Category Archives: Financialization of Health

Foundational Steps Vital on the Road to Universal Health Care

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Financialization of Health, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Healthcare Reform, Medical Debt, Medical-Financial-Industrial Complex (MFIC), Medical-Industrial Complex, Medicare for All, Pandemic, Physicians for a National Health Program, Profit Motive, Universal Coverage, Universal Healthcare System • Leave a comment
https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/foundational-steps-vital-on-the-road?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=144470044&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

“Incrementalism.” The word is perceived as the enemy of hope for universal health care in the United States.

Those who advocate for single-payer, expanded Medicare for all tend to be on the left side of the political spectrum, and we have advanced the movement while pushing back on incremental change. But the profit-taking health industry giants in what’s been called the medical-industrial complex are pursuing their own incremental agenda, designed to sustain the outrageously expensive and unfair status quo.

In recent years, as the financial sector of the U.S. economy has joined that unholy alliance, scholars have begun writing about the “financialization” of health care.

It has morphed into the medical-financial-industrial complex (MFIC) so vast and deeply entrenched in our economy that a single piece of legislation to achieve our goal–even with growing support in Congress–remains far short of enough votes to enact.

If we are to see the day when all Americans can access care without significant financial barriers, policy changes that move us closer to that goal must be pursued as aggressively as we fight against the changes that push universal health care into the distant future. Labeling all positive steps toward universal health care as unacceptable “incrementalism” could have the effect of aiding and abetting the MFIC and increase the chances of a worst-case scenario: Medicare Advantage for all, a goal of the giants in the private insurance business. But words matter. Instead of “incremental,” let’s call the essential positive steps forward as “foundational” and not undermine them.

The pandemic crisis exposed the weaknesses of our health system. When millions of emergencies in the form of COVID-19 infections overtook the system, most providers were ill-prepared and understaffed. More than 1.1 million U.S. citizens died of COVID-19-related illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control. 

For years, the MFIC had been advancing its agenda, even as the U.S. was losing ground in life expectancy and major measures of health outcomes. While health care profits soared in the years leading up to and during the pandemic, those of us in the single-payer movement demanded improved, expanded Medicare for all.  And we were right to do so. Progress came through almost every effort. The number of advocates grew, and more newly elected leaders supported a single-payer plan. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid proved that millions of Americans were fed up with having to delay or avoid care altogether because it simply cost too much or because insurance companies refused to cover needed tests, treatments and medications.

But as the demand for systemic overhaul grew, the health care industry was making strategic political contributions and finding ways to gain even more control of health policy and the political process itself. 

Over the years, many in the universal health care movement have opposed foundational change for strategic reasons. Some movement leaders believed that backing small changes or tweaks to the current system at best deflected from our ultimate goal. And when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, many on the left viewed it as a Band-Aid if not an outright gift to the MFIC. While many physicians in our movement knew that the law’s Medicaid expansion and the provisions making it illegal for insurers to refuse coverage to people with preexisting conditions would save many thousands of lives, they worried that the ACA would further empower big insurance companies. Both positions were valid.

After the passage of the ACA, more of us had insurance cards in our wallets and access to needed care for the first time, although high premiums and out-of-pocket costs have become insurmountable barriers for many. Meanwhile, industry profits soared. 

The industry expanded its turf. Hospitals grew larger, stand-alone urgent care clinics, often owned by corporate conglomerates, opened on street corners in cities across the country, private insurance rolls grew, disease management schemes proliferated, and hospital and drug prices continued the march upward. The money flowing into the campaign coffers of political candidates made industry-favored incremental changes an easier lift.

The MFIC now enjoys a hold on nearly one-fifth of our GDP. Almost one of every five dollars flowing through our economy does so because of that ever-expanding, profit-focused complex.  

To change this “system” would require an overhaul of the whole economy. Single-payer advocates must consider that herculean task as they continue their work. We must understand that the true system of universal health care we envision would also disrupt the financial industry – banks, collection agencies, investors – an often-forgotten but extraordinarily powerful segment of the corporate-run complex.  

Even if the research and data show that improved, expanded Medicare for all would save money and lives (and they do show that), that is not motivating for the finance folks, who fear that without unfettered control of health care, they might profit less. Eliminating medical bills and debt would be marvelous for patients but not for a large segment of the financial community, including bankruptcy attorneys.

Following the money in U.S. health care means understanding how deep and far the tentacles of profit reach, and how embedded they are now.

We know the MFIC positioned itself to continue growing profits and building more capacity. The industry made steady, incremental progress toward that goal. There is no illusion that better overall health for Americans is the mission of the stockholders who drive this industry. No matter what the marketers tell us, patients are not their priority. If too many of us get healthier, we might not use as much care and generate as much money for the owners and providers. Private insurers want enough premiums and government perks to keep flowing their way to keep the C-Suite and Wall Street happy.

More than health insurers

Health insurers are far from the only rapidly expanding component of the MFIC. A recent documentary, “American Hospitals: Healing a Broken System,” for example, explores a segment of the U.S. health industry that is often overlooked by policymakers and the media. Though they were unprepared for the national health crisis, hospitals endured the pandemic in this country largely because the dedicated doctors, nurses and ancillary staff risked their own lives to keep caring for COVID-19 patients while everything from masks, gowns and gloves to thermometers and respirators were in short supply. But make no mistake, many hospitals were still making money through the pandemic. In fact, some boosted their already high profits, and private insurance companies had practically found profit-making nirvana. Patients put off everything from colonoscopies to knee replacements, physical therapy to MRIs. Procedures not done meant claims not submitted, while monthly insurance premiums kept right on coming and right on increasing. 

The pandemic was a time of turmoil for most businesses and families, yet the MFIC took its share of profits. It was pure gold for many hospitals until staffing pressures and supply issues grew more dire, COVID patients were still in need of care, and more general patient care needs started to reemerge.

We might be forgiven for thinking there wasn’t much regulating or legislating done around health care during the pandemic years. We’d be wrong. There was a flurry of legislation at the state level as some states took on the abuses of the private insurance industry and hospital billing practices. 

And the movement to improve and expand traditional Medicare to cover all of us stayed active, though somewhat muted. The bills before Congress that expanded access to Medicaid during the pandemic through a continuous enrollment provision offered access to care for millions of people. Yet as that COVID-era expansion ended, many of those patients were left without coverage or access to care. This might have been a chance to raise the issue loudly, but the social justice movement did not sufficiently activate national support for maintaining continuous enrollment in Medicaid. Is that the kind of foundational change worth fighting for? I would argue it most certainly is.

As those previously covered by Medicaid enter this “unwinding” phase, many will be unable to secure equivalent or adequate health insurance coverage. The money folks began to worry as coverage waned. After all, sick people will show up needing care and they will not be able to pay for it. As of this writing, patient advocacy groups are largely on the sidelines.

 But Allina Health took action. The hospital chain announced it would no longer treat patients with medical debt. After days of negative press, the company did an about-face. 

Throughout the country, even as the pandemic loomed, the universal, single-payer movement focused on explaining to candidates and elected officials why improving and expanding Medicare to cover all of us not only is a moral imperative but also makes economic sense. In many ways, the movement has been tremendously effective: More than 130 city and county governing bodies have passed resolutions in support of Medicare for all, including in Seattle, Denver, Cincinnati, Washington, D.C., Tampa, Sacramento, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Atlanta, Duluth, Baltimore, and Cook County (Chicago). 

The Medicare for All Act, sponsored by Rep Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Sanders (I-Vt.) has 113 co-sponsors in the House and 14 in the Senate. Another bill allowing states to establish their own universal health care programs has been introduced in the House and will be introduced soon in the Senate.

Moving us closer

The late Dr. Quentin Young was a young Barack Obama’s doctor in Chicago. Young spoke to his president-in-the-making patient about universal health care and Obama, then a state legislator, famously answered that he would support a single-payer plan if we were starting from scratch. Many in the Medicare–for-all movement dismissed that statement as accepting corporate control of health care. 

But Young would steadfastly advocate for single-payer health care for years to come and as one of the founding forces behind Physicians for a National Health Program. Once Dr. Young was asked if the movement should support incremental changes. He answered, “If a measure makes it easier and moves us closer to achieving health care for all of us, we should support that wholeheartedly. And if a measure makes it harder to get to single-payer, we need to oppose it and work to defeat that measure.”  Many people liked that response. Others were not persuaded.

But in recent years, PHNP has become a national leader in a broad-based effort to halt the privatization of Medicare through so-called Medicare Advantage plans and other means. A case can be made that those are incremental/foundational but essential steps to achieving the ultimate goal.

We must fight incrementally sometimes, for instance when traditional Medicare is threatened with further privatization. Bit by painful bit, a program that has served this nation so well for more than 50 years will be carved up and given over to the private insurance industry unless the foundational steps taken by the industry are met with resistance and facts at every turn. We can achieve our goal by playing the short game as well as the long game. Foundational change can be and has been powerful. It just has to be focused on the health and well-being of every person.

The rising danger of private equity in healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in Adverse Events, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Financialization of Health, Health Insurance Industry, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Joint Liability, Management Company, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Trends, Mergers & Acquisitions, Ownership Transparency, Private Equity, Regulation, Social Responsibility, Tax Loopholes • Leave a comment
The rising danger of private equity in healthcare

Private equity (PE) acquisitions in healthcare have exploded in the past decade. The number of private equity buyouts of physician practices increased six-fold from 2012-2021. At least 386 hospitals are now owned by private equity firms, comprising 30% of for-profit hospitals in the U.S. 

Emerging evidence shows that the influence of private equity in healthcare demands attention. Here’s what’s in the latest research.

What is private equity?

There are a few key characteristics that differentiate private equity firms from other for-profit companies. At a 2023 event hosted by the NIHCM Foundation, Assistant Professor of Health Care Management at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania Dr. Atul Gupta explained these factors:

  1. Financial engineering. PE firms primarily use debt to finance acquisitions (that’s why they’re often known as “leveraged buyouts”). But unlike in other acquisitions, this debt is placed on the balance sheet of the the target company (ie. the physician practice or hospital). 
  2. Short-term goals. PE firms make the majority of their profits when they sell, and they look to exit within 5-8 years. That means they generally look for ways to cut costs quickly, like reducing staff or selling real estate. 
  3. Moral hazard. PE companies can make a big profit even if their target firm goes bankrupt. This is different from most investments where the success of the investor depends on how well the target company does.

The nature of private equity itself has serious implications for healthcare, in which the health of communities depends on the long-term sustainability and quality improvement of hospitals and physician practices. But are these concerns borne out in the real world?   

PE acquisition and adverse events

A recent study in JAMA from researchers at Harvard Medical School and the University of Chicago analyzed patient mortality and the prevalence of adverse events at hospitals acquired by private equity compared to non-acquired hospitals. The study used Medicare claims from more than 4 million hospitalizations from 2009-2019, comparing claims at 51 PE-acquired hospitals and 249 non-acquired hospitals to serve as controls.

In-hospital mortality decreased slightly at PE-acquired hospitals compared to controls, but not 30-day mortality. This may be because the patient mix at PE-acquired hospitals shifted more toward a lower-risk group, and transfers to other acute care hospitals increased. 

However, there were concerning results for patient safety. The rate of adverse events at PE-acquired hospitals compared to control hospitals increased by 25%, including a 27% increase in falls, 38% increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), and double the rate of surgical site infections. The authors found the rates of CLABSI and surgical site infections at PE-acquired hospitals alarming because overall surgical volume and central line placements actually decreased. 

What could be behind these higher rates of adverse events after PE acquisition? In a Washington Post op-ed, Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the School of Public Health at Brown University, writes that it’s down to two things: staffing levels and adherence to patient safety protocols. “Both cost money, and it is not a stretch to connect cuts in staffing and a reduced focus on patient safety with an increased risk of harm for patients,” he writes.   

Social responsibility impact

Private equity acquisitions may have a negative effect on patient safety, but what about social responsibility? In a recent report from PE Stakeholder on the impact of Apollo Global Management’s reach into healthcare, the authors use the Lown Institute Hospitals Index to understand hospitals owned by Apollo perform on social responsibility. Lifepoint Health, a health system owned by Apollo, was ranked 222 out of 296 systems on social responsibility nationwide. And in Virginia, North Carolina, and Arizona, some of the worst-ranked hospitals in the state for social responsibility are those owned by Lifepoint Health, the PE Stakeholder report shows.

Apollo Global Management is the second largest private equity firm in the United States, with $598 billion total assets under management, according to the report. The PE stakeholder report outlines concerning practices by Apollo, including putting high levels of debt that lowers hospitals’ credit ratings and increases their interest rates, cutting staff and essential healthcare services, and selling off real estate for a quick buck. If we care about hospital social responsibility we should clearly be concerned about private equity acquisitions. 

The bigger picture

Private equity buyouts did not come from out of nowhere, so what does this trend tell us about our healthcare system? PE acquisitions are in many ways a symptom of larger issues in healthcare, such as increasing administrative burden, tight margins, and lack of regulation on consolidation. For owners of private physician practices that face a lot of administrative work, deciding to sell to a PE firm to reduce this workload and focus on patient care (not to mention, getting a hefty payout) is a tempting proposal. 

In the Washington Post, Ashish Jha describes what made his colleague decide to sell his practice to a PE firm: “The price he was getting was very good, and he was happy to outsource the headache of running the business (managing billing, making sure there was adequate coverage for nights and weekends, etc.).”

“In many ways, private equity is both a response to and an accelerator of broader health system trends – one in which consolidation is happening quickly, care is being delivered by larger and larger entities, and corporate influence is growing.”Jane M. Zhu, MD, MPP, MSHP, Associate Professor of Medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, at NIHCM Foundation Event

PE buyouts are also indicative of a larger trend, what some researchers call the “financialization” of health. As Dr. Joseph Bruch at the University of Chicago and colleagues describe in the New England Journal of Medicine, financialization refers to the “transformation of public, private, and corporate health care entities into salable and tradable assets from which the financial sector may accumulate capital.”  

Financialization is a sort of merging of the financial and healthcare sectors; not only are financial actors like private equity buying up healthcare providers, but healthcare institutions are also acting like financial firms. For example, 22 health systems have investment arms, including nonprofit system Ascension, which has its own private equity operation worth $1 billion. The financialization of healthcare is also reflected in the boards of nonprofit hospitals. A 2023 study of US News top-ranked hospitals found that a plurality of their board members (44%) were from the financial sector. 

What we can do about it?

What can we do to mitigate harms caused by PE acquisitions? In Health Affairs Forefront, executive director of Community Catalyst Emily Stewart and executive director of the Private Equity Stakeholder Project Jim Baker provide some policy ideas to stop the “metastasizing disease” of private equity:

  • Joint Liability. Currently PE firms can put all of their debt on the balance sheet of the firm they acquire, letting them off the hook for this debt and making it harder for the acquired company to succeed. “Requiring private equity firms to share in the responsibility of the debt…would prevent them from making huge profits while they are saddling hospitals and nursing homes with debts that ultimately impact worker pay and cut off care to patients,” write Stewart and Baker.
  • Regulate mergers. Private equity acquisitions often go under the radar because the acquisitions are small enough to not be reported to authorities. But the U.S. Federal Trade Commission could be more aggressive in evaluating mergers and buyouts by PE, as they have done recently in Texas, where a PE firm has been buying up numerous anesthesia practices. 
  • Transparency of PE ownership. It can be hard to know when hospitals are bought by a PE firm. The Department of Health and Human Services could require disclosure of PE ownership for hospitals as they have done for nursing homes.
  • Remove tax loopholes. The carried interest loophole allows PE management fees to be taxed at as capital gains, which is a lower rate than corporate income. Closing this loophole would remove a big incentive that makes PE buyouts so attractive for firms.  

“It is clear that the problem is not the lack of solutions but rather the lack of political will to take on private equity,” write Steward and Baker.

We need not to not only stem the tide of PE acquisitions sweeping through healthcare, but address the financialization of healthcare more broadly, to put patients back at the center of our health system.