Why Health Systems Employ Doctors: Money and Control

By KEN TERRY

(This is the third in a series of excerpts from Terry’s new book, Physician-Led Healthcare Reform: a New Approach to Medicare for All, published by the American Association for Physician Leadership.)

The American Medical Association (AMA) last year announced that, for the first time, more physicians were employed than were independent. While many of these doctors were employed by private practices, the AMA said, about 35% of them worked directly for a hospital or for a hospital-owned practice.25

This estimate was lower than that of other surveys. According to research conducted by the Physicians Advocacy Institute (PAI) and Avalere Health, a consulting firm, 44% of physicians were employed by hospitals in January 2018, compared to 25% in July 2012. More than half of U.S. physicians now work for or contract with fewer than 700 healthcare systems across the country, according to a new study in Health Affairs.

Many of the physicians employed by hospitals and health systems formerly were in private practice. They sold their practices to hospitals because of increasing overhead, dwindling reimbursement, and the rising administrative burdens of ownership, according to Jackson Healthcare, a physician recruiting firm.

The many negative factors affecting primary care also have impelled a growing number of primary care physicians to seek employment in recent years. In 2018, 47% of general internists, 57% of family physicians and 56% of pediatricians were employed. There is evidence that this trend may be exacerbating the primary care shortage because employed doctors see fewer patients per day, on average, than do those in private practice.

An increasing percentage of hospital-employed physicians are young doctors fresh out of residency training. A 2019 survey by Merritt Hawkins, another recruiting firm, found that 91% of final-year medical residents wanted to be employed and that only 1% wanted to start a private practice. Forty-five percent of the residents said they’d consider a job offer from a hospital—the highest percentage ever in Merritt Hawkins’ ongoing survey.

Why Hospitals Hire Docs

Hospitals say they acquire practices and build their physician groups to improve care coordination and lower costs, but some observers say it’s mainly about patient referrals. According to a Stanford University study, a hospital’s ownership of practices increases the odds that doctors will admit patients there instead of at another hospital. Because the hospitals that employ the referring physicians are not necessarily the best, hospital employment of doctors also boosts the chances that patients will go to higher-cost, lower-quality facilities.

Hospitals and health systems benefit from employing doctors in other ways. Physicians in hospital groups order their tests from hospital labs and radiology centers. In addition, hospitals are able to bill Medicare for the ambulatory care provided by their doctors at a much higher rate than what Medicare pays to private practices for the same services. The hospitals have been allowed to do this because their employed physicians are considered to be part of hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs). HOPDs, which also include emergency departments and same-day surgery units, charge not only professional fees but also facility fees.

Just how much of a difference this makes can be seen by comparing the Medicare-allowed fees for a medium-level office visit in the two types of care settings. In hospital-affiliated clinics that are considered part of HOPDs, the payment was $116 in 2018. In contrast, private practices received $81 for the same kind of visit.

Pursuant to a regulation authorized by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began paying HOPDs and private practices the same for identical services in January 2019. But in September of that year, a federal district court ruled that CMS had overstepped its statutory bounds by implementing these “site-neutral” payments. An appeals court overturned the lower court decision in July of this year; it’s unclear whether the hospital associations will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the government is able to enforce site-neutral payments, it should reduce hospitals’ incentive to acquire practices, says Farzad Mostashari, MD, a former national coordinator of health information technology and currently CEO of Aledade, a company that organizes and supports primary care-led ACOs.

Hospitals, however, have other incentives to employ physicians. Their most important motive, healthcare consultant Michael La Penna says, is to lock up physicians so that other hospitals can’t control them. Even if there’s little overlap between two hospitals’ service areas, he says, they want to make sure that the other hospital doesn’t employ some of their referring doctors.

“When I ask a hospital board, ‘Would you be buying practices if St. John’s wasn’t buying practices,’ they say ‘No,’” he points out. “They’re buying their own distribution chain, which they already have for free.”

Higher Insurance Payments

Getting higher Medicare rates for their physicians is not the only way that hospitals have driven up costs by buying practices and recruiting doctors out of residency. When health systems employ physicians, they can use their market power to negotiate higher commercial payment rates for those doctors. A study of claims data from commercial insurers found substantial differences between the prices negotiated by employed groups and private practices across the country. In two-thirds of the areas included in the study, physician prices increased as the result of practice purchases by hospitals. Another study found that physician prices rise nearly 14% when a hospital acquires a physician group.39

The higher private insurance prices paid to many hospital-employed groups—like the higher Medicare payments to HOPDs—put additional pressure on independent practices. The physicians who own those practices must meet payroll and cover other costs, yet they’re getting paid less than the much bigger hospital groups with which they’re competing. Aside from the other reasons enumerated above, this factor has undoubtedly induced some private practice doctors to throw in the towel and go to work for a hospital.

Practice owners are also having an increasingly difficult time recruiting physicians to their groups. Because hospitals negotiate higher rates from commercial insurers, they can pay high starting salaries that private practices can’t match.

David Boles, DO, a Tennessee family physician, says that when he interviews recent residency graduates, they want to start out at a salary “that’s impossible to sustain under a production formula. If you start a family doc at $240,000 right out of residency—because that’s the only way you can get one—the odds are that if that’s a one-year contract, they’re going to have to take a pay cut in the next year.”

Hospitals lose about $50,000–$100,000 per doctor per year on their employed practices, according to La Penna. MGMA, which represents independent groups, has estimated that hospitals and health systems lose nearly $196,000 per doctor annually. Both estimates refer to losses on practice operations alone.

Despite these losses, hospitals derive large amounts of revenue from employed physicians who refer patients to them and order tests from their diagnostic facilities. To the extent that these doctors use the hospital that employs them more than they did in private practice, the hospital or health system can see a net gain in revenue, even if they have operating losses on their physician groups.

Financial Value of Employment

Even if hospitals’ practice losses are outweighed by downstream revenue, however, it’s unclear how much of that revenue would have come to the hospital anyway if the doctors had been independent.

Independent physicians generate about the same amount of money for hospitals as employed doctors, La Penna says, but the hospitals want to make sure that no other institution can control those practices. “If nobody could buy practices, they’d have to do something else to get referrals,” he says. “You’d probably end up with a stasis: the same ratio of referrals, just under a different relationship.”

Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, says that many hospitals do achieve net gains on their employed doctors. When hospitals suffer net losses on employed physicians after factoring in their referrals, he says, it’s generally because the physicians are not productive and because some of them refer patients outside of the health system.

Employed physicians should refer at least 80% of their patients who need hospital services to the institution they work for, Singleton says. In some hospitals, however, there are physicians who refer only 20% of patients to their employer and send the rest elsewhere. When a hospital has that problem plus low productivity, he points out, it’s bound to lose money on its physicians, even after the value of referrals and orders is factored in.

Health systems can’t legally require their employed doctors to admit patients to their hospitals, Singleton observes. But the doctors know their contracts might not be renewed if they don’t. The challenge for hospital management is riding herd on hundreds of physicians, many of whom came from private practices that haven’t yet been amalgamated into the health system.

What Young Doctors Want

Young doctors just out of residency have a different mindset than older physicians who have been in practice for many years. “They don’t want to work hard and they want to make a lot of money,” says David Zetter, a practice management consultant. “Most of them aren’t entrepreneurial. They’re not interested in dealing with the business side of medicine.”

Singleton agrees, calling the current batch of residency graduates “worker bees” who have no yen to start a private practice. “Part of that is the desire to just practice medicine without administrative burdens, and there’s also the uncertainty about the alternative,” he says.

For many young doctors, he notes, working for a hospital is the only world they know. Even if they wanted to hang out a shingle, he says, they would have no idea how to build a practice. And most of them have so much student debt that it’s hard for them to imagine borrowing more money to build the infrastructure that a private practice requires today.

However, Farzad Mostashari notes that, according to the Merritt Hawkins resident survey, 55% of third-year residents would accept a job offer from an organization other than a hospital. “That tells you something,” he says. “It’s all about whether we have alternatives for them.”

Will the Pendulum Reverse Direction?

Mostashari says he has seen some physicians voluntarily leave hospital employment recently. “One of the reasons why these doctors bolted from the hospital is that they didn’t like the hospital telling them they had to send their surgeries to the hospital’s surgeon. They may not agree that that’s the best surgeon for the patient. That’s moral injury to a doctor when they feel like the duty they owe their employer is in conflict with the duty they owe their patient.”

Hospitals lure physicians into employment by promising they’ll have fewer administrative burdens and can just practice medicine, Mostashari notes. “Based on that, you’d imagine employed doctors would have lower rates of burnout. It turns out that it’s exactly the opposite. The independent doctors have lower rates of burnout. It’s because they have more control over their lives.”

Zetter has helped physicians return to private practice after quitting hospital employment. “They have different reasons, but I hear complaints about no autonomy,” he says. “Management communicates poorly, the support isn’t there, and they’re treated like second-rate citizens. They’re also expected to practice in a certain way and refer in a certain manner. Their schedule is dictated, and they don’t want to be seen as just pushing patients through.”

Singleton, too, has detected a small groundswell of physicians leaving hospitals because employment didn’t turn out to be what they expected. He also cites a Physicians Foundation study that asked independent and employed doctors whether employment was good for healthcare. About half of the hospital-employed physicians said “No.”

Nevertheless, Singleton doubts that there will be a repeat of the mass exodus back to private practice that occurred around 2000 after the first big wave of hospital practice purchases. Even if hospitals and doctors wanted to part ways, he says, there’s much more regulation and corporatization of medicine now than there was in the late 1990s. With the current emphasis on value-based care and the need to invest in EHRs, practices have to be larger than they used to be in order to survive in the current environment, he says. Moreover, physicians who have been out of the business world for 10–15 years may not be able to cope.

Ken Terry is a journalist and author who has covered health care for more than 25 years.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/34L3nnz

Health in 2 Point 00, Episode 147 | The Most Confusing Episode So Far

With 3 consecutive days of $100M in funding, here is the most confusing (or rather the most confused we have been) Episode 147 of Health in 2 Point 00. Jess asks me about Verily partnering with Swiss Re to get into the stop-loss insurance game, Prescryptive Health raising a $26M Series A for their maybe GoodRx-like or PBM platform, Sonde Health acquiring NeuroLex for its vocal biomarkers platform, Aetion reopening their Series B and raising another $19M to the $36M they have already raised, and Otsuka after investing millions of dollars in Proteus, deciding to buy the rest of it with $15M, but we don’t know why any of these deals happenedMatthew Holt

Subscribe to Health in 2 Point 00’s Channel

Follow @boltyboy & @jessdamassa on Twitter

Subscribe to our channel and tweet us your questions using the hashtag #healthin2point00!

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/2QADkae

COVID-19 is Bringing Data Privacy into the Spotlight – This is How Healthcare Companies Should Respond

By DAN LINTON

Privacy concerns across the country continue to increase, and consumers expect their healthcare information to be private. Headline-making data sales, skepticism of Silicon Valley privacy practices, and COVID-19 contact tracing concerns compounded with a general lack of consumer awareness have continued to generate an ongoing storm ofnegative press and political scrutiny.

With COVID-19 continuing to rampage throughout the country, there is a need for the contact tracing and other technology applications to assess public health. At the same time, changing HHS rules are giving Americans more access and control over their own health data. Both availability and the promise of positive impact of data on people’s lives has never been greater.

Despite the critical need and incredible potential, there is still a great deal of confusion, lack of awareness and heightened concern among consumers. Studies show that the vast majority of Americans think the potential risks of data collection outweighs the potential benefits.

Clamping down on data privacy stifles innovation, and moving forward as we’ve been doing presents a potential privacy minefield. So, what should the healthcare industry do about it?

It is clear that data privacy, and particularly health data privacy, is crucial to consumer trust. Yet we also know thatconsumers are unclear who may be collecting their health data, or how it is being used.

That said, a recent study has shown that consumers want privacy protection, informed choice, and control over their data. It also revealed that people are more willing to share health data for altruistic reasons – either to advance their own health or to help advance public health and medicine in general.

Consumers believe that their health data is private information, yet they are more willing to share their data for the right reasons, with the right levels of communication, and with privacy protection. However, one thing is lacking: Thehealthcare industry does not do a good job of providing education or communication to consumers on the critical need that health data can fulfill. 

What can healthcare companies do

To accelerate innovation through the use of patient data, healthcare organizations need to start taking consumer privacy expectations seriously.

Educate and communicate: Most people do not understand how health data can be used to develop new therapies, and only 29% believe it is being used to improve healthcare outcomes. Yet many consumers would share their health data if they knew it would be used to improve healthcare outcomes for others. Altruism is a stronger motivator for sharing health data than even paid compensation.

Provide informed choice: The vast majority of people believe that their health data should either not be shared or only shared with their permission. In addition, privacy legislation and consent requirements are getting more complex world-wide. An opt-in mechanism ensures that organizations have the opportunity to educate consumers on the amazing work that their health data can contribute to. This approach of including patients more directly in data collection will also create additional health research opportunities beyond the data recorded in medical records.

Address the generation gap: Boomers are well known to be more distrustful of technology and data collection. The same study showed that less than 30% of those ages 55 to 75 (an age group that might benefit most from COVID-19 interventions) indicated a willingness to download a contact tracing application compared to about 65% of Millennials (ages 25 to 39). Again, education is key – lack of communication about data access and storage significantly decreases the likelihood of downloading.

Let’s get on this

Data is essential to driving progress and innovation in healthcare, and the COVID-19 pandemic has placed the spotlight directly upon privacy. Interventions such as contact tracing and related technology applications in digital health have created an urgent need for companies to provide greater clarity around how health data is used.

To achieve the advances necessary to tackle COVID-19 and other healthcare challenges, organizations must proactively consider and respond to these privacy concerns. Addressing expectations and spending the time and money needed to educate the general public, particularly on the altruistic reasons for sharing data, is key to ensuring that data-driven insights continue to add value to the healthcare industry.

Dan Linton is the Global Data Privacy Officer at W2O, where he supports internal and client data privacy and protection practices with a specific focus on GDPR, CCPA and the impact of global privacy legislation on healthcare marketing and communications.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/3gC83yp

Meaningful U’s

By HANS DUVEFELT

Meaningful Use was a vision for EMRs that in many ways turned out to be a joke. Consider my list of Meaningful U’s for medical providers instead.

When electronic medical records became mandatory, Federal monies were showered over the companies that make them by way of inexperienced, ill-prepared practices rushing to pick their system before the looming deadline for the subsidies.

The Fed tried to impose some minimum standards for what EMRs should be able to do and for what practices needed to use them for.

The collection of requirements was called Meaningful Use, and by many of us nicknamed “Meaningless Use”. Well-meaning bureaucrats with little understanding of medical practice wildly overestimated what software vendors, many of them startups, could deliver to such a well established sector as healthcare.

For example, the Fed thought these startups could produce or incorporate high quality patient information that we could generate via the EMR, when we have all built our own repositories over many years of practice from Harvard, the Mayo Clinic and the like or purchased expensive subscriptions like Uptodate for. As I have described before, I would print the hokey EMR handouts for the Meaningful Use credit and throw them in the trash and give my patients the real stuff from Uptodate, for example.

I’d like to introduce an alternative set of standards, borrowing the hackneyed phrase, with a twist. MEANINGFUL U’S for medical providers:

Unbiased, Understanding, Unflappable, Unhurried

Like the software Meaningful Use items, these may be hard to attain, but especially in today’s healthcare environment, they seem worthy of striving for.

Unbiased: Able to fairly represent alternative approaches to allow patients to make up their own mind about their care.

Understanding: Able to listen to patients concerns and reflect back that you “get it” and will work to help address them.

Unflappable: Able to, in Osler’s words, maintain equanimity in the face of the challenges of medical practice.

Unhurried: Able to use time wisely, therapeutically, without frenzy, to make the most of the most valuable resource we all have.

Now, isn’t that more inspiring?


Hans Duvefelt is a Swedish-born rural Family Physician in Maine. This post originally appeared on his blog, A Country Doctor Writes, here.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/2Qwob9S

THCB Gang Episode 23 LIVE 8/27 1PM/4PM ET!

Episode 23 of “The THCB Gang” will be live-streamed on Thursday, August 27th! Tune in below!

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) today are some of our regulars: health futurist Ian Morrison (@seccurve), WTF Health Host Jessica DaMassa (@jessdamassa), health care consultant Daniel O’Neill (@dp_oneill), and a few more! The conversation will revolve around the recent investments & growth in health tech, new policies around clinics & centers around COVID19, and more!

If you’d rather listen to the episode, the audio is preserved as a weekly podcast available on our iTunes & Spotify channels — Zoya Khan

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/2YDEoPa

Health in 2 Point 00, Episode 146 | Can We Call it Digital Health Anymore?

Can we call this digital health anymore? What do we call it? On Episode 146 of Health in 2 Point 00, Jessica DaMassa asks me about Amwell filing for their S1, Lyra Health getting $110M to develop their mental health platform, PatientPop raising $50M to improve SEO for doctors and patients (they also brought Johnathan Bush on their board!), Brightline closing $20M for their behavioral health platform for kids, and Science 37 getting $40M for their site-less clinical trialsMatthew Holt

Subscribe to Health in 2 Point 00’s Channel

Follow @boltyboy & @jessdamassa on Twitter

Subscribe to our channel and tweet us your questions using the hashtag #healthin2point00!

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/2G186Ht

The Bayer Deal: One Drop’s CEO on New $98M & How Data Science Will Fix Chronic Condition Care

By JESSICA DaMASSA, WTF HEALTH

One Drop just landed a $98.7M deal with Bayer — and we got the details from CEO Jeff Dachis. The timing of this deal is nothing short of impeccable: less than a year after the life sciences giant led One Drop’s Series B with a $40M investment, and amidst a veritable funding frenzy aimed at growing digital health companies focused on chronic condition management. So, how is One Drop planning to use this investment (part Series C/part development fees) to expand their data science platform known for diabetes and hypertension into some of Bayer’s biggest areas of focus — cardiology, oncology, and women’s health? And how does this even-closer relationship with such a consumer health brand help One Drop further evolve the retail side of its go-to-market strategy? Don’t forget — One Drop is sold direct-to-consumer via CVS, Walmart, and Amazon in addition to the more traditional routes via employers and payers. It’s a full breakdown of the deal and a walk through the key points of differentiation Jeff sees as integral to shaping One Drop’s move for greater global market share.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/3lmyPyo

Slow Walking to Value Based Care: Why Fee for Service Still Rules

By KEN TERRY

(This is the second in a series of excerpts from Terry’s new book, Physician-Led Healthcare Reform: a New Approach to Medicare for All, published by the American Association for Physician Leadership.)

In January 2015, then Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell announced lofty goals for the government’s value-based payment program. By the end of 2016, she said, 85% of all payments in the traditional Medicare program would be tied to quality or value, and 90% would be value-based by the end of 2018.

The government planned to tie 30% of Medicare payments to alternative payment models by 2017, according to Burwell, and hoped to reach the 50% mark by 2018. In March 2016, HHS said it had reached the 30% goal a year ahead of schedule, mainly because of the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP).

More recent data on the value-based-care movement comes from the Health Care Payment & Learning Action Network (LAN), a public-private partnership launched in 2015 by the Department of Health and Human Services. The LAN reported in October 2018 that public and private payers covering 226 million lives, or 77% of insured Americans, had tied 34% of their payments to value-based care. According to the organization, only 23% of total payments had been value-based in 2016.A deeper analysis of the LAN data, however, shows that the vast majority of value-based payments—both in Medicare and in the larger healthcare system—were still limited to pay for performance, upside-only shared savings, and care management fees paid to patient-centered medical homes.

More recently, the Catalyst for Payment Reform, a nonprofit firm funded by payers, found that 53% of commercial payments to hospitals and doctors in 2017 could be classified as value-oriented. However, the report said, 90% of value-oriented payments were built on fee for service and just 6% involved downside financial risk—about the same as in 2012.

Without downside risk, most observers agree, providers will not significantly cut costs.Evidence to support this viewpoint can be found in data from the MSSP. In 2016, for example, ACOs in two-sided risk models accounted for only 10% of the ACOs in the MSSP, but generated almost 30% of the total savings. “The average ACO in a one-sided risk model saved $1.3 million against its benchmark,” noted an article about this trend. “The average ACO in two-sided risk models saved $4.5 million—over three and a half times greater savings.”

Stuck on Fee for Service

What is the evidence that the healthcare industry is moving from fee for service to risk-based arrangements? David Blumenthal, MD, president of the Commonwealth Fund, replies, “As I listen to people in the healthcare sector talk about the future of payment, most accept the premise that value-based payment and risk sharing are going to grow in prevalence. But the evidence for risk sharing is not as strong as the evidence for pay for performance. So, I think it’s an open question.”

David Muhlestein, chief strategy and chief research officer for Leavitt Partners, has studied ACOs and the evolution of risk. He says there has been an increase in the number of providers who are taking downside risk, either through two-sided shared savings or capitated models. “But for the vast majority of providers, this is still a small minority of their total revenue. Even if you’re fully capitated for 5% of your revenue, and the other 95% is fee for service, you’re going to optimize [how you do business] around the fee-for-service component, not on that 5% capitation. And that’s what we’ve seen: very few organizations have sufficient revenue through any level of risk that justifies making changes that cannibalize or in some other way hurt their fee-for-service revenue, which dictates their profitability.”

Slow Walking to Value-Based Care

In the view of Grace Terrell, MD, the former CEO of Cornerstone Medical Group in North Carolina and a board member of the American Medical Group Association, hospitals and healthcare systems across the country are “slow walking” toward value-based care. “Some hospitals are very good at fee-for-service medicine,” she notes. “It’s really hard to do these changes, and the slower it goes, the easier it feels to them.”

She offers a startling example of how some hospitals have reacted to CMS’s Value-Based Purchasing program. A hospital chief medical officer privately told her that it was not financially worthwhile to reduce readmissions. “He said, ‘We’ll take the risk of the 30-day readmissions penalty [from Medicare], because we’ll make so much from our continuous churn [of inpatient beds] that it’s not worth bothering with.’”

Healthcare consultant Michael La Penna is not surprised by this story. Although such a sentiment would never be voiced in public or at a hospital board meeting, he says, hospitals’ financial decisions tend to be based on how a particular course of action affects their throughput and occupancy rate. If they have to make a choice between hiring two new ER doctors to increase admissions or hiring nurses to manage high-risk patients at home, for example, they’ll choose the ER physicians, he points out.

Hospitals are slow walking to value-based care, he says, because they need to fill beds, and the potential rewards from shared savings or risk contracts aren’t enough to make up the difference if they reduce their admissions.

Muhlestein agrees that hospitals are taking their time in transforming their business model. “There’s the view that the future belongs to these risk-based models, where you need to manage patients appropriately,” he explains. “Then there’s the present reality that fee for service dictates whether you keep the lights on. The health systems talk about better ways to manage high-cost, high-risk patients, but at the same time they continue to play the fee-for- service game they’re good at.”

Despite the pressure from some payers to assume risk, he adds, “It’s just a reality that lowering average length of stay while improving your daily census and negotiating better contracts with payers is what moves the needle in the short-term, and that’s where the focus is.”

Ken Terry is a journalist and author who has covered health care for more than 25 years.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/3jibhcc

Health in 2 Point 00, Episode 145 | Amwell, OneDrop, Outset Medical & Podimetrics

Today on Health in 2 Point 00, Jess asks me about the big news that Google Cloud has entered into a partnership with Amwell and invested $100 million into the company—looks like their IPO is really a thing! OneDrop gets $98.7 million in a partnership with Bayer, following at $40 million partnership last November, in a funding and development agreement. Outset Medical files their S1 and is going to go public, looking for $100 million for their portable dialysis system, and finally Podimetrics raises another $8 million for their foot ulcer detection platform for diabetics. —Matthew Holt

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/2EADpb8

Thriving in COVID Times

By KIM BELLARD

These are, no question, hard times, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  In the U.S., we’re closing in on 180,000 deaths in the U.S.  Some 40 million workers lost their jobs, and over 30 million are still receiving unemployment benefits.  Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of small businesses are believed to have closed, and many big companies are declaring bankruptcy.  Malls, retailers, and restaurants have been among the hardest hit. 

Yes, these are hard times.  But not for everyone. 

Last week Target announced what CNBC called a “monster quarter.”  Sales for online and stores open at least a year jumped 24% for the quarter ending August 1 – peak COVID-19 days – and profits were up an astonishing 80%.  Its CEO specifically referenced the pandemic, as shoppers sought safe and convenient shopping options.

It is not just Target doing well.  No one should be surprised that Amazon is doing well, as more turn to online shopping and Amazon’s quick delivery, but The Wall Street Journal reports that Bog Box stores generally are doing well, including not just Target but also Walmart, Home Depot, Lowe’s, Costco, and Best Buy.  The efforts they were taking to compete with Amazon, such as increased online sales and curbside pickup, served to help them survive the pandemic’s effects. 

Similarly, if you’re a streaming service like Netflix or Disney+, the pandemic has been great for business.  Video conferencing services like Zoom are booming.  Car dealers are struggling, but not online car sales

And, of course, if you’re a cloud computing service supporting all these shifts to online, the world has become even more dependent on you.  “Many customers are scaling beyond their wildest projections,” Carrie Thorp of Google Cloud told WSJ

In healthcare, everyone seems to agree that the big winner has been telehealth.  In the early days of the most severe lockdowns, everyone from CMS to commercial health insurers to hospital systems reacted with unprecedented speed to allow and encourage the use of telehealth – anything to keep people away from doctors’ offices or hospitals, where they might catch or transmit COVID-19. 

It worked: telehealth use “skyrocketed.”  Industry leaders TelaDoc and Livongo merged, while rival Amwell got a $100 million investment from Google.  No one is quite sure how much of the flexibilities introduced during the pandemic will persist once it recedes, but no one wants to miss out on what McKinsey predicts could be a $250b opportunity.  “The window to act is now,” the report declares.

Of course, the pharmaceutical companies are doing fine in the pandemic.  They’re the cockroaches of healthcare; they’re always going to survive.  Some are even getting the federal government to directly pay for their vaccine research or therapeutics

Health insurers are also proving to be big winners despite – or because of — the pandemic.  Due to all those delayed/avoided treatments, they’re racking up huge profits so far in 2020.  Some of those will have to be returned due to ACA medical loss ratio restrictions, some of that may due to their having diversified (e.g., CVS/Aetna, Cigna/Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s Optum), and others may prove illusionary if long-term impacts of having coronavirus prove widespread, but right now they are doing well.    

The big loser is employer sponsored health insurance – or rather, the people who lost it.  Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 27 million people lost their health coverage due to losing their jobs in the pandemic.   Some may qualify for Medicaid, others will buy Marketplace plans, with or without subsidies, but millions will be uninsured.  Our reliance on employment for health insurance has never seemed so short-sighted. 

Another big loser may be primary care practices, especially those not yet owned by health systems.  Financial losses are predicted to be staggering, as patients stayed away in droves.  As late as July, nearly 90% of primary care practices said they were still struggling due to COVID-19, according to a survey done for the Primary Care Collaborative.  Clinicians reported that in-person visits were down, salaries were being skipped, and many did not feel safe at the office.

Ann Greiner, president of PCC, said the report “is a clarion call to move to a new payment system that doesn’t rely on face-to-face visits and that is prospective so practices can better manage patient care.”  Farzad Mostaskari, MD, CEO of Aledade, agreed, saying that the most important thing we should do to help primary care is: “Change how we pay for care.”

Hospitals also took a big hit, with the American Hospital Association predicting that losses would top $300b in 2020 due to the pandemic’s impacts.  Some of these losses will be offset by the various federal bills (CARES and PPE), others by the rebound in the stock market, but some hospitals will continue to struggle – especially the already struggling rural hospitals.   It doesn’t help that payments aren’t necessarily related to the number of COVID-19 cases hospitals treat.

———–

During the pandemic, it has repeatedly struck me as a particular indictment of our healthcare system is that a health crisis causes so much disruption and so many financial losses.  If a sick care system – which, let’s face it, is what we have — doesn’t do well when lots of people are sick, what are we doing? 

In April of this year, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella talked about the growth of its virtual platform Teams during the pandemic and declared, “In this era of remote everything, we have seen two years’ worth of digital transformation in two months.”  Healthcare has also made some significant strides, but if all we take away from the pandemic is that maybe we should keep doing more telehealth, we’ll have missed the opportunity for real change. 

Just as Amazon and the Big Box stores are proving that the pandemic changes where people shop, how they shop, what they shop for, the pandemic has important lessons for healthcare.  We shouldn’t rely on employment for health insurance.  We shouldn’t rely so heavily on elective procedures for health care revenues.  We need to be more flexible about where and how people get their care. 

This pandemic will eventually pass, in some form and with great damage.  The healthcare system will survive, at least most of it.  The challenge for us is to start making the changes needed for it to thrive even in the next crisis. 

Kim is a former emarketing exec at a major Blues plan, editor of the late & lamented Tincture.io, and now regular THCB contributor.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/2YsVNdl