Skip to main content
All Posts By

david_shifrin

Special Report: Recruitment Starts with Retention

“Mom, today I found out how I can own my own store.”

Was that the first thing you said as a teenager coming home after your first day of your first job slinging guacamole at a fast-food restaurant? Nope? Wasn’t for us either.

But that did happen to a teen whose orientation at Chipotle included a pathway to go from line crew to store manager to franchisee. And what a profound lesson for healthcare organizations struggling with staffing, said Dan Collard, co-founder of Healthcare Plus Solutions Group, who recently shared the story with us.

As Collard sees it: Recruitment starts with retention when companies give employees a reason to stay and grow.

Healthcare’s persistent workforce shortage is one of the industry’s most daunting issues right now. Everything’s on the table: large sign-on bonuses, retention bonuses, raises as everyone competes to staff up, whatever it takes. Many, especially rural hospitals, are barely hanging on. A few numbers to illustrate the point:

BY THE NUMBERS

96

Rural hospitals having difficulty filling nursing roles

11

Increase in salaries and benefits reported by HCA in 2021

54%

Rural hospitals significantly increased reliance on travel nurses

75

Nurse leaders citing employee emotional health as key concern

We all know the problem illustrated by those numbers. But how did it get so complicated?

Social context. The great resignation is affecting every facet of the workforce, with retention of hourly employees particularly tenuous.

Damsky

Expectations for greater pay, better benefits, improved work-life balance, career development opportunities and a desire for a better connection with employers are leading employees to push for change and/or leave their position in pursuit of it. Nurses, techs and shared services employees are expressing those same expectations but with the added layer of the intensity of their work.

Different process. “How people are going about getting talent has evolved as nursing recruitment has been empowered by technology. That’s making it more costly and more competitive,” said Pamela Damsky, director and Performance Practice co-lead at Chartis.

Jung

Jeffrey Jung, engagement manager at Chartis, pointed to the rapid rise of placement firms and “matchmaking technologies” that help connect provider organizations with talent. Jung said the matchmaking software can increase the speed at which a nurse can be placed and make better matches on the front end to boost retention. “It’s cheaper than just using placement firms because of the technology, but the overall cost is increasing because there are so many more applicants being hired,” he said.

Jennifer O’Meara, senior digital strategist at digital marketing firm Eruptr,

O’Meara

said the recruitment campaigns her firm ran online before COVID-19 tended to be “as needed” and focused on RN recruitment. Now though, Eruptr is involved in comprehensive recruitment campaigns that run constantly across platforms. Budgets, she said, “are double and triple what we were running previously, and it’s not just SEM, it’s Facebook, it’s Instagram, it’s display ads, it’s YouTube… it’s everything.”

More competition. Atop increased cost due to shifting talent acquisition processes is the pressure to raise compensation through bonuses and higher salaries to compete with other organizations in the market for a smaller and, perhaps, more selective talent pool. Hospitals are vying for the same nurses and trying to fend off the travel firms. At the same time, nurses and other staff have far more options, with outpatient clinics and health services companies delivering outstanding care and offering attractive careers.

Frayed relationships. The pandemic has accelerated a breakdown between title bands. Leaders are working to keep the whole operation running, staff are keeping things clean and caring for patients, managers are liaising between the two. Nurses aren’t happy. They’re being asked to do more with less. The LinkedIn post from nurse Kelly Fassold illustrates it well. Fassold compellingly expresses the anger many nurses feel towards administration, regulators, hospital groups and anyone else trying to codify salary caps – or even just discuss nurse compensation. The relationship between administration and staff is broken, and nurses feel like they are – or actually are – on the outside looking in as discussions about their value take place. It understandably leads to the sentiment of being both disrespected and undervalued. “You’ve left us out of the conversation and you don’t understand what we do so how can you tell us what we’re worth?”

Surviving then solving the nursing shortage

The healthcare staffing crisis isn’t intractable, but it’s not going to be solved in the short term. Right now, healthcare execs and HR teams are doing whatever is necessary to have just enough staff on shift to deliver care. Whatever it takes. That only adds to the unsustainable feedback loop and the feeling that we’re in the middle of a land grab, making it that much harder to plan for the long term. But plan we must. In fact, we must redesign the whole thing.

To do that, we have to establish the environment for long-term change to take root. First, a few thoughts on the tactics hospitals and health systems can employ.

Current Tactics for Recruitment & Retention

Hospitals and health systems are activating a variety of strategies to staunch the bleeding of the workforce crisis. We’ve curated a list of short and long-term interventions in force today and arranged them by feasibility for different types of provider organizations. After all, very few health systems have the financial wherewithal to buy a nursing school the way HCA did with Galen College of Nursing nearly three years ago.

Remember that nursing challenges arise indirectly as well when other areas of the organization break down. Take environmental services. When that department is understaffed, nurses end up with additional responsibilities because who else will change the linens? It’s more rocks in the nurses’ backpack.

Collard referenced a health system that was struggling with retention among environmental services and other support staff. Leadership changed the employee onboarding process so that, instead of following up with new techs after 30 and 90 days, those conversations happened on days one and two. That kept new hires engaged and allowed managers to uncover questions and problems instantly rather than letting them fester, improving the likelihood that the individual would stick around.

Again, wise to stay vigilant on the indirect disruptions that spill over onto nurses and address them promptly.

Building a culture of retention

Our experts agree there’s no easy solution, and the hard, sustainable solutions involve completely rethinking how we deliver care. But then they cite something that absolutely can be accomplished: building a culture that makes people want to stay. And when people stick around, you save on acquisition and training costs, maintain workforce stability and naturally gain advocates who may recruit others.

But O’Meara cautioned: “If you have to talk so much about culture and sell people on it when recruiting, do you really have a good culture to begin with? Is that culture reflected once you get past the advertising and the recruiters who make you feel so great about everything? Is it reflected once a new hire gets into the clinical setting?”

When you look up “employee retention” on stock photography sites, this is a lot of what you’ll find. But this represents a “what not to do” approach.

Professional development

Collard

Back to guacamole. After telling the story of the young man’s first day at Chipotle, Collard drew the contrast with healthcare organizations. “On Day One, we’re more interested in getting people set up with their password for the electronic medical record and showing them which gloves to wear,” he said.

In the push to get people working on their floor as quickly as possible, there are so many priorities to check off the orientation list that nothing is a priority. In contrast, Collard asked rhetorically, what if hospitals were more like Chipotle? “What would it be like if we began to engage our clinical staff on the day they started?” He mentioned research findings that indicate nearly four of five millennials will take a job with lower pay if it’s a job they feel connected with and that provides them a clear career path. It’s not always about the money. (Although yes, the Chipotle post below does feature the money along with the career trajectory.)

Jung emphasized this point, too, but with less avocado and red onion. Before COVID-19 there was less enthusiasm for bringing in a new graduate “because they require so much hands-on involvement,” as he put it. That hesitancy to hire novice nurses and techs is changing, and what’s becoming important now for retention in a smaller labor pool is giving people a clear pathway to move and grow.

Carter

A specific example of this in healthcare comes from Dawn Carter, a veteran healthcare strategist and founding member of the Rural Healthcare Initiative. She said that from the moment they initially consider a healthcare career throughout their time with an organization, people need to see how they can grow in their job or grow into another one. Hospitals that are already helping finance additional technical/educational investments have a massive leg up – they should do everything to make those opportunities known.

Carter cited a speaker from the 2022 South Carolina Hospital Association meeting who suggested hospitals ensure that high school students understand the low-cost path to a high-paying job. Someone paying two years of technical college tuition and coming out of it with an RN can enter the market making $60,000, but there’s the potential for $200,000+ by pursuing a CRNA.

Another example? Take the entry-level hospital employees working in “central sterile” cleaning surgical equipment. The skill level is such that they could work at an Amazon warehouse for more money and skip the dirty equipment. Hospitals, Jung said, can and should create a defined career ladder for techs. Many techs are in nursing school, and if you create those relationships and provide the opportunities, they’ll eventually want to come back or continue employment when they graduate, he said. “It’s the difference between a very transactional, ‘We need you here’ and a relational, ‘We’re going to invest in you – and we’d love for you to go back to school,’” he said.

Nurse-manager relationships

Go back to that LinkedIn post above. The post, and several comments below it, are built on the idea that unless someone has done the job they can’t know what it’s worth. It’s a push against salary caps, but it also reveals the significant gap between the suits and the scrubs. And it’s a fair point. The system is broken, staff see their census and patient acuity steadily increasing and the message many hear from managers and administration is a combination of, “Keep going,” and, “We can’t give you what you want.”

But again, sometimes what people want isn’t necessarily money. “We need to be sure we have salaries that match the market, but it’s more than dollars,” Damsky said. “It’s also treating nurses with respect and meeting their needs and creating an environment where they want to be.”

Carter highlighted the desperate need for leaders to spend time with staff, having heartfelt conversations about what they’re experiencing and humbly – not defensively – discussing leadership’s position on the issues and the various imperatives they’re balancing.

Sometimes it’s effective for managers and executives to share their own stories. We’ve heard from clients whose leadership spoke during town hall meetings about their toughest moments during the pandemic. Showing that level of vulnerability was powerful and helped dampen some of the tension that had been building.

Note that these conversations shouldn’t be used as distractions from or substitutes for practical interventions. They should be a supplement, a way to both solicit helpful information about what staff need and to demonstrate that the organization is working towards a collective solution.

Leadership development

Over the past couple of years, particularly during the omicron surge, we’ve seen an increase in non-clinical staff stepping in to help fill gaps. There are stories of managers running to get blankets, leaders helping empty trash. It’s certainly not happening everywhere or all the time, but more frequently than ever before.

That’s all well and good…but interestingly, our experts noted that it’s not necessarily the best thing. Plugging holes is an important crisis response and it’s great for showing staff that leadership is engaged, willing to do whatever it takes. Even so, there are drawbacks. “Leaders have been rolling up their sleeves and diving in,” Collard noted. “If I’m in that position, it means I’m spending less time leading and more time doing on the unit.”

Reconsidering Compensation

NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO BE A TRAVEL NURSE

— Nurse A 🖤🩺 (@Nurse_Lyss) February 5, 2022

We reference compensation throughout this piece and noted that it’s not always about the money. Two reasons for that:

  • First, the key thing organizations should be providing people with is an environment that attracts them and keeps them engaged. Which, again, isn’t to say that our industry shouldn’t be taking a long hard look at financial compensation.
  • Second, the current money isn’t sustainable – for anyone, but especially rural and independent facilities. The key is remembering that different people want different things, and any given organization can highlight the things it offers that will be attractive to someone, if not everyone.

 

According to Eruptr’s Jennifer O’Meara, hospitals in bigger cities with more competitive markets are relying more on bonuses and the financial incentives, while rural facilities and systems lacking competition but without the financial wherewithal are focusing on the intangibles. Think quality and cost of living. She said that in many recruitment campaigns there’s less emphasis on the standard “great culture” line and “a big push in online campaigns and in discussions about how making this move can be better for your quality of life.”

Cessna

Joel Cessna, Eruptr’s vice president of sales pointed out another example of alternative compensation for rural locations and those that can’t compete financially: creative benefits packages. For example, five weeks of vacation vs. three. “That’s a critical thing nurses are looking for, especially when you think about the exhaustion and burnout today,” he said.

Organizations need to find ways to get leadership out of staffing and back into leading, while equipping them to lead effectively. It’s the management version of practicing at the top of one’s license. It doesn’t mean someone never steps in to do something that isn’t in their job description. It means they’re doing their best so that they can help those in their care and on their team do their best.

“Leadership development becomes really important,” said Damsky. “It’s the thing that falls by the wayside because who has time for it?” There’s a cost when leadership development is put on the back burner and, conversely, a clear benefit when it’s maintained. Damsky mentioned a client who tracks employee engagement against their organizational development work. “They ask questions like, ‘Does my manager make me feel valued?’ and track that against staff turnover. They’re looking for negative correlation,” she said.

Helping staff feel valued involves moving leader rounding beyond checklists and perfunctory appearances. Collard said that it’s training leaders and giving them the space to have relationship-centric conversations. He said, “So when a leader says, ‘How are you doing?’ it means, ‘I’m not just asking, I’m really interested. It’s just me and you right now. How are you? What do you need?’” Collard cited a large medical center where a high-caliber ER nurse quit suddenly. When the team did some digging, they found out she hadn’t left for an agency to make more money. Instead, there were things at home affecting her ability to stay at the hospitals. Per Collard, the nurse executive said, “Oh my gosh, if we’d only known, we could have done something to help her!”

Eventually, healthcare provider organizations will be able to shift some of the focus from the crisis of filling shifts to the long-term structural change that will make staffing far easier. Many had laid such groundwork pre-COVID. And there is an array of remarkable health services companies rolling out software and innovative care models to solve the problem. Artificial intelligence, remote nursing, hospital at home, standardizing meal prep across a system, automated revenue cycle – everything that will put nurses and staff in a position to do what they do best and offload much of the rest.

We’re not there yet, but the foundation is in place and the frame is starting to take shape. In the meantime, provider organizations must step back to ensure that even as they continue the necessary scramble to fill shifts, they’re laying the groundwork. That means giving everyone in the organization permission and practical support to keep going. Starting on Day One.

A Note on Nursing Labor

Nurses unions have been talking about staffing levels and compensation for years. Now, the conversation has come to them. Hospital advocacy groups could push back saying that it didn’t make sense to implement rigid staffing requirements; organizations of different types and sizes and locations needed flexibility. But on the heels of the pandemic, staffing has become a core concern, both among the public and healthcare workers – a point proven by the most recent Jarrard Inc. national survey.

47

The public citing staffing shortages as a top concern

64

Healthcare workers citing staffing shortages as a top concern

In addition, the business side has come to the forefront, and with it a rising skepticism among nurses and staff about the intentions of their employers. Some feel organizations are holding patient care over nurses’ heads while, in the background, pushing the business forward. The response is essentially: “We can’t be the only ones carrying the weight of our mission. If you expect us to be the only mission-driven people, we’ll go travel or organize and strike.” In addition, the employee-manager relationship is starting to ring hollow. Historically, a core argument against organizing is that a union only adds complexity, getting in the way of those direct conversations. But more and more nurses are feeling – or recognizing – that they don’t actually have that relationship and their voice isn’t valued. In that case, they’re not giving anything up by bringing in a third party.

There’s no easy fix for provider organizations. The solution is long term – doing the slow, hard work of engaging employees, giving them a real voice in conversations and training leadership to lead effectively. Before making any statement about valuing nurses’ input or taking any action to ostensibly boost engagement, ask whether the move represents a true, long-term commitment or is simply lip service, an attempt at a quick fix. Worried about organized labor? Give people a way to not need that third party.

Questions about employee engagement? We can help.

LEarn about our workforce

Subscribe to Jarrard Insights & News

Name(Required)

Special Report: Aligning Needs, the Sound of Silence and Healthcare Predictions for 2022

The numbers "2022" in front of a blue background, with the "0" being a magnifying glass with the words "healthcare predictions" in the circle

Try and predict the future? It’s exactly what we all do in mid-December.

This week, we checked around with friends in our network for their takes on 2022. Friends from investing, legal, a hospital association, strategy and planning and rural healthcare.

We asked them about challenges, investing, partnerships, trust, the media – and what gets them up in the morning when they think about healthcare.

Notice that we don’t quote our clients – healthcare providers. They’re impossibly covered up and looking towards another tough year, so it’s just not a great time to bring out the crystal ball.

Several clear themes emerged. Full quotes from the interviewees follow the themes section.

Staffing alarm bells are ringing. The cost of labor is going to put a crimp on provider operations, with unsustainable travel nursing rates on one side and healthcare workers leaving (due to burnout or mandates) on the other.

Behavioral health will be a point of emphasis. The pandemic laid bare what many in the mental/behavioral health space had long been saying: Our system of caring for behavioral health isn’t good enough. Several respondents market this space as one to watch in 2022.

Technology is poised for a breakthrough. More AI, more digital tools, more ways for patients to engage with providers on both their physical and mental health needs. At the same time, technologies that saw significant growth during the pandemic – most notably telehealth – will be reassessed to bring them back in line with a more natural, sustainable level. All of this came with the caveats that 1) regulation needs to keep up and 2) we need to see proof from the many digital health companies that have taken significant investment in recent years.

Value is coming (finally?). Value showed up as both a challenge and recipient of big investment. Partnerships that advance value-based arrangements also got a nod. Now that more primary care groups have waded into value and taken on more risk, expect to see the same for specialty practices.

The sound of silence. Just as interesting as what was said might be what wasn’t. While no providers were officially interviewed, we understand from our client base that following two incredibly challenging years in the trenches, no one’s really comfortable looking into the crystal ball at year three. Providers quietly tell us it’s going to be a very tough year for them, with ongoing uncertainty. That caution and concern is a theme in and of itself.

Transparency matters in all respects. Respondents who addressed “building trust” synced on this: Communicate, and do it clearly. Be open about pricing (and not just because CMS said so).

Care models must shift. We mentioned telehealth above. Hospital at home also got a shoutout. All told, a combination of better technology, patient expectations, the steady march towards value and the influx of investment for new entrants is pushing care out of hospitals and into, well, anywhere else.

Payer-Provider relationships will thaw. Multiple respondents suggested that payer-provider partnerships will be successful contributors to the move towards value. The implication seems obvious: Delivering the care and paying for it in the most efficient way will force collaboration between often antagonistic stakeholders. As Jesse Neil of Waller put it, “The traditional ‘zero-sum’ relationship has changed.”

Needs are aligning. Dawn Carter, founder and senior partner at Ascendient, summed it up well with a story about robots delivering food in a restaurant due to workforce shortages. It’s an anecdote that demonstrates how a reduced pool of labor, improved technology and the need for reduced cost and streamlined operations can flow towards a single solution.

Dawn Carter

FOUNDER & SENIOR PARTNER

Ascendient

Where do you think the biggest investments will be made?

Non-traditional sites of care, such as hospital@home and more virtual/high-tech options. I’m hearing more and more conversations about addressing behavioral health, particularly in light of how the pandemic has exacerbated what was already not working.

What will be the biggest driver of change for healthcare?

  • Workforce challenges, which should be driving innovation. There was a recent news story about a robot delivering food in a restaurant because of staff shortages…That technology has been developed in less than two years. We are woefully behind in healthcare in terms of using AI/technology to reduce our dependence on humans.
  • Payors – public and private – with a continued push to true value-based payment models, including CMS’ goal for all beneficiaries to be in value models by 2030.

What are you most excited about for our industry in 2022?

Opportunity is ripe for extreme innovation. Who will step out of a traditionally-minded industry and take advantage?

What's the biggest challenge facing healthcare providers?

Dawn Carter

FOUNDER & SENIOR PARTNER

Ascendient

 

Human resources, particularly retaining sufficient levels of direct care providers. Premium pay for a high percentage of travel clinicians is not sustainable, yet the pandemic has exhausted the workforce, particularly nurses. I recently heard of an RN in her early 30s who has worked a COVID unit at an academic medical center since the start of the pandemic. She’s leaving because she can’t do it anymore and is taking a job working from home.

Eller Kelliher

MANAGING DIRECTOR

Jumpstart Foundry

What's the biggest challenge facing healthcare providers?

No question, it’s talent recruitment and retention. Nurse and physician burnout has been an issue facing the healthcare industry for many years, however, the COVID-19 pandemic (starting to turn endemic) has put further strain on individual providers. Whether it’s doctors, nurses or administrators, this challenge is top of everyone’s mind.

Where do you think the biggest investments will be made?

  • The biggest investments will be in technology that optimizes and extends the efforts of existing personnel. There has been a massive flood of capital into digital health/healthcare IT in the last year and I believe we’ll continue to see investors fueling innovation.

What will be the biggest driver of change for healthcare?

COVID-19 changed the way that individual patients engage with their providers and in some ways empowered them to take a front seat role in their own health decisions. That said, I believe evolving payer-provider relationships and their incentive to drive utilization will be a major force for change in the industry. It will shift not only how care is delivered, but also the roles each party plays in the overall system.

Where do you think we’ll see the most / most successful partnerships?

Over time, I think we will continue to see the industry move towards stronger payer-provider relationships. However, I’m particularly excited and bullish on the idea of retail brands – who have built a lot of trust with consumers – partnering with providers to drive both access and engagement with hard to reach patient populations. Retail brands have the opportunity to impact accessibility, affordability, and possibly even adherence. (Think of how much power brands have in influencing consumer behavior!)

What’s the one thing healthcare organizations should do to build trust with patients and the public?

Be transparent with patients and treat them like consumers who have CHOICE. This is something I’m hopeful for in 2022, but know will likely take years for the industry to actually implement.

What impact, if any, has the media had on healthcare in 2021?

It’s hard not to say that the media continues to drive division and skepticism in our country. However, as it relates to healthcare, I believe the media helped facilitate the adoption of new models of care and certainly the acceptance of telemedicine as a trusted option for care.

What are you most excited about for our industry in 2022?

We all know that the healthcare industry is slow to change, but the pace of innovation has never felt faster or more urgent than it does now. I’m excited to see how the dynamic between payer, provider, and patient shifts in 2022 and how willing each party will be in the change that seems inevitable and, frankly, needed.

What's the biggest challenge facing healthcare providers?

Staffing a facility has always been a difficult, but necessary challenge. It was surprising that some health systems were so quick to lay off workers during a shortage. This was compounded by inevitable lawsuits against the Executive Branch vaccine mandate. In 2022 and beyond I think systems will wait for the legal dust to settle before jumping the gun.

Where do you think the biggest investments will be made?

In terms of the most common investments, we’ll see IT expansion and upgrades. Relative to the most significant cost, it’ll be hospitals investing more in ambulatory care.

What will be the biggest driver of change for healthcare?

Payment expansion for telehealth along with federal legislation allowing telehealth state to state.

Where do you think we’ll see the most / most successful partnerships?

Academic health systems and community hospitals.

What impact, if any, has the media had on healthcare in 2021?

Continued expansion into telehealth, especially in the rural space.

What's the biggest challenge facing healthcare providers?

Ongoing pandemic concerns and the incredible toll that the pandemic has placed on clinicians. There is a continued threat of variants that may be resistent to vaccines that will continue to place significant stress on health systems and further erode their revenues. Coupled with that will be a workforce that is burning out due to stress, mental and emotional fatigue and politicization of healthcare in what seems like an endless war against COVID.

Where do you think the biggest investments will be made?

Over the past few years, we have seen an increase in the number of megamergers of regional/national health systems, as well as an increase in the aggregate value of the combined health systems. We expect that this trend will continue as one of the biggest investments in healthcare. In addition, expect to see a tidal wave of investments in digital health and artificial intelligence.

What will be the biggest driver of change for healthcare?

The consumerization of healthcare. Patients now more than ever have a voice in their healthcare, and that is requiring providers to respond to patient demands, whether in terms of the site of care, the manner in which a patient receives care or transparency in pricing. In addition, these expectations are now bringing new and nontraditional entrants into the market, and they are further driving change.

Where do you think we’ll see the most / most successful partnerships?

Healthcare organizations should collaborate with community partners that are representative of the different constituents within the community. This will allow for advancements in combating healthcare inequities. As part of this collaboration, healthcare providers should listen and take constructive feedback from their community partners and use this information to enact positive change.

What are you most excited about for our industry in 2022?

Historically, the healthcare industry has been slow to adopt change, even when change was clearly required and long overdue. We are now in an era of change that is occurring at lightning speed, and it’s exciting to see the advancements in how care is delivered, the use of technology and AI to create better clinical outcomes and provide for a better patient experience, recognition of social determinants of health and the role it plays in an individual’s health outcomes. In the midst of incredible adversity, our industry has worked collaboratively to save lives and in the process make considerable advancements, and I’m looking forward to seeing the evolution of changes in 2022.

Jesse Neil

PARTNER

Waller

What's the biggest challenge facing healthcare providers?

The uncertainty around the demand and permissibility of telehealth services is a wildcard for 2022. It’s no secret that physicians’ use of telehealth increased dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020—jumping from 25 percent of physicians in 2018 to almost 80 percent of physicians in 2020, according to the American Medical Association. While some heralded the trend as a new day in healthcare, a closer look shows that telehealth use may continue to flourish in some limited areas, such as mental health or chronic care management, but that overall usage rates may settle back into more normal levels. Additionally, many of the emergency telehealth rules put in place during the pandemic have expired—meaning that many states will need to make regulatory changes to allow for the continued widespread use of telehealth services.

Where do you think the biggest investments will be made?

Collaboration with other providers has become an important tool for healthcare companies across the care spectrum, and that remains the case as we approach 2022. Valuations are strong across the board, and behavioral health, telehealth, dental and healthcare IT are of particular interest for private equity firms and other investors. Sellers are commanding higher valuations as a result of increased competition between buyers. An increase in home-based services has also been an area of increased valuations and interest, as has the orthopedic space, which notably leads the way in the shift toward value-based care among physician practices.

What will be the biggest driver of change for healthcare?

Providers, operators, investors, and policymakers agree that home-based healthcare options are transforming how healthcare is delivered and the economics that drive it. Regardless of the specialty, care at home implicates a discrete set of local, state and federal legal issues. At the same time, the regulations have not fully caught up with the various business models being adopted, and CMS and states are actively experimenting with waivers, pilot programs, and new reimbursement methodologies. Anticipating this trend, we have seen increased investment by providers, payors, and private equity firms into both provider platforms and technology companies that facilitate care at home.

Where do you think we’ll see the most / most successful partnerships?

The traditional “zero-sum” relationship between providers and payers has changed and they are no longer in their own silos. Post-acute care providers are likely to find ways to leverage clinical excellence to partner with payers and assume up- and down-side risk under value-based arrangements.

What’s the one thing healthcare organizations should do to build trust with patients and the public?

Carefully-calibrated transparency across the board but in particular clinical outcomes and pricing.

What impact, if any, has the media had on healthcare in 2021?

I can’t remember a year where the media had a bigger impact on healthcare than 2021 – except perhaps 2020. I think policymakers are realizing that the media is one of the most important stakeholders when executing on public health initiatives. I don’t think any agency or media outlet has found the “secret sauce” but that responsible media coverage will be rewarded in the end.

What are you most excited about for our industry in 2022?

Providers are actively experimenting with the new value-based regulations to take advantage of the added flexibility. If our healthcare system is equipped to do anything, it is to innovate in terms of technology and, increasingly, delivery models. I’m excited to see patients reap the benefit. Getting healthcare spending on a sustainable path is one of the biggest domestic public policy challenges we have in front of us, and these new regulations are a step in the right direction.

Shawn Rossi

VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMUNICATION & MEMBER ENGAGEMENT

Mississippi Hospital Association

Where do you think the biggest investments will be made?

Technology – specifically EHR APIs and telehealth

Where do you think we’ll see the most / most successful partnerships?

Wide-scale collaboration between payers and providers, community-based organizations and hospitals, and public health departments and hospitals.

What impact, if any, has the media had on healthcare in 2021?

The media has both helped educate the public about COVID-19 and contributed to spreading misinformation. “Media” is too broad a term to consider as one these days with all of the niche news.

What are you most excited about for our industry in 2022?

A growing determination by hospitals to begin work on community health and affect social determinants of health.

What's the biggest challenge facing healthcare providers?

The biggest challenge facing healthcare providers in 2022 is a combination of a few factors:

  • Rapidly approaching compliance dates for rulemakings that have important implications for how hospitals do business;
  • The continued uncertainty surrounding the public health emergency; and
  • Diminishing public support for healthcare providers.

In many ways, regulators have returned to “business as usual,” with new or revised rules becoming effective in January 2022. However, healthcare providers are still experiencing waves of COVID, but this time with lower staffing rates and without the public support for healthcare heroes seen in 2020. In addition, many waivers that have been a lifeline to healthcare providers during the public health emergency (PHE) – from hospital at home services to the expansion of telehealth services – are at this time set to expire in January 2022, with little to no time built in for providers and their patients to gradually transition away from these flexibilities. While the PHE is likely to be extended, the pressure on healthcare providers – from staff nurses to the c-suite – to navigate such significant changes simultaneously while COVID measures are still very much in effect will be the biggest challenge for providers in the year ahead.

Where do you think the biggest investments will be made?

I expect to see investments in both organic and inorganic growth. With regard to organic growth, hospitals and health systems are focusing investment in services lines that have gained traction and reimbursement parity during the PHE. For example, hospital at home services, as well as digital health across practice areas – not just behavioral health, but also in areas in physical therapy and primary care. Wellness programs and wellness tools are also experiencing growth through commercial payer investment to help people take control of their own health beyond seeing their primary care providers. In general, areas that can empower patients to engage with their care and allow healthcare providers to provide much-needed care at lower costs are likely to win the year. In addition, many providers are “back on track” with regard to strategic acquisitions and affiliations in core business areas.

What will be the biggest driver of change for healthcare?

New market entrants and non-traditional players in healthcare will continue to be one of the biggest change drivers for healthcare in 2022. We’ve been following this trend for several years now and the past two years have underscored that the challenges facing healthcare and the demand for innovation are things that cannot be tackled in siloes. Perspectives from new healthcare entrants like retail and tech, the influx of funding from PE and VC investors, partnerships between traditional healthcare companies and new entrants, and collaborations between providers in different services areas or markets, are all drivers of change that will shape not just 2022, but the next several years in healthcare.

Where do you think we’ll see the most / most successful partnerships?

Some of the most successful partnerships will be ones that improve the patient care experience while seamlessly working within clinician workflows. Whether these partnerships are between “traditional” providers, or among traditional providers and parties from outside the healthcare space to launch something completely new, the successful ones will be where and the product or solution supports patients without overburdening clinicians, all while fitting within the complex healthcare regulatory landscape. It’s a tall order, but from what we’ve seen, parties are more than up to the challenge.

What are you most excited about for our industry in 2022?

Continuing to see what comes from the novel partnerships between hospitals and health systems and other market participants, as getting the best of both worlds working together on bold innovations is truly exciting.

Principal

Private Equity

What's the biggest challenge facing healthcare providers?

Increasing labor/other input costs and declining reimbursement. Providers will seek to adapt, and think this will accelerate a shift towards value-based arrangements to get paid for the value they deliver to patients and payers.

Where do you think the biggest investments will be made?

Specialty value-based care. As risk-bearing primary care groups seem to optimize their performance, there will be increasing focus on specialties and moving towards value-based care. Also much more focus on technology enabling provider groups and health systems to optimize performance and care delivery redesign.

What will be the biggest driver of change for healthcare?

A shift to value-based care over the next several years and its impact on improving patient experience and outcomes. Also expect to see more emphasis on preventative care versus reactive care.

Where do you think we’ll see the most / most successful partnerships?

Enablement of value-based care, with providers better enhancing payer-provider collaboration.

What impact, if any, has the media had on healthcare in 2021?

The media has highlighted the importance of providers and the services they deliver and trust built between the public and healthcare providers. It will be important to expand on that over the next several years and elevate care delivery to meet and exceed consumer demand.

What are you most excited about for our industry in 2022?

Continued change that improves quality, reduces cost, and enhances the patient experience. Consumer expectations are increasing and we are being forced to keep up.

Special Report: Rising Above Health Misinformation

Cartoon image of an overflowing laundry bin full of hospital uniforms and nametags in a room where someone is departing through an open door

Introduction

“No go, unfortunately.”

That was the text from a friend saying her spouse, a physician, wouldn’t talk to us for this piece.

As a critical care physician who spent the last 18 months treating COVID-19 patients, he’s now taking an extended sabbatical to recover. He had the perfect perspective for an article looking at the current state of the healthcare workforce – the accelerated burnout, the frustration, the fear and the sheer exhaustion.

We had questions lined up: What do doctors and nurses need today? How much does monetary compensation play into the equation versus other types of support? Do the rumblings about an exodus from healthcare represent a real threat? Where do you hope to be after your time away?

But no, we would not be asking those questions. And maybe, that makes the story more powerful.

That this elite physician couldn’t talk to us wasn’t a matter of scheduling. It was because he has given everything to save as many people from COVID-19 as possible and has nothing left.

“He just shuts down when we talk about COVID,” the spouse said. That exhaustion encapsulates the problem our entire healthcare system is facing today. It clarifies both the human cost and the operational challenges facing provider organizations.

As an industry, we’ve been talking about the burnout of our nurses and physicians for years, to the point of cliché and numbness. Then: COVID. And now? The headlines are everywhere:

On top of that, President Biden’s new mandate for large employers will force even more people to make a choice – including some healthcare workers who may join peers who have already decided their career isn’t worth the vaccine.

All told, addressing the exhaustion and resignation of our clinicians has become an urgent business imperative for every organization who employs physicians and nurses. The issue’s been building for years. Maybe you can momentarily stanch the bleeding with pay raises and travel nurses, but that won’t heal the wound.

What to do now? This report, based on interviews throughout the Jarrard Inc. network of clients and experts, triangulates the trends, draws conclusions about the future and offers thinking on how to manage an issue that’s gone past the boiling point.

BY THE NUMBERS

6,800

Employees lost by Southern hospitals

49

Healthcare workers experiencing burnout

29

Healthcare workers considering leaving the industry

38

Healthcare workers self-reporting anxiety or depression

Back to the Beginning

Graepel

Burnout and the growing shortage of healthcare workers are well-documented. National surveys from a couple of years ago revealed burnout rates approaching 50 percent for a variety of reasons, per Kirk Brower, MD, chief wellness officer at Michigan Medicine. Long hours, burdensome administrative requirements, mediocre technology all contributed. Kevin Graepel, MD, PhD, a pediatric resident at St. Louis Children’s Hospital, observed that the buildup starts early. “A lot of the challenges my colleagues and I are facing in terms of burnout are driven in large part by the way resident training occurs in the U.S.,” he said.

Those stressors intensified over the past year and a half, evolving somewhat differently for physicians and nurses, according to Dean Browell, a digital ethnographer and principal at Feedback, who has been tracking the issue of burnout online for years.

Browell

Throughout the pandemic, we’ve seen clinicians of all stripes joining the conversation online. That’s not new, but it has taken on a different flavor, per Browell. Nurses, he said, have long used digital platforms to discuss work-related issues amongst themselves. Early in the pandemic, those conversations expressed frustration with somewhat amorphous ideas of “hospital administration,” and the virus. Exhausted nurses were checking around for jobs that might give a bit of relief.

More recently, the anger has moved towards a more direct target in “the patients,” specifically the unvaccinated. That shift has led to more public activity among nurses, and the persona of long-suffering, patient caregiver is being replaced by that of the exasperated professional fed up with the parade of patients making dangerous choices.

Screenshot of a Twitter thread highlighting several points on COVID-19
Screenshot of a Reddit post from an exhausted hospital worker during the pandemic
Screenshot of a Facebook post from a displeased nurse during the pandemic

Trauma is Changing the Equation (Permanently?)

Essentially, healthcare is facing a potential and troubling shift in the way caregivers see their roles.

Clinicians and their families have shared with us this refrain about their calling: “I’m putting those around me at risk to care for countless people who made choices that are creating the danger.” Dedicated nurses and physicians are having to decide how far that mission goes. And that tension is creating moral injury – possibly even recalibrating the moral and psychological standard.

An example one person offered: An ED team can treat the single gunman who’s harmed others, successfully managing their emotions and maintaining their oaths to care for every patient. Yet when a notable percentage of the population – healthcare worker and public alike – refuse to get vaccinated, it becomes like an accumulation of mini active shooters coming through the ED doors every day. And with that, a mental shift could happen that unconsciously allows the level of care slip.

Others maintain that the levels of care won’t suffer, but that there will be greater distance between clinician and patient. Those who make it through will become more aloof.

Holding on to “Heroes”

It’s time to stop using the language of “healthcare heroes.” It rings hollow and feels discordant with what’s happening inside ICUs today and the way a big chunk of the public is acting towards healthcare workers.

“About a year ago, this larger burnout effect started being stoked by the hero messaging that was finally starting to get a little stale. It was this idea that, ‘Hey, I’m tired of being a hero right now.”
– Dean Browell, Feedback

“Healthcare workers got at least an emotional boost by being the ‘healthcare heroes.’ That’s just not happening anymore. They are back out in their communities, and they see people walking around without masks. It’s disheartening. Same thing with treating anti-vax patients – it’s creating a lot of anger.”
– Lisa Bielamowicz, MD, Gist Healthcare

“The core issue today is staffing. It’s time to point out the problem, which goes beyond healthcare. It’s also a problem in any type of service job where society pays low wages to people who we call heroes on a daily basis.”
– Erika Matallana, Jarrard Inc.

Leaking from Both Sides of the Pipeline

Roades

The result of all this could be an exodus. It may play out in lower enrollment in nursing schools, as more early retirements or leaving healthcare mid-career. (While the American Association of Colleges and Nursing noted an increase in enrollment last year, Browell said he’s hearing from top-tier schools that are struggling to fill seats.)

“People have changed their calculus about where they want to be spending their time. Younger people have alternatives,” said Chas Roades, CEO and co-founder of strategic advisory firm Gist Healthcare. He pointed out, only somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that given the level of pay at entry levels in healthcare, some people may view warehouse or gig economy jobs as viable, safer alternatives. Lisa Bielamowicz, MD, president and co-founder at Gist, brought up the education debt issue for clinicians. “It’s hard to talk about aligning compensation and incentives if people have to take out a second mortgage for 20 years to pay for student loans,” she said.

Bielamowicz

Clinicians Have Options

Between the rise of telehealth and the resurgence of concierge care, there are lots of career options today enabling clinicians to practice without having to deal with some of the mess. Physicians in particular have the financial resources to look around and find other revenue streams. For nurses, travel jobs have always paid well. Now, privately owned groups are offering massive pay jumps and impressive per diems for those inclined to take contracts – sometimes not far down the street from their current employer.

“They’re understaffed and their people feel at risk because the ratios are so high,” said Aaron Campbell, a Jarrard Inc. associate vice president keenly focused on patient and employee engagement work. “There’s a sense, too that the short-term solution – ‘I’m going to bring in people who’ll be paid far more than you and aren’t invested in our culture and will be gone in 12 weeks,’ – is going to create even more strife.”

Mississippi nursing ad with a red background containing job description

Browell explained it by positioning traditional providers at the center of the industry and new models of care on the outer rings. It’s about how many people leave the center of it for “a nice, quiet CVS somewhere,” he said. There was already attrition for hospitals because of the rise of those new models. In the next 18 months the threat to traditional providers may increase because people don’t want to stand in the center of the storm.

Of course, the flip side of that is significant opportunity for health services organizations. Referring to an orthopedic group client, Browell observed, “Their story is going to be a fantastic one they can ride for a while because they can recruit a nurse who is desperate to get out of an ER by showing them what it’s like in an ortho urgent care by comparison.”

What’s the Answer to Burnout?

In our interviews, a near-universal sentiment is that this won’t be quickly fixed, only managed. We can only do so much to help clinicians and other employees who are at the end of their rope. The days of quick fixes ended years ago (though we do offer a few ideas for immediate intervention in the sidebar.)

Operationally, providers need to look ahead to long-term transformation. That could mean evaluating technology across your enterprise. Or creating a Wellness Office, which Michigan Medicine did before the pandemic. Or even going truly massive – how about HCA owning a nursing school? In contrast, some Communications strategies can be brought to bear immediately.

Glenn
We don’t want to wait until people are in a crisis. We’re trying to understand the factors that are contributing and do something before it gets to that point.

Rose Glenn, Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, Michigan Medicine
Glenn

Operations

PURSUE STRUCTURAL CHANGE

First and foremost, don’t expect to paper over the shifts in healthcare.  “Change can’t just be a rebranding exercise,” said Jarrard’s Campbell. He pointed to K-Mart’s promise to evolve several decades ago. They asked their employees to stick around and buy-in to that vision. Many did, literally. The company used pension funds to buy company stock, leading to huge losses and a lawsuit in the early 2000s. “People are trusting you,” said Campbell. “You have to pursue deep change to follow through on that.” We all know what happens to organizations that try to skip past the hard work and fail to adapt. (There are 33 K-Marts left, in case you were wondering.)

OFFER SHELTER FROM THE STORM

Clinicians are considering their career options. Many who want to stay in healthcare may look to move away from the center of the storm. When possible, Bowell says, providers should offer that.

Admittedly, this is easier for larger systems with opportunities for lateral moves within the enterprise, and frequently, larger coffers for salary increase and other investments. Health services companies like the orthopedic group mentioned above often can provide calmer environments. The challenge is greatest for smaller systems and independent hospitals. “For smaller hospitals, it may be about investment in telehealth and generally finding ways to be less reliant on ER/trauma,” said Browell.

OPEN YOUR WALLET

Which brings us to financial compensation for physicians and nurses. Money can’t solve all the problems for a mission-driven workforce, but financial incentives do need to better reflect the realities both nurses and doctors are dealing with. Some thinking:

  • Imagine the tension in organizations where staff ICU nurses are working alongside travel nurses hired with huge stipends. Dollars should be wisely allocated for retention as well.
  • Surprisingly, hazard pay hasn’t really hit the healthcare industry in a major way, but could be a solution as this plays out, noted Browell.
  • Graepel, the early-career physician-scientist, put it bluntly: “Financial issues are a huge strain for many of my colleagues. Increased financial compensation would go a long way to lifting some of these major stresses. People are looking at a quarter million dollars in debt while getting paid $60,000 a year… It can be hard to imagine what that future looks like.”

So where does the money come from to fund this? After all, labor is already the largest cost for hospitals and health systems. Gist’s Roades suggested “looking at trade-offs with other expenditures like capital projects.”

Making Appreciation Apparent

Some of these can kick off tomorrow, others require a bit more time and investment. But all will give your team small yet meaningful doses of hope. As always, ask your team what they need – and what they don’t want to see. They’ll tell you.

Visual reminders of mission and appreciation

Hand-written letters to employees’ loved ones to express appreciation

Local media coverage highlighting employee service

Discounts/gifts from local businesses

Free subscriptions to wellness/mental health apps

Membership to services connecting people to daycare, pet care, handyman, etc.

Cover meal/grocery delivery service fees

Subsidized gym memberships or, better…

…Build/update a top tier on-site gym

Revised PTO to offer extra time off or create “PTO banks” for specific situations.

SUBSTITUTE, STRATEGICALLY

Technology can also help free up money for better compensation – along with saving time and reducing stress. First, more user-friendly EHRs are directly correlated with lower workload and, by extension, burnout. Second, is “strategic substitution” and job design – finally realizing the long-promised revolution where technology can augment the human touch and allow clinicians to practice at the top of their license. Bielamowicz and Roades were adamant that strategic substitution and streamlining operations from back office to clinical decision-making will reduce stress on the healthcare workforce and make more efficient use of limited dollars. Leaders should be asking if there are places to reduce dependence on labor by using AI or restructuring their teams so patients can do more self-service.

It’s always critical, our experts maintained, to evaluate human capital, asking if the right people are doing the right things and identifying gaps that need to be filled. “Everyone wants more data-driven, personalized care,” Bielamowicz said. “Every health system wants to take data from devices and use it for remote monitoring. But right now, we don’t have people to take that information and turn it into actionable information. We need medical technologists trained to do that work.”

Lastly, finding ways to accomplish back-office work related to revenue cycle and HR is not a new discussion. Those tasks are prime candidates for automation and AI to free up resources.

DEI & Health Equity: More than Good Intentions

White text that reads "kaleidoscope" on a kaleidoscope-patterned background

Earlier this year, we at Jarrard published a special report on health equity and diversity, equity and inclusion work within healthcare providers. Separately, but roughly in parallel, a team at our parent firm, The Chartis Group, in partnership with the National Association of Health Services Executives, developed Leading While Black, a research piece on similar issues that includes a health equity maturity model for healthcare organizations.

Together, those pieces cover a huge amount of ground in some of the underlying issues, challenges, and also possible solutions for both delivering more equitable care to patients and also developing a more diverse and inclusive workforce. Now, with a bit of time having passed since publication, we wanted to revisit the topic and bring together the teams that produced them for some combined insight.

In this conversation, we spoke with LaTonya O’Neal and Mark Wenneker, MD, lead authors of the Chartis report, and James Cervantes, who helps lead our Kaleidoscope DE&I work here at Jarrard. You can listen to the podcast or read the transcript below.

(Be sure to get in touch and sign up for all of our thinking here.)

Read the Transcript

David Shifrin: Let’s jump in. And Mark, tell us just about some of the high-level structural challenges that healthcare organizations are dealing with today in terms of DE&I and structural racism.

Mark Wenneker: The first answer I would give around this is that healthcare organizations, and the healthcare industry, has been aware of ethnic and racial disparities in healthcare for decades. This isn’t a new problem. In the early part of my career, I published an article demonstrating that Black patients were less likely to receive important cardiovascular procedures than white patients. That was in the 1980s. That wasn’t the first piece of research that showed that. Just last week, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an entire issue on the challenges of disparities in healthcare access for ethnic and racial minorities. So this is not a new problem. To answer your question more directly, I think there’s a greater awareness now that healthcare organizations have around the importance of addressing inequity. Most healthcare organizations have a mission to serve their communities. And if they’re not addressing the reality that there are portions of their communities that are not receiving the same kinds of care, then they’re not fulfilling their mission.

LaTonya O’Neal: When we talk about the challenges that healthcare organizations really need to overcome to move the needle on health equity, there are five things to think about. One, it takes more than just good intentions and a stated purpose.

Two, moving the needle toward health equity has to start at the top with the organization’s leadership.

Three, intentional cultural change is essential. Organizations need to expect and empower every employee to take an active role in addressing health disparities.

Four, promoting health equity needs to take place both within the healthcare organization and in the community.

And five, organizations need meaningful data to inform, measure and facilitate change.

David Shifrin: LaTonya, talk about the importance of going beyond just good intentions, right? You know I think, I hope, that everyone would agree that good intentions aren’t enough. But what does that actually mean? What qualifies as good intentions and what qualifies as the work that needs to be done?

LaTonya O’Neal: When you talk about good intentions, you can’t just take steps only because it’s the right thing to do. Just because your heart’s in the right place doesn’t mean you get credit. I think the distinction is that the actual work that has to be done should be at the foundation of the organization’s mission.

And that has to be done… the work that has to be done there is really challenging, and it’s also broad. So implementing a single, specific program to address a certain issue is great, but you can’t stop there and declare that the work is done. It’s really an ongoing, continuous process. And some of the clients I’ve worked with have struggled because they do want to do the right thing, but there’s a vast gap between wanting to do the right thing, trying to do the right thing and actually doing the right thing.

So I think having good intentions is certainly a great place to start, but you have to put the steps in place to ensure that, one, the actions are going to be meaningful; two, that they’re going to be measurable; and then three, that they’re going to be sustainable.

James Cervantes: I think too what you’re referring to, LaTonya, is really cultural change, right? So it’s not just change that happens in one department or with one program or with one person who’s leading one initiative. I think what we’re seeing, and it sounds like you are as well, is that to really move the needle on health equity and become a more diverse, inclusive organization, for many of these systems, it requires a level of cultural change that, honestly, many to this point haven’t been willing to take.

So it certainly starts at the top, but it’s also finding a way to engage every employee, every leader, to have an active role in that cultural change and that journey in becoming better—for each other and for their community.

Mark Wenneker: I would follow up what James just said. LaTonya and I recently wrote an article that was published in The Governance Institute magazine that emphasized the criticality of leadership commitment and intentionality. So, good intentions have to translate to a commitment from the top, from the board, and a set of plans that are actionable and have resources behind them. And if I’m talking to an organizational leader who’s asking me about what they do or what they should do around addressing inequities and disparities, that would be the first question: do you have your board on board and do you have a plan?

David Shifrin: Let’s talk a little bit about what you’re talking about, Mark, with the specific plans and how you build… It’s the, what is it? The SMART framework? The… Of course now I can’t think what the acronym stands for. Measurable…something: Measurable, Actionable, Timely.

What does the S… anyway… Specific! So there have to be specific goals and plans, and then also the overarching communications and mindset, and really change management that has to take place at almost a human level. And so between our organizations, I think we’ve got a lot of those bases covered in how we operate in the work that we do with clients.

But talk back and forth a little bit about how you merge those two things together, specifically as it relates to DE&I work.

LaTonya O’Neal: Change management is tremendous. It is the thing that I think, no matter the initiative in an organization, that’s required. If you don’t have a good change management process in place, you’re probably not going to be as successful as quickly in whatever that initiative is—but certainly when you’re talking about diversity, equity and inclusion, because everyone’s coming in with their own thoughts, ideas, sentiments on diversity, equity and inclusion.

You’re asking folks to align to a common idea, a common culture that speaks around the idea that you’re not going to allow inequities to occur within your organization as employees, but also that you’re going to try to resolve those inequities within direct patient care. And so I think it’s a bit of a challenge in at least some of the organizations that I’ve spoken with, it’s… even if you set up that structure, without the change management component of it, you run the risk of that idea or that initiative being abandoned because there aren’t any steps in place to make sure that you have that sustainability.

If your three highest admitters are not on board, what’s the consequence to the organization if they decide they don’t want to practice in your organization anymore. I mean, that’s an extreme example, but those are the kinds of things that I think minimize the effectiveness of some of the programs that might be out there even with well-intentioned folks, is that if these folks are not on board with it, then we must abandon it because we can’t survive without them.

James Cervantes: I think that’s a really important point; it’s having that initial buy-in, and that may take time for some organizations to build. And then beyond that, it’s really creating the awareness about what we’re doing and why, and making sure that everyone understands what our intentions are.

That we have buy-in from the board, we have buy-in from our leaders and here’s why we’re doing it. I think what makes this so challenging as well is that race and inequity is personal for many, right? We’re not talking about rolling out a new electronic medical record. We’re talking about deeply rooted issues that are very personal, very complex, very sensitive.

And so where we’ve seen some organizations struggle is just the way that we talk about it in identifying the problem. And so, one thing that we’ve done for a health system is just develop a language word bank so that we have a common definition set around how we talk about diversity, equity and inclusion across our health system and with each other so that we can all agree on something. And that, we’ve found, really built some momentum and created a more safe place for those conversations to happen.

Mark Wenneker: One area that I think healthcare organizations… after there’s been a verbal commitment made at all levels, that they really can quickly start working on is measurement. You can’t change what you haven’t measured, and healthcare organizations can readily look to see whether there’s diversity in their workforce, to have that data.

They can begin if they’re not already looking at whether there’s differences in how they treat patients. The kinds of care that they received. Their access to services. Whether there are differences by racial and ethnic background. Those are things that can be looked at. And that’s where you can start and identify those areas where there might be the greatest opportunity.

LaTonya O’Neal: You’ve got to start by defining what “it” is, right? Before you even talk about putting in measurement you’ve got to know what it is you’re measuring. And I think that that’s a challenging thing to do. And I think if you don’t start with defining what it is you’re trying to solve for, and then establishing those metrics that you’re going to measure yourself up against, it’s just a lot of busy work.

David Shifrin: One more question before we get into some of the specific examples. In thinking about both the internal and external work… so, advancing this work inside the organization and developing a more diverse workforce and getting people rallied around change in diversity equity and inclusion, and then also doing things that are going to improve patient care and the relationship between the provider organization and the community that it serves.

I hope nobody would see those as two separate initiatives. But I think it can be difficult to really know how to bring them all together. So how do you all think about that as sort of a continuum under the same umbrella?

Mark Wenneker: David, while they all really fall under the umbrella of addressing disparities in care and access, they really are separate strategic initiatives in my mind. So, the activities and focus and resources that need to address social determinants of health are very different than what needs to get done to address access to a healthcare organization. And I think both are important. So, healthcare organizations need to spend time thinking about who their community partners are and what their role is in supporting the community’s efforts to address social determinants of health.

It may be purely resources. Money. Or it may be something more direct like providing staffing or support. But it’s a very different type of work.

James Cervantes: I would agree with that. I do see them as separate, but I do think they are interrelated. Especially for healthcare organizations in more small and rural communities, where oftentimes your workforce is an extension of the community. So, how you’re talking about equity, where it sits on your strategic priority plan, how it’s mentioned in your vision and values, I think speaks volumes to your workforce.

And what you’re doing proactively, externally, I think, also needs to mirror how you talk about it and how you treat your workforce internally. So I agree a hundred percent, I think they’re separate, but there are connection points because they all sort of ladder up to the same overall vision and values.

LaTonya O’Neal: Yeah, they’re separate but not mutually exclusive.

Mark Wenneker: Yeah, I think that’s a great point, James. Most healthcare organizations are the biggest employers in the communities that they serve. So you really can’t think about that completely separately. You’re absolutely right.

David Shifrin: Well, let’s talk through some specific examples. You are doing this work, you’re researching this. So let’s just kind of go around the room and talk about some of the folks that you see doing a really good job. Some of the unique things that are happening across the healthcare industry and ways that colleagues and peers can kind of take some of those lessons about the things that we’ve talked about.

LaTonya O’Neal: We did a panel. Mark referenced the paper that we wrote some months ago where we were talking about leading while black, addressing disparities in our healthcare communities. We did a panel with some esteemed senior executives from some of the largest healthcare organizations around the country.

And three things that struck me in their talking that I think is a good blueprint for how others might want to try to get at addressing the disparities and also some of the issues around, you know, just racism in general. One individual said, “The best way to know what’s happening in your community is to get out in your community and actually see for yourself what’s going on.”

Part of that could be through board representation, but the other part about that is leveraging the people that work in your organization to help you understand what’s really happening. One example that they gave was they invited one of the nurses to join a board meeting one day, just to talk about what was going on in the community.

And it really made a difference in helping the board understand what the real problems were. The other thing that they mentioned was the measurement, which we’ve spoken about already. That is putting together performance metrics that truly you can measure yourself against in order to know whether or not you’re succeeding or not.

And the third thing that really struck me, it kind of dovetails on the first one around knowing what’s going on in your community. But we had one leader talk about how they’d started creating traveling grocery stores in areas where there were food deserts, right?

So, a lot of the issues that were going on in their particular community had a simple problem of… and I say simple not in that it’s a simple problem but as straightforward a problem of… our folks are not getting the food that they need to stay healthy and to be able to thrive.

And so, they took it upon themselves to create these traveling grocery stores so that those individuals who couldn’t get out and get the food that they needed, they provided that service to the folks within that community. Other stories like that, of being creative about how do we serve our community in the way that our community needs to be served, it’s just very important in order to make sure that we’re actually addressing the root causes of the problems that we’re experiencing.

David Shifrin: LaTonya, keep going on that a little bit, if you would. Leadership recognizes the need to go out and understand what’s happening and what needs to be done. They make the commitment to go out. They go out—whether to the community or inside the organization.

What does it look like practically for a leader to step into that conversation and listen and extract the information that they can then take back and use?

LaTonya O’Neal: You know, it’s a great question. I know that at least with a couple of folks that we spoke with, they talked about how being a trusted leader in the community was one of the ways that they were able to actually even get people to share with them the needs that they were experiencing. And so, I think part of it is being present, being available, and not just coming in to be a speaking head, if you will, is the first way you do that.

And I think that listening to the teams that you have in your organization could be another way of doing that. It’s one thing to think that you’re going to be able to walk around the neighborhoods and knock door to door and have people to just share with you what’s going on. You’ve got to be creative in how you get that information, whether it be surveys, whether it be information you’re collecting when the patient is admitted into your service.

No panels… you’re really getting that real-world feedback. I guess the key point is not to assume that you know what the problem is.

Mark Wenneker: You know, it’s striking to me that a very close corollary of this importance of listening is, who is actually representing your organization to listen? And while I think we need all leaders, regardless of their background to be present—as LaTonya is saying—in the community, it is very important that organizations have leaders that reflect the backgrounds of their representative communities. And that’s not happening enough. Because I think the communities, when they see those leaders that have similar backgrounds, are going to feel more engaged. They’ll have more trust. And I also think the other piece of this around workforce diversity is if you have those opinions and experience brought into your organization, it’s important to also listen to your community and go out.

But having that representative thinking and experience within also helps you understand what needs to be done.

LaTonya O’Neal: And too, Mark, creating that safe space which we’ve talked a lot about in the past, you’ve got to create that safe space where your teams are comfortable enough to even bring those types of ideas forward.

James Cervantes: Along those lines of listening, one thing we did at Jarrard to help facilitate conversations like that—and this was for a large health system out West—is they knew that they wanted to leverage their clinicians and physicians who for the most part their workforce and even members of their communities trusted.

But some of the folks just weren’t sure how to have those conversations, what questions to be asking, how to dispel some of the myths. They have the clinical information, but it’s how you frame it. And so we created a couple of toolkits. One was really for internal ambassadors and clinicians to use within the organization, as they’re in meetings to just address some of the top topics head on and to dispel some of those myths. But more importantly, to your point, Mark and LaTonya, to just be available to answer questions. And to really hear what the concern is from some of these groups that were very reluctant to get the vaccine. And then the other toolkit was really more for community partners. So, how were they able to leverage their community partners to engage in thoughtful conversations outside of the walls of the medical center?

And I think from both of those efforts, sort of in parallel, they saw tremendous uptick in the number of folks that were coming to get the vaccine. And I think they just have a deeper sense of who their community is now in a way that a data point wasn’t able to provide before those conversations.

LaTonya O’Neal: Just to add onto that, we created a maturity model as part of the work that we did earlier in the year as a way to help hospitals take a hard look at themselves. To look in the mirror and say, “Where are we along this continuum of where we want to be to address these disparities and make sure that we are really serving our communities holistically?”

And there are lots of other tools out there that we’ve seen. Actually, through the work that we did with the National Association of Health Services Executives, they’ve got other resources as well. But, I think that’s really important. You’ve got to take a look in the mirror and understand where you are, ask yourself those questions, and be honest about where you really are. And then put a program in place to drive toward where it is you’re really trying to head. I think without that, it again is well-intentioned, but it’s certainly not going to move the needle in a way that’s going to be measurable and impactful.

David Shifrin: Okay. LaTonya, Mark, James, what did we miss? What do you want to chat about?

Mark Wenneker: You know, there’s… the only other thing I was thinking about in terms of topics, was this issue around, is there a business case to be made?

So, in our report, that we did in collaboration with NAHSE, we talked about one of the challenges that healthcare organizations are facing, which is the question about, “How do we invest in these important areas, given the challenges we’re facing financially—most acutely with the pandemic, but certainly in the long term?” And yes, those are real. Those are real issues. However, it’s important to understand that the societal impact of healthcare disparities from a financial standpoint is significant. A Kaiser Family Foundation report estimated that disparities contribute almost $100 billion dollars in excess medical costs to our society and $42 billion in lost productivity.

Now that’s not to say that healthcare organizations can always capture those savings by making investments, but I think it’s important that they in their planning think through how can they benefit financially in addition to morally, their moral commitments, as they proceed with this planning work.

LaTonya O’Neal: You know, Mark, that’s a great point demonstrating the return on the investment. So, even in our consulting work, there are a lot of things that are the right thing to do that are good for the organization but might not have a return on investment. When you think about health disparities, the readmission rates that happen with patients who are not able to care for themselves at home, or when you think about extra admissions just because patients are not able to make their regular physician visits and things like that.

I mean, there is not enough data yet. I think that this is again back to where we need to really create some good measurement vehicles. But the return on the investment of making these programs part of your organization’s internal fabric and culture is significant. And in my mind, at least in working in the revenue cycle space like I do, you think about admissions, hospital care and then the billing that happens on the back end. I’m sure that there could be a direct correlation between these programs and patients do in your organizations on a regular basis.

James Cervantes: I would add, too, going back to our point earlier about your workforce, the labor market is as tight as it ever has been. And so, how are you honoring your commitment to health equity and retaining the talent and bringing in top talent? And I think more people, especially younger generations, are driven by and inspired by organizations that do what they’re going to say that they do and fulfill those commitments to their community and to solving for health equity. So, I think there’s sort of the workforce element as well, from a business imperative.

Special Report: Clinician Burnout and Managing the Unsolvable

“No go, unfortunately.”

That was the text from a contact saying her spouse wouldn’t be able to talk to us for this piece. As a critical care physician who’s spent the last year and a half treating COVID-19 patients and is now taking an extended sabbatical to recover, he was the perfect source for an article looking at the current state of the healthcare workforce – the accelerated burnout, the frustration, the fear and the sheer exhaustion. We had questions lined up: What do doctors and nurses need today? How much does monetary compensation play into the equation versus other types of support? Do the rumblings about an exodus from healthcare represent a real threat? Where do you hope to be after your time away?

But no, we would not be asking those questions. And maybe, that makes the story more powerful. Because the reason that this elite physician couldn’t talk to us wasn’t a matter of practicalities and scheduling. It was because he has given everything to save as many people from COVID-19 as possible and has nothing left. “He just shuts down when we talk about COVID,” the spouse said.

That absolute exhaustion encapsulates the problem our entire healthcare system is facing today. It clarifies both the human cost and the operational challenges facing provider organizations.

This report, based on interviews throughout the Jarrard Inc. network of clients and experts, triangulates the trends, draws conclusions about the future and offers thinking on how to manage an issue that’s gone past the boiling point.

That’s the public side, though. How much do the headlines reflect what’s happening behind closed doors? And, how much of an impact are we seeing from the visible PR battle combined with the results of closed-door negotiations? What’s the public perception of providers and payers? Does it even matter?

To determine whether payer-provider relationships are under more strain than usual, we spoke to experts in our network, checked in with our team and polled the public.

What we summarized: The cold war is heating up. There’s pressure on and from both sides, and a growing feeling of “Us” vs “Them.” Publicly, the balance of the PR is weighted towards payers, thanks to the campaigns mentioned above. But the insurance industry has a way to go to convince the public of its good intentions.

What We’re Hearing

Overall, payers and providers are getting more aggressive. Historically, negotiations tend to follow a set arc, with long, tense conversations bumping up against the expiration date only for a deal to be struck at the eleventh-and-a-half hour. While that remains largely true, the tone of more negotiations is getting hotter, the demands bigger. And in some cases, according to sources, the conversations nastier and more personal – with some individuals pointing fingers at the people across the table, not the organizations represented. That’s a problem.

As both providers and payers get bigger, it makes sense that the stakes would get higher. Each side is looking for leverage, and size is leverage. There are many reasons why hospitals pursue mergers and partnerships. Strength to push back against payers is certainly one of them.

An Elephant in the Room

Or, ahem, at the negotiating table.

Last year, as the CMS price transparency rule loomed, a big question was how the posted data would be used. Providers were concerned the data would  be of marginal value to consumers – but a gold mine to competitors and other industry stakeholders. Eight months on, that’s looking more likely.

Sources tell us those numbers are beginning to come into the national discussions around price. While the data are far from perfect – in some cases they’re not even that great – they could begin to affect payer-provider negotiations.

M&A skeptics (including the White House) like to note that “The top 10 health systems now control 24 percent market share,” according to Deloitte. Yes, and, the five biggest health insurance companies control 44 percent of the market. Half as many players controlling almost twice as much relative territory. So, joining forces with a larger system that can help balance the weight makes a lot of sense for a smaller provider.

Document with the White House signet with text that reads "FACT SHEET: Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy"

Still, it’s not all brass knuckles. “I’m seeing more candid discussions and true attempts to find middle ground,” said James Kennedy, a Tampa-based shareholder and chair of the healthcare practice at Carlton Fields. Greg Maddrey, director at Chartis and president of Chartis Consulting, said he’s seeing a mix of discussions:

“We see very collaborative discussions in some parts of the country and contentious discussions in other regions. It depends on the payer and market. One system just negotiated a significant value-based program, and they are exploring additional opportunities for JVs/collaborations. In other areas, the negotiations seem like traditional zero-sum game models.”

Things Usually Work Out, But…

We’ve also seen recent examples of things falling apart, eleventh hour or not. As the players get bigger, so do the numbers of patients who will suddenly find themselves walking into an out-of-network facility. Then comes the finger pointing as both sides try to pin the blame on the other. “They’re too expensive!” says the payer. “They’re raking in profits and want us to take less!” says the provider. “We’re trying to find a solution for our patients,” both exclaim. Meanwhile, patients are left scrambling, confused and footing the out-of-network bill.

Fortunately* for providers, the public is on their side. Or at least, more on their side than on the side of payers. We recently fielded a survey of American adults to get past the noisy headlines and figure out what the public actually thinks.

Do You Think Healthcare in the US Costs too Much?

Pie chart showing 85% "Yes" and 15% "No"

Who is Primarily Responsible for the Cost of Care?

Pie chart showing 12% "The System," 15% "Doctors," 13% "Hospitals," 30% "Insurance Companies," 16% "Government," and 10% "My Choices"

Most everyone (85 percent) agrees that healthcare is too expensive, and 30 percent of consumers believe the insurance industry is to blame. Only 13 percent blame hospitals for the high cost of care. Makes sense, then, that insurance would want to reposition itself in softer, friendlier light. It also follows that health insurance advocates would want to shift some of the blame to hospitals.

*About that asterisk: Hospitals should be pleased that they retain more of the public trust than other healthcare stakeholders. But they shouldn’t take that trust for granted. While the headline-grabbing ongoing campaign against hospitals doesn’t seem to have taken hold in the public’s mind yet, nothing says that it won’t.

What Happens Next

On paper it looks like providers are facing a multi-front battle, with skirmishes breaking out in places and tensions rising in others. How do you, as a provider, prepare for the impending charge? By going on the offensive.

Publicly

Explain your value. Repeatedly. Specificity is the antidote to speculation. Be aggressive in presenting data that shows how your organization contributes to the community it serves. Patient visits, lives saved, babies delivered, cancers caught early, people employed, economic impact. If your hospital reflects the local demographics, if you have a career development program to help improve diversity at the upper ranks, if you have a unique recruiting program to bring in more diverse physicians – talk about it. (If you don’t, start working in that direction). Talk about what you do with the revenue that comes in. Explain where that four percent margin you make is reinvested.

But don’t get mired in the data. Personalize it. Use stories to illustrate the numbers. Need a sign that stories are effective? Look no further than the “other side” of this debate. Hospital critics have been far more effective using stories to illustrate purported patient harm. They’re masters at personalizing the numbers they’re attacking. The public can see and hear patients and the pain they’re suffering. In contrast, providers, so far, tend to speak in numbers and vague platitudes. It’s no contest.

Explain how healthcare finance works. Did you cringe? Fair. Explaining the complexities of healthcare is brutal and daunting. But it’s on you to simplify the complex (or call in the experts to help you with that). Clear is kind, right? The more absurdly dense something is, the harder you need to work to explain it clearly, and dispel any sense of covering up, hiding facts and being opaque. Your patients and the public will appreciate you for that.

More Smart Strategies

Keep these tips in mind to navigate public disputes with payers

Advance preparation is key

Strike first to frame the issue

Clear, patient-centric messaging is most powerful

The messenger matters most: Clinical spokesperson is key

Establish a single source of truth online early on

Tactics & tone must match culture

Marcom obviously plays a lead role here. It’s time to develop educational materials to explain how insurance and billing works, and what patients’ options are. Not the inscrutable, low-quality papers that look like they came off a 90s copier, but attractive resources that explain in simple language what the terminology means, where people should look for information and how to interpret what they find. Video is helpful, or even social media posts to talk through the basics. Finally, work with your rev cycle team to ensure that anyone who might interact with patients on billing is trained to answer questions…in a friendly way.

One more thing here. While you’re translating the basics healthcare finance to your patients, think about going public. Seek out opportunities to talk in public forums. Use the media. Be a resource for reporters who are covering these issues. Don’t wait until they call you with tough questions. Position yourself proactively as the one offering information.

Privately

Get networking – now. Weak or nonexistent relationships sit at the center of problems around the negotiating table, according to experts who provided insight for this article. As noted above, some negotiations include personal attacks – an odd, dispiriting development. Without relationships, there’s no built-in trust, no ability to read the other side’s actions or words – typical buffers that prevent conversations from turning nasty. In the legal world we hear of plaintiff and defense attorneys having lunch together, meeting for drinks after court. On the surface, it feels strange to be dining with the enemy. But the outcome is often far more amicable and productive in legal proceedings. Healthcare could use the same approach. It’s time to network and meet with counterparts regularly so that the personal relationships can help soften the rough edges of negotiation.

The need for better relationships extends to employers and brokers, as well. As providers struggle to match up with payers, the employers who are effectively paying for care and whose employees make up the patient base can be strong allies. In our experience, this doesn’t happen nearly enough. Same thing for insurance brokers, who are often so key to connecting the various pieces of the how-do-we-pay-for-care puzzle.

In all of these networking conversations, providers must always take the high road. Everything should be about improving the health, access, experience and comfort for those receiving care. It’s all too easy for patients to get lost in the skirmish, but providers must intentionally make them the focal point.

Profanely

This is a no brainer. Just @%!# do it.

Providers save lives. They drive innovation. They employ millions. The provider side of the industry is not without its faults, and we should not hesitate to call out problems and bad actors. Ultimately, though, it is the providers who deliver care. Make that point in public and in private. Step up efforts to ensure every aspect of your organization is aligned with its mission. Make the case with data and stories, and don’t behave in ways that could give critics fresh ammunition.

As insurance companies increase the pressure, consolidate and integrate with providers of their own, delivering on their mission and showcasing how they’re doing it is the best way for hospitals and health systems to maintain trust take the financial steps necessary to keep the doors open.

Special Report: Payers and Providers Square Off

“They” can be a powerful weapon.

It can conjure the other side, the opponent, the adversary against whom “we” are fighting. That word is being bandied about between providers and payers in the escalating feud over the high cost of healthcare. And it suggests that behind closed doors, negotiations between those two parties are getting nastier as the cost of healthcare comes back into focus.

Case in point: “That doesn’t mean they’re not going to try to use this,” said USC healthcare professor Glenn Melnick earlier this year while suggesting hospitals are abusing COVID-19 relief funds. His apparent purpose was to assign blame and set providers as the adversary.

Scanning headlines, it’s obvious that the intense public spotlight pointed at hospitals pre-pandemic has returned (remember surprise billing and hospitals suing patients?). Talk of healthcare heroes is ebbing way, with chatter flowing about the evils of consolidation and health systems driving the cost of care while focusing on profits over patients. Hospitals are being framed as “Them.” Unfortunately, the newsworthy stories about poor billing practices, limited access or other non-consumer-friendly behaviors are self-inflicted wounds by specific hospitals that create opportunities for other actors to paint with a broad brush, undermine providers’ positions and cast doubt about their motivations.

Meanwhile, the insurance industry is working to remake its image from a poorly understood and disliked group to the torch-bearers for patient-centric care. “We.” “Us.” It’s even rebranded its trade association to “AHIP” and is using broader messaging to get away from the focus on insurance. All of this appears to be part of an orchestrated campaign, that’s quite frankly, a savvy PR move.

Operations and Emotions: A Case Study from Penn Medicine’s Employee Engagement for the COVID-19 Vaccines

Text that reads "High Stakes" on a navy background with a lightly shaded stallion horse icon

When people do it right, it’s our duty to share.

The “doers,” in this case, were leaders at Penn Medicine. Their challenge was getting their workforce quickly vaccinated against COVID-19.

“Our flu vaccination each year isn’t an issue,” said PJ Brennan, MD, chief medical officer and senior vice president of the University of Pennsylvania Health System. “But for this, we had to be more persuasive. We needed an organized approach.”

In that statement, he spoke for virtually every healthcare leader across the country as they prepared for the COVID-19 vaccine rollout last fall and as studies starting last year revealed concerns about the vaccines among healthcare workers.

Penn Medicine’s approach to driving vaccine acceptance is worthy of a close look – especially for the way it connected with employees of color and groups with high levels of vaccine skepticism. And it offers lessons for other projects requiring employee buy-in that providers will always have to undertake.

How’d Penn Medicine do it? The short answer: It took a careful blend of operational nous and emotional intelligence. By May 2021, all of the health system’s employees and clinical staff had been offered the vaccine, and nearly 70 percent—more than 33,000 people—were fully vaccinated. That month, the health system was among the first, and the nation’s largest to date, to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for all its employees by Sept. 1 and for new hires effective July 1.

Taking Responsibility

Florencia Greer Polite, MD, felt the emotional weight of the pandemic from the beginning. An obstetrician, she was just settling into her role as chief of Penn Medicine’s Division of General Obstetrics and Gynecology when a close colleague got very sick from COVID-19. He was intubated for over 40 days, had a stroke and is now unable to operate on patients.

With that experience setting the tone for “the most stressful of my 20 years in medicine,” Polite considered the fall vaccine rollout. “I wasn’t sure when I was going to get the vaccine, although I knew I would eventually,” she said. “I’m not an early adopter by nature.”

But then she noted she was “a leader – and a Black leader – in this department and this institution. I considered what being at the beginning of the curve could mean for other people.” After hearing that vaccine would be arriving in mid-December, Polite ultimately leaned into her role over her natural tendency. “I said, ‘I’m getting it. I’m going to stand on the side of science and not fear.”

Not everyone in her personal circle supported her decision. Nonetheless, Polite joined a group of other Penn Medicine leaders who received the vaccine on December 16, the first day it was available.

Operating with Intention

While Polite was wrestling with her decision to get vaccinated, CMO Brennan was studying the dynamics within the Penn Medicine staff and considering the operational implications of a mass vaccination push.

What led to success was the one-two punch of an efficient operation that came to life mindful of issues of trust and emotion. So the rollout, for instance, ensured from day one that Penn Medicine staffers could see someone from their community who had opted to receive the shot.

The team recognized that no operational work could succeed without first addressing the concerns of the people involved. That concept is going to prove vital in future non-pandemic, non-crisis change management efforts. Whether getting employees vaccinated or getting them comfortable with a new strategic initiative, addressing the emotional weight of the situation must come early on. This is especially true for skeptical groups – in this case, people of color wary of vaccinations.

Here’s how it looked from Polite’s vantage point: “We’re asking you to not just trust science; we’re asking you to trust us. We did it. We’re not asking you to be blindly faithful. We’re letting you know that you can see us in action.” This idea of trust and honesty demonstrated through personal example was at the root of Polite’s ability to move the needle. She didn’t need to “convince” anyone so much as show them.

Backed by Numbers

Looking at the other side of the coin, no amount of emotional support can make up for a poorly executed plan. Weak operations can damage the most carefully cultivated trust. Feel-good stories open the door, but they don’t finish the job.

Brennan and his team turned to the numbers. They wanted to understand the nuances of vaccine acceptance across the Penn Medicine constellation with a particular eye toward job position and race. “In this context, occupation is a surrogate for zip code,” said Brennan, referencing the public health method of using residential zip code as an effective way to categorize peoples’ demographics like socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity.

“White employees had a higher vaccine acceptance rate from the get-go,” he said. Only about one in five Black employees scheduled a vaccine appointment in the first week, compared to more than half of white employees. Other groups fell somewhere in between.

Brennan and his team worked to close the gap. Polite saw her mission clearly. “I have the opportunity as the chief to make sure that we are an institution that practices what it preaches and takes care of our vulnerable neighbors in Philadelphia,” she said.

Launching the Program

Here, the emotional and operational stories of Polite and Brennan merge.

Their solution was Operation CAVEAT, a multimodal educational outreach approach about COVID-19 and the vaccine that Polite fully describes in a Los Angeles Times column she co-authored with Penn Medicine colleague Eugenia C. South, MD, MSPH.

“CAVEAT allowed us to say, ‘Here’s the organizational structure around which we can be in direct contact with the folks who need to see us,’” Polite recalled. She also connected with the CMO of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (HUP) about the lower vaccine uptake in people of color.

That conversation led to an introduction to Aron Berman, who leads environmental services, food services, patient transport and materials management at HUP. “We talked very frankly about the racial dynamics of his team,” said Polite.

Berman said, “There was a very clear problem with high-stakes consequences. I was fortunate to be in a position to have this conversation” and to use his position of leadership to, “do the right thing for our Black and brown colleagues.”

Through that understanding of his team, Berman, like Polite, recognized and acknowledged that race was a significant factor in vaccine acceptance and confirmed that his team wanted to hear from Black physicians.

Matching Tactics to Needs

Having determined who employees wanted to hear from, the next step was how.

Many of the employees on the teams Berman led had limited access to Penn Medicine email. So, the system’s vaccine-related information wasn’t reaching them while false or negative information from external sources was.

The health system responded quickly with several primary tactics:

  • Individual paper “vaccine invitations” that hourly employees could take to the vaccine center and walk in – no appointment, no waiting, no worries about trying to stretch a lunch break long enough to get through the process.
  • A series of posters and one-pagers featuring Polite and other physicians with quotes about why they got vaccinated and facts from the CDC.
  • A set of vaccine-related screensavers featuring Black physicians initially located in break rooms and clock-in/out rooms but later deployed throughout the health system.
  • Inviting physicians – at least one of whom was Black – to join the daily group huddles environmental services, food services and similar teams were already having to listen and answer questions.
  • A town hall meeting, open to anyone in the University of Pennsylvania Health System, featuring a highly diverse group of speakers.

The result was a notable – though not immediate – increase in vaccine uptake among Black employees. While the 30 percent gap they initially had actually briefly widened to 40 percent as uptake among all groups grew, it then declined as the efforts among Black employees gained momentum. Moreover, it’s likely that the effort put forth by the leaders involved will have positive long-term ramifications thanks to trust gained during Operation CAVEAT and related initiatives.

Subscribe to Jarrard Insights & News

Name(Required)

Healthcare M&A Predictions, Take Two: Under Biden & Post-COVID-19

Group of men and women headshots in corporate attire

Last July just as the world was about to reopen and fallout from months of lost revenue was about to descend, we polled our extensive network to see what the future held for hospital mergers and acquisitions.

Who would be buying? Who would be selling? How would a previously active M&A landscape change in light of the pandemic? And might the looming election shift power from one side of the aisle to the other, leading to significant regulatory or legislative changes?

You can see what our experts said then.

So, what do they say now?

Glad you asked. Because we did too.

We checked back with several of our prognosticators, along with a few other players in the legal, financial, strategic planning and management consulting sectors, asking them four questions:

As before, we’ve condensed the answers into a few themes, but the full verbatim can be found below the summary.

Asked if the rate of transactions will begin to climb, a slight plurality predicted the pace and volume of transactions will remain at current levels throughout 2021. The rest said they expect to see the pace of transactions ramp up in Q2 or Q3.

Why did our experts pick the timeline they did?

The consensus was that operational hurdles created by the pandemic have subsided or will soon subside, and that atypical events like the distribution of Cares Act relief funds didn’t change “underlying economic pressures.” Moreover, they noted that the endgame to the pandemic seems to be taking shape, as does a path to economic recovery.

As a return to some “normalcy” occurs, it will become apparent who has emerged stronger, who is weaker and which organizations that were struggling and looking for a partner before the pandemic brought life screeching to a halt – might resume a courtship.

These factors and trends were common across the responses we received, with the differences generally being whether people thought they had resolved enough to have already pushed the pace of transactions to a plateau (“the pace we see today is the pace we’ll see this year) or if they’re still getting worked out (Q2/3).

When we asked about top considerations for buyers and sellers, our experts mentioned:

Buyers balancing resources: recovery vs acquisition
Sellers being flexible and setting realistic expectations
Need for care in the deal process to get through regulatory scrutiny
Buyers helping sellers address the state of their workforce
Need for alignment on strategy and purpose behind a deal (not just scale)

When it came to whether or not deals will be harder to do today, the consensus was “yes.” We heard a few common reasons why:

Federal Scrutiny

(Likely) HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra’s name and reputation came up repeatedly.

State/Local Scrutiny

Non-local control and the effect of consolidation on health equity and community good may be a concern.

Value Proposition

New economic realities and getting to underlying valuations may make deals harder.

Purpose

“Scale for the sake of scale” won’t work. Deals need to be strategic and close existing gaps in services/operations.

Transformation

There is a need to pursue deals that will advance technology and value-based care.

COVID-19’s Wake

Sorting out the underlying fundamentals from the noise of relief funds adds layers of complexity.

Whatever predictions do come true, the tone of the comments reveals something quietly significant and hopeful: There will be a renewed focus on non-COVID-19-related work. Providers are turning their attention to what comes next, signaling the pandemic’s last miles and the opening push for the new administration.

Take a look at the full comments below.

Joe Cerreta

Partner

Barry Sagraves

Partner

Are deals going to be harder to do?

Transactions will be harder to complete, though for reasons beyond changing attitudes of federal regulators. While the new administration is likely to neutral to negative toward consolidation, the FTC will continue its historic opposition rather than ratchet it up. Most of the increased difficulty is completing transactions will be the result of a fundamental change in the economics of the hospital industry, with COVID-19 accelerating trends toward value based care and a risk based reimbursement model as well as increasing consumer preferences for outpatient settings and digital interaction. Systems looking to add members will face more uncertainty and risk in transactions. There will be more organizations seeking to join a system than systems seeking new members. Finally, state and local government may be more hostile to consolidation as concerns about health equity and the good of the community add to worries about non-local control.

What are key considerations for buyers and sellers?

Buyers

Buyers will have to effectively balance resources between trying to complete transactions while recovering from the pandemic and meeting the many changes in the industry. Promising appropriate consideration to successfully be selected as the partner of choice and then delivering the promised benefits will be key for overall system success.

Sellers

Those seeking to join a system will need to have realistic expectations. While many partner-seekers will be distressed, those with stronger financial and competitive positions may find fewer and/or less-aggressive suitors. It will be more important than ever that those considering joining a system utilize a flexible, appropriate approach to the market and not unintentionally chase away a high-quality partner with overly cumbersome RFPs, lengthy negotiations or excessive demands.

When will deals pick up?

Q3

Partnership activity (though not necessarily announced transactions) will pick up in the third quarter.  Visibility on vaccines and the course of the pandemic should be more clear, as well as the state of the economy. Buyers should be feeling more certainty and will need to address the underlying needs for growth and scale after a pandemic-induced hiatus.

Ascendient

Dawn Carter

Founder & Senior Partner

Are deals going to be harder to do?

I definitely believe that there will be heightened scrutiny from the Biden administration and the FTC. In addition, buyers will continue to be more discerning in deals they pursue, for their own strategic reasons, as well as to avoid lengthy, expensive efforts that are eventually blocked by the FTC.

What are key considerations for buyers and sellers?

Buyers

Clearly articulating the strategic purpose of the deal and understanding the value the target brings to the organization.

Sellers

Making sure the organization is as financially strong as possible before embarking on a process, as most buyers have very little interest in financially vulnerable organizations.

When will deals pick up?

The pace today is the pace we’ll see.

Things slowed a bit in 2020, particularly as health systems were trying to get their operational “sea legs” for COVID-19.  Despite the ongoing pandemic, those operational hurdles have been dealt with for the most part and there is a lot more normalcy around M&A transactions. The challenges to the pace will continue to be a) a lot of “low-hanging fruit” deals have been done, so those remaining are more difficult for a reason and/or are much larger deals, which then gets to #1 above; b) overall conservative, low-risk position of most buyers.

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

Angela Humphreys

Chair, Healthcare Practice Group and Co-Chair, Healthcare Private Equity Team

Are deals going to be harder to do?

There certainly will be more considerations at play, including calibrating for a return to pre-COVID volumes, addressing government funding such as Provider Relief Funds, Medicare Advance Payments and PPP loans, and the potential for increased antitrust scrutiny under the Biden administration.  That said, with a bit of pent up demand, 2021 is poised for high deal flow, particularly for companies that have a view towards value based care and the implementation of technology solutions.

What are key considerations for buyers and sellers?

Buyers

Comfort around the long-term sustainability of the business post-COVID.

Sellers

Certainty of valuation.

When will deals pick up?

Q3

Smaller hospitals have been struggling in the wake of COVID-19 due, in part, to a downturn in elective procedures and thin financial reserves.  As a result, they will need to pursue strategic alliances and partnerships to survive. Separately, query whether this will be a year of the mega merger that brings together large competitors to capitalize on synergies from streamlined management and payor and vendor contracting strategies.

[/vc_row_inner]
Robert York

Director, Value-Based Care Practice Leader

R. Christopher Regan

Founding Partner, Managing Director

Are deals going to be harder to do?

Increasing regulatory scrutiny and industry impact due to COVID has refocused healthcare executives to increase overall partnership evaluation and diligence efforts. We don’t see deals happening just to make a deal. It is critical to ensure that future partnerships are sustainable and will deliver on the organization’s long-term strategic goals and objectives as well as satisfy any regulatory concerns.  The partnership process from evaluation to close consumes tremendous organizational bandwidth and so it is critical to make sure there is a clear and sustainable business case for a particular partnership upfront before investing significant time and effort.

What are key considerations for buyers and sellers?

Buyers

Healthcare leadership is re-evaluating overall organizational portfolios given the lessons learned from this past year and identifying capabilities and relationships they need to build out operationally, clinically and financially to stabilize and strengthen the organizational position into 2021.  No matter where you sit in the healthcare eco-system it is time to re-evaluate your organization’ position and needs based on the changed external and internal situation and go-forward outlook.

Sellers

Hospitals and health system partnerships have been focused on building up scale and reach for the sake of scale and reach. But, building scale for scale’s sake is no longer a sufficient case for partnership by itself and healthcare leadership is placing a greater focus on partnerships that can diverse revenue/risk profile and materially advance capabilities and close gaps in the current portfolio including physician, ambulatory and other non-hospital based businesses, virtual/ technology enabled care delivery and management and payor and health plan products.

When will deals pick up?

The pace today is the pace we’ll see.

Hospital deals started to pick back up in Q4 2020 and we see that continuing.  Broader healthcare M&A activity outside of hospitals including both virtual/ digital health plays and physician and ambulatory really remained strong and is continuing to do so.  We expect this resurgence of partnership activity to continue through 2021 as healthcare leadership attention shifts from crisis management to mid- to long-term strategy and sustainability; however, the range of options will look different from years past and continue to extend well beyond traditional hospital to hospital deals.

Juniper Advisory

Rex Burgdorfer

Managing Director

Are deals going to be harder to do?

Health care combinations won’t necessarily be harder to do, but partnership processes will likely need to be more robust to meet heightened regulatory scrutiny. The leadership of Vice President Harris and HHS Secretary nominee Becerra may influence policy at the FTC and DOJ. It is also worth noting that State Attorneys General are also playing a more active role in reviewing hospital transactions. 

COVID has, and will continue to, drive transformation in health care. The experience of a global pandemic has accelerated the rate of change in the industry dramatically. As a result, hospitals and health systems are increasingly looking for new ways to work together to serve their communities and ensure their ongoing vitality. There are a few trends we expect to see more of in 2021: 1) number of transactions between large $1+B health systems across geographic boundaries, 2) partnerships between providers and payors and 3) unique structures that bring two health systems very close together operationally but stop short of change of control. 

What are key considerations for buyers and sellers?

There has been a growing focus on regulatory review in M&A transactions.  As the market for corporate control in the hospital industry matures, data like the American Bar Association “Deal Point Study” are settling in on what constitutes ‘market’ value, terms, and conditions.  The wildcard, however, which always seems to arise in the final negotiations of a definitive agreement, is the risk exchange surrounding various government programs and oversight.

For both buyers and sellers, speed and moving partnership processes forward continues to be a main objective. The benefits of partnership and scale have never been more important than during the pandemic response. The sooner hospitals can affiliate, the sooner their institution and their community will see the positive impact.  However, for buyers of distressed hospitals, we are seeing prolonged periods of due diligence as they evaluate their financial positions and risk. 

When will deals pick up?

Q3

Systems that we work have a pent-up demand for forming regional partnerships.  COVID proved to be a significant disruption to hospital operations and strategic plans. The federal Cares Act relief funding was helpful but has not changed the underlying economic pressures causing management teams to believe that better coordination across the sector is needed to improve the efficiency and quality of care.  Once vaccinations are more widespread, and long-term strategic initiatives dusted-off, I think we’ll see a return to ~100 transaction per year.

Are deals going to be harder to do?

The effect of the Biden Administration on transactions is uncertain, but the guess is that we will see a more active FTC going forward.  But I don’t believe that the regulatory environment and any changes implemented under the Biden Administration will be a material impediment to closing deals.  The challenges are going to be around valuation expectations for both buyers and sellers given the last 12 months of operations for hospitals were so impacted by COVID.   An additional uncertainty that will influence the valuation discuss will be any progress on expanding the coverage of the Medicare program.

What are key considerations for buyers and sellers?

Buyers

Buyers will need to evaluate the state of the workforce at a target facility to understand the potential and the length of time for employees to return to “business as usual.”

Sellers

Sellers will want to assess what a Buyer brings to the table that might help the same workforce fatigue issue.

When will deals pick up?

Q2

My prediction is that we will see the pace of hospital transactions increase in Q2, assuming that the recent positive trend in COVID-19 cases continues and more of the population is vaccinated.  Hospital leaders will be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel and turn back to strategic planning.  Also, there will be a number of hospitals/systems that will need to take strategic steps having been financially weakened over the last year.

Are deals going to be harder to do?

Yes, the historic trend of the mega-merger will be under a microscope by the Biden Administration. The Biden Administration has made it clear that it will intensify its review of healthcare mergers and acquisitions and the expectation is that there will be longer periods for review and greater likelihood of second requests by the FTC. In addition, State Attorneys General have become much more aggressive in their review of potential combinations, resulting in increased involvement in the terms of the agreement, particularly focusing on the covenants of purchasers post-closing, including provision of indigent care, limitations on rate increases and attention to social determinants of health. As a result of these factors, Buyers will have to take into account the increased time delays, expenses, potential divestiture of assets and increased commitments to the community in connection with such transactions. That being said, although it is anticipated that Secretary Becerra may indirectly and discreetly play a role in the policies connected with healthcare merger and acquisition review, we anticipate that Becerra’s strong support of the ACA will be a counterbalancing factor, along with continued relaxation of regulations and issuance of waivers at least for the remainder of COVID-19. In addition, buyers have the burden of scoping and quantifying the potential COVID-19 liabilities and the complications to a transaction as buyers try to understand what stimulus funds were received and the restrictions regarding use of the funds and the potential requirement to repay such funds. Finally, there is just the simple fact that healthcare mergers and acquisitions have become increasingly complex, time consuming and expensive. For all of the aforementioned reasons, it will be imperative for the parties to have a clear and strong strategic basis for the transaction, and go in in with eyes wide open to the challenges.

What are key considerations for buyers and sellers?

Buyers

From the perspective of a buyer, it is important to identify the key strategic goals of the transaction and create clear and consistent communication regarding how the transaction will satisfy those goals both within executive leadership and ultimately to the board. Increasingly, we are seeing that if the board is not tracking closely with the executive leadership team in the process, then there is more opportunity for the deal to not advance forward.

Sellers

As has historically been the case, certainty of close is imperative for sellers. As a result, I think that it is important for sellers to proactively take as many issues as possible off the table by being proactive in terms of diligence, transparency in terms of identification and resolution of issues so that the parties can minimize the closing conditions.

When will deals pick up?

Q2

There is significant capital that has been sitting on the sidelines for the better of part of 2020 that is waiting to be deployed.  Now that we have the (i) certainty of the election results, (ii) declines in COVID-19 cases, (iii) positive vaccine projections and (iv) boards and management teams more able to focus on strategic growth, hospitals and health system deal activity is picking up.  We are seeing an increase in activity in the letter of intent/definitive agreement stage already that should lead to deals closing Q2 of 2021.  In addition, we have seen a significant uptick in the hospitals and health systems focused on strategic service lines and vertical integration.  We also anticipate that the regional consolidations will continue to trend in 2021 as they have for the past few years.

Are deals going to be harder to do?

Deals have been difficult to do for a while and it does not seem that will be getting any easier, whether that is due to state Attorney General enforcement, lower HSR filing thresholds and FTC interest, or more discerning financial, operational, cultural and legal due diligence by parties. Having said that, while timelines may get drawn out and deal terms may get modified to accommodate stakeholders and regulators, deals will still close.

What are key considerations for buyers and sellers?

Buyers

Since many hospital M&A transactions are effectuated through “membership substitutions”, one consideration for buyers in such structures is what post-closing operational covenants buyers are willing to commit to the “seller” (and, in effect, the communities served by the seller’s facilities). In prior years, many buyers were willing to commit to continue to operate the facilities, service lines and programs “as is” for a number of years, as well as committing to spend significant funds on capital commitments, IT integration or other meaningful projects at the seller facilities, and those are increasingly difficult commitments for buyers to make.

Sellers

On the flip side of a buyer’s consideration regarding making significant, long-term post-closing commitments, sellers need to consider, in the absence or reduction of such commitments, what is appropriate transaction consideration to “hand over the keys” and still obtain necessary approvals from their board, stakeholders or regulators. As hospitals move away from a focus on bricks and mortar development, and invest in telehealth, value based-care arrangements and innovative care delivery models, sellers will need to consider whether preservation of existing operations is appropriate.

When will deals pick up?

The pace today is the pace we’ll see.

The pace for 2021 is already very active, and such pace is likely to continue throughout the year, as C-suites and boards of hospitals looking to engage in discussions with potential buyers are now more able to commit the necessary time and attention to strategic initiatives. Buyers are also willing to engage in such discussions and are anxious to execute on opportunities that may not have presented themselves but for COVID-19.  In addition to “traditional” M&A, parties are actively discussing alternative transaction structures, including joint operating agreements, joint ventures, clinical collaboration arrangements, adding to the already energetic pace of transactional activity thus far in 2021.

Ponder & Co

Eb LeMaster

Managing Director

Are deals going to be harder to do?

In the context of regulatory scrutiny, there are several compelling reasons for why deals may become more difficult to consummate. As a long tenured member of the California Assembly, a House Representative and California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, has a strong track record for aggressive antitrust oversight, including his opposition of the proposed deal between Adventist Health and St. Joseph Health and adding stringent conditions to the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center merger with Huntington Memorial Hospital. Moreover, spurred by the challenges of the pandemic in an already challenging operating environment, we expect the stakes of regulatory intervention to continue to rise as providers seek in-market or adjacent-market acquisitions. Notable deals that received FTC intervention, or are under regulatory review, include Prisma’s acquisition of three LifePoint hospitals in South Carolina and Methodist Le Bonheur’s attempted acquisition of Tenet’s Memphis assets. As providers continue to evaluate their strategic options and expand out from regional hubs or divest non-core assets to in-region competitors, we expect this trend of increasing regulatory scrutiny to continue. Consequently, to help mitigate protracted deal processes due to regulatory intervention and significant legal expense, we are already seeing buyers, more intentional on the front end of due diligence, proactively engage anti-trust counsels and economic advisors, to assess the merits of a deal from a regulatory perspective.

What are key considerations for buyers and sellers?

Assessing the likely breadth and intensity of buyer interest prior to marketing is more important than ever during the pandemic. In some cases, buyers are focusing almost exclusively on pre-pandemic financial/operating trends and results while in other cases, they are factoring in the impact of the pandemic, adjusting run rate cash flow downward and adjusting target results for governmental financial support. New Hanover Regional Medical Center, for example, was able to hold the line on its $1.5 billion pre-pandemic valuation from Novant Health, certainly benefitting from the significant interest from a range of for-profit and not-for-profit partners in the event terms changed. Other sellers with less interest from the market have not been so fortunate as transactions have been repriced or commitments changed. Ultimately, this is as much an art as it is a science, and the outcome is heavily dependent on the breadth and depth of partner interest.

When will deals pick up?

The pace today is the pace we’ll see.

We expect the average quarterly volume in 2021 to be similar to the levels of 2020. On the one hand, Q4 2020 announced volume was strong with 28 announced transactions, the highest single quarterly total since Q1 of 2018. Also, there is a healthy backlog of more than a dozen systems in partnership discussions and under LOIs towards affiliation from the latter part of 2020. However, the pandemic will continue to hold down transaction volumes as healthcare systems and hospitals have been given short-term breathing room through pandemic government support payments and as volumes continue to ramp up ahead of original expectations despite the continued pandemic. Many health systems are using this time to recalibrate financial projections for the remainder of 2021 and continue to study strategic options. Also, the top driver of consolidation–significant negative governmental reimbursement change—is highly unlikely in the near-term in light of the pandemic and related pressures on health systems.

Are deals going to be harder to do?

Historically, Democratic administrations have applied more regulation to transactions. So, we believe we can expect that there will be more scrutiny particularly of larger transactions. Xavier Becerra and Kamala Harris were very engaged in looking at anti-competitive behavior when they were in the Attorney General’s office in California, so it would not surprise me if larger transactions got additional scrutiny from the FTC. For example, this article cites Becerra’s antitrust litigation against Sutter Health.

What are key considerations for buyers and sellers?

Buyers

Buyers need to consider and make sure that the grants and loans provided to facilities in 2020 are not masking systemic financial issues and considering the impact repayment of those amounts may have on the cash flow of the hospitals. Using CHS as an example, the government appears willing to spread repayments out over quite a long period of time.

Sellers

Sellers will need to move quickly. Transactions that take 9-12 months are more costly and increase the likelihood the deal won’t get done. It also weighs on your employees and could lead to attrition. Sometimes you can’t avoid it, getting AG approvals and the like, but if you can, getting a deal closed quickly will save everyone money and make for a happier workforce.

When will deals pick up?

Q2

I think second quarter due to more vaccinations, more return to normalcy, and more pent-up demand. 2020 was a surprising year for M&A activity, but I remain bullish on transactions. I think the pandemic has strengthened some systems and weakened others which is a natural setting for more M&A transactions.

Historically, Democratic administrations have applied more regulation to transactions. So, we believe we can expect that there will be more scrutiny particularly of larger transactions. Xavier Becerra and Kamala Harris were very engaged in looking at anti-competitive behavior when they were in the Attorney General’s office in California, so it would not surprise me if larger transactions got additional scrutiny from the FTC. For example, this article cites Becerra’s antitrust litigation against Sutter Health.

Buyers

Buyers need to consider and make sure that the grants and loans provided to facilities in 2020 are not masking systemic financial issues and considering the impact repayment of those amounts may have on the cash flow of the hospitals. Using CHS as an example, the government appears willing to spread repayments out over quite a long period of time.

Sellers

Sellers will need to move quickly. Transactions that take 9-12 months are more costly and increase the likelihood the deal won’t get done. It also weighs on your employees and could lead to attrition. Sometimes you can’t avoid it, getting AG approvals and the like, but if you can, getting a deal closed quickly will save everyone money and make for a happier workforce.

Q2

I think second quarter due to more vaccinations, more return to normalcy, and more pent-up demand. 2020 was a surprising year for M&A activity, but I remain bullish on transactions. I think the pandemic has strengthened some systems and weakened others which is a natural setting for more M&A transactions.

Psychology, Communications and Vaccine Hesitancy

Woman lifting her shirt sleeve while a man inserts a medical shot into her arm

We fear things that can help us. Why? And, maybe more importantly, how do we overcome that fear?

A couple of weeks ago, we ran a conversation between Molly Cate, founding partner and chief innovation officer at Jarrard, Dr. Mark Wenneker, a partner at The Chartis Group and primary care internist who leads Chartis’ behavioral health practice, and Dr. Danny Mendoza, a psychiatrist with the Beth Israel Lahey Health System and an expert in behavioral health integration. In that conversation, we looked at some clinical principles healthcare leaders can apply to their teams, patients, and the public to allay fear in this bizarre pandemic world we’ve been living in.

It was all rooted in a white paper that we published along the same lines. You can find that white paper at jarrardinc.com. But as we went through that first conversation, and as things continued moving forward in the vaccine rollout, it became clear that the principles applied to vaccine hesitancy as well. There’s a whole second discussion to be had with Wenneker and Mendoza about some of the psychology behind hesitancy and how healthcare providers can sort of guide people rather than push them. This is that conversation.

Vaccine Case Study: Understanding and Encouraging the Reluctant

Aerial view of a city

The pandemic has rocked California. And Cedars-Sinai provides care for over a million people annually across 40 locations in the incredibly diverse Los Angeles area.

Today, as vaccine distribution is underway, Cedars-Sinai is faced with a common challenge: how to encourage vaccination among Black and Latino communities.

We asked Dorian Harriston, associate director of brand strategy, to explain how Cedars-Sinai is tackling this challenge. The answer lies in the organization’s longstanding commitment to community partnerships.

photo courtesy of Cedars-Sinai

Jarrard Inc: The issue of vaccine hesitancy among the Black community is well-documented and something many providers are struggling with right now. What does it look like in Los Angeles?

Dorian Harriston: Vaccine hesitancy appears to be as prevalent here as anywhere else – especially in Black and brown communities.

From my experience, the level of education, income or job doesn’t factor into whether an individual is hesitant to get the vaccine. It’s a deeply rooted effect of historical medical mistreatment that has caused distrust. I hear the same things from family and friends as I do on social media and even colleagues in healthcare: People are afraid, and the conspiracy theories and misconstrued testimonies posted online are not helping. This is a serious issue.

How is Cedars-Sinai addressing the hesitancy?

We’ve prepared an overall strategy to strengthen our relationship with these communities. It starts by partnering with organizations that cater to the needs of Black and brown communities. We hope to be a true partner, amplifying their messages and providing support – and not just monetary support – to increase and sustain resources while conducting outreach to show commitment to our community.

What does that strategy look like in practice?

Initially, we’re doing a series of virtual talks and engaging faith, community and healthcare partners to discuss the issue in various formats. We’re enabling our clinicians and researchers to answer FAQs and attempt to ease fears by responding with facts.

We have to be honest about barriers that cause hesitancy to address them and help determine culturally relevant and satisfactory solutions. Transparency, honesty and commitment are paramount to changing longstanding thoughts and behaviors. We need to regain the Black community’s trust, and we must prepare for a long-term commitment.

Talk more about the role of your team members.

It’s essential that we take as much care internally as we do externally. We’re creating internal conversations around vaccine hesitancy and trust, taking the time to tackle this initiative collectively because it affects all aspects of the programs and services we provide as an institution. Employees must be ambassadors that carry factual and positive messages to their circles of influence. It will take a village to make headway.

How is it going?

We’re just getting started. The first step is to find out what Black and brown communities want and need. We’re doing this through our partners and stakeholders. Partnership is the key to expanding outreach and ensuring the message is reaching every audience within these communities. We need to communicate with influencers – whether that’s the internal family circle (caretakers responsible for multi-generational households, children that bring new information and technology, etc.) or external relationships (faith leaders, clinicians, community and civic leaders and friends). Organizations have provided what they believe this demographic needs for far too long without doing the research to back it up. We want to be sure we are addressing needs in a way that helps build trust and establish a consistent path to preventive care.

Healthcare is local. How do you, as a large system with a significant geographic footprint and diverse patient population, present messages that will resonate with each community while remaining consistent across the system?

The pandemic has forced our team to review our current practices for efficiency and align messages across channels. I see us working together more as a team due to COVID-19 than before the pandemic. Although we have a lot more meetings, being able to divide and conquer and form special project teams has allowed us to refine our messaging and reach a larger audience while promoting significant but often overlooked areas – in particular, research, education, and community engagement. These areas create a trifecta with clinical care vital to defining needs, breaking down barriers to vaccine acceptance, and promoting health equity. We also want to ensure that Black faculty and staff are included and visible so that these communities know there are people who look like them working on their behalf.

What advice do you have for other providers? Are there best practices that that apply across the board?

  1. It’s important to align strategy around your organization’s health equity and diversity and inclusion goals. Creating tactics is easy, but it’s essential to have a definitive strategy that speaks to who the organization is and provides a roadmap to inclusively provide for your community’s health.
  2. Ensure that your communication is honest and transparent. There’s no shame in admitting you don’t have a piece of information or don’t know something. Also, remember that one message may not be sufficient. There are varied audiences within each targeted demographic, and having a single message isn’t enough. Having multiple messages and communications vehicles could be the difference between being heard or ignored.
  3. Before beginning any outreach, know that there are no quick fixes. If your organization isn’t willing to invest budget, time and resources, don’t proceed. To battle the distrust and inequity that Black and brown communities have experienced, you must consistently engage and work to understand unique needs, health disparities and cultural norms. Have BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of color) on your team or as advisors to vet advertising and messaging and provide communication vehicles such as unique media outlets and preferred ways in which the target demographic seeks and digests information. One wrong message or misstep could injure an already fragile relationship with communities of color.
  4. When crafting a call to action, ensure you have the capacity and resources to engage and execute in a manner that will make it easier on your audience. Right now, individuals are afraid, anxious, angry and burned out. Anything that appears to be unclear or complicated will cause frustration, dismissal and possibly a negative perception of your organization. Ensure that your strategy allows for flexibility and resources that will help everyone within the community – even if you cannot provide those services.