Health systems are rightly concerned about Republican plans to cut Medicaid spending, end ACA subsidies and enact site neutral payments, says consultant Michael Abrams, managing partner of Numerof, a consulting firm.
“Health systems have reason to worry,” Abrams said shortly after President Donald Trump was inaugurated on Monday.
While Trump mentioned little about healthcare in his inauguration speech, the GOP trifecta means spending cuts outlined in a one-page document released by Politico and another 50-pager could get a majority vote for passage.
Of the insurers, pharmaceutical manufacturers and health systems that Abrams consults with, healthcare systems are the ones that are most concerned, Abrams said.
At the top of the Republican list targeting $4 trillion in healthcare spending is eliminating an estimated $2.5 billion from Medicaid.
“There’s no question Republicans will find savings in Medicaid,” Abrams said.
Medicaid has doubled its enrollment in the last couple of years due to extended benefits made possible by the Affordable Care Act, despite disenrolling 25 million people during the redetermination process at the end of the public health emergency, according to Abrams.
Upward of 44 million people, or 16.4% of the non-elderly U.S. population are covered by an Affordable Care Act initiative, including a record high of 24 million people in ACA health plans and another 21.3 million in Medicaid expansion enrollment, according to a KFF report. Medicaid expansion enrollment is 41% higher than in 2020.
The enhanced subsidies that expanded eligibility for Medicaid and doubled the number of enrollees are set to expire at the end of 2025 and Republicans are likely to let that happen, Abrams said. Eliminating enhanced federal payments to states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA are estimated to cut the program by $561 billion.
If enhanced subsidies end, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the number of people who will become uninsured will increase by 3.8 million each year between 2026 and 2034.
The enhanced tax subsidies for the ACA are set to expire at the end of 2025. This could result in another 2.2 million people losing coverage in 2026, and 3.7 million in 2027, according to the CBO.
WHY THIS MATTERS
For hospitals, loss of health insurance coverage means an increase in sicker, uninsured patients visiting the emergency department and more uncompensated care.
“Health systems are nervous about people coming to them who are uninsured,” Abrams said. “There will be people disenrolled.”
The federal government allowed more people to be added to the Medicaid rolls during the public health emergency to help those who lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic, Numerof said. Medicaid became an open-ended liability which the government wants to end now that the unemployment rate is around 4.2% and jobs are available.
An idea floating around Congress is the idea of converting Medicaid to a per capita cap and providing these funds to the states as a block grant, Abrams said. The cost of those programs would be borne 70% by the federal government and 30% by states.
This fixed amount based on a per person amount would save money over the current system of letting states report what they spent.
Another potential change under the new administration includes site neutral Medicare payments to hospitals for outpatient services.
The HFMA reported the site neutral policy as a concern in a list it published Monday of preliminary federal program cuts totaling more than $5 trillion over 10 years. The 50-page federal list is essentially a menu of options, the HFMA said, not an indication that programs will actually be targeted leading up to the March 14 deadline to pass legislation before federal funding expires.
Other financial concerns for hospitals based on that list include: the elimination of the tax exemption for nonprofit hospitals, bringing in up to $260 billion in estimated 10-year savings; and phasing out Medicare payments for bad debt, resulting in savings of up to $42 billion over a decade.
Healthcare systems are the ones most concerned over GOP spending cuts, according to Abrams. Pharmacy benefit managers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also remain on edge as to what might be coming at them next.
THE LARGER TREND
President Donald Trump mentioned little about healthcare during his inauguration speech on Monday.
Trump said the public health system does not deliver in times of disaster, referring to the hurricanes in North Carolina and other areas and to the fires in Los Angeles.
Trump also mentioned giving back pay to service members who objected to getting the COVID-19 vaccine.
He also talked about ending the chronic disease epidemic, without giving specifics.
“He didn’t really talk about healthcare even in the campaign,” Abrams said.
However, in his consulting work, Abrams said, “The common thread is the environment is changing quickly,” and that healthcare organizations need to do the same “in order to survive.”
The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024 represented a horrific and indefensible act of violence. As a physician and healthcare leader, I initially declined to comment on the killing. I felt that speculating about the shooter’s intent would only sensationalize a terrible act.
Regardless of the circumstances, vigilante violence has no place in a free and just society.
Now, more than a month later, I feel compelled to address one aspect of the story that has been widely misunderstood: the public’s reaction to the news of Thompson’s murder. Specifically, why tens of thousands of individuals “liked” and “laughed” at a post on Facebook announcing the CEO’s death.
News analysts have attributed the social media response to America’s “simmering anger” and “frustration” with a broken healthcare system, pointing to rising medical costs, insurance red tape and time-consuming prior authorization requirements as justifications.
These are all, indeed, problems and may explain some of public’s reaction. Yet these descriptions grossly understate the lived reality for most of those affected. When I speak with individuals who have lost a child, parent or spouse because of what they perceive as an unresponsive and uncaring system, their pain is raw, intense. What they feel isn’t frustration—it’s agony.
By framing healthcare’s failures in terms of statistical measures and policy snafus, we reduce a deeply personal crisis to an intellectual exercise. And it’s this very detached, cognitive approach that has allowed our nation to disregard the emotional devastation endured by millions of patients and their families.
When journalists, healthcare leaders and policymakers cite eye-popping statistics on healthcare expenditures, highlight exorbitant insurer profits or deride the bloated salaries of executives, they leave out a vital part of the story. They omit the unbearable human suffering behind the numbers. And I fear that until we approach healthcare as a moral crisis—not merely an economic or political puzzle to solve—our nation will never act with the urgency required to relieve people’s profound pain.
In Dante’s Inferno, hell is a place where suffering is eternal and the cries of the damned go unheard. For countless Americans who feel trapped in our healthcare system, that metaphor rings true. Their anguish and pleas for mercy are met with silence.
It is this sense of abandonment and powerlessness, not mere frustration, that fuels both a desperate rage and an anger at a system and its leaders who appear not to care. The response isn’t one of glee—it’s a visceral reaction born of pain and unrelenting remorse.
As a clinician, I’ve seen life-destroying pain in my patients—and even within my own family. When my cousin Alan died in his twenties from a then-incurable cancer, my aunt and uncle were powerless to save him. Their grief was profound, unrelenting and eternal. They never recovered from the loss. But Alan’s death, heartbreaking as it was, stemmed from the limits of science at the time.
What millions of Americans endure today is different. Their loved ones die not because cures don’t exist but because the healthcare system treats them like a number. Bureaucratic inefficiencies, profit-driven delays and systemic indifference produce avoidable tragedies.
To appreciate this depth of pain, imagine standing behind a chain-link fence, watching someone you love being tortured. You scream and plead for help, but no one listens. That is what healthcare feels like for too many Americans. And until all of us acknowledge and feel their pain, little will improve.
When we focus solely on cold numbers—the millions who’ve lost Medicaid coverage, the hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths each year, or the life-expectancy gap between the U.S. and other nations—we strip healthcare of its humanity.
But once we stop framing these failures as bureaucratic inefficiencies or frustrations and, instead, focus on the devastation of having to watch a loved one suffer and die needlessly, we are forced to confront a moral imperative. Either we must act with urgency and resolve the problem or admit we simply don’t care.
In the halls of Congress, lawmakers continue to weigh modest reforms to prior authorization requirements and Medicaid spending—baby steps that won’t fix a system in crisis. The truth is that without bold, transformative action, healthcare will remain unaffordable and inaccessible for millions of families whose anguish will grow.
Here are three examples of the scale of transformation required:
If elected officials, payers and regulators fail to act, they will have chosen to perpetuate the unbearable pain and suffering patients and families endure daily. They need to hear the cries of people. The time for transformative action is now.
As Donald Trump begins his second term, America’s healthcare system is in crisis: medical costs are skyrocketing, life expectancy has stagnated, and burnout runs rampant among healthcare workers.
These problems are likely to become worse now that Trump has handed the federal budget over to Elon Musk. The world’s richest man now co-heads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a non-government entity tasked with slashing $500 billion in “wasteful” spending.
The harsh reality is that Musk’s mission can’t succeed without gutting healthcare access and coverage for millions of Americans.
Since Trump’s first term, the country’s economic outlook has worsened significantly. In 2016, the national debt was $19 trillion, with $430 billion allocated to annual interest payments. By 2024, the debt had nearly doubled to $36 trillion, requiring $882 billion in debt service—12% of federal spending that is legally untouchable.
Add to that another 50% of government expenditures that Trump has deemed politically off-limits: Social Security ($1.35 trillion), Medicare ($848 billion) and Defense ($1.13 trillion). That leaves just $2.6 trillion—less than 40% of the $6.75 trillion federal budget—available for cuts.
In a recent op-ed, Musk and DOGE co-chair Vivek Ramaswamy proposed eliminating expired or misused funds for programs like Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood, but these examples account for less than $3 billion total—not even 1% of their target.
This shortfall will require Musk to cut billions in government healthcare spending. But where will he find it?
With Medicare off limits to DOGE, the options for major reductions are extremely limited. Big-ticket healthcare items like the $300 billion in tax-deductibility for employer-sponsored health insurance and $120 billion in expired health programs for veterans will prove politically untouchable. One will raise taxes for 160 million working families and the latter will leave veterans without essential medical care.
This means DOGE will have to attack Medicaid and the ACA health exchanges. Here’s how 20 million people will likely lose coverage as a result.
Since its enactment in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has provided premium subsidies to Americans earning 100% to 400% of the federal poverty level. For lower-income families, the ACA also offers Cost Sharing Reductions, which help offset deductibles and co-payments that fund 30% of total medical costs per enrollee. Without CSRs, a family of four earning $40,000 could face deductibles as high as $5,000 before their insurance benefits apply.
If Congress allows CSR payments to expire in 2026, federal spending would decrease by approximately $35 billion annually. If that happens, the Congressional Budget Office expects 7 million individuals to drop out of the exchanges. Worse, without affordable coverage alternatives, 4 million families would lose their health insurance altogether.
Medicaid currently provides healthcare for over 90 million low-income Americans, including children, seniors and individuals with disabilities. To meet DOGE’s $500 billion goal, several cost-cutting strategies appear likely:
Medicaid currently costs $800 billion annually, with the federal government covering 70%. Reducing enrollment by 10% (9 million people) could save over $50 billion annually, while a 20% reduction (18 million people) could save $100 billion.
Either outcome would devastate families by eliminating access to vital services including prenatal care, vaccinations, chronic disease management and nursing home care. As states are forced to absorb the financial burden, they’ll likely cut education budgets and reduce infrastructure investments.
The numbers don’t lie: Musk and DOGE could slash Medicaid funding and ACA subsidies to achieve much of their $500 billion target. But the human cost of this approach would be staggering.
Fortunately, there are alternative solutions that would reduce spending without sacrificing quality. Shifting provider payments in ways that reward better outcomes rather than higher volumes, capping drug prices at levels comparable to peer nations, and leveraging generative AI to improve chronic disease management could all drive down costs while preserving access to care.
These strategies address the root causes of high medical spending, including chronic diseases that, if better managed, could prevent 30-50% of heart attacks, strokes, cancers, and kidney failures according to CDC estimates.
Yet, in their pursuit of immediate budgetary cuts, Musk and DOGE have omitted these kinds of reform options. As a result, the health of millions of Americans is at major risk.
A few weeks ago The Commonwealth Fund, a philanthropic organization in New York City, which keeps tabs on health care trends, released an ominous study signaling that the bedrock of the U.S. health system is in trouble.
The study found that the employer insurance market, where millions of Americans have received good, affordable coverage since the end of World War II, could be in jeopardy. The continuing rise in the costs of medical care, and the insurance premiums to pay for it, may well cause employers to make cutbacks, leaving millions of workers uninsured or underinsured, often with no way to pay for their care and the prospect of debt for the rest of their lives.
Indeed the Fund revealed that 23% of adults in the U.S. are underinsured, meaning that though they were covered by health insurance, high deductibles and coinsurance made it difficult or impossible to pay for the care they needed.
“They have health plans that don’t provide affordable access to care,” said Sara Collins, senior adviser and vice president at the Fund. “They have out-of-pocket costs and deductibles that are high relative to their income.”
This predicament has forced many to assume medical debt or skip needed care. The Fund found that as many as one-third of people with chronic conditions like heart failure and diabetes reported they don’t take their medication or fill prescriptions because they cost too much.
Others did not go to a doctor when they were sick, skipping a recommended follow-up visit or test, and did not see a specialist when one was recommended. Nearly half of the respondents reported they did not get care for an ongoing condition because of the cost. Two out of five working-age adults who reported a delay or skipped care told researchers their health problem had gotten worse. Those findings belie the narrative, deployed when changes to the system are discussed, that America has the best health care in the world, and we dare not change it.
The seeds of today’s underinsurance predicament were planted in the 1990s when the system’s players decided remedies were needed to curb Americans’ appetite for medical interventions.
They devised managed care, with its HMOs, PPOs, insurance company approvals, and other restrictions that are with us today. But health care is far more expensive than it was in the ’90s, leaving patients to struggle to pay the higher prices, or, as the study shows, go without needed care.
Perhaps one of the study’s most striking findings is that a vast majority of underinsured workers had employer insurance plans, which over the decades had provided good coverage. Researchers concluded that recent cost containment measures were simply shifting more costs to workers through higher deductibles and coinsurance.
I checked in with Richard Master, the CEO of MCS Industries in Easton, Pennsylvania. We’ve talked over the years about the rising cost of health insurance for his 91 workers who make picture frames and wall decorations. This year, he was expecting a 5 to 6% increase in insurance rates.
A family plan now costs more than $39,000, he said, adding that “29% of people with employee plans are underinsured and have high out-of-pocket costs.”
To help reduce his own costs, he told me he has put in place a high-deductible plan and was setting up health saving accounts that allow him to give a sum of money to each worker to use for their medical expenses.
As health insurance premiums continue to rise, more employers will likely heap more of those rising costs onto workers, many of whom will inevitably have a tough time paying for them.
Every time there has been a hint in the air that maybe, just maybe, America might embrace a universal system like peer nations across the globe that offer health care to all their citizens, the special interests—doctors, hospitals, insurers, employers, and others that benefit financially from the current system have snuffed out any possibility that might happen, worried that such a system could affect their profits.
For as long as I can remember, the public has been told America has the best health care system in the world. Major holes in our system exposed by The Commonwealth Fund belie that assumption.
I never met Brian Thompson. His senseless death is first and foremost a human tragedy.
Second, it’s a business story that continues to unfold. Speculation about the shooter’s motive and whereabouts runs rampant.
But media attention has seized on a larger theme: the business of health insurance and its role in U.S. healthcare.
Headlines like these illustrate the storyline that has evolved in response to the killing: health insurance is part of a complicated industry where business practices are often geared to corporate profit.
In this coverage and social media postings, health insurer denials are the focal point: journalists and commentators have seized on the use of Artificial intelligence-based tools used by plans like United, Cigna, Aetna and most others to approve/deny claims and Thompson’s role as CEO of UHG’s profitable insurance division.
The bullet-casing etchings “Deny. Defend. Depose” is now a T-shirt whistle to convey a wearer’s contempt for corporate insurers and the profit-seeking apparatus in U.S. healthcare.
Laid bare in the coverage of Brian’s death is this core belief: the majority of Americans think the U.S. health system is big business and fundamentally flawed.
As noted in last week’s Gallup Poll, and in previous polling by Pew, Harris, Kaiser Family Foundation and Keckley, only one in three Americans believe the health system performs well. Accessibility, costs, price transparency and affordability are dominant complaints. They believe the majority of health insurers, hospitals and prescription drug companies put their financial interests above the public’s health and wellbeing. They accept that the health system is complex and expensive but feel helpless to fix it.
This belief is widely held: its pervasiveness and intensity lend to misinformation and disinformation about the system and its business practices.
Data about underlying costs and their relationship to prices are opaque and hard to get. Clinical innovation and quality of care are understood in the abstract: self-funded campaigns touting Top 100 recognition, Net Promoter Scores are easier. The business of healthcare financing and delivery is not taught: personal experiences with insurers, hospitals, physicians and drugs are the basis for assessing the system’s effectiveness…and those experiences vary widely based on individual/household income, education, ethnicity and health status.
The majority accept that operators in every sector of healthcare apply business practices intended to optimize their organization’s finances. Best practices for every insurer, hospital, drug/device manufacturer and medical practice include processes and procedures to maximize revenues, minimize costs and secure capital for growth/innovation.
But in healthcare, the notion of profit remains problematic: how much is too much? and how an organization compensates its leaders for results beyond short-term revenue/margin improvement are questions of growing concern to a large and growing majority of consumers.
In every sector, key functions like these are especially prone to misinformation, disinformation and public criticism:
The bottom line:
The public is paying attention to business practices in healthcare. The death of Brian Thompson opened the floodgate for criticism of health insurers and the U.S. healthcare industry overall. It cannot be ignored. The public thinks industry folks are shrewd operators and they’re inclined to conclude they’re screwed as a result.
Tomorrow night, the Presidential candidates square off in Philadelphia. Per polling from last week by the New York Times-Siena, NBC News-Wall Street Journal, Ipsos-ABC News and CBS News, the two head into the debate neck and neck in what is being called the “chaos election.”
Polls also show the economy, abortion and immigration are the issues of most concern to voters. And large majorities express dissatisfaction with the direction the country is heading and concern about their household finances.
The healthcare system per se is not a major concern to voters this year, but its affordability is. Out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, insurance premiums and co-pays and deductibles for hospitals and physician services are considered unreasonable and inexplicably high. They contribute to public anxiety about their financial security alongside housing and food costs. And majorities think the government should do more by imposing price controls and limiting corporate consolidation.
That’s where we are heading into this debate. And here’s what we know for sure about the 90-minute production as it relates to health issues and policies:
That’s it in all likelihood. They’re unlikely to wade into root causes of declining life expectancy in the U.S. or the complicated supply-chain and workforce dynamics of the industry. And the moderators are unlikely to ask probative questions like these to discover the candidate’s forethought on matters of significant long-term gravity…
My take:
I will be watching along with an audience likely to exceed 60 million. Invariably, I will be frustrated by well-rehearsed “gotcha” lines used by each candidate to spark reaction from the other. And I will hope for more attention to healthcare and likely be disappointed.
Misinformation, disinformation and AI derived social media messaging are standard fare in winner-take-all politics.
When used in addressing health issues and policies, they’re effective because the public’s basic level of understanding of the health system is embarrassingly low: studies show 4 in 5 American’s confess to confusion citing the system’s complexity and, regrettably, the inadequacy of efforts to mitigate their ignorance is widely acknowledged.
Thus, terms like affordability, value, quality, not-for-profit healthcare and many others can be used liberally by politicians, trade groups and journalists without fear of challenge since they’re defined differently by every user.
Given the significance of healthcare to the economy (17.6% of the GDP),
the total workforce (18.6 million of the 164 million) and individual consumers and households (41% have outstanding medical debt and all fear financial ruin from surprise medical bills or an expensive health issue), it’s incumbent that health policy for the long-term sustainability of the health system be developed before the system collapses. The impetus for that effort must come from trade groups and policymakers willing to invest in meaningful deliberation.
The dust from this election cycle will settle for healthcare later this year and in early 2025. States are certain to play a bigger role in policymaking: the likely partisan impasse in Congress coupled with uncertainty about federal agency authority due to SCOTUS; Chevron ruling will disable major policy changes and leave much in limbo for the near-term.
Long-term, the system will proceed incrementally. Bigger players will fare OK and others will fail. I remain hopeful thoughtful leaders will address the near and long-term future with equal energy and attention.
Regrettably, the tyranny of the urgent owns the U.S. health system’s attention these days: its long-term destination is out-of-sight, out-of-mind to most. And the complexity of its short-term issues lend to magnification of misinformation, disinformation and public ignorance.
That’s why this debate will frustrate healthcare voters.
PS: Congress returns this week to tackle the October 1 deadline for passing 12 FY2025 appropriations bills thus avoiding a shutdown. It’s election season, so a continuing resolution to fund the government into 2025 will pass at the last minute so politicians can play partisan brinksmanship and enjoy media coverage through September. In the same period, the Fed will announce its much anticipated interest rate cut decision on the heals of growing fear of an economic slowdown. It’s a serious time for healthcare!
Health systems have a big challenge: rising costs and reimbursement that doesn’t keep up with inflation. The amount spent on healthcare annually continues to rise while outcomes aren’t meaningfully better.
Some people outside of the industry wonder: Why doesn’t healthcare just act more like other businesses?
“There seems to be a widely held belief that healthcare providers respond the same as all other businesses that face rising costs,” said Cliff Megerian, MD, CEO of University Hospitals in Cleveland. “That is absolutely not true. Unlike other businesses, hospitals and health systems cannot simply adjust prices in response to inflation due to pre-negotiated rates and government mandated pay structures. Instead, we are continually innovating approaches to population health, efficiency and cost management, ensuring that we maintain delivery of high quality care to our patients.”
Nonprofit hospitals are also responsible for serving all patients regardless of ability to pay, and University Hospitals is among the health systems distinguished as a best regional hospital for equitable access to care by U.S. News & World Report.
“This commitment necessitates additional efforts to ensure equitable access to healthcare services, which inherently also changes our payer mix by design,” said Dr. Megerian. “Serving an under-resourced patient base, including a significant number of Medicaid, underinsured and uninsured individuals, requires us to balance financial constraints with our ethical obligations to provide the highest quality care to everyone.”
Hospitals need adequate reimbursement to continue providing services while also staffing the hospital appropriately. Many hospitals and health systems have been in tense negotiations with insurers in the last 24 months for increased pay rates to cover rising costs.
“Without appropriate adjustments, nonprofit healthcare providers may struggle to maintain the high standards of care that patients deserve, especially when serving vulnerable populations,” said Dr. Megerian. “Ensuring fair reimbursement rates supports our nonprofit industry’s aim to deliver equitable, high quality healthcare to all while preserving the integrity of our health systems.”
Industry outsiders often seek free market dynamics in healthcare as the “fix” for an expensive and complicated system. But leaving healthcare up to the normal ebbs and flows of businesses would exclude a large portion of the population from services. Competition may lead to service cuts and hospital closures as well, which devastates communities.
“A misconception is that the marketplace and utilization of competitive business model will fix all that ails the American healthcare system,”
said Scot Nygaard, MD, COO of Lee Health in Ft. Myers and Cape Coral, Fla.
“Is healthcare really a marketplace, in which the forces of competition will solve for many of the complex problems we face, such as healthcare disparities, cost effective care, more uniform and predictive quality and safety outcomes, mental health access, professional caregiver workforce supply?”
Without comprehensive reform at the state or federal level, many health systems have been left to make small changes hoping to yield different results. But, Dr. Nygaard said, the “evidence year after year suggests that this approach is not successful and yet we fear major reform despite the outcomes.”
The dearth of outside companies trying to enter the healthcare space hasn’t helped. People now expect healthcare providers to function like Amazon or Walmart without understanding the unique complexities of the industry.
“Unlike retail, healthcare involves navigating intricate regulations, providing deeply personal patient interactions and building sustained trust,” said Andreia de Lima, MD, chief medical officer of Cayuga Health System in Ithaca, N.Y. “Even giants like Walmart found it challenging to make primary care profitable due to high operating costs and complex reimbursement systems. Success in healthcare requires more than efficiency; it demands a deep understanding of patient care, ethical standards and the unpredictable nature of human health.”
So what can be done?
Tracea Saraliev, a board member for Dominican Hospital Santa Cruz (Calif.) and PIH Health said leaders need to increase efforts to simplify and improve healthcare economics.
“Despite increased ownership of healthcare by consumers, the economics of healthcare remain largely misunderstood,” said Ms. Saraliev. “For example, consumers erroneously believe that they always pay less for care with health insurance. However, a patient can pay more for healthcare with insurance than without as a result of the negotiated arrangements hospitals have with insurance companies and the deductibles of their policy.”
There is also a variation in cost based on the provider, and even with financial transparency it’s a challenge to provide an accurate assessment for the cost of care before services. Global pricing and other value-based care methods streamline the price, but healthcare providers need great data to benefit from the arrangements.
Based on payer mix, geographic location and contracted reimbursement rates, some health systems are able to thrive while others struggle to stay afloat. The variation mystifies some people outside of the industry.
“Healthcare economics very much remains paradoxical to even the most savvy of consumers,” said Ms. Saraliev.
The U.S. economy grew at a 2.8% annualized rate in the second quarter—a faster rate than economists expected as consumer spending increased and businesses built up inventories, the Commerce Department said on Thursday.
Why it matters:
The new data raises confidence the economy has achieved a “soft landing” — healthy economic growth alongside cooling inflation.
Driving the news:
The accelerated growth stemmed from a jump in inventory investment and consumer spending.
The big picture:
Gloomy forecasts of a recession over the past year have not come to pass.
The bottom line:
The economy continues to defy expectations of a slowdown.
HENRY KOTULA 