←back to thread

Private equity snaps up disability services, challenging regulators

(www.governing.com)
182 points tencentshill | 2 comments | 29 Aug 25 13:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.578s | source
Show context
OhMeadhbh ◴[29 Aug 25 15:30 UTC] No.45065419[source]▶
I'm not going to defend private equity, but the article mentions only bad outcomes for services owned by private equity. To get a more complete picture, they should probably also see if there are problems with companies that aren't owned by private equity funds. And then look to see what the positive outcomes associated with both private equity owned and non-private equity owned.

Which is to say... these are anecdotes that warrant further investigation, but then ensure effort is required only for equity fund owned services by looking at the whole picture. If there are industry-wide problems and you focus your effort on private equity fund owned services and companies, you might miss an opportunity to improve the entire industry.

That being said... PE funds have a bad reputation for a reason. I would be surprised to find they're not the worst offenders.

replies(3): >>45065578 #>>45065685 #>>45065944 #
1. gruez ◴[29 Aug 25 16:11 UTC] No.45065944[source]▶
> To get a more complete picture, they should probably also see if there are problems with companies that aren't owned by private equity funds

There's also the problem of adverse selection. A subset of private equity is focused on buying distressed assets, so just because 50% of PE owned companies go under, doesn't necessarily mean they're bad.

replies(1): >>45066399 #
2. TheCraiggers ◴[29 Aug 25 16:45 UTC] No.45066399[source]▶
Sure, but we're talking about health care here. It's not Red Lobster or some failing brick & mortar store. I know health care in general is treated like a business, but it really shouldn't be.

I don't care if Red Lobster dies, but I do care about the already stressed disability services dying. Basically, the weighting is (or at least should be) different.