A study published in the premier medical research journal JAMA has highlighted a troubling trend in patient care following hospital acquisitions by private equity firms. This comprehensive investigation reveals a significant increase in serious medical complications in hospitals post-acquisition. These findings have sparked a broader discussion about the impact of private equity ownership on healthcare quality, patient safety, and the risks of medical negligence.
The study, which spanned several years, analyzed adverse events among Medicare patients in hospitals acquired by private equity firms.
The study documented a 25% rise in overall adverse events, which includes a range of serious medical complications such as surgical infections and bed sores. Surgical infections, typically associated with poor sterilization practices and inadequate postoperative care, pose a severe risk to patient health, often leading to prolonged hospital stays and additional treatments.
Bed sores, or pressure ulcers, usually develop due to prolonged pressure on the skin and underlying tissues, often as a result of inadequate patient mobility and insufficient nursing care. Both of these complications are largely preventable with proper hospital protocols and sufficient staffing.
One of the most alarming findings was the nearly 38% increase in central line infections. These infections occur when bacteria or other pathogens enter the bloodstream through a central venous catheter, which is often used for administering medication or fluids. Central line infections are particularly dangerous because they can lead to severe sepsis, a life-threatening condition that requires immediate and intensive treatment.
The rise in these infections is especially concerning because they are classified as “never events” by medical authorities, meaning they should not occur if proper infection control practices are in place. The significant increase suggests a potential decline in adherence to these vital protocols following private equity acquisition.
The study also highlighted a 27% increase in patient falls within hospitals. Falls can result in serious injuries, such as fractures and head trauma, especially among older patients. They are often indicative of inadequate patient monitoring, insufficient staffing, or poorly maintained hospital environments.
Preventing falls involves a comprehensive approach, including regular patient assessments, proper use of mobility aids, and ensuring that hospital environments are safe and free from hazards. The substantial rise in patient falls points to potential gaps in these safety measures in hospitals under private equity ownership.
Dr. Sneha Kannan, the study's lead author and a healthcare researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, expressed significant concern over the findings. “We were not surprised there was a signal,” Dr. Kannan said, indicating that the team anticipated some level of increased risk associated with private equity ownership.
“I will say we were surprised at how strong it was,” she added, underscoring the unexpected severity of the increase in medical complications. Dr. Kannan's insights reflect a broader apprehension within the healthcare community about the implications of financial motives potentially overshadowing patient care standards.
The study revealed a slight but notable decrease of nearly 5% in the rate of patients who died during their hospital stay in facilities acquired by private equity firms. This reduction in mortality rates initially appears to be a positive outcome, suggesting that these hospitals might have been implementing measures to improve patient survival during hospital admissions.
A closer analysis of the patient demographics, however, provides a potential explanation for this decline. The researchers suggest that the reduction in mortality rates could be largely attributed to a shift towards admitting healthier patients. This phenomenon, known as patient selection, involves hospitals selectively admitting patients who are less likely to suffer from severe complications or mortality. By admitting patients with fewer health risks, hospitals might achieve lower mortality rates, creating an appearance of improved patient outcomes.
While the in-hospital mortality rate showed a slight decline, the study found that this did not translate into a significant difference in death rates when looking at the period 30 days post-discharge. After patients were discharged, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality between those treated at private equity-owned hospitals and those at other hospitals. This finding suggests that while the initial in-hospital care might have appeared more effective, the long-term survival rates of patients did not differ notably between the two groups.
The shift towards healthier patient admissions raises critical questions about the strategies employed by private equity-owned hospitals. This practice might result in better in-hospital mortality statistics but does not necessarily reflect an overall improvement in care quality. Instead, it could indicate a strategic approach to manage patient demographics to enhance reported outcomes. This approach may mask underlying issues related to the quality of care and resource allocation, which are essential for treating a broader spectrum of patients with varying health conditions.
The study conducted a thorough analysis of 51 hospitals that were acquired by private equity (PE) firms over a ten-year period, from 2009 to 2019. The primary objective was to assess the impact of these acquisitions on patient care, particularly focusing on medical errors that are closely monitored and reported by Medicare. The research aimed to provide empirical evidence on whether private equity ownership correlates with changes in the quality of care provided by these hospitals.
Researchers collected extensive data on various adverse events and medical complications from Medicare records. These records are part of a comprehensive effort by Medicare to track hospital performance and ensure patient safety. Specific medical errors were scrutinized, including surgical infections, bed sores, central line infections, and patient falls.
These measures were chosen because they are critical indicators of hospital quality and patient safety. Medicare not only tracks these errors but also implements financial penalties for hospitals that exhibit high rates of certain preventable complications, such as central line infections.
To ensure the validity of their findings, the researchers compared the performance of the 51 private equity-acquired hospitals to a control group of similar hospitals that had not been subject to private equity acquisition. This comparison was crucial in isolating the effect of private equity ownership from other variables that might influence hospital performance, such as regional healthcare policies, demographic factors, or overall trends in medical practice improvements.
It is important to note that, prior to the private equity acquisitions, the rates of these medical complications had been generally declining over the past 15 years. This decline was attributed to concerted efforts by hospitals to adopt best practices, improve staff training, and implement advanced healthcare technologies aimed at reducing preventable errors.
Despite the broader trend of improving hospital safety and declining complication rates, the study found that all eight individual measures of complications worsened in the hospitals after they were acquired by private equity firms. This deterioration is particularly striking against the backdrop of overall industry improvements and raises serious questions about the operational changes implemented by private equity owners.
Dr. Zirui Song, a researcher from Harvard and one of the study's authors, proposed that reductions in staffing levels could be a primary factor contributing to the increased medical errors observed in the hospitals acquired by private equity firms. He highlighted the critical role of adequate staffing in maintaining patient safety and delivering high-quality care.
"Reductions in staffing after acquisition could explain all of these findings," Dr. Song emphasized. Staffing levels are directly linked to the ability of hospitals to monitor patients effectively, manage complications promptly, and maintain rigorous infection control protocols.
While the study did not directly measure staffing levels in the hospitals it examined, existing literature and anecdotal evidence suggest that private equity firms often implement cost-cutting measures, including staff reductions, to improve financial performance.
Previous research has documented reductions in nursing staff and other critical healthcare personnel following private equity takeovers, which can lead to increased workloads for remaining staff, higher stress levels, and ultimately, more mistakes and oversights in patient care.
Dr. David Blumenthal, the former president of the Commonwealth Fund, provided additional insights into why private equity ownership might negatively impact the quality of care in hospitals. He pointed out that the investment style of private equity firms often prioritizes short-term financial gains over long-term sustainability and patient outcomes.
"It’s about the style of investing," Dr. Blumenthal explained. "It’s about the aggressiveness and short-time-frame profits and returns on investment that are sought." This approach can lead to aggressive cost-cutting measures, such as reducing staff numbers, limiting resources for patient care, and cutting corners on essential services and maintenance.
Private equity firms typically acquire hospitals with the intent to resell them within a few years at a profit. To achieve this, they may focus on maximizing immediate financial performance, sometimes at the expense of investing in patient care and safety measures. This can create an environment where the emphasis is placed on financial metrics rather than clinical outcomes, potentially leading to a decline in care quality.
Given the study's findings and the potential explanations offered by experts, there is a clear need for more comprehensive oversight and regulation of private equity investments in the healthcare sector. Dr. Song and other researchers advocate for stronger government oversight to ensure that private equity firms do not compromise patient safety and care quality in their pursuit of profits.
This could involve setting minimum staffing requirements, enforcing stringent reporting standards for medical errors and adverse events, and implementing financial penalties for hospitals that fail to meet quality benchmarks.
The study raises important questions about the impact of private equity ownership on healthcare quality, but it also highlights the need for further research to fully understand these dynamics. Future studies should aim to directly measure staffing levels and other operational changes in hospitals following private equity acquisitions. Based on this, researchers should explore the long-term effects of private equity ownership on patient outcomes, employee satisfaction, and overall hospital performance.
Another area for further investigation is the specific strategies employed by private equity firms that lead to negative outcomes. Identifying which practices are most harmful can help policymakers and regulators develop targeted interventions to protect patient safety and ensure high standards of care.
Over the past two decades, private equity (PE) firms have increasingly become significant players in the healthcare sector. Their involvement spans across various healthcare entities, including hospitals, nursing homes, physician practices, and home healthcare companies.
This trend has been driven by the PE firms' strategy of purchasing these entities, often utilizing substantial amounts of debt, with the objective of restructuring and reselling them within a few years for profit. This model, known as a leveraged buyout, aims to maximize financial returns but often brings about significant operational changes in the acquired institutions.
Although private equity firms currently own a relatively small share of hospitals in the United States, their influence is growing rapidly. The precise number of hospitals under PE ownership is difficult to ascertain due to the opaque nature of many transactions. However, their impact on the healthcare landscape is becoming increasingly evident.
Private equity firms are known for their aggressive cost-cutting measures and operational restructuring to improve profitability. This approach can lead to both positive and negative outcomes. On one hand, these firms inject much-needed capital into struggling healthcare facilities, potentially enhancing infrastructure, expanding services, and driving innovation. On the other hand, the pressure to generate quick returns can result in staff reductions, decreased quality of care, and increased financial instability.
Several media reports have documented the negative consequences associated with private equity acquisitions in the healthcare sector. These reports often highlight cases where hospitals acquired by PE firms have faced severe financial distress, leading to closures. Such closures can have devastating effects on communities, particularly in rural or underserved areas where alternative healthcare options are limited or non-existent.
Regulatory scrutiny has also increased in response to the quality issues arising from private equity ownership. Instances of compromised patient care, increased medical malpractice claims, and reduced staffing levels have been reported, prompting investigations and regulatory actions. These issues have fueled ongoing debates about the suitability of private equity as stewards of critical healthcare institutions.
As private equity continues to expand its footprint in the healthcare sector, ongoing research and regulatory oversight will be critical in understanding and mitigating the potential risks. Policymakers, healthcare providers, and industry stakeholders must work collaboratively to ensure that the benefits of private equity investments are realized without compromising the quality and accessibility of patient care.
The study highlighting the increase in medical errors post-acquisition by private equity firms underscores the need for a cautious and informed approach. Ensuring transparency in transactions, safeguarding staffing levels, and maintaining rigorous quality standards will be essential in navigating the evolving landscape of private equity in healthcare.
Leading New York City Medical Malpractice Lawyers are Ready to Fight for Your Rights
At Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP, our legacy of multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements in medical negligence cases spans four generations, which makes us the top-rated medical malpractice attorneys in New York City. With a staggering success rate of over 95%, our dedicated team has secured over $1 billion in compensation for injured New Yorkers.
When you choose us, you are partnering with a winning legal team committed to delivering the justice and financial recovery you deserve. Reach out to us today to ensure your case is handled with the skill, experience and resources required to maximize your compensation. To schedule your free consultation, call us at 212-344-1000 or contact us online.
MANHATTAN LAW OFFICE
122 East 42nd Street Suite 3800
New York, NY 10168
Tel: 212-LAWYERS
Tel: 212-697-9280
QUEENS LAW OFFICE
8900 Sutphin Blvd Suite 501
Queens, NY 11435
Tel: (718) 399-3100
*By Appointment Only