WASHINGTON—In a reassuring display of regulatory consistency, federal officials reaffirmed this week that physicians should not be allowed to own hospitals due to “obvious conflicts of interest,” while insurance conglomerates continue to be warmly encouraged to own hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, PBMs, and the algorithm that says no.
“Doctors might overuse services if they own hospitals,” explained a regulator, moments after approving an insurer’s acquisition of a 300-hospital system, 1,200 clinics, and a prescription pipeline that automatically routes patients to the company store. “We simply can’t risk financial incentives influencing care.”
Physicians expressed understanding.
“As a doctor, I clearly can’t be trusted,” said one internist. “If I owned a hospital, I might recommend medically necessary care. Thank goodness a multinational insurer is here to decide that for me.”
The policy traces back to concerns that physician ownership could lead to self-referrals, higher utilization, and profit-driven medicine—problems experts confirm have now been fully solved by transferring ownership to organizations whose profits depend on denying utilization.
Insurers insist their ownership poses no conflict because everything is aligned. “Our incentives are perfectly coordinated,” said a spokesperson. “The company paying for care, approving care, delivering care, and profiting from care all agree the answer is no.”
Patients welcomed the clarity.
“It’s nice knowing my doctor can’t profit from treating me,” one said, “but the insurance company absolutely can profit from not treating me.”
At press time, regulators announced they were considering banning doctors from owning stethoscopes, citing concerns they might listen too carefully—while approving insurers’ plans to vertically integrate patients next, finally eliminating the last remaining variable in healthcare decision-making.
