JUNE 2016 STRATEGIC COST INTELLIGENCE REPORT CONTROL ...content.hcpro.com › pdf ›...
Transcript of JUNE 2016 STRATEGIC COST INTELLIGENCE REPORT CONTROL ...content.hcpro.com › pdf ›...
HEA
LTH
LEA
DER
S M
EDIA
IN
TEL
LIG
ENC
E R
EPO
RT
C uncilHEALTHLEADERS MEDIA
Access. Insight. Analysis.
JUNE 2016
STRATEGIC COST CONTROL: Beyond Traditional Tactics
W W W . H E A L T H L E A D E R S M E D I A . C O M / I N T E L L I G E N C E
POWERED BY:
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 2
TOC
FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
FIGURE 1: Biggest Barriers to Sustainable Cost Reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
FIGURE 2: Impact of Transition From Fee-for-Service to Value-Based Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FIGURE 3: Operations/Admin Activities Providing Highest Contributions This Year . . . . . . . . . 13
FIGURE 4: Clinical Activities Providing Highest Contributions This Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
FIGURE 5: Most Financially Impactful Revenue Cycle Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
FIGURE 6: IT Activities Delivering Most Cost Reduction Next Three Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
FIGURE 7: Staffing Areas With Greatest Success in Cost Containment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
FIGURE 8: Determining True Cost of Providing Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
FIGURE 9: Breakdown of True Cost of Care for Service Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FIGURE 10: Price Transparency for Cost of Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
FIGURE 11: Price Transparency for Payers’ Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
FIGURE 12: Year-Over-Year Savings From Cost-Reduction Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
FIGURE 13: Goal for Average Percentage Reduction in Operating Cost Next Three Years . . . 23
FIGURE 14: Operating Margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
FIGURE 15: Average Annual Operating Margin Goal Next Three Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
RESPONDENT PROFILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
TABLE OF CONTENTS
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 3
TOC
FOREWORD
Reducing costs and improving value have long been critical issues within the healthcare
industry, yet we continue to grapple with determining the most efficient methods. Our
traditional fee-for-service operating model has produced a fragmented system that is unwieldy
and outdated, and doesn’t consistently produce high quality and affordable care. This has led
to a challenging transition as we move from fee-for-service to value-based care. Many in the
industry have been slow to make the transition, citing a lack of infrastructure and fearing a
drop in revenue.
That’s why I was pleased to see in this year’s HealthLeaders Media Strategic Cost Control
Survey that 50% of respondents say switching from fee-for-service to value-based care has
either improved or somewhat improved their organization’s effort in containing costs. Reform
has been beneficial to the industry and patients alike, as it broadens opportunities for wellness
and for making better-informed decisions on care.
The breadth of options weren’t available before. In many cases, our only options to cut
costs were reducing the fee for a procedure. Now, we can ask the vital question: Is the x-ray
necessary; is the hip replacement beneficial? Value-based care gives us the flexibility, which is
vital because we face numerous barriers to achieving sustainable cost reduction.
The biggest hurdle according to the survey is the lack of data on the true cost of care, followed
by insufficient integration with care partners. Tied with two other factors for third place is the
lack of patient engagement in their care. Patients often undervalue their role in maintaining
health—they don’t properly take medication, attend physical therapy or exercise, and will
demand unnecessary services, such as insisting on an antibiotic to treat a virus.
While patient actions are not directly in our control, there are other areas where our
industry can do better. For instance, 70% of respondents indicated that improved clinical
documentation would have a greater financial impact than any other revenue cycle activity.
Documenting patient diagnoses and treatments correctly is essential because it gives us the
means to follow up on continued care in a timely manner. Failure to do so is bad for cost cutting
and even worse for patient wellness.
Achieving greater cost efficiency requires a multi-pronged approach: improved analytics,
investing in infrastructure and training, determining the true cost of care (which 86% of
respondents said they can do for at least some of their care), and more. None of the tactics
by themselves is a panacea. But with the right combination, we can increase wellness while
cutting costs —a win-win for everyone.
Focus on Value and Flexibility Is Improving Care and Controlling Costs
Greg Poulsen Senior Vice President and Chief Strategy OfficerIntermountain Healthcare,Salt Lake City
Lead Advisor for this Intelligence Report
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 4
TOC
The strategic imperative of achieving sustainable cost control is one of the healthcare industry’s
important challenges—without a clear and effective strategy, many healthcare organizations
will find their financial viability at risk. Traditional cost-containment and revenue cycle
approaches based on purchasing and supply chain efficiencies and enhanced revenue collection
activities can only achieve so much, particularly in the face of declining reimbursements and
requirements for higher levels of clinical performance.
This is not to say these activities lack value—far from it. Driving down costs through frugal
spending and more efficient operation on one hand, and maximizing revenue collection
through the use of disciplined practices and IT-based capabilities on the other, are a necessity.
But there are other more sustainable avenues to pursue, such as process redesign and care
standardization, to name just two.
The transition from fee-for-service to value-based care encourages healthcare organizations
to embrace a new financial and clinical mission: providing high-quality care at more affordable
costs. One of the fundamental competencies of this new model is being able to determine
the true cost of providing care. Unfortunately, more than half of respondents to the
2016 HealthLeaders Media Strategic Cost Control Survey say the biggest barrier to sustainable
cost reduction is lack of data on the true cost of care (Figure 1), so there is work to be done.
Having a complete knowledge of costs allows organizations to operate in more strategic
and sustainable ways, and this will be critical as healthcare organizations adopt risk-based
reimbursement models.
The good news for both providers and patients is that healthcare reform appears to be having
the desired effect on cost containment: 50% of survey respondents say that the transition from
fee-for-service to value-based care has either improved or somewhat improved their cost-
containment efforts (Figure 2), and only 16% say that this has hindered or somewhat hindered
their efforts. Positive change is coming, although more slowly than many would prefer.
Biggest barriers. Healthcare leaders are clear that the lack of data on the true cost of
providing care is the No. 1 barrier to sustainable cost reductions (Figure 1); it is the only
response cited by a majority (57%) and is nearly 20 points ahead of the next-highest choice.
The second level of responses regarding barriers are tightly clustered, and include insufficient
integration with care partners at 39% and, at 32% each, lack of patient engagement in their
Strategic Cost Control: Embracing Cost Clarity, Transparency, and Process Redesign
ANALYSIS
Jonathan BeesHealthLeaders Media Senior Research Analyst
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 5
TOC
care, lack of technology in place to achieve goals, and
unsupportive organizational culture. Responses are fairly
evenly spread across the remaining barriers, which indicates
that achieving sustainable cost reduction is a complex
undertaking that touches on all aspects of the organization.
While most of the challenges are organizational matters,
providers also need to do better engaging patients.
Greg Poulsen is senior vice president and chief strategy
officer at Intermountain Healthcare, an integrated
healthcare network located in Salt Lake City, and the lead
advisor for this Intelligence Report. He says that patient
engagement is critical to meeting clinical and cost-
containment objectives, and it’s one of his organization’s top
challenges.
“I think there is an unrealistic sense on the part of patients
of what the healthcare system can do for them versus what
they can do for themselves. So they undervalue the decisions
that they make in terms of lifestyle, exercise, physical
therapy, doing the exercises assigned after surgery, getting
up and being mobile, and taking medications consistently,
things like that. There are a whole series of things like that
that I think we as patients undervalue, and we overvalue
or have unrealistic expectations about what the healthcare
system ought to be able to do for us.”
True cost of care. Most providers understand that they
must determine the true cost of providing care; however,
actually being able to obtain the data is another matter.
Only 6% of respondents say that they are able to determine
the true cost of providing all care, 29% say they can do this
for most care provided, and 51% say they do this for some
care provided (Figure 8). The response for those who have
no true cost data for any care provided comes in at 15%.
These responses are very similar to the ones in last year’s
survey, with slight improvement, but variation of no more
than three percentage points.
“There is a focus on rewarding quality initiatives and agreement on standardizing to a smaller number of vendors and physician preference items.”
—Chief financial officer at a large health system
“We are integrating utilization improvements in their contracts for employed or other contracted staff. Also, we use clinical comanagement or other management agreements with incen-tives to improve utilization.”
—Chief financial officer at a medium health system
“We are creating a triad structure for key service lines to include a physician leader, and engaging physicians in supply cost initiatives and shared savings programs with strategies to reduce cost.”
—Vice president of administration at a medium hospital
“We reorganized our medical staff and created a clinically integrated PHO.”
—Chief operations officer at a medium health system
“We are engaging them in discussion regarding bundled payments—for example, how can we deliver evidence-based, efficient, compassionate, and excellent care in a timely manner?”
—Director of emergency services at a large health system
“We modify provider agreements and increase at-risk for quality outcomes.”
—Chief operations officer at a large physician organization
“We focus on education and collaboration with clinical documentation support to maximize reimbursement.”
—Chief compliance officer at a small health system
“We have a Physician Advisory Council that meets regularly with the CEO and executive team; we hired a cost-containment director to provide analytics; and we merged all of our various physician practices under a common name to give them a shared identity and common vision.”
—CEO at a small hospital
WHAT HEALTHCARE LEADERS ARE SAYING
Here are selected comments from leaders regarding the steps their organization is taking to increase physician engagement around cost containment as a strategic priority.
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 6
TOC
Although more than one-third (35%) of healthcare
organizations have determined the cost of care for either
all care provided or most care provided, it is somewhat
disconcerting that 15% are operating in the dark in terms of
costs. On a positive note, 51% are at least able to determine
the cost of providing some care, meaning that—with some
work—these organizations should be able to increase their
knowledge of costs over time.
Poulsen says that Intermountain has been collecting cost
data since 1983, and has a standard cost database that
allows the organization to analyze clinical costs in a granular
way across the continuum of care. Part of Intermountain’s
need to track costs this closely relates to its payer role of
insuring more than 750,000 covered lives.
“We know what procedures cost us at the most fundamental
level. And we know what it would cost us to do two different
modalities of care. So, for instance, it may be that there
are certain patients for whom you could legitimately and
medically say it would be equivalent to do a stent versus
a bypass surgery. We know what the actual costs are for
each, and not just the cost of the in-hospital component,
but the follow-on component: the home health, if there are
readmissions, and what the cost of those readmissions are.
In our data warehouse, we have a longitudinal perspective
on basically all the people that we’ve cared for over the
years, so we can bundle them into different categories at a
very finite level,” he says.
“Ultimately, we think about costs from the perspective
of taking care of a whole group of people, and trying to
keep them healthy. We may have four different alternative
mechanisms for treating people, and knowing each of those
costs is very important, and it helps us to rationalize early
interventions,” Poulsen says. “So if we can do something
that costs a few hundred dollars today in order to prevent
something that not only costs a lot of money in three or four
years, but may also prevent them from having to miss work,
to be away from their family, to become less active, and,
therefore, potentially the subject of further health problems,
we think all of those are great investments.”
Value-based care. One of the goals of healthcare reform is
to drive improvements in both quality outcomes and more
affordable costs. Therefore, it is encouraging that 50% of
respondents say that the transition from fee-for-service
to value-based care has either improved or somewhat
improved their cost-containment efforts, and that only
16% say that this has hindered or somewhat hindered
their efforts (Figure 2). Twenty-four percent say that the
transition has had no impact.
According to respondents, it appears that greater
percentages of large organizations are deriving cost-
containment benefits from value-based care than medium
and small ones. For example, based on net patient revenue,
a greater share of large organizations (71%) than small
(44%) and medium organizations (45%) say this has either
improved or somewhat improved their cost-containment
efforts. Likewise, a greater share of small (20%) and
medium (17%) organizations than large organizations
(4%) say that this has hindered or somewhat hindered
their efforts. Further, a higher percentage of small (25%)
and medium (32%) organizations than large organizations
(16%) say that this has had no impact.
“I think there is an unrealistic sense on the part of patients of what the healthcare system can do for them versus what they can do for themselves.”
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 7
TOC
Poulsen says that value-based care has a positive effect on
cost containment. “We have been thinking about it from a
value-based approach for a very long time because we’ve
been paid for a big portion of our patients on a prepaid
basis. It increases hugely the opportunity for wellness. It
increases hugely the opportunity for informed decision-
making about utilization decisions. Those were tools that
were not available to hospitals in the past, by and large. The
only thing they could do is to reduce the cost of an x-ray or
reduce the cost of a hip replacement. We think the vastly
more important question is, is the x-ray necessary? Is a hip
replacement, in fact, beneficial?”
Price transparency. There has been a lot of industry
discussion about the relative merits and drawbacks of price
transparency and its ultimate impact on cost containment.
Can price transparency have value without quality
transparency as well? Does price transparency matter when
most of the cost is typically paid by insurance, or is the trend
toward high-deductible plans changing the equation?
Nonetheless, survey results show that most respondents
have embraced price transparency. Forty-three percent of
respondents say that they provide price transparency to
patients for all or most care provided, 42% say they can do
this for some care provided, and 15% are unable to do this
for any of the care they provide (Figure 10).
Results are mixed when analyzing the data by setting.
Although a greater share of physician organizations (23%)
and hospitals (20%) than health systems (10%) say that
they provide price transparency to patients for all care
provided, a greater share of physician organizations (20%)
and health systems (19%) than hospitals (9%) also say they
are unable to do this for any of the care they provide.
Results for being able to provide transparency to patients
regarding payers’ share of the cost of care reveal that
this task is slightly more challenging, likely because the
source of the information comes from outside respondents’
organizations and also the difficulty of knowing whether a
given patient has met out-of-pocket deductibles. Forty-six
percent of respondents say that they provide transparency
to patients regarding payers’ share for all or most payers,
25% say they can do this for some payers, and 28% are
unable to do this for any of the payers (Figure 11).
Operations activities. Operations or administrative
activities that drive the highest-dollar value in cost-
containment contributions have typically been led by
purchasing and supply chain efficiencies, and it tops the
list again in this year’s survey at 64% (Figure 3). The next
highest response is for process redesign (58%). These
results are identical to last year’s report, which shows the
value of both tried-and-true efficiencies as well as new
processes.
While some in the industry believe that purchasing and
supply chain activities are starting to reach the point of
diminishing returns and that process redesign will eventually
take its spot at the top of the list, for now, both traditional
and innovative efforts represent relatively equal parts of
most cost-containment strategies.
Poulsen says that, while process redesign has been
Intermountain’s top cost-containment contributor for many
years, purchasing and supply chain efficiencies still play an
important role. “I think there’s still value there, and it would
“Ultimately, we think about costs from the perspective of taking care of a whole group of people, and trying to keep them healthy.”
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 8
TOC
be unwise to discount how important that kind of work
is. We break costs into three categories, and that would
fall into the first one, which is efficiency. We’ve got to be
effective and efficient at what we do, and to me the whole
supply chain—because there’s so much money in supplies—
there’s more mining to be done and there’s more value to be
extracted there.”
Digging into the data, we see that responses for purchasing
and supply chain efficiencies are highest among respondents
who say they can determine the true cost of care for some
care provided (72%), followed by all or most care provided
(63%), and only 45% among those who have no data on the
true cost for any care provided. In a similar vein, responses
for process redesign are highest among respondents who
say they can determine the true cost of care for some care
provided (62%), followed by all or most care provided
(58%), and only 48% among those who have no data on the
true cost for any care provided.
Organizations that are able to determine the true cost of
care are in a better position to reduce costs. Note that it’s
not simply having an understanding of the cost data that
confers a cost-containment benefit—the cost data increases
the effectiveness of an organization’s cost-containment
initiatives. In Figure 3, for example, determining the true
cost of care receives a response of 17%, placing it second
lowest on the chart. The data alone confers limited benefit;
it’s what you do with it that provides the value.
Clinical activities. According to respondents, the top three
contributors to clinical cost containment (Figure 4) are
care standardization (55%), improved utilization of clinical
resources (52%), and efficient use of clinical labor (46%).
The survey results are consistent with last year’s report
(efficient use of clinical labor at 55%, care standardization
at 54%, and improved utilization of clinical resources
at 54%).
As with operations or administrative cost-containment
activities, understanding costs provides a benefit
to the initiatives. As an example, responses for care
standardization are highest among respondents who say
they can determine the true cost of care for some care
provided (59%), followed by all or most care provided
(55%), and only 39% among those who have no data on the
true cost for any care provided.
Revenue cycle activities. Improving clinical
documentation (70%) was cited by respondents as
the most financially impactful activity by a large margin
(Figure 5). Minimizing denials (47%) and improving pre-
service collection from patients (44%) round out the top
three responses.
“I think the reason improving clinical documentation is such
a big deal to providers is, clearly, it’s part revenue cycle but,
equally important, it’s part of providing high quality,” says
Poulsen. “If we don’t adequately document and correlate
things, it deprives us of the opportunity to do appropriate
follow-up. So much of our system is predicated around
the idea of identifying people with clinical needs and if we
don’t document them correctly, our computers can’t give us
prompts to follow up. If we don’t document correctly that
this person has high blood pressure, we may not remind
them to take their high blood pressure meds and get in for a
follow-up exam. So it’s really important.”
“I think the reason improving clinical documentation is such a big deal to providers is, clearly, it’s part revenue cycle but, equally important, it’s part of providing high quality.”
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 9
TOC
IT activities. Survey respondents say that over the next
three years integrating clinical and financial data (51%),
analytics support for expense and cost monitoring (51%),
and identifying clinical process variation (45%) are
the top three IT-enabled activities driving cost reduction
(Figure 6). These results are comparable to last year’s
report, each within three or four points.
Interestingly, responses for identifying clinical process
variation are highest among respondents who say the
transition from fee-for-service to value-based care has either
improved or somewhat improved their cost-containment
efforts (56%), compared with respondents who say that
this has had no impact on their efforts (34%) or hindered or
somewhat hindered their efforts (31%).
Cost-reduction programs. Survey respondents say that
they are continuing to have success in reducing costs in their
organizations. Forty-nine percent of respondents indicate
that cost-reduction efforts yielded year-over-year savings
of 5% or more for the most recent fiscal year (Figure 12).
At the upper end of the range, 9% of respondents had
reductions of 11% or more.
As mentioned earlier, organizations that are able to
determine their true cost of care tend to have more effective
cost-reduction initiatives. For example, there is a correlation
between the level of savings respondents say they receive
from cost-reduction programs and their organizations’
abilities to determine the true cost of care. Fifty-one percent
of those who are able to determine the true cost of care
for most or all of their care report year-over-year savings
of 5% or more, while just 38% of those who are unable to
determine the true cost for any of their care are achieving
such deep savings.
There is also a relationship between the level of savings
respondents say they receive from cost-reduction programs
and their views on the cost-saving benefits of the transition
from fee-for-service to value-based care. A greater share
of respondents who say the transition from fee-for-service
to value-based care has either improved or somewhat
improved their cost-containment efforts (54%) than
respondents who say this has had no impact on their efforts
(40%), or who say this hindered or somewhat hindered their
efforts (40%), report that cost-reduction efforts yielded
savings of 5% or more.
After years of cost-cutting, the outlook for further
reductions remains consistent with current savings levels.
Forty-nine percent of respondents expect average annual
cost reductions of 5% or more over the next three years,
and at the upper end of the range, 12% of respondents are
expecting reductions of 11% or more (Figure 13).
Operating margin results. For the most recent fiscal year,
17% of respondents report negative margin, while 5% broke
even and 78% had positive margin (Figure 14). These results
are comparable to last year’s survey in which 21% reported
negative margin and 77% positive margin.
A greater share of physician organizations (54%) than
health systems (42%) and hospitals (32%) say they have
positive margins in the 4% or more range, and a greater
share of for-profits (60%) than nonprofits (33%) also report
“We’ve got to be effective and efficient at what we do, and to me the whole supply chain—because there’s so much money in supplies—there’s more mining to be done and there’s more value to be extracted there.”
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 10
TOC
this. However, similar percentages of for-profits (15%) and
nonprofits (18%) report negative margins.
It is of some concern that 43% of respondents report
operating margin in the 0%–3% range, which is up from
35% last year. Clearly, achieving a healthy margin in the face
of a complex and evolving industry landscape is challenging,
and the road ahead gets no easier without adequate
resources.
Prospects for the next three years show some improvement,
with only 7% of respondents saying that they expect, on
average, to post negative operating margin for each of
the next three years, and 87% expect positive margin
(Figure 15). These results are comparable to last year’s
survey in which 9% expected negative operating margin
and 85% positive margin.
While these expectations are ambitious, they are certainly
achievable—nearly half (47%) of respondents expect
average annual operating margin over the next three years
to be in the 0%–3% range, up from 43% in the most recent
fiscal year. However, the 4%–5% range is forecast to go
from 14% in the most recent fiscal year to a three-year
share of 25%, suggesting an outlook that may be a bit
optimistic.
Ultimately, organizations that have a deep understanding
of their cost of providing care are better prepared to drive
down costs in a variety of areas, while those lacking cost
data have more difficulty executing on this mission. Clearly,
the first step for most organizations is to determine their
true costs, if not for reasons of transparency, then for
reasons of financial viability.
Jonathan Bees is senior research analyst for HealthLeaders Media. He may be contacted at [email protected].
“In our data warehouse, we have a longitudinal perspective on basically all the people that we’ve cared for over the years, so we can bundle them into different categories at a very finite level.”
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 11
TOC
Q
FIGURE 1: Biggest Barriers to Sustainable Cost Reduction
What are your organization’s three biggest barriers to achieving sustainable cost reductions?
24%
26%
28%
32%
32%
32%
39%
57%
Poor physician-hospital relationships
Concerns about quality or safety trade-offs
Regulatory compliance
Unsupportive organizational culture
Lack of technology in place to achieve goals
Lack of patient engagement in their care
Insufficient integration with care partners
Lack of data on the true cost of care
Base = 225, Multi-Response
The factor identified as the biggest barrier to sustainable cost reduction is lack of data on the true cost of care (57%).
The next tier of responses are tightly grouped, and includes a variety of disparate areas: insufficient integration with care partners (39%), lack of patient engagement in their care (32%), lack of technology in place to achieve goals (32%), and unsupportive organizational culture (32%).
SURVEY RESULTS
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 12
TOC
Q
FIGURE 2: Impact of Transition From Fee-for-Service to Value-Based Care
How has the transition from fee-for-service to value-based care impacted your organization’s cost-containment efforts?
13%
37%
24%
12%
4%
10%
Improved our efforts Somewhat improved our efforts
No impact on our efforts
Somewhat hindered our efforts
Hindered our efforts Don't know
Base = 225
Despite concerns about the ability to adapt to fundamental changes taking place through the industry, 50% of respondents say that the transition from fee-for-service to value-based care has either improved or somewhat improved their cost-containment efforts, and only 16% say that this has hindered or somewhat hindered their efforts. Twenty-four percent say that the transition has had no impact.
SURVEY RESULTS
Among those expecting positive financial impact
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 13
TOC
Q
FIGURE 3: Operations/Admin Activities Providing Highest Contributions This Year
Of the following operations or administrative activities, which three provided the highest dollar value in cost-containment contributions during this fiscal year?
9%
17%
19%
33%
33%
40%
58%
64%
Across-the-board budget reductions
Determining the true cost of care
Efficient use of nonclinical labor
Reducing incomplete or inaccurate coding
Consolidating/centralizing business functions
Targeted budget reductions
Process redesign
Purchasing and supply chain efficiencies
Base = 225, Multi-Response
Purchasing and supply chain efficiencies (64%) and process redesign (58%) are the two most productive operations/administrative cost-containment activities—the results are identical to last year’s survey. Responses for purchasing and supply chain efficiencies are highest among respondents who say they can determine the true cost of care for some care provided (72%), followed by all or most care provided (63%), and only 45% among those who have no data on the true cost for any care provided. Similarly, responses for process redesign are highest among respondents who say they can determine the true cost of care for some care provided (62%), followed by all or most care provided (58%), and only 48% among those who have no data on the true cost for any care provided.
SURVEY RESULTS
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 14
TOC
Q
FIGURE 4: Clinical Activities Providing Highest Contributions This Year
Of the following clinical activities, which three provided the highest dollar value in cost-containment contributions during this fiscal year?
6%
18%
20%
32%
40%
46%
52%
55%
Across-the-board budget reductions
Consolidating/centralizing clinical functions
Targeted budget reductions
Shifting care to ambulatory/outpatient settings
Care redesign
Efficient use of clinical labor
Improved utilization of clinical resources
Care standardization
Base = 225, Multi-Response
Care standardization (55%), improved utilization of clinical resources (52%), and efficient use of clinical labor (46%) are the top three contributors to clinical cost containment. These results are similar to last year’s report (efficient use of clinical labor at 55%, care standardization at 54%, and improved utilization of clinical resources at 54%).
Responses for care standardization are highest among respondents who say they can determine the true cost of care for some care provided (59%), followed by all or most care provided (55%), and only 39% among those who have no data on the true cost for any care provided.
SURVEY RESULTS
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 15
TOC
Q
FIGURE 5: Most Financially Impactful Revenue Cycle Activities
Of the following revenue cycle activities, which three do you expect to have the most positive financial impact during this fiscal year?
15%
23%
24%
27%
33%
44%
47%
70%
Using payer specialists in revenue cycle staff
Using IT to target inappropriate claim denials
Predetermining payment amounts and information
Improving post-service collection from patients
Using IT to automate revenue cycle functions
Improving pre-service collection from patients
Minimizing denials
Improving clinical documentation
Base = 220, Multi-Response
Improving clinical documentation (70%) is the revenue cycle activity expected to have the most positive financial impact by a wide margin. It is followed by minimizing denials (47%) and improving pre-service collection from patients (44%). Such up-front patient-focused efforts have been among the top three efforts for several years, and continue to be an important approach as organizations develop financial engagement strategies for patients.
SURVEY RESULTS
Among those expecting positive financial impact
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 16
TOC
Q
FIGURE 6: IT Activities Delivering Most Cost Reduction Next Three Years
Of the following IT-enabled activities, which three will deliver the most cost reduction (or financial benefit) for your organization over the next three years?
5%
10%
22%
28%
32%
33%
45%
51%
51%
Don't know
Confirming data/necessity for RAC audit success
Predictive modeling to flex staff levels
Streamlining care delivery
Supporting efforts to maximize reimbursements
Analytics support for productivity monitoring
Identifying clinical process variation
Analytics support for expense and cost monitoring
Integrating clinical and financial data
Base = 225, Multi-Response
The top three IT-enabled activities driving cost reduction are integrating clinical and financial data (51%), analytics support for expense and cost monitoring (51%), and identifying clinical process variation (45%). These results are comparable to last year’s report.
Responses for identifying clinical process variation are higher among respondents who say the transition from fee-for-service to value-based care has either improved or somewhat improved their cost-containment efforts (56%), compared with respondents who say that this has had no impact on their efforts (34%) or hindered or somewhat hindered their efforts (31%).
SURVEY RESULTS
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 17
TOC
Q
FIGURE 7: Staffing Areas With Greatest Success in Cost Containment
Please indicate the three staffing areas in which you have had the greatest success in achieving cost-containment goals.
8%
10%
15%
30%
36%
48%
50%
52%
Postacute care nonstaff partners
Affiliated physicians
Postacute care staff
Executives
Employed physicians
Nursing staff
Managers
Administrative support staff
Base = 225, Multi-Response
Administrative support staff (52%), managers (50%), and nursing staff (48%) are the top staffing areas in which respondents say they have had the greatest success in achieving cost-containment goals. Thirty-six percent of respondents put success with employed physicians in the top three, well above the 10% response regarding affiliated physicians.
SURVEY RESULTS
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 18
TOC
Q
FIGURE 8: Determining True Cost of Providing Care
Is your organization able to determine the true cost of providing care?
6%
29%
51%
15%
Yes, for all care provided Yes, for most care provided Yes, for some care provided No, not for any care provided
Base = 211
Slightly more than one-third (35%) of respondents say that they can determine the true cost of care for all or most care provided, 51% say they can do this for some care provided, and 15% are unable to determine the true cost for any of the care they provide. These results are comparable to last year’s survey, but improvement will be needed if providers expect to control costs while delivering high-quality care.
SURVEY RESULTS
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 19
TOC
Respondents indicate that they know the true cost of care for 43% of their service lines. For 28% of service lines, a cost evaluation is underway, but for 21%, no evaluation has been started, and no evaluation is planned for 8% of their service lines. These results are comparable to last year’s survey and will need to improve as value-based care and at-risk reimbursement models continue to develop in the industry.
SURVEY RESULTS
Q
FIGURE 9: Breakdown of True Cost of Care for Service Lines
Please provide a breakdown of your organization’s efforts to determine the true cost of providing care for your organization’s set of service lines.
Average percentage
Service lines with known cost of care 43%
Service lines with evaluation underway 28%
Service lines not yet being evaluated 21%
Service lines with no plans to evaluate 8%
Base = 115
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 20
TOC
Q
FIGURE 10: Price Transparency for Cost of Care
Does your organization provide price transparency to patients for care provided?
Forty-three percent of respondents say that they provide price transparency to patients for all or most care provided, 42% say they can do this for some care provided, and 15% are unable to do this for any of the care they provide. As patients become more involved as healthcare consumers, such information will become necessary.
SURVEY RESULTS
17%
26%
42%
15%
Yes, for all care provided Yes, for most care provided Yes, for some care provided No, not for any care provided
Base = 210
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 21
TOC
Q
FIGURE 11: Price Transparency for Payers’ Share
Does your organization provide transparency to patients regarding payers’ share of the cost of care?
17%
29%
25%
28%
Yes, for all payers Yes, for most payers Yes, for some payers No, not for any payers
Base = 198
Forty-six percent of respondents say that they provide transparency to patients regarding payers’ share for all or most payers, 25% say they can do this for some payers, and 28% are unable to do this for any of the payers.
A greater share of for-profit (56%) than nonprofit (42%) organizations say that they provide transparency to patients regarding most or all payers. To create a useful financial engagement program for patients, providers will need to take the lead and work with payers so that greater transparency is available for healthcare consumers.
SURVEY RESULTS
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 22
TOC
Q
FIGURE 12: Year-Over-Year Savings From Cost-Reduction Programs
For the most recent fiscal year, what is your best estimate of your organization’s year-over-year savings from cost-reduction programs?
1%
4%
14%
18%
10%
21%
19%
6%
3%
6%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%–10% 11%–15% More than 15%
No cost- reduction programs Base = 177
Forty-nine percent of respondents indicate that cost-reduction efforts yielded year-over-year savings of 5% or more. At the upper end of the scale, 9% of respondents had reductions of 11% or more.
There is a correlation between the level of savings respondents say they receive from cost-reduction programs and their organizations’ abilities to determine the true cost of care. Fifty-one percent of those who are able to determine the true cost of care for most or all of their care report year-over-year savings of 5% or more, while just 38% of those who are unable to determine the true cost for any of their care are achieving such deep savings.
There is also a relationship of note: Among those who report that cost-reduction efforts yielded savings of 5% or more, a greater share of respondents (54%) say the transition from fee-for-service to value-based care has either improved or somewhat improved their cost-containment efforts than respondents who say this has had no impact on their efforts (40%), or who say this hindered or somewhat hindered their efforts (40%).
SURVEY RESULTS
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 23
TOC
Q
FIGURE 13: Goal for Average Percentage Reduction in Operating Cost Next Three Years
What is your organization’s goal for average annual percentage reduction of overall operating costs in each of the next three years?
1%
4%
10%
23%
6%
19% 18%
6% 6% 6%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%–10% 11%–15% More than 15%
No cost- reduction programs Base = 186
Forty-nine percent of respondents expect average annual cost reductions of 5% or more over the next three years. At the upper end of the scale, 12% of respondents are expecting reductions of 11% or more. Observers have long cited an inefficient healthcare system and a need to bend the cost curve, and the prospect that so many providers expect to reduce operating cost consistently over many years suggests real movement—or at least an earnest attempt—to do so.
SURVEY RESULTS
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 24
TOC
Q
FIGURE 14: Operating Margin
For the most recent fiscal year, what is your best estimate of your organization’s operating margin, in negative or positive percentages?
6%
11%
5%
38%
14%
26%
-6% or less -1% to -5% 0% 1% to 3% 4% to 5% 6% or more
Base = 202
Seventeen percent of respondents reported negative operating margin for the most recent fiscal year, and 78% posted positive margin. These results are comparable to last year’s survey in which 21% reported negative operating margin and 77% positive margin.
For-profit (15%) and nonprofit organizations (18%) have similar percentages reporting negative margin. But the for-profits do better in the high end of the positive range, with 43% reporting 6% or more margin, while just 20% of nonprofits are in that range.
SURVEY RESULTS
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 25
TOC
Q
FIGURE 15: Average Annual Operating Margin Goal Next Three Years
What is your organization’s average annual operating margin goal for each of the next three years, in negative or positive percentages?
2%
5% 6%
41%
25%
21%
-6% or less -1% to -5% 0% 1% to 3% 4% to 5% 6% or more
Base = 198
Seven percent of respondents say that they expect, on average, to post negative operating margin for each of the next three years, and 87% expect positive margin. These results are comparable to last year’s survey in which 9% expected negative operating margin and 85% positive margin.
For-profit (9%) and nonprofit organizations (5%) have similar expectations for negative operating margin for each of the next three years. However, the for-profits expect to do better in the high end of the positive range, with 43% indicating 6% or more margin, while just 13% of nonprofits are projecting that range. Further, a greater share of nonprofit organizations (48%) than for-profits (24%) are forecasting a modest 1%–3% range.
SURVEY RESULTS
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 26
TOC
The 2016 Strategic Cost Control Survey was conducted by the HealthLeaders Media Intelligence Unit, powered by the HealthLeaders Media Council. It is part of a series of monthly Thought Leadership Studies. In March 2016, an online survey was sent to the HealthLeaders Media Council and select members of the HealthLeaders Media audience. A total of 225 completed surveys are included in the analysis. Base size varies between 115 and 225 depending on whether respondents had the knowledge to provide an answer to a given question. The margin of error for a base of 225 is +/-6.5% at the 95% confidence interval.
UPCOMING INTELLIGENCE REPORT TOPICS
JULY Value-Based Readiness
AUGUST Patient Experience
SEPTEMBERPhysician-Hospital Alignment
C uncilHEALTHLEADERS MEDIA
Access. Insight. Analysis.
Click for information on joining.
ABOUT THE HEALTHLEADERS MEDIA INTELLIGENCE UNIT
The HealthLeaders Media Intelligence Unit, a division of HealthLeaders Media, is the premier source for executive healthcare business research. It provides analysis and forecasts through digital platforms, print publications, custom reports, white papers, conferences, roundtables, peer networking opportunities, and presentations for senior management.
Intelligence Report Senior Research Analyst JONATHAN BEES [email protected]
Executive Vice President ELIZABETH PETERSEN [email protected]
Publisher CHRIS DRISCOLL [email protected]
Editorial Director BOB WERTZ [email protected]
Intelligence Unit Director ANN MACKAY [email protected]
Managing Editor ERIKA BRYAN [email protected]
Custom Media Sales Operations Manager CATHLEEN LAVELLE [email protected]
Intelligence Report Contributing Editor CHRISTOPHER CHENEY [email protected]
Intelligence Report Design and Layout KEN NEWMAN
Intelligence Report Cover Art DOUG PONTE [email protected]
Copyright ©2016 HealthLeaders Media, a division of BLR, 100 Winners Circle, Suite 300, Brentwood, TN 37027
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of HealthLeaders Media. Mention of products and services does not constitute endorsement. Advice given is general, and readers should consult professional counsel for specific legal, ethical, or clinical questions.
METHODOLOGY
JUNE 2016 | Strategic Cost Control: Beyond Traditional Tactics
PAGE 27
TOC
53% Senior
leaders
9% Financial leaders
21% Operations
leaders
TITLE
Respondents represent titles from hospitals, health systems, and physician organizations.
SENIOR LEADERSCEO, Administrator, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Medical Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Dir., Partner, Board Member, Principal Owner, President, Chief of Staff, Chief Information Officer, Chief Nursing Officer, Chief Medical Information Officer
CLINICAL LEADERSChief of Cardiology, Chief of Neurology, Chief of Oncology, Chief of Orthopedics, Chief of Radiology, Dir. of Ambulatory Services, Dir. of Clinical Services, Dir. of Emergency Services, Dir. of Inpatient Services, Dir. of Intensive Care Services, Dir. of Nursing, Dir. of Rehabilitation Services, Service Line Director, Dir. of Surgical/Perioperative Services, Medical Director, VP Clinical Informatics, VP Clinical Quality, VP Clinical Services, VP Medical Affairs (Physician Mgmt/MD), VP Nursing
OPERATIONS LEADERSChief Compliance Officer, Chief Purchasing Officer, Asst. Administrator, Chief Counsel, Dir. of Patient Safety, Dir. of Purchasing, Dir. of Quality, Dir. of Safety, VP/Dir. Compliance, VP/Dir. Human Resources, VP/Dir. Operations/Administration, Other VP
FINANCIAL LEADERSVP/Dir. Finance, HIM Director, Director of Case Management, Director of Patient Financial Services, Director of RAC, Director of Reimbursement, Director of Revenue Cycle
MARKETING LEADERSVP/Dir. Marketing/Sales, VP/Dir. Media Relations
INFORMATION LEADERSChief Technology Officer, VP/Dir. Technology/MIS/IT
Base = 101 (Hospitals)
TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
NUMBER OF BEDS
1–199 (small) 54%
200–499 (medium) 32%
500+ (large) 14%
REGION
WEST: Washington, Oregon,
California, Alaska, Hawaii,
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Utah, Wyoming
MIDWEST: North Dakota,
South Dakota, Nebraska,
Kansas, Missouri, Iowa,
Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin
SOUTH: Texas, Oklahoma,
Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida,
Georgia, South Carolina,
North Carolina, Virginia,
West Virginia, D.C., Maryland,
Delaware
NORTHEAST: Pennsylvania, New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont,
Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Maine
Base = 225
14%Clinical leaders
2% Marketing
leaders
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
34%
28%
19%
19%
NUMBER OF SITES
Base = 83 (Health systems)
1–5 (small) 19%
6–20 (medium) 28%
21+ (large) 53%
Base = 225
Hospital 45%
Health system (IDN/IDS) 37%
Physician org (MSO, IPA, PHO, clinic) 18%
RESPONDENT PROFILE
1% Information
leaders
NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS
Base = 41 (Physician org)
1–199 34%
200–499 29%
500+ 37%
Join today at www.healthleadersmediacouncil.com
Be a voiceGain insight from your peers
Shape the direction of the industry
lC unci The nation’s most exclusive
healthcare intelligence community