
Quote of the Day: On Leadership
Inflation cools, reassuring Fed after unexpectedly hot gains in Q1

The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note fell on investor speculation that slower inflation will prompt the Fed to sooner cut borrowing costs.
Dive Brief:
- The consumer price index excluding volatile food and energy prices rose last month at the slowest pace this year, giving Federal Reserve policymakers some relief from a barrage of first-quarter data that shook confidence inflation will steadily slow to their 2% goal.
- So-called core CPI gained 0.3% in April compared with 0.4% during the prior month, and eased to 3.6% on an annual basis from 3.8% in March, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Wednesday. Shelter costs rose 0.4% last month, pushing up core CPI more than any other category. Prices for transportation, apparel and medical care also increased.
- “Inflation should show some signs of more material disinflation over the coming months as upside surprises in Q1 reverse and shelter inflation continues to soften, particularly” during the second half of this year, David Page, head of macroeconomic research at AXA IM, said in a report.
Dive Insight:
Fed Chair Jerome Powell has repeatedly said this month that unexpectedly high first-quarter inflation eroded his confidence that price pressures are falling steadily enough to warrant a reduction in the highest federal funds rate in 23 years.
“I would say my confidence in that is not as high as it was, having seen these readings in the first three months of the year,” Powell said Tuesday.
Investor speculation that cooling inflation will prompt the Fed to sooner trim borrowing costs pushed down the yield on the benchmark Treasury note on Wednesday by about 0.1 percentage point to 3.86%. Equity prices rose.
“Today’s data may be a relief relative to past months, and that should reduce any fears that the Fed might have to raise rates,” Eric Winograd, developed market research director at AllianceBernstein, said in an email.
Still, “today’s data are not good enough to move the policy needle,” Winograd said, forecasting that the central bank will not cut the main interest rate until the fourth quarter.
“Unless the labor market weakens appreciably, it will take several months of inflation steadily decelerating before the Fed will be comfortable cutting rates,” he said.
Traders in interest rate futures put 69% odds that the Fed will trim the main interest rate by at least 0.5 percentage point by the end of this year, compared with 57% odds on Tuesday, according to the CME FedWatch Tool.
“The Fed is making progress, but taming inflation is taking time,” Scott Helfstein, head of investment strategy at Global X, said in an email response to questions.
“The Fed will probably be patient,” Helfstein said, forecasting either no change to the federal funds rate this year or at most a quarter-point cut in December. “A stable rate and inflation environment, most importantly, is good for companies.”
Powell predicted that inflation will eventually slow to a more moderate pace. “I expect that inflation will move back down on a monthly level, on a monthly basis, to levels that were more like the lower readings we were having last year,” Powell said Tuesday.
A separate report Wednesday showed consumers may be pocketing their wallets in response to higher borrowing costs and the waning of savings built during the pandemic.
Retail sales in April were unchanged from March, the Census Bureau said, releasing data that was lower than expected by economists. Growth in retail sales in March was marked down to 0.6% from 0.7%.
Still, “the consumer is okay,” Helfstein said, predicting that “economic growth will likely be driven by corporate investment through the back part of the year.”
As a Nightmare Brews on Wall Street for CVS, Executives Scramble to Quell Investors

I wrote Monday about how the additional Medicare claims CVS/Aetna paid during the first three months of this year prompted a massive selloff of the company’s shares, sending the stock price to a 15-year low.
During CVS’s May 1 call with investors, CEO Karen Lynch and CFO Thomas Cowhey assured them the company had already begun taking action to avoid paying more for care in the future than Wall Street found acceptable.
Among the solutions they mentioned:
Ratcheting up the process called prior authorization that results in delays and denials of coverage requests from physicians and hospitals; kicking doctors and hospitals out of its provider networks; hiking premiums; slashing benefits; and abandoning neighborhoods where the company can’t make as much money as investors demand.
On Tuesday at the Bank of America Securities Healthcare Conference, Cowhey doubled down on that commitment to shareholders and provided a little more color about what those actions would look like and how many human beings would be affected. As Modern Healthcare reported:
Headed into next year, Aetna may adjust benefits, tighten its prior authorization policies, reassess its provider networks and exit markets, CVS Chief Financial Officer Tom Cowhey told investors. It will also reevaluate vision, dental, flexible spending cards, fitness and transportation benefits, he said. Aetna is also working with its employer Medicare Advantage customers on how to appropriately price their business, he said.
Could we lose up to 10% of our existing Medicare members next year? That’s entirely possible, and that’s OK because we need to get this business back on track,” Cowhey said.
Insurers use the word “members” to refer to people enrolled in their health plans. You can apply for “membership” and pay your dues (premiums), but insurers ultimately decide whether you can stay in their clubs. If they think you’re making too many trips to the club’s buffet or selecting the most expensive items, your membership can–and will–be revoked.
That mention of “employer Medicare Advantage customers” stood out to me and should be of concern to people like New York Mayor Eric Adams, who was sold on the promise that the city could save millions by forcing municipal retirees out of traditional Medicare and into an Aetna Medicare Advantage plan. A significant percentage of Aetna’s Medicare Advantage “membership” includes people who retired from employers that cut a deal with Aetna and other insurers to provide retirees with access to care. Despite ongoing protests from thousands of city retirees, Adams has pressed ahead with the forced migration of retirees to Aetna’s club. He and the city’s taxpayers will find out soon that Aetna will insist on renegotiating the deal.
Back to that 10%. Aetna now has about 4.2 million Medicare Advantage “members,” but it has decided that around 420,000 of those human beings must be cut loose. Keep in mind that those humans are not among the most Internet-savvy and knowledgeable of the bewildering world of health insurance. Many of them have physical and mental impairments. They will be cast to the other wolves in the Medicare Advantage business.
Welcome to a world in which Wall Street increasingly calls the shots and decides which health insurance clubs you can apply to and whether those clubs will allow you to get the tests, treatments and medications you need to see another sunrise.
As Modern Healthcare noted, Aetna is not alone in tightening the screws on its Medicare Advantage members and setting many of them adrift. Humana, which has also greatly disappointed Wall Street because of higher-than-expected health care “utilization,” told investors it would be taking the same actions as Aetna.
But Aetna in particular has a history of ruthlessly cutting ties with humans who become a drain on profits. As I wrote in Deadly Spin in 2010:
Aetna was so aggressive in getting rid of accounts it no longer wanted after a string of acquisitions in the 1990s that it shed 8 million (yes, 8 million) enrollees over the course of a few years. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2004 that Aetna had spent more than $20 million to install new technology that enabled it “to identify and dump unprofitable corporate accounts.” Aetna’s investors rewarded the company by running up the stock price.
I added this later in the book:
One of my responsibilities at Cigna was to handle the communication of financial updates to the media, so I knew just how important it was for insurers not to disappoint investors with a rising MLR [medical loss ratio, the ratio of paid claims to revenues]. Even very profitable insurers can see sharp declines in their stock prices after admitting that they had failed to trim medical expenses as much as investors expected. Aetna’s stock price once fell more than 20% in a single day after executives disclosed that the company had spent slightly more on medical claims during the most recent quarter than in a previous period. The “sell alarm” was sounded when the company’s first quarter MLR increased to 79.4% from 77.9% the previous year.
I could always tell how busy my day was going to be when Cigna announced earnings by looking at the MLR numbers. If shareholders were disappointed, the stock price would almost certainly drop, and my phone would ring constantly with financial reporters wanting to know what went wrong.
May 1 was a deja-vu-all-over-again day for Aetna. You can be certain the company’s flacks had a terrible day–but not as terrible as the day coming soon for Aetna’s members when they try to use their membership cards.
Speaking of Lynch, one of the people commenting on the piece I wrote Monday suggested I might have been a bit too tough on Lynch, who I know and liked as a human being when we both worked at Cigna. The commenter wrote that:
After finishing Karen S. Lynch’s book, “Taking Up Space,” I came to the conclusion that she indeed has a very strong conscience and sense of responsibility, not totally to shareholders, but more importantly to the insured people under Aetna and the customers of CVS.”
I don’t doubt Karen Lynch is a good person, and I know she is someone whose rise to become arguably the business world’s most powerful woman was anything but easy, as the magazine for alumni of Boston College, her alma mater, noted in a profile of her last year. Quoting from a speech she delivered to CVS employees a few years earlier, Daniel McGinn wrote:
Lynch began with a story to illustrate why she was so passionate about health care. She described how she’d grown up on Cape Cod as the third of four children. Her parents’ relationship broke up when she was very young and her father disappeared, leaving her mom, Irene, a nurse who struggled with depression, as a single parent. In 1975, when Lynch was 12, Irene took her own life, leaving the four children effectively orphaned.
During her speech, several thousand employees listened in stunned silence as Lynch explained how her mom’s life might have turned out differently if she’d had access to better medical treatment, or if there’d been less stigma and shame about getting help for depression. She then talked about how an insurance company like Aetna could play a role in reducing that stigma, increasing access to care, and helping people live with mental illness.
I’m sure when she goes home at night these days, Lynch worries about what will happen to those 420,000 other humans who will soon be scrambling to get the care they need or to find another club that will take them. Their lives most definitely will turn out differently to appease the rich people who control her and the rest of us.
But she is stuck in a job whose real bosses–investors and Wall Street financial analysts–care far more about the MLR, earnings per share and profit margins than the fate of human beings less fortunate than they are.
Jefferson, Lehigh Valley Health Network ink definitive agreement to merge

Philadelphia-based Jefferson and Allentown, Pa.-based Lehigh Valley Health Network have signed a definitive agreement to merge into a 30-hospital system with more than 700 care sites.
The two shared plans to unite in December after signing a non-binding letter of intent.
Under the agreement, Jefferson and LVHN will integrate identity, clinical care and operations. The integrated system will comprise more than 65,000 employees and offer new educational opportunities to existing physicians and allow for recruitment opportunities, according to a joint May 15 news release.
The merger will also expand health plan access and improve financial stability that will allow for more investments and new technologies and improved patient outcomes.
Jefferson CEO Joseph Cacchione, MD, will maintain his existing role upon the transaction closure. LVHN president and CEO Brian Nester, DO, will serve as executive vice president and COO of Jefferson and president of the legacy LVHN. He will report to Dr. Cacchione, according to the release.
Baligh Yehia, MD, will serve as Jefferson’s executive vice president and chief transformation officer. Dr. Yehia will also serve as president of the legacy Jefferson health and report to Dr. Cacchione.
An integrated leadership team and board of trustees will comprise leaders from both health systems.
Jefferson and LVHN will operate as independent parties until the merger, the release said.
Sign of the Times: On the High Cost of Living
Hospitals charged employers and insurers 254% more than Medicare in 2022: study

Hospitals with larger market shares were among the worst offenders, the Rand Corporation found.
Dive Brief:
- Employers and private insurers continue to pay hospitals more for inpatient and outpatient services than Medicare would have reimbursed, according to a new study from policy think tank the Rand Corporation.
- In 2022, private insurers and employers paid on average 254% of what Medicare would have paid for the same care services — up from 224% two years prior.
- Health systems often argue they hike up commercial rates to offset losses from government underpayments, according to the study. However, a hospital’s market share, rather than population of Medicare or Medicaid patients, more accurately predicted pricing, with larger health systems charging higher prices.
Dive Insight:
Since 2021, health systems and insurers have been required to post pricing information for their 300 most common procedures as the government pushes to make healthcare prices more transparent.
However, researchers have accused hospitals and insurers of failing to fully comply with the regulations.
Only 34.5% of 2,000 hospitals reviewed by nonprofit watchdog organization Patient Rights Advocate were deemed fully compliant with price transparency rules as of January. But, the CMS had only issued 14 civil monetary penalty notices to noncompliant hospitals as of February, according to the nonprofit.
The Rand study found inpatient prices for hospital services were 255% above what Medicare paid in 2022 while outpatient hospital service prices averaged 289%, according to the report, which was based on an analysis of 4,000 hospitals across 49 states.
Prices for services at outpatient ambulatory surgical centers was slightly lower at 170% of Medicare payments.
There were also differences in pricing by geography. Arkansas, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan and Mississippi kept relative prices below 200% of Medicare prices during the study period. However, others had relative prices above 300% of Medicare. Hospitals in Florida and Georgia negotiated the highest relative rates.
Price transparency could be a tool for administrators of employer-sponsored plans to better negotiate employee benefits. Although employer-sponsored plans cover 160 million Americans, researchers said employers operate at a disadvantage when negotiating prices with providers and insurers due to a lack of detailed pricing information.
“The widely varying prices among hospitals suggests that employers have opportunities to redesign their health plans to better align hospital prices with the value of care provided,” said Brian Briscombe, lead researcher for the Rand hospital price transparency project, in a statement. “However, price transparency alone will not lead to changes if employers do not or cannot act upon price information.”
State and federal policymakers could rebalance negotiations by cracking down on noncompetitive healthcare markets, placing limits on payments for out-of-network hospital care or allowing employers to buy into Medicare or other public options, the report said.
The nation’s largest hospital lobby, the American Hospital Association, has rejected previous analyses of pricing data — including reports from Patient Rights Advocate.
On Monday, Molly Smith, AHA’s vice president for policy, pushed back against the Rand study, saying it was “suspiciously silent on the hidden influence of commercial insurers in driving up health care costs for patients, as evidenced by issues like the recent concerning allegations against MultiPlan.”
Last week, Community Health Systems filed suit against MultiPlan alleging it had colluded with insurers to raise prices for patients and lower payments to providers. The lawsuit is the third against MultiPlan in under a year.
Kaiser rides completed Geisinger acquisition to $7.4B income in Q1

However, the nonprofit provider and health plan warned subsequent quarters may be less profitable as expenses are projected to climb.
Dive Brief:
- Nonprofit hospital and health plan giant Kaiser Permanente reported a $7.4 billion net gain for the first quarter ended March 31, compared to an income of $1.2 billion reported in the same period last year.
- The Oakland, California-based operator’s earnings were boosted by its completed acquisition of Geisinger Health, which netted Kaiser a one-time operating gain of $4.6 billion.
- Kaiser reported a quarterly operating margin of 3.4%, but noted the first quarter tends to be its strongest due to the timing of the open enrollment cycle. Kaiser predicts revenues will remain steady during subsequent quarters but expenses will likely rise.
Dive Insight:
Kaiser operates 40 hospitals, according to its website, and serves nearly 12.6 million health plan members as of the first quarter.
During the quarter, Kaiser subsidiary Risant Health — a nonprofit health network created last year to independently buy and operate other nonprofit health systems — completed its purchase of Geisinger Health. Kaiser received a one-time payment, boosting earnings. Net income for the quarter excluding the Geisinger transaction was $2.7 billion.
Kaiser increased its operating income year over year by more than 300% to total $935 million. Still, the nonprofit provider said that figure fell short of income logged prior to the pandemic.
Continued cost pressures from high utilization, care acuity and rising prices of goods and services drove quarterly expenses up 6% year over year to total $26.5 billion.
Kaiser has conducted at least three rounds of layoffs since the fall. It most recently cut 76 employees at the beginning of this month, a spokesperson confirmed to Healthcare Dive.
The cuts were done to “reduce costs across our organization,” and primarily impacted information technology and marketing roles, the spokesperson said via email.
Kaiser is not on a hiring freeze, the spokesperson noted. The organization has increased headcount by 5% since 2022 and has open positions currently listed online.
The Wall Street Journal also reported this weekend that Kaiser is attempting to sell $3.5 billion of its private investment holdings due to liquidity issues, citing sources familiar. Kaiser may attempt to sell further holdings later in 2024, according to the report.
Kaiser did not respond to requests for comment by press time about the possible sale.
Judge dismisses FTC’s antitrust suit against Welsh Carson

Regulators sued the PE firm last year for consolidating anesthesiology services in Texas with its portfolio company, U.S. Anesthesia Partners. Now, a judge is holding Welsh Carson blameless.
A Texas federal judge has dismissed the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust lawsuit against Welsh, Carson, Anderson and Stowe in a big win for the private equity firm. However, the government’s suit against Welsh Carson’s portfolio company U.S. Anesthesia Partners was allowed to continue.
Last year, the FTC sued Welsh Carson and USAP, alleging they pursued a buying spree of anethesiology practices in Texas to create a dominant provider that used its market power to suppress competition and increase the cost of anesthesiology services.
Welsh Carson, which formed USAP in 2012, has since whittled down its ownership of the provider from more than 50% to 23%, and argued that precludes it from being included in the suit. The FTC argued the firm effectively remains in control of USAP.
However, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt granted Welsh Carson’s motion to dismiss the suit on Tuesday, essentially finding that private equity firms are not liable for the actions of their portfolio companies.
The FTC was unable to prove “any authority for the proposition that receiving profits from an entity that may be violating antitrust laws is itself a violation of antitrust laws,” Hoyt wrote in his opinion.
Hoyt found that Welsh Carson holding a minority share in USAP does not reduce competition, despite USAP’s acquisitions potentially being anticompetitive themselves. In addition, comments from Welsh Carson executives expressing a desire to consolidate other healthcare markets don’t show that the PE firm plans to violate antitrust laws.
If Welsh Carson signals “beyond mere speculation and conjecture” that it’s actually about to violate the law, the FTC can lodge a new lawsuit, the judge wrote.
A spokesperson for Welsh Carson said the firm is “gratified” that the court dismissed the case.
”As we have said from the beginning, this case was without factual or legal basis,” the spokesperson said.
However, Hoyt denied USAP’s motion to dismiss.
The FTC is arguing that USAP — which is the largest anesthesia practice in Texas — leveraged its size to raise prices in the state, resulting in patients, employers and insurers paying tens of millions of dollars more each year for anesthesia services. In addition, USAP allegedly paid a competitor, Envision Healthcare, $9 million to stay out of the Dallas market for five years.
USAP has been criticized for using similar practices to grow in other states, including Colorado.
USAP argued the FTC was overreaching its authority, and regulators’ allegations of anticompetitive conduct were meritless. Hoyt disagreed, pointing out that USAP continues to own the acquired anesthesia groups and continues to charge high prices, including under price-setting agreements. Overall, USAP’s “monopolization scheme remains intact,” according to the opinion.
“The FTC has plausibly alleged acquisitions resulting in higher prices for consumers, along with a market allocation and price-setting scheme. It would be premature to dismiss these claims at this stage,” Hoyt said.
Either way, the dismissal against Welsh Carson is a setback for the FTC, which has taken a more aggressive stance against anticompetitive behaviors in the healthcare industry under the Biden administration.
In December, the FTC and the Department of Justice finalized new guidelines for merger reviews taking aim at previously overlooked practices. Those include private equity roll-ups, when firms acquire and merge multiple small businesses into one larger company — like Welsh Carson’s strategy to grow USAP.
PE firms have acquired hundreds of physician practices across the U.S. in recent years, despite controversy over negative effects on medical quality and cost. One study from 2022 found when private equity took over physician practices, they raised prices by 20% on average.
The FTC declined to comment for this story.
DOJ unveils task force on healthcare monopolies

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced the formation of the Antitrust Division’s Task Force on Health Care Monopolies and Collusion (HCMC), which will guide the division’s enforcement strategy and policy approach in healthcare.
This will include facilitating policy advocacy, investigations and, where warranted, civil and criminal enforcement in healthcare markets.
“Every year, Americans spend trillions of dollars on healthcare, money that is increasingly being gobbled up by a small number of payers, providers and dominant intermediaries that have consolidated their way to power in communities across the country,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.
The task force is intended to identify and root out monopolies, as well as any collusive practices that increase costs and decrease quality, according to the DOJ.
WHAT’S THE IMPACT
The HCMC will consider widespread competition concerns shared by patients, healthcare professionals, businesses and entrepreneurs, including issues regarding payer-provider consolidation, serial acquisitions, labor and quality of care, medical billing, healthcare IT services, and access to and misuse of healthcare data.
The task force will also bring together civil and criminal prosecutors, economists, healthcare industry experts, technologists, data scientists, investigators and policy advisors from across the division’s Civil, Criminal, Litigation and Policy Programs, and the Expert Analysis Group to identify and address pressing antitrust problems in healthcare markets.
The HCMC will be directed by Katrina Rouse, a long-serving antitrust prosecutor who joined the Antitrust Division in 2011. She previously served as chief of the division’s Defense, Industrials and Aerospace Section, assistant chief of the division’s San Francisco office, and a special assistant U.S. attorney and a trial attorney in the division’s Healthcare and Consumer Products Section.
Rouse holds degrees from Columbia University and Stanford Law School, and has clerked for federal judges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She will also serve as the division’s deputy director of civil enforcement and special counsel for healthcare.
The Antitrust Division said it welcomes input from the public, including from practitioners, patients, researchers, business owners and others who have direct insight into competition concerns in the healthcare industry.
Where appropriate, the division will refer matters to other federal and state law enforcers, the DOJ said.
Members of the public can share their experiences with the task force by visiting HealthyCompetition.gov.
THE LARGER TREND
Healthcare monopolies, which can be spurred by hospital consolidation, could have a detrimental effect on consumers’ premiums and out-of-pocket spending due to the resulting outpatient facility fees, a 2023 report found.
Consumer advocates, payers and state regulators flagged a range of issues related to outpatient facility fees. Both consumer advocates and regulators expressed concerns about the financial exposure facility fees created for consumers via increased out-of-pocket spending – driven by plans with high deductibles and other benefit design features that increase patients’ exposure to cost-sharing – and higher premiums resulting from increased spending on ambulatory services.



