澳大利亚和新西兰私营营利性医疗机构的私募股权投资:范围审查

IF 0.6 Q4 Health Professions
Moira McInerney, R. Hinchcliff, G. Fitzgerald, Robyn King
{"title":"澳大利亚和新西兰私营营利性医疗机构的私募股权投资:范围审查","authors":"Moira McInerney, R. Hinchcliff, G. Fitzgerald, Robyn King","doi":"10.24083/apjhm.v18i2.2347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Private Equity (PE) involvement in healthcare has been evident in the United States (US) for some time, with questionable benefits reported. There are significant differences in funding, health insurance and regulation in the US, when compared to Australia and New Zealand (NZ), so it is not clear whether existing US research can be generalised to these settings. This study aims to examine published information regarding PE involvement in the private-for-profit (PFP) healthcare sector in Australia and NZ, including evidence of PE shareholdings and its impacts.\nDesign: This scoping review considers academic and grey literature, including academic research and commentary papers, media reports, corporate reports, PFP healthcare websites and government submissions.\nMain Outcome & Results: Thirty three relevant sources were identified, but no specific information on the impacts of PE investment were discovered. The academic papers highlight an ongoing debate (but limited research evidence) about PFP healthcare, including the quality of clinical care, practice consolidation and a downward trend on clinician ownership. The grey literature offered more information on PE investment and growth of the PFP sector, but limited detail about shareholdings.\nConclusion: With little research on PE investment in Australia and NZ, it is difficult to know if continued PE growth will have a positive or negative affect on operational performance and outcomes, such as clinician engagement and clinical care. The authors conclude that there is a shifting landscape of PFP healthcare in Australia and NZ, to less clinician and greater PE ownership. Given the reports of negative impacts of PE involvement in the US, these trends pose significant immediate and long-term implications. This paper sets the agenda for further research to explore the organisational and system-level impacts of PE growth in Australia and NZ.","PeriodicalId":42935,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Private Equity Investment in Private For-Profit Healthcare in Australia and New Zealand: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Moira McInerney, R. Hinchcliff, G. Fitzgerald, Robyn King\",\"doi\":\"10.24083/apjhm.v18i2.2347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: Private Equity (PE) involvement in healthcare has been evident in the United States (US) for some time, with questionable benefits reported. There are significant differences in funding, health insurance and regulation in the US, when compared to Australia and New Zealand (NZ), so it is not clear whether existing US research can be generalised to these settings. This study aims to examine published information regarding PE involvement in the private-for-profit (PFP) healthcare sector in Australia and NZ, including evidence of PE shareholdings and its impacts.\\nDesign: This scoping review considers academic and grey literature, including academic research and commentary papers, media reports, corporate reports, PFP healthcare websites and government submissions.\\nMain Outcome & Results: Thirty three relevant sources were identified, but no specific information on the impacts of PE investment were discovered. The academic papers highlight an ongoing debate (but limited research evidence) about PFP healthcare, including the quality of clinical care, practice consolidation and a downward trend on clinician ownership. The grey literature offered more information on PE investment and growth of the PFP sector, but limited detail about shareholdings.\\nConclusion: With little research on PE investment in Australia and NZ, it is difficult to know if continued PE growth will have a positive or negative affect on operational performance and outcomes, such as clinician engagement and clinical care. The authors conclude that there is a shifting landscape of PFP healthcare in Australia and NZ, to less clinician and greater PE ownership. Given the reports of negative impacts of PE involvement in the US, these trends pose significant immediate and long-term implications. This paper sets the agenda for further research to explore the organisational and system-level impacts of PE growth in Australia and NZ.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42935,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24083/apjhm.v18i2.2347\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24083/apjhm.v18i2.2347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:一段时间以来,私募股权(PE)参与美国医疗保健行业已经很明显,但报告的收益令人怀疑。与澳大利亚和新西兰(NZ)相比,美国在资金、医疗保险和监管方面存在显著差异,因此目前尚不清楚美国现有的研究是否可以推广到这些地区。本研究旨在研究澳大利亚和新西兰关于私募股权参与私营-营利(PFP)医疗保健部门的公开信息,包括私募股权及其影响的证据。设计:此范围审查考虑学术和灰色文献,包括学术研究和评论论文、媒体报道、公司报告、PFP医疗保健网站和政府提交的文件。主要结果与结果:确定了33个相关来源,但未发现PE投资影响的具体信息。学术论文强调了关于PFP医疗保健的持续争论(但研究证据有限),包括临床护理质量,实践整合和临床医生所有权下降趋势。灰色文献提供了更多关于私募股权投资和PFP行业增长的信息,但对股权的细节有限。结论:由于对澳大利亚和新西兰PE投资的研究很少,因此很难知道持续的PE增长是否会对运营绩效和结果(如临床医生参与度和临床护理)产生积极或消极的影响。作者得出结论,在澳大利亚和新西兰,PFP医疗保健的格局正在发生变化,临床医生越来越少,PE所有权越来越大。鉴于在美国有关于PE参与的负面影响的报道,这些趋势构成了重大的直接和长期影响。本文为进一步的研究设定了议程,以探索澳大利亚和新西兰PE增长的组织和系统层面的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Private Equity Investment in Private For-Profit Healthcare in Australia and New Zealand: A scoping review
Objectives: Private Equity (PE) involvement in healthcare has been evident in the United States (US) for some time, with questionable benefits reported. There are significant differences in funding, health insurance and regulation in the US, when compared to Australia and New Zealand (NZ), so it is not clear whether existing US research can be generalised to these settings. This study aims to examine published information regarding PE involvement in the private-for-profit (PFP) healthcare sector in Australia and NZ, including evidence of PE shareholdings and its impacts. Design: This scoping review considers academic and grey literature, including academic research and commentary papers, media reports, corporate reports, PFP healthcare websites and government submissions. Main Outcome & Results: Thirty three relevant sources were identified, but no specific information on the impacts of PE investment were discovered. The academic papers highlight an ongoing debate (but limited research evidence) about PFP healthcare, including the quality of clinical care, practice consolidation and a downward trend on clinician ownership. The grey literature offered more information on PE investment and growth of the PFP sector, but limited detail about shareholdings. Conclusion: With little research on PE investment in Australia and NZ, it is difficult to know if continued PE growth will have a positive or negative affect on operational performance and outcomes, such as clinician engagement and clinical care. The authors conclude that there is a shifting landscape of PFP healthcare in Australia and NZ, to less clinician and greater PE ownership. Given the reports of negative impacts of PE involvement in the US, these trends pose significant immediate and long-term implications. This paper sets the agenda for further research to explore the organisational and system-level impacts of PE growth in Australia and NZ.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management
Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
51
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信