ANNUAL INDUSTRY CONFERENCE
October 15–17, 2026 · Atlanta
See the conference · Get tickets
FOR SPONSORS • EXHIBITORS
October 15–17, 2026 · Atlanta
Request Prospectus • Supporters • Apply
PRACTICE DECISION TOOLS
FOR Doctors, Specialists, NPs, PAs
Calculators • Marketing • CMT Patient Study • All tools
RESEARCH & PROOF
National Stats, Industry Research
Research Briefs • Visuals • Legal Op • Natl Stats
The handwriting in the card: MSOs, private equity and the future of concierge medicine
Why physicians partner with management services organizations, what the evidence shows when outside capital enters a relationship-based practice, and CMT's editorial perspective on MSOs in concierge medicine.
Nobody keeps a greeting card for the printed verse. They keep it for the few lines the sender wrote by hand.
Concierge medicine sells the handwriting: a physician who knows you, answers when you call and has time to think. Management services organizations and their private equity backers promise to supply everything else, from billing and technology to marketing and recruiting, and increasingly a check for the practice itself. This brief asks a simple question. When the card stock gets better and more uniform, does the handwriting survive?
Summary
Question. How are concierge physicians using management services organizations (MSOs) and private equity (PE) partnerships, what are the advantages and risks, and does outside capital preserve or erode the personal relationship that defines concierge medicine?
Evidence reviewed. National physician employment data, peer-reviewed studies of PE acquisitions of physician practices and hospitals, the 2025 Health Affairs analysis of concierge and DPC ownership, concierge outcome and cost studies, state corporate practice of medicine law, and an interview with a healthcare attorney who advises membership medicine practices.
Findings. Consolidation is accelerating across medicine and inside concierge medicine. MSOs offer real advantages: capital, back-office relief, liquidity for retiring founders and scale. Peer-reviewed studies of PE ownership in other settings show consistent patterns of higher physician turnover, lower physician satisfaction and autonomy, higher spending and, in hospitals, weaker patient experience scores. Dentistry, which adopted the management-company model earlier, shows a similar trade: better hours, lower career satisfaction. Concierge-specific evidence is limited. A peer-reviewed study of MDVIP, a large PE-owned affiliation network in which physicians keep their own limited-panel practices, found fewer unplanned admissions and emergency visits among members with diabetes.2,1
Conclusion. MSOs are neither the future of concierge medicine nor a threat to it by definition. The deciding variable is control: whether the partnership supplies the card stock while the physician keeps the pen.
What an MSO is, and the four ways concierge physicians use outside capital
A management services organization is a company that provides non-clinical services to a medical practice, such as billing, technology, staffing, marketing, compliance and real estate, under a management agreement. In most states, corporate practice of medicine doctrines bar non-physicians from owning a medical practice or directing clinical decisions, so investors typically own the MSO, while a physician-owned professional entity holds the licenses and employs the clinicians. The purpose of the doctrine is to keep clinical decisions grounded in medical judgment rather than investor returns.3
In concierge medicine, four arrangements are common:
| Model | How it works | Physician keeps | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Affiliation network | Physician keeps a limited-panel practice and affiliates with a national network for conversion, branding and program support | Practice and clinical control | MDVIP: about 1,100 affiliated physicians; majority owned by Goldman Sachs Asset Management and Charlesbank Capital Partners since 20214,2 |
| Partner-network MSO | Practices join a network that provides back-office support such as recruiting, technology, marketing, accounting and legal services; financial terms, which may include equity, vary and are generally not public | Clinical leadership; business terms set by agreement | LifeSpanMD: founded in 2022 and headquartered in Naples, Florida; provides back-office support including recruiting, technology, marketing, IT, accounting and legal services to physician partners; PitchBook lists $490 million raised5. An industry publication categorizes it as an equity-partnership platform6 |
| Full buyout platform | Investor-backed MSO acquires the practice's business assets; physician becomes an employee or contractor | Clinical judgment, protected by law; limited business control | Common in dermatology, gastroenterology and ophthalmology, where PE-acquired practices have been studied most7 |
| Hospital-owned concierge | Health system employs concierge physicians and collects the fee | Clinical role; employment terms | Northwestern Medicine, Penn Medicine, Baptist Health, Inova and others2; fees of about $2,000 to more than $4,000 a year2 |
Examples are illustrative and described only as reported in the cited third-party sources: MDVIP 2,4; LifeSpanMD 5,6; hospital systems 2. Inclusion does not imply endorsement or criticism of any organization.
How this scorecard was built
Models were defined using descriptions of MSO and corporate practice of medicine structures in national health law firm analyses. Examples were included only where a third-party source (news reporting, a transaction announcement, a subscription company database, an industry publication or peer-reviewed research) describes the organization. Each example states only what the cited source reports.
Important disclaimers
Examples are illustrative, not exhaustive, and are not rankings or endorsements. Business terms of private arrangements are generally not public and may differ from the descriptions here. Figures from PitchBook are presented as reported by that database.
Consolidation is reaching concierge medicine
Across medicine, independent practice is now the exception. As of January 2026, 82% of U.S. physicians were employed by hospitals or corporate entities, 59.7% by hospitals and 22.3% by corporate owners such as insurers and PE firms. Hospitals and corporate entities owned 63.9% of physician practices.8
Concierge medicine was long a refuge from that shift. It is now following it. Zhu and colleagues found that between 2018 and 2023, independently owned concierge and DPC practices fell from 84.0% to 59.7% of the sector, while corporate-affiliated practices grew 576%.9 One of the largest concierge networks, MDVIP, has been majority owned by PE firms since 2014, and its current owners completed their acquisition in 2021.2,4 Newer entrants include partnership platforms such as LifeSpanMD, founded in 2022, which provides back-office services to concierge physician partners and which PitchBook lists as having raised $490 million.5
The next decade of concierge medicine will be decided less by who owns the practice and more by who controls the physician's calendar.Michael Tetreault, Editor-in-Chief, Concierge Medicine Today
Which practices partner, which patients they serve
No public dataset profiles concierge practices by MSO status. The available evidence, together with published partner lists, points to a consistent profile.
Practices. Concierge and DPC practices are concentrated in Texas, California, Florida and Georgia, and about 60% of their clinicians participate in Medicare, suggesting concierge or hybrid designs.9,10 In the broader PE literature, practices whose owners later sold were typically larger (65% had more than 20 physicians) and located in the South (52%).11
Physicians. An attorney who advises membership practices describes two groups: physicians who want liquidity, operational support and belonging to a larger team, and physicians who value autonomy and running a small business. Founders approaching retirement, practices needing capital for growth, and physicians carrying heavy administrative load are the most natural candidates, based on the motivations described.
Patients. Concierge patients have historically skewed older and more affluent.2 A Journal of Health Economics study found that neighborhood income, not health status, predicted who joined a concierge practice.12 An earlier study found concierge physicians cared for smaller shares of patients with diabetes and fewer Black and Hispanic patients.13 MDVIP reports about 390,000 patients across roughly 1,100 physicians, an average of about 355 patients per physician.2 Fees in hospital-owned concierge programs reported by KFF Health News range from about $2,000 to more than $4,000 a year.2
Why physicians partner, and why some choose not to
Advantages
Liquidity. Founders can monetize decades of work, often before retirement.
Administrative relief. Billing, IT, compliance, HR and marketing move off the physician's desk, which matters when administrative burden is a leading driver of burnout.14
Capital and scale. Access to technology, diagnostics, recruiting and succession planning a solo practice cannot fund.15
Belonging. Peer networks and shared clinical programs; some physicians simply prefer being part of a team.
Brand and conversion support. National networks offer conversion, branding and marketing support, and may bring capital for technology and growth.15
Disadvantages
Loss of control. After a sale, founders are effectively employees, and buyers will not always run the practice their way.
Turnover. Physician turnover rose 265% after PE acquisition in ophthalmology, and 16.5 percentage points more physicians left within two years of a PE exit.16,11
Cost pressure. PE-acquired practices in three specialties showed higher spending and more long visits billed.7
Autonomy and satisfaction. Physicians employed by PE firms were less likely to report high professional satisfaction and autonomy.15
Exit cycles. PE investors typically seek a return within several years, so ownership can change again.11
Regulation. States are tightening MSO rules; Oregon's SB 951 is the strictest to date.3
The view from a membership medicine attorney
A healthcare attorney who advises concierge and membership practices, interviewed by CMT's Editor-in-Chief, views MSOs as a growing and durable part of the market, but not the right fit for every physician. The attorney regularly warns physician founders that they may come to "hate your M&A buyer," because after a sale they are effectively employees and the buyer will not always run the practice as they would. The attorney has seen the same founder dynamic outside healthcare.
The attorney is skeptical of the private equity side, and believes buyers value aggregated physician scale, including the financial value of a physician network's prescribing volume, and some are not especially discerning about the practices they acquire. That is a professional interpretation of buyer motives rather than an established finding. These views describe the market generally and do not refer to any organization named in this brief. The attorney expects MSO acquisition and administration of practices to keep proliferating, and while admiring self-employment, notes that it "isn't necessarily for everybody."
The attorney's recommendation for the industry is engagement rather than exclusion: bring MSOs into educational forums to address corporate practice of medicine, preservation of independent medical judgment, and how to build viable business units at scale, as one track within a broader program.
Capital is not the enemy of concierge medicine. Forgetting what patients are paying for is.Michael Tetreault, Editor-in-Chief, Concierge Medicine Today
Where outside capital has worked, and where it has not
The evidence base is uneven. Peer-reviewed research on PE comes mostly from specialty practices and hospitals. Concierge-specific evidence is limited to a small number of peer-reviewed studies. Only findings verified through third-party publications are shown below, labeled by source type.
| Setting | Finding | Source type | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| MDVIP network (PE-owned affiliation model)2 | Members with diabetes had 10% fewer unplanned admissions and fewer ED visits than matched Medicare patients; total spending not significantly different over five years1 | Peer-reviewed; funded by the company, as disclosed | Favorable |
| Concierge medicine generally | Enrollment associated with 30% to 50% higher total spending and no change in mortality2,12 | Peer-reviewed, independent | Mixed |
| PE-acquired hospitals | Top-box patient ratings flat (65.0% to 65.2%) while matched hospitals improved (66.2% to 69.2%); staff responsiveness declined17 | Peer-reviewed, independent | Unfavorable |
| PE-acquired specialty practices | Higher spending and utilization; more visits billed as longer than 30 minutes7 | Peer-reviewed, independent | Unfavorable |
| PE-acquired ophthalmology practices | Physician turnover up 265% after acquisition16 | Peer-reviewed, independent | Unfavorable |
| PE-funded primary care platforms | Capital enabled expansion of preventive and chronic care in some models, per ACP review15 | Professional society review | Favorable in limited cases |
How this scorecard was built
Findings were selected from peer-reviewed journals, national professional-society reviews and a disclosed-funding company study published in a peer-reviewed journal, each verified against the original article or its journal page. Each row reports the study's own primary finding without re-analysis. Direction ratings (favorable, mixed, unfavorable) are CMT's editorial summary of whether the finding supports outside ownership from a patient or physician perspective. Company-reported surveys, press releases and marketing materials were excluded because they could not be verified by an independent third party.
Important disclaimers
Most studies examine hospitals, nursing homes or specialty practices, not concierge practices, so results may not apply directly. Observational studies show associations, not proof of cause. One concierge study was funded by the company it evaluated, as disclosed. This scorecard is educational and does not evaluate the quality of care at any named organization. It is not medical, legal or financial advice.
An open research question. No independent, peer-reviewed study has yet measured patient satisfaction or retention in a concierge practice before and after it joined an MSO or PE platform. Company-reported satisfaction surveys exist, but they are not included in this brief because CMT could not verify them through an independent third-party source. Before-and-after measurement of member experience remains an open area for future research.
What happens to patient and physician satisfaction after outside capital arrives
Concierge medicine has little published data on satisfaction before and after an MSO partnership. Other parts of healthcare have much more. Physician practices, hospitals, nursing homes and dental groups have all been studied after private equity or management-company involvement, and together they show a consistent pattern worth knowing before any concierge practice signs.
How these figures were selected: each tile reports a single finding from a peer-reviewed or government-grade source, verified against the original publication or its journal page. Company-reported figures are excluded. Findings come from different settings and are not directly comparable.
Physician satisfaction
Physicians. In a 2023 survey of 525 physicians published in JAMA Internal Medicine, those employed by PE-acquired entities were far less likely to report high professional satisfaction (44.8% vs. 74.4%) or high autonomy (48.3% vs. 66.3%), and far less likely to expect to stay with their employer (44.8% vs. 77.8%). Only about 10% of all respondents viewed PE in health care positively. The PE-employed group was small (29 physicians), so the results are directional.18 Turnover data point the same way: physician turnover rose 265% after PE acquisition in ophthalmology, and physicians were 16.5 percentage points more likely to leave within two years of a PE exit.16,11
Dentists. Dentistry adopted the management-company model earlier than medicine. By 2022, 13% of U.S. dentists were affiliated with a dental service organization, including 27% of dentists five or fewer years out of school.19 An ADA Health Policy Institute analysis found dentists in management-organization-affiliated group practices were more satisfied with their hours and spent less time on non-clinical work, but earned about $15,000 less, were 35% less likely to say they would choose dentistry again, 40% less likely to say their practice matched what they envisioned, and 62% more likely to report feeling emotionally drained.20
Patient satisfaction and outcomes
Hospitals. The most rigorous patient-experience study of PE ownership, published in JAMA, compared 73 PE-acquired hospitals with 293 matched hospitals. Top-box ratings at acquired hospitals stayed flat (65.0% to 65.2%) while matched hospitals improved (66.2% to 69.2%), and willingness to recommend fell at acquired hospitals (66.9% to 65.5%) while rising elsewhere. Staff responsiveness also declined.17
Nursing homes. A study of more than 7 million Medicare patients found that PE ownership of nursing homes was associated with a 10% increase in short-term mortality, alongside reduced frontline staffing and patient mobility.21 This is an outcome measure rather than satisfaction, and nursing homes differ greatly from concierge practices, but it shows what can happen when staffing is the lever used to improve returns.
Physician practices. Studies of PE-acquired dermatology, gastroenterology and ophthalmology practices found higher spending and utilization and more visits billed as longer than 30 minutes, but did not measure patient satisfaction directly.7 For patients, the most visible effect is often turnover: when a physician leaves, the relationship ends.16
Concierge networks. No independently verified patient satisfaction data were located for any concierge network or MSO. The strongest third-party outcome evidence is a peer-reviewed study of MDVIP, a large PE-owned affiliation network, published in the American Journal of Managed Care. Among Medicare members with diabetes, enrollment was associated with 10% fewer unplanned admissions and fewer emergency visits, with no significant difference in total Medicare spending over five years. The study was funded by the company, and one author is its chief medical officer, as disclosed in the article.2,1 In that model, physicians keep limited-panel practices of their own.1
Across every setting studied, satisfaction held up where clinicians kept control of their time and patients kept their clinician. It slipped where staffing and throughput became the levers.CMT synthesis of the evidence in this section
Does efficiency erase the handwriting?
CMT's working hypothesis is that concierge medicine's value lives in the handwriting, the personal, unscripted attention of a physician who knows the patient, and that partnerships built for efficiency risk replacing it with printed verse. Tested against the evidence, the hypothesis holds in part.
Where it holds. The mechanisms that break relationships are well documented: physician turnover after acquisition and after PE exits, reduced physician autonomy, and pressure on spending and throughput.16,11,15,7 In hospitals, where standardized measurement exists, patient experience lagged after PE acquisition.17 Every departing physician is a relationship that ends.
Where it needs refinement. MDVIP, a PE-owned concierge network for more than a decade, has peer-reviewed evidence of fewer unplanned admissions and emergency visits among members with diabetes.2,1 In that affiliation model, the physician remains in his or her own practice with a limited panel. The network supplies the card stock; the physician still writes the message. The evidence suggests the relevant question is not whether an MSO is involved, but who controls panel size, visit length, physician tenure and pricing.
Patients do not remember the brochure. They remember the physician who called them back on a Sunday.Michael Tetreault, Editor-in-Chief, Concierge Medicine Today
| The card stock: can be shared or scaled | The handwriting: must stay with the physician |
|---|---|
| Billing, payroll, accounting | Panel size and the decision to cap it |
| EHR, IT, cybersecurity | Visit length and scheduling philosophy |
| Compliance and legal infrastructure | Independent clinical judgment, including testing and prescribing |
| Marketing and patient acquisition | Direct physician access and personal follow-up |
| Purchasing, labs, facilities | Continuity: the same physician, year after year |
| Recruiting and succession planning | Honest pricing and the member relationship itself |
How this scorecard was built
This framework is an editorial synthesis, not a measurement. It was built by grouping the operational functions that the cited studies and law-firm analyses describe MSOs as providing (left column) and the factors the cited research associates with relationship continuity and physician autonomy (right column): physician turnover, autonomy, panel size and staffing.
Important disclaimers
The framework reflects CMT's editorial judgment and is intended as a discussion tool for physicians. It is not a legal standard; corporate practice of medicine rules vary by state and require review by qualified counsel.
CMT's perspective on MSOs in concierge medicine
Concierge Medicine Today is an independent publication. It does not review, rate, endorse or advise on any MSO, network or transaction. The perspective below is editorial thought leadership about the direction of the industry, drawn from the evidence in this brief.
1. MSOs are a legitimate and growing part of the market. Physicians choose MSO partnerships for liquidity, operational support or belonging, and those motivations are understandable. The evidence does not support treating every partnership as the same kind of outcome.
2. The relationship is the product. Concierge medicine exists because patients pay for time, access and continuity with a physician who knows them. When any business model trades those for throughput, what the patient receives changes, even if the brand stays the same.
3. Control appears to matter more than capital. Across the research reviewed here, outcomes for physicians and patients track most closely with who controls panel size, visit length, physician tenure and clinical judgment, rather than with the presence of outside capital alone.
4. Transparency builds trust. Membership medicine depends on trust, and clear communication with members about who owns or manages a practice is consistent with that foundation.
5. More evidence would help everyone. Independent, published data on member retention, satisfaction and physician tenure before and after partnerships would give physicians and patients a clearer picture than is available today.
6. The conversation belongs in the open. Consistent with the Concierge Medicine Forum's educational standards, MSO and investor perspectives are part of the industry conversation on corporate practice of medicine, independent medical judgment and sustainable scale, as one perspective among many and never as sales presentations.
Scale can buy better systems. It cannot buy trust. That still has to be earned one patient at a time.Michael Tetreault, Editor-in-Chief, Concierge Medicine Today
From the Editor-in-Chief. I read this research as an editor and as a concierge patient. What I value most as a patient is the note only my physician can write: being remembered, getting the call back, having time. National platforms bring real resources to physicians. My concern, and the reason for this brief, is whether efficiency at scale will slowly standardize the part of this care that cannot be standardized. The answer will depend on the choices physicians and their partners make, and CMT will keep reporting on those choices. This concern is about the industry as a whole; it is not a finding about the care provided by any organization named in this brief.
Questions the research raises
The studies reviewed here point to recurring questions across the industry: who sets panel size and visit length after a transaction, how membership pricing is governed, what happens when an investor exits, how independent clinical judgment is protected, how patients are informed, and what non-compete and exit terms apply. These are open industry questions, not a checklist or advice. Any physician considering a specific arrangement works with qualified legal and financial advisors.
Where the market is headed
The trendlines point toward continued consolidation: rising corporate ownership across medicine, rapid growth of corporate-affiliated concierge practices, and new national platforms entering the concierge space.8,9 Regulation is moving in the opposite direction in some states.3 The likely result is a split market: scaled networks serving patients who value brand, breadth and services, and independent or lightly affiliated practices competing on the one thing scale cannot easily reproduce, the handwriting.
CMT's role is not to pick winners among business models. It is to help physicians and patients see clearly what each one changes.Michael Tetreault, Editor-in-Chief, Concierge Medicine Today
How this brief was prepared
Design
Structured evidence review of physician employment data, peer-reviewed studies of private equity in physician practices, hospitals and nursing homes, physician and dentist satisfaction surveys, concierge-specific cost and outcome studies, public company and network materials, state law analyses from national health law firms, and a structured interview with a healthcare attorney who advises membership medicine practices. Searches were conducted September 29, 2026.
Source classification
Findings are labeled as peer-reviewed independent, peer-reviewed with disclosed company funding, professional society, government or subscription database, or industry publication. Company-reported satisfaction data, press releases and marketing claims were excluded because they could not be verified by an independent third party.
Interview (CMT reporting, not a cited source)
The attorney interview reflects one practitioner's professional views, paraphrased from the Editor-in-Chief's notes and attributed anonymously at the source's discretion. Because it is original CMT reporting rather than a third-party publication, it carries no citation number and is used only for professional opinion, never for statistics or claims about any organization. Interpretations of buyer motives are presented as opinion, not established fact.
Limitations
No public dataset identifies concierge practices by MSO status, so practice demographics are inferred from published partner lists and adjacent studies. The strongest patient experience evidence comes from hospitals, not concierge practices. Concierge and DPC practices are combined in the Zhu et al. data. Private company financial data, including reported capital raised, come from subscription databases and may be incomplete. Organizations are named only to illustrate publicly described business models, using their own published materials or independent reporting. Inclusion is not an evaluation of any organization's quality of care.
Company and organization references
Organizations are named only to illustrate publicly described business models. Each factual statement about a named organization is drawn from the third-party or published source cited beside it: news reporting (KFF Health News), transaction announcements, a subscription company database (PitchBook), an industry publication (NextMD) or published research. Company-reported survey results are excluded. Financial figures listed in PitchBook are presented as reported by that database. No statement in this brief is an evaluation of any organization's quality of care, and no individual executive or investor is characterized. Any named organization is invited to submit corrections or additional information, which CMT will review and publish where appropriate.
Editor-in-Chief quotations
Pull quotes attributed to Michael Tetreault reflect his editorial opinion on industry direction. They are opinion, not findings, and do not refer to any specific organization.
Research support
Literature searches for this brief were supported by AI-assisted research tools. Every statistic is tied to the cited source, and derived figures are labeled. Concierge Medicine Today does not accept vendor sponsorship in exchange for coverage.
Disclaimer
This research brief is published by Concierge Medicine Today, LLC for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute medical, legal, financial, tax or accounting advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Scope-of-practice rules, corporate practice of medicine doctrines, title-disclosure requirements, Medicare participation and concierge fee arrangements, and consumer-protection rules for membership agreements vary by state and jurisdiction and change frequently. Consult qualified legal, regulatory and financial professionals before making practice decisions.
Concierge Medicine Today is an independent leadership publication and industry convener. It does not endorse any practice model, company or vendor, and it does not disparage other models of care or other professions. References to organizations are informational and do not imply endorsement by or of those organizations.
Statistics are reported as published by the cited sources. Where CMT has derived, rounded or inferred a figure, the brief says so. Readers should consult original sources before citing any figure. Corrections are made openly: if you identify an error, contact the editors and it will be acknowledged and corrected.
© 2026 Concierge Medicine Today, LLC. All rights reserved.
References
- Morefield B, Tomai L, Slanchev V, Klemes A. Payer effects of personalized preventive care for patients with diabetes. American Journal of Managed Care. 2020;26(3):e70-e75. doi:10.37765/ajmc.2020.42638. Funding and disclosures as stated in the article: funded by MDVIP; one author is MDVIP's chief medical officer. ajmc.com
- Galewitz P. Hospitals cash in on a private equity-backed trend: concierge physician care. KFF Health News. April 1, 2024. kffhealthnews.org
- Hall Render. Oregon targets private equity-backed management services organizations through expansive corporate practice of medicine bill (SB 951). July 1, 2025. hallrender.com; Maynard Nexsen, June 23, 2025 maynardnexsen.com
- The Middle Market. Goldman Sachs and Charlesbank buy majority stake in MDVIP. 2021. themiddlemarket.com; Simpson Thacher and Bartlett, transaction announcement, August 19, 2021 stblaw.com
- PitchBook (third-party company database). LifeSpanMD 2026 company profile: founded 2022; headquartered in Naples, FL; provider of back-office support services to physician partners; $490 million raised. Accessed September 29, 2026. pitchbook.com
- NextMD (independent industry publication). The growth of private equity in concierge medicine. July 4, 2026. nextmd.ai
- Singh Y, Song Z, Polsky D, Bruch JD, Zhu JM. Association of private equity acquisition of physician practices with changes in health care spending and utilization. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(9):e222886. PMC9440392
- Avalere Health for the Physicians Advocacy Institute. Physician employment and practice acquisition trends, 2018 to 2026. As reported by the Indiana State Medical Association, September 2026, ismanet.org, and HealthExec, healthexec.com
- Zhu JM, et al. Growth in number of practices and clinicians participating in concierge and direct primary care, 2018 to 2023. Health Affairs. December 2025. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2025.00656. healthaffairs.org; PubMed
- The Lund Report. Corporations are moving fast into direct care and concierge medicine. thelundreport.org
- Berquist V, et al. Sale of private equity-owned physician practices and physician turnover. JAMA Health Forum. 2025. PMC11829224
- Candon M, David G, Leive A. Concierge medicine study, Journal of Health Economics (2023), as summarized by the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania. ldi.upenn.edu
- Rossheim J. The concierge catch: better access for a few patients disrupts care for many. KFF Health News. July 1, 2024. kffhealthnews.org
- American Medical Association. Physician burnout rate continues to decline, falling to nearly 42%. April 16, 2026. ama-assn.org. Coverage: Fierce Healthcare, April 21, 2026. fiercehealthcare.com
- Medical Economics. Short-term profits or long-term health? ACP sounds warning on private equity in health care. May 26, 2026. medicaleconomics.com
- Physician turnover increased in private equity-acquired physician practices. Health Affairs. March 2025. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2024.00974. doi.org
- Bhatla A, Bartlett VL, Liu M, Zheng Z, Wadhera RK. Changes in patient care experience after private equity acquisition of US hospitals. JAMA. Published online January 9, 2025. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.23450. Summary: ajmc.com
- Zhu JM, Zeveney A, Read S, Crowley R. Physician perspectives on private equity investment in health care. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2024;184(5):579-580. PMC10928537; figures as reported by Becker's Hospital Review beckershospitalreview.com and TCTMD tctmd.com
- ADA News. Practice modality by the numbers (ADA Health Policy Institute data). 2024. adanews.ada.org
- American Dental Association Health Policy Institute. Job satisfaction among dentists varies by type of large group practice setting (research brief). August 2015. As reported by DrBicuspid drbicuspid.com
- Gupta A, Howell ST, Yannelis C, Gupta A. Owner incentives and performance in healthcare: private equity investment in nursing homes. Review of Financial Studies. 2024;37(4):1029-1077. Summary: NBER Digest nber.org; Chicago Booth Review chicagobooth.edu