Key Takeaways
- • GW Law's Health Law and Policy Program convened economists, investors, physicians, attorneys, and policymakers at a Private Equity Investment in Physician Practices roundtable on May 12, 2026, across five panels.
- • Panelists examined empirical research linking private equity investment to adverse patient outcomes, staffing reductions, and increased emergency department mortality, though the source presents these as findings discussed rather than settled conclusions.
- • Speakers argued that the Corporate Practice of Medicine (CPOM) and fee-splitting prohibitions provide the legal basis for medical services organization (MSO) structures that give private equity investors operational control over physician practices.
- • Physicians cited insurer scrutiny, rising administrative burden, recruitment difficulty, and a roughly 20 percent drop in physician compensation over the past 20 years.
- • Speakers across the final panel called for impartial comparative data on quality of care across private equity-sponsored, hospital-owned, and independently owned practices, and for identifying specific owner behaviors that cause harm rather than labeling owner types.
Summary
The GW Law Health Law and Policy Program hosted its Private Equity Investment in Physician Practices roundtable on May 12, 2026, convening economists, investors, physicians, attorneys, and policymakers to assess private equity's growing presence in physician practices and its implications for patient care, clinician autonomy, and the broader health care industry, according to the GW Law publication.
The first panel, moderated by Vivian Ho of the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University, reviewed economics research on price and quality concerns. Panelists Zirui Song (Harvard University), Richard Scheffler (UC Berkeley), and Ryan McDevitt (Washington University in St. Louis) discussed empirical findings on patient outcomes tied to private equity investment, including adverse events, staffing reductions, and increased mortality in emergency department settings.
The second panel examined the Corporate Practice of Medicine and fee-splitting prohibitions. Moderated by Jonathan Henderson of Polsinelli, with Bill Hoffman (Polsinelli) and Jamie Ostroff (California Medical Association), panelists explained that these doctrines provide the legal basis for structuring medical services organizations and allow private equity investors to exercise operational control over physician practices.
A third panel featured investors including Richard Dutton (US Anesthesia Partners), Gordon Maner (Frontline Healthcare Partners), Todd Rudsenske (Cain Brothers), and Tae Kim (AllerVie Health). They identified criteria for acquisitions, including fragmented markets, growth opportunities, physician alignment, and quality-driven models, and argued that "good medicine is good business." They also cited private equity's ability to negotiate with insurers over prior authorization and claim denials as a structural advantage for physicians.
A fourth panel, moderated by Michael Suk of the American Medical Association, heard from physicians including Jason Sharp (Texas Radiology Associates), Yoav Hahn (Dallas Ear Institute), and Benjamin Lowentritt (Chesapeake Urology Associates and United Urology Group). They described insurer scrutiny, administrative burden, difficulty recruiting recent graduates, and a roughly 20 percent decline in physician compensation over 20 years. Doctors said they track care quality through referral patterns, specialty service utilization, and patient feedback, while acknowledging gaps in agreed metrics.
The final panel, moderated by GW Law professor Barak Richman, included Molly Reese (AMA), Tim Attebery (Cardiovascular Associates of America), and Alex Kinnebrew (Commence). All three called for impartial comparison data on care quality across ownership models. Panelists also proposed shifting the inquiry toward identifying which specific owner behaviors constitute harm, rather than treating an owner type as inherently harmful. GW Law said its program will continue supporting research for state legislatures, federal agencies, and courts weighing private equity's role in health care delivery.
The first panel, moderated by Vivian Ho of the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University, reviewed economics research on price and quality concerns. Panelists Zirui Song (Harvard University), Richard Scheffler (UC Berkeley), and Ryan McDevitt (Washington University in St. Louis) discussed empirical findings on patient outcomes tied to private equity investment, including adverse events, staffing reductions, and increased mortality in emergency department settings.
The second panel examined the Corporate Practice of Medicine and fee-splitting prohibitions. Moderated by Jonathan Henderson of Polsinelli, with Bill Hoffman (Polsinelli) and Jamie Ostroff (California Medical Association), panelists explained that these doctrines provide the legal basis for structuring medical services organizations and allow private equity investors to exercise operational control over physician practices.
A third panel featured investors including Richard Dutton (US Anesthesia Partners), Gordon Maner (Frontline Healthcare Partners), Todd Rudsenske (Cain Brothers), and Tae Kim (AllerVie Health). They identified criteria for acquisitions, including fragmented markets, growth opportunities, physician alignment, and quality-driven models, and argued that "good medicine is good business." They also cited private equity's ability to negotiate with insurers over prior authorization and claim denials as a structural advantage for physicians.
A fourth panel, moderated by Michael Suk of the American Medical Association, heard from physicians including Jason Sharp (Texas Radiology Associates), Yoav Hahn (Dallas Ear Institute), and Benjamin Lowentritt (Chesapeake Urology Associates and United Urology Group). They described insurer scrutiny, administrative burden, difficulty recruiting recent graduates, and a roughly 20 percent decline in physician compensation over 20 years. Doctors said they track care quality through referral patterns, specialty service utilization, and patient feedback, while acknowledging gaps in agreed metrics.
The final panel, moderated by GW Law professor Barak Richman, included Molly Reese (AMA), Tim Attebery (Cardiovascular Associates of America), and Alex Kinnebrew (Commence). All three called for impartial comparison data on care quality across ownership models. Panelists also proposed shifting the inquiry toward identifying which specific owner behaviors constitute harm, rather than treating an owner type as inherently harmful. GW Law said its program will continue supporting research for state legislatures, federal agencies, and courts weighing private equity's role in health care delivery.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.