Category Archives: Hospitals

Steward buys IASIS. I’m quoted in the Boston Globe

ID-100141651

Steward Health Care is taking control of IASIS Healthcare, which owns 18 hospitals in Western and Southern states. This deal follows on the heals of Steward’s purchase of eight hospitals in the midwest and Florida a few weeks ago.

Here’s what I told the Boston Globe (Steward merger would make it nation’s biggest private for-profit hospital system):

Some health industry analysts said the company has been ahead of others in investing in so-called accountable care.

The business model relies on payment contracts with insurers that are designed to encourage cost-efficient care, replacing the traditional fee-for-service model, which critics believe promotes unwarranted use of medical services.

“Steward is essentially betting that it can apply its model of accountable care and cost containment to a hospital system in other geographies,” said David E. Williams, president of the Boston consulting firm Health Business Group.

“This is a very interesting contrast with some of the mergers and acquisitions undertaken by the other major hospital systems in Massachusetts. While others have focused on bulking up to increase their market power over local health plans — which can drive up costs overall — the Steward/IASIS arrangement poses no such concerns,” he said.

As a scrappy, lower cost –and private equity owned!– community based system, Steward isn’t popular with the big, academic-based health systems in Massachusetts. Those systems may actually breathe a sigh of relief to see Steward turn its sights out of state.

There is some irony, though, that while the academics’ idea of innovation is to band together to maximize local market power and beat up on health plans, Steward is applying its expertise out of state, where it expects to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquired assets. Brass knuckles style market power approaches are not part of Steward’s expansion playbook.

———-

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

Urgent care clinics just for cancer patients

check-145512_640

It’s tough being a cancer patient. The illness is serious and sometimes fatal, treatments can have serious side effects, and the fatigue and stress can be overwhelming. It gets worse when patients end up in the emergency room where they are exposed to people who may be contagious and encounter medical staff who may not know how to address the special needs of an oncology patient.

So I was heartened to read about urgent care centers specifically for cancer patients. Centers like the one at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas cater to the requirements of cancer patients. They provide same-day appointments, are open early and late, and coordinate with the rest of the patient’s oncology care givers. It’s a good example of patient-centered care.

Of course there are some strong economic incentives as well (hospitals aren’t doing this for their health, so to speak). Cancer patients are lucrative for hospitals –that’s one reason you hear so much advertising for cancer care. And hospitals are wise to treat their best customers well to encourage loyalty. In the value-based care era, we can also expect pressure for hospitals to improve outcomes, control costs and improve the patient experience of care. Urgent care cancer centers contribute to addressing all these goals.

It does raise the question of why only cancer patients get their own urgent care while the rest of the population has to put up with all the challenges and downsides of the regular healthcare system. Perhaps other parts of the healthcare system can learn from these urgent care centers and emulate them more broadly.

———-

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

Partners buys into Rhode Island: I’m quoted in the Boston Globe

Partners HealthCare plans to purchase Care New England in Rhode Island. Not a surprising move, considering  that Partners wants to continue to expand but is running into roadblocks in Massachusetts. Rhode Island is practically down the street.

I’m quoted in the Boston Globe’s coverage (Partners to acquire R.I.’s Care New England)

“This is a logical move for Partners, which has received strong pushback in its recent attempts to expand in Massachusetts, but is less likely to face the same pressures in Rhode Island,” said David E. Williams, the president of Health Business Group, a Boston consultancy. “The acquisition is geographically close to Partners’ existing network, and they already have a clinical collaboration. Rhode Island regulators will likely appreciate Partners’ financial strength and the stability it is likely to promote.”

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

Are Massachusetts healthcare costs ok after all?

id-100260936

The best defense is a good offense. I assume that’s what Partners HealthCare CEO David Torchiana had in mind when he penned First do no harm in the Boston Globe. In a nutshell, he argues that healthcare costs in Massachusetts are more affordable for businesses and individuals than elsewhere in the country, that they are becoming relatively more affordable, and that the state should resist the urge to impose further cost controls.

I’ve made similar arguments about affordability myself. See for example, Massachusetts: Land of affordable health insurance from back in 2011.

And yet…

While Massachusetts has retained its affordability relative to other states, healthcare is taking up a higher and higher percentage of families’ incomes, including in Massachusetts. Medicaid and other healthcare spending dominates the state government’s spending growth, squeezes out discretionary initiatives for priorities such as education, and necessitates the tough budget cuts Governor Charlie Baker is making.

I’m sure I’m not the only one whose eyebrows were raised by Torchiana’s sanguine perspective.

Partners also should not claim too much credit for the reasonableness of healthcare spending in Massachusetts, considering that its own costs are among the highest. Despite receiving substantially higher reimbursement from commercial payers than other providers and enjoying a richer payer mix, Partners recently reported a record loss of $108 million for the year. Meanwhile, its smaller rivals –including those who treat a higher proportion of Medicaid patients and receive lower commercial reimbursement rates– are reporting better financial results.

If Partners had remained just Massachusetts General Hospital and the Brigham & Women’s Hospital I don’t think its executives and lobbyists would have to expend so much effort fending off the state. Massachusetts residents are justifiably proud of the worldwide reputations of these hospitals, which draw tremendous research dollars from the NIH and elsewhere, attract patients from around the world, and are equipped with the medical expertise and equipment to treat the most complex conditions.

No, the issue is that over the years Partners has dramatically expanded its footprint throughout the region, buying up or partnering with community hospitals and physician practices, and expanding its own overheads as it grapples with the balance between central and devolved management. Partners is now in the business of providing routine care throughout the region, and that helps drive up costs and puts the company in the spotlight. As the state grapples with bringing costs in line with benchmarks, Partners cannot expect to be given a free pass.

So there are a couple of alternatives: #1: Partners can bring its own costs closer in line with rivals or #2 it can divest its community assets and focus on being a great academic medical center. From what I can see, Partners is pursuing a light version of #1 while simultaneously slowing its plans to further expand in the community and mounting a charm and lobbying offensive with the state and the public.

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

BIDMC and Lahey talk merger; I’m quoted

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Lahey Health are talking again about a merger. From the Boston Globe:

Top executives from the two hospital systems are discussing a possible merger, according to people with direct knowledge of the negotiations, the fourth time they have explored a deal in the past five years.

I’m quoted:

David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group, a Boston consulting firm, said Beth Israel Deaconess has been looking for ways to grow its network since its biggest rivals, Mass. General and Brig-ham, merged in 1994 to create Partners.

“Beth Israel Deaconess never got involved in the original Partners transaction, and ever since then they’ve been looking for a way to get bigger and be stronger like Partners,” he said. “Lahey is a strong, medium-sized player that’s come up time and again.”

From what I understand, this may actually be the fifth set of talks, not the fourth. Both players are high quality and relatively low cost, so a combination could create a strong, efficient alternative to Partners.

But mergers are complex and risky, so there are reasons not to move too fast. In particular, the board and management of each institution has to decide if the specific deal is good for their own organization. In the past that case hasn’t been made convincingly. It’s not clear that it will be any different this time.


By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

Boston Children’s gets the go-ahead. I’m quoted

From the Boston Globe (Children’s gets green light for hospital expansion, with conditions)

Massachusetts health regulators said Friday that Boston Children’s Hospital should be allowed to go forward with a $1 billion expansion project, a recommendation that seeks to support one of the state’s premier hospitals without undermining efforts to control medical spending.

The staff at the Department of Public Health recommended approval of the plan to build an 11-story building in Longwood and an eight-story outpatient clinic in Brookline.

Here’s my quote:

“DPH seems to be trying to satisfy everyone here, including taxpayers, health insurers, [Children’s Hospital], and competing hospitals,” said David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group, a Boston consulting firm. “The conditions DPH lays out may help achieve these goals, but it is hard for a government agency to manage the hospital market so tightly.”

Children’s plan to use its expanded capacity to draw patients from out of state and overseas is consistent with the hospital’s overall strategy. DPH appears to accept Childrens’ explanation, but wants assurances that MassHealth patients will not be displaced and that Childrens will not attempt to lure well insured, healthier patients away from local competitors.

Ironically, DPH seems to be fighting the last war. After all it was Partners, not Children’s, that expanded widely within the local market. Meanwhile Children’s big recent acquisition was in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut not Massachusetts.

——-

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

Medicare and the end of racial segregation in healthcare

ID-10082234

The story of how Medicare ended segregation in healthcare settings is a pretty remarkable one. Temple University Professor David Barton Smith’s  The Power to Health: Civil Rights, Medicare, and the Struggle to Transform America’s Health Care System brings the events of 50 years ago to light.

“In four months [government bureaucrats] transformed the nation’s hospitals from our most racially and economically segregated institutions to our most integrated,”he writes. “A profound transformation, now taken for granted, happened almost overnight.”

In the early 1960s healthcare was even more segregated than the economy as a whole. In Southern states there were separate hospitals for whites and blacks; there were separate waiting rooms in physician offices, with black patients seen last.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited racial discrimination in programs that received federal funds. But when Medicare was enacted in 1965, no one really took the provision seriously. After all, the Brown v. Board of Education decision a decade earlier had not led to rapid progress in school desegregation.

And yet Wilbur Cohen and a small team from the Social Security Administration and Public Health Service put together rules that prevented hospitals that discriminated from receiving Medicare funding. Learning their lesson from the failure of Brown’s “all deliberate speed” language, which had let school segregation fester, the team decided to enforce the rules from day 1.

Since hospitals couldn’t afford to forego Medicare, desegregation was achieved in a matter of months. Imagine that.

Image courtesy of podpad at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.