Private Equity and Cardiovascular Health Care

Partha Sardar,Saurav Chatterjee,Zirui Song

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2023.5127

2024-03-14

JAMA Cardiology

Abstract:This Viewpoint discusses involvement of private equity firms in health care.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Physician Perspectives on Private Equity Investment in Health Care

Jane M. Zhu,Andrew Zeveney,Susan Read,Ryan Crowley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.0062

2024-03-11

JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract:This survey study examines physician views toward private equity investment in health care.

medicine, general & internal
Private equity in ophthalmology: taking the long view

Jane M Zhu,Christopher M Aderman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000976

2023-09-01

Abstract:Purpose of review: Private equity's momentum in eye care remains controversial, even as investment continues to hasten the consolidation of ophthalmology and optometry practices. In this review, we discuss the growing implications of private equity activity in ophthalmology, drawing on updated empirical findings from the literature. We also examine recent legal and policy efforts to address private equity investment in healthcare, with implications for ophthalmologists considering sales to private equity. Recent findings: Concerns about private equity centres around evidence that some investment entities are not just valuable sources of capital or business expertise, but that they take outright ownership and control of acquired practices in order to drive high returns on investment. Although practices may receive considerable benefits from private equity investment, empirical evidence suggests that private equity's most consistent effect on acquired practices is to increase spending and utilization without commensurate benefits on patient health. Although data on workforce effects are limited, an early study on workforce composition changes in private equity-acquired practices demonstrates that physicians were more likely to enter and exit a given practice than their counterparts in nonacquired practices, suggesting some degree of workforce flux. State and federal oversight of private equity's impact on healthcare may be ramping up in response to these demonstrated changes. Summary: Private equity will continue to broaden their footprint in eye care, necessitating ophthalmologists to take the long view of private equity's net effects. For practices considering a private equity sale, recent policy developments highlight the importance of identifying and vetting a well aligned investment partner, with safeguards to preserve clinical decision-making and physician autonomy.
Do Private Equity Investors Conspire with Ultimate Owners in the IPO Process?

Liu Qigui,Jinghua Tang,Gary Gang Tian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2208254

2013-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:This paper examines the interactive effect of private equity (PE) and excess control rights on the process of firms’ going public. We find that firms with high excess control rights have more earnings management before IPO, and they are more likely to seek PE investors especially when the earnings management is high. We further show that the involvement of PE investors increases the probability of the firms’ IPO application being approved by the regulators in firms with high excess control rights. However, PE backed firms with high excess control rights are found to have a higher IPO fee, lower initial returns and lower long term post-IPO performance. We argue that in emerging markets where the protection of minority shareholders is weak and the economy is dominated by relationship and networks, ultimate owners have a strong incentive to have PE investors help them access the IPO market at the expense of minority shareholders’ interests, especially when they have excess control rights. In fact, instead of playing a monitory role, PE investors actually conspire with the ultimate owners to exploit minority shareholders’ interests and both PE investors and controlling shareholders become big winners, while minority shareholders are the only losers in the IPO process.
Private Equity Investment in Surgical Care

Maxwell T Sievers,Andrew Neevel,Adrian Diaz,Eva Rouanet,Kyle Sheetz,David Brophy,Justin B Dimick,Karan R. Chhabra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000006238

IF: 13.787

2024-02-19

Annals of Surgery

Abstract:Objective: To characterize the extent of private equity investment affecting surgical care. Summary Background Data: Over the last decade, investor-backed, for-profit private equity groups have invested in healthcare at an unprecedented rate, but the breadth of these investments affecting surgical practice remains largely unknown. Methods: Four nationally representative databases were used to identify all merger/acquisitions involving surgical practices between 2015-2019, determine private equity investment in those transactions, and link the acquisitions with a physician dataset. Results: 1,542 unique transactions were identified, of which 539 were financed by private equity. 58 transactions were then classified into their respective categories within surgical care: digestive disease, orthopedics, urology, vascular surgery, and plastic/cosmetic surgery. These transactions accounted for 199 practice sites and 1,405 physicians, averaging 24.2 physicians per transaction. Acquisition activity peaked in 2017 with a total of 63 practices involved. Digestive disease, urology, and orthopedic surgery accounted for the most activity. General surgeons were involved in a small share of the digestive disease practice acquisitions. Three “surgery-adjacent” categories were also identified: anesthesiology, ambulatory surgery centers, and surgical staffing firms. Among these, anesthesia was the largest category in terms of practices (194) and physicians (2,660) involved in transactions across the study period. Medical Service Organizations (MSOs) were a key mechanism through which private equity firms invested in surgical care. Conclusions: Private equity has engaged in substantial investment within surgical specialties, creating increased practice consolidation. These investments affect all levels of medical care and have notable implications for patients, practitioners, and policymakers.

surgery
Private equity involvement in primary care: the case of Ireland

Julien Mercille

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744133124000203

2024-11-09

Health Economics Policy and Law

Abstract:Private equity (PE) firms play an increasingly important role in healthcare. Yet, existing research remains uneven, mostly focused on the United States and on certain sectors such as nursing homes. Some geographical areas and health specialties remain under-explored. This brief paper outlines a research agenda focusing on three key issues: (1) PE's significance and (2) business strategies in healthcare, and (3) PE's impacts on health and healthcare. The paper uses primary care in Ireland as an example. The proposed research agenda should improve our understanding of the nature of PE in healthcare and serve as a basis for policy-makers to explore appropriate and effective regulation of PE to reduce its negative impacts if and when they exist.

health policy & services
Equity Investment in Physician Practices: What's All This Brouhaha?

Mark V. Pauly,Lawton Robert Burns

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-11186103

2024-02-07

Abstract:Abstract There have been two waves of equity-based investment in physician practices. Both used a combination of public and private sources, but in different mixes. The first investment wave in the 1990s was led by public equity and physician practice management companies (PPMCs), with less involvement by private equity (PE). The second investment wave followed the Affordable Care Act (ACA 2010) and led by PE firms. It has generated concerns of wasteful spending, less cost-effective care, and initiatives harmful to patient welfare. This paper compares the two waves and asks if they are parallel in important ways. We describe the similarity in the players, driving forces, acquisition dynamics, spurs to consolidation, types of equity involved, models to organize physicians, and levels of market penetration achieved. The paper then tackles three unresolved issues. Does PE investment differ from other investment vehicles in concerning ways? Does PE possess capabilities that other investment vehicles lack and confer competitive advantage? Does physician practice investment offer opportunities for super-normal profits? The paper then discusses ongoing trends that may disrupt PE and curtail its practice investment. We conclude past may be prologue: what happened during the 1990s may well repeat, suggesting the PE threat is overblown.

social sciences, biomedical,health care sciences & services,health policy & services,social issues
164 Characterization of Market Movements and Private Equity in Neurosurgery Practices and Hospitals

Stefan Wolfgang Koester,Robert J. Dambrino,Anthony Bishay,Akshay Bhamidipati,Campbell Liles,Tyler S. Cole,Tim Gooldy,Brett E. Youngerman,Lola Blackwell Chambless

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002809_164

IF: 5.315

2024-04-01

Neurosurgery

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: Surgical services could be faced with shifts in corporate management, restructuring, and incentives as trends such as private equity (PE) investment in healthcare continue to evolve. The number of surgical services acquired by PE firms has increased significantly over the last 20 years. Due to financial vulnerability and movement towards digital health, PE activity within healthcare has further grownsince the COVID pandemic. METHODS: PitchBook and Mergermarket were used to query deals involving neurosurgical practice within the United States at any time. Exclusion criteria consisted of non-neurosurgery practices and debt restructuring deals without a change in ownership. The company name, deal type, financing year, and state were extracted for each deal. Deal type was stratified by the following categories: angel investment, mergers and acquisitions, private equity and venture capital (PE/VC), and corporate buyout. Internal debt refinancing such as leveraged recapitalization was excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 125 companies were discovered in the initial search. After further review, 63 companies were included in final analysis. The deals occurred between 1994 to 2022 and involved companies in 27 different states. Of the 63 companies, 36 (57.1%) involved mergers or acquisitions, 16 (25.4%) involved private equity or venture capital firms, 7 (11.1%) involved corporate buyouts, and 4 (6.3%) involved angel investments. CONCLUSIONS: PE is increasingly involved with neurosurgery practices, with an associated decline in mergers and acquisitions. Future qualitative investigation is required to help characterize physician attitudes of PE-run practices in comparison to non-PE practices.

surgery,clinical neurology
Private Equity Investment in Health Care Soars—But at What Cost?

Karen Roush

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.naj.0001010520.07728.67

2024-03-21

Abstract:Study finds more hospital-acquired adverse events after acquisitions.

nursing
Owner Incentives and Performance in Healthcare: Private Equity Investment in Nursing Homes

Atul Gupta,Sabrina T Howell,Constantine Yannelis,Abhinav Gupta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhad082

2023-11-22

Abstract:Abstract Amid an aging population and a growing role for private equity (PE) in the care of older adults, this paper studies how PE ownership affects U.S. nursing homes using patient-level Medicare data. We show that PE ownership leads to a patient population with lower health risk. However, after instrumenting for the patient-nursing home match, we find that PE ownership increases mortality by 11%. Declines in measures of patient well-being, nurse staffing, and compliance with care standards help to explain the mortality effect. Overall, we conclude that PE has nuanced effects with adverse outcomes for a subset of patients.

economics,business, finance
CVS Health's Acquisition of Oak Street Health Reconfirms Market Viability of Private Equity Investment in Value-Based Payment Models for Primary Care

Andrew Grant

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2023.20

Abstract:For over a decade and for the foreseeable future, federal agencies have made efforts to promote value-based care through various incentive schemes, such as the recent "Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care." Federal incentive schemes and other "macro tailwinds" have brought in private equity investors, especially in the context of primary care for Medicare beneficiaries. Oak Street Health and its private equity backers were pioneers in this space, applying buy-and-build strategies to create "next-generation" primary care networks "that focus largely or entirely on Medicare Advantage enrollees." Although Oak Street Health persuasively established a workable "playbook" for private equity investment in value-based care, and forecasts have been favorable, the ultimate market viability of this value-based playbook hinges on whether or not private equity investors can locate corporate buyers. The market viability of such a strategy has now been reconfirmed by the acquisition of Oak Street Health by CVS Health ("CVS"), announced February 8, 2023, and closed May 2, 2023, especially given that the incentives and the efficiencies associated with this deal are likely to be applicable to large-scale vertically integrated "payvider" corporations more generally. This Recent Transaction Comment examines CVS's acquisition of Oak Street Health to consider what factors might lead vertically integrated health care corporations to acquire value-based primary care networks in the future, and what knock on effects such acquisitions might have on future private equity buyouts in health care.
Association of Private Equity Acquisition of Physician Practices With Changes in Health Care Spending and Utilization

Yashaswini Singh,Zirui Song,Daniel Polsky,Joseph D Bruch,Jane M Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2886

2022-09-02

JAMA Health Forum

Abstract:Importance: Private equity acquisitions of physician practices in the US have been increasing rapidly; however, the implications for health care delivery and spending are unclear. Objective: To examine changes in prices and utilization associated with private equity acquisitions of physician practices across multiple specialties. Design, settings, and participants: This was a difference-in-differences event study of US physician practices specialized in dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology that were acquired by private equity firms from 2016 to 2020. Within each specialty, each private equity-acquired (PE-acquired) practice was matched with as many as 5 control practices based on the preacquisition number of unique patients, encounters, risk score, share of services billed out-of-network, and spending. The PE-acquired practices were compared with matched controls through year 2 after acquisition, using a difference-in-differences event study. Data analyses were performed from March 2021 to February 2022. Exposures: Private equity acquisition of physician practices. Main outcomes and measures: Measures of spending and utilization, including the charge and price (amount paid) per claim, new and unique patients, and total encounters. Results: Compared with the 2874 control practices, the 578 PE-acquired physician practices exhibited an average increase of $71 (+20.2%) charged per claim (95% CI, 13.1%-27.3%; P < .001) and $23 (+11.0%) in the allowed amount per claim (95% CI, 5.6%-16.5%; P < .001). The PE-acquired practices increased their numbers of unique patients seen by 25.8% (95% CI, 15.8%-35.6%; P < .001) compared with control practices, driven by a 37.9% increase in visits by new patients (95% CI, 25.6%-50.2%; P < .001). In aggregate, their volume of encounters increased by 16.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-32.0%; P = .04) compared with the control group, with a 9.4% increase in the share of office visits for established patients that were billed as longer than 30 minutes (95% CI, 1.7%-17.0%; P = .02). No statistically significant changes in patient risk scores were found between PE-acquired practices and controls. Within specialties, we found modest differences along selected outcomes. Conclusions and relevance: In this difference-in-differences study, private equity acquisition of physician practices in dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology were associated with differential increases in allowed amount and charges per claim, volume of encounters, and new patients seen, as well as some changes in billing and coding.
Exploring the Impact of Private Equity Investment on Corporate Performance: A Case Study Pharmablock

Xuezhen Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54097/p5ww7130

2024-09-01

Abstract:Reasonable use of private equity investment not only effectively solves the problem of corporate funds, but also rapidly enhances the expansion of enterprises; Equity participation in enterprise management and decision-making can also make the development of enterprises more scientific and efficient. However, private equity investment also has the attribute of a "double-edged sword", such as excessive participation in internal business operations and the timing of exiting equity, which greatly affect the decision-making direction and debt stability of enterprises. This article takes Nanjing Pharmablock Co., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "Pharmablock", as an example. By interpreting the process of private equity investment and investment, it studies the changes in the company's financial indicators such as profitability, debt repayment ability, and development ability, interprets the impact of private equity investment on enterprises, and ultimately identifies relevant issues and proposes corresponding suggestions.
Private equity investment in health care delivery, Australia, 2008–2022

Victoria L Berquist

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52270

2024-04-04

The Medical Journal of Australia

Abstract:ObjectivesTo examine the scale of private equity investment in Australian health care delivery assets (clinics, hospitals, imaging facilities, other doctor‐led health care services).Study design, settingExtraction of information about private equity acquisitions of hospitals, clinics, imaging centres and in vitro fertilisation facilities in Australia, 2008–2022, from a commercial database (PitchBook), supplemented by information from publicly available online media sources.Main outcome measuresNumber and value of private equity acquisitions of health care assets, 2008–2022; numbers of clinic parent company and clinic acquisitions, 2017–2022.ResultsA total of 75 private equity acquisitions of health care delivery assets in Australia during 2008–2022 were identified; the annual number rose from three acquisitions in 2008 to eighteen in 2022. During 2008–2010, five of seven acquisitions were of in vitro fertilisation providers; during 2020–2022, 22 of 39 acquisitions were of clinics or clinic groups, including eleven of eighteen in 2022. The total value of the 39 acquisitions for which purchase price could be ascertained (52%) was $24.1 billion. During 2017–2022, the clinic specialty with the greatest number of private equity acquisitions was general practice (256 of 446 clinics purchased within acquisitions). Seven companies owning ophthalmology clinics (24 clinics) were acquired by private equity. Four private equity acquisitions during 2017–2022 included 60 oncology clinics, all related to a single clinic group.ConclusionsThe number of private equity acquisitions of Australian health care delivery assets increased during 2008–2022. Doctors should be aware of the motivations and dynamics of private equity companies, as they are increasingly likely to interact with these firms and assets owned by these firms.

medicine, general & internal
Private Equity Investment in U.S. Banks

Robert DeYoung,Michal K. Kowalik,Gokhan Torna

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4011362

2021-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:We study large, long-term private equity investments in 87 publicly traded commercial banks made possible by a loosening of Federal Reserve regulations in 2008. Bank shareholders earned premiums upon the announcement of the PE investments, positive abnormal returns persisted throughout the durations of these deals, and earnings multiples were commensurate with the performance of non-bank PE investments. PE investors played an active role by increasing the risk incentives in bank CEO contracts. Bank earnings growth accelerated and bank risk profiles increased, consistent with historical regulatory concerns that private equity investment would make commercial banks riskier.
Financialisation: a 21st century commercial determinant of health equity

Sharon Friel,Ashley Schram,Nick Frank,Megan Arthur,Bel Townsend,Hridesh Gajurel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00187-7

Abstract:In 21st century capitalism, financial markets reign supreme. The elevation of investing, trading, and speculating as a way of making profit has shifted economic power towards institutional investors and enhanced the power of financial capital. Financialisation has introduced uncertainty in the commitment to public provision of goods and services. The behaviours of corporations focus more on profit for shareholders and senior executives to the detriment of wages, worker protections, livelihoods, and impact on prices and the environment. The practices of this financial system pose major challenges to public health and planetary health equity through the influence on social inequality, climate change, and health outcomes. The aim of this Viewpoint is to expand the understanding of the commercial determinants of health to explicitly include the financial system and present key plausible pathways via which the financialisation of advanced economies influences public health and planetary health equity. The global public health community must pay close attention to these key commercial determinants of health. It is now crucial to reduce the power of financial actors and hold financial actors accountable. Civil society groups can highlight their practices, articulate alternative visions, and hold financial actors and governments to account. Interdisciplinary research must provide a diagnosis of the financial and public health issues, and, importantly, illuminate effective pathways forward. Financial and commercial worlds must return to stakeholder primacy rather than that of the shareholder.
Private Equity Firm Performance: An Empirical Evidence From India Using Benchmark Index

Rakesh Kumar,Mohammad Firoz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509221149591

2023-06-13

Global Business Review

Abstract:Global Business Review, Ahead of Print. The present study attempted to examine the comparative return performance of private and non-private equity firms in India. For this purpose, we have used deal-level data retrieved from venture intelligence for the period ranging from 2009 to 2019. To measure the return of private equity, we applied Return multiple, internal rate of return (IRR) and extended internal rate of return (XIRR). We have used the Nifty 50 benchmark index as a proxy for investigating the return generated by public market returns. Study findings revealed that private equity firms outperformed the benchmark Index return and open-up routes for global and domestic investors for further investment. We identified that most private equity deals exited via the M&A route; some also followed the IPO route to exit privately held firms. Results differ from prior studies advocating IPO as the prime mechanism private equity managers use for exiting. Further, returns measured under both routes outperformed the public market index Nifty 50. The study found that 84% (277 Deals) of deals provided a positive cash multiple in the last decade and outperformed the benchmark index. These findings are helpful for private equity firms and fund managers to make investment decisions in the Indian private equity market.
Private Equity and Lodging firm Stock Values: is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder?

Melih Madanoglu,Ersem Karadag

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10913211.2008.10653855

2008-03-01

The Journal of Hospitality Financial Management

Abstract:Over the last five years, the hospitality industry has witnessed an exceptional level of transaction activity, changes in hotel ownership, and new management structure. There is a common belief that the combination of low interest rates, depressed stock prices, and rising corporate profits created ideal conditions for private equity firms to flourish. This study argues why publicly traded lodging companies became the targets for private equity firms, and also discusses why private equity firms place a higher value on hotel firms that possess strong brands and higher degrees of intangible assets. On one hand, some scholars claim that private equity funds invest in hotel real estate as a financial asset, and the main reason for investment is to sell the hotel properties for a higher price in the future. Others contend that the market is completely out of touch with economic reality and unlimited funds in the market are seeking a safe home. This article does not offer a conclusion for the hotel valuation argument, but rather sheds some light into the current phenomenon of private equity. It seems that, at this stage, it is not feasible to use inferential statistical analysis to uncover the reasons hotel companies became targets of private equity buyouts. However, by using some of the extant industry body of knowledge, the researchers develop two key propositions that they hope will spur research in this area. The authors conclude that more insight is needed to understand the current investment phenomenon brought onto the scene by private equity firms over the last five years.
Private capital investments in health care provision through mergers and acquisitions: from long-term to acute care

Federica Angeli,Hans Maarse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2327

Abstract:Objectives: This work aims to test whether different segments of healthcare provision differentially attract private capital and thus offer heterogeneous opportunities for private investors' diversification strategies. Methods: Thomson Reuter's SDC Platinum database provided data on 2563 merger and acquisition (M&A) deals targeting healthcare providers in Western Europe between 1990 and 2010. Longitudinal trends of industrial and geographical characteristics of M&As' targets and acquirers are examined. Results: Our analyses highlight: (i) a relative decrease of long-term care facilities as targets of M&As, replaced by an increasing prominence of general hospitals, (ii) a shrinking share of long-term care facilities as targets of financial service organizations' acquisitions, in favor of general hospitals, and (iii) an absolute and relative decrease of long-term care facilities' role as target of cross-border M&As. Conclusions: We explain the decreasing interest of private investors towards long-term care facilities along three lines of reasoning, which take into account the saturation of the long-term care market and the liberalization of acute care provision across Western European countries, regulatory interventions aimed at reducing private ownership to ensure resident outcomes and new cultural developments in favor of small-sized facilities, which strengthen the fragmentation of the sector. These findings advance the literature investigating the effect of private ownership on health outcomes in long-term facilities. Market, policy and cultural forces have emerged over two decades to jointly regulate the presence of privately owned, large-sized long-term care providers, seemingly contributing to safeguard residents' well-being. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Do Private Equity Sponsors Sacrifice Long-Term Value for Short-Term Profit? Evidence from a Comprehensive Sample of Large Buyouts and Exit Outcomes

Jarrad Harford,Adam C. Kolasinski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1785927

2012-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:We test whether the well-documented high returns of private equity sponsors result from wealth transfers from other financial claimants and counterparties and from a focus on short-term profits at the expense of long-term value. Debt investors who finance buyouts, as well as buyers of private equity portfolio companies, represent the two potential sources of wealth transfers. Yet, we find that on average, public companies benefit when they buy financial sponsors’ portfolio companies, experiencing positive abnormal returns upon the announcement of the acquisition and long-run post-transaction abnormal returns indistinguishable from zero. We further find that large portfolio company payouts to private equity on average have no relation to future portfolio company distress, suggesting that debt investors are not suffering systematic wealth losses, either. However, we find some evidence of wealth transfers from both strategic buyers and debt investors in some special situations. Finally, we find that portfolio companies invest no differently than a matched sample of public control firms, even when they are not profitable, an observation inconsistent with short-termism.
Private Equity Acquisitions Of Hospices Are Increasing; Ownership Remains Opaque

Melissa D Aldridge,Lauren J Hunt,Zelle Halloran,Krista L Harrison

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2023.01671

Abstract:Private equity ownership across the US health care system is rapidly increasing, yet ownership structures are complex and opaque. We used an economic data set tracking mergers and acquisitions linked to Medicare data to identify private equity hospice acquisitions. Given the influence of for-profit ownership on hospice quality, transparent data on private equity investment are fundamental to ensuring high-quality end-of-life care.

Private Equity and Cardiovascular Health Care

Physician Perspectives on Private Equity Investment in Health Care

Private equity in ophthalmology: taking the long view

Do Private Equity Investors Conspire with Ultimate Owners in the IPO Process?

Private Equity Investment in Surgical Care

Private equity involvement in primary care: the case of Ireland

Equity Investment in Physician Practices: What's All This Brouhaha?

164 Characterization of Market Movements and Private Equity in Neurosurgery Practices and Hospitals

Private Equity Investment in Health Care Soars—But at What Cost?

Owner Incentives and Performance in Healthcare: Private Equity Investment in Nursing Homes

CVS Health's Acquisition of Oak Street Health Reconfirms Market Viability of Private Equity Investment in Value-Based Payment Models for Primary Care

Association of Private Equity Acquisition of Physician Practices With Changes in Health Care Spending and Utilization

Exploring the Impact of Private Equity Investment on Corporate Performance: A Case Study Pharmablock

Private equity investment in health care delivery, Australia, 2008–2022

Private Equity Investment in U.S. Banks

Financialisation: a 21st century commercial determinant of health equity

Private Equity Firm Performance: An Empirical Evidence From India Using Benchmark Index

Private Equity and Lodging firm Stock Values: is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder?

Private capital investments in health care provision through mergers and acquisitions: from long-term to acute care

Do Private Equity Sponsors Sacrifice Long-Term Value for Short-Term Profit? Evidence from a Comprehensive Sample of Large Buyouts and Exit Outcomes

Private Equity Acquisitions Of Hospices Are Increasing; Ownership Remains Opaque