Live data from Hacker News

Nonprofit hospitals spend billions on consultants with no clear effect

uchicagomedicine.org

41–50 of 84 posts

Re: Nonprofit hospitals spend billions on consultants with no clear effect

#41
post #10

Not to be glib, but is there any industry where management consultants have been shown to make a statistically significant difference either way?

Statistically relevant: yes. In a positive way: no.

Well, McKinsey still existing? Too much influence. Otherwise they would have gone like so many other consulting companies.

https://www.trtworld.com/article/12748537

Re: Nonprofit hospitals spend billions on consultants with no clear effect

#42
post #38

Realistically, non-profit hospitals aren't non-profit because they are altruistic in some sense. It's because that is a tax-efficient structure for them. Given that, the participants in the structure must have a mechanism to extract money from the machine. It's a bit of a cynical view, but I believe many non-profits are organized in this fashion and their vendor contracts are the mechanism of value extraction. Beside…

Assuming that non-profits are altruistic seems fallacious. Granted, I don’t know why they are assumed to be by some; it’s just presented as such because it seems obvious, no arguments need to be given.

It’s clearly fallacious to assume that non-profit is altruistic just because, I don’t know, for-profit is assumed as a premise to be about egotistical money hoarding.

Re: Nonprofit hospitals spend billions on consultants with no clear effect

#44

They're just part of the machinery for extracting money from these "nonprofits". Take a closer look at anything these paragons of virtue spend money on, and you'll find rot in every last minute detail of their day-to-day operations.

Like many VC’s that extract wealth from companies to enrich themselves.

That's surely the expected behaviour. Why would a VC provide money if not to get a return?

Re: Nonprofit hospitals spend billions on consultants with no clear effect

#46
post #38

Realistically, non-profit hospitals aren't non-profit because they are altruistic in some sense. It's because that is a tax-efficient structure for them. Given that, the participants in the structure must have a mechanism to extract money from the machine. It's a bit of a cynical view, but I believe many non-profits are organized in this fashion and their vendor contracts are the mechanism of value extraction. Beside…

Assuming that non-profits are altruistic seems fallacious. Granted, I don’t know why they are assumed to be by some; it’s just presented as such because it seems obvious, no arguments need to be given. It’s clearly fallacious to assume that non-profit is altruistic just because, I don’t know, for-profit is assumed as a premise to be about egotistical money hoarding.

I think the assumption about non-profits being altruistic is a reasonable one, because what would otherwise be the justification for giving them tax breaks?

If the reality is different, then maybe there shouldn't be non-profits anymore. In the UK for example, there are no non-profits, there are only charities. And clearly, the expectation of altruism is explicit here.

Re: Nonprofit hospitals spend billions on consultants with no clear effect

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming that non-profits are altruistic seems fallacious. Granted, I don’t know why they are assumed to be by some; it’s just presented as such because it seems obvious, no arguments need to be given. It’s clearly fallacious to assume that non-profit is altruistic just because, I don’t know, for-profit is assumed as a premise to be about egotistical money hoarding.

I think the assumption about non-profits being altruistic is a reasonable one, because what would otherwise be the justification for giving them tax breaks? If the reality is different, then maybe there shouldn't be non-profits anymore. In the UK for example, there are no non-profits, there are only charities. And clearly, the expectation of altruism is explicit here.

Do for-profits become altruistic when corporations get tax breaks? Edit: I’m replying to the “reasonable one” point.

Re: Nonprofit hospitals spend billions on consultants with no clear effect

#48

I have never seen them consultants that provide a value commensurate with the prices they charge. They seem more like a proxy for fraud. When I worked at PayPal, there was a director who had an army of Deloitte consultants who just so happened to be from her husband's team at Deloitte. It was a clear conflict of interest and even though execs were aware, nothing was ever done. I imagine that's going on all over the p…

A friend of mine worked in one of the consulting practices at IBM. One of the silverbacks there had their own shadow consulting firm complete with offshore resources operating within IBM and their clients. I thought that was particularly brazen/clever.

Re: Nonprofit hospitals spend billions on consultants with no clear effect

#49
post #45
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take here "nonprofit" means same as it does with religions.

Why should there be any profit in healthcare.

Why should it be illegal to help people for profit? That is what doctors do, they profit a lot when they help people, they could live on much smaller salaries than they currently have but of course market economics makes it so we want to pay doctors higher salaries than they really need.

Re: Nonprofit hospitals spend billions on consultants with no clear effect

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the assumption about non-profits being altruistic is a reasonable one, because what would otherwise be the justification for giving them tax breaks? If the reality is different, then maybe there shouldn't be non-profits anymore. In the UK for example, there are no non-profits, there are only charities. And clearly, the expectation of altruism is explicit here.

Do for-profits become altruistic when corporations get tax breaks? Edit: I’m replying to the “reasonable one” point.

Not sure why this would matter. You know that implication is directional, not symmetric, right?

To be more explicit: Given that for-profits can be given tax-breaks for (hopefully) good reasons, what would be the reason to give non-profits tax-breaks, if not for altruism? After all, as you point out yourself, you can get tax-breaks also as a for-profit, so you don't need non-profits just for that reason.

Post reply on HN