Dataset Information

Changes in Hospital Income, Use, and Quality Associated With Private Equity Acquisition.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Rigorous evidence describing the relationship between private equity acquisition and changes in hospital spending and quality is currently lacking.

Objective

To examine changes in hospital income, use, and quality measures that may be associated with private equity acquisition.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study identified 204 hospitals acquired by private equity firms from 2005 to 2017 and 532 matched hospitals not acquired by private equity. Using a difference-in-differences design, this study evaluated changes in net income, charges, charge to cost ratios, case mix index (a measure of reported illness burden), share of discharges for patients with Medicare or Medicaid coverage, discharges per year, and aggregate hospital quality measures associated with private equity acquisition through 3 years after acquisition, adjusted for case mix, hospital beds, calendar year, and adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing. In subgroup analyses, changes in outcomes for private equity-owned Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) hospitals and non-HCA hospitals relative to matched controls were assessed.

Primary outcomes and measures

Eight hospital income and use measures and 3 aggregate hospital quality measures were examined.

Results

Relative to 532 control hospitals, the 204 private equity-acquired hospitals showed a mean increase of $2 302 391 (95% CI, $956 660-$3 648 123; P = .009) in annual net income, an increase of $407 (95% CI, $296-$518; P < .001) in total charge per inpatient day, an increase of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.73; P < .001) in emergency department charge to cost ratio, an increase of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.26-0.37; P < .001) in total charge to cost ratio, an increase of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.02; P = .007) in case mix index, and a decrease of 0.96% (95% CI, 0.46%-1.45%; P = .002) in share of Medicare discharges. Medicaid's share of discharges (-0.16%; 95% CI, -0.86% to 0.53%; P > .99) and total hospital discharges (98; 95% CI, -54 to 250; P > .99) did not change differentially in a statistically significant manner. The aggregate quality score for acute myocardial infarction increased by 3.3% (95% CI, 1.6%-5.0%; P = .002), and the aggregate score for pneumonia increased by 2.9% (95% CI, 1.8%-3.9%; P < .001) in private equity-acquired hospitals relative to controls. The aggregate score for heart failure (1.3%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 2.7%; P = .92) did not differentially change in a statistically significant manner. In subgroup analyses, HCA hospitals showed similar findings to the entire sample. Among non-HCA hospitals, the only statistically significant relative changes were the increase in the emergency department charge to cost ratio (0.30; 95% CI, 0.12-0.48; P = .02) and the decrease in Medicare's share (-1.15%; 95% CI, -1.88% to -0.43%; P = .02). Non-HCA hospitals showed a decrease in the aggregate heart failure score (-3.3%; 95% CI, -5.3% to -1.3%; P = .01) and no statistically significant changes in the aggregate score for acute myocardial infarction (2.4%; 95% CI, -0.7% to 5.4%; P > .99) or pneumonia (0.2%; 95% CI, -1.4% to 1.7%; P > .99).

Conclusions and relevance

Hospitals acquired by private equity were associated with larger increases in net income, charges, charge to cost ratios, and case mix index as well as with improvement in some quality measures after acquisition relative to nonacquired controls. Heterogeneity in some findings was observed between HCA and non-HCA hospitals.

SUBMITTER: Bruch JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7445629 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePrivate equity (PE) firms invest in dermatology management groups (DMGs), which are physician practice management firms that operate multiple clinics and often acquire smaller, physician-owned practices. Consolidation of dermatology practices as a result of PE investment may be associated with changes in practice management in the United States.ObjectiveTo describe the scope of PE-backed dermatology practice acquisitions geographically over time.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study examined acquisitions of dermatology practices by PE-backed DMGs in the United States. Acquisition and investment data through May 31, 2018, were compiled using information from 5 financial databases. Transaction data were supplemented with publicly available information from 2 additional financial databases, 2 financial news outlets, and press releases from DMGs. All dermatology practices acquired by PE-backed DMGs were included. Acquisitions were verified to be dermatology practices that provided medical, surgical, and/or cosmetic clinical care. Private equity financing data were included when available. The addresses of clinics associated with acquired practices were mapped using spatial analytics software.Main outcomes and measuresThe number and location of PE practice acquisitions over time were measured based on the date of deal closure, the geographic footprint of each DMG's acquisition, and the financing of each DMG.ResultsSeventeen PE-backed DMGs acquired 184 practices between May 1, 2012, and May 22, 2018. These acquired practices accounted for an estimated 381 dermatology clinics as of mid-2018 (assessment period from May 1 to August 31). The total number of PE-owned dermatology clinics in the United States was substantially larger because these data did not reflect DMGs that opened new clinics (organic growth); acquisitions data represented only the ownership transfer of existing practices from physician to PE-backed DMG. Practice acquisitions increased each year, from 5 in 2012 to 59 in 2017. An additional 34 acquisitions took place from January 1 to May 31, 2018. The number of financing rounds to sustain transactions mirrored the aforementioned trends in practice acquisitions. Clinics associated with acquired practices spanned at least 30 states, with 138 of 381 clinics (36%) located in Texas and Florida.Conclusion and relevanceThe study findings suggest that PE firms have a financial stake in an increasing number of dermatology practices throughout the United States. Further research is needed to assess whether and how PE-backed ownership influences clinical decision-making, health care expenditures, and patient outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Starting in fiscal year 2013, the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program introduced quality performance-based adjustments of up to 1% to Medicare reimbursements for acute care hospitals. METHODS:We evaluated whether quality improved more in acute care hospitals that were exposed to HVBP than in control hospitals (Critical Access Hospitals, which were not exposed to HVBP). The measures of quality were composite measures of clinical process and patient experience (measured in units of standard deviations, with a value of 1 indicating performance that was 1 standard deviation [SD] above the hospital mean) and 30-day risk-standardized mortality among patients who were admitted to the hospital for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. The changes in quality measures after the introduction of HVBP were assessed for matched samples of acute care hospitals (the number of hospitals included in the analyses ranged from 1364 for mortality among patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction to 2615 for mortality among patients admitted for pneumonia) and control hospitals (number of hospitals ranged from 31 to 617). Matching was based on preintervention performance with regard to the quality measures. We evaluated performance over the first 4 years of HVBP. RESULTS:Improvements in clinical-process and patient-experience measures were not significantly greater among hospitals exposed to HVBP than among control hospitals, with difference-in-differences estimates of 0.079 SD (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.140 to 0.299) for clinical process and -0.092 SD (95% CI, -0.307 to 0.122) for patient experience. HVBP was not associated with significant reductions in mortality among patients who were admitted for acute myocardial infarction (difference-in-differences estimate, -0.282 percentage points [95% CI, -1.715 to 1.152]) or heart failure (-0.212 percentage points [95% CI, -0.532 to 0.108]), but it was associated with a significant reduction in mortality among patients who were admitted for pneumonia (-0.431 percentage points [95% CI, -0.714 to -0.148]). CONCLUSIONS:In our study, HVBP was not associated with improvements in measures of clinical process or patient experience and was not associated with significant reductions in two of three mortality measures. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).

Project description:BACKGROUND:A key component of universal health coverage is the ability to access quality healthcare without financial hardship. Poorer individuals are less likely to receive care than wealthier individuals, leading to important differences in health outcomes, and a needed focus on equity. To improve access to healthcare while minimizing financial hardships or inequitable service delivery we need to understand where individuals of different wealth seek care. To ensure progress toward SDG 3, we need to specifically understand where individuals seek reproductive, maternal, and child health services. METHODS:We analyzed Demographic and Health Survey data from Bangladesh, Cambodia, DRC, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Haiti, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Zambia. We conducted weighted descriptive analyses on current users of modern FP and the youngest household child under age 5 to understand and compare country-specific care seeking patterns in use of public or private facilities based on urban/rural residence and wealth quintile. RESULTS:Modern contraceptive prevalence rate ranged from 8.1% to 52.6% across countries, generally rising with increasing wealth within countries. For relatively wealthy women in all countries except Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Senegal and Zambia, the private sector was the dominant source. Source of FP and type of method sought across facilities types differed widely across countries. Across all countries women were more likely to use the public sector for permanent and long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Wealthier women demonstrated greater use of the private sector for FP services than poorer women. Overall prevalence rates for diarrhea and fever/ARI were similar, and generally not associated with wealth. The majority of sick children in Haiti did not seek treatment for either diarrhea or fever/ARI, while over 40% of children with cough or fever did not seek treatment in DRC, Haiti, Mali, and Senegal. Of all children who sought care for diarrhea, more than half visited the public sector and just over 30% visited the private sector; differences are more pronounced in the lower wealth quintiles. CONCLUSIONS:Use of the private sector varies widely by reason for visit, country and wealth status. Given these differences, country-specific examination of the role of the private sector furthers our understanding of its utility in expanding access to services across wealth quintiles and providing equitable care.

Project description:ImportancePrivate equity firms have been acquiring US nursing homes; an estimated 5% of US nursing homes are owned by private equity firms.ObjectiveTo examine the association of private equity acquisition of nursing homes with the quality and cost of care for long-stay residents.Design setting and participantsIn this cohort study of 302 private equity nursing homes with 9632 residents and 9562 other for-profit homes with 249 771 residents, a novel national database of private equity nursing home acquisitions was merged with Medicare claims and Minimum Data Set assessments for the period from 2012 to 2018. Changes in outcomes for residents in private equity-acquired nursing homes were compared with changes for residents in other for-profit nursing homes. Analyses were performed from March 25 to June 23, 2021.ExposurePrivate equity acquisitions of 302 nursing homes between 2013 and 2017.Main outcomes and measuresThis study used difference-in-differences analysis to examine the association of private equity acquisition of nursing homes with outcomes. Primary outcomes were quarterly measures of emergency department visits and hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive (ACS) conditions and total quarterly Medicare costs. Antipsychotic use, pressure ulcers, and severe pain were examined in secondary analyses.ResultsOf the 259 403 residents in the study (170 687 women [65.8%]; 211 154 White residents [81.4%]; 204 928 residents [79.0%] dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid; mean [SD] age, 79.3 [5.6] years), 9632 residents were in 302 private equity-acquired nursing homes and 249 771 residents were in 9562 other for-profit homes. The mean quarterly rate of ACS emergency department visits was 14.1% (336 072 of 2 383 491), and the mean quarterly rate of ACS hospitalizations was 17.3% (412 344 of 2 383 491); mean (SD) total quarterly costs were $8050.00 ($9.90). Residents of private equity nursing homes experienced relative increases in ACS emergency department visits of 11.1% (1.7 of 15.3; 1.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.3-3.0 percentage points; P = .02) and in ACS hospitalizations of 8.7% (1.0 of 11.5; 1.0 percentage point; 95% CI, 0.2-1.1 percentage points; P = .003) compared with residents in other for-profit homes; quarterly costs increased 3.9% (270.37 of 6972.04; $270.37; 95% CI, $41.53-$499.20; P = .02) or $1081 annually per resident. Private equity acquisition was not significantly associated with antipsychotic use (-0.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.7 to 1.4 percentage points; P = .83), severe pain (0.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.4 percentage points; P = .79), or pressure ulcers (0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.4 to 1.3 percentage points; P = .30).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study with difference-in-differences analysis found that private equity acquisition of nursing homes was associated with increases in ACS emergency department visits and hospitalizations and higher Medicare costs.

Project description:IntroductionTo accelerate progress to reach the sustainable development goals for ending preventable maternal, newborn and child deaths, it is critical that both the public and private health service delivery systems invest in increasing coverage of interventions to sustainably deliver quality care for mothers, newborns and children at scale. Although various approaches have been successful in high-income countries, little is known about how to effectively engage and sustain private sector involvement in delivering quality care in low-income and middle-income countries. Our systematic review will examine private sector implementation of quality care for maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) and the impact of this care. This protocol details our intended methodological and analytical approaches, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline for protocols.Methods and analysisFollowing the PRISMA approach, this systematic review will include quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies addressing the provision of quality MNCH care by private sector providers. Eight databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EconLit, Excerpta Medica Database, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Popline, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science) and two websites will be searched for relevant studies published between 1 January 1995 and 30 June 2019. For inclusion, studies in low-income and middle-income countries must examine at least one of the following critical outcomes: maternal morbidity or mortality, newborn morbidity or mortality, child morbidity or mortality, quality of care, experience of care and service utilisation. Depending on the data, analyses could include meta-analysis, descriptive quantitative statistics, narrative synthesis and thematic synthesis. Quality will be assessed using tools for qualitative and quantitative studies.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required for this research, as the secondary data are not identifiable. Findings from this review will be used to develop models for effective collaboration of the private and public sectors in implementing quality of care for MNCH. In addition to publishing our findings in a peer-reviewed journal, the findings will be shared through the Quality of Care Network, relevant mailing lists, webinars and social media.Prospero registration numberCRD42019143383.

Project description:Importance:In 2014, the State of Maryland placed the majority of its hospitals under all-payer global budgets for inpatient, hospital outpatient, and emergency department care. Goals of the program included reducing unnecessary hospital utilization and encouraging greater use of primary care. Objective:To compare changes in hospital and primary care use through the first 2 years of Maryland's hospital global budget program among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in Maryland vs matched control areas. Design, Setting, and Participants:We matched 8 Maryland counties (94 967 beneficiaries) with hospitals in the program to 27 non-Maryland control counties (206 389 beneficiaries). Using difference-in-differences analysis, we compared changes in hospital and primary care use in Maryland vs the control counties from before (2009-2013) to after (2014-2015) the payment change, using 2 different assumptions. First, we assumed that preintervention differences between Maryland and the control counties would have remained constant past 2014 had Maryland not implemented global budgets (parallel trend assumption). Second, we assumed that differences in preintervention trends would have continued without the payment change (differential trend assumption). Main Outcomes and Measures:Hospital stays (defined as admissions and observation stays); return hospital stays within 30 days of a prior hospital stay; emergency department visits that did not result in admission; price-standardized hospital outpatient department (HOPD) utilization; and visits with primary care physicians (overall and within 7 days of a hospital stay). Results:We matched 8 Maryland counties with hospitals in the program (94 967 beneficiaries; 41.8% male; mean [SD] age, 72.3 [12.2] years) to 27 non-Maryland control counties (206 389 beneficiaries; 42.8% male; mean [SD] age, 71.7 [12.5] years). Assuming parallel trends, we estimated a differential change in Maryland of -0.47 annual hospital stays per 100 beneficiaries (95% CI, -1.65 to 0.72; P = .43) from the preintervention period (2009-2013) to 2015, but assuming differential trends, we estimated a differential change in Maryland of -1.24 stays per 100 beneficiaries (95% CI, -2.46 to -0.02; P = .047). Assuming parallel trends, we found a significant increase in primary care visits (+10.6 annual visits/100 beneficiaries; 95% CI, 4.6 to 16.6 annual visits/100 beneficiaries; P = .001), but assuming differential trends, we found no change (-0.8 visits/100 beneficiaries; 95% CI, -10.6 to 9.0 visits/100 beneficiaries; P = .87). Comparing estimates with both trend assumptions, we found no consistent changes in emergency department visits, return hospital stays, HOPD use, or posthospitalization primary care visits associated with Maryland's program. Conclusions and Relevance:We did not find consistent evidence that Maryland's hospital global budget program was associated with reductions in hospital use or increases in primary care visits among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries after 2 years. Evaluations over longer periods should be pursued.