Live data from Hacker News

Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

nytimes.com

61–70 of 170 posts

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. Related thought: the influence of lawyers in tech firms - witness the draconian EULAs users are 'forced' to accept with a false binary choice of accept or not - and the role that corporate law staff have had in software development, by effectively limiting the rights of users. It seems to me that many technology firms copy-and-paste the soul of EULAs to protect themselves (against the worse cases that may aris…

I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system. These EULAs are the equivalent of warning labels on soda bottles that loosely read "Warning: Contents under pressure, don't point at your eyes"... who is that written for? We laugh and call it unnecessary, but that warning exists because there is precedent that must now be defended against. When those ludicrous ca…

Considering the many YouTube videos of exploding bottles, the warning is for the 10000 people a day learning something for the first time. What's wrong with using literacy to help people learn from the miatskes of others?

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#62
post #59
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't you seen the McDonalds coffee in the UK? "Warning, contents may be hot" The "may" always makes me chuckle.

They were sued in the US by some woman who scalded herself when she spilled McDonalds coffee on herself. She was given millions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...

That woman burned the skin off her genatalia when McDonald's served a far too hot coffee. After they refused to pay a small amount to cure her injuries (remember, no socialized health care in USA), she sued. She offered to settle, again for a small amount to cover expenses, and McDonald's refused again

McDonald's launched a massive PR campaign to mock her in order to pollute public sentiment in favor of corporations over victims, so thejury awarded $2.7 millions in punitive damages to defend the public against McDonald's brazen attack on himan society. The Judge lowered the award to $640K; and McDonald's appealed, refusing for the third time. They eventually settled for a confidential amount.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#63

What is the value that private equity and/or VC are adding to dermatology? I guess what I'm asking is, why would the physicians be interested in sharing some portion of their income with these non-physicians? Medicine, like other guild professions like law, dentistry, and accounting, is an enterprise which seems to naturally fit the partnership model instead.

I am a general surgeon employed by a hospital system in the southeast.

PE / VC don't add anything other than trying to skim a profit off the top of medicine, like any other capitalist. Dermatology is a lucrative practice. They don't have to work in hospitals, so they set their own hours. VC/PE's are doing the long game - purchase a practice (dermatology / anesthesiology, orthopedics ) and reward the current partners who basically get to receive compensation for their future earnings. In return, the current partners accept a lower salary going forward. Lucrative with guaranteed $$$ for senior partners with a few years left to practice. For new partners not so much. And definitely not for new hires. The problem is that the cost of establishing a new practice is overwhelming. You can plant a stake as a new physician in a town, but then you have to rent an office / furnish it / equip it / and employ people without any guarantee that you will get patients.

Or, when you graduate with $300k debt, you take the job that pays you $200k / year guaranteed with no risk, but accept the fact that you will be earning less than you generate. And I'm sure there's a non compete clause (I have one).

What will happen, over time, however, is that less and less people will choose that subspecialty, just like what happened to pilots.

Of course, then the VC/PE will just close shop and walk away.

In general surgery, our reimbursements have been lower than any other surgical subspecialties for years, but our saving grace is that you really can't have a hospital without a surgeon. Here in SC, there are ZERO self employed general surgeons. 30% of what we do are urgent/emergent interventions, and tons of people here in SC have either medicaid or no insurance. When I became a hospital employee, my salary tripled. Before that, if I made > $150k that was a good year. And that's 80 hour work weeks.

Because that was typical around the nation, general surgery went from being one of the most competitive residencies to one of the least. My senior partner (10 years older) was top 5% of his class. I was top 25%. For about 5-10 years, all you needed to get a residency spot was to graduate from medical school. It's recently become more competitive, probably bc most of us are employed, boosting our salaries.

Hospitals make their money from the facility fees. I do all my surgeries in my hospital system's hospitals, not the competitor's hospital.

Dermatology is one of, if not the hardest, medical professions to match in, because for whatever reason, their reimbursements are high.

For example, if I do a laparoscopic appendectomy on an 80 year old, I get $623 (CPT 44970). They'll spend a couple of days in the hospital which is not chargeable by me bc 90 days of post op care is included in the fee.

A dermatologist that cuts off a 1.5 cm skin cancer in his office gets $251 to cut it off (CPT 11602) and $307 to close the wound (12032). No nights / weekends / and pretty stressless procedure (to me).

Anyway, VC/PE want some of that revenue

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#64
post #27

After just finishing "Bad Blood", the book by John Carreyrou on the Theranos fraud, this particular passage in the article had me incensed: > This week a lawyer for Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery, which is backed by private equity and is the largest dermatology practice in the United States, called the general counsel at the University of Florida, where two of the authors are employed, demanding specific c…

I'm disgusted by these high-powered law firms using thuggish tactics to try to silence critics. The actions of Boies law firm, as documented in the book, are particularly egregious. Worse still is that Boies himself has a track record of being super tech savvy; he’s litigated against Microsoft and Google. As he was a board member at Theranos, it stretches credulity that he wasn’t more aware of the deception. Paid in…

How is a conflict of interest to be paid by your client to represent their interests?

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#65

What is the value that private equity and/or VC are adding to dermatology? I guess what I'm asking is, why would the physicians be interested in sharing some portion of their income with these non-physicians? Medicine, like other guild professions like law, dentistry, and accounting, is an enterprise which seems to naturally fit the partnership model instead.

When you've got 10+ doctors sharing the same building & infrastructure etc then it starts looking more like a classic business. Accounts receivable department etc

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#66
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm disgusted by these high-powered law firms using thuggish tactics to try to silence critics. The actions of Boies law firm, as documented in the book, are particularly egregious. Worse still is that Boies himself has a track record of being super tech savvy; he’s litigated against Microsoft and Google. As he was a board member at Theranos, it stretches credulity that he wasn’t more aware of the deception. Paid in…

How is a conflict of interest to be paid by your client to represent their interests?

It hinges on how plausible the scenario is that you can be a board member with a history of effortlessly mastering complex technical concepts, and all around you are whistleblowers asserting that the technology is a fraud, in which case your equity is worthless, and you decide that the best course of action is to abuse the legal system to intimidate them into silence. It's documented in the book that the family of one whistleblower ran up massive debts defending themselves, and a key scientist was hounded into committing suicide. It's not mentioned in the book that any of the lawyers ever wondered if maybe there might be something in all these reports.

Anyway, read the book and draw your own conclusions about the characters involved.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All tenure does is largely protect you from getting fired. They can still do a fair amount of damage though you still have employment. Lab space can be reduced, it can get harder to get approvals for research, decreased funding etc.

"At the University of Florida, our professors do fearless research" -- title to a piece by the UoF PR department, milking an easy win for all it's worth.

You can’t eat PR.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#69

What is the value that private equity and/or VC are adding to dermatology? I guess what I'm asking is, why would the physicians be interested in sharing some portion of their income with these non-physicians? Medicine, like other guild professions like law, dentistry, and accounting, is an enterprise which seems to naturally fit the partnership model instead.

Apparently for younger doctors, access to patients.

That is, joining an existing practice is more immediately rewarding than trying to establish an independent one.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In ancient Rome, Crassus owned the fire department. When there was a home on fire, Crassus would negotiate the price for extinguishing the fire with the owners or tenants. Plus ça change...

I mean, this is close to being right, but it's wrong in every one of the details. Crassus didn't own the fire department. Crassus owned a bunch of slaves who he had trained to put out fires. Crassus didn't charge for extinguishing fires. If your house was on fire, Crassus took his team and negotiated to buy your house . If you sold it to him, he'd put out the fire. There was no flow of money from you to Crassus under…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN