Skip to main content

NFP Hospitals Hit the Wall



Have nonprofit healthcare providers' improvement efforts hit a wall?  Standard & Poor's Rating Services seems to think so, in this story (via Reuters.)   From the story:

"Adding to pressures, inpatient volumes are dropping.
"With pending budget sequestration at the federal level, health reform implementation, and continuing pressure on state budgets, we believe the next several years will be difficult for most providers," said S&P. "Furthermore, we believe that the improvements of the past several years may be reaching their limit and thus will not be able to keep pace with longer-term revenue pressures, especially in light of weaker volumes."

"S&P says more rating downgrades are possible for not-for-profit healthcare systems over the next two years. It noted that the proportion of systems with positive or stable outlooks is shrinking, which "supports our opinion the multiyear trend of improved financial ratios is unlikely to continue."
Sooner or later providers, notoriously risk adverse, will be forced to admit that cautious incrementalism is little more than death by a thousand cuts - a slow death, but death nevertheless.

Many see salvation in mergers and/or acquisition.  Putting a bunch of soon-to-be-crummy balance sheets together doesn't make the collective any less crummy.  And, usually, the consultants, lawyers and integration costs eat up the first 5 years of savings from any so-called "synergies."

Many see salvation in shiny new buildings with private rooms and in-lobby waterfalls.  Few will find the new business volumes to justify more balance sheet leverage (see "crummy" - above.)

And many see salvation in massive IT investments- Big Data, EMRs, portals, etc.  I hope they're right.  I fear they're not, but it'll take five years to really know how soundly these systems were reviewed, acquired and implemented.  Sitting here it's easy to predict more failures than successes.

In the meantime, under either fee for service or risk-based reimbursement, a "low delivered cost" position looks better and better.  It's the only strategy offering a possibility of success regardless of scenario.  But here providers have been far too timid, scrabbling in the dirt for a few percentage points of margin improvement instead of challenging themselves to find 30%, 40%, even 50% savings on an episode of care.

They're not going to achieve that by cutting the marketing budget (again) or designing buildings offering more of the same.

No, it won't happen until providers finally do hit that wall.  Maybe then they'll realize that the only path to survival requires getting radical about lots of things -  including ditching that leadership box in which they find themselves.

(Photo credit: Magdalena Gmur, Creative Commons)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved