Private equity firms acquired more than 500 autism centers in past decade: study

Private equity in autism and healthcare

• Many commenters see private equity (PE) in healthcare as an especially stark case of capitalism extracting profit from vulnerable people, with autism centers now added to a list that already includes hospitals, nursing homes, dialysis clinics, and vets.
• Several cite research suggesting PE-owned hospitals and nursing homes have worse outcomes, describing a pattern: initial assurances of “no changes,” followed by staff cuts, supply reductions, aggressive cost controls, and eventual collapse while owners exit with profits.
• A minority note that private investment can, in principle, expand access and improve operations, but argue the current incentive structure overwhelmingly favors financial extraction.

Profit, incentives, and fraud

• One thread asks why healthcare “has to be profitable” at all, arguing that basics like health, housing, and utilities should be shielded from profit motives so people can spend on non-essentials.
• Others counter that providers need some incentive to offer services, but acknowledge the current system often disconnects revenue from patient outcomes.
• PE is seen as gravitating to areas with guaranteed or generous public payment (Medicaid, Medicare, disability schemes) where oversight is weak, enabling upcoding and overbilling. Autism services, home care, and dialysis are cited as prime examples.

Autism prevalence and framing

• There is debate over whether autism is being overdiagnosed for profit versus better-recognized due to improved diagnostics and reduced stigma.
• Some argue autism is very common and better seen as a personality or neurotype for many; others push back that for many people it is a profound disability with extremely high unemployment and suicide rates, and that lumping all presentations together is misleading.
• Environmental/endocrine disruption is raised as a causal theory; others point to strong criticism of that research and reject conspiratorial framings.

Regulation, ownership models, and the role of government

• Suggestions include: banning PE from patient-facing care, requiring B Corp structures with board seats for clinicians and patients, capping leverage and dividends, and providing public lenders of last resort.
• Alternatives proposed: physician-owned practices, local government or community ownership, co-ops, and robust public options.
• There is extensive argument over whether government is better or worse than PE, with examples offered from US Veterans Affairs, Canada, Scandinavia, and the UK; many conclude outcomes depend more on political will, regulation, and protection from sabotage than on ownership label alone.

Personal experiences and broader PE “enshittification”

• Parents of autistic children describe long waitlists, low-paid therapists with high turnover, opaque billing, and a sense that centers prioritize reimbursement over care. Similar stories appear around elder care and mental health.
• Commenters list sectors in their cities degraded after PE rollups: veterinary, dental, optometry, urgent care, storage, and even local water utilities, often with sharp price hikes and worse service.
• Several wish for a public database or consumer tools to identify PE-owned providers so patients can avoid them, linking everyday interactions with PE-run services to a broader erosion of trust and “social contract.”