Summary: Investor-owned care, with a focus on profit, has permeated U.S. health care. The American College of Physicians critiques this trend, but avoids a clear opposing position. Meantime, evidence accumulates of its deleterious effects on health.
Financial Profit in Medicine: Position Paper from American College of Physicians, Annals of Internal Medicine, September 7, 2021, by R Crowley et al.
From the Abstract: The steady growth of corporate interest and influence in the health care sector over the past few decades has created a more business-oriented health care system in the United States, helping to spur for-profit and private equity investment. Proponents say that this trend makes the health care system more efficient, encourages innovation, and provides financial stability to ensure access and improve care. Critics counter that such moves favor profit over care and erode the patient-physician relationship. American College of Physicians (ACP) underscores that physicians are permitted to earn a reasonable income as long as they are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to provide high-quality, appropriate care within the guardrails of medical professionalism and ethics.
From the Recommendations: ACP affirms support for . . . providing all Americans with access to comprehensive health care coverage, either through a public choice model or single payer model.
Mortality at For-Profit Versus Not-For-Profit Hemodialysis Centers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, International Journal of Health Services, December 15, 2020, by S Dickman et al.
From the Abstract: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates between for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) hemodialysis facilities.. . . We included nine observational studies of hemodialysis facilities representing 1,163,144 patient-years. In pooled random-effects meta-analysis, the odds ratio of mortality in FP relative to NFP facilities was 1.07 (95% CI 1.04ā1.11). ā¦ Approximately 3,800 excess deaths might be averted annually if U.S. FP hemodialysis operators matched NFP mortality rates.
Comment:
By David Himmelstein, M.D. and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.
For a generation or more doctors mostly remained silent as care was commercialized; the frogs sat still as the water heated up. The ACPās statement continues the āletās wait and see approachā, even as it cites the mounting evidence that allowing investor-owned (a clearer term than āfor-profitā) health care delivery distorts care and raises costs. The confusion arising from the term āfor-profitā is evident in the ACPās position paper, which conflates investorsā gains from ownership of facilities (and the labor of others) with income derived from the work you do yourself, i.e. physiciansā incomes for the care of patients.
While the ACP studiously avoids taking a position on investor-owned care, many of the position paperās 193 references attest to the harmful effects of such ownership, and the two principal profit-boosting strategies employed by investor-owned providers: (1) raising costs; and (2) skimping on care. Where payments can be inflated by raising prices (e.g. by taking ED docs out-of-network), or financial gaming (e.g. upcoding) they do that.Ā When payments are mostly fixed (e.g. for nursing home care or dialysis) they skimp on care, sometimes with fatal consequences (as the Dickman/Mirza study demonstrates).
While the position paper happily reaffirms the ACPās support for single payer reform, it otherwise remains silent on the market-oriented health policies that have opened the door for investor ownership and also force non-profits to prioritize generating surpluses or risk a downward spiral toward closure.
Doctors and other health care workers should receive reasonable incomes. Health care institutions should devote all of their revenues to patient care, not to rewarding investors or accumulating funds for expansion or investment. Instead, funding for new or upgraded facilities should be allocated based on objective assessment of communitiesā needs.
http://healthjusticemonitor.org…
Stay informed! Subscribe to the McCanne Health Justice Monitor to receive regular policy updates via email, and be sure to follow them on Twitter @HealthJustMon.