Foreword

This report examines executive risk in healthcare by analyzing the conditions across healthcare organizations that shape executive visibility, access, and risk.

This risk ecosystem is amplified by the inherent physical and operational realities of healthcare environments. Open campuses, high public accessibility, large workforces, and frequent interaction with individuals under stress create permissive conditions for access to senior leadership.

In many organizations, executive risk has historically been underestimated because the most consequential incidents are low-probability, high-impact events that occur infrequently and without clear precedent. This dynamic is further complicated by the fact that serious threat actors often do not communicate threats in advance.

Extended periods of normalcy and the absence of overt violence can distort organizational risk perception and often result in inadequate executive security measures.

The healthcare industry faces a complex and evolving ecosystem of risk affecting senior executives and administrators. This ecosystem is shaped by heightened public scrutiny, operational and financial pressures, and broader societal tensions that increasingly focus attention and blame on organizational leadership.

Recent high-profile incidents across the healthcare sector reinforce the reality that executive risk can no longer be assessed solely through historical experience or traditional security assumptions, particularly in environments where grievance, visibility, and symbolic attribution shape risk in less predictable ways.

Healthcare executives operate in a high-stakes environment where decisions related to patient care, pricing, and policy can generate significant grievance. In this ecosystem, individual outcomes are often interpreted through broader societal narratives that cast healthcare institutions as sources of harm, denial, or inequity.

These narratives can amplify grievance beyond any single decision or outcome and concentrate resentment and blame on senior leadership and administration.

11%
Only about 11% of threat actors communicated a threat directly to the target or law enforcement.
The Silent Threat

Executive Risks

Here are some key risks in the healthcare landscape affecting executive safety.

Healthcare experiences significantly higher rates of workplace violence than most other sectors, with violence affecting not only frontline staff but leadership during periods of heightened tension.

Healthcare operates within a highly charged national discourse around access, affordability, and equity, increasing the likelihood that institutional decisions are interpreted through ideological or grievance driven narratives.

Publicly disclosed executive compensation can intensify resentment when contrasted with patient hardship, denied care, workforce reductions, or rising costs, concentrating grievance on senior leadership.

Hospital closures, service reductions, mergers, and system consolidation can result in job loss, reduced access to care, and community disruption, elevating executive risk during and after periods of organizational change.

Large healthcare workforces operating under sustained stress, staffing shortages, and burnout can generate internal grievance that intersects with external pressures and increases the likelihood of hostile encounters involving executives.

Open campuses, public-facing facilities, and routine executive presence create frequent and predictable proximity between senior leaders and individuals experiencing stress, grievance, or crisis.

Predictable travel associated with oversight, fundraising, conferences, and public engagements can increase executive vulnerability, particularly outside primary campus environments.

Online discourse, social media activity, and public criticism can act as accelerants to physical-world risk without advance warning.

Public records, data brokers, social media, and professional disclosures can make executive identities, home locations, family details, and routines readily accessible, extending risk beyond institutional environments into private life.

Introduction

Healthcare decisions are frequently framed in moral terms. Questions of access, denial, cost, and prioritization are frequently interpreted through narratives of harm, injustice, or neglect.

In this environment, outrage can develop independently of intent, process, or formal responsibility, creating conditions in which executives become symbolic stand-ins for broader systemic grievances.

Together, these factors establish a risk landscape in which executive risk is shaped not only by organizational role, but by perception, narrative, and emotional proximity. Understanding this landscape is essential to evaluating how executive risk emerges, escalates, and manifests within healthcare organizations.

This risk landscape exists against a broader backdrop in which public tolerance for violence toward institutional leaders has shifted. Polling conducted following the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson indicates that a nontrivial share of respondents expressed justification or support for the act.

While such sentiment does not equate to intent, it reflects the extent to which grievance, moral outrage, and dehumanization of healthcare leadership have entered mainstream discourse.

For healthcare organizations, this shift matters not because it predicts specific threats, but because it alters the normative context in which executive risk is evaluated, weakening assumptions that historically constrained violence to the unthinkable.

Healthcare organizations operate under levels of public scrutiny and emotional intensity that are materially different from most other sectors.

Decisions related to care, access, cost, staffing, and institutional policy are not experienced solely as operational outcomes, but as matters of personal consequence tied to health, survival, fairness, and trust.

As a result, healthcare executive risk emerges within an environment shaped as much by emotion and moral judgment as by organizational complexity.

Healthcare also occupies a unique position of public trust. Institutions are expected to serve as stewards of life and well-being while simultaneously operating within regulatory, financial, and operational constraints that are often opaque to patients, families, employees, and communities.

When outcomes conflict with expectations of care or equity, the gap between public trust and operational reality can generate resentment, grievance, and a search for accountability.

Senior executives and administrators operate within a pronounced visibility asymmetry. Leaders are often known by name and role, while the systems, regulations, and constraints shaping their decisions remain poorly understood.

This imbalance can result in executive actions being interpreted as discretionary or personal rather than institutional, increasing the likelihood that responsibility is individualized even when authority is distributed or constrained.

Public Attitudes Toward Violence and Implications for Executive Risk

The risk landscape must be understood against public attitudes toward violence against institutional leaders.

NCRI survey findings following the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson indicate that a significant minority of respondents expressed agreement with, or justification for, the act.

While such sentiment does not imply intent, it reflects a measurable erosion of normative constraints that historically limited public tolerance for violence against public figures.

This shift does not predict specific threats, but it materially alters the context in which executive risk must be evaluated.

Approximately 44% of Americans surveyed rejected the assertion that the CEO’s murder was “not at all justified.”

Research conducted by the National Contagion Research Institute following the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson points to a shift in societal norms surrounding violence against institutional leaders.

NCRI identified the emergence of an online permission structure in which narratives that would previously have been broadly unacceptable are increasingly justified and reinforced through public discourse.

While this research does not imply intent, it highlights how social amplification and grievance based validation can contribute to the normalization of violence.

This context underscores the importance of evaluating executive risk through multiple pathways and conditions, rather than relying on historical precedent or solely on the presence or absence of explicit threats.

Executive Threat Pathways in Healthcare

Executive threats in healthcare do not always arise from a single profile or motive.

They emerge from distinct intent pathways shaped by grievance, ideology, access, and personal fixation.

Understanding these pathways is essential to evaluating executive risk without relying on stereotypes, assumptions, or historical incident patterns alone.

Patients and family members may develop grievance following adverse medical outcomes, denied care, billing disputes, or perceived mistreatment. In some cases, this grievance becomes directed toward senior leadership.

Issue-motivated actors or groups may focus on healthcare organizations in response to policy positions, service reductions, mergers, or public controversies.

Some individuals adopt broader ideological narratives surrounding healthcare, framing institutions and their leaders as agents of systemic injustice, exploitation, or harm. In these cases, executives may be targeted symbolically rather than personally.

Insider threats may emerge from employees or contractors experiencing grievance, stress, disciplinary action, or personal crisis. Access, familiarity with facilities, and knowledge of executive routines can elevate risk.

A subset of individuals exhibit fixation on specific executives or institutions, often expressed through repeated communication, public commentary, or symbolic language.

Common Executive Vulnerabilities in Healthcare Settings

Executive risk in healthcare is most often created through organizational conditions however, individual behavior can contribute to risk.

Vulnerabilities typically arise from how healthcare systems are structured, accessed, and operated, and from assumptions carried over from institutional security models that are not designed for executive risk.

Open campuses, multiple entry points, public-facing clinics, and extended operating hours create permissive environments in which executives may be routinely accessible without the friction or controls present in other sectors.

Healthcare organizations often assume that hospital-based security measures provide sufficient protection for executives. These systems are typically designed for patient safety, asset protection, and workplace violence response rather than for executive-specific risk, leaving gaps outside controlled clinical spaces.

Senior healthcare leaders often maintain regular and observable patterns tied to clinical rounds, leadership meetings, board engagements, and community presence. Predictability in timing, location, and movement can increase vulnerability.

Healthcare executives frequently occupy dual roles as institutional leaders and public-facing representatives of care, philanthropy, and community trust. This visibility can collapse boundaries between professional and personal identity, increasing unsolicited contact and extending risk beyond formal work environments.

Executive risk frequently increases during travel for conferences, board meetings, fundraising events, and external engagements.

Executive residences and off-hours activities are commonly outside the scope of institutional security planning.

Symbolic and Narrative Risk Exposure

Healthcare executives frequently function as symbolic representatives of the healthcare system rather than as individual decision-makers.

When institutions are perceived as causing harm, denying access, or prioritizing financial outcomes over care, senior leaders may be viewed as embodiments of those outcomes regardless of their personal role, intent, or authority.

Symbolic targeting collapses complex systems into identifiable figures, simplifying grievance into a human focus.

In healthcare, executive risk is not always driven by personal interaction, proximity, or direct grievance.

In many cases, risk emerges symbolically, shaped by narrative, perception, and timing rather than by the actions or identity of any individual executive.

Symbolic and narrative risk challenges assumptions that executive protection is only necessary in response to direct threats or individualized grievance.

Symbolic risk can often be time-bound rather than continuous.

Governance, Duty of Care, and Fiduciary Considerations

Executive risk in healthcare intersects directly with organizational governance, duty of care, and fiduciary responsibility.

Decisions regarding executive security are not solely operational matters; they reflect how institutions identify, evaluate, and manage foreseeable risk to leadership continuity and organizational stability.

Healthcare organizations have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect executives when risks are foreseeable, based on informed awareness of sector-specific dynamics rather than prediction of specific acts.

Documentation of risk considerations and decision rationales is essential for governance defensibility.

Risk Management Recommendations

Effective management of executive risk in healthcare requires more than episodic security decisions or reactive measures following high-profile events.

Organizations benefit from adopting a risk management approach that is structured and aligned with governance expectations, regardless of whether a formal executive protection program currently exists.

Observations and Strategic Considerations

Across healthcare systems, executive risk can emerge from both discrete incidents or recurring structural and cultural conditions.

Risk is predictable in structure, though not in timing.

Delayed recognition often results in reactive decision-making under compressed conditions.

Organizations that acknowledge these patterns are better positioned to evaluate executive security deliberately, with clarity and proportionality, rather than in response to an emerging incident.

About Omnium Protection Group

Omnium Protection Group, a global leader of risk management, executive protection, and security services, helps organizations create executive security programs that align with risk, resources, and operational realities.

OMNIUM: Safeguarding your people, your assets, and reputation.
Learn more: www.omniumpg.com
Contact: info@omniumpg.com