OP-ED

Why Hospitals Are Losing Serious Money And What That Means For Your Future

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 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 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 their 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 will explore three potential solutions and highlight the innovative companies leading the effort.

This post first appeared at Forbes.com and appears with the author’s permission. Dr. Robert Pearl is the bestselling author of “Mistreated: Why We Think We’re Getting Good Health Care–And Why We’re Usually Wrong” and a Stanford University professor. Follow him @RobertPearlMD 

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Categories: OP-ED

12
Leave a Reply

6 Comment threads
6 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
jessamyn_weadSteve2Paul @ Pivot ConsultingLLCPeterBarry Carol Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
jessamyn_wead
Member
jessamyn_wead

Change is absolutely needed – and quickly – if we are to avoid drowning in our own healthcare spending. Surveys from The Kaiser Family Foundation have found between 2006 and 2016, the average premium contribution paid by US families with employer-sponsored health insurance increased by 77 percent, from $2,973 in 2006 to $5,277 in 2016. In that same timespan, median household income rose by just below 19 percent, from $48,451 to $57,617. A 2012 study published in the Annals of Family Medicine, found that if these trends continue and we don’t change the health care system, the average cost of… Read more »

pjnelson
Member
pjnelson

Two attributes of our nation’s Population HEALTH probably apply. First, the Medicare-eligible population of citizens is currently in the midst of doubling between 2000 and 2030. Secondly, there is a major shift in the health of midlife white, non-Hispanic citizens. This was dramatically described in a report by the Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, December 8, 2015: RISING MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY IN MIDLIFE AMONG WHITE NON-HISPANIC AMERICANS IN THE 21ST CENTURY by Anne Case and Angus Deaton. . The PNAS Summary ends as: “Although all education groups saw increases in mortality from suicide and poisonings (from opiates, my edit), those… Read more »

Paul @ Pivot ConsultingLLC
Member

This statement requires some citations/backup. I have never seen anything convincing regarding this statement and would be glad to see some good info.
“Digital records are proven to improve patient outcomes” The assertion notwithstanding, I remain skeptical.

Peter
Member
Peter

Looking forward to the three potential solutions, if anything like a “solution” can exist in health care.

This society continues to create sick people then send them down the rabbit hole of health care. Hospitals may not be making money, but Pharma is, and device makers are, and providers are – all while the perpetual motion machine of lavish compensation drives the system onward.

Barry Carol
Member
Barry Carol

Hospitals, especially the big systems, have lots of clever ways to bury profits especially by expanding their capacity and buying new state of the art equipment as well as buying up physician practices to get more referral business. If their claims of losses or declining profit have any validity, look at their average occupancy rate, payer mix, and average case acuity and compare those metrics to the last several years to see if there is any material deterioration. If occupancy rate is a problem, maybe they need to downsize. Pharmaceuticals and medical devices are indeed very profitable businesses. However, insurers… Read more »

Barry Carol
Member
Barry Carol

The large investments to implement new electronic record systems currently underway at many large hospitals and hospital systems will run their course over the intermediate term and should be a much smaller cost burden than they are now over the longer term. There is a long term secular trend that is driving demand for both inpatient and outpatient hospital care lower. Inpatient care is being impacted by less invasive surgical techniques which reduce the length of stay and / or make some procedures formerly done on an inpatient basis now safe to do in an outpatient setting. Better drugs can… Read more »

pjnelson
Member
pjnelson

Parkinson’s Law will likely continue to reign supreme, as it has for 50 years since the authorization of Medicare/Medicaid in 1965, augmented by Medicare Part D (onset 2006) and ACA 2010 (onset 2014). We have no means to mitigate the social adversities that dominate the causes of Unstable HEALTH, community by community. Minus inflation and economic growth since 1960, health spending as a portion of our nation’s GDP has increased 5.0% a year, compounded annually. For the first time, our nation’s most recent estimate of life-time longevity actually decreased. Admittedly, teenage pregnancy rates continue to decrease, a marker of social… Read more »

Steve2
Member
Steve2

“The increase in the number of less costly ambulatory surgical centers is also taking market share away from hospitals. ” I work at both surgicenters and hospitals. What is happening is that the healthier patients (usually with better insurance) are going to the surgicenters. Hospitals still have to staff for the sicker patients. In the short term, Medicare and the other insurers are still paying hospitals the same. I am not sure that is sustainable in the long run. If hospitals are going to almost exclusively care for patients that are much more resource intensive, and almost no one who… Read more »

Barry Carol
Member
Barry Carol

Steve2, If you took 100 or 1,000 patients who needed a particular procedure, what percentage would be candidates for the ASC and what percentage would be better off from a safety standpoint having the procedure in a hospital? Also, how much lower is the ASC’s cost per procedure as compared to the hospital’s even assuming the hospital sustains a reasonable load factor or occupancy rate? As a taxpayer, I would have no problem paying hospitals more to care for the riskier and more complex patients while patients who can safely go to an ASC go there at a lower reimbursement… Read more »

Paul @ Pivot ConsultingLLC
Member

In my experience some time ago, in a battle between 2 regional hospitals and a proposed orthopedic ambulatory surgery center (asc) the asc was going to charge 1/2 what the hospitals charged. Interestingly, the Blues who were dominant supported the hospitals!…so I tried to mobilize the corporate employers to weigh in favor of letting the asc open to drive cost reduction.

Steve2
Member
Steve2

Your problem here is that might cost (real costs) just 1/3 of what it costs to take care of healthy patients at a surgicenter than what it costs to take care of sick patients at a hospital. You also have, as is currently happening, surgicenters pushing to do bigger cases without really good data to support it. (OK, there are small studies. Interested parties are publishing data based upon a few hundred patients. Not nearly enough power to be meaningful. Also, these studies are largely being done at larger surgicenters where the lines between hospital and surgicenter are less clear.)… Read more »

pjnelson
Member
pjnelson

Using a “What if…?” hypothesis, the most common historical decreases in health care demand have been associated with an economic recession. Since the economic definition of a recession does not currently exist and seems unlikely to occur soon, are there any current circumstances that, in combination, could trigger a recession. Will our Nation’s political unrest and the continuing level of world-wide genocide along with the heightened risk of nuclear accidents, intended or not, bring about a sudden collapse of international trade? Its also not too difficult to imagine a stock market sell-out spree? Remember, recessions occur on average every 8… Read more »