Skip to main content
Category

Issue Navigation

Vaught Verdict

Orange text that reads "The Quick Think" over a kaleidoscope-patterned background

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

The Big Story: Healthcare workers fear for the future after ex-Vanderbilt nurse found guilty in 2017 death of patient

“A local trial focused on a former Vanderbilt University Medical Center nurse has sparked nationwide interest. RaDonda Vaught was found guilty on Friday of criminally negligent homicide, after accidentally giving a patient a fatal dose of the wrong medication. ‘I’m terrified that I’m now in a profession where, God forbid, I do make a mistake,’ said one nurse outside of the courtroom.”

Where We Are Today

2-minute read

That quote serves as an intense summary of the concern felt by caregivers across the country, and it adds another layer of pressure on provider organizations already struggling to fill nursing roles. A joint statement by the American Nurses Association and Tennessee Nurses Association says, “The criminalization of medical errors is unnerving, and this verdict sets into motion a dangerous precedent. Like many nurses who have been monitoring this case closely, we were hopeful for a different outcome. It is a sad day for all of those who are involved, and the families impacted by this tragedy.”

The whole situation is awful. The tragedy of Charlene Murphey’s death and everything surrounding it. The worry this adds to an already exhausted healthcare workforce, many of whom were considering their future in the profession before the verdict. And it adds to the trouble that no provider organization needs with staffing the number one concern across the country.

We will continue to watch and discuss this situation and potential fallout. It’s a tense moment that will further strain the relationship between staff and administration. It’s also one that could exacerbate existing challenges both for individuals and healthcare institutions. For now, a few brief thoughts for leaders of provider organizations:

  • Your radar is on. Keep it up. This verdict and the circumstances surrounding it will reverberate for a long time. Have an ear out for how it’s being discussed – by the public, by healthcare professionals, by other stakeholders within the industry.
  • Your nurses are talking about the situation and your organization needs to hear what they’re saying so you can understand the concerns. You know your organization the best, so be present in whatever way makes the most sense for your culture. But be there – whatever that means for you – to hear from your nurses.
  • Bring everyone around the table. Clinical leadership, operations, legal, HR. Have conversations about how the organization’s mission, vision, values – as well as its commitment to supporting caregivers in a culture of safety – should be applied in this moment. You’re likely to already be having some of these conversations. We encourage you to ensure that everyone is represented and that the discussions are rooted in your mission to serve and to care.
  • Begin looking at how your organization can support and protect your nurses from an operational standpoint. Work with your team to identify areas where things can be tightened up to limit the chance an error will occur, or where an error is even an option. Nurses are under so much pressure, any place where that pressure can be reduced and safety improved is worth a look.
  • When appropriate, let your nurses know what you’re doing and how you’re working to support them. Be clear and honest about your organization’s position and the thoughts of leaders within the organization.
  • If you find yourself trying to say something but unsure of what it is, that probably means there’s more to learn. Go back to the start and listen some more.

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday Quick Think newsletter. Fill out the form to get that in your inbox every week.

When Is a Win Not Really a Win?

Orange text that reads "The Quick Think" over a kaleidoscope-patterned background

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

The Big (?) Story: Jury sides with Sutter Health in federal antitrust case

“A jury sided with Sutter Health on Friday in the long-running federal lawsuit accusing the health system of anticompetitive business practices that drove up healthcare costs by more than $400 million.”

What it Means for Health Systems

(3-minute read)

The short version of what the Sutter result means: One specific health system won one specific legal battle.

That’s it.

Time for more? Read on.

The California health system’s case is making waves in the healthcare trades and among industry insiders. Understandably so. A large system received a favorable jury verdict regarding alleged anticompetitive practices in an environment where that outcome was far from a foregone conclusion.

But while Sutter can take a breath, the provider side of the industry can’t. Or at least shouldn’t. Because this legal result does nothing to change the big-picture issues that are facing hospitals and health systems. Remember that this case began a decade ago and has focused on insurer contracts and antitrust issues, which have direct implications for the cost of care and patient access. Those topics are as hot today as they were 10 years ago.

A few key points stand out when looking at the decision. Note: We’re not making any statements about the legal issues. For that, we’ll recommend this concise piece from our friends at Bass Berry & Sims.

  • “It’s complicated.” In coverage of the jury’s decision, the words “technical” and “complex” came up repeatedly. It was clearly (and rightfully) a challenge for the experts to break down for the jury. The implication is that the complexity of the case made it difficult to clearly determine that Sutter had done wrong. So the default, when faced with a binary choice, was to side with Sutter. Another Modern Healthcare article that discussed this case and its “cousin” case – which Sutter settled – makes this very point. It’s that subtle philosophical difference between “innocent” and “not guilty.”
  • The narrative continues. What happened in the courtroom isn’t likely to mean much in the court of public opinion. The fortunes of one health system aren’t likely to alter the ongoing barrage by critics who maintain that hospitals are Big Business focused on profit over mission, they engage in willful anticompetitive practices, they harm patients through financial malfeasance.

So, yes, the case may have an effect on contracts in California going forward. But this verdict is a sidenote when it comes to the overall trends in healthcare and public perception thereof.  The critics are simply reloading.

So how should providers react?

  1. Unless you’re Sutter, don’t relax. Talk to your legal team. Appreciate that the federal case was an overreach and perhaps too detailed for the plaintiffs to win. Certainly don’t assume that the FTC, DOJ, insurers or anticompetitive activists will back off.
  2. Evaluate the opposition. A single legal loss in a high-stakes and very large scale, systemic dispute won’t deter those siding with the plaintiffs. If anything, hospital critics now have more information about what works and what doesn’t when it comes to pushing the anticompetitive narrative. They’ll use their notes to build a stronger and, presumably, clearer case for next time. Frankly, we’ve consistently seen that hospital critics do a pretty good job of telling a compelling story. Expect this setback to both encourage them and provide them with new resources to further refine their narrative.
  3. Prepare for more. Continue reviewing both your operations and your communications. As always, get everyone in the room for discussions about how your organization is approaching the myriad financial issues raised by critics. Look for gaps and misalignment between clinical, ops, marketing and comms, government relations, community outreach, legal and payer relations. Then, for the marcom team specifically, double down on telling your organization’s story.
  4. Speaking of payer relations… the Sutter case with several other recent high-profile public provider-payer disputes, show how quickly things can escalate once that tension first appears. Avoid escalation. Have your GR team engaged and building relationships with policymakers. Same thing for your payer relations team. That way, if – when – things get tense, you’re starting with a base of personal relationships and mutual understanding. We’re not naïve enough to suggest that occasional drinks with a payer rep is enough to stave off a contentious negotiation, but a bit of human connection won’t hurt. Additionally, even if you “win” a nasty battle, the critics will have had plenty of chances during the process to put dents in your reputation. Over time, dents can become cracks and, well, that’s not ideal.

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday Quick Think newsletter. Fill out the form to get that in your inbox every week.

Speaking Up or Thoughtful Silence

Text that reads "Quick Think" on a navy background with a lightly shaded light bulb icon

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

A Note on Responding to Current Events, from CEO David Jarrard

2.5-minute read / 13-minute podcast

Do you weigh in as an organization?

It’s not a simple answer. It’s a challenge our clients have faced many times over the past two years as outlier events have swept across the globe. This is true again as Russia continues its brutal invasion of Ukraine. Our clients ask us: “Do we need to issue a statement? Can you help us create a message? We’re not sure what to say but we think we need to say something.”

The first question to ask: Why?

Thoughtful leaders want to acknowledge important moments. To take a stand. To show solidarity with those in trouble or in need. As you consider whether to do so for your organization, the answer may lie in how you’ve asked yourself the question. If you’ve asked, “Do I have to weigh in?” when no one is looking for your corporate position, then the answer is very likely “No.” But if circumstances or your mission call you to weigh in, the answer may well be “Yes.”

We all recognize that organizations speak with the greatest authority when the subject is aligned with their expertise and reputation. A healthcare organization opining about important healthcare issues is your natural lane (i.e. COVID vaccinations and health equity). It is expected that your organization would speak to these and other important matters; it’s desired and needed, in fact.

The further the subject strays from your organization’s mission and expertise – to national politics, for example, or events around the globe – the thread connecting the subject and your authority, credibility and relevance weakens. If you comment on one disconnected event to which you bring no authority, you create the expectation that you will be commenting on an array of disconnected matters in the future.

The cliché is true: If you have nothing to say, don’t say it.

But. But! Sometimes what may appear to be a distant matter is actually close to home. There may be local ties in your community that bring it to your doorstep. You may have a service providing care that is directly impacted by the issue. You may serve a community bound to the region affected. You may have staff personally affected by it. Then, the call to speak is strong, local and relevant.

Do you serve a Russian or Ukrainian community within your market? Do you have Russian or Ukrainian immigrants or their descendants working in your facilities? Do you have a unique service that offers aid to that war-torn region or even to others oppressed in or from violent areas? If yes, the call to speak – to make clear your position and expectations – is strong. In fact, you should.

There is a third scenario, one in which you don’t have a direct line to the situation but your heart and mission simply demand your voice. As you speak – and many will – we suggest you simply acknowledge the uniquely and tragically horrific circumstances that call for your voice so, again, you don’t find yourself expected to provide commentary on world events in the many days to come.

An unfortunate byproduct of the social media era is that everyone has an opinion on everything, and people, leaders and organizations often feel like they’re expected to say something. So they worry about getting called out if they don’t. It’s part of that social media hype chamber. If that’s you, and you’ve concluded that saying something isn’t necessary or directly connected to your mission, give yourself permission for intentional silence.

A final note: If someone does come after your organization on social media for not saying something, the best practice is to respond publicly while bringing the conversation offline. Reply, “Thanks for your feedback. I’d love to talk about this and hear your perspective. Can we set up a conversation?” The key is to be responsive and not react disproportionately.

Listen on Apple Podcasts

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday Quick Think newsletter. Fill out the form to get that in your inbox every week.

Subscribe to Jarrard Insights & News

Name(Required)

The Quick Think: Command Stations on Tax Exemptions

Text that reads "Quick Think" on a navy background with a lightly shaded light bulb icon

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

3-minute read

The Big Story: Not-for-profit hospitals don’t earn tax exemptions, researchers say

“Not-for-profit and for-profit hospitals report similar levels of unreimbursed Medicaid costs even though not-for-profits receive billions of dollars a year in tax subsidies, new research shows.”

Key graf: “’The nonprofit hospitals have not done enough to deserve their tax subsidy,’ said Ge Bai, an accounting professor at Johns Hopkins University and lead author of the study. ‘Taxpayers subsidize hospitals to help struggling, working-class Americans, but many nonprofits are not doing enough.’”

What it Means for Health Systems

Another brick pulled out of the wall.

Hospital critics have picked up another powerful, compelling dataset in the national campaign to paint hospitals as Big Business more focused on profits than on care. Painful though it may be to hear, the Modern Healthcare article is a strong piece about the situation some hospitals across America find themselves in. Even our own research shows that just 41 percent of people strongly feel their hospital is a good community partner. In addition, these situations signal the expectations among the public and state and local regulators about where those community benefit tax-equivalent dollars are spent. In short, they want to see more than just sponsoring the local minor league baseball team.

This conversation isn’t going away. The Big Business narrative will continue to build momentum if hospitals don’t tell their own story, are unable to or, worst of all, have a story that doesn’t line up with the reality.

Two things to bear in mind about these articles:

  • There’s a careful, data-driven and emotionally charged campaign by critics seeking to pin the blame for our dysfunctional healthcare system squarely on hospitals.
  • There’s misalignment within hospitals in getting their mission-driven story across the finish line and making sure their words are backed up by their actions. The door to criticism is cracked open when there are disconnects between different departments and different initiatives. And – critically – between the different levels of the organization to identify problems and ensure that every move made is in service to the mission. Hospital critics then shove that door wide open, leading to Congressional hearings and class action lawsuits.

So here’s our advice this week:

Check your story. Now – Put time on your calendar to have a real conversation. Soon.

  • Non-profit hospital or health system execs – Connect with your marcom, finance and clinical leadership to compare notes about how your organization is talking about the work it’s doing in the community and how that lines up with what it’s actually doing in the community. And is it what the community actually needs? Baseball team sponsorship vs. affordable housing. Your call.
  • Marcom leaders – Initiate that same conversation with your colleagues and C-suite.
  • For-profit leaders – Sure, the tax-exempt piece won’t apply, but that doesn’t mean you should miss the chance to review where and how your charity care and other community benefits are delivered. You, too, have a mission and a story…and critics.
  • Health services company execs – Bring your leadership team around the table to discuss ways that you’re giving back and aligning ops with mission. You may not be under the gun for IRS status, but, like the for-profit crew, it’s still worth taking a look. Private healthcare companies, particularly those backed by private equity, are taking hits as well.
  • Healthcare attorneys – On your next call with a non-profit hospital or health system client, ask them if they’re checking their story. Encourage them to think beyond compliance and consider the whole picture around charity care and tax-exempt status as a function of their mission.
  • Strategy or operations consultants – Ask how the project at hand fits into the mission to care for your client’s community. Ask your client to review the numbers and projections and then work with marcom to align those outcomes to the story they need to tell.

The knives are out, the narrative has taken shape and the numbers very often don’t look great. It’s not a time to spin and, frankly, even if you wanted to it’s not going to work anymore. It’s a time to buckle down and get it right, to match the desired outcome with the actual outcome, to match the stated mission and the desire and passion of you and your team and your clinicians and staff with the way care is delivered – both medically and financially.

After those conversations, get ahead. What’s interesting about the tax-exempt line of attack is that there’s no mention of outcomes. The criticism is purely financial. The push from critics as currently constructed is to spend the money, not to spend the money and achieve <X>. So that’s a fantastic opportunity for provider organizations. Align on where the money is going – get clear on charity care and all the rest – and then talk about how you’re not just spending it but also moving the needle towards better outcomes and equity. “Our critics say we don’t spend enough in the right places. We’re not just spending it but investing it in our community, and here are the returns.” That’s a winning, mission-driven message to leapfrog the Big Business naysayers. Just make sure it’s true.

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday Quick Think newsletter. Fill out the form to get that in your inbox every week.

Subscribe to Jarrard Insights & News

Name(Required)

The Quick Think: Without Merit

Orange text that reads "The Quick Think" over a kaleidoscope-patterned background

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

3-minute read / 20-minute podcast

The Big Story: Brian Flores sues NFL, three teams as former Miami Dolphins coach alleges racism in hiring practices

The recently-fired head coach of the Miami Dolphins just rocked the sports world with a class action lawsuit alleging systemic racism, disparate hiring practices and incentivizing losing. The NFL came back with a near-instant response saying that Flores’ accusations were “without merit.” Dolphins owner Stephen Ross has responded with a statement that includes the very legal terminology of false, malicious and defamatory.” Then on Saturday, the NFL sent around a memo saying the organization was bringing in outside council to review its policies.

Why We’re Writing About It

Why, indeed, is a healthcare communications firm writing about a lawsuit against the NFL?

Because this story encapsulates so much of the work we do, the advice we give and the best practices for how – or how not – to communicate in a crisis. Because sometimes it’s good to look at outside examples to shake us loose and give a fresh perspective on long-standing principles.

Principles such as…

Check your story. Remember all those times we’ve written about how hospitals need to be proactive and tell the story of the good they do for their community? Or, if faced with scrutiny, respond with a compelling story? If so, you’ll also remember the warning that comes along with it: Make sure the story you tell is consistent with what’s actually happening inside your organization. For instance, a hospital can’t brag about helping patients navigate their healthcare finances when they’re suing them for nonpayment.

In the NFL’s case, the organization’s immediate response of calling the accusations “without merit” looks rash since it came within hours of the filing. Was that really enough time to have actually gone through the dozens of pages and confirmed that they were in fact without merit? Put another way, are the NFL and three teams being sued REALLY sure that they’re not behaving as accused?

Take time. Inherent to checking the story is that it takes time to do so. The NFL probably could have afforded to wait just a breath before releasing it’s “without merit” statement. Is it a crisis? Yes. Could they have taken a little longer to review the claims and craft a better message rather than one that looks like it was copied and pasted from some sort of “In Case of Lawsuit Break Glass” document? Also, yes. If you find yourself in a crisis, don’t wait around. But don’t go so fast that you rush past a meaningful response.

On Saturday, the NFL did in fact commit to “reassess and modify” the way it goes about things. But coming days after the initial, definitive statement instead of being the first thing released by the NFL, the memo opened the door for additional skepticism.

Prepare. We’re not talking copy-paste here. But you need to have a crisis plan in place with the basic blocking and tackling components. Think general talking points, FAQ, list of potential spokespeople, overarching underlying message. Armed with that, you can use those critical first moments of a crisis to review and home in on the situation. You’re not going to recycle the same talking points for every situation. But having a plan built around the tools needed and the underlying, mission-based message that you’ll want to convey no matter what is the difference between reflexively saying, “Nothing to see here!” and “We’re committed to serving our community and want to ensure that our actions reflect that. We’ll be investigating <XYZ> thoroughly. In the meantime, here’s what we know right now.” Again, it’s the difference between the NFL’s initial statement and the Saturday memo. Better to start with the latter and not backpedal into it.

Know the limits of your credibility. In addressing a crisis, consider your community’s perception of your organization’s reputation. We all know the NFL doesn’t have the best history when it comes to responding to explosive allegations. Their handling of the concussion scandal (which also included an ugly element of racial bias) and various instances of violence and abuse by players has left the organization without much reservoir of good will. Or benefit of the doubt. That’s another reason the instantaneous “without merit” comment looks hollow. Better, perhaps, to acknowledge previous missteps and use that as a foundation to talk about what comes next.

Know the difference between the people and the organization. This is the White Coats vs Dark Suits element. People love their docs. They love their local hospitals. But they lean skeptical about the big business of healthcare. Likewise, in the NFL, people love their team and particular players on it. But then there’s the perception of the organization, the impression that it often cares more about protecting the brand than doing the right thing, its Big Business operations that burn through trust and credibility. The appreciation the public has for the people doing the work – players/caregivers – doesn’t necessarily radiate out to good feelings for the organization – NFL/hospital. If the organization behaves badly, it won’t have much cover from the individuals.

And so here, we see a highly successful and credible voice who has worked at every level of an organization over the course of two decades. He’s making a powerful, emotional and specific accusation. However it all plays out, the NFL reminds us of the two-fold process facing an organization under scrutiny: First, of course, is actually doing the work and doing the right thing. And then it also means taking the time to communicate in a way that is consistent with the stated mission and values of the organization…or risk leaving room for the implication that those aren’t really the mission and values at all.

Listen on Apple Podcasts

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday Quick Think newsletter. Fill out the form to get that in your inbox every week.

Bite Your Tongue or Speak Up?

Orange text that reads "The Quick Think" over a kaleidoscope-patterned background

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

The Big Story: The CEO “Talking Trap”

CEOs, you might want to bite your tongues.

A new survey from the Brunswick Group says you’re overestimating the necessity and effectiveness of your organization’s communication on social issues. Yes, there’s enormous pressure on organizations to respond to everything that’s happening. But doing so without careful consideration can come off to the public as inauthentic. “The effort may come from a place of earnest engagement, but it is not being perceived that way,” the report observes. So if you choose to talk the talk, your organization needs to walk the walk.

What it Means for Your Health System

For leaders, the decision to speak is fraught. The Brunswick Group refers to it as “the talking trap.”

Basically, while corporate intentions around speaking up on hot social issues may be well-intentioned, audiences are disregarding these efforts due to “the broad alienation that most Americans (Democrats and Republicans) feel toward people and institutions of power.” If communications about an issue are poorly received, there’s the potential for them to be reputationally harmful.

Yet at the same time, we know there are times when leaders do need to speak. That’s part of being a leader, isn’t it? And with everything going on in the world, the range of topics on which they might be asked to weigh in is wider than ever.

So then how to do it effectively? The Brunswick Group report closes with excellent general recommendations to avoid the talking trap. Read them all – after you finish this note with ideas tailored for healthcare leaders and marcom officials.

It all boils down to integrated communications, similar to integrated care teams. The core structural issue is to know who’s in what lane and to coordinate appropriately. When clinicians aren’t aligned, they step on each other’s toes, information gets lost and patient care suffers. Similarly, communications efforts can be derailed by too many people trying to offer their own version of the message or offer it at the wrong time. When dealing with sensitive topics like social issues, the results can be damaging.

Consider these steps to ensure your message is received with the authenticity intended.

  1. Speak well – within your lane. You and your organization are experts on healthcare, and the public does want to hear from you on the things you know. Previous Jarrard Inc. surveys have shown that the public expects providers to speak up on healthcare topics. So before getting deeply involved in a range of issues, ensure that you are clear and consistent, firm yet humble, on the topics directly related to your work. 
  2. Do well – within your lane. Back up your message with actions. Better yet, back up your actions with your message. The Brunswick Group emphasizes the importance of tangible and significant investment (financial or otherwise) in causes related to the issue. For hospitals, that’s likely community partnerships and charity care. It’s also your work to support employees, professional development opportunities, and defined, financially-backed programs to help close racial disparities within the organization. Your mission is strong, so make sure the work you do reflects it.
  3. Recognize that there is more than one lane. “Health” encompasses so many issues, and we’re seeing a growing conversation about how social issues are health issues. Granted, we just suggested building credibility by staying in your lane. But that’s a lot harder when your lane is very wide – or when there are multiple lanes. Basically, your team needs to define the terms and come to some internal consensus on how you view the continuum of health and the myriad factors that contribute to it.
  4. Define who can and should be speaking out in each lane. One way to handle the complexity and the expectations is pretty standard: Break the work up into manageable bites. Within your organization you have nurses, administrators, physicians, social workers, care navigators and so many others. Find the right individuals within these roles to talk about the issues most closely aligned with their work. Social workers can talk about mental health or homelessness. Leadership can talk about the delivery of care to different communities. With people in the right spot, there’s minimal stepping on toes.
  5. Coordinate, prepare and activate. Whether it’s one person who will be speaking or five, define the expectations. For example, what’s appropriate for people to say as representatives of your organization – versus on their own time? As always, bring in outside voices like community leaders to help inform your thinking on the issue and your approach. Set up mechanisms for feedback – even if it’s uncomfortable. That in itself goes a long way towards demonstrating your authenticity and commitment. Finally, go out and speak – humbly, kindly, quietly but firmly – acknowledging what you know to be true and what you’re still learning, as well as how you and your organization are responding.

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday Quick Think newsletter. Fill out the form to get that in your inbox every week.

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.

Non-Profit Health Systems Fighting in an InHospitable Environment

Orange text that reads "The Quick Think" over a kaleidoscope-patterned background

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

The Big Story: InHospitable Documentary to Launch November 13

InHospitable, according to its website, “is a documentary feature film that exposes American hospitals’ significant role in our broken healthcare system by documenting patients and activists as they band together” to go up against a large non-profit health system. We’ve only seen the trailers, but the film appears to be a full-throated attack on non-profit health systems, featuring patients allegedly harmed by the featured organizations, activists and academics known to be critical of hospitals.

What it Means for Your Health System

We consider InHospitable the latest warning shot at how our screwed-up industry delivers and funds care, and hospitals and health systems are in the crosshairs. If you’re not ready, get ready.

We’ve known for a while the film is coming, and now we have an official date for a premiere. It may not be Michael Moore or Werner Herzog, but the film is real and the trailers include compelling imagery. In one regard it’s not that big of a deal – an indie documentary with 159 Twitter followers and not a lot of traction on Google. But health system leaders should pay close attention.

InHospitable is a recent example of emotional, sharp-tongued critiques of hospitals and health systems that have gained momentum over the last few years. Some of it well deserved, we must say.

You know the issues: The crazy and inconsistent cost of care, “profits over patients,” incomprehensible financial and billing practices, strong-arming payers, insufficient and inequitable access to care, suing poor patients for a nickel, and more. In addition, we’ve written here about the increased scrutiny by the feds of health system consolidation and the chatter of whether not-for-profit providers deserve their tax-exempt status.

By focusing its fire primarily on a single organization exhibiting bad behavior (it appears to focus on UPMC), the film will be all the more effective at elevating those questions for the broader industry.

The screening at DOC NYC is likely intended to generate enough buzz to get the film a slot on a streaming service sometime next year – when the pandemic will theoretically be behind us, and it’ll be easier to ramp up attacks on providers. Even if it isn’t a major success in itself (and, who knows, it could be), it will become part of the self-referential cannon used by hospital critics in their campaign.

So whatever your gut reaction to the film, you need to be ready to push back on the pushback. Here’s how:

Inform Your Board. They may not know any of this is coming. While providers were focused on keeping COVID-19 patients alive, the critics were honing their anti-consolidation arguments and putting the final touches on illustrations portraying hospitals as assembly (or disassembly?) lines.

Make sure your board knows about the growing storm, including the existence of this documentary and where it fits into the larger conversation. Last thing you want is for them to be caught flat-footed next summer when InHospitable appears on Netflix.

The education should include specifics about the attacks. We’re seeing more and more portrayals of healthcare providers as Big Business, with all the loaded connotations that idea carries. Big Business is predatory. Big Business cares more about profits than mission. Knowing that’s the representation should help inform the response. Equip your board with messages that explain why growth is beneficial for patients and communities and employees. It’s not enough to say, “That’s not us.” You have to say, “Here’s who we really are.”

Review Your Practices. Or, Know Thyself. Don’t sue patients. Don’t do the things that would lead an entrepreneurial filmmaker to paint you as predatory. Getting bigger doesn’t just make it easier to be accused of bad behavior; it makes it easier for things to slip through the cracks. Always make sure you’re operating in the most patient-friendly way possible.

Activate Your Board. Once they know what’s going on and everyone feels confident there aren’t any dark secrets, your board needs to get out there and engage. Healthcare board members have strong networks. Use them. Push them to reach out to the influential leaders in their orbit and humanize the organization’s work – to connect back to the mission, talk about the benefits of growth, show how they’re supporting the community and employees and either get ahead of or counter the attacks. Also, push them to connect with lawmakers and build or use the relationships necessary to ensure providers have a voice in whatever happens next. This is why you have board members. Time to get them organized.

Build Your Defenses. Now. We know InHospitable will premier in November and could easily get picked up for streaming sometime next year. It focuses on one health system but may name drop others as it looks to connect the dots to the industry at large. Whatever national context is created could lead to regional and local attention, so expect calls from the media. Look through the damaging coverage hospitals have received over the past couple of years (including 2019) and develop responses to those sorts of issues. Make sure your leadership team and board have a copy, as well. Whether or not you see any likelihood that your organization will get pulled into the conversation, prepare as if you will.

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday Quick Think newsletter. Fill out the form to get that in your inbox every week.

Tired of Being Your Hero

Orange text that reads "The Quick Think" over a kaleidoscope-patterned background

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

Healthcare workers are leaving.

They’re citing burnout, stress, safety, moral harm – and in some cases a desire for “personal freedom” over all else. They’re answering the question, “Is it worth it?” with a decisive, “No.”

Many are leaving because they cannot spend another day watching patient after patient die unnecessarily. Others have decided their career isn’t worth the vaccine. Logs on that particular fire? President Biden’s new mandate for large employers that will force even more people to make a choice. All told, the consequences for healthcare are severe – moral injury for healthcare workers, frightening staff shortages for providers and the public and long-term questions that will likely affect how all of us receive care.

Our latest Special Report homes in on the massively complex problem of clinician burnout. It’s a big read with some strong takeaways – definitely worth taking 15 minutes to digest.

Meanwhile, for a fascinating behind-the-curtain look at how doctors and nurses are expressing their burnout online, check out our Q&A below with Dean Browell. He’s a digital ethnographer and principal at Feedback, a social listening firm that digs into how what we say in the digital realm translates into how we behave in the physical world. And, he’s been tracking the issue of burnout among the healthcare workforce for years.

The Genie’s Out of the Bottle: What Clinicians Are Really Saying Online

(Five-minute read)

Jarrard Inc.: You’ve been tracking burnout in the healthcare workforce for years. Give us a bit of the back story.

Dean Browell: There’s been two different arcs with nurses and physicians, which have developed a little differently over the past 18 months.

Browell

Starting with nurses, about this time last year there was a larger burnout effect that in some ways was getting stoked by the heroes messaging that was finally starting to get a little stale. The pushback started with nurses, who are the most vocal group in healthcare, maybe even more than patients. They have their own message boards and have for years. They had some of the first Facebook groups because they all had .edu email addresses.

This time last year there was this perception that all of healthcare was being treated the same publicly, but in those groups, nurses were asking whether it really was the same to work in one organization or the other. For providers this meant that nurses considering a move represented an opportunity to attract and retain or a threat that the grass might be greener somewhere else.

Jarrard: What are the nurses expressing today?

DB: There’s more outright discussion that, “Maybe this entire industry isn’t for me.” What was first anger towards a larger or more nebulous idea – like administrators or how people are handling things on a macro level – is now towards the patient. Before, it was being angry at the virus and potentially how your hospital handled something. Today people are wondering if they can continue and serve a public that is, in their mind, willingly putting themselves at risk and creating this situation. It’s a very different burnout. And it’s a much harder equation from a retention and a recruitment standpoint for providers.

Jarrard: How are nurses talking about those concerns?

DB: In the beginning, nurses often had two distinct online personalities. There’s the online personality of “capital N” Nurse in front of everyone on Facebook versus on the American Nurses Association message board where they’re talking amongst themselves. Last year, those two faces began to collide. What we saw for the first time last fall was nurses on Facebook talking about union meetings. Typically, that would be relegated to the nurse message boards or discreet groups. We saw nurses not just take the platitudes about heroes and say, “Thank you. It’s been a lot. We have to push through this” like they did last summer. Instead, suddenly, you had them openly criticizing things they normally never would have discussed with their public-facing persona.

Jarrard: What’s the background on physicians?

DB: Usually what we saw is that physicians would pop up every now and then during a career change asking about the schools or nightlife in a particular city they were considering. “Hey, I’m thinking about moving to the city, what’s the orthopedic scene like?”

In August of last year, though, we saw physicians poking their heads up for the first time with the general public. They were offering their own statements and being a bit more forward with their own name at stake. That was different. And we saw this happening in some unusual places like threads of Reddit – that almost never happened before.

Jarrard: Same question – where are physicians today?

DB: They stepped out last August and they’ve stayed out in the public square since then. Now, like nurses, we’re seeing that they’re not just saying, “Hey, I have a stake in this, and I’m trying to help you navigate misinformation.” It’s not just a benign educational leadership approach like it would have been a year ago. Now it’s taken on an angrier or more exasperated tone that we haven’t heard out loud.

Jarrard: Nurses and doctors are coming from different professional and financial statuses. Does that affect how they’re able to respond?

DB: It manifests in the freedom to talk in a certain way. The physician discussion we’ve seen has still been very high level. “Here’s my take on what’s happening” as if they’re giving a comprehensive analysis of the moment. Contrast that with the nurse that says, “I just took my first break in eight hours.” Physicians take more of a punditry angle, whereas the nurses’ perspective is more in the moment.

Jarrard: Is this shift in tone and the level of engagement permanent or will it recede?

DB: For the most part I expect the physicians-as-pundits to eventually fade. Their level of connection online may stay, they may reappear when there’s something big they want to speak their mind about. But from a day-to-day perspective I’d expect that genie to go back into the bottle.

On the nurse side, I doubt the genie that will go back in the bottle – because of how open nurses are being today – is this idea of the two personas. There’s the happy-go-lucky, “I love that I’m in healthcare!” and “Here’s why I’m a nurse,” that is presented to family and friends, versus what they were saying in private among peers. You can’t unwind that clock now that they’ve been this exasperated publicly.

Jarrard: What does it all mean for the healthcare workforce going forward?

DB: This will have a freezing effect of some sort. It’ll be fascinating to watch enrollment in nursing programs. It was on a fast track for the last three years in order to meet the demands. We do a lot in higher education and there are some robust nursing programs having trouble meeting their enrollment numbers.

The question is turning into, “Who do you want to do this for?” And the feelings of betrayal and burnout change that conversation. I think it’ll have a freezing effect on the creation of a new nurse population.

Jarrard: We’re also seeing indications that people at the other end of their career are getting out. What does the situation you’ve described mean for them?

DB: It’s how many people leave the industry completely and how many leave the center of the industry. It’s people saying, “I’m going to find a nice, quiet CVS somewhere.” There’s this idea of decentralization of demand for healthcare services where it’s coming out of the hospitals and moving to those outer rings. It’s dangerous for hospitals because there was already attrition due to these alternative models. But now and over the next 18 months the threat is greater with people looking to leave completely or say, “How about I just not stand in the center of the storm?”

Jarrard: How can healthcare providers respond to this shift?

DB: Health systems have an opportunity to do better because of their sheer size. They can talk about what it’s like to work for the system in different roles. People will gripe about robbing Peter to pay Paul, but showcasing lateral movements that improve quality of life is one way that systems can cope.

Jarrard: What about smaller hospitals?

DB: Community hospitals will be the hardest hit because there’s almost no lateral movement available. For them, it will be about improving the situation. Maybe it’s investment in telehealth or to try and not be so ER-focused to remove some of that constant pressure. But it’s not an easy solution.

Jarrard: Last category: What’s the approach for those non-traditional or health services providers that aren’t in the center of the storm?

DB: We just finished a study for an orthopedic group that’s branching out towards a major metro area where they’ll be competing with some big systems. They’re going to have a fantastic story because they can recruit nurses who are desperate to get out of the ER by showing them what it’s like in an ortho urgent care by comparison. For these specialty practices it’s saying, “Hey, stay in nursing but come out of the storm.”

Jarrard: One of the consistent themes in our interviews is that it’s not about the money, but money is a major factor. Where does compensation come into all of this?

DB: Something that hasn’t come to healthcare is the concept of hazard pay. Of all industries you’d think it would be there for healthcare. That may start to happen, especially in systems that can only offer so much lateral movement. Maybe it comes into play between telehealth and in-person care in the ER or trauma.

Jarrard: Anything else? What are we missing?

DB: We may see an effect on M&A, too. If a system is looking at three different hospitals with similar profiles but one is an absolute powder keg in terms of its workforce, that would probably make it very easy to choose a different acquisition. It’s a different metric than most systems have looked at in the past. The focus has been on heads in beds. But looking at the distressed asset from the workforce standpoint will change the game a bit. The question will be, “What can our system sustain in terms of volatility, whether it’s attitude or behavior? Can we repair the culture or, even though it makes sense on paper, should we walk away because it will never fit?”

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.