Return on investment, return of risk: private equity in gastrointestinal cancer care

Financialization of cancer care in an era of shrinking safety nets

Private equity (PE) has become a durable presence in the United States healthcare system, extending beyond physician practices and ambulatory centers to include hospital ownership (1-3). Proponents argue that PE brings discipline, efficiency, and capital to financially stressed systems (4,5). However, the concern is structural: PE’s focus on generating return on investment within short ownership periods may conflict with the long-term investments required for high-quality cancer care—sustained investment in staffing, coordination, and access (3,6,7). The question is not only whether value is created, but how it is distributed.

Recent history reminds us how financial restructuring can fracture fragile institutions. The closure of Hahnemann Hospital, an urban safety-net facility with a high Medicaid case mix, did not just shutter a building; it removed a key access point for low-income Philadelphians shortly after PE acquisition (8). While not proof that PE ownership uniformly destabilizes hospitals, it illustrates how system strain often first manifests as staffing losses, narrowed services, and reduced access for publicly insured patients—well before mortality changes.

Gastrointestinal (GI) oncology as a stress test

Few areas expose these tensions more clearly than GI oncology. We have not yet figured out how to deliver consistently high-quality, multidisciplinary GI cancer care at scale, and disparities in access and timeliness remain entrenched (9). Outcomes depend not only on operative technique, but on the infrastructure that enables multidisciplinary care delivery—staffing depth, inpatient capacity, infection prevention, discharge planning, and coordinated care pathways—making GI cancer surgery a useful stress test for how ownership changes reshape workforce capacity and access (10,11).

What this study contributes

In this context, the analysis by Worku et al. is both timely and important. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data and quasi-experimental methods, the authors examine the effects of PE hospital acquisitions on GI cancer surgery across workforce, cost, and access domains (12). The design is a notable strength, especially its effort to address non-random acquisition patterns and secular trends in staffing and outcomes. With appropriate caution in its claims, this study advances a conversation often dominated by speculation rather than evidence.

Three findings deserve emphasis. First, PE acquisition was associated with reductions in clinical staffing, including physicians and registered nurses. In cancer surgery, the workforce is not merely an operational input—it is core infrastructure. Multidisciplinary coordination, perioperative vigilance, and complication management cannot be easily “optimized” once staffing depth erodes (10,11). When staffing contracts, the system may maintain short-term performance, but it is less resilient and more prone to brittle failure.

Second, short-term outcomes such as perioperative complications and 90-day mortality did not differ significantly, yet hospital-acquired infections increased following acquisition. This pattern should prompt concern, not reassurance. Mortality is a lagging indicator and often insensitive to system strain, whereas infections often rise earlier when staffing, workflows, and prevention infrastructure are reduced (13).

Third, and perhaps most consequentially, PE-acquired hospitals disproportionately served socially vulnerable populations, yet experienced declines in Medicaid discharges over time. This juxtaposition matters. Without enforceable access obligations, Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments can become a form of regulatory arbitrage: hospitals retain safety-net subsidies while quietly shrinking the entry points for publicly insured patients (13). In that model, public policy is not protecting access; it is de-risking ownership. And because decision-makers are typically structurally distant from the communities affected, the costs of reduced access and workforce contraction are borne by patients, clinicians, and neighboring safety-net systems.

When the business of healthcare benefits, but patients do not

These findings are consistent with the broader literature. A systematic review of 55 empirical studies evaluating PE ownership across settings found that PE was most consistently associated with increased costs for patients or payers and showed mixed-to-harmful impacts on quality, with staffing repeatedly implicated as an affected domain (6). Worku et al. echo this asymmetry: even where operational costs declined after acquisition, patients did not see corresponding reductions in charges.

Thus, the findings by Worku et al. should not be read as an isolated GI oncology signal. They reflect a broader pattern in which return on investment is generated by extracting slack from the bedside without clear evidence that patients share in the gains.

The current policy environment heightens the stakes. The July 2025 reconciliation law is projected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by roughly $990 billion over a decade and leave roughly 10 million more people uninsured (14). These pressures will land hardest on safety-net hospitals. Workforce reductions and payer-mix shifts may appear manageable when public support is stable, but become far more consequential when it contracts because safety-net oncology care has little margin to “do more with less”.

Policy implications in a constrained fiscal environment

The findings of Worku et al. argue not for categorical opposition to PE ownership, but for deliberate oversight over the mechanisms through which ownership changes affect care. Several guardrails are plausible: transparency about ownership structures, post-acquisition staffing changes, and payer mix shifts; treating workforce measures, such as staffing ratios, as quality indicators in cancer care; and linking DSH and other safety-net supports to enforceable access obligations, particularly for Medicaid patients.

Some states, like New York, have pursued more restrictive approaches, including limits on for-profit hospital ownership (15). Regardless of the policy path chosen, the principle should be consistent: if public dollars support safety-net function, then access and capacity should not be allowed to quietly contract in parallel.

Reframing benchmarks for success

Ultimately, this study challenges the field to reconsider how we evaluate the effects of PE ownership in cancer care. The question is not whether mortality worsens in the short term, but whether efficiency can be achieved without eroding equity, access, and workforce sustainability—the substrates that make cancer care possible.

This is uncomfortable in a healthcare landscape where the distinction between nonprofit and for-profit systems has blurred. “Nonprofit” increasingly reflects tax status rather than a business model: many hospitals now sit within sprawling regional systems that pursue scale and operational “efficiency” in ways that mirror their for-profit counterparts (16). But cancer care makes the limits of this market logic hard to ignore because outcomes hinge on multidisciplinary coordination, continuity, and supportive infrastructure rather than just throughput. Systems can appear stable by conventional metrics while quietly shedding staffing, access pathways, and coordination capacity required for complex care.

Worku et al. advance this conversation with rigor rather than rhetoric. Their findings do not indict PE outright, but they do demand vigilance. If we wait for mortality to worsen before acting, we will have entirely misunderstood the lesson entirely.

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. The article did not undergo external peer review.

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-2026-1-0140/coif). R.S.H. received hourly wage for consulting services for development of the Vicarious Surgical robotic platform. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Singh Y, Zhu JM, Polsky D, et al. Geographic Variation in Private Equity Penetration Across Select Office-Based Physician Specialties in the US. JAMA Health Forum 2022;3:e220825. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Tyan K, Lam MB, Milligan M. Private Equity Acquisition of Oncology Clinics in the US From 2003 to 2022. JAMA Intern Med 2023;183:621-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Gaffney A, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU, et al. Health care in the USA: money has become the mission. Lancet 2025;406:2588-600. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Cerullo M, Lin YL, Rauh-Hain JA, et al. Financial Impacts And Operational Implications Of Private Equity Acquisition Of US Hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood) 2022;41:523-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Bruch JD, Gondi S, Song Z. Changes in Hospital Income, Use, and Quality Associated With Private Equity Acquisition. JAMA Intern Med 2020;180:1428-35. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Borsa A, Bejarano G, Ellen M, et al. Evaluating trends in private equity ownership and impacts on health outcomes, costs, and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2023;382:e075244. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Bhatla A, Bartlett VL, Liu M, et al. Changes in Patient Care Experience After Private Equity Acquisition of US Hospitals. JAMA 2025;333:490-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Cai C, Song Z. A Policy Framework for the Growing Influence of Private Equity in Health Care Delivery. JAMA 2023;329:1545-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Fonseca AL, Ahmad R, Amin K, et al. Time Kills: Impact of Socioeconomic Deprivation on Timely Access to Guideline-Concordant Treatment in Foregut Cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2024;238:720-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Walraven JEW, van der Hel OL, van der Hoeven JJM, et al. Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2022;22:829. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Maharaj AD, Evans SM, Zalcberg JR, et al. Barriers and enablers to the implementation of multidisciplinary team meetings: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework. BMJ Quality & Safety 2021;30:792-803.
12. Worku E, Rashid Z, Khalil M, et al. Private equity acquisitions of hospitals and the changing landscape of care for patients with gastrointestinal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol 2026;17:4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Kannan S, Bruch JD, Song Z. Changes in Hospital Adverse Events and Patient Outcomes Associated With Private Equity Acquisition. JAMA 2023;330:2365-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Congressional Budget Office. Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline. 2025. Available online: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61570
15. Cai C, Song Z. Protecting Patients And Society In An Era Of Private Equity Provider Ownership: Challenges And Opportunities For Policy. Health Aff (Millwood) 2024;43:666-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Bruch JD, Bellamy D. Charity Care: Do Nonprofit Hospitals Give More than For-Profit Hospitals? J Gen Intern Med 2021;36:3279-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]