Category Archives: Medicare

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.”

The Medicare Advantage Trap: What They Don’t Tell You

Posted on by • Posted in Citizens United, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Lobbyist, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Profit, Profit Motive • Leave a comment
https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-medicare-advantage-trap-what-1fc?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=302288&post_id=152589403&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true

You have three days left, if you got suckered in by those omnipresent ads for Medicare Advantage and left regular Medicare for the siren song of cheaper coverage, “free” vision, hearing, or dental, or even “free” money to buy groceries or rides to the doc.

The open enrollment period for real Medicare closes at the end of the day Saturday, December 7th; after that, you’re locked into the Medicare Advantage plan you may have bought until next year.

If you’ve had Medicare Advantage for a year or more, however, the open enrollment period is still “open” until December 7th, but you will want to make sure you can get a “Medigap” plan that fills in the 20% that real Medicare doesn’t cover.

Companies are required to write a Medigap policy for you at a reasonable price when you turn 65, no matter how sick you are or what preexisting conditions you may have, but if you’ve been “off Medicare” by being on Medicare Advantage for more than a year, they don’t have to write you a policy, so double-check that and sign up for a Medigap policy before making the switch back to real Medicare.

So, what’s this all about and why is it so complicated?

When George W. Bush and congressional Republicans (and a handful of bought-off Democrats) created Medicare Advantage in 2003, it was the fulfillment of half of Bush’s goal of privatizing Social Security and Medicare, dating all the way back to his unsuccessful run for Congress in 1978 and a main theme of his second term in office.

Medicare Advantage is not Medicare.

These plans are private health insurance provided by private corporations, who are then reimbursed at a fixed rate by the Medicare trust fund regardless of how much their customers use their insurance. Thus, the more they can screw their customers and us taxpayers by withholding healthcare payments, the more money they make.

With real Medicare,

if your doctor says you need a test, procedure, scan, or any other medical intervention you simply get it done and real Medicare pays the bill. No muss, no fuss, no permission needed. Real Medicare always pays, and if they think something’s not kosher, they follow up after the payment’s been made so as not to slow down the delivery of your healthcare.

With Medicare Advantage,

however, you’re subject to “pre-clearance,” meaning that the insurance company inserts itself between you and your doctor: You can’t get the medical help you need until or unless the insurance company pre-clears you for payment.

These companies thus make much of their billions in profit by routinely denying claims — 1.5 million, or 18 percent of all claims, were turned down in one year alone — leaving Advantage policy holders with the horrible choice of not getting the tests or procedures they need or paying for them out-of-pocket.

Given this, you’d think that most people would stay as far away from these private Medicare Advantage plans as they could. But Congress also authorized these plans to compete unfairly with real Medicare by offering things real Medicare can’t (yet). These include free or discounted dental, hearing, eyeglasses, gym memberships, groceries, rides to the doctor, and even cash rebates.

You and I pay for those freebies, but that’s only half of the horror story.

This year, as Matthew Cunningham-Cook pointed out in Wendell Potter’s brilliant Health Care un-covered Substack newsletter, we’re ponying up an additional $64 billion to give to these private insurance companies to “reimburse” them for the freebies they relentlessly advertise on television, online, and in print.

And here’s the most obscene part of the whole thing: the companies won’t tell the government (us!) how much of that $64 billion they’ve actually spent. They just take the money and say, “Thank you very much.” And then, presumably, throw a few extra million into the pockets of each of their already obscenely-well-paid senior executives.

For example, the former CEO of the nation’s largest Medicare Advantage provider, UnitedHealth, walked away with over a billion dollars in total compensation. With a “B.” One guy. His successor made off with over a half-billion dollars in pay and stock.

Good work if you can get it: all you need do is buy off a hundred or so members of Congress, courtesy of Clarence Thomas’ billionaire-funded tie-breaking vote on Citizens United, and threaten the rest of Congress with massive advertising campaigns for their opponents if they try to stop you.

And while the companies refuse to tell us how much of the $64 billion that we’re throwing at them this year to offer “free” dental, etc. is actually used, what we do know is that most of that money is not going to pay for the freebies they advertise. As Cunningham-Cook noted, in one study only 11 percent of Advantage policyholders who’d signed up with plans offering dental care used that benefit.

Another study showed over-the-counter-drug freebies were used only a third of the time, leaving $5 billion in the insurance companies money bins just for that “reimbursable” goodie. A later study found that at least a quarter of all Advantage policyholders failed to use any of the freebies they’d been offered when they signed up.

That’s an enormous amount of what the industry calls “breakage”; benefits offered and paid for by the government but not used. Billions of dollars left over every month. And, used or not, you and I sure paid for them.

In my book The Hidden History of American Healthcare: Why Sickness Bankrupts You and Makes Others Insanely Rich, I lay out the story of this scam and how badly so many American seniors — and all American taxpayers, regardless of age — get ripped off by it.

And now it looks like things are about to get a whole lot worse.

When he was president last time, Donald Trump substantially expanded Medicare Advantage, calling real Medicare “socialism.” Project 2025 and candidate Trump both promised to end real Medicare “immediately” if Trump was re-elected; at the very least, they’ll make Medicare Advantage the “default” program people are steered into when they turn 65 and sign up for Medicare.

These giant insurance companies ripped off us taxpayers last year to the tune of an estimated $140 billion over and above what it would’ve cost us if people had simply been on real Medicare, according to a report from Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP).

If there was no Medicare Advantage scam bleeding off all that cash to pay for executives’ private jets, real Medicare could be expanded to cover dental, vision, and hearing and even end the need for Medigap plans.

But for now, the privatization gravy train continues to roll along. The insurance giants use some of that money to buy legislators, and some of it for expensive advertising to dupe seniors into joining their programs. The company (Benefytt) that hired Joe Namath to pitch Medicare Advantage, for example, was recently hit with huge fines by the Federal Trade Commission for deceptive advertising.

The FTC news release laid it out:

“Benefytt pocketed millions selling sham insurance to seniors and other consumers looking for health coverage,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The company is being ordered to pay $100 million, and we’re holding its executives accountable for this fraud.”

And what was it that the Federal Trade Commission called “sham insurance”? Medicare Advantage. Nonetheless, the Centers for Medicare Services continues to let Benefytt and Namath market these products: welcome to the power of organized money.

And it’s huge organized money. Medicare Advantage plans are massive cash cows for the companies that run them. As Cigna prepares for a merger, for example, they’re being forced to sell off their Medicare Advantage division: it’s scheduled to go for $3.7 billion. Nobody pays that kind of money unless they expect enormous returns.

And how do they make those billions?

Most Medicare Advantage companies regularly do everything they can to intimidate you into paying yourself out-of-pocket. Often, they simply refuse payment and wait for you to file a complaint against them; for people seriously ill the cumbersome “appeals” process is often more than they can handle so they just write a check, pull out a credit card, or end up deeply in debt in their golden years.

As a result, hospitals and doctor groups across the nation are beginning to refuse to take Medicare Advantage patients. And in rural areas many hospitals are simply going out of business because Medicare advantage providers refuse to pay their bills.

California-based Scripps Health, for example, cares for around 30,000 people on Medicare Advantage and recently notified all of them that Scripps will no longer offer medical services to them unless they pay out-of-pocket or revert back to real Medicare.

They made this decision because over $75 million worth of services and procedures their physicians had recommended to their patients were turned down by Medicare Advantage insurance companies. In many cases, Scripps had already provided the care and is now stuck with the bills that the Advantage companies refuse to pay.

Scripps CEO Chris Van Gorder told MedPage Today:

“We are a patient care organization and not a patient denial organization and, in many ways, the model of managed care has always been about denying or delaying care – at least economically. That is why denials, [prior] authorizations and administrative processes have become a very big issue for physicians and hospitals…”

Similarly, the Mayo Clinic has warned its customers in Florida and Arizona that they won’t accept Medicare Advantage any more, either. Increasing numbers of physician groups and hospitals are simply over being ripped off by Advantage insurance companies.

Traditional Medicare has been serving Americans well since 1965: it’s one of the most efficient single-payer systems to fund healthcare that’s ever been devised. But nobody was making a buck off it, so nobody could share those profits with greedy politicians. Enter Medicare Advantage, courtesy of George W. Bush and the GOP.

While several bills have been offered in Congress to do something about this — including Mark Pocan’s and Ro Khanna’s Save Medicare Act that would end these companies’ ability to use the word “Medicare” in their policy names and advertising — the amounts of money sloshing around DC in the healthcare space now are almost unfathomable.

So far this year, according to opensecrets.org, the insurance industry has spent $117,305,895 showering gifts and persuasion on our federal lawmakers to keep their obscene profits flowing.

It’s all one more example of how five corrupt Republicans on the US Supreme Court legalizing political bribery with Citizens United have screwed average Americans and made a handful of industry executives and investors fabulously rich.

They get away with it because when people choose to sign up for Medicare Advantage at 65 (or convert to these plans in their 60s or early 70s) they’re typically not sick — and thus cost the insurance companies little.

Tragically, the people signing up for these plans have no idea all the hassles, hoops, and troubles they might have to jump through when they do get sick, have an accident, or otherwise need medical assistance.

And since the last three years of life are typically the most expensive years for healthcare, the insurance denials are more likely to happen then — long after the person’s signed up with the Advantage company and it’s too late to go back to real Medicare.

This is why it typically takes a few years for people to figure out how badly they got screwed by not going with regular Medicare but instead putting themselves in the hands of private insurance companies.

The New York Times did an exposé of the problem in an article titled “Medicare Advantage Plans Often Deny Needed Care, Federal Report Finds.” It tells the story of “Kurt Pauker, an 87-year-old Holocaust survivor in Indianapolis” who’d bought an Advantage policy from Humana:

“In spite of recommendations from Mr. Pauker’s doctors, his family said, Humana has repeatedly denied authorization for inpatient rehabilitation after hospitalization, saying at times he was too healthy and at times too ill to benefit.”

This is not at all uncommon, the Times notes:

“Tens of millions of denials are issued each year for both authorization and reimbursements, and audits of the private insurers show evidence of ‘widespread and persistent problems related to inappropriate denials of services and payment,’ the investigators found.”

If you have “real” Medicare with a heavily regulated Medigap policy to cover the 20% Medicare doesn’t, you never have to worry.

Your bills get paid, you can use any doctor or hospital in the country who takes Medicare, and neither Medicare nor your Medigap provider will ever try to collect from you or force you to pay for what you thought was covered.

Neither you or your doctor will ever have to do the “pre-authorization” dance with real Medicare: those terrible experiences dealing with for-profit insurance companies are part of the past.

But if you have Medicare Advantage — which is not Medicare, but private health insurance — you’re on your own.

As the Times laid out:

“About 18 percent of [Advantage] payments were denied despite meeting Medicare coverage rules, an estimated 1.5 million payments for all of 2019. In some cases, plans ignored prior authorizations or other documentation necessary to support the payment. These denials may delay or even prevent a Medicare Advantage beneficiary from getting needed care…”

Buying a Medicare Advantage policy is a leap in the dark, and the federal government is not there to catch you. And it’s all perfectly legal, thanks to Bush’s 2003 law, so your state insurance commissioner usually can’t or won’t help.

Thus, here we are, handing billions of dollars a month to insurance industry executives so they can buy new Swiss chalets, private jets, and luxury yachts. And so they can compete — unfairly — with Medicare itself, driving LBJ’s most proud achievement into debt and crisis.

Enough is enough. Let your members of Congress know it’s beyond time to fix the Court and Medicare, so scams like Medicare Advantage can no longer rip off America’s seniors while making industry executives richer than Midas.

And if you got hooked into switching out of real Medicare and now find yourself in a Medicare Advantage plan, you have three days to back out and return to real Medicare. For more information, you can also contact the nonprofit and real-Medicare-supporting Medicare Rights Center at 800-333-4114.

The Two Events that Changed U.S. Healthcare for Everyone

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Affordability, Board, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicare, Price Transparency, Private Equity, Profit, Profit Motive, Skinny Health Plans, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment
The Two Events that Changed U.S. Healthcare for Everyone

In late 2025, two events reset the U.S. health system’s future at least through 2026 and possibly beyond:

  • November 5, 2024: The Election: Its post-mortem by pollsters and pundits reflects a country divided and unsettled: 22 Red States, 7 Swing States and 21 Blue States. But a solid majority who thought the country was heading in the wrong direction and their financial insecurity driving voters to return the 45th President to the White House. With slim majorities in the House and Senate, and a short-leash before mid-term elections November 3, 2026, the Trump team has thrown out ‘convention’ in their setting policies and priorities for their second term. That includes healthcare.
  • December 4, 2024: The Murder of a Health Executive : The murder of Brian Thompson, United Healthcare CEO, sparked hostility toward health insurers and a widespread backlash against the corporatization of the U.S. health system. While UHG took the most direct hit for its aggressiveness in managing access and coverage disputes, social media and mainstream journalists exposed what pollsters affirmed—the majority of American’s distrust the health system, believing it puts its profits above their needs. And their polls indicate animosity is highest among young adults, in lower income households and among members of its own workforce.

These events provide the backdrop for what to expect this year and next. Four directional shifts seem to underly actions to date and announced plans:

  • From elitism to populism: Key personnel and policy changes will draw less from Ivy League credentials, DC connections and recycled federal health agency notables and more from private sector experience, known disruptors and unconventional thought leaders. Notably, the new Chairs of the 7 Congressional Committees that control healthcare regulation, funding and policy changes in the 119th Congress represent LA, AL, WV, ID, VA, MO & KY constituents—hardly Ivy League territory.
  • From workforce disparities to workforce modernization: The Departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, Commerce and Treasury will attempt to suspend/modify regulatory mandates and entities they deem derived from woke ideology. The Trump team will replace them with policies that enable workforce de-regulation and modernization in the private sector. Hiring quotas, non-compete contracts, DEI et al will get a fresh look in the context of technology-enabled workplaces and supply-demand constraints. The HR function in every organization will become ground zero for Trump Healthcare 2.0 system transformation.
  • From western medicine to whole person wellbeing: HHS Secretary Nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” pledges war on ultra-processed foods. CMS’ designee Mehmet Oz advocates for vitamins, supplements and managed care. FDA nominee Marty Makary, a Hopkins surgeon, is a RFKJ ally in the “Health Freedom” movement promoting suspicion about ‘mainstream medicine’ and raising doubts about vaccination efficacy for children and low-risk adults. NIH nominee Jay Bhattacharya, director of Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging, opposed Covid-19 lockdowns and is critical of vaccine policies. Collectively, this four-some will challenge conventional western (allopathic) medicine and add wide-range of non-traditional interventions that are a safe and cost-effective to the treatment arsenal for providers and consumers. The food supply will be a major focus: HHS will work closely with the USDA (nominee Brooke Rollins, currently CEO of the America First Policy Institute, to reduce the food chain’s dependence on ultra-processed foods in public health.
  • From DC dominated health policies to states: The 2022 Supreme Court’ Dobbs decision opened the door for states to play the lead role in setting policies for access to abortion for their female citizens. It follows federalism’s Constitutional preference that Washington DC’s powers over states be enumerated and limited. Thus, state provisions about healthcare services for its citizens will expand beyond their already formidable scope. Likely actions in some states will include revised terms and conditions that facilitate consolidation, allowance for physician owned hospitals and site-neutral payments, approval of “skinny” individual insurance policies that do not conform to the Affordable Care Act’s qualified health plan spec’s, expanded scope of practice for nurse practitioners, drug price controls and many others. At least for the immediate future, state legislatures will be the epicenters for major policy changes impacting healthcare organizations; federal changes outside appropriations activity are unlikely.

Transforming the U.S. health system is a bodacious ambition for the incoming Trump team. Early wins will be key—like expanding price transparency in every healthcare sector, softening restrictions on private equity investments, targeted cuts in Medicaid and Medicare funding and annulment of the Inflation Reduction Act. In tandem, it has promised to cut Federal government spending by $2 trillion and lower prices on everything including housing and healthcare—the two spending categories of highest concern to the working class. Healthcare will figure prominently in Team Trump’s agenda for 2025 and posturing for its 2026 mid-term campaign. And equally important, healthcare costs also figure prominently in quarterly earnings reports for companies that provide employee health benefits forecast to be 8% higher this year following a 7% spike the year prior. Last year’s 23% S&P growth is not expected to repeat this year raising shareholder anxiety and the economy’s long-term resilience and the large roles housing and healthcare play in its performance.

My take:

The 2024 election has been called a change election. That’s unwelcome news to most organizations in healthcare, especially the hospitals, physicians, post-acute providers and others who provide care to patients and operate at the bottom of the healthcare pyramid.

Equipping a healthcare organization to thoughtfully prepare for changes amidst growing uncertainty requires extraordinary time and attention by management teams and their Boards. There are no shortcuts. Before handicapping future state scenario possibilities, contingencies and resource requirements, a helpful starting point is this: On the four most pressing issues facing every U.S. healthcare company/organization today, Boards and Management should discuss…

  • Trust: On what basis can statements about our performance be verified? Is the data upon which our trust is based readily accessible? Does the organization’s workforce have more or less trust than outside stakeholders? What actions are necessary to strengthen/restore trust?
  • Purpose: Which stakeholder group is our organization’s highest priority? What values & behaviors define exceptional leadership in our organization? How are they reflected in their compensation?
  • Affordability: How do we measure and monitor the affordability of our services to the consumers and households we ultimately depend? How directly is our organization’s alignment of reducing cost reduction and pass-through savings to consumers? Is affordability a serious concern in our organization (or just a slogan)?
  • Scale: How large must we be to operate at the highest efficiency? How big must we become to achieve our long-term business goals?

This week, thousands of healthcare’s operators will be in San Francisco (JPM Healthcare Conference), Naples (TGI Leadership Conference) and in Las Vegas (Consumer Electronics Show) as healthcare begins a new year. No one knows for sure what’s ahead or who the winners and losers will be.  What’s for sure is that healthcare will be in the spotlight and its future will not be a cut and paste of its past.

PS: The parallels between radical changes facing the health system and other industries is uncanny. College athletics is no exception. As you enjoy the College Football Final Four this weekend, consider its immediate past—since 2021, the impact of Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) monies on college athletics, and its immediate future–pending regulation that will codify permanent revenue sharing arrangements (to be implemented 2026-2030) between college athletes, their institutions and sponsors. What happened to the notion of student athlete and value of higher education? Has the notion of “not-for-profit” healthcare met a similar fate? Or is it all just business?

The Two Events that Changed U.S. Healthcare for Everyone

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Affordability, Board, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicaid, Medicare, Price Transparency, Private Equity, Profit, Profit Motive • Leave a comment
The Two Events that Changed U.S. Healthcare for Everyone

In late 2025, two events reset the U.S. health system’s future at least through 2026 and possibly beyond:

  • November 5, 2024: The Election: Its post-mortem by pollsters and pundits reflects a country divided and unsettled: 22 Red States, 7 Swing States and 21 Blue States. But a solid majority who thought the country was heading in the wrong direction and their financial insecurity driving voters to return the 45th President to the White House. With slim majorities in the House and Senate, and a short-leash before mid-term elections November 3, 2026, the Trump team has thrown out ‘convention’ in their setting policies and priorities for their second term. That includes healthcare.
  • December 4, 2024: The Murder of a Health Executive : The murder of Brian Thompson, United Healthcare CEO, sparked hostility toward health insurers and a widespread backlash against the corporatization of the U.S. health system. While UHG took the most direct hit for its aggressiveness in managing access and coverage disputes, social media and mainstream journalists exposed what pollsters affirmed—the majority of American’s distrust the health system, believing it puts its profits above their needs. And their polls indicate animosity is highest among young adults, in lower income households and among members of its own workforce.

These events provide the backdrop for what to expect this year and next. Four directional shifts seem to underly actions to date and announced plans:

  • From elitism to populism: Key personnel and policy changes will draw less from Ivy League credentials, DC connections and recycled federal health agency notables and more from private sector experience, known disruptors and unconventional thought leaders. Notably, the new Chairs of the 7 Congressional Committees that control healthcare regulation, funding and policy changes in the 119th Congress represent LA, AL, WV, ID, VA, MO & KY constituents—hardly Ivy League territory.
  • From workforce disparities to workforce modernization: The Departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, Commerce and Treasury will attempt to suspend/modify regulatory mandates and entities they deem derived from woke ideology. The Trump team will replace them with policies that enable workforce de-regulation and modernization in the private sector. Hiring quotas, non-compete contracts, DEI et al will get a fresh look in the context of technology-enabled workplaces and supply-demand constraints. The HR function in every organization will become ground zero for Trump Healthcare 2.0 system transformation.
  • From western medicine to whole person wellbeing: HHS Secretary Nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” pledges war on ultra-processed foods. CMS’ designee Mehmet Oz advocates for vitamins, supplements and managed care. FDA nominee Marty Makary, a Hopkins surgeon, is a RFKJ ally in the “Health Freedom” movement promoting suspicion about ‘mainstream medicine’ and raising doubts about vaccination efficacy for children and low-risk adults. NIH nominee Jay Bhattacharya, director of Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging, opposed Covid-19 lockdowns and is critical of vaccine policies. Collectively, this four-some will challenge conventional western (allopathic) medicine and add wide-range of non-traditional interventions that are a safe and cost-effective to the treatment arsenal for providers and consumers. The food supply will be a major focus: HHS will work closely with the USDA (nominee Brooke Rollins, currently CEO of the America First Policy Institute, to reduce the food chain’s dependence on ultra-processed foods in public health.
  • From DC dominated health policies to states: The 2022 Supreme Court’ Dobbs decision opened the door for states to play the lead role in setting policies for access to abortion for their female citizens. It follows federalism’s Constitutional preference that Washington DC’s powers over states be enumerated and limited. Thus, state provisions about healthcare services for its citizens will expand beyond their already formidable scope. Likely actions in some states will include revised terms and conditions that facilitate consolidation, allowance for physician owned hospitals and site-neutral payments, approval of “skinny” individual insurance policies that do not conform to the Affordable Care Act’s qualified health plan spec’s, expanded scope of practice for nurse practitioners, drug price controls and many others. At least for the immediate future, state legislatures will be the epicenters for major policy changes impacting healthcare organizations; federal changes outside appropriations activity are unlikely.

Transforming the U.S. health system is a bodacious ambition for the incoming Trump team. Early wins will be key—like expanding price transparency in every healthcare sector, softening restrictions on private equity investments, targeted cuts in Medicaid and Medicare funding and annulment of the Inflation Reduction Act. In tandem, it has promised to cut Federal government spending by $2 trillion and lower prices on everything including housing and healthcare—the two spending categories of highest concern to the working class. Healthcare will figure prominently in Team Trump’s agenda for 2025 and posturing for its 2026 mid-term campaign. And equally important, healthcare costs also figure prominently in quarterly earnings reports for companies that provide employee health benefits forecast to be 8% higher this year following a 7% spike the year prior. Last year’s 23% S&P growth is not expected to repeat this year raising shareholder anxiety and the economy’s long-term resilience and the large roles housing and healthcare play in its performance.

My take:

The 2024 election has been called a change election. That’s unwelcome news to most organizations in healthcare, especially the hospitals, physicians, post-acute providers and others who provide care to patients and operate at the bottom of the healthcare pyramid.

Equipping a healthcare organization to thoughtfully prepare for changes amidst growing uncertainty requires extraordinary time and attention by management teams and their Boards. There are no shortcuts. Before handicapping future state scenario possibilities, contingencies and resource requirements, a helpful starting point is this: On the four most pressing issues facing every U.S. healthcare company/organization today, Boards and Management should discuss…

  • Trust: On what basis can statements about our performance be verified? Is the data upon which our trust is based readily accessible? Does the organization’s workforce have more or less trust than outside stakeholders? What actions are necessary to strengthen/restore trust?
  • Purpose: Which stakeholder group is our organization’s highest priority? What values & behaviors define exceptional leadership in our organization? How are they reflected in their compensation?
  • Affordability: How do we measure and monitor the affordability of our services to the consumers and households we ultimately depend? How directly is our organization’s alignment of reducing cost reduction and pass-through savings to consumers? Is affordability a serious concern in our organization (or just a slogan)?
  • Scale: How large must we be to operate at the highest efficiency? How big must we become to achieve our long-term business goals?

This week, thousands of healthcare’s operators will be in San Francisco (JPM Healthcare Conference), Naples (TGI Leadership Conference) and in Las Vegas (Consumer Electronics Show) as healthcare begins a new year. No one knows for sure what’s ahead or who the winners and losers will be.  What’s for sure is that healthcare will be in the spotlight and its future will not be a cut and paste of its past.

PS: The parallels between radical changes facing the health system and other industries is uncanny. College athletics is no exception. As you enjoy the College Football Final Four this weekend, consider its immediate past—since 2021, the impact of Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) monies on college athletics, and its immediate future–pending regulation that will codify permanent revenue sharing arrangements (to be implemented 2026-2030) between college athletes, their institutions and sponsors. What happened to the notion of student athlete and value of higher education? Has the notion of “not-for-profit” healthcare met a similar fate? Or is it all just business?

BIG INSURANCE 2022: Revenues reached $1.25 trillion thanks to sucking billions out of the pharmacy supply chain – and taxpayers’ pockets

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Affordability, Antitrust, Competition, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Monopoly, Monopoly Behavior, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network, Pharmaceutical Costs, Pharmaceutical Industry, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Prior Authorization, Privatization, Profit, Profit Motive • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/big-insurance-2022-revenues-reached?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

HIGHLIGHTS

  • Big Insurance revenues and profits have increased by 300% and 287% respectively since 2012 due to explosive growth in the companies’ pharmacy benefit management (PBM) businesses and the Medicare replacement plans they call Medicare Advantage.
  • The for-profits now control more than 80% of the national PBM market and more than 70% of the Medicare Advantage market. 

In 2022, Big Insurance revenues reached $1.25 trillion and profits soared to $69.3 billion.

That’s a 300% increase in revenue and a 287% increase in profits from 2012, when revenue was $412.9 billion and profits were $24 billion.

Big insurers’ revenues have grown dramatically over the past decade, the result of consolidation in the PBM business and taxpayer-supported Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

Sucking billions out of the pharmacy supply chain – and taxpayers’ pockets

What has changed dramatically over the decade is that the big insurers are now getting far more of their revenues from the pharmaceutical supply chain and from taxpayers as they have moved aggressively into government programs. This is especially true of Humana, Centene, and Molina, which now get, respectively, 85%, 88%, and 94% of their health-plan revenues from government programs. 

The two biggest drivers are their fast-growing pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the relatively new and little-known middleman between patients and pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, and the privately owned and operated Medicare replacement plans they market as Medicare Advantage.

With the exception of Humana, Centene, and Molina, most of the companies that constitute Big Insurance continue to make substantial amounts of money selling policies and services in what they refer to as their commercial businesses – to individuals, families, and employers – but the seven companies’ commercial revenue grew just 260%, or $176 billion, over 10 years (from $110.4 billion to $287.1 billion). While that’s significant, profitable growth in the commercial sector has become a major challenge for big insurers – so much so that Humana just last week announced it is exiting the employer-sponsored health-insurance marketplace entirely. 

The insurers’ commercial businesses have stagnated because small businesses – which employ nearly half of the nation’s workers – are increasingly being priced out of the health insurance market. Most small businesses can no longer afford the premiums. The average premium for an employer-sponsored family plan – not including out-of-pocket requirements – was $22,463 in 2022, up 43% since 2012, which has contributed to the decades-long decline in the percentage of U.S. employers offering coverage to their workers.

The percentage of U.S. employers providing some level of health benefits to their workers dropped from 69% to 51% between 1999 and 2022 – including a dramatic 8% decrease last year alone. Growth in this category is largely the result of insurers “stealing market share” from each other or from smaller competitors.

As a consequence of this segment’s relative stagnation, PBMs and government programs have become the new cash cows for Big Insurance.

Spectacular PBM Growth

PBM HIGHLIGHTS

  • Cigna now gets far more revenue from its PBM than from its health plans. CVS gets more revenue from its PBM than from either Aetna’s health plans or its nearly 10,000 retail stores. 
  • UnitedHealth has the biggest share of both the PBM and Medicare markets and, through numerous acquisitions of physician practices, is now the largest U.S. employer of doctors.

PBMs are middlemen companies that manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, employers, and, in some cases, unions. As the Commonwealth Fund has noted: 

PBMs have a significant behind-the-scenes impact in determining total drug costs for insurers, shaping patients’ access to medications, and determining how much pharmacies are paid. 

The Commonwealth Fund went on to say that PBMs have faced growing scrutiny about their role in rising prescription drug costs and spending. A big reason for the scrutiny – by Congress, state lawmakers and now also by the FTC – is that the biggest PBMs are now owned by Big Insurance.

Through mergers and acquisitions in recent years, three of the seven for-profit insurers – Cigna, CVS/Aetna, and UnitedHealth – now control 80% of the U.S. pharmacy benefits market.

They determine which drugs will be listed in each of their formularies (lists of drugs they will “cover” based on secret deals they negotiate with pharmaceutical companies) and how much patients will have to pay out of their own pockets at the pharmacy counter – in many cases hundreds or thousands of dollars – before their coverage kicks in. The PBMs also “steer” health-plan enrollees to their preferred or owned pharmacies (and, increasingly, away from independent pharmacists), thereby capturing even more of what we spend on our prescription medications.

Cigna, CVS/Aetna, and UnitedHealth now control 80% of the U.S. PBM market. Correction: this graph was initially published with inaccurate numbers. The source for this information can be found here.

Ten years ago, PBMs contributed relatively little to the three companies’ revenues and profits. But since then, the rapid growth of PBMs has transformed all of the companies. The combined revenues from their PBM business units increased 250% between 2012 and 2022, from $196.7 billion to $492.4 billion.

Changes in PBM revenues between 2012 and 2022 for UnitedHealth Group, Cigna, and CVS/Aetna (Editor’s note: Cigna acquired PBM Express Scripts in 2018. To reflect revenue growth, Express Scripts’ pre-acquisition 2012 revenues are included in the Cigna total for that year.)

PBM Profit Generation

The PBM profit growth at the three companies over the past decade was even more dramatic than revenue growth. Collectively, their PBM profits increased 438%, from $6.3 billion in 2012 to $27.6 billion in 2022.

As a result of this fast growth, more than half (52%) of three companies’ profits in 2022 came from their PBM business units: Cigna’s Evernorth, CVS/Aetna’s Caremark, and UnitedHealth’s Optum. Cigna now gets far more revenue and profits from its PBM than from its health plans. And CVS gets more revenue from its PBM than from either Aetna’s health plans or its nearly 10,000 retail stores. (The companies’ business units that include their PBMs have also moved aggressively in recent years into health-care delivery through acquisitions of physician practices, clinics, dialysis centers, and other facilities. Notably, UnitedHealth Group is now the largest U.S. employer of physicians.)

Huge strides in privatizing both Medicare and Medicaid

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS HIGHLIGHTS

  • More than 90% of health-plan revenues at three of the companies come from government programs as they continue to privatize both Medicare and Medicaid, through Medicare Advantage in particular.
  • Enrollment in government-funded programs increased by 261% in 10 years; by contrast commercial enrollment increased by just 10% over the past decade.
  • Commercial enrollment actually declined at both UnitedHealth and Humana.
  • 85% of Humana’s health-plan members are in government-funded programs; at Centene, it is 88%, and at Molina, it is 94%. 

The big insurers now manage most states’ Medicaid programs – and make billions of dollars for shareholders doing so – but most of the insurers have found that selling their privately operated Medicare replacement plans is even more financially rewarding for their shareholders.

Revenue growth from government programs has been dramatic over the past 10 years. (Note the numbers do not include revenue from the Medicare Part D program, federal subsidy payments for many ACA marketplace plan enrollees, or Medicare supplement policies.)

This is especially apparent when you see that the Big Seven’s combined revenues from taxpayer-supported programs grew 500%, from $116.3 billion in 2012 to $577 billion in 2022.

These numbers should be of interest to the Biden administration and members of Congress, many of whom are calling for much greater scrutiny of the Medicare Advantage program. Numerous media and government reports have shown that the federal government is overpaying private insurers billions of dollars a year, largely because of loopholes in laws and regulations that enable them to get more taxpayer dollars by claiming their enrollees are sicker than they really are. The companies also make aggressive use of prior authorization, largely unknown in traditional Medicare, to avoid paying for doctor-ordered care and medications.

In addition to their focus on Medicare and Medicaid, the companies also profit from the generous subsidies the government pays insurers to reduce the premiums they charge individuals and families who do not qualify for either Medicare or Medicaid or who work for an employer that does not offer subsidized coverage. But many people enrolled in those types of plans – primarily through the health insurance “marketplaces” established by the Affordable Care Act – cannot afford the deductibles and other out-of-pocket requirements they must pay before their insurers will begin paying their medical claims. 

Dramatic Enrollment Shifts

Changes in health-plan enrollment over the past decade show how dramatic this shift has been. Between 2012 and 2022, enrollment in the companies’ private commercial plans increased by 10%, from 85.1 million in 2012 to 93.8 million in 2022. 

By comparison, growth in enrollment in taxpayer-supported government programs increased 261%, from 27 million in 2012 to 70.4 million in 2022. 

For-profit insurers dominate the Medicare Advantage market. Note that Anthem mentioned above is now known as Elevance. It owns 14 of the country’s Blue Cross Blue Shield plans. 

Within that category, Medicare Advantage enrollment among the Big Seven increased 252%, from 7.8 million in 2012 to 19.7 million in 2022. 

Nationwide, enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans increased to 28.4 million in 2022 (and to 30 million this year). That means that the Big Seven for-profit companies control more than 70% of the Medicare Advantage market. 

UnitedHealth, Humana, Elevance, and CVS/Aetna have captured most of the Medicare Advantage market since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010. 

The remaining growth in the government segment occurred in the Medicaid programs that a subset of the Big Seven (UnitedHealth, Elevance, Centene, and Molina in particular) manages for several states.

A few other facts and figures to keep in mind as Big Insurance thrives:

  • In 2023, U.S. families can be on the hook for up to $18,200 in out-of-pocket requirements before their coverage kicks in, up 43% since 2014 when it was $12,700.The Affordable Care Act allows the out-of-pocket maximum to increase annually – 43% since the maximum limit went into effect in 2014.
  • 44% of people in the United States who purchased coverage through the individual market and (ACA) marketplaces were underinsured or functionally uninsured.
  • 46% of those surveyed said they had skipped or delayed care because of the cost.
  • 42% said they had problems paying medical bills or were paying off medical debt.
  • Half (49%) said they would be unable to pay an unexpected medical bill within 30 days, including 68% of adults with low income, 69% of Black adults, and 63% of Latino/Hispanic adults. 
  • In 2021, about $650 million, or about one-third of all funds raised by GoFundMe, went to medical campaigns. That’s not surprising when you realize that in the United States, even people with insurance all too often feel they have no choice but to beg for money from strangers to get the care they or a loved one needs. 
  • 62% of bankruptcies are related to medical costs. 
  • Even as we spend about $4.5 trillion on health care a year, Americans are now dying younger than people in other wealthy countries. Life expectancy in the United States actually decreased by 2.8 years between 2014 and 2021, erasing all gains since 1996, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

BOTTOM LINE: 

The companies that comprise Big Insurance are vastly different from what they were just 10 years ago, but policymakers, regulators, employers, and the media have so far shown scant interest in putting their business practices under the microscope.

Changes in federal law, including the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which created the lucrative Medicare Advantage market, and the Affordable Care Act of 2010, which gave insurers the green light to increase out-of-pocket requirements annually and restrict access to care in other ways, opened the Treasury and Medicare Trust Fund to Big Insurance. In addition, regulators have allowed almost all of their proposed acquisitions to go forward, which has created the behemoths they are today.

CVS/Health is now the 4th largest company on the Fortune 500 list of American companies. UnitedHealth Group is now No. 5 – and all the others are climbing toward the top 10. 

When Profits Kill: The Deadly Costs of Treating Healthcare as a Business

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Excessive Executive Compensation, Executive Compensation, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Denials, Medicare for All, Private Equity, Privatization, Profit, Profit Motive, Public Interest, Public Trust, Single Payer Health System • Leave a comment
https://hartmannreport.com/p/when-profits-kill-the-deadly-costs-e1a?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=302288&post_id=152812043&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The recent assassination of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare — the health insurance company with, reportedly, the highest rate of claims rejections (and thus dead, wounded, and furious customers and their relations) — gives us a perfect window to understand the stupidity and danger of the Musk/Trump/Ramaswamy strategy of “cutting government” to “make it more efficient, run it like a corporation.”

Consider health care, which in almost every other developed country in the world is legally part of the commons — the infrastructure of the nation, like our roads, public schools, parks, police, military, libraries, and fire departments — owned by the people collectively and run for the sole purpose of meeting a basic human need.

The entire idea of government — dating all the way back to Gilgamesh and before — is to fulfill that singular purpose of meeting citizens’ needs and keeping the nation strong and healthy. That’s a very different mandate from that of a corporation, which is solely directed (some argue by law) to generate profits.

The Veterans’ Administration healthcare system, for example, is essentially socialist rather than capitalist. The VA owns the land and buildings, pays the salaries of everybody from the surgeons to the janitors, and makes most all decisions about care. Its primary purpose — just like that of the healthcare systems of every other democracy in the world — is to keep and make veterans healthy. Its operation is nearly identical to that of Britain’s beloved socialist National Health Service.

UnitedHealthcare similarly owns its own land and buildings, and its officers and employees behave in a way that’s aligned with the company’s primary purpose, but that purpose is to make a profit. Sure, it writes checks for healthcare that’s then delivered to people, but that’s just the way UnitedHealthcare makes money; writing checks and, most importantly, refusing to write checks.

Think about it. If UnitedHealthcare’s main goal was to keep people healthy, they wouldn’t be rejecting 32 percent of claims presented to them. Like the VA, when people needed help they’d make sure they got it.

Instead, they make damn sure their executives get millions of dollars every year (and investors get billions) because making a massive profit ($23 billion last year, and nearly every penny arguably came from saying “no” to somebody’s healthcare needs) is their real business.

On the other hand, if the VA’s goal was to make or save money by “being run efficiently like a company,” they’d be refusing service to a lot more veterans (which it appears is on the horizon).

This is the essential difference between government and business, between meeting human needs (social) and reaching capitalism’s goal (profit).

It’s why its deeply idiotic to say, as Republicans have been doing since the Reagan Revolution, that “government should be run like a business.” That’s nearly as crackbrained a suggestion as saying that fire departments should make a profit (a doltish notion promoted by some Libertarians). Government should be run like a government, and companies should be run like companies.

Given how obvious this is with even a little bit of thought, where did this imbecilic idea that government should run like a business come from?

Turns out, it’s been driven for most of the past century by morbidly rich businessmen (almost entirely men) who don’t want to pay their taxes. As Jeff Tiedrich notes:

“The scariest sentence in the English language is: ‘I’m a billionaire, and I’m here to help.’”

Rightwing billionaires who don’t want to pay their fair share of the costs of society set up think tanks, policy centers, and built media operations to promote their idea that the commons are really there for them to plunder under the rubric of privatization and efficiency.

They’ve had considerable success. Slightly more than half of Medicare is now privatized, multiple Republican-controlled states are in the process of privatizing their public school systems, and the billionaire-funded Project 2025 and the incoming Trump administration have big plans for privatizing other essential government services.

The area where their success is most visible, though, is the American healthcare system. Because the desire of rightwing billionaires not to pay taxes have prevailed ever since Harry Truman first proposed single-payer healthcare like most of the rest of the world has, Americans spend significantly more on healthcare than other developed countries.

In 2022, citizens of the United States spent an estimated $12,742 per person on healthcare, the highest among wealthy nations. This is nearly twice the average of $6,850 per person for other wealthy OECD countries.

Over the next decade, it is estimated that America will spend between $55 and $60 trillion on healthcare if nothing changes and we continue to cut giant corporations in for a large slice of our healthcare money.

On the other hand, Senator Bernie Sanders’ single-payer Medicare For All plan would only cost $32 trillion over the next 10 years. And it would cover everybody in America, every man woman and child, in every medical aspect including vision, dental, psychological, and hearing.

Currently 25 million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever.

If we keep our current system, the difference between it and the savings from a single-payer system will end up in the pockets, in large part, of massive insurance giants and their executives and investors. And as campaign contributions for bought off Republicans. This isn’t rocket science.

And you’d think that giving all those extra billions to companies like UnitedHealthcare would result in America having great health outcomes. But, no.

Despite insanely higher spending, the U.S. has a lower life expectancy at birth, higher rates of chronic diseases, higher rates of avoidable or treatable deaths, and higher maternal and infant mortality rates than any of our peer nations.

Compared to single-payer nations like Canada, the U.S. also has a higher incidence of chronic health conditions, Americans see doctors less often and have fewer hospital stays, and the U.S. has fewer hospital beds and physicians per person.

No other country in the world allows a predatory for-profit industry like this to exist as a primary way of providing healthcare. Every other advanced democracy considers healthcare a right of citizenship, rather than an opportunity for a handful of industry executives to hoard a fortune, buy Swiss chalets, and fly around on private jets.

This is one of the most widely shared graphics on social media over the past few days in posts having to do with Thompson’s murder…

Sure, there are lots of health insurance companies in other developed countries, but instead of offering basic healthcare (which is provided by the government) mostly wealthy people subscribe to them to pay for premium services like private hospital rooms, international air ambulance services, and cosmetic surgery.

Essentially, UnitedHealthcare’s CEO Brian Thompson made decisions that killed Americans for a living, in exchange for $10 million a year. He and his peers in the industry are probably paid as much as they are because there is an actual shortage of people with business training who are willing to oversee decisions that cause or allow others to die in exchange for millions in annual compensation.

That Americans are well aware of this obscenity explains the gleeful response to his murder that’s spread across social media, including the refusal of online sleuths to participate in finding his killer.

It shouldn’t need be said that vigilantism is no way to respond to toxic individuals and companies that cause Americans to die unnecessarily. Hopefully, Thompson’s murder will spark a conversation about the role of government and the commons — and the very real need to end the corrupt privatization of our healthcare system (including the Medicare Advantage scam) that has harmed so many of us and killed or injured so many of the people we love.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/DzaxEt4L9II?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

The Politics of Health Care and the 2024 Election

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Abortion, Abortion Rights, ACA, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, High Drug Prices, Medicaid, Medical Debt, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Medicare, Preexisting Conditions, Price Transparency, Roe v. Wade, Underinsured, Uninsured, Universal Coverage, Universal Healthcare System • Leave a comment

https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-the-politics-of-health-care-and-the-2024-election/?entry=table-of-contents-introduction

Introduction

Copy link to Introduction

Health policy and politics are inextricably linked. Policy is about what the government can do to shift the financing, delivery, and quality of health care, so who controls the government has the power to shape those policies. 

Elections, therefore, always have consequences for the direction of health policy – who is the president and in control of the executive branch, which party has the majority in the House and the Senate with the ability to steer legislation, and who has control in state houses. When political power in Washington is divided, legislating on health care often comes to a standstill, though the president still has significant discretion over health policy through administrative actions. And, stalemates at the federal level often spur greater action by states. 

Health care issues often, but not always, play a dominant role in political campaigns. Health care is a personal issue, so it often resonates with voters. The affordability of health care, in particular, is typically a top concern for voters, along with other pocketbook issues, And, at 17% of the economy, health care has many industry stakeholders who seek influence through lobbying and campaign contributions. At the same time, individual policy issues are rarely decisive in elections. 

Health Reform in Elections

Copy link to Health Reform in Elections

Health “reform” – a somewhat squishy term generally understood to mean proposals that significantly transform the financing, coverage, and delivery of health care – has a long history of playing a major role in elections. 

Harry Truman campaigned on universal health insurance in 1948, but his plan went nowhere in the face of opposition from the American Medical Association and other groups. While falling short of universal coverage, the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 under Lyndon Johnson dramatically reduced the number of uninsured people. President Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid legislation at the Truman Library in Missouri, with Truman himself looking on. 

Later, Bill Clinton campaigned on health reform in 1992, and proposed the sweeping Health Security Act in the first year of his presidency. That plan went down to defeat in Congress amidst opposition from nearly all segments of the health care industry, and the controversy over it has been cited by many as a factor in Democrats losing control of both the House and the Senate in the 1994 midterm elections. 

For many years after the defeat of the Clinton health plan, Democrats were hesitant to push major health reforms. Then, in the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama campaigned once again on health reform, and proposed a plan that eventually became the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA ultimately passed Congress in 2010 with only Democratic votes, after many twists and turns in the legislative process. The major provisions of the ACA were not slated to take effect until 2014, and opposition quickly galvanized against the requirement to have insurance or pay a tax penalty (the “individual mandate”) and in response to criticism that the legislation contained so-called “death panels” (which it did not). Republicans took control of the House and gained a substantial number of seats in the Senate during the 2010 midterm elections, fueled partly by opposition to the ACA. 

The ACA took full effect in 2014, with millions gaining coverage, but more people viewed the law unfavorably than favorably, and repeal became a rallying cry for Republicans in the 2016 campaign. Following the election of Donald Trump, there was a high profile effort to repeal the law, which was ultimately defeated following a public backlash. The ACA repeal debate was a good example of the trade-offs inherent in all health policies. Republicans sought to reduce federal spending and regulation, but the result would have been fewer people covered and weakened protections for people with pre-existing conditions. KFF polling showed that the ACA repeal effort led to increased public support for the law, which persists today. 

Health Care and the 2024 Election

Copy link to Health Care and the 2024 Election

The 2024 election presents the unusual occurrence of two candidates – current vice president Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump – who have already served in the White House and have detailed records for comparison, as explained in this JAMA column.  With President Joe Biden dropping out of the campaign, Harris inherits the record of the current administration, but has also begun to lay out an agenda of her own.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

Copy link to The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

While Trump failed as president to repeal the ACA, his administration did make significant changes to it, including repealing the individual mandate penalty, reducing federal funding for consumer assistance (navigators) by 84% and outreach by 90%, and expanding short-term insurance plans that can exclude coverage of preexisting conditions. 

In a strange policy twist, the Trump administration ended payments to ACA insurers to compensate them for a requirement to provide reduced cost sharing for low-income patients, with Trump saying it would cause Obamacare to be “dead” and “gone.” But, insurers responded by increasing premiums, which in turn increased federal premium subsidies and federal spending, likely strengthening the ACA. 

In the 2024 campaign, Trump has vowed several times to try again to repeal and replace the ACA, though not necessarily using those words, saying instead he would create a plan with “much better health care.” 

Although the Trump administration never issued a detailed plan to replace the ACA, Trump’s budget proposals as president included plans to convert the ACA into a block grant to states, cap federal funding for Medicaid, and allow states to relax the ACA’s rules protecting people with preexisting conditions. Those plans, if enacted, would have reduced federal funding for health care by about $1 trillion over a decade. 

In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration has reinvigorated the ACA by restoring funding for consumer assistance and outreach and by increasing premium subsidies to make coverage more affordable, resulting in record enrollment in ACA Marketplace plans and historically low uninsured rates. The increased premium subsidies are currently slated to expire at the end of 2025, so the next president will be instrumental in determining whether they get extended. Harris has vowed to extend the subsidies, while Trump has been silent on the issue.

Abortion and Reproductive Health

Copy link to Abortion and Reproductive Health

The health care issue most likely to figure prominently in the general election is abortion rights, with sharp contrasts between the presidential candidates and the potential to affect voter turnout. In all the states where voters have been asked to weigh in directly on abortion so far (California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, and Vermont), abortion rights have been upheld. 

Trump paved the way for the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade by appointing judges and justices opposed to abortion rights. Trump recently said, “for 54 years they were trying to get Roe v Wade terminated, and I did it and I’m proud to have done it.” During the current campaign, Trump has said that abortion policy should now be left to the states. 

As president, Trump had also cut off family planning funding to Planned Parenthood and other clinics that provide or refer for abortion services, but this policy was reversed by the Biden-Harris administration. 

Harris supports codifying into federal the abortion access protections in Roe v Wade.

Addressing the High Price of Prescription Drugs and Health Care Services

Copy link to Addressing the High Price of Prescription Drugs and Health Care Services

Trump has often spotlighted the high price of prescription drugs, criticizing both the pharmaceutical industry and pharmacy benefit managers. Although he kept the issue of drug prices on the political agenda as president, in the end, his administration accomplished little to contain them. 

The Trump administration created a demonstration program, capping monthly co-pays for insulin for some Medicare beneficiaries at $35. Late in his presidency, his administration issued a rule to tie Medicare reimbursement of certain physician-administered drugs to the prices paid in other countries, but it was blocked by the courts and never implemented. The Trump administration also issued regulations paving the way for states to import lower-priced drugs from Canada. The Biden-Harris administration has followed through on that idea and recently approved Florida’s plan to buy drugs from Canada, though barriers still remain to making it work in practice. 

With Harris casting the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, far-reaching legislation that requires the federal government to negotiate the prices of certain drugs in Medicare, which was previously banned. The law also guarantees a $35 co-pay cap for insulin for all Medicare beneficiaries, and caps out-of-pocket retail drug costs for the first time in Medicare. Harris supports accelerating drug price negotiation to apply to more drugs, as well as extending the $35 cap on insulin copays and the cap on out-of-pocket drug costs to everyone outside of Medicare.

How Trump would approach drug price negotiations if elected is unclear. Trump supported federal negotiation of drug prices during his 2016 campaign, but he did not pursue the idea as president and opposed a Democratic price negotiation plan. During the current campaign, Trump said he “will tell big pharma that we will only pay the best price they offer to foreign nations,” claiming that he was the “only president in modern times who ever took on big pharma.” 

Beyond drug prices, the Trump administration issued regulations requiring hospitals and health insurers to be transparent about prices, a policy that is still in place and attracts bipartisan support. 

Future Outlook

Copy link to Future Outlook

Ultimately, irrespective of the issues that get debated during the campaign, the outcome of the 2024 election – who controls the White House and Congress – will have significant implications for the future direction of health care, as is almost always the case. 

However, even with changes in party control of the federal government, only incremental movement to the left or the right is the norm. Sweeping changes in health policy, such as the creation of Medicare and Medicaid or passage of the ACA, are rare in the U.S. political system. Similarly, Medicare for All, which would even more fundamentally transform the financing and coverage of health care, faces long odds, particularly in the current political environment. This is the case even though most of the public favors Medicare for All, though attitudes shift significantly after hearing messages about its potential impacts. 

Importantly, it’s politically difficult to take benefits away from people once they have them. That, and the fact that seniors are a strong voting bloc, has been why Social Security and Medicare have been considered political “third rails.” The ACA and Medicaid do not have quite the same sacrosanct status, but they may be close. 

Are Employers Ready to Move from the Back Bench in U.S. Healthcare?

Posted on by • Posted in Cost Management, Cost Transparency, Employee Benefits, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Employer-Sponsored Commercial Health Insurance, Employers, Health Insurance Self Funded, Healthcare Reform, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, High Risk Employees, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Out of Pocket Expenses • Leave a comment
Are Employers Ready to Move from the Back Bench in U.S. Healthcare?

This year, 316 million Americans (92.3% of the population) have health insurance: 61 million are covered by Medicare, 79 million by Medicaid/CHIP and 164 million through employment-based coverage. By 2032, the Congressional Budget Office predicts Medicare coverage will increase 18%, Medicaid and CHIP by 0% and employer-based coverage will increase 3.0% to 169 million. For some in the industry, that justifies seating Medicare on the front row for attention. And, for many, it justifies leaving employers on the back bench since the working age population use hospitals, physicians and prescription meds less than seniors.  

Last week, the Business Group on Health released its 2025 forecast for employer health costs based on responses from 125 primarily large employers surveyed in June: Highlights:

  • “Since 2022, the projected increase in health care trend, before plan design changes, rose from 6% in 2022, 7.2% in 2024 to almost 8% for 2025. Even after plan design changes, actual health care costs continued to grow at a rate exceeding pre-pandemic increases. These increases point toward a more than 50% increase in health care cost since 2017. Moreover, this health care inflation is expected to persist and, in light of the already high burden of medical costs on the plan and employees, employers are preparing to absorb much of the increase as they have done in recent years.”.
  • Per BGH, the estimated total cost of care per employee in 2024 is $18,639, up $1,438 from 2023. The estimated out-of-pocket cost for employees in 2024 is $1,825 (9.8%), compared to $1,831 (10.6%) in 2023.

The prior week, global benefits firm Aon released its 2025 assessment based on data from 950 employers:

  • “The average cost of employer-sponsored health care coverage in the U.S. is expected to increase 9.0% surpassing $16,000 per employee in 2025–higher than the 6.4% increase to health care budgets that employers experienced from 2023 to 2024 after cost savings strategies. “
  • On average, the total health-plan cost for employers increased 5.8% to $14,823 per employee from 2023 to 2024: employer costs increased 6.4% to 80.7% of total while employee premiums increased 3.4% increase–both higher than averages from the prior five years, when employer budgets grew an average of 4.4% per year and employees averaged 1.2% per year.
  • Employee contributions in 2024 were $4,858 for health care coverage, of which $2,867 is paid in the form of premiums from pay checks and $1,991 is paid through plan design features such as deductibles, co-pays and co-insurance.
  • The rate of health care cost increases varies by industry: technology and communications industry have the highest average employer cost increase at 7.4%, while the public sector has the highest average employee cost increase at 6.7%. The health care industry has the lowest average change in employee contributions, with no material change from 2023: +5.8%

And in July, PWC’s Health Research Institute released its forecast based on interviews with 20 health plan actuaries. Highlights:

  • “PwC’s Health Research Institute (HRI) is projecting an 8% year-on-year medical cost trend in 2025 for the Group market and 7.5% for the Individual market. This near-record trend is driven by inflationary pressure, prescription drug spending and behavioral health utilization. The same inflationary pressure the healthcare industry has felt since 2022 is expected to persist into 2025, as providers look for margin growth and work to recoup rising operating expenses through health plan contracts. The costs of GLP-1 drugs are on a rising trajectory that impacts overall medical costs. Innovation in prescription drugs for chronic conditions and increasing use of behavioral health services are reaching a tipping point that will likely drive further cost inflation.”

Despite different methodologies, all three analyses conclude that employer health costs next year will increase 8-9%– well-above the Congressional Budget Office’ 2025 projected inflation rate (2.2%), GDP growth (2.4% and wage growth (2.0%).  And it’s the largest one-year increase since 2017 coming at a delicate time for employers worried already about interest rates, workforce availability and the political landscape.

For employers, the playbook has been relatively straightforward: control health costs through benefits designs that drive smarter purchases and eliminate unnecessary services. Narrow networks, price transparency, on-site/near-site primary care, restrictive formularies, value-based design, risk-sharing contracts with insurers and more have become staples for employers. 

But this playbook is not working for employers: the intrinsic economics of supply-driven demand and its regulated protections mitigate otherwise effective ways to lower their costs while improving care for their employees and families.

My take:

Last week, I reviewed the healthcare advocacy platforms for the leading trade groups that represent employers in DC and statehouses to see what they’re saying about their take on the healthcare industry and how they’re leaning on employee health benefits. My review included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federal of Independent Businesses, Business Roundtable, National Alliance of Purchaser Coalitions, Purchaser Business Group on Health, American Benefits Council, Self-Insurance Institute of America and the National Association of Manufacturers.

What I found was amazing unanimity around 6 themes:

  • Providing health benefits to employees is important to employers. Protecting their tax exemptions, opposing government mandates, and advocating against disruptive regulations that constrain employer-employee relationships are key.
  • Healthcare affordability is an issue to employers and to their employees, All see increasing insurance premiums, benefits design changes, surprise bills, opaque pricing, and employee out-of-pocket cost obligations as problems.
  • All believe their members unwillingly subsidize the system paying 1.6-2.5 times more than what Medicare pays for the same services. They think the majority of profits made by drug companies, hospitals, physicians, device makers and insurers are the direct result of their overpayments and price gauging.
  • All think the system is wasteful, inefficient and self-serving. Profits in healthcare are protected by regulatory protections that disable competition and consumer choices.
  • All think fee-for-service incentives should be replaced by value-based purchasing.
  • And all are worried about the obesity epidemic (123 million Americans) and its costs-especially the high-priced drugs used in its treatment. It’s the near and present danger on every employer’s list of concerns.

This consensus among employers and their advocates is a force to be reckoned. It is not the same voice as health insurers: their complicity in the system’s issues of affordability and accountability is recognized by employers. Nor is it a voice of revolution: transformational changes employers seek are fixes to a private system involving incentives, price transparency, competition, consumerism and more.

Employers have been seated on healthcare’s back bench since the birth of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965. Congress argues about Medicare and Medicaid funding and its use. Hospitals complain about Medicare underpayments while marking up what’s charged employers to make up the difference. Drug companies use a complicated scheme of patents, approvals and distribution schemes to price their products at will presuming employers will go along. Employers watched but from the back row.

As a new administration is seated in the White House next year regardless of the winner, what’s certain is healthcare will get more attention, and alongside the role played by employers. Inequities based on income, age and location in the current employer-sponsored system will be exposed. The epidemic of obesity and un-attended demand for mental health will be addressed early on. Concepts of competition, consumer choice, value and price transparency will be re-defined and refreshed. And employers will be on the front row to make sure they are.

For employers, it’s crunch time: managing through the pandemic presented unusual challenges but the biggest is ahead. Of the 18 benefits accounted as part of total compensation, employee health insurance coverage is one of the 3 most expensive (along with paid leave and Social Security) and is the fastest growing cost for employers.  Little wonder, employers are moving from the back bench to the front row.

Celebrating Medicare’s 59th Birthday Amidst Troubling Trends

Posted on by • Posted in Health Policy, Medicare, Medicare Advantage • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/celebrating-medicares-59th-birthday?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=147167248&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Today, we celebrate the 59th birthday of Medicare, a cornerstone of American health care that has provided critical services to millions of seniors since its inception in 1965.

This historic program was a watershed moment in our nation’s history, transforming the landscape of health care and ensuring that older Americans and the disabled could access necessary medical services without facing financial ruin. Medicare’s legacy is one of promise and protection, grounded in the belief that no American should go without the health care they need.

However, as we celebrate this milestone, it is crucial to reflect on the current state of Medicare and the growing threat posed by big health insurers’ Medicare Advantage plans. These plans, most of which are operated by private, for-profit insurance companies, have been aggressively marketed as a superior alternative to traditional Medicare.

But the reality is starkly different. Medicare Advantage plans are siphoning off vital resources, wasting taxpayer dollars and ultimately leading to poorer health outcomes and often untimely death of many senior enrollees.

The original intent of Medicare was to provide a straightforward, government-managed health care solution for seniors, but over the years Medicare Advantage plans have deviated from this mission. 

These plans often prioritize profit over patient care, leading to higher costs and more restrictive networks. In many cases, seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans face significant hurdles in accessing the care they need, such as dwindling provider choices and burdensome prior authorization requirements.

Moreover, Medicare Advantage plans are a drain on the Medicare Trust Fund. These private plans receive substantial overpayments from the federal government, which has been documented in two bombshell reports this year from MedPac (estimated $83 billion Medicare Advantage overpayments) and Physicians for a National Health Program (estimated $140 billion Medicare Advantage overpayments).

These overpayments, often justified by health insurers through dubious risk adjustment practices, divert funds away from traditional Medicare. This not only threatens the sustainability of Medicare but also undermines the quality and availability of care for all beneficiaries.

As a former insurance executive, I have seen firsthand how corporate interests can aggressively game public programs. And they’ve gotten really good at the Medicare game.

The good news: A growing number of regulators are focused on the encroaching influence of Medicare Advantage plans and health insurers’ business practices. Which is great, because reducing overpayments to private insurers and ensuring that Medicare dollars are used efficiently is the only way lawmakers and regulators can protect this vital program for future generations.