From hospital expansions with large insurance deals to physician group consolidation, the continued outlook for health care mergers and acquisitions in 2016 is expected to be rampant. The following six factors will likely be present in the health care M&A landscape in 2016:
- Hospital growth. Expect to see more hospital expansion and consolidation as a means of neutralizing the bargaining that power payers have garnered through large insurance deals.
- Physician group alignment. Like hospitals, large physician groups are consolidating, exemplified by DaVita Healthcare Partners plan to acquire The Everett Clinic, a 500-physician group.
- Hospital merger challenges. The uptick of health care M&A has caught the attention of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and it’s not afraid of a challenge.
- The impending Advocate/NorthShore merger. Perhaps the best example of #3 above, the Illinois health systems are at odds with the FTC over the current market and how much market share the combined entities would control if the deal comes to fruition.
- Physician group mergers examined. Health systems are not they only ones under scrutiny by the FTC. The regulator is also keeping a pulse on physician groups. The concern lies in the combination of hospitals and what is believed to be anti-competitive combinations of physicians.
- Private equity investment. Despite the slowdown in the stock market, expect private equity firms to continue to invest in health care, particularly in services lines like dermatology, radiology and anesthesia.
To read my full interview with Kelly Gooch at Becker’s Hospital Review and learn more about the 2016 health care M&A forecast, click here.
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Related Insights
21 March 2025
IP Litigation Current
Federal Circuit Opens the Door to Additional Domestic Industry Investment: “Ordinary Importer” No Longer
In its recent decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit opened the door for patent owners to include expanded categories of domestic investment to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B).
21 March 2025
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Federal Court Rejects FCA’s “65%-100%” Language as Insufficient to Constitute the Necessary Quantity Term in a Requirements Contract—A Win for Suppliers
A recent federal court decision marks an important win for automotive suppliers in the ongoing debate over what constitutes a valid requirements contract under Michigan law following the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in MSSN, Inc. v. Airboss Flexible Products Co. (2023).
21 March 2025
Foley Ignite
A Delay in Exit Plans
There was much hope going into 2025 that we would see a rebound in the IPO market after a bit of a drought over the past few years. We left the uncertainty of the election behind us, and good news on the inflation and interest rate fronts were fueling a sense of hope that 2025 was going to be a great year for the IPO market.