Friday Feature: SNFs Still Make Sense
For some recent years, enhanced by the pandemic, the role of SNFs in the post-acute/senior living industry has tarnished. Residents and families often view the SNF as a “negative place” to reside, even if for short-term recuperation. Clinical staff take a dim view of the care complexity such that the SNF is a downgraded clinical setting, less than a hospital or outpatient setting. Providers, struggling with reimbursement inadequacy and advancing regulation, have reduced beds or closed locations. Some organizations like CCRCs, have minimized bed capacity or completely eliminated the SNF and moved to advanced Assisted Living care as the highest available care option for residents. Yet, in spite of these trends and the tarnish, SNFs have a place in the continuum and in some regards, and advancing place.
What challenges the SNF industry and thus, its reputation, are more external forces than flaws in the core purpose of an SNF. External forces such as onerous and increasing regulation, below cost reimbursement, and labor shortages are the most common forces providers deal with. Gone are the days where nursing homes were locations of long-term stays, typified by years of residency. Where and when this still occurs is for residents with early-age disabilities, or for residents that have minimal financial means such that Medicaid nursing home benefits are the primary level of support for care. With Medicaid supports via waiver programs expanding, long-term skilled nursing care includes primarily the most complicated residents, those with multiple conditions requiring skilled nursing interventions weekly or even, daily. Examples include ventilator care, dialysis, tube feedings, ostomy care, etc. While these services can be provided in the home or a non-SNF setting, location challenges often make an inpatient environment (SNF), the best place for consistent care when required.
The demographics forward, favor a post-acute, SNF setting. Despite the push for post-acute care to migrate to home settings with home health the reality remains, this is not the answer for every patient. The older the patient, the number of comorbidities involved, the nature of the comorbidities, the presence of an aging spouse with health challenges, etc. all are a predicate to whether or not, home care via home health is viable. Today, even access to home health can be challenging if not, impossible. The staffing challenges all health care providers face are particularly daunting for home health agencies where, acceptance of cases, especially complex cases, comes down to having available staff to meet patient needs. As home health care by its nature is inefficient, facility-based care can be more feasible when complexity of the case is at issue and the availability of staff is challenged. In other words, staffing one location that can accommodate say 60 residents, is easier than staffing a caseload of 60 separated by travel with distances expressed in miles.
The SNF industry and the facilities within tend to be some of the oldest classes of assets in the senior living industry. The cost of new construction is high and without access to a very high-quality payer mix, the returns are challenging. For providers than can maintain solid occupancy and high-quality payer mixes (Medicare, insurance, private pay), the returns are solid and the access to capital is there. Medicare Advantage plans are starting to create solid value-based care propositions for good providers with exceptional quality records AND great care coordination partners. For example, an SNF that has a relationship with a Home Health Agency, either owned or in partnership, has the ability to package price disease management approaches by common clinical conditions that include SNF care and HHA care, all bundled, and care coordinated. If the pricing is mapped with overall savings, reductions in re-hospitalizations, improved patient outcomes and satisfaction, the opportunities going forward are significant. I have a number of pathways/algorithms that fit this example. A few can be downloaded here.
What headwinds lie ahead fall mostly around staffing, regulation, and reimbursement. Oddly enough, the failures that will inevitably occur necessitating closures and bed reductions, will make good SNFs stronger going forward. The demand by demographics and patient needs is only increasing. There will be a significant role for SNFs to play in meeting the market needs. The questions that beg are around reimbursement keeping up with increasing costs and how disconnected will new staffing regulations be to the reality of the labor markets. As I have said in other posts, mandates make no sense when in all reality, the mandate cannot be met now, or anytime in the near future.
Bottom-line: Banks are still willing to lend to good providers. REIT capital is available as is private equity for facility improvements and modifications. Demand is decent and recovering. There is a lot of pent-up demand as well, post-COVID. Valuations have remained stable for SNFs as well. Plenty of partners exist, more so than other senior living segments (hospitals, Med Advantage plans, health systems, Home Health Agencies, etc.).
Litigation risk is still an issue but a recent court case in Washington involving Life Care Centers of America concerning COVID and the liability for infections obtained in an SNF was found favorably for Life Care Centers. One case, however, is not a trend but it is a good sign that perhaps, the SNF industry will not be overwhelmed by COVID litigation pertaining to outbreaks and occurrences in facilities. A synopsis of the case is available here: https://www.mcknights.com/news/life-care-centers-vindicated-in-early-covid-wrongful-death-case/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NWLTR_MLT_DAILYUPDATE_052323&hmEmail=IjP1GPaY%2BJ2uvsLxTJ79bVeRWY7ycbnr&sha256email=aa4cb7c695037c31a216b9562788596b6fcd012145d566f31440b6fcd139c8a9&elqTrackId=2c80aade4c3647c8ab5b85f72fb85138&elq=8a824ff9b15249a9bf296d2d2c1be9e8&elqaid=4134&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=2746
Well-run, well-capitalized SNFs with more modern physical plants have a solid opportunity in the evolving post-acute industry. Challenges exist but opportunities do as well and, in my opinion, the opportunities outweigh the challenges for operators that understand value-based care models, are willing to develop partnerships, can maintain staff, and have great quality and service records.
Senior Housing and the Real Estate Market – Status
While we are seeing incremental occupancy gains in senior housing, the increases are slow but steady. Is there a leveling-off point upcoming? Perhaps. Regardless, even with the recent history of gains, there is a reason to be a bit skeptical for some product types to continue to improve. My skepticism rests at the Independent Living product level, specifically on above-market rate units and entry fee units. The reasons are the real estate market and the economy.
IL housing and CCRC IL units are interconnected with the residential real estate market. Though demand for these product types has proven durable, the demand is highly price elastic. In other words, as these product types tend to be rather pricy, higher than comparable living conditions, economic forces that constrain value (either real estate or estate), shift demand away from higher priced product offerings. Today, the real estate market with its conditions somewhat similar to 2008-2010, is creating a negative drag for senior housing demand, specifically, entry-fee units and high-end above market rate IL units.
Per NIC (National lnvestment Center), while occupancy levels for IL improved in April 2023, the same remain 4.4% below pre-pandemic levels for the same period (March 2020). In the major metro areas that NIC tracks data, only 4 markets out of 31 have moved back or above, pre-pandemic levels (e.g., San Antonio and Pittsburg). Interesting to note however, is that the recovered levels still reflect occupancy averages below 90%.
Demographic trends for senior housing remain solid and new inventory is almost non-existent due to high development costs (interest rates and construction supply and labor costs). These forecast opportunity for occupancy improvement BUT, residential real estate conditions (current) create a significant drag. Higher interest rates (decade plus high) and tighter lending conditions plus a Fed Reserve that is not consuming mortgages today, suppresses buyers. While home values expressed as prices are stable to slightly increasing, the liquidity conditions necessary for homes to be fluidly sold (ready credit, favorable lending conditions), are not favorable today.
Below are some of the current non-favorable residential real estate conditions that are dragging home sales and thus, keeping seniors tight to their residence (and out of a CCRC/IL move queue).
- Supply of homes for sale overall is low, much due to existing residences with low interest rate mortgages (below 4%). These low rates make it exceptionally difficult for the current owner to sell and buy a new home with an equal cost-factor (same mortgage level).
- Zilllow is forecasting home prices to increase modestly over the next two to three years: 3% range with a peak or event slight fallback, possible. The cause is rising interest rates, credit tightening and an increase in housing supply but primarily, rental supply.
- The Case-Shiller/S&P Index for home values/prices illustrates a significant slow-down in home values. As long as mortgage rates remain high, combined with tightened bank credit policies, home values increases will be slower than 2019 to 2020.
- Mortage rate forecast track close to inflation expectations. Most economists believe inflation will remain higher than pre-pandemic levels for at least the next twelve months. While a recession will likely cause Federal Reserve rate reductions, the depth and strength of a full-blow economic slowdown will also, hurt home sales. Recessions typically come with job losses and job losses/higher unemployment drive buyers away from residential home purchases, pushing more people into rental real estate options.
Another overall set of numbers I am watching in conjunction with CCRC/IL demand tie to returns on investment assets or asset classes. CCRC movement in terms of new entrants is yes, impacted by the liquidity of residential real estate but similarly, by the overall condition of the economy. Social Security increases boosted incomes but, the reduction in overall estate values tied to other asset classes, puts a damper on the estate values of seniors. Reductions in investments and estate values, even if real estate prices remain solid, create a general sentiment of negativity such tha timing of making a major CCRC entry fee investment is viewed less favorably. Higher-end IL options are living choices not typically, living requirements. Sentiment, feelings about where the economy is at and where the health of an estate is at, propel or drag, investment and moving decisions. Today the sentiment is “drag”. Below is a graph illustrating inflation, the home value index (Case Shiller) and the Bank of America/U.S. Corp. Total Investment Return index tracked by the Federal Reserve. The blue line is CPI, the red line is the Case Shiller Index, and the green line is the Total Return Index.
While the Case Shiller trend has been modestly up and then steady to slightly down, the investment/total return index has been on a down trend for nearly three years – since September of 2020. Until this index comes closer to the inflation index which, will only really occur as inflation moves down, consumer sentiment about the economy will remain soft. This soft sentiment for senior adults with few years of life left for recovery, creates the pessimism around moving and investing in a higher cost, higher end lifestyle in CCRCs or high-end rental projects.
My outlook is for a softer demand cycle as long as economic conditions for investments and residential real estate remain proximal to their current position. Seniors will have less opportunity to liquidate a primary residence and while those that do will receive decent prices, their overall estate values in terms of real estate and savings, will have shrunk in real purchasing power. Inflation reduces wealth and purchasing power. The cures unfortunately, are a bit brutal and tend to impact middle class seniors the most, especially those in the prime age demographic for CCRCs and IL housing. Operators are going to have to continue to market and be creative and likely continue to use incentives, to gain incremental occuppancy.
Friday Feature: 5 Important Leadership Principles
Every successful organization shares a common trait – good or great leadership. I’ve written numerous articles on this topic and how the same is connected to employee retention, market share increase, brand dominance, and organizational wealth (balance sheet and cash flow). Fundamentally, organizations flourish under good leaders and flounder when leadership is poor or not present.
I’ve worked with many, many organizations in turn-around situations whereby, prior executives failed to provide solid leadership and operational performance demonstrated that lack of proper leadership. In senior living, the common signs of poor leadership include staff morale, too many unidentified supervisory or management positions generating bureaucracy but not results, weak financial structure expressed via marginal cashflows, census challenges, rate imbalances, no growth plan, marginal quality and service, etc. The structural imbalances are evident even if the basics get done.
There are only three business strategies: grow, milk, or sell. Selling occurs when a business decides that it either cannot exist on its own or it’s time to return capital to its investors. Milking often occurs before selling if the business has been successful. Milking entails skimming profits and cash, generally prior to selling. For non-profits, milking and selling are pretty much, moot strategies. Frankly, most businesses choose to adopt a growth strategy. Growth however, requires good, solid leadership and governance. Without these elements, a strategy for growth may be discussed or even outlined but implementation will not occur successfully.
I am a fan of Peter Drucker and Steve Jobs in terms of how leadership and growth are operationalized. From both, I’ve developed and maintained a set of leadership principles that tested, over time, work and facilitate growth and business success. Below are the first five principles.
- Remember Occam’s Razor/KISS: Leaders should keep things as simple as possible and focus on relentless incrementalism. Growth comes via a learned set of behaviors that if properly simplified, and rewarded, become habits. Likewise, it easier for the operational leaders to put into place, simple goals and objectives that forward the growth strategy. I’ve watched so many strategic elements fail not due to a bad concept but due to too much complexity. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time!
- Measure what Matters: This ties to one above but it is a bit more nuanced. Organizations talk about KPIs, etc. and throw out reams of data, often meaningless to growth. I like a simple set of core metrics. For example, care breaks down to only so many things that matter to the patient and the organization. Outcomes are key. Financials are relevant only such that the same paint the desired picture. I like a focus on cash, especially in relationship to the expenses. This is often called, ROI.
- Play a Long Game: Leaders should focus on a long view, one that embraces an ongoing picture of what growth and success looks like. Short views frustrate management and staff. The short stuff is about progress toward a longer, bigger picture. Paint this picture, evangelize it, reward it and growth will occur.
- Create Succes via Humanness: In service organizations like healthcare, people are the capital. They are the most precious commodity and a renewable resource. Leaders build teams like coaches. Treating people with respect, caring about them and for them, affords them the comfort and willingness to do great things. I like what Steve Jobs said about doing great things in business: “Great things in business are never done by one person; they’re done by a team of people.”
- Create Constant Forward Momentum: Leaders are and always should be, ahead of any point in time. They sell and exhibit a forward vision and work constantly, to keep momentum going forward (e.g., growth). A good leader looks to simplify, keep obstacles to progress minimalized, rewards activity and growth, recognizes performance, and when necessary, eliminates people that are barriers to the team and its accomplishments.
TGIF!. I’ll have more on leadership in future posts!
Insight: CEO Turnover
During the pandemic and continuing somewhat through current, healthcare turnover has been on the rise. Nursing turnover (from direct care) and retirements exploded by mid-pandemic. Burnout was high as was job dissatisfaction. What became evident is the linkage between staff turnover and staffing difficulties along with COVID policy, and CEO turnover. While 2021 turnover was proximal to prior year norms, 2022 is showing an increase as the pandemic wanes but other headwinds increase.
According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas (executive outplacement firm), there were 62 hospital CEOs that called it quits in the first half of 2022 versus 42 in 2021. The impact is actually a bit more pronounced as the overall number of CEO positions has declined due to consolidations and closures. This same source indicates that the primary causes of turnover are COVID burnout, rising capital costs, capital access constraints, and staffing. Financial pressures due to these factors, evidenced by multi-billion-dollar losses at even the largest systems (Ascension $4.7 billion, CommonSpirit $3.7 billion) further contribute to turnover.
Senior Living/Post-Acute care is walking an almost parallel line in terms of turnover at the CEO level. Longer term, large provider executives are at retirement ages. The industry has not generated younger executive leadership in proportion to the positions that are turning. Talking with some of the larger recruiting firms specializing in Senior Living (e.g., Witt/Kiefer), even prominent positions at large non-profit organizations are struggling to source qualified candidates. The experience levels across the expanding system offerings (e.g., hospice, home health, post-acute services) aren’t universally held in various areas. Demand is high but quality candidate numbers are lower than say, 10 years ago. Further, market challenges in some areas such as high litigation, (low) available staff numbers, and changing demographics (think Chicago, Detroit, Portland) place boundaries on candidate opportunities. Simply put, many candidates have no desire to relocate to challenged locations.
Looking at key position availability by title, LinkedIn shows over 6,000 executive director/C-level openings in senior living. By comparison, LinkedIn shows hospital C-level openings at 738. The average tenure today for any healthcare CEO is a smidge over 5 years. Twenty years prior, the average tenure was between 10 and 15 years. Below are some interesting CEO turnover data points from Becker’s Hospital Review.
The average hospital CEO tenure is under 3.5 years.
• Fifty-six percent of CEO turnovers are involuntary.
• When a new CEO is hired, almost half of CFOs, COOs and CIOs are fired within nine months.
• Within two months of a new CEO appointment, 87 percent of CMOs are replaced.
• Ninety-four percent of new CEOs without healthcare sector experience believe extensive healthcare knowledge is not necessary to replace senior management positions.
• Eighty-nine percent of people involved in the hiring process believe a broad area of business expertise is beneficial in a hospital CEO position.
• Most new hospital CEO candidates come from a venture capital/private equity industry background (42 percent,) followed by finance and accounting (40 percent,) banking (32 percent) and marketing and sales (19 percent.)
An element not often factored into CEO turnover is the ripple effect. According to the American College of Healthcare Executives, the departure of the CEO is followed by departures of 77% of Chief Medical Officers and 52% of Chief Operating Officers. I have seen wholesale executive staff departures (CFO, COO, CPO/HR, etc.) in less than six months post the departure of a popular/effective CEO. In rural settings, the loss of a healthcare CEO can be even more painful as the executive role within the community in terms of service on various boards and civic organizations is lost with the vacation.
Addressing CEO turnover today is a function of understanding the key contributing factors. Below is a solid list that I have compiled over the past three or so decades of my work in the industry.
- Difficult relationships between the CEO and the Board
- The regulatory and reimbursement environment is becoming more challenging
- Profit motives out rank care strategies and growth
- Cultural misalignment
- Geography/location
- Challenges with helping board members understand their roles (often, board members are appointed/recruited from within, without proper training and onboarding)
- Capital access challenges
- Staffing challenges/building and maintaining a core team
- Compensation and benefits (an inability to maintain competitive compensation)
Given the above, and the fact that the majority of turnover is non-voluntary today, the industry volatility creates planning challenges. With average tenure at right around 5 years, constant and consistent succession planning for the healthcare organization is required. I’d argue, given the overall lack of qualified candidates that can be source externally, an internal leadership development process is preferable. What I have seen is that internal candidates tend to create less ripple turnover and have an advantage such that they know the culture and organizational capacity. The downside, however, is that internal candidates can have too many organizational biases and bred relationships such that creating change and new strategies that challenge the status quo (we’ve always done it this way), becomes difficult if not, improbable.
Senior Housing/Senior Living Debt Review
Senior housing in the form of CCRCs, Independent Living and Assisted Living (including memory care) is a large user of debt financing. While equity has become more prevalent via increasing private equity interests in senior living, operators, especially non-profits, continue to rely heavily on bank and bond financing. Private equity and venture capital investment trends tend to curve toward newer projects, acquisitions, healthcare offerings on the post-acute side (home health for example) and other ancillary businesses (SNFists/intensivist physician practices, pharmacy, therapy). Given the current economic conditions and banking environment, now is a good time to take a look at where the senior housing/senior living industry is from a financing perspective.
Perhaps the largest current concern focuses on existing debt that comes due in 2023 and 2024. The industry will see billions of bank and bond debt that matures or has variable rate features that will reprice across the next twelve to eighteen months. Two challenges thus exist. First, the cost of capital, expressed as interest rates, is higher now than it has been for the last fifteen years. While the rate environment (expressed as climbing or falling) seems to tack to a stable point, inflation has yet to fall to Fed target levels. As long as inflation remains high, the risk of the Fed continuing to raise rates remains. Effectively, expiring debt that requires refinancing will cost more going forward. Debt that is variable and repricing will cost more. Depending on the rate increase level, providers may face significant margin erosion and/or operational drag as debt service costs increase. A chart of the last twenty years is below. More analysis is also available here: <a href=’https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart’>Federal Funds Rate – 62 Year Historical Chart</a>
The second challenge is capital access. While rate is a concern, accessing capital is also a concern as lending conditions have tightened due to bank capital structural changes and generalized commercial credit concerns – real estate in particular. Valuation challenges also come into play such that operators/owners may find the overall value of their projects has changed, negatively so. Credit access is not only a function of real property collateral (value) but also, the strength of operations to meet debt service requirements. With occupancy challenges remaining, though improvement is occurring, and costs rising faster than revenues in many organizations (labor, energy, supply), credit profiles for providers (owners) have changed – negatively. In short, the spigot of available capital is less open now than it was, pre-pandemic.
The pandemic slowed the pace of property improvement and to a certain extent, the deferred maintenance “bill” for needed improvement is now coming due. Per NIC (National Investment Conference), across 31 markets that they track for senior housing data, two-thirds of the communities in these markets are old and in need of improvement – redevelopment or major upgrade. This of course, begets a need for capital and today, the capital availability is not as prevalent as five years ago and the cost of the capital, three to five times more expensive.
When improvement is required, capital access and cost are relevant but so is the cost of the improvement. The industry is seeing a bit of a perfect storm (currently) as capital is more expensive and construction costs are as well. In this scenario. project feasibility and payback conditions become stressed. Infrastructure improvements or community updates and refreshment may be required just to retain occupancy or to manage market share BUT the same may beget no new revenue or minimal revenue increase opportunities, not proportional to the investment. For many of these older communities, market location and property composition are such that significant increased revenue opportunity is unlikely. Given this prospect, the alternative to improvement via financing may be for some, merger or affiliation. See my post on this topic here: https://wp.me/ptUlY-tH
Bank debt/lending continues to be the primary source for capital but recent banking failures have tightened lending activity. We saw a bit of improvement via mini-perm lending at FYE 2022 but even there, overall loan volumes remained down compared to pre-pandemic levels. Balances did stay near all-time highs for housing but nursing care balances reduced. Construction lending remained soft and I suspect, it will continue this trend for the balance of 2023 and into 2024. Nursing care construction lending remained suppressed and senior housing construction lending sat at a quarter of 2016 levels. A good overview from NIC is here: NIC_Lender_Survey_Report_4Q_2022_FINAL
What I’ll be watching are default levels and loan volume (new levels). If we see a condition of softening rates later this year, volumes will lag but loans in-queue will tick-up. There is definitely some pent-up demand for capital and any condition or combination, of softer rates and lower construction costs due to a recession or slower overall commercial activity will ignite senior housing capital access demand. I’ll also pay close attention going forward, to default or pre-default conditions that motivate additional acquisition and affiliation deals. Softer valuation levels are good for buyers that have existing capital capacity or in some cases, equity raised capital, ready for investment. The key is patience and market conditions that produce deals that have inherent, accretive value prospects.
Friday Feature: Three Trends to Watch
TGIF! This Friday, I’m focusing on three trends that I think, will have a major impact on healthcare and senior living for the balance of the year and likely, at least the first half of 2024. These trends are in no particular order.
Banking and Credit Struggles: This past week, the Federal Reserve provided some not too encouraging data and outlook on the banking sector via their regular Fed Survey. According to the quarterly Senior Loan Officer Survey, the number of banks increasing loan terms of industrial and commercial loans rose from 44.8% to 46% at the end of 2022. No doubt, this percentage is higher (still) for the first quarter of 2023. Among the conditions driving this tightening are lessening liquidity (deposit level shrinkage), credit quality deterioration (poor performance on loans issued/held), and significant reductions in borrower collateral positions. Loan demand, principally due to higher interest rates, is also significantly trending down for 2023.
Credit tightening and fallow credit demand are typically, signs of weakening economy and a possible recession. The challenge for senior housing and healthcare is that these industries tend to be almost recession proof and always, in need of credit for primarily, plant, property and equipment investment. The senior housing sector is a large consumer of credit for ongoing improvements and for expansion or merger/acquisitions. Likewise, the sector is vulnerable somewhat to rising interest rates as a significant amount of current debt is variable vs. fixed. Quick rate increases place loan covenants at-risk for default.
While I see an end to Fed rate hikes, I don’t see an end to inflation in the near term. With recent CPI (Core inflation too) running around 5% and the Fed funds rate, at 5% to 5.25%, we may see a “hold” period while the Fed waits for the lag effects to further diminish inflation. What is for certain, the current economic conditions will be significantly impactful for the healthcare/senior housing industries for the balance of 2023.
Employment/Labor: For all of healthcare, this is a major concern as demand exceeds supply in nearly all categories of employment and most acutely, for bedside/direct patient care staff. A possible recession and other industry slowdown will benefit healthcare and senior living via increased numbers of non-clinical staff needing work, but that same effect won’t move the supply “needle” on clinicians, especially nursing.
The trend here that I am watching is a bit nuanced. I’m watching the regulatory responses around staffing mandates, particularly in senior living/skilled nursing. The Biden administration has said, along with the 2024 SNF PPS rule that a staffing standard is forthcoming. We have yet to see it but states, such as Connecticut are somewhat ahead of the Feds. But, as of late, reality is beginning to settle-in; namely, the funding cost reality. Connecticut posed a per day increase in hours per patient from 3 to 4.1, along with ratios for certain positions. Both long-term care associations lobbied against the bill stating that while desirable for the industry to accomplish these levels, the reality is that supply won’t allow it. The state Office of Fiscal Analysis said the bill would require an increase in Medicaid spending by $26.6 million in 2025 and $15.5 million in 2026 and 2027.
Pennsylvania ticked-up staffing levels from 2.7 hours per day to 2.87, starting July 1. In July of 2024, the hours per day requirement jumps to 3.2 hours (direct care) per patient. Even though Pennsylvania increased its Medicaid reimbursement by 17.5% in 2017, funding woes for providers still persist. The genesis of the staffing level mandate is a report completed by the Pennsylvania State Government Commission. It noted that working conditions, training and career development were sorely needed to combat negatives about work in long-term care. The report further noted that long-term care spending needed an annual investment of $99.9 million to cover the cost of services which, translates to $12.50 per patient day increase or a Medicaid reimbursement rate of $263.05.
Finally, within the employment/labor trend, I’m watching legislative activity around staffing agencies and specifically, a move to cap the mark-ups that agencies can charge providers. Pennsylvania, in its report (noted) above, noted the rapid increase in agency costs to providers resulting from the pandemic and yet, the limited impact the fee increases matriculated to staff in the form of wages. A recently passed Indiana law includes a provision limiting “predatory practices” by agencies, specifically, price gouing. Minnesota is also working on legislation to increase funding and to in some ways, attempt to address staffing inadequacies.
Patient Transitions/Care Transitions: I’m continuing to watch the post-acute flow dynamics or the admission/transition referrals from hospitals to post-acute providers. My specific focus is on home health which seems to be struggling the most to sustain a referral dynamic that has home care preference but can’t be accommodated by home health agencies. The benefactor of this referral trend is the SNF industry. In a report from Trella Health for 3rd quarter 2022, the SNF industry saw a referral increase of 5.8% (YOY) and the home health industry saw a 8.6% decrease. Hospice referrals remained essentially unchanged. The data is for Medicare Fee-for-Service patients (traditional Medicare), excluding Medicare Advantage referrals. With the growth of Medicare Advantage, I expect to see a continued preference toward home/community discharges yet, staffing levels will dictate how this preference is realized. While home health has a distinct advantage in cost and desire by the patient typically, the setting has challenges to accommodate volume. Productivity levels are currently near the max for many agencies and thus, referral denials are at record levels.
Happy Mother’s Day to all moms and expecting moms, everywhere!
Senior Housing/Post-Acute Insurance Update
With so much going on in the industry post-COVID, challenging labor markets, rising interest rate costs, high inflation, and supply chain issues still somewhat bothersome, insurers are rightfully skittish about senior housing and the post-acute environment. Of course, good provides with solid track records, high quality records, low to no recent claims, and evidence of financial stability will achieve continued coverage, at the best rates. This said, rates are trending up and even the best providers will experience the industry drag effects that afflict all, some more and some less.
As I’ve written before, litigation is still a big issue and growing. Drivers include staffing shortages, COVID policies that caused isolation and physical/social decline, state laws without liability caps, and a generalized negative view of certain provider segments (e.g., SNFs). Three recent posts address some of these issues: https://wp.me/ptUlY-sg , https://wp.me/ptUlY-sp , https://wp.me/ptUlY-sC .
One developing trend has major forward ramification for liability coverage and worker’s compensation coverage – COVID litigation. A California Supreme Court case argued this week centers on “COVID take-home liability”. Formally, the case is Kuciemba, et.al., v. Victory Woodworks. It centers on the question of whether a spouse that is thought to have acquired COVID at work and subsequently, infected a family member at home, can sue his/her employer. The essential point is whether an employer (under California law) has the duty to exercise extraordinary care to prevent the spread of COVID. If the petitioner succeeds, the door is wide-open for extensive litigation, especially for SNFs, hospitals, and other healthcare settings where COVID outbreaks were prevalent, and staff infections, equally prevalent. The issue will no doubt hinge on the ability to prevent the spread of highly contagious, aerosolized viruses and the ability to detect where and when, the infection occurred. Studies of contact tracing during COVID illustrate the difficulty of identifying sources of COVID. More on this case is here: https://www.mcknights.com/news/employer-protections-in-spotlight-as-court-considers-take-home-covid-liability/
We are currently seeing a widening bifurcation of the industry segments between good performers and facilities/organizations that are more challenged. We are also seeing insurers becoming a bit more leery of location risks within states with litigious history and limited tort reform laws (e.g., California, New Jersey, New York). Greater focus is being placed on risk mitigation programs and compliance programs, so much so that providers without these programs are finding themselves in difficult positions when it comes to renewals (pricing and competition). The big watch of course is as identified in the prior paragraph, COVID litigation and litigation in general.
Below is the generalized trends for renewals, in the senior housing/post-acute industries. The data comes from WTW – Williams Tower Watson.
- General and Professional Liability: Flat to 15% for providers with good history/performance. Higher for poor performers and/or poor venues/locations.
- Property Insurance with high, stable census: Plus 10% to 20%.
- Property with challenged occupancy: Plus 25% to 40%.
- Worker’s Comp: Minus 5% to plus 2%.
- Auto: Plus 5% to 10%.
The challenges on the property side are driven by a number of factors. Recent hurricane losses and winter storm losses hit providers hard though, the driver is more about restoration costs and valuation difference than the actual loss numbers. Loss numbers are on a bit of an upward cycle but the economic conditions of tight supply chains (replacement building supplies), labor cost and shortages in construction trades, and the cost of money/capital are the primary contributing cost drivers. Insurers are wary that valuations are perhaps, significantly understated today and as such, policies are being written with higher retention levels and reduced overall limits to mitigate, valuation (understatement) risks.
Looking forward, I believe more of the same increase trend is on the horizon. It appears that we will begin to see some softer property renewals going forward as valuation risks abate and repair/replacement costs ameliorate. If a recession occurs in the latter half of the year and into 2024, supply costs will reduce even greater and labor costs, the same. The bigger horizon risk remains on the liability side and perhaps worker’s compensation due to COVID litigation. What happens in California will no doubt, have an impact nationwide. Some states and locales are reasonably well positioned with tort reforms in-place while others, are not, To date, absence precedent, COVID related litigation in the future, is unknown and unknowable.
Friday Feature: REIT Update
Like all healthcare/senior housing investments during the pandemic, REITs experienced turbulence and stagnant growth. Coming out of the pandemic, the outlook has started to brighten but, challenges remain in adjusting REIT portfolios. The adjustments are fundamentally, selling under-performing assets within their portfolios.
Rebounds in occupancy are providing some bright spots though assets within, remain a bit murky for most senior housing dominant REITs. Nursing home concentrations continue to lag in terms of recovery as average plant age remains “old”, occupancies are depressed (80% ish), operating costs have increased faster than revenues, and liability headwinds are increasing. Yet, some of the larger REITs are seeing their Senior Housing Operating Portfolios more favorably these days post Covid, primarily as product demand remains strong (demographics) and supply in relation, is rather flat to somewhat down (no real building going on). The strongest performance elements remain housing vs. health care or Independent, Assisted and Memory Care versus skilled nursing.
Dissecting where REITs are at, I took and in-depth look at two of the largest with extensive senior housing portfolios – Welltower and Ventas. Each has a different operating approach with Ventas, strictly providing investment and business guidance and infrastructure services and Welltower, actually providing direct management (though not for every asset). In late 2022, Welltower received permission from the IRS to direct manage 45,000 Independent Living units within its portfolio. Below is a summary of where each REIT is at and what they see as an outlook for the remainder of 2023 and early 2024.
Welltower: First quarter results were better than expected with year-over-year same shop net income growth of 11% advanced by net operating income growth within the senior living portfolio of 23.4%. The drivers were year-over-year occupancy and revenue growth per occupied room of 6.8%
From an investment perspective, Welltower did $785 million gross of investment activity comprised of $529 million in acquisitions and funded loans alongside $287 million in development funding. Within this development number were four projects at $57 million. There was $92 million of property dispositions and loan payoffs.
Welltower continues to rebalance its senior housing property portfolio, reducing SNF holdings and concomitant risk concentration. As part of this plan, Welltower continued to transition and sell its Pro Medica operated facilities (147 SNFs) to Integra Health Properties. In January, Welltower sold to Promedica, a 15% interest in 31 SNFs for $74 million. This represents the second piece of a Welltower/Integra 85/15 joint venture. The remaining components will finalize in 2023.
Going forward, Welltower is expecting continued occupancy improvement to drive same shop operating revenue gains of 9.5%. Improving labor outlook in terms of hiring and retention is also adding positivity to improved performance outlooks. Year-over-year occupancy gains are projected at 230 basis points. From their investment presentation: Positive revenue and expense trends are expected to drive YoY SS SHO Portfolio NOI growth of 17% – 24%.
As the senior housing industry has headwinds, Welltower will no doubt experience some. The question is, how much and when. Higher interest rates and a stronger dollar will affect dividends. The same, could create a recession and thus, drag some occupancy rate projections downward. A recessionary job market, however, could add incremental labor gains at softer prices (wages).
Ventas: Ventas first quarter earnings report is set for release on Monday, close of market. We can, however, see a similar recovery trend for Ventas as with Welltower, improving occupancy, more stable expenses, and increasing same shop revenues via improved pricing and occupancy. Fourth quarter 2022 saw an overall portfolio occupancy improvement to 82.5% and a Net Operating Income for the portfolio of 19.1%.
Like Welltower, Ventas is bullish on demographic trends noting the growth percentage of the 80 plus segment/cohort of the population. In the next five years, the growth rate for this group is forecasted at 23%. Couple this demographic shift with a historically low new unit pipeline (COVID and interest rate impacted), unit absorption of existing product begets a favorable occupancy trend, at least in the near term. For Ventas, 99% of their portfolio is in locations with no new construction starts within 5 miles. A primary market for a senior housing location is 5 to 7 miles.
For occupancy growth, Ventas is projecting year-over-year improvement of between 130 and 170 basis points – a bit less bullish than Omega. Overall portfolio revenue growth of 8% is the forecast with NOI growth at 5%. They are expecting improved hiring and moderating inflation, along with improved topline revenues, to generate the NOI improvement.
Rent increases and care rate increases are forecasted at 10% and 11% respectively. What is interesting to me is the forecast on expense improvements. Labor is pegged at 43% of revenue (61% of expenses) with only 2% equating to contract labor. That is exceptionally low in today’s market and certainly, not indicative of a trend I have seen among most operators. In all other expense categories, Ventas if forecasting decreases (-5% taxes, -4% in food, utilities, and maintenance, and -2% in insurance). This pegs year-over-year expense growth at 5% vs. 2022, at 8%.
To me, the risks of achieving these results are similar to Welltower. First, moderating labor cost may or may not materialize though, a recession could help. Interest rate increases could push the economy into a recession, cramping occupancy gains. Energy is a wild card for me from an inflationary perspective as during a recession, gas/fuel oil will fall via weaker demand and as stronger dollar yet worldwide turbulence, may throw a wrench into this outcome. Insurance costs are rising so it’s odd to me that a savings of 2% is attainable across any senior housing portfolio.
After Monday, I’ll take a peek at Ventas first quarter results and then, add it to my files. Later summer, I’ll take an overall look at the REIT sector and maybe, drop a quick update to this post.
TGIF!
Senior Housing Marketing: Bumpy Road Ahead
On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve added another .25 point to its baseline interest rate – federal funds rate. The rationale is to continue to reduce inflation which, is running at decade highs. The trickle-down effect will begin with capital costs and capital access, impacting all kinds of industries but first and foremost, the real estate industry (commercial and residential). Borrowing costs and access to funds has changed dramatically since 2020. In mid-2020, mortgages were widely available below 3% fixed for 30 years. Residential real estate rode a significant wave in rising housing prices and rapid sales.
Today, the residential market has ground to a near halt. While home prices remain steady to a large extent, buyers have fled due to high mortgage costs and bank lending constriction. Recent bank failures have not helped banking confidence or improved lending access, personal or commercial. As a result of the Fed’s need to fight inflation and to reduce overall liquidity in the monetary system (lower money supply), the Fed quit buying mortgage-backed securities in March, therefore no longer directly supporting the mortgage market. Without the Fed keeping the liquidity of the mortgage market “up”, mortgage rates will remain higher for a longer period and banks will be pickier about lending as the buyers for mortgages are now private entities, more concerned about profit and the underlying credit.
So as not to confuse my readers, the title of this post is right-on and while a bit of economics starts this post, it is relevant to senior housing. Senior housing, especially independent, above-market products rental and entry-fee are very much occupancy impacted by the residential real estate market. I have written and spoken about this connection for years. The typical senior housing move is a transition from a private residence of some sort with the proceeds from the sale, used as a resource for the senior housing stay. With entry fee sales, the net proceeds from the home sale very much correlates to the resource for the entry fee. Market data has shown us for decades that there is a very strong relationship in the sales process between what a resident in a market area can liquidate his/her residence for and what the net proceeds will “purchase” in term of a CCRC unit. Well positioned CCRCs in a market have entry fees very closely tied to the average net sale value of homes in the primary market. Even today, few seniors will want to dip into estate values to pay for a senior housing unit. A good resource is a presentation I did a few years back: Value Propositions and Markteting 4 14
The primary factors that drive new sales and work on impacting occupancy positively, are as follows.
- Demographics in the target market – age, net worth, income level favorably matched against the product (price, demographic, location)
- Overall supply of units in the market current and anticipated. Senior housing demand is very elastic. Supply ranges of product will shift based on the price and the economic conditions within the market area.
- The condition of the residential real estate market in the primary market area. While national trends are one thing, the translation of those trends locally is the key. Not all local markets fare equally to the national trend. Interest rates aside, a growing market may attract more buyers still willing and financially capable of buying homes, even at a premium (see Florid for example).
- The condition of the property/senior living site. Is it in good condition and is its reputation positive.
The trends in occupancy and thus, marketing have shifted dramatically as a result of the pandemic. Occupancy in rental and entry-fee projects for the most part, remain below pre-pandemic levels. While CCRC occupancies are strongest and still growing (albeit slowly), at the present course of improvement, we are approximately 2.5 years away from pre-pandemic levels (91% vs. 87% today). This time period may elongate if interest rates remain high and real estate inventory (for sale), remains low.
During the pandemic, to maintain and attempt to increase occupancy via sales, I noticed a lot of communities resorting to incentives of one form or another. Fortunately for the CCRC/senior housing market, new inventory slowed and remains slow. Existing units today, have a greater opportunity to gain ground as new product is not coming on the market with the same fluidity as pre-2019. Capital access and costs have abated many new, planned projects either permanently or temporarily.
Incentives have long been a staple of generating unit pre-sales, holds, and interest/waiting lists. Conversion to occupancy often includes different incentives, directly tied typically, to rent abatement or stabilization (so many months free, no rent increase for so many months, etc.). Other softer incentives include moving fees (pay for the move), meal additions, decorator services, relocation coordination, etc.
The road however today, is bumpy and will be so for a while. Two difficult financial/economic conditions are at-play and both, hamper demand when the desire, is to sell above-market cost units. First, the real estate market in terms of liquidity, is exceptionally slow. New listings lag from pre-pandemic levels and new sales the same. A good data source that I use to watch these trends is here: https://www.redfin.com/news/data-center/
The second condition is overall estate values are down. Seniors with market investments in their retirement plans have seen minimally, on average, a 25% erosion in value. This constriction reduces their willingness and confidence to buy into, more expensive (real or perceived) housing. Further, familial support or influence tracks a similar downward confidence curve meaning, family become less supportive of a move that is further perceived, as negative to estate values. Remember, the U.S. mindset still has a strong connection to passed-through or down wealth transfer (e.g., kids receiving inheritance from mom and dad).
Strategies do exist for CCRCs and other senior housing projects to make inroads in occupancy gains, even in a tight market. Here are a few that I have used and can recommend as having some value.
- Use equity and/or internal financing mechanisms to assist in achieving liquidity for a senior’s home. Banks will typically step forward if the home has substantial equity and are often willing, if the CCRC is a partner, to provide the loan allowing a move to occur. The challenge then falls on maintaining the vacant property but that is less difficult than one would think with a bit of creativity.
- Defer the entry fee to a later date. Take the move off the table so to speak, allowing the senior to move while the house is still on the market, even if the timeframe is elongated. Another option is to pay the entry fee in installments.
- Work with a realtor that will package a transition service at a reduced commission allowing for home sale/pricing flexibility.
- Purchase the home, if feasible. I have seen organizations do this and then, when market conditions change, resale the home. This is complex and fraught with all kinds of detail issues, but it can be done.
May 11 and PHE: Provider Alert
On May 11, the COVID Public Health Emergency (PHE) is set to end and along with it, a whole slew of requirements end or change, and regulatory waivers applicable to the Public Health Emergency, the same (ending). The end of the PHE will have positive and negative impacts on providers of all types though some things that were applicable during the PHE will continue via CMS rulemaking (tele-health provisions for example). One of the most negative impacts of regulatory waivers ending is the return of the three-overnight rule (3 day stay) for patients entering an SNF and potentially, receiving Medicare coverage for their qualifying stay. I wrote a post on this waiver change here: https://wp.me/ptUlY-w5
Among the most notable changes that will occur for providers with the end of the PHE are the requirements around masking, testing, and vaccination mandates for staff. Each of these conditions are effectively, eliminated with the expiration of the PHE. While other countries across the world have eliminated all or most of their pandemic restrictions/requirements over the past year, the U.S. and its health system have been slow to relax requirements with the Biden Administration extending the emergency up until May 11. Similarly, the emergency patchwork has followed through to states, some long ago abandoning masking requirements, vaccination mandates, testing, etc. What has been confounding is the myriad of rule interpretations and requirements that varied from municipalities to counties, to states, and ultimately, to the Federal government. For Medicare/Medicaid providers, Federal requirements superseded all other provisions in any other jurisdiction.
Within the Public Health Emergency period, even providers not participating in Medicare or Medicaid were impacted by the Federal policies. Many states chose to follow the Federal PHE provisions, layering the same over providers within the senior housing industry (aka Assisted Living and some CCRC/Independent Living under state law). Illinois is an example. In contrast, other states chose to ignore the Federal PHE provisions when not applicable to providers such as hospitals, nursing homes, home health, etc. Iowa, Florida, Texas are examples of states that early-on in the pandemic created rules or as in the case of Iowa, passed legislation prohibiting vaccine or mask mandates within state control.
Come May 11, confusion will no doubt remain prominent on COVID infection control/public health requirements. For example, the only updated CDC guidance on masking requirements dates back to September of 2022. In this guidance, the recommendation for masking requirements for visitors, patients, and staff is conditioned on a CDC tracking mechanism for the level of community concentration of COVID infection. Reporting from health departments, hospitals, SNFs, etc., fed this mechanism. Masking recommendations were tied to this level (high recommending masking vs. low, recommending optional masking). COVID testing requirements were also tied to this measure.
Effective with the end of the PHE, CDC has indicated that it would no longer report on the level of community infection/transmission. The PHE has deferred consistently to various agency recommendations for requirements and then subsequently, enforcement as needed. Clearly, we will see extensive confusion unless the CDC issues new guidance clearing up, the masking requirements tied to community COVID prevalence. I’ve watched many providers already move to a “no mask required” status, regardless of updated guidance. I’ve also watched many providers stuck and confused by virtue of state requirements vs. CDC requirements vs. where the community COVID prevalence really was in their area. The CDC guidance for long-term care (fundamentally the same for hospitals) is here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fhcp%2Fnursing-home-long-term-care.html
I’ve seen some news coverage/reporting on the end of the Public Health Emergency, but it is very spotty. I also know by virtue of travel, etc., the awareness of COVID among providers and the community is varied. As I routinely traverse Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa, I see wide differences in COVID precautions, alerts, monitoring, requirements being applied, etc. Some of this due to region and state policy and some of it is due to provider behavior. Iowa as I mentioned, long ago took a stance against most PHE COVID related mandates and recommendations whereas Illinois, has followed the PHE Federal recommendations consistently. Iowa hospitals required to follow CMS COVID regulations, maintained vaccination and masking conditions though recently, I have seen most hospitals end masking requirements.
For providers, May 11 is very near. I suggest providers adopt the following strategies realizing, come May 11, regulatory confusion will likely remain.
- Update internal infection control policies regarding vaccination, testing, masking to conform to the changes that will occur with the end of the PHE.
- Communicate these changes to staff ASAP.
- Communicate these changes to patients and families, ASAP. Remember, the end of a mandate does not mean a change in behavior. It may be that staff will want to maintain their masks in some cases and patients/families the same. Allow for flexibility.
- State agencies that are required to survey and enforce compliance may also be slow to adopt. Trade associations are your best bet to help with regulatory transition. Recognize, state agency behavior will not adjust in some cases, as quickly as provider behavior.
- Conduct ongoing public communication via your website, via newsletters, etc. One and done won’t work.
- Definitely, DON’T, follow a path of resisting the end of the PHE and its requirements. I’ve watched provider sometimes, fail to adjust and in this failure, more problems occurred. I know the old “an ounce of prevention” thinking may still apply when it comes to vaccines or masking but be careful. If the regulation is not there, a forced or strongly urged condition, can lead to regulatory problems, labor law problems, community relations problems, and potentially, litigation.
-
Archives
- June 2023 (1)
- May 2023 (19)
- April 2023 (23)
- March 2023 (2)
- February 2020 (1)
- June 2019 (2)
- April 2019 (1)
- January 2019 (1)
- November 2018 (5)
- October 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (2)
- July 2018 (2)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Reg's Blog 