Nurse Practitioner or Physician Assistant

The Oncology Institute, Inc. $TOI shares bought by Arrowstreet Capital Limited Partnership. August 7, 2026 Key points. * Arrowstreet Capital increased its Oncology Institute stake by 169.3% in the first quarter, purchasing 263,699 additional shares to own 419,423 shares valued at approximately $1.29 million. Institutional investors and hedge funds collectively own 36.86% of the company. * Analyst sentiment is mostly positive, with four Buy ratings and one Sell rating. The stock has a "Moderate Buy" consensus and an average price target of $8.50, compared with its recent price of $5.19. * Oncology Institute reported quarterly revenue of $161.28 million, exceeding expectations, but its $0.08-per-share loss was slightly worse than the expected $0.07 loss. The company's shares have traded between $2.32 and $6.67 over the past year. * Interested in Oncology Institute? Here are five stocks we like better. Arrowstreet Capital Limited Partnership boosted its holdings in The Oncology Institute, Inc. (NASDAQ:TOI - Free Report) by 169.3% in the 1st quarter, according to the company in its most recent 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The fund owned 419,423 shares of the company's stock after purchasing an additional 263,699 shares during the quarter. Arrowstreet Capital Limited Partnership owned about 0.42% of Oncology Institute worth $1,288,000 at the end of the most recent quarter. A number of other large investors have also recently bought and sold shares of the business. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. acquired a new stake in Oncology Institute in the first quarter valued at $131,000. Geode Capital Management LLC increased its holdings in shares of Oncology Institute by 231.7% in the 2nd quarter. Geode Capital Management LLC now owns 1,279,443 shares of the company's stock valued at $2,623,000 after purchasing an additional 893,696 shares in the last quarter. Cetera Investment Advisers increased its holdings in shares of Oncology Institute by 35.0% in the 2nd quarter. Cetera Investment Advisers now owns 17,545 shares of the company's stock valued at $36,000 after purchasing an additional 4,545 shares in the last quarter. JPMorgan Chase & Co. lifted its stake in shares of Oncology Institute by 51,631.5% in the second quarter. JPMorgan Chase & Co. now owns 27,935 shares of the company's stock valued at $57,000 after purchasing an additional 27,881 shares during the period. Finally, New York State Common Retirement Fund acquired a new stake in shares of Oncology Institute in the second quarter valued at about $92,000. Institutional investors and hedge funds own 36.86% of the company's stock. Analysts set new price targets. A number of equities research analysts have recently issued reports on TOI shares. Needham & Company LLC lifted their price target on shares of Oncology Institute from $5.00 to $7.00 and gave the company a "buy" rating in a research report on Wednesday, June 17th. Weiss Ratings restated a "sell (d-)" rating on shares of Oncology Institute in a report on Friday, July 17th. BTIG Research raised their price objective on Oncology Institute from $8.00 to $9.00 and gave the company a "buy" rating in a research note on Thursday, July 9th. Finally, Lake Street Capital assumed coverage on Oncology Institute in a report on Monday, July 6th. They set a "buy" rating and a $10.00 price objective for the company. Four research analysts have rated the stock with a Buy rating and one has given a Sell rating to the company. According to data from MarketBeat.com, the company presently has a consensus rating of "Moderate Buy" and an average target price of $8.50. Discover more Stock Split Calculator Stock Average Calculator Financial News Oncology Institute stock performance. TOI opened at $5.19 on Friday. The Oncology Institute, Inc. has a 1 year low of $2.32 and a 1 year high of $6.67. The firm has a 50 day moving average price of $5.22 and a 200 day moving average price of $3.96. The company has a market cap of $512.58 million, a PE ratio of -14.02 and a beta of 0.39. Oncology Institute (NASDAQ:TOI - Get Free Report) last announced its quarterly earnings results on Thursday, August 6th. The company reported ($0.08) earnings per share (EPS) for the quarter, missing the consensus estimate of ($0.07) by ($0.01). The company had revenue of $161.28 million during the quarter, compared to analysts' expectations of $155.28 million. On average, sell-side analysts predict that The Oncology Institute, Inc. will post -0.18 earnings per share for the current year. Insider buying and selling. In related news, major shareholder Jorey Chernett acquired 33,500 shares of Oncology Institute stock in a transaction on Wednesday, May 20th. The shares were purchased at an average cost of $4.07 per share, for a total transaction of $136,345.00. Following the purchase, the insider directly owned 10,567,858 shares of the company's stock, valued at $43,011,182.06. The trade was a 0.32% increase in their position. The purchase was disclosed in a document filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which can be accessed through this hyperlink. Also, insider Yale Podnos sold 23,451 shares of the stock in a transaction that occurred on Monday, June 8th. The stock was sold at an average price of $5.38, for a total value of $126,166.38. Following the transaction, the insider directly owned 259,527 shares in the company, valued at approximately $1,396,255.26. This represents a 8.29% decrease in their position. The disclosure for this sale is available in the SEC filing. The transaction was executed under a pre-arranged Rule 10b5-1 trading plan. Over the last ninety days, insiders acquired 131,500 shares of company stock worth $609,265. 4.40% of the stock is currently owned by corporate insiders. Oncology Institute profile. The Oncology Institute, Inc, an oncology company, provides various medical oncology services in the United States. The company operates through three segments: Dispensary, Patient Services, and Clinical Trials & Other. It offers physician services, in-house infusion and dispensary, clinical trial, radiation, outpatient blood product transfusion, and patient support services, as well as educational seminars, support groups, and counseling services. The company also provides managing clinical trials, palliative care programs, stem cell transplants services, and other care delivery models associated with non-community-based academic and tertiary care settings; and conducts clinical trials for a range of pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Further reading. Want to see what other hedge funds are holding TOI? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for The Oncology Institute, Inc. (NASDAQ:TOI - Free Report). This instant news alert was generated by narrative science technology and financial data from MarketBeat in order to provide readers with the fastest reporting and unbiased coverage. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected]. Continue following MarketBeat Before you consider Oncology Institute, you'll want to hear this. MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street's top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on... and Oncology Institute wasn't on the list. While Oncology Institute currently has a Moderate Buy rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys. The space race is growing fast, and you don't have to have gotten in early on SpaceX to profit. This report shows seven space stocks you can buy today that may grow as rockets, satellites, defense, space internet, and new space technology become more important.

Oncology Institute data breach 2026: third-party vendor compromise exposes patient data in kroll-administered systems. Source originally from "Oncology Institute data breach 2026: third-party vendor compromise exposes patient data in kroll-administered systems" - view original. Third-Party vendor compromise as contractual and governance failure: the Oncology Institute breach case study. Why this matters at board and regulatory level. The Oncology Institute's May 2026 data breach - where patient records were compromised through a third-party vendor's infrastructure - exposes a structural governance failure that extends far beyond a single incident. When healthcare data is accessed through a trusted service provider's systems, liability becomes fragmented across multiple parties, notification obligations become legally ambiguous, and regulatory exposure multiplies. Under emerging frameworks like NIS2 and DORA, organizations are increasingly held accountable not only for their own security posture but for the security practices of critical service providers. This case demonstrates that vendor risk management remains largely a procurement function rather than a board-level governance discipline, leaving organizations vulnerable to supply chain compromise at scale. The trusted relationship as attack surface. The breach exploited a fundamental governance blind spot: the assumption that reputable third-party vendors operate with equivalent security controls to those of the organizations they serve. Kroll, the third-party administrator, became the attack vector precisely because its trusted status reduced scrutiny. This pattern - where adversaries target supply chain relationships to gain access to sensitive data - now accounts for approximately 48% of all healthcare breaches, representing a 60% year-over-year increase according to sector analysis cited in the Rescana report. Organizations typically conduct initial vendor due diligence during onboarding but fail to implement continuous monitoring, contractual audit rights, or mandatory real-time breach notification obligations. The Oncology Institute case reveals that a single vendor compromise can expose patient records at scale, yet many healthcare organizations lack contractual mechanisms to mandate immediate notification, grant forensic investigation access, or enforce specific remediation timelines. This gap between initial assessment and ongoing oversight is systemic across the sector. Notification complexity and regulatory exposure. When breach occurs within a third-party vendor's infrastructure, notification obligation becomes legally and operationally ambiguous. Critical questions emerge: Who determines the scope of affected individuals? Who bears responsibility for filing mandatory breach reports with regulators? Who provides forensic evidence to support notification decisions? In the Oncology Institute incident, Kroll's involvement created multi-party notification scenarios where responsibility could be deflected between the healthcare organization and the vendor. Under GDPR, HIPAA, and state breach notification laws, this ambiguity translates directly into regulatory enforcement risk. Regulators expect organizations to contractually require vendors to notify within specific timeframes (often 24-72 hours), provide forensic evidence supporting scope determinations, and grant unilateral investigation rights. In practice, many healthcare organizations discover during breach response that vendor contracts contain vague notification language, lack specific timelines, or do not grant independent forensic investigation rights - creating compliance failures that regulators view as organizational negligence regardless of where the compromise occurred. Supply chain risk as systemic governance failure. The prevalence of third-party breaches in healthcare signals that vendor security is treated as a pre-engagement compliance checklist rather than an ongoing governance control. Organizations conduct initial security assessments, obtain attestations, and then assume static risk profiles. The Oncology Institute case reveals critical contractual and operational gaps: insufficient audit rights to verify vendor security controls; lack of mandatory breach notification timelines; absence of cyber liability insurance requirements covering downstream exposure; and failure to implement vendor-specific incident response protocols. Under NIS2 and DORA, organizations must demonstrate they have implemented measures to manage supply chain risk as a board-level governance issue, not as a procurement function. This requires contractual language specific enough to be enforceable in breach scenarios, continuous monitoring mechanisms, and incident response protocols that account for vendor-mediated compromise. The Oncology Institute's response - activation of continuity plans and credit monitoring - represents reactive incident management, not proactive governance of vendor risk. Cybersol's governance perspective: the contractual accountability gap. This incident reveals a persistent gap between contractual intent and enforcement. Healthcare organizations include vendor security requirements in master service agreements, but these clauses often lack specificity, measurability, and enforcement mechanisms necessary to create accountability. During breach response, organizations discover that contracts do not grant independent forensic investigation rights, do not mandate vendor notification within hours, and do not require cyber liability insurance covering downstream patient data exposure. Vendor risk management must transition from periodic security assessments to continuous monitoring, with contractual language specific enough to be enforceable in breach scenarios. Critical contractual elements often missing include: (1) mandatory breach notification within 24 hours with forensic evidence; (2) unilateral audit and investigation rights; (3) cyber liability insurance requirements with named additional insured status; (4) specific data handling and encryption standards; (5) incident response protocols with defined escalation timelines; and (6) right to terminate or remediate if vendor security posture degrades. The Oncology Institute case demonstrates that these gaps are not theoretical - they directly impact regulatory notification timelines, scope determination, and organizational liability. Attribution and source. This analysis is based on detailed incident reporting and governance analysis from Rescana, a third-party risk management platform specializing in vendor security assessment and breach coordination. Closing reflection. The Oncology Institute breach is not an isolated incident; it represents a governance pattern that will repeat across healthcare and other regulated sectors until organizations implement contractual and operational controls treating third-party risk as continuous governance. The incident reveals that notification complexity, liability fragmentation, and regulatory exposure are not technical problems - they are contractual and governance failures that can be addressed through specific, enforceable vendor agreements and incident response protocols. Readers should review the original Rescana analysis for technical details on attack vectors (MITRE ATT&CK T1195 and T1199), incident response timelines, and specific contractual language addressable in vendor agreements to prevent similar governance failures.