2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluating trends in private equity ownership and impacts on health outcomes, costs, and quality: systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To review the evidence on trends and impacts of private equity (PE) ownership of healthcare operators.

          Design

          Systematic review.

          Data sources

          PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and SSRN.

          Eligibility criteria for study selection

          Empirical research studies of any design that evaluated PE owned healthcare operators.

          Main outcome measures

          The main outcome measures were impact of PE ownership on health outcomes, costs to patients or payers, costs to operators, and quality. The secondary outcome measures were trends and prevalence of PE ownership of healthcare operators.

          Data synthesis

          Studies were classified as finding either beneficial, harmful, mixed, or neutral impacts of PE ownership on main outcome measures. Results across studies were narratively synthesized and reported. Risk of bias was evaluated using ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions).

          Results

          The electronic search identified 1778 studies, with 55 meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies spanned eight countries, with most (n=47) analyzing PE ownership of healthcare operators in the US. Nursing homes were the most commonly studied healthcare setting (n=17), followed by hospitals and dermatology settings (n=9 each); ophthalmology (n=7); multiple specialties or general physician groups (n=5); urology (n=4); gastroenterology and orthopedics (n=3 each); surgical centers, fertility, and obstetrics and gynecology (n=2 each); and anesthesia, hospice care, oral or maxillofacial surgery, otolaryngology, and plastics (n=1 each). Across the outcome measures, PE ownership was most consistently associated with increases in costs to patients or payers. Additionally, PE ownership was associated with mixed to harmful impacts on quality. These outcomes held in sensitivity analyses in which only studies with moderate risk of bias were included. Health outcomes showed both beneficial and harmful results, as did costs to operators, but the volume of studies for these outcomes was too low for conclusive interpretation. In some instances, PE ownership was associated with reduced nurse staffing levels or a shift towards lower nursing skill mix. No consistently beneficial impacts of PE ownership were identified.

          Conclusions

          Trends in PE ownership rapidly increased across almost all healthcare settings studied. Such ownership is often associated with harmful impacts on costs to patients or payers and mixed to harmful impacts on quality. Owing to risk of bias and frequent geographic focus on the US, conclusions might not be generalizable internationally.

          Systematic review registration

          PROSPERO CRD42022329857.

          Related collections

          Most cited references95

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

              Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols. © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2014.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: doctoral student
                Role: masters student
                Role: associate professor
                Role: assistant professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-US
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2023
                19 July 2023
                : 382
                : e075244
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
                [2 ]Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas School of Public Health (UTHealth), Austin, TX, USA
                [3 ]Department of Health Policy and Management, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel
                [4 ]Department of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ]Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: J D Bruch jbruch@ 123456bsd.uchicago.edu (or @Joe_Bruch on Twitter)
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5349-7493
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4348-4132
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7127-7283
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0458-2899
                Article
                bora075244
                10.1136/bmj-2023-075244
                10354830
                37468157
                a261a6cc-de28-44aa-b568-908e33b38c79
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 11 June 2023
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article