[2010.07.22]The war of the wards 病房之争

Kislover

Hospital mergers  医院兼并

The war of the wards  病房之争

Investors are eyeing up hospitals around the world
投资者在全球寻找投资医院的机会
Jul 22nd 2010 | NEW YORK

AT FIRST glance, hospitals seem an unattractive business. They are heavily regulated and often run by governments or charities. Doctors wield immense power. Patients have high and rising expectations. Rapid advances in medical technology drive costs relentlessly upwards even as governments try harder to restrain spending on health.

乍看之下, 医院并不那么诱人。它们管制很严, 大多数情况下是由政府或慈善机构运营。医生们大权独揽。病人们期望颇高，且仍在不断上升。即使政府努力遏制医疗开支, 但飞速发展的医疗技术还是推动看病成本无情的上升。

And yet, consider the flurry of deals of late. On July 19th TPG and the Carlyle Group, two American private-equity firms, won a takeover battle for Healthscope, an Australian hospital chain, with a bid of $1.7 billion. In doing so, they edged out a bid by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR), another big American private-equity firm. Healthscope is Australia’s second-biggest private hospital firm, but it also has operations in New Zealand and south-east Asia.

然而,回顾一下最近激烈的竞争。7月19号, 两家美国私募股权投资公司TPG和Carlyle集团, 出价17亿美元, 在对澳大利亚连锁医院Healthscope的控制权之争中胜出。它们成功的挤掉了另一家美国私募股权投资公司KKR的竞价。Healthscope是澳大利亚第二大民营医院, 在新西兰和东南亚也开展业务。

Another battle is brewing in Singapore. In March TPG sold its minority stake in Parkway Holdings, a chain operating 16 hospitals in half a dozen Asian countries, for $685m. The buyer was Fortis Healthcare, an ambitious Indian chain. This upset Khazanah, a Malaysian sovereign-wealth fund that already held a minority stake. In May it made an offer of roughly $835m for a majority stake. On July 1st Fortis put in a bid for all outstanding shares, worth perhaps $2.3 billion. A final verdict is expected by the end of this month.

新加坡的另一场大战也在酝酿之中。3月份, TPG以6亿8千5百万美元的价格，出售了它持有的Parkway Holdings股份, Parkway Holdings在亚洲6个国家开设了16家医院。买家则是野心勃勃的印度医院连锁 Fortis Healthcare。已持有少数股份的马来西亚主权基金 Khazanah对此大伤脑筋。它在5月份为了获得控股权,出价8亿3千5百万美元。Fortis在7月1号则提出用价值23亿美元收购所有未偿付股份。本月末将有望揭晓最终答案。

All this comes on the heels of several big hospital deals in America. In June Vanguard Health Systems, which is owned by the Blackstone Group, a big private-equity outfit, completed its acquisition of the Detroit Medical Centre’s hospitals for $417m. In March Cerberus Capital Management announced its $830m acquisition of Caritas Christi, a non-profit chain of hospitals based in Boston.

所有这些，都是由美国的几起医院大并购而引发。大型私募股权投资机构黑石集团管理的 Vanguard Health Systems在6月份出价4亿1千7百万并购了底特律医疗中心。Cerberus 资本管理三3月份宣布以8亿3千万美元的价格收购了总部波士顿的非盈利医院连锁 Caritas Christi。

Two big trends, one global and one local, explain this frenzy—and suggest that more deals are to come. The global trend is that demand for high-quality health care is exploding, as rich countries age and developing countries grow more affluent. The rub, notes Gary Ahlquist of Booz & Company, a consultancy, is that the supply of top-notch hospitals is rising only slowly.

国内和国际两大趋势不仅解释了这种疯狂的举动，而且表明将会有更多的交易发生。国际趋势是由于发达国家老龄化和发展中国家越来越富裕，高质量医疗服务方面的需求激增。咨询公司 Booz & Company的 Gary Ahlquist表示，矛盾的根源在于高档医院的增加速度极其缓慢。

This mismatch has set off a scramble by investors for high-end hospitals both to cater to local demand and to meet the boom in medical tourism—an area in which Parkway was a global pioneer. Rana Mehta of Technopak, an Indian health consultancy, agrees. He believes that Fortis, which was started in 2001 by the billionaire brothers behind Ranbaxy, an Indian generics firm, requires a strong brand to help it expand internationally.

医疗供需之间的矛盾引发了投资者对高端医疗服务的哄抢，此举不仅为了满足本地的需求，而且满足日益增加的医疗旅游的需求，Parkway正是医疗旅游领域的先行者。印度健康咨询公司Technopak的Rana Mehta也认可这一观点。他认为：仿制药品公司Ranbaxy背后亿万身家的兄弟，在2001年创建了Fortis，也需要一个著名的品牌进行国际化。

The local explanation for the American firms’ investments in hospitals is Obamacare. America’s new health laws will reduce payments to hospitals while forcing them to invest in expensive information-technology systems, thereby squeezing margins. John Nelson of Moody’s, a ratings agency, argues that these reforms will favour large, efficient providers. He expects more takeovers of weak non-profit hospitals by for-profit chains.

美国公司投资医院的国内原因在于“奥巴马关怀”。美国最新的健康法将减少对医院的补贴，转而迫使它们投资在价值不菲的IT系统上，这就挤占很大一部分利润。评级公司 Moody的 John Nelson认为：这一系列的改革将有利于大型高效的设备提供商。他相信将会有盈利连锁医院对小型非盈利性医院更多的收购。

Many firms will struggle to cope with the trend towards greater technical and regulatory complexity, reckons Mr Nelson. Poorly-managed ones will fail and be swallowed. Investors who make hospitals more efficient, by contrast, will be handsomely rewarded. HCA, a big American hospital chain that was taken private in 2006, paid a dividend in January of $1.75 billion to its investors (chief among them KKR and Bain Capital, another private-equity firm).

Nelson认为：先进技术和复杂管制的趋势，将会使很多公司疲于应付。管理较差的公司将被淘汰和吞并。反而是更擅于管理医院的投资者将会获利颇丰。2006年被私募收购的美国医院连锁HCA，在1月份向它的投资者分红17.5亿美元（主要的投资者是KKR，贝恩资本和其它 的一些私募公司）。

Still, as Obamacare’s reforms bite into domestic margins, returns are likely to diminish and American investors may again head overseas in search of healthier markets. Mr Mehta thinks Africa will be the next frontier. But as the Parkway saga demonstrates, the Yankee raiders will increasingly have to compete with well-financed local rivals.

由于“奥巴马关怀”的改革蚕食了国内利润，回报极有可能下滑。美国投资者们又一次将目光投向海外，以寻求更加健康的市场。Mehta先生认为非洲或许是下一个目标。但正如Parkway事件表明的那样，美国投资者们不得不逐渐面对资金雄厚的本土企业的竞争。

lynn_1011

but it also has operations in New Zealand and south-east Asia.
operation 这里 是“公司”会不会比较好？

lynn_1011

an Indian generics firm,
仿制药品公司？
generic  adj 属的; 类的; 一般的:
是否应该译成：印度一家普通公司？

pianollilu

Hospital mergers  医院兼并

The war of the wards  病房之争

Investors are eyeing up hospitals around the world
投资者在全球寻找投资医院的机会
Jul 22nd 2010 | NEW YORK

AT FIRST glance, hospitals seem an unattractive business. They are heavily regulated and often run by governments or charities. Doctors wield immense power【1】. Patients have high and rising expectations【2】. Rapid advances in medical technology drive costs relentlessly upwards even as governments try harder to restrain spending on health.

乍看之下, 医院并不那么诱人。它们管制很严, 大多数情况下是由政府或慈善机构运营。医生们无所不能。病人们对其抱有很高的期望，这种期望还在不断的增加。即使政府努力遏制医疗开支, 但飞速发展的医疗技术还是推动看病成本无情的上升。

Doctors wield immense power【1】
=====================================================
我觉得这句话还是有商榷的地方，提出来希望讨论下。因为首括句已经说明，经营医院不是那么诱人，下面的实例应该是用来证明“医院并不那么诱人”。而这句话翻译成“医生们无所不能”在读者看了会理解为：“医生医术高超”，但是我在这里理解的是：“医生独揽大权”，或者是“医生大权在握”，这样才说明“医院不是那么诱人”。

Patients have high and rising expectations【2】
====================================================
承接第【1】点，“病人们对其抱有很高的期望”您翻译中的“其”是指代谁？是不是指代“医生”。其实我也很难分辨到底是对谁的期待，但是这里起码有两个对象：一个是医院，一个是医生。在这里提出来，希望咱们参考参考。另外对于这句话我有个更加简洁的翻译，请付正：“病人不断上升的高期望值。”也许我的这个翻译有点生硬了，太呆板了。

And yet, consider the flurry of deals of late【3】. On July 19th TPG and the Carlyle Group, two American private-equity firms, won a takeover battle for Healthscope, an Australian hospital chain, with a bid of $1.7 billion. In doing so, they edged out a bid by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR), another big American private-equity firm. Healthscope is Australia’s second-biggest private hospital firm, but it also has operations in New Zealand and south-east Asia.
但回顾一下最近混乱的局面。7月19号, 两家美国私募股权投资公司TPG和Carlyle集团, 出价17亿美元, 在对澳大利亚连锁医院Healthscope的控制权之争中胜出。为此, 它们成功的挤掉了另一家美国私募股权投资公司KKR的竞价。Healthscope是澳大利亚第二大民营医院, 在新西兰和东南亚也开展业务。

And yet, consider the flurry of deals of late【3】
=====================================================
对于这句的理解，我是建立在第一段的基础上的，应该是和第一段形成对比，说明近期的情况。我的理解是：“然而，回顾一下近期激烈的交易（竞争）”。从下文我们能够看出，的确是两个公司的购买中胜出。

Another battle is brewing in Singapore. In March TPG sold its minority stake in Parkway Holdings, a chain operating 16 hospitals in half a dozen Asian countries, for $685m【5】. The buyer was Fortis Healthcare, an ambitious Indian chain. This upset Khazanah, a Malaysian sovereign-wealth fund that already held a minority stake【6】. In May it【7】 made an offer of roughly $835m for a majority stake. On July 1st Fortis put in a bid for all outstanding shares【8】, worth perhaps $2.3 billion. A final verdict is expected by the end of this month【9】.

发生新加坡的另一场大战也在酝酿之中。3月份, TPG以$685m的价格，出售了它持有的Parkway Holdings股份, Parkway Holdings在亚洲6个国家开设了16家医院。买家则是野心勃勃的印度医院连锁 Fortis Healthcare。虽然马来西亚主权基金 Khazanah已也持有了Parkway Holdings的少数股份，对这次交易还是大伤脑筋。它【7】在5月份为了获得控股权,出价$835m左右。Fortis在7月1号则出价值23亿美元收购所有未偿付股份。本月末将揭晓最终答案。

先给一段背景材料：
=DJ Khazanah出价35亿美元全盘收购Parkway，Fortis将退出竞购

【2010-07-26 09:07:00】　来源：财华社
      新加坡（道琼斯）--马来西亚主权财富基金Khazanah Holdings周一提出全面收购新加坡医疗保健集团Parkway Holdings Ltd. (P27.SG)，其竞购对手、印度的Fortis Healthcare Ltd. (532843.BY)将因此放弃竞购，向Khazanah出售其目前持有的Parkway Holdings股份。
     Khazanah透过其全资子公司Integrated Healthcare提出以每股3.95新元收购尚未持有的Parkway股份，交易金额35亿新元。
=====================================================
乍看这一段，似乎很难看出“一场大战”在哪里。原来出在了那个代词“它【7】”上。“它”是指Khazanah公司。这样就好理解开始下面的解释咯：
$685m【5】
=====================================================
建议还是将具体数额翻译出来，因为你后面也翻译了啊，不能搞歧视吧。

This upset Khazanah, a Malaysian sovereign-wealth fund that already held a minority stake【6】
=====================================================
这一句用“虽然”开头让读者很困惑，是不是为了和“大伤脑筋”相互对应？我提供一种译法，看看能不能好点：已持有少数股份的马来西亚主权基金 Khazanah对此大伤脑筋。

put in a bid for all outstanding shares【8】
=====================================================
7月1号Fortis只是提出要出价23亿美元收购，您的翻译似乎Fortis已经收购了。put in在这里是“正式提出，申请”是意思。对于这句话，我的理解是：“Fortis在7月1号则提出以23亿美元收购所有未持有的股份”

A final verdict is expected by the end of this month【9】
=====================================================
这句话我有点吹毛求疵了，但是还是希望您能够采纳一下。“本月末将揭晓最终答案。”其实没有什么的，但是我对“is expected”心存芥蒂.能不能将这句译为：“最终答案有望本月末揭晓”。因为国外人讲话不是那么绝对，如果按照您的翻译，似乎就是一个既定的事实，但是如果本月末没有揭晓怎么办呢？没有任何可靠依据说明本月末将揭晓最终答案，所以我觉得还是讲“is expected”译为“有望”好一点点。
这段说了好多，但是我不得不说，因为您翻译的文章已经被其他网站转载了，有很多人能够读到，精确精确再精确才能保证我们经济学人的品质。

All this comes on the heels of several big hospital deals in America. In June Vanguard Health Systems, which is owned by the Blackstone Group【10】, a big private-equity outfit, completed its acquisition of the Detroit Medical Centre’s hospitals for $417m. In March【12】Cerberus Capital Management announced its $830m acquisition of Caritas Christi, a non-profit chain of hospitals based in Boston【13】.

所有这些，都是由美国的几起医院大并购而引发。大型私募股权投资机构黑石管理的 Vanguard Health Systems在6月份出价$417m并购了 Detroit Medical Centre’s hospitals【11】。Cerberus 资本管理宣布以$830m的价格收购了波士顿非盈利医院连锁 Caritas Christi。

Blackstone Group【10】,
=====================================================
译成“黑石”不错，但是整个应该是：“黑石集团”，能不能给个不把“集团”译成的理由先？

Detroit Medical Centre’s hospitals【11】
=====================================================
这也太那个什么偷懒了吧？哈哈，请允许我笑一笑。是不是应该译成：“底特律医疗中心医院”

In March【12】
=====================================================
三月，漏译。

based in Boston【13】
=====================================================
是总部在波士顿，还是只在波士顿的连锁医院，还请斟酌。因为网上找不到资料，所以请您再考虑下。

Two big trends, one global and one loca【14】, explain this frenzy—and suggest that more deals are to come. The global trend is that demand for high-quality health care is exploding, as rich countries age and developing countries grow more affluent. The rub, notes Gary Ahlquist of Booz & Company, a consultancy, is that the supply of top-notch hospitals is rising only slowly.

国内和国际两大趋势不仅解释了这种疯狂的举动，而且表明将会有更多的交易发生。国际趋势是由于发达国家老龄化和发展中国家越来越富裕，高质量医疗服务方面的需求激增。咨询公司 Booz & Company的 Gary Ahlquist表示，矛盾的根源在于高档医院的增加速度极其缓慢。

one global and one loca【14】
=====================================================
这里可不可以翻译为：“全球化、本土化”

This mismatch has set off a scramble by investors for high-end hospitals both to cater to local demand and to meet the boom in medical tourism—an area in which Parkway was a global pioneer. Rana Mehta of Technopak, an Indian health consultancy, agrees. He believes that Fortis, which was started in 2001 by the billionaire brothers behind Ranbaxy, an Indian generics firm, requires a strong brand to help it expand internationally.

医疗供需之间的矛盾引发了投资者对高端医疗服务的哄抢，此举不仅为了满足本地的需求，而且满足日益增加的医疗旅游的需求，Parkway正是医疗旅游领域的先行者。印度健康咨询公司Technopak的Rana Mehta也认可这一观点。他认为：仿制药品公司Ranbaxy背后亿万身家的兄弟，在2001年创建了Fortis，也需要一个著名的品牌进行国际化。

The local explanation for the American firms’ investments in hospitals is Obamacare. America’s new health laws will reduce payments to hospitals while forcing them to invest in expensive information-technology systems, thereby squeezing margins. John Nelson of Moody’s, a ratings agency, argues that these reforms will favour large, efficient providers. He expects more takeovers of weak non-profit hospitals by for-profit chains.

美国公司投资医院的国内原因在于“奥巴马关怀”。美国最新的健康法将减少对医院的补贴，转而迫使它们投资在价值不菲的IT系统上，这就挤占很大一部分利润。评级公司 Moody的 John Nelson认为：这一系列的改革将有利于大型高效的设备提供商。他相信将会有盈利连锁医院对小型非盈利性医院更多的收购。

Many firms will struggle to cope with the trend towards greater technical and regulatory complexity, reckons Mr Nelson. Poorly-managed ones will fail and be swallowed. Investors who make hospitals more efficient, by contrast, will be handsomely rewarded. HCA, a big American hospital chain that was taken private in 2006, paid a dividend in January of $1.75 billion to its investors (chief among them KKR and Bain Capital, another private-equity firm).

Nelson认为：先进技术和复杂管制的趋势，将会使很多公司疲于应付。管理较差的公司将被淘汰和吞并。反而是更擅于管理医院的投资者将会获利颇丰。2006年被私募收购的美国医院连锁HCA，在1月份向它的投资者分红17.5亿美元（主要的投资者是KKR，贝恩资本和其它 的一些私募公司）。

Still, as Obamacare’s reforms bite into domestic margins, returns are likely to diminish and American investors may again head overseas in search of healthier markets. Mr Mehta thinks Africa will be the next frontier. But as the Parkway saga demonstrates, the Yankee raiders will increasingly have to compete with well-financed local rivals【15】.

由于“奥巴马关怀”的改革蚕食了国内利润，回报极有可能下滑。美国投资者们又一次将目光投向海外，以寻求更加健康的市场。Mehta先生认为非洲或许是下一个目标。但正如Parkway事件表明的那样，那些抢占市场的美国人，会发现竞争者也是来自美国的大鳄。

the Yankee raiders will increasingly have to compete with well-financed local rivals【15】
=====================================================
对于这句话我的理解是：“美国投资者们不得不逐渐面对资金雄厚的本土企业的竞争。”will,不译了，“逐渐”就能反映出将来的意思。local rivals是不是来自美国的，我觉得还是可以商榷的，参加Parkway事件的情况就知道到底是不是了。


这篇我说的话比较多，请见谅。百拜！

pianollilu

我在另外一篇文章上看到ObamaCare是译为“医疗新政”：
http://www.ecocn.org/forum.php?m ... 8489&highlight=

cloud5209394

the Yankee raiders will increasingly have to compete with well-financed local rivals【15】
=====================================================
对于这句话我的理解是：“美国投资者们不得不逐渐面对资金雄厚的本土企业的竞争。”will,不译了，“逐渐”就能反映出将来的意思。local rivals是不是来自美国的，我觉得还是可以商榷的，参加Parkway事件的情况就知道到底是不是了。


同意此观点！

Kislover

几天没过来了,谢谢各位点评......

马上认真看下..

Kislover

国内和国际两大趋势不仅解释了这种疯狂的举动，而且表明将会有更多的交易发生。国际趋势是由于发达国家老龄化和发展中国家越来越富裕，高质量医疗服务方面的需求激增。咨询公司 Booz & Company的 Gary Ahlquist表示，矛盾的根源在于高档医院的增加速度极其缓慢。

one global and one loca【14】
=====================================================
这里可不可以翻译为：“全球化、本土化”


个人感觉有两个原因导致这种局面:

一个是全球性的原因,但不一定是全球化,因为全球化更多的是要求医院在别的国家开展业务,虽然国际投资在一定程度上是全球化的结果,但后面的发达国家老龄化和发展中国家越来越有钱,用全球化来描述,有些不太合适

一个是本国内的原因,但不一定是本土化,后面更多的讲到了美国国内的一些新的情况,如果是美国资本收购本国的医院,个人认为算不出本土化,

以上只是个人观点,

pianollilu

回复 8# Kislover
同意您这个观点，我提的意见太字面意思了，每天继续深入考虑下文。不好意思。但是我细想一下，其实本土化也不一定不代表国内，国内也是本土。您觉得呢？

武林群侠传

大家有什么好看法 都说一下吧