ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026
A practitioner's guide to using data on private equity hospital acquisitions.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Private equity ownership and artificial intelligence adoption by hospitals in the United States.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Three facts about private equity in the US hospital sector.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Ten high-priority areas for health policy research in 2026-2027.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- From identification to accountability in private equity hospital datasets.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Private equity (PE) investment in US hospitals has attracted substantial policy and research attention, but empirical work has been limited by fragmented and inconsistent transaction data. We aimed to construct a more comprehensive and validated dataset of PE ownership of US hospitals and to provide a practical guide for using these data in research. Methods: We integrated 6 major commercial deal databases to identify PE investments in US hospitals from 2000 to 2024. We filtered transactions to PE-related hospital deals, matched targets to American Hospital Association (AHA) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) hospital identifiers, manually verified uncertain matches, reconciled duplicate transactions across sources, expanded system-level deals to constituent hospitals, and verified deal and exit dates. Results: We identified 141 unique PE deals involving 555 unique short-term acute care hospitals, corresponding to 721 hospital-deal observations. The 6 databases differed substantially in deal coverage, deal type, and whether transactions were reported at the hospital or system level. Reliance on a single source would therefore omit many valid deals and could produce biased or incomplete analytic samples. We also found that linking transactions to stable hospital identifiers required substantial manual verification due to system-level transactions, inconsistent reporting, and identifier changes over time. Conclusion: Accurate study of PE ownership in hospitals requires multisource data construction, transparent validation, and careful linkage to stable hospital identifiers. This harmonized dataset and workflow provide infrastructure for more accurate, transparent, and replicable research on PE ownership in the US hospital sector.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.