Project description:ImportancePrivate equity acquisitions of physician practices in the US have been increasing rapidly; however, the implications for health care delivery and spending are unclear.ObjectiveTo examine changes in prices and utilization associated with private equity acquisitions of physician practices across multiple specialties.Design, settings, and participantsThis was a difference-in-differences event study of US physician practices specialized in dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology that were acquired by private equity firms from 2016 to 2020. Within each specialty, each private equity-acquired (PE-acquired) practice was matched with as many as 5 control practices based on the preacquisition number of unique patients, encounters, risk score, share of services billed out-of-network, and spending. The PE-acquired practices were compared with matched controls through year 2 after acquisition, using a difference-in-differences event study. Data analyses were performed from March 2021 to February 2022.ExposuresPrivate equity acquisition of physician practices.Main outcomes and measuresMeasures of spending and utilization, including the charge and price (amount paid) per claim, new and unique patients, and total encounters.ResultsCompared with the 2874 control practices, the 578 PE-acquired physician practices exhibited an average increase of $71 (+20.2%) charged per claim (95% CI, 13.1%-27.3%; P < .001) and $23 (+11.0%) in the allowed amount per claim (95% CI, 5.6%-16.5%; P < .001). The PE-acquired practices increased their numbers of unique patients seen by 25.8% (95% CI, 15.8%-35.6%; P < .001) compared with control practices, driven by a 37.9% increase in visits by new patients (95% CI, 25.6%-50.2%; P < .001). In aggregate, their volume of encounters increased by 16.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-32.0%; P = .04) compared with the control group, with a 9.4% increase in the share of office visits for established patients that were billed as longer than 30 minutes (95% CI, 1.7%-17.0%; P = .02). No statistically significant changes in patient risk scores were found between PE-acquired practices and controls. Within specialties, we found modest differences along selected outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceIn this difference-in-differences study, private equity acquisition of physician practices in dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology were associated with differential increases in allowed amount and charges per claim, volume of encounters, and new patients seen, as well as some changes in billing and coding.

Project description:ImportanceConsolidation of physician practices by hospitals and private equity (PE) firms has increased rapidly. This trend is of particular importance within primary care. Despite its significance, there is no systematic evidence on the emerging trends in ownership affiliation of primary care physicians (PCPs) and its association with prices paid for physician services.ObjectiveTo describe trends in hospital affiliation and PE affiliation in primary care and examine variation in negotiated prices paid by commercial insurers to hospital-affiliated, PE-affiliated, and independent PCPs.Design, setting, and participantsData from PitchBook and IQVIA were used to examine hospital and PE affiliation PCPs. PCPs and their affiliations were linked to novel cross-sectional Transparency in Coverage data. A total of 226.6 million negotiated prices were analyzed for evaluation and management office visits (Current Procedural Terminology codes 99202 to 99205 and 99212 to 99215) across 4 national insurers (Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, and United Healthcare). Linear regressions were used to examine the association between hospital-affiliated, PE-affiliated, and independent PCPs and cross-sectional prices paid for physician services, with fixed effects for service, state, and insurers. Data were collected from January to June 2024, and data were analyzed from July to October 2024.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of PCPs that are affiliated with hospitals and PE from 2009 to 2022. Using cross-sectional data from 2022, negotiated prices paid to physicians (physician professional fee) for office visits.ResultsA total of 198 097 PCPs were analyzed. PCPs affiliated with hospitals increased from 25.2% (28 216 of 111 793) in 2009 to 47.9% in 2022 (82 890 of 172 964). Over the same period, 1.5% (2483 of 172 964) of PCPs became affiliated with PE firms. Relative to independent PCPs, negotiated prices for office visits were $14.91 (95% CI, 8.92-27.64) or 10.7% (95% CI, 10.1-11.4) higher for hospital-affiliated PCPs (P < .001) and $9.56 (95% CI, 2.24-14.55) or 7.8% (95% CI, 4.7-10.8) higher for PE-affiliated PCPs (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, nearly one-half of all PCPs were affiliated with hospitals, while PE-affiliated PCPs were growing and concentrated in certain regional markets. Relative to PCPs in independent settings, hospital-affiliated PCPs and PE-affiliated PCPs had higher prices for the same services.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe health equity research priorities for health care delivery systems and delineate a research and action agenda that generates evidence-based solutions to persistent racial and ethnic inequities in health outcomes.Data sources and study settingThis project was conducted as a component of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) stakeholder engaged process to develop an Equity Agenda and Action Plan to guide priority setting to advance health equity. Recommendations were developed and refined based on expert input, evidence review, and stakeholder engagement. Participating stakeholders included experts from academia, health care organizations, industry, and government.Study designExpert group consensus, informed by stakeholder engagement and targeted evidence review.Data collection/extraction methodsPriority themes were derived iteratively through (1) brainstorming and idea reduction, (2) targeted evidence review of candidate themes, (3) determination of preliminary themes; (4) input on preliminary themes from stakeholders attending AHRQ's 2022 Health Equity Summit; and (5) and refinement of themes based on that input. The final set of research and action recommendations was determined by authors' consensus.Principal findingsHealth care delivery systems have contributed to racial and ethnic disparities in health care. High quality research is needed to inform health care delivery systems approaches to undo systemic barriers and inequities. We identified six priority themes for research; (1) institutional leadership, culture, and workforce; (2) data-driven, culturally tailored care; (3) health equity targeted performance incentives; (4) health equity-informed approaches to health system consolidation and access; (5) whole person care; (6) and whole community investment. We also suggest cross-cutting themes regarding research workforce and research timelines.ConclusionsAs the nation's primary health services research agency, AHRQ can advance equitable delivery of health care by funding research and disseminating evidence to help transform the organization and delivery of health care.

Project description:BackgroundAvoidable disparities in health outcomes persist in Canada despite substantial investments in a publicly funded health care system that includes preventive services. Our objective was to provide preventive care recommendations that promote health equity by prioritizing effective interventions for people experiencing disadvantages.MethodsThe guideline was developed by a primary care provider-patient panel, with input from a patient-partner panel with diverse lived experiences. After selecting priority topics, we searched for systematic reviews and recent randomized controlled trials of screening and other relevant studies of screening accuracy and management efficacy. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations and followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) reporting guidance. We managed competing interests using the Guideline International Network principles. The recommendations were externally reviewed by content experts and circulated for endorsement by national stakeholders.RecommendationsWe developed 15 screening and other preventive care recommendations and 1 policy recommendation on improving access to primary care. We recommend prioritized outreach for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 45 years and for cardiovascular disease risk assessment, to help address inequities and promote health. Specific interventions that should be rolled out in ways that address inequities include human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing, HIV self-testing and interferon-γ release assays for tuberculosis infection. Screening for depression, substance use, intimate partner violence and poverty should help connect people experiencing specific disadvantages with proven interventions. We recommend automatic connection to primary care for people experiencing disadvantages.InterpretationProven preventive care interventions can address health inequities if people experiencing disadvantages are prioritized. Clinicians, health care organizations and governments should take evidence-based actions and track progress in promoting health equity across Canada.

Project description:ObjectiveTo use evidence on addressing racism in social care intervention research to create a framework for advancing health equity for all populations with marginalized social identities (e.g., race, gender, and sexual orientation). Such groups have disproportionate social needs (e.g., food insecurity) and negative social determinants of health (SDOH; e.g., poverty). We recommend how the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) could advance health equity for marginalized populations through social care research and care delivery.Data sources and study settingThis commentary is informed by a literature review of social care interventions that were affiliated with healthcare systems; input from health equity researchers, policymakers, and community leaders attending the AHRQ Health Equity Summit; and consensus of the authors.Principal findingsWe recommend that AHRQ: (1) create an ecosystem that values research on SDOH and the effectiveness and implementation of social care interventions in the healthcare sector; (2) work with other federal agencies to (a) develop position statements with actionable recommendations about racism and other systems that perpetuate marginalization based on social identity and (b) develop aligned, complementary approaches to research and care delivery that address social marginalization; (3) advance both inclusive care delivery and inclusive research teams; (4) advance understanding of racism as a social determinant of health and effective strategies to mitigate its adverse impact on health; (5) advance the creation and scaling of effective strategies for addressing SDOH in healthcare systems, particularly in co-creation with community partners; and (6) require social care intervention researchers to use methods that advance our understanding of social health equity.ConclusionsAHRQ, as a federal agency, could help advance health equity using a range of strategies, including using the agency's levers to ensure AHRQ stakeholders examine and address the unique experiences of socially marginalized populations in SDOH and social care intervention research.

Dataset Information

Expansion of Private Equity Involvement in Women's Health Care.

Publications

Expansion of Private Equity Involvement in Women's Health Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets