The 5 economic themes we’re watching in 2026

https://www.axios.com/2026/01/05/economy-tariffs-ai

Tariff drama and tax cuts! AI spending and AI-spurred job losses! New Federal Reserve leadership! It is on track to be a big year across all the key policy areas of interest to economy-watchers.

The big picture: 

Seismic changes have been set in motion by the Trump administration’s sweeping policy agenda and a mega-wave of investment in artificial intelligence — likely to determine the fate of the economy in 2026.

1. The AI economy

The biggest macro questions are whether the alarm bells about AI and the labor market will start to ring true — and whether the productivity effects move from just anecdotes to the economic data.

  • Last year, much evidence pointed to AI as a marginal part of the labor market slowdown. Some economists (and officials inside the White House) argue that broader adoption of the technology would boost the labor market, at least in the short term.

Of note: 

AI spending buoyed economic growth, at least in the first nine months of 2025. It is also lifting the stock market, which might help support spending among wealthier consumers.

  • Whether this turns out to be a bubble that pops — and the extent such a risk poses to the broader financial system as the Fed rolls back regulations — is the related theme to watch.
  • That said, any correction in AI investment looks more likely to be a down-the-road story than a 2026 issue.

2. Tax cut boost

The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law in July, is set to have its maximum economic punch in the early months of 2026, a likely tailwind for overall economic growth.

  • But how large, how broad-based and how sustained that boost will turn out to be remains to be seen.

Zoom in: 

Fiscal policy is on track to add about 2.3 percentage points to first-quarter GDP growth, per data from the Hutchins Center Fiscal Impact Measure from the Brookings Institution.

  • On the individual tax side, beneficiaries of policies like a deduction for tip income, Social Security payments and expanded deductibility of state and local tax are on track to generate super-sized tax refunds this spring,
  • On the corporate side, businesses are enjoying new tax incentives for capital spending, especially on factories.
  • Federal spending on immigration enforcement, meanwhile, is ramping up due to the legislation.

3. Trade uncertainty (maybe) resolving

Any day now, the Supreme Court will hand down a decision that might scramble the centerpiece of President Trump’s economic agenda: the ability to impose huge tariffs unilaterally.

  • If the court strikes down the bulk of Trump’s tariffs, fiscal revenues could be put at risk, resulting in a chaotic refund process.
  • That said, the ruling will help create some guardrails on what kinds of legal authority the president has to impose unilateral tariffs. That, in turn, could lead to a more stable tariff picture (albeit with much higher rates than pre-2025).
  • While there are other authorities the president can use to enact tariffs besides the sweeping authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act he has claimed, they require a more deliberative process than the kind of whipsawing that importers faced last year.

4. Future of the Fed

Fed chair Jerome Powell’s term is up in May, and Trump’s selection of his successor is imminent, with Kevin Hassett and Kevin Warsh the leading job candidates.

Zoom out: 

Whoever takes the reins will face immense pressure from Trump to lower interest rates to rock-bottom levels — amid continued high inflation — and how they handle that pressure may determine the future of the central bank’s independence from the White House.

  • Trump expects the future Fed chair to consult with him on rates, while casting the intention to lower rates as a key qualification for the next leader.
  • The question is whether the next Fed chair can resist that political pressure and whether financial markets believe that is the case. If bond markets lose confidence that the Fed will raise short-term rates if necessary to combat an inflation surge, it could paradoxically drive up long-term rates.
  • Another huge question: the makeup of the influential Fed board, with the Supreme Court also set to decide whether Trump can fire governor Lisa Cook and, by extension, other Biden-appointed governors.

5. Affordability and the midterms

With voters going to the polls in November, the cost of living is emerging as a core battleground.

  • Democrats seeking to take control of Congress are making political hay about the affordability crisis.
  • Trump has called the term affordability a “con job,” but said recently that he believes “pricing” will be a major election issue.

Flashback: 

The Consumer Price Index is up a moderate 2.7% over the last 12 months, but that increase came on top of the Biden-era inflation surge.

  • The index is up 23.7% since January 2021, even more for some often-purchased subcategories, including groceries (up 24.6%).

Over the holiday break, the administration quietly shelved plans to impose levies on imported pasta and furniture.

  • It’s a hint that the White House is eager to avoid trade levies that might flow directly to prices consumers pay, as opposed to affecting input costs for businesses.

The Other Health Care Cliff Americans Are About to Fall Off

In mid-December, members of Congress members left Capitol Hill for the final time in 2025, thus ensuring that the year would end with a failure arguably more significant than anything they accomplished during the prior 12 months: the end, despite a widespread public clamor for action, of subsidies put in place during the pandemic that made premiums of ACA marketplace plans affordable for millions of Americans.

Although important health care stories often fail to get much media attention, the failed efforts – mostly, but not exclusively, by Democrats – to save the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare subsidies were different. As patients from Maine to California opened their yearly renewal letters, many were shocked to see their monthly premiums for 2026 would be doubling or even tripling – right when the rising cost of living was already the No. 1 voter concern.

But there’s another aspect to America’s looming health care crisis that almost no one is talking about.

This is the other side of the coin – the out-of-pocket expenses that everyday consumers pay for doctor visits or prescription drugs – because of higher deductibles, or because of the growing number of patients who will risk not having any insurance at all next year because they can no longer afford it.

Even before the new year began, many Americans were dreading a double whammy of skyrocketing premiums and a sharp spike of what they expect to pay on top of that, out of their own pockets.

For example, Doug Butchart of Elgin, Ill., told ABC News that while his wife Shadene – who is living with the neurological disorder amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) – paid about $3,000 in out-of-pocket costs last year, that’s expected to rise as high as $10,000 in 2026, on top of monthly premiums that are tripling with government inaction on the ACA subsidies. It’s all more than the senior couple currently earns from Social Security.

Of course, millions of other Americans who switched to insurance plans that trade lower monthly premiums for sharply higher deductibles are taking an economic gamble that won’t play out until they see how healthy they are in 2026. In particular, those joining the surge of patients switching their ACA health coverage from the common Silver plan to the lower-premium Bronze coverage could pay thousands more as a result.

An analysis by KFF, the health care think tank, found that the average deductible in 2026 for patients who sign up for a Silver plan, assuming no reductions for cost sharing, will rise to $5,304, but for those who opt into a Bronze plan, the average deductible will spike to $7,576 – meaning a more than $2,000 higher outlay for sicker patients who max out on their covered expenses.

Katie Keith, director of Georgetown University’s Center for Health Policy and the Law and a former Biden administration aide, said the skyrocketing cost of insurance means “people are so premium sensitive that they might still go with Bronze and kind of leave money on the table – then they’re facing at least a $9,000 deductible, or whatever out-of-pocket max is, and just huge burdens.”

Keith and other health policy experts see a perfect storm of negative factors for higher out-of-pocket expenses in 2026 – from the impact of generally rising health costs to the added burden of government inaction or indifference in Washington. Among the factors behind a looming crisis:

  • Last summer, the Trump administration finalized new rules for the ACA that changed a key calculation and thus increased the maximum in out-of-pocket expenses that can be set by insurers – a ruling that also affects the millions of Americans who receive health insurance through a private employer.
  • The new math proposed by the Trump administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) adds yet another 4% hike on top of an already expected steep increase. The higher limit means individuals in some plans will pay $10,600 before their insurance kicks in, with a bump to $21,200 for families – an overall increase of 83% for individuals and 67% for families since the out-of-pocket maximum established by the ACA went into effect in 2014.
  • The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported that, because of these changes, a family of two or more people on the same plan could face an additional $900 in medical bills if a family member is seriously ill or injured in 2026.
  • Increasingly, employers are putting more of the economic burden on their workers for health care costs, especially through higher deductibles. For one thing, the KFF Employer Health Benefits Study has found that – for employees whose coverage carries a deductible, on individual plans – that average out-of-pocket cost has outpaced inflation and more than tripled in less than two decades, from $567 in 2006 to $1,887 in 2025.
  • What’s more, increasing pressure for workers to share the cost burdens of their health insurance has also caused more employer plans to offer a higher deductible option, and more people are signing up for that risk. Federal data shows that while only 38% of private-company employees had the option for a high-deductible plan in 2015, that number has now risen to more than half.
  • Perhaps the biggest factor is the end, for now, of the tax credits that had been holding down the cost of monthly premiums for ACA marketplace coverage since the COVID-19 epidemic. In states gathering data about early enrollment trends this past fall as higher premium notices went out, the shift away from traditionally popular Silver plans into Bronze coverage, with its higher out of pocket costs, has been dramatic.

For example, in California, where the Covered California program is considered a trailblazer in public health plans, officials told NBC News they’ve seen a “substantial” movement of enrollees choosing the Bronze plans with the highest out-of-pocket deductibles. Typically, officials reported, about one in five new enrollees go with the Bronze option, but for 2026 that number has soared to more than one-third. It’s a similar story in Idaho, where officials told NBC that Bronze enrollments are running 5% higher than normal, with most moving from Silver plans.

“There’s a lot yet to be seen, but there are definitely some early warning signs in terms of the decisions consumers are having to make in reaction to the changing federal policy,” Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, told the network.

Even more worrisome, however, is the number of Americans who are cancelling their ACA marketplace coverage altogether, because – all evidence suggests – they can no longer afford the premiums for any level of plan. In Pennsylvania, after families began receiving notices that – in many cases – their premiums had doubled, officials reported that about 40,000 people dropped their coverage, which is double the total from the 2024 enrollment period. What’s more, new enrollments in the Keystone State are also running about 20% lower than this time last year.

This is on top of a growing number of people – especially in the younger age brackets – who are switching to other low-cost alternatives that also are essentially a big gamble. These include so-called short-term plans, which are not compliant with ACA coverage requirements and that often come with annual or lifetime caps on coverage, don’t cover certain critical expenses like prescription drugs or paternity care and can penalize patients with preexisting conditions. There are also so-called catastrophic plans, which usually carry the maximum allowable deductible and which – in recognition of the worsening health insurance climate in the U.S. – have been expanded as an option to consumers over age 30. You may have even heard ads for faith-based sharing plans, whose members pool their expenses. People who sign up for those plans often find out they are not covered for a serious illness.

No wonder growing numbers of us are more anxious about the cost of health care than any time since the ACA was enacted in 2010 – perhaps ever. In November, a West Health-Gallup survey found that 47% of U.S. adults are worried they can’t afford health care next year – the highest number since the survey began in 2021. Those surveyed cited the rising cost of out-of-pocket requirements for prescription drugs in particular. And the number of Americans who say the cost of health care is causing “a lot of stress” in their daily lives has nearly doubled since the survey began, to 15%.

Georgetown’s Keith noted that – with patients and their families getting hit with higher costs on all sides – both the federal government and individual states have shown there are legislative actions that can reduce out-of-pocket costs for these anxious consumers. These include the federal No Surprises Act, which was signed into law by President Donald Trump in 2020 to address surprise medical bills, and a $2,000 annual cap on prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries that went into effect in 2025 (it will rise to $2,100 this year), as well as various state efforts to curb tack-on facility fees or impose limits on insulin charges.

“There are many different flavors – ways that patients are getting charged,” Keith said. Indeed, that’s the bad news, since many of the fixes that lawmakers have been working on feel like bail-out buckets of water against a tsunami of rising medical expenses that in 2026 threaten the broader American economy, not to mention the national psyche.

Rising out-of-pocket expenses might be the looming health crisis that no one is talking about, but the lack of media coverage is likely to change over the course of 2026 as horror stories trickle in from those who gambled on not getting sick over the next 12 months – and lost that wager.

Why health insurance is getting more expensive

There’s a good chance your health insurance premiums are going up next year, regardless of where you get coverage.

Why it matters: 

The spike in what millions of Affordable Care Act plan enrollees pay will be acute, but workplace insurance is getting more expensive, too — and all at a time when affordability is prominently on Americans’ minds.

ACA premiums have dominated the political discourse in Congress for weeks, but there’s no real sign that any relief is coming from Washington.

  • Even extending the Biden-era enhanced ACA subsidies — which most Republicans don’t want to do — would do nothing to address what’s driving the surging cost of care or employer insurance affordability issues.
  • And all signs point to Democrats hammering Republicans for high costs in all forms of health insurance leading up to next year’s midterm elections.

The big picture: 

Health insurance gets more expensive almost every year, keeping up with increases in the costs of procedures, tests, drugs and more. But some years see bigger jumps than others, and 2026 is looking like one of those years.

  • That means tough choices for families, employers and workers all faced with shouldering higher premiums or out-of-pocket spending. Some will conclude it’s prohibitively expensive and go uninsured.
  • Another thing that’s different about this year is that the white-hot political rancor around ACA premiums is putting health insurance back centerstage politically.

By the numbers: 

ACA insurers themselves are raising premiums by an estimated 26%, in part due to rising hospital costs, higher demand for pricey GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, and the threat of tariffs.

  • But add in the loss of federal subsidies, and the increase is 114% — or more than double what they currently pay, according to KFF. 22 million out of 24 million marketplace enrollees now receive subsidies.
  • Premiums in the small group employer market will go up by a median of 11%, also per KFF, due to some of the same reasons insurers cite in ACA markets.

For employer health insurance, there’s no comprehensive data yet for 2026, but estimates from earlier this year put the increases in the high single digits.

When Drug Price Transparency Isn’t Enough

Policymakers and advocates often promote drug price transparency to lower costs and improve equity. While transparency is an important first step toward accountability and informed public budgeting, it does not guarantee affordable prices or fair access to medicines.

Transparency Has Some Benefits

Drug price transparency helps show how and why medicines cost what they do along the supply chain (i.e., from the manufacturer to the pharmacy), which makes it easier to identify where costs can be reduced or better regulated. By making this information public, transparency allows patients, payers, and policymakers to make more informed decisions and encourage manufacturers to prices drugs more fairly. Ultimately, it supports a fairer system where patients can better afford and obtain the treatments they need, improving access to care.

States with Drug Transparency Laws

While federal policy to improve price transparency is lacking, the states have moved to make things clearer for patients and payers. Vermont was the first U.S. state to enact a drug price transparency law in 2016. Since then, many others have followed suit. At least 14 states have passed some version of transparency legislation, though the details and their enforcement of these laws differ widely.

For example, only Vermont and Maine require drug companies or insurers to disclose the actual prices paid after discounts (called the “net price”). Alternately, Oregon and Nevada require drug manufacturers to publicly report their profit to state government agencies. And Connecticut, Louisiana, and Nevada mandate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to report the total rebates they receive, but not the amounts for each specific drug. Despite these efforts, no state has yet achieved full transparency across the entire drug supply chain.

Transparency is Not Enough

Even with clear pricing, Americans still pay about 2.6 times more for prescription drugs than people in other wealthy countries. Early evidence suggests that these laws have done little to curb drug prices. To date, only four states – CaliforniaMaineMinnesota, and Oregon – have published analyses of their own laws. These reports share common concerns: difficulty tracking pricing across the supply chain and uncertainty about whether state agencies have the authority (or the will) to act when data is incomplete or unreliable. 

Most transparency laws fall short on requiring detailed cost or profit data, focusing instead on broad price trends. As a result, this narrow scope makes it difficult to identify the exact drivers of high drug prices. Even when transparency discourages manufacturers from raising prices, these policies do not directly control pricing or define what constitutes an ‘unjustified’ price increase. Manufacturers can simply adjust by setting higher launch prices or implementing smaller, more frequent increases to stay below reporting thresholds. Still, the result is a system where drug costs can vary by as much as $719 for the same 30-day prescription even when prices are publicly listed.

What can also be done?

Creating a consistent national framework could replace the current patchwork of state laws and improve oversight of how drugs are priced. For example, the Drug Price Transparency in Medicaid Act (H.R. 2450) could do just that: it would standardize reporting requirements and reveal how drug prices are set, rebated, and reimbursed. But transparency alone can’t lower costs—it only shows the problem.

To make transparency meaningful, policymakers must address the underlying contracts and incentives that drive high prices.

Hidden rebate deals and opaque pricing structures between PBMs and drugmakers often inflate costs and limit patients from seeing savings. Transparency legislation should also be paired with value-based pricing that links payments to clinical benefits. Federal programs like the Medicare Drug Negotiation Program provide additional leverage, but broader reforms are needed to reach the commercial market (i.e., where most Americans get their prescription drugs and still face high prices).

Still, transparency can have downsides, especially globally. Fully public drug prices could push companies to stop offering lower prices in low- and middle-income countries. To avoid cross-country comparisons, they could raise prices across the board, making medicines less affordable where they’re needed most. To make transparency more equitable, policymakers should combine disclosure with protections that preserve affordability worldwide.

Conclusion

In short, transparency is necessary but an incomplete fix for America’s drug pricing system. Simply shining a light on how prices are set isn’t enough. Policymakers need to be paired with other reforms, such as removing the incentives that encourage high prices, holding PBMs and manufacturers accountable, extending the negotiating power beyond Medicare, and protecting prescription drug access both at home and abroad. Without these other steps, transparency laws risk highlighting unfairness without actually improving it.

The Double Whammy Behind the 2026 ACA Premium Shock

Millions of ACA enrollees will face steep premium hikes in 2026 as insurer rate increases collide with the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies.

As health insurance premium costs have taken center stage this fall, you may have seen seemingly conflicting reports about how much premiums are increasing, especially for ACA marketplace plans. This isn’t a reporting error. Instead, it reflects a double whammy of increases that more than 20 million ACA enrollees are poised to face in 2026.

To understand what’s happening, it helps to think of ACA premium increases as a one-two punch.

The first hit comes from the overall increase in health insurance premiums for 2026. On average, insurers raised premiums for ACA marketplace plans by roughly 26 percent from 2025 to 2026. This increase reflects a rise in the total cost of coverage, the full premium paid jointly by enrollees and the federal government through subsidies, not just what individuals pay out of pocket.

Premium increases are not new. Insurers raise rates every year. But the 2026 hike is striking: more than three times the 7 percent increase in 2025 and the 6 percent increase in 2024. Insurers have attributed roughly four percentage points of this increase to the anticipated expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits, arguing that enrollment will decline and that sicker, higher-cost enrollees will make up a larger share of the risk pool. Insurers also cite provider consolidation and high pharmaceutical prices as drivers of higher premiums.

These explanations deserve scrutiny. As Wendell Potter recently documented, the seven largest private insurance corporations have collectively taken in more than $10 trillion in revenue since 2014 with revenues steadily increasing each year. Against that backdrop, claims that today’s premium spikes are unavoidable or purely defensive ring hollow.

The second hit falls directly on consumers who currently rely on enhanced premium subsidies (in the form of tax credits) to make coverage affordable. Those enhanced subsidies, first made available during the pandemic, are set to expire at the end of 2025, and Congress appears poised to let them lapse without an extension. If that happens, many enrollees will see the tax credits that lower their monthly premiums shrink dramatically or disappear altogether. Taking this into account, the amount people pay out of pocket for ACA premiums is expected to increase by an estimated 114 percent in 2026. And that is just for the premiums. People enrolled in ACA plans will also have to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars out of their own pockets in deductibles and copays before their coverage kicks in.

This double whammy will have drastic, and potentially deadly, consequences for millions of Americans. I am already seeing panic from people in my own community and across the country, echoed daily on social media. Yet Congress has taken no action to cushion the blow. The Republicans leading both the House and the Senate are leaving Washington without extending the enhanced tax credits, even as the clock runs out.

This is an abdication of Congress’s responsibility to represent the people it serves, people who have been clear about what they want and need: health insurance they can actually afford. Rather than getting bogged down in partisan gridlock or abstract market ideology, Congress must act now to extend the enhanced premium tax credits. That extension should be treated as an urgent bridge to a real fix to our health care system; one that reduces dependence on Big Insurance, lowers costs for patients, and ensures that no one is forced to go without care.

Chaos, confusion, stagnation defined healthcare in 2025

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chaos-confusion-stagnation-defined-healthcare-2025-robert-pearl-m-d–cdkuc/

2025 was one of the most turbulent years in modern U.S. healthcare. The headlines were explosive, the rhetoric dramatic and the controversies nonstop. Yet for all the hoopla and upheaval, the medical care Americans received this month looked almost identical to what they experienced on January 1 — except more expensive.

That yearlong pattern (of intense disruption followed by little improvement) played out across nearly every major healthcare storyline.

Luigi Mangioli is preparing to stand trial almost exactly twelve months after the fatal shooting of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson. The killing sparked fears for major health insurers and raised questions about the fragility of the nation’s largest payer. In a February article, I called it a defining moment for UnitedHealth: an opportunity for the company to start competing on health, not denials. But despite the initial shock and ongoing scrutiny, nothing has shifted in how UnitedHealth pays for (or denies) medical care.

Then, in late fall, the nation endured the longest government closure in U.S. history, driven largely by conflicts over healthcare spending and the Affordable Care Act’s health exchanges. However, the eventual resolution to reopen the government came with no respite for the 24 million Americans currently enrolled in an exchange.

For a broader view of the year, here are five major areas of healthcare that generated chaos, confusion and conflict in 2025 – but little meaningful improvement.

1. Political chaos: Turning science into a battleground

No aspect of healthcare saw more volatility in 2025 than in the political arena. The tone was set in January when President Trump returned to office and began reshaping federal health agencies with unprecedented speed.

Within days, he issued a record flurry of executive orders targeting the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid waivers, Medicare Advantage oversight, prior-authorization rules and federal nutrition standards.

He replaced long-entrenched leaders at HHS, NIH, CDC and FDA with political outsiders, many of whose views on vaccines, chronic disease and scientific evidence diverged sharply from the career experts they superseded. The nomination of RFK Jr. to lead HHS became a flashpoint. His reluctance to confront the measles outbreak in Texas, combined with mixed messaging on vaccine policy, have deepened concern for public health.

The result has been rapid turnover of expert clinicians and a revolving door of leaders in the FDA, CDC and NIH. Senior scientists continue to resign, key programs remain stalled and career staff report growing political interference in decisions that previously rested on data and expert consensus.

2. Economic crisis: Costs soar as coverage grew more fragile

Beneath the political theatrics of 2025 was a sobering reality: Americans will once again pay far more for healthcare next year than the year before. And for many, the financial protections that once softened those increases are disappearing.

Insurers on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace requested median premium hikes of 18% for 2026, the steepest jump since 2018 and well above this year’s 7% hike. If Congress fails to extend the enhanced ACA subsidies, families who once paid affordable monthly premiums will see their costs double or even triple.

The broader economic picture makes these pressures unavoidable. The United States is now spending $5.6 trillion annually on healthcare. National health expenditures are projected to climb another 7.1% this year, far outpacing economic growth. At the same time, federal debt service continues to soar, consuming more of the national budget than Medicaid itself.

The result is an economic crisis hiding in plain sight, one that will increasingly strain the financial, physical and mental health of Americans in the year to come.

3. Regulatory confusion: Agencies rebooted but didn’t improve health

This year shook the foundations of America’s public-health architecture and left yawning gaps where trust, clarity and expert oversight once stood. Politics has replaced science as the primary driver of healthcare policy.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lost its director just weeks after her confirmation. Within days, top-level scientists and center heads resigned en masse, citing political interference and a collapse of scientific independence. Months later, there still is no permanent CDC head.

At the Food and Drug Administration, career reviewers say they’ve been forced to reconsider or abandon scientific best practices. Across both the CDC and FDA, advisory committees that once evaluated evidence through rigorous, peer-driven processes now rely on anecdote and ideology. One striking example is the FDA’s decision to stop requiring hepatitis B vaccination at birth, a move that public-health experts warn could lead to tens of thousands of additional infections for a disease that had been reduced to fewer than 20 annual cases.

Meanwhile, the administration’s sweeping “health-freedom agenda” (under the banner Make America Healthy Again) has identified food packaging, additives, school-lunch standards and “ultra-processed” diets as public-health priorities. But the proposals to improve nutrition remain largely unformed, as the likelihood of meaningful improvements fade.

What remains at year’s end is a set of agencies still functioning, but with public trust weakened and no clear path to rebuilding it.

4. Technological contradiction: AI leapt ahead while medicine stood still

No field generated more excitement, or exposed more contradictions, in 2025 than generative artificial intelligence.

In the broader economy, GenAI models transformed finance, logistics, law, retail and customer service. New large language models, including GPT-5, DeepSeek and Gemini 3, demonstrated near-expert performance on clinical reasoning, interpretation of complex symptoms and risk prediction. Ambient listening matured into a reliable documentation tool, and with the emergence of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)Americans are relying on large language models when they have medical questions.

Yet inside traditional medicine, progress remains stalled. Clinicians continue to be encouraged to use AI for administrative shortcuts (coding, charting, prior authorization claims) but national specialty organizations haven’t pushed them to use GenAI for diagnosing disease, reducing medical errors or improving clinical outcomes.

Fear of liability has discouraged technology companies from offering GenAI tools that would allow patients to evaluate symptoms or manage their chronic diseases. Yet usage continues to grow. In polling I conducted this fall, 77% of patients and 63% of healthcare professionals reported using a generative-AI tool in the past three months for health-related information or decision support. Meanwhile, medical schools still teach pre-AI workflows, even as medical students and residents turn to GenAI for clinical knowledge and case analysis. The divide between institutional practice and the behaviors of patients and the next generation of physicians is expanding at an accelerating pace.

5. Cultural conflict: A growing divide between the public & the profession

If 2025 revealed anything about American healthcare, it was a widening cultural rift: between younger patients and medical professionals, and between science and public belief.

This rift is felt particularly among Gen Z and Millennials, generations that grew up online, accustomed to second-screen verification and skeptical of traditional authority. As I wrote in 3 Ways Doctors Can Win Back Gen Z And Millennial Patients, younger Americans expect shared decision-making, transparency and digital-first convenience — expectations medicine failed to fulfill in 2025.

At the same time, disinformation and political rhetoric seeped deeper into public life. Social media spread half-truths faster than public-health leaders could correct them. Vaccine skepticism rose thanks to political disinformation. Basic nutritional science became partisan, too. And the public’s confusion only intensified.

What 2025 reveals about the road ahead

By year’s end, one truth became impossible to ignore: despite unprecedented political turmoil, economic instability, scientific breakthroughs and cultural upheaval, the basic structure of American healthcare remained unchanged.

The incentives driving the system, the chronic diseases afflicting the population and the unaffordability confronting families all persist as we enter 2026. At the same time, as generative AI transforms nearly every other sector of the economy, the fax machine remains the most common method physicians use to exchange vital medical information.

The question now is whether mounting economic, political and cultural pressures will finally force American medicine to transform care delivery next year. For more on that, follow me on Forbes and look for my next article on January 5, featuring my healthcare predictions for 2026.

Why health insurance is getting more expensive

There’s a good chance your health insurance premiums are going up next year, regardless of where you get coverage.

Why it matters: 

The spike in what millions of Affordable Care Act plan enrollees pay will be acute, but workplace insurance is getting more expensive, too — and all at a time when affordability is prominently on Americans’ minds.

ACA premiums have dominated the political discourse in Congress for weeks, but there’s no real sign that any relief is coming from Washington.

  • Even extending the Biden-era enhanced ACA subsidies — which most Republicans don’t want to do — would do nothing to address what’s driving the surging cost of care or employer insurance affordability issues.
  • And all signs point to Democrats hammering Republicans for high costs in all forms of health insurance leading up to next year’s midterm elections.

The big picture: 

Health insurance gets more expensive almost every year, keeping up with increases in the costs of procedures, tests, drugs and more. But some years see bigger jumps than others, and 2026 is looking like one of those years.

  • That means tough choices for families, employers and workers all faced with shouldering higher premiums or out-of-pocket spending. Some will conclude it’s prohibitively expensive and go uninsured.
  • Another thing that’s different about this year is that the white-hot political rancor around ACA premiums is putting health insurance back centerstage politically.

By the numbers: 

ACA insurers themselves are raising premiums by an estimated 26%, in part due to rising hospital costs, higher demand for pricey GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, and the threat of tariffs.

  • But add in the loss of federal subsidies, and the increase is 114% — or more than double what they currently pay, according to KFF. 22 million out of 24 million marketplace enrollees now receive subsidies.
  • Premiums in the small group employer market will go up by a median of 11%, also per KFF, due to some of the same reasons insurers cite in ACA markets.

For employer health insurance, there’s no comprehensive data yet for 2026, but estimates from earlier this year put the increases in the high single digits.

  • For example, according to Mercer, health benefit costs are expected to increase 6.5% per employee in 2026, and many employers are planning to limit premium increases by raising out-of-pocket costs for employees.
  • One factor driving these increases is advances in medicines, like new cancer treatments, that are more expensive, according to Mercer.
  • But people are also using health care more, per Mercer. That’s possibly because they missed or delayed care during the pandemic — but also because the use of AI in doctors’ offices gives them more capacity and allows them to work faster.

Between the lines: 

Just this month, Gallup polling found that approval of the ACA has hit an all-time high of 57%, including more than 6 in 10 independents but only 15% of Republicans.

  • Another recent Gallup poll found that 29% of Americans say that cost is the “most urgent health problem” facing the country, up from 23% a year ago.

The bottom line: 

Get ready to hear a lot more about health care costs over the next year — while potentially also experiencing your own premium increase.

Unemployment rate hit 4-year high in November even as economy added jobs

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/unemployment-rate-hit-4-year-high-in-november-even-as-economy-added-jobs-133749371.html?.tsrc=1340&ncid=crm_-1285232-20251216-582–A&bt_user_id=JPZxZ2%2B2950iiQYymBeM6e1wGYjroGnMtjT%2BFo%2BrAtWqAaQtJrAZ0t1kdrjs5V4loa6YUhaN%2BwL2XwxZ%2B0uHvppM1JerRSaVzcBcQFPrD9iD79KdozrKbcgnzdTwMpMM&bt_ts=1765895430253

The US economy added 64,000 jobs in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The US economy added 64,000 jobs in November as the unemployment rate crept up to 4.6%, according to Labor Department data published Tuesday.

The unemployment rate is now at its highest level since September 2021.

The November jobs report, originally scheduled to be published Dec. 5 before the 43-day government shutdown delayed multiple economic data releases, comes as Americans stress over rising layoffs and a frozen job market that can feel impossible to break into. Tuesday’s report suggested those conditions persisted toward the end of the year.

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had expected a gain of 50,000 jobs. The healthcare sector, which has fueled job growth this year, added 46,000 positions for the month.

November’s data additionally showed that the number of people employed part-time for economic reasons rose to 5.5 million in November, an increase of 909,000 over September. Meanwhile, the long-term unemployment rate, or the share of unemployed people who have been without jobs for 27 weeks or more, was 24.3% in November, down from August’s high of 25.7% but higher than the rate of 23.1% seen a year ago.

“The US economy is in a hiring recession,” Heather Long, chief economist at the Navy Federal Credit Union, wrote in a post on X.

“Almost no jobs have been added since April,” Long added. “Wage gains are slowing. 710,000 more people are unemployed now versus November 2024.”

Nancy Vanden Houten, lead US Economist at Oxford Economics, said in a statement that the government shutdown appears to have contributed to the increase in the unemployment rate.

“The number of permanent job losers, which had been ticking higher, declined. Labor force growth also contributed to the increase,” she said.

Partial data for October, also published Tuesday, showed a loss of 105,000 positions. The unemployment rate for the month will not be released. Bank of America economist Shruti Mishra had noted that October’s payroll numbers would be affected by the delayed impact of DOGE-led government job cuts, since many federal employees who opted for the “deferred resignation program” officially left their positions Sept. 30.

The federal government lost 162,000 jobs in October and 6,000 in November, according to the Labor Department.

The last official reading of the labor market, published in November, was pushed back by several weeks and had only offered data for September, showing an unexpected uptick in jobs after the economy actually lost jobs in August and June, marking the first negative employment months since 2020.

Ringing in the New Year With WISeR But Without ACA Subsidies

Next year, seniors and families will have more stringent and more unaffordable health coverage thanks to new AI-driven prior authorizations in Medicare and loss of subsidies in the ACA.

The New Year is just two weeks away, and when Americans wake after clinking champagne and kissing at midnight, the health care landscape in the United States will be in worse shape than it was in 2025. There is a growing list of why that’s true, but here are a couple of developments that will make it harder for many of us to get the care we need:

  • The December 31 expiration of the Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies, which will lead to millions of Americans losing coverage and make premiums barely affordable for millions of others; and
  • CMS’s January 1 implementation of a new pilot project that will put private, for-profit contractors using AI-powered prior authorization in traditional Medicare.

Unless policymakers change course, many Americans will be ringing in 2026 with higher costs, less access and a nasty health care hangover.

WISeR strikes at 12

As we’ve reported, the implementation of the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) model’s will mark the first time in traditional Medicare’s 60-year history that for-profit companies will decide whether seniors receive certain medical services their doctors recommend. Six companies — many with deep ties to Big Insurance and insurer-backed venture capital — will suddenly have the power to say yes or no to 17 procedures that never required prior authorization before. And for these companies, the more the denials, the bigger the profits.

As Dr. Seth Glickman documented after sitting through CMS’s own WISeR webinar, the rollout has been vague on details and confusing to providers and patients. CMS even admitted during the webinar that the vendors chosen to administer the model were selected in part based on their “success” of using prior authorization in the private Medicare Advantage program, which is notorious for denials, delays and life altering decisions.

Some lawmakers in Washington have taken notice.coalition of Democrats introduced the Seniors Deserve SMARTER Care Act, warning that WISeR creates “a dangerous incentive to put profits ahead of patients’ health.” Imposing prior authorization in traditional Medicare “will kill seniors,” said Rep. Mark Pocan, one of the bill’s sponsors.

Kiss subsidies goodbye

While WISeR threatens seniors’ access to care, millions of working families are facing a different New Year’s surprise: the expiration of enhanced ACA marketplace subsidies, which Congress has (so far) failed to extend or replace. As Rachel Madley, PhD wrote in October, families will have to gamble when they pick a health insurance plan. She added:

The enhanced premium subsidies being debated in Congress right now are a lifeline for so many of us and must continue in the short term, but they don’t fix the underlying problem: Private insurers extract value rather than control costs or provide access to necessary and affordable care. Decades of experience show that when profits rule health insurance, families face financial ruin no matter which plan they pick during open enrollment.

But as we’ve noted before, this isn’t an existential crisis for Big Insurance. ACA marketplace plans are not where insurers make their real money. Their profits flow increasingly from taxpayer-funded programs like Medicare Advantage and Medicaid managed care — the same universe WISeR is quietly expanding.

One proposal to “solve” the subsidy issue, endorsed by President Donald Trump and HELP Chairman Bill Cassidy, would not extend the tax credits but put $1000 to $1500 into government-sponsored health savings accounts (HSAs). HSAs can be helpful if you you have crappy insurance – or are rich and need an additional place to put your money to avoid taxes – but not a meaningful solution to the millions of Americans facing a 75% hike in premiums or finding themselves priced out of coverage altogether in 2026. The supporters of this approach claim it would somehow take money away from health insurers, but it would just reroute federal dollars to those same companies. For instance, UnitedHealth Group, which owns the nation’s biggest HSA custodian, could grab even more of our tax dollars than they already do. Meanwhile, families would still be exposed to unaffordable premiums and massive out-of-pocket costs. Champagne dreams.

Thanks to these changes in health care: The hangover on January 1, 2026, won’t only be from the previous night’s festivities – and it won’t be cured with some water and Advil. Cheers.

Anthem’s 62% Profit Margin in Federal Employees Health Benefits Contract

The OIG found that Anthem paid its own corporate sibling as if it were an outside vendor. The maneuver transformed a cost-based function into a source of “unlimited profit.”

When the Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance plans for federal employees recently, auditors appeared to be conducting a typical contract compliance review.

While they may not have been looking for a smoking gun, they stumbled upon one.

At first glance, the report on Elevance Health’s Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) looks like just another technical review, questioning charges and payments across familiar audit categories such as uncollected claim overpayments, administrative expense overcharges, medical drug rebates, provider offsets and lost investment income. The auditors’ stated goal was to “obtain reasonable assurance” that Anthem was complying with contract terms. The review took a turn from the routine when the OIG looked at how Elevance is using a common insurance practice known as subrogation.

The issue of subrogation emerged after the OIG observed irregularities in recoveries and fees being passed through the plan. Subrogation – recovering costs from insurers, auto carriers or liable third parties – is a familiar function. But the structure Anthem created is not.

Anthem Inc. became Elevance Health Inc. in 2022 and also launched Carelon health services. Elevance became the name of the parent company, but the name Anthem was retained for the health plans the company operates across the country. Carelon, a wholly owned Elevance subsidiary, is a corporate sibling of the Anthem health plan division, and it’s the fastest-growing of the two. In fact, Elevance views Carelon as the company’s profit engine.

The OIG discovered that Anthem treated Carelon as a commercial provider of services in an arm’s length transaction and paid Carelon a percentage of recoveries, even though, as OIG wrote, this was a “related party transaction.” Auditors discovered that Anthem had contracted its subrogation work to Carelon, and then billed the FEHBP a percentage-based “fee,” deducted directly from the recoveries, and recorded it as a health benefit expense rather than an administrative cost. The subrogation fees then passed through FEHBP as medical claims, thereby avoiding oversight limits on administrative costs and creating “unlimited” profit on a function that should have been cost-based.

Self-enrichment

The OIG was especially troubled because the transaction was a “related party transaction,” which in government contracting is the polite way of saying you’re paying yourself. Worse, the OIG found that:

“The method Anthem uses to charge these subrogation recovery fees results in unlimited profits for essentially an ‘in-house’ service…

And that:

“Elevance Health, Anthem, and/or Carelon should not benefit or self-enrich at the expense of the FEHBP.”

The auditors also concluded that:

“… the only profit that can be charged to the FEHBP is the negotiated annual service charge…”

But Anthem had charged $39,235,156 in subrogation fees plus $5,638,360 in lost investment income – exactly the kind of profit the contract prohibits.

What’s most shocking about this audit isn’t what Anthem did – it’s how openly they did it, and how little anyone plans to do about it.

To appreciate the magnitude of the audit discovery, it helps to understand how the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program actually operates – and who really runs it. The FEHBP is a roughly $70 billion annual program covering more than eight million federal workers, retirees and dependents. Yet the federal government does not administer these benefits directly. Instead, it contracts with the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), which then delegates day-to-day administration to individual Blue plans across the country.

Among those plans, Anthem administers services in 14 states – more than any other Blue plan – and during the audit period was responsible for $40.6 billion in FEHBP benefit payments and $2.1 billion in administrative expenses. Anthem isn’t simply one contractor in a crowded field; it is the dominant operational arm of the BCBSA for a vast portion of the federal population. When Anthem selects a vendor, sets payment terms or withholds documentation, it is not a peripheral actor – it is effectively shaping how the federal health plan functions.

What’s worse than getting caught red-handed breaching the contract? The company’s response. Its posture throughout the report is equal parts dismissive, pedantic and openly defiant. It insisted the fees represented “allowable, commercially reasonable charges,” argued that subrogation was a “commercial service,” and maintained that the costs were “not subject to cost analysis.”

The company repeatedly pushed back with formulations that would seem to suggest that Elevance itself, and not the OIG, was the final authoritative voice on contract compliance and legality:

“We disagree with the OIG’s characterization.”

“We do not concur.”

“The services are allowable and reasonable in view of the commercial marketplace.”

When the OIG pressed for documentation to substantiate these so-called “commercially reasonable” fees, they were met with outright refusal. They were told that no such documentation existed. Unfortunately for Anthem, they proved themselves wrong in a meeting with OIG when they inadvertently displayed a detailed spreadsheet showing a cost analysis for corporate subrogation services – the very spreadsheet the company had insisted did not exist. As the OIG noted:

“Anthem inadvertently shared an Excel spreadsheet which included the total corporate Carelon subrogation costs by year – precisely the cost data we have been requesting.”

Rather than simply hand it over, the company declared the spreadsheet “not accurate,” “not relevant,” and “not responsive.”

It gets worse. When the auditors asked for a valuation prepared by the company’s accounting firm, Deloitte – the same valuation Anthem itself relied upon as proof that they had studied the reasonableness of their charges – the company responded by producing six heavily-redacted pages out of a 900-page report. That’s less than 1% of the analysis they claimed fully justified their pricing, which costs the FEHBP over $40 million.

The OIG, in its dry bureaucratic tone, noted that the company’s justification for withholding “over 99 percent of the Deloitte study” was “insufficient” – which is government-speak for, “Are you kidding me?” The OIG all but throws up its hands:

“We cannot determine the actual profit charges and/or the reasonableness of these fees due to the scope limitation created by Anthem’s refusal to provide documentation access.”

Anthem behaves as though the worst that can happen is that someone at OIG writes a sternly worded paragraph in a report that will sit unread on a government website. Unfortunately, they are probably right.

As the OIG delicately put it:

“Throughout the audit process, we encountered numerous instances where Anthem responded untimely and/or initially provided incomplete responses.”

And why would Anthem cooperate? The OIG report is unlikely to trigger meaningful enforcement, the federal Office of Personnel Management has historically acted more like a deferential plan sponsor than a regulator, and Congress appears largely uninterested in disrupting a status quo that serves the BCBSA and its licensees quite well.

62% profit margin

Ultimately, due to the lack of information from Anthem, OIG acknowledged that it was forced to estimate the degree of unallowable profit. Based on the limited corporate subrogation cost data they could see, auditors concluded that Anthem was likely earning a profit margin of approximately 62%.

Think about that: a federal contractor potentially earning a 62% profit margin on a supposedly in-house function, inside a federal health plan that legally prohibits this form of profit.

Discovery of a profit extraction model

All of this is visible only because the OIG happened to expand a limited audit sample into subrogation recoveries. The OIG did not enter the process intending to uncover a profit-extraction model. But it found one.

Which raises the question: what would the numbers look like if OIG examined all subrogation? Or payments for all Carelon services? Or fees related to recovery services, out-of-network negotiation and payment integrity? Or medical management? Or pharmacy recoveries?

The answers are not in the report.

What this audit shows is not just that Anthem crossed a line. It shows that those running the FEHBP lack the power, or the will, to draw one. If a contractor can profit in violation of the contract, get caught, and then simply withhold the evidence and declare they disagree, then the rules are performative and enforcement is imaginary. Anthem’s response – dismissing the OIG’s findings, withholding a 900-page Deloitte report, refusing cost documentation, and asserting a legal right to decide what data the government may review – reflects not caution, but confidence.

Confidence that there will be no consequence. Confidence that the FEHBP cannot or will not act. And, perhaps most troubling, confidence that the American taxpayer will never know the difference.

The contractor knowingly violated profit limits, hid the margin inside claims, refused to provide cost data, and continues billing unchanged. If this is what turns up accidentally, just imagine what would be exposed if anyone actually went looking.

Chris Deacon, JD, is a health care executive and consultant recognized for her advocacy for transparency and accountability. She previously ran New Jersey’s public sector health plan, covering 820k lives.