REPORT OF THE
COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF
HOSPITAL CARE IN CONNECTICUT
Chairs:
Senator Toni N. Harp
Representative Mary Eberle
Prepared by:
The Connecticut Health Policy Project
For more information contact:
The Public Health Committee
Legislative Office Building Room 3000
Hartford CT 06106
(860) 240-0560
www.cga.state.ct.us/ph
Contents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Executive Summary |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Commission structure, process and mission |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Status of Connecticut’s Hospitals |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Challenges facing Connecticut’s Hospitals |
|||
|
|
Financial and organizational issues |
||
|
|
Access to care issues |
||
|
|
Workforce issues |
||
|
|
Quality of care issues |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Commission recommendations |
|||
|
|
Financial and organizational issues |
||
|
|
Accessibility of care issues |
||
|
|
Workforce issues |
||
|
|
Quality of care issues |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Appendix |
|
|
|
|
|
Special Act No. 00-12 An Act Establishing A Commission on the Future of Hospital Care in Connecticut |
||
|
|
Commission and Workgroup membership lists |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commission on the Future of Hospital Care in Connecticut
Executive Summary
In 2000, amid growing concerns about the financial stability of the state’s hospitals, the CT General Assembly created a commission to investigate in-depth issues facing hospitals and make recommendations to ensure the long-term health of these critical safety net institutions.
Connecticut’s hospitals are not alone in facing serious, quickly shifting challenges. While managed care reduces admissions and lengths of stay for relatively healthy patients, the average hospital patient has more numerous and more complex health problems.
Connecticut’s hospitals are slowly recovering from a period of financial difficulty over recent years. Revenues were sharply reduced by both private and public payers. While private payer pressures will likely continue, public payers have provided relief. Nationally, Wall Street predicts recovering margins, Medicare rate stabilization, and improved credit ratings for hospitals. An increasing climate of corporate integration among hospitals and the concentration of ownership and control will come under increased government scrutiny to ensure competition and full access to specialized services.
Connecticut’s hospitals face serious challenges including significant health care workforce shortages, reduced Medicare rates, Medicaid rate shortfalls, increasing pressure from government and private payers to both improve quality and reduce costs, increasing pharmacy costs, continuing tight capital markets, new regulation of electronic transmissions of information and privacy restrictions, fragmented data systems reporting to multiple state agencies, growing numbers of uninsured patients seeking care, increased demand on emergency departments, a severe lack of capacity in the state’s behavioral health treatment system, increasing malpractice and other liability costs, and potential bioterror threats. As the state and national government budgets move from surpluses to deficits, the ability to support hospitals will be tested.
In response to this information, the Commission made a series of recommendations to strengthen CT’s hospitals in the areas of workforce, quality of care, financial & organizational issues, and access to care.
Commission structure, process and mission
In 2000, Connecticut’s hospitals faced serious challenges. Many were losing money for the first time, Winsted Hospital had already closed, and others were said to be in danger of closing. Connecticut was experiencing its first conversion of a hospital to for-profit status.
The Commission on the Future of Hospital Care in Connecticut was created under Special Act No. 00-12 to review the status of Connecticut’s hospitals, including financial stability, system capacity, access to care for Connecticut residents, the impact of public and private funding trends, relationships between hospitals, workforce issues, and new technologies. The Commission is to make recommendations to strengthen Connecticut’s hospital system and residents’ access to care.
The Commission has seventeen members, including legislators, state agency heads, hospital representatives, third party payers, unions, and physicians. Senator Toni Harp and Representative Mary Eberle served as Co-Chairs. The Commission met thirteen times between July 24, 2000 and February 4, 2002. The Commission issued an Interim Report on January 8, 2001.
The Commission invited a number of presentations from the Departments of Public Health (DPH), Children & Families (DCF), Mental Health & Addiction Services (DMHAS), and Social Services (DSS), the Office of Health Care Access (OHCA), the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS, formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), the Connecticut Hospital Association, the Connecticut Health & Education Facilities Authority, Hartford Hospital, the Eastern Connecticut Health Network, St. Francis Behavioral Health, Hall-Brooke Hospital, Natchaug Hospital, the Lewin Group, Ernst & Young, and the Attorney General’s office. After collecting information about the status of Connecticut’s hospitals, the Commission divided into four workgroups to focus on specific challenge areas and make recommendations. The workgroups included both Commission members and other stakeholders invited to participate. The Accessibility of Care Workgroup was chaired by Senator Harp and Michael Meacham of the Eastern CT Health Network assisted by Christopher Hartley of St. Francis Hospital. Representative Mary Eberle chaired the Financial & Organization Issues Workgroup. The Quality of Care Workgroup was chaired by Representative Vickie Nardello and Dr. Edward Kamens. The Workforce Issues Workgroup was chaired by Representative Dennis Cleary, Marc Lory of the Eastern CT Health Network and Jean Morningstar of University Health Professionals.
The workgroups completed their analysis and made recommendations to the Commission, which were adopted with minor modification. Commission and workgroup membership lists, workgroup issue areas, meeting minutes, and the Interim Report are included in the Appendix.
In 1998, the last year for available data, Connecticut spent $4,798,000,000 or $1,478 per person on hospital care, from all payers.[1] This amount has been rising each year.
|
![]() |

In
1998, hospital care consumed 31.3% of all CT personal health care spending, down from 44.5% in 1980.
The proportion of CT’s health care dollar that is spent on hospital care is declining.
|

While costs for CT’s hospital care have risen over time, they grew at only two thirds the rate of growth in CT’s total personal health care spending from 1981 to 1998. However, nationally in 2000 and 2001 increases in hospital spending has become the key driver of overall health care cost growth, accounting for more than half the total increase in costs. Hospital spending has outpaced other areas, including prescription drug spending growth, which declined in both 2000 and 2001.[2] Hospital spending growth rates are expected to stabilize over the next ten years.[3]
With 2.3 hospital beds per 1,000 residents, Connecticut is below the US average hospital bed capacity of 3.0 beds/1000 residents. Connecticut admissions are also lower than the national average (105 vs. 120/1000 population). However, Connecticut residents are more likely to visit the emergency room than other Americans (399 vs. 374 visits/1,000 population)[4].
While Connecticut hospitals are financially healthier overall than they were in 1999, they still face significant challenges. The 2002 report by the Office of Health Care Access (OHCA) (based on fiscal data from 2000) finds that most hospitals are financially strong, and none are at risk of closing[5]. However, six hospitals are classified as moderately distressed and, since the 2001 report (based on 1999 data), four new hospitals joined the four already classified as significantly distressed[6].
|
|
Financially Strong |
Moderately Distressed |
Significantly Distressed |
|
William W. Backus Hospital |
CT Children’s Medical Center |
Bradley Memorial Hospital |
|
Bristol Hospital |
Charlotte Hungerford Hospital |
Bridgeport Hospital |
|
Danbury Hospital |
Manchester Memorial Hospital |
John Dempsey Hospital |
|
Day Kimball Hospital |
Rockville General Hospital |
Johnson Memorial Hospital |
|
Greenwich Hospital |
Hospital of St. Raphael |
New Britain General Hospital |
|
Griffin Hospital |
Stamford Hospital |
St. Mary’s Hospital |
|
Hartford Hospital |
|
Sharon Hospital |
|
Lawrence & Memorial Hospital |
|
Waterbury Hospital |
|
MidState Medical Center |
|
|
|
Middlesex Hospital |
|
|
|
Milford Hospital |
|
|
|
New Milford Hospital |
|
|
|
Norwalk Hospital |
|
|
|
St. Francis Medical Center |
|
|
|
St. Vincent’s Medical Center |
|
|
|
Windham Community Hospital |
|
|
|
Yale New Haven Hospital |
|
|
Overall, Connecticut’s hospitals have become financially more stable, moving from an average operating margin (profit/loss on hospital operations alone) of –0.7% in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 to a small profit of 0.12% in FY 2000. Total margins (including non-operating income) rose from 2.3% in FY 1999 to 3.2% in FY 2000. Large urban hospitals are doing better, as a group, than smaller community hospitals.[7] Wall Street generally demands and national healthcare consultants believe that hospitals need to achieve higher margins to be able to reinvest in facilities and new technologies.[8]
|
Hospital Margins |
|||||||
|
Hospital |
Total margins |
Operating margins |
Ratio of cost to charges |
Uncompensated care share of total expenses |
|||
|
2000 |
Change from 1998 |
2000 |
Change from 1998 |
2000 |
Change from 1998 |
||
|
William Backus |
6.75% |
-2.21% |
4.27% |
-2.87% |
0.59 |
-.04 |
2.59% |
|
Bradley |
-3.53 |
1.32 |
-8.96 |
4.11 |
0.63 |
-.01 |
3.11 |
|
Bridgeport |
5.55 |
0.94 |
4.63 |
1.47 |
0.50 |
-.07 |
2.96 |
|
Bristol |
7.66 |
3.03 |
5.10 |
4.77 |
0.46 |
.05 |
3.61 |
|
CCMC |
-6.58 |
19.47 |
-11.73 |
15.52 |
0.68 |
-.08 |
3.41 |
|
Danbury |
8.20 |
1.39 |
5.54 |
1.86 |
0.51 |
-.07 |
4.46 |
|
Day Kimball |
2.81 |
0.85 |
2.26 |
0.50 |
0.58 |
-.04 |
3.20 |
|
John Dempsey |
-13.75 |
-5.58 |
-13.75 |
-5.58 |
0.68 |
-.04 |
1.12 |
|
Greenwich |
6.48 |
1.97 |
-0.76 |
1.50 |
0.56 |
-0.03 |
3.60 |
|
Griffin |
3.31 |
6.53 |
0.93 |
6.29 |
0.37 |
0.01 |
3.61 |
|
Hartford |
5.08 |
-5.01 |
0.56 |
-1.74 |
0.66 |
-0.08 |
4.39 |
|
Charlotte Hungerford |
0.71 |
-4.36 |
-3.69 |
-4.78 |
0.64 |
0.01 |
2.55 |
|
Johnson |
0.98 |
0.95 |
-2.18 |
-0.70 |
0.45 |
-0.06 |
6.62 |
|
Lawrence & Memorial |
5.15 |
3.02 |
1.76 |
1.56 |
0.51 |
-0.05 |
4.48 |
|
Manchester |
-8.18 |
-10.04 |
-11.43 |
-9.95 |
0.48 |
0.03 |
3.14 |
|
Middlesex |
6.74 |
3.18 |
3.11 |
-1.13 |
0.63 |
-0.01 |
3.26 |
|
MidState Med. Center |
7.64 |
9.16 |
5.03 |
8.42 |
0.57 |
-0.12 |
3.35 |
|
Milford |
5.59 |
-5.20 |
0.08 |
-6.18 |
0.39 |
-0.02 |
2.41 |
|
New Britain |
-2.97 |
-5.93 |
-6.97 |
-5.57 |
0.66 |
0.01 |
3.26 |
|
New Milford |
3.47 |
1.45 |
3.33 |
1.46 |
0.44 |
-0.04 |
2.67 |
|
Norwalk |
4.13 |
2.61 |
0.23 |
0.97 |
0.61 |
-0.02 |
4.69 |
|
Rockville |
-3.92 |
-12.45 |
-7.28 |
-11.67 |
0.46 |
0.02 |
2.70 |
|
St. Francis |
7.85 |
7.55 |
4.56 |
8.35 |
0.65 |
-0.07 |
3.12 |
|
St. Mary’s |
6.13 |
4.03 |
0.71 |
1.31 |
0.51 |
-0.07 |
3.94 |
|
St. Raphael’s |
0.44 |
-3.81 |
0.85 |
-2.66 |
0.51 |
-0.02 |
1.81 |
|
St. Vincent’s |
4.51 |
-9.35 |
-1.60 |
-9.42 |
0.56 |
0.05 |
5.96 |
|
Sharon |
-6.81 |
-1.75 |
-7.82 |
5.24 |
0.57 |
0.02 |
4.24 |
|
Stamford |
-3.10 |
-9.71 |
-4.56 |
-8.10 |
0.57 |
0.04 |
5.26 |
|
Waterbury |
-8.23 |
-7.58 |
-11.08 |
-7.76 |
0.56 |
0 |
4.84 |
|
Windham |
5.69 |
0.97 |
3.96 |
1.79 |
0.49 |
0.03 |
4.40 |
|
YNHH |
5.79 |
-0.52 |
3.28 |
0.69 |
0.56 |
-0.02 |
3.49 |
Source: Annual Report on the Financial Status of Connecticut’s Short Term Acute Care Hospitals 2002, OHCA
Wall Street is more optimistic about the future for hospitals nationally anticipating Medicare rate stabilization, recovering margins, and stabilizing credit ratings. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ financial forecast for hospitals predicts that non-profit hospitals will recover from recent revenue challenges. Current hospital profit margins are similar to historic averages. Bond investors predict revenue stability for non-profit hospitals and expect strong growth from for-profit hospitals. Stability in government payment rates, especially Medicare, is key.[9] Hospitals are finding themselves in better negotiating positions as managed care loosens some tight restrictions.[10]
Like hospitals across the country, CT hospitals have created alliances both between hospitals and with other health and non-health related organizations in recent years. There are currently four multi-hospital corporations in CT - three with two hospitals and one with three. CT’s other 22 hospitals are the only hospital in their corporate network.[11]
Over 200 organizations are affiliated with Connecticut hospitals, both for-profit and non-profit, health and non-health related. Only two hospitals, Dempsey and Lawrence and Memorial have no for-profit partners. For-profit affiliates include pharmacies, real estate companies, rehabilitation services, medical practices, outpatient surgical centers, collection agencies, insurers and lab services. Non-profit partners include hospice centers, home health and long-term care providers, childcare, mental health services, fundraising organizations, and dental groups.[12]
Concerns have been raised about special designations under the Certificate of Need process giving some hospitals the ability to offer specialized services. Contract negotiations between specially designated hospitals and payers have threatened access to these specialized services for some Connecticut residents.[13]
The Federal Trade Commission has announced its intention to increase scrutiny of hospital mergers and potential anti-trust violations nationally. Sharply rising medical costs, driven in large part by hospital rate increases, precipitated the shift in priorities. National analysts cite an increasing environment of hospital consolidation linked to 20 to 40 percent increases in rates.[14]
Connecticut hospitals are experiencing a steady growth in demand for their services. Inpatient days and discharges have increased modestly, while outpatient and emergency room visits have increased sharply. Emergency room visits were up by 15% from FY 1998 to FY 2000. The Average Length of Stay (ALOS) in CT is at a relatively constant 4.8 days. Large urban hospitals have higher ALOS than smaller community hospitals.[15] CT hospitals’ ALOS for the top 10 Diagnosis Related Groups are generally lower than those for MA, NY or RI hospitals.
|
|
Average Length of Stay (ALOS) [16] |
|||
|
DRG description |
CT |
MA |
NY |
RI |
|
Normal newborn |
2.2 |
3.1 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
|
Normal vaginal delivery |
2.2 |
2.4 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
|
Psychoses |
9.0 |
10.2 |
16.6 |
8.1 |
|
Heart failure and shock |
5.0 |
5.2 |
6.6 |
4.7 |
|
Simple pneumonia |
5.6 |
5.4 |
7.5 |
5.6 |
|
Pacemaker implant or arterial stent |
2.9 |
4.2 |
3.6 |
3.2 |
|
Caesarean section |
4.2 |
4.5 |
4.0 |
4.3 |
|
Limb/joint reattachment |
4.3 |
5.4 |
6.1 |
4.7 |
|
Chest pain |
||||