More Barbarians at the Gates: Private Equity Puts Primary Care in Play
There are still some idealistic physicians who enter primary care practice as a calling.
The usual informal definition of primary care is care which is continuous, coordinated, comprehensive and compassionate. The official definition used by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) is:
Private Equity Firms are Buying Out Primary Care Practices
However, an article this week in Modern Healthcare described how primary care in the US is getting a rude surprise. Apparently, primary care practices are now "in play," (using the terminology for the classic 1987 movie Wall Street, in which Gordon Gekko declared that greed is good).
The argument was that there is
This is not about quality of care, it is about the idea that business people think that "value-based care" and "risk-based contracting" are the current rages, and so there is money to be made investing in entities that seem to fit in with these fashions.
Continuous, coordinated, comprehensive and compassionate care may suffer when the time horizons are not that long, and the owners of the practice are ultimately looking to sell it.
Also,
Furthermore, why private equity may be interested in primary care now, continuing interest will depend on the numbers, not on the benefits to patients
Conspicuously absent from this article was discussion of aspects of the private equity modus operandi which are even more at odds with primary care values than the short time horizon noted above. We previously warned about the perils of private equity employing physicians (look here.) The main points were:
- Private equity is just the new name for leveraged buyout firms (the type of firm described the book, Barbarians at the Gate.)
- Therefore, when they buy out firms (e.g., the primary care practices discussed above), they use borrowed money.
- But they leverage in two senses. Once firms are bought, the private equity owners makes the firms take out further loans, and the money from them may go back to the owners, usually in the form of a special dividend, to pay down the debt originally incurred by the private equity owners. This leaves the bought out firms heavily in debt, but frees the private equity firm from its original debt. If the firm is eventually sold, the new buyers take over the debt. In a worst case scenario, however, the bought out firm goes bankrupt, the private equity's firm stock in it becomes worthless, but the private equity firm need not be responsible for its financial obligations.
- If the private equity firm desires more money while it still owns the acquired firm, it may sell parts of it off.
- To make the finances of the acquired firm look more attractive to the next buyer, the private equity firms often undertakes short term cost cutting measures that may involve layoffs, increased workload on remaining workers, etc.
Other dark aspects of private equity are discussed on the Naked Capitalism blog here.
Summary
Primary care physicians thinking about selling their practices to private equity ought to think at least twice before doing so, assuming the physicians are serious about upholding the values of primary care. Private equity firms are in it for the money, and in the relatively short term. Private equity firms are unlikely to care about the mission of primary distinct from the ability of primary care practices to make the firms richer. Therefore, practices owned by private equity may well not provide the best possible care for their patients. In any case, the physicians working for such practices may be answering to owners who are very explicitly only in it for the money. They will have become corporate physicians, possibly in the most pessimistic sense of the term.
In general, Dr Arnold Relman reminded us that physicians used to shun the commercial practice of medicine (look here). Physicians and other health professionals who sign on as full-time employees of large corporate entities have to realize that they are now beholden to managers and executives who may be hostile to their professional values, and who are subject to perverse incentives that support such hostility, including the potential for huge executive compensation. It is not clear why physicians seem to be willing to sign contracts that underline their new subservience to their corporate overlords, and likely trap them within confidentiality clauses that make blowing the whistle likely to lead to extreme unpleasantness.
Things are likely to be even worse for corporate physicians who are employed by firms owned by private equity. Because of the way private equity operates, primary care practices owned by such firms are liable to be very unstable. At best, they are liable to be sold to totally new owners in a relatively short time frame, and those owners are likely to be those who will pay the highest price, not necessarily those who will provide the best stewardship for the practices.
Furthermore, primary care practices owned by private equity are likely to end up heavily indebted and subject to strict cost cutting measures that may decrease care quality, decrease access, increase patients' out of pocket costs, and demoralize providers. Practices acquired by private equity may be broken up and sold as separate pieces. Should the debt be too high, and the cost cutting not be sufficient, such practices could end up bankrupt and possible completely defunct.
Do not say I did not warn you.
Physicians need to realize that to fulfill their oaths to put patients first, they have to reduce the influence of rich and powerful organizations with other agendas, like health care corporations, and especially corporations owned by private equity. The metastasis of private equity into primary care should make us all rethink the notion that direct health care should ever be provided, or that medicine ought to be practiced by for-profit corporations. I submit that we will not be able to have good quality, accessible health care at an affordable price until we restore physicians as independent, ethical health care professionals, and until we restore small, independent, community responsible, non-profit hospitals as the locus for inpatient care.
ADDENDUM (28 April, 2015) - This post was re-published on the Naked Capitalism blog.
The usual informal definition of primary care is care which is continuous, coordinated, comprehensive and compassionate. The official definition used by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) is:
Primary care is that care provided by physicians specifically trained for and skilled in comprehensive first contact and continuing care for persons with any undiagnosed sign, symptom, or health concern (the 'undifferentiated' patient) not limited by problem origin (biological, behavioral, or social), organ system, or diagnosis.
Primary care includes health promotion, disease prevention, health maintenance, counseling, patient education, diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic illnesses in a variety of health care settings (e.g., office, inpatient, critical care, long-term care, home care, day care, etc.). Primary care is performed and managed by a personal physician often collaborating with other health professionals, and utilizing consultation or referral as appropriate.Primary care provides patient advocacy in the health care system to accomplish cost-effective care by coordination of health care services. Primary care promotes effective communication with patients and encourages the role of the patient as a partner in health care.
Private Equity Firms are Buying Out Primary Care Practices
However, an article this week in Modern Healthcare described how primary care in the US is getting a rude surprise. Apparently, primary care practices are now "in play," (using the terminology for the classic 1987 movie Wall Street, in which Gordon Gekko declared that greed is good).
The argument was that there is
a small but growing number of investments that private-equity firms are making in primary-care physician practices that are ahead of the curve in offering new care delivery and payment models. Investors see an opportunity in being early participants in value-based care, even as the business case is still unclear given mixed results in Medicare's payment and delivery reform demonstrations so far.
But the niche is well-suited for private-equity firms, which feed on uncertainty, said Todd Spaanstra, a partner at Crowe Horwath, an accounting and consulting firm.
This is not about quality of care, it is about the idea that business people think that "value-based care" and "risk-based contracting" are the current rages, and so there is money to be made investing in entities that seem to fit in with these fashions.
said Slava Girzhel, managing director at KeyBanc Capital Markets. 'There's a lot of discussion about private-equity investing in risk-based models, and I do think we'll see more of that.'
Continuous, coordinated, comprehensive and compassionate care may suffer when the time horizons are not that long, and the owners of the practice are ultimately looking to sell it.
The long-term opportunity for private-equity firms is the ability to sell these managed-care-savvy medical groups to insurers or health systems, which may pay a premium for the care-coordination expertise and data analytics these practices offer.
Also,
The typical private-equity investment timetable is short—about five years. At that point, the firm would probably look to sell the practice, ideally to an insurance company or a health system, said Dan Hosler, a principal at private-equity firm Sterling Partners.
Furthermore, why private equity may be interested in primary care now, continuing interest will depend on the numbers, not on the benefits to patients
'This is an area where there are winners and losers,' said Dr. Andrei Gonzales, director for value-based reimbursement initiatives at McKesson Health Solutions. 'It's everyone trying to get a slice of the pie that's getting smaller.'What Happens When the Barbarians are at the Gate
Conspicuously absent from this article was discussion of aspects of the private equity modus operandi which are even more at odds with primary care values than the short time horizon noted above. We previously warned about the perils of private equity employing physicians (look here.) The main points were:
- Private equity is just the new name for leveraged buyout firms (the type of firm described the book, Barbarians at the Gate.)
- Therefore, when they buy out firms (e.g., the primary care practices discussed above), they use borrowed money.
- But they leverage in two senses. Once firms are bought, the private equity owners makes the firms take out further loans, and the money from them may go back to the owners, usually in the form of a special dividend, to pay down the debt originally incurred by the private equity owners. This leaves the bought out firms heavily in debt, but frees the private equity firm from its original debt. If the firm is eventually sold, the new buyers take over the debt. In a worst case scenario, however, the bought out firm goes bankrupt, the private equity's firm stock in it becomes worthless, but the private equity firm need not be responsible for its financial obligations.
- If the private equity firm desires more money while it still owns the acquired firm, it may sell parts of it off.
- To make the finances of the acquired firm look more attractive to the next buyer, the private equity firms often undertakes short term cost cutting measures that may involve layoffs, increased workload on remaining workers, etc.
Other dark aspects of private equity are discussed on the Naked Capitalism blog here.
Summary
Primary care physicians thinking about selling their practices to private equity ought to think at least twice before doing so, assuming the physicians are serious about upholding the values of primary care. Private equity firms are in it for the money, and in the relatively short term. Private equity firms are unlikely to care about the mission of primary distinct from the ability of primary care practices to make the firms richer. Therefore, practices owned by private equity may well not provide the best possible care for their patients. In any case, the physicians working for such practices may be answering to owners who are very explicitly only in it for the money. They will have become corporate physicians, possibly in the most pessimistic sense of the term.
In general, Dr Arnold Relman reminded us that physicians used to shun the commercial practice of medicine (look here). Physicians and other health professionals who sign on as full-time employees of large corporate entities have to realize that they are now beholden to managers and executives who may be hostile to their professional values, and who are subject to perverse incentives that support such hostility, including the potential for huge executive compensation. It is not clear why physicians seem to be willing to sign contracts that underline their new subservience to their corporate overlords, and likely trap them within confidentiality clauses that make blowing the whistle likely to lead to extreme unpleasantness.
Things are likely to be even worse for corporate physicians who are employed by firms owned by private equity. Because of the way private equity operates, primary care practices owned by such firms are liable to be very unstable. At best, they are liable to be sold to totally new owners in a relatively short time frame, and those owners are likely to be those who will pay the highest price, not necessarily those who will provide the best stewardship for the practices.
Furthermore, primary care practices owned by private equity are likely to end up heavily indebted and subject to strict cost cutting measures that may decrease care quality, decrease access, increase patients' out of pocket costs, and demoralize providers. Practices acquired by private equity may be broken up and sold as separate pieces. Should the debt be too high, and the cost cutting not be sufficient, such practices could end up bankrupt and possible completely defunct.
Do not say I did not warn you.
Physicians need to realize that to fulfill their oaths to put patients first, they have to reduce the influence of rich and powerful organizations with other agendas, like health care corporations, and especially corporations owned by private equity. The metastasis of private equity into primary care should make us all rethink the notion that direct health care should ever be provided, or that medicine ought to be practiced by for-profit corporations. I submit that we will not be able to have good quality, accessible health care at an affordable price until we restore physicians as independent, ethical health care professionals, and until we restore small, independent, community responsible, non-profit hospitals as the locus for inpatient care.
ADDENDUM (28 April, 2015) - This post was re-published on the Naked Capitalism blog.
