Privatization and oligopolies of the renal replacement therapy sector on contemporary capitalism: a systematic review and the brazilian scenario

ABSTRACT: Worldwide the assistance on renal replacement therapy (RRT) is carried out mainly by private for-profit services and in a market with increase in mergers and acquisitions. The aim of this study was to conduct an integrative systematic review on privatization and oligopolies in the RRT sector in the context of contemporary capitalism. The inclusion criteria were scientific articles without language restrictions and that addressed the themes of oligopoly or privatization of RRT market. Studies published before 1990 were excluded. The exploratory search for publications was carried out on February 13, 2024 on the Virtual Health Library Regional Portal (VHL). Using the step-by-step of PRISMA flowchart, 34 articles were retrieved, of which 31 addressed the RRT sector in the United States and 26 compared for-profit dialysis units or those belonging to large organizations with non-profit or public ones. The main effects of privatization and oligopolies, evaluated by the studies, were: mortality, hospitalization, use of peritoneal dialysis and registration for kidney transplantation. When considering these outcomes, 19 (73%) articles showed worse results in private units or those belonging to large organizations, six (23%) studies were in favor of privatization or oligopolies and one study was neutral (4%). In summary, most of the articles included in this systematic review showed deleterious effects of oligopolization and privatization of the RRT sector on the patients served. Possible explanations for this result could be the presence of conflicts of interest in the RRT sector and the lack of incentive to implement the chronic kidney disease care line. The predominance of articles from a single nation may suggest that few countries have transparent mechanisms to monitor the quality of care and outcomes of patients on chronic dialysis.

The creation of Grampians Health - a case study focusing on lessons learned from a health service merger.

This case study of the merger of four hospitals in western Victoria reports on the views of participants affected by the merger - as staff or from the communities - about 2 years after the merger. Respondents reported that many of the sought-after benefits of the merger were being delivered. However, the merger process itself attracted criticism, and it is here that this merger can provide lessons for others. Although there was a long lead time of consultation prior to the formal decision to merge, there was very little time to plan the next steps of implementation - there were only days between the decision and the merger taking effect. Future mergers should manage that differently. There is also a lot of literature on mergers which might provide a check list to enhance the likelihood of success in future mergers.

Health impacts in pathology workforce during mergers and acquisitions (M&A).

AIMS: To compare burn-out in laboratory professionals (LPs) with exposure to consolidation to those without, and to investigate the role of social support as a moderator in the exposure to mergers and acquisitions (M&A). METHODS: Surveys were sent to the clinical LPs, including 732 with exposure to M&A and 819 without. The dependent variable was burn-out, and the independent variable was exposure to M&A. In investigating the role of social support in exposure group, a logistic regression was used with education, time since M&A, gender, merger types, practice setting, lab hierarchy and race as covariates. RESULTS: Exposure to M&A was associated with higher levels of burn-out (p<0.05). In logistic regression of the workforce exposed to M&A, the odds for LP developing a high level of burn-out are lowered by 7.1% for every unit of increase in social support (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.98; p=0.004). CONCLUSION: LPs exposed to M&A are more likely to experience higher levels of burn-out but having social support can protect against burn-out, which has policy implications for leadership managing laboratories in times of M&A.

Nurses' work experiences 5 years after hospital merger in the province of Quebec/Canada-An exploratory qualitative study.

In recent years, healthcare organisations in North America have undergone major structural changes. In particular, the province of Quebec in Canada adopted a reform in 2015 which led to the merging of healthcare organisations into centralised regional administrations (the 'CISSS'). As research indicates negative impacts of mergers on patient outcomes and difficulties for the nursing work group in particular, the present paper aims to answer calls for more research about the long-term effects of major organisational changes on nurses' professional practice and well-being. We used an exploratory qualitative research design and report on data collected from 42 nursing professionals, ranging from clinical nurses, nurse practitioners, to head nurses and nursing advisors. Drawing on the job demands-resources model and the person-environment fit theory, our findings yield three main conclusions regarding the state of nursing practice 5 years after the 2015 reform: (1) emergence of a new demand for work harmonisation; (2) growing gaps in the nursing practice environment across departments; (3) evidence of a structural disempowerment of the nursing practice in healthcare organisations. There is hope that a vast project for practice harmonisation initiated and led by local senior nursing advisors will bring about positive outcomes for the nursing practice, and nurses' overall working conditions in the province.

Reasons for merging and collaborating in healthcare: Marriage or living apart together?

BACKGROUND: Across OECD countries, integration between healthcare organisations has become an indispensable part of contemporary healthcare provision. In recent years, inter-organisational collaboration has increasingly been encouraged in health and competition policy at the expense of mergers. Yet, understanding of whether healthcare organisations make an active choice between merging and collaborating is lacking. Hence, this study systematically examines (i) healthcare executives' motives for integration, (ii) their potential trade-offs between collaborating or merging, and (iii) the barriers to collaborating perceived by them. METHODS: Early 2019, an online questionnaire was conducted among a nationwide panel of 714 healthcare executives in the Netherlands. Because of their strategic position within healthcare organisations as end-responsible managers, healthcare executives are especially suited to provide broad and in-depth knowledge on the internal and external processes and decisions. Three hundred thirty-seven Dutch healthcare executives completed the questionnaire (response rate 47%). This study sample was representative of the largest healthcare sectors in the Netherlands. In total, 137 mergers and 235 inter-organisational collaborations were reported. Both closed questions and open-ended questions were systematically analysed. RESULTS: Improving or broadening healthcare provision is the foremost motive for mergers as well as inter-organisational collaborations. When considering both types, reducing governance complexity is one of the decisive reasons to opt for a merger, whereas aversion towards a full merger and lack of support base within the own organisation convinced healthcare executives to choose for a collaboration. When comparing specific healthcare sectors, the overlap in pursued motives and sub-motives indicates that inter-organisational collaborations and mergers are used for comparable objectives. Only a small minority of the responding executives switched between both types of integration. Institutional barriers, such as laws, regulations and financing regimes, appear to be the most restricting for healthcare executives to engage in inter-organisational collaborations. CONCLUSIONS: Our integral approach and systematic comparison across sectors could serve policymakers, regulators and healthcare providers in aligning organisational objectives and societal objectives in decision-making on collaborations and mergers. Future research is recommended to study multiple collaboration and merger cases qualitatively for a detailed examination of decision-making by healthcare executives, and develop an integral assessment framework for balancing collaborations and mergers based on their effects in the medium to long term.

Assessing the impact of hospital mergers and acquisitions on safety culture with proactive risk assessments.

Hospitals seeking to understand patient safety strengths and vulnerabilities in the context of mergers/acquisitions benefit more from a third-party perspective than from a limited internal process. A well-structured and highly-inclusive risk assessment-involving a broad cross-section of interviews-can be key to a successful transition of optimal health care safety during organizational changes.

Hospital Survival In Rural Markets: Closures, Mergers, And Profitability.

Financial distress among rural hospitals in the US has increased in recent years. Using national hospital data, we investigated how the decline in profitability has affected hospital survival, either independently or with a merger. The answer has direct implications for access to care and competition in rural markets. We assessed the rate of hospital closures and mergers in predominantly rural markets during the period 2010-18, focusing on hospitals that were unprofitable at baseline. A minority of unprofitable hospitals (7 percent) closed. A larger share (17 percent) merged, most commonly with organizations from outside of their local geographic market. Most unprofitable hospitals (77 percent) continued to operate through 2018 without closure or merger. About half of these hospitals returned to profitability. At the market level, 22 percent of markets served by unprofitable hospitals lost a competitor to closure or within-market merger. Out-of-market mergers affected 33 percent of markets with an unprofitable hospital. Overall, our results suggest that rural markets are experiencing meaningful rates of hospital closures and mergers, yet many hospitals have survived despite poor financial performance. Policies targeting access to care will continue to be important. Similar attention will be needed to address the competitive effects of hospital closures and mergers on prices and quality.

Hospital Consolidation: The Rise of Geographically Distant Mergers.

This Viewpoint discusses how and why cross-market hospital mergers are different than prototypical within-market mergers in their effects on patients and communities, why the trend may be accelerating, and future policy and research directions.

Big Med's Spread.

Policy Points Hospital executives posit a number of rationales for system mergers which lack any basis in academic evidence. Decades of academic research question whether system combinations confer public benefits. Antitrust authorities need to continue to closely scrutinize these transactions. Recently, mergers of hospital systems that span different geographic markets are on the rise. Economists have alerted policymakers about the potential impacts such cross-market mergers may have on hospital prices. We suggest there are other reasons for concern that scholars have not often confonted. Cross-market mergers may be conducted for purely self-serving reasons of organizational growth that increases executive compensation. Combinations of sellers should have clear advantages to consumers. System executives and their boards should bear the burden of proof. Federal regulators and state attorney generals should be cognizant that rationales for cross-market systems advanced by merging parties are unlikely to be operative or dominant in merger decision making. Policymakers should be careful about passing legislation that encourages hospitals to consolidate. CONTEXT: There is a growing trend of combinations among hospital systems that operate in different geographic markets known as cross-market mergers. Economists have analyzed these broader systems in terms of their anticompetitive behavior and pricing power over insurers. This paper evaluates the benefits advanced by these new hospital systems that speak to a different set of issues not usually studied: increased efficiencies, new capabilities, operating synergies, and addressing health inequities. The paper thus "looks under the hood" of these emerging, cross-market systems to assess what value they might bestow and upon whom. METHODS: The paper examines recently announced cross-market mergers in terms of their supposed benefits, as expressed by the systems' executives as well as by industry consultants. These presumed benefits are then evaluated against existing evidence regarding hospital system outcomes. FINDINGS: Advocates of cross-market hospital mergers cite a host of benefits. Research suggests these benefits are nonexistent. Additional evidence suggests other motives may be at play in the formation of cross-market mergers that have nothing to do with efficiencies, synergies, or community benefits. Instead these mergers may be self-serving efforts by system chief executive officers (CEOs) to boost their compensation. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-market hospital mergers may yield no benefits to the hospitals involved or the communities in which they operate. The boards of hospital systems that engage in these cross-market mergers need to exercise greater diligence over the actions of their CEOs.

The impact of supportive leadership on employee outcomes during organizational mergers: An organizational-level field study.

Past merger and acquisition research has reported mixed findings on the impact of mergers on workforces. To address these ambiguities and advance merger research at the organizational level of analysis, we present a natural quasi-experiment focusing on mergers in the English National Health Service. Building on organizational support theory and conservation of resources theory, we propose that merger events represent environmental stressors, with negative implications for employees' subjective (job satisfaction) and objective (absenteeism) outcomes. However, extending previous theorizing, we argue that by increasing their supportive leadership, midlevel management can compensate for the resource losses incurred during mergers, and in doing so, minimize the adverse impact on their workforces. We test our predictions in the context of multiple primary care trust mergers, which took place in 2006. We analyzed the annual staff surveys, combined with objective information on employee absenteeism, and compared merging organizations with nonmerging organizations before (2005) and after (2007) the mergers. As expected, employees of merging (vs. not merging) organizations showed stronger decreases in job satisfaction, and these decreases in subjective outcomes were associated with increases in absenteeism over the course of the merger process. However, consistent with our propositions, we found that increases in supportive leadership during the merger period served to mitigate these negative outcomes. Our results highlight the organizational-level implications of mergers and the role that midlevel management can play in compensating for the losses experienced during (stressful) merger events. We discuss the implications for dynamic models of merger integration and leadership during change. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Does the merger improve the operating performance of the company? Evidence from the beverage industry in India.

Background: There is fierce market competition both locally and globally. Every organisation seeks to maintain itself and, more crucially, to develop quickly through inorganic means. The expansion of a company through mergers and acquisitions is an inorganic process. Organic growth takes a very long period and is time-bound, but inorganic growth through mergers may be achieved quickly. This research aimed to determine whether the operating results of Indian beverage firms have improved after the merger or not. Methods: In order to assess merger-related advantages to the acquiring firms, this study used the operating performance technique, which contrasts the pre-merger and post-merger performance of corporations using accounting data. Secondary data were used to carry out this study. The operating performance was assessed on six operating parameters (ratios) i.e. Operating Profit Margin, Gross and Net Profit Margin, Debt-Equity, Return on Net Worth and Capital Employed. The comparison was done for three years pre and post-merger period of these operating ratios. Results: The findings demonstrate that mergers do not seek to increase owner wealth. This finding shows that rather than just becoming larger and achieving covert goals, managers should pay more attention to post-merger integration challenges in order to produce merger-induced synergies. Conclusion: This study shows that the M&As have not had a good effect on a company's operating performance, especially for the chosen beverage companies in India. Since financial measures cannot fully account for the influence of mergers on business performance, future research may create other metrics for merger-related gains. Research that provides profound insights into the causes and trends of post-merger business performance through the different types of mergers and industries would also be beneficial.

Impact of hospital mergers: a systematic review focusing on healthcare quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Despite mergers have increasingly affected hospitals in the recent decades, literature on the impact of hospitals mergers on healthcare quality measures (HQM) is still lacking. Our research aimed to systematically review evidence regarding the impact of hospital mergers on HQM focusing especially on process indicators and clinical outcomes. METHODS: The search was carried out until January 2020 using the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome model, querying electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web Of Science) and refining the search with hand search. Studies that assessed HQM of hospitals that have undergone a merger were included. HQMs were analyzed through a narrative synthesis and a strength of the evidence analysis based on the quality of the studies and the consistency of the findings. RESULTS: The 16 articles, included in the narrative synthesis, reported inconsistent findings and few statistically significant results. All indicators analyzed showed an insufficient strength of evidence to achieve conclusive results. However, a tendency in the decrease of the number of beds, hospital staff and inpatient admissions and an increase in both mortality and readmission rate for acute myocardial infarction and stroke emerged in our analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, there is no strong evidence of improvement or worsening of HQM in hospital mergers. Since a limited amount of studies currently exists, additional studies are needed. In the meanwhile, hospital managers involved in mergers should adopt a clear evaluation framework with indicators that help to periodically and systematically assess HQM ascertaining that mergers ensure and primarily do not reduce the quality of care.

Quality and Safety Outcomes of a Hospital Merger Following a Full Integration at a Safety Net Hospital.

Importance: Hospital consolidations have been shown not to improve quality on average. Objective: To assess a full-integration approach to hospital mergers based on quality metrics in a safety net hospital acquired by an urban academic health system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study analyzed outcomes for all nonpsychiatric, nonrehabilitation, non-newborn patients discharged between September 1, 2010, and August 31, 2019, at a US safety net hospital that was acquired by an urban academic health system in January 2016. Interrupted time series and statistical process control analyses were used to assess the main outcomes and measures. Data sources included the hospital's electronic health record, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare, and nursing quality reports. Exposures: A full-integration approach to the merger that included: (1) early administrative and clinical leadership integration with the academic health system; (2) rapid transition to the academic health system electronic health record; (3) local ownership of quality metrics; (4) system-level goals with real-time actionable analytics through combined dashboards; and (5) implementation of value-based and other analytic-driven interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission, patient experience, and hospital-acquired conditions. Results: The 122 348 patients in the premerger (September 2010 through August 2016) and the 58 904 patients in the postmerger (September 2016 through August 2019) periods had a mean (SD) age of 55.5 (22.0) years; the total sample of 181 252 patients included 112 191 women (61.9%), the payor mix was majority governmental (144 375 patients [79.7%]), and most admissions were emergent (121 469 patients [67.0%]). There was a 0.71% (95% CI, 0.57%-0.86%) absolute (27% relative) reduction in the crude mortality rate and 0.95% (95% CI, 0.83%-1.12%) absolute (33% relative) in the adjusted rate by the end of the 3-year intervention period. There was no significant improvement in readmission rates after accounting for baseline trends. There were fewer central line infections per 1000 catheter days, fewer catheter-associated urinary tract infections per 1000 discharges, and a higher likelihood of patients recommending the hospital or ranking it 9 or 10. Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, a hospital merger with a full-integration approach to consolidation was found to be associated with improvement in quality outcomes.

Merger and post-merger integration at Oxford University Hospitals: mixed-methods evaluation and lessons learned.

PURPOSE: Hospital mergers are common in the United Kingdom and internationally. However, mergers rarely achieve their intended benefits and are often damaging. This study builds on existing literature by presenting a case study evaluating a merger of two hospitals in Oxford, United Kingdom with three distinct characteristics: merger between two university hospitals, merger between a generalist and specialist hospital and merger between two hospitals of differing size. In doing so, the study draws practical lessons for other healthcare organisations. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Mixed-methods single-case evaluation. Qualitative data from 19 individual interviews and three focus groups were analysed thematically, using constant comparison to synthesise and interpret findings. Qualitative data were triangulated with quantitative clinical and financial data. To maximise research value, the study was co-created with practitioners. FINDINGS: The merger was a relative success with mixed improvement in clinical performance and strong improvement in financial and organisational performance. The merged organisation received an improved inspection rating, became debt-free and achieved Foundation Trust status. The study draws six lessons relating to the contingencies that can make mergers a success: (1) Develop a strong clinical rationale, (2) Communicate the change strategy widely and early, (3) Increase engagement and collaboration at all levels, (4) Be transparent and realistic about the costs and benefits, (5) Be sensitive to the feelings of the other organisation and (6) Integrate different organizational cultures effectively. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This case study provides empirical evidence on the outcome of merger in a university hospital setting. Despite the relatively positive outcome, there is no strong evidence that the benefits could not have been achieved without merger. Given that mergers remain prevalent worldwide, the practical lessons might be useful for other healthcare organisations considering merger.

If you say so: A mixed-method study of hospital mergers and quality of care.

BACKGROUND: Despite a lack of supporting evidence, hospitals continue to merge in pursuit of quality improvements. PURPOSE: We seek to develop a more thorough understanding of the quality effects of hospital mergers by integrating various theoretical perspectives using a mixed-methods design. METHODOLOGY: Quantitatively, we tested the quality effect of all consummated hospital mergers in the Netherlands between 2008 and 2014 on 15 quality indicators (with 82 measurements at hospital, department, and disease levels) using a difference-in-difference approach with Bonferroni correction. Qualitatively, we conducted three comparative case studies to examine how hospital executives, managers, and medical professionals perceive the quality impact of hospital mergers. RESULTS: Our quantitative results reveal few significant effects of hospital mergers on quality of care at all levels. After applying Bonferroni correction, two quality indicators are negatively associated with hospital mergers. However, the qualitative results indicate that hospital staff have positive perceptions of the mergers' quality implications, resulting from scale and shock effects. CONCLUSION: The perceptions of hospital staff regarding mergers diametrically oppose their measurable effects. However, the operationalization of quality by hospital staff members differs considerably from the way it is quantitatively measured. The positive perceptions of hospital staff toward mergers could further contribute to the institutionalization of mergers as a quality improvement strategy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Hospital managers seeking measurable quality improvements should be wary of merging, despite potential positive perceptions toward it within the organization. In case they do decide to merge, mitigating difficulties in the postmerger integration processes seem most pertinent to achieve measurable effects.

States' Merger Review Authority Is Associated With States Challenging Hospital Mergers, But Prices Continue To Increase.

States can challenge proposed hospital mergers by using antitrust laws to prevent anticompetitive harms. This observational study examined additional state laws-principally charitable trust, nonprofit corporation, health and safety, and certificate-of-need laws-that can serve as complements and substitutes for antitrust laws by empowering states to be notified of, review, and challenge proposed hospital mergers through administrative processes. During the period 2010-19, 862 hospital mergers were proposed, but only forty-two (4.9 percent) were challenged by states, including thirty-five by states without federal involvement, of which twenty-five (71.4 percent) originated in the eight states with the most robust merger review authority. The twenty-five challenges resulted in two mergers being blocked; three being abandoned; and twenty being approved with conditions, including seven with competitive-impact conditions. Hospital market concentration and prices increased at similar rates in these eight states versus other states, potentially because most challenges allowed mergers to proceed with conditions that did not adequately address competitive concerns. Although these findings do not reveal an optimal state framework, elements of advanced state merger review authority may have the potential to improve poorly functioning hospital markets.