Tag Archives: Health

Gut Punches for Healthcare and Hospitals

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Bankruptcy, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Deferred Healthcare, Financially Distressed, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Industry, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid Cuts, Medical Debt, Out of Pocket Expenses, Politics, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Model, Profit Motive, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Shareholder Expectations, Sign of the Times, Underinsured, Uninsured, Wall Street • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
Gut Punches for Healthcare and Hospitals: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the CMS Proposed Rule

The healthcare industry is still licking its wounds from $1 trillion in federal funding cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed into law July 4.

Adding insult to injury, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services issued a 913-page proposed rule last Tuesday that includes unwelcome changes especially troublesome for hospitals i.e. adoption of site neutral payments, expansion of hospital price transparency requirements, reduction of inpatient-only services, acceleration of hospital 340B discount repayment obligations and more.

The combination of the two is bad news for healthcare overall and hospitals especially: the timing is precarious:

  • Economic uncertainty: Economists believe a recession is less likely but uncertainty about tariffs, fear about rising inflation, labor market volatility a housing market slowdown and speculation about interest rates have capital markets anxious. Healthcare is capital intense: the impact of the two in tandem with economic uncertainty is unsettling.
  • Consumer spending fragility: Consumer spending is holding steady for the time being but housing equity values are dropping, rents are increasing, student loan obligations suspended during Covid are now re-activated, prices for hospital and physicians are increasing faster than other necessities and inflation ticked up slightly last month. Consumer out-of-pocket spending for healthcare products and services is directly impacted by purchases in every category.
  • Heightened payer pressures: Insurers and employers are expecting double-digit increases for premiums and health benefits next year blaming their higher costs on hospitals and drugs, OBBBA-induced insurance coverage lapses and systemic lack of cost-accountability. For insurers, already reeling from 2023-2024 financial reversals, forecasts are dire. Payers will heighten pressure on healthcare providers—especially hospitals and specialists—as a result.

Why healthcare appears to have borne the brunt of the funding cuts in the OBBBA is speculative: 

Might a case have been made for cuts in other departments? Might healthcare programs other than Medicaid have been ripe for “waste, fraud and abuse” driven cuts? Might technology-driven administrative costs reductions across the expanse of federal and state government been more effective than DOGE- blunt experimentation?

Healthcare is 18% of the GDP and 28% of total federal spending: that leaves room for cuts in other industries.

Why hospitals, along with nursing homes and public health programs, are likely to bear the lion’s share of OBBBA’ cut fallout and CMS’ proposed rule disruptions is equally vexing.  Might the high-profile successes of some not-for-profit hospital operators have drawn attention? Might Congress have been attentive to IRS Form 990 filings for NFP operators and quarterly earnings of investor-owned systems and assume hospital finances are OK? Might advocacy efforts to maintain the status quo with facility fees, 340B drug discounts, executive compensation et al been overshadowed by concerns about consolidation-induced cost increases and disregard for affordability? Hospital emergency rooms in rural and urban communities, nursing homes, public health programs and many physicians will be adversely impacted by the OBBBA cuts: the impact will vary by state. What’s not clear is how much.

My take:

Having read both the OBBBA and CMS proposed rules and observed reactions from industry, two things are clear to me:

The antipathy toward the healthcare industry among the public  and in Congress played a key role in passage of the OBBBA and regulatory changes likely to follow. 

Polls show three-fourths of likely voters want to see transformational change to healthcare and two-thirds think the industry is more concerned with its profit over their care: these views lend to hostile regulatory changes. The public and the majority of elected officials think the industry prioritizes protection of the status quo over obligations to serve communities and the greater good.

The result: winners and losers in each sector, lack of continuity and interoperability, runaway costs and poor outcomes.

No sector in healthcare stands as the surrogate for the health and wellbeing of the population. There are well-intended players in each sector who seek the moral high ground for healthcare, but their boards and leaders put short-term sustainability above long-term systemness and purpose. That void needs to be filled.

The timing of these changes is predictably political. 

Most of the lower-cost initiatives in both the OBBBA changes and CMS proposals carry obligations to commence in 2026—in time for the November 2026 mid-term campaigns. Most of the results, including costs and savings, will not be known before 2028 or after. They’re geared toward voters inclined to think healthcare is systemically fraudulent, wasteful and self-serving.

And they’re just the start: officials across the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Commerce, Labor and Veterans Affairs will add to the lists.

Buckle up.

Health Insurance as a Share of Median Income by U.S. State

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-health-insurance-as-a-share-of-median-income-by-u-s-state/

Health Insurance as a Share of Median Income by U.S. State

This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

Key Takeaways

  • Vermont tops the list, with insurance costing 19.6% of median income.
  • New Hampshire residents spend just 4% of their income on health insurance, the lowest in the nation.

Americans pay wildly different amounts for health insurance depending on where they live. This map shows which states pay the most (and least) when health insurance costs are measured as a share of median income.

The data for this visualization comes from WalletHub. It analyzed silver-tier health plan premiums in all 50 states and compared them to local median incomes to determine cost burdens.

Vermont and West Virginia Lead in Cost Burden

In Vermont, residents spend 19.6% of their monthly income on health insurance, the highest share in the country. West Virginia follows closely at 18.8%.

The South and Mountain West Feel the Pinch

Many Southern and Mountain West states, like Mississippi, Wyoming, and Louisiana, also rank high in insurance cost burden. These regions tend to have poorer health outcomes and lower median incomes, exacerbating affordability issues. As Brookings notes, Medicaid expansion status and rural demographics heavily influence insurance markets in these areas.

New Hampshire and the Northeast Are Least Burdened

New Hampshire residents spend just 4% of their income on health insurance, the lowest in the nation.

Massachusetts, Maryland, and Minnesota also enjoy low cost burdens. These states often have robust state-run exchanges, higher incomes, and broader Medicaid expansion, all of which help reduce costs.

The Fundamental Problem at the Heart of American Health Insurance

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Administrative Complexity, Administrative Costs, Administrative Workload, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Model, Profit Motive, Shareholder Expectations, Shareholder Primacy, Wall Street • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/the-fundamental-problem-at-the-heart?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=167813331&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Administrative waste, denials, and deadly incentives — the U.S. model shows what happens when profit rules.

The United States is the only country where a health insurance executive has been gunned down in the street. But that’s not the only thing that’s unique about American health insurance.

Almost all of our peer countries – advanced, free-market democracies — have health insurance companies. In some cases (Germany, Switzerland, Japan), private health insurance is the chief way to pay for medical care. In others (such as Great Britain), private insurance works as a supplement to government-run health care systems. But there’s a fundamental difference between health insurance elsewhere and the U.S. system. 

In all the other advanced democracies, basic health insurance is not for profit; the insurers are essentially charities. They exist not to pay large sums to executives and investors, but rather to keep the population healthy by assuring that everyone can get medical care when it’s needed. 

America’s health insurance giants are profit-making businesses. Indeed, in the insurers’ quarterly earnings reports to investors, the standard industry term for any sums spent paying people’s medical bills is “medical loss.” They view paying your doctor bill as a loss that subtracts from the dividends they owe their stockholders. 

When I studied health care systems around the world, I asked economists and doctors and health ministers why they want health insurance to be a nonprofit endeavor. Everyone gave essentially the same answer:

There’s a fundamental contradiction between insuring a nation’s health and making a profit on health insurance.

Health insurance exists to help people get the preventive care and treatment they need by paying their medical bills. But the way to make a profit on health insurance is to avoid paying medical bills. Accordingly, the U.S. insurance giants have devised ingenious methods for evading payment — schemes like high deductibles, narrow networks of approved doctors, limited lists of permitted drugs, and pre-authorization requirements, so that the insurance adjuster, not your doctor, determines what treatment you get. 

Other countries don’t allow those gimmicks. In America, the patient pays twice — first the insurance premium, and then the bill that the insurer declines to pay. That’s why Americans hate health insurance companies — as reflected in the tasteless barrage of angry social media commentary aimed at the victim, not the perpetrator, of the sidewalk shooting in 2024  of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO Brian Thompson in New York City. 

Another unique aspect of U.S.-style health insurance is the huge amount of money our big insurers waste on administrative costs. Any insurance plan has administrative expenses; you’ve got to collect the premiums, review the patients’ claims, and get the payments out to doctors and hospitals.

In other countries, the administrative costs are limited to about 5% of premium income; that is, insurers use 95% of all the money they take in to pay medical bills. But the U.S. insurance giants routinely report administrative costs in the range of 15% to 20%.

When the first drafts of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) were floated on Capitol Hill in 2009, the statutory language called for limiting insurers’ admin costs to 12% of premium income. Then the insurance lobby went to work. The final text of that law allows them to spend up to 20% of their income on salaries, marketing, dividends, and other stuff that doesn’t pay anybody’s hospital bill. 

There is one American insurance system, however, that is as thrifty as foreign health insurance plans. Medicare, the federal government’s insurance program for seniors and the disabled, reports administrative costs in the range of 3% — about one-fifth as much as the big private insurers fritter away. And Medicare’s administrators — federal bureaucrats — are paid less than a tenth as much as the executives running the far less efficient private insurance firms. 

Americans generally believe that the profit-driven private sector is more efficient and innovative than government. In many cases, that’s true. I wouldn’t want some government agency designing my cell phone or my hiking boots.

But when it comes to health insurance, all the evidence shows that nonprofit and government-run plans provide better coverage at lower cost than the private plans from America’s health insurance giants.

If we were to make basic health insurance a nonprofit endeavor, as it is everywhere else, or put everybody on a public plan like Medicare, the U.S. would save billions and improve our access to life-saving care. Then Americans might stop celebrating on social media when an insurance executive is killed. 

Poll results: AGI and the future of medicine

Posted on by • Posted in Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), Artificial Intelligence, Clinical Diagnosis, Clinical Innovation, Future of Medicine, Physician, Physician Practice Management, Physician Productivity • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
Poll results: AGI and the future of medicine

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) refers to AI systems that can match or exceed human cognitive abilities across a wide range of tasks, including complex medical decision-making.

With tech leaders predicting AGI-level capabilities within just a few years, clinicians and patients alike may soon face a historic inflection point: How should these tools be used in healthcare, and what benefits or risks might they bring? Last month’s survey asked your thoughts on these pressing questions. Here are the results:

My thoughts: 

I continue to be impressed by the expertise of readers. Your views on artificial general intelligence (AGI) closely align with those of leading technology experts. A clear majority believes that AGI will reach clinical parity within five years. A sizable minority expect it will take longer, and only a small number doubt it will ever happen.

Your answers also highlight where GenAI could have the greatest impact. Most respondents pointed to diagnosis (helping clinicians solve complex or uncertain medical problems) as the No. 1 opportunity. But many also recognized the potential to empower patients: from improving chronic disease management to personalizing care. And unlike the electronic health record, which adds to clinicians’ workloads (and contributes to burnout), GenAI is widely seen by readers as a tool that could relieve some of that burden.

Ultimately, the biggest concern may lie not with the technology, itself, but in who controls it. Like many of you, I worry that if clinicians don’t lead the way, private equity and for-profit companies will. And if they do, they will put revenue above the interests of patients and providers.

Thanks to those who voted. To participate in future surveys, and for access to timely news and opinion on American healthcare, sign up for my free (and ad-free) newsletter Monthly Musings on American Healthcare.

* * *

Dr. Robert Pearl is the former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group, the nation’s largest physician group. He’s a Forbes contributor, bestselling author, Stanford University professor, and host of two healthcare podcasts. Check out Pearl’s newest book, ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine with all profits going to Doctors Without Borders.

The Perfect Storm has Hit U.S. Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Lobbyist, Medicaid, Medicaid Cuts, Perfect Storm, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Motive • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
The Perfect Storm has Hit U.S. Healthcare

The perfect storm has hit U.S. healthcare:

  • The “Big Beautiful Budget Bill” appears headed for passage with cuts to Medicaid and potentially Medicare likely elements.
  • The economy is slowing, with a mild recession a possibility as consumer confidence drops, the housing market slows and uncertainty about tariffs mounts.
  • And partisan brinksmanship in state and federal politics has made political hostages of public and rural health safety net programs as demand increases for their services.

Last Wednesday, amidst mounting anxiety about the aftermath of U.S. bunker-bombing in Iran and escalating conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its report on healthcare spending in 2024 and forecast for 2025-2033:

“National health expenditures are projected to have grown 8.2% in 2024 and to increase 7.1% in 2025, reflecting continued strong growth in the use of health care services and goods.

During the period 2026–27, health spending growth is expected to average 5.6%, partly because of a decrease in the share of the population with health insurance (related to the expiration of temporarily enhanced Marketplace premium tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022) and partly because of an anticipated slowdown in utilization growth from recent highs. Each year for the full 2024–33 projection period, national health care expenditure growth (averaging 5.8%) is expected to outpace that for the gross domestic product (GDP; averaging 4.3%) and to result in a health share of GDP that reaches 20.3% by 2033 (up from 17.6% in 2023) …

Although the projections presented here reflect current law, future legislative and regulatory health policy changes could have a significant impact on the projections of health insurance coverage, health spending trends, and related cost-sharing requirements, and they thus could ultimately affect the health share of GDP by 2033.”

As has been the case for 20 years, spending for healthcare grew faster than the overall economy in 2024. And it is forecast to continue through 2033:

 2024Baseline2033Forecast% Nominal Chg.2024-2033
National Health Spending$5,263B$8,585B+63.1%
US Population337,2M354.8M+5.2%
Per capita personal health spending$13,227$20,559+55.7%
Per capita disposable personal income$21,626$31,486+45.6%
NHE as % of US GDP18.0%20.3%+12.8%

In its defense, industry insiders call attention to the uniqueness of the business of healthcare:

  • ‘Healthcare is a fundamental need: the health system serves everyone.’
  • ‘Our aging population, chronic disease prevalence and socioeconomic disparities are drive increased demand for the system’s products and services.’
  • ‘The public expects cutting edge technologies, modern facilities, effective medications and the best caregivers and they’re expensive.’
  • ‘Burdensome regulatory compliance costs contribute to unnecessary spending and costs.’

And they’re right.

Critics argue the U.S. health system is the world’s most expensive but its results (outcomes) don’t justify its costs.  They acknowledge the complexity of the industry but believe “waste, fraud and abuse” are pervasive flaws routinely ignored. And they remind lawmakers that the health economy is profitable to most of its corporate players (investor-owned and not-for-profits) and its executive handsomely compensated.

Healthcare has been hit by a perfect storm at a time when a majority of the public associates it more with corporatization and consolidation than caring. This coalition includes Gen Z adults who can’t afford housing, small employers who’ve cut employee coverage due to costs and large, self-insured employers who trying to navigate around the 10-20% employee health cost increase this year, state and local governments grappling with health costs for their public programs and many more. They’re tired of excuses and think the health system takes advantage of them.

As a percentage of the nation’s GDP and household discretionary spending, healthcare will continue to be disproportionately higher and increasingly concerning.  Spending will grow faster than other industries until lawmakers impose price controls and other mechanisms like at least 8 states have begun already.

Most insiders are taking cover and waiting ‘til the storm passes. Some are content to cry foul and blame others. Others will emerge with new vision and purpose centered on reality.

Storm damage is rarely predictable but always consequential. It cannot be ignored. The Perfect has Hit U.S. healthcare. Its impact is not yet known but is certain to be a game changer.

The Fox Guards the Hen House – Translating AHIP’s Commitments to Streamlining Prior Authorization

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Electronic Pre Authorization, Health Insurance Industry, Health Insurance Pre Authorization, Lobbyist, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Denials, Prior Authorization, Unnecessary Pre Authorizations • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/the-fox-guards-the-hen-house-translating?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=166732339&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

“We urge the Administration to consider the timing of these policies in the context of the broader scope of requirements and challenges facing the industry that require significant system changes.”

  • AHIP, March 13, 2023 (in a letter to CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure responding to CMS’s proposed rule on Advancing Interoperability and Improving Prior Authorization Processes, proposed Final Rule, CMS-0057-P)

“Health insurance plans today announced a series of commitments to streamline, simplify and reduce prior authorization – a critical safeguard to ensure their members’ care is safe, effective, evidence-based and affordable.”

  • AHIP, June 23, 2025 (press release announcing voluntary prior authorization reforms)

What a difference two years make.

After lobbying aggressively to delay implementation of the PA reforms proposed by the previous administration (successfully delayed one year and counting), AHIP, the big PR and lobbying group for health insurers, now claims the mantle of reformer, announcing a set of voluntary commitments to streamline prior authorization.

So naturally, the industry’s “commitments” deserve closer scrutiny. Let’s unpack them. As a former health insurance industry executive, I speak their language, so allow me to translate. AHIP, which has no enforcement power, by the way, claims that 48 large insurers will:

  1. Develop and implement standards for electronic prior authorization using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources Application Programming Interfaces (FHIR APIs).Translation: CMS is already requiring all insurers to do this by 2027. We might as well take credit preemptively.
  2. Reduce the volume of in-network medical authorizations. Translation: We already demand hundreds of millions of unnecessary prior authorizations for thousands of procedures and services, so cutting a few (who knows how many?) should be a layup and won’t cut into profits.
  3. Enhance continuity of care when patients change health plans by honoring a PA decision for a 90-day transition period starting in 2026.Translation: We’re already required to do this in Medicare Advantage. And since we delayed implementation of e-authorization until 2027, we’re in the clear until then anyway.
  4. Improve communications by providing members with clear explanations for authorization determinations and support for appeals. Translation: We’re already required by state and federal law to do this. We’ll double-check our materials.
  5. Ensure 80% of prior authorizations are processed in real time and expand new API standards to all lines of business. Translation: We had to promise to hold ourselves accountable to at least one measurable goal. We will set the denominator – we’ll decide which procedures and medications require PA – so we’ll hit this goal, no problem, and we might even use more non-human AI algorithms to do it.
  6. 6. Ensuring medical review of non-approved requests. Translation: People will be relieved we’re not using robots. And we’ll avoid having Congress insist that reviews must be done by a same-specialty physician, as proposed in the Reducing Medically Unnecessary Delays in Care Act of 2025 (H.R. 2433).

Of course, I wasn’t in the room when AHIP drafted these commitments, so take my translations with a grain of salt. But let’s be honest: These promises are thin on specifics, short on accountability, and devoid of measurable impact.

They also follow a familiar script, blaming physicians for cost escalation by “deviating from evidence-based care” and the “latest research”, while positioning PA as a necessary safeguard to protect patients from “unsafe or inappropriate care.” And largely ignoring how PA routinely delays necessary treatment and harms patients.

It’s also rich coming from an industry still reliant on something called the X12 transaction standard – technology that is now over 40 years old – to process prior authorization requests, while simultaneously pointing the finger at providers for outdated technology and being slow to adopt modern systems. Many insurers did not start accepting electronic submissions of prior authorization until roughly 2019, nearly 20 years after clinicians started using online portals such as MyChart in their regular practice. The claim that providers are the ones behind on technology is another ploy by insurers to dodge scrutiny for their schemes.

We shouldn’t settle for incremental fixes when the system itself is the problem. Nor should we allow the industry that created this problem – and perpetuates it in its own self-interest – to dictate the pace or terms of reforming it.

As we argued in our recent piece, Congress should act to significantly curtail the use of prior authorization, limiting it to a narrow, evidence-based set of high-risk use cases. Insurers should also be required to rapidly adopt smarter, lower-friction cost-control methods, like gold-carding trusted clinicians (if it can be implemented with integrity and fairness), without compromising patient access or clinical autonomy.

Letting the fox design the hen house’s security perimeter won’t protect the hens. It’s time for Congress to build a better fence.

Health Insurance Industry Promises Reforms After $476 Million PR and Lobbying Campaign

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Insurance Premiums, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Lobbyist, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Motive • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/health-insurance-industry-promises?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=166816548&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Health insurers and their lobbying arms have spent $476.5 million since 2020 to block reform, protect profits, and mislead the public — and it’s coming straight from our premiums and tax dollars.

AHIP, the big PR and lobbying outfit for most health insurers, undoubtedly believes the praise it got from Trump administration officials and some members of Congress this week – when it announced changes insurers presumably will make voluntarily to alleviate the burden of prior authorization demands on patients and health care providers – has taken the heat off insurers. AHIP’s message to Washington politicos: You don’t need to pass any new laws to make us do the right thing. You can trust us, despite our decades of engaging in untrustworthy behavior to maximize profits.

As former health insurance executive Seth Glickman, M.D., explained yesterday, nobody should believe this hen-house guarding fox.

After all, AHIP is nothing more than a PR and lobbying shop with millions of our dollars to play with. It has zero ability to force insurers to do what AHIP claims they will do. I know this because I worked closely with AHIP during my 20 years in the industry and represented Cigna on its strategic communications committee.

From Fox to “Fixer”?

AHIP pulled off its big show on Monday – and got plenty of generally fawning press coverage – because of all the money it and affiliated insurers throw around Washington every year to protect what has become an incredibly profitable status quo.

Collectively, the seven biggest for-profit insurers reported $70 billion in profits last year.

(Beleauered UnitedHealth alone reported $34.4 million in operating earnings.) And that’s just seven among dozens. One way they make that kind of dough, for their shareholders and top executives, is by using prior authorization to avoid paying for patients’ medically necessary care. Many people die as a result, while investors get richer. It’s that simple and that cold.

So just how much money does AHIP and the insurance industry spend to bamboozle members of Congress and the White House every year? We’re talking stupid money. And orders of magnitude more than nonprofits that advocate for reforms that would benefit patients instead of shareholders.

Nearly Half a Billion Ways They Tip the Scale

To find out just how much, I turned to OpenSecrets and did some math. OpenSecrets, as a reminder, is the well-named organization that keeps tabs on campaign contributions and lobbying expenses.

What I discovered is that AHIP has spent almost $65 million lobbying Congress and the Biden and Trump administrations since 2020. Its cousin, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, has spent even more. More than twice as much more.

And that, folks, is just the tip of the iceberg, and it doesn’t even include the tens of millions the industry spends on massive advertising campaigns inside the DC beltway that it’s not required to report. Or the dark money ads and advocacy the industry bankrolls.

But just the lobbying totals are mind-blowing. When you factor in the money spent by the big seven insurers and the other PR and lobbying groups that insurers funnel money to, the total grows to almost $500 million. You read that right: nearly half a billion dollars.

Most of that spending was during the Biden administration, but the industry is on track to break spending records during the first year of the current Trump administration. They are lobbying not only to beat back new laws and regulations that could constrain their prior authorization practices but also to protect their biggest cash cows: Medicare Advantage and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).

Three PBMs – owned by Cigna, CVS/Aetna and UnitedHealth –control 80% of the pharmacy benefit market and determine which drugs we’ll have access to and how much we have to pay out of pocket even with insurance.

The Big Number

$476.5 million – That’s the amount of money health insurance corporations and four of their PR and lobbying groups – AHIP, BCBSA (which includes contributions from Elevance/Anthem as well as numerous other BCBS companies), the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association and the Better Medicare Alliance – have collectively spent on lobbying Congress and federal regulators between January 1, 2020, and March 31, 2025.

The Breakdown

Lobby dollars spent by AHIP; BCBSA; BMA; PCMA; Centene; Cigna; CVS/Aetna; Humana; Molina; and UnitedHealth between January 1, 2020, and March 31, 2025.

Keep in mind that that money is not coming out of executives’ paychecks. It’s coming out of our pockets. Insurers skim money from our premiums and taxes to finance their propaganda and lobbying efforts to keep the gravy train rolling. And it’s in addition to all the campaign cash they dole out every year, which I tabulated recently.

This is not to say that reform is impossible. Scrappy advocacy groups with a tiny fraction of that total have scored important victories over the years. But it is why progress is so slow and setbacks are so frequent.

But just imagine how all that money could be put to better use to ensure that all Americans, including those with insurance, are able to get the care they need when they need it. It’s clear that in addition to reforming our health care system, we need political reforms that make it more difficult for big corporations and their trade groups to influence elections and public policy.

Congress Could Force Patients in Rural America To Make Dire Medical Care Choices

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Bankruptcy, Financial Distress, Financial Instability, Financial Stewardship, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicaid, Medicaid Cuts, Rural Health, Rural Hospital, Uncompensated Care, Underinsured, Uninsured • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/congress-could-force-patients-in?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=166944373&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

New Medicaid funding rules proposed by Congress this week would halt efforts at the state level to better fund rural hospitals and deliver services to the most vulnerable populations in those areas. You can be certain that the administrators and staff of those hospitals, as well as leaders of the communities they serve, are watching closely to see if the cuts are enacted. 

Lawmakers at the federal level are trying to make deeper cuts to Medicaid spending in an effort to lower the amount of deficit spending that would be created by President Trump’s spending plan. Trump has dubbed the plan his “big beautiful bill.” 

Feds Would Strip Rural Hospitals of Lifeline Funds

Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee this week released their version of the bill that would drain funding for rural hospitals, which rely heavily on Medicaid funds to treat patients. It’s estimated that 25 to 40 percent of services provided by such hospitals are funded by Medicaid.

The federal government and states share the up-front medical costs for Medicaid patients. The federal government then reimburses states up to 50 percent of their Medicaid spending every year.

Many states fund their portion of the cost by taxing entities that provide those services to Medicaid patients.

The latest proposal in Congress would not only restrict how many patients could receive benefits, but it would also stop states from implementing those provider tax programs to help fund Medicaid services provided to residents.

At the federal level, the thinking is that if states keep taxing providers to fund Medicaid services, then the federal government will have to keep reimbursing states a portion of those costs. 

The downside to that is many experts, along with several Republicans in Congress, namely Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Josh Hawley of Missouri, have predicted it will decimate rural hospitals.

West Virginia Republican Sen. Jim Justice went a step further, saying that the plan to limit states’ use of provider taxes will “really hurt a lot of folks.” Despite that statement, Justice said he is OK with the freeze.

State Lawmakers Sound the Alarm

There are 39 states with at least three or more provider taxes used to help fund Medicaid services. Alaska is the only state with no such tax.

Some states, such as Ohio, have set up a new rural hospital fund using provider taxes to help rural hospitals deliver Medicaid services to patients.

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and the Republican-led state legislature set up a pilot program called the Rural Ohio Hospital Tax Pilot Program. The measure would allow counties to levy a tax on their local hospitals that would then be used to fund Medicaid services.

DeWine said the pilot program would help ease the financial stress rural hospitals face in Ohio. The plan contained in Ohio House Bill 96 has the blessing of the Ohio Hospital Association.

That state fund reportedly would be neutered by the federal proposal. Ohio has at least three different provider taxes.  

A group of Republican state lawmakers recently sent a letter to their federal counterparts pleading with them to remove the bill language because it would “torpedo” plans to keep rural hospitals functioning.

The American Hospital Association, a 130-year-old trade group of more than 5,000 hospitals and health care providers, this month released the impact on rural hospitals if this plan went into effect.

 More than $50 billion would be lost by 2034, and more than 1.8 million rural Americans would lose health benefits.

Kentucky residents would be impacted the most, with 143,000 losing benefits, followed by 135,000 Californians. More than 86,000 Ohioans would lose Medicaid coverage under the plan by 2034, making it the third most impacted state.

To blunt the effects of the cuts, Collins reportedly is proposing the establishment of a $100 billion relief fund that could provide financial support to affected providers, rural hospitals in particular. Whether that or a similar but smaller fund will wind up in the final draft of the legislation apparently will be decided this weekend. Meanwhile, the Senate parliamentarian has ruled against many of the provisions of the Senate version of the bill, including the Finance Committee’s provider tax framework, which puts the whole thing in flux.

Senate leaders say they plan a long series of votes on amendments of the bill on Sunday. The “vote-arama” likely will go on throughout Sunday night and into Monday. If the Senate does pass its version of the bill, it will have to go back to the House. Lawmakers are under a self-imposed deadline to get the legislation to Trump by the July 4 holiday.

Federal Medicaid cuts imperil rural hospitals and residents

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Bankruptcy, Deferred Healthcare, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicaid, Medicaid Cuts, Medicaid Eligibility, Medicaid Funding, Nursing Home, Rural Health, Rural Hospital • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.ruralhealth.us/blogs/2025/06/federal-medicaid-cuts-imperil-rural-hospitals-and-residents-new-report-finds

Medicaid serves as a vital source of health insurance coverage for Americans living in rural areas, including children, parents, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and pregnant women. Congressional lawmakers are currently considering more than $800 billion in cuts to the Medicaid program, which would reduce Medicaid funding and terminate coverage for vulnerable Americans.

The proposed changes would also result in a significant reduction in Medicaid reimbursement that could result in rural hospital closures.

The National Rural Health Association recently partnered with experts from Manatt Health to shed light on the potential impacts of those cuts on rural residents and the hospitals that care for them over the next decade.

The report, Estimated Impact on Medicaid Enrollment and Hospital Expenditures in Rural Communities, provides insight into the impact on rural America at a critical moment in the Congressional debate over the future of the reconciliation package.

NRHA held a press conference on June 24 that can be accessed with passcode MBTZf4$H. NRHA chief policy officer Carrie Cochran-McClain discussed the findings with Manatt Health partner and former deputy administrator at CMS Cindy Mann and the real world implications of the details of this report with three NRHA member hospital and health system leaders

Report findings provide insight into the impact on rural America at a critical moment in the Congressional debate over the future of the reconciliation package.

The report shows the significant impact from coverage losses that rural communities will face given:

  • Medicaid plays an outsized role in rural America, covering a larger share of children and adults in rural communities than in urban ones.
  • Nearly half of all children and one in five adults in small towns and rural areas rely on Medicaid or CHIP for their health insurance.
  • Medicaid covers nearly one-quarter of women of childbearing age and finances half of all births in these communities.

According to Manatt’s estimates, rural hospitals will lose 21 cents out of every dollar they receive in Medicaid funding due to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Total cuts in Medicaid reimbursement for rural hospitals—including both federal and state funds—over the ten-year period outlined in the bill would reach almost $70 billion for hospitals in rural areas. 

Reductions in Medicaid funding of this magnitude would likely accelerate rural hospital closures and reduce access to care for rural residents, exacerbating economic hardship in communities where hospitals are major employers.

As a key insurer in rural communities, Medicaid provides a financial lifeline for rural health care providers — including hospitals, rural health clinics, community health centers, and nursing homes—that are already facing significant financial distress. These cuts may lead to more hospitals and other rural facility closures, and for those rural hospitals that remain open, lead to the elimination or curtailment of critical services, such as obstetrics.

“Medicaid is a substantial source of federal funds in rural communities across the country. The proposed changes to Medicaid will result in significant coverage losses, reduce access to care for rural patients, and threaten the viability of rural facilities,” said Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association.

“It’s very clear that Medicaid cuts will result in rural hospital closures resulting in loss of access to care for those living in rural America.”

A media briefing will be held on Tuesday, June 24, from noon to 1:00 PM EST to provide more information about the analysis. This event will feature representatives from NRHA, Manatt Health, and rural hospital leaders across the country. Questions may be submitted in advance, as well as during the press conference. To register for and join the media briefing, click on the Zoom link here.

Please reach out to NRHA’s Advocacy Team with any questions.

About the National Rural Health Association

NRHA is a non-profit membership organization that provides leadership on rural health issues with tens of thousands of members nationwide. Our membership includes nearly every component of rural America’s health care, including rural community hospitals, critical access hospitals, doctors, nurses, and patients. We work to improve rural America’s health needs through government advocacy, communications, education, and research. Learn more about the association at RuralHealth.US.

About Manatt Health

Manatt Health is a leading professional services firm specializing in health policy, health care transformation, and Medicaid redesign. Their modeling draws upon publicly available state data including Medicaid financial management report data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, enrollment and expenditure data from the Medicaid Budget and Expenditure System, and data from the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. The Manatt Health Model is tailored specifically to rural health and has been reviewed in consultation with states and other key stakeholders.

SCOTUS upholds Obamacare preventive care mandate 

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Appellate Court, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), District Court, District Court of Appeals, Preventable Disease, Preventative Care, Prevention, Preventive Screening, Supreme Court, Vaccination, Vaccine, Vaccine History, Vaccine Immunity • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://nxslink.thehill.com/view/6230d94bc22ca34bdd8447c8o3k52.isr/aae298b7

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a key Affordable Care Act requirement that insurance companies cover certain preventative measures recommended by an expert panel.  
Justices upheld the constitutionality of the provision in a 6-3 decision and protected access to preventative care for about 150 million Americans.   

The justices found that the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has the power to appoint and fire members of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF).   

The cases started when a small business in Texas and some individuals filed a lawsuit against the panel’s recommendation that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PreP) for HIV be included as a preventative care service.   

They argued that covering PreP went against their religious beliefs and would “encourage homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”  

The plaintiffs further argued that the USPSTF mandates are unconstitutional because panel members are “inferior officers” who are not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate.   

While the panel is independent, they said that since their decisions impact millions of people members should be confirmed.   

A U.S. district judge in 2023 ruled that all preventative-care coverage imposed since the ACA was signed into law are invalid and a federal appeals court judge ruled in agreement last year.   

The Biden administration appealed the rulings to the Supreme Court, and the Trump administration chose to defend the law despite its long history of disparaging Obamacare.   

Though public health groups celebrated the ruling Friday, some noted another potential outcome.  

“While this is a foundational victory for patients, patients have reason to be concerned that the decision reaffirms the ability of the HHS secretary, including our current one, to control the membership and recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force that determines which preventive services are covered,” Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said in a statement.  

“We must be vigilant to ensure Secretary Kennedy does not undo coverage of preventive services by taking actions such as his recent firing of qualified health experts from the CDC’s independent vaccine advisory committee and replacing them with his personal allies.”