Key Takeaways
- • Private equity acquisitions of U.S. hospitals and health systems soared in the decades before the Covid-19 pandemic, prompting ongoing debate over costs, quality, and access.
- • Supporters argue PE improves operations, provides capital for IT systems and facilities, leverages economies of scale, and introduces managerial best practices.
- • Critics cite patient surprise billing, reduced nursing staff, and exiting low-margin service lines used by vulnerable populations as consequences of PE's return focus.
- • Critics also question whether PE funds' seven-to-10-year holding periods harm acquired entities and the communities they serve.
Summary
A Harvard Business Review research piece examines the growing role of private equity firms in U.S. health care, focusing on their acquisitions of hospitals and health systems. According to the article, such acquisitions soared in the decades leading up to the Covid-19 pandemic, generating considerable debate over how PE influence would affect costs, quality, and access to care.
Proponents of PE point to the industry's track record of creating value for companies and investors across sectors. The article notes that PE firms are credited with improving operations, fostering an innovative culture, providing access to capital for infrastructure such as IT systems and new facilities, leveraging economies of scale, and adopting managerial best practices.
Critics, by contrast, highlight the consequences they associate with PE's emphasis on maximizing returns. These include patients receiving costly bills they did not expect, reductions in nursing staff, and the avoidance of low-margin service lines that are primarily used by vulnerable populations.
Critics also question whether the relatively short lifecycle of PE funds, typically seven to 10 years, may have negative implications for the entities they acquire. Because those entities serve communities and patients, the holding-period structure is viewed by skeptics as a potential risk to long-term care delivery.
Proponents of PE point to the industry's track record of creating value for companies and investors across sectors. The article notes that PE firms are credited with improving operations, fostering an innovative culture, providing access to capital for infrastructure such as IT systems and new facilities, leveraging economies of scale, and adopting managerial best practices.
Critics, by contrast, highlight the consequences they associate with PE's emphasis on maximizing returns. These include patients receiving costly bills they did not expect, reductions in nursing staff, and the avoidance of low-margin service lines that are primarily used by vulnerable populations.
Critics also question whether the relatively short lifecycle of PE funds, typically seven to 10 years, may have negative implications for the entities they acquire. Because those entities serve communities and patients, the holding-period structure is viewed by skeptics as a potential risk to long-term care delivery.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.