The killing of UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson last December shocked the country. Yet the public reaction revealed something unsettling: a growing sentiment among some Americans that entire sectors of the economy are not merely flawed or in need of reform, but fundamentally villainous. In some corners, anger at the healthcare system had become so intense that the killing was met with indifference, sympathy—even celebration.
Those impulses are increasingly finding their way into public policy.
The proposed Corporate Crimes Against Health Care Act would impose criminal penalties on private equity investors and executives that ”contribute to a triggering event that results in the injury or death of a patient under the care of an acquired healthcare organization.”
What’s a triggering event, you ask? The bill defines the terms specifically: “A triggering event occurs if the acquired health care organization closes; is behind on rent payments for more than 90 days; defaults on a loan for more than 90 days; or is behind, at any time, on salary payments beyond specified limits.”
Essentially, if the acquired org experiences financial distress prior to the injury or death, the execs and investors could be criminally charged.
Supporters argue that financial decisions made in corporate boardrooms can have life-or-death consequences in the doctor's office. And it is true: Health outcomes matter. But the leap from that concern to criminal liability for investors represents a dangerous departure from basic principles of law, economics and causation.
The scapegoat theory of politics has become all too popular in American politics. Rather than wrestling with complex social problems, responsibility is quickly assigned to certain corporations or demographics to push simplistic, feel-good policies. For some political groups, the financial sector has become one of these scapegoats, constantly accused of increasing prices—from housing to groceries.
Recommended
But before assigning criminal blame, it is worth understanding what private equity firms actually do.
Private equity firms exist to allocate capital. Like banks, pension funds, venture capital firms, and public shareholders, they make financial decisions in pursuit of returns for investors. They can make good decisions and bad ones. They can help businesses grow, restructure failing organizations, or misjudge markets altogether. But they are not physicians, nurses, hospital administrators, or health department regulators. They are participants in a financial system that supports the operation of thousands of businesses across the economy, oftentimes including healthcare providers.
None of America's existing problems with healthcare costs or treatment outcomes are solely the fault of private equity. Firms such as BlackRock, KKR, and others make financial decisions that provide capital to private companies and, in some cases, help struggling businesses avoid collapse. They operate as for-profit enterprises seeking returns for investors while supplying the resources businesses need to function.
Critics of private equity often point to instances where healthcare providers have struggled financially after an acquisition. Some argue that certain firms have prioritized returns over patient care, and those concerns deserve scrutiny. But scrutiny is not the same thing as criminal liability. The question is not whether every investment decision is wise or whether every healthcare acquisition succeeds. The question is whether investors should be treated as criminals when adverse patient outcomes occur in institutions they do not directly operate and patients they have never met.
The side effects of establishing such liability law would be decreased investment in the health sector altogether. By making the healthcare industry even more risky to partake in, with potential run-ins with criminal law, investors will avoid the market like the plague. This would make healthcare in America more expensive, less accessible, and slow advancements in life-saving medicines and procedures.
The arguments made for legislation like this reflect a growing tendency to shift blame toward broader systems, institutions, or categories of people deemed politically unpopular. It’s the same rhetoric that fueled “white guilt” messages in the Black Lives Matter movement or long-standing justifications for affirmative action. Rather than focus on the specific actions of individuals in certain scenarios, this mindset seeks a more convenient villain.
Yet reality remains stubborn. Medical treatment is imperfect. Doctors and scientists are human. Even the best healthcare systems at times see tragic outcomes. The American healthcare system, for all its flaws, saves millions of lives, supports extraordinary innovation, and continues to improve human health. It deserves reform where reform is needed, but it should not become a vehicle for political scapegoating.
America’s booming healthcare system is only possible because of the economic system that underpins it. Access to capital supports every hospital, health insurer, pharmacy, mobile clinic and biotech startup in the country. Private equity is one part of that ecosystem. Deeming investors the enemy will not make healthcare more affordable, improve patient outcomes, or strengthen medical care. It will only make it harder to attract the capital that healthcare providers depend on to serve patients in the first place.
Sam Raus is the David Boaz Resident Writing Fellow at Young Voices. Follow him on X: @SamRaus1.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member