Category Archives: Out of Pocket Expenses

Inside the Midyear Panic at UnitedHealth

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Insurance Pre Authorization, Health Insurance Premiums, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, High Premiums, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Denials, Medicare Advantage Overpayments, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Model, Profit Motive, UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/inside-the-midyear-panic-at-unitedhealth

Imagine you’re facing your midyear performance review with your boss. You dread it, even though you’ve done all you thought possible and legal to help the company meet Wall Street’s profit expectations, because shareholders haven’t been pleased with your employer’s performance lately.

Now let’s imagine your employer is a health insurance conglomerate like, say, UnitedHealth Group. You’ve watched as the stock price has been sliding, sometimes a little and on some days crashing through lows not seen in years, like last Friday (down almost 5% in a single day, to $237.77, which is down a stunning 62% since a mid-November high of $630 and change).

You know what your boss is going to say. We all have to do more to meet the Street’s expectations. Something has changed from the days when the government and employers were overly generous, not questioning our value proposition, always willing to pick up the tab and pay many hidden tips, and we could pull our many levers to make it harder for people to get the care they need. 

Despite government and media reports for years that the federal government has been overpaying Medicare Advantage plans like UnitedHealth’s – at least $84 billion this year alone – Congress has pretended not to notice. There is evidence that might be changing, with Republicans and Democrats alike making noises about cracking down on MA plans. 

Employers have complained for ages about constantly rising premiums, but they’ve sucked it up, knowing they could pass much of the increase onto their workers – and make them pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before their coverage kicks in. Now, at least some of them are realizing they don’t have to work with the giant conglomerates anymore.

Doctors and hospitals have complained, too, about burdensome paperwork and not getting paid right and on time, but they’ve largely been ignored as the big conglomerates get bigger and are now even competing with them.

UnitedHealth is the biggest employer of doctors in the country. But doctors and hospitals are beginning to push back, too. 

Since last fall, UnitedHealth and its smaller but still enormous competitors have found that “headwinds” are making it harder for them to maintain the profit margins investors demand. That is mainly because, despite the many barriers patients have to overcome to get the care they need, many of them are nevertheless using health care, often in the most expensive setting – the emergency room. They put off seeing a doctor so long because of insurers’ penny-wise-pound-foolishness that they had some kind of event that scared them enough to head straight to the ER. 

It’s not just you who is dreading your midyear review. Everybody, regardless of their position on the corporate ladder, and even the poorly paid folks in customer service, are in the same boat. And so is your boss. Nobody will put the details of what has to be done in writing. They don’t have to. Your boss will remind you that you have to do your part to help the company achieve the “profitable growth” Wall Street demands, quarter after quarter after quarter. It never, ever ends. You know this because you and most other employees watch what happens after the company releases quarterly financials. You also watch your 401K balance and you see the financial consequences of a company that Wall Street isn’t happy with. And Wall Street is especially unhappy with UnitedHealth these days.

And when things are as bad as they are now at UnitedHealth’s headquarters in Minnesota, you know that a big consulting firm like McKinsey & Company has been called in, and that those suits will recommend some kind of “restructuring” and changes in leadership to get the ship back on course. You know the drill. Everybody already is subject to forced ranking, meaning that at the end of the year, some of your colleagues, regardless of job title, will fall below a line that means automatic termination. You pedal as fast as you can to stay above that line, often doing things you worry are not in the best interest of millions of people and might not even be lawful. But you know that if you have any chance of staying employed, much less getting a raise or bonus, you have to convince your superiors you are motivated and “engaged to win.” No one is safe. Look what happened to Sir Andrew Witty, whose departure as CEO to spend more time with his family (in London) was announced days after shareholders turned thumbs down on the company’s promises to return to an acceptable level of profitability. 

If you are at UnitedHealth, you listened to what the once and again CEO, Stephen Hemsley, and CFO John Rex, who got shuffled to a lesser role of “advisor” to the CEO last week, laid out a new action plan to their bosses – big institutional investors who have been losing their shirts for months now. You know that what the C-Suite promised on their July 29 call will mean that you will have to “execute” to enable the company to deliver on those promises. And you know that you and your colleagues will have to inflict a lot more pain on everybody who is not a big shareholder – patients, taxpayers, employers, doctors, hospital administrators. That is your job. And you will try to do it because you have a mortgage, kids in college and maxed-out credit cards.  

Here’s what Hemsley and his leadership team said, out loud in a public forum, although admittedly one that few people know about or can take an hour-and-a-half to listen to:

  • Even though UnitedHealth took in billions more in revenue, its margins shrank a little because it had to pay more medical claims than expected.
  • Still, the company made $14.3 billion in profits during the second quarter. That’s a lot but not as much as the $15.8 billion in 2Q 2024, and that made shareholders unhappy.
  • Enrollment in its commercial (individual and employer) plans increased just 1%, but enrollment in its Medicare Advantage plans increased nearly 8%. That’s normally just fine, but something happened that the company’s beancounters couldn’t stop.
  • Those seniors figured out how to get at least some care despite the company’s high barriers to care (aggressive use of prior authorization, “narrow” networks of providers, etc.)

To fix all of this, Hemsley and team promised:

  • To dump 600,000 or so enrollees who might need care next year
  • To raise premiums “in the double digits” – way above the “medical trend” that PriceWaterhouseCoopers predicts to be 8.5% (high but not double-digit high)
  • Boot more providers it doesn’t already own out of network
  • Reduce benefits

Throughout the call with investors (actually with a couple dozen Wall Street financial analysts, the only people who can ask questions), Hemsley and team went on and on about the “value-based care” the company theoretically delivers, without providing specifics. But here is what you need to know: If you are enrolled in a UnitedHealth plan of any nature – commercial, Medicare or Medicaid or VA (yes, VA, too) – expect the value of your coverage to diminish, just as it has year after year after year.  

The term for this in industry jargon is “benefit buydown.”

That means that even as your premiums go up by double digits, you will soon have fewer providers to choose from, you likely will spend more out-of-pocket before your coverage kicks in, you might have to switch to a medication made by a drug company UnitedHealth will get bigger kickbacks from, and you might even be among the 600,000 policyholders who will get “purged” (another industry term) at the end of the year.

Why do we and our employers and Uncle Sam keep putting up with this?

Yes, we pay more for new cars and iPhones, but we at least can count on some improvements in gas mileage and battery life and maybe even better-placed cup holders. You can now buy a massive high-def TV for a fraction of what it cost a couple of years ago. Health insurance? Just the opposite. 

As I will explain in a future post, all of the big for-profit insurers are facing those same headwinds UnitedHealth is facing. You will not be spared regardless of the name on your insurance card. If you still have one come January 1. Pain is on the way. Once again. 

Gut Punches for Healthcare and Hospitals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My take:

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

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

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

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

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

The timing of these changes is predictably political. 

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

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

Buckle up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s at stake from GOP megabill’s coverage losses

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, ACA, Bankruptcy, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Condition Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Deferred Healthcare, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, Medicaid, Medicaid Cuts, Medical Debt, Out of Pocket Expenses, Public Health, Underinsured, Uninsured • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/2025/07/01/real-cost-health-coverage-losses

Nearly 12 million people would lose their health insurance under President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” an erosion of the social safety net that would lead to more unmanaged chronic illnesses, higher medical debt and overcrowding of hospital emergency departments.

Why it matters: 

The changes in the Senate version of the bill could wipe out most of the health coverage gains made under the Affordable Care Act and slash state support for Medicaid and SNAP.

  • “We are going back to a place of a lot of uncompensated care and a lot of patchwork systems for people to get care,” said Ellen Montz, a managing director at Manatt Health who oversaw the ACA federal marketplace during the Biden administration.

The big picture: 

The stakes are huge for low-income and working-class Americans who depend on Medicaid and subsidized ACA coverage.

  • Without health coverage, more people with diabetes, heart disease, asthma and other chronic conditions will likely go without checkups and medication to keep their ailments in check.
  • Those who try to keep up with care after losing insurance will pay more out of pocket, driving up medical debt and increasing the risk of eviction, food insecurity and depleted savings.
  • Uninsured patients have worse cancer survival outcomes and are less likely to get prenatal care. Medicaid also is a major payer of behavioral health counseling and crisis intervention.

Much of the coverage losses from the bill will come from new Medicaid work reporting requirements, congressional scorekeepers predict. Work rules generally will have to be implemented for coverage starting in 2027, but could be earlier or later depending on the state.

  • Past experiments with Medicaid work rules show that many eligible people fall through the cracks verifying they’ve met the requirements or navigating new state bureaucracies.
  • Often, people don’t find out they’ve lost coverage until they try to fill a prescription or see their doctor. States typically provide written notices, but contacts can be out of date.
  • Nearly 1 in 3 adults who were disenrolled from Medicaid after the COVID pandemic found out they no longer had health insurance only when they tried to access care, per a KFF survey.

Zoom out: 

The Medicaid and ACA changes will also affect people who keep their coverage.

  • The anticipated drop-off in preventive care means the uninsured will be more likely to go to the emergency room when they get sick. That could further crowd already bursting ERs, resulting in even longer wait times.
  • Changes to ACA markets in the bill, along with the impending expiration of enhanced premium subsidies, may drive healthier people to drop out, Montz said, skewing the risk pool and driving up premiums for remaining enrollees.
  • States will likely have to make further cuts to their safety-net programs if the bill passes in order to keep state budgets functioning with less federal Medicaid funding.

The other side: 

The White House and GOP proponents of the bill say the health care changes will fight fraud, waste and abuse, and argue that coverage loss projections are overblown.

Reality check: 

Not all insurance is created equally, and many people with health coverage still struggle to access care. But the bill’s impact would take the focus off ways to improve the health system, Montz said.

  • “This is taking us catastrophically backward, where we don’t get to think about the things that we should be thinking about how to best keep people healthy,” she said.

The bottom line: 

The changes will unfold against a backdrop of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s purported focus on preventive care and ending chronic illness in the U.S.

  • But American health care is an insurance-based system, said Manatt Health’s Patricia Boozang. Coverage is what unlocks access.
  • Scrapping millions of people’s health coverage “seems inconsistent with the goal of making America healthier,” she said.

Tariffs drive health plan premium hikes

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Insurance Premiums, High Cost Therapies, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/18/tariffs-health-insurance-premium-hikes

Health insurers are starting to notify states that tariffs will drive up the premiums they plan to charge individual and small group market enrollees next year.

Why it matters: 

The Trump administration’s trade policy is adding another layer of uncertainty for health costs as Congress considers Medicaid cuts and is expected to sunset enhanced subsidies for Affordable Care Act coverage.

  • “There are sort of a perfect storm of factors that are driving prices up,” said Sabrina Corlette, research professor at Georgetown’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms.

The big picture: 

Health insurers calculate monthly premiums in advance of each year based on the expected price of goods and services and projected demand for them.

  • Tariffs announced by President Trump are expected to drive up the cost of prescription drugs, medical devices and other medical products and services. Some of that difference ultimately would be passed down to enrollees.

Where it stands: 

A handful of health insurers administering individual and small group plans have already explicitly told state regulators that tariffs are forcing plans to raise enrollee premiums more than they otherwise would next year, KFF policy analyst Matt McGough wrote in an analysis published Monday.

  • Independent Health Benefits Corporation told New York regulators in a filing last month that it plans to raise premiums for its individual market enrollees 38.4% next year.
  • About 3% of that is directly due to tariffs, based on projections of how much they’ll increase drug prices and the use of imported drugs, Frank Sava, a spokesperson for Independent Health, told Axios.
  • Similarly, UnitedHealthcare of Oregon said in a filing that nearly 3% of its planned 19.8% premium increase for small group enrollees next year is due to uncertainty around tariffs, particularly on how they’ll affect pharmaceutical prices.

Insurers “don’t have any historical precedent or data to project what this is going to mean for their business and health costs,” McGough said to Axios. “I think it really makes sense that they’re trying to hedge their bets.”

  • Insurers can’t change their premiums throughout the year. But if health plans do overshoot their premium estimates in rate filings, they have to pay enrollees back the difference in rebates.
  • While there may be a competitive advantage to keeping premiums lower, there isn’t really a way for insurers to make up for extra unplanned costs after the fact.

Yes, but: 

Some insurers indicated that while they’re keeping a close eye on tariff-related impacts, they aren’t baking them into their premium rates yet.

  • “There is uncertainty around inflation and the economy due to possible tariffs however we did [not] put anything for this in this filing,” Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest’s report to Oregon reads.
  • State regulators can also push back on insurers’ premium calculations before they’re finalized, McGough noted.

What we’re watching: 

While some states have earlier deadlines, insurers have to submit their 2026 ACA marketplace plan rates to the federal regulators by July 16, and proposed rates will be posted by August 1.

  • That’s when we’ll get a better picture of how seriously tariffs are concerning health insurers.

Medicare Advantage Is Failing Its Mission. Here’s How Washington Could Finally Fix It

Posted on by • Posted in Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network, Outcomes • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/medicare-advantage-is-failing-its?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=165718594&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Bipartisan voices are calling for reforms to end waste and gaming in MA. Solutions are on the table — if policymakers choose to act.

In the first half of 2025, we have heard many leaders share their concerns with the current results of the Medicare Advantage (MA) program and the need for changes. Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, spoke multiple times about issues with upcoding in MA during his confirmation hearing. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have also been vocal about the need for reform in MA, including the co-chairs of the GOP Doctors Caucus, Reps. Greg Murphy and John Joyce, and Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Most recently, CMS Deputy Administrator Stephanie Carlton spoke about these issues at the recent annual conference of the Association of Health Care Journalists in Los Angeles.

Carlton noted that the original intent of MA was “better outcomes for patients” and “better value for taxpayers,” but that the current program is not achieving those goals.

She specifically mentioned research from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and other groups showing that “MA is more expensive than fee-for-service”. Fee-for-service, in which health care providers are paid for each service provided to patients, is used in traditional Medicare. Carlton went on to describe the need to “course correct” the program. We wholeheartedly agree. 

Luckily, there are solutions to these issues within MA that both the executive branch and Congress can address. CMS has the authority to address upcoding, where insurers add more codes to a patient’s record to increase their reimbursement from the government, in multiple ways.

First, CMS should continue the changes to the risk-scoring system initiated under the Biden Administration, which removes codes that CMS determines are abused within the Hierarchical Condition Category system. Researchers have found that this method could largely eliminate current overpayments going to insurers, which total tens of billions of dollars a year. CMS also has the authority to increase the coding intensity adjustment, which is the factor by which risk scores are adjusted by the agency to account for greater coding intensity by MA insurers.

The coding intensity adjustment used by CMS is currently 5.9%, which is the statutory minimum. Research shows that the true coding intensity adjustment should be more than 20%; increasing it to this level would reduce Medicare spending by more than $1 trillion over 10 years. There are ways to achieve these savings while also promoting competition, which is why Republicans created Medicare Advantage in the first place, and not compromising quality. Finally, CMS should exclude codes added to a patient’s record from home health risk assessments (HRAs) performed by insurers. That’s because insurers have used HRAs to add codes for diagnoses that patients were never treated for, enabling them to pocket billions of taxpayer dollars. 

Carlton also shared her commitment to plans recently announced by CMS to substantially increase both the pace and the scale of Risk Adjustment Data Validation (“RADV”) audits of MA plans. CMS implemented changes in 2023 to increase the scope of audits and recoupment of overpayments from insurers beginning with 2018 audits, but progress has been painstakingly slow, with CMS originally slated to begin issuing 2018 audit findings in 2026. The intensified efforts will require needed investments in technology and people. 

Another issue diluting the value of MA to taxpayers is the excessive use of supplemental benefits of questionable utility, including things like gym memberships, which serve mainly as marketing tools for insurers. The money spent on such benefits has more than doubled over the past five years. 

Congress can also take action to reform MA in meaningful ways. First, Congress should work with the HHS Secretary and CMS Administrator and provide oversight and accountability to ensure necessary changes to the risk-adjustment methods and processes, including audits and recovery of overpayments.  It is also important to ensure that insurers and their downstream vendors are compliant with applicable CMS rules and regulations, both in terms of clinical and documentation requirements and the payments they receive for these activities. 

Congress could also pass legislation to develop a new risk adjustment system that prevents gaming by insurance companies.

This system could base risk scoring on data from patient encounters with their medical providers rather than just diagnostic codes. This would ensure that patients are treated for any diagnosis used in their risk scores, to ensure that extra diagnoses are not added that patients are not being treated for. Additional scrutiny of how MA rebates are being used and a re-evaluation of permissible benefits are also needed. Further, Congress could implement a cap on out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses for traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Currently, only MA plans offer a cap on OOP expenses, which reduces competition between MA plans and traditional Medicare. Adding an OOP cap to TM would level the playing field between MA and TM, likely resulting in MA plans improving their coverage and benefits, and focusing less on upcoding and withholding care. This would improve the quality of care and competition within the Medicare and MA programs. 

Insurance companies running MA plans have created a system in which taxpayers and patients are not getting the value they pay for.

It is promising that leaders in the current administration and on both sides of the political aisle in Congress are expressing a desire to change this system for the better. There are many solutions to the issues within MA that can be enacted quickly and effectively to improve care and value for seniors and people with disabilities who are enrolled in those plans.

Megabill Healthcare Insurance Coverage Losses

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, ACA, Bankruptcy, Deferred Healthcare, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Medical Debt, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-09a8b360-4152-11f0-99d5-2332a38ef2e5.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

The CBO projects that 10.9 million more people would be uninsured under President Trump’s sweeping budget bill — mostly from the way it would overhaul Medicaid, including new work requirements.

Why it matters: 

That would amount to major coverage losses that are certain to fuel Democratic attacks on the measure, and put new pressure on vulnerable Republicans heading into the midterm election cycle, Peter Sullivan wrote first on Pro.

By the numbers: 

The CBO on Wednesday projected that 7.8 million more people would be uninsured due to the Medicaid changes, with the rest likely due to Affordable Care Act marketplace changes, including new barriers to signing up that are aimed at fighting fraud.

  • The estimate includes 1.4 million people without verified citizenship “or satisfactory immigration status,” a reference to undocumented immigrants that some states opt to cover with non-federal dollars in their Medicaid programs.
  • The CBO was responding to a request from congressional Democrats about the number of uninsured people stemming from the package the House passed last month.

Republicans say the changes would ensure that Medicaid is targeted at beneficiaries deserving of coverage, and that taxpayer money should not be spent on healthy adults who are choosing not to work.

  • Opponents say people who are working will be caught up in the red tape from the changes and could still lose coverage.

The CBO also said another 5.1 million would become uninsured if Congress opts to let Affordable Care Act premium tax credit subsidies expire next year.

Cost to insure a family tops $35,000

Posted on by • Posted in Employee Raise, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Insurance Premiums, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Out of Pocket Expenses, Outpatient Care, Pharmaceutical Industry, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-markets-e4750590-4132-11f0-a0c6-ad012ea165ba.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosmarkets&stream=business

The cost to cover a family of four through workplace insurance now exceeds $35,000, nearly triple what it cost 20 years ago as annual growth in health costs have far outpaced wages.

The big picture: 

Growing pharmacy and outpatient facility costs drove most of the increase, which includes employee and employer shares, according to the 2025 Milliman Medical Index.

  • Employers have been wary of passing health cost hikes to workers in a tight labor market, but the rising demand for costly care may force a reckoning.

State of play: 

The $35,119 annual cost to cover a hypothetical family of four this year factors in drug costs, inpatient and outpatient care, and professional services, along with an “other” category that includes home health, ambulance transport, medical equipment and prosthetics.

  • A year of health care cost a family of four $12,214 in 2005, the year Milliman launched the index. The 20-year cumulative gain of 188% outpaced the 84% growth in wages over the same time.
  • Health costs have increased about 6% per year on average over the past two decades, according to Milliman, compared with an average inflation rate of 2.5% over that time.

Between the lines: 

Employers in 2025 still shoulder 58% of employee health care costs, but their share has shrunk since 2005, when it was more than 60%.

Reality check: 

Health care costs vary significantly by age, geography and pharmacy rebate arrangements.

  • Milliman calculates family cost based on a family with a 47-year-old male, 37-year-old female, and children ages 4 and under 1.
  • This was a “mathematically average” family in 2005, and Milliman continues to use that formula to keep data comparable year-to-year.
  • The firm has an online tool that allows readers to input other family configurations to see their estimated 2025 health care costs.

The analysis is based on Milliman’s proprietary research tools and analyzes commercial claims data. The family cost figure reflects nationwide average negotiated provider fees and average PPO benefit levels.

Big Shifts: CVS Is Pulling the Plug on ACA Coverage — And 1 Million Americans Will Pay the Price

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Abandon, ACA, Commitment, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, High Deductible Health Plans, Out of Pocket Expenses, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Motive, Underinsured, Uninsured, Vertical Consolidation, Vertical Integration, Wall Street • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/big-shifts-cvs-is-pulling-the-plug?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=163399094&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

In what’s becoming an all-too-familiar pattern, CVS Health announced it will pull Aetna out of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace in 2026, leaving about a million people across 17 states searching for new health coverage — and in some cases, fighting to afford any at all.

This marks yet another retreat by a major for-profit insurer from a program designed to provide affordable health coverage to Americans who don’t get it through work. CVS made the announcement while simultaneously celebrating a 60% increase in quarterly profit and revealing a new deal to boost sales of the pricey weight-loss drug Wegovy through its pharmacy and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) arms.

Let me repeat that: Aetna is exiting the ACA because it claims it can’t make enough money on people enrolled in those plans, on the same day its parent company posted nearly $1.8 billion in profits in just the first three months of this year. 

This is the same company, by the way, that dumped hundreds of thousands of seniors and disabled people at the end of 2024 because some of them were using more medical care than Wall Street found acceptable. If this doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about who the health insurance industry is really working for, I don’t know what will.

From “Commitment” to Abandonment

Aetna first bailed on the ACA exchanges in 2018, then re-entered in 2022 when insurers could see more clearly how they could make significant profits on that book of business. Now, after just a few years of moderate participation, it’s heading for the exits again. CVS Health executives blamed “regulatory uncertainty” and “highly variable economic factors,” according to a statement to The Columbus Dispatch.

But make no mistake—this was a cold business calculation. Uncertainties and economic variabilities are constants in the insurance game.

CVS’ CEO David Joyner told investors:

“We are disappointed by the continued underperformance from our individual exchange products … this is not a decision we made lightly.”

That’s corporate-speak for “our Wall Street friends weren’t impressed.”

Aetna’s ACA exchange business, covering roughly 1 million people, is just a sliver of CVS’ overall medical membership of 27.1 million. But even though the profits weren’t massive, the people depending on this coverage — many of them self-employed, working multiple part-time jobs, or recently uninsured — will now be thrown into chaos.

And it’s happening at a time when health insurance for many Americans hangs by a thread. Unless Congress acts in the coming months, the ACA’s enhanced tax subsidies—first implemented under the American Rescue Plan—are set to expire at the end of this year. Without them, premiums could spike by 50% to 100% depending on income and geography.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the lapse in subsidies could leave 3.8 million more Americans uninsured — and now, 1 million more will be forced to find new plans as CVS/Aetna walks away.

Same Song: Prioritizing Profit, Not Patients

Let’s be clear about what CVS is doing here: It’s ditching an essential safety net for millions in order to chase higher profits elsewhere—most notably, in the exploding market for GLP-1 drugs like Wegovy. On the same day it abandoned the ACA, CVS announced a new deal to give Wegovy preferred placement on its PBM formulary, displacing Eli Lilly’s Zepbound. This will help CVS dominate the obesity drug market—and rake in profits through its Caremark PBM and nearly 9,000 retail pharmacies.

It’s a powerful example of vertical integration in action.

CVS owns the insurer (Aetna), the PBM (Caremark), and the pharmacy (CVS retail stores). When it walks away from lower-margin business like ACA plans and doubles down on high-dollar drug deals, we see its true priorities: selling expensive drugs, saddling individuals, families and employers with the costs, and keeping Wall Street happy.

Even worse, the decision is taking place against a troubling political backdrop. The Trump administration has already taken steps to undermine ACA infrastructure and expressed skepticism toward core public health programs. Cuts to navigator funding, changes to vaccine guidelines, and looming uncertainty around tax credits are all part of a slow-motion sabotage of the ACA. This is not to say that the ACA doesn’t have its flaws that need to be addressed.

But instead of penalizing hard-working Americans and their families, lawmakers and the Trump administration should focus instead on lowering the ridiculously high out-of-pocket maximum that the ACA established (and that keeps going up every year) and fixing the medical loss ratio provision that has fueled the vertical integration in the insurance industry.

The Costs of Insufficient Insurance Coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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