Tag: Hospitals

Medicaid Budget Cuts: Hospitals will bear the burden, we will pay the price

May 12, 2025

By LINDA RIDDELL & THOMAS WILSON

Recent discussions over Medicaid budget cuts invite us to look more deeply into the house-of-cards that, when it collapses, will hit the states and low-income households hardest. But we will all be harmed.

Some states get 80% of their Medicaid funding from the federal government, as a recent Wall Street Journal article, “Medicaid Insures Millions of Americans. How the Health Program Works, in Charts” pointed out. Even states relying less on federal funds will be hard pressed to shift their resources to replace the federal share. The ripple effects are clear: states are likely to reduce Medicaid enrollment, forcing low-income people to skip care or find free care, and hospitals will shift resources to cover care they are not paid for. Dollars cut from Medicaid do not vanish; they simply shift to different corners of the healthcare system. Ouch!

A Deep Dive into the Facts

Fact 1. Low-Income Households Already Spend More of Their Income on Health Care: Recent Consumer Expenditure Survey data reveals that the lowest 20% of households—roughly corresponding to those enrolled in Medicaid—saw the share of their income spent on healthcare (red in Figure below) rise from 8% in 2005 to 11% in 2023. In contrast, the highest-income 20% devoted only 2% in 2005, rising to about 4% of their income to healthcare in 2023.

Fact 2. Necessities Consume a Majority of Low-Income Households’ Income: Low-income households spend about 57% of their income on essentials like food and housing (blue in figure). This leaves little to nothing for other expenses. These families have an almost inelastic budget where any additional expense, even one as critical as medical care, forces painful trade-offs. In contrast, high-income households have from 38% to 53% of their income (purple in figure) left over after meeting all basic and other costs.

Fact 3. Affordable Care Act Led to Reduced Uninsured ED Visits: In 2016 — two years after Affordable Care Act provisions took effect — many states expanded Medicaid, and all introduced health insurance exchanges. These changes brought emergency department visits by uninsured patients down by half—from 16% to 8%.

Fact 4. Uncompromising Obligations at Hospitals: Under the U.S. Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), hospitals must treat and stabilize every patient who arrives, regardless of their ability to pay. With around 70% of all hospital admissions arriving via the ED, a surge in uncompensated care in the ED will directly affect admission rate, the hospital’s core function.

Examining the Key Inferences

Inference 1. Rising Uninsured Populations: Cutting Medicaid budgets is likely to lead to states shrinking enrollment and boosting the number of uninsured individuals.

Inference 2. A Resurgence in Uninsured ED Visits: If Medicaid budget cuts reduce enrollment, the previously achieved reductions in uninsured ED visits could return to the high rates seen before the ACA.

Inference 3. Hospitals Caught in the Crossfire: Budget cuts will force hospitals to provide more uncompensated ED care. The response is likely to be reducing staff, the hospital’s largest cost center — a move that directly affects the quality and timeliness of both primary and specialty services. Washington state offers a cautionary tale, where hospital leaders predict longer wait times and lower service levels due to state budget cuts.

Broad Impacts Beyond the Numbers

The health system must pick up the $880 billion slack, not by magically creating money but by shifting resources from other programs. The healthcare system has its priorities set by the budget scramble–not by the community’s health needs. Health disparities between the rich and poor will widen, and progress made on having more people insured will reverse.

Staff cuts will lengthen wait times and decrease service quality, not to mention they will burn more people out of their health service jobs. The ripple effects of Medicaid cuts will eventually touch all who seek medical care and pay for health insurance.

A Call for Political and Community Action

Now, more than ever, it is time for political stakeholders to recognize that the real cost of Medicaid cuts is borne not just by states but also by communities. Stakeholders, policymakers, community leaders, and the general public must stand up for their own interest in having a sustainable health care funding approach.

Toward a More Equitable Future

The case against Medicaid budget cuts is not merely about dollars and cents—it is about the future of our healthcare system and the health of millions of Americans. Cutting Medicaid benefits may create short-term savings on paper, but it undermines the health infrastructure that serves everyone.

A thoughtful and balanced approach would protect vulnerable populations while ensuring hospitals remain viable centers of care, especially for rural areas. In rural communities, the health sector creates 14% of jobs; rural hospitals are generally the largest employer and since they serve more Medicaid and Medicare patients, they will be the hardest hit by these budget cuts.

The shift in where healthcare dollars are spent could change every layer of healthcare delivery—from the ED’s ever-growing responsibility to inpatient admissions to primary care’s dwindling resources. It is a call for all of us to rethink how healthcare is funded and to stand in solidarity with those at risk of being left without medical care.

Looking Ahead

Beyond the immediate fiscal challenges, this issue invites a broader discussion on healthcare reform. How can we restructure funding to improve efficiencies? Could community health cooperatives or expanded telehealth services help lessen adverse effects? These questions deserve robust debate and decisive action.

In these turbulent times, every stakeholder—from local communities to federal policymakers— needs to find solutions that prioritize human health over short-term budget tactics. The stakes are high, and the choices made today will shape healthcare access and quality for decades to come.

Linda Riddell, MS is a population health scientist specializing in poverty and is the founder of Gettin’ By, a training tool helping teachers, doctors, case managers, and others work more effectively with students, patients and clients who are experiencing poverty. Thomas Wilson, PhD, DrPH is an epidemiologist focused on real-world issues and board chair of the non-profit Population Health Impact Institute

How Health Systems are Losing Contact with their Clinicians

Apr 18, 2025

By JEFF GOLDSMITH

Jeff wrote this article for Hospitals & Health Networks in the July 5, 1998 edition. He republished it this week on his substack calling it a “27th anniversary edition”. It’s an enlightening piece, but as you read it please ask yourself. What, if anything, has changed, and did anything get better?–Matthew Holt

It is hard not to be impressed by the sweep of change, both in the capabilities of the American health system and in health care organizations, over the last 20 years. In the space of a single generation, health services have evolved from a cottage industry into a substantial corporate enterprise. A breathtaking array of new technologies has been added to the hospital’s diagnostic and therapeutic capability. Hospitals have also managed-though not always gracefully-the transition to a more ambulatory and community-based model of care.

Through all these changes, the hospital has remained a central actor in the health system — and despite periodic political challenges, its economic position has significantly strengthened. But this success has come at a terrible price: the increasing alienation of professionals who are the lifeblood of health care and who bear most of the moral risk of the health care transaction.

As organizations have integrated structurally, they have disintegrated culturally. Not merely physicians, but also nurses, technicians, and social workers have seen themselves transformed into commodities and marginalized by the corporate ethos of health services. Professional discontent has intensified as physician practice has become increasingly incorporated into the hospital and as health systems have begun rationing care through captive health plans.

The gulf between managers and professionals — and even between senior and middle management — has widened into a chasm. At its peak financial strength and amid a record economic expansion, the health field has grown ripe for unionization. In fact, the labor climate among health professionals has become so hostile toward management that organizing health services could single-handedly revive the dying union movement in the United States.

Some of this tension is a by-product of the pressure to reduce the excess hospital capacity that health systems have inherited. To move from the present concentration of ownership to consolidation of excess capacity will inevitably mean workforce reductions or redeployment. The fact that little actual reduction in hospital workforce capacity has taken place so far doesn’t mean that the pressure to cut jobs and improve productivity isn’t real and tangible — or that it won’t increase in the future.

But the origin of workforce problems in hospitals and health systems runs deeper than the pressure to consolidate. In little more than a generation, management of hospitals has moved from a passive, custodial, and largely benign “administrative” tradition to an aggressive, growth-oriented entrepreneurial management framework.

What would a rational DOG(gi)E do(o)?

Feb 27, 2025

By MATTHEW HOLT

DOGE, or Doggie as Kara Swisher has been calling it, has gone from being a meme about Shiba Inus to a crypto scam to a group tearing the Federal government apart.So I thought I would use the title of this piece to make a joke. Like Musk’s humor it’s puerile and not funny. What’s also not funny is what Musk’s team has done to small government agencies, like USAID & CFPB that really help people, not to mention the irrational firing of thousands of government employees that appear to be screwing up the NIH, the National Parks, the FAA and much more. But it’s all got me thinking, what in health care should an effort to quickly rationalize government spending do?

Now I’m not proposing that there’s anything OK with the way Musk and his team have been blundering around the Federal government, telling lies about what it does and indiscriminately firing the people who have the most important responsibilities and then desperately trying to get them to come back. This has been pure ignorance theater, and it would be hilarious if it wasn’t so damaging. Equally importantly the places DOG(gi)E has started are stupid because they don’t spend much money. But the government spends a lot on health care –between two and three trillion dollars, depending on how you count it.

So if you wanted to save some money and potentially change the system, what would you do? First you’d take a deep breath and get some real data, and improve your understanding about what is actually happening. There are some areas in health care where the issues are well understood and the data is clear and there are others where it’s less obvious.

Let’s start with a relatively small one–spending on Federal Employees health benefits. Chris Deacon’s Linkedin posts are a constant source of fun and games, and she has been highlighting screwups in the FEHBP administration for a long time. Essentially the government via the OPM pays lots of different insurance companies to manage Federal employees’ health care. There is very poor oversight of what happens in those programs and when the OPM’s OIG points that out, not much happens. The plans (including Horizon Blues in NJ and BCBSNC and many others) have been caught being sloppy or fraudulent but not much has happened. All DOG(gi)E needs to do is read the report on the audits, or look at what GOA said about $1bn being spent on ineligible members in 2022 and apply their recommendations.

Next let’s get into something that requires a little more investigation. In America we buy (and sell) drugs in a mind-bogglingly complex way.

What the Health System Can Expect from a Second Trump Term

Aug 5, 2024

By JEFF GOLDSMITH

Though the results of the November election are by no means a foregone conclusion, it is worth thinking about how a second Trump administration might affect the nation’s $4.7 trillion health system. People were not the problem with the first Trump term; his healthcare team was strong and capable: Alex Azar, Scott Gottlieb, Seema Verma,. Bret Giroir, Brad Smith etc.

After the embarrassing political failure of Repealing and Replacing ObamaCare in 2017 (for which blame look to his White House staff), his healthcare team settled in to a quiet and unremarkable term until the COVID wave broke over them and helped drive them out of office. It was not merely ironic but deeply disturbing that MAGA politics prevented Trump from claiming credit for the Operation Warp Speed vaccine miracle his team produced.

A second Trump term would likely be very different- both more ideologically driven but also fiscally constrained. The people part is completely unreadable at this early hour. But health policy will almost certainly be a second tier priority because trade and tariffs, conflicts with our traditional allies and trading partners, and inflamed social issues like illegal immigration, wokeness, and abortion will crowd out changes in health coverage, costs and payment policy.

Show Me the Money!

However, fiscal pressures will force a second Trump administration to confront federal health spending and set him on a collision course with the hospital and pharmaceutical industries, two of the three largest organized actors in healthcare. Trump inherits a 2024 $5 trillion federal budget with a $1.7 trillion deficit, an anomalous degree of fiscal stimulus at the height of an economic boom. That deficit is also a major driver of the inflation Trump has promised to conquer.

Trump is committed to reauthorizing the individual tax cuts from his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which are scheduled to expire in 2025, which would add $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years. He also wants to reduce the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%. If Trump does nothing meaningful about federal spending, his FY 26 budget, due shortly after he arrives in the White House, would harbor immense out year deficits and completely gross out both the bond and currency markets–a “Liz Truss” moment for the new regime. The promise of immediately reducing inflation which Trump made in his RNC acceptance speech goes sailing out the window.

Savaging Medicaid Spending (or Trying to)

Trump has tied his budgetary hands by committing to not cutting a single penny from Medicare and Social Security, which are forty percent (!) of the federal budget. This commitment appears both in the Republican platform and in Agenda47, which is the Trump campaign’s compilation of commitments made in his speeches. Trump has also committed to not reducing the $850 billion spent on Defense.

Ringfencing Social Security, Medicare and Defense leaves the more than trillion dollar Medicaid program (state and federal combined) as the largest single potential source of potential budgetary savings to avoid inflationary blow-out growth in the federal deficit. At its peak in March of 2023, Medicaid/CHIP enrolled 94 million people, or 28% of the US population. Expect an incoming Trump administration to attack Medicaid spending, both by accelerating the decline in enrollment that began in 2023 with the expiration of the COVID Public Health Emergency and by cutting rates and payments to Medicaid Managed Care providers. Some 24 million Medicaid beneficiaries have been “redetermined” and over 15 million have lost coverage. KFF says present Medicaid enrollment is about 80 million in mid-2024 but that number is certainly moving down

While Trump has distanced himself from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, that policy blueprint characterized the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion as “inappropriate” and the program itself as a “cumbersome, complicated and unaffordable burden on nearly every state”. It advocated ending what it called “financing loopholes” (e.g. provider taxes that have trued up Medicaid rates to hospitals and physicians vs. Medicare), tightening Medicaid eligibility, and imposing both work requirements and cost sharing, “reforming” disproportionate share payments, time limits and lifetime caps on Medicaid benefits and ending coverage for “middle and upper income beneficiaries”! We can certainly expect inflammatory publicity from a Trump White House on states that have expanded Medicaid eligibility to “undocumented aliens”, followed by pressure on Congress to prohibit this coverage by statute.

When former Trump press secretary and present Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, announced her removal of 400 thousand Arkansans from Medicaid enrollment, she said she was “liberating them from dependency”. It is likely that that millions more Americans will be “liberated from dependency” on Medicaid during the first two years of a second Trump Administration. There will be work requirements (with politically damaging pressure on the 11 million very poor or disabled “dual eligibles” eg. Medicare plus Medicaid) population), as well as cost sharing and an voucher option to purchase private insurance (!?) for Medicaid beneficiaries. An aggressive effort to “re-welfare-ize” the Medicaid program will raise numerous bureaucratic barriers to Medicaid enrollment, scaring off a lot of otherwise eligible beneficiaries.

Chakri Toleti, Care.ai

May 15, 2024

Chakri Toleti is an occasional Bollywood film producer (you can Google that) and also the CEO of Care.ai–one of the leading companies using sensors and AI to figure out what is going on in that hospital room. They’ve grown very fast in recent years, fundamentally by using technology to monitor patients and help improve their care, improve patient safety and figure out what else is needed to improve the care process. You’ll also see me doing a little bit of self-testing!–Matthew Holt

It’s the Bureaucrats, Stupid

May 14, 2024

By KIM BELLARD

Universities are having a hard time lately. They’re beset with protests the like of which we’ve not seen since the Vietnam War days, with animated crowds, sit-ins, violent clashes with police or counter protesters, even storming of administration buildings. Classes and commencements have been cancelled. Presidents of some leading universities seemed unable to clearly denounce antisemitism or calls for genocide when asked to do so in Congressional hearings. Protesters walked out on Jerry Seinfeld’s commencement speech; for heaven’s sake – who walks out on Jerry Seinfeld?

Derek Thompson wrote a great piece for The Atlantic that tries to pinpoint the source problem: No One Knows What Universities Are For. The sub-title sums up his thesis: “Bureaucratic bloat has siphoned power away from instructors and researchers.” As I was nodding along with most of his points, I found myself also thinking: he might as well be talking about healthcare.

Mr. Thompson starts by citing a satirical piece in The Washington Post, in which Gary Smith, an economics professor at Pomona College, argues that, based on historical trends in the growth of administration staff, the college would be best served by gradually eliminating faculty and even students. The college’s endowment could then be used just to pay the administrators.

“And just like that,” Professor Smith says, “the college would be rid of two nuisances at once. Administrators could do what administrators do — hold meetings, codify rules, debate policy, give and attend workshops, and organize social events — without having to deal with whiny students and grumpy professors.”

It’s humorous, and yet it’s not.

The growth in universities’ administrative staff is widespread. Mr. Thompson acknowledges: “As the modern college has become more complex and multifarious, there are simply more jobs to do.” But that’s not always helping universities’ missions. Political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg, who published The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters in 2014, told Mr. Thompson: “I often ask myself, What do these people actually do? I think they spend much of their day living in an alternate universe called Meeting World.”

Similarly, Professor Smith told Mr., Thompson it’s all about empire building; as Mr. Thompson describes it: “Administrators are emotionally and financially rewarded if they can hire more people beneath them, and those administrators, in time, will want to increase their own status by hiring more people underneath them. Before long, a human pyramid of bureaucrats has formed to take on jobs of dubious utility.”

All of these administrators add to the well-known problem of runaway college tuition inflation, but a more pernicious problem Mr. Thompson points to is that “it siphons power away from instructors and researchers at institutions that are—theoretically—dedicated to instruction and research.”

The result, Mr. Thompson concludes is “goal ambiguity.” Gabriel Rossman, a sociologist at UCLA, told him: “The modern university now has so many different jobs to do that it can be hard to tell what its priorities are.” Mr. Thompson worries: “Any institution that finds itself promoting a thousand priorities at once may find it difficult to promote any one of them effectively. In a crisis, goal ambiguity may look like fecklessness or hypocrisy.”

So it is with healthcare.

Anyone who follows healthcare has seen some version of the chart that shows the growth in the number of administrators versus the number of physicians over the last 50 years; the former has skyrocketed, the latter has plodded along. One can – and I have in other forums – quibble over who is being counted as “administrators” in these charts, but the undeniable fact is that there are a huge number of people working in healthcare whose job isn’t, you know, to help patients.

It’s well documented that the U.S. healthcare system is by far the world’s most expensive healthcare system, and that we have, again by far, the highest percent spent on administrative expenses. Just as all the college administrators helps keep driving up college tuition, so do all those healthcare administrators keep healthcare spending high.

But, as Mr. Thompson worries about with universities, the bigger problem in healthcare is goal ambiguity.

What Scares Healthcare Like EVs Scare Detroit

Mar 6, 2024

By KMI BELLARD

I’m thinking about electric vehicles (EVs)…and healthcare.

Now, mind you, I don’t own an EV. I’m not seriously thinking about getting one (although if I’m still driving in the 2030’s I expect it will be in one). To be honest, I’m not really all that interested in EVs. But I am interested in disruption, so when Robinson Meyer warned in The New York Times “China’s Electric Vehicles Are Going to Hit Detroit Like a Wrecking Ball,” he had my attention. And when on the same day I also read that Apple was cancelling its decade-long effort to build an EV, I was definitely paying attention.

Remember when 3 years ago GM’s CEO Mary Barra announced GM was planning for an “all electric future” by 2035, completely phasing out internal combustion engines? Remember how excited we were when the Inflation Reduction Act passed in August 2022 with lots of credits and incentives for EVs? EVs sure seemed like our future.

Well, as Sam Becker wrote for the BBC: “Depending on how you look at it, the state of the US EV market is flourishing – or it’s stuck in neutral.” Ford, for example, had a great February, with huge increases in its EV and hybrid sales, but 90% of its sales remain conventional vehicles. Worse, it recently had to stop shipments of its F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck due to quality concerns. Frankly, EV is a money pit for Ford, costing it $4.7b last year – over $64,000 for every EV it sells.

GM also loses money on every EV it makes, although it hopes to make modest profits on them by 2025. Ms. Barra is still hoping GM will be all electric by 2035, but now hedges: “We will adjust based on where customer demand is. We will be led by the customer.”

In more bad news for EVs, Rivian has had more layoffs due to slow sales, and Fisker announced it is stopping work on EVs for now. Tesla, on the other hand, claims a 38% increase in deliveries for 2023, but more recently its stock has been hit by a decline in sales in China. It shouldn’t be surprising.

As Mr. Meyer points out:

The biggest threat to the Big Three comes from a new crop of Chinese automakers, especially BYD, which specialize in producing plug-in hybrid and fully electric vehicles. BYD’s growth is astounding: It sold three million electrified vehicles last year, more than any other company, and it now has enough production capacity in China to manufacture four million cars a year…A deluge of electric vehicles is coming.

He’s blunt about the threat BYD poses: “BYD’s cars deliver great value at prices that beat anything coming out of the West.”

The Biden Administration is not just sitting idly.

The Money’s in the Wrong Place. How to Fund Primary Care

Feb 5, 2024

By MATTHEW HOLT

I was invited on the Health Tech Talk Show by Kat McDavitt and Lisa Bari and I kinda ranted (go to 37.16 here) about why we don’t have primary care, and where we should find the money to fix it. I finally got around to writing it up. It’s a rant but a rant with a point!

We’re spending way too much money on stuff that is the wrong thing.

30 years ago, I was taught that we were going to have universal health care reform. And then we were going to have capitated at-risk entities. then below that, you have all these tech enabled services, which are going to make all this stuff work and it’s all going to be great, right?

Go back, read your Advisory Board Company reports from 1994. It says all this.

But (deep breath here) — partly as a consequence of Obamacare & partly as a consequence of inertia in the system, and a lot because most people in health care actually work in public utilities or semi-public utilities because half the money comes from the government — instead of that, what we’ve got is this whole series of massive predominantly non-profit organizations which have made a fortune in the last decades. And they’ve stuck it all in hedge funds and now a bunch of them literally run actual hedge funds.

Ascension runs a hedge fund. They’ve got, depending who you believe, somewhere between 18 billion and 40 billion in their hedge fund. But even teeny guys are at it. There’s a hospital system in New Jersey called RWJ Barnabas. It’s around a 20 hospital system, with about $6 billion in revenue, and more than $2.5 billion in investments. I went and looked at their 990 (the tax form non-profits have to file). In a system like that–not a big player in the national scheme–how many people would you guess make more than a million dollars a year?

They actually put it on their 990 and they hope no one reads it, and no one does. The answer is 28 people – and another 14 make more than $750K a year. I don’t know who the 28^th person is but they must be doing really important stuff to be paid a million dollars a year. Their executive compensation is more than the payroll of the Oakland A’s.

On the one hand, you have these organizations which are professing to be the health system serving the community, with their mission statements and all the worthy people on their boards, and on the other they literally paying millions to their management teams.

Go look at any one of these small regional hospital systems. The 990s are stuffed with people who, if they’re not making a million, they’re making $750,000. The CEOs are all making $2m up to $10 million in some cases more. But it also goes down a long way. It’s like the 1980s scene with Michael Douglas as Gordon Gecko in Wall Street criticizing all the 35 vice presidents in whatever that company was all m aking $200K a year.

Meanwhile, these are the same organizations that appear in the news frequently for setting debt collectors onto their incredibly poor patients who owe them thousands or sometimes just hundreds of dollars. In one case ProPublica dug up it was their own employees who owed them for hospital bills they couldn’t pay and their employer was docking their wages — from $12 an hour employees.

Out of Control Health Costs or a Broken Society

Oct 9, 2023

Flawed Accounting for the US Health Spending Problem

By Jeff Goldsmith

Source: OECD, Our World in Data

Late last year, I saw this chart which made my heart sink. It compared US life expectancy to its health spending since 1970 vs. other countries. As you can see, the US began peeling off from the rest of the civilized world in the mid-1980’s. Then US life expectancy began falling around 2015, even as health spending continued to rise. We lost two more full years of life expectancy to COVID. By the end of 2022, the US had given up 26 years-worth of progress in life expectancy gains. Adding four more years to the chart below will make us look even worse.

Of course, this chart had a political/policy agenda: look what a terrible social investment US health spending has been! Look how much more we are spending than other countries vs. how long we live and you can almost taste the ashes of diminishing returns. This chart posits a model where you input health spending into the large black box that is the US economy and you get health out the other side.

The problem is that is not how things work. Consider another possible interpretation of this chart: look how much it costs to clean up the wreckage from a society that is killing off its citizens earlier and more aggressively than any other developed society. It is true that we lead the world in health spending. However, we also lead the world in a lot of other things health-related.

Exceptional Levels of Gun Violence

Americans are ten times more likely than citizens of most other comparable countries to die of gun violence. This is hardly surprising, since the US has the highest rate of gun ownership per capita in the world, far exceeding the ownership rates in failed states such as Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has over 400 million guns in circulation, including 20 million military style semi-automatic weapons. Firearms are the leading cause of deaths of American young people under the age of 24. According to the Economist, in 2021, 38,307 Americans aged between 15 and 24 died vs. just 2185 in Britain and Wales. Of course, lots of young lives lost tilt societal life expectancies sharply downward.

A Worsening Mental Health Crisis

Of the 48 thousand deaths from firearms every year in the US, over 60% are suicides (overwhelmingly by handguns), a second area of dubious US leadership. The US has the highest suicide rate among major western nations. There is no question that the easy access to handguns has facilitated this high suicide rate.

About a quarter of US citizens self-report signs of mental distress, a rate second only to Sweden. We shut down most of our public mental hospitals a generation ago in a spasm of “de-institutionalization” driven by the arrival of new psychoactive drugs which have grossly disappointed patients and their families. As a result, the US has defaulted to its prison system and its acute care hospitals as “treatment sites”; costs to US society of managing mental health problems are, not surprisingly, much higher than other countries. Mental health status dramatically worsened during the COVID pandemic and has only partially recovered.

Drug Overdoses: The Parallel Pandemic

On top of these problems, the US has also experienced an explosive increase in drug overdoses, 110 thousand dead in 2022, attributable to a flood of deadly synthetic opiates like fentanyl. This casualty count is double that of the next highest group of countries, the Nordic countries, and is again the highest among the wealthy nations. If you add the number of suicides, drug overdoses and homicides together, we lost 178 thousand fellow Americans in 2021, in addition to the 500 thousand person COVID death toll. The hospital emergency department is the departure portal for most of these deaths.

Maternal Mortality Risks

The US also has the highest maternal mortality rate of any comparable nation, almost 33 maternal deaths per hundred thousand live births in 2021. This death rate is more than triple that of Britain, eight times that of Germany and almost ten times that of Japan. Black American women have a maternal mortality rate almost triple that of white American women, and 15X the rate of German women. Sketchy health insurance coverage certainly plays a role here, as does inconsistent prenatal care, systemic racial inequities, and a baseline level of poor health for many soon-to-be moms.

Obesity Accelerates

Then you have the obesity epidemic. Obesity rates began rising in the US in the late 1980’s right around when the US peeled away from the rest of the countries on the chart above. Some 42% of US adults are obese, a number that seemed to be levelling off in the late 2010’s, but then took another upward lurch in the past couple of years. Only the Pacific Island nations have higher obesity rates than the US does. And with obesity, conditions like diabetes flourish. Nearly 11% of US citizens suffer from diabetes, a sizable fraction of whom are undiagnosed (and therefore untreated). US diabetes prevalence is nearly double that of France, with its famously rich diets.

THCB 20th Birthday Classic: McKinsey wants to inspire lots of change; caveat emptor

Aug 14, 2023

by MATTHEW HOLT

So to celebrate 20 years, we’ll be publishing a few classics for the next week or so. This is one of my faves from the early days of THCB, back in 2006. It’s interesting to compare it with Jeff Goldsmith’s NEW piece from yesterday on vertical integration because at the time a pair of Harvard professors, Michael Porter and Elizabeth Teisberg were telling hospitals to change their operations in a way that seemed to me were going to destroy their business–cut down to one or two service lines they were best at and stop with the rest. McKinsey picked up on this and I went to town on why they were all wrong. In fact in the next decade and a half, despite all the fuss and consulting fees generated, almost no hospital system did anything other than merge horizontally with local competitors, stick up its prices, and buy feeder systems of primary care doctors or ally with/bribe specialists to keep their procedural referrals up. The result is the huge regional oligopolies that we have now. Despite all the ignoring of their advice, I don’t think Porter/Teisberg or McKinsey went broke in that same period.–Matthew Holt

McKinsey, an organization that prides itself on ~~increasing the amount of consulting dollars it gets paid by~~ improving the strategic direction of American business is making another foray into health care.

You may recall their last study on CDHPs was roundly criticized (see Tom Hillard for a good example including a hilarious and brutal smackdown of their research methodology in the last couple of paras), and this time they cleverly aren’t bothering with data—in fact they’re basically copying Porter and Teisberg. The piece, by Kurt Grote, Edward Levine and Paul Mango, is about hospitals and how they need to get into the 21st century.

And of course the idea is that hospitals need to change their business approach. Well, given that I hadn’t noticed a rash of hospital closings and the the industry as a whole has been growing its revenues pretty successfully over the years, what exactly are the problems?

The rise of employer-sponsored insurance in the 1930s and 1940s, and the emergence of government-sponsored insurance in the 1960s all insulated hospitals from the need to compete for patients. Today hospitals are “price takers” for nearly 50 percent of their revenues, which is subject to the political whims of the federal and state governments. Hospitals are also required to see, evaluate, and treat virtually any patient who shows up, solvent or not. Furthermore, physicians were productive because hospitals put a great deal of capital at their disposal. Yet these hospitals didn’t enforce standardized and efficient approaches to the delivery of care. At many hospitals today, doctors still bear only limited economic
responsibility for the care decisions they make. Little wonder that it is often they who introduce expensive—and sometimes excessive—nonreimbursable technologies or that hospitals not only suffer from declining margins but are also performing less well than other players in the health care value chain

The piece then has a pretty incomprehensible chart that compares the EBITDA (profit) of hospitals compared to drug companies and insurers. Surprisingly enough they make a whole lot less EBITDA than those businesses–although long time THCB readers will know we’ve been well down that path. And apparently their margins got worse and then better (from 25% in 1990 to 15% in 1995 to 10% in 2000 but back up to 15% in 2004).

McKinsey’s answer, basically filched from Porter/Teisberg, is for hospitals to specialize in particular service lines, stop being generalists and start trying to please the consumer who’ll be choosing among them. As a general mantra, this might be good for consultants to stick up on Powerpoint, but to be nice it’s massively oversimplified, and to be nasty it’s just plain wrong for most hospitals for the current and foreseeable medium-term future.

Their analysis ignores the fact that there are (at least) three broad categories of hospitals–inner city and rural safety-net providers, big academic medical centers, and suburban community hospitals. Each of these has a completely different audience, completely different set of incentives, and more to McKinsey’s point, different profit margins.

Right up front they talk about the 50% of revenue that comes from the government–but for the first two categories, it’s more than that! And for everyone, as public programs grow, it’s going to be increasing.

Those hospitals relying on Medicare make most of their money but playing very careful attention to the DRG mix. The ones who play that game well and make most profit on Medicare outliers (like the for-profits McKinsey features in its metrics) don’t really want to change that by stopping their patients becoming those outliers, because if they get better at treating patients, they make less money. Brent James’ famous Intermountain story tells the truth, and until Medicare really changes the way it pays, you don’t want to be ahead of that curve. Intermountain may have spent more than 10 years leaving money on the table, but those rich Mormons can afford it.

Meanwhile, for the mainstream community hospitals, as more and more services and patients leave the building, the imperative is not to change their business model, it’s to get their hands on that revenue that’s leaving with them. That’s why most big hospitals are now-co-investing with physicians in specialty hospitals et al. But while that’s a defensive battle to build better “hotels” for the star surgeons, it’s still about building better “hotels”–not junking the model of being the nicest possible host to the big time admitting surgeons.

The McKinsey/Porter/Teisberg theory is of course that if you get good at one service line, you’ll be attractive to consumers, and that they’ll choose you. There is more truth to this notion now than there was five years ago, but not much more. Doctors choose hospitals for their patients. That’s always been the case, other for those that get admitted via the ED, and that’s a function of location. That’s why hospitals suck up to surgeons. But even when consumers make choices, they’re not very active consumers beyond the deductible, and basically all hospital spending is beyond the deductible, and even in the cash non-hospital business (the stuff like genetic testing) most consumers take their doctor’s advice.

Which leads of course to who the other real consumer for the hospital is, and that’s the third party payer. First rule of dealing with payers is to figure out how to play the Medicare system well enough that you make it very profitable, but not too “well” that you get busted, a la Columbia/HCA, Tenet & St Barnabas.

Second rule is that you need to get bargaining strength against the health plans. No one can pretend that health plans really care in a global sense about having their providers cut costs and improve care delivery. They may say they care about it, but health plans add a chunk on the top of what they pay providers and stick that to their clients (usually employers) — who basically take it in a mealy mouthed way.

There is, though, a fight in any local market about where to draw the line on hospital pricing. But this fight is not about having providers from outside (or even within) the region swooping in to capture all a payer’s business with better pricing on certain service lines, and payers moving patients to these disease-specific treatment centers. Well, it is about that in the McKinsey/Porter/Teisberg fantasy land, but in reality the fight is about setting global pricing for all the services a payer needs for its members in that region.