Since 2000, most countries around the world have achieved or committed to pursuing universal coverage, or to ensuring their populations have “access to the full range of quality health services” without financial hardship. Nations have, however, pursued different paths to that end. China, with the world’s largest health system, achieved near-universal coverage in just over a decade. In 2000, less than a third of its citizens and permanent residents had coverage; by 2011, that figure had risen to 95 percent. While China’s highly centralized political system differs from many other countries, the government’s focus on rural and unemployed residents and its targeted health infrastructure investments can offer insights for policymakers around the world. China’s Pathway to Universal Coverage By the late 1990s, China’s collective and work-unit-based health insurance systems had largely collapsed following market reforms in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1998, the government launched Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance (UEBMI), a mandatory program for employed people financed by a payroll tax. In response to the poor performance of the Chinese health system during the 2002 SARS outbreak, the Chinese government moved to make major improvements. This was realized in 2003 and 2007, when the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme and Urban Residents Basic Medical Insurance were introduced to cover rural residents and urban unemployed citizens, respectively. To reduce inequities between the two groups, both programs were merged in 2016 to create Urban and Rural Resident Basic Medical Insurance (URRBMI). Today, UEBMI and URRBMI make up China’s basic medical insurance, which partially covers in- and outpatient care, primary and mental health care, pharmaceuticals, traditional Chinese medicine, and dental and eye care. Coverage grew rapidly between 2008 and 2011 through significant government subsidies for those enrolled in the two programs that now make up URRBMI, as well as massive government investment in improving primary care and public hospitals, and establishing a national essential drug list.
Since these coverage gains, China has seen a significant improvement in overall health outcomes, including a seven-year increase in average life expectancy, a 73 percent decrease in maternal mortality, an 86 percent decrease in child mortality, and lower rates of communicable diseases. However, China’s basic medical insurance faces some key challenges. Given China’s lower per capita income and more limited fiscal capacity compared to the United States, the government prioritizes universal baseline coverage rather than comprehensive benefits, resulting in high out-of-pocket costs — roughly a third of total health expenditures. The basic medical insurance program also has struggled to address systemic inequities between rural and urban residents. For example, the urban employed populations covered by UEBMI receive more comprehensive benefits packages, including medical savings accounts for out-of-pocket expenses. Migrant workers — who make up a fifth of China’s population — are another demographic whose coverage can be fragmented, partly because of the difficulty transferring between different insurance programs if they move to and from rural and urban areas. China also faces major challenges in health care delivery. Lacking a strong primary care system or primary care gatekeeping, hospitals are vastly overused by patients. When you add growing care utilization by China’s rapidly aging population and some people dropping coverage due to rising premiums and copayments, you get a health system under increasing pressure. In 2025, to ease some of this strain, the government announced plans to incentivize long-term enrollment by increasing government subsidies for length of time enrolled and developing long-term care insurance programs focused on older people. America’s Patchwork Health Insurance System Prior to 2010, the United States relied on a fragmented, employment-based health insurance system made up of private, largely employer-sponsored insurance and public programs like Medicaid and Medicare. It left nearly 16 percent of the population, more than 40 million Americans, uninsured. More people gained coverage following full implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2014, which:Expanded Medicaid eligibilityPrevented coverage denials for people with preexisting conditionsAllowed young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26Established health insurance marketplaces to purchase private plans.By 2023, the U.S. uninsured rate declined to an all-time low of 7.9 percent. However, following passage of the Trump administration’s budget reconciliation bill in July 2025 — featuring $900 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next 10 years — the U.S. is expected to return to pre-ACA highs of nearly 40 million uninsured by 2034.
U.S. coverage expansion relies heavily on voluntary enrollment in private plans, often with high deductibles and cost sharing, creating sizeable affordability barriers. In 2024, out-of-pocket costs increased to $1,632 per capita. For subsidized care through Medicaid or cost-sharing reductions, qualification is dependent on income and area of residence, creating variable coverage from state to state. While China structured its reforms to explicitly incorporate rural residents, unemployed urban residents, and migrant workers, U.S. coverage is hampered by the exclusion of groups like undocumented migrants and people with low incomes in non-Medicaid-expansion states. China and the United States have taken remarkably different paths to expanding health insurance coverage. The U.S. has relied on a fragmented public–private model with variable and dwindling government subsidies, resulting in persistent disparities in coverage and access — both of which are expected to only worsen in the coming decade. Meanwhile, despite a vastly different political structure to the U.S., China’s coverage gains are notable due to its massive population (nearly four times the U.S. population) and much lower per capita income. China offers a unique case study of a coordinated health insurance system designed to address disparities in access, ultimately achieving near-universal coverage in just over 10 years.
Medicaid is the public health insurance program for people with low income, including children, some adults, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. It was created in 1965 along with Medicare, the federal program that covers adults over age 65 and some people with disabilities, to expand access to a range of health services and to improve health outcomes for these groups.
More than 72 million people are enrolled in Medicaid, making it the single largest insurer in the United States. It is the principal source of health insurance for Americans with low incomes and covers a wide range of services, from preventive care to hospital stays and prescription drugs. Medicaid also pays for nearly half of all U.S. births, as well as end-of-life care for millions of Americans.
While the federal government and the states jointly fund Medicaid, each state runs its own program, subject to federal requirements. The federal government covers between 50 percent and 77 percent of the cost of insuring people with Medicaid, depending on the state.
What is Medicaid expansion?
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded the number of Americans who are eligible for Medicaid and increased the federal government’s contribution toward covering these new enrollees. Starting in 2014, states became eligible for this additional federal funding if they expanded Medicaid eligibility for all adults up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($28,207 for a family of two, as of 2024). The ACA also made it easier for people to enroll in Medicaid, such as by eliminating the need for in-person interviews, reducing the amount of information applicants need to provide, and using data from other federal and state agencies to electronically verify eligibility information.
So far, 40 states, along with Washington, D.C., have expanded Medicaid as allowed under the ACA. The federal government pays for 90 percent of the coverage costs for new enrollees under the expansion; states pay for the remaining 10 percent.
What is Medicaid’s impact on health care access and health outcomes?
There is ample evidence showing that Medicaid coverage helps people gain better access to health care services, leading to improvements in health and well-being. Researchers found that low-income adults in Arkansas, which expanded Medicaid eligibility in 2014, have better access to primary care and preventive health services, improved medication compliance, and better self-reported health status than their counterparts in Texas, which has not expanded eligibility for the program. (It should be noted, however, that some of Arkansas’s gains were eroded in 2018, when the state became the first to implement work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries.)
Other studies show Medicaid expansion is associated with decreased mortality rates, increased rates of early cancer diagnosis and insurance coverage among cancer patients, improved access to care for chronic disease, improved maternal and infant health outcomes, and better access to medications and services for people with behavioral and mental health conditions.
How does Medicaid expansion affect uninsured rates?
States that have expanded Medicaid have a much lower uninsured rate than states that haven’t, and the gap continues to widen. The uninsured rate in expansion states dropped 6.4 percentage points between 2013 and 2017, from 13 percent to 6.6 percent, according to census data. Moreover, health care disparities narrowed between whites, Blacks, and Hispanics in expansion states, with smaller differences seen in uninsured rates among working-age adults, as well as in the percentages who skipped needed care because of costs or who lacked a usual care provider.
The coverage gains in states that have expanded their Medicaid program are not solely the result of newly eligible individuals enrolling. Some of the gains are due to the enrollment of individuals already eligible for Medicaid who took the opportunity to sign up for the first time (sometimes referred to as the “welcome mat effect”).
What are the financial impacts of Medicaid expansion?
Medicaid expansion protects beneficiaries from financial stress by improving access to affordable care. A national study found that expansion was associated with significant improvements in low-income people’s financial well-being, leading to reduced levels of debt in collections and unpaid bills. People living in expansion states are also less likely than those in nonexpansion states to have medical debt. Another study comparing the experiences of low-income adults in Texas, which has not expanded Medicaid, to those of low-income adults in three southern states that have expanded Medicaid found that Texas respondents were much more likely to report financial barriers to getting health care.
Medicaid expansion has improved the financial stability of community health centers and safety-net hospitals. There is also evidence that Medicaid expansion provides an economic boost to states. Recent studies of expansion’s financial impacts all find positive economic effects for states, such as growth in the health sector and greater tax revenue from increased economic activity. Expanding Medicaid can also save states money by offsetting costs in other areas, including uncompensated care for the uninsured, mental health and substance use disorder treatment, and other non-Medicaid health programs. After accounting for these new savings and revenues, the net cost of expansion for states is much lower than its 10 percent “sticker price.” In some states, expansion has already paid for itself.
In 1970 before there was ESPN Sports Center, there was ABC’s “Wide World of Sports” and its iconic montage opening featuring a disastrous ski jump attempt by Yugoslavia’s Vinko Bogataj and Jim Kay’s voice-over “the thrill of victory and agony of defeat.” It’s an apt framework for consideration of current affairs in the U.S. today and an appropriate juxtaposition for consideration the winners and losers in the White House Office of Management and Budget FY2027 released Friday.
Last week’s “Thrill of Victory” includes the recovery of Dude 14, the F-15E Strike Eagle pilot shot down over Iran Friday, the college basketball men’s and women’s’ Final 4 contests, the successful launch of Artemis II by NASA and, for some, the additional funding ($441 billion/+44% vs. FY 2026) for the Department of War in the President’s proposed budget.
And last week’s “Agony of Defeat” includes continued anxiety about the economy, especially fuel prices, growing concern the war in Iran begun February 28 might extend at a heavy cost in lives and money, and for health industry supporters, a $15 billion (-12% vs. FY 2026) cut to HHS and the 10-year, $911 billion Medicaid reduction in federal funding for Medicaid enacted in 2025 (HR1 The Big Beautiful Bill).
In its current form, this budget is unlikely to be enacted October 1, 2026: it’s best viewed as a signal from the White House about priorities it deems most important to the MAGA faithful in Congress, 28 state legislatures and 26 Governors’ offices controlled by Republicans. Though its explosive growth in of War Department funding to $1.5 trillion is eye-popping, cuts to healthcare are equally notable. Both are calculated bets as the mid-term election draws near (6 months) and clearly OMB is betting healthcare cuts will be acceptable to its base. Its view is based on three assumptions:
1- Healthcare cost cutting is necessary to fund other priorities important to its base. And there’s plenty of room for cuts in Medicaid, prescription drugs and hospitals because waste, fraud and abuse are rampant in all.
Medicaid: Medicaid is a state-controlled insurance program that covers 76 million U.S. women, children and low-income seniors primarily through private managed care plans that contract with states. In HR1, a mandatory work requirement was applied to able-bodied adult enrollees with the expectation enrollment will drop and state spending for Medicaid services will be less. But its enrollees are less inclined to vote than seniors in Medicare and its funding burden can be shifted to states.
Prescription Drugs: The White House asserts its “favored nation” pricing program will bring down drug costs but the combination of voluntary participation by drug companies and impenetrable patent protections in U.S. law neutralize hoped-for cost reductions. The administration wants to lower drug spending using its blunt instruments it already has: accelerated approvals, price transparency, pharmacy benefits manager restrictions et al. while encouraging states to go further through price controls, restrictive formularies and, in some, importation. In tandem, the administration sees CMMI modifications of alternative payment models (i.e. LEAD) as a means of introducing medication management and patient adherence in new chronic care pilots. Recognizing prescription drug prices are a concern to its base and all voters, the administration will use its arsenal of regulatory and political tools to amp-up support for increased state and federal pricing constraints without imposing price controls—a red line for conservatives.
Hospitals: Hospital consolidation is associated with higher prices and increased spending with offsetting community benefits debatable. Hospitals represent 43% of total U.S. health spending (31% inpatient and outpatient services, 12% employed physician services). In 4 of 5 U.S. markets, 2 hospital systems control hospital services. And hospital cost increases have kept pace with others in healthcare (+8.9% in 2024 vs. +8.1% for physician services and 7.9% for prescription drugs) but other household costs, wage increases and inflation. Lobbyists for hospitals have historically favored hospital-friendly legislation like the Affordable Care Act preferred by Democrats. The Trump administration sees site neutral payments, 340B reductions, expanded price transparency, limits on NFP system tax exemptions et al. and Medicaid cuts necessary curtailment of wasteful spending by hospitals. They believe voters agree.
Backdrop: Per the National Health Care Fraud Association, 10% of health spending ($560 billion) was spent fraudulently in 2024: the majority in the areas above.
2- The public is dissatisfied by the status quo and supports overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to increase its affordability and improve its accessibility.
Consolidation: Through its Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice, the White House has served notice it believes healthcare affordability and unreasonable costs are the result of hyper consolidation among hospitals, insurers, and key suppliers in the healthcare supply chain. It has appointed special commissions, task forces, and filed lawsuits to flex its muscle believing the industry has pursued vertical and horizontal consolidation for the purpose of reducing competition and creating monopolies. It shares this view with the majority of voters.
Corporatization: In tandem with consolidation, the White House asserts that Big Pharma, Big Insurer, and Big Hospital have taken advantage of the healthcare economy at the expense of local operators and mom and pop services. It presumes they’re run as corporate strongarms that access capital and leverage aggressive M&A muscle to drive out competitors and bolster their margins and executive bonuses. The administration treads lightly on corporate healthcare, seeking financial and political support while voicing populist concerns about Corporate Healthcare. Photo ops with CEOs is valued by the White House; corporatization is recognized as a necessary plus with a few exceptions. By contrast, most voters see more harm than good. Thus, the administration courts corporate healthcare purposely and carefully.
Backdrop: Intellectually, the majority of voters understand healthcare is a business that requires capital to operate and margins to be sustainable. But many think most healthcare organizations put too much emphasis on short-term profit and inadequate attention on their mission and long-term performance.
3-The U.S. healthcare industry will be an engine for economic growth domestically and globally if regulated less and consumers play a more direct role.
The administration is resetting its trade policies in response to suspension of at-will tariff policies that dominated its first year. At home, it seeks improved market access for U.S. producers of healthcare goods and services. It will associate this effort with US GDP growth and expanded privatization in healthcare. And it will assert that expansion of global demand for U.S. healthcare products and services is the result of the administration’s monetary policy geared to innovation and growth. And it will play a more direct role in oversight of foreign-owned/controlled health products and services and impose limits of their use of U.S. data.
The administration also seeks to protect intellectual property owned by U.S. inventors and companies by increasing its policing at home and abroad. In this regard, the administration will play a more direct role in the application of AI-enabled solution providers and expedite technology-enabled interoperability.
Backdrop: U.S. healthcare is the world’s most expensive system, so protections against IP theft are important, but the administration’s legacy in healthcare will be technology-enabled platforms that enable scale, democratize science and shift the system’s decision-making (and financial risk) consumer self-care.
Final thought:
The U.S. healthcare system does not enjoy the confidence of the White House: its proposed FY27 budget illustrates its predisposition to say no to healthcare and yes to other pursuits. It bases its position on three assumptions geared to support from its conservative base.
This budget proposal clearly illustrates why state legislators and Governors will play a bigger role in its future at home and abroad. And it means consumer (voter) awareness and understanding on key issues will be key to the system’s future, lest it is remembered for the agony of its defeat than the thrill of its victory.
Hospitals in just one state filed 1.15 million lawsuits — enabled by insurance plans that shift costs to patients while shielding themselves from the fallout.
“People are having to choose between going to the hospital and staying home and dying. Because at least my family won’t be burdened with a lawsuit if I die at home.”
That’s not a line from a dystopian novel. It’s what a real patient — identified only as GV0242002 in court records — told researchers after being sued by Sentara Health, Virginia’s largest hospital system and its most prolific medical debt litigant.
A major new report from researchers at George Washington University Law School and Stanford University’s Clinical Excellence Research Center, produced with PatientRightsAdvocate.org, documents what happens when American health care’s hidden costs finally catch up with the people least able to pay them. The findings for Virginia alone are staggering: between 2010 and 2024, hospitals and medical providers filed 1.15 million lawsuits against patients, seeking to collect $1.4 billion in medical debt. They followed those suits with more than 400,000 garnishment orders targeting wages and bank accounts. Plaintiffs’ attorneys collected $87 million in fees. Courts tacked on another $46 million in costs. And some providers charged interest as high as 18% annually — four times the prevailing commercial rate — buried in consent documents patients signed while frightened, in pain, and in no position to negotiate.
Among the top garnishee employers? Walmart, public schools, grocery stores and the hospitals themselves. Nonprofit hospitals in Virginia filed more than 4,100 garnishment orders against their own employees.
As the report notes, the hospitals’ patients have almost no way of knowing how much an inpatient stay or an outpatient service will cost or how much they will be on the hook for even if they are insured. The researchers describe health care providers operating “with insurers as accomplices” in keeping prices hidden from patients. That word — accomplices — is important and appropriate. This is not just a hospital story with an insurance footnote. It is also an insurance story. Both hospitals and insurers are complicit, although I would argue that hospitals have to operate in a system that is increasingly controlled by Big Insurance. That said, the relationship between hospitals and insurers is symbiotic, and the cost-sharing requirements imposed by insurers and the opacity of the agreements they enter into with hospitals enables both parties to increase prices and premiums in a way that ensures a rate of medical inflation that is perennially much higher than regular inflation and wage increases.
Here is the mechanism. An insurer designs a health plan with a $4,000 or $6,000 or $8,000 deductible. A patient — let’s say she works at a Kroger in Charlottesville, covered by her employer’s plan — gets sick and goes to Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital. She signs an admissions agreement she cannot meaningfully read, consenting to pay “charges” based on a chargemaster that reflects prices no willing purchaser would ever agree to. She receives care. Weeks later, she gets a bill she cannot understand, for an amount she cannot verify, tied to prices that were never disclosed. She can’t pay. The hospital refers the account to one of the 20 law firms that brought more than half of all medical debt cases in Virginia during this period. She gets sued. The insurer that collected her premium — and her employer’s premium contribution — faces no lawsuit, no garnishment, no reputational consequence. It moves on to the next enrollment cycle.
The report covers 2010 through 2024 — the first 14 years of the Affordable Care Act. The ACA expanded coverage and has saved countless lives. But it did not stop the proliferation of high-deductible health plans that left millions of newly insured Americans technically covered and financially exposed. In fact, the ACA legitimized them. Since 2000, employer-sponsored family health insurance premiums have risen 321%, according to data cited in the report, and deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs have also skyrocketed. Wages rose 123% over the same period.
Patients are not drowning in medical debt because they are irresponsible. They are drowning because the insurance industry spent years engineering products that shift financial risk onto health plan enrollees and then collecting ever-increasing premiums for doing so.
I should note one finding with particular resonance for me personally. Ballad Health — the dominant hospital system serving the Tri-Cities of Northeast Tennessee and Southwest Virginia, the region where I grew up — filed 26,300 lawsuits against patients during this period. Ballad was created through a controversial 2018 merger that was granted antitrust immunity under a rare state certificate of public advantage, in exchange for commitments to maintain services and community benefit. The merger eliminated competition across one of the poorest stretches of Appalachia, leaving patients in communities like Scott County, Lee County, and Wise County, Virginia — some of the most economically distressed in either state — with effectively no choice in where they seek care.
Whether Ballad has honored its merger commitments has been disputed ever since. What is no longer in dispute: The system that was handed a regional monopoly turned around and sued its captive patients tens of thousands of times. Wise County, for those who don’t know, is also where Remote Area Medical for years set up a makeshift clinic at the county fairgrounds — the place that first showed me, up close, what this industry does to people when it stops pretending.
Virginia’s legislature took a meaningful step last year to give patients some relief. Former Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the Medical Debt Protection Act last May, capping interest on medical debt at 3%, eliminating interest for the first 90 days, and barring hospitals from foreclosing on homes or placing property liens. Those are real protections, and they matter. But as the researchers note, the law does almost nothing about the hidden prices and opaque billing at the point of care that generate the debt in the first place. The legislature addressed the collection machinery. It did not touch the engine driving it.
That engine — high cost-sharing, hidden prices, insurer-designed benefit structures that make patients financially liable before they walk through the door — is what I’ll be examining in depth in the coming weeks, as the major insurers report their first-quarter 2026 earnings. The Virginia data describe how this system costs patients. The earnings reports will tell you how it benefits big insurers and their shareholders.
The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board vs. The Wall Street Journal’s Newsroom.
The paper that exposed Medicare Advantage’s $50 billion overbilling scheme is now urging the government to make it the default for every senior in America.
During my two decades working for Big Insurance, I learned what industry spin looks like. I know what it sounds like. And I know that when a major newspaper’s editorial board publishes a piece defending an industry that has spent millions cultivating its editorial goodwill, the result often reads exactly like the Wall Street Journal’s editorial yesterday, “The Truth About Medicare Advantage.”
The piece is a masterclass in selective evidence. But what makes it remarkable is that the most damning rebuttal to it doesn’t come from me, or from Medicare Advantage’s many critics, or from the political left. It comes from the Wall Street Journal’s own newsroom.
In the fall of 2022, a team of Journal reporters did something extraordinary. They negotiated a data-sharing agreement with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, gaining access to 1.6 billion Medicare Advantage records over a 12-year period — every prescription filled, every doctor visit, every hospitalization. The investigation that followed was among the most rigorous pieces of health care journalism in years.
What they found was damning. Medicare Advantage plans received roughly $50 billion in payments between 2018 and 2021 for diagnoses that were questionable — conditions added to patients’ records not by their doctors, but by the insurers themselves. The Pulitzer Prize committee called it a series showing how health insurers gamed the Medicare Advantage program to collect billions for nonexistent ailments while shunting expensive cases onto the public.
The Journal’s editorial board was apparently not paying attention to its own reporters. Because in its editorial yesterday, the board cites a study funded by Elevance Health — one of the largest Medicare Advantage insurers in the country — to argue that private MA plans reduce Medicare spending. It calls opposition to Medicare Advantage “ideological, no matter the facts.”
“No matter the facts” certainly applies to the Journal’s editorial.
The central fact the editorial board cannot afford to acknowledge — because the entire argument would collapse if it did — is the ongoing Medicare Advantage overpayment scandal. MedPAC, the independent congressional agency that advises Congress on Medicare, projects that for 2026, Medicare Advantage payments will run $76 billion — or 14% — above what traditional Medicare would spend on the same beneficiaries, after accounting for health status, coding differences, and geographic factors. Note that the $76 billion in overpayments is just for this year. Looking back over the history of the Medicare Advantage program and the total likely would grow to nearly a trillion dollars if not more.
This is not a partisan number. MedPAC is a nonpartisan body. The methodology accounts for the very factors the industry argues should be included. And the conclusion is unambiguous: the federal government spends substantially more of our tax dollars per person under Medicare Advantage than it would under traditional Medicare. That $76 billion overpayment is not a rounding error. It is more than the entire annual budget of the Department of Education.
The Journal’s editorial board also ignores what that overpayment costs seniors who never chose a private plan. The Journal’s own reporting detailed how MA overpayments translated into roughly $13.4 billion in additional Part B premium costs in 2025 alone — costs borne by every Medicare beneficiary, including those in traditional Medicare who never signed up for a private Medicare replacement plan, which is what Medicare Advantage is. Every senior paying Part B premiums is, in effect, subsidizing the insurers the editorial board is championing.
The editorial argues that Medicare Advantage reduces the incentives for hospitals to upcode patients to a higher level of complexity. This would be a compelling point if the Journal’s own investigation had not spent years documenting how MA insurers themselves are the upcoding problem.
The Journal’s investigation found that coding intensity in Medicare Advantage runs 20% higher than in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Of the 17 audits the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General has conducted since 2019, there was no support for nearly 69% of diagnoses that Medicare Advantage plans used for risk adjustment, leading to more than $100 million in overpayments to MA plans from upcoding alone. That’s not a rounding error either.
In the early years of private Medicare plans, insurers went to great lengths to sign up only the healthiest seniors and to run off the seniors when they got sick. It was called “cherry picking” and “lemon dropping.” I saw it up close in the early ‘90s when I was at Humana, one of the first insurers to get into the private Medicare replacement business. It was so prevalent in the industry that in 2003 Congress passed legislation to authorize the government to pay insurers more for signing up less-healthy seniors. So for two decades now, insurers have been paid more for sicker patients, which means they have powerful financial incentives to make patients look sicker on paper — but not to pay for treatments they supposedly would need. The Journal’s reporters found that among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who had an HIV diagnosis added to their record by their insurer, just 17% received any treatment for the disease. Among beneficiaries diagnosed with HIV by their own physician, 92% received treatment. Diagnoses without treatment are not better care. They are extra revenue.
The editorial’s most revealing sentence may be this one: “The opposition to Advantage is ideological, no matter the facts.” This is a tell. It reframes data as politics, and politics as bias — a classic spin move designed to preempt legitimate criticism by impugning the critic’s motives.
But the criticism of Medicare Advantage is most certainly not ideological, and it is not coming only from Democrats. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a Republican, wrote to UnitedHealth Group’s CEO arguing that the “apparent fraud, waste, and abuse at issue is simply unacceptable and harms not only Medicare beneficiaries, but also the American taxpayer.” The Trump administration’s Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation into UnitedHealth Group’s Medicare Advantage billing practices (which the Journal reported as a scoop). The Senate Judiciary Committee, which Grassley chairs, published a 104-page report on MA overbilling.
Another senior Republican, Sen. Bill Cassidy, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, is the lead sponsor of a bill that would crack down on upcoding. It’s called The No UPCODE Act. These are not the actions of ideologues. They are the actions of Republican legislative leaders and committee investigators who read the Journal’s own reporting and followed up.
The editorial’s timing is no coincidence. Trump’s Medicare director, Chris Klomp, recently confirmed that the administration is actively considering a policy that would automatically enroll new Medicare beneficiaries into private Medicare Advantage plans — a proposal straight out of the Project 2025 blueprint. The editorial reads, at least in part, as advance justification for that policy.
Under current law, seniors who enroll in Medicare are automatically covered by traditional Medicare unless they affirmatively choose a private plan. Under a default enrollment scheme, the reverse would be true: seniors who fail to make an active choice would be placed into a private plan, with the option to switch back – but not for three years. Seniors would be locked in a plan that the government chose for them, that has a limited network of doctors and hospitals, that makes them pay the entire bill for services they might receive outside of that network, and that denies coverage for medically necessary care far more than traditional Medicare – for three years.
The consequences of getting automatic enrollment in MA wrong are severe and often irreversible. The vast majority of states do not require Medigap insurers to sell supplemental coverage to beneficiaries who want to switch back from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare outside of limited time windows. For many seniors, once they are in, they are in. The editorial board does not mention this.
And the program is hardly the stable backstop the board describes. A Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health analysis found that approximately 10% of Medicare Advantage enrollees — roughly 2.9 million seniors — are being forced to find new coverage in 2026 as insurers exit markets, a tenfold increase in the forced disenrollment rate compared to just two years ago. The board wants to make this the default destination for every new senior in America, just as the private market is demonstrating it cannot sustain its current commitments.
Let’s return to the study the editorial board cites as evidence that Medicare Advantage saves money. The board presents it as peer-reviewed fact. What it does not say is that the researchers are affiliated with Elevance Health — formerly Anthem — one of the largest Medicare Advantage insurers in the country. Industry-funded research is not automatically wrong, but it requires disclosure and scrutiny that the editorial board does not provide. I know from personal experience that industry-funded research is typically rigged to support conclusions the funder wants to convey – to policymakers, the business community, the media and the public – and that any data that do not support the funder’s business objectives never make it into the final report.
In the communications business, we used to call this kind of thing a “third-party validator” — research that carries the appearance of independence while advancing the funder’s interests. I helped produce the playbook. I know how this works.
The Wall Street Journal’s newsroom has done some of the most consequential health care journalism of the past decade. Its reporters negotiated extraordinary data access. They documented, with precision, how the insurance industry has extracted billions from Medicare through practices that the Pulitzer committee described as gaming the system. They named names and they showed their work. And you can be certain that every word they wrote was carefully fact-checked and vetted by the Journal’s legal team.
The editorial board is in the same building as the Journal’s newsroom. I know because I’ve been in those rooms. I know and have worked with many of the reporters who cover the health insurance business, going back to my days in the industry. I can assure you that the Journal’s reporters are among the best in the business and, unlike the editorial writers, most certainly are not motivated by ideology.
The newspaper’s editorial board owes readers the same fidelity to evidence that its reporters have demonstrated. Instead, it has produced a piece of advocacy that reads like it was drafted in a health insurance industry communications shop — cherry-picked studies, industry talking points, and a dismissal of critics as ideologues “no matter the facts.”
I have spent the years since leaving the insurance industry trying to help people understand how spin works – how it is produced, how it travels, and how it takes hold even in institutions that should know better. The Journal editorial board’s Medicare Advantage advocacy is a case study.
This should be studied in every journalism school in America: The paper that exposed Medicare Advantage’s overbilling scheme is now urging the government to make it the default plan for every senior in America. Someone needs to explain that to the reporters who spent three years proving why that is a terrible idea.
We’re always asking: Why do drugs cost so freaking much?
And it’s a complicated question. There are a bunch of reasons — tobesure. But in our reporting over the years, like our stories on insulin and tuberculosis drugs, experts cited one big reason over and over again:
The pharmaceutical industry wages sophisticated legal battles to keep monopoly control over their best selling, most lucrative drugs — blocking generic competition, and increasing their prices along the way.
How did it come to be this way?
In this first episode of a new series – what we’re calling An Arm and a Leg 101 – we’re doing a crash course in the history of the drug patent system.
And the rags-to-riches story of one amazing guy is going to help us do it.
Al Engelberg got schooled in the Art of the Hustle at a young age, collecting dimes at an illegal bingo game on the Atlantic City boardwalk.
Later, he’d put those street smarts to use as he sat at the negotiation table in Washington D.C., hashing out the details of a law that would usher in the generic drug industry as we know it. Then made millions from the rules he helped write.
And as he admits, his legacy is mixed.
On the one hand: The rules Al Engelberg helped write — a grand bargain between generic drugmakers and patent-holding brand pharma companies — unleashed the power of generic drugs to save Americans money.
Nine out of ten prescriptions written today get filled with a generic.
On the other hand: In the process of making his fortune, Al Engelberg discovered loopholes, gaps, and perverse incentives in that grand bargain.
Gaps that allowed brand and generic drugmakers to profit by keeping generics for many hit drugs off the market.
So we now spend more than ever on medicine — and more than 20 percent of Americans report skipping their medication because they can’t afford it.
Al Engelberg, now 86, has spent the last 30 years — and millions of his own dollars — trying to close those gaps.
“I live in a world — a pharma world — where half the people think I’m dead, and the other half wish I was,” he tells us.
After saying it wanted to keep federal payments to private Medicare plans roughly flat next year, the Trump administration reversed course on Monday and gave the insurers a $13 billion pay bump.
Why it matters:
The average 2.48% pay increase for 2027 was on the high end of analysts’ expectations and marked a win for UnitedHealthcare, Humana and other Medicare Advantage plans, whose stocks tumbled after the administration’s initial proposal in January.
The plans will instead see an average increase of nearly 5% when payments are adjusted to reflect how sick enrollees appear, Medicare officials said.
The administration was swamped by tens of thousands of comments after the initial proposal of less than a 0.1% increase for 2027.
Driving the news:
The pay increase reflects higher health cost growth in traditional Medicare that became apparent after additional data from the end of 2025 was crunched.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also dropped a proposal to update payments to plans based on the health status and demographics of enrollees, which insurers said would have disrupted their ability to care for seniors.
Medicare officials said that it makes sense to give insurers more time to absorb prior “risk adjustment” updates.
The administration is moving forward with a plan to prevent insurers from adding diagnoses after reviewing patients’ medical records — a move that addresses coding practices that have received scrutiny and is expected to save nearly $7 billion next year.
What they’re saying:
SomeMedicare providers said the pay boost still doesn’t reflect economic realities, at a time when the cost of drugs, supplies and more patient visits is stoking medical inflation.
“When payments fail to keep pace with care delivery costs, the consequences are predictable,” said Jerry Penso, president of medical group association AMGA, predicting possible cuts to supplemental benefits like vision and dental, higher costs to beneficiaries and, in some instances, plans exiting markets.
Medicare Advantage enrollment declined in seven states this year as plans pulled out of some markets.
Between the lines:
The administration’s original flat-funding proposal reflected bipartisan concern over how much money Medicare Advantage costs the health care system.
Policymakers’ concerns that health plans aren’t sufficiently lowering costs “will remain a headwind” for Medicare insurers, Duane Wright, senior health policy analyst at Bloomberg, said in an email.
Director of Medicare Chris Klomp said the finalized update aims to strike a balance between protecting seniors and protecting taxpayers.
“I’m sure that there will be folks on both sides of the equation who may have concerns about where we’ve landed,” he said.
“We’re certainly not abdicating responsibility [to taxpayers], nor are we saying that we are done.”
Zoom out:
Medicare administrators late last week finalized a separate plan to overhaul Medicare Advantage’s quality reporting and ratings system, which they expect will increase payments to plans by $18.6 billion over the next decade.
“As health plans incorporate the policies released in recent days, they will continue to focus on keeping coverage and care as affordable as possible during this time of sharply rising medical costs,” Chris Bond, spokesperson for insurance lobbying group AHIP, said in a statement.
What we’re watching:
Whether insurers run ads accusing the administration of cutting Medicare in the run-up to the midterm elections, as they did with the Biden administration in 2023.
In second episode of the HEALTH CARE un-covered Show, we walk you through the most recent earnings reports of seven of the largest for-profit health insurance corporations in the country.
Every three months, the nation’s largest health insurers release earnings statements filled with crammed financial tables, investor language and Wall Street jargon. Most people never see them. Even fewer try to understand what they really reveal about how the U.S. health care system works.
In second episode of the HEALTH CARE un-covered Show, we do something no one else does: walk you through the most recent earnings reports of seven of the largest for-profit health insurance corporations in the country — UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health (Aetna), Cigna, Elevance, Humana, Centene and Molina. As you’ll see, the results paint a striking picture of how powerful and profitable Big Insurance has become.
Together, those companies collected nearly $1.7 trillion in revenue in 2025, about $175 billion more than the year before and generated more than $54 billion in profits. Yet despite the record financial performance, the companies covered roughly 10 million fewer people than they did in 2024 – and ever-increasing chunks of their revenues are now coming from Americans’ tax dollars.
We show evidence of a trend reshaping the health care economy: self-dealing through insurers’ vertical integration and their huge government contracts, which accounts for much of the industry’s growth. For example, UnitedHealthcare now gets more than 77% of its revenue from government programs such as Medicare Advantage and Medicaid. As a reminder, Medicare Advantage is not traditional Medicare but a very profitable privatized version of the program that’s funded by taxpayers and that last year overpaid insurers by $84 billion.
We also examine stock buybacks. Between 2015 and 2025,these seven companies spent more than $137 billion buying back their own shares, a move that boosts earnings per share and enriches shareholders and top executives. That’s $137 billion that could have been used to reduce premiums and out-of-pocket expenses but went into the pockets of investors instead.
To put the numbers in perspective, we compare these insurers with some of America’s most recognizable corporations — from Chevron and PepsiCo to Bank of America and Salesforce. Most of the big seven generate more revenue than these household names. And many of the insurance conglomerates are growing faster than companies like Target, Uber, Disney and Starbucks.
We take viewers inside Wendell’s office to make sense of Big Insurance’s dense 2025 earnings reports.
You won’t find an analysis quite like this anywhere else.
This episode has been re-uploaded with corrected numbers. For instance, Disney was listed as having revenues of $274.9B in 2025. The correct number is $94.4B. The percent change used in the original video (+80%) was correct.
In Episode 1 of the HEALTH CARE un-covered Show, we examine what may be an inflection point in the health insurance reform debate. Plus, we’re joined by pollster Madeline Conway of Impact Research.
The volume of claims is treated as proof of misconduct, despite the fact that the statute imposes no limit on IDR submissions and explicitly allows for repeated use when payment disputes continue. Further, insurers base this claim on estimates of IDR submissions that were deeply flawed, forecasting nationwide utilization on the experience of one state.
The message is unmistakable: providers are not accused of breaking the NSA, but rather of utilizing it too effectively. For instance, insurers claim that providers submitted “thousands” of IDR disputes, including nearly “200 overlapping proceedings for the same services” across both the federal and state IDR systems, and batched an average of 66 separate items or services into a single IDR filing: Insurers describe these statistics as “overwhelming,” despite the fact that each dispute is linked to a corresponding payment denial or gross underpayment.
Recasting Physician Disputes as “Fraud”
Each lawsuit hones in on physician NSA disputes and castigates them as some kind of “fraud” or “abuse.” The HaloMD lawsuits are a prime example of the insurer taking an NSA dispute, challenging the disputes eligibility for arbitration and then recasting it as “fraud.” What these lawsuits notably fail to recognize is that the outcomes of IDR are determined by independent arbitrators, called certified IDR entities (IDREs), not by the providers themselves.
According to CMS’s public-use files, 82% of 2024 disputes and 80% of 2025 disputes were found eligible for arbitration. This is orders of magnitude greater than what the government had estimated. What these numbers tell us is that the problem with the volume of disputes is not a conspiracy by doctors to abuse this system, but systemic underpayment by insurers, as we have reported.
In the lawsuits, insurers concede that it was the arbitrators, not the providers, who rendered the final awards in these disputes. Insurers also consistently and publicly voice their concerns that NSA awards surpass the Qualifying Payment Amount (QPA), often describing results that are ‘multiples’ of the median in-network rates or even exceeding billed charges. Insurers assert that IDR awards are excessive, “citing CMS data showing that they are on average slightly over 300% of the QPA” of the QPA.
However, a recent analysis shows that the reported QPAs consistently underestimate the actual median in-network rates, with an average discrepancy of 290% in cases where such discrepancies are present. A pervasive problem reported by providers and evident in the public-use files shows thousands of initial offers for payment that amount to less than a dollar. In one documented case involving high-acuity emergency care, the insurer calculated the QPA at $0.01. The arbitrator ultimately awarded $1,196. The gap was not evidence of an inflated charge; it was evidence that the benchmark itself was flawed.
This underestimation is attributed to calculations controlled by insurers, insufficient oversight, and the omission of market factors that Congress mandated arbitrators to consider.
Simply disagreeing with an IDRE’s assessment does not equate to fraud. Rather than modifying payment practices, enhancing negotiations, or pursuing legislative clarity, insurers have opted for litigation as a tool to crush providers while claiming unfavorable arbitration results as evidence that the system is being “manipulated.” They are both arsonists and firefighters.
The Litigation Boa Constrictor
Across jurisdictions, insurers clearly claim that defendants engaged in “coordinated enterprises,” “strategic partnerships,” or “associations-in-fact,” alleging RICO violations founded on the concurrent use of IDR, common billing vendors, and simultaneous filings, even though there is no statutory restriction against coordinated IDR usage or shared administrative frameworks.
The recurring themes in these filings are hard to overlook. In the last 12 months, there have been 11 lawsuits targeting use of the No Surprises Act, four alleging RICO violations and five seeking treble damages.
So far, this coordinated lawfare effort includes the following suits:
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas v. HaloMD et al. (E.D. Tex., Aug. 2025)
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas v. Zotec Partners, LLC (E.D. Tex., Dec. 2025)
Anthem Health Plans of Virginia v. AGS Health / SCP Health et al. (W.D. Va., Nov. 2025)
Community Insurance Co. (Anthem Ohio) v. HaloMD et al. (S.D. Ohio, June 2025)
Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia v. HaloMD et al. (N.D. Ga., May 2025)
Anthem Blue Cross (CA) v. HaloMD et al. (C.D. Cal., July 2025)
Anthem Blue Cross (CA) v. Prime Healthcare entities (C.D. Cal., Jan. 2026)
UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. NorthStar Anesthesia of Pennsylvania, LLC (E.D. Pa., Dec. 2025)
UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. v. Maui Emergency Care Physicians, LLC (D. Haw., Jan. 2026)
United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Concord Company of Tennessee, PLLC (W.D. Ky., Jan. 2026)
UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co. v. Radiology Partners, LLC (D. Ariz, Aug. 2025)
These prosecutions follow a distinct pattern of allegations: strategic batching, simultaneous filings, excessive offers, false statements, and an alleged conspiracy to take advantage of IDR. Even when the factual circumstances vary, the narrative remains the same. This consistency indicates not an independent discovery of wrongdoing, but a calculated strategy.
The targets of these lawsuits represent the full spectrum of organizations utilizing the NSA. From revenue cycle management (HaloMD) to large physician staffing organization (SCP) to small physician practice management group (Concord Company), insurers are constricting the entire provider community hoping to alter the NSA through legal outcomes.
Litigation as Press Release
The litigation involving Prime Healthcare highlights this strategy particularly well. In this case, insurers openly admit that hospitals are utilizing IDR instead of balance billing patients, precisely what Congress intended, yet they still label this behavior as abusive because it led to payments that were higher than what insurers were prepared to offer. Lawful reliance on IDR is recast in this complaint as “extractive,” “indiscriminate,” or “profitable abuse,” as if the issue lies not with insurer underpayment but with the presence of an independent referee who has the authority to disagree with them.
The impact on the real world is far from just a theory. These lawsuits aim for treble damages, annulment of arbitration awards, and injunctions intended to completely deny providers future access to IDR. The message from insurers is clear: engage in the IDR process established by Congress, and you will face consequences. Providers who utilize IDR are not seen as legitimate participants in a federal program; instead, they are viewed as targets, labeled as racketeers, pulled into costly litigation, and compelled to defend their right to contest underpayment. These lawsuits serve as a deterrent and act as a warning to discourage providers from engaging in IDR by making the costs of participation excessively burdensome.
Breaking the NSA Balance
No lawsuit will have more far reaching consequences for physicians than UnitedHealthcare v NorthStar Anesthesia (the insurer has filed five similar lawsuits). While this suit follows the usual script of allegations it aims for something more pernicious than unflattering headlines: declaratory judgment of fraud for ineligible disputes. The eligibility of an NSA dispute rests solely with CMS and the independent arbitrator – they are administrative. Physicians have repeatedly shown that insurers withhold critical information needed to determine a claim’s eligibility, the result being that occasionally physicians will dispute a claim that is ineligible for arbitration. According to CMS, with more than 80% of claims sent to arbitration being determined as eligible, these mistakes are the exception, not the rule.
However, if UnitedHealthcare is granted the relief it seeks, insurers will be able to challenge dispute eligibility in court, outside of arbitration, and receive direct judgments of “fraud” against physicians who have filed ineligible claims. A declaratory judgment of fraud would not simply reverse a payment. It would create precedent allowing insurers to relitigate administrative eligibility decisions in federal court and seek damages for disputes that arbitrators have already accepted into the federal process. This elevates an administrative error into reputational and legal risk that no physician practice could withstand.
The NSA’s public policy goal of removing patients from billing disputes, was buttressed by leveling the playing field between physician practices and insurance behemoths. The sweeping effects of this case will fundamentally alter the scales in favor of insurers and not just chill, but shut out doctors from obtaining fair reimbursement.
Shifting the balance of power
This situation should alarm policymakers as well as doctors and their patients. It embodies the risk of extended, multi-faceted litigation initiated by trillion-dollar insurance conglomerates targeting individual physicians, small practices, and safety-net hospitals that do not possess equivalent resources.
This pressure does not safeguard patients. Instead, it discourages providers from contesting underpayment, shifts the balance of power firmly back to insurers, and dissuades the use of the very system intended to resolve disputes and protect patients. In the meantime, insurers leverage extensive financial resources to maintain coordinated litigation efforts while depicting providers, especially those offering emergency care, as wrongdoers for employing the only legal remedy available.
Ultimately, these legal actions are not aimed at preventing misconduct. Instead, they focus on altering market structure. By transforming the routine application of IDR into a significant litigation risk, insurers are indicating that independent providers who challenge payment terms will face penalties instead of negotiations.
The foreseeable outcome is the consolidation of providers: small practices, emergency physician groups, and safety-net hospitals will be compelled to sell, affiliate, or close rather than endure the costs and uncertainties associated with defending against repeated federal lawsuits. As we’ve reported, Optum now employs more than 90,000 clinicians. Simultaneously, this approach accelerates the vertical integration of insurers, directing care toward entities that are either owned or aligned with insurers, which are shielded from payment disputes and arbitration. Within this context, the courts do not serve as a venue for resolving conflicts; they function as a mechanism for enforcing market discipline. This undermines the fundamental objective of the No Surprises Act to balance bargaining power and, in turn, reinforces insurer dominance over pricing, networks, and access to care.
A law meant to protect patients and equalize bargaining power is being weaponized by insurers to suppress those who question insurer payment practices and, in doing so, to silence the underdog.
New data shows the U.S. is moving backward on coverage, not forward—raising a harder question: is the problem affordability, or priorities?
Will the U.S. ever provide health care for all its citizens?
The prospects are dim for enacting a system that provides services for the county’s entire population the way Europeans have done for decades. As the head of the German pharmaceutical association in Berlin once told me in an interview, “In the German system, nothing comes between us and our principle of solidarity.” I asked, “Even your profits?” “Not even our profits,” he replied.” Imagine any health care executive in the U.S., where the bottom line reigns supreme, daring to say a thing like that.
That interview with the German pharmaceutical executive came to mind again as I read the latest study from the Commonwealth Fund, which should be required reading for anyone interested in health policy and the future of the American system. The report by the Fund’s senior scholar, Sara Collins, said the Trump administration has “made it harder than ever for Americans to get good health insurance,” a conclusion that needs to be shared far and wide.
The administration itself predicts these changes will reduce enrollment in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces next year by 1.2 to 2 million people. The U.S. is falling backward in providing health care for all, a project that prompted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to observe long ago, “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”
At the Commonwealth Fund, Collins noted that those losses are on top of other changes expected to leave another 7.5 million people uninsured. Even though members of Congress hostile to the Affordable Care Act failed to repeal the act during Trump’s first term, Collins points out they still inflicted damage by whittling away at some of the law’s provisions. She reports that last year a majority of the public supported the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced premium tax credits, established in 2021. Republicans, however, did not pass legislation to extend those credits that helped millions of Americans, who now face annual premium increases of $750 to more than $4,000.
Does the destruction of the hard-won Affordable Care Act mean that a country as rich as ours cannot afford to pay for medical care like the rest of the world’s developed countries do, or does it mean those with clout don’t want those without to have health care? I am inclined to believe the latter.
That was not the only damage caused by the Trump administration. For example, a new rule for marketplace coverage increased out-of-pocket costs, eliminated special enrollment periods for those with low incomes, and put new restrictions on auto enrollment. In addition insurers raised premiums by 20% or more in many cases, hoping that those people who are healthy would not drop coverage and leave them with sick, and more costly, health plan enrollees. Such a strategy would be unheard of in countries with national health systems, where everyone is entitled to care.
“The Trump administration’s latest actions on the ACA marketplaces continue to make it as difficult and costly as possible for those with low and moderate incomes to get good health insurance and care they need,” Collins reported. “This will lead to more people with low and moderate incomes uninsured, underinsured, less healthy, and saddled with medical debt.”
Is this what Americans want for their health care system?
HENRY KOTULA 