Today is a good day to be an issuer in the bond market. With paltry returns available through government bonds and investment-grade paper, fixed income investors are reaching for yield and aggressively bidding for nearly all non-investment grade municipal bond credits, including hospitals. However, not all hospitals are a good fit for tax-exempt bonds. Restrictive covenants, transaction and borrower size, and cost of the issuance are a few factors that may make a public bond issue unfeasible. Fortunately, there is a low-rate, long-term, covenant-light solution. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)/Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) Section (Sec.) 242 program and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Community Facilities (CF) program both made significant capital contributions to hospitals during 2015. Further, each program made strides toward becoming more user friendly, specifically with HUD’s new loan documents and USDA’s emphasis on processes and uniformity. Until recently, the FHA Sec. 242 program used closing documents, covenant package and regulatory agreements that were created in 1973. This led to some of the terminology and legal concepts being outdated. The antiquated documents resulted in closing delays and additional costs, as a borrower and its lender counsel would have to negotiate changes to update and revise language. In 2016, HUD introduced a new set of documents that are expected to be finalized later this year. Although the documents do not introduce sweeping changes, much of the terminology and standard loan document provisions have been included. The changes should help alleviate the closing delays that…
HFMA Leadership Training Conference Ft. Lauderdale, FL – April 18-19, 2016 Leadership Conference San Antonio, TX – April 1, 2016 Healthcare Landscape San Antonio, TX – January 29, 2016
“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” This quote attributed to Dwight Eisenhower is good advice for strategizing in an environment where one knows that the conditions will change. Such is the case with the future of revenue for health care providers in America. U.S. health care is a $2.9 trillion complex and adaptive system of entities including insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers, technology companies and increasingly more stakeholders. Until recent years, the federal government had largely been a reactive participant since the advent of Medicare. For many Americans, the system has worked relatively well, with the average consumer enjoying access to quality care, state-of-the-art technology and a fair amount of options. However, the Medicare system has some glaring flaws that make it unsustainable as the population ages. The primary flaws include the unacceptably large percentage of the population without insurance and costs growing much faster than the rate of overall inflation, which led to the adoption of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). While the ACA aimed to accomplish several things, perhaps the single biggest long-term change was the creation of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). CMMI is intended to drive changes through new payment models and performance metrics. Currently, CMMI is testing innovative payment and delivery system models that show important promise for maintaining or improving the quality of care in Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), while…
A number of years ago, I wrote an article entitled “Denial Ain’t Just a River in Egypt”, and it was picked up by several State HFMA‘s and a national publisher. At the time it appeared to be spot on with advent of the HIPAA transaction file and a good attempt at standardization and how to start a Denial Program. As with every morphing technology, Denial management” became the catch-all phrase for any process that healthcare providers hoped could lead to cleaner claims, standardized denial codes, and fewer denials from third party payers. Then along came ICD10, the Y2K of coding. Well, to the payers surprise it was the Y2K of 2015 all over. The healthcare providers did the hard work of absorbing the extra cost of setting up their systems and processes, testing them, running in parallel and making sure the transition would be as smooth as possible. The sky did not fall thanks to the efforts of the healthcare provider. Today, still, denial management can be part of an entire electronic medical record/billing system, or it can be a “bolt-on” to an existing system, possibly a Web-based system that reviews claims and normalizes data, it can also be a manual, retroactive review of denied claims off an excel spreadsheet. It is most often paid for through the up-front purchase of software within the current system, from the billing software, or by contracting with a vendor for a bolt on product for a percentage of collections or fixed monthly fee….
South Texas Chapter Past President’s Dinner – San Antonio, TX Healthcare Landscape – San Antonio, TX – January 29, 2016 Clint Owen, STX Chapter President, introducing Melinda Hancock, HFMA National Chair Mini LTC – South Texas Chapter’s Strategic Planning
Although long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) have been around for some time, they have historically been lost in the shuffle by financiers. While many may compare them to a traditional skilled nursing facility (SNF), there are several key differences which make it more difficult for LTACHs to obtain long-term financing. This begs the question; are there any consistent financing options for LTACHs similar to those in the skilled nursing sector? To determine the answer, we must first understand what LTACHs are and the factors which affect their financial health. LTACH Overview According to the American Hospital Association, LTACHs furnish extended medical and rehabilitative care to individuals with clinically complex problems that need hospital-level care for relatively extended periods of time.1 The major differentiation between LTACHs and SNFs is the type of care that is provided. LTACHs, much like a typical acute care hospital, provide care for more complex medical conditions than SNFs. In 2011, Medicare recognized LTACHs for the first time. In order for LTACHs to receive reimbursement, the inpatient length of stay must be greater than 25 days. The average length of stay for an LTACH is 30 days. Typical patients require prolonged ventilator use, ongoing dialysis, intensive respiratory care or multiple IV medications or transfusions, or complex wound care. Almost all LTACHs are licensed under the same criteria as an acute care hospital. There are some states in which an LTACH can be licensed as a “specialty hospital,” but Medicare will still certify the facility as an acute…
By Debra L. Ryan and Andrew S. Cohen Transition of the nation’s healthcare system toward a value-based business model requires healthcare providers to move toward value-based contracts and care delivery models. Twenty-two percent of hospital and health system leaders anticipate such contracts will constitute 50 percent or more of their payment arrangements within 24 months, up from 7 percent of those leaders six months ago, according to a recent Kaufman Hall survey. Under many value-based contracts, organizations accept greater financial risk by agreeing to deliver defined services to a specified population at a predetermined price and quality level. Organizations must develop a contracting and corresponding care delivery strategy that involves careful planning, skills development, and a phased approach. Thorough assessment of contracting options and specific contracts is essential. Identifying best-fit contracting options Evaluating risk- and value-based payment arrangements involves weighing organizational resources, capabilities, and goals against contract terms, including potential risks and rewards. Executives must be able to articulate the organization’s short- and longer-term goals, and its most appropriate role in the emerging population health management environment. Examples include an integrated delivery system suited to be a “population health manager” responsible for the full care continuum, a regional provider best positioned to maintain a clinically integrated delivery network of defined scope as a “population health comanager,” or a community hospital that will be part of a network managed by a population health manager or comanager. Healthcare leaders should assess the hospital’s or health system’s care delivery model and network, and…
Recent Comments