Tag Archives: Medicare

How Insurers That Own Providers Can Game The Medical Loss Ratio Rules

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

https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/insurers-own-providers-can-game-medical-loss-ratio-rules

Recent analysis of spending data from five states with health care cost growth targets—Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Rhode Island—revealed an unexpected trend in 2023: Spending grew sharply in service categories that have historically increased more slowly. The most notable increase was in non-claims payments—payments made through financial arrangements between providers and health insurers that are not tied to individual claims. These payments rose by an average of 40.4 percent across the five states, driven largely by increases in Medicare Advantage non-claims spending.

Increases in non-claims payments are often seen as a positive sign. They suggest a shift away from fee-for-service payments toward alternative payment methods (APMs)—value-based payment models that incentivize care coordination, efficiency, and a focus on outcomes. However, it’s unclear what is included in these non-claims payments. A closer examination of this issue revealed a less visible but important concern: the role of insurer-provider vertical integration in potentially weakening the effectiveness of Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requirements for insurers.

MLR Requirements

Medical Loss Ratio is a measure of the percentage of premium dollars that a health insurer spends on medical care and quality improvement activities—as opposed to administration, marketing, or profit. Since 2011, the Affordable Care Act has required insurers to maintain an MLR of at least 80 percent in the individual and small group markets, and 85 percent in the large group market. That is, for every dollar spent by an insurer, 80 cents or 85 cents—depending on the market—must go toward actual care and improvement. Insurers that don’t meet these required thresholds must pay a rebate to consumers for the premium dollars that were not spent on health care, less taxes, fees, and adjustments. In 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services instituted a requirement for Medicare Advantage and Part D plans; they must maintain an MLR of at least 85 percent or rebate any excess revenues to the federal government.

These MLR requirements aim to ensure that the majority of premium revenue is used to deliver or improve care. However, a significant loophole allows insurers that have “vertically integrated” with providers to inflate reported medical spending. This reduces their rebate liability while increasing held profits. Since the MLR provisions took effect in 2012, an estimated $13 billion in rebates have been issued—highlighting the strong incentive insurers have to minimize these payouts.

The MLR Loophole

A company is vertically integrated when it owns or controls more than one entity in the supply chain. For insurers, this means acquiring physician practices, outpatient clinics, and even entire health systems. As a result of this vertical integration, payments to these affiliated providers count as medical spending when calculating an MLR for the insurer. However, there is no MLR requirement for providers. This creates an incentive for the insurer to direct spending to these affiliated provider entities, which may charge inflated prices, allowing the insurer to increase its reported MLR without delivering more care or improving quality.

Consider a hypothetical scenario: Company X owns Health Insurer A and Clinic Y. There’s another health insurer, B, in the market, but it is not owned by Company X. It costs Clinic Y $300 to deliver a particular service.

When a patient covered by Health Insurer B receives this service at Clinic Y, Insurer B pays the clinic $300 for delivering the service. But when another patient covered instead by Health Insurer A receives the same particular service at Clinic Y, Health insurer A pays the clinic a lot more: $500. The full $500 is counted as medical spending in Health Insurer A’s MLR calculation, even though the additional $200 didn’t buy any more services or any better care. It just represents internal profit for the vertically integrated entity, Company X, that is captured on the provider side of the business, and not true care delivery (see exhibit 1 below).

Exhibit 1: Incentives for vertically integrated insurers to direct spending to these affiliated provider entities

Source: Authors’ analysis.

The structure of APMs exacerbates this problem by making it easier to mask price increases. In fee-for-service systems, a price increase shows up directly. However, in APM payments that are per capitation or per episode, providers receive lump-sum payments for a group of services or a population. There is no service breakdown for these APMs. These lump-sum payments can facilitate investment in population health improvement, but if vertically integrated entities are exploiting the MLR loophole by increasing internal payment rates, the use of APMs make such profit maximization easier to conceal.

This dynamic reveals a limitation of the MLR rules. When the insurer is also the provider, there is less transparency into how health care dollars are actually allocated. The vertically integrated insurer and provider entity can also artificially inflate prices for medical services, worsening the nation’s health care affordability problem.

Potential Impact

Currently, there is no standardized way to assess the extent to which insurers that own or are otherwise affiliated with clinics and health systems are taking advantage of this loophole, or how much the practice contributes to high health care prices. However, with the growing trend toward insurer-provider vertical integration, the potential cost implications are significant.

Insurers That Own Providers Capture A Significant Share Of Commercial And Medicare Advantage Enrollment

In the large-group commercial market, the three largest insurers—Kaiser Permanente, UnitedHealthcare, and Elevance—held a combined 39 percent of the national market share in 2023. In the Medicare Advantage market, the top five plans—UnitedHealthcare, Humana, CVS Health/Aetna, Elevance, and Centene—accounted for 68 percent of total enrollment in 2023.All of these insurers operate within larger parent companies that own or control a range of health care provider entities.

For example, UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare’s parent company, also owns OptumHealth, which employs or manages more than 90,000 physicians across the country. The recently released Sunlight Report on UnitedHealth Group shows that it grew more than 10 times its size over the past decade, and the company now consists of nearly 3,000 distinct legal entities.

UnitedHealth Group is not the only insurer pursuing this strategy of vertical integration. Elevance Health (formerly Anthem, Inc.) owns Carelon, a health services provider that claims to serve one in three people in the US. CVS Health encompasses retail pharmacy storefronts (CVS Pharmacy), a pharmacy benefits manager (CVS Caremark), a health insurer (Aetna), in-store clinics (MinuteClinic), and provider groups such as Oak Street Health and Signify Health. This high level of consolidation gives these companies significant control over how care is delivered, priced, and reported.

Transactions Between Insurers And Their Affiliated Provider Entities Are Substantial And Growing

A 2022 analysis by the Brookings Institution suggests that in Medicare Advantage plans, internal transactions between affiliated insurers and providers can account for spending that ranges from about 20 percent to as much as 71 percent of the total. Cost growth target states’ reports on 2023 spending growth appear to confirm these trends within the Medicare Advantage market. Upon examination of the drivers behind the sharp increases in non-claims payments, a clear pattern emerged. In Connecticut, UnitedHealthcare launched a program that paid its affiliated provider group, which was then called OptumCare Network, a fixed percentage of Medicare Advantage premiums to cover care and care coordination. Oregon reported that the rise in Medicare Advantage non-claims payments was largely due to UnitedHealthcare shifting a significant share of its claims payments into non-claims spending through Optum.

These trends are not limited to Medicare Advantage, however. UnitedHealth and other major insurers such as Elevance and Aetna operate across multiple markets, raising concerns about similar dynamics in the commercial market. A recent analysis by Seth Glickman, a physician and former insurance executive, shows that in the past five years, UnitedHealth Group’s reported corporate “eliminations”—intercompany revenues reported in its consolidated financial statements that represent all books of business—more than doubled, increasing from $58.5 billion to $136.4 billion. At the same time, the share of Optum’s revenue derived from UnitedHealthcare, as opposed to unaffiliated entities, increased by nearly 50 percent.

Prices Of Health Care Services From Vertically Integrated Insurers And Providers Are Higher Than Prevailing Market Prices

Growing evidence also suggests that insurers are paying more for services provided through their affiliated entities than for those delivered by non-affiliated entities. A STAT News investigation revealed that UnitedHealth Group reimburses its own physician groups considerably more than other providers in the same markets for the same set of services. Similarly, a Wall Street Journal investigation showed how certain insurers and pharmacy benefit managers are generating substantial profits by overcharging for generic drugs within their own networks. The analysis found that for a selection of specialty generic drugs, Cigna and CVS’s prices were at least 24 times higher, on average, than the drug manufacturers’ prices.

Stronger Oversight Is Needed

The potential impact of these trends is so significant that policy makers are beginning to take notice. In 2023, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Mike Braun (R-IN) requested that the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General evaluate the extent to which vertical integration is increasing costs and allowing insurers to bypass federal MLR requirements. Earlier this year, Representatives Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and Greg Murphy (R-NC) submitted a bipartisan request to the Government Accountability Office—Congress’s independent, nonpartisan oversight agency—urging an investigation into the same issue in Medicare Advantage. It is unclear whether these investigations have been initiated.

Some states—understanding the role that market consolidation plays in driving up health care prices—have made efforts to strengthen oversight. In 2024, 22 states passed laws related to health system consolidation and competition. However, historically, these efforts have largely focused on promoting competition, preventing monopolies, and limiting dominant providers’ ability to charge prices well above competitive levels. Little attention has been given to the MLR loophole and the ability of vertically integrated insurers to report profits as medical care.

As states pursue policies to slow cost growth, they must apply greater scrutiny of vertical integration arrangements—especially around internal financial transactions between affiliated entities. States should require insurers to report detailed information on transactions between related parties, including non-claims-based APMs to affiliated providers and the pricing methodology used to develop these APMs. This reporting could be integrated into states’ premium rate review processes, allowing regulators to assess whether such transactions reflect actual medical costs. States could then modify or deny rate increases where evidence points to gaming of MLR rules.

Policy makers should also reassess whether, given these market dynamics, current regulatory tools such as the MLR are adequate. Addressing these issues will be essential for maintaining the integrity of cost containment efforts and ensuring that health care dollars are spent on delivering meaningful care.

The Future of ACA Coverage Hangs on a Washington Deal

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/the-future-of-aca-coverage-hangs?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=173957513&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Lawmakers weigh extending enhanced subsidies that keep plans affordable while grappling with calls to curb hidden costs and insurer abuses.

There’s some real political drama brewing in Washington, and the outcome will determine whether millions of Americans will be able to keep their health insurance. I’m not talking about Medicaid or Medicare but the 24 million Americans who are not eligible for either of those programs or even for coverage through an employer.

As the federal government barrels toward its Sept. 30 shutdown deadline, Democrats say they won’t vote to keep the government open unless Republicans agree to extend the subsidies that make coverage available through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace more affordable for individuals and families who get their health insurance there. At the heart of the debate are the so-called “enhanced” subsidies that were put in place during the Covid pandemic. Those subsidies are set to expire at the end of this year. If they do, more than 90% of people who buy coverage in the ACA marketplace will have to pay a whole lot more for it next year.

Republicans, who control Congress, are split. Hardliners want the subsidies to disappear, but a growing faction of GOP lawmakers see the political peril staring them in the face: Millions of their constituents will receive marketplace renewal notices with eye-popping premium hikes as open enrollment begins Nov. 1, and they likely will blame Republicans for those hikes.

Virginia Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans has even taken the lead on a one-year extension bill, warning that “people will get a notice that their health care premiums are going to go up by thousands of dollars” if Congress doesn’t act. A July GOP poll found that letting the subsidies lapse could tank Republicans’ midterm prospects.

As Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer put it:

“The Republicans have to come to meet with us in a true bipartisan negotiation to satisfy the American people’s needs on health care or they won’t get our votes, plain and simple”.

Why extending the subsidies matters — but why it shouldn’t be a blank check

When I was an insurance executive, I used to champion high deductible health plans and steep out-of-pocket costs, arguing Americans needed to have “more skin in the game.” The industry sold Congress on that logic during the ACA debates – and it worked. Lawmakers not only set the law’s out-of-pocket (OOP) maximum high from the start, they also – at the insurance industry’s insistence – let it rise to new heights every year.

The result? That cap ballooned 67% between 2014 and 2025. And in 2026, the max will reach $10,600 for an individual and $21,200 for a family. That means most ACA plans leave people exposed to thousands of dollars in medical bills even after they’ve paid their premiums. And the people who get burned the most are those with chronic illnesses or sudden serious diagnoses – or even an accident.

If the subsidies vanish, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects about 4 million people will drop out of ACA plans in the first year. People will get sicker. Some will die sooner.

But let’s not kid ourselves: Simply shoveling more taxpayer money into insurers’ coffers is not a solution. These same companies are already awash in tax dollars through their private Medicare Advantage plans, Medicaid contracts, and even the VA.

The concessions for subsidy extension

Here’s the tradeoff Congress should demand: Insurers can get the subsidies (which go straight to them), but only if they agree to put some of their own skin in the game. And they have plenty of it. Just the seven largest for-profit health insurers reported more than $71 billion in profits last year.

Specifically, lawmakers should:

  • Cap out-of-pocket costs on ACA plans. Apply the same protections Congress just gave to Medicare beneficiaries: a $2,000 cap on prescription drugs AND a $5,000 overall cap on annual out-of-pocket costs. That would be a seismic shift, bringing ACA plans closer to what Americans think they’re buying when they pay for “coverage.”
  • Crack down on prior authorization abuse. Prior authorization delays and denials are rampant in ACA plans, just as they are in Medicare Advantage. If taxpayers are footing the bill, patients should get timely care — not insurer red tape.
  • Fix ghost networks. Insurers routinely list doctors who aren’t actually accepting new patients or aren’t even in-network. Regulators should require accurate, verified networks so people can actually see the providers they’re paying to have access to.

My former Big Insurance colleagues will howl and launch a massive propaganda campaign when these ideas gain traction, claiming they’ll have to jack up premiums even more than they usually do if they have to be even slightly more patient-friendly. I know because I used to plan and execute the industry’s fear-mongering campaigns. Don’t fall for it this time or ever again. Those seven giant insurers took in more than 1.5 trillion dollars and shared more than $71 billion of their windfall with their already rich shareholders last year alone. Yes, the industry’s lobbying will be intense. But if members of Congress do the right thing, they won’t just preserve coverage for millions, they will finally start forcing insurers to compete on value, not just premium retention.

What comes next

If Democrats are going to play hardball by threatening a government shutdown if Republicans don’t extend these ACA subsidies, they should make it count. Americans need relief not just on premiums, but on the crushing costs hidden behind their insurance cards.

Republicans, meanwhile, should recognize the political reality. Roughly 45% of people who buy their own insurance (most through the ACA marketplace) identify as Republican or lean Republican. Letting their premiums spike by more than 75% next year would be political malpractice.

We can extend these subsidies without simply enriching insurers. We can make coverage both affordable and usable.

Don’t Just Block Ads for Pills – Block Medicare Advantage Ads, Too

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/dont-just-block-ads-for-pills-block?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=173693596&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

If Trump and RFK Jr. want to crack down on deceptive health care ads, they should start with the avalanche of misleading Medicare Advantage commercials blanketing seniors every fall.

The Trump administration announced last week it plans to crack down on prescription drug advertising. In reporting on the news, the New York Times quoted former Food and Drug Administrator David Kessler as saying that what the administration is proposing “would in essence remove direct-to-consumer advertising from television.”

In a press release, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the intent is to “shut down that pipeline of deception and require drug companies to disclose all critical safety facts in their advertising.”

You’ll get no argument from me that companies of any kind, especially those that make money in health care, should not be allowed to deceive the public by withholding critical facts.

What I do argue – and hope this administration and Democrats in Congress will agree on – is that this crackdown should also include so-called Medicare Advantage ads.

As we get close to “open enrollment” season, the period of time every fall when seniors and people with qualifying disabilities can choose between Traditional Medicare and one of many private health insurance plans, we already are beginning to see deceptive ads by Big Insurance to once again lure Medicare beneficiaries into their often deadly money machine.

You’ve seen the ads: happy, smiling seniors playing tennis or pickleball and gabbing about “free” groceries and dental benefits they presumably get because of the generosity of their MA plans. Nowhere – ever – have you seen or heard anything in any of those ads about the potentially lethal side effect of signing up for those plans. But the terrifying truth is that an untold number of MA enrollees have gone to early graves because their insurers delayed or outright denied a test, treatment or medication their doctors said they needed. Or because they couldn’t even find a high-quality doctor, hospital or skilled nursing facility close to their home – or even far away for that matter. Many centers of excellence – hospitals and clinics that are renowned for things like cancer and cardiac care – are not in many MA plans’ “networks.”

Seniors need to be told how limited MA networks can be – and that Traditional Medicare, by contrast, doesn’t even have networks. Traditional Medicare doesn’t restrict you to certain providers. That’s because almost all doctors, labs, clinics and hospitals participate in Traditional Medicare.

And seniors need to be told explicitly in ads what prior-authorization is and how it can affect them. And they need to be told about how much money they’ll have to pay out of their own pockets if they knowingly or unknowingly get care from an out-of-network provider. They also need to be told that their MA plans can and do drop doctors and hospitals from their networks during the course of a given year and that more and more physician practices and hospitals – including world-class facilities like Johns Hopkins and M.D. Anderson and the Cleveland Clinic – have dropped out of many MA networks. And they need to be told that their MA plan could very well dump them next year by “exiting” the community they live in, as Humana, Aetna, UnitedHealth and other plans did this year and plan to do next year.

Why, Mr. Trump and Mr. Kennedy, are MA insurers not held to the same standards as pharmaceutical companies? And how fast can you put standards in place to assure us that MA ads don’t omit “critical facts?” You know as well as anyone that between October 15 and December 7 (the open enrollment period) you won’t be able to turn on your TV or scroll through your social media feeds without seeing multiple MA ads that blatantly lie by omission.

Researchers at the nonpartisan KFF found TV ads hawking MA plans ran 650,000 times during the 2022 open enrollment period. You can expect that number will be surpassed this year because Medicare Advantage has become such a cash cow for Big Insurance. As just one example, UnitedHealthcare, a division of the biggest health care conglomerate in the world, got more than 75% of its revenue last year from Medicare and other taxpayer-supported programs. Now you know why those deceptive ads are so ubiquitous, and why private insurers lie with impunity.

Speaking of UnitedHealthcare, it co-brands its MA plans with AARP, which gives that corporation a kind of good seal of approval. AARP has received billions of dollars from UnitedHealthcare over the years as part of the relationship. To its credit, AARP called attention to that KFF study on its website just before the 2023 open enrollment season started. That’s notable, but AARP needs to do much more. So I am hereby calling on AARP to join us in demanding that both the Trump administration and Congress take immediate action to make sure MA ads cannot leave out essential information. Truthful MA ads are just as important as drug company ads. Maybe even more so when you consider all the potential harms MA plans inflict on seniors and people with disabilities every single year.

The Future of Medicare Advantage—Assessing Current Debates and the Likelihood of Near-Term Reforms

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

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2837518

Privately administered Medicare Advantage (MA) has long been the subject of policy debate. To some, the once-nascent source of Medicare coverage is an important mechanism for injecting competition and innovation into the government-sponsored insurance program. To others, it represents an expensive and unnecessary alternative to directly administered traditional Medicare (TM).

After years of rapid growth, MA accounted for most program enrollments (33.6 million) and federal spending ($494 billion) in 2024.1 This has intensified some existing debates but also spurned increasing bipartisan agreements and interest in reforms. Politicians and policy experts who have historically supported MA, including some Republicans, have articulated greater openness to reforming the now-entrenched program.2 In effect, the debate has shifted from whether the MA program should be reformed to how it should be reformed and, critically, what the government should do with any savings. This Viewpoint discusses notable areas of consensus (and lack thereof) and the prospect of reforms from the Trump administration.

Areas of Growing Consensus

Several observations about MA are generally agreed upon. First, MA plans can use utilization management tools, like prior authorization, to constrain costs in ways that TM generally cannot. This reduces MA plans’ costs of covering Part A (hospital) and B (physician) benefits compared with a scenario where they imposed few constraints on utilization, like in TM. Policymakers also increasingly recognize the administrative burdens imposed on clinicians and restraints on patient access due to these tools, which have generated growing interest in reforms.

Second, and perhaps paradoxically, the federal government would spend less if all MA enrollees instead chose TM. This reflects several factors. MA plans are paid benchmark rates that are set above the fee-for-service spending in many counties. Plan payments can increase further due to the quality-bonus program. MA plans also have higher coding intensity, meaning the same beneficiary has more diagnoses recorded if they are enrolled in MA rather than TM. This increases risk scores and payments from the government (whether this reflects more accurate coding vs fraudulent behavior remains a source of debate). In addition, MA plans experience advantageous selection, meaning they attract enrollees who are relatively cheaper to cover conditional on their observable characteristics.3 All told, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimates that the federal government spends 20% more (or an estimated $84 billion in 2025) than if all enrollees chose TM.1 While the exact magnitude of difference is subject to debate, the basic conclusion is not.

Third, MA plans offer more generous benefits to enrollees, including lower out-of-pocket costs and coverage of additional benefits such as vision and dental services. This occurs because plans keep a portion of the difference between their bid and the benchmark rate. These rebates average $2255 annually per enrollee, which represents 17% of all spending on MA.1

Where Disagreements Remain

While there is growing acknowledgment of the fiscal costs of the MA program, there is disagreement or uncertainty about several questions that inform an appropriate policy response. First, there is debate about how valuable some supplemental benefits are to enrollees. While it is relatively straightforward to value reductions in premiums or cost sharing in MA plans, there is limited information about how often enrollees use many of the supplemental benefits. Some research suggests that use of certain extra benefits may not be much higher in MA plans.4

Partly because of this, it is uncertain how much payment reductions to MA plans will reduce benefits and, in turn, how much that reduces enrollee welfare. Some research suggests the last dollar spent on MA plans results in much less than a dollar’s worth of additional benefits, particularly in markets with limited competition between plans.5 This suggests that reducing payments would initially lower plan profits but result in minimal welfare loss for enrollees. Even if true, it is not obvious when this tradeoff becomes more pronounced. Other research indicates the aggregate value of reduced cost sharing represents a large share of excess payments, suggesting reducing spending may quickly trigger benefit reductions.6 These effects may further depend on how policymakers chose to alter payments.

Finally, there remains significant disagreement about how to use any savings generated by program reforms. Democratic lawmakers often argue that savings should be used to increase TM benefits (eg, by adding dental benefits or imposing an out-of-pocket cap). Republicans are much more likely to pair spending reduction with policies that boost MA (eg, allowing MA plans to keep more of the savings if they bid below benchmarks). This predominantly reflects different preferences over the optimal structure of Medicare rather than empirical uncertainty.

Reform Possibilities From the Trump Administration

Many observers expect that the current administration will be relatively generous toward MA, as is typical of a Republican administration. This is particularly true given that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administrator, Mehmet Oz, MD, has historically expressed support for MA plans. While major spending reductions may remain unlikely, early actions suggest the administration supports targeted reforms and is likely to test changes to the program’s design.

In his Senate confirmation, Oz was explicitly critical of strategic upcoding by insurers. Early policy decisions have been consistent with this view. The 2026 final payment notice for MA continues implementation of several policies that reduce MA payments. Notably, the Trump administration finalized implementation of an updated risk adjustment model that is designed to partly address coding intensity. For example, it eliminates approximately 2000 diagnosis codes that were judged to be most prone to upcoding. In conjunction with related changes, this is expected to decrease plan payment by 3.01%.7 CMS also announced the expansion of audits aimed at verifying the accuracy of diagnoses recorded by MA plans.8 This suggests the administration is willing to address strategic behavior by insurers, which they characterize as addressing waste, fraud, and abuse.8

However, the final payment notice also included higher payment increases for MA plans than was initially proposed by the Biden administration (5.06% vs 2.23%). After accounting for coding trends, realized payments are expected to increase by 7.16%. While consistent with an effort to boost MA enrollment, CMS noted that this change predominantly reflected the effects of higher-than-expected growth in per capita costs in TM, which mechanically increased payment updates. While CMS has some flexibility in payment updates, observers should use caution when using these upward revisions to infer the administration’s level of support for MA.

If the current administration is open to more novel and consequential reforms, they are likely to emerge from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). While CMMI demonstration projects have historically focused on TM, the office can test changes to key features of MA that would significantly alter spending and incentives. Notably, Abe Sutton, JD, the director of the CMMI, recently highlighted the possibility of testing changes to risk scores, benchmarks, and quality measures, suggesting they are interested in taking advantage of this authority.9

With its place in the Medicare program now firmly established, MA has begun to attract more consistent interest in reform, even among Republican policymakers. This may reflect political considerations, as an unwillingness to act may provide an opportunity (and a source of budgetary savings) for future lawmakers to pursue alternative policy goals. Early signals from the Trump administration suggest they support program reforms, especially those targeting strategic behavior by insurers. Given the slim margins in Congress, it will be interesting to see if and how the administration uses CMMI’s authority to pursue substantive program changes.

Surging health costs bode ill for workers next year

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://www.axios.com/2025/09/12/surging-health-costs-bode-ill-for-workers-next-year?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Health care inflation hit a three-year high last month, in the latest sign that workers could soon be juggling big premium increases with higher prices for groceries, clothing and other items subject to President Trump’s tariffs.

WHY IT MATTERS: 

Medical prices have been steadily rising, but corporations projecting increases of 9% or more next year are no longer willing to insulate their employees from the pain.

DRIVING THE NEWS: 

Medical care costs rose 4.2%, compared with an overall inflation rate of 2.9%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Thursday.

THE BIG PICTURE: 

Consulting firms are forecasting that the trend will carry over into next year, even without sector-specific tariffs on drugs.

  • Mercer recently forecast that employers are facing their highest health benefit cost increase in 15 years. Beyond higher demand for health services, other factors include rising wages in the medical sector.
  • On Wednesday, professional services firm Aon reported that U.S. employer health care costs are projected to rise 9.5% in 2026, or more than $17,000 per employee. It blamed rising prescription drug costs and higher health care utilization.
  • “The overlooked reality is that employers continue to act as a stabilizing force,” Farheen Dam, head of Health Solutions for North America at Aon, said in a statement. “They absorb the bulk of the increase while making smart, targeted adjustments that protect employees and preserve plan value.”

BETWEEN THE LINES: 

The rising costs are being felt beyond workplace insurance; Affordable Care Act marketplace plans are seeking median 18% premium hikes for next year, according to KFF. That’s the largest rate change insurers have requested since 2018, they said.

  • The insurers cite high-priced drugs, increasing labor costs and general inflation, as well as concern about the expiration of enhanced subsidies that could hike out-of-pocket premiums an average of 75% for over 20 million enrollees.

THE BOTTOM LINE: 

Inflation is hitting health care harder than the broader economy, setting up a painful year ahead for both patients and employers.

  • It’s unclear whether the biggest health insurance price hikes in years could lead to deferred care, or more people opting to go uncovered.

Is Health Insurer Criticism Justified?

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, ACA, ACA Premiums, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicare Advantage, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Model, Profit Motive, Underinsured, Uninsured • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
Is Health Insurer Criticism Justified?

Since the murder of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson in New York City December 4, 2024, attention to health insurers has heightened. National media coverage has been brutal. Polls have chronicled the public’s disdain for rising premiums and increased denials. Hospitals and physicians have amped-up campaigns against prior authorization and inadequate reimbursement. For many health insurers, no news is a good news day. Here’s ChatGPT’s reply to how insurers are depicted:

“Media coverage of US health insurers focuses heavily on the challenges consumers face due to high costs, coverage denials, and complicated policies, often portraying insurers as profit-driven entities that hinder care access. Investigations reveal insurers using technology to deny claims and push for denials during prior authorization, while other reports highlight market concentration and the increasing influence of large companies like UnitedHealth Group and Centene. Media also covers the marketing efforts of insurers, particularly for Medicare Advantage plans, and public frustration with the industry. “

In some ways, it’s understandable. Insurance, by definition, is a bet, especially in healthcare. Private policyholders—individuals and employers– bet the premiums they pay pooled with others will cover the cost of a condition or accident that requires medical care. In the 1960’s, federal and state government made the same bet on behalf of seniors (Medicare) and lower-income or disabled kids and adults (Medicaid). But they’re bets.

But the rub is this: what healthcare products and services costs and their prices are hard to predict and closely-guarded secrets in an industry that declares itself the world’s best. Claims data—one source of tracking utilization—is nearly impossible to access even for employers who cover the majority of U.S. population (56%).

Spending for U.S. healthcare is forecast to increase 54% through 2033 from $5.6 trillion to $8.6 trillion— the result of higher costs for prescription drugs and hospital stays, medical inflation, technology, increased utilization (demand) and administrative costs (overhead). Insurers negotiate rates for these, add their margin and pass them thru to their customers—individuals, employers and government agencies. It’s all done behind the scenes.

The public’s working knowledge of how the health system operates, how it performs and what key players in the ecosystem do is negligible. For most, personal experience with the system is their context. We understand our personal healthiness if so inclined or fortunate to have a continuous primary care relationship. We understand our medications if they solve a problem or don’t. We understand our hospitals if we or a family member use them or occasionally visit, and we understand our insurance when we enroll choosing from affordable options that include the doctors and hospitals we like and when we’re denied services or billed for what insurance doesn’t cover.

Today, corporate names like UnitedHealth Group, Humana, Cigna, Elevance, CVS Aetna and Centene are the health insurance industry’s big brands, corralling more than 60% of the industry’s private and government enrollment with the rest divided among 1,149 smaller players. Today, the public’s perception of health insurers is negative: most consider insurance a necessary evil with data showing it’s no guarantee against financial ruin. Today, it’s an expensive employee benefit for employers who are looking for alternative options for workforce stability. And only 56% of enrollees trust their health insurer to do what’s best for them.

Ours is a flawed system that’s not sustainable: insurers are part of that problem.  It’s premised on dependence: patients depend on providers to define their diagnosis and deliver the treatments/therapeutics and enrollees depend on insurers to handle the logistics of how much they get paid and when. At the point of service, patients pay co-pays and after the fact, get an “explanation of benefits” along with additional out of pocket obligations. Hospitals and physicians fight insurers about what’s reasonable and customary compensation, and patients unable to out-of-pocket obligations are handed off to “revenue cycle specialists” for collection. Wow. Great system! Mark it up, pass it thru and let the chips fall where they may—all under the presumed oversight of state insurance commissioners who are tasked to protect the public’s interests.

Do insurers deserve the animosity they’re facing from employers, hospitals, physicians and their enrollees?  Yes, but certainly some more than others. Facts are facts:

  • Since 2020, health insurance premium costs have increased 2-4 times faster than household necessities and wages for the average household. Affordability is an issue.
  • Denials have increased.
  • Enrollee trust and satisfaction with insurers has plummeted.
  • And industry profits since 2023 have taken a hit due to post-pandemic pent-up demand, pricey drugs including in-demand GLP-1’s for obesity and increased negotiation leverage by consolidated health systems.

Most Americans think not having health insurance is a bigger risk than going without. But most also think healthcare is fundamental right and the government should guarantee access through universal coverage.

Having private insurance is not the issue: having insurance that ensures access to doctors and hospitals when needed reliably and affordably is their unmet need.

In the weeks ahead, employers will update their employee health benefits options for next year while facing 9-15% higher costs for their coverage. States will decide how they’ll implement work requirements in their Medicaid programs and assess the extent of lost coverage for millions. Insurers who sponsor market place plans suspended by the Big Beautiful Bill will raise their individual premiums hikes 20-70% for the 16 million who are losing their subsidies.

Medicare Advantage (Medicare Part C) insurers will skinny-down the supplements in their offerings and raise premiums alongside Part D increases, And, every insurer will inventory markets served and product portfolio profitability to determine investment opportunities or exit strategies. That’s the calculus every insurer applies every year, adjusting as conditions dictate.

Most private insurers pay little attention to the 8% of Americans who have no coverage; those inclined tend to be smaller community-based plans often associated with hospitals or provider organizations.

Most are concerned about continuity of care for their enrollees: they know 12% had a lapse in their coverage last year, 23% are under-insured and 43% missed a scheduled appointment or treatment due to out-of-pocket costs involved.

And all are concerned about the long-term financial viability of the entire health insurance sector: margins have plummeted since 2020 from 3.1% to 0.8%%, medical loss ratio’s have increased from 98.2% in 2023 to 100.1% last year, premiums increase grew 5.9% while hospital and medical expenses grew $8.9% and so on. The bigger players have residual capital to diversify and grow; others don’t.

Criticism of the health insurance industry is justified for the most part but the rest of the story is key. The U.S. system is broken and everyone knows it. But health insurers are not alone in bearing responsibility for its failure though their role is significant.

The urgent need is for a roadmap to a system of health where the healthiness and well-being of the entire population is true north to its ambition. It’s a system that’s comprehensive, connected, cost-effective and affordable. Protecting turf between sectors, blame and shame rhetoric and perpetuation of public ignorance are non-starters.

PS: Two important events last week weigh heavily on U.S. healthcare’s future:

In Verona, WI, the Epic User Group Meeting showcased the company’s plans for AI featuring 3 new generative AI tools — Emmie for patients, Art for clinicians and Penny for revenue cycle management. Per KLAS, the private company grew its market share to 42% of acute care hospitals and 55% of acute care beds at the end of 2024.

In Jackson Hole, WY, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual economic symposium where Fed Chair Jay Powell signaled a likely interest rate cut in its September 16-17 meeting and changes to how the central bank will assess employment status going forward.

Healthcare is labor intense, capital intense and 26% of federal spending in the FY 2026 proposed budget. The Fed through its monetary policies has the power and obligation to foster economic stability. Epic is one of a handful of companies that has the potential to transform the U.S. health system.  Transformation of the health system is essential to its sustainability and necessary to the U.S. economic stability since healthcare is 18% of the country’s GDP and its biggest private employer.

Medicare Advantage plans pay physicians less than original Medicare

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Reimbursement, Physician Compensation, Physician Fee Schedule • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/medicare-advantage-plans-pay-physicians-less-original-medicare

MA pays 10% to 15% less than what is paid by the government in original Medicare, report says.

A new study confirms what the American Medical Association and other medical groups have long been saying about physician pay: Medicare reimbursement is not keeping up with inflation.

In original Medicare, doctors are paid one-third less than a decade ago, the report said. Medicare reimbursement rates for outpatient procedures have decreased every year since 2016, for an overall decline of 10%.

Over the same period, inflation has risen by almost 30%, according to the report.

The report also sheds light on Medicare Advantage reimbursement. Medicare Advantage plans pay physicians an estimated 10% to 15% less than what is paid by the government in traditional Medicare, according to the 2025 Omniscient Health Physician Medicare Income Report. 

This can create negative margins for physicians considering MA plans take roughly twice as long to reimburse providers compared to original Medicare along with factoring in prior authorization and denials, the report said. 

An estimated 54% of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a MA plan.

WHY THIS MATTERS

The MA reimbursement gap is driving shifts in network participation. A 2024 survey by the Healthcare Financial Management Association found that 19% of health systems have stopped accepting at least one MA plan, with another 61% planning to do so or actively considering it, according to the Omniscient report.

“Despite the rising demand for care from an aging U.S. population, the financial strain is forcing physicians to rethink whether they will continue serving Medicare patients,” said Meade Monger, CEO of Omniscient Health, a healthcare data science company. “High-volume Medicare practices, especially those in primary care and rural areas, are increasingly unable to sustain operations under current revenue structures.”

The federal government’s push toward streamlining and speeding up the prior authorization process and requiring an electronic process over paper represents improvement, the report said. Some insurers have announced plans to decrease the number of procedures that require prior auth.

But payment rates need to change, said Omniscient, which recommends policymakers index Medicare reimbursement rates to inflation and set payment standards for MA plans. 

THE LARGER TREND

On Tuesday, the American Medical Association released what it called flawed proposals in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ physician payment rule released in July.

Despite getting a 3.6% payment boost after five consecutive years of cuts, physician pay, after adjusting for practice-cost inflation, has plummeted since 2001, the AMA said.

The proposed 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule includes a 2.5% cut in work relative-value units (RVUs, which measure a physician’s time, technical skill, mental effort, decision-making and stress) and physician intraservice time for most services, the AMA said. This reduction would affect 95% of the services that doctors provide. 

The cut is based on an assumption of greater efficiency and less time involved for each service, an assumption that is not grounded in new data or physician input, the AMA said. 

CMS also proposes a reduction in practice-expense RVUs, which are the costs of running a practice, such as staff, equipment, supplies, utilities and overhead.

The bottom line, the AMA said, is that physician payment for services performed in a facility will drop overall by 7%.

CMS is accepting comments on its proposed rule until Sept. 12.

The ACA Subsidy Expiration Will Hit Millions Hard

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, ACA, ACA Premiums, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Underinsured, Uninsured • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/the-aca-subsidy-expiration-will-hit?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=170756440&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

When Congress passed pandemic-era enhancements to Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium subsidies in 2021, it wasn’t just a policy tweak — it was a lifeline. But unless lawmakers act, those subsidies will vanish on January 1, 2026.

According to KFF, the average ACA enrollee could see premiums spike 75% overnight. For many, that will mean a choice between things like their health coverage and rent or food. The Congressional Budget Office estimates more than 4.2 million people could lose coverage over the next decade as a result. Below is where the expired subsidies will hurt the hardest:

1. Young adults… and their parents’ wallets

Young people who’ve aged out of their parents’ plans and buy coverage through the ACA marketplaces will see some of the steepest jumps. 

If they decide to forgo coverage, as KFF Health News warns: The so-called “‘insurance cliff’ at age 26 can send young adults tumbling into being uninsured.” 

The parents and families of these young adults could be left scrambling to cover unexpected medical bills — the kind that can derail a family’s finances for years.

2. Main street entrepreneurs

The ACA is the only real option for many small-business owners, freelancers and gig workers. These are the folks that conservatives say we should encourage to build and grow their own businesses who make up the backbone of Main Street. Losing the enhanced subsidies means many will face premiums hundreds of dollars higher per month. Some will be forced to close shop and turn to jobs at out-of-town corporations flush enough to afford to offer subsidized coverage to their workers, a direct hit to local economies.

3. States already in crisis

States aren’t in a position to plug the gap. Politico reports that California, Colorado, Maryland, Washington, and others are scrambling to soften the blow, but even the most ambitious state-level plans can’t replace hundreds of millions in lost federal funding.

And this comes right after Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that will hit hospitals, clinics and low-income communities. In Washington state alone, officials expect premiums to jump 75% when the subsidies expire, with one in four marketplace enrollees dropping coverage. That means more uninsured patients showing up in ERs, less preventive care, and more strain on already struggling rural hospitals.

4. (Already) disappearing alternatives to Big Insurance

The ACA marketplaces aren’t just a safety net for individuals but also home to smaller non-profit and regional health plans that give Americans an alternative to the “Big 7” Wall Street-run insurance conglomerates. These community-rooted plans are already facing financial headwinds from shrinking enrollment and Medicaid funding cuts. When premiums spike in 2026, many could lose enough members to be forced out of the market entirely.

And here’s the real danger: The Big 7 can weather this storm. Their huge market capitalizations, government contracts, pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) divisions and sprawling care delivery businesses give them insulation from ACA marketplace losses. In fact, they may see this as an opportunity to buy up the smaller competitors that fail, which would further consolidate their dominance over our health care system. Or they could just decide to flee the ACA marketplace entirely because the population will skewer sicker and older, creating a death spiral that the big insurers will not want to touch. What little consumer choice exists outside the big corporate insurers could vanish, and even that could disappear.

5. <65 year olds

Perhaps the most vulnerable group will be Americans in their 50s and early 60s who lose their jobs or retire early (often not by choice) and find themselves too young for Medicare but facing incredibly high premiums on the individual market. Under ACA rules, insurers can charge older enrollees up to three times more than younger adults for the same coverage. The enhanced subsidies have been the only thing keeping many of these premiums within reach.

Take those subsidies away, and a 60-year-old who loses employer coverage could see their monthly premium shoot into four figures. For those living off severance, savings or reduced income, choosing to gamble with their health and wait it out until 65 may be the only option.

Congress knows the stakes. Will they act?

Making the subsidies permanent would cost $383 billion over 10 years, which would be a political hurdle for a Congress intent on deep budget cuts. But the cost of inaction is far higher, both in human and economic terms. These subsidies have kept coverage affordable for millions, fueled small business growth, and stabilized state health systems during one of the most turbulent economic periods in recent memory. Without them, the hit to many folks could be a Frazier-level K.O.

But let’s face it — what I’m advocating for isn’t perfect either. The prospect of extending these subsidies raises a question: Should taxpayers be footing the bill for health insurance premiums when insurance corporations are reporting tens of billions in annual profits and paying hefty dividends to shareholders?

The short answer, for now, unfortunately, is yes. Because this is the deck we’ve been dealt and we can’t let Americans fall into medical debt, lose their homes – or their lives. Extending the ACA subsidies is not pretty. But for Americans, it’s just a bob and weave.

July 2025 Actions are the Turning Point for U.S. Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicaid Cuts, Medicaid Funding, Medicare Cuts, State of the Union, Turning Point • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment
July 2025 Actions are the Turning Point for U.S. Healthcare

July 2025 will be the month U.S. healthcare leaders recognize as the industry’s modern turning point. Consider…

  • On July 4, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law setting in motion $960 billion in Medicaid cuts over the decade and massive uncertainty among those most adversely impacted—low income and under-served populations dependent on public programs, 8 to 11 million who used now-suspended marketplace subsidies to buy insurance coverage, and hundreds of state and local health agencies left in funding limbo.
  • On July 15, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the June Consumer Price Index rose .3% bumping the LTM to 2.7% (lower than LTM of 3.4% for medical services). Prices have edged up.
  • On July 31, President Trump issued an Executive Order to 17 drug companies ordering them to reduce prices on their drugs by September 29 or else. And CMS issued final rules for FY2026 Medicare payments to hospitals, rehab and other providers reflecting increases ranging from 2.5-3.3% effective October 1.
  • And on the same day, the Bureau of Labor issued its July 2025 jobs report that showed a disappointing net gain of 73,000 jobs plus downward revisions for May and June of 258,000 sparking Wall Street anxiety and President Trump to call the results “rigged” before firing BLS head Erika McEntarfer. Note: healthcare added 55,000 in July—the biggest of any sector and more than its 42,000 average monthly increase.

Collectively, these actions reflect rejection of the health industry by the GOP-led Congress.

It follows 15 years of support vis a vis the Affordable Care Act (2010) and pandemic recovery emergency funding (2020-2021). In that 15-year period, the bigger players got bigger in each sector, investment of private equity in each sector became more prevalent, costs increased, affordability for consumers and employers decreased, and the public’s overall satisfaction with the health system declined precipitously.

For the four major players in the system, the passage of the “big, beautiful bill” was a disappointment. Their primary concerns were not addressed:

  • Physicians wanted relief from annual payment cuts by Medicare preferring reimbursement tied directly to medical inflation. And insurer’ prior authorization and provider reimbursement was a top issue. Status: Not much has changed though adjustments are promised.
  • Hospitals wanted continuation of federal Medicaid funding, protection of the 340B drug purchasing program, rejection of site-neutral payment policies, higher Medicare reimbursement and relief from insurer prior authorization frustrations. Status: Medicaid funding is being cut forcing the issue for states. CMS payment increases for 2026 are lower than operating cost increases. Insurers have promised prior-auth relief but details about how and when are unknown. And Congress posture toward hospitals seems harsh: price transparency compliance, safety event reporting, and cost concerns are bipartisan issues.
  • Insurers wanted sustained funding for state Medicaid and Medicare Advantage programs and federal pushback against drug prices and hospital consolidation. Status: Congress appears sympathetic to enrollee complaints and anxious to address insurer “waste, fraud and abuse” including overpayments in Medicare Advantage.
  • Drug companies oppose “Most Favored Nation” pricing and want protections of their patents and limits on how much insurers, pharmacy benefits managers, wholesalers, online distributors and other “middlemen” earn at their expense. Status: to date, little action despite sympathetic rhetoric by lawmakers. Status: to date, Congress has taken nominal action beyond the Inflation Reduction Act (2022) though 23 states have passed legislation requiring PBMs, insurers and manufacturers to disclose drug prices and 12 states have established Prescription Drug Affordability Boards to monitor prices.

My take:

The landscape for U.S. healthcare is fundamentally changed as a result of the July actions noted above. It is compounded by public anxiety about the economy at home and global tensions abroad.

These July actions were a turning point for the industry: responding appropriately will require fresh ideas and statesmanship. Transparency about prices, costs, incentives and performance is table stakes. Leaders dedicated to the greater good will be the difference.

Inside the Midyear Panic at UnitedHealth

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Insurance Pre Authorization, Health Insurance Premiums, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, High Premiums, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Denials, Medicare Advantage Overpayments, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Model, Profit Motive, UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/inside-the-midyear-panic-at-unitedhealth

Imagine you’re facing your midyear performance review with your boss. You dread it, even though you’ve done all you thought possible and legal to help the company meet Wall Street’s profit expectations, because shareholders haven’t been pleased with your employer’s performance lately.

Now let’s imagine your employer is a health insurance conglomerate like, say, UnitedHealth Group. You’ve watched as the stock price has been sliding, sometimes a little and on some days crashing through lows not seen in years, like last Friday (down almost 5% in a single day, to $237.77, which is down a stunning 62% since a mid-November high of $630 and change).

You know what your boss is going to say. We all have to do more to meet the Street’s expectations. Something has changed from the days when the government and employers were overly generous, not questioning our value proposition, always willing to pick up the tab and pay many hidden tips, and we could pull our many levers to make it harder for people to get the care they need. 

Despite government and media reports for years that the federal government has been overpaying Medicare Advantage plans like UnitedHealth’s – at least $84 billion this year alone – Congress has pretended not to notice. There is evidence that might be changing, with Republicans and Democrats alike making noises about cracking down on MA plans. 

Employers have complained for ages about constantly rising premiums, but they’ve sucked it up, knowing they could pass much of the increase onto their workers – and make them pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before their coverage kicks in. Now, at least some of them are realizing they don’t have to work with the giant conglomerates anymore.

Doctors and hospitals have complained, too, about burdensome paperwork and not getting paid right and on time, but they’ve largely been ignored as the big conglomerates get bigger and are now even competing with them.

UnitedHealth is the biggest employer of doctors in the country. But doctors and hospitals are beginning to push back, too. 

Since last fall, UnitedHealth and its smaller but still enormous competitors have found that “headwinds” are making it harder for them to maintain the profit margins investors demand. That is mainly because, despite the many barriers patients have to overcome to get the care they need, many of them are nevertheless using health care, often in the most expensive setting – the emergency room. They put off seeing a doctor so long because of insurers’ penny-wise-pound-foolishness that they had some kind of event that scared them enough to head straight to the ER. 

It’s not just you who is dreading your midyear review. Everybody, regardless of their position on the corporate ladder, and even the poorly paid folks in customer service, are in the same boat. And so is your boss. Nobody will put the details of what has to be done in writing. They don’t have to. Your boss will remind you that you have to do your part to help the company achieve the “profitable growth” Wall Street demands, quarter after quarter after quarter. It never, ever ends. You know this because you and most other employees watch what happens after the company releases quarterly financials. You also watch your 401K balance and you see the financial consequences of a company that Wall Street isn’t happy with. And Wall Street is especially unhappy with UnitedHealth these days.

And when things are as bad as they are now at UnitedHealth’s headquarters in Minnesota, you know that a big consulting firm like McKinsey & Company has been called in, and that those suits will recommend some kind of “restructuring” and changes in leadership to get the ship back on course. You know the drill. Everybody already is subject to forced ranking, meaning that at the end of the year, some of your colleagues, regardless of job title, will fall below a line that means automatic termination. You pedal as fast as you can to stay above that line, often doing things you worry are not in the best interest of millions of people and might not even be lawful. But you know that if you have any chance of staying employed, much less getting a raise or bonus, you have to convince your superiors you are motivated and “engaged to win.” No one is safe. Look what happened to Sir Andrew Witty, whose departure as CEO to spend more time with his family (in London) was announced days after shareholders turned thumbs down on the company’s promises to return to an acceptable level of profitability. 

If you are at UnitedHealth, you listened to what the once and again CEO, Stephen Hemsley, and CFO John Rex, who got shuffled to a lesser role of “advisor” to the CEO last week, laid out a new action plan to their bosses – big institutional investors who have been losing their shirts for months now. You know that what the C-Suite promised on their July 29 call will mean that you will have to “execute” to enable the company to deliver on those promises. And you know that you and your colleagues will have to inflict a lot more pain on everybody who is not a big shareholder – patients, taxpayers, employers, doctors, hospital administrators. That is your job. And you will try to do it because you have a mortgage, kids in college and maxed-out credit cards.  

Here’s what Hemsley and his leadership team said, out loud in a public forum, although admittedly one that few people know about or can take an hour-and-a-half to listen to:

  • Even though UnitedHealth took in billions more in revenue, its margins shrank a little because it had to pay more medical claims than expected.
  • Still, the company made $14.3 billion in profits during the second quarter. That’s a lot but not as much as the $15.8 billion in 2Q 2024, and that made shareholders unhappy.
  • Enrollment in its commercial (individual and employer) plans increased just 1%, but enrollment in its Medicare Advantage plans increased nearly 8%. That’s normally just fine, but something happened that the company’s beancounters couldn’t stop.
  • Those seniors figured out how to get at least some care despite the company’s high barriers to care (aggressive use of prior authorization, “narrow” networks of providers, etc.)

To fix all of this, Hemsley and team promised:

  • To dump 600,000 or so enrollees who might need care next year
  • To raise premiums “in the double digits” – way above the “medical trend” that PriceWaterhouseCoopers predicts to be 8.5% (high but not double-digit high)
  • Boot more providers it doesn’t already own out of network
  • Reduce benefits

Throughout the call with investors (actually with a couple dozen Wall Street financial analysts, the only people who can ask questions), Hemsley and team went on and on about the “value-based care” the company theoretically delivers, without providing specifics. But here is what you need to know: If you are enrolled in a UnitedHealth plan of any nature – commercial, Medicare or Medicaid or VA (yes, VA, too) – expect the value of your coverage to diminish, just as it has year after year after year.  

The term for this in industry jargon is “benefit buydown.”

That means that even as your premiums go up by double digits, you will soon have fewer providers to choose from, you likely will spend more out-of-pocket before your coverage kicks in, you might have to switch to a medication made by a drug company UnitedHealth will get bigger kickbacks from, and you might even be among the 600,000 policyholders who will get “purged” (another industry term) at the end of the year.

Why do we and our employers and Uncle Sam keep putting up with this?

Yes, we pay more for new cars and iPhones, but we at least can count on some improvements in gas mileage and battery life and maybe even better-placed cup holders. You can now buy a massive high-def TV for a fraction of what it cost a couple of years ago. Health insurance? Just the opposite. 

As I will explain in a future post, all of the big for-profit insurers are facing those same headwinds UnitedHealth is facing. You will not be spared regardless of the name on your insurance card. If you still have one come January 1. Pain is on the way. Once again.