Amber Kostka, who owns The Stockpot restaurant in Hampton Roads, Va., says she has tried to do right by her employees by offering them health insurance, alongside good wages and a 401k.

But as costs have risen—premiums have roughly tripled since the company first started offering health insurance in 2018—her employees are increasingly telling her they can’t afford health insurance. That’s even though she splits the cost of premiums with employees, which are roughly $400 a month.

Instead, employees are dropping out of the plan and going uninsured, she says. About 35% of her eligible employees now buy the employer-sponsored health insurance, she says, down from 50% prior to COVID. She wants to warn them about the risks of going without insurance, she says, but also knows their finances are extremely tight. “It’s just a cost thing, at the end of the day,” she says. “You can’t stop paying for groceries.”

Her employees aren’t alone. The share of working-age U.S. adults without health insurance rose to 11.2% in 2026, up from 8.9% in 2024, according to new research from the Commonwealth Fund. People don’t have health insurance because the costs of everything—including gasoline, housing, and food—are rising, and they’re deciding they can’t afford to pay for even employer-sponsored plans like Kostka’s. “The whole system just seems like a complete gamble with people’s lives,” she says.

Some people are looking at the price of plans on the Affordable Care Act marketplace and deciding they can’t afford health insurance. Premiums on the ACA marketplaces increased by an average of 58% in 2026 after Congress decided last year not to renew expiring subsidies.

Ironically, these uninsured Americans may be helping drive the cost of health care even higher, fueling a cycle in which health insurance gets more expensive, forcing more people to drop coverage. As hospitals field more uninsured patients, they have to pass the costs of uncompensated care onto someone. “When providers have to provide a lot of uncompensated care, how do they make themselves whole? They raise prices,” says Beth Umland, director of employer research for Marsh, the health benefits consultant company formerly known as Mercer.

Of course, having more uninsured Americans isn’t the only reason costs are rising. A Marsh survey of employers recently found that they expected total health benefit costs per employee to rise 8.2% in 2027, the highest increase since 2003. One reason was that the consolidation of health systems was leading to higher prices, as some systems had monopolies in certain markets. Another was that lower government spending for public health programs was leading to higher costs for private sector plans.

“This is starting to feel—’unsustainable’ is the word you hear,” she says.

Many of the reasons why health care costs are rising may seem minimal until you start adding them up, Umland says. For example, more doctors are using AI scribes in care, which are helping them bill for more services, making care more expensive, she says. A clause of the No Surprises Act, which was passed by Congress in 2020 to protect patients from surprise medical bills but which allows disputes to be settled by arbitration, has also added billions to costs, she says.

There are also increasingly more treatments available for patients, and those treatments are more expensive than the ones they’re replacing, she says. One example: GLP-1s, which may save insurers money in the long run on health costs but which are expensive upfront. “That’s just a whole new category of expense that didn’t exist before,” she says.

In its survey, Marsh found that many employers were planning to pass costs onto employees after years of trying not to do so.

Overall, workers are paying on average about $7,471 annually towards premiums for employer-sponsored family health benefits this year, up 9% from 2025, according to a new employer health benefits survey from KFF. Workers at small firms with less than 200 employees—like Kostka’s—are especially hard hit, paying about $9,687 towards family coverage: $2,847 more than workers in larger firms.

And even as they pay more for health care, the plans available to them are getting costlier to use. The average deductible for employer sponsored plans has increased 34% over the last 10 years, according to KFF.

What employers are doing

Kostka says there have recently been fewer health insurers in her area to choose from. Two years ago, she switched from just buying insurance outright for her employees, which many small businesses do, to self-funding the plan. She was able to do this because her employees are relatively young and healthy, she says, making her risk of incurring big medical costs for cancer or a catastrophic illness relatively low.

But she knows she’s just a major diagnosis away from being dropped from the self-funded plan, she says. “It’s a little bit of a gamble right now,” she says.

There are some things employers can do to push back against high health care costs, says Jim Winkler, chief strategy of the Business Group on Health, which published its own recent survey of employers which projected health care costs to rise 9% in 2027, the highest forecast the group has ever recorded.

Some employers are dropping coverage for GLP-1s for weight loss to save money, he says. Others are trying to drive employees toward what are called Centers of Excellence—essentially hospitals or medical practices with high ratings that may save money in the long-term since employees won’t need to return again and again for care. Some employers are also telling employees to try to find cheap, legitimate medications where they can—from sites like GoodRx, for example—and reimbursing them, rather than getting medications from a pharmacy benefit manager.

“We’re just painting a really challenging picture for health care costs,” he says, “which leads employers down the path of needing to find things to do to take action to mitigate them.”

A small number of employers are deciding not to offer health care at all and are instead offering employees cash to buy their own plans through the ACA marketplace. This option, called an ICHRA (Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangement) is pushed by Republicans, Winkler says, and was introduced during the first Trump Administration.

Small employers, though, often can only choose from available plans, and if there aren’t many, they don’t have much room to negotiate.

It’s a problem facing Mas Torito, owner of Kokoro restaurant in Denver. He spent close to $150,000 in premium payments for his employees in 2025 and is on track to spend $200,000 in 2026. That’s about 2.7% of revenues; most restaurants only have margins of 2-3%.

“Really since COVID, every single year feels like there are these extra pressures on us,” he says.

Kokoro has been in business for 40 years, and some of Torito’s employees have been working at the restaurant the whole time. He suspects that having an older pool of employees is part of what’s driving his health care costs up every year.

“I think they see the number of claims and costs every year going up,” he says, “and that translates into higher premiums.”

Like Kostka, Torito is committed to offering health insurance for his employees, even as his own costs rise. And like Kostka, he’s hearing from more employees that they can’t afford it. Now, only about 40% of his employees buy the insurance, he says.

“I get it,” he says. “The deductible keeps going up every year, the insurance keeps going up. It’s enough where people are really thinking, ‘Hey, do I want insurance or not?’”

Last week, the American Hospital Association released a study by Kaufman Hall, its preferred data vendor, that took issue with methodologies used by critics of hospital consolidation:

“These findings suggest that a more comprehensive analysis of hospital M&A transactions, one that considers impacts on all patients served, broadens the focus to impacts beyond pricing, and considers the consequences if an M&A transaction is not permitted to proceed, would ensure not only competitive but also healthy hospital markets that can continue to provide the fullest possible range of services.”

The report discusses how hospital merger reviews should look beyond the potential impact on commercial insurance prices and consider what proposed transactions mean for all patients, particularly the nearly 60% of hospital patient days attributable to Medicare, Medicaid and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries whose payment rates are largely set by government programs.” Drawing on analyses of challenged and canceled transactions, the report also finds that hospitals seeking partners often serve more vulnerable communities and face greater financial pressures, and that when proposed deals do not move forward, struggling hospitals can experience significant financial deterioration that threatens services, workforce stability and access to care.”

Kaufman Hall added this disclaimer: “The findings contained in this document may contain predictions based on current data and historical trends. Any such predictions are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. Kaufman Hall accepts no responsibility for actual results or future events.

Also last week, a Health Affairs commentary “In 2026, States Are Leading On Health Care Affordability” noted that “Research has consistently shown that hospital prices are the largest driver of commercial health care spending growth. Hospital markets are dominated by monopolies, which enable hospitals to charge higher prices without improving quality or outcomes. State policymakers are increasingly looking for options to limit excessive hospital prices. Our research shows that capping the highest, most egregious prices charged by hospitals can meaningfully improve health care affordability while still allowing hospitals to generate a healthy margin…

A key driver of rising health care prices is consolidation in health care systems, including through hospital acquisitions of physician practices. These acquisitions, which are a form of vertical integration, increase hospital prices by 3 to 5%. This can be attributed to greater bargaining power, more intensive coding practices, and hospitals charging facility fees at what were previously independent physician practices but are now treated as “hospital outpatient departments.” To address these issues, states are increasingly considering facility fee bans or “site-neutral” policies that would cap prices for certain routine hospital outpatient services that could be provided safely in an office setting.”

Both positions are defensible.

Not for profit and public hospitals are at a disadvantage in managing their finances because they’re obligated to serve entire communities without regard to local economies or population health. Investor-owned hospitals and insurance companies have fewer restrictions and can exit markets at will.

And almost every hospital is dependent on reimbursement from commercially insured patients to offset what is the widely-accepted calculus that Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement doesn’t cover the total cost of care provided enrollees. Thus, across the hospital industry, the playbook has been straightforward: to optimize hospital finances….

• Maximize the attractiveness of hospital services that attract privately insured patients via contracting with private insurers.
• Negotiate favorable rates with private insurers to enhance cost-shifting to Medicare and Medicaid by private plans.
• Optimize leverage (scale) over insurers by consolidating hospitals, acquiring physician practices, expanding ancillary activities and deploying capital to potentially profitable ventures.
• Advocate for state and federal laws that dissuade hospital price caps, 340B cuts, site-neutral payments, unreasonable price transparency requirements and limits on private-equity partnerships.
• Assert that hospitals are efficient stewards of the public’s trust but disadvantaged by corporate insurers and drug companies that are allowed to enter and exit markets at will, price at “what the market will bear” and put shareholder profit above all else.

This scheme has worked for 40 years to enable hospitals to control at least 50% of total health spending: 31% for traditional hospital services, 12% of total physician services, and ventures, partnerships, ancillary services and post-acute services in addition. In the aggregate, hospitals are the most important cog in the healthcare wheel. They’re labor intense, capital intense, complicated businesses that enjoy public trust that’s slipping away, especially among the 25 million who work in the industry.  Complicating matters, distinctions between rural and government safety net hospitals and highly profitable investor-owned and not-for-profit systems are attracting unwanted scrutiny from regulators and in media coverage.

While Kaufman Hall raises legitimate questions about current methodologies used by state and federal regulators to assess consolidation, it does not answer the bigger question: what role should hospitals play in the U.S. system as AI-derived clinical innovation proliferates, labor and supply costs accelerate and fewer people can afford services?

It’s not clear.

• Should “hospital services” be redefined bifurcating facility-dependent inpatient services (Part A) and an expanded set of services inclusive of self-care provided in homes, schools, workplaces and virtually?
• Should “community-benefits” and “charity care” be redefined so that methodologies are consistent and gaming to receive tax benefits eliminated?
• Should hospital clinical performance be linked to improved outcomes and lower costs (affordability)?
• Should local primary care and preventive health services (inclusive of nutrition, physical and mental health, prophylactic dentistry) be integrated with hospital services to improve population health and control demand for hospital services?
• Should specialized tertiary and quaternary hospital programs be rationalized to optimize outcomes and improve efficiency?
• Should consolidated hospital systems disclose administrative costs, functions and allocation methodologies publicly?
• Should hospital boards be required to conduct scenario planning that’s comprehensive?
• Should hospital administrative services and costs be standardized to facilitate caps on spending and management performance comparisons?
• Should physician ownership of hospitals be enabled to increase competition?

And many others.

The American Hospital Association is right to be concerned about how regulators are addressing hospital consolidation and its impact on prices. And they’re right to challenge methodologies applied to questions about hospital prices and competition. But they fall short in offering a vision for the future of the health system that’s plausible, affordable and compelling. Rather, they offer a hospital-centric vision based on suspect assumptions and inadequate sensitivity to market trends not directly associated with traditional health services.

Every stakeholder in the health system—including hospitals and physicians—face heightened pressure to eliminate unnecessary utilization and costs due to willful or unknowing fraud. Just as insurer prior authorization practices have been frustrating to providers, unnecessary care is confounding to regulators and employers. The use of agentic AI tools to examine appropriateness of tests, procedures, medications and visits will exponentially change how “quality of care” is defined and regulated, and how its delivered. It’s a big deal everywhere, especially in Medicaid programs.

It started as a simple question. Who are the biggest health care companies in the United States?

If you rank the ten largest health care companies in America by revenue, you will not find a single hospital system or drugmaker. Not Pfizer, not Eli Lilly, not the Mayo Clinic or HCA. Every company in the top ten is a middleman, and together they take in about $2.6 trillion a year.

Above is a list showing how much of every dollar of revenue each company keeps as net income. Then read about what these companies actually do.

Three of these companies are insurers that swallowed pharmacy benefit managers: UnitedHealth owns Optum Rx; CVS owns Caremark and Aetna; and Cigna owns Express Scripts. Three are drug distributors that move pills from the factory to the pharmacy and touch almost none of them. Three more are built on Medicare and Medicaid managed care. Every one of them sits between the people who deliver care and the money that pays for it.

McKesson, Cencora and Cardinal Health each keep somewhere between half a cent and a penny of profit on every dollar of revenue. Cencora reported $294 billion in sales in fiscal 2024 and $1.5 billion in profit. That is a rounding error as a margin. And yet all three rank among the thirty largest companies in the world.

No other rich country works this way

The sheer size of these companies is another distinctly American feature of the system. On the 2026 Fortune Global 500, UnitedHealth ranks fourth in the world, ahead of Apple; McKesson is seventh; CVS is ninth; and Cigna, where I worked for 15 years, ranks 14th in the U.S. and 21st in the world. Every health care company near the top of the global list is an American intermediary in one way or another. There is no foreign health care business of any nature that comes close.

The closest thing another country has to one of our giants is Allianz, in Germany. Allianz is the largest insurance company in Europe. But it is a general insurer built on property, life and asset management, and health is a minor line. Even at home, Allianz is only the third largest health insurer in Germany. There, roughly nine in ten people are covered by nonprofit sickness funds, which are barred by law from operating as for profit and must send any surplus in funds back into the system.

And then there are Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), which is funded by taxes; Canada’s single-payer system financed through the provinces; and Japan’s nonprofit insurance system based on a standardized national fee schedule.

None of these countries built the kind of for-profit middleman layer that exists in the U.S., where some of those companies have grown into the largest corporations in the world. Pharmacy benefit managers are also a uniquely American creation, which helps explain why that entire category of health care giant does not exist elsewhere.

What the middleman layer costs

The United States spent $5.3 trillion on health care in 2024. That was the first year the country ever crossed $5 trillion, and it is the most recent year with actual figures rather than projections. (The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates total U.S. health spending will reach $6 trillion this year.)

A large share of that money never reaches care and instead is consumed by the U.S. health care system’s complicated administration and payment systems.

In 2021, the United States spent $925 per person on health administration, meaning the overhead of insurers and government programs. The average wealthy country spent $245. That gap of $680 a person accounts for about 12% of the entire difference between what America spends on health and what its peers spend. As a share of the total, administration eats about 7.6% of U.S. health spending against 3.8% across comparable nations. We devote twice the share of every health dollar to running our absurd machinery.

The $925 figure counts insurer and government overhead and does not include what hospitals and doctors spend on billing, coding and prior authorization just to get paid. When those costs are included, estimates put total administrative spending between 15% and 25% of all U.S. health care spending — or, based on 2024 spending, roughly $800 billion to $1.3 trillion a year.

The countries with the leanest administrative spending tend to be those (you guessed it!) with the fewest middlemen.

Middlemen spend to keep the status quo

I know how a system this profitable defends itself because I used to help do it. Back at my old gig at Cigna, my team and I wrote talking points for lobbyists to use with lawmakers, and we doled out campaign cash to candidates we liked.

The health sector spent $743.9 million lobbying the federal government in 2024, more than any other sector of the economy and the only one to clear $700 million. UnitedHealth alone spent $16.6 million in the 2024 election cycle. The insurance industry’s trade group, AHIP, and the biggest insurance conglomerates pour tens of millions more into the same effort year after year, and the pharmacy benefit managers keep their own operation running through another insurance industry funded trade group called the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), whose spending has roughly doubled since 2022.

That spending helps protect Medicare Advantage payments, fight efforts to rein in pharmacy benefit managers and oppose proposals that would move the country toward universal coverage. Compared with the $70 billion in combined profit of the seven biggest for-profit insurers last year, the lobbying bill is relatively small.

The price of “choice”

The industry says all of this is the price of “choice,” which they want folks to believe is sacred. It is the argument insurers and their allies reach for every time Congress looks at a single-payer bill or public option or any other approach, for that matter, that could move us closer to reining in the worst abuses of the industry.

Americans say they want to choose their own doctor and their own hospital, but that is exactly the kind of choice the middleman system can take away through narrow networks and prior authorization. What the industry defends instead is the choice among insurers. And for most working people, even that choice is made by an employer. We pay hundreds of billions of dollars a year to run a marketplace of middlemen, and in return we get narrower networks and more denials than patients face in the countries that never built the marketplace at all.

Depending on the results of the next two election cycles, Congress will almost certainly debate how to restructure health care again, with the familiar goals of lowering costs, expanding coverage and improving care. But any serious attempt to do that will have to confront the enormous middleman industry the current system has created and allowed to flourish.

As voters sour on private insurers and health care reform gains political momentum, decades-old warnings about “choice,” “wait times” and “slippery slopes” are resurfacing.

If you want a sense of where the health care debate is headed as we enter the final stretch before the midterm elections, take a look at what has been published over just the past week.

Last Wednesday, the New York Post published an op-ed by Pacific Research Institute President Sally Pipes warning that Medicare for All would be a “real-life nightmare.” That same day, another Pipes column, this one in Newsmax, warned that a public option would be the first step toward a “complete government takeover of health insurance.” And also last Wednesday, Reason published a piece warning that universal health care means “long waits, rationed care, and unmet medical needs.”

These old tropes are familiar to me, as I am sure they are to many readers. And there is a reason they are back getting airtime.

Health care costs have become a major vulnerability for politicians heading into November. A KFF poll this summer found that 51% of voters considered health care costs an “extremely important” issue for candidates to address. Earlier KFF polling found that 61% said health care costs would have a major impact on which party’s candidates they support. And it is Americans’ sentiments about health care costs that have pushed many Medicare for All candidates over the finish line and lit a fire under current members of Congress who are now seeking a way to increase competition in the health insurance space by creating a nonprofit health plan that would be operated by the federal government.

Americans are increasingly fed up with private health insurers. Complaints about denied care, prior authorization, rising premiums and exorbitant out-of-pocket requirements have put insurers under a level of scrutiny I haven’t seen in years. It’s not just Abdul El Sayed. It’s Marjorie Taylor Green, too.

And it’s because of this political storm brewing that the health insurance industry’s longtime defenders are coming out swinging.

I know Sally Pipes’ work especially well. Pipes, who grew up in Canada but has lived in the U.S. for years, has spent decades warning Americans about reforms that might move the United States closer to a system like our neighbors to the north have. When I was an insurance executive, she was always useful to us.

During the industry’s campaign against Michael Moore’s Sicko, for example, we drew on Pipes’ work to portray Canada’s health care system as a cautionary tale. I wrote about that in the Washington Post. And during the debate over what became the Affordable Care Act, she was a forceful critic of the public insurance option insurers desperately wanted to keep out of the final bill.

She was a reliable ally of the health insurance industry then, and she clearly is returning to that role once again.

In her New York Post column last week, Pipes reaches for one of the oldest and most effective arguments against health care reform: “choice.” Pipes says that (currently) employers can switch insurance companies, people buying their own coverage can shop among plans and Medicare beneficiaries can choose between traditional Medicare and privately run Medicare Advantage plans. Medicare for All, she warns, would take that “choice” away.

It’s an argument that has worked before because “choice” sounds pretty good. Who wants fewer “choices” when it comes to their health care? (That’s a rhetorical question. But one answer is the insurance industry, which has been eliminating “choice” and competition for decades now.)

The trick is that much of the “choice” Pipes is talking about is an illusion. Americans with employer-sponsored coverage most certainly do not get to choose their insurance company. Their employer does. And even if you can choose among a handful of health plans at work, all of them at most U.S. businesses that can still afford to offer coverage are operated by the insurance company your employer chose. That’s not the same as being able to choose your doctors or hospitals, which is the “choice” Americans really want. Your health insurer decides which doctors and hospitals are in your network and can require prior authorization before it will pay for care your doctor recommends.

In other words, Americans may have (some) “choice” of plans – with varying levels of deductibles and copayments – but that doesn’t necessarily mean they have a meaningful “choice” when it comes to their health care.

Pipes’ second column last week reveals something else about the “choice” argument. She warns in Newsmax that a public option would have advantages private insurers couldn’t match, eventually drive them from the market and put the country on a “slippery slope” toward single-payer health care. (I can’t tell you how many times I warned about that so-called “slippery slope” when I ran communications at Cigna.) So Pipes essentially is arguing that private insurers must continue to be protected from additional competition in the name of giving Americans “choices.” But give Americans the “choice” of a public plan—and the possibility that millions might prefer it to what private insurers are selling—and suddenly “choice” itself becomes the problem. She ignores the fact that seniors have long been able to choose a public option – traditional Medicare – or one operated by a private insurer – Medicare Advantage. I can assure you that Medicare Advantage is extraordinarily profitable for private insurers. No one should worry that insurance companies won’t continue to make money if people younger than 65 can also at long last be able to choose a public option.

Reason, the libertarian magazine that has been a persistent critic of the Affordable Care Act, Medicare for All and any concept that would allow the government to pass legislation that would interfere with insurance companies’ business practices, published its own warning last week under the headline: “Universal Healthcare Sounds Great. Here’s What’s Happening in Countries That Have It.”

The piece focuses heavily on Canada and Britain, arguing that people in those countries face long waits for care in overcrowded hospitals, and it cites examples of patients who received inadequate care. Those problems are real and shouldn’t be dismissed. Neither Canada nor Britain has a perfect health care system. But the United States sure as hell doesn’t either. Millions of Americans never get the care they need because they can’t afford to buy health insurance. Millions more with insurance can’t use it because of unaffordable out-of-pockets costs and have no “choice” but to go without the care they need.

Reason leans heavily on one of the most familiar scare tactics used against universal health care: the wait times. In Canada, you might wait a few months for an elective procedure like a knee replacement, and in the U.K. see a specialist or get a procedure. In Britain, you might find yourself in an NHS queue. But in either country, unlike in the U.S., you will not have to wait long at all to see your primary care doctor or be admitted to a hospital for medically urgent care.

To be sure, waiting for an elective procedure or imaging annoys many Canadians and Brits. They are real problems. But in this country, we ration care in a way that creates far more harm than waiting in a queue for a few weeks or months for non-urgent care. In the United States, if you can’t afford care, you don’t wait a few months or get thrown on a waiting list – you all too often never get the care. Because in the U.S. of A, if you’re one of the nearly 30 million Americans who are uninsured, or who can’t cover their deductibles, you don’t get it until you get so sick you have to go to the ER. And then you get saddled with hundreds or thousands of dollars in medical debt.

So comparatively, Americans put off the procedures, scans and medications they need. Americans live with pain and hope whatever is wrong doesn’t get worse. In the worst cases, folks in this country die prematurely with conditions that could have been treated because they couldn’t afford to get the care that could have saved their lives.

Reason has been making versions of this argument for years. The magazine has previously published pieces with headlines including “Medicare for All Is Bad Medicine,” “Why Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Is a Bad Idea,” and “Medicare for All Would Actually Be a Government Takeover of Health Care.” (“Government takeover” ranked right up there with “slippery slope” when I was an insurance industry propagandist. Get ready to hear both lies again and again and again between now and November.)

Not only did I find propaganda like this effective in my old job, I’ve also seen it effective in real life.

Obviously, the only way we are going to fix our health care system is by debating the difficult things. We can debate Medicare for All. We can debate a public option. Both proposals deserve serious scrutiny if we want to get the next version of our health care system right.

But the attacks against these reforms deserve scrutiny, too — especially when they come from the same people and organizations that have been making them for decades, and when those arguments have historically served the interests of a health insurance system with an enormous financial stake in preventing reform.

Big Insurance has hauled in $500B in profits since 2014— enough to cover extending the enhanced ACA subsidies and leave $150B — yet it’s gone to shareholders and executive bonuses instead of patients.

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

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

What the Insurers Say

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

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

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

What the Numbers Show

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

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

Stock Buybacks: Enrollees’ Money, Executives’ Reward

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

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

Lobbying With Our Premium Dollars

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

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

The Real Problem — and the Real Solution

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

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

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

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