Tag Archives: Insurance

Hospitals That Sue You for Getting Sick

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/hospitals-that-sue-you-for-getting?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=193686401&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

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.

Read the full report here.

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.

Stay with me.

WSJ’s Editorial Board Contradicts What Its Newsroom Has Reported on Medicare Advantage

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/wsjs-editorial-board-contradicts?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=193798173&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo4ODU1Nzg5LCJwb3N0X2lkIjoxOTM3OTgxNzMsImlhdCI6MTc3NTgzMTA4MCwiZXhwIjoxNzc4NDIzMDgwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjU1MTUyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.-dkTG9VstyhGckY-EyymRqTiVpeftsOcy6-3qXcPKMc&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

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.

Private Medicare plans get a break

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://www.axios.com/2026/04/07/trump-medicare-advantage-united-humana?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

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: 

Some Medicare 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.

How Insurers Are Using the Courts to Rewrite the No Surprises Act

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/how-insurers-are-using-the-courts?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=190610279&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

A wave of coordinated lawsuits is transforming the No Surprises Act’s arbitration system into a battlefield where insurers seek to intimidate physicians, rewrite the law and consolidate control.

As I have written, Congress passed the No Surprises Act (NSA) to safeguard patients from unforeseen medical expenses and establish a neutral, independent dispute resolution (IDR) process for payment conflicts between insurers and out-of-network providers. That design was meant to replace brinkmanship with an independent referee. What Congress designed as a neutral arbitration system is now being challenged by Big Insurance through coordinated litigation designed to narrow, intimidate, and ultimately reshape the law.

Major insurance conglomerates — including UnitedHealthcare entities, Elevance/Anthem affiliates and Blue Cross Blue Shield plans — have launched a coordinated series of federal lawsuits against providers, hospitals, and revenue-cycle vendors who have used IDR at scale. Employing nearly identical language, legal arguments, and allegations, these lawsuits are not isolated ordinary litigation. It is lawfare.

Narratively, these suits recast lawful engagement in the NSA’s IDR process as “abuse,” but functionally they are designed to intimidate physicians from seeking NSA protection. A Pennsylvania suit from UnitedHealthcare against NorthStar Anesthesia presents the most urgent and perilous threat to independent physicians. If Unitedhealthcare prevails, insurers will be able to obtain judgments of fraud against physicians who incorrectly file NSA disputes. The effects of this will be catastrophic for independent physician practices, who cannot afford to litigate against billion dollar behemoths that have armies of lawyers on staff and retainer.

If successful in these efforts, the insurers will further weaken physician practices and make them ripe for acquisitions, continuing the dangerous path of vertically integrated insurance corporations – and the further decimation of independent physician practices.

The “Flooding” Myth

The lawsuits all start in a similar fashion. Each one claims that the defendant “abused” federal legislation “designed to protect patients from unexpected medical bills” and asserts that “the IDR process has not functioned as intended.” This wording appears verbatim in cases filed months apart, across different jurisdictions, against completely different defendants. Insurers adopt the same basic allegation: providers or billing companies “flooded,” “overwhelmed,” or unleashed an “avalanche” of IDR disputes that insurers assert were ineligible.

Those characterizations are based on bad data. Before the NSA went into effect, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury projected that the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process would see roughly 17,000 disputes annually. In reality, the system received nearly hundreds of thousands of disputes in its first year. That mismatch didn’t happen by accident. The departments based their projections on New York’s experience with a state arbitration system, scaling the state’s dispute numbers nationally. But New York’s law relied on an independent benchmark called FAIR Health that sharply reduced disputes. This is a structural feature the federal law does not have.

A more realistic comparison was available at the time: Texas. Unlike New York, Texas operated an arbitration system without an external benchmark making it a better comparison for the federal No Surprises Act. In its first year, the Texas system received nearly 49,000 arbitration requests for a population of just under six million people. That experience should have been a clear signal that arbitration volume would be far higher than federal projections suggested. Insurers have used this modeling error to their rhetorical advantage in their litigation.

Racing in the Wrong Direction

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/racing-in-the-wrong-direction?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=191590753&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

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?

New Deductible Rules Allow for $31,000 Out-of-Pocket Maximum

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/new-deductible-rules-allow-for-31000?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=189671978&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Trump’s proposal would revive “catastrophic” plans with deductibles as high as $31,000 — shifting even more costs onto patients with cancer, chronic illness, and medical emergencies.

On Friday, Erica Bersin – who has two chronic illnesses, including multiple sclerosis – wrote about the challenges of finding a decent and affordable health plan in the ACA marketplace. As a sole proprietor, the only plan with a manageable premium ($330 a month) came with a $10,000 deductible. MS drugs are expensive and many people with the disease have to pay hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before their coverage kicks in. Sadly, the way the ACA plans are structured, Americans with chronic conditions – and others who are diagnosed with cancer or have a heart attack or other acute medical event and have no option for coverage other than the ACA marketplace – are penalized financially far more than the rest of us..

But instead of helping those folks out, the Trump administration is proposing to change the marketplace in ways that will make a $10,000 deductible seem like a bargain. Say hello to a $31,000 family deductible. And even if you’re covered by an employer-sponsored plan and in no imminent danger of being enrolled in a plan like that, know that their reappearance (they were outlawed 16 years ago), will push your premiums even higher than they already are. That’s because hospitals and physician practices know people enrolled in those plans will not be able to pay their bills. They’ll have no option but to increase their prices to cover the additional bad debt.

Health insurance policies with deductibles that high were prevalent before the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010. When I was a health insurance executive, I knew some insurers were selling policies with family deductibles north of $50,000. Not only that, many of them had annual and lifetime caps and wouldn’t pay for any care related to a preexisting condition.

They were officially called “catastrophic” plans. Patient and consumer advocates had a more appropriate name for them: junk plans. They were outlawed by the ACA, and I thought they had been buried for good. Unfortunately, the Trump administration is bringing them back to life.

I’m sure my former colleagues in the health insurance business went to work immediately getting those plans ready to sell once again to unsuspecting customers. That’s because they can be very, very profitable. Imagine having to pay $50,000 – or even $31,000 – out of your own pocket every year before your insurer will cover the care your doctor says you need. Cigna, where I worked, as well as Aetna and UnitedHealthcare, the country’s biggest health insurers, sold plans like that and collected billions in premiums every month but paid little if anything out in claims during a given year.

When I first testified before Congress, I was one of three people at the witness table, and all of us knew a lot about those plans – including Nancy Metcalf, who was senior program editor at Consumer Reports at the time. She in particular knew about the many shortcomings of those plans because she had heard horror story after horror story from people who had enrolled in a junk plan. She urged lawmakers to outlaw them – or at least make insurers put warning labels on them so people would know what they were buying and how little protection those plans provided. As Nancy testified:

Consumers need to be told, in big letters, what their policy’s out-of-pocket limit is, and right next to it, in equally big letters, if there are any expenses that don’t count towards that. They need to know approximately what their out-of-pocket costs will be for expensive treatments such as cancer chemotherapy, or heart surgery, or infusions of patented biologic drugs. They need, in other words, a fighting chance not to be ripped off by junk insurance.

As Reed Abelson of The New York Times reported last week, the administration’s proposal “involves a type of plan known as a catastrophic or skinny policy. While they may be appropriate for someone who is young and healthy, a sudden emergency room or unexpected hospital stay could cost thousands of dollars in unforeseen bills. People with chronic medical conditions also might have to pay for much – if not all – of their care out of their own pockets.”

Commonwealth Fund president Joseph Betancourt pointed out in the Times’ story that people are already struggling to pay for their medical care:

There’s no doubt that we have an affordability crisis. As we move forward to shifting more of the burden to patients, there’s a chance to really exacerbate the crisis.

Abelson noted that under the proposed rule change, insurance companies could not only sell the catastrophic plans on a multiyear basis once again, they could also sell plans that do not offer an established network of hospitals and doctors. “Those plans,” she wrote, “would instead pay a fixed amount for a doctor’s visit or procedure, and patients would have to pay any difference in price.”

Abelson also warned of another risk associated with sky-high deductibles: Because their premiums are lower, they “will end up being used as the benchmark for the level of subsidies in a given market. People who want a traditional plan with an established network could end up paying more because they receive a lower subsidy.”

As I mentioned, all of us will likely pay more for our coverage when these plans become legal again next year. As BenefitsPro reported last month – quoting the CEO of Community Health Systems, a big hospital chain – most patients who are currently in ACA plans with lower but still high deductibles and coinsurance requirements can’t pay very much of the “big out-of-pocket bills” hospitals have to send them.

It’s only going to get worse.

The $10,000 Deductible and the Myth of ‘Affordable’ Care

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/the-10000-deductible-and-the-myth?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=189283212&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

How disappearing ACA subsidies, soaring premiums, and bureaucratic chaos nearly left a consultant with multiple sclerosis uninsured.

The business of health care is not broken; it is working exactly how it was intended. It was designed for people to pay in just in case something happens and then not to pay out when it does. It was intended to “maximize shareholder value.”

About 22 million Americans received enhanced premium subsidies in 2025. According to The Urban Institute and The Commonwealth Fund, it’s estimated that “7.3 million people will leave the ACA marketplace in 2026” due to the loss of the subsidies. About 5 million people will go uninsured, rather than find insurance elsewhere.

Some people have said their premiums and deductibles are doubling or even tripling with tens of thousands in deductibles before coverage kicks in. While absolutely imperfect, we must keep the Affordable Care Act intact for everyone otherwise the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and private and employer-based insurance will skyrocket, resulting in millions of people losing coverage due to lack of affordability.

Accessible insurance is a huge part of living a healthy life. Because of this, we need to expand coverage and make it fair for everyone. The goal should be for every single person in the U.S. to have head-to-toe health care.

My Story

As a single-person LLC consultant, I have navigated the New York State Exchange (ACA) for years. It is the most expensive Exchange in the country for those who do not qualify for subsidies. If subsidies are received, an increase in income requires repayment via federal tax returns the following year.

For 2025, I resigned myself to a catastrophic plan at $330 per month with a $10,000 deductible, as other options approached $1,000 monthly. While applying in November 2024, my temporarily being in-between projects / contracts was interpreted by the NYS Exchange as being unemployed, which led me to unexpectedly qualify for Medicaid. The state market assured me that this was correct for consultants in my situation, and they “saw it all the time.”

However, during open enrollment in October 2025, I was informed that despite meeting the income threshold, I no longer qualified for either Medicaid or financial assistance / subsidies. The catastrophic plan doesn’t seem to exist now, and the “least expensive” option is $675 with poor / limited coverage. After four months, dozens of phone calls, six people (including an aide in my state assembly member’s office), and about 100 hours of everyone’s time, I have health insurance this year, for now.

Living with two chronic illnesses, including multiple sclerosis, my experience with a “government run” system over the last year has led me to believe that, for the most part, it works. Health care should be a right of birth, not a privilege for the rich.

This is just one person’s story. The rise in health care costs impacts everyone, but especially lower income Americans. You can see some of their fears, here.

Hospitals’ make-or-break year

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://www.axios.com/2026/01/13/aca-medicaid-hospitals-changes-2026?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Sweeping changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act are combining with rising health costs to make 2026 a high-stakes year for hospital operators.

Why it matters: 

While major health systems like HCA are likely to weather the worst, some safety net providers and facilities on tight margins could close or scale back services as uncompensated care costs mount and uncertainty around future policies swirls.

  • “We took a big hit in 2025,” said Beth Feldpush, senior vice president of policy and advocacy at America’s Essential Hospitals.
  • “I don’t think that the field can absorb any further hits without us really seeing a crisis.”

State of play: 

Last year’s GOP tax-and-spending law will decrease federal Medicaid funding by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade, translating into millions more uninsured, lower reimbursements and higher costs for hospitals.

  • The Trump administration is also considering big changes to the way Medicare pays for outpatient services that could reduce hospital spending by nearly $11 billion over the next decade, including paying less for chemotherapy.

Hospitals have the rest of this year to boost their balance sheets, invest in technology including AI, and even consider merger plans before the biggest changes take effect in 2027, Fitch Ratings wrote in its annual outlook for the nonprofit hospital sector. The financial outlook remains stable for the sector overall next year, the report predicts.

  • “People are already very proactively looking at those out years and saying, if that’s the worst-case scenario that I’ve got to deal with, what can I do today to make that impact less,” said Kevin Holloran, a senior director at Fitch.

Threat level: 

Hospitals in some instances have started closing unprofitable services like maternity care and behavioral health care in the face of financial pressures.

  • More than 300 rural hospitals are at immediate risk of closing their operations entirely, according to a December report.
  • Safety net providers also are going to court to fight an administration effort to make them pay full price for medicines they currently get at a steep discount and reimburse them later if they’re found to qualify under the government’s 340B discount drug program.
  • “Those hospitals that have been underperforming … they are going to continue to struggle,” said Erik Swanson, managing director at consulting firm Kaufman Hall. “Those who are doing really, really well may continue to see growth in their performance.”

Private equity firms will likely continue buying up and building new businesses in outpatient service areas like ambulatory surgery, labs and imaging, he said.

  • “Hospitals and health systems should continue to expect quite a bit of challenge and disruption in those spaces.”

Congress still could extend the industry some lifelines, though any effort to delay or roll back some of the biggest Medicaid cuts face tough odds this year.

  • Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a bill to repeal parts of the GOP budget law that would slash hospitals’ Medicaid dollars.
  • Lawmakers are debating whether to renew enhanced ACA subsidies that expired at the end of 2025 and could result in millions more uninsured patients, but that effort would also have to overcome significant GOP opposition.
  • “Our job is to make sure that we create a predicate that, as these provisions come online, they may very well need to be revisited,” said Stacey Hughes, the American Hospital Association’s executive vice president for government relations and public policy.

What’s ahead: 

Beyond policy changes, hospitals also are dealing with inflationary pressures, including rising medical supply costs, and administrative overhead from insurer pre-treatment reviews.

  • Those trying to pad their margins may ramp up their use of artificial intelligence to code patient visits in a way that increases reimbursements from public and private payers, Raymond James managing director Chris Meekins wrote in an analyst note.
  • While hospitals have historically been able to navigate big policy challenges, if things don’t go their way, it could turn into a “tornado of trouble,” Meekins wrote.

Six Trends in Healthcare to Watch in 2026

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

Over the last few years, I have written for the Rockefeller Institute about trends in healthcare. In 2023, I chose ten trends, including staffing challenges, the increasing role of non-traditional players in health, such as Walmart and CVS, as well as the increasing role of private equity in healthcare, the movement toward value-based care, and the growing use of digital health—all trends that I expect to continue. In 2024, I highlighted a mega trend specific to the provider community, in which a number of factors had combined to lead to the segmentation of the industry into three different categories of entities. Those included what I categorized broadly as “today” entities (i.e., those that we know as traditional providers, many of whom are fighting for their sustainability), “tomorrow” entities (i.e., non-traditional entities that are not necessarily healthcare entities but are in the healthcare space and are typically part of a larger conglomerate or backed with private equity), and “striving survivors” (i.e., today entities that are adapting radically or partnering with tomorrow entities to exist in the future).

The following January, I picked five issues to watch in healthcare in 2025. They were (1) the continued expansion of computational data technologies, especially artificial intelligence (AI); (2) insurance coverage shifts; (3) consolidation in the overall industry; (4) payment, costs, and coverage for pharmaceuticals; and (5) exponential advancements in life sciences.

This blog reviews the status of those 2025 trends and suggests one additional issue that may garner more attention in 2026: the overall cost, pricing, and affordability of healthcare. I discuss the factors pushing this issue into the spotlight and potential options for policymakers to counteract this trend.

A Status Review of the Five 2025 Trends

Before delving into the newly highlighted trend of the cost, price, and affordability of healthcare, it is worth briefly reviewing the status of the five trends that were identified in 2025, since all of them will continue to be important in 2026.

  1. The continued expansion of computational data technologies, especially AIIssue Updates. There has been no slowdown in the use of computational data technologies and AI in healthcare since I wrote about it in 2023, and as part of the trends last year. In April 2025, the healthcare AI company Innovacer did a survey of AI use in the sector. The company’s report noted that adoption of AI is expected to continue its growth as more tools become available for a variety of purposes, including quicker and more effective disease diagnosis, administrative process improvement, and electronic health record management. JP Morgan likewise reported in December 2025 that AI-focused deals now make up 75% of health tech funding. Some of the more interesting areas of advancement are in genomics, remote patient monitoring, medical imaging, and improved documentation. And the use of ambient products that help capture health data from conversation saw some of the biggest growth yet in 2025. On the consumer side, more and more patients (an estimated 40 million people) are using chatbots to help them with making decisions about their own care, while the integration of AI with robotics is increasingly being used to assist physicians with surgery. And very recently, in January 2026, OpenAI released a chatbot specifically for health care.Policy Responses and Options. In terms of policy, there have been different federal actions designed to accelerate AI adoption and use, including a handful of executive orders in 2025. In healthcare specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services issued its AI strategy on December 5, 2025. And there have been federal investments announced that support the use of AI to advance research and cancer treatment. In addition, on December 19, 2025, the Trump administration asked for public input on how technology adoption in healthcare—especially AI—could be accelerated. At the state level over the last year, 47 states issued more than 250 bills to regulate AI in healthcare (with at least 30 bills signed into law). The bills ranged from ones protecting minors from mental health AI-enabled chatbots to bills barring AI from making therapeutic decisions or interacting with patients without licensed oversight. And states like New York are incentivizing more use of AI in healthcare through the use of partners that improve care and strengthen operations, as well as evaluating best-in-class AI tools.
  2. Insurance coverage shifts Issue Updates. In January 2025, I noted the possibility that insurance coverage was likely to shift, in part, because of the possible expiration of the Enhanced Premium Tax Credits (EPTCs) at the end of 2025. The EPTCs were enhanced in 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act and are sometimes referred to as the “Obamacare subsidies.” They were intended to reduce the cost that people pay when they obtain coverage from qualified health plans on the health exchanges. Although some proposals were made by both Democrats and Republicans at the end of 2025 to help mitigate the impact of the loss of the EPTCs, none of the proposals were able to gain enough bipartisan support to be signed into legislation in 2025, resulting in a spike in costs for premiums starting January 1, 2026. As this blog was being written, Congress was debating the possible partial extension of these credits in some form, although passage was not certain. Either way, it is likely that healthcare coverage will continue to be a topic of much debate in Congress in 2026.In addition, in 2025, changes made to Medicaid coverage in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (otherwise known as HR1) are also likely to impact insurance costs and coverage in 2026. The changes to health insurance coverage in HR1 were outlined in a paper by the Institute in mid-2025 and will have varying impacts on both funding and coverage over the coming months and years. As I later wrote about with colleagues, additional federal rule changes in 2025 will also impact public insurance coverage in the future. The Urban Institute estimates that close to five million people may lose coverage in 2026, although the exact number who lose coverage versus those who choose cheaper and less expansive coverage options with fewer benefits has yet to be fully analyzed.Policy Responses and Options. With the expiration of the EPTCs and changes in federal reimbursement for coverage of immigrant populations, state policymakers will need to make decisions in 2026 about who and what may be covered with state-only dollars. States appear to be taking different approaches. By mid-2025, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that of the 14 states that offer health coverage to at least some immigrants, at least three had proposed limits on coverage (some ending it altogether and others restricting it). For example, on January 1, 2026, Medi-Cal, which is California’s Medicaid program, will freeze any new enrollments for certain undocumented adults who receive state-funded full-scope services. In June 2025, the Minnesota legislature voted to limit eligibility for persons over age 18 who are undocumented. New York has applied to federal regulators seeking to change the authorization for its successful Essential Plan—that provides coverage to some 1.7 million New Yorkers, including certain legally present immigrants—from a revocable federal waiver to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) specified Basic Health Program. Expect to see many other states taking actions to either drop or preserve health insurance coverage in 2026. What impact these changes have on the extent of coverage and the number of newly uninsured people this year remains to be seen.
  3. Consolidation in the overall industry Issue Updates. Consolidations in healthcare, both vertical and horizontal, continue. In January 2025, we highlighted mergers, such as the one that created Risant Health. We also examined the continued integration of various companies with United Health Group under Optum Rx (a pharmacy business), Optum Insight (a health analytics company), and Optum Health (care management), as well as the integration of United Health Group and Change Healthcare in early 2024. The consolidation of the insurance industry continued in 2025, with the top 7 companies garnering 75% of the market. The Government Accountability Office also reported on the continued acquisition of physician groups by insurers, hospitals, and private equity firms. Overall, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) transactions among healthcare entities increased steadily from 2021-2024, and, in 2025, healthcare M&A was experiencing its most active M&A cycle in over a decade. Full-year trends were not yet fully assessed by the time of printing this blog, but Pitchbook, which tracks M&A deals across industries, expected that healthcare services M&A levels in 2025 would slightly exceed 2024 levels. This also includes the divestiture of assets from national chains like Ascension and CommonSpirit Health.Policy Responses and Options. At the federal level, shortly after last year’s blog on this trend was published, the federal HHS released a report on how consolidation in the industry continues. For the most part, the Trump administration has kept in place stricter guidelines for reviewing corporate mergers in healthcare, but that hasn’t stopped consolidation from happening. At the state level, we previously highlighted that state policymakers had proposed over 34 bills in 22 states designed to address such consolidations. As this blog was being written, the governor of New York indicated in her State of the State speech that the state planned to expand its monitoring of transactions by healthcare entities that increase revenues by over $25 million. Yet, market forces seem to be allowing such consolidations to continue, and financial and operational strains allow the continuation of mergers and acquisitions that are forcing some systems to divest in hospitals, while regional systems acquire those smaller assets that enable them to expand. Unless states can play a role in propping up financially challenged providers, prevent large insurers from becoming larger, or better regulate nontraditional actors in healthcare, consolidation appears likely to continue in the coming year.
  4. Payment, costs, and coverage for pharmaceuticals Issue Updates. By late 2025, it was reported that pharmaceutical companies were expected to raise prices on at least 350 drugs in 2026. That is higher than at the same time last year. Generally, many of the regulatory actions to control prices come from the federal level. Although states may feel somewhat constrained by the Commerce Clause on their ability to regulate pharmaceuticals across state lines, there are still ways for them to address cost issues, such as through rebate programs, limits on Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), or price negotiations for drugs purchased under the Medicaid program or for state employee benefit programs.Policy Responses and Options. At the federal level, the Trump administration issued an executive order in the spring of 2025 with suggested actions to lower drug prices. The administration also announced agreements to lower the cost of two of the most used drugs in the country, Ozempic and Wegovy. Then, at the end of 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) released a proposed model for controlling prescription costs called the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing (GLOBE) Model, which is a mandatory model that would assess a rebate for certain drugs under Medicare Part B if the prices exceed those paid in economically comparable countries. It also released the Guarding US Medicare Against Drug Costs (GUARD) Model, which calculates international reference pricing benchmarks and requires manufacturers to pay a rebate if the Medicare net price is greater than the Model benchmark. Congress introduced bipartisan legislation in mid-2025 to lower drug prices by barring drug companies in the US from charging higher prices. State governments were also very active in 2025, passing legislation to lower drug prices, with 31 states passing nearly 70 bills by the end of the third quarter with the goal of lowering prices. I expect to see additional legislation in more states in 2026, including state efforts that mirror some of the federal actions that took place in 2025. As mentioned, such efforts might include building on existing state efforts, such as drug review boards, expanded rebates under Medicaid, and/or reducing administrative costs through third parties, like PBMs.
  5. Exponential advancements in life sciences Issue Updates. Although AI has transformed medicine in different ways, in the case of life sciences, AI accelerated advancements especially for genomics, precision medicine, and medical imaging. In particular, as noted by MedEdge, life science based medicine like gene editing and CRISPR were better able to move out of the trial phase and into the treatment phase. AI is also augmenting drug discovery by making it easier to observe the interaction of drugs and understand how they fight disease. Molecular editing, lab-grown 3D bioprinting, mRNA vaccine use for cancer, and robotic surgery are all areas that MedEdge saw continued expansion in 2025. Private funding continued to pour into biotechnology in 2025, as tracked by Fierce Healthcare. The Fierce Healthcare tracker shows that many companies, such as Hemab Therapeutics, Electra Therapeutics, or Tubulis (an antibody drug conjugate), raised well over $100 million in venture capital and related funding in 2025.Policy Responses and Options. In contrast to the growing investments of private funding in life sciences, funding from the federal government specifically for life science research—especially from the NIH—was targeted for cuts in 2025 with disproportionate impacts across states depending on where that research was occurring. According to tracking done by The Sciences & Community Impacts Mapping Project, proposed federal funding cuts showed a potential economic loss of an estimated $16 billion. At the state level, policymakers in the Midwest, California, North Carolina, and a few other states are competing to advance major life sciences projects. The investments include supporting the workforce, developing shovel-ready sites or ones adjacent to major universities, and/or providing expedited permitting. Given the growing advancements and potential of life sciences, in the coming year, I expect to see state policymakers implementing more policy strategies that help grow the life sciences sector in their respective states under both the auspices of life sciences and economic development.
  6. An additional trend to watch in 2026Issue Background. Of the trends I noted in 2025, only one (efforts to control the costs of pharmaceuticals) is specifically targeted at addressing the cost and affordability of healthcare. The impact of the actions of state and federal policymakers to improve the affordability of drugs, however, does not seem to be enough yet to curb the overall cost growth in the industry. In fact, of the other trends noted in 2025, some might even be considered cost drivers. For example, mergers and acquisitions and overall consolidation can at times increase costs in some markets, depending on what those mergers include, and for some healthcare consumers who rely on insurance coverage, the loss of the subsidies to pay for healthcare makes that cost increase much more apparent. Although there is some optimism that AI, through process improvement, quicker diagnostics, and disease prevention, could make certain things more efficient, so far, there are mixed results as to whether AI is making healthcare more affordable. With costs for other basic necessities like housing being less affordable, the focus on healthcare affordability is likely to continue in 2026. This is because some consumers will more directly feel the cost of healthcare in 2026, but also because providers have experienced increasing challenges with expenses that contribute to affordability. Examples of areas of expense growth cited by providers include staffing and benefits, supplies, pharmacy, and technology.Industry Responses and Options. Although I previously noted the policy responses of federal and state governments as they relate to these trends, in the case of lowering costs, industry is also responding in new and creative ways. One of the new ways that health systems and providers are attempting to tackle rising prices and costs is through non-traditional partnerships that deliver care, treatments, and services more directly to patients. An example of this is a potential partnership between Humana, an insurance company, and Mark Cuban, co-founder of Cost Plus Drugs. The potential partnership would focus on direct-to-employer programs that cut out companies in the middle, such as PBMs. Another example was the launch of Northwell Direct, a provider system offering direct care to employers without an insurance company. This arrangement is the largest of its kind and recently added a partnership with the influential 32BJ Health Fund, which allows 170,000 participants in the 32BJ Health Fund in the general Northwell service area to have access to the full spectrum of health care services available through Northwell Direct, which is expected to produce significant administrative savings.Policy Responses and Options. One way government policy makers at both the federal and state levels can respond to the affordability crisis is to allow the industry itself to find creative solutions, such as those outlined above. A second way policymakers can respond is by using the authority granted under the ACA for the CMMI to create and experiment with new models of care delivery that could improve care and lower costs. In 2025, CMMI issued at least 6 new payment models, all designed to lower the costs of healthcare. They include some of the ones mentioned above on pharmaceutical cost control, like the GUARD and GLOBE models, but also ones specifically targeting chronic disease, such as the Advancing Chronic Care with Effective Scalable Solutions (ACCESS model), and healthier lifestyles, for example, the Better Approaches to Lifestyle and Nutrition for Comprehensive Health (BALANCE model).

Meanwhile, state governments and officials are proposing various ways to control costs, with over 750 related bills introduced in 2024 alone. Some states are more focused on particular strategies, such as pricing—including hospitals with reference-based pricing. In Indiana, the legislature passed a bill that does not allow hospital systems to exceed prices set before January 1, 2025, for two years. The hospitals would then have to lower prices by a certain percentage each year to reach a goal set by the state’s Office of Management and Budget. For several years now, states have been implementing price transparency policies with the aim of reducing costs. It is, of course, possible that some states will use a combination of these efforts (e.g., promoting industry-initiated efforts through incentives or less regulation to lower costs while also more closely monitoring prices).

Conclusion

The six trends to watch in 2026 noted in this blog are by no means all-encompassing, but they do highlight areas that are likely to garner a lot of attention from policymakers in the near term. As has been true throughout the country’s history, the Federalist system of government allows state and federal governments to develop varied policy approaches to improve how healthcare is funded and delivered. The Rockefeller Institute will be tracking these six trends and will report on any interesting findings, particularly as they relate to the additional trend of the cost and affordability of care in the coming year.

What Medical Debt Cancellation Teaches Us About Our Failing Health-Care System

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/blog/what-medical-debt-cancellation-teaches-us/?utm_source=Roosevelt+Institute&utm_campaign=9435e95a26-Rundown_2025_11_14&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-205acaa0f3-529667778

It is a somber year for health care in America. While we commemorate both the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid and the 15th anniversary of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), we’re watching health-care costs soar to unaffordable levels and millions of Americans lose access to these very programs. Of the many devastating consequences we can anticipate from these policy choices, we should expect to see the crisis of medical debt in America worsen.

But the immediate harms of medical debt, or money owed for past medical care, are solvable problems—and solving them can point us toward bolder solutions to the crisis of unaffordable health care. 

During my time as director of policy in the Office of Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, I and my colleague Nish Dittakavi helped launch the Cook County Medical Debt Relief Initiative using federal funding from the American Rescue Plan Act. This established the first publicly funded program in the United States to buy and cancel residents’ medical debt. In June 2025, President Preckwinkle announced that since its launch in 2022, the program has successfully abolished over $664 million in medical debt so far, benefiting 556,815 residents of Cook County, Illinois.

Cook County’s innovative program also catalyzed a movement across state and local governments.1 As my colleagues at the New School’s Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy have found, since Cook County announced its program, 29 state and local governments across 19 states have collectively pledged to eliminate $15.8 billion in debt for more than 6.3 million Americans. As of October 25, 2022, these programs have abolished nearly $11 billion in medical debt on behalf of more than 6 million residents.

We have shown that erasing medical debt like this can transform people’s lives. Now, we must leverage the momentum of debt cancellation to meet our current moment. Rather than leaving us satisfied with the short-term aid we can provide through medical debt cancellation, the popularity and success of these programs must push us to ask bigger questions about the upstream interventions we need to fix a broken health-care system that forces people to accrue this debt in the first place.

Our Medical Debt Crisis Is Bad, and Will Likely Get Worse

Amid rising health-care costs and increasingly stretched household budgets, medical debt has become a frequent focus of policy attention in the US. And with good reason: According to a 2021 KFF analysis, 20 million people, or nearly 1 in 12 adults, owe medical debt, totaling more than $220 billion. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found that medical debt accounted for 58 percent of debt in collections that same year.2

This economic burden can quickly spiral, as the Roosevelt Institute’s Stephen Nuñez examined in a May issue brief. Patients may be denied medical care due to unpaid bills or struggle to afford other basic needs like food. As emergency physician and historian Dr. Luke Messac details in Your Money or Your Life: Debt Collection in American Medicine, owing medical debt can impact your credit score and thus your ability to access loans, land you in court, result in wage garnishment (withholding earnings to pay off a debt), and even lead to arrest.3

These harms are not felt equally. Given existing disparities across a range of economic and health measures—from wealth and neighborhood segregation to quality of insurance coverage and access to paid family leave—it’s perhaps unsurprising that Black Americans, women, and people with chronic health challenges hold a disproportionate amount of medical debt. This further exacerbates existing health inequities and deepens the racial wealth gap.

Sadly, we should expect these numbers to rise thanks to the Trump administration’s gutting of our public health insurance system. Under the administration’s so-called signature legislative achievement, HR 1, an estimated 12 million people will lose health insurance by 2034, and hospitals and community health centers across the country will face severe threats to their solvency. Even sooner, without congressional action by December an additional 24 million people who purchase ACA plans will simultaneously face steep insurance premium increases and cuts to the tax credits that help subsidize these costs—a key focus of the federal government shutdown this fall.

An estimated 12 million people will lose health insurance by 2034, and hospitals and community health centers across the country will face severe threats to their solvency.

By decreasing eligibility for public insurance and increasing the cost many Americans must pay for non-employer-sponsored private insurance, these policy choices will increase medical debt.4

How Myths About Our Health-Care System Perpetuate Medical Debt

Myths that have dominated decades of health policy can trick us into believing medical debt is an unfortunate bug in an otherwise well-designed system.5

Many proponents of the current system claim that cost-sharing (when patients pay for a portion of their care through copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles) benefits the system by making patients more responsible and frugal when they seek care. But this myth conveniently ignores the vast body of evidence that shows cost-sharing decreases adherence to treatment, leads to worse health outcomes, and, importantly, does not lead to decreased total costs across the system.

The myth that health care can function like a traditional market, with the burden on us as consumers to just make more informed choices, hides the reality that we are patients whose access to needed care is determined by factors beyond our control—what insurance, if any, our job provides, what that insurance chooses to cover, the cost-sharing that insurance chooses to require, and the covered medicines set by the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) that insurer works with (and increasingly owns). The myth that our health-care system is a functioning market that can and will course-correct any problems on its own also leaves us looking for solutions from the very stakeholders who benefit from the structure as it is currently.

The myth that our health-care system is a functioning market that can and will course-correct any problems on its own also leaves us looking for solutions from the very stakeholders who benefit from the structure as it is currently.

The reality is that medical debt is the logical outcome of core characteristics of the American health-care system, which include 

  • high prices set by hospitals, health-care organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and PBMs; 
  • a costly maze created by insurance companies that exclude, deny, and burden people in need; 
  • the significant public dollars for health extracted by corporations for their own profits; 
  • a system ultimately designed to place the financial burden of care on patients; and 
  • decades of policy that has failed to rectify the cruel and unsustainable harms these choices have created.

Medical Debt Is a Symptom of a Broken System, Not a Solution to Its Troubles

In the constrained environment under which so much of our health-care system operates, it might seem that collecting on medical debt is unfortunate but essential to keeping the system afloat. Yet even the most aggressive debt collection practices do not generate substantial revenue for hospitals and health-care organizations, as evidenced by a 2017 study in Virginia that found suing patients and garnishing their wages comprised only 0.1 percent of hospital revenue on average. Dr. Marty Makary, a coauthor of the study and the current commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration under the Trump administration, put the implications bluntly: “The argument that we have to do something this ugly in order to stay afloat is not supported by the data.”

Hospitals and health systems know this too, and recognize that most patients with debt simply cannot afford to pay. Precisely because the prospect of collecting full payment is so low, many choose instead to sell this debt cheaply—for pennies on the dollar—and write it off as a loss on their taxes. The cheapness of this debt is what allows cancellation programs like Cook County’s to achieve the high return on investment that is part of their popularity and success.6

This alone should point us to a fundamental question: If we can buy medical debt so cheaply and cancel it so easily, is this debt really necessary in the first place?

Of course, our health-care system needs significant resources to function. But if we are serious about finding sustainable revenue streams to stabilize it, we must acknowledge the needed money will not come from medical debt collection, nor from any other solution that increases the already heavy burden on individuals and maintains the power of the private sector.