Skip to main content
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Current News
    • Providers
    • Insurance
    • Government
    • Finance
    • Technology
    • Safety & Quality
    • Digital Health
    • Transformation
    • ESG
    • People
    • Regional News
    • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Patients
    • Operations
    • Care Delivery
    • Payment
    • Midwest
    • Northeast
    • South
    • West
  • Blogs
    • AI
    • Deals
    • Layoff Tracker
    • HIMSS 2023
  • Opinion
    • Breaking Bias
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • From the Editor
  • Events & Awards
    • Awards
    • Conferences
    • Galas
    • Virtual Briefings
    • Webinars
    • Nominate/Eligibility
    • 100 Most Influential People
    • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
    • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
    • Excellence in Governance
    • Health Care Hall of Fame
    • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
    • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
    • Top Innovators
    • Diversity in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
      • - Leaders to Watch
    • Women in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Women Leaders
      • - Women to Watch
    • Digital Health Transformation Summit
    • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
    • Leadership Symposium
    • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
    • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
    • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
    • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
    • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
    • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
    • - Hospital of the Future
    • - Value Based Care
    • - Hospital at Home
    • - Workplace of the Future
    • - AI and Digital Health
    • - Future of Staffing
    • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
  • Multimedia
    • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
    • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
    • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
    • Sponsored Video Series - Checking In with Dan Peres
  • Data & Insights
    • Data & Insights Home
    • Hospital Financials
    • Staffing & Compensation
    • Quality & Safety
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Data Archive
    • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
    • Surveys
    • Data Points
  • Newsletters
  • MORE+
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Jobs
    • People on the Move
    • Reprints & Licensing
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Providers
August 20, 2018 12:00 AM

Beth Israel Deaconess, Lahey Health executives counter their combination's cost-raising concerns

Alex Kacik
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print
    Getty Images

    Health system executives involved in the proposed Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Lahey Health System tie-up sharply criticized the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission's conclusion that the merger would raise healthcare costs, claiming that its methodology was flawed and that the deal would ultimately save money.

    Health system executives said that the marriage would level the playing field, facilitating "market-based competition to address unwarranted price variation and other market dysfunction." The systems believe the merger will yield an estimated $149 million to $270 million in annual savings five years after the merger is completed.

    The deal involves Beth Israel in Boston and Lahey in Burlington, Mass., as well as Boston's New England Baptist Hospital, Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge and Anna Jaques Hospital in Newburyport. The combined entity would have a network of 10 acute-care hospitals, the largest in the state. It would also have three affiliate hospitals in the Cambridge Health Alliance, Lawrence General Hospital and Metrowest Medical Center and more than 4,000 physicians.

    The combination would put the new system behind Partners and its nearly $14 billion in total revenue in 2017. It would ultimately lower costs, in part by luring patients from Partners, executives argued in a 64-page rebuttal to the commission's estimation that the merger would give the provider leverage to increase healthcare spending by $168.1 million to $251 million per year, which would outweigh the "efficiencies."

    The commission's projections have been wrong before, the executives said in their rebuttal. When Lahey acquired Winchester Hospital in 2014, the commission used the same "willingness-to-pay" model to predict a 4% to 5% increase in prices. But prices did not materially change.

    The Beth Israel-Lahey system would fill a void in clinical services including behavioral health treatment, and blocking the deal would reduce access, executives argued.

    "The preliminary report grossly overstated the potential impact of the merger on pricing and commercial spending in Massachusetts," according to the rebuttal.

    They systems estimate that redirecting care from higher-priced providers would net $9 million to $14 million in savings, integration would net $52 million to $87 million, cost synergies would save $42 million to $66 million and other savings would yield $46 million to $103 million.

    Specifically, more behavioral health services would cut down on emergency department use and save $23 million to $58 million a year five years after the merger, according to the rebuttal. A consolidated home health program, improving population heath initiatives and reducing unnecessary post-acute care would reduce costs by $15 million annually. Bundling pharmaceutical contracts, allowing pharmacists to work closer with high-risk patients and tweaking the formulary would net $8 million a year. Implementing a system-wide nurse triage program for primary care, reducing administrative burden and improving workforce development would save an additional $6 million a year.

    Also, the merged entity would develop a more streamlined ambulatory-care network, standardize purchasing, reduce the outsourcing of certain commercial reference laboratory testing services, and centralize claims and clinical data for population health analytics, executives contend.

    The hospital executives argue that maintaining the status quo would hurt Massachusetts residents, since the systems reported a combined operating loss of $70.8 million a year in fiscal 2017 and would likely have to pare down services.

    Merging would create a bona fide competitor to Partners and force the provider to lower its prices, a factor that the commission's willingness-to-pay model did not calculate, according to the rebuttal.

    The Massachusetts Health Policy Commission found that the Beth Israel-Lahey merger would increase its bargaining leverage with commercial payers and potentially allow it to boost prices around 5% to 10%, increasing spending by an estimated $138.3 million to $191.3 million annually for inpatient, outpatient and adult primary-care services. Specialty physician services spending could increase by an additional $29.8 million to $59.7 million. These conservative price hike estimates would still result in lower prices than Partners, the commission found.

    There is limited research proving that a second dominant provider would benefit competition, said Cory Capps, partner at consulting firm Bates White said at the commission's July 18 hearing. Also, the potential cost savings derived from the merger would not offset the potential to hike prices with increased bargaining leverage, Capps said.

    The Massachusetts Association of Health Plans and the Massachusetts attorney general agreed with the commission.

    The commission, which notably does not have veto power over the proposed merger, plans to issue a final report in September.

    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Send us a letter

    Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.

    Recommended for You
    Nursing home wheelchair
    4,000 Michigan nursing home beds at risk in proposed staffing mandate
    Walgreens main sign clinic
    Walgreens continues its big bet on healthcare, VillageMD clinics
    Most Popular
    1
    CMS tries luring providers to revamped Medicare ACOs
    2
    Oregon joins other states in setting ratios for nurse staffing
    3
    Blue Shield CA taps Amazon, Mark Cuban, CVS for new PBM model
    4
    A health innovation hub grows in Lake Nona Medical City
    5
    Hospital-at-home providers push for Medicaid coverage
    Sponsored Content
    Modern Healthcare A.M. Newsletter: Sign up to receive a comprehensive weekday morning newsletter designed for busy healthcare executives who need the latest and most important healthcare news and analysis.
    Get Newsletters

    Sign up for enewsletters and alerts to receive breaking news and in-depth coverage of healthcare events and trends, as they happen, right to your inbox.

    Subscribe Today
    MH Magazine Cover

    MH magazine offers content that sheds light on healthcare leaders’ complex choices and touch points—from strategy, governance, leadership development and finance to operations, clinical care, and marketing.

    Subscribe
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Modern Healthcare empowers industry leaders to succeed by providing unbiased reporting of the news, insights, analysis and data.

    Contact Us

    (877) 812-1581

    Email us

     

    Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Help Center
    • Advertise with Us
    • Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Editorial Dept
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Code of Ethics
    • Awards
    • About Us
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Modern Healthcare
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Current News
      • Providers
      • Insurance
      • Government
      • Finance
      • Technology
      • Safety & Quality
      • Digital Health
      • Transformation
        • Patients
        • Operations
        • Care Delivery
        • Payment
      • ESG
      • People
      • Regional News
        • Midwest
        • Northeast
        • South
        • West
      • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Blogs
      • AI
      • Deals
      • Layoff Tracker
      • HIMSS 2023
    • Opinion
      • Breaking Bias
      • Commentaries
      • Letters
      • From the Editor
    • Events & Awards
      • Awards
        • Nominate/Eligibility
        • 100 Most Influential People
        • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
        • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
        • Excellence in Governance
        • Health Care Hall of Fame
        • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
        • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
        • Top Innovators
        • Diversity in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
          • - Leaders to Watch
        • Women in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Women Leaders
          • - Women to Watch
      • Conferences
        • Digital Health Transformation Summit
        • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
        • Leadership Symposium
        • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
        • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
      • Galas
        • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
        • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
        • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
        • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
      • Virtual Briefings
        • - Hospital of the Future
        • - Value Based Care
        • - Hospital at Home
        • - Workplace of the Future
        • - AI and Digital Health
        • - Future of Staffing
        • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
      • Webinars
    • Multimedia
      • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
      • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
      • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
      • Sponsored Video Series - Checking In with Dan Peres
    • Data & Insights
      • Data & Insights Home
      • Hospital Financials
      • Staffing & Compensation
      • Quality & Safety
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Data Archive
      • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
      • Surveys
      • Data Points
    • Newsletters
    • MORE+
      • Contact Us
      • Advertise
      • Media Kit
      • Jobs
      • People on the Move
      • Reprints & Licensing