How Perceptive are You?
Author Archives: henrykotula
Cartoon – The Illusion of Leadership
Cartoon – Shared Leadership Model
Cartoon – Leadership By Words
The GOP Budget: Tax Cuts for the Wealthy and More Medical Debt for Everyone Else
The GOP’s reconciliation bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (yes, it’s actually called that), is a cruel exercise in slashing benefits for the poor, the elderly, and the sick to free up fiscal space for yet more tax cuts for the rich. Compounding the harm, these benefit cuts are nowhere near enough to pay for the bill’s tax cuts for the wealthy.
Central to this effort are massive cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces that, as I argued in my recent paper, will exacerbate our ongoing medical debt crisis.
The GOP reconciliation package that the Senate and House recently agreed to instructed the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees spending on health-care programs including Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), to identify up to $880 billion in savings over the next 10 years.
Under the rules of the budget reconciliation process, Republicans need to offset any tax cuts they wish to make permanent with an equal dollar value in cuts to spending so as to remain deficit neutral. Trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthier therefore necessitate trillions of dollars in cuts to spending that fall mostly on the social safety net.
Although they did not quite reach that target, the committee still returned a proposed package of deep cuts and changes to Medicaid and to the ACA marketplaces that would reduce federal medical spending by at least $715 billion over 10 years, with about $625 billion in reduced Medicaid spending.1
After public backlash, Republicans seem to have backed off some of their most radical plans for Medicaid (at least for now—one of the challenges of taking health care from people is that it’s terrible politics, so the precise details of the cuts are likely to remain a moving target until the bill passes).
But all options they are close to settling on would still do horrific damage to the well-being of working-class families.
This includes requiring all Medicaid recipients above the federal poverty line to “cost share” by paying (larger) premiums and copayments,2 cutting federal matching to states that provide public health insurance coverage to undocumented and perhaps documented immigrants (on their own dime), and imposing harsh work requirements on “able-bodied adults without dependent children.” This latter provision will cut federal Medicaid spending by roughly $300 billion over 10 years even though the vast majority (92 percent) of nondisabled, non-elderly adult Medicaid recipients are already working, studying full time, or serving as caregivers. This is because work requirements create burdensome reporting requirements to demonstrate compliance that will cause Medicaid recipients who are already employed to lose their insurance as well—blaming the victim for losing their health care, in essence.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the reconciliation bill would decrease Medicaid enrollment by 10.3 million in 2034 (the end of the reconciliation bill budget window).
According to this same analysis, most of these individuals would not obtain other insurance (e.g., through an employer) and would thus become uninsured.
When combined with the bill’s changes to the ACA marketplace and the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits—a wildly successful policy that was introduced as part of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and one that Republicans have shown no inclination to extend—this would result in an additional 13.7 million uninsured individuals in 2034, a 30 percent increase, according to KFF estimates.
Republicans seem hell-bent on undoing the remarkable progress made in the 15 years since the passage of the ACA in reducing the non-elderly uninsured rate from 17.8 percent in 2010 to roughly 9.5 percent today (plus ça change).
But we’ve seen less focus on how this will affect the problem of underinsurance.
Republicans’ Medicaid cost-sharing requirements, the changes they have proposed to the ACA marketplaces, and their determination to let the ARPA premium tax credit enhancements expire will also worsen the problem of underinsurance, an area where we have made considerably less progress.
Taken together, this will worsen the ongoing medical crisis because medical debt is driven by uninsurance and underinsurance.
Medical debt is, unlike in most other countries, and despite the successes of the ACA, a major problem in the United States. KFF found that 20 million adults (almost 1 in 12) owed “significant” medical debt to a health-care provider.3 This number rises when we consider a more expansive definition of medical debt including credit card balances and bank loans used to pay medical providers. Under that definition, an estimated 41 percent of American adults (~107 million people) carried some form of medical debt and 24 percent of American adults (~62 million people) had medical debt that was past due or that they were unable to pay. Among those with medical debt using this more expansive definition, nearly half (44 percent) reported owing at least $2,500, and about one in eight (12 percent) said they owe $10,000 or more. The poor, the sick, the middle-aged, and Black and Hispanic individuals disproportionately bear the brunt of this problem.
The crisis of medical debt and underinsurance is so widely recognized by Americans that a state attorney general candidate can go viral just by talking about the reality of a GoFundMe health-care system millions of Americans face.
The consequences of all this debt are dire—and reflect a health-care system that heals people physically but leaves many permanently scared financially. In 2022, medical debt (using the narrow definition) made up an estimated 58 percent of all debts that had gone to collections, and 62 percent of bankruptcies were attributed in part to medical debt. Medical debt also damages credit scores, leading to a wide variety of negative impacts on financial well-being that can follow families for years.
A poor credit score means that families may be unable to obtain a mortgage or a car loan or may end up paying much higher interest rates.
Credit scores are commonly used by landlords to screen tenants and by employers as part of a background check during the hiring process. Even for those who manage to maintain their credit after taking on medical debt, there are real costs. For those with limited income and assets, debt service may displace spending on food, clothing, and other essentials, leading to material hardship. It can make savings impossible and limit economic mobility.
Medical debt is a problem largely generated by poor policy decisions including, as I argue in my paper, prioritizing and incentivizing health insurance coverage through the private market rather than through Medicaid and Medicare, which offer comprehensive coverage more cheaply. The problem would rapidly disappear if we could extend comprehensive health insurance coverage to the millions of uninsured and underinsured people who live with the constant risk that a sudden medical event could ruin their finances and constrain their futures.
But rather than fix the problem, the GOP plans to throw millions off Medicaid and saddle those who remain with higher costs and more limited coverage. The results of these poor policy decisions will be more sickness, more debt, and higher costs for everyone in exchange for on-paper “savings.” And all this in service of tax cuts for the wealthy they haven’t even bothered to justify.
If you ask Eleanor
“If the old people cannot afford their medical care under their own Social Security allowances, then the burden is going to fall on their children who are in their earning years. This will mean that just at the time when these children who may be having young children of their own and needing medical care, a young couple will also have to consider shouldering the burden for parents as well. This is not fair, and leads to both the children and the older people not getting full coverage, since both will try to shave a little off their needs in order not to make the burden impossible to carry.”
– Eleanor Roosevelt, My Day (May 23, 1962)
Obama And Trump’s First 100 Days Of Healthcare Policy: A Comparison
In chaos theory, there’s a concept known as the butterfly effect—the idea that a seemingly small action, occurring at just the right moment, can trigger ripple effects that grow across time and space. A butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil, the saying goes, and a tornado forms weeks later in Texas.
Presidential decisions can carry the same weight, especially those made in the first 100 days of a new administration. Time and again, these early choices unleash far-reaching consequences that reshape a nation.
As Donald Trump wraps up the opening stretch of his second term, his healthcare-focused executive actions underscore the consequentiality of this early window. And when compared with Barack Obama’s approach in 2009 (the last time a president pursued major healthcare reforms right out of the gate), the contrast becomes even more striking.
Two presidents. Two defining moments. And one fundamental question that both men had to answer in the first 100 days: Where should healthcare reform begin — by expanding coverage, improving quality or cutting costs?
Crisis, Control And A Key Healthcare Choice
The idea that a president’s first 100 days matter dates back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1933, during the depths of the Great Depression, FDR passed a wave of New Deal reforms that redefined the role of government in American life.
Ever since, the opening months of a new presidency have served as both proving ground and preview. They reveal how a president intends to govern and what he values most.
For both presidents Obama and Trump, their answer to the healthcare question — where to begin? — would shape what followed. Obama chose to expand coverage. Trump has chosen to cut costs. Those decisions set them on opposing paths. And with every subsequent policy decision, the gap between their contrasting approaches only grows.
’09 Obama: Health Coverage And Congressional Action
In the quiet calculus of early governance, President Obama concluded that without health insurance coverage, access to high-quality medical care would remain out of reach for tens of millions of Americans.
Confronting a system that left 60 million uninsured, he believed that expanding access to coverage was a vital first step — not only to improve individual health outcomes, but to create a healthier nation that ultimately would require less medical care (and spending) overall.
That belief was grounded in lived experience: his mother’s battle with cancer and the insurance disputes that followed, as well as his years as a community organizer working with families who couldn’t afford medical care.
He also understood that only Congressional legislation — rather than executive action — would make those gains durable. So, in his first 100 days, he pursued a strategy grounded in consensus-building. He convened healthcare stakeholders, hosted public healthcare summits, expanded the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and proposed a federal budget that included a $634 billion “down payment” on healthcare reform.
’25 Trump: Cost Cutting And Executive Control
Donald Trump didn’t ease into his second term. He charged in, pen in hand. His priorities for the country were clear: cut taxes, impose tariffs and reduce federal spending.
For Trump, speed was of the essence. So, he bypassed Congress in favor of executive orders, downsizing healthcare agencies and dismantling regulatory oversight wherever possible.
At the center of Trump’s domestic agenda is an ambitious income tax overhaul, dubbed the “big beautiful bill.” But passing it will require support from fiscal conservatives in his own party. To offset the steep drop in tax revenue, Trump has signaled a willingness to slash federal spending, starting with healthcare programs.
What Comes Next: Mapping Health Policy Consequences
Presidents make thousands of decisions over the course of a four-year term, but those made in the first few months typically matter most. Both Obama and Trump had to decide whether to prioritize expanding coverage or cutting costs, and that choice would shape the steps that follow.
For Obama, the consequences of his choice were sweeping. His early focus on increasing health insurance coverage laid the foundation for the Affordable Care Act, the most ambitious healthcare reform since Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s. The ACA provided affordable insurance to more than 30 million Americans, offered subsidies to low- and middle-income families, cut the uninsured rate in half and guaranteed protections for those with preexisting conditions. The law survived political opposition, legal challenges and subsequent presidencies.
However, those gains came at a price. Annual U.S. healthcare spending more than doubled — from $2.6 trillion in 2010 to over $5.2 trillion today — without significant improvements in life expectancy or care quality.
Trump’s early decisions are reshaping healthcare, too, but in ways that reflect a very different set of priorities and a sharply contrasting vision for the federal government’s role.
1. Cost-Driven Actions: Reducing Government Healthcare Spending
Guided by a business-oriented focus on cost containment, Trump has sought to reduce the federal government’s role in healthcare through sweeping budget and staffing changes. Among the most significant:
- Agency layoffs: The Department of Health and Human Services has initiated mass layoffs across the CDC, NIH and FDA, reducing staff capacity by 20,000 and cutting critical programs, including HIV research grants and initiatives targeting autism, chronic disease, teen pregnancy and substance abuse.
- ACA support rollbacks: The administration slashed funding for ACA navigators and rescinded extended enrollment periods, making it more difficult for individuals (especially low-income Americans) to obtain coverage.
- Planned Parenthood and family planning cuts: Freezing Title X funds has reduced access to reproductive healthcare in multiple states.
- Medicaid at risk: A proposed $880 billion reduction over 10 years could eliminate expanded Medicaid coverage in many states. Additional moves (like work requirements or application hurdles) would likely reduce enrollment further.
2. Cultural And Executive Power Moves: Redefining Government’s Role In Health
While cutting costs has been the central goal, many of Trump’s actions reflect a broader ideological stance. He’s using executive authority to reshape the values, norms and institutions that have defined American healthcare. These include:
- Withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO): The administration formally ended U.S. participation, citing concerns about funding and governance.
- Restructuring USAID’s health portfolio: Multiple contracts and programs related to maternal health, infectious disease prevention and international public health have been ended or scaled back.
- Policy changes on federal language and research topics: Executive directives have modified how agencies are allowed to address topics related to gender and sexuality, leading to the removal of LGBTQ+ content from health resources and websites.
- Reorganization of DEI programs: Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives have been rolled back or eliminated across several federal departments.
The Likely Consequences Of Trump’s First 100 Days
President Trump’s early actions reveal two defining trends: cutting government healthcare spending and reshaping federal priorities through executive authority. Both are already changing how care is accessed, funded and delivered. And both are likely to produce lasting consequences.
The most immediate impact will come from efforts to reduce healthcare spending. Cuts to Medicaid, ACA enrollment support and family planning programs are expected to lower insurance enrollment, particularly among low-income families, young adults and people with chronic illness.
As coverage declines, care becomes harder to access and more expensive when it’s needed. The results: delayed diagnoses, avoidable complications and rising levels of uncompensated care.
His second set of actions — including reduced investment in federal science agencies — will slow drug development and weaken the infrastructure needed to respond to future public health threats.
Meanwhile, a more constrained and domestically focused healthcare agenda is likely to diminish trust in federal health agencies, limit access to culturally competent care and produce a loss of global leadership in health innovation.
The U.S. Constitution gives presidents broad power to chart the nation’s course. And the decisions made in their first 100 days shape the trajectory of an entire presidency.
One president decided to prioritize coverage, while a second chose cost-cutting. And like the flap of a butterfly’s wings, these early actions generate ripples — expanding in size over time and radically altering American healthcare, for better or worse.
91% Of Healthcare Is Government Subsidized. Is Your Coverage Safe?
Most Americans believe their healthcare is private, and the majority prefers it that way. Gallup polling shows more Americans favor a system based on private insurance rather than government-run healthcare.
But here’s a surprising reality: 91% of Americans receive government-subsidized healthcare.
Unless you’re among the uninsured or the few who receive no subsidies, government dollars are helping pay your medical bills — whether your insurance comes from an employer, a privately managed care organization or the online marketplace.
Now, as lawmakers face mounting budget pressures, those subsidies (and your coverage) could be at risk. If the government scales back its healthcare spending, your medical costs could skyrocket.
Here’s a closer look at the five ways the U.S. government funds healthcare. If you have health insurance, you’re almost certainly benefiting from one of them:
- Medicare, the government-run healthcare program for those 65 and older, covers 67 million Americans at a cost of more than $1 trillion annually. Approximately half of enrollees are covered through the traditional fee-for-service plan and the other half in privately managed Medicare Advantage plans.
- Medicaid and CHIP provide health coverage for around 80 million low-income and disabled Americans, including tens of millions of children. Even though 41 states have turned over their Medicaid programs over to privately managed care organizations, the cost remains public. Total Medicaid spending is $900 billion annually — the federal government pays 70% with states footing the rest.
- The online healthcare marketplace is for Americans whose employer doesn’t provide medical coverage or who are self-employed. This Affordable Care Act program offers federal subsidies to 92% of its 23 million enrollees, which help lower the cost of premiums and, for many, subsidize their out-of-pocket expenses. The Congressional Budget Office projects that a permanent extension of these subsidies, which are scheduled to end this year, would cost $383 billion over the next 10 years.
- Veterans and military families also benefit from government healthcare through TRICARE and VA Care, programs covering roughly 16 million individuals at a combined cost of $148 billion for the federal government annually.
- Employer-sponsored health insurance comes with a significant, yet often overlooked, government subsidy. For nearly 165 million American workers and their families, U.S. companies pay the majority of their health insurance premiums. However, those dollars are excluded from employees’ taxable income. This tax break, which originated during World War II and was formally codified in the 1950s, subsidizes workers at an annual government cost of approximately $300 billion. For a typical family of four, this translates into approximately $8,000 per year of added take-home pay.
With 91% of Americans receiving some form of government healthcare assistance, the idea that U.S. healthcare is predominantly “private” is an illusion.
Now, as the new administration searches for ways to rein in the growing federal deficit, all five of these programs (collectively funding healthcare for 9 in 10 Americans) will be in the crosshairs.
Twelve percent of the federal budget already goes toward debt interest payments, and this share is expected to rise sharply. Many of the bonds used to finance existing debt were issued back when interest rates were much lower. As those bonds mature and are refinanced at today’s higher rates, federal interest payments are projected to double within the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
With deficits mounting and borrowing costs soaring, most economists agree this trajectory is unsustainable. Lawmakers will eventually need to rein in spending, and healthcare subsidies will almost certainly be among the first targets. Policy experts predict Medicaid, which the House has already proposed cutting by $880 billion over the next decade, and ACA subsidies for out-of-pocket costs will likely be the first on the chopping block. But given the CBO’s projections, these cuts won’t be the last.
A Better Way: Three Solutions To Lower Healthcare Costs Without Cuts
Cutting some or all of these healthcare subsidies may seem like the simplest way to reduce the deficit. In reality, it merely shifts costs elsewhere, making medical care more expensive for everyone and increasing future government spending. Here’s why:
- Eliminating subsidies doesn’t eliminate the need for care. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), hospitals must treat emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. When millions lose insurance, more turn to ERs for medical care they can’t afford. The cost of that uncompensated care doesn’t vanish. It gets passed on to state governments, hospitals and privately insured patients through higher taxes, inflated hospital bills and rising insurance premiums.
- Delaying care drives up long-term costs. People who can’t afford doctor visits skip preventive care, screenings and early treatments. Manageable conditions like high blood pressure and diabetes then spiral into costly, life-threatening complications including heart attacks, strokes and kidney failures, which ultimately increase government spending.
The solution isn’t cutting coverage. It’s fixing the root causes of high healthcare costs. Here are three ways to achieve this:
1. Address The Obesity Epidemic
Obesity is a leading driver of diabetes, heart disease, stroke and breast cancer, which kill millions of Americans and cost the U.S. healthcare system hundreds of billions annually. Congress can take two immediate steps to reverse this crisis:
- Tax high-calorie, highly processed foods and use the revenue to subsidize healthier options, making nutritious food more affordable for all Americans.
- Cap the price of GLP-1 weight-loss medications (such as Ozempic and Wegovy) to match prices in peer nations, ensuring these highly effective treatments are accessible.
2. Enhance Chronic Disease Management With Technology
In every other industry, broad adoption of generative AI technology is already increasing quality while reducing costs. Healthcare could do the same by applying generative AI to more effectively manage chronic disease. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, improved control of these lifelong conditions could cut the frequency of heart attacks, strokes, kidney failures and cancers by up to 50%.
With swift and reasonable Food and Drug Administration approval, generative AI and wearable monitors would revolutionize how these conditions are managed, providing real-time updates on patient health and identifying when medications need adjustment. Instead of waiting months for their next in-office visit, patients with chronic diseases would receive continuous monitoring, preventing costly and life-threatening complications. Rather than restricting AI’s role in healthcare, Congress can streamline the FDA’s approval process and allocate National Institutes of Health funding to accelerate these advancements.
3. Reform Healthcare Payment Models
Under today’s fee-for-service system, doctors and hospitals are paid based on the how often they see patients for the same problem and the number of procedures performed. This approach rewards the volume of care, not the best and most effective treatments. A better alternative is a pay-for-value model like capitation, in which providers do best financially when they help keep patients healthy. To encourage participation, Congress should fund pilot programs and create financial incentives for insurers, doctors and hospitals willing to transition to this system. By aligning financial incentives with long-term health, this model would encourage doctors to prioritize prevention and effective chronic disease control, ultimately lowering medical costs by improving overall health.
The Time For Change Is Now
If Congress slashes healthcare subsidies this year, restoring them will be nearly impossible. Once the cuts take effect, the financial and political pressures driving them will only intensify, making reversal unlikely.
The voices shaping this debate can’t come solely from industry lobbyists. Elected officials need to hear from the 91% of Americans who rely on government healthcare assistance for some or all of their medical coverage. Now is the time to speak up.
How the GOP could dial back Obamacare
The massive Republican budget bill working its way through Congress has mostly drawn attention for its tax cuts and Medicaid changes.
- But it would also take steps to significantly roll back coverage under the Affordable Care Act, with echoes of the 2017 repeal-replace debate.
Why it matters:
The bill that passed the House before Memorial Day includes an overhaul of ACA marketplaces that would result in coverage losses for millions of Americans and savings to help cover the cost of extending President Trump’s tax cuts, Peter Sullivan wrote first on Pro.
- It comes after a growth spurt that saw ACA marketplace enrollment reach new highs, with more than 24 million people enrolling for 2025, according to KFF. The House’s changes would likely reverse that trend, unless the Senate goes in a different direction when it picks up the bill next week.
Driving the news:
The changes are not as sweeping as the 2017 effort at repealing the law, but many of them erect barriers to enrollment that supporters say are aimed at fighting fraud.
- Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute and a health official in Trump’s first administration, said Republicans are focusing on rolling back Biden-era expansions “that have led to massive fraud and inefficiency.”
- The Congressional Budget Office estimates the ACA marketplace-related provisions would lead to about 3 million more people becoming uninsured.
- Cynthia Cox, a vice president at KFF, said while the changes “sound very technical” in nature, taken together “the implications are that it will be much harder for people to sign up for ACA marketplace plans.”
What’s inside:
The bill would end automatic reenrollment in ACA plans for people getting subsidies, instead requiring them to proactively reenroll and resubmit information about their incomes for verification.
- It would also prevent enrollees from provisionally receiving ACA subsidies in instances where extra eligibility checks are needed, which can take months.
- If people wound up making more income than they had estimated for a given year, the bill removes the cap on the amount of ACA subsidies they would have to repay to the government.
- Some legal immigrants would also be cut off from ACA subsidies, including people granted asylum and those in their five-year waiting period to be eligible for Medicaid.
What they’re saying:
In a letter to Congress, patient groups pointed to the various barriers as “unprecedented and onerous requirements to access health coverage” that would have “a devastating impact on people’s ability to access and afford private insurance coverage.”
- The letter was signed by groups including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association and American Lung Association.
Between the lines:
A last-minute addition to the bill would also make a technical but important change that increases government payments to insurers in ACA marketplaces.
- That would have the effect of reducing the subsidies that help people afford premiums and save the government money, by reducing the benchmark silver premiums that are used to set the subsidy amounts.
- Democrats are concerned that if Congress also allows enhanced ACA subsidies to expire at the end of this year, the combined effect would be even higher premium increases for enrollees next year.
Insurers that already are planning their premium rates for next year say the Republican funding changes are throwing uncertainty into the mix.
- “Disruption in the individual market could also result in much higher premiums,” the trade group AHIP warned in a statement on the bill.
The big picture:
Blase said changes like ending automatic reenrollment are needed to increase checks that ensure people are not claiming higher subsidies than they’re entitled to.
- Cox said another way to address fraud would be to target shady insurance brokers, rather than enrollees themselves. She estimated that marketplace enrollment could fall by roughly one-third from all the changes together.
- “The justification for many of these provisions is to address fraud,” she said. “The question is, how many people who are legitimately signed up are going to get lost in that process?”
Cartoon – State of the Hospital Industry
The Value-based Care Agenda in Trump 2.0 Healthcare
This week, the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees begins work on the reconciliation bill they hope to complete by Memorial Day. Healthcare cuts are expected to figure prominently in the committee’s work.
And in San Diego, America’s Physician Groups (APG) will host its spring meeting “Kickstarting Accountable Care: Innovations for an Urgent Future” featuring Presidential historian Dorris Kearns Goodwin and new CMS Innovation Center Director Abe Sutton. Its focus will be the immediate future of value-based programs in Trump Healthcare 2.0, especially accountable care organizations (ACOs) and alternative payment models (APMs).
Central to both efforts is the administration’s mandate to reduce federal spending which it deems achievable, in part, by replacing fee for services with value-based payments to providers from the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs.
The CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) is the government’s primary vehicle to test and implement alternative payment programs that reduce federal spending and improve the quality and effectiveness of services simultaneously.
Pledges to replace fee-for-service payments with value-based incentives are not new to Medicare. Twenty-five years ago, they were called “pay for performance” programs and, in 2010, included in the Affordable Care as alternative payment models overseen by CMMI.
But the effectiveness of APMs has been modest at best: of 50+ models attempted, only 6 proved effective in reducing Medicare spending while spending $5.4 billion on the programs. Few were adopted in Medicaid and only a handful by commercial payers and large self-insured employers. Critics argue the APMs were poorly structured, more costly to implement than potential shared savings payments and sometimes more focused on equity and DEI aims than actual savings.
The question is how the Mehmet Oz-Abe Sutten version of CMMI will approach its version of value-based care, given modest APM results historically and the administration’s focus on cost-cutting.
Context is key:
Recent efforts by the Trump Healthcare 2.0 team and its leadership appointments in CMS and CMMI point to a value-agenda will change significantly. Alternative payment models will be fewer and participation by provider groups will be mandated for several. Measures of quality and savings will be fewer, more easily measured and and standardized across more episodes of care. Financial risks and shared savings will be higher and regulatory compliance will be simplified in tandem with restructuring in HHS, CMS and CMMI to improve responsiveness and consistency across federal agencies and programs.
Sutton’s experience as the point for CMMI is significant. Like Adam Boehler, Brad Smith and other top Trump Healthcare 2.0 leaders, he brings prior experience in federal health agencies and operating insight from private equity-backed ventures (Honest Health, Privia, Evergreen Nephrology funded through Nashville-based Rubicon Founders). Sutton’s deals have focused on physician-driven risk-bearing arrangements with Medicare with funding from private investors.
The Trump Healthcare 2.0 team share a view that the healthcare system is unnecessarily expensive and wasteful, overly-regulated and under-performing. They see big hospitals and drug companies as complicit—more concerned about self-protection than consumer engagement and affordability.
They see flawed incentives as a root cause, and believe previous efforts by CMS and CMMI veered inappropriately toward DEI and equity rather than reducing health costs.
And they think physicians organized into risk bearing structures with shared incentives, point of care technologies and dependable data will reduce unnecessary utilization (spending) and improve care for patients (including access and affordability).
There’s will be a more aggressive approach to spending reduction and value-creation with Medicare as the focus: stronger alternative payment models and expansion of Medicare Advantage will book-end their collective efforts as Trump Healthcare 2.0 seeks cost-reduction in Medicare.
What’s ahead?
Trump Healthcare 2.0 value-based care is a take-no prisoners strategy in which private insurers in Medicare Advantage have a seat at their table alongside hospitals that sponsor ACOs and distribute the majority of shared savings to the practicing physicians. But the agenda will be set, and re-set by the administration and link-minded physician organizations like America’s Physician Groups and others that welcome financial risk-sharing with Medicare and beyond.
The results of the Trump Healthcare 2.0 value agenda will be unknown to voters in the November 2026 mid-term but apparent by the Presidential campaign in 2028. In the interim, surrogate measures for performance—like physician participation and projected savings–will be used to show progress and the administration will claim success. It will also spark criticism especially from providers who believe access to needed specialty care will be restricted, public and rural health advocates whose funding is threatened, teaching and clinical research organizations who facing DOGE cuts and regulatory uncertainty, patient’s right advocacy groups fearing lack of attention and private payers lacking scalable experience in Medicare Advantage and risk-based relationships with physicians.
Last week, the American Medical Association named Dr. John Whyte its next President replacing widely-respected 12-year CEO/EVP Jim Madara. When he assumes this office in July, he’ll inherit an association that has historically steered clear of major policy issues but the administration’s value-based care agenda will quickly require his attention.
Physicians including AMA members are restless:
At last fall’s House of Delegates (HOD), members passed a resolution calling for constraints on not-for-profit hospital’ tax exemptions due to misleading community benefits reporting and more consistency in charity care reporting by all hospitals.
The majority of practicing physicians are burned-out due to loss of clinical autonomy and income pressures—especially the 75% who are employees of hospitals and private-equity backed groups. And last week, the American College of Physicians went on record favoring “collective action” to remedy physician grievances. All impact the execution of the administration’s value-based agenda.
Arguably, the most important key to success for the Trump Healthcare 2.0 is its value agenda and physician support—especially the primary care physicians on whom the consumer engagement and appropriate utilization is based. It’s a tall order.
The Trump Healthcare 2.0 value agenda is focused on near-term spending reductions in Medicare. Savings in federal spending for Medicaid will come thru reconciliation efforts in Congress that will likely include work-requirements for enrollees, elimination of subsidies for low-income adults and drug formulary restrictions among others. And, at least for the time being, attention to those with private insurance will be on the back burner, though the administration favors insurance reforms adding flexible options for individuals and small groups.
The Trump Healthcare 2.0 value-agenda is disruptive, aggressive and opportunistic for physician organizations and their partners who embrace performance risk as a permanent replacement for fee for service healthcare. It’s a threat to those that don’t.
HENRY KOTULA 