Apparently, the Aravind Eye Care System (AECS) provides cataract surgeries to 60% of its patients who cannot afford treatment for free, using a sliding price scheme to maintain profitability (p. 51). Aravind Eye Care covers only 5% of cataract surgeries in India (has 5 facilities in 2 states) and does not operate in other nations (Center for Health Market Innovations). The Fred Hollows Foundation does not operate in India.
Thus, scaling the Aravind Eye Care System to other states in India can be a great priority which would not risk the reduction of funds donated to global health in general (since the operations of The Fred Hollows Foundation will be unaffected).
If profitability can be maintained also in other nations, then the system can be purchased by The Fred Hollows Foundation or other investors interested in sight restoration.
The progressive pricing scheme supports the institutionalization of free sight restoration healthcare. Ideally, this should be extrapolated to other treatments as well. The counterargument for this is that 1) it does not matter how the investor gets funds as long as they are effectively donated to restore sight (an argument for Fred Hollows) and that 2) the government should take care of it by taxation (this seems like a more robust institutionalization of free healthcare but it relies on the profitability of the businesses in the nation; the effective treatment availability may be much less progressive than with AECS; and the AECS can always be acquired by the government or enable it to focus on other priorities, such as capacity building as opposed to urgent problem solving).
Am I still wrong in assuming that an investor should speak with the Aravind Eye Care System?