re: Oregon becomes first state to end private equity and corporate control of doctor practices

Small private equity involved in businesses that sell widgets, it’s been neutral to bad in my experience, so I guess. Any PE involved in service industries, especially involving public health or outcomes have been overwhelming negatives and the mission statement of those businesses cannot be purely profit driven, which is what PE is

quote:

---

Love when government tells private businesses how they can operate

---

Are you against slavery or child labor laws?

Not true. Several states allow non-lawyer ownership now, which skirts the ethical prohibitions against fee sharing with non-lawyers, thereby permitting investment firms to own law firms…see Utah, Nevada, Tennessee, etc.

quote:

---

How are you defining PE? A broad reading of your statement is that there should only be public ownership of such entities.

---

Institutional ownership. They probably shouldn’t be owned by the public either. Most likely, ownership and control should be my practitioners with regulatory and ethical standards.

It’s not quite that simple, but that’s my general sentiment for a message board

quote:

---

They act in bad faith, often unlawfully, and get around being prosecuted through NDAs, forum selection, and restrictive contracting.

---

A lot of PE companies also leverage one company to buy another, load the original company up with tons of debt from the purchase, syphon off all the profits, then have the original company declare bankruptcy and shut down which wipes their debt. Rince and repeat with a new business.

quote:

---

It isn’t the business form that matters. A corporation or an LLP should be fine as long as it is owned by the professionals. The problem comes in when non-professionals own the practice and start dictating to the professionals in an effort to increase profits.

---

That's the goal of the law as far as I understand it, but I haven't looked into it that closely.

It's a good idea, but how many of those who are championing this are doing so as a step towards pushing for universal (read: government-controlled instead of PE-controlled) healthcare?

quote:

---

That's the goal of the law as far as I understand it,

---

It’s a lot more complicated than that and you’re smart enough to understand that.

I’m not a Dr. or lawyer but I have questions about the legality of this if a Dr. or group of Drs want to sell their practice to a corporate entity so they don’t have to deal with the business side of running a practice.
Also it’s not always a bad thing,I guess it depends on the corporation or private equity firm that buys the practice.

For example the Cardiology Clinic where my wife works was bought by a hospital group and it’s not been so good.Drs. are graded on productivity,they’re expected to see so many pts.a day which works out to about 15 minutes per pt.Also,the corporate entity is not that well organized so the office is not that well organized.DR.she primarily works with is not so happy,she’s not that happy either.


On the other hand the eye Dr.I go to is part of a practice owned by a private equity firm and they are a model of efficiency.I have macula degeneration so I have to visit every 6 months.I never have to wait past my appt.time.Girl calls me back,takes my vital signs,checks me for glaucoma and puts drops in my eyes to dilate them.Go to another waiting room few minutes then called back,different girl takes pictures of my retinas.Go back to waiting room few minutes,another girl calls me back to a different room where I look into another machine where she takes measurements or something.
Go back to waiting room few minutes then called back,Dr.looks into my eyes,looks at the pictures,etc and explains what’s going on with my eyes.I see that there are a lot of pts.but I never feels rushed,Dr. answers questions I have.Whole visit takes less than a hour.

quote:

---

It’s a lot more complicated than that

---

I can only go by the statements that I've read from Oregon politicians about the law. The express stated goal was to "prevent loopholes" to Oregon’s corporate practice of medicine doctrine. The summary of the bill expressly provides that its goal is to stop "people in charge of companies that do not do medical work from running both the company and another entity that does medical work".

I didn't opine on other policy aspects, but your douchiness is acknowledged.