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

#211

Post by astrange » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:57 PM UTC

WaxProlix wrote: post #158

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.

It's exactly capitalism because concentrations of capital form and end up with a critical mass that controls various aspects of society - in this case licensing. It's also something that's literally happening under capitalism, right now, in very capitalist America.

It’s a modern mixed economy. Full capitalism was the previous stage, when unlicensed doctors traveled around selling people radium cures.

It’s actually very surprising we trust doctors so much (have inelastic demand for them) because for most of history doctors were more likely to kill you than not.

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

#212

Post by astrange » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:58 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #167

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.

No idea how an increased number of vets would prevent capital from consolidating this industry.

You can’t have a monopoly in an industry with no barriers to entry. Cartels aren’t stable because every newcomer has an incentive to defect.

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

#213

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 8:01 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…

[deleted]

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

#214

Post by bruckie » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 8:01 PM UTC

the_d3f4ult wrote: post #198

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 technicia…

I think this cuts both ways. I have a friend who's a recently-retired partner in an ophthalmology practice, and it was very difficult for him to find someone who wanted to buy into the partnership to take his spot. He said that many docs these days just want to go to work, do their job, and go home, without dealing with all of the additional burdens that come with owning a business. He thinks that's a big contributing factor to the corporatization of medical practice.

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

#215

Post by throwaway2048 » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 8:02 PM UTC

blobbers wrote: post #193

pwinnski wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

HN is not a free speech platform, nobody, not the users or the moderators, is obligated to give stories exposure.

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

#216

Post by astrange » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 8:03 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #78

legitster wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit of apples and oranges here. The goal of the FTC is not to make big companies smaller, it's to protect the market. They are not supposed to be the ones to determine if whales are natural or not to an ecosystem - so they don't generally go hunting them.

That's so 1980s. Your appeal to nature has nothing to do with the reality of the last several decades. Mergers among firms in the same market are never good for humans who must use those markets in order to live.

Dealing with large companies is often better than small businesses or family businesses, which in many industries are incompetent or run by tyrants. Landlords being the classic example.

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

#217

Post by pclmulqdq » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 8:03 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #173

pclmulqdq wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dentists seem to generally be decent businesspeople, while doctors and vets aren't, so they may resist PE buyouts for a while.

I'm curious why this is as it seems to have been the case in my experience as well.

My guess is that nobody becomes a dentist because they love teeth. They do it to have a stable business. Conversely, people become vets because they love animals, and people often become doctors for the prestige or the ability to help people.

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

#218

Post by pc86 » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 8:04 PM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #191

pc86 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Are you saying that capitalism means completely open, zero regulation, zero licensure markets? Because it absolutely does not. It means (among other things) a competitive market with minimal information asymmetries between producer and consumer. Regulation can at time help this, e.g. requiring information disclosure, or preventing monopolistic practices.

Just because a lot of regulations are bad (or enforced poorly) and some licenses are onerous does not mean "regulation === bad" or "licensure === bad."

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

#219

Post by adgjlsfhk1 » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 8:08 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #138

Ericson2314 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"financialization" is more a boogieman than a solid concept. More competition (the best interpretation of "de-financialization" I can imagine) is not very solid solution for something like healthcare (or yes pet care) where the demand being inelastic makes "ransoming" easy.

Markets can work fine with inelastic demand if there is adequate information, freedom of choice and proper regulations.

the problem is that some markets inherently can't have adequate information because the customers by nature of being customers don't have time to shop around.

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

#220

Post by SkyBelow » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 8:11 PM UTC

jakear wrote: post #92

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?

There’s no element of choice. Calling around my local vets every one is 3+ month wait for new patients. Even existing patients have week or longer lead times. But of course if you choose Banfield (PE shitshow), they’ll see them same day (drop off in the morning, pet waits in kennel surrounded by other sick dogs all day until a vet is free, pet goes back to kennel to wait until end of day). The charge is significant,…

Where is the market for the vets who are a bit more expensive but only have a wait time of a few days, with emergency services available at a premium comparable to the PE's but with better treatment?

Are we saying that vets would rather be unemployed than to work such a market or is something preventing them from serving that market or does the actual demand for such services not exist?