How does this relate to the original post? The original post posits that overregulation contributes to the dysfunction of the US healthcare system. The next response calls for specifics. The comment you responded to provides a specific regulation that may be contributing.

You respond questioning how that could explain why PE operated hospitals have worse outcomes. I agree, this doesn’t seem to have an explanatory power for why PE operated hospitals have worse outcomes, but how does that relate?

▲

bilbo0s 2 days ago | parent [-]

Uh, because the original post implied that over regulation was the cause of substandard metrics in PE owned hospitals. It even went so far as to state, "..I'm not surprised by this finding.." after outlining a case for why over regulation was a problem.

Which "finding", presumably, being that PE owned hospitals have substandard metrics.

My question is natural given the context of a discussion that's literally titled:

"Death rates rose in hospital ERs after private equity firms took over"

It's literally the entire subject of the discussion. Why would anyone think it's irrelevant?

▲

dodobirdlord a day ago | parent [-]

I think you misread the original post. It is about overregulation fostering the spread of PE operated hospitals. Not about overregulation causing PE operated hospitals to have worse outcomes.

	▲	bilbo0s a day ago \| parent [-]
		The material point is that the PE operated hospitals proliferate even in the absence of the regulations.