Home Health Investors, Be Warned

Recs

7

Disney Buys Marvel!

David Gardner called it. He’s up 1,334%! See what David’s recommending that you buy NEXT.

Stock Advisor

The unavoidable problem with investing in home health providers -- including Almost Family (Nasdaq: AFAM), Amedisys (Nasdaq: AMED), Gentiva Health (Nasdaq: GTIV), and LHC Group (Nasdaq: LHCG) -- is that they're compensated at the mercy of government agencies. In what feels like little more than a move to exasperate investors, the Medical Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) releases recommendations to Congress every year, suggesting what Medicare compensation should be for home health providers.

Each year from 2005 to 2009, MedPAC has recommended no increase in compensation for home health providers. Its latest draft recommendation, released Jan. 8, again recommends no increase for 2010. In past years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which ultimately decides Medicare compensation, has summarily ignored these recommendations. So really, if the recommendations aren't usually acted upon, why should investors be anxious?

I'll give you three reasons.

1. Compensation trends
After several years of gains, CMS compensation has levelled off:

Year

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Compensation

+2.3%

+2.8%

+3.3%

Unchanged*

Unchanged*

*Net of other policies.

Increases as those from 2005-2007 are designed to compensate home health providers for inflation. Now that those hikes have stagnated, and will continue to stagnate for who knows how long, home health providers' margins will suffer, since their employees' salaries and their other expenses will keep on rising.

2. Tone
Even though MedPAC's recommendations have historically been ignored, the commission is growing increasingly hawkish in its suggestions. In its draft recommendation for 2010, MedPAC included not only its typical freeze request, but also an alternate recommendation calling for a 5% cut. When you consider an additional decrease that's already planned, those recommendations actually work out to cuts of 2.75% and 7.5%, respectively. Reductions that steep, coupled with increases in costs, would gut home health margins.

3. A logical place to cut
Alas for home health investors, MedPAC compensation-reduction arguments aren't unreasonable in the face of a well-publicized and simply unsustainable Medicare crisis. Costs must be cut somewhere in the future, and they can reasonably be cut in home health care.

According to MedPAC, profit margins in 2007 were 16.6%; they are projected to be 12.6% in 2009. Home health may serve a vital role in our medical system, and it may be a cost-effective alternative to further inpatient treatment, but that does not mean that the industry is entitled to remarkable margins. It's simply entitled to earn a profit so that it can continue to exist.

Home health investors, be warned: Extraordinary revenue growth means relatively nothing if margins are simultaneously decimated. The warning signs are there.

Further Foolishness, in the comfort of your own home:

Like this article? Get our best articles delivered direct to your inbox at no cost. Sign up for Foolwatch Weekly by entering your email below.

Fool contributor Devon Rackle does not own shares in any of the companies listed in this article. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. The Fool has a disclosure policy.  

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On February 10, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Bonhomme1776 wrote:

    Exellent post, Davon. The article you wrote a couple weeks back was also great ("Almost...Almost..." nice entendre). You were being nice then with the "pass" comment. All four of these companies should be shorted at these prices. Bad debt due to unrecoverable Medicare reimbursements are going to eat them up.

    Cash flow is a mirage (see Davon's precient article).

    At any point, Congress could decide that home health reimbursement are to be cut significantly. When that happens, all of these guys go down, down, down.

  • Report this Comment On February 11, 2009, at 12:56 PM, loriskhireward wrote:

    Cuts in reimbursement are not something new to home health businesses. And, while sectors such as assisted living may suffer as a result of the weakened economy, demand for home health services is more robust than ever. Management exists for the purpose of boosting revenues and operating companies cost-effectively, and that is where I place my trust, investment-wise. That being said, ...

    Home health companies, by their nature, play an important part in reigning in Medicare costs by providing care in the home setting. Unlike competitors such as assisted living (for assistance with ADLs), LTC (24-hr supervision by physician) and skilled nursing (post-hospital care), the setting for providing home health is the home - the most cost-efficient setting for Medicare-reimbursed services...it doesn't get any less expensive than providing care in patients' homes. Home health also visits ALFs...and gets referrals from SNFs on discharge following rehab.

    Add to that fact that many physicians are placing increased confidence in home health care companies to provide post-hospital care for post-surgery patients, services that were once delivered ONLY in facilities. It is now being provided bedside at home, with home health nurses and therapists doing the visits. This, imo, will not change.

    It is correct that Medicare will continue to look for areas to cut, and that sectors where costs (& resulting margins) are highest will be the first target; but, the fact remains that people are aging at exponential rates, and the bulk of this aging population is BabyBoomers...a group who will DEMAND to receive care in the home until they no longer are able. As home health companies adapt to the growing demand, there will be operating efficiencies to be gained in many areas, some of which impact margins, so hopefully margins will flow with revenues.

    I'm not arguing that they may see cuts this year or next, but home health - as opposed to other sectors - is where consumer demand is, and where government pays a lower cost for the service setting - absolutely no overhead figured into the provision of care or rates charged. If these companies cannot provide the service & make money, the govt will have a much bigger problem on their hands relating to providing care outside the hospitals - most of which are already suffering tremendously.

    It's my opinion, but I will continue to invest in home health as the "most desirable" health care option...and rely on management to control costs. The revenue will be there.

  • Report this Comment On February 11, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Bonhomme1776 wrote:

    I don't know about all that. But look at this:

    http://www.highshortinterest.com/

    As of today, AMED is THE highest short interest stock in the U.S.

    Remember, the market is pretty efficient!

  • Report this Comment On February 11, 2009, at 4:37 PM, loriskhireward wrote:

    "I don't know about all that"... that's it? Talk to some industry people, or at least someone that covers health care (if you're in finance) and come back with something more substantive than short position link... The largest players in HH are not going away anytime soon, imo. Do you know/see something different, or have at least taken a look at the industry?

  • Report this Comment On February 11, 2009, at 7:58 PM, Bonhomme1776 wrote:

    Davon obviously knows what he is talking about. Did you see the questionable receivables by AFAM? How income is not even close to cash flow? Listen, I'm no nurse, but this whole thing looks pretty scary, considering how Congress could pass a bill tomorrow and cut these payments in half. Would you buy AMED at $48?

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2009, at 8:31 AM, loriskhireward wrote:

    no, bought GTIV though...liked acquisition of Healthfield and the appt of their guy to the head post at Gentiva. Don't particularly like "aggressive" acquisitions - or those w/ lots of debt - but rather smart ones that supplement current ops. BTW, short float on GTIV is pretty low.

  • Report this Comment On February 16, 2009, at 11:12 PM, madmilker wrote:

    don't short any!

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 828575, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/22/2009 5:41:36 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

The Must-Read Story on Fool.com
An Open Letter to the Federal Reserve

Related Tickers

11/20/2009 4:00 PM
AFAM $36.06 Down -0.17 -0.47%
Almost Family, Inc… CAPS Rating: *****
AMED $37.69 Up +0.21 +0.56%
Amedisys, Inc. CAPS Rating: **
GTIV $24.25 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Gentiva Health Ser… CAPS Rating: *****
LHCG $31.25 Up +0.59 +1.92%
LHC Group, Inc. CAPS Rating: ****

Community: Investing Wiki

Term Of The Hour

Mortgage backed securities: Banks that write mortgages can keep them on their books but can also package them together in Mortgage backed securities (MBS) in order to sell the risk and returns to institutional investors or other companies via credit default swaps.

Want to learn more or edit this definition?
Click here to read more!