At least where health care is concerned.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. hospitals owned by investors with the aim of making money are less cost-efficient than nonprofits, Canadian researchers said on Monday.
And experts who wrote a commentary on the study said converting all investor-owned hospitals to nonprofit status could have saved $6 billion in 2001.
and
Devereaux and colleagues earlier showed that for-profit hospitals had higher death rates.
"The reality is that for-profits face significant economic challenges. The first is they have to generate revenues that will satisfy shareholders," Devereaux said.
"Second, they have high executive bonuses. Thirdly, they are very top-heavy and have high administrative costs. Also, they have to pay taxes. That is a lot of extra money that they have to come up with," Devereaux added.
"Instead of finding new efficiencies, folks were cutting corners in quality health care, and also people were having to pay more for care."
The Reuters article notes that "the report, published in Monday's issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, adds fuel to the debate over whether health care should follow a business model."
I imagine the debate going something like this:
Experts: "Privitizing health care won't save any money. In fact, we found it costs more, and the quality of health care declines."
Privitization zealots: "No, that's not true. That's just socialist propaganda. The market is more efficient than Big Government. So there!"
Experts: "But we have a study right here, and several reports back up our findings."
P.Z.: (sticks fingers in ears) "Lah lah lah lah lah, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Etc.
Anyway, you can find the relevant articles in the medical journal here and here.
