4 ms·
Uh, because the original post implied that over regulation was the cause of substandard metrics in PE owned hospitals. It even went so far as to state, "..I'm n
by bilbo0s 1y ago
Uh, because the original post implied that over regulation was the cause of substandard metrics in PE owned hospitals. It even went so far as to state, "..I'm not surprised by this finding.." after outlining a case for why over regulation was a problem.
Which "finding", presumably, being that PE owned hospitals have substandard metrics.
My question is natural given the context of a discussion that's literally titled:
"Death rates rose in hospital ERs after private equity firms took over"
It's literally the entire subject of the discussion. Why would anyone think it's irrelevant?
- dodobirdlord 1y agoI think you misread the original post. It is about overregulation fostering the spread of PE operated hospitals. Not about overregulation causing PE operated hospitals to have worse outcomes.
- bilbo0s 1y agoThe material point is that the PE operated hospitals proliferate even in the absence of the regulations.