The Medicare Advantage Meltdown in America’s Retirement Capital

A Florida retirement haven is thrown into chaos as a $360 million Medicare overbilling scandal and a Humana–UnitedHealth standoff leave seniors scrambling to keep their doctors.

Behind the gates of The Villages (the pastel Shangri-La of Florida retirement lore) is a place where American seniors zoom around on golf carts like 1977 Thunderbirds and keep wrist stabilizers on the ready for impromptu pickleball matches. It’s a community built on the promise that retirement is a time for sunshine, camaraderie and — most importantly — a health system that doesn’t leave you out in the cold.

HEALTH CARE un-covered has published stories about The Villages in the past – and how the retirement community is rife with Medicare Advantage shenanigans. And today, many Villagers have been blindsided by these shenanigans like they’re part of a Big Insurance hostage crisis straight out of an episode of Days of Our Lives or General Hospital.

A TVH / UnitedHealth dispute leaving seniors “duped”

Earlier this year, The Villages Health (TVH) — the health system serving more than 55,000 retirees — promised a smooth handoff as it prepared to sell itself to CenterWell, Humana’s senior-focused primary-care chain. TVH’s CEO assured residents that “no change in care” was coming, according to News 6.

But then came the bankruptcy filing. And then the revelation that TVH owed more than $360 million to the federal government for “Medicare overbilling.” And then the sale. And, according to Village-News, then a bankruptcy judge confirming that, yes, TVH was indeed being swallowed by CenterWell for $68 million.

In other words: the health care version of a soap-opera plot twist. Only with fewer glamorous outfits and more Chapter 11 filings.

On November 7, the very day the sale of TVH closed, patients received a message warning them that their UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage plan — the plan they were nudged toward back in 2016 when TVH tried to push all patients into UnitedHealth’s grasp — might not be accepted after Dec. 31, 2025. If negotiations fail, residents must switch doctors or switch insurers.

Message from The Villages Health to their “Valued Patient(s)”.

“Not to be notified until basically the last minute that there isn’t a contract between CenterWell and United at this time is very alarming,” Villager Phyllis McElveen told Spectrum News. “We had already gone out and selected our UnitedHealthcare plan for 2026. We had already done everything. And now to know we might have to make a change is just not a pleasant feeling.”

At The Villages, you can imagine that picking the right Medicare plan is akin to competitive sport — one step removed from a pickleball tournament. The residents do their homework and many reportedly attend “Medicare prep presentations.” So for Villagers, being blindsided is a big deal.

Longtime patient Nancy Devlin told News 6 that she dug through Humana’s and Aetna’s plans to find a plan that might allow her to stay with the physicians she’s seen for six years. But for Devlin, her digging was to no avail. None of the plans matched what she currently had with UnitedHealthcare. Not the same covered medications. Not the same premiums. Not the same out-of-pocket costs. Not the same networks.

“They duped us,” she said. “It’s more expensive and doesn’t have my medications, or I have to pay for them, and I don’t pay for my medications now.”

For retirees on limited incomes, doubling drug costs is a gut punch that can mean one less trip to visit their grandkids or postponing that cruise to the Bahamas. Or for some, putting enough food on the table.

A deal gone sour

To understand how this crisis happened, go back to 2016, when TVH urged residents to switch into UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage or lose access to their doctors. Fast-forward to today. TVH is bankrupt, Humana now owns the centers, and UnitedHealth, the world’s largest health conglomerate (and the once-preferred partner for Villagers) is persona non grata unless a deal is reached.

The timing could not be worse. Open enrollment ends December 7, which means that tens of thousands of retirees have just around two weeks to decide whether to switch insurers or switch doctors.

What’s happening here is not simply a contract negotiation gone awry, but a symptom of something deeper. TVH didn’t just owe “some money” to Medicare. It owed about $360 million because of what Humana and The Villages described as a gigantic “Medicare coding error.”

UnitedHealthcare, in turn, accused The Villages’ controlling Morse family of quietly pulling out $183 million between 2022 and 2024 – funds UnitedHealth argued were siphoned off just before the bankruptcy filing.

If that allegation sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve seen versions of this story across the health care industry: private companies treating Medicare Advantage plans like piñatas stuffed with taxpayer dollars. Sometimes, the bat misses the piñata and smacks a whole village of seniors.

Here’s what happens next

The Villages, for all its mid-century charm and retirement-resort quirks, is a microcosm of a national problem that Medicare Advantage is, too often, run for Big Insurance’s advantage with seniors just an afterthought. Corporate acquisitions, bankruptcies, risk-coding schemes, contract disputes and Wall Street demands that lead to fewer and fewer in-network doctors and hospitals and covered drugs. Meanwhile, billions in taxpayer dollars flow through this system with relatively no accountability. Medicare Advantage is corporate welfare on steroids, with the “invisible hand” of the market misleading and then slapping the hell out of vulnerable American seniors to enrich the big guys in control with cushy government handouts.

For Villagers, it’s either/or:

  • Either CenterWell and UHC strike a deal: The crisis cools, residents keep their current doctors in 2026.
  • Or no deal is reached: Tens of thousands will either change doctors, change plans or risk being turned away at medical appointments starting Jan. 1, 2026.

And remember: If the retirees of The Villages — a community that votes, organizes and documents everything — can be blindsided like this – anyone can – whether it’s CVS / Aetna pulling out of the Affordable Care Act marketplace or Cigna pushing ambulatory surgical centers out of it’s network and “exiting” all of its Medicare Advantage markets. Regardless, until this is figured out, these retirees should take it easy on the pickleball court and drive carefully on those golf carts.

Comprehensive Set of Bills Introduced to Take on Medicare Advantage

Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI) yesterday introduced eight bills aimed at strengthening traditional Medicare and reining in some of the worst practices in the privately-run Medicare Advantage business. For years, lawmakers have danced around the mounting evidence that private Medicare Advantage plans overbill taxpayers between $80 and $140 billion annually and quietly impose barriers to seniors’ care to boost profits.

Traditional Medicare remains one of the most successful public programs in American history. It was built around a simple promise: If your doctor says you need care, you get it. But as Medicare Advantage has grown, that promise has eroded for millions of people. MA plans are largely run by big insurance conglomerates – like UnitedHealthcare, Elevance and CVS/Aetna – and those insurers decide what care is covered, which doctors you can see and how long you can stay in a hospital. Each cent they have to shell out for your care is a cent they can’t keep in their pockets or split with their shareholders. Wall Street’s relentless demand for more and more of that money incentivizes them to deny or delay care that mean life-and-death for millions of American seniors.

And it’s not just health care policy nerds like me that have been focused on this issue – even the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken aim at Medicare Advantage. In February, news broke that the DOJ had launched a civil fraud investigation into UnitedHealth Group, the largest MA insurer, for the company’s alleged use of diagnoses that trigger higher Medicare Advantage payments. And in July, the company confirmed it is the subject of a DOJ criminal investigation. The DOJ reportedly questioned former UnitedHealth Group employees about the company’s business practices.

You can see the entire package of bills on Pocan’s website. They include the Denials Don’t Pay Act, which would force Medicare Advantage plans to face real consequences if too many of their prior-authorization denials are overturned; The Right to Appeal Patient Insurance Denials (RAPID) Act, which would ensure every denial is automatically appealed, sparing sick and elderly patients from navigating a process many never even know exists; and the Protect Medicare Choice Act which would stop insurers and brokers from pushing seniors into Medicare Advantage by default.

See the full package of bills here.

Pocan and his co-sponsors understand that Medicare Advantage’s prior authorization hurdles and widespread denials are just Wall Street-directed obstacles that second-guess physicians and delay care. Patients pay the price. Doctors pay the price. And taxpayers pay the price.

A package like this was long overdue.

Your Health Insurance Premiums Are Going Up. Here’s Who’s Profiting.

More Perfect Union has just posted a video breaking down a truth that Big Insurance hopes you never hear: rising “health care costs” are really rising health insurance profits.

As I explained in the video, UnitedHealth, Cigna, CVS/Aetna are part of a cartel of corporate conglomerates that have built a business model that relies on overpayments in Medicare Advantage, shrinking doctor networks and a sprawling web of vertically integrated subsidiaries that vacuum up our premiums, deductibles and tax dollars — and turn them into shareholder returns as Wall Street relentlessly demands.

Here’s a bit of what I said:

“Your premiums, deductibles and pharmacy bills are all going up. We’re told it’s because medical costs are rising, but the bigger story is who’s capturing the money. In just three months, UnitedHealth Group made $4.3 billion in profits on revenues of $113 billion.

Over the past five years, the cost of a family premium has increased 26%. This year, the average cost of a family policy was almost $27,000.

Just about everybody with private insurance will be paying a lot more than that next year, regardless of whether you get it from your employer or buy it on your own. That’s because UnitedHealth and other big insurance companies cannot control rising health care costs.

In fact, insurance companies benefit from medical inflation. They just jack up their premiums enough to cover the additional cost and guarantee them a tidy profit.”

The video points out the real drivers of cost growth — from UnitedHealth’s nearly 2,700 acquisitions to Medicare Advantage overpayments that funnel billions from taxpayers into corporate profits.

If you haven’t watched it yet, I hope you will and share it with everybody else you know. It’s clear that Congress must pass common sense guardrails to stop Big Insurance from writing the rules of American health care and squeezing Americans.

Trump’s chance to reshape Medicare Advantage

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-846110d0-c0db-11f0-98b2-a58848b99bd8.html?utm_source=newsletteru0026amp;utm_medium=emailu0026amp;utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitalsu0026amp;stream=top

The Trump administration is expected to spell out its intentions for Medicare Advantage soon — a program that enrolls about half of U.S. seniors but has drawn intensifying criticism for costing the government too much.

Why it matters: 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services chief Mehmet Oz called the system “upside down” during his confirmation hearings, hinting at possible changes to the way the federal government pays and regulates plans.

  • Any big changes would be a departure from a history of friendly treatment from Republican administrations.
  • Those could become apparent in the proposed 2027 Medicare Advantage rule, which may come out before the end of this year.

How it works: 

Many privately run Medicare plans charge no monthly premium and provide supplemental benefits that traditional Medicare doesn’t cover, like dental coverage and help paying for over-the-counter drugs.

  • The program was created on the premise that private insurers could manage care better and at a lower price point than the federal government.
  • But some insurers have since drawn fire for categorizing patients as sicker than they are to get higher payments, and for overly complicated pretreatment reviews.
  • Advisors to Congress projected the federal government would spend about $84 billion more on Medicare Advantage enrollees this year than for people in traditional Medicare. (Insurers say the advisors’ methodology is flawed.)

Oz has a history of promoting Medicare Advantage plans on his popular television show and advocating for an “MA for All” policy.

  • But he’s been more openly skeptical since joining the administration, as a growing cadre of GOP policymakers ask questions about the program’s finances and insurers’ role in driving up costs.
  • “I came both to celebrate what you’re trying to do, but also be honest about some of the issues that we’re seeing at CMS,” Oz said at the industry lobby’s conference last month.
  • Oz believes choice and competition are needed for a strong Medicare program, but also that CMS has a responsibility to keep “program payments fair, transparent, and grounded in data,” Catherine Howden, the agency’s director of media relations, told Axios in response to a request for comment.

This is an opportunity for Medicare Advantage insurers to have some strategic conversations with CMS about Oz’s vision for the program, said Daniel Fellenbaum, senior director at Penta Group.

  • UnitedHealthcare, Humana and Aetna are the three biggest Medicare Advantage insurers and cover more than 20 million seniors combined.

Where it stands: 

This year CMS announced what it termed an “aggressive” strategy to increase audits of the diagnoses Medicare Advantage plans document for enrollees, which could claw back money from insurers.

  • Medicare’s Innovation Center said it’s working on pilot programs that could change the way the government pays the plans.
  • Industry onlookers are also expecting the administration to propose changes to the star ratings system, which measures Medicare Advantage plan quality and dictates bonus payments to plans.

What they’re saying: 

Insurers and advocates of private Medicare plans remain optimistic that Oz has their best interests at heart.

  • “He seems to stress good oversight and holding the program to high standards without losing sight of what’s working for seniors,” said Susan Reilly, vice president of communications at Better Medicare Alliance.
  • Insurance trade group AHIP welcomes “constructive, data-driven conversations with policymakers on actions that strengthen Medicare Advantage,” CEO Mike Tuffin said in a statement to Axios.
  • AHIP wants a focus on stability in the program after several years of medical costs increasing faster than Medicare Advantage payment, it said.

Reality check: 

The 2026 update to plan payment, the first of this administration, is better than anticipated for insurers, giving them more than $25 billion increase in federal payments.

  • The Trump administration also struck voluntary agreements with insurers to simplify the rules for authorizing procedures and treatments ahead of time, rather than using its regulatory authority to require changes.
  • “We hear rhetoric talking tough on MA, but we’ve not seen them put that into actual reality,” said Chris Meekins, managing director at Raymond James.
  • Any big policy changes next year would also become apparent to seniors right before the midterm elections. Bigger policy swings from the administration might be more likely to go into effect for 2028, Meekins said.

What we’re watching: 

President Trump has been vocal about his distaste for health insurance companies on social media lately as Congress debates extending enhanced premium subsidies for Obamacare coverage.

  • That ire could seep into how he directs his administration to regulate Medicare Advantage.

Trump’s chance to reshape Medicare Advantage

The Trump administration is expected to spell out its intentions for Medicare Advantage soon — a program that enrolls about half of U.S. seniors but has drawn intensifying criticism for costing the government too much.

Why it matters: 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services chief Mehmet Oz called the system “upside down” during his confirmation hearings, hinting at possible changes to the way the federal government pays and regulates plans.

  • Any big changes would be a departure from a history of friendly treatment from Republican administrations.
  • Those could become apparent in the proposed 2027 Medicare Advantage rule, which may come out before the end of this year.

How it works: 

Many privately run Medicare plans charge no monthly premium and provide supplemental benefits that traditional Medicare doesn’t cover, like dental coverage and help paying for over-the-counter drugs.

  • The program was created on the premise that private insurers could manage care better and at a lower price point than the federal government.
  • But some insurers have since drawn fire for categorizing patients as sicker than they are to get higher payments, and for overly complicated pretreatment reviews.
  • Advisors to Congress projected the federal government would spend about $84 billion more on Medicare Advantage enrollees this year than for people in traditional Medicare. (Insurers say the advisors’ methodology is flawed.)

Oz has a history of promoting Medicare Advantage plans on his popular television show and advocating for an “MA for All” policy.

  • But he’s been more openly skeptical since joining the administration, as a growing cadre of GOP policymakers ask questions about the program’s finances and insurers’ role in driving up costs.
  • “I came both to celebrate what you’re trying to do, but also be honest about some of the issues that we’re seeing at CMS,” Oz said at the industry lobby’s conference last month.
  • Oz believes choice and competition are needed for a strong Medicare program, but also that CMS has a responsibility to keep “program payments fair, transparent, and grounded in data,” Catherine Howden, the agency’s director of media relations, told Axios in response to a request for comment.

This is an opportunity for Medicare Advantage insurers to have some strategic conversations with CMS about Oz’s vision for the program, said Daniel Fellenbaum, senior director at Penta Group.

  • UnitedHealthcare, Humana and Aetna are the three biggest Medicare Advantage insurers and cover more than 20 million seniors combined.

Where it stands: 

This year CMS announced what it termed an “aggressive” strategy to increase audits of the diagnoses Medicare Advantage plans document for enrollees, which could claw back money from insurers.

  • Medicare’s Innovation Center said it’s working on pilot programs that could change the way the government pays the plans.
  • Industry onlookers are also expecting the administration to propose changes to the star ratings system, which measures Medicare Advantage plan quality and dictates bonus payments to plans.

What they’re saying: 

Insurers and advocates of private Medicare plans remain optimistic that Oz has their best interests at heart.

  • “He seems to stress good oversight and holding the program to high standards without losing sight of what’s working for seniors,” said Susan Reilly, vice president of communications at Better Medicare Alliance.
  • Insurance trade group AHIP welcomes “constructive, data-driven conversations with policymakers on actions that strengthen Medicare Advantage,” CEO Mike Tuffin said in a statement to Axios.
  • AHIP wants a focus on stability in the program after several years of medical costs increasing faster than Medicare Advantage payment, it said.

Reality check: 

The 2026 update to plan payment, the first of this administration, is better than anticipated for insurers, giving them more than $25 billion increase in federal payments.

  • The Trump administration also struck voluntary agreements with insurers to simplify the rules for authorizing procedures and treatments ahead of time, rather than using its regulatory authority to require changes.
  • “We hear rhetoric talking tough on MA, but we’ve not seen them put that into actual reality,” said Chris Meekins, managing director at Raymond James.
  • Any big policy changes next year would also become apparent to seniors right before the midterm elections. Bigger policy swings from the administration might be more likely to go into effect for 2028, Meekins said.

What we’re watching: 

President Trump has been vocal about his distaste for health insurance companies on social media lately as Congress debates extending enhanced premium subsidies for Obamacare coverage.

  • That ire could seep into how he directs his administration to regulate Medicare Advantage.

Big Insurances’ Stocks Are Turbulent as ACA Subsidy Extension Fails

Wall Street reacts to the failed ACA subsidy extension — and to the president’s swipe at “money sucking insurance companies.”

Wall Street got the jitters yesterday after Donald Trump’s pointed remarks about “money sucking insurance companies” and a Congressional deal that failed to extend the enhanced subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace plans. According to one market analysis, shares of Centene (CNC) plunged about 8.15% in pre-opening trade, while competitors such as Molina (MOH) fell 4.6%, Elevance (ELV) dropped 3.7%, UnitedHealth Group (UNH) slipped 1.9% and Humana (HUM) declined 1.45%.

Why the sell-off? Because the enhanced ACA subsidies — which reduce premiums for some marketplace enrollees — expire at the end of the year and without renewal, an estimated 3.8 million people could lose coverage, and premiums would rise significantly for others. Insurers that rely on the stability and growing enrollee base of the ACA marketplace face heightened risk when that funding is in question – especially when the dollars are guaranteed – like when they are shoveled out from the federal government.

Still, it’s worth noting that the ACA marketplace business is not the primary profit engine for most large payers. Their bigger gains typically come from taxpayer-funded programs like Medicare Advantage, Medicaid managed-care contracts and veterans’ / VA contracts.

Here’s how five of the major players fared in 2024 profits:

  • Centene: $3.2 billion (+590% since 2014)
  • UnitedHealth Group: $32.2 billion (+214% since 2014)
  • Elevance: $9.1 billion (+78% since 2014)
  • Humana: $2.6 billion (+8.3% since 2014)
  • Molina: $1.18 billion (+780% since 2014)

Because most of their gains have not come from ACA exchange plans (and especially not the thin margin employer market) but through their other government-subsidized businesses, investors can have some certainty their investments in those companies are still largely safe and Big Insurance will be able to weather this storm.

For instance, the industry has always been able to strongarm rough patches in the consumer market – as long as they can stave off any meaningful changes to their bread and butter taxpayer-funded programs. As we reported last month, the industry’s outside PR and lobbying friends – Better Medicare Alliance and Medicare Advantage Majority – have hit the airwaves and the halls of Congress to halt the advancement of the No UPCODE Act. The bipartisan bill, sponsored by Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and ​​Jeff Merkley (D-OR) would end wasteful, fraudulent practices in Big Insurance’s Medicare Advantage businesses that funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of industry executives and Wall Street shareholders and could save taxpayers as much as $124 billion over the next decade and keep the Medicare Trust Fund solvent for years longer.

As of this morning, insurers seem to be fairing better. Centene, UnitedHealth Group, Elevance, Humana and Molina are all back in the green.

New Study Reveals UnitedHealth’s Hidden Hand

Research suggests UnitedHealth may be running a shell game — one that lets insurers flout regulations and obscure the harmful consequences of their vertical integration strategies.

new Health Affairs study has confirmed that UnitedHealth Group — the nation’s largest health care conglomerate — is doing more than dominating the market; it’s playing by a different set of rules.

Researchers Daniel Arnold of Brown University and Brent Fulton of UC Berkeley analyzed new federal “Transparency in Coverage” data and found that UnitedHealth’s insurance arm, UnitedHealthcare, pays its own Optum physicians 17% more on average than it pays other doctors for the same services. And in markets where UnitedHealthcare holds a large share — 25% or more — that gap explodes to 61%.

Research published by Health Affairs titled UnitedHealthcare Pays Optum Providers More Than Non-Optum Providers.

The Affordable Care Act’s medical loss ratio (MLR) rule requires insurers to spend at least 80–85% of premium revenue on patient care, rather than on administrative expenses and profits, but if an insurer can funnel “medical spending” to its own subsidiaries — in this case, the thousands of subsidiaries that now comprise Optum — it can appear to comply with the law while actually shifting massive amounts of revenue from one pocket to another.

Under the MLR rule, insurers are required to send rebate checks to their customers if they don’t comply with the MLR requirement. The Health Affairs research suggests that UnitedHealth may be flouting that rule by deliberately overpaying the health care delivery operations it owns to comply with the letter of the law if not the intent. Because physician practices and other provider entities are exempt from the MLR rule, regardless of ownership, UnitedHealth can avoid sending its customers the rebates they otherwise would get and pad the conglomerate’s bottom line.

As the researchers put it:

“The results suggest that intercompany transactions within health care conglomerates may warrant scrutiny, as they may be signals of regulatory gaming or attempted foreclosure.”

Another way to game the system

This study also highlights another consequence: independent physician practices are being squeezed out. When UnitedHealth pays Optum doctors more — and non-Optum doctors less — it creates an uneven playing field that could drive small and mid-sized practices out of business.

The authors warn that this pattern “could lead to independent practices closing or joining larger groups such as Optum”. Over the past decade, Optum has quietly amassed more than 90,000 doctors under its control — more than any other private organization in the country.

And it’s not just doctors – UnitedHealth owns nearly 2,700 entities – a pharmacy benefit manager, a data analytics firm, home health companies and even surgery centers. The study notes that in 2024, Optum reported $253 billion in revenue, but 60% of that was simply money moving internally from UnitedHealthcare. In other words, UnitedHealth’s empire is built on being able to feed itself by self-dealing.

The point

This research provides some of the strongest evidence yet that UnitedHealth’s “vertical integration” strategy is distorting the market — not to improve care but to maximize profits under the guise of “compliance.”

For regulators at the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor (which has jurisdiction over employer-sponsored plans administered by UnitedHealth and other insurers) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, this should be a wake-up call. As the authors conclude, even a 1% artificial price increase through these internal transfers could significantly reduce the rebates insurers owe consumers under the medical loss ratio rule. That’s billions of dollars that patients, taxpayers and employers are entitled to but that never leave the company’s bank account – except to reward shareholders and top executives. During just the first nine months of this year, UnitedHealth reported making nearly $19 billion in profits on revenues of more than $334 billion. Both revenues and profits likely would have been considerably less if not for the apparent gaming the Health Affairs researchers uncovered.

Where Do Our Health Insurance Premiums Go?

As open enrollment begins and Congress remains deadlocked on whether to extend the ACA’s enhanced premium subsidies, one question looms large: Where does all the money we pay for health coverage actually go?

It’s a fair question. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs have risen relentlessly over the past decade. Since the Affordable Care Act was fully implemented, the average premium for an ACA marketplace plan has doubled, and the average deductible for a Silver plan has increased by 92%. Every year, families pay more, yet the coverage often feels thinner.

What the Insurers Say

Health insurance companies routinely claim these increases simply reflect rising medical costs and higher utilization. For example, when justifying rate hikes in 2024, Cigna of Texas wrote:

“The increasing cost of medical and pharmacy services and supplies accounts for a sizable portion of the premium rate increases.”

But the financial filings of these same companies tell a different story.

What the Numbers Show

As Wendell Potter recently wrote, from 2014 to 2024 the seven largest publicly traded health insurance companies, UnitedHealth Group, CVS/Aetna, Cigna, Elevance (formerly Anthem), Humana, Centene, and Molina, reported that they collectively made more than half a trillion dollars in profits.

That’s money collected from individuals, employers and taxpayers for health coverage — dollars that didn’t go to medical care but instead flowed to corporate shareholders and executive bonuses. To put this in perspective, those profits alone could fund the enhanced ACA premium subsidies for another ten years, at an estimated cost of $350 billion.

Stock Buybacks: Enrollees’ Money, Executives’ Reward

Over the same period, these seven companies spent $146 billion buying back their own stock or, in other words, using premium dollars from patients and employers to boost share prices and executive compensation (the CEOs and many other top executives of big insurers are compensated primarily through stock grants and options).

Stock buybacks don’t lower premiums, expand networks, or improve care. They simply make investors and executives richer. If that same money had been reinvested in enrollees, it could have provided premium-free health coverage to more than 5 million families for an entire year, based on the average employer-sponsored plan cost of $27,000 in 2026.

Lobbying With Our Premium Dollars

Insurers aren’t just rewarding shareholders, they’re also shaping the political system that protects their profits. Since 2014, the seven largest insurers and their trade association, AHIP, have spent $618 million on lobbying.

That’s money that could have been used to lower out-of-pocket costs or improve patient care, but instead it’s spent to influence Congress and federal agencies to maintain the status quo.

The Real Problem — and the Real Solution

As the cost of health insurance continues to climb, politicians debate how to control those costs and expand coverage. But the truth is, there’s already enough money in the system to cover everyone. It’s just being siphoned off by insurance corporations for profits, lobbying, and stock buybacks.

Though some have been calling for less regulation of Big Insurance, that is not the answer and is partly how we ended up in this situation. Right now, Big Insurance is allowed to use premium dollars and tax dollars on things that do nothing to improve anyone’s health – such as stock buybacks and lobbying – instead of on medical care.

Rather than asking families and taxpayers to pay more, it’s time to demand accountability from insurers. At a minimum, they should not be allowed to use premium dollars, or taxpayer dollars, to enrich shareholders through stock buybacks (which wasn’t even legal until the 1980s) or lobby for policies that drive up costs.

If we want to contain health care costs, the first step is simple: Stop the profiteering by Big Insurance.

Anthem’s New 10% Penalty Targets Hospitals and Doctors

Elevance’s Anthem Blue Cross plans are joining Big Insurance’s latest profit play — cutting payments to hospitals and providers under the pretense of reducing patients’ out-of-pocket costs.

Anthem Blue Cross plans have joined UnitedHealth and Cigna in taking extreme measures to satisfy Wall Street but penalize hospitals and potentially thousands of doctors and physician groups that Anthem excludes from its provider networks.

What Anthem is proposing is not only extreme but brazen in that it goes way beyond what any managed care company I know of has ever undertaken to pad its bottom line by reducing patient choice. It wouldn’t just restrict access to certain providers, it would effectively eliminate access.

Anthem, which is owned by the for-profit corporation Elevance Health Inc., has notified hospitals in 11 of the 14 states where it operates that starting in January it will slash reimbursements by 10% every time a doctor who works in the hospital – but who is not in Anthem’s network – provides care to a patient enrolled in an Anthem health plan.

The move clearly will save Elevance money and help it meet its shareholders’ profit expectations, but it will be a potential nightmare and administrative expense for thousands of hospitals and outpatient facilities. And it could put many independent physician practices out of business.

As Fierce Healthcare reported Friday, Anthem will impose an administrative penalty equal to 10% of the allowed amount on a hospital or outpatient facility’s claims that include out-of-network providers. If those facilities don’t meet Anthem’s terms, they will be at risk of being dropped from Anthem’s network.

Anthem’s announcement comes on the heels of UnitedHealth’s disclosure to investors last month that it plans to dump thousands of doctors from its networks to boost profits. A UnitedHealth executive said during the company’s third quarter call with shareholders that there were too many doctors in the company’s network who were not aligned with UnitedHealth’s business model, which he called “value-based care.”

“We are moving to employed or contractually dedicated physicians wherever possible,” said Patrick Conway, CEO of UnitedHealth’s Optum division, which has bought hundreds of physician practices over the past several years. UnitedHealth is already the biggest employer of doctors in the country.

And last month, Cigna began reducing payments to many doctors automatically by resurrecting a practice called downcoding that was banned by a federal court more than two decades ago. Cigna also is threatening to drop hundreds of hospitals and outpatient facilities operated by Tenet Health from its provider network next year.

The stock prices of all three insurers have been under pressure this year as shareholders have sold millions of their shares in reaction to what they consider bad news from the companies. Most investors consider increases in paid medical claims to be bad news and a threat to the value – and earnings potential – of their holdings.

Anthem claimed in its notice to hospitals and other facilities last month that it is implementing the new policy “to support patient care and to help reduce out-of-pocket expenses for our members.” The notice went on to say that, “As a participating facility in Anthem’s care provider network, your role in guiding members to in-network care providers is vital in ensuring members receive high-quality, cost-effective, and coordinated care.”

Sounds good, right? But how is a patient to know that the doctors in Anthem’s network are really the ones that truly deliver high-quality coordinated care? Could it be that the top priority of the insurer is to include providers in its network who agree, first and foremost, to reimbursement terms especially favorable to the insurer?

And for hospitals, this could lead to higher administrative costs in trying to figure out which doctors are available at any given time to treat an Anthem patient. A highly regarded anesthesiologist might be just fine – and available – to treat patients insured by Cigna or Aetna or Humana, but off limits to treat an Anthem-insured patient. The hospital will have to be especially vigilant to keep that doctor out of the operating room when an Anthem patient needs surgery. If it slips up the hospital could get booted out of Anthem’s network. The doctor, however, would not be able to bill the patient for any amount because of the federal No Surprises Act (NSA), which prohibits balance-billing.

Anthem’s claim that it is taking this action to reduce patients’ out-of-pocket expenses is especially rich when you remember that Anthem and other big insurers created the problem Anthem says it is seeking to address. Anthem, Cigna, UnitedHealth and other big insurers led what became an industry-wide strategy in the early 2000s to force as many of their health plan enrollees as possible – and as soon as possible – into high-deductible plans. That strategy was so successful that more than 100 millions Americans – the vast majority of whom have health insurance – are mired in medical debt.

Fierce Healthcare quoted an Elevance executive as saying that the new Anthem policy “was designed in response to provider behavior under the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process” established by the No Surprises Act. He said Anthem had seen “a consistent pattern of IDR being used as a ‘back-door payment channel’ for pricey, nonemergent procedures.”

But as HEALTH CARE un-covered reported recently, research is showing that insurers are manipulating the IDR process to their advantage by exploiting loopholes in the NSA. Doctors have told me that even when they prevail in a dispute, insurers often refuse to pay promptly, if at all, and they report long delays, repeated administrative hurdles, and in some cases outright nonpayment of arbitration awards. And a report published last week in Health Affairs describes th“hidden incentives” of insurers in the IDR process that the authors say add costs to health plans and beneficiaries “and the health care system at large.”

Independent practice physicians have begun raising alarms about Anthem’s new policy. And on Wednesday, medical societies representing thousands of doctors sent a letter to Elevance CEO Gail Boudreaux protesting Anthem’s plans and asking for a meeting.

Letter sent to Elevance CEO Gail Boudreaux, by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, American College of Radiology and American College of Emergency Physicians.

“This policy is deeply flawed and operationally unworkable,” they wrote. “It effectively shifts Elevance’s network adequacy obligations onto facilities, holding them financially liable for the contracting status of independent physician groups–an area over which they have no control or infrastructure to manage. Hospitals will be forced to compel independent providers to join Elevance’s network under unfavorable terms leading to a risk of worsening financial instability and the loss of clinicians. The need to reorganize or replace physician groups will jeopardize hospitals’ continuity of care and patient access to care.”

The letter went on to say that, “Expecting facilities to monitor and enforce payer contracts across dozens of independent entities and multiple commercial plans is not only impractical but raises serious legal and ethical concerns.”

If the doctors can’t persuade Boudreaux to ditch the new policy, people enrolled in Anthem plans who need care in a hospital or outpatient facility next year could face confusion and delays in getting that care, and the facilities currently in their network might be kicked out of it if they make any mistakes.

Doctors’ concern about Anthem’s policy cannot be dismissed as an overreaction to one company’s business decision. It poses an existential threat to physician practices that want to stay independent and not sell out to either a hospital system or an insurance company. If the other health insurers follow Anthem’s lead – and there is no reason to think they will not – the number of doctors in independent practice in the United States will dwindle to extinction. There aren’t many left as it is.

Because of the control Wall Street now has over the health insurance industry, Boudreaux is likely less concerned about physician autonomy than what investors think and want, and she is under the gun to get back into their good graces in a matter of months. Her company’s shares have lost a third of their value since the first of this year. If she can’t demonstrate that she’s getting Elevance back on track to profitable growth, she’ll be out of a job soon.

Lawmakers and regulators at all levels of government need to keep an eye on this and intervene if doctors and Anthem patients can’t change her mind.

Why Healthcare Affordability is Increasingly Problematic to Working Age Populations

In what political pundits called a sweeping win by Democrats in Tuesday’s elections, affordability and costs of living emerged as the issues that mattered most to voters. It’s no surprise.

Since 2019 before the pandemic, prices have increased for American businesses and households due to inflation:

Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) inflation which measures monthly business spending increased 3.5% annually. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures monthly changes in household spending increased 3.87% annually over the same period (2019-2025).

But in the same period, prices for healthcare services–hospitals, physician services, insurance premiums and long-term care–have taken an odd turn: for businesses, they’ve decreased but for consumers, they increased. 

It reflects the success whereby businesses have shifted health benefits costs to employees or suspended benefits altogether, and it explains why consumers are bearing more direct responsibility for healthcare costs and are increasingly price sensitive.

A proper interpretation of PCE and CPI data points to a bigger problem: household exposure to increased prices hits younger, middle-income households hardest because their housing costs consume 36-60% of their disposable income. Food costs are an additional 13-20%. That doesn’t leave much room for healthcare when child care, student debt and transportation costs are factored.

Category PCE CPI CPI Weight
2019-2025 CumulativeAnnual change+17.3%+3.5%+26%+3.87 100%
2019-2025 Cumulative Healthcare Services Annual Change-11.6%-1.85%+16.8%+2.56%6.7%
2019-2025 Cumulative Food CostAnnual Change+24.5%+3.7%+30.98+4.6%14.5%
2019-2025 Cumulative Housing CostAnnual Change+18-22%+3.2%+25-28%+4.2%44.2%
2019-2025 Cumulative Transportation CostAnnual Change+28-32%+4.8%+35-40%+5.5-6.0%15.1%

Sources: Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)CPI Home : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Increased attention to household affordability and costs of living is uncomfortable in the healthcare industry.  The good news is that expenses for health services represents a small fraction of spending; the bad news is those expenses are increasing along with competing categories and they’re sometimes unpredictable.

The fundamental operating model in healthcare is ‘Business to Business/B2B’ transactions between producers (physicians, hospitals, drug and device makers), middlemen (insurers, PBMs, employers) and users (consumers) reinforced by state and federal regulation that protect the status quo. And ‘users’ are treated as patients or enrollees, not a market that makes buying decisions based on value and costs. Thus, lack of price transparency in healthcare coupled with lack of predictability when services are used lends to public confusion or, in extreme cases, contempt. The public reaction to the murder of UnitedHealth Executive Brian Thompson last year surfaced the public’s latent animosity toward healthcare’s business practices that treat consumers as pawns on a complicated chessboard.

Shifting direct financial responsibility to consumers is the blunt instrument touted by economists who rightly argue informed decision-making by consumers is necessary to lower costs and improved value from the system. It won’t happen overnight if at all, and the system’s affordability in working age households will be the impetus.

The near-term implications are clear:

Increased household discretionary spending for necessities (food, transportation, and housing) will shrink discretionary spending for healthcare products and services:

  • Consumers believe their basic needs—food, shelter, transportation–are easier to predict and manage than their out-of-pocket bills for insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, over-the-counter products and more. 60% are financially insecure, and unanticipated medical costs is their biggest concern.
  • Consumers think the healthcare system is ‘dominated by ‘Big Business’ that prioritizes profit before everything else. The majority of consumers in every age, income, education, ethnic and partisan affiliated cohort share this view and are dissatisfied. Elected officials in both parties believe consolidation in health services has increased prices and reduced competition for consumers. The frontline healthcare workforce is demoralized by its corporatization and resentful of leaders they consider overpaid and accountable for financial results only.

Consumers (voters) will support policy changes to the health system that increase its accountability for affordability.

  • Among providers, momentum for price controls, price transparency, executive compensation limits, justification for tax exemptions, revenue cycle management practices, will be strong especially in state legislatures.
  • Among insurers, claims data accessibility, standardization & justification of coverage, denials, prior auth and network adequacy, premium pricing, administrative cost accountability, executive compensation, will be foci of regulation.
  • Among suppliers to the health services industry—drug companies, device makers, information technology solution providers, consultants and professional services advisors, supply chain middlemen et al—disclosure of business relationships and transparency re: direct and indirect costs will be mandated.

Final thought:

Throughout my career, ‘patient centeredness” has been the fundamental presumption on which service delivery by providers has been justified. Affordability has been neglected though increasingly acknowledged in rhetoric. Executives in healthcare services are not compensated for setting household affordability targets and publicly reporting results. Most compensation committees and Boards have marginal understanding of household economics in their communities and depend on “revenue cycle management” to address consumer payment obligations at arms-length. Even the medical community is not immune: one in 5 medical students is food insecure, 4 of 5 medical residents is financially insecure, and their career choices are increasingly dependent on their earning potential. So, calls for greater attention to affordability in healthcare will originate from insiders and outsiders tired of excuses and lip service.

Insecurity about household finances is significant and growing. Per the University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment (50.3 in November 2025) is near an all-time low. It’s reality in the majority of U.S. households. The federal shutdown, discontinuance of SNAP benefits, cuts to ACA subsidies for insurance, corporate layoffs and higher costs for child care, groceries, gas and housing are a tsunami to American households.

Last week, voters elected: Zohran Mamdani, 34 (NYC); Abigail Spanberger, 46 (VA); and Mikie Sherrill, 53 (NJ) in races touted as a weather-vane for elections in 2026 and beyond. It is bigger than partisan elections. Voters in both parties and across the country are worried about affordability. It’s especially true among younger generations who worry about making ends meet and think institutions like the political system, higher education, organized religion and healthcare are outdated.

Healthcare service providers can ill afford to neglect affordability. It more than measuring medical debt, posting prices and referencing concern on websites. It’s about earning the trust and confidence of future generations through concrete actions that increase household financial security beginning with healthcare spending.

Paul

PS As never before, the voices of younger generations are being heard across the country though social media and demonstrations. The health system is among their major concerns as they ponder how they’ll be able to pay for their bills While Medicare seems the focus to policymakers and beltway pundits who rightly recognize seniors as its most costly population, the working age population has been taken for granted. Here’s a voice I follow closely. Fresh Perspective Is Sometimes Needed – by K. Pow