Matthew Fiedler testified at a hearing held by the Subcommittees on Health and Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means to discuss the present and future of Medicare Advantage (MA).
His testimony made five main points on MA payment reform:
Covering a beneficiary under MA costs an estimated 20% more than covering the same person under traditional Medicare, generating $84 billion in additional payments in 2025.
Paying an MA plan an additional dollar delivers much less than a dollar of value to enrollees.
Reforming MA payment could free up resources to meet other needs, allow policymakers to enhance Medicare’s benefits, or both.
A sensible goal for MA payment reform would be to align payments to MA plans with the cost of covering comparable enrollees under traditional Medicare.
The opportunities presented by MA payment reform show that it is possible to sharply reduce federal health care spending without increasing uninsurance.
They were late filing a claim. Now I’m in collections.
Hey there —
I get a lot of questions from An Arm and a Leg listeners. Sometimes I write back with advice. So: Why not share? Welcome to an experiment: Our occasional advice column!
Maybe let’s call it: Can they freaking DO that?!?
Disclaimer: I don’t know everything, I’m not a lawyer, and I haven’t done new reporting for this. It’s the kind of advice I’d give a friend.
Or, in this case, a listener named Chris.
Q: Can they charge me $47,000 for their mistake?
I had an emergency appendectomy. The hospital rang me up for about $47,000 — but, insurance denied the claim because they say the hospital didn’t submit it to them until eight months after the fact — beyond their 60-day “timely filing” limit in the contract [between the hospital and the insurance company].
After that, the hospital started billing me.
I have spent hours and hours on the phone over the last two months with various people in their billing department. I followed their recommendation to send a letter, and an email, requesting that they write off these charges since it was their billing error — and nothing has been fixed.
Now they’ve sent me to collections.
What do I do now? Do I sue? How can I sue? Help!
Chris
A: Don’t run for a lawyer (yet)
Chris, thanks so much for writing in — and YIKES.
I think you’re zeroing in on the right question, which is: How can you demand redress?
Put another way: Where’s your leverage? How can you get them to see they’re better off dealing with you in good faith, versus… getting themselves in actual trouble?
I don’t think you need to run out and hire a lawyer. But there’s a bunch of homework to do.
Start with your insurance
Because it’s their job to protect you from getting unfairly harassed like this.
Sounds like the hospital promised the insurance company — in a contract — to submit bills within 60 days.
That contract probably does not say, “and if we’re late on that, we’ll just go after Chris.”
No. I’m thinking it says, “If we don’t get you that bill on time, that’s just too bad for us.”
So: the insurance company has a right — and an obligation to you — to tell the hospital where to stick that bill.
So ask your insurance company: What’s *supposed* to happen if a hospital doesn’t submit a bill on time? What’s their process for getting things fixed? Can they tell the hospital to just knock it off, already?
And while you’ve got them, you may as well ask: If the hospital had submitted the bill on time, what would you have been on the hook for?
…because when this gets fixed, you’ll probably owe that amount.
If your insurance won’t cough up the info and won’t go to bat for you, get help. If you get your insurance through work, call HR. Otherwise, ring up your state insurance regulator.
Dispute the bill in collections
Meanwhile, you’ve got the hospital siccing a collection agent on you. That’s not right.
Notify the collection agency that you’re disputing this debt, as described in this recent First Aid Kit — which includes a dispute-letter template. (While you’re at it, send a copy to the hospital billing office.)
Document your efforts to get the hospital to see the light on this. If you’ve written to them, attach copies of previous correspondence. If it’s been all phone calls, document them: You called them on this day, at that time, etc.
If you haven’t been logging calls — keeping a set of notes with times, dates, who you spoke to, and where things stood at the end of the call — start now.
Let the hospital know: They could get in trouble
Your state’s consumer-protection office might take a dim view of what the hospital is doing here.
I mean, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure there are laws against chasing you for money you don’t actually owe.
Look up that consumer-protection office here. If you can talk with someone there, great. If your state’s consumer-protection laws are easy to find online (and understand), also great.
(If not, consider calling your local public library. Seriously, librarians are amazing at helping dig up useful information.)
Once you’ve got some sense of your legal rights — from the hospital’s contract with the insurance company, from your state’s consumer-protection laws…
Start writing letters. To the hospital, to the collection agency — saying: Let’s get this settled before I have to complain to regulators about this. (When you write to the hospital, maybe cc the General Counsel’s office.)
Let them know how you expect things to go, and indicate — subtly but clearly —that you know what kind of trouble they could be in and why.
The person who gets the letter has to make the decision: “Do I ignore this, or do I bring it to my manager?”
And if I was that person and [the letter-writer] was very calm — just saying, “this is happening, and it’s starting to look like this [legal issue] and I want this to be handled according to your processes,” that’s the part I’d find alarming.
If I was that person, I would either make sure it’s handled according to my processes, or give my manager a heads up: that there’s a grownup who seems somewhat irritated.
Somehow, we never actually used that tape, even though I think about it all the time — until now. Thanks for the chance to bring it back.
Health care inflation hit a three-year high last month, in the latest sign that workers could soon be juggling big premium increases with higher prices for groceries, clothing and other items subject to President Trump’s tariffs.
WHY IT MATTERS:
Medical prices have been steadily rising, but corporations projecting increases of 9% or more next year are no longer willing to insulate their employees from the pain.
DRIVING THE NEWS:
Medical care costs rose 4.2%, compared with an overall inflation rate of 2.9%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Thursday.
Consulting firms are forecasting that the trend will carry over into next year, even without sector-specific tariffs on drugs.
Mercer recently forecast that employers are facing their highest health benefit cost increase in 15 years. Beyond higher demand for health services, other factors include rising wages in the medical sector.
On Wednesday, professional services firm Aon reported that U.S. employer health care costs are projected to rise 9.5% in 2026, or more than $17,000 per employee. It blamed rising prescription drug costs and higher health care utilization.
“The overlooked reality is that employers continue to act as a stabilizing force,” Farheen Dam, head of Health Solutions for North America at Aon, said in a statement. “They absorb the bulk of the increase while making smart, targeted adjustments that protect employees and preserve plan value.”
BETWEEN THE LINES:
The rising costs are being felt beyond workplace insurance; Affordable Care Act marketplace plans are seeking median 18% premium hikes for next year, according to KFF. That’s the largest rate change insurers have requested since 2018, they said.
The insurers cite high-priced drugs, increasing labor costs and general inflation, as well as concern about the expiration of enhanced subsidies that could hike out-of-pocket premiums an average of 75% for over 20 million enrollees.
THE BOTTOM LINE:
Inflation is hitting health care harder than the broader economy, setting up a painful year ahead for both patients and employers.
It’s unclear whether the biggest health insurance price hikes in years could lead to deferred care, or more people opting to go uncovered.
The Trump administration has confirmed it will once again expand access to so-called short-term health insurance — which all too often fall into the category of “junk” insurance. They’re usually skimpy policies that do not meet the coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act and that were largely reined in (again) by the Biden administration because of how devastating they can be for families with pre-existing conditions – or anyone who gets badly injured or sick.
Calling many of these plans junk insurance isn’t hyperbole. They’re called that because they are not designed to protect policyholders from financially crippling medical expenses. They’re built to look affordable upfront but in many cases leave people dangerously exposed when they need care most. Leslie Dach of Protect Our Care summed it up plainly:
“Short-term junk plans are allowed to deny coverage, drop people when they get sick, and exclude life-saving coverage such as prescription drugs and hospital care, leaving families with sky-high bills and nowhere else to turn”
Short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI) plans were originally designed as a stop-gap for people who needed catastrophic-protection between jobs. But starting in 2018, the ACA rules were loosened to allow these plans to last for a year and be renewed for up to three years, which inspired health insurers to jump in and begin heavily marketing them online as if they were real alternatives to traditional, comprehensive insurance.
Before the ACA, junk plans were not just short term, they were everywhere. The ACA outlawed much of what these STLDI plans do including refusing to cover basic medical services, excluding people with preexisting conditions, and spending only a fraction of policyholders’ premium dollars on care. There is a reason that the provisions preventing those abuses were some of the most popular in the ACA: They led to better care and lower costs for millions. These STLDI plans don’t cover needed care and only spend an average of 65% of the money patients pay in premiums on medical care, with some plans spending as little as 34% on care and keeping the other 66%. Expanding plans that do not adhere to patient protections in the ACA is not the way to fix our health care system.
As American Lung Association explains, most of these plans keep premiums low by cutting out what most of us think of as essential care: prescription drugs, hospital stays, mental health treatment, maternity care and more. They often cap how much they’ll pay in benefits, leaving families on the hook for huge bills if someone gets sick or injured. Unlike plans that comply with patient protections under the Affordable Care Act, they can deny coverage to people with asthma, diabetes, cancer or any other pre-existing condition.
Anti-junk plan history
Simply put, junk plans are the snake oil of the health insurance business, and advocates, including myself, have been sounding the alarm for years. On June 24, 2009, I testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and, for the first time, blew the whistle on how my old industry confuses their customers and dumps the sick. But I wasn’t alone on the dias. Nancy Metcalf, then senior program editor at Consumer Reports, sat to my left. Metcalf had much to say about junk insurance plans. In her written testimony, she wrote:
“As consumers, we are trained to look for a bargain. Buying a car or a flat-screen TV, we’re proud if we can get it for less than our friend paid. People think insurance works the same way. They never consider that if they are 55 years old, and have diabetes and heart disease, that no insurer could possibly stay in business selling them a comprehensive policy for $150 a month. That’s why so many of the junk policies we’ve looked at are marketed as “affordable.”
“Yet another scheme to shift costs to consumers and away from insurers and employers is to enroll them in limited-benefit plans. The big insurers have spent millions of dollars acquiring companies that specialize in these plans, often providing such skimpy coverage that some insurance brokers refuse to sell them.”
“There are so many restrictions built into limited-benefit contracts that there is always reduced risk to insurers, who appear only too happy to sell these policies to people who don’t realize they could be ill served.”
“Limited-benefit plans, coupled with high deductibles, represent the ultimate in cost shifting and are among the fastest growing health insurance products. They’re the future that insurers had in mind as they fought bitterly against reform that could jeopardize their profits.”
This isn’t the right move
The Biden administration tried to put an end to this dangerous bait-and-switch. In March 2024, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued rules to once again limit short-term plans to a maximum of four months and require clearer disclosures so people would know what they were buying. As CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure put it:
“By making short-term plans truly short term, people will be more informed about the risks associated with these types of coverage and their options for comprehensive coverage.”
The Trump administration’s move to undo that rule means these plans can proliferate again and, as Protect Our Care noted in a statement, more than 100 million Americans with pre-existing conditions could be put at risk as insurers are once more allowed to deny coverage or drop people when they get sick.
This isn’t about politics. No matter who is in office, promoting junk plans is a bad idea. Families can get ruined when they think they’re covered — only to find out in the middle of a crisis that what they thought was a real insurance plan won’t pay for what they need. Short-term, limited benefit plans are the riskiest bet you can place in the U.S. health insurance casino. The house will always win.
Evernorth’s new latest investment in Shields Health Solutions ties its parent company, Cigna, even closer to hospitals and the fast-growing specialty drug market.
Regular readers will know that we’ve harped on UnitedHealth Group’s vertical integration into care delivery, pharmacy benefits and nearly every other corner of the health care landscape. But UnitedHealth isn’t the only company guilty of vertical integration: Cigna is playing the same game.
Shields partners with more than 80 health systems and over 1,000 hospitals and clinics across nearly all 50 states. That reach gives Cigna another way to weave itself into the daily operations of hospitals – and the lives of millions of patients.
From insurer to health services conglomerate
When I was an executive at Cigna, the company was primarily what’s known as a third-party administrator. We sold some health and group life policies as an insurer, but our bread-and-butter was administering health benefits for large employers. Our “value proposition” back then was keeping costs under control — at least as we defined them. Evernorth didn’t exist. At the time, to me, the idea that Cigna would one day be pouring billions into specialty pharmacies and drug distributors would have seemed far-fetched.
In 2018, though, Cigna bought the huge pharmacy benefit manager Express Scripts. And soon after that, it created Evernorth to oversee its non-insurance health services operations, not only its PBM but also specialty pharmacies, and now investments like Shields. Cigna is no longer just deciding what care to cover, but it’s increasingly involved in how drugs are dispensed and priced. In fact, the company now gets the great majority of its revenues from the pharmacy business. Of the $195 billion in revenues Cigna took in last year, $154 billion came from Evernorth.
The same old consolidation story
According to Reuters, Evernorth’s investment in Shields was structured as preferred stock and, according to the company, won’t affect its 2025 profit forecast. But make no mistake: This is part of the same playbook we’ve seen before from companies Americans have been led to believe are primarily insurers.
UnitedHealth buys physician practices, rehab centers, and home health companies. CVS Health owns Aetna, the PBM Caremark, and a sprawling pharmacy business. Cigna, for its part, is also planting stakes across the drug supply chain. In addition to Express Scripts, it also owns Accredo, one of the nation’s largest specialty pharmacies, and now Shields.
Cigna CEO David Cordani, who I once worked with during my time at Cigna, framed the deal as a way to “deliver exceptional care across healthcare settings – from home to physician’s office or clinic, to hospital”. In a statement on Evernoth’s website, Cordani said:
“Demand for specialty medications continues to grow at an accelerated pace, and Evernorth is uniquely positioned to serve the rapidly expanding number of individuals living with complex and chronic conditions and the doctors who care for them.”
Specialty medications, as Cordani mentioned, are among the fastest-growing and most expensive parts of the pharmaceutical market and include medications for cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and other complex and chronic conditions. Research indicates that spending on specialty drugs will make up more than half of all U.S. drug spending in the coming years.
That’s why Evernorth already owns Accredo. Now, by getting into bed with Shields, Evernorth is tying itself even closer to the hospitals and health systems that rely on specialty pharmacies to serve patients.
What can be done about it?
When insurers buy into the businesses that are supposed to compete for contracts (like pharmacies and physician practices) it gives the insurer almost all the cards because they are able to both set the rules of the game and profit from it. Competition suffers, and costs for patients and employers can rise.
Fortunately, Washington is starting to wise up to these tactics. The Patients Over Profits Act, soon to be introduced by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) and Rep. Val Hoyle (D-Oregon), would prevent insurers from owning most doctors offices and medical providers. In addition, The Patients Before Monopolies Act, introduced by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), prevents pharmacy benefit managers and/or health insurers from owning pharmacies. Given a divided Congress, these bills wont be easy to pass, but seeing strange bedfellows like Warren and Hawley taking the lead brings me great hope.
I saw firsthand during my years inside Cigna how Wall Street’s pressure for constant growth drives these decisions.Insurers and their shareholders aren’t satisfied with premiums alone. They want to control the entire pipeline — from the doctor’s prescription pad to patients’ wallets.
So the next time you hear about vertical integration in health care, don’t just think about UnitedHealth Group. Remember that Cigna is moving just as aggressively. With this latest $3.5 billion bet, it’s clear that the insurer I once worked for has transformed into something much larger — and far concerning — than the insurance company most folks believe it to be.
Since the murder of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson in New York City December 4, 2024, attention to health insurers has heightened. National media coverage has been brutal. Polls have chronicled the public’s disdain for rising premiums and increased denials. Hospitals and physicians have amped-up campaigns against prior authorization and inadequate reimbursement. For many health insurers, no news is a good news day. Here’s ChatGPT’s reply to how insurers are depicted:
“Media coverage of US health insurers focuses heavily on the challenges consumers face due to high costs, coverage denials, and complicated policies, often portraying insurers as profit-driven entities that hinder care access. Investigations reveal insurers using technology to deny claims and push for denials during prior authorization, while other reports highlight market concentration and the increasing influence of large companies like UnitedHealth Group and Centene. Media also covers the marketing efforts of insurers, particularly for Medicare Advantage plans, and public frustration with the industry. “
In some ways, it’s understandable. Insurance, by definition, is a bet, especially in healthcare. Private policyholders—individuals and employers– bet the premiums they pay pooled with others will cover the cost of a condition or accident that requires medical care. In the 1960’s, federal and state government made the same bet on behalf of seniors (Medicare) and lower-income or disabled kids and adults (Medicaid). But they’re bets.
But the rub is this: what healthcare products and services costs and their prices are hard to predict and closely-guarded secrets in an industry that declares itself the world’s best. Claims data—one source of tracking utilization—is nearly impossible to access even for employers who cover the majority of U.S. population (56%).
Spending for U.S. healthcare is forecast to increase 54% through 2033 from $5.6 trillion to $8.6 trillion— the result of higher costs for prescription drugs and hospital stays, medical inflation, technology, increased utilization (demand) and administrative costs (overhead). Insurers negotiate rates for these, add their margin and pass them thru to their customers—individuals, employers and government agencies. It’s all done behind the scenes.
The public’s working knowledge of how the health system operates, how it performs and what key players in the ecosystem do is negligible. For most, personal experience with the system is their context. We understand our personal healthiness if so inclined or fortunate to have a continuous primary care relationship. We understand our medications if they solve a problem or don’t. We understand our hospitals if we or a family member use them or occasionally visit, and we understand our insurance when we enroll choosing from affordable options that include the doctors and hospitals we like and when we’re denied services or billed for what insurance doesn’t cover.
Today, corporate names like UnitedHealth Group, Humana, Cigna, Elevance, CVS Aetna and Centene are the health insurance industry’s big brands, corralling more than 60% of the industry’s private and government enrollment with the rest divided among 1,149 smaller players. Today, the public’s perception of health insurers is negative: most consider insurance a necessary evil with data showing it’s no guarantee against financial ruin. Today, it’s an expensive employee benefit for employers who are looking for alternative options for workforce stability. And only 56% of enrollees trust their health insurer to do what’s best for them.
Ours is a flawed system that’s not sustainable: insurers are part of that problem. It’s premised on dependence:patients depend on providers to define their diagnosis and deliver the treatments/therapeutics and enrollees depend on insurers to handle the logistics of how much they get paid and when. At the point of service, patients pay co-pays and after the fact, get an “explanation of benefits” along with additional out of pocket obligations. Hospitals and physicians fight insurers about what’s reasonable and customary compensation, and patients unable to out-of-pocket obligations are handed off to “revenue cycle specialists” for collection. Wow. Great system! Mark it up, pass it thru and let the chips fall where they may—all under the presumed oversight of state insurance commissioners who are tasked to protect the public’s interests.
Do insurers deserve the animosity they’re facing from employers, hospitals, physicians and their enrollees? Yes, but certainly some more than others. Facts are facts:
Since 2020, health insurance premium costs have increased 2-4 times faster than household necessities and wages for the average household. Affordability is an issue.
Denials have increased.
Enrollee trust and satisfaction with insurers has plummeted.
And industry profits since 2023 have taken a hit due to post-pandemic pent-up demand, pricey drugs including in-demand GLP-1’s for obesity and increased negotiation leverage by consolidated health systems.
Most Americans think not having health insurance is a bigger risk than going without. But most also think healthcare is fundamental right and the government should guarantee access through universal coverage.
Having private insurance is not the issue: having insurance that ensures access to doctors and hospitals when needed reliably and affordably is their unmet need.
In the weeks ahead, employers will update their employee health benefits options for next year while facing 9-15% higher costs for their coverage. States will decide how they’ll implement work requirements in their Medicaid programs and assess the extent of lost coverage for millions. Insurers who sponsor market place plans suspended by the Big Beautiful Bill will raise their individual premiums hikes 20-70% for the 16 million who are losing their subsidies.
Medicare Advantage (Medicare Part C) insurers will skinny-down the supplements in their offerings and raise premiums alongside Part D increases, And, every insurer will inventory markets served and product portfolio profitability to determine investment opportunities or exit strategies. That’s the calculus every insurer applies every year, adjusting as conditions dictate.
Most private insurers pay little attention to the 8% of Americans who have no coverage; those inclined tend to be smaller community-based plans often associated with hospitals or provider organizations.
Most are concerned about continuity of care for their enrollees: they know 12% had a lapse in their coverage last year, 23% are under-insured and 43% missed a scheduled appointment or treatment due to out-of-pocket costs involved.
And all are concerned about the long-term financial viability of the entire health insurance sector: margins have plummeted since 2020 from 3.1% to 0.8%%, medical loss ratio’s have increased from 98.2% in 2023 to 100.1% last year, premiums increase grew 5.9% while hospital and medical expenses grew $8.9% and so on. The bigger players have residual capital to diversify and grow; others don’t.
Criticism of the health insurance industry is justified for the most part but the rest of the story is key. The U.S. system is broken and everyone knows it. But health insurers are not alone in bearing responsibility for its failure though their role is significant.
The urgent need is for a roadmap to a system of health where the healthiness and well-being of the entire population is true north to its ambition. It’s a system that’s comprehensive, connected, cost-effective and affordable. Protecting turf between sectors, blame and shame rhetoric and perpetuation of public ignorance are non-starters.
PS: Two important events last week weigh heavily on U.S. healthcare’s future:
In Verona, WI, the Epic User Group Meeting showcased the company’s plans for AI featuring 3 new generative AI tools — Emmie for patients, Art for clinicians and Penny for revenue cycle management. Per KLAS, the private company grew its market share to 42% of acute care hospitals and 55% of acute care beds at the end of 2024.
In Jackson Hole, WY, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual economic symposium where Fed Chair Jay Powell signaled a likely interest rate cut in its September 16-17 meeting and changes to how the central bank will assess employment status going forward.
Healthcare is labor intense, capital intense and 26% of federal spending in the FY 2026 proposed budget. The Fed through its monetary policies has the power and obligation to foster economic stability. Epic is one of a handful of companies that has the potential to transform the U.S. health system. Transformation of the health system is essential to its sustainability and necessary to the U.S. economic stability since healthcare is 18% of the country’s GDP and its biggest private employer.
MA pays 10% to 15% less than what is paid by the government in original Medicare, report says.
A new study confirms what the American Medical Association and other medical groups have long been saying about physician pay: Medicare reimbursement is not keeping up with inflation.
In original Medicare, doctors are paid one-third less than a decade ago, the report said. Medicare reimbursement rates for outpatient procedures have decreased every year since 2016, for an overall decline of 10%.
Over the same period, inflation has risen by almost 30%, according to the report.
The report also sheds light on Medicare Advantage reimbursement. Medicare Advantage plans pay physicians an estimated 10% to 15% less than what is paid by the government in traditional Medicare, according to the 2025 Omniscient Health Physician Medicare Income Report.
This can create negative margins for physicians considering MA plans take roughly twice as long to reimburse providers compared to original Medicare along with factoring in prior authorization and denials, the report said.
An estimated 54% of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a MA plan.
WHY THIS MATTERS
The MA reimbursement gap is driving shifts in network participation. A 2024 survey by the Healthcare Financial Management Association found that 19% of health systems have stopped accepting at least one MA plan, with another 61% planning to do so or actively considering it, according to the Omniscient report.
“Despite the rising demand for care from an aging U.S. population, the financial strain is forcing physicians to rethink whether they will continue serving Medicare patients,” said Meade Monger, CEO of Omniscient Health, a healthcare data science company. “High-volume Medicare practices, especially those in primary care and rural areas, are increasingly unable to sustain operations under current revenue structures.”
The federal government’s push toward streamlining and speeding up the prior authorization process and requiring an electronic process over paper represents improvement, the report said. Some insurers have announced plans to decrease the number of procedures that require prior auth.
But payment rates need to change, said Omniscient, which recommends policymakers index Medicare reimbursement rates to inflation and set payment standards for MA plans.
THE LARGER TREND
On Tuesday, the American Medical Association released what it called flawed proposals in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ physician payment rule released in July.
Despite getting a 3.6% payment boost after five consecutive years of cuts, physician pay, after adjusting for practice-cost inflation, has plummeted since 2001, the AMA said.
The proposed 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule includes a 2.5% cut in work relative-value units (RVUs, which measure a physician’s time, technical skill, mental effort, decision-making and stress) and physician intraservice time for most services, the AMA said. This reduction would affect 95% of the services that doctors provide.
The cut is based on an assumption of greater efficiency and less time involved for each service, an assumption that is not grounded in new data or physician input, the AMA said.
CMS also proposes a reduction in practice-expense RVUs, which are the costs of running a practice, such as staff, equipment, supplies, utilities and overhead.
The bottom line, the AMA said, is that physician payment for services performed in a facility will drop overall by 7%.
CMS is accepting comments on its proposed rule until Sept. 12.
The nonprofit health system narrowed its operating loss while continuing to grapple with financial and policy pressures as it progresses towards profitability.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Providence cut its operating loss in the second quarter to $21 million, improving from a $123 million loss a year ago.
Revenue rose 3% year-over-year to $7.91 billion, driven by higher patient volumes and better commercial rates.
The health system faces ongoing “polycrisis” challenges, including rising supply costs, staffing mandates, insurer denials, and looming Medicaid cuts, which have already prompted layoffs, hiring pauses, and leadership restructuring.
Providence made promising strides toward financial sustainability in the second quarter as higher patient volumes helped trim an operating loss that has weighed heavily on its balance sheet.
Yet the Renton, Washington-based health system warned that a compounding set of external pressures, which it labeled a “polycrisis,” still poses formidable challenges to its mission and future.
For the three months ended June 30, the nonprofit reported an operating loss of $21 million, equating to an operating margin of –0.3%, representing a marked improvement from the $123 million loss (–1.6%) posted over the same period in 2024. Compared with the previous quarter, the gain was even starker as Providence trimmed its deficit by $223 million. Through the first six months of the year, the health system had an operating loss of $265 million (-1.7%).
Revenue growth was fueled by higher patient volumes and improved commercial rates, Providence highlighted. Operating revenue rose 3% year-over-year to $7.91 billion as inpatient admissions (up 3%), outpatient visits (up 3%), case mix–adjusted admissions (up 3%), physician visits (up 8%), and outpatient surgeries (up 5%) all contributed.
On the expense side, Providence managed a 2% rise in operating costs to $7.93 billion, thanks largely to productivity gains, including a 43% reduction in agency contract labor. However, supply costs swelled by 9% and pharmacy expenses jumped by 12% year-over-year.
Providence, along with the healthcare industry at large, faces what CEO Erik Wexler called a “polycrisis” due to a mix of inflation, tariff-driven supply pressures, new state laws on staffing and charity care, insurer reimbursement delays and denials, and looming federal Medicaid cuts, especially from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which the health system said “threatens to intensify health care pressures.”
Those factors are significantly influencing hospitals’ and health systems’ decision-making. Providence has made staffing adjustments that include cutting 128 jobs in Oregon earlier this month, a restructuring in June that eliminated 600 full-time equivalent positions, apause on nonclinical hiring in April, and leadership reorganization since Wexler took over as CEO in January.
Accounts receivable is another area that has been indicative of headwinds, with Providence noting that while it improved in the second quarter, it “remains elevated compared to historical trends.”
Even with the roadblocks in its path, Providence is working towards profitability after being in the red for several years running.
“I’m incredibly proud of the progress we’ve made and grateful to our caregivers and teams across Providence St. Joseph Health for their continued dedication,” Wexler said in the news release. “The strain remains, especially with emerging challenges like H.R.1, but we will continue to respond to the times and answer the call while transforming for the future.”
When Congress passed pandemic-era enhancements to Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium subsidies in 2021, it wasn’t just a policy tweak — it was a lifeline. But unless lawmakers act, those subsidies will vanish on January 1, 2026.
According to KFF, the average ACA enrollee could see premiums spike 75% overnight. For many, that will mean a choice between things like their health coverage and rent or food. The Congressional Budget Office estimates more than 4.2 million people could lose coverage over the next decade as a result. Below is where the expired subsidies will hurt the hardest:
1. Young adults… and their parents’ wallets
Young people who’ve aged out of their parents’ plans and buy coverage through the ACA marketplaces will see some of the steepest jumps.
If they decide to forgo coverage, as KFF Health News warns: The so-called “‘insurance cliff’ at age 26 can send young adults tumbling into being uninsured.”
The ACA is the only real option for many small-business owners, freelancers and gig workers. These are the folks that conservatives say we should encourage to build and grow their own businesses who make up the backbone of Main Street. Losing the enhanced subsidies means many will face premiums hundreds of dollars higher per month. Some will be forced to close shop and turn to jobs at out-of-town corporations flush enough to afford to offer subsidized coverage to their workers, a direct hit to local economies.
3. States already in crisis
States aren’t in a position to plug the gap.Politico reports that California, Colorado, Maryland, Washington, and others are scrambling to soften the blow, but even the most ambitious state-level plans can’t replace hundreds of millions in lost federal funding.
And this comes right after Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that will hit hospitals, clinics and low-income communities. In Washington state alone, officials expect premiums to jump 75% when the subsidies expire, with one in four marketplace enrollees dropping coverage. That means more uninsured patients showing up in ERs, less preventive care, and more strain on already struggling rural hospitals.
4. (Already) disappearing alternatives to Big Insurance
The ACA marketplaces aren’t just a safety net for individuals but also home to smaller non-profit and regional health plans that give Americans an alternative to the “Big 7” Wall Street-run insurance conglomerates. These community-rooted plans are already facing financial headwinds from shrinking enrollment and Medicaid funding cuts. When premiums spike in 2026, many could lose enough members to be forced out of the market entirely.
And here’s the real danger: The Big 7 can weather this storm. Their huge market capitalizations, government contracts, pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) divisions and sprawling care delivery businesses give them insulation from ACA marketplace losses. In fact, they may see this as an opportunity to buy up the smaller competitors that fail, which would further consolidate their dominance over our health care system. Or they could just decide to flee the ACA marketplace entirely because the population will skewer sicker and older, creating a death spiral that the big insurers will not want to touch. What little consumer choice exists outside the big corporate insurers could vanish, and even that could disappear.
5. <65 year olds
Perhaps the most vulnerable group will be Americans in their 50s and early 60s who lose their jobs or retire early (often not by choice) and find themselves too young for Medicare but facing incredibly high premiums on the individual market. Under ACA rules, insurers can charge older enrollees up to three times more than younger adults for the same coverage. The enhanced subsidies have been the only thing keeping many of these premiums within reach.
Take those subsidies away, and a 60-year-old who loses employer coverage could see their monthly premium shoot into four figures. For those living off severance, savings or reduced income, choosing to gamble with their health and wait it out until 65 may be the only option.
Congress knows the stakes. Will they act?
Making the subsidies permanent would cost $383 billion over 10 years, which would be a political hurdle for a Congress intent on deep budget cuts. But the cost of inaction is far higher, both in human and economic terms. These subsidies have kept coverage affordable for millions, fueled small business growth, and stabilized state health systems during one of the most turbulent economic periods in recent memory. Without them, the hit to many folks could be a Frazier-level K.O.
But let’s face it — what I’m advocating for isn’t perfect either. The prospect of extending these subsidies raises a question: Should taxpayers be footing the bill for health insurance premiums when insurance corporations are reporting tens of billions in annual profits and paying hefty dividends to shareholders?
The short answer, for now, unfortunately, is yes. Because this is the deck we’ve been dealt and we can’t let Americans fall into medical debt, lose their homes – or their lives. Extending the ACA subsidies is not pretty. But for Americans, it’s just a bob and weave.
HENRY KOTULA 