FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics • Hacker News Board

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#191

Post by Natsu » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #163

pclmulqdq wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not capitalism because a licensing cartel artificially keeps the supply of vets low by keeping out qualified PAs and nurses who could handle easy cases.

Capitalism doesn't become "not capitalism" because practitioners need to be licensed and public safety and/or public opinion demands regulations be put in place.

If someone recommends "don't do that" and you do that anyway, you can't reasonably blame their advice for being wrong because things went wrong when you did the thing anyway and then justify it with "well, sometimes people don't listen to your advice, so clearly it's not good enough, we really need to do more of the thing you advised against to fix this."

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#192

Post by pc86 » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:19 PM UTC

samstave wrote: post #49

lordleft wrote: post #2

Interesting. I'd like to see more action against the financialization of many other industries / domains, like healthcare and even housing, that I feel are not well served by a purely-market driven perspective. One wonders what the Private Equity firm's intention was here.

Hedge funds should be 10000000% excluded/precluded and effectively illegal from owning anything but stock in a company/industry at a level whereby they cannot set profit and pricing for ANYTHING. (either invest in the company or industry, but what they do is effectively price-fixing after they get control) Full Stop. --- If you want to buy stock in a thing, a hedge fund should NEVER be able to have a complete control…

They're definitely not money laundering by any real definition of the word. If your goal is to launder money you're probably not doing it by buying stocks and vet clinics.

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#193

Post by blobbers » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:20 PM UTC

pwinnski wrote: post #123

blobbers wrote: post #71

Quoted post unavailable.

They're probably being flagged by people tired of seeing the same thing over and over and over and over again, with much heat and little to no light.

Shouldn't there be free discussion on it though? What do you mean by much heat and little to no light?

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#194

Post by rmk » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:20 PM UTC

How about doing something to deter PE firms snapping up rental and housing properties? Is the FTC doing anything about it? Housing affordability (or lack thereof) is the issue plaguing the millennial cohort and even incremental progress on this front can make a big difference to a lot of people.

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#195

Post by akamia » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:21 PM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #81

ensignavenger wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain this more? If the corp vets are price gouging, why are consumers choosing them over the smaller vets?

I go to a smaller vet with good prices and good care. They are not currently taking new customers/patients.

We had this challenge when we moved into our house. Our current vet was over 30 minutes away and we have to take our dog in 3x/week for fluids. Our new neighborhood has five vet clinics. Four were not taking any new patients. Luckily we were able to get into the fifth clinic because they were brand new and were building up their client list.

That wasn't unique to our area either. We've heard from several friends that they've had similar issues getting into vets.

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#196

Post by fallingfrog » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:22 PM UTC

Ugh, we need to outlaw private equity firms right now. They're a remora sucking on the economy.

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#197

Post by snapetom » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:23 PM UTC

AlotOfReading wrote: post #77

ensignavenger wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain this more? If the corp vets are price gouging, why are consumers choosing them over the smaller vets?

Clinics are facing severe labor shortages. It doesn't matter what the demand is, because they have a limited supply of veterinary care to give. My partner's clinic recently became corporate-owned because they simply could not hire new vets to be able to take new clients. Any days off any vet took had to be covered by one of the others on their "weekend" or the clinic would be forced to shut down. Like other forms of…

Agree with the demand elasticity, but I'd like to add something about higher prices. It's been studied in the industry very well that you can't have good care without higher prices and "things." It's just not possible, and people that say their vets are "good and cheap" are just fooling themselves.

As an example, prior to certain surgeries, my wife offers drug A to the clients. It adds to the cost but increase the chance of survival. However, drug B is not an option because studies have shown in increases survivorship by 50%. She bakes it into the cost of the surgery and refuses to do the surgery without it. Clinic down the street offers both drugs as options, bringing the base cost of the surgery down.

So now she has a reputation of being expensive vet. If she offers drug b as an option, patients die more frequently and she has a reputation as a bad vet.

She'd much rather have the reputation as an expensive vet.

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#198

Post by the_d3f4ult » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:23 PM UTC

I'm an ophthalmologist. This phenomenon is endemic to all outpatient and procedure-based medical specialties. Especially eyes and teeth but also including emergency medicine, radiology, gi etc. It absolutely does lead to poorer quality patient care as practices are purchased with a second-liquidity event in mind and thus must show an increase in margins via increased "efficiency." In reality this means less technicians and less doctors seeing more and more patients. Remember that the doctors absorb the liability for poor patient care.

Another commenter mentioned that "most physicians are just bad at business" as a factor driving these acquisitions, there may be some truth to this, but the stereotype of the gullible, bumbling physician businessperson is bullshit. All of the practices being acquired were created and run successfully by physicians and many physicians are quite good at it. What is a huge problem is the predatory behaviors of senior partners looking for an exit strategy via equity buyout. I was searching for a job recently and it is almost impossible to find a position that is "partnership track" - something that used to be the norm. Even worse, practices will bring on junior partners with the promise of equity in the practice, force them to sign a non-compete as a term of their employment and then churn them after 2-3 years or worse - sell the practice to an equity firm.

There are a lot of things that need to change to create a healthy, diverse healthcare ecosystem, but an easy change that would be to ban physician non-competes. They do nothing but entrench equity firms and regional conglomerates making it impossible for competition to arise. Getting rid of the "certificate of need" regulations and generally decreasing the regulatory burden and thus cost to enter the market for a new competitor would also be a big step. The whole thing is gross. Most physicians want autonomy but don't know where to start. I wish there was a startup that could streamline the process - automate or outsource the front and back end work and sell or lease "starter practices" or something.

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#199

Post by arrosenberg » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:24 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #36

markovbot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One wonders what the Private Equity firm's intention was here. no, i don't think anyone's wondering that. private equity firms have one purpose and one purpose only.

I guess it might be fairer to then say "I wonder why nobody says out loud that such an acquisition will definitely lead to a decline in service for consumers".

They can’t hear over Robert Bork’s echo.

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#200

Post by heartbreak » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:25 PM UTC

mberning wrote: post #25

It took 12 hours for my dog to be seen at the emergency vet I went to recently. It was brutal. And that was the only one that would agree to have us come in. It was over an hour a way. All the local clinics said don’t come in unless it was a last minute euthanization or the animal was unresponsive. Crazy.

I don’t think this has anything to do with PE acquisitions of emergency veterinary clinics. It’s just typical post-Covid staff shortages due to retirements and such. Because of the working hours, emergency gets the brunt of the shortage before the normal 8-5 shifts.

I’m familiar with a few clinics that have been hiring DVMs at $120k in low CoL areas for 6+ months without success. It’s hard to raise prices enough to pay more than that in those areas.