Amazon makes a new push into health care

AS BIG tech companies face a brutal slow-down the hunt is on for new areas of expansion. Amazon, which is now America’s second-biggest business by revenue, is a case in point. In the final quarter of 2022 its sales are expected to expand by just 6.7{bf0515afdcaddba073662ceb89fbb62b6b1bf123143c0e06b788e1946e8c353f} year on year. On November 17th Andy Jassy, Amazon’s chief executive, confirmed that the firm had begun laying off employees and would fire more next year. Mr Jassy said it was the most difficult decision he had made since becoming boss. But he also noted that “big opportunities” lay ahead. One that he highlighted is the largest, most lucrative and hellishly difficult businesses in America: health care.

Many tech firms have health-care ambitions. Apple tracks wellbeing through the iPhone; Microsoft offers cloud-computing services to health firms and Alphabet sells wearable devices and is pumping money into biotech research. But Amazon is now creating the most ambitious offering of all. Two days before Mr Jassy’s statement, on November 15th, it launched “Amazon Clinic”, an online service operating in 32 states that offers virtual health care for over 20 conditions, from acne to allergies. Amazon describes the new service as a virtual storefront that connects users with third-party health providers.

Amazon makes a new push into health care

The Amazon Clinic launch follows the $3.9bn takeover, announced in July, of One Medical, a primary-care provider that offers telehealth services and runs bricks-and-mortar clinics (the deal has yet to close). It has 790,000 members. The deal was led by Neil Lindsay, formerly responsible for Prime, Amazon’s subscription service, who has said health care “is high on the list of experiences that need reinvention”.

These latest moves complement Amazon’s existing assets. Its Halo band, a wearable device that went on sale in 2020, monitors the health status of users. In 2018 it bought PillPack, a digital pharmacy that is now part of Amazon Pharmacy, for $753m. Amazon Web Services launched specific cloud services for health care and life science companies in 2021.

The move into primary care, jargon for the role of the traditional family doctor, is a big step but has an obvious logic. Walgreens, a pharmacy chain, reckons the industry is worth $1trn a year. Around half of Generation Z and millennial Americans do not have a primary-care doctor and One Medical’s membership has almost doubled since 2019. Amazon Clinic will accept cash for its services, rather than relying on America’s nightmare insurance system to recoup costs.

The company is betting that primary care will become more digital. And it is likely that it will seek to integrate these services with other parts of Amazon’s health-care offering. Amazon Clinic’s new users can buy drugs from Amazon Pharmacy. Over time the firm could add a feature to the Halo band reminding users to take medicine. It might also set up clinics in branches of Whole Foods, the supermarket chain it acquired in 2017. And it may wrap health care into Prime, which now has some 200m members worldwide. “The low-hanging fruit is offering discounts on membership to Prime members,” says Daniel Grosslight of Citigroup, a bank.

Amazon’s health push comes with several risks. One is that its own record is far from flawless. It is closing Amazon Care, which it launched to provide health services for its own employees and which expanded to offer some services to outside customers. Haven—a collaboration with Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett’s investment firm, and JPMorgan Chase, a bank—was set up in 2018 to procure lower cost health care for employees, but died less than three years later.

Another danger is competition. cvs, an American retail pharmacy, reportedly outbid Amazon for Signify Health, a large primary-care provider in September. In October, Walgreens increased its stake in Villagemd with a $5.2bn investment. JPMorgan recently opened primary-care centres of its own. Amazon’s new venture will also compete with the likes of Ro and Hims & Hers, tech startups dedicated to providing virtual health care.

Finally, Amazon will have to grapple with regulators. The Federal Trade Commission, a trust-busting agency, is examining the One Medical deal. The takeover, and the launch of Amazon Clinic, will raise questions about who should be allowed to hold sensitive health-care data. Amazon has said “we remain focused on the important mission of protecting customers’ health information”. The firm may need to set up hefty firewalls to separate customer information held by clinics from that gathered through other products and services. But satisfying data-privacy concerns could wipe out many of the data-sharing opportunities that Amazon deftly deploys across the rest of its business.

Amazon’s attempts at disrupting health care will be subject to intense scrutiny. Nonetheless it should have a positive effect on health care in America. Its experience at keeping customers happy while generating razor-thin margins could improve primary care and force other providers to up their game. It may also prompt other tech giants to do more to disrupt health care themselves. All this may be just the medicine that America’s heath-care system—and Mr Jassy’s tenure as Amazon’s boss—badly need.■

New health care regulators ask OneCare executives for measurable results

New health care regulators ask OneCare executives for measurable results
OneCare Vermont officials present their budget proposal to the Green Mountain Care Board in October 2019. From left: Vicki Loner, CEO; Tom Borys, vice president of finance and Sara Barry, COO. Photo by Mike Dougherty/VTDigger

OneCare, the nonprofit that distributes millions of public and private health care dollars to providers throughout Vermont, has asked state regulators to greenlight a $15 million operating budget — a slight decrease from this year — as part of an annual review process. 

This is the first OneCare budget cycle for most members of the Green Mountain Care Board, the five-member body that regulates major players in Vermont’s health care sector, including hospitals. And the board’s new members seem keen to put OneCare executives in the hot seat. 

During a five-hour marathon hearing last week, the board repeatedly pressed OneCare executives for quantitative results, whether that meant reducing Vermonters’ health care costs or improving their quality of care.

“Vermonters, either through taxpayer-funded health care groups, out-of-pocket expenses, copays or insurance, have borne the bulk of those staggering numbers,” said Owen Foster, the board’s new chair, at the start of the meeting. “And for that they deserve results.” 

Owen Foster, chair of the Green Mountain Care Board, at the board’s office in Montpelier on Oct. 27. Photo by Riley Robinson/VTDigger

Thom Walsh, who was appointed to the board in December, asked OneCare CEO Vicki Loner to name the organization’s top three key performance indicators, or metrics of success. Loner declined to name any, saying, “They’re going to our board to be reviewed.” 

OneCare is an accountable care organization, or ACO. It’s been described as a policy experiment because it’s intended to shift the state’s health care spending from a fee-for-service model to one in which providers get a flat fee per patient, with incentives to keep people well for the lowest cost. It funnels money from Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers to health care providers across the state, ranging from big hospitals to independent primary care doctors. 

OneCare has a $15 million operating budget to manage these various contracts between payers and providers and to conduct data analysis of the health care system. Its operating costs are funded by Vermont hospitals, which pay millions in fees each year to be part of the ACO. 

Tom Borys, OneCare’s vice president of finance, cited OneCare’s increased enrollment as one of his top indicators of success. He argued that increased participation in an ACO model is inherently good because it changes the incentive structure behind participants’ health care. 

But Walsh quickly cut him off, seemingly unimpressed. 

“What I’m struggling to find is an outcome that would be meaningful to Vermonters, and you may be able to say something like, ‘reduced (emergency department) visits,’” Walsh said. “Those are outcome measures that matter to patients, and I can’t find them.” 

As part of this year’s budget process, OneCare submitted a study comparing it with a group of 20 similar ACOs nationwide. OneCare outperformed other ACOs on some cost metrics, including cost of inpatient and outpatient surgeries. 

However, it found OneCare patients went to the emergency department at significantly greater rates, averaging 36{bf0515afdcaddba073662ceb89fbb62b6b1bf123143c0e06b788e1946e8c353f} higher than patients in other ACOs. Vermonters in OneCare had 18{bf0515afdcaddba073662ceb89fbb62b6b1bf123143c0e06b788e1946e8c353f} fewer visits to primary care providers and paid 30{bf0515afdcaddba073662ceb89fbb62b6b1bf123143c0e06b788e1946e8c353f} more for prescription drugs. 

In a June 2021 report, State Auditor Doug Hoffer recommended that the care board find a clear way to measure the ACO’s effectiveness, to determine whether OneCare saved Vermonters more money than it cost. The auditor said that assessment should be a prerequisite for any new all-payer agreement with the federal government, which is expected to be worked out in the next few years. 

“On a high level … it’s important that any regulated entity, like OneCare going before the board, gets a good, careful review,” Mike Fisher, chief health care advocate at Vermont Legal Aid, said after the hearing. “And so I’m pleased to see the level of questioning from the board.” 

OneCare executives pushed back on some of the board members’ demands for quantitative impact. They argued that changing the entire health care system takes a long time. 

“How do you manage the one-year payer contract cycles and performance expectations with long-term outcomes that, our clinicians remind us all the time, it’s going to take years, decades, generations to address?” OneCare Chief Operating Officer Sara Barry said. 

When governments or organizations invest in big, upstream factors that impact people’s health — things such housing, walkable communities and food security — those benefits don’t have an immediate, measurable impact on the health of a group, Loner said. OneCare executives also noted that about half of the ACO’s lifespan has been during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Walsh agreed with executives that systems change is a long game but countered that six years should be enough time to at least have some way of measuring results. 

“If OneCare’s role was to support through data analytics, maybe trainings and other things over time, wouldn’t there be improvements that we could point to, right?” Walsh said. “If we look year over year, and it’s been going on for five or six years, wouldn’t there be improvements that we could point to, even if it’s just a little piece?”

About 296,000 Vermonters are “attributed” to OneCare — meaning they see a provider who participates in OneCare and is accountable to the ACO’s performance targets. These 296,000 patients are expected to generate $1.4 billion in health care spending in 2023, an expected $97 million increase from this year. 

Overall, OneCare’s requested $15 million operating budget would reduce its expenses by about $248,000, or 1.6{bf0515afdcaddba073662ceb89fbb62b6b1bf123143c0e06b788e1946e8c353f}, from 2022. The ACO cut costs by reducing its in-person workspace and by combining some operations, such as data analytics, with UVM Health Network, executives told the care board. 

OneCare’s budget request includes a roughly 3{bf0515afdcaddba073662ceb89fbb62b6b1bf123143c0e06b788e1946e8c353f} cost-of-living increase for employees. If the budget were approved, Loner, the CEO, would make more than $490,000 next year. 

Aside from the organization’s operating expenses, OneCare would also be responsible for another $29.9 million, which it would distribute to health care providers throughout the state. 

That money includes bonus payments for providers who reach certain population health goals. It would also fund targeted investment and programs in specific areas, such as about $212,000 for the state’s five nonprofit Area Agencies on Aging.

In response to questioning by Foster, Loner said OneCare had conducted no cost-benefit analysis on how it should allocate money to particular programs or types of providers. 

The proposed budget would raise hospital participation fees by 1{bf0515afdcaddba073662ceb89fbb62b6b1bf123143c0e06b788e1946e8c353f}, generating a total of $19.8 million. If approved, this budget also “escalates risk quite dramatically” for Vermont hospitals, Borys, OneCare’s vice president of finance, told the care board.

By participating in OneCare, hospitals join a risk pool. If hospitals meet certain cost targets and quality goals by the end of the year, hospitals can earn funds from the pool. If hospitals miss these targets, they could owe money — potentially millions. Theoretically, this payment model is meant to change financial incentives, to encourage coordinated care and reduce expensive or unnecessary services. 

With the onset of the pandemic, OneCare had substantially reduced how much risk hospitals took on through their shared pool, from $42 million in the pre-pandemic portion of 2020, down to about $16 million for the past couple years. The proposed 2023 budget would raise the stakes for hospitals back to roughly pre-pandemic levels, at $36 million. 

At last week’s meeting, Foster asked OneCare executives what the hospitals’ risk actually means: If a hospital fails to meet certain targets and owes money at the end of the year, who ultimately pays that penalty? 

“Would any executives or individuals who are responsible for that loss have, actually, any skin in the game?” Foster said. 

Hospital leaders are not individually responsible to OneCare’s goals, Borys said, but they are accountable to their boards. 

“In the sense that if they had to make a large shared loss payment, the boards are going to consider that when evaluating management,” Borys said.

“So if the hospitals, ultimately as an organization, would foot the bill, is it fair to say that by and large, Vermonters are paying that?” Foster said. “Given that’s the source of the revenue streams?”

“I think through extension, there’s some truth to that,” Borys said. “But I will also add that the complexity of health care funding is huge. And if the general belief is that every dollar that funds health care comes from individual people, which is probably fair, then I’d say the answer is yes.” 

Fairview, Sanford health care systems plan to merge

Updated: 6:15 p.m.

Nearly a decade after unsuccessfully attempting a merger, South Dakota-based Sanford Health and Minnesota’s Fairview Health Services said Tuesday they’re again in talks to combine.

The two regional health care giants say they intend to complete a merger next year. The new entity would be called Sanford Health and be run by Sanford’s current CEO. The deal would include the University of Minnesota hospitals, which Fairview purchased in 1997.

“The synergies between the two organizations are going to allow us to marshal the collective resources of both organizations together to better serve our patients and help us deliver on a promise of world-class care to every single patient,” said Sanford Health President and CEO Bill Gassen in an interview with MPR News.

Financial details and any cost-cutting plans tied to the proposed merger were not immediately disclosed.

In 2013, the two health systems pursued a similar merger, but talks broke down amid an onslaught of public criticism. Some state lawmakers pursued legislation that would’ve blocked Sanford from controlling the University of Minnesota hospitals.

Then-Attorney General Lori Swanson raised concerns about a merger because of the role that tax breaks and donations from Minnesota and Minnesotans played in Fairview’s development.

Before you keep reading, take a moment to donate to MPR News. Your financial support ensures that factual and trusted news and context remain accessible to all.

Current Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said late Tuesday his office is investigating the proposed transaction.

If approved this time around, the deal would create a massive health care system stretching across the rural and urban Upper Midwest.

Sioux Falls-based Sanford operates in six states, including Minnesota, and describes itself as the nation’s largest rural health care system, including 47 medical centers and about 45,000 employees.

“Because they’re contiguous, it allows us to be able to coordinate care back and forth,” said Fairview CEO James Hereford. “But frankly, any issues about anti-competitiveness, there’s just no basis for that.”

Sanford Health is named for St. Paul native and University of Minnesota graduate T. Denny Sanford, a philanthropist who made his fortune in the subprime, high-interest credit card business. The Sioux Valley Hospital and Health System was renamed Sanford Health in 2007 after Sanford donated $400 million to the Sioux Falls-based care system.

Minneapolis-based Fairview has 11 hospitals, including the University of Minnesota Medical Center, and about 31,000 employees.

Fairview has been struggling financially for several years. It reported an operating loss in 2021 of $132.6 million on top of a $209 million loss in 2020. In financial statements, the system has pointed to the COVID-19 crisis as contributing to its financial woes, driving up operating costs while driving down the number of nonelective procedures.

Ownership and control of the U’s medical center — the state’s top teaching hospital — is likely to be an issue closely examined by Minnesota lawmakers as it was in 2013. The center would no longer be Minnesota owned.

The University of Minnesota is still weighing the merger possibilities and has questions about the commitment to medical training and research, said Myron Frans, the U’s senior vice president for finance and operations and a former Minnesota budget commissioner.

“We’ve been talking to them, but we have many, many really hard and reasonable questions to ask about how would this merger affect the University of Minnesota,” he told MPR News. “Anything beyond that is still … a source of conjecture on our part.”

The Minnesota Nurses Association late Tuesday said its members will “strongly oppose” the proposed merger because it would “put corporate expansion ahead of patient care.”

MPR News reporters Matt Sepic and Tim Nelson contributed to this report.

Michelle Obama says she had to ease nation into a first lady with Black hair: ‘Let me keep my hair straight. Let’s get health care passed’

Michelle Obama says she intentionally waited until she left the White House to finally wear her hair in braids, suggesting that the country was “just getting adjusted” to a Black woman as first lady.

“They ain’t ready for it!” Obama told Ellen DeGeneres on Tuesday, as she kicked off a nationwide book tour in Washington to promote her new self-help book and memoir “The Light We Carry.”

“The code of ethics at a workplace, as Black women we deal with it, the whole thing about do you show up with your natural hair?” Obama said.

“Braids, ya’ll!” Obama exclaimed to applause from the sold-out crowd, as she motioned to her hairstyle.

“We gotta ease up on the people,” Obama quipped about how she wore her hair while living in the executive mansion.

“They tripped out when Barack wore a tan suit,” Obama continued, referring to the then-president’s 2014 sartorial choice that quickly became a viral sensation.

“The great indignity, the scandal of the Obama administration,” the former first lady said with a laugh.

Dramatizing what she imagined the reaction would’ve been if she debuted braids while in the White House, Obama took on the tone of her critics and said, “Remember when she wore braids? Those are terrorist braids! Those are revolutionary braids!”

“Let me keep my hair straight,” Obama continued. “Let’s get health care passed.”

Obama said she’d sometimes tease her team by mentioning a desire to switch up her look.

“I would get my staff all worried, too. I was like, ‘I was thinking about getting braids,’” Obama chuckled as she stroked her hair.

“That’s the African American experience,” Obama said, “but women in offices that are worried, ‘Should I wear skirts? Should I wear pantyhose?’ I hate pantyhose.”

“But when you’re carrying all this other stuff, this mask, these differences and you’re trying to do your job, it’s just an extra burden on overcoming,” she told DeGeneres.

Obama’s appearance at the Warner Theatre coincided with former President Trump’s announcement on Tuesday in Florida that he was launching a 2024 White House bid. No mention was made of Trump by name at the event, but Obama did reflect on the “painful” experience of his 2016 victory.

“You don’t want to make this personal, but as I write in the book, it hurt. It hurt because you wonder was it a rebuke of the eight years, the sacrifice we made? Was it complacency? What was it?” Obama, 58, said.

“We sacrificed a lot to make that set of changes and because not enough people voted, that was that.”

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Obama said, “You’re looking at the world and you’re looking at the world literally fall apart before your very eyes. And for us, it was particularly painful because we knew this would happen.”

“I mean, if you — if you guys recall, I said, ‘Don’t vote for this guy.”

“I have to say, and I should have listened to you, I regret voting for him,” DeGeneres, an outspoken Trump critic, deadpanned. “I thought he was a good guy,” DeGeneres joked.

Saying while she didn’t want to “talk too much politics,” Obama told the audience, “The truth is, we have a vested interest in making sure that more people feel seen.”

“That more people feel like they have a stake in what’s going on. People need jobs, they need housing, they need to feel like they can get ahead, they need to feel like they have a stake in this world and then they won’t tear it apart,” she said.

“They won’t tear it apart with racism, or with violence, or with crime because it’s theirs.”

—Updated at 10:50 a.m.

Brown, Lifespan, Care New England sign agreement to align research operations

Setting up the unified procedure is intended to spur investigate programs with high opportunity to translate into client therapies and interventions, by strengthening connections amongst the primary sciences and clinical analysis. Undertaking so will speed up the procedure of making use of discoveries that enrich the detection and cure of ailment, mentioned Dr. Mukesh K. Jain, dean of drugs and biological sciences at Brown.

“Both Lifespan and Treatment New England have impactful research portfolios with good talent,” Jain said. “Bringing them alongside one another with Brown will make it possible for us all to expand on our existing assets in methods that benefit sufferers in our community and beyond. The vision getting state-of-the-art in this settlement integrates analysis from laboratory to medical trials to results at the inhabitants level throughout critical biomedical domains. I am unaware of any establishment regionally or nationally that aligns investigative endeavours throughout the entirety of the research continuum.”

Forming a Joint Govt Council

The ARC agreement was designed jointly in recent months and signed in early November. It outlines the formation of a 4-member Joint Executive Council that will give oversight on the organizations’ do the job to unify research operations. The functions agreed to a phased solution to employing important aspects of the ARC — the settlement marks the first phase and will start conversations on how to entirely operationalize the energy, with the Joint Government Council eventually needing to approve separate money and operational programs before ultimate implementation, predicted over the future 12 to 18 months.

“This settlement is an preliminary, but extremely essential, phase in aligning study throughout Brown, Lifespan and Care New England,” mentioned Dr. James E. Fanale, CEO and president of Care New England. “We are assured that from listed here, we can move ahead with operationalizing the approach and putting it into observe.”

The ARC’s operational program will go over matters together with research integrity and compliance, institutional evaluation boards and use of exploration services. It will also define information about study infrastructure, this sort of as staffing for the many positions expected to run investigation businesses effectively.

The gains of investigation alignment are major, together with for sufferers and people throughout the region, leaders from the corporations say. 

“By fortifying and streamlining our investigation endeavours, I feel we will also be far more competitive in recruiting and retaining the best and brightest college, team and trainees in biomedical and health sciences,” stated Arthur Sampson, interim CEO and president of Lifespan.

Ronald Aubert, interim dean of the Brown University School of General public Overall health, stated that streamlining processes concerned in analysis administration will be 1 of the advantageous outcomes of this collaboration — the efficiencies enabled will direct to exploration efficiency that can in the long run profit people and populations.

“Having different administrative structures slows down the analysis procedure,” Aubert claimed. “Currently, if a Brown-based mostly researcher needs to collaborate with a medical center-based college member to full the objectives of grant-funded exploration, they have to perform within just the normally duplicative procedures of just about every process. What we hope to execute as we work by means of the operations piece of this collaboration is to empower our experts, community health and fitness gurus and medical professionals to do their investigate, not far more paperwork.”

Even though the settlement is not a merger topic to federal or condition merger laws, the businesses are jointly fully commited to compliance with the stringent federal rules governing investigation by which every separately abides now.

The agreement arrives just after Brown not too long ago released its last Operational System for Investing in Analysis, which offers a roadmap for growing scholarship with the aim of strengthening the good effect that Brown exploration has throughout the globe. The University is also investing in new money tasks to broaden exploration potential. Setting up is underway for a new integrated everyday living sciences building Brown intends to serve as anchor tenant in a community-private lifetime sciences development and the College signed a new lease for soaked lab space at Wexford Science & Technology’s Point 225 building. Each individual of these assignments is found in Providence’s Jewelry District in shut proximity to the Warren Alpert Professional medical Faculty and Treatment New England and Lifespan hospitals.

Sick Profit: Investigating Private Equity’s Stealthy Takeover of Health Care Across Cities and Specialties

Two-year-old Zion Gastelum died just days after dentists performed root canals and put crowns on six baby teeth at a clinic affiliated with a private equity firm.

His parents sued the Kool Smiles dental clinic in Yuma, Arizona, and its private equity investor, FFL Partners. They argued the procedures were done needlessly, in keeping with a corporate strategy to maximize profits by overtreating kids from lower-income families enrolled in Medicaid. Zion died after being diagnosed with “brain damage caused by a lack of oxygen,” according to the lawsuit.

Kool Smiles “overtreats, underperforms and overbills,” the family alleged in the suit, which was settled last year under confidential terms. FFL Partners and Kool Smiles had no comment but denied liability in court filings.

Private equity is rapidly moving to reshape health care in America, coming off a banner year in 2021, when the deep-pocketed firms plowed $206 billion into more than 1,400 health care acquisitions, according to industry tracker PitchBook.

Seeking quick returns, these investors are buying into eye care clinics, dental management chains, physician practices, hospices, pet care providers, and thousands of other companies that render medical care nearly from cradle to grave. Private equity-backed groups have even set up special “obstetric emergency departments” at some hospitals, which can charge expectant mothers hundreds of dollars extra for routine perinatal care.

As private equity extends its reach into health care, evidence is mounting that the penetration has led to higher prices and diminished quality of care, a KHN investigation has found. KHN found that companies owned or managed by private equity firms have agreed to pay fines of more than $500 million since 2014 to settle at least 34 lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act, a federal law that punishes false billing submissions to the federal government with fines. Most of the time, the private equity owners have avoided liability.

New research by the University of California-Berkeley has identified “hot spots” where private equity firms have quietly moved from having a small foothold to controlling more than two-thirds of the market for physician services such as anesthesiology and gastroenterology in 2021. And KHN found that in San Antonio, more than two dozen gastroenterology offices are controlled by a private equity-backed group that billed a patient $1,100 for her share of a colonoscopy charge — about three times what she paid in another state.

It’s not just prices that are drawing scrutiny.

Whistleblowers and injured patients are turning to the courts to press allegations of misconduct or other improper business dealings. The lawsuits allege that some private equity firms, or companies they invested in, have boosted the bottom line by violating federal false claims and anti-kickback laws or through other profit-boosting strategies that could harm patients.

“Their model is to deliver short-term financial goals and in order to do that you have to cut corners,” said Mary Inman, an attorney who represents whistleblowers.

Federal regulators, meanwhile, are almost blind to the incursion, since private equity typically acquires practices and hospitals below the regulatory radar. KHN found that more than 90{bf0515afdcaddba073662ceb89fbb62b6b1bf123143c0e06b788e1946e8c353f} of private equity takeovers or investments fall below the $101 million threshold that triggers an antitrust review by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Justice Department.

Spurring Growth

Private equity firms pool money from investors, ranging from wealthy people to college endowments and pension funds. They use that money to buy into businesses they hope to flip at a sizable profit, usually within three to seven years, by making them more efficient and lucrative.

Private equity has poured nearly $1 trillion into nearly 8,000 health care transactions during the past decade, according to PitchBook.

Fund managers who back the deals often say they have the expertise to reduce waste and turn around inefficient, or moribund, businesses, and they tout their role in helping to finance new drugs and technologies expected to benefit patients in years to come.

Critics see a far less rosy picture. They argue that private equity’s playbook, while it may work in some industries, is ill suited for health care, when people’s lives are on the line.

In the health care sphere, private equity has tended to find legal ways to bill more for medical services: trimming services that don’t turn a profit, cutting staff, or employing personnel with less training to perform skilled jobs — actions that may put patients at risk, critics say.

KHN, in a series of articles published this year, has examined a range of private equity forays into health care, from its marketing of America’s top-selling emergency contraception pill to buying up whole chains of ophthalmology and gastroenterology practices and investing in the booming hospice care industry and even funeral homes.

These deals happened on top of well-publicized takeovers of hospital emergency room staffing firms that led to outrageous “surprise” medical bills for some patients, as well as the buying up of entire rural hospital systems.

“Their only goal is to make outsize profits,” said Laura Olson, a political science professor at Lehigh University and a critic of the industry.

Hot Spots

When it comes to acquisitions, private equity firms have similar appetites, according to a KHN analysis of 600 deals by the 25 firms that PitchBook says have most frequently invested in health care.

Eighteen of the firms have dental companies listed in their portfolios, and 16 list centers that offer treatment of cataracts, eye surgery, or other vision care, KHN found.

Fourteen have bought stakes in animal hospitals or pet care clinics, a market in which rapid consolidation led to a recent antitrust action by the FTC. The agency reportedly also is investigating whether U.S. Anesthesia Partners, which operates anesthesia practices in nine states, has grown too dominant in some areas.

Private equity has flocked to companies that treat autism, drug addiction, and other behavioral health conditions. The firms have made inroads into ancillary services such as diagnostic and urine-testing and software for managing billing and other aspects of medical practice.

Private equity has done so much buying that it now dominates several specialized medical services, such as anesthesiology and gastroenterology, in a few metropolitan areas, according to new research made available to KHN by the Nicholas C. Petris Center at UC-Berkeley.

Although private equity plays a role in just 14{bf0515afdcaddba073662ceb89fbb62b6b1bf123143c0e06b788e1946e8c353f} of gastroenterology practices nationwide, it controls nearly three-quarters of the market in at least five metropolitan areas across five states, including Texas and North Carolina, according to the Petris Center research.

Similarly, anesthesiology practices tied to private equity hold 12{bf0515afdcaddba073662ceb89fbb62b6b1bf123143c0e06b788e1946e8c353f} of the market nationwide but have swallowed up more than two-thirds of it in parts of five states, including the Orlando, Florida, area, according to the data.

These expansions can lead to higher prices for patients, said Yashaswini Singh, a researcher at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.

In a study of 578 physician practices in dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology published in JAMA Health Forum in September, Singh and her team tied private equity takeovers to an average increase of $71 per medical claim filed and a 9{bf0515afdcaddba073662ceb89fbb62b6b1bf123143c0e06b788e1946e8c353f} increase in lengthy, more costly, patient visits.

Singh said in an interview that private equity may develop protocols that bring patients back to see physicians more often than in the past, which can drive up costs, or order more lucrative medical services, whether needed or not, that boost profits.

“There are more questions than answers,” Singh said. “It really is a black hole.”

Jean Hemphill, a Philadelphia health care attorney, said that in some cases private equity has merely taken advantage of the realities of operating a modern medical practice amid growing administrative costs.

Physicians sometimes sell practices to private equity firms because they promise to take over things like billing, regulatory compliance, and scheduling — allowing doctors to focus on practicing medicine. (The physicians also might reap a big payout.)

“You can’t do it on a scale like Marcus Welby used to do it,” Hemphill said, referring to an early 1970s television drama about a kindly family doctor who made house calls. “That’s what leads to larger groups,” she said. “It is a more efficient way to do it.”

But Laura Alexander, a former vice president of policy at the nonprofit American Antitrust Institute, which collaborated on the Petris Center research, said she is concerned about private equity’s growing dominance in some markets.

“We’re still at the stage of understanding the scope of the problem,” Alexander said. “One thing is clear: Much more transparency and scrutiny of these deals is needed.”

‘Revenue Maximization’

Private equity firms often bring a “hands-on” approach to management, taking steps such as placing their representatives on a company’s board of directors and influencing the hiring and firing of key staffers.

“Private equity exercises immense control over the operations of health care companies it buys an interest in,” said Jeanne Markey, a Philadelphia whistleblower attorney.

Markey represented physician assistant Michelle O’Connor in a 2015 whistleblower lawsuit filed against National Spine and Pain Centers and its private equity owner, Sentinel Capital Partners.

In just a year under private equity guidance, National Spine’s patient load quadrupled as it grew into one of the nation’s largest pain management chains, treating more than 160,000 people in about 40 offices across five East Coast states, according to the suit.

O’Connor, who worked at two National Spine clinics in Virginia, said the mega-growth strategy sprang from a “corporate culture in which money trumps the provision of appropriate patient care,” according to the suit.

She cited a “revenue maximization” policy that mandated medical staffers see at least 25 patients a day, up from 16 to 18 before the takeover.

The pain clinics also overcharged Medicare by billing up to $1,100 for “unnecessary and often worthless” back braces and charging up to $1,800 each for urine drug tests that were “medically unnecessary and often worthless,” according to the suit.

In April 2019, National Spine paid the Justice Department $3.3 million to settle the whistleblower’s civil case without admitting wrongdoing.

Sentinel Capital Partners, which by that time had sold the pain management chain to another private equity firm, paid no part of National Spine’s settlement, court records show. Sentinel Capital Partners had no comment.

In another whistleblower case, a South Florida pharmacy owned by RLH Equity Partners raked in what the lawsuit called an “extraordinarily high” profit on more than $68 million in painkilling and scar creams billed to the military health insurance plan Tricare.

The suit alleges that the pharmacy paid illegal kickbacks to telemarketers who drove the business. One doctor admitted prescribing the creams to scores of patients he had never seen, examined, or even spoken to, according to the suit.

RLH, based in Los Angeles, disputed the Justice Department’s claims. In 2019, RLH and the pharmacy paid a total of $21 million to settle the case. Neither admitted liability. RLH managing director Michel Glouchevitch told KHN that his company cooperated with the investigation and that “the individuals responsible for any problems have been terminated.”

In many fraud cases, however, private equity investors walk away scot-free because the companies they own pay the fines. Eileen O’Grady, a researcher at the nonprofit Private Equity Stakeholder Project, said government should require “added scrutiny” of private equity companies whose holdings run afoul of the law.

“Nothing like that exists,” she said.

Questions About Quality

Whether private equity influences the quality of medical care is tough to discern.

Robert Homchick, a Seattle health care regulatory attorney, said private equity firms “vary tremendously” in how conscientiously they manage health care holdings, which makes generalizing about their performance difficult.

“Private equity has some bad actors, but so does the rest of the [health care] industry,” he said. “I think it’s wrong to paint them all with the same brush.”

But incipient research paints a disturbing picture, which took center stage earlier this year.

On the eve of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech in March, the White House released a statement that accused private equity of “buying up struggling nursing homes” and putting “profits before people.”

The covid-19 pandemic had highlighted the “tragic impact” of staffing cuts and other moneysaving tactics in nursing homes, the statement said.

More than 200,000 nursing home residents and staffers had died from covid in the previous two years, according to the White House, and research had linked private equity to inflated nursing costs and elevated patient death rates.

Some injured patients are turning to the courts in hopes of holding the firms accountable for what the patients view as lapses in care or policies that favor profits over patients.

Dozens of lawsuits link patient harm to the sale of Florida medical device maker Exactech to TPG Capital, a Texas private equity firm. TPG acquired the device company in February 2018 for about $737 million.

In August 2021, Exactech recalled its Optetrak knee replacement system, warning that a defect in packaging might cause the implant to loosen or fracture and cause “pain, bone loss or recurrent swelling.” In the lawsuits, more than three dozen patients accuse Exactech of covering up the defects for years, including, some suits say, when “full disclosure of the magnitude of the problem … might have negatively impacted” Exactech’s sale to TPG.

Linda White is suing Exactech and TPG, which she asserts is “directly involved” in the device company’s affairs.

White had Optetrak implants inserted into both her knees at a Galesburg, Illinois, hospital in June 2012. The right one failed and was replaced with a second Optetrak implant in July 2015, according to her lawsuit. That one also failed, and she had it removed and replaced with a different company’s device in January 2019.

The Exactech implant in White’s left knee had to be removed in May 2019, according to the suit, which is pending in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois.

In a statement to KHN, Exactech said it conducted an “extensive investigation” when it received reports of “unexpected wear of our implants.”

Exactech said the problem dated to 2005 but was discovered only in July of last year. “Exactech disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself,” the statement said. TPG declined to comment but has denied the allegations in court filings.

‘Invasive Procedures’

In the past, private equity business tactics have been linked to scandalously bad care at some dental clinics that treated children from low-income families.

In early 2008, a Washington, D.C., television station aired a shocking report about a local branch of the dental chain Small Smiles that included video of screaming children strapped to straightjacket-like “papoose boards” before being anesthetized to undergo needless operations like baby root canals.

Five years later, a U.S. Senate report cited the TV exposé in voicing alarm at the “corporate practice of dentistry in the Medicaid program.” The Senate report stressed that most dentists turned away kids enrolled in Medicaid because of low payments and posed the question: How could private equity make money providing that care when others could not?

“The answer is ‘volume,’” according to the report.

Small Smiles settled several whistleblower cases in 2010 by paying the government $24 million. At the time, it was providing “business management and administrative services” to 69 clinics nationwide, according to the Justice Department. It later declared bankruptcy.

But complaints that volume-driven dentistry mills have harmed disadvantaged children didn’t stop.

According to the 2018 lawsuit filed by his parents, Zion Gastelum was hooked up to an oxygen tank after questionable root canals and crowns “that was empty or not operating properly” and put under the watch of poorly trained staffers who didn’t recognize the blunder until it was too late.

Zion never regained consciousness and died four days later at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, the suit states. The cause of death was “undetermined,” according to the Maricopa County medical examiner’s office. An Arizona state dental board investigation later concluded that the toddler’s care fell below standards, according to the suit.

Less than a month after Zion’s death in December 2017, the dental management company Benevis LLC and its affiliated Kool Smiles clinics agreed to pay the Justice Department $24 million to settle False Claims Act lawsuits. The government alleged that the chain performed “medically unnecessary” dental services, including baby root canals, from January 2009 through December 2011.

In their lawsuit, Zion’s parents blamed his death on corporate billing policies that enforced “production quotas for invasive procedures such as root canals and crowns” and threatened to fire or discipline dental staff “for generating less than a set dollar amount per patient.”

Kool Smiles billed Medicaid $2,604 for Zion’s care, according to the suit. FFL Partners did not respond to requests for comment. In court filings, it denied liability, arguing it did not provide “any medical services that harmed the patient.”

Covering Tracks

Under a 1976 federal law called the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, deal-makers must report proposed mergers to the FTC and the Justice Department antitrust division for review. The intent is to block deals that stifle competition, which can lead to higher prices and lower-quality services.

But there’s a huge blind spot, which stymies government oversight of more than 90{bf0515afdcaddba073662ceb89fbb62b6b1bf123143c0e06b788e1946e8c353f} of private equity investments in health care companies: The current threshold for reporting deals is $101 million.

KHN’s analysis of PitchBook data found that just 423 out of 7,839 private equity health care deals from 2012 through 2021 were known to have exceeded the current threshold.

In some deals, private equity takes a controlling interest in medical practices, and doctors work for the company. In other cases, notably in states whose laws prohibit corporate ownership of physician practices, the private equity firm handles a range of management duties.

Thomas Wollmann, a University of Chicago researcher, said antitrust authorities may not learn of consequential transactions “until long after they have been completed” and “it’s very hard to break them up after the fact.”

In August, the FTC took aim at what it called “a growing trend toward consolidation” by veterinary medicine chains.

The FTC ordered JAB Consumer Partners, a private equity firm based in Luxembourg, to divest from some clinics in the San Francisco Bay and Austin, Texas, areas as part of a proposed $1.1 billion takeover of a rival.

The FTC said the deal would eliminate “head-to-head” competition, “increasing the likelihood that customers are forced to pay higher prices or experience a degradation in quality of the relevant services.”

Under the order, JAB must obtain FTC approval before buying veterinary clinics within 25 miles of the sites it owns in Texas and California.

The FTC would not say how much market consolidation is too much or whether it plans to step up scrutiny of health care mergers and acquisitions.

“Every case is fact-specific,” Betsy Lordan, an FTC spokesperson, told KHN.

Lordan, who has since left the agency, said regulators are considering updates to regulations governing mergers and are reviewing about 1,900 responses to the January 2022 request for public comment. At least 300 of the comments were from doctors or other health care workers.

Few industry observers expect the concerns to abate; they might even increase.

Investors are flush with “dry powder,” industry parlance for money waiting to stoke a deal.

The Healthcare Private Equity Association, which boasts about 100 investment companies as members, says the firms have $3 trillion in assets and are pursuing a vision for “building the future of healthcare.”

That kind of talk alarms Cornell University professor Rosemary Batt, a longtime critic of private equity. She predicts that investors chasing outsize profits will achieve their goals by “sucking the wealth” out of more and more health care providers.

“They are constantly looking for new financial tricks and strategies,” Batt said.

KHN’s Megan Kalata contributed to this article.