Implications of the National Hospital Flash Report for Hospital Operations

For the past six years, Kaufman Hall has been publishing its monthly National Hospital Flash Report, which is designed to provide a pulse on the health of the healthcare industry and to highlight meaningful and pertinent trends for hospital and health system leaders. The data that powers the report is taken from over 1,300 hospitals, which are reflective of all geographic locations, hospital sizes and types. To ensure the content is digestible and understandable, Kaufman Hall aggregates the data into larger cohorts and measures a select set of key metrics that are most important for understanding the health of the industry. Industry groups and system leaders use these reports both for peer review purposes but also to paint an overall story for their boards and communities.

Through a detailed review of the Flash Report data, each month Kaufman Hall develops findings that healthcare leaders may find instructive as they determine how to adjust to changing market conditions. In 2024 it was reasonably obvious that there was a widening divide between the highest performing hospitals and the lowest performers. While a significant cadre of hospitals and health systems have recovered to pre-Covid financial success, 37% of American hospitals continue to lose money.

We are often asked what the successful hospitals are doing—and importantly—what the data tell us about those that are less successful. Using 2024 data, we have drawn two important conclusions around the role of leading management teams and what separates their organizations from others. 

These teams have:

1. A sophisticated and balanced approach to the management of departmental performance: and
2. An understanding of the management of shared service costs.

A sophisticated and balanced approach to the management of departmental performance

It turns out that current data demonstrate that the management of departmental performance is critical to overall hospital financial performance but in a more nuanced manner than expected.

Our analysis was conducted as follows:

• First, we looked at data across hospitals nationwide to understand the difference in departmental performance between top and bottom performing hospitals.
• Second, we ranked each department in a hospital from 0 to 100, with 100 representing the best performance based on expense per unit of service.
• Third, we then grouped all hospitals based on their bottom-line operating margin into three cohorts: those hospitals that fell into the bottom quartile of financial performance, those between the bottom and top quartile, and those in the top quartile.
• Finally, we created a histogram of the average composition of departmental performance across each of the three margin cohorts.

The findings demonstrate that organizations with top financial performance have departmental results that look like a normal curve around the median. Said more simply, in top-performing hospitals the number of lower-performing departments is roughly equal to the number of higher-performing departments, with most departments operating near the national departmental medians. In contrast, hospitals with the lowest financial performance show a much greater number of departments operating with high cost per units of service and a few departments that operate extremely efficiently.

It appears that poorer performing hospitals focus on the management of the largest clinical and nursing areas. These are the departments that tend to be the “easiest” to manage because they are the “easiest” to benchmark. But the data show that these same hospitals tend to have poor performance over the remainder of the departments, which leads to poor financial results for the total hospital.

Hospitals with top quartile financial performance tend to manage all departments as close to the benchmark median as possible. Such a result means spending more managerial time on the harder to manage departments, especially those departments that are more “unique” and where overall performance is harder to characterize and benchmark.

The observations that can be drawn here are important and as follows:

• First, oversight and management of individual departments is critical to the financial success of the entire hospital or system.
• Second, the overall organizational structure of departmental administration is critical as well. The more complicated your departmental structure and the more individual departments you maintain and administer, the more difficult it will be to manage a majority of departments to “median” results.

The data suggest a perhaps unexpected operational conclusion. The achievement of median national departmental benchmarks is leading to overall positive hospital financial operating margins. This outcome offers significant budgeting advice and over the course of a fiscal year should prove to be a remarkably useful administrative lesson.

Understanding the management of shared service costs

Given the growing costs of shared services and related overhead, Kaufman Hall wanted a closer look at how well hospital organizations were scaling shared service costs related to the organization’s size. Unexpectedly, shared service costs were not highly correlated to the size of the hospital or hospital system. This suggests that the management of shared service costs on a per unit basis is difficult and that this aspect of expense management requires diligent focus to enact and sustain cost change. Our data often indicates a wide variation of cost performance among shared services of similar types within different large organizations. This suggests that standardization of such services is not well developed and that there may be a certain level of wishful thinking that increases in organizational size will automatically correlate to lower per unit costs.

The data did indicate, however, that larger organizations can achieve higher performance over smaller organizations relative to shared service expenses. This is an indication that size can be leveraged for superior performance but that such results are not automatic. The takeaway here is that the total spend for shared service functions is very substantial and growing. In that regard, it is most important to proactively address expenses in these areas, build appropriate management plans, and understand how to focus on the right buttons and levers. To the extent that organizations are assuming that growth (both organic and inorganic) will create economies of scale with the overall shared service apparatus, the data demonstrate that such an outcome is possible but only with strong planning and execution.

Operating hospitals in 2025 is flat-out hard and likely to get harder over the year. Hospital executives right now should use every managerial advantage available. A close look at the National Hospital Flash Report data identifies important relationships that provide for a more nuanced and sophisticated operation of both individual departments and the bundle of shared services. The data clearly demonstrate that better results in both these areas will lead to improved financial performance within the hospital overall. The data also indicate key managerial strategies that will lead to such improvement.