Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Breaking the rules of health care: Getting the quality of care you pay for

Hospital

Hospitals use their size and numbers to maximize profits without improving patient care, writes Pearl.

Chris Jongkind/Getty Images

Why does The Fulcrum feature regular columns on health care in America?

U.S. health care spending grew 9.7 percent in 2020, reaching $4.1 trillion — 19.7 percent of the gross domestic product. Over the long term this is clearly unsustainable. If The Fulcrum is going to fulfill our mission as a place for informed discussions on repairing our democracy, we need to foster conversations on this vital segment of the economy. Maximizing the quality and reducing the cost of American medicine not only will make people's lives better, but will also generate dollars needed to invest in education, eliminating poverty or other critical areas. This series on breaking the rules aims to achieve that goal and spotlights the essential role the government will need to play.

Pearl is a clinical professor of plastic surgery at the Stanford University School of Medicine and is on the faculty of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

As consumers, we typically assume there’s a positive correlation between price and quality. We expect the $40 toaster to have distinct advantages over the $20 model and the luxury sedan to have superior engineering compared to the midrange option.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

But when it comes to inpatient care, this assumption proves dead wrong. High-priced hospitals don’t necessarily deliver higher-quality care. That’s because of an unwritten rule that hospital administrators and their boards dutifully follow.


Hospitals maximize profits by monopolizing markets

For most of the 20th century, hospitals based their prices on the cost of providing care. When prices went up, the added revenue went to hiring more support staff, recruiting top physicians and buying new technologies. That’s why patients (and their insurance companies) didn’t mind paying more for better quality. Back then, they got what they paid for.

Toward the turn of the century, however, for-profit health insurers began exerting greater influence over the industry with a goal of earning outsized profits for shareholders. They did this, in part, by cutting hospital costs and imposing restrictions on care delivery. Hospital leaders countered, buying up competing hospitals to gain greater leverage and market control. Once communities were left with only one hospital or health system, insurers were left with no choice but to pay the asking rate.

Hospital consolidation shows no signs of slowing down

Between 2000 and 2012, nearly 900 hospital mergers and acquisitions were announced. Over the next three year, another 1,600 hospital mergers and takeovers took place. These numbers continue to grow.

The 40 largest health systems now own 2,073 hospitals, roughly one-third of all emergency and acute-care facilities in the United States. The top 10 health systems own one-sixth of all hospitals and combine for $226.7 billion in net patient revenues.

Today, inpatient care is the single largest contributor to healthcare costs in the United States, accounting for 31 percent of the total. Monopolistic hospital pricing helps explain why health care spending has increased 35-fold over the past 40 years, from $353 per person in 1970 to more than $12,531 in 2020. Yet, despite soaring costs, few Americans today get what they pay for. In fact, the U.S. ranks last among wealthy nations in practically every measure of quality and performance.

Two recent studies shed light on how hospitals — and the doctors who work there — use their size and numbers to maximize profits without improving patient care.

Quality suffers without competition

Last month, a Yale-Harvard research collaboration for the National Bureau of Economic Research found that expensive hospitals (priced 52% higher than average) reduced patient mortality by a mere 1 percent.

But researchers identified a huge difference in the death rate when they compared high-priced hospitals in competitive markets versus those in non-competitive ones.

In places where hospitals vie for patients, higher prices correlated with a 47 percent lower mortality for time-sensitive medical problems like heart attacks. In concentrated markets (with only one hospital system), higher prices had “no detectable effect on mortality.”

This finding makes sense. When patients have a choice to go elsewhere, hospitals that raise prices must improve care. To attract patients, competing hospitals use higher revenues to hire more nurses and support staff — or launch disease-management programs and other quality-improvement efforts.

By contrast, for-profit hospitals in monopolistic markets use higher revenues to cushion their bottom lines. Nonprofit monopolies in non-competitive areas are more likely to use the added dollars from higher prices to construct ornate buildings with beautiful lobbies that resemble luxury hotels.

Physicians also use market control to increase prices

Radiologists, ER doctors and others who work full time for hospitals have, themselves, figured out how to benefit from the unwritten rule of market control.

A study published in JAMA Internal Medicine examined the difference in hospital pricing when anesthesiologists join physician management companies that are backed by private equity (a growing trend in hospitals). Researchers found out that when private equity is involved, prices paid to anesthesia practitioners increased by a whopping 26 percent.

You can’t run a hospital without anesthesiologists or ER physicians. Thus, when they band together, hospitals must meet their demands. It takes clout to jack up prices without improving quality and these hospital-based doctors have plenty of it.

The added costs get passed on to purchasers and patients the following year.

How to get what we pay for

To break this harmful rule — and help patients get better care at more affordable prices — here are two practical steps governmental agencies could take.

1. Expand DOJ regulation of hospitals. When a single health system buys up all the hospitals in town, the Department of Justice has the authority to enforce anti-competition laws. The department did so successfully in 2020 when it sued Sutter Health for price gouging, leading to a $575 million antitrust settlement with the state of California. But most hospital mergers get approved with little pushback and no mandate to improve quality or make care more affordable. When hospitals merge with the intent to raise prices, the DOJ must step up enforcement and start reversing the status quo.

2. Create a hospital quality scorecard. For years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have collected some hospital data (called Quality Measures) for the sake of determining hospital payments. In simplest terms, financial penalties are imposed when patients suffer a medical error or are discharged prematurely. But this information is far from comprehensive. A better CMS solution would require hospitals and electronic health record companies to open their application programming interfaces so that artificial intelligence software could conduct a much deeper analysis of patient health records. CMS could then publish a definitive hospital “quality scorecard” that would allow patients and commercial insurers to compare hospital prices with quality outcomes and patient safety records.

Of course, hospitals have clout with elected officials, and they will vigorously oppose these measures. But, as a voter, you can play your part. First, check out this spreadsheet from Yale University’s Tobin Center for Economic Policy. Its author, Yale economist Zach Cooper, explains how to know if you’re in a consolidated hospital market: “You should be concerned about hospitals with a Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI) of greater than 4,000.”

Second, if you want higher quality medical care, ask your state representative and senator whether they support the two action steps outlined in this article. Then remember their answers when you head to the voting booth this fall.

Read More

Houses with price tags
retrorocket/Getty Images

Are housing costs driving inflation in 2024?

This fact brief was originally published by EconoFact. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Are housing costs driving inflation in 2024?

Yes.

The rise in housing costs has been a major source of overall inflation, which was 2.9% in the 12 months ending in July 2024.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' shelter index, which includes housing costs for renters and homeowners, rose 5.1% in the 12 months ending in July 2024.

Keep ReadingShow less
I Voted stickers
BackyardProduction/Getty Images

Voters cast ballots based on personal perceptions, not policy stances

The Fulcrum and the data analytics firm Fidelum Partners have just completed a nationally representative study assessing the voting intentions of U.S adults and their perceptions toward 18 well-known celebrities and politicians.

Fidelum conducted similar celebrity and politician election studies just prior to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. Each of these found that perceptions of warmth, competence and admiration regarding the candidates are highly predictive of voting intentions and election outcomes. Given this, The Fulcrum and Fidelum decided to partner on a 2024 celebrity and politician election study to build upon the findings of prior research.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand waving an American flag

"Freedom, a word that should inspire, has been distorted to justify the unchecked pursuit of individual interests at the expense of collective well-being," writes Johnson.

nicoletaionescu/Getty Images

Redefining America's political lingua franca

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

A seismic shift has occurred in America's race, identity and power discourse. Like tectonic plates beneath the Earth's surface, long-held assumptions are adjusting and giving way to a reimagined lingua franca for civic engagement. This revived language of liberation redefines the terms of debate. It empowers us to reclaim and reinvigorate words once weaponized principally against marginalized communities.

Keep ReadingShow less
Latino attendees of the Democratic National Convention

People cheer for the Harris-Walz ticket at the Democratic National Convention.

Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Harris’ nomination ‘hit a reset button’ for Latinas supporting Democrats

As the presidential race entered the summer months, President Joe Biden’s level of support among Latinx voters couldn’t match the winning coalition he had built in 2020. Among Latinas, a critical group of voters who tend to back Democrats at higher levels than Latinos, lagging support had begun to worry Stephanie Valencia, who studies voting patterns among Latinx voters across the country for Equis Research, a data analytics and research firm.

Then the big shake-up happened: Biden stepped down and Vice President Kamala Harris took his place at the top of the Democratic ticket fewer than 100 days before the election.

Valencia’s team quickly jumped to action. The goal was to figure out how the move was sitting with Latinx voters in battleground states that will play an outsized role in deciding the election. After surveying more than 2,000 Latinx voters in late July and early August, Equis found a significant jump in support for the Democratic ticket, a shift that the team is referring to as “the Latino Reset.”

Keep ReadingShow less