Beth Kutscher at Modern Healthcare reports that for-profit hospital chains have done well and are poised for higher profits as a result of the Affordable Care Act, "because they've cut costs and adopted new initiatives to bring in more patients." Why is it then, that the largest for-profit system in Massachusetts has not been part of this trend? Indeed, it has had to close one of its hospitals for bad performance, "after the long-struggling hospital finally succumbed to the intense competition [from the non-profit hospitals] for patients south of Boston."
The firm has also resisted state requests for its most recent financial reports. Is that a sign that the numbers are so bad that the company doesn't want them to be disclosed publicly?
I recall an official from this firm commenting in 2011 about the virtues of private equity ownership compared to the management of non-profit hospitals:
At a recent conference, one private equity official derisively talked about the inadequacies of local lay leaders eating their "stale bologna sandwiches" at Board of Trustees meetings, to draw a contrast with the unsentimental businesslike behavior of a board chosen by his firm.
What's next? How will this pain end? How will essential hospital services be provided to host communities if the company is unable to meet financial targets? As I noted in 2011:
Those seeking to regulate the behavior and financial decisions of for-profit hospitals will find that their post hoc authority will likely be insufficient to protect the public interest . . . .
Investors may come and go, but the community depends on its local hospital to provide high quality service. It is the residents of the community who are left holding the bag if the hospital corporation reaches the conclusion that ownership is not financially viable.
The firm has also resisted state requests for its most recent financial reports. Is that a sign that the numbers are so bad that the company doesn't want them to be disclosed publicly?
I recall an official from this firm commenting in 2011 about the virtues of private equity ownership compared to the management of non-profit hospitals:
At a recent conference, one private equity official derisively talked about the inadequacies of local lay leaders eating their "stale bologna sandwiches" at Board of Trustees meetings, to draw a contrast with the unsentimental businesslike behavior of a board chosen by his firm.
What's next? How will this pain end? How will essential hospital services be provided to host communities if the company is unable to meet financial targets? As I noted in 2011:
Those seeking to regulate the behavior and financial decisions of for-profit hospitals will find that their post hoc authority will likely be insufficient to protect the public interest . . . .
Investors may come and go, but the community depends on its local hospital to provide high quality service. It is the residents of the community who are left holding the bag if the hospital corporation reaches the conclusion that ownership is not financially viable.