New evidence on the impacts of cross-market hospital mergers on commercial prices and measures of quality

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of "cross-market" hospital mergers on prices and quality and the extent to which serial acquisitions contribute to any measured effects.

DATA SOURCES

2009-2017 commercial claims from the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) and quality measures from Hospital Compare.

STUDY DESIGN

Event study models in which the treated group consisted of hospitals that acquired hospitals further than 50 miles, and the control group was hospitals that were not part of any merger activity (as a target or acquirer) during the study period.

DATA EXTRACTION METHODS

We extracted data for 214 treated hospitals and 955 control hospitals.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Six years after acquisition, cross-market hospital mergers had increased acquirer prices by 12.9% (CI: 0.6%-26.6%) relative to control hospitals, but had no discernible impact on mortality and readmission rates for heart failure, heart attacks and pneumonia. For serial acquirers, the price effect increased to 16.3% (CI: 4.8%-29.1%). For all acquisitions, the price effect was 21.8% (CI: 4.6%-41.7%) when the target's market share was greater than the acquirer's market share versus 9.7% (CI: -0.5% to 20.9%) when the opposite was true. The magnitude of the price effect was similar for out-of-state and in-state cross-market mergers.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional evidence on the price and quality effects of cross-market mergers is needed at a time when over half of recent hospital mergers have been cross-market. To date, no hospital mergers have been challenged by the Federal Trade Commission on cross-market grounds. Our study is the third to find a positive price effect associated with cross-market mergers and the first to show no quality effect and how serial acquisitions contribute to the price effect. More research is needed to identify the mechanism behind the price effects we observe and analyze price effect heterogeneity.

Considerations for state-imposed conditions on healthcare provider transactions

The widespread consolidation of health systems, hospitals, and physicians has contributed to the high price of healthcare across the United States. While federal antitrust enforcers continue to play an important role in overseeing large mergers, acquisitions, and other consolidating transactions of major healthcare providers, state oversight over healthcare markets is essential to slow consolidation more broadly and address market failures across the country. State laws govern the scope of authority held by state attorneys general and other state agencies to receive notice of, review, and approve, conditionally approve, or block healthcare provider transactions, which can significantly impact the breadth and content of oversight. While blocking potentially anticompetitive transactions can help states maintain any competitive forces that remain in the market, in some situations, approving a transaction with conditions may be the best path forward. Applying conditions to transactions may allow state officials to oversee and govern the behavior of providers post-transaction while states pursue other legislative fixes. Although the use of conditions is a relatively common practice at the state level, little research has been done to explore their use among states. Following a search in all 50 states, this paper examines decisions from state officials imposing conditions intended to address the impacts of transactions on healthcare price, access, and quality and provides recommendations for the effective use of conditions moving forward.

The Rise Of Cross-Market Hospital Systems And Their Market Power In The US

Although hospital consolidation within markets has been well documented, consolidation across markets has not, even though economic theory predicts-and evidence is emerging-that cross-market hospital systems raise prices by exerting market power across markets when negotiating with common customers (primarily insurers). This study analyzes hospital systems using the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database and defines hospital geographic markets as commuting zones that link workers to places of employment. The share of community hospitals in the US that were part of hospital systems increased from 10 percent in 1970 to 67 percent in 2019, resulting in 3,436 hospitals within 368 systems in 2019. Of these systems, 216 (59 percent) owned hospitals in multiple commuting zones, in part because 55 percent of the 1,500 hospitals targeted for a merger or acquisition between 2010 and 2019 were located in a different commuting zone than the acquirer. Based on market-power differences among hospitals in systems, the number of systems in urban commuting zones that could potentially exert enhanced cross-market power increased from thirty-seven systems in 2009 to fifty-seven systems in 2019, an increase of 54 percent. The increase in cross-market hospital systems warrants concern and scrutiny because of the potential anticompetitive impact of hospital systems exerting market power across markets in negotiations with common customers.

States' Merger Review Authority Is Associated With States Challenging Hospital Mergers, But Prices Continue To Increase

States can challenge proposed hospital mergers by using antitrust laws to prevent anticompetitive harms. This observational study examined additional state laws-principally charitable trust, nonprofit corporation, health and safety, and certificate-of-need laws-that can serve as complements and substitutes for antitrust laws by empowering states to be notified of, review, and challenge proposed hospital mergers through administrative processes. During the period 2010-19, 862 hospital mergers were proposed, but only forty-two (4.9 percent) were challenged by states, including thirty-five by states without federal involvement, of which twenty-five (71.4 percent) originated in the eight states with the most robust merger review authority. The twenty-five challenges resulted in two mergers being blocked; three being abandoned; and twenty being approved with conditions, including seven with competitive-impact conditions. Hospital market concentration and prices increased at similar rates in these eight states versus other states, potentially because most challenges allowed mergers to proceed with conditions that did not adequately address competitive concerns. Although these findings do not reveal an optimal state framework, elements of advanced state merger review authority may have the potential to improve poorly functioning hospital markets.