These are tough times for American physicians. Costs are rising. So are administrative burdens stemming from government regulation. An aging population needs more medical help, yet the economics of healthcare make it harder to serve the most people at the highest level. For independent medical practices in particular, the path forward has never been rockier.
Unfortunately, instead of tackling the root causes of these challenges, many states are targeting physicians’ ability to partner with private equity for capital and support. At least 25 states are scrutinizing or restricting private equity investment in healthcare, with Vermont joining the list over the summer. The states fear that private equity harms physicians and the patients they treat. Yet it’s worth asking: What do physicians think, especially those with firsthand experience?
Health Management Associates, a leading healthcare consulting firm, asked this question in a new, first-of-its-kind survey. Their findings confound the narrative that private equity is harmful to medical practice. In fact, physicians with direct experience say the opposite. In every category surveyed, physicians reported more favorable outcomes—for their practices and patients—following private equity investment.
Health Management Associations conducted this survey in partnership with independent healthcare polling firm SERMO, capturing the views of physicians across 28 states. The physicians represented a mix of primary and specialty care providers. They were also divided between those who are backed by private equity and those who are not.
The survey found a stark contrast between physicians who have experience working with private equity and those who don’t. The latter expressed concerns that private investment results in reduced patient access, curtailed autonomy, staffing cuts, and limits to operational capacity. These fears reflect common, negative media narratives—but the rest of survey found they don’t reflect reality.
Physicians who have firsthand experience with private equity tell a much more positive story—a story grounded in their day-to-day interactions with patients.
First and foremost, a significant majority of these physicians saw direct benefits to their patients. About two-thirds reported that private investment improved patient access to care in their communities. They most often pointed to better care coordination, shorter wait times, and more efficient scheduling, so that patients could see their doctors sooner.
This makes sense. By reducing paperwork and backend burdens, private equity frees doctors to focus on what matters most: caring for their patients. A similar share of these physicians reported an improved ability to interact with patients—and even an improved ability to make independent clinical decisions.
Additionally, private equity investments increased the amount and types of care physician practices offer. The survey found that three-quarters of physicians have seen their practices add or expand medical services after receiving private equity investments. Some of the most cited examples were in the crucial areas of maternal health and behavioral health. Adding services in these areas helps address real and pressing medical needs in often strained, under resourced, and underserved communities.
What’s more, four-fifths of private equity-backed physicians reported improvements in operational capacity—i.e., the ability to serve more patients at a higher level. Physicians spoke of strengthened staffing, new facilities, and improved technology, such as telehealth capabilities and workflow options. On the hiring front, contrary to the oft-repeated fear of sizable staffing cuts, most physicians reported stable staffing levels and the expansion of both clinical and non-clinical staff, which is critical for maintaining patient access.
This last finding is supported by other research. In May 2026, health policy researchers from Brown University tracked primary care practices that had been acquired by private equity. To their surprise, they found these practices saw more patients, increased service lines, and hired more staff after they had been acquired.
None of this is to say that there won’t be occasional bad outcomes when private capital invests in healthcare. Investment always carries some amount of risk, and where bankruptcies, reduced services, or other undesirable outcomes occur, they can harm patients and communities. But this survey firmly paints these episodes—which tend to dominate headlines–as the exception. The rule, by contrast, is that private equity helps physicians and patients alike.
To date, the public debate over private equity in healthcare has been heavy on claims and light on facts, especially when it comes to the physicians who anchor the medical profession. Their perspective deserves greater attention and ought to play a bigger role in shaping policies regarding private equity in healthcare. It’s already hard enough for physicians to practice medicine. Before states make it even harder, they should at least consider what physicians say.
Jamal Hagler is Senior Vice President of Research at the American Investment Council.
