3 ms·

Why aren't VC's and PE also found directly complicit when physicians and nurses are found guilty/liable of $badthing? In the US, we love faulting individuals d

by pierat 3y ago

Why aren't VC's and PE also found directly complicit when physicians and nurses are found guilty/liable of $badthing? In the US, we love faulting individuals doing $badthing, but refuse to look at policymakers when they knowingly do so. And in the end, the policymakers play musical chairs or Pokemon (gotta buy them all), and do the same company after company.

pc86 3y ago
I'm trying to take this comment as an honest question in good faith and not as political bait or "rich ppl bad." Some random PE investor or analyst isn't the one putting needles in people's arms or writing prescriptions, so does it make sense to send the analyst to jail when someone dies from negligent causes in a hospital? I don't think it does. It probably doesn't make sense to send anyone to jail unless there's actual malice involved but if you're looking to punish someone for something it probably makes sense to look first at the person actually pushing the drug or doing the procedure.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  When PE takes over and cuts resources or otherwise "optimizes" leading to bad outcomes, the medical staff are on the hook for those bad outcomes but the PE firm that caused the cuts that caused the bad things are not. Make sense?
- pierat 3y ago
  Let me see if I can elaborate further. PE company comes in to a med facility. We have proof that when they move in, they make new policies. These policies have a demonstrable proof that they reduce standard of care, cause X% more incidents, and Y% more deaths. From the article is: > After a hospital was acquired by private equity, admitted Medicare patients had a 25% increase in hospital-acquired complications, compared with patients admitted before acquisition. Patients also had 27% more falls and 38% more bloodstream infections caused by central lines, which are temporary surgically inserted ports that allow easy intravenous access for patients receiving repeated drug infusions or other treatments. We have demonstrable proof that policies put in place have directly caused this harm. I'm not trying to alleviate blame when a med professional does something wrong and causes an injury. However when we see increases like "25% increase in hospital acquired complications", tells me that there is underlying policy that caused a significant increase in injuries/deaths. We can point towards a policy that causes mass injury, yet the policy people are beyond reproach. Instead, the 25% more injuries are looked at as an individual bad action. Now we should be looking at the individuals and how their decisions caused a bad thing to happen.... however when we see trends from multiple people towards the same reasoning, and the reasoning is "policy", then absolutely those policymakers should be in scope. I would also look at policy decisions of 2nd derivative effects too. However those can take quite a bit of time to appear. Again, if policymakers want the responsibility of policy, ethics, legality, and direct result of policies should also be what they look at and are responsible for.

by pierat 3y ago

pc86 3y ago

I'm trying to take this comment as an honest question in good faith and not as political bait or "rich ppl bad." Some random PE investor or analyst isn't the one putting needles in people's arms or writing prescriptions, so does it make sense to send the analyst to jail when someone dies from negligent causes in a hospital? I don't think it does. It probably doesn't make sense to send anyone to jail unless there's actual malice involved but if you're looking to punish someone for something it probably makes sense to look first at the person actually pushing the drug or doing the procedure.

asadotzler 3y ago
When PE takes over and cuts resources or otherwise "optimizes" leading to bad outcomes, the medical staff are on the hook for those bad outcomes but the PE firm that caused the cuts that caused the bad things are not. Make sense?
pierat 3y ago
Let me see if I can elaborate further. PE company comes in to a med facility. We have proof that when they move in, they make new policies. These policies have a demonstrable proof that they reduce standard of care, cause X% more incidents, and Y% more deaths. From the article is: > After a hospital was acquired by private equity, admitted Medicare patients had a 25% increase in hospital-acquired complications, compared with patients admitted before acquisition. Patients also had 27% more falls and 38% more bloodstream infections caused by central lines, which are temporary surgically inserted ports that allow easy intravenous access for patients receiving repeated drug infusions or other treatments. We have demonstrable proof that policies put in place have directly caused this harm. I'm not trying to alleviate blame when a med professional does something wrong and causes an injury. However when we see increases like "25% increase in hospital acquired complications", tells me that there is underlying policy that caused a significant increase in injuries/deaths. We can point towards a policy that causes mass injury, yet the policy people are beyond reproach. Instead, the 25% more injuries are looked at as an individual bad action. Now we should be looking at the individuals and how their decisions caused a bad thing to happen.... however when we see trends from multiple people towards the same reasoning, and the reasoning is "policy", then absolutely those policymakers should be in scope. I would also look at policy decisions of 2nd derivative effects too. However those can take quite a bit of time to appear. Again, if policymakers want the responsibility of policy, ethics, legality, and direct result of policies should also be what they look at and are responsible for.