Category Archives: Medicare Advantage

91% Of Healthcare Is Government Subsidized. Is Your Coverage Safe?

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, ACA, Artificial Intelligence, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Govt Subsidy, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Subisdy, Tricare, Veterans Administration • Leave a comment

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2025/03/24/91-of-healthcare-is-government-subsidized-is-your-coverage-safe/

Most Americans believe their healthcare is private, and the majority prefers it that way. Gallup polling shows more Americans favor a system based on private insurance rather than government-run healthcare.

But here’s a surprising reality: 91% of Americans receive government-subsidized healthcare.

Unless you’re among the uninsured or the few who receive no subsidies, government dollars are helping pay your medical bills — whether your insurance comes from an employer, a privately managed care organization or the online marketplace.

Now, as lawmakers face mounting budget pressures, those subsidies (and your coverage) could be at risk. If the government scales back its healthcare spending, your medical costs could skyrocket.

Here’s a closer look at the five ways the U.S. government funds healthcare. If you have health insurance, you’re almost certainly benefiting from one of them:

  1. Medicare, the government-run healthcare program for those 65 and older, covers 67 million Americans at a cost of more than $1 trillion annually. Approximately half of enrollees are covered through the traditional fee-for-service plan and the other half in privately managed Medicare Advantage plans.
  2. Medicaid and CHIP provide health coverage for around 80 million low-income and disabled Americans, including tens of millions of children. Even though 41 states have turned over their Medicaid programs over to privately managed care organizations, the cost remains public. Total Medicaid spending is $900 billion annually — the federal government pays 70% with states footing the rest.
  3. The online healthcare marketplace is for Americans whose employer doesn’t provide medical coverage or who are self-employed. This Affordable Care Act program offers federal subsidies to 92% of its 23 million enrollees, which help lower the cost of premiums and, for many, subsidize their out-of-pocket expenses. The Congressional Budget Office projects that a permanent extension of these subsidies, which are scheduled to end this year, would cost $383 billion over the next 10 years.
  4. Veterans and military families also benefit from government healthcare through TRICARE and VA Care, programs covering roughly 16 million individuals at a combined cost of $148 billion for the federal government annually.
  5. Employer-sponsored health insurance comes with a significant, yet often overlooked, government subsidy. For nearly 165 million American workers and their families, U.S. companies pay the majority of their health insurance premiums. However, those dollars are excluded from employees’ taxable income. This tax break, which originated during World War II and was formally codified in the 1950s, subsidizes workers at an annual government cost of approximately $300 billion. For a typical family of four, this translates into approximately $8,000 per year of added take-home pay.

With 91% of Americans receiving some form of government healthcare assistance, the idea that U.S. healthcare is predominantly “private” is an illusion.

Now, as the new administration searches for ways to rein in the growing federal deficit, all five of these programs (collectively funding healthcare for 9 in 10 Americans) will be in the crosshairs.

Twelve percent of the federal budget already goes toward debt interest payments, and this share is expected to rise sharply. Many of the bonds used to finance existing debt were issued back when interest rates were much lower. As those bonds mature and are refinanced at today’s higher rates, federal interest payments are projected to double within the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

With deficits mounting and borrowing costs soaring, most economists agree this trajectory is unsustainable. Lawmakers will eventually need to rein in spending, and healthcare subsidies will almost certainly be among the first targets. Policy experts predict Medicaid, which the House has already proposed cutting by $880 billion over the next decade, and ACA subsidies for out-of-pocket costs will likely be the first on the chopping block. But given the CBO’s projections, these cuts won’t be the last.

A Better Way: Three Solutions To Lower Healthcare Costs Without Cuts

Cutting some or all of these healthcare subsidies may seem like the simplest way to reduce the deficit. In reality, it merely shifts costs elsewhere, making medical care more expensive for everyone and increasing future government spending. Here’s why:

  • Eliminating subsidies doesn’t eliminate the need for care. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), hospitals must treat emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. When millions lose insurance, more turn to ERs for medical care they can’t afford. The cost of that uncompensated care doesn’t vanish. It gets passed on to state governments, hospitals and privately insured patients through higher taxes, inflated hospital bills and rising insurance premiums.
  • Delaying care drives up long-term costs. People who can’t afford doctor visits skip preventive care, screenings and early treatments. Manageable conditions like high blood pressure and diabetes then spiral into costly, life-threatening complications including heart attacks, strokes and kidney failures, which ultimately increase government spending.

The solution isn’t cutting coverage. It’s fixing the root causes of high healthcare costs. Here are three ways to achieve this:

1. Address The Obesity Epidemic

Obesity is a leading driver of diabetes, heart disease, stroke and breast cancer, which kill millions of Americans and cost the U.S. healthcare system hundreds of billions annually. Congress can take two immediate steps to reverse this crisis:

2. Enhance Chronic Disease Management With Technology

In every other industry, broad adoption of generative AI technology is already increasing quality while reducing costs. Healthcare could do the same by applying generative AI to more effectively manage chronic disease. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, improved control of these lifelong conditions could cut the frequency of heart attacks, strokes, kidney failures and cancers by up to 50%.

With swift and reasonable Food and Drug Administration approval, generative AI and wearable monitors would revolutionize how these conditions are managed, providing real-time updates on patient health and identifying when medications need adjustment. Instead of waiting months for their next in-office visit, patients with chronic diseases would receive continuous monitoring, preventing costly and life-threatening complications. Rather than restricting AI’s role in healthcare, Congress can streamline the FDA’s approval process and allocate National Institutes of Health funding to accelerate these advancements.

3. Reform Healthcare Payment Models

Under today’s fee-for-service system, doctors and hospitals are paid based on the how often they see patients for the same problem and the number of procedures performed. This approach rewards the volume of care, not the best and most effective treatments. A better alternative is a pay-for-value model like capitation, in which providers do best financially when they help keep patients healthy. To encourage participation, Congress should fund pilot programs and create financial incentives for insurers, doctors and hospitals willing to transition to this system. By aligning financial incentives with long-term health, this model would encourage doctors to prioritize prevention and effective chronic disease control, ultimately lowering medical costs by improving overall health.

The Time For Change Is Now

If Congress slashes healthcare subsidies this year, restoring them will be nearly impossible. Once the cuts take effect, the financial and political pressures driving them will only intensify, making reversal unlikely.

The voices shaping this debate can’t come solely from industry lobbyists. Elected officials need to hear from the 91% of Americans who rely on government healthcare assistance for some or all of their medical coverage. Now is the time to speak up.

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.

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.

The Value-based Care Agenda in Trump 2.0 Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in 2028 Election Issues, Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Alternative Payment Model, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), Fee for Service Reimbursement, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Pay for Performance, Physician Burnout, Physician Incentives, Physician Leadership, Physician Practice Management, Risk-Based Compensation, Risk-Based Contracting, Value Based Care Model, Value-Based Care Functions, Value-Based Contracting, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
The Value-based Care Agenda in Trump 2.0 Healthcare

This week, the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees begins work on the reconciliation bill they hope to complete by Memorial Day. Healthcare cuts are expected to figure prominently in the committee’s work.

And in San Diego, America’s Physician Groups (APG) will host its spring meeting “Kickstarting Accountable Care: Innovations for an Urgent Future” featuring Presidential historian Dorris Kearns Goodwin and new CMS Innovation Center Director Abe Sutton. Its focus will be the immediate future of value-based programs in Trump Healthcare 2.0, especially accountable care organizations (ACOs) and alternative payment models (APMs).

Central to both efforts is the administration’s mandate to reduce federal spending which it deems achievable, in part, by replacing fee for services with value-based payments to providers from the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs. The CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) is the government’s primary vehicle to test and implement alternative payment programs that reduce federal spending and improve the quality and effectiveness of services simultaneously.

Pledges to replace fee-for-service payments with value-based incentives are not new to Medicare.  Twenty-five years ago, they were called “pay for performance” programs and, in 2010, included in the Affordable Care as alternative payment models overseen by CMMI. But the effectiveness of APMs has been modest at best: of 50+ models attempted, only 6 proved effective in reducing Medicare spending while spending $5.4 billion on the programs. Few were adopted in Medicaid and only a handful by commercial payers and large self-insured employers. Critics argue the APMs were poorly structured, more costly to implement than potential shared savings payments and sometimes more focused on equity and DEI aims than actual savings.

The question is how the Mehmet Oz-Abe Sutten version of CMMI will approach its version of value-based care, given modest APM results historically and the administration’s focus on cost-cutting.

Context is key:

Recent efforts by the Trump Healthcare 2.0 team and its leadership appointments in CMS and CMMI point to a value-agenda will change significantly. Alternative payment models will be fewer and participation by provider groups will be mandated for several. Measures of quality and savings will be fewer, more easily measured and and standardized across more episodes of care. Financial risks and shared savings will be higher and regulatory compliance will be simplified in tandem with restructuring in HHS, CMS and CMMI to improve responsiveness and consistency across federal agencies and programs.

Sutton’s experience as the point for CMMI is significant. Like Adam Boehler, Brad Smith and other top Trump Healthcare 2.0 leaders, he brings prior experience in federal health agencies and operating insight from private equity-backed ventures (Honest Health, Privia, Evergreen Nephrology funded through Nashville-based Rubicon Founders). Sutton’s deals have focused on physician-driven risk-bearing arrangements with Medicare with funding from private investors.

The Trump Healthcare 2.0 team share a view that the healthcare system is unnecessarily expensive and wasteful, overly-regulated and under-performing. They see big hospitals and drug companies as complicit—more concerned about self-protection than consumer engagement and affordability. They see flawed incentives as a root cause, and believe previous efforts by CMS and CMMI veered inappropriately toward DEI and equity rather than reducing health costs. And they think physicians organized into risk bearing structures with shared incentives, point of care technologies and dependable data will reduce unnecessary utilization (spending) and improve care for patients (including access and affordability).

There’s will be a more aggressive approach to spending reduction and value-creation with Medicare as the focus: stronger alternative payment models and expansion of Medicare Advantage will book-end their collective efforts as Trump Healthcare 2.0 seeks cost-reduction in Medicare.

What’s ahead?

Trump Healthcare 2.0 value-based care is a take-no prisoners strategy in which private insurers in Medicare Advantage have a seat at their table alongside hospitals that sponsor ACOs and distribute the majority of shared savings to the practicing physicians. But the agenda will be set, and re-set by the administration and link-minded physician organizations like America’s Physician Groups and others that welcome financial risk-sharing with Medicare and beyond.

The results of the Trump Healthcare 2.0 value agenda will be unknown to voters in the November 2026 mid-term but apparent by the Presidential campaign in 2028. In the interim, surrogate measures for performance—like physician participation and projected savings–will be used to show progress and the administration will claim success. It will also spark criticism especially from providers who believe access to needed specialty care will be restricted, public and rural health advocates whose funding is threatened, teaching and clinical research organizations who facing DOGE cuts and regulatory uncertainty, patient’s right advocacy groups fearing lack of attention and private payers lacking scalable experience in Medicare Advantage and risk-based relationships with physicians.

Last week, the American Medical Association named Dr. John Whyte its next President replacing widely-respected 12-year CEO/EVP Jim Madara. When he assumes this office in July, he’ll inherit an association that has historically steered clear of major policy issues but the administration’s value-based care agenda will quickly require his attention.

Physicians including AMA members are restless: at last fall’s House of Delegates (HOD), members passed a resolution calling for constraints on not-for-profit hospital’ tax exemptions due to misleading community benefits reporting and more consistency in charity care reporting by all hospitals. The majority of practicing physicians are burned-out due to loss of clinical autonomy and income pressures—especially the 75% who are employees of hospitals and private-equity backed groups. And last week, the American College of Physicians went on record favoring “collective action” to remedy physician grievances. All impact the execution of the administration’s value-based agenda.

Arguably, the most important key to success for the Trump Healthcare 2.0 is its value agenda and physician support—especially the primary care physicians on whom the consumer engagement and appropriate utilization is based. It’s a tall order.

The Trump Healthcare 2.0 value agenda is focused on near-term spending reductions in Medicare. Savings in federal spending for Medicaid will come thru reconciliation efforts in Congress that will likely include work-requirements for enrollees, elimination of subsidies for low-income adults and drug formulary restrictions among others. And, at least for the time being, attention to those with private insurance will be on the back burner, though the administration favors insurance reforms adding flexible options for individuals and small groups.

The Trump Healthcare 2.0 value-agenda is disruptive, aggressive and opportunistic for physician organizations and their partners who embrace performance risk as a permanent replacement for fee for service healthcare. It’s a threat to those that don’t.

The Next 100 Days: What Healthcare Should Expect

Posted on by • Posted in Economy, Funding, Health Insurance Industry, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Investing, Investment, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Supreme Court, Wall Street • Leave a comment
The Next 100 Days: What Healthcare Should Expect

The Trump administration is moving into its second 100 days facing conditions more problematic than its first 100. For healthcare, this period will define the industry’s near-term future as changes in three domains unfold:

  • The Economy: The economy is volatile and consumer confidence is waning. The impact of tariffs on U.S. prices remains an unknown and escalating tension between the Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Palestine, Pakistan and India are worrisome. Household debt is mounting as student loans, medical debt and housing costs imperil financial security for more than half of U.S. households. The 3 major stock indices remain in the red YTD, prospects for a recession are high and investors are increasingly cautious. Net impact on healthcare organizations and public programs: negative, especially those without strong balance sheets and access to affordable private capital.
  • The Courts: Recent opinions by the Supreme Court and District Courts suggest a willingness to challenge the administration’s Executive Orders on immigrant deportation and due process, threats and funding cuts aimed at law firms and universities considered “woke” and layoffs initiated by DOGE and more. Court challenges will slow the administration’s agenda and create uncertainty in workplaces. Net impact: negative. Uncertainty paralyses planning and operations in every public and private healthcare organization.
  • The Public Mood: The afterglow of the election has dissipated and the public’s mood has shifted from guarded optimism to anxiety and despair. The public’s uncertain about tariffs and worried about household expenses. Net impact: negative. Healthcare affordability and prices are major concerns to consumers: the majority (76%) think the system is more concerned about profitability than patient care (Jarrard).

Current events in these areas portend headwinds for most public and private healthcare organizations where attention in the next 100 days will be focused in these areas:

  • Oversight: New rules, programmatic priorities, key personnel appointments and re-organization in HHS, CMS, the FDA and VA: RFKJ’s MAHA plans and Commission appointees, Oz’ affinity for Medicare Advantage predisposition toward value-based care and Makary’s overhaul of the FDA’s drug oversight process will be “on the table” in the next 100 days.
  • Funding: Healthcare funding in the FY 2026 federal budget. The GOP-controlled House and Senate can pass a budget with minimal support from Dem’s that reflects a serious effort to reduce the federal debt ($37 trillion/123% of GDP– up from $20 trillion in 2017). Healthcare cuts expected to be significant though rumored massive cuts to Medicaid unlikely.
  • States: State healthcare referenda and executive actions: states are evaluating price controls on drugs and hospitals, reparations from insurers for delays and prior-authorizations, scope of practice restrictions and more. Topping the watchlist in most states is Medicaid funding and potential fallout from discontinued ACA marketplace subsidies factored into the FY 2026 budget being finalized by the GOP-led Congress in DC.
  • SCOTUS: Supreme Court decisions will be handed down or before June 30 when SCOTUS’ 2024 term ends including Braidwood Management v. Becerra which will determine whether the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that private insurers cover preventive services without cost-sharing will continue. The court will also opine to the authority of the HHS secretary to appoint members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The potential impact of these decisions on coverage, insurance premiums and access to preventive health services is pervasive.
  • Financial markets: Capital markets are in a watchful waiting mode as US trade policy unfolds, inflation fluctuates, the fed’s interest rate determination is disclosed and consumer spending reacts. Private investing in healthcare remains opportunistic though deal flow is shifting and risk thresholds tightening.
  • Polls: Polls draw the attention of media and elected officials. They influence how organizations prioritize advocacy strategies, address consumer complaints and concerns and manage reputations. As reflected in numerous national polls, trust in the system and its key players—insurers, hospitals, drug companies—is at a historic low.

Each sector in U.S. healthcare will be impacted differently: Three face the strongest headwinds:

  • Hospitals: Hospitals face enormous financial challenges, especially not-for-profits, safety net, rural and veteran’s hospitals. Last week’s unfavorable SCOTUS decision against hospitals alleging DSH under-payments will cost $1 billion per year. Congressional adoption of site neutral payment policy could cost $15 billion/year. Drug prices, labor costs, insurer payment cuts and red-tape will negate operating margins and lower investment income knee-capping growth and innovation plans. Complicating matters, employed physicians will demand higher pay and more control.  And Congressional budget-creators believe the sector’s 31% share of total healthcare spending makes it ripe for cuts attributable to “waste, fraud and abuse”.
  • Insurers: Medicare Advantage (which enjoys support by key administrators including CMS’ Mehmet Oz) has become a lightening rod of insurer criticism alongside prior authorization policies that restrict care. Coverage remains key to household financial security but insurers are seen as barriers to rather than facilitators of evidence-based cost-effective care. And the concentration of power in corporate titans (United, Humana, Cigna, CVS, Centene and others) is viewed with skepticism.
  • Public Health: Public health is not a priority in the U.S. health system despite recognition that social determinants account for 70% of the system’s $5 trillion spending. Most programs are funded by state and local governments with federal support limited. Public health is not seen as an investment and, in some settings treated with disdain as welfare or waste. As Mayors and Governors develop plans for the rest of 2025 and through 2026, public health cuts will be likely as federal co-funding becomes scarce.

The next 100 days will define the national agenda for the mid-term election in November 2026, reflect the solidarity of the MAGA movement and show the impact of tariffs on inflation, consumer prices and the public’s mood.

Healthcare leaders will be watching closely. All will be impacted.

Medicare Scramble: Wall Street Wants Insurers to Dump Costly Seniors

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Insurance Premiums, High Premiums, High Risk Patients, Lobbyist, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Preexisting Conditions, Profit Motive, Underinsured, Wall Street • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/medicare-scramble-wall-street-wants?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=162893432&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Wall Street is speaking loudly to Medicare Advantage insurers: If you want us to stick with you, keep dumping seniors who are pinching your profit margins. 

Investors continue to punish UnitedHealth Group since the company downgraded its 2025 profit expectations on April 17. On Friday, UnitedHealth’s stock price hit not only a 52-week low—$393.11—but its lowest point in years. The last time UnitedHealth’s stock price went below $400 a share was on October 14, 2021. 

The company’s shares lost nearly 4.5% of their value during the past week, contributing to a decline that started soon after the company set an all-time high of $630.73 last November. UnitedHealth’s shares have lost more than 33% of their value since then. 

Wall Street Sends a Message

Meanwhile, investors have once again embraced UnitedHealth’s top two rivals in the Medicare Advantage business–Humana and CVS/Aetna. Those companies told investors last year, when both were in the Wall Street dog house for spending more than investors expected on patients’ medical care, that they would dump hundreds of thousands of their costliest Medicare Advantage enrollees to improve their profits. They made good on that promise, shedding almost 650,000 seniors and people with disabilities by the end of the year. 

Many of those people enrolled in a UnitedHealth Medicare Advantage plan. The company reported 400,000 more Medicare Advantage enrollees in the first quarter of 2025 than in the fourth quarter of 2024. That used to be a good thing, but UnitedHealth’s executives told investors on April 17 that it wouldn’t make as much money for them as the company had assured them just three months earlier because it likely will have to spend more than they expected on those new MA enrollees’ medical care. Investors responded by immediately dispatching the company’s shares to the cellar. Those shares lost about 23% of their value in a single day.

The Street had also punished Humana and CVS last year when they said they were paying more for seniors’ medical care than they’d expected. Shares of both companies cratered, losing around half their value. So, executives at both Humana and CVS started identifying Medicare markets to get out of entirely. The culling was ruthless. CVS shed 227,000 MA enrollees. Humana got rid of 419,000.

Locked Out of Traditional Medicare

Those seniors and disabled people had to scramble to find a new Medicare Advantage insurer because it is difficult for most people to go back to traditional Medicare and find an affordable Medicare supplement policy. Medicare supplement insurers must waive underwriting during the first six months of applicants’ eligibility for Medicare, but people who enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan and want or need to make a change months later find out that insurers will charge them more unless their health is nearly perfect. 

Of the seven big for-profit health insurers, four (Cigna, CVS/Aetna, Humana and Centene) collectively cut 1.3 million of their Medicare Advantage enrollees adrift at the end of 2024 in an effort to stay in Wall Street’s good graces. Cigna dumped all 600,000 of its MA enrollees, selling them to the Blue Cross corporation HCSC. For-profit Blue Cross insurer Elevance picked up 227,000; Molina added 18,000, and, as noted, UnitedHealth signed up 400,000 new MA enrollees. 

While UnitedHealth’s shares have lost a third of their value, CVS’s shares have increased more than 50%  since the first of this year. They even set a 52-week high of $72.51 on Thursday. Humana’s shares closed Friday at $258.48, up 1.88% since January 1. They are out of the Wall Street dog house – for now, anyway. 

Profits, Lobbying Soar

I trust you are not feeling sorry for UnitedHealth because of its misfortune on Wall Street. It is still a hugely profitable company–just not profitable enough lately to please investors. This huge corporation, the fourth largest in America, reported $9.1 billion in profits in just the first quarter of this year. If the company makes it more difficult for its health plan enrollees to get the care they need this year, it could make even more than the $34.4 billion in profits it made last year. 

And as a group, the seven big for-profits, including those that spent more than Wall Street felt was necessary on patients’ medical care, made $70 billion in profits last year. (UnitedHealth made nearly as much as the other six combined.)

And collectively, those giant corporations took in a record $1.5 trillion in revenue from us as customers and taxpayers last year. They are doing quite well. But that won’t stop them from trying to keep lawmakers and Trump administration officials from cracking down this year on the widespread waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare Advantage program. You can expect them to spend a record amount of our money on lobbying expenses in Washington this year to keep their Medicare Advantage cash cow well fed. 

Medicare Scramble: Wall Street Wants Insurers to Dump Costly Seniors

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, Lobbyist, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Preexisting Conditions, Profit Motive, Underinsured, Wall Street • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/medicare-scramble-wall-street-wants?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=162893432&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Wall Street is speaking loudly to Medicare Advantage insurers: If you want us to stick with you, keep dumping seniors who are pinching your profit margins. 

Investors continue to punish UnitedHealth Group since the company downgraded its 2025 profit expectations on April 17. On Friday, UnitedHealth’s stock price hit not only a 52-week low—$393.11—but its lowest point in years. The last time UnitedHealth’s stock price went below $400 a share was on October 14, 2021. 

The company’s shares lost nearly 4.5% of their value during the past week, contributing to a decline that started soon after the company set an all-time high of $630.73 last November. UnitedHealth’s shares have lost more than 33% of their value since then. 

Wall Street Sends a Message

Meanwhile, investors have once again embraced UnitedHealth’s top two rivals in the Medicare Advantage business–Humana and CVS/Aetna. Those companies told investors last year, when both were in the Wall Street dog house for spending more than investors expected on patients’ medical care, that they would dump hundreds of thousands of their costliest Medicare Advantage enrollees to improve their profits. They made good on that promise, shedding almost 650,000 seniors and people with disabilities by the end of the year. 

Many of those people enrolled in a UnitedHealth Medicare Advantage plan. The company reported 400,000 more Medicare Advantage enrollees in the first quarter of 2025 than in the fourth quarter of 2024. That used to be a good thing, but UnitedHealth’s executives told investors on April 17 that it wouldn’t make as much money for them as the company had assured them just three months earlier because it likely will have to spend more than they expected on those new MA enrollees’ medical care. Investors responded by immediately dispatching the company’s shares to the cellar. Those shares lost about 23% of their value in a single day.

The Street had also punished Humana and CVS last year when they said they were paying more for seniors’ medical care than they’d expected. Shares of both companies cratered, losing around half their value. So, executives at both Humana and CVS started identifying Medicare markets to get out of entirely. The culling was ruthless. CVS shed 227,000 MA enrollees. Humana got rid of 419,000.

Locked Out of Traditional Medicare

Those seniors and disabled people had to scramble to find a new Medicare Advantage insurer because it is difficult for most people to go back to traditional Medicare and find an affordable Medicare supplement policy. Medicare supplement insurers must waive underwriting during the first six months of applicants’ eligibility for Medicare, but people who enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan and want or need to make a change months later find out that insurers will charge them more unless their health is nearly perfect. 

Of the seven big for-profit health insurers, four (Cigna, CVS/Aetna, Humana and Centene) collectively cut 1.3 million of their Medicare Advantage enrollees adrift at the end of 2024 in an effort to stay in Wall Street’s good graces. Cigna dumped all 600,000 of its MA enrollees, selling them to the Blue Cross corporation HCSC. For-profit Blue Cross insurer Elevance picked up 227,000; Molina added 18,000, and, as noted, UnitedHealth signed up 400,000 new MA enrollees. 

While UnitedHealth’s shares have lost a third of their value, CVS’s shares have increased more than 50%  since the first of this year. They even set a 52-week high of $72.51 on Thursday. Humana’s shares closed Friday at $258.48, up 1.88% since January 1. They are out of the Wall Street dog house – for now, anyway. 

Profits, Lobbying Soar

I trust you are not feeling sorry for UnitedHealth because of its misfortune on Wall Street. It is still a hugely profitable company–just not profitable enough lately to please investors. This huge corporation, the fourth largest in America, reported $9.1 billion in profits in just the first quarter of this year. If the company makes it more difficult for its health plan enrollees to get the care they need this year, it could make even more than the $34.4 billion in profits it made last year. 

And as a group, the seven big for-profits, including those that spent more than Wall Street felt was necessary on patients’ medical care, made $70 billion in profits last year. (UnitedHealth made nearly as much as the other six combined.)

And collectively, those giant corporations took in a record $1.5 trillion in revenue from us as customers and taxpayers last year. They are doing quite well. But that won’t stop them from trying to keep lawmakers and Trump administration officials from cracking down this year on the widespread waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare Advantage program. You can expect them to spend a record amount of our money on lobbying expenses in Washington this year to keep their Medicare Advantage cash cow well fed. 

Key Principles for Proactive Management of Patient Denials

Posted on by • Posted in Denial Management, Health Insurance Denial, Medical Denial Management, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Denials • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/article/key-principles-proactive-management-patient-denials

The proliferation of claims denials, especially by Medicare Advantage payers, has become a pressing issue for health system operations. In 2023, Medicare Advantage insurers fully or partially denied 3.2 million prior authorization requests—or 6.4% of all requests, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) report.

The growth in denials can be partially explained by the increasing popularity of managed Medicare and Medicaid plans, but evolving payer practices, including the adoption of AI for algorithmic denials, have also contributed. Claims denials have emerged as one of the key points of payer-provider tension, and an effective claims denials management and prevention program is a powerful way for health systems to rebalance their payer relationships.

Denied claims result in reduced reimbursement, added administrative burdens, and patient and provider frustrations. Even when denials are successfully appealed and reversed—the KFF report found that in 2023, 82% of Medicare Advantage denials were partially or fully overturned—the time and resources devoted to the appeals process add to the costs of providing healthcare services. Optimizing pre-billing activities to reduce avoidable denials and improve and streamline the patient experience of care is as essential for health systems as a robust appeals strategy. This article addresses critical success factors for both preventing and appealing denials.

Preventing Claims Denials During Pre-Bill Period

Successfully preventing denials requires a centralized program across the workforce, from frontline providers to clinical and revenue cycle staff, to manage pre-bill activities by focusing on identifying the correct patient insurance information, obtaining accurate authorizations, and preventing concurrent denials while the patient is still in the facility. Utilization review nurses, attending providers, and Physician Advisors should be attentive to documenting the full state of patient acuity, while collaborating with the revenue cycle team. This team should focus on the collection and reporting of medically necessary data and documentation, which serves as the evidence payers use to evaluate prior authorization requests. When information about a patient’s condition isn’t recorded, or acknowledged in an authorization request, unnecessary denials can result.

A successful denials prevention program expands beyond the utilization management (UM) team and includes revenue cycle, and provider collaboration. Revenue cycle pre-service procedures should focus on confirming insurance benefits and securing payer authorization for planned services while collaborating with UM and referral sources. A comprehensive and proactive denials prevention program helps conveys to payers the full extent of inpatient clinical work, thanks to a collaborative effort to improve documentation.

The following list can help organize denials prevention programs across all locations, clinics and practices:

  • Establish an enterprise-wide denials prevention strategy which includes a multi-disciplinary denials management committee focused on identifying denials trends, conducting root cause analyses, developing proactive denials mitigation plans, creating enhanced reporting, monitoring improvement, and communicating risk
  • Establish proactive revenue cycle, UM, pre-certification, and peer-to peer workflows procedures to confirm completion of payer requirements prior to scheduled services and discharge
  • Ensure patients are financially cleared through implementation of pre-service protocols, including enhanced medical necessity process for outpatient services, authorization defer and delay procedures to reduce rework and avoidable denials
  • Identify pre-bill edits to increase “clean claim” efficiency, reducing initial denials and expediting reimbursement
  • Deliver education to providers, care management, and nursing teams on key observation concepts, such as clinical documentation improvement, patient status documentation, medical necessity documentation and orders for the Two Midnights rule, and payer reimbursement methodologies

Pursuing Post-Bill Appeals, Reversals and Payer Escalation

A strong denials management and prevention program should include a robust post-bill appeals program with skilled coding, clinical and technical resources. A targeted and strategic appeal process can result in improved overturn rates and increased reimbursement. Appeal letters which are supported by clinical facts, payer policies, and a summary of key components relevant to each case and the associated denial increase the likelihood of success.

Components of the appeal program should include the following:

  • Guidelines for when to appeal based on potential success by payer and appeal level
  • Reviews of upheld appeals for second and third level appeals based on strategy by payer
  • Trends for all upheld appeals by reason and by payer
  • Dashboard for tracking denials activities
  • Appeal letter writing guidelines and tips to support
  • Evaluation process for existing payer escalation workflows, tools and payer communication strategies with consideration for payer
  • Process to measure and monitor overturn rates and improvement opportunities

The collaboration with managed care is vital to the success of the denials management/prevention program. A formal payer escalation process which facilitates transparency between the payer and provider can result in improved relations and a reduction in initial denials. Successful denials management/prevention payer escalation programs are strategic and focus on addressing unfair/incorrect denials and establishing clear bi-directional reporting and communications. These programs can result in improved contract negotiations and reduce incorrect denials.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) can support the post-bill appeals process and can be especially relevant when developing a strategy to combat denials. Not only are payers increasingly using AI to trigger denials, but health systems can also deploy AI to write appeal letters, analyze denial trends, and summarize medically necessary documentation. Although algorithmic denials have become a source of frustration for providers and patients, health systems can also deploy AI to their defense. While payers are often better positioned to devote AI resources to claims, a little bit of investment from health systems, deployed effectively, can go a long way toward evening the playing field.

Closing Thoughts and Seven Questions to Consider

A formal denials management and prevention program is essential to obtaining proper reimbursement for the care provided and reducing rework across the enterprise. A strong program should also improve the patient’s experience of care: ideally, a patient should not need to interact with or hear from their provider between scheduling an appointment and checking in.

Denials management and prevention programs should be led by multi-disciplinary committees and focus on reducing avoidable denials and rework. Reducing denials requires the implementation of a multi-disciplinary program and collaboration between UM, revenue cycle, clinical documentation improvement, managed care, clinical operation and providers. 

Health systems reassessing their claims denials program should consider these questions:

  1. Do you have a reactive or proactive denials management strategy in place?
  2. Does your denials strategy include multi-disciplinary team representation?
  3. What reporting/tools are currently being used to track and manage denials?
  4. What are your top five denial categories and what is being done to address the root cause of these denials?
  5. How are avoidable denial risks managed, communicated and monitored?
  6. Have you implemented a comprehensive denials management strategy with a multi-disciplinary committee?
  7. Are the system’s internal resources and expertise sufficient for addressing identified challenges, or should the system seek external partners to implement changes?

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.”