Newsletter: Industry Insights
“Industry Insights” is a bi-weekly email newsletter published by Cain Brothers, a division of KeyBanc Capital Markets. The newsletter features innovative and original perspectives about healthcare services, healthcare IT, and life sciences from our team of experienced investment bankers. Read the latest newsletter content below, and subscribe to start receiving the newsletter in your inbox.
Does More Healthcare Regulation Improve Health Outcomes?
Investment bankers are rarely advocates for increased regulation, especially statutes that complicate the ease or timing of completing transactions. More aggressive application of federal antitrust guidelines is frowned upon by bankers, and recently enacted state-level regulations such as the OHA in Oregon, OHCA in California, and the Cost and Market Review in Massachusetts have similarly not been well received by bankers. But do more intrusive regulations help create better health outcomes in the markets covered by those regulations, and are these improvements in outcomes greater than the costs of the regulation?
To look at this question with more objectivity, we assessed the 50 U.S. states’ healthcare regulatory intensity based on whether each state has:
- CON regulations
- AG regulatory oversight
- Transaction review statutes (e.g., OHCA (CA), OHA (OR), CMIR (MA))
- Price/cost review statutes
- Corporate practice of medicine regulations and limitations on private equity investment
- Financial transparency rules
- Licensing regulatory burden
Not surprisingly, states on the West Coast and in the Northeast are the most highly regulated, with California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Minnesota, and New Jersey ranking among the top 10 most highly regulated healthcare states. The most lightly regulated states, in rank order, are South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Alaska, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada.
To evaluate the relationship between state-level healthcare regulation and health outcomes, we selected the most comprehensive measure of health: the 2023 CDC WONDER study, which measured the number of potential years of life lost per 100,000 population by state. This study showed significant differences in potential years of life lost across states, with Massachusetts scoring the lowest (best) at 5,760 years lost per 100,000 population and Mississippi scoring the highest (worst) at 12,071 years lost per 100,000. In a 2016 JAMA article by Raj Chetty and a 2021 Mayo article by multiple authors, very strong positive correlations were found between potential years of life lost and four variables: smoking, adult obesity, lack of physical activity, and food insecurity. Similarly, these papers found strong negative correlations between levels of college education and household income and potential years of life lost – meaning that higher education and household income were strongly correlated with lower potential years of life lost.
Next, we assessed the correlation between more intensive state healthcare regulation and state life expectancy, as measured by years of potential life lost. We ran a regression analysis at the state level to evaluate the correlation between more regulation and health outcomes, as measured by potential years of life lost. The R2 was a surprisingly high 0.60, meaning that there was a strong correlation between higher regulation and better state-level health outcomes as measured by potential years of life lost. However, when the work of Raj Chetty and the Mayo authors is factored in, fully 97% of the differential in health outcomes between states is explained by levels of smoking, adult obesity, physical inactivity, food insecurity, college education, and household income in each state. The intensity of state-level healthcare regulation has no statistically significant impact on life expectancy, the most comprehensive measure of aggregate population health.
If the purpose of state healthcare regulation is to improve the health of state residents — as opposed to catering to strong political interests such as unions — then healthcare regulations should instead focus on greater transparency of cost and quality measures and redirect the remaining resources to addressing the most impactful social determinants of health: smoking, obesity, exercise, and food insecurity.
If state regulations focused on smoking, obesity, exercise, and food insecurity instead of regulations like those enumerated in the second paragraph above, we would have better-functioning healthcare markets, provide healthcare consumers with better information to make more informed decisions, and begin to narrow the gap between the healthiest communities and the least healthy communities. Lighter regulation would also encourage more innovation and freer capital formation — two important ingredients for promoting lower-cost healthcare with improved outcomes.
Archives
See our monthly industry insights below:




















