Business More Hospitals Are Being Bought By Private Equity; Here's How It's Changing Healthcare...

  • 🔎 If you see an alert for analytics.usips.org, this is a self-hosted system I am running as a test. It is GDPR compliant and collects no invasive information.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

There's a greater than one in 10 chance your hospital is owned by someone who's trying to double their money in seven years.

If you live in Kentucky, your chances are one in six. In New Mexico, more than one in three.

Walk into an emergency room, and there's a 40 percent chance the doctor who stitches you up works for a staffing company owned by private investors, not the hospital.

At a time when less than half of Americans report being consistently able to afford healthcare, private investors are looking to hospitals and physician practices as a source of profit.

That may be no surprise to the 82 million Americans who make tradeoffs such as choosing between buying food and going to the doctor, nor to the nearly half of Americans with healthcare debt who have drained their savings to pay medical bills.

Private investors bring the business savvy and operational know-how that many healthcare providers lack. That has made physician offices and hospitals more efficient and productive, analysts say.

"Private equity has made a tremendous amount of investments in health technologies," Kelly Arduino, an executive with 25-years' experience in healthcare management, told The Epoch Times. "That's where we would see the biggest success."

But that success comes at a price.

Gains in efficiency and value to investors have left some hospitals bereft of real assets, loaded with debt, and struggling to maintain quality care, some studies indicate.

Private investors are buying into the healthcare system to extract profit, which can permanently change the structure of a healthcare institution, sometimes for the worse.

Debt Loading​

When private equity firms buy an independent hospital or physician practice, they finance the deal mostly with borrowed money.

Investors typically put in between 10 percent and 40 percent of the funding and get the rest from commercial lenders, institutional investors, or high-yield bonds.

But the actual borrower is the provider. The hospital or physician practice takes on the debt and must repay it, often paying management fees to the equity firm as well.

And because the investors typically convert the provider from nonprofit to for-profit status, the provider is also liable for taxes.

When the provider is eventually resold, the debt will likely be paid off from the proceeds. But the new owner, often another private equity firm, may finance its purchase with debt, too.

So hospitals and physician practices can be left with ongoing debt for the sake of generating a profit for private investors.

There's evidence that debt loading negatively impacts the long-term financial health of these institutions.

A 2025 study of more than 200 hospitals owned by private equity firms found that those re-resold to another private equity group saw operating margins decrease more than 8 percent compared to those sold to other for-profit owners.

Yet even some critics agree that private investment in healthcare can be useful if done responsibly.

"Private investments can sometimes be an important source of capital, especially for small to mid-sized companies that can benefit from the access that this financing provides," Lina M. Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission, wrote in 2024.

Staff Cuts​

Private-equity investment in healthcare came under scrutiny by Congress following the 2024 bankruptcy of Steward Health Care, a chain of 31 hospitals. Many attributed Steward's collapse to its years under ownership by private equity.

Yet overall, hospitals owned by private investors are not more likely to close than are other hospitals, research shows.

A more consistent problem is significant staff reductions, which affects physician morale and patient satisfaction, according to a 2025 report by a team of academic researchers.

After private-equity takeover, provider staffing was reduced by 6 percent over four years and stayed that way longterm, according to a study of hospital acquisitions.

While the number of doctors, nurses, and other care providers did bounce back, support staffing did not. It was cut an overall 20 percent.

That saved money on wages: about 7 percent in the first four years, and up to 9 percent after eight years.

That focus on efficiency has changed the dynamics of the workplace.

"I think where private equity has struggled the most is in dealing with a lot of professional services providers. So that would be physician practices," Arduino said.

Patients complain of doctors who are overly busy, long wait times for appointments, driving farther for care, and being rushed through their brief visits with physicians.

More than four in 10 doctors reported symptoms of burnout in 2025, according to the American Medical Association. That's despite a recent decline in job stress since the COVID-19 era.

One reason is the increased pace of work, said Robert Andrews, CEO of the Health Transformation Alliance.

"The doctor who's had four or five appointments per hour ... now has seven," Andrews told The Epoch Times. That leads to long days catching up on paperwork and feeling fatigued, he told The Epoch Times.

Beyond that, physicians often feel handcuffed by the clock, prevented from spending the extra minutes with a patient that might improve patient care, Andrews said. "They feel like their professional autonomy has been robbed from them," he said.

That problem is not unique to private equity-owned hospitals and physician practices.

But it has roots in the rapid consolidation of the healthcare industry that began in the 2010s, which some analysts call a "glorious time" for private investment.

This focus on efficiency changed the mindset of entire hospital systems, said Dr. Patricia Martin, an anesthesiologist in practice for more than 20 years.

"They're not in the business of providing the best medicine. They're in the business of providing good-enough medicine for the largest number of people," Martin told The Epoch Times.

Supporters of private investment say there is no evidence that mortality rates increase under private equity ownership.

Yet hospitals owned by private investors were found to have higher rates of falls and hospital-acquired infections, lower patient satisfaction, and lower scores in standardized quality ratings.

Asset Stripping​

One reason the Steward Health Care bankruptcy drew criticism was the allegation that former owner Cerberus Capital Management had sold some of its real assets before selling it in 2020.

Cerberus created Steward Health Care, starting with six financially troubled hospitals acquired from the Catholic Archdioceses of Boston, in 2010.

Cerberus stated that the hospital system was financially sound with more than $400 million in cash when sold to other investors in 2020.

However, critics noted that Steward had earlier sold 13 medical office buildings and the campus of one hospital to a real estate trust, then leased them back.

That tactic is common among private equity investors and is not unique to healthcare.

Many real-estate intensive businesses do this to raise capital and to make the cost of occupying the property more predictable.

While this practice does not affect the provider's immediate financial picture, researchers found that it does have a longer term impact.

Hospitals that sold their real estate to a real estate investment trust had a significant decrease in fixed asset value, and were about six times more likely to close or file bankruptcy than other hospitals, according to a 2025 study.

Yet the Center for Economic and Policy Research found a pattern of private equity companies using the proceeds from hospital and nursing home real estate sales to pay dividends to investors rather than making capital improvements. At the same time, the new real estate owners sometimes charged the healthcare providers inflated rents.

Better Incentives​

While the dangers of private equity investment in healthcare are real, industry insiders warn against applying blanket solutions.

Not all hospital failures can be laid at the feet of investors, Arduino said.

"When I look at the hospitals that have struggled or failed, it's not a function of private equity. It's a function of long-term mismanagement, operational challenges, disconnected systems, and poor reimbursement," she said. "The hospital business is super hard."

Kahn was critical of what she called "strip and flip" tactics used by some private investors. But, she said, "some private equity firms take a more long-term view and focus on creating real operational improvements to generate value in ways that provide broader benefits."

Andrews, whose firm works with more than a dozen physician groups owned by private-equity firms, said the ownership structure is far less important than the rules by which they operate.

"If you incent primary care practices to rush people in and out the door, that's what they'll do," Andrews said. "If you incent them to spend time, understand what's going on with the patient, and reward them when the patient's healthier, that's what they'll do."

Nine states have enacted legislation regarding private-equity investment in hospitals since 2024. Most involve notification requirements regarding changes of hospital ownership.

A Connecticut law bars private-equity owners from having a majority stake in a hospital or interfering with clinical decision making, and prohibits hospital sale-and-lease-back transactions.
 
This is going to be the ultimate fate of many boomers.

Sitting and suffering in their own shit for weeks because wiping asses or changing diapers would result in a .000000000001% profit loss and the le heckin corpos can't have such a financial disaster occur.
 
I've worked in hospital administration and it is really inefficient and wasteful on the best of days. Having someone come in and trim the fat, even in the name of gross profits, isn't the end of the world.

The real issue is going too far the other way.

Healthcare in general suffers from the complete lack of nuance in the fucking discussion. You are either a hypercapitalist who thinks the hospital should turn a profit and demand private payments down to individual besheet changes and needles or you are a total state worshipper "clap for the NHS" type who thinks asking for a single cent off of the patient directly instead of using taxation is literally Rapture from Bioshock.
 
The real issue is going too far the other way.

Healthcare in general suffers from the complete lack of nuance in the fucking discussion. You are either a hypercapitalist who thinks the hospital should turn a profit and demand private payments down to individual besheet changes and needles or you are a total state worshipper "clap for the NHS" type who thinks asking for a single cent off of the patient directly instead of using taxation is literally Rapture from Bioshock.
When Six Sigma was all the rage and the hospital system I worked for brought in its first Black Belts, that same discussion of extremes you describe was all anyone talked about. It was either "Gordon Gecko, M.D." or "free healthcare for all, man!" in the administrative meetings and it ultimately took the VP of Finance to say "look, we're hemorrhaging money and we can't provide any services if we have to shutter because we went bankrupt."

Of course, in the end, Six Sigma changed nothing and I'm sure the new CEO and his people brought along some other new hotness business reformation brand with him and it too failed until it was acquired by the university hospital system.
 
The real issue is going too far the other way.

Healthcare in general suffers from the complete lack of nuance in the fucking discussion. You are either a hypercapitalist who thinks the hospital should turn a profit and demand private payments down to individual besheet changes and needles or you are a total state worshipper "clap for the NHS" type who thinks asking for a single cent off of the patient directly instead of using taxation is literally Rapture from Bioshock.
The issue comes when large parts of the population are living paycheck to paycheck and barely making ends meet, making the patient pay a single cent off in that case is literally rapture from bioshock unless you believe all those people should just die in the street.
 
The issue comes when large parts of the population are living paycheck to paycheck and barely making ends meet, making the patient pay a single cent off in that case is literally rapture from bioshock unless you believe all those people should just die in the street.

That is pretty much the argument used in the UK for NHS worship, and their healthcare costs have been balooning for decades while the service not only has not improved but has gotten worse and worse. The people living paycheck to paycheck is not the fault or the concern of the healthcare industry, that is a external issue to the discussion that can't be properly addressed in the context of healthcare.
 
That is pretty much the argument used in the UK for NHS worship, and their healthcare costs have been balooning for decades while the service not only has not improved but has gotten worse and worse. The people living paycheck to paycheck is not the fault or the concern of the healthcare industry, that is a external issue to the discussion that can't be properly addressed in the context of healthcare.
You can't say "People pretend that forcing people to pay for healthcare is literally rapture from bioshock" with one breath and then one go "Its if not concern to the discussion if people having to pay for healthcare is literally rapture from bioshock" with the other.

What's the point of a good service if the people who need it most can't access it? If only the rich can access it then it literally is rapture.
 
What's the point of a good service if the people who need it most can't access it? If only the rich can access it then it literally is rapture.
This is a good philosophy to have until you put it into practice. Healthcare is one of the most heavily regulated industries and part of the rising costs are explicily because of government policy.

As an example, ObummerCare raped the individual-market of insurance for the sake of equity. Putting more people on insurance then raising the floor of bare minimum coverage is going to increase overall premiums.
 
Healthcare in general suffers from the complete lack of nuance in the fucking discussion. You are either a hypercapitalist who thinks the hospital should turn a profit and demand private payments down to individual besheet changes and needles or you are a total state worshipper "clap for the NHS" type who thinks asking for a single cent off of the patient directly instead of using taxation is literally Rapture from Bioshock.
Often ignored is the Doctors in all this. Imagine busting your ass in school, going to university, doing residencies all that jazz. To become a Doctor who gives a shit and gets it done. For captalist to undercut you with jeets and communist to treat you like a piece of infrastructure to abuse and neglect.

Go to any country with a free healthcare program and you'll notice all the competent doctors being dissociated from the system (private clinics) or worse punished by laws from attempting dissociation. And the doctors working for the system being treated like slave cattle by the government and general public.
 
Last edited:
This is a good philosophy to have until you put it into practice. Healthcare is one of the most heavily regulated industries and part of the rising costs are explicily because of government policy.

As an example, ObummerCare raped the individual-market of insurance for the sake of equity. Putting more people on insurance then raising the floor of bare minimum coverage is going to increase overall premiums.
Okay, but this isn't answering the original question. Emilio presented "You just want healthcare to be rapture from bioshock." as an untrue strawman.

I asked, if its not a strawman, how do you expect people living paycheck to paycheck to not either die in the street or become permenant debt slaves if they're forced to pay, and the only responses I've gotten are saying how universal healthcare lowers quality without explaining how poor people are supposed to access it if its not free.

If poor people are not meant to access it, then wanting healthcare to just be rapture from bioshock is not a strawman, its just the actual position.
 
Okay, but this isn't answering the original question. Emilio presented "You just want healthcare to be rapture from bioshock." as an untrue strawman.

I asked, if its not a strawman, how do you expect people living paycheck to paycheck to not either die in the street or become permenant debt slaves if they're forced to pay, and the only responses I've gotten are saying how universal healthcare lowers quality without explaining how poor people are supposed to access it if its not free.

If poor people are not meant to access it, then wanting healthcare to just be rapture from bioshock is not a strawman, its just the actual position.
First of all there's a difference between healthcare levels. Poor people can afford a doctor visit and blood test, but not experimental cancer treatment. And most people can just pay insurance to be covered for most things rather than do like the Brits and pay 50% of their wage to get subpar healthcare

Bedsides that, healthcare was never a right in human history. You either hoped some medicine man was around, and if you couldn't afford him you relied on charity to pay for you. Else better hope a folk remedy will work.
 
Okay, but this isn't answering the original question. Emilio presented "You just want healthcare to be rapture from bioshock." as an untrue strawman.

I asked, if its not a strawman, how do you expect people living paycheck to paycheck to not either die in the street or become permenant debt slaves if they're forced to pay, and the only responses I've gotten are saying how universal healthcare lowers quality without explaining how poor people are supposed to access it if its not free.

If poor people are not meant to access it, then wanting healthcare to just be rapture from bioshock is not a strawman, its just the actual position.

There is no way around it: some people will be lost. That is just a fact of life. There is no way to offer true universal healthcare, and trying to do so ends up running against the issue we are already seeing in places like Britain with massive budget runaways that don't fix the problem.

The only way to get close to it is to deal with peripheral issues that compound the main issue of health: have a economy that isn't forcing people to live paycheck to paycheck, get rid of non-citizens who are taking resources from the system, stuff like that.
 
I've gotten are saying how universal healthcare lowers quality without explaining how poor people are supposed to access it if its not free.
You're creating a dichotomy that forces every kind of healthcare system either into single-payer socialism or Ayn Rand wetdream. The neither exist anywhere in the First World. Regardless, the argument will go nowhere unless you define who the poor are, what universal means, and what 'free' means.
 
There is no way around it: some people will be lost. That is just a fact of life. There is no way to offer true universal healthcare, and trying to do so ends up running against the issue we are already seeing in places like Britain with massive budget runaways that don't fix the problem.

The only way to get close to it is to deal with peripheral issues that compound the main issue of health: have a economy that isn't forcing people to live paycheck to paycheck, get rid of non-citizens who are taking resources from the system, stuff like that.
Let me ask you this. In the absence of healthcare, which geneline is more likely to survive? The white couple with one kid and one grandkid, or shaniqua with 12 kids and 144 grandkids?

Either way, you are claiming that you don't want bioshock's rapture, but you aren't really proposing an alternative to bioshock's rapture. You're just claiming that rapture had top notch medical quality, which sure, its technically true I guess.
First of all there's a difference between healthcare levels. Poor people can afford a doctor visit and blood test, but not experimental cancer treatment. And most people can just pay insurance to be covered for most things rather than do like the Brits and pay 50% of their wage to get subpar healthcare

Bedsides that, healthcare was never a right in human history. You either hoped some medicine man was around, and if you couldn't afford him you relied on charity to pay for you. Else better hope a folk remedy will work.
Ok, so then you do agree that you want the bioshock rapture system of healthcare, just say that. If you agree with it I don't know what part of the statement you are taking issue with.

Regardless, the argument will go nowhere unless you define who the poor are, what universal means, and what 'free' means.
Did you miss the multiple comments talking about people living paycheck to paycheck or what
 
Back
Top Bottom