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

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.