Medicine is nearing its end of life cycle. Midlevel surgeons submitting independent claims backed by private equity: NPR

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
They’re not more common. There was a huge slowdown with acquisitions in the past 2-3 years. It probably reflects that most desirable groups have either sold or true equal partnership style where PE wasn’t willing to put up the bucks. Now what you are seeing is contracts being shuffled Between AMCs.

I can’t blame someone for taking a $2 M buyout when they are in their 60s. I would absolutely do the same. Dont try to say you wouldn’t either. The best defense against this is to set your practice up to avoid a PE buyout by making sure EVERYONE in the practice is an equal partner (after buy in and even then make it a percentage, AND no tiered partnerships). No one is coming in an offering $80 million to a 40 physician group to sell. Groups that do all that are super rare, even my own you’d get none during buyout if it happened probably.
I totally wouldn’t. But I have never been a greedy person. I value more the freedom of running my own business than the idea of selling out and dealing with bosses from Wallstreet.

But I am a woman. I suspect that may have something to do with it. I highly suspect that most of these companies that sold out had tons of men in leadership.

There, I said it. Call it sexist, call it whatever. I see a lot of greed in medicine and it mostly comes from men.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
  • Okay...
Reactions: 3 users
There, I said it. Call it sexist, call it whatever. I see a lot of greed in medicine and it mostly comes from men.

I suspect that has more to do with the fact that it’s just recently that women have begun to take on more widespread leadership roles in medicine than some inherent flaw in men that is absent in women. There are plenty of greedy and unscrupulous women in every field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
I suspect that has more to do with the fact that it’s just recently that women have begun to take on more widespread leadership roles in medicine than some inherent flaw in men that is absent in women. There are plenty of greedy and unscrupulous women in every field.

Not exactly a rallying cry for feminists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I suspect that has more to do with the fact that it’s just recently that women have begun to take on more widespread leadership roles in medicine than some inherent flaw in men that is absent in women. There are plenty of greedy and unscrupulous women in every field.
And who typically pulls back and stays home more with children when both parents are professionals?
And in turn ends up making less money?

Or even in single women, what percentage of them typically work the crazy hours men typically work in order to make all that money? I know plenty of them who say hell no.

Prime example. There was a huge group in Vegas that did nothing but OB. They made a nice chunk of change. I was told close to a million or more not too long ago. It was a pretty big group.

How many women do you think belonged in that group?

The reality is, typically men are driven to work, work, work, earn earn earn, money money money even to the detriment of their families. I don’t know if that is a societal thing or what.

I know women who think they can earn and keep up with all these men, and then throw in the towel and say, screw it, I would rather have a life, sleep and make less money.

I have a feeling that most women wouldn’t be so quick to sell out. They prefer independence. Look at the OB Gyne groups who tend to be run by women.
 
  • Like
  • Hmm
Reactions: 2 users
But come on, where is the fun in that?
Exactly. When I suggest women dress a little less provocatively in order to potentially ward off having lewd comments coming our way I am accused of giving men a right to rape women. I mean do men come to work showing off half their thighs?

Oh well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
And who typically pulls back and stays home more with children when both parents are professionals?
And in turn ends up making less money?

Or even in single women, what percentage of them typically work the crazy hours men typically work in order to make all that money? I know plenty of them who say hell no.

Prime example. There was a huge group in Vegas that did nothing but OB. They made a nice chunk of change. I was told close to a million or more not too long ago. It was a pretty big group.

How many women do you think belonged in that group?

The reality is, typically men are driven to work, work, work, earn earn earn, money money money even to the detriment of their families. I don’t know if that is a societal thing or what.

I know women who think they can earn and keep up with all these men, and then throw in the towel and say, screw it, I would rather have a life, sleep and make less money.

I have a feeling that most women wouldn’t be so quick to sell out. They prefer independence. Look at the OB Gyne groups who tend to be run by women.

My point is that when you have a smaller sample size, you’re more likely to observe extreme results. So if you have 100 docs and only 10 of them are women, you’re more likely to see all of them being greedy or all of them not being greedy than if there were 40-50. That’s just statistics.

Since most docs in leadership are men (or at least have been historically), of course you’re going to see mostly men driving the greed and be less likely to see women participating in that.
You can be a feminist and not be extreme.
I am also a socialist who thinks of more than just me, me, me, mine, mine, mine, money, money, money.

Not popular on SDN.

Lol this is like something John Oliver would say as satire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
My point is that when you have a smaller sample size, you’re more likely to observe extreme results. So if you have 100 docs and only 10 of them are women, you’re more likely to see all of them being greedy or all of them not being greedy than if there were 40-50. That’s just statistics.

Since most docs in leadership are men (or at least have been historically), of course you’re going to see mostly men driving the greed and be less likely to see women participating in that.


Lol this is like something John Oliver would say as satire.
Maybe you are right. As the tide shifts, we shall see what happens. I have my theories. But by then there won’t be any opportunities to make money as the men would have screwed us all!!! Lol

John Oliver is awesome!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And who typically pulls back and stays home more with children when both parents are professionals?
And in turn ends up making less money?

Or even in single women, what percentage of them typically work the crazy hours men typically work in order to make all that money? I know plenty of them who say hell no.

Prime example. There was a huge group in Vegas that did nothing but OB. They made a nice chunk of change. I was told close to a million or more not too long ago. It was a pretty big group.

How many women do you think belonged in that group?

The reality is, typically men are driven to work, work, work, earn earn earn, money money money even to the detriment of their families. I don’t know if that is a societal thing or what.

I know women who think they can earn and keep up with all these men, and then throw in the towel and say, screw it, I would rather have a life, sleep and make less money.

I have a feeling that most women wouldn’t be so quick to sell out. They prefer independence. Look at the OB Gyne groups who tend to be run by women.

while it's already very different today than in the past, there is still strong societal / cultural expectations for men to WORK and make money. many wives have left men because they dont make enough money, probably fewer the other way around.

Take my employer for example. women get paid maternity leave here, but men do not get paternity leave

also unfortunately, men cant get pregnant. and cant breast feed. so there are some natural reasons thru out history for why women tend to stay home more
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
while it's already very different today than in the past, there is still strong societal / cultural expectations for men to WORK and make money. many wives have left men because they dont make enough money, probably fewer the other way around.

Take my employer for example. women get paid maternity leave here, but men do not get paternity leave

also unfortunately, men cant get pregnant. and cant breast feed. so there are some natural reasons thru out history for why women tend to stay home more
That was not my point. I am not against working to make money. Everyone needs to earn to eat. Yes there are societal expectations to do that more so for men than women.

I am talking about about overworking to make the most amount of money I can while sacrificing family life etc.

Constantly working 60-100 hour weeks so they can make even more money than if they worked 40-60. Living in a perpetual state of exhaustion, normalizing it, buying stuff to keep the family happy, constantly chasing after more more more. Plenty of women end up leaving their husbands for that reason as well. I am sure it goes both ways if the woman is the earner too.

And I guess in a country that doesn’t have universal healthcare or universal
maternity leave can a company just pay only the women for maternity leave. Sounds like something that should be completely illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
That was not my point. I am not against working to make money. Everyone needs to earn to eat. Yes there are societal expectations to do that more so for men than women.

I am talking about about overworking to make the most amount of money I can while sacrificing family life etc.

Constantly working 60-100 hour weeks so they can make even more money than if they worked 40-60. Living in a perpetual state of exhaustion, normalizing it, buying stuff to keep the family happy, constantly chasing after more more more. Plenty of women end up leaving their husbands for that reason as well. I am sure it goes both ways if the woman is the earner too.

And I guess in a country that doesn’t have universal healthcare or universal
maternity leave can a company just pay only the women for maternity leave. Sounds like something that should be completely illegal.

This is true. All the workaholics I know in anesthesia are men.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
This is true. All the workaholics I know in anesthesia are men.
Exactly. And look across the drapes and see who lives in the hospital. Who’s on their second and third marriage.

OB which more often than not has more women is an outlier. That work seems never ending. But even then, you will see the women tending to pull back in that field more than men.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Enjoy. Midlevel surgeons
This isn't new, and they aren't surgeons. They're first assists and have always been able to bill this way
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Exactly. And look across the drapes and see who lives in the hospital. Who’s on their second and third marriage.

OB which more often than not has more women is an outlier. That work seems never ending. But even then, you will see the women tending to pull back in that field more than men.

This is a very small n, but about 65% of my department are men, 35% of anesthesiologists women. Again total N is <20 but i noticed that while everyone is with a sig other, ALL the female anesthesiologists here are with high earning partners (doctors in other fields, bankers, lawyers, etc), while the male anesthesiologists have a much higher mix (a couple have doctor Sig other, but the rest have much lower paying jobs, some even stay at home)

the women are also have a way higher percentage of being part time. (but then again i'd be part time too if my SO made 400k+) just my interesting observation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Exactly. When I suggest women dress a little less provocatively in order to potentially ward off having lewd comments coming our way I am accused of giving men a right to rape women. I mean do men come to work showing off half their thighs?

Oh well.

We would if there was a perceived advantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
We would if there was a perceived advantage.
Dress in hot pants? Oh dear. What kind of advantage?m

A better example would have been to come to work in a tank, tight muscle shirt that really showed of male chest and arms.
The nicely shaped ones that is. Instead it’s a covered suit and tie.
 
Last edited:
This is a very small n, but about 65% of my department are men, 35% of anesthesiologists women. Again total N is <20 but i noticed that while everyone is with a sig other, ALL the female anesthesiologists here are with high earning partners (doctors in other fields, bankers, lawyers, etc), while the male anesthesiologists have a much higher mix (a couple have doctor Sig other, but the rest have much lower paying jobs, some even stay at home)

the women are also have a way higher percentage of being part time. (but then again i'd be part time too if my SO made 400k+) just my interesting observation.
Smart women.
 
Smart women.

Men are more likely to find realistically available women attractive while many women either settle for someone they don’t find physically attractive or take turns with other women dating the relatively few attractive men. No wonder they want someone making money. If they have to settle for someone unattractive, he might as well be rich, right? At least that was my take away from this:

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Exactly. When I suggest women dress a little less provocatively in order to potentially ward off having lewd comments coming our way I am accused of giving men a right to rape women. I mean do men come to work showing off half their thighs?

Oh well.
Dress in hot pants? Oh dear. What kind of advantage?m

A better example would have been to come to work in a tank, tight muscle shirt that really showed of male chest and arms.
The nicely shaped ones that is. Instead it’s a covered suit and tie.

#medbikini is trending on Twitter now.

A couple surgery fellows and a medical student thought it would be a good idea to create fake social media accounts and stalk vascular surgery residents online. Then they wrote up how the residents were being unprofessional by wearing bikinis, drinking alcohol, and discussing politics.

It’s funny they didn’t see how it is unprofessional to cyberstalk your colleagues.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
#medbikini is trending on Twitter now.

A couple surgery fellows and a medical student thought it would be a good idea to create fake social media accounts and stalk vascular surgery residents online. Then they wrote up how the residents were being unprofessional by wearing bikinis, drinking alcohol, and discussing politics.

It’s funny they didn’t see how it is unprofessional to cyberstalk your colleagues.

And it was actually published? By a medical journal? Someone thought it was OK to publish that?

To be clear I was talking about work dress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
And it was actually published? By a medical journal? Someone thought it was OK to publish that?

To be clear I was talking about work dress.

Yep. It was a rather absurd "study". At least the journal then issued a mea culpa and retracted the article. They noted their editorial and review process failed here. As does their profession when it comes to professionalism, often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
And I was quoted 1500 dollars for my 2008 volvo muffler system. Or 900 dollars for my med school ‘97 civic slave cylinder replacement. Everyone in any industry can charge whatever the heck they want, and no one bats an eye. But if you’re a pcp or a dentist charging 200 bucks for an exam or dental work, patients get into a tizzy etc (as they surf on their 100/month cell phone plan)
People have been told repeatedly that healthcare is their right. So they feel owed
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
First sell out the anesthesiologists. Then merge.


Beaumont going to merge. Its all about $$$$
It always will be.
It's what keeps this country alive!!!!
Screw the patients!!! Screw the doctors!!!
Show me the money!!!

The healthcare system is changing. Corona is assisting. Eventually we are going to end up with oligopolies in healthcare systems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And it was actually published? By a medical journal? Someone thought it was OK to publish that?

To be clear I was talking about work dress.

Someone thought it was okay to publish Andrew Wakefield’s “work” in the Lancet. **** slips in sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Lots of work has been done comparing health outcomes versus cost in OECD countries over the years - the US is invariably among the worst performing of developed nations (not far off from developing nations, as a previous comment alluded to) and spends far more on medical care as a percentage of GDP. There are many ways to approach the problem - from a single payer, national health care program like the UK, to a purely fee for service system like Japan. All systems have their pros and cons. The common factor among nearly all developed nations, however, is fully transparent and fixed costs. Admittedly, this is not a win for physician salaries, but nobody is bankrupted by a hospital bill, either. Nobody loses their home because they were the victim of a drunk driver in an automobile accident or contracted a severe viral pneumonia and spent weeks in the ICU.

Edit: apologies, was following the earlier portion of the thread and didn’t realize we had already reached the bikini study.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Someone thought it was okay to publish Andrew Wakefield’s “work” in the Lancet. **** slips in sometimes.

That, and the hydroxychloroquine With higher mortality study in COVID using cooked data. Somehow the same editor-in-Chief presided over BOTH disasters. The Lancet will be forever tarnished, honestly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Lots of work has been done comparing health outcomes versus cost in OECD countries over the years - the US is invariably among the worst performing of developed nations (not far off from developing nations, as a previous comment alluded to) and spends far more on medical care as a percentage of GDP. There are many ways to approach the problem - from a single payer, national health care program like the UK, to a purely fee for service system like Japan. All systems have their pros and cons. The common factor among nearly all developed nations, however, is fully transparent and fixed costs. Admittedly, this is not a win for physician salaries, but nobody is bankrupted by a hospital bill, either. Nobody loses their home because they were the victim of a drunk driver in an automobile accident or contracted a severe viral pneumonia and spent weeks in the ICU.

Edit: apologies, was following the earlier portion of the thread and didn’t realize we had already reached the bikini study.
As much as I hate the idea of single payer system, this is the one huge problem that it would solve. Seeing the power of insurance companies and hospitals evaporate overnight would be amazingly gratifying. Whether this gratification eases the pain of my bank account getting ****ed in the process...that remains to be seen.

Advocating for that is like nuking your home because you don’t like the landscaping
 
  • Like
  • Hmm
Reactions: 1 users
Lots of work has been done comparing health outcomes versus cost in OECD countries over the years - the US is invariably among the worst performing of developed nations (not far off from developing nations, as a previous comment alluded to) and spends far more on medical care as a percentage of GDP. There are many ways to approach the problem - from a single payer, national health care program like the UK, to a purely fee for service system like Japan. All systems have their pros and cons. The common factor among nearly all developed nations, however, is fully transparent and fixed costs. Admittedly, this is not a win for physician salaries, but nobody is bankrupted by a hospital bill, either. Nobody loses their home because they were the victim of a drunk driver in an automobile accident or contracted a severe viral pneumonia and spent weeks in the ICU.

Edit: apologies, was following the earlier portion of the thread and didn’t realize we had already reached the bikini study.

None of it is ever a win for the doc...ever. Which is why (politicians, public, economists, my idiot colleagues, etc) can brow beat me till they are blue in the face, I’ll make my money while I can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
None of it is ever a win for the doc...ever. Which is why (politicians, public, economists, my idiot colleagues, etc) can brow beat me till they are blue in the face, I’ll make my money while I can.
I don't disagree with the sentiment. Having been raised in a middle class household (not too far from the current household median income), I am looking forward to financial security and perhaps independence, one day. But this is a complex issue that affects the whole nation. I feel as though most attempts to rectify it over the last three decades or so have relied upon the tacit (or often open) support of the insurance industry; and that does not seem dependent upon the political party putting forth the solution, which is troubling.
 
It's what keeps this country alive!!!!
Screw the patients!!! Screw the doctors!!!
Show me the money!!!

The healthcare system is changing. Corona is assisting. Eventually we are going to end up with oligopolies in healthcare systems.
So.....you have a Jerry McGuire quote and used the word "oligopolies" in a single, short post. Noice!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Advocating for that is like nuking your home because you don’t like the landscaping
Spoken like the type that only care about filling their coffers. Instead of caring about the patients.
You know, one day we will be patients too. And so will our families and friends. But why should we care right? We make plenty of money to cover the insane out of pocket costs and surprise billing. Who gives a crap about the social worker making 35k a year who can barely afford her premiums and deductibles?

It’s time for a drastic change.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users



 
Last edited:

Enjoy. Midlevel surgeons



The fentanyl was $732/vial and the anesthesia was >$1000/unit. :rofl:

Also seems like a **** ton of narcs for a meniscectomy.



FAD95BEE-5664-47E8-A182-F4E3EAFDA809.png
D8230CFB-60E6-4087-81DF-721A31AE1845.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
@nimbus, thanks for that link. That’s totally disgusting how we practice medicine in this country and try to gouge people.

I have worked in a place where when you order 25mcg of Fentanyl, the nurse draws it up, uses it once and throws the rest of bottle away after scanning it. Totally wasteful but their scanner requires a new vial each time for any additional doses. Can you believe that mess?
When I discovered that ****, I changed my orders for PACU to make sure my patients were super comfy and got their $700 worth of vial of Fentanyl. Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Apparently you can give birth to quadruplets, keep them on ventilators in the hospital for weeks and your bill only comes out to $108k in Saudi Arabia.

I bet that bill would be over a million in this country.

Unlike most of us, he (ruler of dubai) can actually afford it :)
 
Unlike most of us, he (ruler of dubai) can actually afford it :)
I don’t know why I typed and thought Saudi when it clearly says Dubai.

Anyway, you are right. The prince can afford it. But those prices from the hospital in one of the wealthiest countries in the world ought to tell us something about what a sham medical billing is in this country.

A damn knee scope getting billed at 97k is utter ridiculousness and all part of a game to try and extract as much money as possible. And look at what the hospital agreed to pay.

So if she’d been uninsured and it was an emergency, I am sure she’d get some kind of discount for uninsured, but it wouldn’t be much. I was offered a discount of 10% last year by the hospital even when I told them I know they would accept less than 80% payment from an insurance company. So I paid about half the bill and refuse to pay the rest on principle because a damn biopsy should not cost$1200 and I know they would have taken less than $200 from an insurance company.

Screw them. Get a lawyer and come after the other $500.
 
I’m coming to the conclusion that medicine and market forces are a bad combination. It can’t help but be at least partly evil.


“20, 2020, 5:00 AM EDT Updated on May 20, 2020, 5:09 PM EDT
Not long after Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, ordered the state’s 40 million residents to stay home to stop the spread of the new coronavirus, Dr. Greg Morganroth called his team of doctors and said their dermatology group was staying open.


Morganroth is chief executive officer of the California Skin Institute, which he founded in 2007 as a single office in Mountain View. He’s since expanded to more than 40 locations using a financing strategy that’s become exceedingly common in American health care: private equity. In this case, he took out a loan from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. that could eventually convert to an equity stake. CSI is now the largest dermatology chain in California.


But the Covid-19 pandemic put Morganroth in a precarious position. Most medical procedures were characterized as nonessential by government officials and practitioners. Doctors were closing offices, and patients were staying away to limit their potential exposure to the virus.


relates to How Private Equity Is Ruining American Health Care

The California Skin Institute in Mountain View, Calif.
PHOTOGRAPHER: YOUNG SUH FOR BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK
CSI took a different approach. Morganroth explained his thinking on April 2 in a Zoom call with more than 170 dermatologists from around the country organized by the Cosmetic Surgery Forum, an industry conference. Contrary to what they might have heard, Morganroth told them, they should consider staying open during the pandemic. “Many of us are over-interpreting guidelines,” he said.


For a moment there was an awkward silence. Doctors had thought they were signing up for advice on how to apply for government money that would help them meet payroll while they were shut down; they hadn’t expected to be told not to shut down at all. Morganroth continued: “We are going to be in a two-year war, and we need to make strategic plans for our businesses that enable us to survive and to rebound.”

Back at CSI, the company’s front-office staff was working the phones, calling patients in some of the worst-hit areas and reminding them to show up for their appointments, even for cosmetic procedures such as Botox injections to treat wrinkles. During the videoconference, Morganroth argued that offering Botox in a pandemic wasn’t so different from a grocery store allowing customers to buy candy alongside staples.
“If I had a food supply company and had to stay open, and I had meat, bread, and milk, would I stop making lime and strawberry licorice?” Morganroth asked. “I would make everything and go forward.”
From a public-health point of view, some of the doctors believed, this was questionable. Common reasons for visiting a dermatologist’s office—skin screenings, mole removals, acne consultations—aren’t particularly time sensitive. Serious matters, such as suspected cancers and dangerous rashes, can be handled, at least initially, with telemedicine consultations. Then doctors can weigh the risks for their patients and determine who needs to come in. In a statement, CSI says that it followed local and state laws for staying open, while providing “necessary care” for patients, and that it had not required doctors to come to work.
“You can’t serve two masters. You can’t serve patients and investors”
Morganroth’s defense of pandemic Botox might seem odd, but it made perfect sense within the logic of the U.S. health-care system, which has seen Wall Street investors invade its every corner, engineering medical practices and hospitals to maximize profits as if they were little different from grocery stores. At the center of this story are private equity firms, which saw the explosive growth of health-care spending and have been buying up physician staffing companies, surgery centers, and everything else in sight.
Over the past five years, the firms have invested more than $10 billion in medical practices, with a special focus on dermatology, which is seen as a hot industry because of the aging population. Baby boomers suffer from high rates of two potentially lucrative conditions: skin cancer and vanity. Some estimates suggest that private equity already owns more than 10% of the U.S dermatology market. And firms have started to expand into other specialties, including women’s health, urology, and gastroenterology.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with any of this. But some doctors say that the private equity playbook, which involves buying companies, drastically cutting costs, and then selling for a profit—the goal is generally to make an annualized return of 20% to 30% within three to five years—creates problems that are unique to health care. “I know private equity does this in other industries, but in medicine you’re dealing with people’s health and their lives,” says Michael Rains, a doctor who worked at U.S. Dermatology Partners, a big private equity-backed chain. “You can’t serve two masters. You can’t serve patients and investors.”



relates to How Private Equity Is Ruining American Health Care

“Dr. Sailesh Konda
PHOTOGRAPHER: MELANIE METZ FOR BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK
Investment firms, and the practices they fund, say these concerns are overblown. They point out that they’re giving doctors a financial shelter from the rapidly changing medical environment, a particularly attractive prospect now, and that money from private equity firms has expanded care to more patients. But they’ve also made it next to impossible to track the industry’s impact or reach. Firms rarely announce their investments and routinely subject doctors to nondisclosure agreements that make it difficult for them to speak publicly. Bloomberg Businessweek spoke to dozens of doctors at 10 large private equity-backed dermatology groups. Those interviews, along with information obtained from other employees, investors, lawyers, court filings, and company records, reveal how the firms operate, and why they sometimes fail patients.

The process is never exactly the same, but there are familiar patterns, which tend to play out in five steps.

Step 1: Marriage
The strange thing about private equity money in medicine is that for-profit investors have long been prevented from buying doctor’s offices. Corporate ownership goes against a doctrine set by the American Medical Association, the main trade group for doctors in the U.S., and is prohibited by law in many states, including Texas and New Jersey. For most of the past 100 years, if you wanted to make money on a medical practice, you needed to have a medical license.

Yet over the past decade, lawyers devised a structure that allows investors to buy a medical practice without technically owning it: the MSO, or management service organization. Today, when an investment firm buys a doctor’s office, what it’s actually buying are the office’s “nonclinical” assets. In theory, physicians control all medical decisions and agree to pay a management fee to a newly created company, which handles administrative tasks such as billing and marketing.

In practice, though, investors expect some influence over medical decision-making, which, after all, is connected to profits. “When we partner with you, it’s a marriage,” said Matt Jameson, a managing director at BlueMountain Capital, a $17 billion firm that recently invested in a women’s health company, while speaking at a conference in New York in September. “We have to believe it. You have to believe it. It’s not going to be something where clinical is completely not touched.” (When contacted by Businessweek, Jameson asked to clarify his comments. “Doctors and other qualified healthcare professionals at the providers we’ve invested in make medical decisions,” he said in a statement.)

The typical buyout starts with the acquisition of a big, popular practice, often with multiple doctors and several locations, for as much as $100 million. (Investors typically pay between 9 and 12 times annual profit.) This practice functions as an anchor, like a name-brand department store at a shopping mall, attracting patients and doctors to the new group as it expands. Then comes the roll-up: The private equity firm purchases smaller offices and solo practices, giving the group a regional presence.


As part of the new structure, investors deal with paperwork and save money by buying medical supplies in bulk. Crucially they also negotiate higher insurance reimbursement rates. One dermatologist who sold her practice to the California Skin Institute says she was surprised to find out the bigger group’s payouts from insurers were $25 to $125 more per visit.

When individual doctors sell, they generally receive $2 million to $7 million each, with 30% to 40% of that paid in equity in the group. After the acquisition, doctors get a lower salary and are asked to help recruit other doctors to sell their practices or to join as employees.

At first, doctors are generally thrilled by all of this. They have financial security and can focus on treating patients without the stress of running a business. Patients, for the most part, are in the dark. Unlike when your mortgage changes hands, you usually aren’t notified when a big investment firm buys your doctor. Sometimes the sign on the door bearing the physician’s name stays put, and subtle changes in operations or unfamiliar fees may be the only clues that anything has happened.

Step 2: Growth
The promise of more patients is a big draw for doctors. By sharing marketing costs and adding locations, the new companies can advertise more and attract customers. Private equity-owned practices have been diligent users of social media, announcing newly added doctors and posting coupons on Twitter and Instagram. But these practices can be aggressive in ways that make some doctors uncomfortable.

At Advanced Dermatology & Cosmetic Surgery, the largest private equity-backed group in the field, with more than 150 locations across the U.S., that sense of discomfort came shortly after Audax Groupbought a controlling stake in what was then a much smaller chain in 2011. The new management team introduced a scorecard that rewarded offices with cash if they met daily and monthly financial goals, according to a lawsuit filed in 2013 against the company by one of its dermatologists. The doctor alleged that the bonus program encouraged staff to do as many procedures as possible, rather than strictly addressing patients’ medical needs.

In some of the company’s Florida offices, the doctor alleged, medical assistants responded to the bonus structure by ticking extra boxes on exam reports, stating that doctors checked many more areas of the body than they actually had. That led to higher patient bills, defrauding the government under its Medicare program, according to the lawsuit. The federal government declined to join the case, and it was dismissed about a year after it was filed. Advanced and Audax declined to comment.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;img src="https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i8OMx6sngkzQ/v0/-1x-1.png"


Private equity-backed practices also try to increase revenue by adding more-lucrative procedures, according to doctors interviewed by Businessweek. In dermatology, this means more cosmetics, laser treatments, radiation, and especially Mohs surgeries—a specialized skin cancer procedure that removes growths from delicate areas like the face and neck one layer at a time, to limit scarring. The surgery involves expensive equipment and specialized doctors, so some large medical groups keep costs down by assembling traveling Mohs teams, who fly in from other states. Others create mobile labs in vans that set up in clinics’ parking lots.

Most dermatologists use outside labs and pathologists, but private equity-owned groups buy up existing labs and hire their own pathologists. Then doctors are encouraged to refer patients within the group and send biopsy slides to the company-owned labs, keeping the entire chain of revenue in-house. This takes advantage of a regulatory quirk that has made dermatology, and a handful of other specialties, attractive to private equity. Under the 1989 Stark Law, doctors aren’t allowed to make patient referrals for their own financial gain. An exception was made for some fields because it’s more convenient for patients, explains Dr. Sailesh Konda, a Mohs surgeon and professor at the University of Florida. “But that can be abused.”

Step 3: Synergy
Now comes the cost-cutting. This is supposed to be the hallmark of private equity, and, done right, it can work to the benefit of doctors and patients. But there are pitfalls unique to medicine, where aggressive cuts can lead to problems, some of them merely inconvenient and some potentially dangerous.

A doctor at Advanced Dermatology says that waiting for corporate approvals means his office is routinely left without enough gauze, antiseptic solution, and toilet paper. Even before the great toilet paper shortage of 2020, he would travel with a few rolls in the trunk of his car, to spare patients when an office inevitably ran out. The company declined to comment.

At the country’s second-biggest skin-care group, U.S. Dermatology Partners, a former doctor says a regional manager switched to a cheaper brand of needles and sutures without consulting the medical staff. The quality was so poor, she says, they would often break off in her patients’ bodies. Mortified, she’d have to dig them out and start over. She complained to managers but couldn’t get better supplies, she says. Paul Singh, U.S. Dermatology’s CEO, says the company uses a “reputable, global vendor for medical supplies.” “While our group may have standardized purchasing processes, individual providers have the autonomy to procure specific supplies that they need for a particular patient situation or patient population,” he says in a statement.

Doctors who join a private equity-backed group generally sign contracts that state they’ll never have to compromise their medical judgment, but some say that management began to intervene there, too. Dermatologists at most of the companies say they were pushed to see as many as twice the number of patients a day, which made them feel rushed and unable to provide the same quality of care. Others were forced to discuss their cases with managers or medical directors, who asked the doctors to explain why they weren’t sending more patients for surgery. Multiple practices also encouraged doctors to send home Mohs surgery patients with open wounds and have them come back the next day for stitches—or to have a different doctor do the closure the same day—because that would allow the practice to collect more from insurers.

That’s if doctors are performing the procedures at all. At Advanced Dermatology, several doctors say they were asked to claim that physician assistants, or PAs, were under their supervision when they weren’t seeing patients in the same building, or even the same town. Because PAs are paid less than dermatologists, this allowed the company to keep costs low while growing the business. In a statement, Eric Hunt, Advanced’s general counsel and chief compliance officer says that having PAs on staff enables the company to “provide access to quality dermatological care to more patients.”

Step 4. Rolling Up the Roll-Up
Advanced Dermatology was sold in 2016 by Audax to Harvest Partners LP, following a pattern that’s typical in the industry. At some point, after costs have been cut and profits maximized, most private equity-owned medical groups will be sold, often to another private equity firm, which will then try to somehow make the company even more profitable.

Having reduced most of the obvious costs, Advanced Dermatology began skimping on more important supplies, including Hylenex, according to doctors and other employees. The drug is an expensive reversal agent used when cosmetic fillers, which are supposed to make skin look plumper, go wrong. Not having enough is dangerous: Patients who get an injection that inadvertently blocks a blood vessel can be left with dead sections of skin or even go blind if they don’t get enough Hylenex in a matter of hours. The company says that it stocks Hylenex in every office that performs cosmetic procedures, and that it “has no records of any provider being denied an order for this medication.”

Advanced Dermatology also started giving even more authority to PAs, according to doctors and staff. Without enough oversight some were missing deadly skin cancers, they say. Others were doing too many biopsies and cutting out much larger areas of skin than necessary, leaving patients with big scars. Doctors who complained about the bad behavior say they saw PAs moved to other locations rather than fired or given more supervision. Hunt, the company's lawyer, says that all PAs get six months of training and are supervised by experienced doctors.

The staff coined a new medical diagnosis, “pre- pre- pre-cancer”

Advanced Dermatology also put more pressure on doctors to send biopsies to in-house labs. The move made sense financially, but some of the doctors didn’t trust the lab. One of its two pathologists in Delray Beach, Fla., Steven Glanz, had a history of misdiagnosing benign tumors, which led patients to undergo surgeries that were later found to be unnecessary, according to doctors who worked with him. Dermatologists who warned that Glanz was a danger to patients say that their complaints to Dr. Matt Leavitt, the group’s founder and CEO, were ignored. More procedures, doctors knew, brought in more money.

Glanz, who had been with the practice since its early days, was known to read slides under a microscope with a pistol on his desk. After he was arrested with a handgun, a folding knife, and a vial of methamphetamine crystals, he was fired and Florida’s state medical board fined him $10,000, requiring him to complete a five-hour course on ethics before he could resume practicing. But his former colleagues were unsettled; they knew Glanz’s signature was on years of reports that determined treatment for patients. Some slides were reevaluated, and pathologists noticed mistakes. Managers told some doctors and their staff that patients, even those who’d been misdiagnosed and had unnecessary procedures, were not to be told. Glanz pleaded guilty to stalking and a firearms violation and was sentenced to probation. When a reporter called his office and identified herself, the receptionist hung up. Further attempts to reach Glanz were unsuccessful. Advanced’s Hunt says that he was “formally released from employment three years ago,” but did not comment further.


Of course, some doctors pushed ethical boundaries long before private equity came into the picture. But critics of the industry, including doctors and investors, say management teams put in place by private equity firms tend to look the other way as long as a medical practice is profitable. Of the dermatologists with the highest biopsy rates in the country (between 4 and 11 per patient, per year), almost 25% were affiliated with private equity-backed groups, according to Dr. Joseph Francis, a Mohs surgeon and data researcher at the University of Florida.

Medical providers may have also been blurring ethical lines at U.S. Dermatology Partners, which was until recently on its second private equity owner, Abry Partners LLC. At four of the company’s offices in Texas, a doctor and his PAs were doing more biopsies than necessary, according to employees. These employees say the staff routinely called patients with benign lichenoid keratosis, small brownish blotches that usually go away on their own, and told them the growths should be removed. Under instruction from the doctor, the staff coined a new medical diagnosis, “pre- pre- pre-cancer,” and then talked patients into coming in for removal, employees say. Singh, the U.S. Dermatology CEO, says that the company trusts doctors to make the right decisions and that it monitors them through routine audits.

Step 5: Sell-Off
In some cases the cost-cutting either becomes impossible or leads to compromises in care too obvious to ignore. In 2016 a DermOne LLC office in Irving, Texas, had been using a faulty autoclave machine to sterilize surgical equipment—the state and county health departments identified 137 patients that needed to get tested for blood-borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. By 2018, DermOne’s backer, Westwind Investors, wanted out.

Westwind had been one of the earliest firms to build a big dermatology business—with practices in five states—but others had grown larger. After the debacle in Irving, the Nevada-based firm sold DermOne’s medical records and patient lists, as well as some of its offices, to other groups. It dissolved the remaining offices, leaving some patients abruptly without care. Westwind did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Two other private equity-backed groups, TruDerm and Select Dermatology LLC, have also gone out of business in the past two years.

The surviving chains have been saddled with large piles of debt they’re now struggling to repay. In January, U.S. Dermatology Partners defaulted on a $377 million loan, meaning the private equity backer, Abry Partners, had to hand over the keys to its lenders, Golub Capital, Carlyle Group, and Ares Management, which will now oversee a chain with almost 100 locations, receiving 1 million visits from patients a year. Abry did not respond to requests for comment.

For the medical groups that make it, the game plan is to eventually sell to the largest players, such as KKR, Blackstone Group, and Apollo Global Management. Pioneering investors, including Audax, are now buying practices in other fields—a concerning development to critics who note that the areas that are currently attracting investment, such as urology, generally involve more invasive procedures. Should doctors performing vasectomies be thinking about the dollar-rate returns for KKR—or any private investor?

“It’s ultimately going to backfire,” says Dr. Jane Grant-Kels, a veteran dermatologist and professor at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine. “There’s a limit to how much money you can make when you’re sticking knives into human skin for profit.”

One paradox of the Covid-19 pandemic has been that even as the virus has focused the entire country on health care, it’s been a financial disaster for the industry. And so, while emergency room doctors and nurses care for the sick—comforting those who would otherwise die alone, and in some cases dying themselves—private equity-backed staffing companies and hospitals have been cutting pay for ER doctors. These hospitals, like the big medical practices, make a large portion of their money from elective procedures and have been forced into wrenching compromises.

For investors with capital, on the other hand, the economic fallout from the virus is a huge opportunity. Stay-at-home orders have left small practices more financially strained than they’ve ever been. That will likely accelerate sales to private equity firms, according to Marc Cabrera, an investment banker focused on health-care deals at Oppenheimer & Co. Independent doctors or groups that previously rebuffed offers from deep-pocketed backers “will reconsider their options,” he says.

Many doctors may ultimately come to regret cashing out, but it’s hard to get out once you’re in. As part of an acquisition, the private equity groups typically require doctors to sign yearslong contracts, with noncompete clauses that prevent them from working in the surrounding area.

As governors throughout the nation ease restrictions on businesses, Advanced Dermatology is opening its most profitable offices first. The company received an undisclosed sum under the Cares Act, as part of the government relief package intended for health-care workers. Hunt, Advanced’s chief compliance officer, told employees in an email earlier this month that the money would be used for protective gear, such as masks, and to replace “millions of dollars” in lost revenue.

The group had closed most of its offices since the stay-at-home orders were issued in March, cutting pay for doctors and furloughing staff. With cities and states beginning to consider reopening, doctors and PAs say they’ve been told they should be prepared for a full schedule. Hunt says the company is following the appropriate safety measures, but employees fear it will be nearly impossible to keep patients apart in waiting rooms. Opening in a reduced capacity, they understand, is not an option.”

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Been thinking that for years. Been saying the problem with this wonderful Capitalistic economy that everyone is always praising is that it leads to greed.
Greed leads to doing whatever it takes to make money. No matter the price the patients pay.
Medicine should be more than just about making money.
While I know none of us came into medicine strictly for altruistic reasons, there has got to be some kind of end to this madness.
Keep digging holes Doctors. Keep selling out and only looking at the short term.
We are gonna be those unfortunate patients one day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
When I went into med school in the 90’s, many/most of the hospitals were still “non-profit”. Methodist/Baptist/Jewish/Catholic/County/etc.

I think that helped to keep medicine from becoming a complete “corporate monster”, or even a “government monster”.

Yes, you had large insurance companies, and “greedy” doctors, and Medicare/Medicaid, but at the hospital level, you still had much of the care provided on a religious group/municipal/county level (NOT a huge federal bureaucracy OR a corporate behemoth).

With all the corporate buyouts of hospitals, and the constant turnover of hospital administration, looking to “polish their resume” by cutting costs and “maximizing profit” (and move on, leaving the locals to deal with the aftermath), things have gotten even more out of hand.

I don’t want to see “single payer” or government-run healthcare, but it would be nice to see things at the hospital level run in a more “non-profit“ way, that allows for good care of the patients AND the employees/providers, while allowing “profit motive” to exist more on the equipment/technology/pharma end, to allow continued innovation and competition.
 
Last edited:
The rise of midlevels is inevitable given the capitulation of organized medicine in "supervising" midlevels without having the forethought to understand their predictable movement towards complete independence. However the structure of medical education in the context of societal needs is also responsible. With education of a physician now requiring a minimum of 11 years and frequently 12-14 years after high school compared to a small fraction of that for independent midlevels, the extraordinary cost to the students, and the lack of significant increases in the number of MDs being educated, it is impossible to fill societal medical needs of the country. Physicians accepted midlevels in their offices initially as "physician extenders", but now even within PCP and specialist offices, frequently the midlevels completely supplanted the physicians, with many patients never seeing a physician, being treated long term by midlevels. Emergency departments employ midlevels not simply for triage purposes, but as surrogates for physician-patient interactions. ER patients may see only a midlevel.

If indeed midlevels have become so accepted in our society by physicians, insurers, regulators, and hospitals, then the holy grail of surgery is not outside of their capability. It is not a large step for midlevels to master the skills to perform many general, ENT, and OB/Gyn surgeries since they already assist in these surgeries, they know the steps, and are but a regulators pen away from being permitted. After all, well into the 1990s, family practitioners in the US without any formal surgical residencies were performing appendectomies, tonsillectomies, ear tubes, and c/sections.

Physicians cannot stuff the genie back into the bottle, and may find themselves increasingly marginalized by what they have both created and allowed in the rise of the midlevels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Top