this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
171 points (99.4% liked)

Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

2323 readers
218 users here now

Health: physical and mental, individual and public.

Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.

See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.

Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.

Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.

Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
WhoRoger@lemmy.world
RoyalEngineering@lemmy.world
Awa@lemmy.world
171
Patients at private equity-owned hospitals get more infections and fall more, says a new JAMA study (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/health@lemmy.world
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Previous studies say patients of private-equity-owned health care entities pay higher costs, experience reduced staffing levels and have higher death rates in nursing homes.

Patients receiving care at hospitals owned by private-equity firms experience more bloodstream and surgical site infections and they fall more often, a new study by academics at Harvard University and the University of Chicago has found.

The research, published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, comes after previous studies that have asserted patients of private-equity-owned health care entities pay higher costs, experience reduced staffing levels and, in the case of nursing homes, have higher death rates.

The new study is by Dr. Sneha Kannan and Dr. Zirui Song, both of Harvard, and Joseph Dov Bruch of the University of Chicago. It focused on patients’ health outcomes in private-equity-owned hospitals, an area, the academics said, where research has been scant. Private-equity firms have bought out more than 200 hospitals from non-private-equity owners, the study noted. In addition, as NBC News has previously reported, an estimated 40% of hospital emergency departments across the country are managed by private-equity-backed staffing companies.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 10 months ago

As soon as my facility went from not-for-profit to privately owned they cut our staffing by around 15% and started aggressively increasing intakes.

Shocker, quality of care dropped.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We need public hospitals back in the United States. There are some things that only make sense being collectively owned

[–] metaStatic@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago

such as anything that affects the public

[–] OpenStars@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

First do no harm...

Unless you can get moar profits that way, then do that instead.

- shareholders, not even knowing or caring that the business is a hospital

(I very much wish I could put a /s in this message, but sadly, I cannot, it seems)

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Doctors aren't the ones making the decisions about staffing and care anymore when a private equity firm buys out a hospital.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Probably why they attributed their scenario to shareholders and not doctors.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Shareholders wouldn't start with "First do no harm..."

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

Shareholders also wouldn't say anything else in that statement. It's made up for the internet to make a point.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

In other news, water is wet. More at 11.

[–] flooppoolf@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

🫶🏽 you microwave.

Edit: disregard my thoughts on formulary.

This article is about the increase in surgical site and bloodstream infections. Meaning that they cut hours from the antibiotic stewardship teams. I hope this article leads to many changes in privately owned hospitals.

What I always thought was weird was formulary.

It is acceptable to give a patient a different medication than the ones they take at home, if we do not have that medication in the hospital formulary.

Technically this makes 0 difference other than the fact that it’s a different molecule, its purpose has to be the same one.

I wonder if this is one of the reasons that quality of care drops?

Once the hospital privatizes it becomes crucial for management to save money wherever they can, preventing new cutting edge medications from being used and going back to the cheaper, yet tried and true, medication.

It shouldn’t cause any difference. But I wonder.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

gee, it turns out when you prioritize profit over _____, the quality of ______ suffers! who could have guessed?