Focus, Economics and Patient Satisfaction…three keys to understanding Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Historically, surgical procedures were performed within the four walls of a hospital.  However, the past decade has seen a dramatic rise in surgery volume being performed in an outpatient setting—largely ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs).  As seen below, the number of U.S. ASCs is approaching 6,000, and overall procedure volume has shifted dramatically from inpatient to an outpatient setting.

Source: VMG Intellimarker 2011 and 2010

ASCs are outpatient facilities at which surgical procedures are performed on patients who do not require an overnight stay.  ASCs were originally established in 1970 and most commonly perform elective procedures with short anesthesia and operating times.  Typical procedures include eye, orthopedic, hand, plastic surgery, pain management, podiatry, ear-nose-and-throat, endoscopy, and laparoscopy at facilities usually ‘free-standing’ (not part of a hospital campus).  ASCs operate within a highly regulated industry with each facility being required to comply with rigorous oversight and certification.  Many of the same standards, constraints and requirements as inpatient hospital operating rooms apply to ASCs.

ASCs receive less of their total payments from Medicare/Medicaid than an average hospital – 37% for ASCs vs 61% for an average hospital which reduces some of the reimbursement pressure.  This makes sense as most of the procedures performed in this setting are elective in nature, which tend to come from the population not utilizing government health benefits.  We’ve assessed three key advantages offered by with the ASC approach to care:

• Compelling economics:  ASCs are able to provide lower-priced procedures because they have a lower cost structure than a traditional hospital setting along with a “focused factory” approach which creates efficiencies.
  • By shifting just half of all eligible outpatient surgeries to the ASC setting, Medicare could save an additional $2.3 billion annually (Ambulatory Surgery Center Advocacy Committee, 2010)
• Consumer appeal:  ASCs are generally free standing and located in the suburbs, which provide patients with better access.  Also, ASC schedules are better maintained because there is no possibility of emergency surgeries preempting a scheduled procedure.
• Focus, specialization and quality:  It’s difficult to track the quality of care provided in ASCs compared to hospitals because ASCs are not yet required to report comparable outcomes data – which will likely change in the near future.  We do know, however, that ASCs focus on a select number of procedures at a high volume, which allows doctors to perfect their craft and deliver high quality results to patients.

The advantages are not only for patients, but also for payers and providers.  Payers are able to negotiate more favorable rates for procedures performed in the ASC which lowers their overall costs of care.  Providers which are part of the ASCs have seen large economic gains as they’re able to take economic stakes in the operations.  Overall, ASCs have grown to become an important part of the care delivery landscape and as the three advantages listed above might dictate, this an area we predict will have an increasing relevance in the healthcare landscape.

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 »

Linking ICD-10 and the future of HCIT

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 10^th 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 »

State Health & Wealth Benefits Administration: Simple Coordination…Millions in Savings

As government’s role in the provisioning of health care and welfare benefits continues to increase, the number of participants in state administered benefit programs and the burden of supporting those programs is also growing.   Anti-poverty spending as shown in the graph below, has reached 4% of GDP, of which healthcare entitlement programs represent more than 1.5% (and is speculated to be the largest risk of runaway spending). Given the demographics of the low-income population served by these programs, a high level of duplicative efforts are taking place on a state administrative level in order to manage and administer these benefits.

Below are a few more details –

What types of state funded programs potentially have significant overlap in addressable market?

• Medicaid
• Medicaid Transportation Payments
• Low Income Energy Assistance Program Payments
• SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)
• WIC (Women, Infant & Children Program)
• TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)
• Child Care Time and Attendance
• SCHIP – State Children’s Health Insurance Program

The tip of the iceberg

In most states, individuals qualifying for food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, etc., must separately apply to different state agencies for these programs.  An individual enrolling in multiple programs is just the beginning, as separate departmental processes, eligibility compliance checks and inevitable movement in and out of various programs compound the issue.

Finding an efficient path

As with any inefficient system, waste evokes opportunity. The ability to bundle benefits and combine or transfer the management of those benefits across state agencies will be extremely important in the lowering of administration costs and streamlining the benefits distribution across the states. As states realize the efficiencies gained from this exercise, they will likely invest in solutions that help manage multiple benefit plans and technology that is able to track eligibility and even auto-enroll the appropriate individuals to the appropriate programs. Unfortunately, this is much easier said than done.

Clearing hurdles

The main obstacle in this situation is the lack of administrative and payment capabilities to enable the states to provide the benefits to the eligible consumer (enroll and administer the programs), track usage/transactions, and appropriately distribute the funds. While this will not happen right away, once the public health insurance exchanges are established, it would make a lot of sense to use that exchange infrastructure to allow people to enroll in not only Medicaid, but other government benefits.

This area of compliance in health care is a focus for our team and is rife with opportunities – let us know what you think.

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 »

HHS Reform Timelines…Wiggle Room In Sight?

Aggressive IT deadlines have left the healthcare industry scrambling to meet a host of regulatory mandates spanning HIT adoption, payment transaction methodologies, coding standards, and state-run health insurance exchanges.  Hundreds of new regulations have been implemented over the past couple of years, leaving the industry torn in how limited time and resources are utilized among care delivery, quality and cost reduction initiatives, process/infrastructure modernization, and increasingly stringent regulatory reporting requirements.

Hospitals and doctors have been especially overwhelmed with regulations and have been reprioritizing investments to support EMR implementation, Meaningful Use qualification, and what is expected to be a tidal wave of new entrants into the system once the 2014 health reform mandates become effective.

The American Medical Association (AMA) set newswires and the blogosphere abuzz last week when they publically voiced opposition to the transition to ICD-10 coding stating “the implementation of ICD-10 will create significant burdens on the practice of medicine with no direct benefit to individual patients’ care.”  Some dispute the AMA’s move as self-serving given their interests in maintaining the stature and importance of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code set.  Nevertheless, whether the AMA’s move was defensive or not is irrelevant – the vast majority of providers and a meaningful cross-section of payers are ill-prepared to meet the ICD-10 transition deadlines that CMS currently has in place.

To the relief of payers, providers, vendors, and states, the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have recently backed off from a few key deadlines.  While these announcements by no means cancel any existing mandates, at a minimum they buy the industry some time to comply with the overarching legislative intent of increasing coverage among the uninsured population, incentivizing IT adoption, and driving improved levels of care delivery.  Of note:

1. HIPAA 5010– CMS announced that it would hold off enforcing the HIPAA 5010 transaction sets until March 31, 2012, a 90-day extension to the original enforcement date. While the compliance date will technically remain intact, relaxing the enforcement date “encourages all covered entities to continue working with their trading partners to become compliant with the new HIPAA standards and to determine their readiness to accept the new standards as of Jan. 1, 2012,” as stated in a release by CMS’ Office of E-Health Standards and Services (OESS).HIPAA 5010 is widely viewed as a precursor to the impending transition to ICD-10 in October 2013. The enormity of that effort will dwarf HIPAA 5010. This week’s announcement foreshadows further delays yet to come.
2. Stage 2 Meaningful Use– HHS announced this week that it would delay its compliance date for Stage 2 Meaningful Use from 2013 to 2014. The extension specifically impacts eligible providers that qualified for Stage 1 Meaningful Use in 2011. Providers, vendors, and government work groups alike have noted the timing issues and inherent disincentive posed on early adopters attempting to adhere to criteria that have yet to be finalized. The Health IT Policy Committee, a federally-chartered advisory panel to HHS, recommended these changes earlier this year to the endorsement of Farzad Mostashari, M.D., ONC’s National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius acknowledged the progress to date, referring to the reported doubling of HIT adoption over the past two years. In its move to extend the Stage 2 deadline HHS has smartly protected its initial success by attentively listening and responding to the needs of an overwhelmed provider community.
3. Health Insurance Exchanges – HHS (though the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight – CCIIO) has seemingly relaxed (or at least clarified) a critical deadline for the states to stand-up their Insurance Exchanges. This week, CCIIO extended a grant deadline by six months until June 2012 from December 2011. Also CCIIO has committed funding for the establishment exchanges beyond the previous January 1, 2014 deadline. Now states have until December 2014 to apply for grants for continued exchange development provided that at least a portion of the exchange is operational by January 1, 2014.

While it is not entirely clear why these significant changes coincided in timing – perhaps it had to do with the resignation of controversial CMS chief Don Berwick – these reprieves are no doubt welcomed within the industry. The extra time will give payers, providers, and states some extra time to meet their compliance mandates.

This extra time should not be squandered. Industry participants must continue to plan for and implement systems that support new EDI standards within 5010, the reporting requirements of Stage 2 Meaningful Use, and the complexities of insurance exchanges. Furthermore, the real value in any of these mandates is not meeting the minimum requirements of the mandate itself, but rather the powerful and compelling capabilities that each enables in terms of improved communication and workflow automation that will enable entirely new quality and cost initiatives.

We’re optimistic that the timeline flexibility of HHS regarding timelines will promote more thoughtful approaches, investments and implementations across all impacted organizations, let us know what you think.

Scott Donahue

Scott Donahue is a Vice President at TripleTree covering infrastructure and application technologies across numerous industries and specializes in assessing the “master brands” of IT and Healthcare. Follow Scott on Twitter or e-mail him at sdonahue@triple-tree.com

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 »

Medicare Advantage…Here Today, Here Tomorrow…

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:

• Wellpoint – CareMore (2011)
• Aetna – Genworth’s Medicare Supplement (2011)
• Humana – MD Care (2011) and Arcadian Management Services (2011)
• HealthSpring – Bravo Health (2010)

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 »

Insurance Exchange Enablement Heats Up as the Clock Ticks Down

Today’s news that Wellpoint and two other Blues (HCSC and BCSB MI) acquired a 78% stake in Health Insurance Exchange vendor Bloom Health is not the first – and won’t be the last – move in what is sure to be a consolidating market.

The Accountable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) requires each state to establish an online shopping portal, known as a Health Insurance Exchange (HIX) for individuals and small groups to purchase health insurance no later than January 1 2014. We have written and blogged extensively on the topic. In our estimates, HHS and the states will need to spend in the neighborhood of $4-$6 billion dollars on technologies order to create these exchanges. In addition to the ACA HIX, there is perhaps a bigger market opportunity in the private sector to create non-government sponsored insurance exchanges, creating even a bigger market opportunity. Bloom Health is one of many vendors specializing in the private exchange market.

Wellpoint, the Blues, and in fact all health insurance companies are making the individual and small group markets a top priority for new business and growth initiatives. These markets will explode in growth due to the Obamacare legislation and the carriers recognize the opportunity and the challenge with tapping this market.

The insurance exchanges, both public and private, will be the primary vehicles to reach into the individual and small group markets. Wellpoint’s move on Bloom, and Optum’s acquisition of Connextions, is recognition of this fact.

In addition to the Connextions and Bloom transactions, the vendor community is also coming together to help create insurance exchanges. Accenture’s acquisition of Duck Creek, announced partnerships from Oracle, Microsoft, CSC and others such as Maximus’ partnership with Connecture, portend of additional transactions to come in the space.

Insurance companies need help in positioning into the individual market, and also need technology to help them more effectively participate in the public and private exchanges.  Several vendors are positioning into the market but only a few have broad, proven experience with exchanges.

Companies like eHealth and Extend Health, which have consumer engagement and online shopping capabilities from market adjacencies (a leading online brokerage for eHealth and a robust Medicare exchange from Extend) will be important players in the new world of insurance exchanges. Other players like DestinationRx are similarly active in the exchange marketplace, working with HHS and multiple insurance plans, and will have a meaningful impact on the public and private HIX marketplace.  These vendors already have a head start in exchange operations, plan comparison features and tools to help consumers sort through the confusing world of insurance costs and coverage.

TripleTree’s recent HIX research report lays out a number of vendors that are currently engaged in HIX solutions. The report concludes that no vendor provides a complete solution.  Given the importance of the exchanges and the immediate market opportunity, no doubt consolidation will continue.

Have a good week.

Scott Donahue

Scott Donahue is a Vice President at TripleTree covering infrastructure and application technologies across numerous industries and specializes in assessing the “master brands” of IT and Healthcare. Follow Scott on Twitter or e-mail him at sdonahue@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

The Clock is Ticking for Public Health Insurance Exchanges

The success of Obamacare relies entirely on every state having a health insurance exchange as mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) up and running no later January 1, 2014.

By early 2013, the federal government (via Health and Human Services (HHS)) will make a determination as to each state’s readiness to bring their health insurance exchange online. Lack of readiness by the January 1, 2014 deadline means HHS will take over the implementation and operation of each exchange.

The clock is ticking…

We are following closely the progress that is being made by the states are convinced that only a handful will be ready by the deadline.   Moreover, we question whether HHS will be able to step in and offer their working version of an exchange either, or if that federal exchange will even be legally able to offer subsidized policies.

While we are not prepared to unilaterally conclude that ACA’s exchange deadline won’t be met by any state, a former HHS secretary is equally skeptical.

We want exchanges to succeed and believe they ultimately will (in some form).  Our reviews of the exchange initiatives have included studying the Early Innovator grants and interviewing state policy administrators and vendors selling into the exchange concept.  The amount of work that will need to be done in order to get the public exchanges stood up by 2014 is daunting.

TripleTree’s recent report on exchanges, HIX: An assessment of the complexities and opportunities emanating from the ACA’s public health insurance exchange concept introduces these challenges and some innovative solutions that could emerge as part of the solutions.  Since then however, the planning, procurement and testing are in the early innings; and operational integration is far from reality.   Unfortunately very few states have a demonstrated ability to pull off the kind of implementation prowess needed to come online, on time.

Putting politics and policy aside, there are at least three major challenges that each state will need to overcome (quickly) if the public exchanges have any chance of meeting the 2014 deadline:

1. States need more clarity on what they are building even though many states have RFPs out for technology and have drafted high level architectures.  There is universal uncertainty and lack of guidance from HHS on major issues such as to exactly how payments and subsidies will be processed  or how the carriers will integrate their workflow into the exchanges
2. States lack successful architectural models and commercially proven technical capabilities because there is no working model of an exchange. Those charged with building the models – the Early Innovator grantees – are far from ready, or have dropped out of the program and/or returned their remaining funds.  The often cited Massachusetts and Utah models fall short of the ACA requirements (as do the Medicare exchanges).   And no vendor has a turnkey solution.
3. States need more time – Given the massive scale and complexity of the exchanges and the integration that needs to be done with existing state and federal systems, it will be next to impossible to build an automated exchange as envisioned by the ACA in the next 16 months.

In our report, we also introduced the notion of private entities that may have the acumen and motivation to bring an insurance exchange online by the 2014 deadline.  We speculated that the private exchanges would start to roll-out in the second half of 2011 and even identified some of the likely players that would have compelling capabilities to drive the private exchange concept.

Our research asserted the real opportunities for the private sector to capitalize on the HIX mandate through a market-aligned solution that will have more impact to improve health insurance access than the federal mandates.  We are excited to see and will continue to watch the early launches of the private exchanges and believe the states and public HIX will benefit from modeling their efforts and approaches around the early successes from the private exchanges.

Let us know what you think.

Scott Donahue

Scott Donahue is a Vice President at TripleTree covering infrastructure and application technologies across numerous industries and specializes in assessing the “master brands” of IT and Healthcare. Follow Scott on Twitter or e-mail him at sdonahue@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

A Big Week for ACOs

Given that this Friday is the deadline for applying for CMS ACO “Pioneer” status and is also the assumed release date for the final ACO regulations, this is sure to be a busy week for ACO news.

And as if we needed more proof that still no one knows how ACO adoption is going to shake out, we took note of the following last week:  on August 19^th, Forbes published a blog post titled “How ObamaCare is Destroying Accountable Care Organizations.”   (This was based on a post by noted healthcare policy analyst John Goodman: “Health Care Schizophrenia” )

As a key argument, the post cites how an innovative medical group in Texas called IntegraNet wouldn’t qualify for CMS ACO status, despite all the good work they are doing around measuring practicing evidence-based medicine and driving down costs because they rely on a Fee-for-Service model.

One week later, on August 26th, guess what happens?  IntegraNet became one of the first groups in the country to formally apply for ACO designation.  (To be completely fair to Goodman and to Forbes, IntegraNet clearly states that they are applying early in order to have some influence on the “burdensome rules” imposed in the regulation).

However this drama plays out, we here at TripleTree have been thinking a bit about the broader picture.  While most of the drama and headline news (and criticism!) is happening at the federal level of the CMS ACO program, there are a number of hospitals and physician groups that have quietly undertaken their own shared savings and bundled payments experiments.

In fact, Modern Healthcare published its first survey of accountable care organizations this week, identifying 13 ACOs respondents around the country (this despite the fact that CMS ACO program does not launch until 2012). To us, these experiments are the real market opportunity for ACOs, and one that has finally gotten some deserved attention on the back of the government’s healthcare reform legislation.

In fact, a great example can be seen here in our backyard with Fairview Health System’s developing relationship with the payer Medica.  A case study can be found here, but in short:  Fairview, a seven-hospital system with 49 clinics and 450 employed physicians, and Medica, with 1.6m members in the upper Midwest, decided that they could seek a more mutually beneficial relationship.  In 2009, they entered into a contract that pays Fairview based on the achievement of defined outcomes for quality and total risk-adjusted cost of care based on Fairview’s performance on certain diabetes and vascular care measures.  Essentially, if Medica members have better outcomes and lower costs than the community at large, Fairview shares in those savings.  Preliminary data is encouraging, though the relationship is requiring a “total cultural transformation” on the hospital system’s part, including a total redesign of workflow, compensation, and responsibilities. (Just think of what kind of transformation will be required to measure and achieve CMS’s 65 proposed quality measurements!)

While these quiet moves will never get the attention that Highmark’s acquisition of West Penn Alleghany that we profiled recently, this the real story of the ACO debate going on right now.  These experimental relationships between providers and payers are the ones that will prove if shared savings and bundled payments can truly bend the proverbial cost curve.

Let us know what you think.

Conor Green

Conor Green is a Vice President at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, and specializing in revenue cycle management and tech-enabled business services. You can email Conor at cgreen@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Competition Spurs Consolidation and Innovation for Government Contractors Interested in Healthcare

A lot can happen in two months as evidenced that amid global economic chaos, merger and acquisition activity in the government contractor space has been among the most active sectors.

Concerns for long-term growth amid budget wrangling is driving government defense and IT contractors to recognize that while their core market could shrink, growth can be found in areas like healthcare IT and cyber security. The likes of Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics are paving the way.

• Lockheed Martin’s acquisition of QTC, the largest provider of outsourced medical evaluation services to the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), was announced in August. QTC delivers Lockheed a highly strategic relationship with the VA while provides services that are highly complementary with Lockheed’s growth plans into new verticals and creates an IT-enabled platform in healthcare and the VA for Lockheed to leverage its government and IT expertise upon.
• General Dynamic’s purchase of Vangent, a major provider of healthcare IT systems and solutions to the federal government, military, and commercial healthcare markets, was announced in August. While not a strategically new area for GD, the acquisition significantly expands its presence in healthcare IT and highlights the growing importance of the sector for GD. Combined with the $225 million acquisition of ViPS in 2008, GD’s double-down play on government healthcare IT firmly establishes it as one of the leading players in the space.
• SAIC’s acquisition of Vitalize Consulting Solutions, a market-leading provider of clinical, business and information technology services for commercial healthcare organizations, closed in August. Already leader in the government space, SAIC seized the opportunity to expand into the commercial healthcare provider market and leverage its information and data analytics expertise, while simultaneously capitalizing on the macro trend of the convergence of commercial and Federal healthcare markets.

The Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics deals highlight the growing competition and pressure from shareholders to acquire independent “crown jewel” companies within the government contracting space crucial for driving strategic transformation and growth. These prime assets can sell at significantly higher multiples than their peers because of their scale, depth of relationships, and scarcity.

We also expect to see M&A activity driven by “golden ticket” companies, best represented by the General Dynamic’s acquisition of Network Connectivity Solutions, a DoD enterprise services and cloud computing provider. Driving the transaction for GD was access to the DoD’s $12.2 billion multibillion dollar IT systems contract. The VA announced the winners of its $12 billion IT systems contract last month – the groups left off the list of awardees is long, including General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, IBM, Northrop Grumman, CSC, Dell, and L-3. Given the competitive dynamic and relative scarcity of multi-billion dollar contracts, we expect acquisition activity to fall among the nine independent awardees as well.

Behind the headline deals, other recent acquisitions in this space included:

• Boeing’s purchase of Solutions Made Simple, a federal information services provider
• GTSI acquired federal IT consulting firm InSysCo
• The merger and rebranding of correctional healthcare companies Valitas Health Services and America Service Group as Corizon
• Ayelet Investments LLC bought Conmed Healthcare Management, a provider of correctional healthcare services to county and municipal detention centers
• CACI bought federal cyber security and enterprise IT solutions provider Paradigm Holdings
• Sotera Defense Solutions acquired Software Process Technologies, a cyber software company, five months after being acquired by private equity firm Ares Management for $315 million
• Moelis Capital Partners acquired CyberCore Technologies, a provider of IT services to the federal government

Given the growing public and private investor appetite for quality businesses in the government contractor space, we expect further public company spin-outs along the lines of L-3’s divestiture of some government services operations and the ITT conglomerate breakup as profit margins shrink and corporations look to liquidate underperforming assets. We predict M&A activity to continue to be driven by strategic diversification into higher growth areas, stockpiled cash, and opportunistic action. Because we anticipate the government outsourcing market continuing to adjust through a period of significant transformation for their strategy, watch our research and deal flow for further insights and perspective.  Until then, let us know what you think.

Marc Baudry

Marc Baudry is an analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry specializing in government health, population health management and informatics. Follow Marc on Twitter or email him at mbaudry@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Big Defense Contractors Take Aim at Healthcare

The U.S. Defense Department budget experienced a $2+ trillion surge from 1998 to 2010 and was the primary driver behind the growth and sky rocketing valuations of “defense IT” contractors over the same period. Government contractor M&A activity and valuations peaked in 2007 and have since stalled pending government budget cuts and evolving spending priorities. Despite the slowdown, recent indications are that M&A activity in the sector is roaring back – here’s why:

Facing stagnant growth in their core industry, recessionary pressures, and shareholder demands for higher revenue and earnings, defense IT contractors are increasingly exploring non-traditional avenues for growth. Unlike defense spending which faces the specter of spending cuts for the next several years, U.S. federal government healthcare spending has its own projections set now at $985 billion this year, with growth only accelerating. These combined factors have led leading industry players such as CACI, CSC, and General Dynamics to see healthcare as a major opportunity for growth and a strategic imperative going forward.  Financial sponsors are becoming acquisitive too – consider the following deals:

• NCI acquired AdvanceMed for $62 million
• Vangent acquired Buccaneer Computer Systems for $70 million
• Smartronix acquired HIE firm Cogon Systems for an undisclosed amount
• SRA International acquired by Providence Equity for $1.9 billion
• Global Defense Technology and Systems acquired by Ares Management for $315 million
• General Atlantic Partners and KKR purchased TASC from Northrop Grumman for $1.65 billion
• Veritas Capital purchased the Enterprise Integration Group from Lockheed Martin for $815 million

We believe that as comfort with the changing dynamics of the federal budget and healthcare reform grows in the new post-recession environment, strategic defense and IT contractor interest fueled by cash war chests and shareholder demands will drive premium market valuations. Reuters recently announced that Veritas Capital government HCIT portfolio company Vangent has entered a process with valuation expectations north of $1 billion and significant early interest from private equity and strategic buyers.

At the same time, cross-aisle matchmaking between commercial and government healthcare players (CSC’s acquisition of iSoft Group for $188m; Harris’ acquisition of Carefx for $155m; and UnitedHealth Group’s acquisition of federal medical evaluation provider Logistics Health Inc) is being supported beyond the increasing federal involvement in healthcare. UnitedHealth Group has taken an early leadership role with respect to diversifying beyond TRICARE and we expect other payer groups to follow. Some of the macro forces we see driving growing commercial-government convergence are:

• Fewer single department or one-of-a-kind government systems and solutions
• Technology upgrades are prevalent for cost-cutting purposes and streamlined workflows
• Growing mindset around collaboration between governmental agencies
• Diversification between stable government revenue and higher-margin commercial revenue

Despite the heydays of the defense spending boom being over, the government IT/services M&A market is showing it can still generate billion dollar deal flow. With existing industry players doubling down on their investments, new entrants (including financial sponsors) will continue to pursue and capitalize on undervalued assets. Let us know what you think.

Marc Baudry

Marc Baudry is an analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry specializing in government healthcare services, population health management and informatics. Follow Marc on Twitter or email him at mbaudry@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »