In response to Sen. Chris Murphy’s (D-CT) and Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon’s (D-PA-05) introduction of the Take Back Our Hospitals Act, which would effectively prohibit private-equity firms from owning hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, the American Economic Liberties Project put out the following statement.
“Private-equity ownership of healthcare facilities drives up prices, lowers wages, reduces access, and degrades patient care,” said Emma Freer, Senior Policy Analyst for Healthcare at the American Economic Liberties Project. “Economic Liberties is proud to endorse the Take Back Our Hospitals Act, which would protect patients, employer health plan sponsors, and taxpayers from private-equity profiteering as the latest step towards breaking up Big Medicine.”
The Take Back Our Hospitals Act would prohibit hospitals and skilled nursing facilities that are owned by a private-equity firm from receiving Medicare reimbursements. Extensive research shows that private-equity ownership in health care is associated with higher costs, lower wages, and, perhaps most importantly, worse patient outcomes, including significantly higher mortality.
Economic Liberties has advocated for this kind of structural separation – to ensure insurers, middlemen, and other corporate entities, like private-equity firms, cannot own or control healthcare providers – since 2024, in both white papers and the popular press. In early 2025, Economic Liberties launched the Break Up Big Medicine initiative to bring together independent healthcare professionals, patient advocates, employers, and policy experts who support structural reforms across the healthcare industry. This coalition has activated for in-person events across the country, from Austin to New Orleans, and to support complementary legislation, including:
- The bipartisan Break Up Big Medicine Act by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), which would prohibit insurers, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and wholesale drug distributors from owning or controlling providers.
- The Patients Over Profits Act by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Rep. Val Hoyle (D-OR-04), which would prohibit insurers from owning certain Medicare providers.
- The bipartisan Patients Before Monopolies Act, by Senators Warren and Hawley and Reps. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA-04) and Diana Harshbarger (R-TN-01), which would prohibit PBMs from owning pharmacies.
- The Medicines for the People Act, by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-12), which would break Big Pharma’s monopoly by creating a public option for pharmaceutical research and development.
Learn more about the Break Up Big Medicine initiative here.
Facts Only
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA-05) introduced the Take Back Our Hospitals Act.
The bill would prohibit private-equity-owned hospitals and skilled nursing facilities from receiving Medicare reimbursements.
The American Economic Liberties Project endorsed the legislation.
Emma Freer, Senior Policy Analyst for Healthcare at the American Economic Liberties Project, stated that private-equity ownership in healthcare drives up prices, lowers wages, reduces access, and degrades patient care.
Research cited in the statement associates private-equity ownership with higher costs, lower wages, and worse patient outcomes, including higher mortality.
The American Economic Liberties Project has advocated for structural separation between corporate entities and healthcare providers since 2024.
In early 2025, the organization launched the Break Up Big Medicine initiative.
The initiative supports multiple bills, including the bipartisan Break Up Big Medicine Act, the Patients Over Profits Act, the Patients Before Monopolies Act, and the Medicines for the People Act.
The Break Up Big Medicine initiative has hosted events in cities like Austin and New Orleans.
The Break Up Big Medicine Act would prohibit insurers, PBMs, and wholesale drug distributors from owning or controlling providers.
The Patients Over Profits Act would prohibit insurers from owning certain Medicare providers.
The Patients Before Monopolies Act would prohibit PBMs from owning pharmacies.
The Medicines for the People Act would create a public option for pharmaceutical research and development.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative presents a compelling case for regulatory intervention in healthcare, grounded in empirical research linking private-equity ownership to tangible harms—higher costs, lower wages, and worse patient outcomes. The American Economic Liberties Project frames this as a systemic issue, advocating for structural separation to protect patients, employers, and taxpayers from corporate profiteering. The coalition’s support for multiple bills, including bipartisan efforts, lends credibility to the argument that this is a non-partisan concern about market consolidation in healthcare.
However, the narrative leans heavily on emotional appeals—framing private equity as inherently exploitative—and employs a motte-and-bailey tactic by conflating broad critiques of "Big Medicine" with specific policy proposals. While the research cited is extensive, the presentation lacks counterarguments, such as potential benefits of private-equity investment in underfunded facilities or the risks of reduced capital flow in healthcare. The pattern of framing corporate ownership as uniformly harmful without acknowledging trade-offs or alternative solutions could be seen as a form of distortion through omission.
Rooted in a paradigm of corporate skepticism, this narrative assumes that market consolidation in healthcare is inherently detrimental, echoing historical critiques of financialization in essential services. The implications are significant: if enacted, these policies could reshape healthcare delivery, potentially benefiting patients and workers but also risking unintended consequences like reduced investment or service closures in underserved areas. The second-order effects—such as how public options for pharmaceutical R&D might interact with existing innovation incentives—remain underexplored.
Bridge questions: What evidence would change the assessment of private-equity’s role in healthcare? How might structural separation affect rural or financially struggling hospitals that rely on private investment? What alternative models could address cost and quality concerns without outright bans?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign pushing this narrative might amplify emotional framing (e.g., "profiteering" vs. "patient care"), suppress dissenting voices, and present policy solutions as the only moral choice. The actual content aligns with this pattern in its selective presentation of evidence and moral framing, though it stops short of outright manipulation. The absence of counterarguments is notable but not necessarily deceptive—it reflects advocacy, not malice.
Patterns detected: ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey, ARC-0024 Ambiguity (selective evidence presentation)