The recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which makes deep cuts to the Medicaid program, also puts the food assistance that 41 million low-income Americans rely on in jeopardy. Many of the families currently getting food provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) stand to lose that support.
SNAP may well disappear for some families as the federal government moves to trim it. “The cuts are massive and extremely cruel when families need more support, not less,” says Signe Anderson, senior director of nutrition advocacy, at the Tennessee Justice Center in Nashville.
Government food assistance was established during the Great Depression, but it wasn’t until 1977 that the program became more accessible when the requirement that recipients had to pay for a portion of their food stamps was ended. Throughout its history, foes of the program have tried to dismantle it and may have succeeded as a result of provisions in the bill President Trump signed on July 4.
The new legislation calls for cutting spending for food stamps by $186 billion through 2034. “Everyone on food stamps will be affected in some way, and many will lose benefits,” Anderson says. “I don’t think the Congress understands the level of necessity in the community for food, health care and mental health treatment, some for the rest of their lives.”
One major change is being made to work requirements that have historically been part of the Medicaid program, which is administered and partially funded by the states. Anderson points out that under the new arrangements, participants may find the task of enrolling and staying enrolled more onerous. “We see a lot of people cut off already because too many life circumstances make it difficult for them to meet work requirements.”
Indeed when you look at the changes to SNAP, the first word that might come to mind is ‘draconian.’
To receive benefits those new to the program, and those already on it who are between 55 and 64 and do not have dependent children or who have children 14 and older, will have to prove they work. Or they will have to volunteer at least 20 hours a week or enroll in training programs. Parents of school-aged children will now be required to work.
Some five million people, including about 800,000 children and about a half million adults who are 65 and older, could lose their food benefits.
The programs the new law targets have been a lifeline for some. Nikole Ralls, a 43-year-old woman in Nashville, who was once a drug addict but now counsels others who need help, says, “I got my life turned around because of Medicaid and SNAP.”
In a recent memo to state agencies administering the SNAP program, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said she was concerned about what was described as abuse of the waiver system by states, noting that the new approach for the SNAP program would prioritize work, education and volunteering over what the department characterized as “idleness and excessive spending.”
Anderson said, “The public doesn’t understand what hunger looks like and are misinformed about how well-run and streamlined the SNAP program is.”
“Most of the people who can, do work. We have parents working two and three jobs,” Anderson said. For families in this predicament food banks, which have become default grocery stores, may be of little help. They, too, are stretched thin. The Wall Street Journal reported food banks across the country are already straining under rising demand, and some worry there won’t be enough food to meet demand.
A bipartisan Senate report on private equity ownership of two health systems shows PE investment puts a priority of profit over patient health and hospital finances.
A yearlong investigation found that patient care deteriorated at both systems, while private equity owners received millions, according to the Senate Budget Committee’s bipartisan staff report, “Profits Over Patients: The Harmful Effects of Private Equity on the U.S. Health Care System.”
The investigation was led by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Ranking Member Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa.
WHY THIS MATTERS
The report centered on the hospital Ottumwa Regional Health Center in Iowa and its operating company, Lifepoint Health in Tennessee.
Private equity company Apollo Global Management owns Lifepoint Health.
The investigation expanded to include other entities, including PE firmLeonard Green & Partners and hospital operator Prospect Medical Holdings, in which Leonard Green & Partners held a majority stake. Leonard Green & Partners (LGP) is a private equity firm in Los Angeles that owns hospitals under Prospect Medical Holdings (PMH).
“LGP and PMH’s primary focus was on financial goals rather than quality of care at their hospitals, leading to multiple health and safety violations as well as understaffing and the closure of several hospitals,” the report said.
The investigation originated from questions over the role, if any, private equity played in a series of patient sexual assaults by a nurse practitioner at the Iowa hospital. In 2022, a nurse practitioner fatally overdosed on drugs acquired at the hospital. Police discovered the nurse had sexually assaulted nine incapacitated female patients over a two-year period, the report said.
Prospect Medical Holdings owns and operates hospitals in urban and suburban areas, primarily on the East and West Coasts, including Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and California.
It is a previously public traded company that went private in 2010 when LGP acquired a 61% majority stake. During the course of LGP’s majority ownership, Prospect Medical Holdings acquired 16 hospitals over a span of four years. PMH has operated a total of 21 unique hospitals, the report said.
Apollo has a 97% ownership stake in Lifepoint Health, a company that owns and operates acute care hospitals in predominantly rural areas. This includes Ottumwa Regional Health Center. Apollo owns around 220 hospitals nationwide, making it the single largest private equity owner of hospitals in the United States, the report said.
Ottumwa has been under PE ownership since 2010, when it was acquired by the PE-owned hospital operator RegionalCare, which was later acquired by Apollo.
KEY FINDINGS
The report’s key findings show that LGP controlled the Prospect Medical Holding board of directors, which incentivized management to satisfy financial goals regardless of patient outcomes.
“According to documents obtained by the committee, discussion amongst PMH and LGP leadership during board meetings centered around profits, costs, acquisitions, managing labor expenses and increasing patient volume – with little or no discussion of patient outcomes or quality of care.”
Current PMH leadership has overseen the closure of eight hospitals, with three-fourths coming during or directly after LGP’s majority ownership, including four in Texas and two in Pennsylvania.
Several hospitals suffered from labor cuts, decreased patient capacity, unsafe building maintenance and financial distress, the report said.
Despite this, LGP took home $424 million of the $645 million that PMH paid out in dividends and preferred stock redemption, in addition to over $13 million in fees, leaving PMH in severe financial distress.
In order to pay investors dividend distributions, PMH was forced to take on hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, running out of cash and defaulting on its loans, the report said.
ORHC’s PE owned companies, including Lifepoint Health, have failed to fulfill at least seven promises, including legally binding ones made to Ottumwa, including those related to growth, physician recruitment, routine capital expenditures, charity care, patient satisfaction and continuation of services.
Patient volumes have decreased, likely due to long wait times in the ER, outgoing transfers, insufficient staffing and a lack of specialists, the report said. This has also resulted from having a poor reputation in the community.
Because of financial harm, OTHC is dependent on Lifepoint Health to pay its expenses.
However, Lifepoint pays Apollo $9.2 million annually in management fees, as well as a 1% transaction fee each time Lifepoint completes an acquisition, which included a $55 million fee in relation to the acquisition of Lifepoint Health in 2018.
THE LARGER TREND
PE and other private funds had less than $1 trillion in managed assets in 2004, but now manage more than $13 trillion globally. PE firms create affiliated funds with money raised from investors, such as pension funds, foundations and insurance companies. The intention is generating returns for their investors within a short period of time.
PE has grown in healthcare. In the 2010s investors spent more than $1 trillion. By 2021 PE investment had reached an all-time high of 515 deals valued at $151 billion.
ON THE RECORD
“Recent peer reviewed studies have generally found negative consequences for general acute care hospitals during the first three years of PE ownership as compared to non-PE owned hospitals, including lower quality of care, increased transfers to other hospitals, decreased staffing and higher prices,” the report said.
The recent assassination of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare — the health insurance company with, reportedly, the highest rate of claims rejections(and thus dead, wounded, and furious customers and their relations) — gives us a perfect window to understand the stupidity and danger of the Musk/Trump/Ramaswamy strategy of “cutting government” to “make it more efficient, run it like a corporation.”
Consider health care, which in almost every other developed country in the world is legally part of the commons — the infrastructure of the nation, like our roads, public schools, parks, police, military, libraries, and fire departments — owned by the people collectively and run for the sole purpose of meeting a basic human need.
The entire idea of government — dating all the way back to Gilgamesh and before — is to fulfill that singular purpose of meeting citizens’ needs and keeping the nation strong and healthy. That’s a very different mandate from that of a corporation, which is solely directed (some argue by law) to generate profits.
The Veterans’ Administration healthcare system, for example, is essentially socialist rather than capitalist. The VA owns the land and buildings, pays the salaries of everybody from the surgeons to the janitors, and makes most all decisions about care. Its primary purpose — just like that of the healthcare systems of every other democracy in the world — is to keep and make veterans healthy. Its operation is nearly identical to that of Britain’s beloved socialist National Health Service.
UnitedHealthcare similarly owns its own land and buildings, and its officers and employees behave in a way that’s aligned with the company’s primary purpose, but that purpose is to make a profit. Sure, it writes checks for healthcare that’s then delivered to people, but that’s just the way UnitedHealthcare makes money; writing checks and, most importantly, refusing to write checks.
Think about it. If UnitedHealthcare’s main goal was to keep people healthy, they wouldn’t be rejecting 32 percent of claims presented to them. Like the VA, when people needed help they’d make sure they got it.
Instead, they make damn sure their executives get millions of dollars every year (and investors get billions) because making a massive profit ($23 billion last year, and nearly every penny arguably came from saying “no” to somebody’s healthcare needs) is their real business.
On the other hand, if the VA’s goal was to make or save money by “being run efficiently like a company,” they’d be refusing service to a lot more veterans (which it appears is on the horizon).
This is the essential difference between government and business, between meeting human needs (social) and reaching capitalism’s goal (profit).
It’s why its deeply idiotic to say, as Republicans have been doing since the Reagan Revolution, that “government should be run like a business.” That’s nearly as crackbrained a suggestion as saying that fire departments should make a profit (a doltish notion promoted by some Libertarians). Government should be run like a government, and companies should be run like companies.
Given how obvious this is with even a little bit of thought, where did this imbecilic idea that government should run like a business come from?
Turns out, it’s been driven for most of the past century by morbidly rich businessmen (almost entirely men) who don’t want to pay their taxes. As Jeff Tiedrich notes:
“The scariest sentence in the English language is: ‘I’m a billionaire, and I’m here to help.’”
Rightwing billionaires who don’t want to pay their fair share of the costs of society set up think tanks, policy centers, and built media operations to promote their idea that the commons are really there for them to plunder under the rubric of privatization and efficiency.
They’ve had considerable success. Slightly more than half of Medicare is now privatized, multiple Republican-controlled states are in the process of privatizing their public school systems, and the billionaire-funded Project 2025 and the incoming Trump administration have big plans for privatizing other essential government services.
The area where their success is most visible, though, is the American healthcare system. Because the desire of rightwing billionaires not to pay taxes have prevailed ever since Harry Truman first proposed single-payer healthcare like most of the rest of the world has, Americans spend significantly more on healthcare than other developed countries.
In 2022, citizens of the United States spent an estimated $12,742 per person on healthcare, the highest among wealthy nations. This is nearly twice the average of $6,850 per person for other wealthy OECD countries.
Over the next decade, it is estimated that America will spend between $55 and $60 trillion on healthcare if nothing changes and we continue to cut giant corporations in for a large slice of our healthcare money.
On the other hand, Senator Bernie Sanders’ single-payer Medicare For All plan would only cost $32 trillion over the next 10 years. And it would cover everybody in America, every man woman and child, in every medical aspect including vision, dental, psychological, and hearing.
If we keep our current system, the difference between it and the savings from a single-payer system will end up in the pockets, in large part, of massive insurance giants and their executives and investors. And as campaign contributions for bought off Republicans. This isn’t rocket science.
And you’d think that giving all those extra billions to companies like UnitedHealthcare would result in America having great health outcomes. But, no.
Despite insanely higher spending, the U.S. has a lower life expectancy at birth, higher rates of chronic diseases, higher rates of avoidable or treatable deaths, and higher maternal and infant mortality rates than any of our peer nations.
Compared to single-payer nations like Canada, the U.S. also has a higher incidence of chronic health conditions, Americans see doctors less often and have fewer hospital stays, and the U.S. has fewer hospital beds and physicians per person.
No other country in the world allows a predatory for-profit industry like this to exist as a primary way of providing healthcare. Every other advanced democracy considers healthcare a right of citizenship, rather than an opportunity for a handful of industry executives to hoard a fortune, buy Swiss chalets, and fly around on private jets.
This is one of the most widely shared graphics on social media over the past few days in posts having to do with Thompson’s murder…
Sure, there are lots of health insurance companies in other developed countries, but instead of offering basic healthcare (which is provided by the government) mostly wealthy people subscribe to them to pay for premium services like private hospital rooms, international air ambulance services, and cosmetic surgery.
Essentially, UnitedHealthcare’s CEO Brian Thompson made decisions that killed Americans for a living, in exchange for $10 million a year. He and his peers in the industry are probably paid as much as they are because there is an actual shortage of people with business training who are willing to oversee decisions that cause or allow others to die in exchange for millions in annual compensation.
That Americans are well aware of this obscenity explains the gleeful response to his murder that’s spread across social media, including the refusal of online sleuths to participate in finding his killer.
It shouldn’t need be said that vigilantism is no way to respond to toxic individuals and companies that cause Americans to die unnecessarily. Hopefully, Thompson’s murder will spark a conversation about the role of government and the commons — and the very real need to end the corrupt privatization of our healthcare system (including the Medicare Advantage scam) that has harmed so many of us and killed or injured so many of the people we love.
Pennsylvania state Sen. Tim Kearney has raised concerns about the lack of transparency and details around the planned sale of Upland, Pa.-based Crozer Health and has called on the state attorney general to step in and conduct a thorough analysis of the deal, the Daily Times reported Aug. 22.
Earlier this month, Los Angeles-based Prospect Medical Holdings and CHA Partners signed a letter of intent for CHA to acquire Crozer. The proposed deal would involve transitioning Crozer’s four hospitals back to nonprofit status.
“Prospect’s proposed sale of Crozer to CHA Partners LLC exemplifies the need for state oversight of hospital sales, as both entities appear to have histories of burning public partners despite demanding hefty subsidies,” Mr. Kearney said in a statement shared with Becker’s.
Unlike many other states, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General lacks statutory authority to deeply evaluate these deals, according to Mr. Kearney.
“While the AG’s legal settlement with Prospect gives them some oversight of this deal, the legislature needs to provide the AG with greater authority to protect hospitals and the communities that depend on them,” he said. “If the choice is CHA or closure, then we need some assurances that they will be a responsible organization and not just a profiteering speculator.”
Prospect, a for-profit company, plans to sell nine of its 16 hospitals in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Connecticut and is also being investigated by the Justice Department for alleged violations of the False Claims Act. A spokesperson for Prospect told Becker’s the system will continue to cooperate with the investigation, but feels that the allegations have no merit.
CHA did not respond to Becker’s request for comment.
This week’s graphic looks at the plethora of state-level mergers and acquisitions (M&A) oversight laws that are now in place, part of a recent trend that adds further scrutiny to healthcare consolidation.
Thirty-five states currently have laws that require not-for-profit healthcare entities that meet certain requirements, usually based on revenue size, to report M&A activity to state regulators. Fourteen of these states extend these requirements to for-profit healthcare entities as well.
These state laws vary in scope but generally target healthcare deals that fall below the federal reporting threshold for transaction size, updated to $119.5M in 2024.
Two states with particularly strong healthcare M&A oversight laws are Oregon and Minnesota. The Oregon Health Authority must pre-approve any healthcare transaction of at least $35M in size.
Passed in 2023, Minnesota’s healthcare antitrust law sets the deal size reporting requirements at $10M,
but the state commissioner of health and the attorney general do not have to pre-approve all healthcare mergers. Minnesota also requires merging parties to disclose extensive details on the transaction agreement, market impact, service cuts, and more to state regulators, who have broad authority to block mergers on public interest grounds.
Although some believe that these state laws will help preserve healthcare competition and access, they will increase the complexity, cost, and timeline for healthcare entities seeking to merge and could make survival for smaller providers even more difficult.
HENRY KOTULA 