[sizzle]

So is it usually the case that whenever you see a group run medical practice, in comparison to a solo practice, that the facilities are managed by some sort of larger VC/PE group, assuming they are a private,for-profit organization rather than a hospital owned by the city or local university?

The business side of healthcare is fascinating and somewhat terrifying once you follow the money and see how this correlates to positive patient outcomes. I hope more researchers are willing to study this phenomenon without fear of losing career prospects.

[ReallyAnonymous]

no. Some are a conglomeration of private practices that joined to better negotiate with insurance companies, some are owned by other entities, some are independent. My group was self employed up until 5 years ago, but no insurance company would talk to us to give us a raise because they said we were so small (and wouldn't drop from being a provider). They didn't look to see that we didn't own a lab, a CT scanner, a surgery center, etc... They just knew we had no leverage. Now, my colleagues that remain independent say that insurance companies ask them what can we do to keep you independent? b/c when a hospital owns all the physicians in a county, they pretty much get the upper hand in the negotiations.

Basically, it's a bunch of business people making maneuvers to try and extract as much money from the system as possible, which is why it's >$30k / year to insure a family in the USA. This makes small businesses unable to compete against companies located in socialized medicine countries, in my opinion. It also makes it impossible to compete against a business that does not offer insurance to their employees.

Eventually, we'll go single payer, bc it cannot continue at this rate.

PS - Any non profit organization has to publish their tax returns. Search Form 990 and the non profit name to pull it up. All non profits have to publish the top 20 earners - some will be administrators and others will be physicians.