Hospital mergers and acquisitions: They keep happening but let’s face it, the big ones rarely work

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/hospital-mergers-and-acquisitions-they-keep-happening-lets-face-it-big-ones-rarely-work?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRsa05XRmlObVl4WVRReCIsInQiOiJ5bFRKWGVoSGdPZStLb3Y2TWc4NmNhRkwzaWo4UncxcUR2ZzUzQUpycWpOcTlDamxkRDFWano2YXI4bUlLVGRRWStZN1B6K21ZRTg3aENUaW02ZHVHak9SU3BYRnJDRXFWNFd3R05jaEY2R2FPMzdLWDIzRE1PYlRZVlcyOHJRMiJ9

 

The first installment of our two-part series looks at many of the things that can, and commonly do, go wrong.

Mergers and acquisitions have been a common occurrence in healthcare for years now, and of late, mega-mergers have become the norm — giant organizations that join forces, often in an attempt to leverage their newfound scale and keep dollars flowing in.

The problem is that these mega-mergers often don’t deliver on their promises. Organizations want more negotiating power when hashing out contracts with insurance companies, and they rarely get it. Credit ratings are being downgraded. Costs often rise, quality deteriorates, and some companies want out of these deals altogether six or seven years down the road.

Others work out just fine, of course, but for every healthcare entity that sees success in these deals, there’s another which just bet the farm and lost it.

The mission then becomes: How to avoid that fate?

HARD LOOK AT REALITY

RIta Numerof, PhD, president of healthcare consulting firm Numerof and Associates, expects a rocky road going forward. Mergers are difficult to do well under normal circumstances, but a mega-merger is rarely a normal circumstance — it’s more complex, and more challenging to do well given that the healthcare industry is going through a fairly big transition.

In most of these scenarios, said Numerof, the intent was honorable. They wanted to lower costs and improve quality and do better by the consumers who depend on them. That’s the message that’s expressed publicly, anyway, and the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice have generally been willing to accept these sentiments.

Numerof said regulators should be taking a closer look at whether these deals are sound from a financial perspective, and in fact will deliver on that promise.

“I am very skeptical of this,” she said. “The reality is that around 40 percent of M&A in general, across industries, fail to deliver on the financial performance that the parents coming together in the first place wanted to achieve. The fact that there is so much evidence against the likelihood of success should be a data point the Department of Justice takes into account.”

A lot of the healthcare mergers that have taken place over the past five to eight years have been a response to the Affordable Care Act, said Numerof, and were intended as a bulwark against negotiations with insurance companies, essentially giving the buyers more negotiating clout when coming to the table as contract rates are being revisited.

It has also, she said, become a mechanism for these delivery systems to put more pressure on independent physicians, something of a dying breed in the industry.

The issue for these merging organizations is that, while they feel there’s safety in numbers, the deals add another layer of complexity into their business models.

CHANGING BUSINESS MODELS

Even under the best circumstances, M&A often fails to live up to the promise that was established.

“It’s because merger and acquisition integration, which would allow these mergers to realize the potential behind them, requires an enormous amount of work, and most organizations don’t take into account the time that’s required, the focus that’s required, and some of the cultural dynamics that are going to be at play,” said Numerof. “And many don’t take these considerations into account when they evaluate potential partners.”

When these deals are completed, there’s often a “glow” that follows, with a general sentiment that the decision will be good for business. Then reality sets in.

As an example, there’s one very successful pharmaceutical company that has a set of products centered around a speciality disease. The company was acquired for a significant chunk of change by one of the major pharma companies, which promised the smaller company that, due to its success, it would be allowed to operate as independently as possible.

Less than a year later, the company is being broken apart, and the components are being integrated into the infrastructure of the larger company. That has led to some bureaucratic overlay, and defections from people who don’t want to work for a larger company.

In some cases, mergers occur and then the participating parties want to jump ship.

“You have companies coming together, healthcare systems that came together with a lot of fanfare, and after about five to seven years they all agree this was not a good situation, and the company divests all of the assets and individual units,” said Numerof. “So this is very expensive, and not necessarily very good for the community.”

Size is almost never protective, she said. Bond ratings are going down. Some deals, like CVS-Aetna, which was recently approved by the DOJ, will have to do things very different than they have historically in order to be successful — and that will be a struggle in a challenging market environment.

PROPOSAL

In order to avoid risk, there are certain elements companies should consider.

“One of the first tenets is you’ve got to be very clear when defining the joined vision of the company, and articulate how the separate histories of these companies is going to come together to create a different whole,” said Numerof.

“One of the key points here is the strength of each of the companies. When two companies are weak, it’s like entering into a marriage. With two weak people, it doesn’t work. If you have strong companies coming together strategically because they both see opportunities for growth, where they can leverage each others’ trends, that puts them in a much better position.”

There are always opportunities for cost reduction, but they’ve got to have a new business model. That model has to take into account a new go-to-market strategy, and take into account what’s going to happen in terms of the portfolio — how customers are going to be taken care of, are what the infrastructure requirements are going to be.

An important consideration is redefining core roles and competencies, and sorting out which core values will endure in the combined entity. That will essentially be the glue that holds the enterprise together, and it will require communication; management structure will be crucially important in making the endeavor work long-term.

They’re all factors to consider, especially given that Numerof expects more mega-mergers in the future.

“I think we’re going to see more mega-mergers until the DOJ says,’This is not in the best interest of consumers, the economy, and the ability to compete,'” she said.

Newly merged Advocate-Aurora sees 20% drop in operating income

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/newly-merged-advocate-aurora-sees-20-drop-in-operating-income/532082/

Image result for advocate aurora health logo

Dive Brief:

  • After finalizing its merger in April, Downers Grove, Illinois-based Advocate Aurora Health released a financial report on the combined company’s year-over-year performance showing a 20% drop in operating income to $220 million for the first six months of the year. The decline is partly due to $34 million in costs related to both the merger and implementation of a new EHR.
  • Total revenue increased 3% to nearly $6 billion for the first six months of the year, while revenue increased 3.5% to about $3 billion for the quarter. Net patient service revenue grew across most service lines, excluding inpatient volumes during the quarter, according to the financial statement.
  • While revenue climbed, so did expenses. The 27-hospital system increased its spending on salaries and wages, supplies and purchased services, and contracted medical services. Total expenses grew 4% to nearly $2.87 billion during the three months ended June 30, and increased 3.5% to $5.68 billion during the first six months of the year.

Dive Insight:

In line with industry trends, inpatient volumes for what is now the 10th-largest nonprofit health system in U.S. either slightly declined or remained flat during the reporting periods. 

About 85,000 patients were discharged from Advocate Aurora during the first six months of the year while more than 3 million patients during that time were seen either during a traditional doctor’s visit or through another outpatient setting. The system’s home care unit saw the largest increases during both reporting periods. 

Meanwhile, the company is not alone in its struggles to rein in EHR rollout costs. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and Partners HealthCare in Boston have all experienced those costs weighing down financial performance, according to a previous report from Becker’s.

The financial report of the combined companies marks a milestone in Advocate’s quest for a partner to increase its scale. The system set its sights on Aurora after it had long tried to acquire NorthShore University Health System, a deal Advocate later dropped after pushback from antitrust regulators worried about price increases.

Analysts don’t expect the frenzied pace of M&A in the healthcare sector to slow down any time soon. The Advocate-Aurora deal was the largest regional transaction, Kaufman Hall reported, amid a year that turned out blockbuster deals threatening to shake up the status quo. 

As patients seek care in lower-acuity settings and as payers and providers team up to transform access to the industry, hospitals have eyed mergers to increase scale and offerings to attract more patients.

The consolidated financial statement details the results of the quarter ended June 30 and the first six months of the year.

 

 

 

Moody’s assigns ‘Aa3’ rating to MultiCare Health System’s bonds

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/moody-s-assigns-aa3-rating-to-multicare-health-system-s-bonds.html

Image result for multicare health system

 

Moody’s Investors Service assigned its “Aa3” rating to Tacoma, Wash.-based MultiCare Health System’s proposed $318 million series 2017A and 2017B revenue bonds.

Additionally, Moody’s affirmed the “Aa3” rating on MultiCare Health’s parity debt, affecting $847 million of rated debt.

The affirmation and assignment are a result of several factors, including the health system’s strong market position, greater revenue diversity and recent acquisition of two hospitals in Spokane, Wash. Moody’s also acknowledged MultiCare Health’s weaker operating performance in fiscal year 2016 and more than 30 percent increase in debt and risks associated with integrating into the Spokane market.

The outlook was revised to negative from stable, reflecting the health system’s increased debt burden and anticipated decreases in profitability as the health system integrates into a new market.

Moody’s assigns ‘A3’ rating to Tower Health’s bonds

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/moody-s-assigns-a3-rating-to-tower-health-s-bonds.html

Image result for tower health system

 

Moody’s Investors Service assigned its “A3” rating to West Reading, Pa.-based Tower Health’s proposed $584 million series 2017 bonds.

Additionally, Moody’s downgraded Tower Health’s outstanding ratings to “A3” from “A2.”

The assignment is a result of several factors, including Tower Health’s solid market position, historically healthy operating performance and favorable absolute liquidity metrics. Moody’s also acknowledged the increased risk associated with the health system’s recent purchase of five hospitals, which resulted in the downgrade of Tower Health’s outstanding ratings.

The outlook is revised to negative from stable, reflecting the increased risk of integrating five formerly for-profit hospitals into the nonprofit health network.

4 financial, strategic and revenue cycle issues health systems are facing

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/4-financial-strategic-and-revenue-cycle-issues-health-systems-are-facing.html

Image result for 4 financial, strategic and revenue cycle issues health systems are facing

From uncertainty around the future of the ACA to dwindling reimbursement, hospitals and health systems across the nation are facing a myriad of challenges.

Four healthcare industry experts discussed some of the most pressing challenges facing healthcare organizations today at the Becker’s Hospital Review 3rd Annual Health IT + Revenue Cycle conference in Chicago.

1. Hospitals across all credit rating categories are feeling financial pressure. A few years ago, hospitals with an A+ or higher credit rating typically had strong margins and a lot of options for improvement. “The big difference today is we’re seeing more hospitals that are struggling with operating margin, regardless of rating,” said Charles Alston, market executive and senior vice president at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. To address this issue, hospitals and health systems must examine how to fix the problem and then determine how to sustain those results long term, he said.

2. Hospitals are faced with uncertainty around the future of health reform. “I’m really worried about the future of the ACA and how much bad debt we’re going to have,” said Charles Ayscue, senior vice president of finance and CFO of Asheville, N.C.-based Mission Health. “We’re going to see a lot more self pay and we don’t have the workforce to handle that self pay.” He said Mission Health is taking proactive steps to prepare for the influx of patients with high deductible health plans, with a focus on revenue cycle improvement. “We’ve tried our best to educate our physicians on documentation and coding,” he said.

3. Health system mergers can create new challenges. Chicago-based Presence Health was formed in 2011 through the merger of Resurrection Healthcare in Chicago and Provena Health in Mokena, Ill. Presence Health CFO Mark Rafalski said hospitals involved in the transaction operated on disparate IT systems, which led to some revenue cycle management issues. “We’ve struggled in the area of [claim] denials,” he said. In an effort to turn around its finances, Presence has made a lot of changes in its revenue cycle, including using analytics and outsourcing to key partners, said Mr. Rafalski.

4. Healthcare organizations need to simultaneously cut costs and innovate.  Hospitals and health systems across the nation are facing cost pressure. “On the flipside, you have to change your strategy and innovate. You have to invest in the patient experience and the physician experience,” said Keith Lohkamp, senior director of industry strategy at Workday, a provider of cloud-based applications for finance and human resources. These competing priorities have fueled consolidation in the industry, as hospitals look for ways to drive efficiency and improve quality of care.

 

Culture Is Not the Culprit

https://hbr.org/2016/04/culture-is-not-the-culprit

hen organizations get into big trouble, fixing the culture is usually the prescription. That’s what most everyone said General Motors needed to do after its recall crisis in 2014—and ever since, CEO Mary Barra has been focusing on creating “the right environment” to promote accountability and head off future disasters. Pundits far and wide called for the same remedy when it came to light that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, deemed a corrosive bureaucracy by federal investigators, kept veterans waiting months for critical health care. Cultural reform has likewise been proposed as the solution to excessive use of force by police departments, unethical behavior in banks, and just about any other major organizational problem you can think of. All eyes are on culture as the cause and the cure.

But the corporate leaders we have interviewed—current and former CEOs who have successfully led major transformations—say that culture isn’t something you “fix.” Rather, in their experience, cultural change is what you get after you’ve put new processes or structures in place to tackle tough business challenges like reworking an outdated strategy or business model. The culture evolves as you do that important work.

Though this runs counter to the going wisdom about how to turn things around at GM, the VA, and elsewhere, it makes intuitive sense to look at culture as an outcome—not a cause or a fix. Organizations are complex systems with many ripple effects. Reworking fundamental practices will inevitably lead to some new values and behaviors. Employees may start seeing their contributions to society in a whole new light. This is what happened at Ecolab when CEO Doug Baker pushed decisions down to the front lines to strengthen customer relationships. Or people might become less adversarial toward senior executives—as Northwest employees did after Delta CEO Richard Anderson acquired the airline and got workers on board by meeting their day-to-day needs.

The leaders we spoke with took different approaches for different ends. For example, Alan Mulally worked to break down barriers between units at Ford, whereas Dan Vasella did a fair amount of decentralizing to unleash creative energy at Novartis. But in every case, when the leaders used tools such as decision rights, performance measurement, and reward systems to address their particular business challenges, organizational culture evolved in interesting ways as a result, reinforcing the new direction.

Revisiting their stories provides a richer understanding of corporate transformation and culture’s role in it, so we share highlights from our conversations here. Most of these stories involve some aspect of merger integration, one of the most difficult transitions for companies to manage. And they all show, in a range of settings, that culture isn’t a final destination. It morphs right along with the company’s competitive environment and objectives. It’s really more of a temporary landing place—where the organization should be at that moment, if the right management levers have been pulled.

Healthcare’s Consolidation Landscape

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/healthcare%E2%80%99s-consolidation-landscape?spMailingID=11162259&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1180070662&spReportId=MTE4MDA3MDY2MgS2

Image result for hospital market consolidation

Market and regulatory factors have unleashed a wave of merger, acquisition, and partnership activity that is changing the delivery of healthcare services.

Consolidation in the healthcare-provider sector has accelerated in recent years, reshaping the relationships between health systems, hospitals, and independent physicians across the country.

In the Buckeye State, healthcare consolidation activity has been a transformational force at OhioHealth, says Michael Louge, CPA, who serves as executive vice president and chief operating officer at the 11-hospital health system based in Columbus.

“When you look at OhioHealth, and you go back two or three decades, it was a much different organization. The reason it is different today is because of philosophy and the way we approach regional partnerships—how we have worked with physicians and hospitals in the region. Our whole organization’s evolution has been through successful partnerships and consolidations with regional players.”

Over the past year, statistics have been gathered on the pace of healthcare-provider consolidation.

In a recent HealthLeaders Media survey, 159 healthcare executives—mainly from health systems, hospitals, and physician practices—were asked about their merger, acquisition, and partnership (MAP) deals.

Eighty-seven percent of the respondents said their organizations were expected to both explore potential deals and complete deals that were underway in the next 12–18 months. Only 13% of the respondents said their organizations were not planning MAP deals in that same time period.

From the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010 through the end of last year, merger and acquisition transactions involving acute-care hospitals increased 55% from 66 announced deals to 102, according to Skokie, Illinois–based Kaufman Hall. Last year, the operating revenue of acquired organizations was more than $22 billion, according to the consultancy.

Kit Kamholz, managing director at Kaufman Hall, says two sets of drivers are propelling consolidation activity among health systems and hospitals.

“There are transactions that are driven by financial rationale. This is driven by a level of distress at the smaller organization, either from a historical-financial standpoint, an access-to-capital standpoint, or they are experiencing some significant clinical deficiencies. … The second bucket is in the category of strategic rationale. These are organizations that tend to be relatively strong financially, that are considered to be strong community-based providers in their marketplaces; but they are looking at the landscape of the evolving healthcare environment and saying, ‘Do we have the skills and capabilities to be successful in this new era of value-based care?’ ”

Healthcare consolidation activity is impacting the country’s physician practices and physician-employment trends.

The changing face of healthcare leadership

http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/managed-healthcare-executive/news/changing-face-healthcare-leadership?cfcache=true

Despite all the change health plans are facing today, there’s one key way of measuring leaders’ effectiveness that won’t change: Profitability.

Health plan executives will be evaluated based on the sustainability of their businesses during a time when profit margins are tight. They’ll also be measured based on their ability to retain employees and maintain current local relationships. Health plans will be investing in a lot of new talent. That means that leaders will be measured on their ability to grow their teams, while maintaining deep relationships in the communities where they’re doing business.

Achieving financial reporting harmony post-M&A

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/achieving-financial-reporting-harmony-post-m-a.html

3 pies-Grant Thornton

M&A continues picking up speed in healthcare, generally producing expected results — planned benefits plus feared fragmentation. Among the many functions that may become at least temporarily stressed is finance.

M&A, for all its advantages, is a disruptor. The amount of disruption is based on such factors as existing infrastructures, maturity of business processes, level of change and enterprise readiness to accept the change. Everything about the conjoining organizations — people, schedules, cultures and systems — is pulled together with an expectation that on the backside the newly formed enterprise will work.

For the finance team, this means dealing with data that lacks common structure, terminology, business process and technology. Finance has the unenviable task of capturing data in its varied quality and formats in a myriad of locations within the formerly separate organizations. Order must be created so that the financial data is fit for consolidation, close and reporting for the new enterprise.

With healthcare mergers, joining workplace cultures can be a difficult transition

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/healthcare-mergers-joining-workplace-cultures-can-be-difficult-transition?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRous6%2FPZKXonjHpfsX57u4rUa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ISctiI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQ7LHMbpszbgPUhM%3D

Thousands of healthcare workers nationally have had to adjust to life with a new employer, new colleagues, and maybe even competing managers.