IMPORTANCE Private equity (PE) firms invest in dermatology management groups (DMGs), which are physician practice management firms that operate multiple clinics and often acquire smaller, physician-owned practices. Consolidation of dermatology practices as a result of PE investment may be associated with changes in practice management in the United States. OBJECTIVE To describe the scope of PE-backed dermatology practice acquisitions geographically over time. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study examined acquisitions of dermatology practices by PE-backed DMGs in the United States. Acquisition and investment data through May 31, 2018, were compiled using information from 5 financial databases. Transaction data were supplemented with publicly available information from 2 additional financial databases, 2 financial news outlets, and press releases from DMGs. All dermatology practices acquired by PE-backed DMGs were included. Acquisitions were verified to be dermatology practices that provided medical, surgical, and/or cosmetic clinical care. Private equity financing data were included when available. The addresses of clinics associated with acquired practices were mapped using spatial analytics software. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The number and location of PE practice acquisitions over time were measured based on the date of deal closure, the geographic footprint of each DMG's acquisition, and the financing of each DMG. RESULTS Seventeen PE-backed DMGs acquired 184 practices between May 1, 2012, and May 22, 2018. These acquired practices accounted for an estimated 381 dermatology clinics as of mid-2018 (assessment period from May 1 to August 31). The total number of PE-owned dermatology clinics in the United States was substantially larger because these data did not reflect DMGs that opened new clinics (organic growth); acquisitions data represented only the ownership transfer of existing practices from physician to PE-backed DMG. Practice acquisitions increased each year, from 5 in 2012 to 59 in 2017. An additional 34 acquisitions took place from January 1 to May 31, 2018. The number of financing rounds to sustain transactions mirrored the aforementioned trends in practice acquisitions. Clinics associated with acquired practices spanned at least 30 states, with 138 of 381 clinics (36%) located in Texas and Florida. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE The study findings suggest that PE firms have a financial stake in an increasing number of dermatology practices throughout the United States. Further research is needed to assess whether and how PE-backed ownership influences clinical decision-making, health care expenditures, and patient outcomes.

IMPORTANCE Hospital readmissions contribute to higher expenditures and may sometimes reflect suboptimal patient care. Individuals discharged against medical advice (AMA) are a vulnerable patient population and may have higher risk for readmission. OBJECTIVES To determine odds of readmission and mortality for patients discharged AMA vs all others, to characterize patient and hospital-level factors associated with readmissions, and to quantify their overall cost burden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Nationally representative, all-payer cohort study using the 2014 National Readmissions Database. Eligible index admissions were nonobstetrical/newborn hospitalizations for patients 18 years and older discharged between January 2014 and November 2014. Admissions were excluded if there was a missing primary diagnosis, discharge disposition, length of stay, or if the patient died during that hospitalization. Data were analyzed between January 2018 and June 2018. EXPOSURES Discharge AMA and non-AMA discharge. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Thirty-day all-cause readmission and in-hospital mortality rate. RESULTS There were 19.9 million weighted index admissions, of which 1.5% resulted in an AMA discharge. Within the AMA cohort, 85% were younger than 65 years, 63% were male, 55% had Medicaid or other (including uninsured) coverage, and 39% were in the lowest income quartile. Thirty-day all-cause readmission was 21.0% vs 11.9% for AMA vs non-AMA discharge (P < .001), and 30-day in-hospital mortality was 2.5% vs 5.6% (P < .001), respectively. Individuals discharged AMA were more likely to be readmitted to a different hospital compared with non-AMA patients (43.0% vs 23.9%; P < .001). Of all 30-day readmissions, 19.0% occurred within the first day after AMA discharge vs 6.1% for non-AMA patients (P < .001). On multivariable regression, AMA discharge was associated with a 2.01 (95% CI, 1.97-2.05) increased adjusted odds of readmission and a 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.87) decreased adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality compared with non-AMA discharge. Nationwide readmissions after AMA discharge accounted for more than 400 000 inpatient hospitalization days at a total cost of $822 million in 2014. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Individuals discharged AMA have higher odds of 30-day readmission at significant cost to the health care system and lower in-hospital mortality rates compared with non-AMA patients. Patients discharged AMA are also more likely to be readmitted to different hospitals and to have earlier bounce-back readmissions, which may reflect dissatisfaction with their initial episode of care.

No abstract