This post was originally published on this site
The quality of care at hospitals acquired during a recent wave of deal making got worse or stayed the same, new research found, a blow to a frequently cited rationale for tie-ups.
Hospital merger-and-acquisition activity has surged in recent years, with executives involved in transactions making the case that greater size will boost quality with new investments and yield other improvements as deal makers benefit from each others’ strengths.
The new research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, looked for evidence of quality gains using four widely used measures of performance at nearly 250 hospitals acquired in deals between 2009 and 2013. The analysis didn’t find it, said the study’s authors. “Quality didn’t improve,” said Harvard University research associate Nancy Beaulieu, lead author of the study.
The question of impact has become increasingly pressing as hospital deal making soared in the past decade. Hospitals announced 90 deals in 2018, a dip from the recent high of 117 transactions the prior year, but up 80% from 50 deals in 2009, according to data from Kaufman Hall, a health-care consulting firm. Figures include joint ventures and deals for minority interest.
An expanded version of this report appears at WSJ.com.
Most popular at WSJ.com:
