We’re joined by former Republican Congressman Jim Greenwood (R-PA) and Reps. Greg Murphy (R-NC) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) to discuss the costly and flawed Medicare Advantage program.
Concern about Medicare Advantage is no longer limited to patient advocates and health care reformers. Increasingly, lawmakers from across the political spectrum are questioning whether the program is serving seniors and taxpayers as intended.
Below are three clips from our latest episode of the HEALTH CARE un-covered Show featuring former Congressman Jim Greenwood (R-PA), Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI).
Former Congressman Jim Greenwood (R-PA) helped author the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which created Medicare Advantage’s modern framework. More than two decades later, he argues the program has drifted far from what lawmakers originally envisioned.
Rep. Greg Murphy, MD (R-NC), a practicing physician and co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, discusses Medicare Advantage’s high costs and upcoding schemes — and why he believes reforms are needed.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) has been one of Medicare Advantage’s most persistent critics in Congress. In this clip, he explains why he believes lawmakers must do more to curb insurer abuses and strengthen Traditional Medicare.
These clips offer just a glimpse of a much broader conversation about prior authorization, denied care, narrow provider networks, insurer overpayments and what Washington is doing about Medicare Advantage.
You can watch the full episode of the HEALTH CARE un-covered Show here:
A Trump administration plan to overhaul wage levels for visa holders is jolting hospitals and long-term care facilities that are heavily reliant on foreign-born workers.
Why it matters:
It’s the latest immigration-related policy change to loom over the health care workforce, coming after President Trump’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee and the suspension of certain immigrants’ work authorization renewals.
The latest move could further drive up costs for providers already struggling with staffing shortages, thin margins and growing patient demand, because many health jobs can’t be outsourced or automated.
Driving the news:
The Department of Labor wants to change the formula for calculating what it considers “fair minimum pay” for workers on certain visas, like H-1Bs, and green card sponsorship jobs.
The administration says the change would make it harder for companies to use visa programs to obtain cheaper labor and undercut American workers.
But the rule could have an outsized effect on health systems, testing labs, nursing homes and research institutions that sponsor foreign-trained workers.
There’s special concern about rural health providers that rely heavily on foreign-born clinicians to fill gaps in care in underserved areas.
Critics say the changewon’t adequately account for regional wage differences or experience levels.
They also warn a higher wage requirement will force employers to raise pay for U.S. workers to comply with labor laws — and make it unsustainable to hire foreign-born talent.
The big picture:
The U.S. health care system is heavily dependent on a foreign-born workforce. Immigrants make up about 16% of registered nurses nationwide, per a KFF analysis.
They make up 28% of the U.S. long-term care workforce, KFF found.
“This has the potential to significantly limit the sector’s ability to provide timely and quality health care services to those in need, both now and in the future,” Dana Ritchie, associate vice president of the American Health Care Association and National Center for Assisted Living, wrote in public comments on the proposal.
Zoom in:
Lynn Bruder, the CEO of staffing firm Nucleus Healthcare, said wage rates for visa-holding nurses on the lower end of the pay scale could jump 25% to 35% in certain markets, or from about $40 an hour to more than $50 an hour.
“The likely outcome is continued reliance on significantly more expensive agency staffing solutions and reduced ability for hospitals to build stable, long term workforce pipelines,” Bruder wrote in comments about the rule.
The other side:
The Department of Labor declined to comment. But visa programs have long been criticized for suppressing wages across many industries.
The changes would force employers to pay an estimated $6.5 billion in additional wages and increase the average certified wage by approximately $14,000 per year, according to the proposed rule.
“These proposed revisions aim to better align prevailing wage levels with the wages paid to U.S. workers,” the Labor Department wrote.
The window for public comments on the proposal closed this week.
The bottom line:
Health care providers say the administration is treating hospitals and nursing homes like any other employer, even though the workforce is being squeezed by an aging population and rising demand for care.
“Larger hospital systems may be able to absorb this increase, but you’ll see employers who are much smaller or mid-sized won’t,” Ann-Rose Johnson-Lewis, director of legal services at WorldWide HealthStaff Solutions, told Axios.
“You’ll see rural heath care systems not be able to absorb that. We’ll see a reduction in the workforce, fewer new hires and, ultimately, the broader economy will see the consequence of that.”
Try making a doctor’s appointment at your primary care provider’s office or an urgent care clinic, and often, it won’t be with an MD or DO. As more people need more care—and as more types of preventative care are available—offices are increasingly relying on nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) to see patients and save costs.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing; though they don’t have as extensive training as an MD or DO, both nurse practitioners and physician assistants can deal with many of the complaints someone would have at their primary care office.
“An experienced PA or NP can do most of what a primary care physician does,” says Perri Morgan, a professor in family medicine and community health at Duke University School of Medicine who focuses on PAs and NPs in the health care work force. “And many practices find them to be a welcome addition to the bottom line” because they cost less to employ than physicians.
Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are paid less than doctors are, but in some states they can generate nearly as much income for practices because they can bill at the same rate as doctors, says Dr. David Chan, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley who studies health economics. Doctors make, on average, $239,200 a year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics—nearly double what physician assistants and nurse practitioners make.
In 2023, the most recent year for which data are available, there were 340,319 primary care physicians in the U.S., according to the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis. By contrast, there were an estimated 374,970 nurse practitioners and 29,433 physician assistants working in primary care in 2024.
Estimates suggest that in a decade, there will be many more NPs and PAs than MDs and DOs across medicine. While the number of physicians in the U.S. is projected to grow by just 3% between 2024 and 2034, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of physician assistants is expected to grow by 20%, and the number of nurse anesthetists, nurse midwives, and nurse practitioners is expected to grow by 35% over that time.
In some states, nurse practitioners and physician assistants must be supervised by a physician to practice. But groups that represent the interests of NPs and PAs are advocating for more independence. They have persuaded many states to pass legislation that allows them to operate without a supervising physician. The American Medical Association, however, has worked to defeat such bills, calling the practice “scope creep” and arguing that it makes patients less safe.
Here’s what patients should know about PAs, NPs, and what you might get from one type of provider vs. another.
What is a nurse practitioner (NP)?
The technical name for a nurse practitioner is an advanced practice registered nurse, or APRN. There are four main types of APRNs: nurse practitioners, certified registered nurse anesthetists, certified nurse-midwives, and clinical nurse specialists.
Nurse practitioners can diagnose and treat illnesses, prescribe medications, manage chronic conditions, order and interpret diagnostic tests, and provide preventative care, says Valerie J. Fuller, president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP). Fuller says NPs are unique because they are trained in nursing and so are extremely patient-centered. “I think patients who choose a nurse practitioner are really looking for a clinician who can diagnose, treat, manage their health needs, but who also takes the time to listen,” she says.
To become a nurse practitioner, you need an undergraduate nursing degree and a registered nurse license. Then you must go back to school to pursue a graduate degree: either a master of science in nursing or a doctor of nursing practice. After your graduate degree, you must pass a national certifying exam; only then can you receive an APRN license. (Not all states issue a specific APRN license; some issue similar authorization but call it a certification or registry.)
Nurse practitioners have what’s called full practice authority in 27 states, meaning they can practice without being supervised by a physician. That’s up from just 14 states in 2010. And although some states have passed legislation that requires visits with nurse practitioners to be compensated at the same rate as physicians, that’s not the case in all states. Medicare reimburses nurse practitioners at 85% of what they reimburse for physicians, Fuller says.
Fuller argues that allowing NPs to practice without a physician’s supervision encourages them to open up practices, helping close gaps in care. When Arizona allowed full practice authority, she says, the nurse-practitioner workforce grew by more than 50%. Millions of Americans don’t have access to basic primary care services, she says, and nurse practitioners can step up to help if they’re allowed.
What is a physician assistant (PA)?
Physician assistants came about in the wake of the Vietnam War, when thousands of medics were returning from overseas and looking for a place to fit in the medical field, says Morgan, of Duke. Today, to recognize their independence, the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) is advocating for PAs to be referred to as “physician associates” rather than “physician assistants.”
PAs help fill gaps in medical care, just like NPs do. “They are trained as core generalists,” says Chantell Taylor, head of advocacy at AAPA. “They’re attractive to employers looking to lower wait times and increase patient access, particularly in rural and underserved areas.”
To start a PA program, students must have a bachelor’s degree, complete prerequisite coursework, and enter PA school with more than 3,000 hours of patient-contact experience, Taylor says. PA programs usually last three academic years that include more than 2,000 hours of clinical experience.
That clinical experience includes rotations in family medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and other specialties, and prepares graduates to evaluate, diagnose, and treat patients across a broad range of medical specialties and practice settings. PAs graduate with a master’s degree—usually a Master of Science in physician assistant studies or a Master of Clinical Health Services—and then must pass the physician assistant certifying exam to receive national certification and obtain a state license.
Some PAs practice in primary care, but others specialize in surgery, oncology, and other areas, assisting doctors and making them more productive, says Morgan. A PA could prep patients for surgery and close a patient up after surgery, for instance, allowing the surgeon to see more patients, she says. “PAs in specialties add at least as much value as ones in primary care,” she says.
The AAPA is advocating for states to lift the requirement that PAs be supervised by a physician; so far, nine states have done so. Five states have passed legislation to change the title of PA from physician assistant to physician associate.
Are NPs and PAs as effective as MDs and DOs?
Patients may be hesitant to see a NP or PA because they have less education and medical training than a doctor. There have been recent reports of poorly trained NPs missing key indicators of illness, most notably in a Bloomberg series about the rising numbers of nurse practitioners.
Both AAPA and AANP say that PAs and NPs are essential to provide care in rural and underserved areas with physician shortages, and that having more non-physicians providing care helps increase access for all Americans. The American Medical Association, on the other hand, says that while it supports the role of non-physicians, “they are not a substitute for physicians,” and that numerous studies show that patients want care led by physicians.
The training differences are stark. Physicians complete four years of medical school plus a three-to-seven year residency program, which can include 12,000 to 16,000 hours of clinical training. Nurse practitioners do not have a residency requirement and have about 500-720 hours of clinical training, and PAs are required to have about 2,000 hours of supervised clinical practice.
“The country is facing a health care workforce shortage, including shortages of both physicians and nurses,” the American Medical Association said in a statement provided to TIME. “One way to alleviate this shortage is by supporting physician-led care teams that leverage the skills of non-physician practitioners while ensuring that all members of the care team work together, under the direction of a physician, toward optimal care for patients.”
What does the research show about the effectiveness of each type of provider? It depends on the study, says Chan of UC Berkeley, who has examined the difference between NPs and physicians in an emergency-room setting. In one study, Chan looked at what happened in emergency rooms when the Veterans Health Administration began allowing nurse practitioners to practice without physician supervision in 2016. His work suggested that NPs ordered more external tests than did physicians, had more patients returning to the ER with infections than did physicians, and were more likely than physicians to prescribe antibiotics. But “the evidence is still kind of limited,” Chan says. Some doctors will have better patient outcomes than some nurse practitioners, but the reverse is true, too.
Other research suggests that both NPs and PAs can be as effective as doctors at taking care of chronic conditions in medically complex patients—and that they can help save money. One study of patients with diabetes seen at the VA found no clinically significant differences in diabetes outcomes of patients seen by a NP, PA, or physician.
Another study of VA patients with diabetes found that the health care costs were about 7% lower for NP and PA patients than patients who saw a physician, because patients who saw a doctor were more likely to use the emergency room and inpatient services. Morgan of Duke, the lead author of that study, speculates that this is because it might be easier for patients to reach their PA or NP than their physician, allowing their provider to help them address concerns or adjust medications quickly without having to go to the emergency room.
What’s most important, experts say, is that NPs and PAs work together with physicians to help fill care gaps and treat patients. Exactly how that team works together is still up for debate. Taylor, of the AAPA, calls the physician-led model “outdated” and argues that it “doesn’t fully leverage all provider types.” The AMA, on the other hand, argues that physician-led, team-based care is higher quality and more cost effective. And both have a number of studies to point to that prove their point.
“Increasingly, health care is about teams,” Chan says. “So the next question is: How do we best organize teams with NPs and doctors and others?”
Presbyterian Healthcare Services’ decision to exit most Medicare Advantage plans and eliminate 150 positions underscores a growing reality for provider-sponsored health plans.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Rising utilization, reimbursement pressure and regulatory scrutiny are forcing organizations to reassess participation in Medicare Advantage.
Presbyterian’s move reflects a decision to prioritize care delivery and long-term financial stability over maintaining an unprofitable business line.
Financial flexibility and access to capital increasingly depend on demonstrating disciplined balance-sheet management.
Albuquerque-based Presbyterian Healthcare Services has announced it will discontinue most of its Medicare Advantage (MA) offerings beginning in 2027, affecting roughly 30,000 members, while laying off approximately 150 health plan and administrative employees. The system will continue operating its Dual Plus Special Needs Plan serving Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries. According to Presbyterian, remaining in the broader MA market would limit its ability to invest in care delivery, workforce development and access initiatives across New Mexico. The move is another indication that provider-sponsored health plans are facing mounting pressure as MA margins tighten nationwide.
Many health systems entered Medicare Advantage to create integrated delivery models, diversify revenue streams and capture greater value from population health initiatives. However, elevated medical utilization, changing reimbursement dynamics and increased regulatory oversight have altered the financial equation. Presbyterian’s decision suggests leadership determined that the returns no longer justified the capital and operational resources required to compete effectively in the market.
The regional implications are significant. Presbyterian is one of New Mexico’s largest healthcare organizations, operating hospitals, clinics, physician practices and a health plan across the state. While the layoffs are concentrated in health plan and administrative roles, the exit removes a major local MA option and will require thousands of seniors to seek alternative coverage. At the same time, Presbyterian argues the move will allow it to redirect resources toward direct patient care and workforce investments, potentially strengthening healthcare delivery capacity over the long term.
There’s a larger lesson centered on strategic focus. Organizations often face pressure to maintain market presence across multiple business lines, even when margins deteriorate. Presbyterian’s action demonstrates the importance of regularly evaluating whether each service line advances the system’s long-term mission and financial objectives. Exiting a business can be difficult, but preserving capital for higher-value investments may ultimately create greater organizational resilience.
The decision also highlights why credit ratings deserve ongoing executive attention. Strong ratings are not simply a borrowing metric; they influence an organization’s ability to finance facilities, technology modernization, workforce initiatives and strategic growth. Rating agencies increasingly scrutinize operating performance, liquidity, leverage, governance and management’s willingness to make difficult strategic decisions when market conditions change. Fitch continues to maintain coverage on Presbyterian Healthcare Services, underscoring the importance of external evaluation of health system financial strength.
Healthcare organizations that delay corrective action risk eroding margins, weakening liquidity and increasing borrowing costs. Conversely, systems that demonstrate disciplined portfolio management often preserve stronger credit profiles and maintain greater access to capital during periods of industry disruption.
Presbyterian’s Medicare Advantage could signal a move towards strategic capital allocation, a growing priority in today’s environment. As reimbursement uncertainty and utilization pressures continue across healthcare, CFOs should view the announcement as a reminder that financial sustainability sometimes requires difficult choices today to preserve organizational strength tomorrow.
Policy momentum continues to shift toward prevention, affordability, and population health, which is increasing the value of physician alignment and care management capabilities.
The biggest risk in price transparency isn’t fines—it’s how increased visibility into payer contracts and pricing structures could affect margins, negotiations, and market position.
One healthcare organization’s restructuring highlights a broader industry shift toward rewarding sustainable cash flow, liquidity, and financial flexibility over leveraged growth models.
Headline: Free primary care for all: Democratic think tank pushes the party on new health policy
Democratic strategists are promoting free primary care for all Americans as a more politically viable alternative to Medicare for All, aiming to address healthcare affordability and access ahead of the 2026 elections.
Why it matters: I do not think this proposal will become federal policy in the near future. However, it reflects a shift in healthcare reform politics. Instead of focusing on comprehensive insurance redesign, policymakers are increasingly exploring targeted affordability initiatives that can be more easily communicated to voters and potentially implemented incrementally. I have little doubt that primary care access, preventive services, and healthcare affordability are likely to remain prominent policy themes heading into the midterm election cycle.
The CFO Takeaway: This headline underscores the idea that primary care is becoming a strategic asset. If policymakers continue moving toward subsidized or universally accessible primary care models, health systems with strong employed physician networks, value-based care capabilities, and population health infrastructure could be positioned to benefit.
On the other hand, organizations that remain heavily dependent on downstream specialty and procedural volumes may feel the heat as policymakers and payers redirect resources toward prevention and early intervention. I say look at this as another signal that future reimbursement models may reward access, chronic disease management, and longitudinal patient engagement rather than episodic acute care. The question is not whether free primary care becomes law, but whether an organization’s capital allocation, physician alignment strategy, and care delivery model are prepared for a healthcare economy that places greater financial value on keeping patients healthy rather than treating them after they become sick.
Headline: Trump administration warns more than 500 hospitals to provide more price information or face fines
The Trump administration has intensified enforcement of hospital price transparency rules, warning more than 500 hospitals over alleged noncompliance. Hospitals that fail to disclose required pricing data could face penalties of up to $2 million annually, with officials signaling that additional enforcement actions are likely as the administration intensifies oversight of transparency requirements originally established during President Trump’s first term.
The CFO Takeaway: While hospitals have been required to publish machine-readable files and consumer-friendly pricing information for years, compliance has been uneven across the industry. Many CFOs have spoken to me about the difficulty in publishing usable pricing information; standardizing the masses of varying data is often just too complex and time consuming. This move is the administration’s latest shift from rulemaking toward active enforcement in this category. CFOs should focus on strengthening pricing governance, contract management, and payer negotiation strategies. The bigger risk is whether increased transparency exposes pricing weaknesses that could undermine future reimbursement, market position, and margins.
Industry POV: This headline is not fundamentally about fines, it’s about margin visibility and negotiating leverage. Price transparency is becoming a strategic financial issue. As payer rates and pricing differences become more visible, hospitals will face greater scrutiny from employers, insurers, competitors, and regulators.
Headline: GoHealth files for Chapter 11 to strengthen its position ahead of AEP 2026
GoHealth has filed a prepackaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy to reduce debt and strengthen its finances. The restructuring has strong backing from lenders and major stakeholders, allowing the company to continue normal operations, pay vendors, and maintain customer and payer relationships while emerging with a healthier balance sheet and lender-led ownership structure. The company expects to continue normal operations throughout the process, pay vendors in full, preserve relationships with health plans and consumers, and emerge from bankruptcy before the critical Medicare enrollment season begins.
Why it matters: While the announcement is framed as a restructuring, it is really the culmination of Medicare Advantage pressures. GoHealth has faced declining revenues, significant debt obligations, higher interest costs, and a challenging MA market with health plans increasingly focused on profitability, member retention, and tighter distribution economics.
The CFO Takeaway: This headline is ultimately unsurprising in today’s market. GoHealth’s restructuring shows how quickly leverage that seemed manageable during periods of growth can become a strategic constraint when industry economics shift.
GoHealth’s restructuring may ultimately be successful, but it highlights that healthcare organizations are increasingly being judged not just on revenue growth, but on their ability to generate sustainable cash flow and withstand prolonged reimbursement pressure. CFOs, is that shift influencing capital allocation decisions today?
HENRY KOTULA 