Category Archives: Health Policy

They Cut Medicaid, Not the Waste: Congress Protects Big Insurance While Slashing Care

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Lobbyist, Medicaid, Medicaid Cuts, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, MedPAC, Political Action Committees (PAC), Political Lobbying, Pre-Authorization, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Motive, Super PAC, Upcoding • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/they-cut-medicaid-not-the-waste-congress?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=163510896&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The House of Representatives’ reconciliation bill, passed by the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee today, cuts just about everything when it comes to health care – except the actual waste, fraud and abuse. Now the bill heads to the floor for a vote of the full House of Representatives before it must also be passed by the Senate to become law. 

I know what you’re thinking: not another story about Medicaid. With the flood of articles detailing the devastating Medicaid cuts proposed by House Republicans —cuts that could strip 8.7 million people of their health coverage — there’s an important fact being overlooked: Members of Congress chose to sidestep policies aimed at reining in Big Insurance abuses and, instead, opted to cut Medicaid.

And the real irony of it all is they could have saved a ton of money if they would just address the elephant in the room. 

Abuses by Big Insurance companies have been going on for decades but have only recently come under scrutiny. Insurance companies figured out how to take advantage of the structure of the Medicare Advantage program to receive higher payments from the government.

They do this in two ways:

  1. They make their enrollees seem sicker than they are through a strategy called “upcoding” and;
  2. They use care obstacles such as prior authorization and inadequate provider networks that eventually drive sicker people to drop their plans and leave them with healthier enrollees, referred to as “favorable selection.” 

According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) these tactics lead the government to overpay insurance corporations running MA plans by $84 billion a year. This number is expected to grow, and estimates show that overpayments will cost the government more than a $1 trillion from 2025-2034. That is $1 trillion dollars in potential savings Republicans could have included in their bill instead of cutting Medicaid spending that provides care for vulnerable communities. 

These overpayments do not lead to better care in MA plans; in fact, research has shown that care quality and outcomes are often worse in MA compared to traditional Medicare. Even worse, these overpayments are tax dollars meant for health care that end up in the pockets of shareholders of big insurance corporations, which spend billions of taxpayer dollars on things like stock buybacks and executive bonuses. 

One of the most frustrating parts of the lawmaker’s choice to target Medicaid rather than Big Insurance abuses is that there are multiple policies supported by both Republicans and Democrats to stop these abuses. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), along with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), have introduced the NO UPCODE Act, which would cut down on the practice of upcoding explained above. President Trump’s Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz, said during his confirmation hearing that he supports efforts to crack down on practices used by insurers to upcode. And Rep. Mark Green (R-Tennessee) introduced a bipartisan bill to decrease improper prior authorization denials in MA. 

In a somewhat cruel twist, the only mention of Medicare fraud in the Republican reconciliation bill proposals is a section claiming to crack down on improper payments in Medicare Parts A and B (which make up traditional Medicare) by using artificial intelligence.

The total improper payments in TM represent just over one-third of the overpayments going to MA plans each year, and many of the payments flagged as improper in TM are flagged due to missing documentation rather than questionable tactics that MA insurers use. 

In reflecting on why Republicans in Congress ignored potential savings from Big Insurance reforms and instead pursued cuts to care for people depending on Medicaid, which do not save as much, my biggest question was, why?

Why would lawmakers swerve around a populist policy right in front of them to stop Big Insurance from profiting off of the federal government to instead propose a regressive policy that targets millions of working Americans and leaves health insurance corporations that make billions in profits each year untouched?

Unfortunately, the answer likely lies in money. Although people enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) make up roughly one-third of the U.S. population, they account for just 0.5% of all political campaign contributions — about $60 million annually. This disparity is likely driven by financial constraints: Many of these individuals are rightly focused on covering basic needs such as housing, food, and childcare, especially as wages have not kept pace with the rising cost of living.

In contrast, the health care sector — which includes major players like big insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital companies—contributed $357 million during the 2020 election cycle, including $97 million to outside groups such as Super PACs. These outside spending groups are largely funded by corporations and wealthy individuals, who represent less than 1% of the population but wield significant political influence.

Super PACs spent more than $2 billion during the 2020 election cycle, amplifying the voices of industry-aligned donors. This stark imbalance in political spending may help explain why congressional proposals targeted Medicaid recipients while leaving the powerful health insurance industry largely untouched.

It is not only Republicans who have failed to stop Big Insurance from taking advantage of federal health programs, Democrats declined to take action when negotiating their health care legislation during President Biden’s term. Rather, it seems to be a failure of policymakers of both parties to pass legislation that makes it clear to Big Insurance that our health care is not an investment opportunity for Wall Street, and the dollars we pay in taxes to support Medicare are not pocket change for executives to use for stock buybacks.

The failure to include MA reform represents a missed opportunity to prioritize patient care over corporate profits. However, the growing strength and voices of patients across the nation will ultimately make it impossible for lawmakers to ignore this issue much longer. With continued momentum, the fight to put patients over Big Insurance profits will succeed.

The Costs of Insufficient Insurance Coverage

Posted on by • Posted in Bankruptcy, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, Medical Debt, Medical Debt Financing, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/rooseveltinstitute/roosevelt-rundown-what-could-be-the-most-important-tax-case-of-the-century-9770494?e=c0285a8bc9

Whether they owe providers directly or carry the financial burden in long-term loans and credit card bills, an estimated 41 percent of Americans hold some form of medical debt.

“Medical debt is not inevitable. Rather, it is the product of decades of dysfunctional health-care policy, a market-oriented insurance system, and a patchwork of safety net programs with notable gaps,” writes Stephen Nuñez, Roosevelt’s director of stratification economics, in a new brief. 

Health-care policy permeates every stage of American life—whether it’s students applying for Medicaid, workers struggling to find insurance coverage between jobs, or the elderly signing up for Medicare—and the scale of the resulting debt crisis is massive. But these problems are also solvable.

“Biden administration efforts over the past several years have shown that our health-care system can be strengthened to extend insurance to millions more working-class people and help millions more upgrade their insurance coverage with better plans, at incrementally small costs,” Nuñez explains. “But the Trump administration is now poised not only to undo these steps but to enact savage cuts to federal health-care spending that will supercharge the medical debt crisis and together leave millions of people, disproportionately Black and Hispanic, uninsured and underinsured.”

Ultimately, a crisis created by policy choices must also be solved by policy choices:

  • In 2025, Congress should protect Medicaid and the American Rescue Plan tax credits.
  • In upcoming state legislative sessions, the 10 states withholding federal Medicaid funds from their residents should expand coverage as stipulated in the Affordable Care Act.
  • In the coming years, the federal government should implement a comprehensive plan to close the gaps in the American health insurance system.


Read the full brief: “The US Medical Debt Crisis: Catastrophic Costs of Insufficient Health Coverage”

Millions could lose coverage under potential GOP Medicaid policies: CBO

Posted on by • Posted in Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Medicaid, Medicaid Cuts, Medicaid Disenrollment, Medicaid Eligibility, Preexisting Conditions, Terminated Health Insurance, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/medicaid-coverage-losses-gop-policies-cbo/747615/

Dive Brief:

  • Millions of people could lose coverage under potential policy changes to Medicaid under consideration by Republicans in Congress, according to a letter sent to lawmakers this week from the Congressional Budget Office. 
  • One option, reducing the federal government’s share of costs for enrollees covered under Medicaid expansion, would reduce the federal deficit by $710 billion over the next decade. But in 2034, 5.5 million people would be removed from the safety-net program, with 2.4 million of these enrollees becoming uninsured, according to the CBO.
  • Another potential policy, placing a per-enrollee cap on federal spending, would remove 5.8 million people from Medicaid. Nearly 3 million of those people would lose coverage entirely. The policy would reduce the deficit by $682 billion, the analysis found.

Dive Insight: 

Debates surrounding potential cuts to Medicaid — and their implications for patients and providers — have been heating up in Congress for weeks. 

Last month, lawmakers approved a budget resolution that called for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicare and Medicaid, to find $880 billion in savings. That budget goal is likely impossible to hit without targeting major healthcare programs under the committee’s purview, according to an earlier analysis published in March by the CBO.

The committee is expected to meet next week to mark up its portion of the reconciliation package and hash out legislation.

However, cutting Medicaid is a politically contentious move for Republican lawmakers. Some legislators have pushed back on potential cuts, and others have argued they’ll preserve Medicaid for the most vulnerable by targeting fraud, waste and abuse in the safety-net insurance program. 

But Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who requested the latest CBO analysis, said the policies will ultimately limit benefits and result in coverage losses.

“This analysis from the non-partisan, independent CBO is straightforward: the Republican plan for health care means benefit cuts and terminated health insurance for millions of Americans who count on Medicaid,” Wyden said in a statement. “Republicans continue to use smoke and mirrors to try to trick Americans into thinking they aren’t going to hurt anybody when they proceed with this reckless plan, but fighting reality is an uphill battle.”

The letter from the CBO analyzes five potential policy options for Medicaid: setting the federal matching rate for the expansion population at the same rate as other enrollees; limiting state taxes on providers; setting federal caps on spending for the entire Medicaid population or just the expansion group; and repealing two regulations linked to eligibility and enrollment. 

Most of the options reduce the funds available to states, according to the CBO. The agency expects states will replace about half of the reduced support with their own resources, and then reduce spending by cutting provider payment rates, reducing optional benefits and cutting enrollment. 

For example, if Congress decides to limit provider taxes, where states levy taxes that finance a portion of their Medicaid spending, that would result in 8.6 million fewer people enrolled in Medicaid in 2034, including nearly 4 million becoming uninsured. The move would ultimately lessen the federal deficit by $668 billion, as the government would offer reimbursement for lower state spending, the analysis found.

Another option, placing a cap on federal spending for the expansion population, would save $225 billion — but 3.3 million people would lose Medicaid coverage. Repealing regulations that aim to reduce barriers to enrollment and simplify the renewal process would reduce the federal deficit by $162 billion over the next decade, but 2.3 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid, the CBO found.

Democrats urge Republicans to focus on Medicare Advantage upcoding instead of Medicaid cuts

Posted on by • Posted in Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Fraud and Abuse, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Overpayments, Medicare Advantage Upcoding, MedPAC, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/democrats-urge-republicans-focus-medicare-advantage-upcoding/747627/

Dive Brief:

  • Democrat lawmakers are urging Republicans debating cuts to Medicaid to focus instead on fraud, waste and abuse in another federal healthcare program: Medicare Advantage.
  • Curbing upcoding in the privatized Medicare plans, wherein insurers exaggerate the health needs of their members to inflate government reimbursement, is a better avenue for saving federal dollars than restricting benefits or cutting eligibility in Medicaid, the 36 Democrats wrote in a letter to GOP leadership on Wednesday.
  • The letter was addressed to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and comes as Republicans debate different policies to reach savings targets.

Dive Insight:

Republicans in Congress are aiming to extend tax cuts from President Donald Trump’s first term. Their budget directs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to cut $880 billion in spending — a goal that’s impossible to reach without touching Medicaid, which (along with its sister program for children) provides safety-net insurance to some 80 million Americans.

Now, Democrats in both chambers are urging Republicans to redirect their attention from Medicaid to MA, privatized plans for Medicare seniors that can provide additional benefits but also restrict care in a way traditional Medicare is not allowed to do. Still, the plans have steadily grown in popularity and now cover more than half of the 68 million Americans in Medicare.

“Your directive to cut federal health care spending should come from reducing waste, fraud, and abuse like upcoding by for-profit insurance companies, not by cutting health care benefits for American families who rely on Medicaid to make ends meet,” the Democrats’ letter reads.

The letter cites a Wall Street Journal investigation into upcoding published last year that found MA insurers frequently added diagnoses for their members for which their members never received treatment or that went against doctors’ observations. The practice drove a total of $50 billion in additional payments to the private insurers over three years, according to the investigation.

Similarly, influential congressional advisory group MedPAC found CMS paid MA insurers $84 billion more in 2024 than the government would have if those members had been in traditional Medicare. Upcoding was responsible for almost half of those overpayments.

Traditionally, Republicans broadly support MA, which was created on the premise that private insurers could help the government manage Medicare more economically. However, there’s been rising bipartisan support for reforming the program in light of growing evidence of practices like upcoding that inflate government reimbursement to plans without helping enrollees.

In his confirmation hearing, Dr. Mehmet Oz, the surgeon and television personality tapped by Trump as the administrator of the CMS, agreed that tackling fraud, waste and abuse in MA was a “rational” way of lowering federal healthcare spending.

“We’re actually apparently paying more for Medicare Advantage than we’re paying for regular Medicare. So it’s upside down,” Oz said in front of the Senate Finance Committee in March.

Republicans in the House are currently trying to figure out how to achieve desired savings without slashing Medicaid, given the program’s political popularity, including among Republican voters.

GOP leadership recently appeared to rule out two Medicaid policies that would cause significant upheaval for enrollees in the program: lowering the portion of Medicaid costs borne by the federal government for the Medicaid expansion population, and per-capita caps on benefits for beneficiaries in expansion states.

More moderate policies Republicans are considering include requirements tying eligibility to work, education or volunteering hours or curbing financing arrangements that allow states to draw more funds from the federal government. Policies on the table would still result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage.

“Moving forward with this dangerous plan to rip health care away from low- and middle-income Americans would be a man-made disaster for the health of the nation and the economy,” the Democrats’ letter reads. “We urge you instead to listen to Administrator Oz and tackle real fraud, waste, and abuse by private, for-profit health insurers in MA.”

House E&C is expected to hold its reconciliation markup next week.

New HHS Rule Wipes Out Some Public Comment on Rulemaking

Posted on by • Posted in Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Comment Period, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Policy, Medicaid, Medicare, Rule Making, State of the Union • Leave a comment
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/114464?trw=no&fbclid=IwY2xjawI0Pm5leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVYu3nIzlvHp7Plrwp7zoHkFajFHNo-cwc6a7K-K94AZKCwLxtdtr59Lfw_aem_qkfFcYoG5tat4QAWk_XZkA

A 3-page ruleopens in a new tab or window published in the Federal Register today and signed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ends the ability of stakeholders to comment on many of the agency’s policies regarding benefits, contracts, and grants within the agency.

“The intent of this policy is very clearly to enable the administration to adopt major policy changes very quickly, without first letting the public know what those changes are going to be,” said Samuel Bagenstos, JD, who served as general counsel to the Office of Management Budget and subsequently HHS during the 4 years of the Biden administration.

Under this new policy, which says it “is rescinding the policy on public participation in rule making,” rules issued by any of the divisions within HHS that fall under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) would be affected — except for Medicare, which falls under a separate provision of the Medicare Act, Bagenstos told MedPage Today during a phone call Friday.

Medicaid, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Administration for Children and Families, the National Institutes of Health, and many other agencies fall under this new rule, he said, for all policies having to do with grants or benefits or both.

The policy ends a practice that has been an important part of U.S. healthcare for more than 50 years.

“For example, if they wanted to allow work requirements under Medicaid, they could do that now … without going through rule changing policies,” said Bagenstos, who now is a professor of law at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Bagenstos said he doubts the new rule “is going to hold up in court. There are very substantial grounds to challenge this as being arbitrary and capricious.”

Typically, HHS issues a notice of proposed policies and then allows a period, typically 60 days, for interested and affected parties to give feedback on how the rule would impact them and/or the public. Often hundreds and sometimes thousands of comments in support or opposition are typically posted on regulations.govopens in a new tab or window for each proposed rule. After the comment period, the agency reviews each comment and often provides a written response in the final rule explaining why the provision was or wasn’t finalized.

This new rule contends that the APA exempts the agency from having to adhere to the commenting process in rulemaking when the matter relates to “agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts.”

In 1971, HHS adopted a policy that waived the APA’s statutory exemption from procedural rulemaking requirements, the so-called “Richardson Waiver.” The waiver required HHS to use notice and comment rulemaking procedures.

But under the new rule, that waiver is “contrary to the clear text of the APA and imposes on the Department obligations beyond the maximum procedural requirements specified in the APA.”

It concludes, “Effective immediately, the Richardson Waiver is rescinded and is no longer the policy of the Department.”

The new rule relieves these agencies of a tremendous amount of work. It states: “The extra-statutory obligations of the Richardson Waiver impose costs on the Department and the public, are contrary to the efficient operation of the Department, and impede the Department’s flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates.”

Steven Balla, PhD, co-director of the George Washington Regulatory Studies Center in Washington, D.C., said that while it’s unclear how the new policy will be enforced, “It hit me out of the blue.”

“There’s historically been a bipartisan consensus that there are these two practices that you should follow when writing rules, and one is to seek public input, and the other is to do regular regulatory impact analysis. You have studies of the costs and benefits, the likely impacts of what you’re going to do,” he said.

He thinks that going forward, policies that must be published in the Federal Register “that have the full force of law as a regulation would all still have to go through notice and comment, unless the agency [invokes] a good cause exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act.”

The announcement also seems inconsistent with the Trump administration’s stated goal to improve transparency in public policy, a key element of which is public involvement that would be taken away, he said. “It’s a big deal, for sure.”

In the hours following the unpublished rule’s posting on Friday, several organizations expressed opposition mixed with confusion.

Stella Dantas, MD, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said in a statement that such a policy could weaken the healthcare system and harm patients and clinicians.

“The practice, delivery, and regulation of medicine is incredibly complex. The experiences of patients, clinicians, administrators, and other stakeholders across medicine must be taken into account in order to avoid unintended outcomes,” she said. Expert input from medical societies, researchers, and patient advocates is necessary “to inform regulatory bodies and ensure the soundness of final rules and other actions.”

Kate Smith Sloan, president and CEO of LeadingAge, an association of 5,400 non-profit organizations including nursing homes that provide a variety of services for seniors, echoed many of ACOG’s views. In a statement, she said the policy “has the potential to significantly harm older adults and the nonprofit providers who serve them.”

“The possibility that HHS under the Trump White House will eliminate or significantly scale back public comment on policies impacting payment, regulations, safety, operations, and other critical areas is truly troubling — a move we can only hope will not have the negative impact that we fear it might,” she said.

Ted Okon, MBA, executive director of the Community Oncology Alliance, a non-profit organization of oncology practices, told MedPage Today in an email that the administration needs to provide more clarification on the rule. But he said the ability to comment on any policy impacting cancer care “is critical … to provide agencies with real-world data and insight that is not available to them in D.C.”

Alice Bers, JD, litigation director for the Center for Medicare Advocacy, said that the “likely attempt to avoid public comment on actions and policies the agency expects will be unpopular” and “will have broad impact across HHS and its subagencies.”

Like Bagenstos, Bers doesn’t think the changes would impact Medicare policy, which has its own notice and comment requirements under the Medicare Act separate from the APA.

It was not immediately clear whether the HHS under Kennedy plans to pursue additional policy changes on annual Medicare rulemaking, a complex process that affects payment amounts, reporting, qualification and quality requirements affecting hospitals, physician practices, nursing homes, hospices, and many other healthcare settings.

Said Bagenstos: “They’d need to get Congress to repeal it [which] I can’t really see happening.”

Several large healthcare advocacy organizations appeared caught off guard by the new rule.

Representatives of the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and the California Hospital Association said on Friday they were reviewing the new policy.

What Trump and the GOP have planned for healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Block Grants, Medicaid Eligibility, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Work Requirements, Medicare, Medicare 340B Drug Discount Program, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cuts, Medicare Denials, Medicare Hospital Fund, Medicare Payment, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), Medicare Reimbursement, Medicare Site Neutral Payment, Project 2025, State of the Union, Tax Exempt Debt, Tax Exempt Status • Leave a comment
https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/what-trump-and-gop-have-planned-healthcare?leadId=1234536&mkt_tok=NDIwLVlOQS0yOTIAAAGYKMuOSDpr4HmVgwoir-sctcWYrTCmAMidk2ElOKJYQgYV2OewZexaTT7OGNmdoOgJX4esGPrurXZW_6oPMprQ0Mc5ph-PR7Pcrbc3LivGTNmd

Health systems are rightly concerned about Republican plans to cut Medicaid spending, end ACA subsidies and enact site neutral payments, says consultant Michael Abrams, managing partner of Numerof, a consulting firm.

“Health systems have reason to worry,” Abrams said shortly after President Donald Trump was inaugurated on Monday. 

While Trump mentioned little about healthcare in his inauguration speech, the GOP trifecta means spending cuts outlined in a one-page document released by Politico and another 50-pager could get a majority vote for passage.

Of the insurers, pharmaceutical manufacturers and health systems that Abrams consults with, healthcare systems are the ones that are most concerned, Abrams said.

At the top of the Republican list targeting $4 trillion in healthcare spending is eliminating an estimated $2.5 billion from Medicaid. 

“There’s no question Republicans will find savings in Medicaid,” Abrams said.

Medicaid has doubled its enrollment in the last couple of years due to extended benefits made possible by the Affordable Care Act, despite disenrolling 25 million people during the redetermination process at the end of the public health emergency, according to Abrams.

Upward of 44 million people, or 16.4% of the non-elderly U.S. population are covered by an Affordable Care Act initiative, including a record high of 24 million people in ACA health plans and another 21.3 million in Medicaid expansion enrollment, according to a KFF report. Medicaid expansion enrollment is 41% higher than in 2020.

The enhanced subsidies that expanded eligibility for Medicaid and doubled the number of enrollees are set to expire at the end of 2025 and Republicans are likely to let that happen, Abrams said. Eliminating enhanced federal payments to states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA are estimated to cut the program by $561 billion.

If enhanced subsidies end, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the number of people who will become uninsured will increase by 3.8 million each year between 2026 and 2034. 

The enhanced tax subsidies for the ACA are set to expire at the end of 2025. This could result in another 2.2 million people losing coverage in 2026, and 3.7 million in 2027, according to the CBO.

WHY THIS MATTERS

For hospitals, loss of health insurance coverage means an increase in sicker, uninsured patients visiting the emergency department and more uncompensated care.

“Health systems are nervous about people coming to them who are uninsured,” Abrams said. “There will be people disenrolled.”

The federal government allowed more people to be added to the Medicaid rolls during the public health emergency to help those who lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic, Numerof said. Medicaid became an open-ended liability which the government wants to end now that the unemployment rate is around 4.2% and jobs are available.

An idea floating around Congress is the idea of converting Medicaid to a per capita cap and providing these funds to the states as a block grant, Abrams said. The cost of those programs would be borne 70% by the federal government and 30% by states.

This fixed amount based on a per person amount would save money over the current system of letting states report what they spent.

Another potential change under the new administration includes site neutral Medicare payments to hospitals for outpatient services.

The HFMA reported the site neutral policy as a concern in a list it published Monday of preliminary federal program cuts totaling more than $5 trillion over 10 years. The 50-page federal list is essentially a menu of options, the HFMA said, not an indication that programs will actually be targeted leading up to the March 14 deadline to pass legislation before federal funding expires.

Other financial concerns for hospitals based on that list include: the elimination of the tax exemption for nonprofit hospitals, bringing in up to $260 billion in estimated 10-year savings; and phasing out Medicare payments for bad debt, resulting in savings of up to $42 billion over a decade.

Healthcare systems are the ones most concerned over GOP spending cuts, according to Abrams. Pharmacy benefit managers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also remain on edge as to what might be coming at them next.

THE LARGER TREND

President Donald Trump mentioned little about healthcare during his inauguration speech on Monday.

Trump said the public health system does not deliver in times of disaster, referring to the hurricanes in North Carolina and other areas and to the fires in Los Angeles.

Trump also mentioned giving back pay to service members who objected to getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

He also talked about ending the chronic disease epidemic, without giving specifics.

“He didn’t really talk about healthcare even in the campaign,” Abrams said.

However, in his consulting work, Abrams said, “The common thread is the environment is changing quickly,” and that healthcare organizations need to do the same “in order to survive.”

Advocates roll out efforts to shield Medicaid

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Advocacy, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicaid, Medicaid Block Grants, Medicaid Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid Eligibility, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Redeterminations, Medicaid Retroactive Eligibility, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://nxslink.thehill.com/view/6230d94bc22ca34bdd8447c8msmrk.ngi/32c5cdf6

Liberal advocacy groups are ramping up efforts to protect the Medicaid program from potential cuts by Republican lawmakers and the new Trump administration. 

The Democratic group Protect Our Care launched Tuesday an eight-figure “Hands off Medicaid” ad campaign targeting key Republicans in the House and Senate, warning of health care being “ripped away” from vulnerable Americans. 

The lawmakers include GOP Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine), as well as Reps. David Schweikert (Ariz.), Mike Lawler (N.Y.) and David Valadao (Calif.). 

The campaign will also include digital advertising across platforms targeting the Medicaid population in areas around nursing homes and rural hospitals, ads on streaming platforms as well as billboards and bus stop wraps. 

Medicaid covers 1 in 5 Americans, and the group wants to highlight that includes “kids, moms, seniors, people of color, rural Americans, and people with disabilities.” 

“The American people didn’t vote in November to have their grandparents kicked out of nursing homes or health care ripped away from kids with disabilities or expectant moms in order to give Elon Musk another tax cut,” Protect Our Care chair Leslie Dach said in a statement.  

House Republicans have expressed openness to making some drastic changes in the Medicaid program to pay for extending President Trump’s signature tax cuts, including instituting work requirements and capping how much federal money is spent per person. The ideas have been conservative mainstays since they were included as part of the 2017 Obamacare repeal effort.  

Separately, advocacy group Families USA led a letter with more than 425 national, state and local organizations calling on Trump to protect Medicaid.  

The groups noted that if the Trump administration wants to trim health costs, “there are many well-vetted, commonsense and bipartisan proposals” that don’t involve slashing Medicaid. 

“In 2017, millions upon millions of Americans rose up against proposed cuts and caps and made clear how much they valued Medicaid as a critical health and economic lifeline for themselves, their families, and their communities. The American people are watching once again, and we urge you to take this opportunity to choose a different path,” they wrote.  

‘Deny. Defend. Depose’: The Chilling Legacy of Managed Care and the American Health Care Crisis

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Maintenance Organization (HMO), Health Plan, Health Policy, Managed Care, Out of Pocket Expenses, Outcomes, Profit, Profit Motive, Underinsured, Uninsured, Wall Street • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/deny-defend-depose-the-chilling-legacy?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=154546433&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

To understand the fatal attack on UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and the unexpected reaction on social media, you have to go back to the 1990s when managed care was in its infancy. As a consumer representative, I attended meetings of a group associated with the health care system–doctors, academics, hospital executives, business leaders who bought insurance, and a few consumer representatives like me.

It was the dawn of the age of managed care with its promise to lower the cost and improve the quality of care, at least for those who were insured.

New perils came with that new age of health coverage.

In the quest to save money while ostensibly improving quality, there was always a chance that the managed care entities and the doctors they employed or contracted with – by then called managed care providers – could clamp down too hard and refuse to pay for treatments, leaving some people to suffer medically. Groups associated with the health care industry tried to set standards to guard against that, but as the industry consolidated and competition among the big players in the new managed care system consolidated, such worries grew.

Over the years the squeeze on care got tighter and tighter as the giants like UnitedHealthcare–which grew initially by buying other insurance companies such as Travelers and Golden Rule–and Elevance, which gobbled up previously nonprofit Blue Cross plans in the 1990s, starting with Blue Cross of California, needed to please the gods of the bottom line. Shareholders became all important. Paying less for care meant more profits and return to investors, so it is no wonder that the alleged killer of the UnitedHealthcare chief executive reportedly left the chilling message: 

‘‘DENY. DEFEND. DEPOSE,” words associated with insurance company strategies for denying claims. 

The American health care system was far from perfect even in the days when more employers offered good coverage for their workers and often paid much or all of the cost to attract workers. Not-for-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in many states provided most of the coverage, and by all accounts, they paid claims promptly. In my now very long career of covering insurance, I cannot recall anyone in the old days complaining that their local Blue Cross Blue Shield organization was withholding payment for care.

Today Americans, even those who thought they had “good” coverage, are now finding themselves underinsured, as a 2024 Commonwealth Fund study so clearly shows. Nearly one-quarter of adults in the U.S. are underinsured meaning that although they have health insurance, high deductibles, copayments and coinsurance make it difficult or impossible for them to pay for needed care. As many as one-third of people with chronic conditions such as diabetes said they don’t take their medications or even fill prescriptions because they cost too much.

Before he passed away last year, one of our colleagues, Marshall Allen, had made recommendations to his followers on how to deal with medical bills they could not pay. KFF reporters also investigated the problems families face with super-high bills. In 2022 KFF reporters offered readers a thorough look at medical debt in the U.S. and reported alarming findings.

In 2019, U.S. medical debt totaled $195 billion, a sum larger than the economy of Greece. Half of adults don’t have enough cash to cover an unexpected medical bill while 50 million adults – one in five in the entire country – are paying off bills on an installment plan for their or a family member’s care.

One would think that such grim statistics might prompt political action to help ease the debt burden on American families. But a look at the health proposals from the Republican Study Committee suggest that likely won’t happen. The committee’s proposed budget would cut $4.5 trillion dollars from the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program leaving millions of Americans without health care.

From the Democrats, there appear to be no earth-shaking proposals in their immediate future, either. Late last summer STAT News reported, “With the notable exception of calling to erase medical debt by working with the states, Democrats are largely eyeing marginal extensions or reinstatements of their prior policy achievements.” Goals of the Democratic National Committee were shoring up the Affordable Care Act, reproductive rights, and addressing ambulance surprise bills. 

A few years ago when I was traveling in Berlin, our guide paused by a statue of Otto von Bismarck, Germany’s chancellor in the late 1800s, who is credited with establishing the German health system. The guide explained to his American travelers how and why Bismarck founded the German system, pointing out that Germany got its national health system more than a hundred years before Obamacare. Whether the Americans got the point he was making, I could not tell for no one in the group appeared interested in Germany’s health care system. Today, though, they might pay more attention.

In the coming months, I will write about health systems in Germany and other developed countries that, as The Commonwealth Fund’s research over many years has shown, do a much better job than ours at delivering high quality care – for all of their citizens – and at much lower costs.

Why thousands cheered a tragedy: unpacking America’s healthcare anguish

Posted on by • Posted in Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Public Good, Public Health, Public Health Crisis, Public Health Strategy, Public Perception, Public Trust, State of the Union • Leave a comment

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-thousands-cheered-tragedy-unpacking-americas-robert-pearl-m-d–apdhc/

The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024 represented a horrific and indefensible act of violence. As a physician and healthcare leader, I initially declined to comment on the killing. I felt that speculating about the shooter’s intent would only sensationalize a terrible act.

Regardless of the circumstances, vigilante violence has no place in a free and just society.

Now, more than a month later, I feel compelled to address one aspect of the story that has been widely misunderstood: the public’s reaction to the news of Thompson’s murder. Specifically, why tens of thousands of individuals “liked” and “laughed” at a post on Facebook announcing the CEO’s death.

What causes someone to ‘like’ murder?

News analysts have attributed the social media response to America’s “simmering anger” and “frustration” with a broken healthcare system, pointing to rising medical costs, insurance red tape and time-consuming prior authorization requirements as justifications.

These are all, indeed, problems and may explain some of public’s reaction. Yet these descriptions grossly understate the lived reality for most of those affected. When I speak with individuals who have lost a child, parent or spouse because of what they perceive as an unresponsive and uncaring system, their pain is raw, intense. What they feel isn’t frustration—it’s agony.

By framing healthcare’s failures in terms of statistical measures and policy snafus, we reduce a deeply personal crisis to an intellectual exercise. And it’s this very detached, cognitive approach that has allowed our nation to disregard the emotional devastation endured by millions of patients and their families.

When journalists, healthcare leaders and policymakers cite eye-popping statistics on healthcare expenditures, highlight exorbitant insurer profits or deride the bloated salaries of executives, they leave out a vital part of the story. They omit the unbearable human suffering behind the numbers. And I fear that until we approach healthcare as a moral crisis—not merely an economic or political puzzle to solve—our nation will never act with the urgency required to relieve people’s profound pain.

A pain beyond reason

In Dante’s Inferno, hell is a place where suffering is eternal and the cries of the damned go unheard. For countless Americans who feel trapped in our healthcare system, that metaphor rings true. Their anguish and pleas for mercy are met with silence.

It is this sense of abandonment and powerlessness, not mere frustration, that fuels both a desperate rage and an anger at a system and its leaders who appear not to care. The response isn’t one of glee—it’s a visceral reaction born of pain and unrelenting remorse.

As a clinician, I’ve seen life-destroying pain in my patients—and even within my own family. When my cousin Alan died in his twenties from a then-incurable cancer, my aunt and uncle were powerless to save him. Their grief was profound, unrelenting and eternal. They never recovered from the loss. But Alan’s death, heartbreaking as it was, stemmed from the limits of science at the time.

What millions of Americans endure today is different. Their loved ones die not because cures don’t exist but because the healthcare system treats them like a number. Bureaucratic inefficiencies, profit-driven delays and systemic indifference produce avoidable tragedies.

To appreciate this depth of pain, imagine standing behind a chain-link fence, watching someone you love being tortured. You scream and plead for help, but no one listens. That is what healthcare feels like for too many Americans. And until all of us acknowledge and feel their pain, little will improve.

Curing America’s indifference

When we focus solely on cold numbers—the millions who’ve lost Medicaid coverage, the hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths each year, or the life-expectancy gap between the U.S. and other nations—we strip healthcare of its humanity.

But once we stop framing these failures as bureaucratic inefficiencies or frustrations and, instead, focus on the devastation of having to watch a loved one suffer and die needlessly, we are forced to confront a moral imperative. Either we must act with urgency and resolve the problem or admit we simply don’t care.

In the halls of Congress, lawmakers continue to weigh modest reforms to prior authorization requirements and Medicaid spending—baby steps that won’t fix a system in crisis. The truth is that without bold, transformative action, healthcare will remain unaffordable and inaccessible for millions of families whose anguish will grow.

Here are three examples of the scale of transformation required:

  1. Reverse the obesity epidemic with a two-part strategy. Congress will need to tax ultra-processed, sugary foods that drive hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare costs each year. In parallel, lawmakers should cap the manufacturer-set price of weight-loss medications like Ozempic and Wegovy to be no higher than in peer nations.
  2. Change clinician payments from volume to value. Current fee-for-service payment systems incentivize unnecessary tests, treatments and procedures rather than better health outcomes. Transitioning to pay-for-value would reward healthcare providers, and specifically primary care physicians, who successfully prevent chronic diseases, better manage existing conditions, and reduce complications such as heart attacks, strokes and kidney failure.
  3. Empower patients and save lives with generative AI. Tools like ChatGPT can help reduce the staggering 400,000 annual deaths from misdiagnoses and 250,000 more from preventable medical errors. By integrating AI into healthcare, we can enable at-home care, continuous disease monitoring and personalized treatment, making medical care safer, more accessible and more efficient.

If elected officials, payers and regulators fail to act, they will have chosen to perpetuate the unbearable pain and suffering patients and families endure daily. They need to hear the cries of people. The time for transformative action is now.

Musk’s DOGE could leave millions uninsured

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, High Deductible Health Plans, Medicaid, Medicaid Block Grants, Medicaid Eligibility, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Redeterminations, Medicaid Retroactive Eligibility, Medicaid Section 1115 Waiver, Medicaid Unwinding, Medicaid Work Requirements, Medical Debt, Out of Pocket Expenses, State of the Union, Underinsured, Uninsured, Unnecessary Deaths • Leave a comment

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/musks-doge-could-leave-millions-uninsured-robert-pearl-m-d–xl8dc/?trackingId=7TewioXWRzScafytDRqrQQ%3D%3D

As Donald Trump begins his second term, America’s healthcare system is in crisis: medical costs are skyrocketing, life expectancy has stagnated, and burnout runs rampant among healthcare workers.

These problems are likely to become worse now that Trump has handed the federal budget over to Elon Musk. The world’s richest man now co-heads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a non-government entity tasked with slashing $500 billion in “wasteful” spending.

The harsh reality is that Musk’s mission can’t succeed without gutting healthcare access and coverage for millions of Americans.

Deleting dollars from American healthcare

Since Trump’s first term, the country’s economic outlook has worsened significantly. In 2016, the national debt was $19 trillion, with $430 billion allocated to annual interest payments. By 2024, the debt had nearly doubled to $36 trillion, requiring $882 billion in debt service—12% of federal spending that is legally untouchable.

Add to that another 50% of government expenditures that Trump has deemed politically off-limits: Social Security ($1.35 trillion), Medicare ($848 billion) and Defense ($1.13 trillion). That leaves just $2.6 trillion—less than 40% of the $6.75 trillion federal budget—available for cuts.

In a recent op-ed, Musk and DOGE co-chair Vivek Ramaswamy proposed eliminating expired or misused funds for programs like Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood, but these examples account for less than $3 billion total—not even 1% of their target.

This shortfall will require Musk to cut billions in government healthcare spending. But where will he find it?

With Medicare off limits to DOGE, the options for major reductions are extremely limited. Big-ticket healthcare items like the $300 billion in tax-deductibility for employer-sponsored health insurance and $120 billion in expired health programs for veterans will prove politically untouchable. One will raise taxes for 160 million working families and the latter will leave veterans without essential medical care.

This means DOGE will have to attack Medicaid and the ACA health exchanges. Here’s how 20 million people will likely lose coverage as a result.

1. Reduced ACA exchange funding

Since its enactment in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has provided premium subsidies to Americans earning 100% to 400% of the federal poverty level. For lower-income families, the ACA also offers Cost Sharing Reductions, which help offset deductibles and co-payments that fund 30% of total medical costs per enrollee. Without CSRs, a family of four earning $40,000 could face deductibles as high as $5,000 before their insurance benefits apply.

If Congress allows CSR payments to expire in 2026, federal spending would decrease by approximately $35 billion annually. If that happens, the Congressional Budget Office expects 7 million individuals to drop out of the exchanges. Worse, without affordable coverage alternatives, 4 million families would lose their health insurance altogether.

2. Slashing Medicaid coverage and tightening eligibility

Medicaid currently provides healthcare for over 90 million low-income Americans, including children, seniors and individuals with disabilities. To meet DOGE’s $500 billion goal, several cost-cutting strategies appear likely:

  • Reversing Medicaid expansion: The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility to those earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, reducing the uninsured rate from 16% to 8%. Undoing this expansion would strip coverage from millions in the 40 states that adopted the program.
  • Imposing work requirements: Proponents argue this could encourage employment, but most Medicaid recipients already work for employers that don’t provide insurance. In reality, work requirements primarily create bureaucratic barriers that disqualify millions of eligible individuals, reducing program costs at the expense of coverage.
  • Switching to block grants: Unlike the current Medicaid system, which adjusts funding based on need, less-expensive block grants would provide states with fixed allocations. This will, however, force them to cut services and reduce enrollment.

Medicaid currently costs $800 billion annually, with the federal government covering 70%. Reducing enrollment by 10% (9 million people) could save over $50 billion annually, while a 20% reduction (18 million people) could save $100 billion.

Either outcome would devastate families by eliminating access to vital services including prenatal care, vaccinations, chronic disease management and nursing home care. As states are forced to absorb the financial burden, they’ll likely cut education budgets and reduce infrastructure investments.

The first 100 days

The numbers don’t lie: Musk and DOGE could slash Medicaid funding and ACA subsidies to achieve much of their $500 billion target. But the human cost of this approach would be staggering.

Fortunately, there are alternative solutions that would reduce spending without sacrificing quality. Shifting provider payments in ways that reward better outcomes rather than higher volumes, capping drug prices at levels comparable to peer nations, and leveraging generative AI to improve chronic disease management could all drive down costs while preserving access to care.

These strategies address the root causes of high medical spending, including chronic diseases that, if better managed, could prevent 30-50% of heart attacks, strokes, cancers, and kidney failures according to CDC estimates.

Yet, in their pursuit of immediate budgetary cuts, Musk and DOGE have omitted these kinds of reform options. As a result, the health of millions of Americans is at major risk.