Capital Investment by Independent and System-Affiliated Hospitals

Big Med's Spread

Policy Points Hospital executives posit a number of rationales for system mergers which lack any basis in academic evidence. Decades of academic research question whether system combinations confer public benefits. Antitrust authorities need to continue to closely scrutinize these transactions. Recently, mergers of hospital systems that span different geographic markets are on the rise. Economists have alerted policymakers about the potential impacts such cross-market mergers may have on hospital prices. We suggest there are other reasons for concern that scholars have not often confonted. Cross-market mergers may be conducted for purely self-serving reasons of organizational growth that increases executive compensation. Combinations of sellers should have clear advantages to consumers. System executives and their boards should bear the burden of proof. Federal regulators and state attorney generals should be cognizant that rationales for cross-market systems advanced by merging parties are unlikely to be operative or dominant in merger decision making. Policymakers should be careful about passing legislation that encourages hospitals to consolidate.

CONTEXT

There is a growing trend of combinations among hospital systems that operate in different geographic markets known as cross-market mergers. Economists have analyzed these broader systems in terms of their anticompetitive behavior and pricing power over insurers. This paper evaluates the benefits advanced by these new hospital systems that speak to a different set of issues not usually studied: increased efficiencies, new capabilities, operating synergies, and addressing health inequities. The paper thus "looks under the hood" of these emerging, cross-market systems to assess what value they might bestow and upon whom.

METHODS

The paper examines recently announced cross-market mergers in terms of their supposed benefits, as expressed by the systems' executives as well as by industry consultants. These presumed benefits are then evaluated against existing evidence regarding hospital system outcomes.

FINDINGS

Advocates of cross-market hospital mergers cite a host of benefits. Research suggests these benefits are nonexistent. Additional evidence suggests other motives may be at play in the formation of cross-market mergers that have nothing to do with efficiencies, synergies, or community benefits. Instead these mergers may be self-serving efforts by system chief executive officers (CEOs) to boost their compensation.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-market hospital mergers may yield no benefits to the hospitals involved or the communities in which they operate. The boards of hospital systems that engage in these cross-market mergers need to exercise greater diligence over the actions of their CEOs.

Risk of Closure Among Independent and Multihospital-Affiliated Rural Hospitals

Question

Is affiliation with another hospital or multihospital system associated with lower risk of closure in rural areas?

Findings

In this 13-year cohort study from 2007 to 2019 among rural US hospitals that faced financial distress in 2007, affiliation was associated with a lower risk of closure compared with being independent. Conversely, among hospitals with financial stability in 2007, affiliation was associated with a higher risk of closure compared with being independent.

Meaning

The study results suggest that affiliation may protect some financially distressed rural hospitals from closure, but the higher risk of closure among hospitals that were initially financially stable potentially raises concerns about the consequences of affiliation for some types of hospitals.

Importance

The increase in rural hospital closures has strained access to inpatient care in rural communities. It is important to understand the association between hospital system affiliation and access to care in these communities to inform policy on this issue.

Objective

To examine the association between affiliation and rural hospital closure.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used survival models with a time-dependent variable for affiliation vs independent status to assess risk of closure among a national cohort of US rural hospitals from January 2007 through December 2019. Data analysis was conducted from March to October 2021. Hospital affiliations were identified from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Irving Levin Associates and closures from the University of North Carolina Sheps Center (Chapel Hill). Additional covariates came from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases and other national sources.

Exposures

Affiliation with another hospital or multihospital health system.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Closure was the main outcome. The models included hospital, market, and utilization characteristics and were stratified by financial distress in 2007.

Results

Among 2237 rural hospitals operating in 2007, 140 (6.3%) had closed by 2019. The proportion of rural hospitals that were independent decreased from 68.9% in 2007 to 47.0% in 2019; the proportion that were affiliated increased from 31.1% to 46.7%. Among financially distressed hospitals in 2007, affiliation was associated with lower risk of closure compared with being independent (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.92). Conversely, among hospitals that were financially stable in 2007, affiliation was associated with higher risk of closure compared with being independent (aHR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.20-4.62). For-profit ownership was also strongly associated with closure for hospitals that were financially stable in 2007 (aHR, 4.08; 95% CI, 1.86-8.97).

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cohort study suggest that affiliations may be associated with lower risk of closure for some rural hospitals in financial distress. However, among initially financially stable hospitals, an increased risk of closure for hospitals associated with affiliation and proprietary ownership raises concerns about the association of affiliation with closures in some circumstances. Policy interventions to stabilize inpatient care in rural areas should account for these findings.

Access, Quality, And Financial Performance Of Rural Hospitals Following Health System Affiliation

More than 100 rural hospitals have closed since 2010. Some rural hospitals have affiliated with health systems to improve their financial performance and potentially avoid closure, but the effects of affiliation on rural hospitals and their patients are unclear. To examine the relationship between affiliation and performance, we compared rural hospitals that affiliated with a health system in the period 2008-17 and a propensity score-weighted set of nonaffiliating rural hospitals on twelve measures of structure, utilization, financial performance, and quality. Following health system affiliation, rural hospitals experienced a significant reduction in on-site diagnostic imaging technologies, the availability of obstetric and primary care services, and outpatient nonemergency visits, as well as a significant increase in operating margins (by 1.6-3.6 percentage points from a baseline of -1.6 percent). Changes in patient experience scores, readmissions, and emergency department visits were similar for affiliating and nonaffiliating hospitals. While joining health systems may improve rural hospitals' financial performance, affiliation may reduce access to services for patients in rural areas.

Strategic Differentiation of High-Tech Services in Local Hospital Markets

This study assesses organizational and market factors related to high-tech service differentiation in local hospital markets. The sample includes 1704 nonfederal, general acute hospitals in urban counties in the United States. We relate organizational and market factors in 2011 to service differentiation in 2013, using ordinary least squares regression. Data are compiled from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals, Area Resource File, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Results show that hospitals differentiate more services relative to market rivals if they are larger than the rival and if the hospitals are further apart geographically. Hospitals differentiate more services if they are large, teaching, and nonprofit or public and if they face more market competition. Hospitals differentiate fewer services from rivals if they belong to multihospital systems. The findings underscore the pressures that urban hospitals face to offer high-tech services despite the potential of high-tech services to drive hospital costs upward.