Author Archives: henrykotula

Gut Punches for Healthcare and Hospitals

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Bankruptcy, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Deferred Healthcare, Financially Distressed, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Industry, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid Cuts, Medical Debt, Out of Pocket Expenses, Politics, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Model, Profit Motive, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Shareholder Expectations, Sign of the Times, Underinsured, Uninsured, Wall Street • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
Gut Punches for Healthcare and Hospitals: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the CMS Proposed Rule

The healthcare industry is still licking its wounds from $1 trillion in federal funding cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed into law July 4.

Adding insult to injury, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services issued a 913-page proposed rule last Tuesday that includes unwelcome changes especially troublesome for hospitals i.e. adoption of site neutral payments, expansion of hospital price transparency requirements, reduction of inpatient-only services, acceleration of hospital 340B discount repayment obligations and more.

The combination of the two is bad news for healthcare overall and hospitals especially: the timing is precarious:

  • Economic uncertainty: Economists believe a recession is less likely but uncertainty about tariffs, fear about rising inflation, labor market volatility a housing market slowdown and speculation about interest rates have capital markets anxious. Healthcare is capital intense: the impact of the two in tandem with economic uncertainty is unsettling.
  • Consumer spending fragility: Consumer spending is holding steady for the time being but housing equity values are dropping, rents are increasing, student loan obligations suspended during Covid are now re-activated, prices for hospital and physicians are increasing faster than other necessities and inflation ticked up slightly last month. Consumer out-of-pocket spending for healthcare products and services is directly impacted by purchases in every category.
  • Heightened payer pressures: Insurers and employers are expecting double-digit increases for premiums and health benefits next year blaming their higher costs on hospitals and drugs, OBBBA-induced insurance coverage lapses and systemic lack of cost-accountability. For insurers, already reeling from 2023-2024 financial reversals, forecasts are dire. Payers will heighten pressure on healthcare providers—especially hospitals and specialists—as a result.

Why healthcare appears to have borne the brunt of the funding cuts in the OBBBA is speculative: 

Might a case have been made for cuts in other departments? Might healthcare programs other than Medicaid have been ripe for “waste, fraud and abuse” driven cuts? Might technology-driven administrative costs reductions across the expanse of federal and state government been more effective than DOGE- blunt experimentation?

Healthcare is 18% of the GDP and 28% of total federal spending: that leaves room for cuts in other industries.

Why hospitals, along with nursing homes and public health programs, are likely to bear the lion’s share of OBBBA’ cut fallout and CMS’ proposed rule disruptions is equally vexing.  Might the high-profile successes of some not-for-profit hospital operators have drawn attention? Might Congress have been attentive to IRS Form 990 filings for NFP operators and quarterly earnings of investor-owned systems and assume hospital finances are OK? Might advocacy efforts to maintain the status quo with facility fees, 340B drug discounts, executive compensation et al been overshadowed by concerns about consolidation-induced cost increases and disregard for affordability? Hospital emergency rooms in rural and urban communities, nursing homes, public health programs and many physicians will be adversely impacted by the OBBBA cuts: the impact will vary by state. What’s not clear is how much.

My take:

Having read both the OBBBA and CMS proposed rules and observed reactions from industry, two things are clear to me:

The antipathy toward the healthcare industry among the public  and in Congress played a key role in passage of the OBBBA and regulatory changes likely to follow. 

Polls show three-fourths of likely voters want to see transformational change to healthcare and two-thirds think the industry is more concerned with its profit over their care: these views lend to hostile regulatory changes. The public and the majority of elected officials think the industry prioritizes protection of the status quo over obligations to serve communities and the greater good.

The result: winners and losers in each sector, lack of continuity and interoperability, runaway costs and poor outcomes.

No sector in healthcare stands as the surrogate for the health and wellbeing of the population. There are well-intended players in each sector who seek the moral high ground for healthcare, but their boards and leaders put short-term sustainability above long-term systemness and purpose. That void needs to be filled.

The timing of these changes is predictably political. 

Most of the lower-cost initiatives in both the OBBBA changes and CMS proposals carry obligations to commence in 2026—in time for the November 2026 mid-term campaigns. Most of the results, including costs and savings, will not be known before 2028 or after. They’re geared toward voters inclined to think healthcare is systemically fraudulent, wasteful and self-serving.

And they’re just the start: officials across the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Commerce, Labor and Veterans Affairs will add to the lists.

Buckle up.

Health Insurance as a Share of Median Income by U.S. State

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-health-insurance-as-a-share-of-median-income-by-u-s-state/

Health Insurance as a Share of Median Income by U.S. State

This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

Key Takeaways

  • Vermont tops the list, with insurance costing 19.6% of median income.
  • New Hampshire residents spend just 4% of their income on health insurance, the lowest in the nation.

Americans pay wildly different amounts for health insurance depending on where they live. This map shows which states pay the most (and least) when health insurance costs are measured as a share of median income.

The data for this visualization comes from WalletHub. It analyzed silver-tier health plan premiums in all 50 states and compared them to local median incomes to determine cost burdens.

Vermont and West Virginia Lead in Cost Burden

In Vermont, residents spend 19.6% of their monthly income on health insurance, the highest share in the country. West Virginia follows closely at 18.8%.

The South and Mountain West Feel the Pinch

Many Southern and Mountain West states, like Mississippi, Wyoming, and Louisiana, also rank high in insurance cost burden. These regions tend to have poorer health outcomes and lower median incomes, exacerbating affordability issues. As Brookings notes, Medicaid expansion status and rural demographics heavily influence insurance markets in these areas.

New Hampshire and the Northeast Are Least Burdened

New Hampshire residents spend just 4% of their income on health insurance, the lowest in the nation.

Massachusetts, Maryland, and Minnesota also enjoy low cost burdens. These states often have robust state-run exchanges, higher incomes, and broader Medicaid expansion, all of which help reduce costs.

The Fundamental Problem at the Heart of American Health Insurance

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Administrative Complexity, Administrative Costs, Administrative Workload, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Model, Profit Motive, Shareholder Expectations, Shareholder Primacy, Wall Street • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/the-fundamental-problem-at-the-heart?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=167813331&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Administrative waste, denials, and deadly incentives — the U.S. model shows what happens when profit rules.

The United States is the only country where a health insurance executive has been gunned down in the street. But that’s not the only thing that’s unique about American health insurance.

Almost all of our peer countries – advanced, free-market democracies — have health insurance companies. In some cases (Germany, Switzerland, Japan), private health insurance is the chief way to pay for medical care. In others (such as Great Britain), private insurance works as a supplement to government-run health care systems. But there’s a fundamental difference between health insurance elsewhere and the U.S. system. 

In all the other advanced democracies, basic health insurance is not for profit; the insurers are essentially charities. They exist not to pay large sums to executives and investors, but rather to keep the population healthy by assuring that everyone can get medical care when it’s needed. 

America’s health insurance giants are profit-making businesses. Indeed, in the insurers’ quarterly earnings reports to investors, the standard industry term for any sums spent paying people’s medical bills is “medical loss.” They view paying your doctor bill as a loss that subtracts from the dividends they owe their stockholders. 

When I studied health care systems around the world, I asked economists and doctors and health ministers why they want health insurance to be a nonprofit endeavor. Everyone gave essentially the same answer:

There’s a fundamental contradiction between insuring a nation’s health and making a profit on health insurance.

Health insurance exists to help people get the preventive care and treatment they need by paying their medical bills. But the way to make a profit on health insurance is to avoid paying medical bills. Accordingly, the U.S. insurance giants have devised ingenious methods for evading payment — schemes like high deductibles, narrow networks of approved doctors, limited lists of permitted drugs, and pre-authorization requirements, so that the insurance adjuster, not your doctor, determines what treatment you get. 

Other countries don’t allow those gimmicks. In America, the patient pays twice — first the insurance premium, and then the bill that the insurer declines to pay. That’s why Americans hate health insurance companies — as reflected in the tasteless barrage of angry social media commentary aimed at the victim, not the perpetrator, of the sidewalk shooting in 2024  of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO Brian Thompson in New York City. 

Another unique aspect of U.S.-style health insurance is the huge amount of money our big insurers waste on administrative costs. Any insurance plan has administrative expenses; you’ve got to collect the premiums, review the patients’ claims, and get the payments out to doctors and hospitals.

In other countries, the administrative costs are limited to about 5% of premium income; that is, insurers use 95% of all the money they take in to pay medical bills. But the U.S. insurance giants routinely report administrative costs in the range of 15% to 20%.

When the first drafts of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) were floated on Capitol Hill in 2009, the statutory language called for limiting insurers’ admin costs to 12% of premium income. Then the insurance lobby went to work. The final text of that law allows them to spend up to 20% of their income on salaries, marketing, dividends, and other stuff that doesn’t pay anybody’s hospital bill. 

There is one American insurance system, however, that is as thrifty as foreign health insurance plans. Medicare, the federal government’s insurance program for seniors and the disabled, reports administrative costs in the range of 3% — about one-fifth as much as the big private insurers fritter away. And Medicare’s administrators — federal bureaucrats — are paid less than a tenth as much as the executives running the far less efficient private insurance firms. 

Americans generally believe that the profit-driven private sector is more efficient and innovative than government. In many cases, that’s true. I wouldn’t want some government agency designing my cell phone or my hiking boots.

But when it comes to health insurance, all the evidence shows that nonprofit and government-run plans provide better coverage at lower cost than the private plans from America’s health insurance giants.

If we were to make basic health insurance a nonprofit endeavor, as it is everywhere else, or put everybody on a public plan like Medicare, the U.S. would save billions and improve our access to life-saving care. Then Americans might stop celebrating on social media when an insurance executive is killed. 

Poll results: AGI and the future of medicine

Posted on by • Posted in Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), Artificial Intelligence, Clinical Diagnosis, Clinical Innovation, Future of Medicine, Physician, Physician Practice Management, Physician Productivity • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
Poll results: AGI and the future of medicine

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) refers to AI systems that can match or exceed human cognitive abilities across a wide range of tasks, including complex medical decision-making.

With tech leaders predicting AGI-level capabilities within just a few years, clinicians and patients alike may soon face a historic inflection point: How should these tools be used in healthcare, and what benefits or risks might they bring? Last month’s survey asked your thoughts on these pressing questions. Here are the results:

My thoughts: 

I continue to be impressed by the expertise of readers. Your views on artificial general intelligence (AGI) closely align with those of leading technology experts. A clear majority believes that AGI will reach clinical parity within five years. A sizable minority expect it will take longer, and only a small number doubt it will ever happen.

Your answers also highlight where GenAI could have the greatest impact. Most respondents pointed to diagnosis (helping clinicians solve complex or uncertain medical problems) as the No. 1 opportunity. But many also recognized the potential to empower patients: from improving chronic disease management to personalizing care. And unlike the electronic health record, which adds to clinicians’ workloads (and contributes to burnout), GenAI is widely seen by readers as a tool that could relieve some of that burden.

Ultimately, the biggest concern may lie not with the technology, itself, but in who controls it. Like many of you, I worry that if clinicians don’t lead the way, private equity and for-profit companies will. And if they do, they will put revenue above the interests of patients and providers.

Thanks to those who voted. To participate in future surveys, and for access to timely news and opinion on American healthcare, sign up for my free (and ad-free) newsletter Monthly Musings on American Healthcare.

* * *

Dr. Robert Pearl is the former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group, the nation’s largest physician group. He’s a Forbes contributor, bestselling author, Stanford University professor, and host of two healthcare podcasts. Check out Pearl’s newest book, ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine with all profits going to Doctors Without Borders.

GOP faces ‘big, beautiful’ blowback risk on ObamaCare subsidy cuts

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, ACA, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Out of Pocket Expenses, Uncompensated Care, Underinsured, Uninsured • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
GOP faces ‘big, beautiful’ blowback risk on ObamaCare subsidy cuts

Medicaid cuts have received the lion’s share of attention from critics of Republicans’ sweeping tax cuts legislation, but the GOP’s decision not to extend enhanced ObamaCare subsidies could have a much more immediate impact ahead of next year’s midterms. 

Extra subsidies put in place during the coronavirus pandemic are set to expire at the end of the year, and there are few signs Republicans are interested in tackling the issue at all. 

To date, only Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have spoken publicly about wanting to extend them. 

The absence of an extension in the “big, beautiful bill” was especially notable given the sweeping changes the legislation makes to the health care system, and it gives Democrats an easy message: If Republicans in Congress let the subsidies expire at the end of the year, premiums will spike, and millions of people across the country could lose health insurance.  

In a statement released last month as the House was debating its version of the bill, House and Senate Democratic health leaders pointed out what they said was GOP hypocrisy. 

“Their bill extends hundreds of tax policies that expire at the end of the year. The omission of this policy will cause millions of Americans to lose their health insurance and will raise premiums on 24 million Americans,” wrote Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). 

“The Republican failure to stop this premium spike is a policy choice, and it needs to be recognized as such.” 

More than 24 million Americans are enrolled in the insurance marketplace this year, and about 90 percent — more than 22 million people — are receiving enhanced subsidies.

“All of those folks will experience quite large out-of-pocket premium increases,” said Ellen Montz, who helped run the federal ObamaCare exchanges under the Biden administration and is now a managing director with Manatt Health. 

“When premiums become less affordable, you have this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy where the youngest and the healthiest people drop out of the marketplace, and then premiums become even less affordable in the next year,” Montz said. 

The subsidies have been an extremely important driver of ObamaCare enrollment. Experts say if they were to expire, those gains would be erased.  

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 4.2 million people are projected to lose insurance by 2034 if the subsidies aren’t renewed.  

Combined with changes to Medicaid in the new tax cut law, at least 17 million Americans could be uninsured in the next decade. 

The enhanced subsidies increase financial help to make health insurance plans more affordable. Eligible applicants can use the credit to lower insurance premium costs upfront or claim the tax break when filing their return.  

Premiums are expected to increase by more than 75 percent on average, with people in some states seeing their payments more than double, according to health research group KFF. 

Devon Trolley, executive director of Pennie, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange in Pennsylvania, said she expects at least a 30 percent drop in enrollment if the subsidies expire. 

The state starts ramping up its open enrollment infrastructure in mid-August, she said, so time is running short for Congress to act. 

“The only vehicle left for funding the tax credits, if they were to extend them, would be the government funding bill with a deadline of September 30, which we really see as the last possible chance for Congress to do anything,” Trolley said. 

Trolley said three-quarters of enrollees in the state’s exchange have never purchased coverage without the enhanced tax credits in place.  

“They don’t know sort of a prior life of when the coverage was 82 percent more expensive. And we are very concerned this is going to come as a huge sticker shock to people, and that is going to significantly erode enrollment,” Trolley said.  

The enhanced subsidies were first put into effect during the height of the coronavirus pandemic as part of former President Biden’s 2021 economic recovery law and then extended as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. 

The CBO said permanently extending the subsidies would cost $358 billion over the next 10 years. 

Republicans have balked at the cost. They argue the credits hide the true cost of the health law and subsidize Americans who don’t need the help. They also argue the subsidies have been a driver of fraudulent enrollment by unscrupulous brokers seeking high commissions. 

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, last year said Congress should reject extending the subsidies. 

The Republican Study Committee’s 2025 fiscal budget said the subsidies “only perpetuate a never-ending cycle of rising premiums and federal bailouts — with taxpayers forced to foot the bill.” 

But since 2020, enrollment in the Affordable Care Act marketplace has grown faster in the states won by President Trump in 2024, primarily rural Southern red states that haven’t expanded Medicaid. Explaining to millions of Americans why their health insurance premiums are suddenly too expensive for them to afford could be politically unpopular for Republicans.

According to a recent KFF survey, 45 percent of Americans who buy their own health insurance through the ACA exchanges identify as Republican or lean Republican. Three in 10 said they identify as “Make America Great Again” supporters. 

“So much of that growth has just been a handful of Southern red states … Texas, Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas,” said Cynthia Cox, vice president at KFF and director of the firm’s ACA program. “That’s where I think we’re going to see a lot more people being uninsured.” 

The Great Flattening

Posted on by • Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Labor Spend Management, Management, Management Scope, Reducing Management, Sign of the Times • Leave a comment
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-am-883c66e8-ee14-4572-b2fb-69053766e367.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

This chart may explain why your boss is taking longer to get back to you lately: They’ve got more underlings to watch over, Axios’ Emily Peck writes from a new analysis.

  • Why it matters: Middle managers — i.e., bosses who have bosses — were already quietly going extinct, and now AI may be hastening the process.

By the numbers: 

People managers now oversee about twice as many workers as just five years ago.

  • There are now nearly six individual contributors per manager at the 8,500 small businesses analyzed in a report by Gusto, which handles payroll for small and medium-sized employers.
  • That’s up from a little over three in 2019.

🎨 The big picture: 

Big Tech has been shedding middle managers for the past few years, a process that’s been dubbed the Great Flattening.

  • Reducing management layers is one of Microsoft’s stated goals in laying off thousands of workers this year as it ramps up its AI strategy.
  • Amazon CEO Andy Jassy last year announced an effort to reduce managers (memo).