unclear whether the administration will likewise oppose the CVS/Aetna merger.

Benefits of a merger

There is some evidence that a merger could help consumers.

A merger could result in more negotiating power. Combining the power of a leading pharmacy and a top insurer may allow CVS/Aetna to negotiate more effectively for price discounts from drug and device manufacturers.

It also could cut out the middleman. PBMs themselves have been blamed for raising health care costs. They often do not pass on negotiated drug discounts to consumers, but rather keep the money themselves. In addition, many believe they “make money through opaque rebates that are tied to drug prices (so their profits rise as those prices do).” With the merger, CVS/Aetna would not need CVS/Caremark to function as an intermediary. Eliminating a profit-seeking middleman from the picture could lower consumer prices.

The merger could provide easy access to health care for minor injuries and illnesses. CVS said it plans to expand its MinuteClinics, walk-in clinics that provide treatment by nurse practitioners for minor conditions. Also, CVS said it would offer more services, such as lab work, nutritional advice, vision and hearing care, and more. Thus, CVS promises that its clinics will become “health hubs.”

Many patients could turn to these clinics instead of seeking more expensive care from physicians or emergency rooms. Furthermore, health hubs could provide “one-stop shopping” convenience for some patients. This could be particularly beneficial to elderly individuals or those with disabilities.

Another benefit could be improved and expanded data analytics, which could result in better care. Combining information from patients’ health insurers with that of their pharmacies, including nonprescription health purchases, may promote better care. CVS pharmacists and health hub providers would be able to monitor and counsel patients regarding chronic disease management, pain management, prenatal care and other matters. Such attention could reduce the risk of complications and hospitalizations and thus also decrease expenditures.

Increase of other risks?

Skeptics argue that the CVS/Aetna merger is unlikely to yield cost savings and improved outcomes. They note that mergers in the health care sector generally lead to higher, not lower, prices and worry about other adverse consequences.

If the market shrinks to fewer pharmacy benefits managers because of consolidation, costs may actually increase. The remaining pharmacy benefits managers may have little incentive to compete with each other by demanding discounts from drug companies. As noted above, they may actually profit from higher pharmaceutical prices and thus welcome increases.

After the merger, Aetna may require those it insures to use only CVS pharmacies. In addition, it may require individuals to turn to CVS MinuteClinics for certain complaints even if patients prefer to visit their own doctors. Such restrictions would mean less choice for consumers, and many may find them to be very distressing.

The merger could also decrease competition and bar other companies from entering the pharmacy market. For example, Aetna may refuse to cover prescription drugs that are not purchased from CVS. In that case, Amazon may find it extremely difficult if not impossible to break into the industry. Less competition, in turn, often means higher prices for consumers.

It is difficult to predict the precise consequences of a CVS/Aetna merger. One way or another, however, its impact will likely be significant.

 

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.

 

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

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

Image result for hospital profitability

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

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

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

What Is the Role of Antitrust in a Free-Market Economy?

https://promarket.org/role-antitrust-free-market-economy/

Related image

Opening remarks by Luigi Zingales to the Stigler Center conference: “Is There a Concentration Problem in America?”

What is the role of antitrust in a free-market economy? Historically, economists have been divided on this point. Even Milton Friedman himself admits to having changed his views, turning from a “great supporter of antitrust laws” to “the conclusion that antitrust laws do far more harm than good.”  Any economic analysis of the costs and benefits of antitrust enforcement, however, must start from the empirical evidence on the existence of a concentration problem and its potential effects.

Overall, in the last twenty years these questions have received relatively little attention, and the presumption that concentration was not an issue prevailed. Not so in the past year. Starting with a report from the Council of Economic Advisers and an article in The Economist, concerns about an increase in concentration began to surface in the public debate.   

Yet, we know that all concentration measures have great shortcomings. Thus, these measures alone cannot be used to infer that there is a concentration problem in America. The more important question is whether this possible increase in concentration has translated into an increase in firms’ market power and whether this increase in market power has caused major welfare distortion.   

To try and answer these questions, we decided to bring together world experts on these topics in a conference organized by the Stigler Center. In preparation for this conference, the Stigler Center’s blog ProMarket, has gathered the opinions of many of these world experts. We collect them here for convenience of the conference participants. We hope they can help as stimuli for an ample and lively debate during the conference.