Profitability and risk-return comparison across health care industries, evidence from publicly traded companies 2010–2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted the first profitability comparison study across health care industries in the United States, using the DuPont Analysis framework. The combination of Return on Equity (ROE) and ROE volatility was used to provide a comprehensive "risk-return" approach for profitability comparison. Based on the 2010-2019 financial disclosures of 1,231 publicly traded health care companies in the U.S. that reported positive assets and equity, we estimated the industry-specific fixed effects on ROE and its three components-profit margin, asset utilization, and financial leverage-for ten industries in the health care sector, classified by the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS). For each industry, we also estimated its fixed effects on ROE volatility. We found that the pharmaceuticals industry and biotechnology industry have lower ROE-mainly driven by their relatively low profit margin and low assets utilization-and higher ROE volatility than other health care industries. We also found that the health care facilities industry relies most on debt financing. This study demonstrates a holistic approach for profitability comparison across industries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".