Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘consumers’

The debate between payers and providers over the responsibility and accountability of healthcare costs certainly didn’t begin with the drafting and eventual passage of the ACA, nor will it end. Like the Hatfields and McCoys, a war of words (and figures) has been waged between these primary stakeholders in the healthcare industry for decades. There is a fundamental distrust and disagreement regarding who is responsible for the unsustainable growth in healthcare costs – and who should ultimately be responsible and held accountable for the standard “healthcare system” objectives of increasing efficiency, decreasing costs, and improving outcomes.

To bend the cost curve, many of the recent conversations and reform efforts have been focused on population health management, care coordination, compliance, and engagement. New technologies and regulations are emerging daily with a promise to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare. New business and care delivery models (and old ones with new names) are being developed and deployed, such as ACOs and Medical Homes. And, most of these new ideas and solutions are being described as “consumer-driven,” “patient-centric,” and “integrated,” yet most are failing to produce the results that politicians, employers, and consumers are aggressively demanding.

Meanwhile, the heavily scrutinized leaders of health insurance companies and hospital systems continue to blame each other for the meteoric rise in health care costs – and they should be – but not as healthcare executives but rather as healthcare consumers… and consumers of cigarettes, alcohol, hamburgers, and home entertainment.

To clarify this point, I recall my experience at the 2010 World Health Care Congress in Washington DC (April 12-14). It was the first major industry conference shortly after the ACA passed (March 23). A morning panel of shell-shocked CEOs from leading payers and providers engaged in a “healthy” yet intense discussion about conflicts of interest, cost-shifting, risk-sharing, accountability, insurance exchanges, consumerism, fee-for-service vs. value-based, supply/demand imbalances, the aging population, end-of-life, fraud and abuse, technology integration and interoperability, industry consolidation, regulations, EHRs and meaningful use, and the economy, among other timely topics.

As soon as the session ended, the industry leaders charged with creating solutions for our national healthcare crisis flooded out of the auditorium into the hallways of the convention center. I observed in dismay as many shuffled outside for a smoke break in finger-numbing temperatures while the masses consumed sugar-loaded pastries, donuts, coffee drinks, juices and soft drinks from well-catered tables. Did I mention that we had all been sitting in chairs all morning?

If we really want to get serious about “bending the cost curve,” then we need to address our society’s apathy regarding unhealthy behaviors and environments. There is overwhelming evidence that prevalent yet preventative consumer behavior, such as smoking, alcohol abuse, poor nutrition, and lack of physical activity, are imposing enormous costs on our society. Chronic conditions that are caused or worsened by unhealthy lifestyles, such as heart disease, diabetes, asthma, obesity, and cancer, account for more than seventy-five percent of U.S. healthcare expenditures. To truly solve our healthcare crisis, patients and consumers of healthcare must assume more accountability.

Surely, that is one thing payers and providers should agree upon!

Together, these key stakeholders need to redesign our healthcare system with new solutions that will drive patient accountability and reward healthy behavior. Just as banks utilize credit ratings and the automobile insurance relies upon driving records to help manage their risks, the healthcare payers and providers need a standard means to help manage their risks. It’s quite simple in these other scenarios I referenced. If we are financially irresponsible, then it costs us more to borrow money. If we drive irresponsibly, then it costs us more to purchase car insurance.

There is overwhelming evidence that individuals with unhealthy habits pay only a fraction of the costs associated with their behaviors. Most of the expenses caused by their decisions and lifestyle are passed on to the rest of society in the form of higher insurance premiums, taxpayer-funded government expenditures for healthcare, and disability benefits.

Many payers, particularly self-insured employers, are already leading the charge to shift the risk and responsibility associated with healthcare directly to individuals. A recent survey by Hewitt Associates found that nearly half (47%) of employers either already use financial incentives or plan to use financial incentives during the next three to five years to penalize and/or reward the health-related behavior of their employees.

Section 2705 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a provision that holds significant potential. In 2014, employers may apply up to 30% of the total amount of employees’ health insurance premiums (50% at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to provide performance-based wellness incentives. This represents an attempt by the government to rein in healthcare costs associated with unhealthy behaviors. The clear objective of this ACA provision and the political rhetoric behind it is to improve health-related behavior and reduce the prevalence of chronic disease caused by unhealthy lifestyles.

These incentive programs have drawn criticism from those concerned that holding individuals responsible for their health, particularly through the use of penalties, violates individual liberties and discriminates against the unhealthy. And, as someone whose mother suffered from Multiple Sclerosis, a dreadful chronic disease without a known cause or cure, I can surely understand their argument but there must be a logical set of conditions under which a new incentive-based system can be developed and deployed in a responsible, ethical manner to contain healthcare costs and encourage healthy behavior. This issue was central in the historic Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of ACA’s mandate that just wrapped-up.

Read our blog next week for a proposed measurement system that will help drive patient accountability and promote healthy behavior.

John Montague

John Montague is a Vice President at TripleTree focused on innovative companies and solutions that are shaping the future of healthcare. E-mail John at jmontague@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

With increasing frequency, the trend toward healthcare provider “transparency” is in the news.

One vocal and prominent proponent of the concept is Dr. C. Martin Harris of the Cleveland Clinic, whose goal is improved transparency and patient access across our health care system.  Conceptually it sounds great, but would a better patient understanding of the financial aspects of their care (i.e. bills) influence their behaviors when selecting a care provider?

Dr. Harris is pushing for the development and utilization of patient-centric financial management tools that will expose the true costs associated with patient care.  Such tools could allow patients (consumers) to analyze their “actual” medical costs as well as their insurance coverage to help them better understand, in real-time what is owed for a given treatment.

Dr. Harris is shining a light on the patient confusion surrounding what to pay, who to pay and when to pay it. His view calls for a simplified system of transparent billing (the financial side of healthcare transactions) which “would clearly optimize the value of care to patients.”

Approaches such as specialized cards that initiate any healthcare-related transaction and then connect to online portals might be a starting point; and could even include connections to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via its Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems (CAHPS®).   But will that be enough to entice consumers (patients) to gravitate toward a specific healthcare provider if they could deliver:

  • Better value (i.e., the same or better medical care for cheaper)
  • Enhanced customer service (i.e., overall patient experience), or
  • Improved medical outcomes?

These three post reform drivers seem to be reasonable predictors of consumer preference – however its less clear whether a consumer would compare two or more healthcare providers based on billing statement transparency (clarity) alone.

Provider billing transparency is for now likely a “nice-to-have” rather than “must have” component of patient experience – and without the urging of consumers or employers the solutions envisioned by Dr. Harris won’t likely emerge.   Rather, patient experience trends, improved outcomes and calculating value for healthcare dollars spent, will likely persist as the near term focus of vendors serving the healthcare provider market.

Let us know what you think.

Jamie Lockhart

Jamie Lockhart is a Vice President with TripleTree covering healthcare software and service providers with a focus on consumer directed healthcare.  You can contact him at jlockhart@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

With only 18 months left until the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ICD-10 implementation deadline, pressure to comply is mounting for a vast array of healthcare constituents.  ICD-10, or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision, is a medical code set used to standardize both diagnoses (ICD-10-CM) and procedures (ICD-10-PCS).  Mandated to replace the existing ICD-9 standards on October 1, 2013, its been well documented that ICD-10 will provide a level of clinical granularity far exceeding that of its predecessor; and as shown below a vast increase in the sheer number of codes.

The implementation deadline has spurred some debate.  James Madard, Executive Vice President and CEO of the American Medical Association (AMA), recently wrote a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking her to halt the ICD-10 implementation process.  “The timing of the ICD-10 transition…,” Madard wrote, “… could not be worse as many physicians are currently spending significant time and resources implementing electronic health records into their practices.”

Madard alludes to an issue that is central to both payers and providers which are that multiple Healthcare IT guidelines (ICD-10, HITECH, etc.) will need to be smoothly and quickly implemented to ensure proper reimbursement and avoid heavy government penalties.  The ICD-10 concerns for providers are becoming a boon to vendors, as solutions ranging from data analytics and terminology management to consumer focused solutions are enjoying strong demand.

In our view, vendors need not worry that an extended deadline will curb this demand.  As the healthcare universe shifts from fee-for-service to capitation and bundled-care reimbursement models, innovative technology will be a chief driver in achieving cost reduction.  In addition, we’re recommending that vendors align their business strategy and product offerings around three initiatives:

  1. Effectively working with Channel partners to provide bundled “end-to-end” solutions that satisfy reporting requirements for multiple federal mandates
  2. Creating flexible product platforms that can be easily integrated into legacy systems (and updated as necessary)
  3. Stay out ahead of government regulation and build organizational agility that can meet changing client demands

Let us know what you think.

Jeff Farnell

Jeff Farnell is an Analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, with a specialization in revenue cycle management, compliance and tech-enabled business solutions. You can email him at jfarnell@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Healthcare can no longer deny nor ignore the importance of social media.  As a communication platform, it’s being used to educate, engage and empower consumers about topics ranging from legislation, hospital rankings, and ER wait times, to patient satisfaction, chronic illness management and health improvement.  Collaborative applications around seeking, sorting, assessing and ranking health information and experience have become part of our connected culture.

As “consumerism” increasingly impacts the healthcare landscape – payers, providers and other healthcare stakeholders are investing in technologies ranging from collaboration and contact center tools, to next generation video and self service platforms.  Consumerism is forcing these organizations to change their cultural barriers to how customer interactions need to be supported, and the pace of legislative mandates is exposing the healthcare information systems that can’t nimbly react to creating new products, or support online conversations.

Blogger Ed Bennet tracks 1,188 hospitals which are proving their seriousness about social media usage as they update:

  • 548 YouTube Channels
  • 1018 Facebook pages
  • 788 Twitter Accounts
  • 458 LinkedIn Accounts
  • 913 Foursquare
  • 137 Blogs

The impact of social media in healthcare goes beyond just an inexpensive channel that targets consumers.  Social media is fundamentally changing how payers, providers, and healthcare stakeholders manage their brand and influence purchasing decisions.

  • For payers its managing customer service touch points through insurance exchanges, one of the few ways for them to maintain loyalty.
  • For providers its connecting care providers with patients and is no longer about a gadget or app, but for measurable opportunities to share knowledge, build loyalty and improve processes that can influence how they manage care and patient relationships.
  • For other healthcare stakeholders it’s supporting their brand and customer interactions with thoughtful, engaged support allowing for the ability to listen in on conversations already occurring about the industry, products, news, issues, etc.

Social media is a powerful source of information for consumers, and an equally powerful communication channel for providers of health information and support services.  For payers, providers and other healthcare stakeholders, TripleTree considers social media the lowest cost enabler of consumerism with a technical heritage linking it to cloud-based CRM and collaboration platforms.  In addition, social media is a cornerstone for marketing and branding initiatives in many industries.   With social media in healthcare, the old models for marketing, sales and service have been transformed.

Let us know what you think.

Chris Hoffmann

Chris Hoffmann is a Senior Director at TripleTree covering Cloud, SaaS and enterprise applications and specializes in CRM, loyalty and collaboration solutions across numerous industries. Follow Chris on Twitter or e-mail him at choffmann@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Whether it’s paying a cable bill, mortgage, cell phone bill or other monthly recurring payment, consumers have been increasingly replacing paper check payments with online bill pay technologies for the past decade.  Healthcare, often dubbed as being ten years behind other industries technologically, had a recent breakthrough in the adoption of electronic payments.  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently released new rules on the electronic fund transfer (EFT) standards, a move that is projected to save the system billions of dollars and pounds of paper.

The new rules establish common interchange standards to streamline the format and data content of a transaction from a health plan (or payer) to a provider’s bank for claim payment and issuance of an electronic remittance advice (ERA).  The ERA is a notice of payment sent to providers to help reconcile electronic payments with the associated claim(s).  Historically, with minimal EFT volume, providers struggled with the reconciliation function, but the new regulations will require the use of a trace number that automatically matches the two.

Why has EFT payment adoption been slow to date and how does future adoption increase?  Despite the majority of payers possessing EFT capabilities today, providers have been slow on the uptake because payments are submitted in varying data formats making the processing and reconciliation very difficult.  With the new HHS rules, a standard data set will allow providers to rely on one system and/or format to take in and reconcile payments.  Payers are motivated to implement electronic payments for a variety of reasons, but most predicated on the associated cost savings.  I believe we will increasingly see payers forcing the transition within their provider network – perhaps even charging providers fees to cut a check.

Benefits of transitioning to electronic payments:

  • Faster revenue cycle, reduced AR, and improved collection metrics for providers
  • Increased productivity – more claims with less staff
  • Reduced potential manual errors
  • Increased business intelligence opportunities

Perhaps the most important benefit is increased business intelligence.  Traditional paper checks limit payers (and providers) ability to mine data as there really isn’t much data associated with a paper check or image.  However, EFT payments create new and unique opportunities to layer business intelligence and analytic solutions on the payment data sets.  Some of the obvious low hanging fruit is Fraud, Waste and Abuse analytics which is a huge issue in healthcare with large opportunities for savings.

The healthcare system is finally closing the payment technology gap which will save billions of dollars, increase efficiency, and create new business opportunities to make healthcare smarter.  Let me know what you think.

Judd Stevens

Judd Stevens is an associate at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, specializing in the impacts and transformation of health plans in a post-reform world.  Follow Judd on Twitter or e-mail him at jstevens@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Nominations open next week for the 2012 TripleTree I Award, our annual recognition of innovations in wireless health.  Messaging from new market entrants to physicians, payers, and most notably consumers is fueling a strong venture capital appetite, and looking back at the I Award finalists since 2009, we thought it was useful to list a few notable accomplishments.

Public Markets

  • Epocrates – The first mobile healthcare company to successfully go public in early 2011 raising $86m

Funding

  • Airstrip Technologies – Received an undisclosed amount of funding from Sequoia Capital
  • IntelliDOT – Raised $30m+ from leading investors including Psilos Group, TPG Growth, Camden Partners, Integral Capital Partners, J.F. Shea Ventures, Menlo Ventures and American River Ventures
  • Proteus Biomedical – Raised $25m from Medtronic, Novartis, and ON Semiconductor Corp
  • TelaDoc – Raised $18m from Cardinal Partners, HLM Venture Partners, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, New Capital Partners, and Trident Capital

FDA Approval

  • Calgary Scientific – ResolutionMDTM  after 23 months received 510(k) clearance from the FDA
  • Telcare – Wireless blood glucose meter received 510(k) clearance from the FDA for its device, Telcare BGM

Acquisition

  • CellTrak Technologies – Expanded into Canada through its acquisition of MedShare mobile technology for home health care
  • Healthagen – Patient access software to providers acquired by Aetna

Since TripleTree’s I Award inception in 2009, one company has gone public, one has been acquired, numerous rounds of funding have been raised, multiple FDA approvals granted, and some businesses have scaled nicely.  As the market continues to mature and awareness and user adoption grow, questions loom…

  • Is “connected health” on the verge of a breakout?
  • Are wireless health solutions the answer for reduced healthcare costs and improved quality of care?
  • Will innovation be driven by non-traditional healthcare vendors (ie device vendors and mobile service providers)?
  • How are the ramifications of reform influencing innovation?

As we consider these questions, a few key indicators are influencing the market:

  • Four out of five physicians use smartphones, computer tablets, and other mobile devices (Jackson & Coker industry report)
  • More than $600m has been invested in the wireless health space since January 2010
  • 89% of healthcare decision makers believe telehealth will transform healthcare in the next 10 years (Penn Schoen Berland Study)

Below is the honor roll of past I Award finalists.  Look for more information from TripleTree in the coming weeks as the nomination process commences and we plan for the WLSA Wireless Health Convergence Summit scheduled for May 22-24 in San Diego.

2011 Finalists

BodyMedia*

Wearable body monitoring device

Cambridge Temp Con*

Wireless physiological monitor for infertility

Cardiocom –

Clinical telehealth services

Cellnovo

Mobile diabetes management system

Healthagen

Patient access software to providers

Mobisante

Mobile ultrasound imaging system

Palomar Pomerado Health

Real-time mobile software patient electronic health information

Phreesia*

Touch-screen mobile tablet

TelaDoc

On-demand patient access solution to ERs and urgent care

Telcare

Wireless bloodglucose meter

Vitality

Mobile medication adherence

Wound Technology Network

Telehealth- based wound services

2010 Finalists

AirStrip Technologies

Mobile patient information

Calgary Scientific*

Medical imaging

CellTrak Technologies*

Homecare with GPS cell phones

Corticare

Critical care patient monitoring

Great Connection

Mobile imaging communications

Hopskipconnect

Motivational self management tools

InnerWireless

In-building wireless solutions

Ocutronics

Retinal camera

PerfectServe

Physician and patient care communication

PharmaSecure

Pharmacy brand protection solutions

Zeo, Inc.*

Sleep monitoring

ZMQ Software Systems

Sustainable development

2009 Finalists

BeWell Mobile

Disease management applications via text messaging on cell phone

CellTrak Technologies

Homecare automation with GPS cell phones

Diversinet

Health information transparency in partnership with AllOne Mobile

Epocrates

Rx Drug and formulary reference

GreatCall*

Jitterbug; simple cell phone with 24-hour live service

IntelliDOT*

Workflow manager connecting caregivers with information systems

MedApps

Mobile wireless health monitoring

MicroCHIPS

Continuous glucose management system

PhiloMetron

Passive weight management platform

Proteus Biomedical*

Electronically observed therapy platform

Tagnos

Patient flow management applications

Triage Wireless

Wireless telemetry/vital signs monitoring

*Denotes I Award Winner

 

Joanna Roth

Joanna Roth is a Senior Analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare and technology industry, specializing in education solutions. Follow Joanna on Twitter or e-mail her at jroth@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

CIGNA put a stake in the ground for the long term prospects of Medicare Advantage (M.A.) with its recent announcement that it would be acquiring HealthSpring for $3.8B (a 37% premium over its closing price prior to announcement).

HealthSpring primarily operates as a M.A. plan covering over 340K lives across 11 states (including over 800,000 Medicare Part D members).  CIGNA previously had a very limited presence in M.A. with ~44,000 lives entirely in Arizona.

CIGNA has been focused on diversifying its core US healthcare presence, so the move isn’t too much of a shocker, although many thought its approach would include international expansion versus a bold move into the government market.  It’s likely the HealthSpring business model was too alluring for CIGNA to pass on when you consider HealthSpring’s:

  • Tight integration with network physicians including a high level of capitation and risk sharing;
  • Strong leadership team lead by Herb Fritch whom possess the experience and know-how to operate a unique, physician-centric, coordinated care model; and
  • Consumer brand presence within the senior market.

There is a large opportunity for CIGNA to leverage and replicate HealthSpring’s coordinated care model across their commercial book of business to drive efficiencies and deliver better care.  Additionally, CIGNA will benefit from its ability to cross-sell HealthSpring into new markets.

CIGNA is not the only health plan making moves in the M.A. market – recent M&A activity within the sector over the past 18 months include:

HealthSpring was one of the few remaining M.A. plans with size and scale, and CIGNA’s move could prompt additional consolidation within the sector over the coming 12-18 months.  The list of targets with viable M.A. populations (100K+ lives) is becoming quite limited.  Some of these include Universal American and Wellcare, public M.A. plans with 100K+ lives; and XL Health, SCAN, Aveta and Universal Healthcare as examples of private M.A. plans with scale.

There have been recent headlines about increased pressure on reimbursement rates and minimum medical loss ratio (“MLR”) requirements posing a threat to the future of M.A.  My view, however, is that M.A. will not only survive, but thrive going forward and recent M&A activity would suggest the same.  Let me know what you think.

Judd Stevens

Judd Stevens is an associate at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, specializing in the impacts and transformation of health plans in a post-reform world.  Follow Judd on Twitter or e-mail him at jstevens@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

As congressmen and stakeholders across the country continue to debate the best methods for quality improvement and cost containment in the U.S. healthcare system, four of the nation’s largest health insurers have come together to provide access to data that has the potential to significantly bend the cost curve.

A long awaited announcement came last week from  AetnaHumana, Kaiser Permanente and UnitedHealth Group  revealing that they will be providing access to over 5 billion de-identified claims from over 5,000 U.S. hospitals totaling $1 trillion of healthcare costs incurred since 2000. This data will be made available to researchers and distinguished healthcare economists via the newly formed nonprofit group, Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI).

According to the HCCI web site, its mission is to promote independent research and analysis on the causes of rising US health spending, to provide policy makers, consumers, and researchers with better, more transparent information on what is driving health care costs, to help ensure that, over time, the nation is able to get greater value from its health spending.

Last week I spoke with Dr. Stephen T. Parente, PhD., Professor in the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota and member of the governing board of HCCI. He described the multi-stage approach of the HCCI which includes collecting and aggregating data from the participating private insurers and establishing a database for entities interested in getting a handle on health care costs and utilization.  The HCCI is also designing “rules of the road” related to research protocols, access and review..

Until now, claims data has been limited to federally provided data on Medicare. But with over half of healthcare expenditures coming from private pay insurers, this restricted view hasn’t been broad enough to draw meaningful conclusions.   As its content evolves, the HCCI will publish a bi-annual scorecard to help researchers identify trending information at levels of detail rarely (if ever) seen before.

We’re actively working with healthcare innovators, many of which are working toward the same healthcare cost-saving goal,, and thought it would be useful to list our view of where  we predict the HCCI could (in the near term) positively impact payers, providers and patients related to healthcare cost and quality:

  • Develop evidence-based care recommendations and best practices (Providers and patients)
  • Design multi-payer quality improvement strategies and evaluate their effectiveness (Payers and patients)
  • Understand key bottlenecks along the care continuum where patients spend the most time and dollars (Payers and patients)
  • Determine specific diseases, conditions and treatments that are driving the largest cost trends (Payers and patients)
  • Identify the most cost-effective providers and medical procedures as well as geographical variations (Payers and patients)
  • Isolate cost variances between Medicare/Medicaid and private health plans and help appropriately align pricing with private pay (Taxpayers)
  • Analyze healthcare cost trends over time at an heightened level of specificity (Everyone)
  • Evaluate the effectiveness and draw comparisons between different types of disease management programs and treatment procedures(Payers, providers and patients)

Our long term outlook on the value of this data is that it can create new metrics of clinical and care performance standards based largely on historical and real-time reporting on claims. We’re hopeful that as such analyses are developed and recognized on a broader stage, they will be used to inform policy on a much more direct basis and make a huge impact on the costs of healthcare.

Have a great week.

Emma Daugherty

Emma Daugherty is a Senior Analyst at TripleTree covering the life sciences sector with a focus on provider technologies and patient safety.  You can contact her at edaugherty@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

In today’s world of electronic connectivity and mobile payments (ePayments), the U.S. healthcare system lags not only other industries, but everyday consumers too.  Over the past ten years, nearly every component of the healthcare system has undertaken massive initiatives to transition from paper to electronic environments, but as shown below just 10% of provider payments are received electronically1, in spite of the fact that 75% of claims are submitted electronically1.

The laggard in the value chain prohibiting the transition is not the payers’ ability to submit ePayments, but the providers’ inability to accept them.  The benefits for providers getting on the ePayment bandwagon are real, and include:

  • Improved working capital due to decreased time to post payments
  • Reduced errors associated with manual, human processes
  • Reduced costs associated with the additional paper, postage and manual activity (it is estimated that eliminating paper checks in healthcare could save $11 billion per year1)

So why the slow adoption?  One reason could be that ePayments, also known as electronic funds transfer (“EFT”), add a layer of complexity due to a lack of standardization and lack of operating rules across payers and their EFT submissions.  Multiple payment submissions from multiple payers using different systems and submitting at different times all around a single claim makes reconciliation very difficult for the provider office.

When will we see change?  The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 mandates that payers must make payments to providers by electronic funds transfer (EFT) and electronic remittance advice (ERA) by January 1, 2014 or face considerable federal penalties.

These potential financial ramifications will be a catalyst for change with providers.  However, success will hinge on new levels of standardization and operating rules for EFT which allow providers to uniformly accept ePayments from many different payers.  We’re predicting (and already seeing) a mad dash by the providers to implement systems that accept EFT before the 2014 deadline.

Vendors such as Payformance, Fidelity National Information Services (FIS), InstaMed, HERAE, Wausau Financial Systems and Emdeon seem well positioned to enable the shift and we’ll be watching this space closely.  Let us know what you think.

Judd Stevens

Judd Stevens is an associate at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, specializing in the impacts and transformation of health plans in a post-reform world.  Follow Judd on Twitter or e-mail him at jstevens@triple-tree.com.

 

Update: Made adjustments to the chart.

Source:

  1. U.S. Healthcare Efficiency Index©

Read Full Post »

The U.S. healthcare industry is undoubtedly going through one of the most pronounced transformations in its history.  At the most fundamental level, the means and methods by which patients, providers, and payers interact is changing dramatically.

  • Consumers (patients) are increasingly at the epicenter of the healthcare delivery and decision making processes.
  • Providers (hospitals, clinics) are mobilizing to take advantage of new delivery models that assume the accountability for the quality and cost of healthcare for a defined population, the long-term goal of the ARRA legislation (health reform).
  • Payers (health plans) are expanding their focus beyond a traditional coverage and benefits orientation to include advanced health management and decision support capabilities.

For innovators and investors, these structural changes in conjunction with the ongoing trend toward more granular clinical documentation and code sets (i.e., the new HIPAA 5010 standards and transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10) as well as the lure of billions in financial incentives related to complying with HITECH/Meaningful Use rules are creating brittle calculus for valuing technological advancement and innovation.

In many respects the U.S. health system has been caught flat-footed by a wave of long-overdue regulatory mandates aimed at dragging an industry long resistant to change into the twenty-first century.  The impending need for innovative healthcare IT solutions has created substantial demand for forward-looking vendors with the capability to provide greater efficiency and quality within the care delivery continuum and/or improve transparency within healthcare’s convoluted reimbursement system.  Companies with these general characteristics are rare and truly valuable.

When taken together, the combination of pent-up demand and a scarcity of viable alternatives create a “bubble-like” atmosphere where valuations have crept well outside their historical bounds.  Leading healthcare IT vendors are experiencing unprecedented interest from a range of potential acquirers that fall into three broad categories:

The flurry of activity has resulted in a sellers’ market in which revenue multiples (computed as enterprise value divided by trailing twelve months revenue) have exceeded 8-9x.  This begs the question: is healthcare IT in a bubble?  The answer would be unequivocally “yes” if it weren’t for a range of trends that will persist for the next 10-20 years:

  • 78 million Baby Boomers are reaching retirement age
  • Over-utilization and high cost prescription drugs and medical procedures are not proving to be cost-effective
  • Increasing incidence and complexity of chronic and co-morbid conditions.
  • Healthcare, as compared to most other industries is in infancy in terms of technology adoption – creating a long-standing demand for IT implementation, integration, and optimization
  • Need for new and creative approaches to funding the rising cost of healthcare in light of the strain put on the Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs
  • Prevalence of fraud, waste, and abuse within the administration and reimbursement processes

A constantly replenishing pipeline of new, entrepreneurial companies is fueling the pioneering spirit and innovation required to advance and redefine the U.S. healthcare system.  Any resemblance to a “bubble” is snuffed out by the sustainability of the current demand and expanding interest from the nation’s leading entrepreneurs, business builders, investors, and advisors that will continue to be attracted to solving healthcare’s complex, long-standing problems.  All in all, it’s a great time to be an innovator in healthcare.

Let us know what you think.

Seth Kneller

Seth Kneller is an Associate at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, specializing in revenue cycle management, clinical software solutions, geriatric care and healthcare analytics. Follow Seth on Twitter or e-mail him at skneller@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »