Kamer wants to prohibit commercial investors in healthcare, but Minister Agema continues to refuse

Forbid private equity parties in healthcare, the House of Representatives asked three times. No, the Minister of Health said. Then make a step -by -step plan to keep investors like that in the long term, the Chamber asked. No, the minister said again.

With that stalemate, an agitated House of Representatives debated this Wednesday for the umpteenth time with Minister Fleur Agema (Zorg, PVV) about the role of these commercial investors in healthcare. « The House of Representatives speaks her care time and time again, but the minister ignores all the motions, » said her annoyed party colleague René Claassen – who also wants a ban. He had few expectations of the debate: « I don’t think the minister suddenly says: » We’ll arrange that tomorrow.  » The SP did not mention the motions « no way of working. Then the minister might as well go, then we do it ourselves. » The CDA complained that « this minister will continue to slow down. »

If you remove all private equity, how do you keep up the care offer?

For a long time there has been a lot of resistance to private equity (where a fund often takes over a company with borrowed money) in healthcare, but after the problems with the Commercial General Practice Co-Med, that discussion has only become more intense. Co-Med started buying practices in 2020, was then constantly discredited, fell into financial problems and went finally bankrupt in 2024. The company has thus grown into the mooring image of private equity in healthcare.

Falling healthcare institutions

But the government is against prohibiting commercial investors in healthcare. « A ban is not the solution, » Agema told the Chamber again. « Private equity is not the devil. » In the outline agreement and The Coalition Agreement Isn’t there any letter about that. In a letter to the room written Agema in March that prohibiting « is legally very vulnerable with major financial risks for the government. » In addition, healthcare institutions, with longer waiting lists, fall over. Healthcare providers are more often dependent on money from investors because they do not get that from banks, which have started to set stricter requirements in recent years. According to Agema, commercial investors also ensure innovation and innovation, something that is desperately needed to prevent the growing staff shortage. Furthermore, the definition is difficult: what exactly is and what is not under private equity?

Previously appeared a report Van EY Consulting stating that there are no ‘demonstrable differences’ in affordability, accessibility and quality between care providers in the hands of private equity and other care providers – although the researchers emphasize that there are little data available. The size of private equity in healthcare is also unclear.

Agema’s reasoning is comparable to that of her predecessor, former minister Conny Helder (VVD), who also saw nothing in a ban. Helder said a year ago in a debate that « curbing private equity is not good for healthcare. »

Wash out

Agema wants to « tackle excesses » by « putting pole and perk to healthcare providers who are only out of it to benefit from it financially, » she writes in her letter of Parliament. For example, she refers to the Healthcare and Youth Assistance Providers (WIBZ) Integer Operations Act, which was sent to the Chamber at the beginning of this year. An important point in this is the setting of additional conditions for paying out profit by healthcare institutions. Agema also wants the Dutch Healthcare Authority to better test mergers and there must be more insight into healthcare profits. « For example, healthcare becomes less attractive for graaiers, » said Agema on Wednesday during the debate. « It’s about parties with wrong intentions. »

But the room finds that all too little. « A very meager list, » said Julian Bushoff (GroenLinks-PvdA). His conclusion: « Time and again we have to correct the minister, but unfortunately the minister cannot be corrected. » And so the room wants to do it now. One party after the other came up with proposals to curb private equity. For example, the SP came up with the idea of ​​providing directors legally liable for damage and the party quickly wants a ban on new acquisitions. GroenLinks-PvdA and NSC already came up with an initiative bill last year to allow the Consumer and Market Authority to intervene faster with small acquisitions, such as a general practitioner or dental practice. Furthermore, parties are working on amendments to adjust the WIBZ Act to be treated. Claassen: « It must be firmer and stronger. Then it has to be done that way, although it does not deserve the beauty prize. »

A minority of the Chamber, especially VVD and BBB but also NSC, find the calls to go too far. According to BBB, many healthcare providers are financed through private equity: « That is very normal and that is often no different. » NSC MP Daniëlle Jansen called it unwise to « just take bite from the care without having alternatives. » She said she « wanted to reduce » private equity, but not wanting to forbid. « If you remove all private equity, how do you keep up the care offer? »

To share

Mail the editors