Millions of people could lose coverage under potential policy changes to Medicaid under consideration by Republicans in Congress, according to a letter sent to lawmakers this week from the Congressional Budget Office.
One option, reducing the federal government’s share of costs for enrollees covered under Medicaid expansion, would reduce the federal deficit by $710 billion over the next decade. But in 2034, 5.5 million people would be removed from the safety-net program, with 2.4 million of these enrollees becoming uninsured, according to the CBO.
Another potential policy, placing a per-enrollee cap on federal spending, would remove 5.8 million people from Medicaid. Nearly 3 million of those people would lose coverage entirely. The policy would reduce the deficit by $682 billion, the analysis found.
Dive Insight:
Debates surrounding potential cuts to Medicaid — and their implications for patients and providers — have been heating up in Congress for weeks.
Last month, lawmakers approved a budget resolution that called for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicare and Medicaid, to find $880 billion in savings. That budget goal is likely impossible to hit without targeting major healthcare programs under the committee’s purview, according to an earlier analysis published in March by the CBO.
The committee is expected to meet next week to mark up its portion of the reconciliation package and hash out legislation.
However, cutting Medicaid is a politically contentious move for Republican lawmakers. Some legislators have pushed back on potential cuts, and others have argued they’ll preserve Medicaid for the most vulnerable by targeting fraud, waste and abuse in the safety-net insurance program.
But Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who requested the latest CBO analysis, said the policies will ultimately limit benefits and result in coverage losses.
“This analysis from the non-partisan, independent CBO is straightforward: the Republican plan for health care means benefit cuts and terminated health insurance for millions of Americans who count on Medicaid,” Wyden said in a statement. “Republicans continue to use smoke and mirrors to try to trick Americans into thinking they aren’t going to hurt anybody when they proceed with this reckless plan, but fighting reality is an uphill battle.”
The letter from the CBO analyzes five potential policy options for Medicaid: setting the federal matching rate for the expansion population at the same rate as other enrollees; limiting state taxes on providers; setting federal caps on spending for the entire Medicaid population or just the expansion group; and repealing two regulations linked to eligibility and enrollment.
Most of the options reduce the funds available to states, according to the CBO. The agency expects states will replace about half of the reduced support with their own resources, and then reduce spending by cutting provider payment rates, reducing optional benefits and cutting enrollment.
For example, if Congress decides to limit provider taxes, where states levy taxes that finance a portion of their Medicaid spending, thatwould result in 8.6 million fewer people enrolled in Medicaid in 2034, including nearly 4 million becoming uninsured. The move would ultimately lessen the federal deficit by $668 billion, as the government would offer reimbursement for lower state spending, the analysis found.
Another option, placing a cap on federal spending for the expansion population, would save $225 billion — but 3.3 million people would lose Medicaid coverage. Repealing regulations that aim to reduce barriers to enrollment and simplify the renewal process would reduce the federal deficit by $162 billion over the next decade, but 2.3 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid, the CBO found.
Democrat lawmakers are urging Republicans debating cuts to Medicaid to focus instead on fraud, waste and abuse in another federal healthcare program: Medicare Advantage.
Curbing upcoding in the privatized Medicare plans, wherein insurers exaggerate the health needs of their members to inflate government reimbursement, is a better avenue for saving federal dollars than restricting benefits or cutting eligibility in Medicaid, the 36 Democrats wrote in a letter to GOP leadership on Wednesday.
The letter was addressed to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and comes as Republicans debate different policies to reach savings targets.
Dive Insight:
Republicans in Congress are aiming to extend tax cuts from President Donald Trump’s first term. Their budget directs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to cut $880 billion in spending — a goal that’s impossible to reach without touching Medicaid, which (along with its sister program for children) provides safety-net insurance to some 80 million Americans.
Now, Democrats in both chambers are urging Republicans to redirect their attention from Medicaid to MA, privatized plans for Medicare seniors that can provide additional benefits but also restrict care in a way traditional Medicare is not allowed to do. Still, the plans have steadily grown in popularity and now cover more than half of the 68 million Americans in Medicare.
“Your directive to cut federal health care spending should come from reducing waste, fraud, and abuse like upcoding by for-profit insurance companies, not by cutting health care benefits for American families who rely on Medicaid to make ends meet,” the Democrats’ letter reads.
The letter cites a Wall Street Journal investigation into upcoding published last year that found MA insurers frequently added diagnoses for their members for which their members never received treatment or that went against doctors’ observations. The practice drove a total of $50 billion in additional payments to the private insurers over three years, according to the investigation.
Similarly, influential congressional advisory group MedPAC found CMS paid MA insurers $84 billion more in 2024 than the government would have if those members had been in traditional Medicare. Upcoding was responsible for almost half of those overpayments.
Traditionally, Republicans broadly support MA, which was created on the premise that private insurers could help the government manage Medicare more economically. However, there’s been rising bipartisan support for reforming the program in light of growing evidence of practices like upcoding that inflate government reimbursement to plans without helping enrollees.
In his confirmation hearing, Dr. Mehmet Oz, the surgeon and television personality tapped by Trump as the administrator of the CMS, agreed that tackling fraud, waste and abuse in MA was a “rational” way of lowering federal healthcare spending.
“We’re actually apparently paying more for Medicare Advantage than we’re paying for regular Medicare. So it’s upside down,” Oz said in front of the Senate Finance Committee in March.
Republicans in the House are currently trying to figure out how to achieve desired savings without slashing Medicaid, given the program’s political popularity, including among Republican voters.
GOP leadership recently appeared to rule out two Medicaid policies that would cause significant upheaval for enrollees in the program: lowering the portion of Medicaid costs borne by the federal government for the Medicaid expansion population, and per-capita caps on benefits for beneficiaries in expansion states.
“Moving forward with this dangerous plan to rip health care away from low- and middle-income Americans would be a man-made disaster for the health of the nation and the economy,” the Democrats’ letter reads. “We urge you instead to listen to Administrator Oz and tackle real fraud, waste, and abuse by private, for-profit health insurers in MA.”
House E&C is expected to hold its reconciliation markup next week.
Wall Street is speaking loudly to Medicare Advantage insurers: If you want us to stick with you, keep dumping seniors who are pinching your profit margins.
Investors continue to punish UnitedHealth Group since the company downgraded its 2025 profit expectations on April 17. On Friday, UnitedHealth’s stock price hit not only a 52-week low—$393.11—but its lowest point in years. The last time UnitedHealth’s stock price went below $400 a share was on October 14, 2021.
The company’s shares lost nearly 4.5% of their value during the past week, contributing to a decline that started soon after the company set an all-time high of $630.73 last November. UnitedHealth’s shares have lost more than 33% of their value since then.
Wall Street Sends a Message
Meanwhile, investors have once again embraced UnitedHealth’s top two rivals in the Medicare Advantage business–Humana and CVS/Aetna. Those companies told investors last year, when both were in the Wall Street dog house for spending more than investors expected on patients’ medical care, that they would dump hundreds of thousands of their costliest Medicare Advantage enrollees to improve their profits. They made good on that promise, shedding almost 650,000 seniors and people with disabilities by the end of the year.
Many of those people enrolled in a UnitedHealth Medicare Advantage plan. The company reported 400,000 more Medicare Advantage enrollees in the first quarter of 2025 than in the fourth quarter of 2024. That used to be a good thing, but UnitedHealth’s executives told investors on April 17 that it wouldn’t make as much money for them as the company had assured them just three months earlier because it likely will have to spend more than they expected on those new MA enrollees’ medical care. Investors responded by immediately dispatching the company’s shares to the cellar. Those shares lost about 23% of their value in a single day.
The Street had also punished Humana and CVS last year when they said they were paying more for seniors’ medical care than they’d expected. Shares of both companies cratered, losing around half their value. So, executives at both Humana and CVS started identifying Medicare markets to get out of entirely. The culling was ruthless. CVS shed 227,000 MA enrollees. Humana got rid of 419,000.
Locked Out of Traditional Medicare
Those seniors and disabled people had to scramble to find a new Medicare Advantage insurer because it is difficult for most people to go back to traditional Medicare and find an affordable Medicare supplement policy. Medicare supplement insurers must waive underwriting during the first six months of applicants’ eligibility for Medicare, but people who enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan and want or need to make a change months later find out that insurers will charge them more unless their health is nearly perfect.
Of the seven big for-profit health insurers, four (Cigna, CVS/Aetna, Humana and Centene) collectively cut 1.3 million of their Medicare Advantage enrollees adrift at the end of 2024 in an effort to stay in Wall Street’s good graces. Cigna dumped all 600,000 of its MA enrollees, selling them to the Blue Cross corporation HCSC. For-profit Blue Cross insurer Elevance picked up 227,000; Molina added 18,000, and, as noted, UnitedHealth signed up 400,000 new MA enrollees.
While UnitedHealth’s shares have lost a third of their value, CVS’s shares have increased more than 50% since the first of this year. They even set a 52-week high of $72.51 on Thursday. Humana’s shares closed Friday at $258.48, up 1.88% since January 1. They are out of the Wall Street dog house – for now, anyway.
Profits, Lobbying Soar
I trust you are not feeling sorry for UnitedHealth because of its misfortune on Wall Street. It is still a hugely profitable company–just not profitable enough lately to please investors. This huge corporation, the fourth largest in America, reported $9.1 billion in profits in just the first quarter of this year. If the company makes it more difficult for its health plan enrollees to get the care they need this year, it could make even more than the $34.4 billion in profits it made last year.
And as a group, the seven big for-profits, including those that spent more than Wall Street felt was necessary on patients’ medical care, made $70 billion in profits last year. (UnitedHealth made nearly as much as the other six combined.)
And collectively, those giant corporations took in a record $1.5 trillion in revenue from us as customers and taxpayers last year. They are doing quite well. But that won’t stop them from trying to keep lawmakers and Trump administration officials from cracking down this year on the widespread waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare Advantage program. You can expect them to spend a record amount of our money on lobbying expenses in Washington this year to keep their Medicare Advantage cash cow well fed.
Wall Street is speaking loudly to Medicare Advantage insurers: If you want us to stick with you, keep dumping seniors who are pinching your profit margins.
Investors continue to punish UnitedHealth Group since the company downgraded its 2025 profit expectations on April 17. On Friday, UnitedHealth’s stock price hit not only a 52-week low—$393.11—but its lowest point in years. The last time UnitedHealth’s stock price went below $400 a share was on October 14, 2021.
The company’s shares lost nearly 4.5% of their value during the past week, contributing to a decline that started soon after the company set an all-time high of $630.73 last November. UnitedHealth’s shares have lost more than 33% of their value since then.
Wall Street Sends a Message
Meanwhile, investors have once again embraced UnitedHealth’s top two rivals in the Medicare Advantage business–Humana and CVS/Aetna. Those companies told investors last year, when both were in the Wall Street dog house for spending more than investors expected on patients’ medical care, that they would dump hundreds of thousands of their costliest Medicare Advantage enrollees to improve their profits. They made good on that promise, shedding almost 650,000 seniors and people with disabilities by the end of the year.
Many of those people enrolled in a UnitedHealth Medicare Advantage plan. The company reported 400,000 more Medicare Advantage enrollees in the first quarter of 2025 than in the fourth quarter of 2024. That used to be a good thing, but UnitedHealth’s executives told investors on April 17 that it wouldn’t make as much money for them as the company had assured them just three months earlier because it likely will have to spend more than they expected on those new MA enrollees’ medical care. Investors responded by immediately dispatching the company’s shares to the cellar. Those shares lost about 23% of their value in a single day.
The Street had also punished Humana and CVS last year when they said they were paying more for seniors’ medical care than they’d expected. Shares of both companies cratered, losing around half their value. So, executives at both Humana and CVS started identifying Medicare markets to get out of entirely. The culling was ruthless. CVS shed 227,000 MA enrollees. Humana got rid of 419,000.
Locked Out of Traditional Medicare
Those seniors and disabled people had to scramble to find a new Medicare Advantage insurer because it is difficult for most people to go back to traditional Medicare and find an affordable Medicare supplement policy. Medicare supplement insurers must waive underwriting during the first six months of applicants’ eligibility for Medicare, but people who enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan and want or need to make a change months later find out that insurers will charge them more unless their health is nearly perfect.
Of the seven big for-profit health insurers, four (Cigna, CVS/Aetna, Humana and Centene) collectively cut 1.3 million of their Medicare Advantage enrollees adrift at the end of 2024 in an effort to stay in Wall Street’s good graces. Cigna dumped all 600,000 of its MA enrollees, selling them to the Blue Cross corporation HCSC. For-profit Blue Cross insurer Elevance picked up 227,000; Molina added 18,000, and, as noted, UnitedHealth signed up 400,000 new MA enrollees.
While UnitedHealth’s shares have lost a third of their value, CVS’s shares have increased more than 50% since the first of this year. They even set a 52-week high of $72.51 on Thursday. Humana’s shares closed Friday at $258.48, up 1.88% since January 1. They are out of the Wall Street dog house – for now, anyway.
Profits, Lobbying Soar
I trust you are not feeling sorry for UnitedHealth because of its misfortune on Wall Street. It is still a hugely profitable company–just not profitable enough lately to please investors. This huge corporation, the fourth largest in America, reported $9.1 billion in profits in just the first quarter of this year. If the company makes it more difficult for its health plan enrollees to get the care they need this year, it could make even more than the $34.4 billion in profits it made last year.
And as a group, the seven big for-profits, including those that spent more than Wall Street felt was necessary on patients’ medical care, made $70 billion in profits last year. (UnitedHealth made nearly as much as the other six combined.)
And collectively, those giant corporations took in a record $1.5 trillion in revenue from us as customers and taxpayers last year. They are doing quite well. But that won’t stop them from trying to keep lawmakers and Trump administration officials from cracking down this year on the widespread waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare Advantage program. You can expect them to spend a record amount of our money on lobbying expenses in Washington this year to keep their Medicare Advantage cash cow well fed.
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” – 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
In 46 states, once you choose Medicare Advantage at 65, you can almost never leave.
Medicare was founded in 1965 to end the crisis of medical care being denied to senior citizens in America, but private insurers have been able to progressively expand their presence in Medicare.
One of the biggest selling points of Obamacare was that it would finally end discrimination against patients on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
But for one vulnerable sector of the population, that discrimination never ended. Insurers are still able to deny coverage to some Americans with pre-existing conditions. And it’s all perfectly legal.
Sixty-five million seniors are in Medicare open enrollment from October 15 until December 7. Nearly 32 million of those patients are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, a set of privately run plans that have come under fire for denying treatment and overbilling the government.
Medicare Advantage patients theoretically have the option to return to traditional Medicare. But in 46 states, it is nearly impossible for those people to do so without exposing themselves to great financial risk.
Traditional Medicare has no out-of-pocket cap and covers 80 percent of medical expenses. Unlike Medicare Advantage plans, in traditional Medicare, seniors can choose whatever provider they want, and coverage limitations are far less stringent. Consequently, there’s a huge upside to going with traditional Medicare, and the downside is mitigated by the purchase of a Medigap plan, which covers the other 20 percent that Medicare doesn’t pay.
While this coverage is more expensive than most Medicare Advantage plans, nearly everybody in their old age would like to be able to choose their doctor and their hospitals, and everybody would want the security of knowing that they won’t be denied critical treatments. In 46 states, however, Medigap plans are allowed to engage in what’s called underwriting, or medical health screening, after seniors have already chosen a Medicare Advantage plan at age 65.
Only four states—New York, Connecticut, Maine, and Massachusetts—prevent Medigap underwriting for Medicare Advantage patients trying to switch back to traditional Medicare. The millions of Americans not living in those states are trapped in Medicare Advantage, because Medigap plans are legally able to deny them insurance coverage.
Medicare Advantage little resembles Medicare as it was traditionally intended, with tight networks and exorbitant costs that threaten to bankrupt the Medicare trust fund. (A recent estimate from Physicians for a National Health Program found that the program costs Medicare $140 billion annually.)
Jenn Coffey, a former EMT in New Hampshire who has been a vocal critic of her Medicare Advantage insurers’ attempts to deny her needed care, told the Prospect that she would jump back to traditional Medicare in a second. But because she became eligible prior to turning 65 due to a disability, she never had the option to pursue traditional Medicare with a Medigap plan. Instead, she pays premiums for a Medicare Advantage plan that nearly mirror what the cost of Medigap would be. But New Hampshire, like most other states, allows Medigap plans to reject her.
“I tried to find out if I could switch to traditional Medicare,” said Coffey. “When I talked to an insurance broker they said that I could. I made an appointment with an insurance agent, who then started looking at my pre-existing conditions, and they said, ‘We’re never going to get somebody to underwrite you.’”
Coffey was stunned by the agent’s words. “I honestly thought that we were completely done with pre-existing conditions” as a determinant for insurance coverage, she said. “Medigap plans are the only place where they are allowed to discriminate against us.”
Medicare Advantage now covers a majority of Medicare participants, thanks to extremely aggressive marketing and perks for healthier seniors like gym memberships.
In the 46 states that lack protections for people with pre-existing conditions, “lots of people don’t know that they may not be able to buy a Medigap plan if they go back to traditional Medicare from Medicare Advantage,” said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president at KFF who has studied this particular issue.
Technically speaking, they can still go back to traditional Medicare if they don’t like their Medicare Advantage options, Neuman explained. But without access to a Medigap plan, they would be on the hook for 20 percent of their medical costs, which is unaffordable for most seniors.
Neuman told the Prospect about “cases where people have serious medical problems, and wanted to see a specialist,” but were blocked by their Medicare Advantage plan. Those same people had no ability to switch to traditional Medicare with a Medigap plan at precisely the time they need it the most, in nearly every state in the U.S.
“Medigap wasn’t a part of the ACA discussion on pre-existing conditions,” Neuman added. “A lot of people have no idea about this restriction on Medicare coverage, until they find themselves in a position that they want to go back and then it could be too late.”
Academic research shows that seniors often seek to return to traditional Medicare when they become sick.
The critical component that both Medigap and Medicare Advantage plans offer, which traditional Medicare does not, is out-of-pocket caps, said Cristina Boccuti, a director at the West Health Policy Center. “People who want to leave their Medicare Advantage plan, maybe because they are experiencing problems in their plan’s network, decide to disenroll and can’t obtain an out-of-pocket limit which they had previously had in Medicare Advantage,” Boccuti said.
That’s exactly the problem facing Rick Timmins, a retired veterinarian in Washington state. When Timmins was continually delayed care for melanoma, he explored getting out of his Medicare Advantage plan. “I wanted out of Medicare Advantage big-time,” said Timmins. But when he began to look at Medigap plans, he was told that he wouldn’t be guaranteed to get a plan, and that the insurance company could raise premiums based on a pre-existing condition.
“I doubt that I’ll be able to switch over to traditional Medicare, as I can’t afford high premiums,” Timmins said. “I’m still paying off some old medical debt, so it adds to my medical expenses.”
Medicare was founded in 1965 to end the crisis of medical care being denied to senior citizens in America. “No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine,” Lyndon Johnson said at the time. “No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years. No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents, and to their uncles, and their aunts.”
But slowly, private insurers were able to progressively expand their presence in Medicare, with a colossal advance made through George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug program in 2003. Now, Medicare Advantage covers a majority of Medicare participants, thanks to extremely aggressive marketing and perks for healthier seniors like gym memberships.
Numerous recent studies have shown Medicare Advantage plans to deny care while boosting the profits of private insurance companies. Defenders of Medicare Advantage argue that managed care—which practically speaking means insurance employees denying care to seniors—improves our health care system.
Denial-of-care issues,
combined with the aforementioned $140 billion drain on the trust fund, have attracted far more scrutiny of the program than in years past. Community organizations like People’s Action, along with other groups like Be A Hero, have stepped up their criticism of the program. The Biden administration proposed new rules this year to curb overbilling through the use of medical codes, but a furious multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign from the health insurance industry led to the rules being implemented gradually.
Still, members of Congress have become more emboldened to speak out against abuses in Medicare Advantage. A recent Senate Finance Committee hearing featured bipartisan complaints about denying access to care. And House Democrats have urged the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to crack down on increases in prior authorizations for certain medical procedures, as well as the use of artificial-intelligence programs to drive denials.
Megan Essaheb, People’s Action’s director of federal affairs, said that Medicare Advantage has become a drain on the federal trust fund. “These private companies are making tons of money,” Essaheb said. “The plans offer benefits on the front end without people understanding that they will not get the benefits of traditional Medicare, like being able to choose your doctor.”
Despite the growing scrutiny, the trapping of patients who want to get out of Medicare Advantage hasn’t gotten as much attention from either Congress or state legislatures that could end the practice.
Coffey, the retired EMT from New Hampshire, told the Prospect that she has paid $6,000 in out-of-pocket expenses this year under a Medicare Advantage program. “If I could go to Medigap, I would have better access to care, I wouldn’t be forced to give up Boston doctors,” she said.
“These insurance companies are allowed to reap as much profit as possible for as little service as they can get away with. They pocket all of our money and they don’t pay for anything, they sit there and deny and delay.”
The Affordable Care Act turned 14 on March 23. It has done a lot of good for a lot of people, but big changes in the law are urgently needed to address some very big misses and consequences I don’t believe most proponents of the law intended or expected.
At the top of the list of needed reforms: restraining the power and influence of the rapidly growing corporations that are siphoning more and more money from federal and state governments – and our personal bank accounts – to enrich their executives and shareholders.
I was among many advocates who supported the ACA’s passage, despite the law’s ultimate shortcomings. It broadened access to health insurance, both through government subsidies to help people pay their premiums and by banning prevalent industry practices that had made it impossible for millions of American families to buy coverage at any price. It’s important to remember that before the ACA, insurers routinely refused to sell policies to a third or more applicants because of a long list of “preexisting conditions” – from acne and heart disease to simply being overweight – and frequently rescinded coverage when policyholders were diagnosed with cancer and other diseases.
While insurance company executives were publicly critical of the law, they quickly took advantage of loopholes (many of which their lobbyists created) that would allow them to reap windfall profits in the years ahead – and they have, as you’ll see below.
I wrote and spoke frequently as an industry whistleblower about what I thought Congress should know and do, perhaps most memorably in an interview with Bill Moyers. During my Congressional testimony in the months leading up to the final passage of the bill in 2010, I told lawmakers that if they passed it without a public option and acquiesced to industry demands, they might as well call it “The Health Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act.”
A health plan similar to Medicare that could have been a more affordable option for many of us almost happened, but at the last minute, the Senate was forced to strip the public option out of the bill at the insistence of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), who died on March 27, 2024. The Senate did not have a single vote to spare as the final debate on the bill was approaching, and insurance industry lobbyists knew they could kill the public option if they could get just one of the bill’s supporters to oppose it. So they turned to Lieberman, a former Democrat who was Vice President Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 and who continued to caucus with Democrats. It worked. Lieberman wouldn’t even allow a vote on the bill if it created a public option. Among Lieberman’s constituents and campaign funders were insurance company executives who lived in or around Hartford, the insurance capital of the world. Lieberman would go on to be the founding chair of a political group called No Labels, which is trying to find someone to run as a third-party presidential candidate this year.
The work of Big Insurance and its army of lobbyists paid off as insurers had hoped. The demise of the public option was a driving force behind the record profits – and CEO pay – that we see in the industry today.
The good effects of the ACA:
Nearly 49 million U.S. residents (or 16%) were uninsured in 2010. The law has helped bring that down to 25.4 million, or 8.3% (although a large and growing number of Americans are now “functionally uninsured” because of unaffordable out-of-pocket requirements, which President Biden pledged to address in his recent State of the Union speech).
The ACA also made it illegal for insurers to refuse to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions, which even included birth defects, or charge anyone more for their coverage based on their health status; it expanded Medicaid (in all but 10 states that still refuse to cover more low-income individuals and families); it allowed young people to stay on their families’ policies until they turn 26; and it required insurers to spend at least 80% of our premiums on the health care goods and services our doctors say we need (a well-intended provision of the law that insurers have figured out how to game).
The not-so-good effects of the ACA:
As taxpayers and health care consumers, we have paid a high price in many ways as health insurance companies have transformed themselves into massive money-making machines with tentacles reaching deep into health care delivery and taxpayers’ pockets.
To make policies affordable in the individual market, for example, the government agreed to subsidize premiums for the vast majority of people seeking coverage there, meaning billions of new dollars started flowing to private insurance companies. (It also allowed insurers to charge older Americans three times as much as they charge younger people for the same coverage.) Even more tax dollars have been sent to insurers as part of the Medicaid expansion. That’s because private insurers over the years have persuaded most states to turn their Medicaid programs over to them to administer.
We invite you to take a look at how the ascendency of health insurers over the past several years has made a few shareholders and executives much richer while the rest of us struggle despite – and in some cases because of – the Affordable Care Act.
BY THE NUMBERS
In 2010, we as a nation spent $2.6 trillion on health care. This year we will spend almost twice as much – an estimated $4.9 trillion, much of it out of our own pockets even with insurance.
In 2010, the average cost of a family health insurance policy through an employer was $13,710. Last year, the average was nearly $24,000, a 75% increase.
The ACA, to its credit, set an annual maximum on how much those of us with insurance have to pay before our coverage kicks in, but, at the insurance industry’s insistence, it goes up every year. When that limit went into effect in 2014, it was $12,700 for a family. This year, it has increased by 48%, to $18,900. That means insurers can get away with paying fewer claims than they once did, and many families have to empty their bank accounts when a family member gets sick or injured. Most people don’t reach that limit, but even a few hundred dollars is more than many families have on hand to cover deductibles and other out-of-pocket requirements.
Now 100 million Americans – nearly one of every three of us – are mired in medical debt, even though almost 92% of us are presumably “covered.” The coverage just isn’t as adequate as it used to be or needs to be.
Meanwhile, insurance companies had a gangbuster 2023. The seven big for-profit U.S. health insurers’ revenues reached $1.39 trillion, and profits totaled a whopping $70.7 billion last year.
SWEEPING CHANGE, CONSOLIDATION–AND HUGE PROFITS FOR INVESTORS
Insurance company shareholders and executives have become much wealthier as the stock prices of the seven big for-profit corporations that control the health insurance market have skyrocketed.
NOTE: The Dow Jones Industrial Average is listed on this chart as a reference because it is a leading stock market index that tracks 30 of the largest publicly traded companies in the United States.
REVENUES collected by those seven companies have more than tripled (up 346%), increasing by more than $1 trillion in just the past ten years.
PROFITS (earnings from operations) have more than doubled (up 211%), increasing by more than $48 billion.
The CEOs of these companies are among the highest paid in the country. In 2022, the most recent year the companies have reported executive compensation, they collectively made $136.5 million.
U.S. HEALTH PLAN ENROLLMENT
Enrollment in the companies’ health plans is a mix of “commercial” policies they sell to individuals and families and that they manage for “plan sponsors” – primarily employers and unions – and government/enrollee-financed plans (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare for military personnel and their dependents and the Federal Employee Health Benefits program).
Enrollment in their commercial plans grew by just 7.65% over the 10 years and declined significantly at UnitedHealth, CVS/Aetna and Humana. Centene and Molina picked up commercial enrollees through their participation in several ACA (Obamacare) markets in which most enrollees qualify for federal premium subsidies paid directly to insurers.
While not growing substantially, commercial plans remain very profitable because insurers charge considerably more in premiums now than a decade ago.
(1) The 2013 total for CVS/Aetna was reported by Aetna before its 2018 acquisition by CVS. (2) Humana announced last year it is exiting the commercial health insurance business. (3) Enrollment in the ACA’s marketplace plans account for all of Molina’s commercial business.
By contrast, enrollment in the government-financed Medicaid and Medicare Advantage programs has increased 197% and 167%, respectively, over the past 10 years.
(1) The 2013 total for CVS/Aetna was reported by Aetna before its 2018 acquisition by CVS.
Of the 65.9 million people eligible for Medicare at the beginning of 2024, 33 million, slightly more than half, enrolled in a private Medicare Advantage plan operated by either a nonprofit or for-profit health insurer, but, increasingly, three of the big for-profits grabbed most new enrollees. Of the 1.7 million new Medicare Advantage enrollees this year, 86% were captured by UnitedHealth, Humana and Aetna. Those three companies are the leaders in the Medicare Advantage business among the for-profit companies, and, according to the health care consulting firm Chartis, are taking over the program “at breakneck speed.”
(1) The 2013 total for CVS/Aetna was reported by Aetna before its 2018 acquisition by CVS. (2,3) Centene’s and Molina’s totals include Medicare Supplement; they do not break out enrollment in the two Medicare categories separately.
It is worth noting that although four companies saw growth in their Medicare Supplement enrollment over the decade, enrollment in Medicare Supplement policies has been declining in more recent years as insurers have attracted more seniors and disabled people into their Medicare Advantage plans.
OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS
In addition to the above categories, Humana and Centene have significant enrollment in Tricare, the government-financed program for the military. Humana reported 6 million military enrollees in 2023, up from 3.1 million in 2013. Centene reported 2.8 million in 2023. It did not report any military enrollment in 2013.
Elevance reported having 1.6 million enrollees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program in 2023, up from 1.5 million in 2013. That total is included in the commercial enrollment category above.
At Cigna, Express Scripts’ pharmacy operations now contribute more than 70% to the company’s total revenues. Caremark’s pharmacy operations contribute 33% to CVS/Aetna’s total revenues, and Optum Rx contributes 31% to UnitedHealth’s total revenues.
WHAT TO DO AND WHERE TO START
The official name of the ACA is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The law did indeed implement many important patient protections, and it made coverage more affordable for many Americans. But there is much more Congress and regulators must do to close the loopholes and dismantle the barriers erected by big insurers that enable them to pad their bottom lines and reward shareholders while making health care increasingly unaffordable and inaccessible for many of us.
Several bipartisan bills have been introduced in Congress to change how big insurers do business.
And as noted above, President Biden has asked Congress to broaden the recently enacted $2,000-a-year cap on prescription drugs to apply to people with private insurance, not just Medicare beneficiaries. That one policy change could save an untold number of lives and help keep millions of families out of medical debt. (A coalition of more than 70 organizations and businesses, which I lead, supports that, although we’re also calling on Congress to reduce the current overall annual out-of-pocket maximum to no more than $5,000.)
I encourage you to tell your members of Congress and the Biden administration that you support these reforms as well as improving, strengthening and expanding traditional Medicare. You can be certain the insurance industry and its allies are trying to keep any reforms that might shrink profit margins from becoming law.
Affordable Care Act (ACA) enrollment appears poised to reach record levels once again as signups grew by more than a third of what they were this time last year, a fact the White House is using to continue to draw attention to former President Trump’s threats to try again to repeal the law.
More than 15 million people have signed up for plans in states that use HealthCare.gov, representing a 33 percent increase from last year. The Biden administration estimates 19 million will sign up for plans by the Jan. 16 deadline.
On Dec. 15, the deadline for coverage starting Jan. 1, more than 745,000 people selected a plan through HealthCare.gov — the most in a day in history, the Department of Health and Human Services said.
For 2023 plans, more than 16.3 million people signed up through HealthCare.gov last year, another record. Of those who enrolled for this year, 22 percent were new to the marketplace.
This year’s enrollment had some unusual factors that may have played a part in boosting enrollment. Those who were disenrolled from Medicaid this year during the “unwinding” period were allowed to sign up for ACA plans earlier than normal.
There was also stronger insurer participation in the program this year, providing significantly more options for customers to choose from.
“Thanks to policies I signed into law, millions of Americans are saving hundreds or thousands of dollars on health insurance premiums,” President Biden said on Wednesday.
“Extreme Republicans want to stop these efforts in their tracks,” he added. “At every turn, extreme Republicans continue to side with special interests to keep prescription drug prices high and to deny millions of people health coverage.”
HENRY KOTULA 