Behold the beauty of for-profit healthcare.

My last post touched briefly on the debacle known as Obamacare, which I have written about ever since I first started blogging and many times since. In a nutshell, my primary objection is that it entrenches and strengthens our wildly expensive, unjust, craptastic for-profit system, rather than providing any sort of bridge to transition the vast majority of Americans to a single-payer system. For-profit means just what it says: it puts healthcare in the business of producing profits, and not, you know, health.


On several key measures, for-profit hospices as a group fall short of those run by nonprofit organizations.

The typical for-profit hospice:

●Spends less on nursing per patient.

●Is less likely to have sent a nurse to a patient’s home in the last days of life.

●Is less likely to provide more intense levels of care for patients undergoing a crisis in their symptoms.

●Has a higher percentage of patients who drop out of hospice care before dying. High rates of dropout are often viewed as a sign that patients were pushed out of hospice when their care grew expensive, left dissatisfied or were enrolled for hospice even though they were not close to death.

They also deny their patients palliative care they deem too expensive, like radiation treatments to shrink tumors.

Hospice operators have an economic incentive to provide less care because they get paid a flat daily fee from Medicare for each of their patients. That means that the fewer services they provide, the wider their profit margin.

Wow! Who would have thought?

Industry advocates warned against using the findings to rule out care from a for-profit hospice.

That’s because they are industry advocates, paid to advocate for the hospice industry. And they seem to be quite successful at what they do:

The number of hospice firms has risen rapidly, and over the past decade the growth has come almost entirely from new for-profit operations. Between 2000 and 2012, the number of for-profit hospices tripled to 2,196, according to federal figures, compared with about 1,500 nonprofit hospices, including those run by local governments.

Good job, industry advocates! And of course the ultimate villains in this story are never lurking very far away:

The expansion has been driven in large part by investors, including private equity firms, hedge funds and entrepreneurs. More than a dozen private equity firms have invested in businesses that provide hospice care, including giants such as The Carlyle Group, Kohlberg & Company, Summit Partners and GTCR.

“Hospice [mergers and acquisitions] market is red hot (peak valuation levels),” according to a presentation by financial analysts at Cain Brothers last year, which cited, among other things, the favorable U.S. demographics — more old people.

“Hospice continues to be of robust interest to Wall Street,” said Carsten Beith, a managing director at Cain Brothers.

The more neglect and misery inflicted on the elderly and terminally ill, the more money motherfuckers make. Red hot market. Robust interest to Wall Street.

If that’s not your cue to run far, far away from for-profit hospice care, I’d really like some of that (illegal!) medical marijuana you’re smoking.

Defenders of market-based healthcare generally and private medical insurance in particular—a.k.a. conservatives—would no doubt attack my reasoning here, perhaps by claiming that the real problem is too much regulation (nope: as the linked article notes, hospices are terribly under-regulated) or too much government interference in the Glorious Free Market™ that leads to such disparate outcomes between for-profit and non-profit hospice operations. Alternatively, conservatives might spin or deny reality, with which they maintain only the most tenuous grasp. That is because in the bizarre wasteland that is the conservative mind, the well-established fact that non-profits and single-payer health systems yield far superior health outcomes across a wide range of measures (and do so much more cost-efficiently) simply cannot be acknowledged as true. Thus stories like this one in The Washington Post must be dismissed or explained away by ever more hilariously absurd rationalizations, lest we all fall into a communist death spiral and ruin America.


2 thoughts on “Behold the beauty of for-profit healthcare.

  1. One thing that too few USans have is any experience with the completely anxiety-free access to healthcare prevalent in every other industrialised countries. I’ve literally never had to worry when needing medical care, with the sole exception of times I’ve been visiting the benighted banana republic south of the border. I was sincerely shocked, about 25 years ago, that the 85-year-old woman I accompanied to hospital when she slipped on ice and broke her hip, was accosted on her gurney in the ER to provide a valid credit card before they would even examine her. I’ve refused good job offers, and graduate scholarships, because the idea of my health care being contingent on my employment was too stressful to contemplate.
    And all in the name of lower (explicit) taxes – without considering the implicit tax in time, fear, and painintheassness that is paid most heavily in the US by those least able to afford it.
    In short, your country’s priorities are wildly screwed up.

    Happy Arbitrary New Solar Orbit Beginning!

    • your country’s priorities are wildly screwed up.

      Ya think? Another travesty is that we pay much more for the same medicines than people do elsewhere. I don’t know if you recall hearing about it, but during the Obamacare negotiations and debates “drug reimportation” got banned: that was because people were buying their medicines from Canada, Mexico, wherever for a fraction of the price they would pay for it here. The industry and their government puppets launched scare campaigns, saying that imported drugs were counterfeit and dangerous. Riiiiight. And are we to believe big pharma isn’t still making a tidy profit selling their wares in countries with socialized medicine? Either they are, which is enough of a reason to make them lower their prices here, or they are not, and the people of this country are subsidizing the rest of the developed world, which already has superior healthcare.

      As you rightly point out, the idea of health care being contingent on employment is a terrible idea. People stay in dead-end jobs they hate because they or their family members cannot afford to be without insurance for even a week, and there are often months-long waiting periods before a new employee can even be added to an employer’s group insurance. Similarly, people stay locked into abusive relationships just for access to health care and medicine, especially for their chronically ill kids—a subject that has gotten little media coverage as far as I can tell. The alternative is signing up for a life of enforced poverty. And I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that if it ever does get media coverage, conservatives will spin it as “pro-marriage.”

      I have “good” insurance (through my partner): my co-pay for an antibiotic I took recently was $50. How does a family with even a moderate income afford a chronic illness? What happens when the primary income provider becomes disabled, even temporarily? Answer: massive debt, bankruptcy, misery.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s