Hospitals in rural and underserved areas could lose out on billions of dollars in federal funding if the government shutdown drags on.
Why it matters:
Many hospitals already run on tight margins and are bracing for fallout from Medicaid cuts and other changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The big picture:
The immediate concern is health policies that expired when government funding lapsed at midnight Tuesday. Health providers and their lobbyists expect Congress will make providers whole in an eventual funding deal and reimburse claims made during the shutdown.
But that’s not a given. And uncertainty about how long the shutdown will go on is leaving some of the most financially vulnerable hospitals in limbo.
“There’s just that underlying fear of, oh my gosh, what if they can’t come together on any agreement to open the government again, and we all get looped into it,” said Kelly Lavin Delmore, health policy adviser and chair of government relations at Hooper Lundy Bookman.
State of play:
Safety-net hospitals face an $8 billion cut to Medicaid add-on payments in the absence of a government funding package.
The cuts to so-called disproportionate share hospital payments originate from the Affordable Care Act.
Congress has postponed the pay reductions more than a dozen times, but the most recent delay expired on Tuesday and Congress hasn’t signaled if or when it will step in.
The add-on payments are made quarterly, so hospitals may not feel immediate effects, even if Congress doesn’t further delay the cuts, according to the American Hospital Association. But state Medicaid agencies could let the cuts take place if they think lawmakers’ standoff will continue indeterminately, per AHA.
The uncertainty “really impacts that predictability and reliability as it relates to funding,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy at the Association of American Medical Colleges.
If the cuts do take effect, it would significantly hamper hospitals’ ability to care for their communities, Beth Feldpush, senior vice president of advocacy and policy at America’s Essential Hospitals, told Axios in a statement.
Additionally, two long-running programs that give pay bumps to rural hospitals expired on Wednesday.
One program adjusts Medicare payment upward for rural hospitals that discharge relatively few patients.
The other gives increased reimbursement rates to rural hospitals that have at least 60% of patients on Medicare.
They were designed to keep care available in communities that might otherwise not be able to support a hospital.
Both programs have expired in the past, only to be brought back to life with claims paid retroactively.
Zoom out:
Hospital industry groups have also been urging Congress to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits, which have become a flashpoint in the shutdown fight. Democrat lawmakers have so far refused to pass GOP-led funding proposals that don’t include a full extension of the subsidies.
What they’re saying:
AHA is urging Congress to find a bipartisan solution and reopen the government, a spokesperson told Axios.
“Patient care doesn’t go away with the loss of coverage and the loss of funding,” said Lisa Smith, vice president of advocacy and public policy for the Catholic Health Association.
“I just don’t know how long that’s going to be sustainable for our facilities that are really already operating on the margins.”
The Trump 2.0 administration is 8-months into its MAGA agenda. Summer has passed. Schools are open. Congress is in session. Campaign 2026 is underway. The economy is slowing and public sentiment is dropping.
For U.S. healthcare, it’s more bad news than good. The challenges are unprecedented. Most organizations—hospitals, medical groups, drug and device makers, infomediaries and solution providers, insurers, et al—are defaulting to lower risk bets since the long-term for the health system is unclear.
The good news is that the health system in the U.S. is big, fragmented, complex, expensive (5% CAGR spending increases thru 2034) and slow to change. It is highly regulated at local, state and federal levels, labor intense (20 million) and capital-dependent (government funding, private investment)—a trifecta nightmare for operators and goldmine for private investors who time the system for shareholders effectively. And it operates opaquely: business practices are hidden from everyday users and bona-fide measures of its effectiveness not widely applied or accepted.
The bad news is its long-term sustainability in its current form is suspect and its short-term success is dependent on adapting to key tenets in Trump Healthcare 2.0:
Trump Healthcare 2.0 is about reducing federal healthcare spending so federal deficits appear to be going down to voters in the mid-term election (November 3, 2026). Healthcare, which represents 27% of federal spending is an attractive target since a significant majority of all voters (especially MAGA Republicans) are dissatisfied with its performance and think is wasteful and inefficient. It views healthcare as a market where less government, more private innovation achieves more.
The effect of One Big Beautiful Bill Act cuts to Medicaid and marketplace subsidies and imposition of Make America Healthy Again dogma in CMS, CDC, FDA and FCC are popular in the MAGA base while problematic to states, hospitals, physicians and insurers whose business practices and clinical accountability will be more closely scrutinized.
The federal courts—SCOTUS, 13 circuit and 94 district courts– will support Trump Healthcare 2.0 policy changes in their decisions favoring state authority over federal rules, enabling White House executive orders and administrative actions against challenges and departmental directives that encourage competition, price transparency and cost reduction.
The FTC and DOJ will pro-actively pursue actions that reverse/disable collusion, horizontal and vertical consolidation in each sector deemed to raise prices and lower choices for consumers.
In the administration’s posturing for the mid-term election November 3, 2026, it’s assumed the economy and prices will be THE major issues to voters: healthcare affordability, housing costs and food prices will get heightened attention as a result. Thus, every healthcare organization board and leadership team should revisit short and long-term strategies, since traditional lag indicators re: utilization, regulations, structure, roles, responsibilities and funding are decreasingly predictive of the future.
Though every organization is different, there are 6 takeaways that merit particular attention as C suites and Boards re-evaluate strategies and timing:
Monitor the entire economy. The healthcare is 18% of the GDP; 82% of commerce falls outside its domain. Appropriations for healthcare compete with education, defense and public safety and health; household spending for healthcare competes with housing, food and transportation costs. The healthcare dollar is not insulated from competing priorities. If, as expected, the economy slows due to slowdowns in the job market and in housing, and if cuts to marketplace subsidies are enacted, healthcare spending will quickly and significantly drop though utilization will increase.
Follow clinical innovations carefully. Understand bench to bedside obstacles. The FDA will authorize 50-60 novel drugs and biologics and over 100 AI-enabled devices this year. Some will fundamentally alter care management processes; all will change costs and pricing. Those with short-term cost-reduction potential require consideration first. Given increased margin pressures, capital and operating budgets will reflect a more cautious and risk averse posture.
Manage fixed costs (more) aggressively and creatively. Direct costs reduction is not enough. Facilities and administrative functions are fair game and for outsourcing, partnerships and risk sharing with suppliers, vendors, advisors and even competitors.
Don’t underestimate price transparency. Prices matter. Consumers and regulator demand for price transparency from drugmakers, hospitals and insurers are inescapable. Justification and verification will be critical to trust and utilization.
Navigate AI strategically. The pace and effectiveness of Ai-enabled solutions will define winners and losers in each segment. And private capital—investors, partners—will bring those solutions to market.
Don’t discount public opinion. Consumer sentiment about the economy is low and dissatisfaction with the health system is high and increasing. Understanding root causes and initiating process improvement are starting points.
As I head back to DC today, the FY26 federal budget is in suspense as the GOP-controlled Senate and House debate a final version to avoid a shutdown next week. Physicians, public health and state officials will digest last week’s ACIP vaccine advisory recommendations and issue their own directives and insurers will file their plan revisions for 2026. That’s what lawmakers and trade groups will be watching.
But at the kitchen tables in at least 40% of America’s households, unpaid healthcare bills from hospitals, labs, doctor offices and set-aside cash for over-the-counter remedies and prescription drug co-pays are on the agenda. Student loan payments, escalating costs for groceries, housing, rent and child care and an unstable employment market are squeezing families. Budgeting for healthcare is more problematic for them than anything else because price are not accessible and charges are not known until after services are performed.
Trump Healthcare 2.0 is not transformational: it is transactional. It aims to simplify the system and facilitate changes certain to disrupt the status quo. Its locus of control, is Main Street USA. not Pennsylvania Ave, in DC.
Republicans’ sweeping Medicaid overhaul has left a lot of the heavy lifting to governors and state health officials as the program launches the biggest package of changes in its 60-year history.
Why it matters:
States working with hospitals, clinics and other providers will have to do more with less as they face about $1 trillion in program cuts and the likelihood of 10 million or more newly uninsured people from new work rules and other changes.
While the GOP views Medicaid as a waste-riddled program that’s due for a shakeup, the cuts will force painful tradeoffs at the local level as health systems also struggle with inflation, higher labor costs and rising medical costs.
“Congress left the dirty work to be done by the governors and state legislators, and that work will start very soon,” said Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.
State of play:
Medicaid typically accounts for about 30% of a state’s budget each year. Spending goes up during tough economic times, and states are required to cover a set of mandatory benefits.
The fallout from the cuts will vary by state based on their reliance on certain funding mechanisms, like taxes on health care providers, and whether they’ve expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
The new work requirements only apply to people in the expansion group.
The biggest changes from the law will arrive in 2027. But states have already started planning for how they’ll implement work requirements, decide who’s eligible more frequently and cope with new restrictions on how they draw down federal funds.
They’ll also be competing for $50 billion in rural health funding that Congress added to the law — a sum that’s been widely criticized as inadequate.
“We are working day and night ever since this bill was passed,” New York’s Medicaid director, Amir Bassiri, said while speaking at a conference in Manhattan in July.
“Chances are we will not be able to mitigate all of the impacts of these changes, but we’re going to do everything in our power to do that.”
The other side:
The new dynamic will force states to think more critically about how taxpayer dollars are being spent in Medicaid, said Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute and a White House official during the first Trump administration.
“I want there to be a real budget constraint so [states] have to grapple with the actual cost of these programs,” he said.
Zoom in:
Many states were already preparing austerity moves before President Trump signed the law. States faced with Medicaid budget crunches often cut or limit benefits they aren’t required to offer, like dental care or home- and community-based services.
Other strategies to adjust to the new era of Medicaid funding could include reducing Medicaid payment rates for providers or finding new sources of revenue like additional taxes.
A big focus is how well states will track whether recipients are either meeting a requirement to complete 80 hours of work, school or community service a month or are exempt from the rules.
Illinois, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Utah and Wisconsin have the highest risk of improperly kicking many eligible people off of Medicaid due to procedural issues, per a recent Georgetown Center for Children and Families report.
The report ranked state performance on eight key metrics, including how long Medicaid centers take to answer calls, how long the states take to process new applications and whether they renew eligibility automatically.
Between the lines:
Congress authorized $200 million in federal funds to help states modernize their infrastructure for determining whether people are eligible for Medicaid.
HHS communications director Andrew Nixon said $100 million of the funds will be allocated equally among states, while the other half will be divvied up based on the share of enrollees in the state that will be subject to work requirements.
“All funding decisions will be guided by efficiency and legal compliance,” he said in an email.
States are still waiting for guidance and regulations from Medicaid administrators on some of the policy changes, and what kinds of technology they can use to ease the burden of reporting work hours and verifying who’s eligible.
Even timelines for getting systems running are up in the air. The budget law gives the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services discretion to let states have up to two more years to get work requirements up and running.
What we’re watching:
What role health systems and Medicaid advocates have in states’ decision-making processes — and whether they can persuade state lawmakers to make up for some of the federal cuts with state funds.
“We’ve always said the cuts to Medicaid are … going to impact so many other parts of state budgets, and so that’s where the fight really is,” said Nicole Jorwic, chief program officer of Caring Across Generations, a nonprofit that advocated against Congress’ health care changes.
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.3All 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.5This 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.
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 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.
People who buy health insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are set to see a median premium increase of 18 percent, more than double last year’s 7 percent median proposed increase, according to an analysis of preliminary filings by KFF.
The proposed rates are preliminary and could change before being finalized in late summer. The analysis includes proposed rate changes from 312 insurers in all 50 states and DC.
It’s the largest rate change insurers have requested since 2018, the last time that policy uncertainty contributed to sharp premium increases. On average, ACA marketplace insurers are raising premiums by about 20 percent in 2026, KFF found.
Insurers said they wanted higher premiums to cover rising health care costs, like hospitalizations and physician care, as well as prescription drug costs. Tariffs on imported goods could play a role in rising medical costs, but insurers said there was a lot of uncertainty around implementation, and not many insurers were citing tariffs as a reason for higher rates.
But they are adding in higher increases due to changes being made by the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress. For instance, the majority of insurers said they are taking into account the potential expiration of enhanced premium tax credits.
Those subsidies, put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, are set to expire at the end of the year, and there are few signs that Republicans are interested in tackling the issue at all.
If Congress takes no action, premiums for subsidized enrollees are projected to increase by over 75 percent starting in January 2026, according to KFF.
But some states are pushing back.
Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) on Wednesday called on the state’s insurance commissioner to disapprove the proposed increases from Centene and Blue Cross Blue Shield. The companies filed increases of up to 54 percent and 25.5 percent, respectively, she said.
“Arkansas’ Insurance Commissioner is required to disapprove of proposed rate increases if they are excessive or discriminatory, and these are both,” Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.
“I’m calling on my Commissioner to follow the law, reject these insane rate increases, and protect Arkansans.”
Ahead of my Congressional testimony last week before the Senate HELP committee, I compiled data on the profits, revenues and CEO compensations of big health insurers in 2024. The curiosity from senators on both sides of the aisle signaled, to me, that lawmakers are as interested as I’ve ever seen in the industry’s rampant profiteering.
What I found was that the seven biggest publicly traded health insurance companies collectively made $71.3 billion in profits, up more than half a billion dollars from 2023. All while millions of Americans continued to skip their medications, rationed insulin and delayed care due to insurers’ out-of-pocket demands.
Let’s break it down.
You won’t be surprised to learn that shareholders are not the only ones benefiting from the care-restricting barriers insurers have erected to boost profits. The CEOs of those seven companies took home a combined $146.1 million in 2024 compensation. That’s enough to cover annual premiums for thousands of American families.
Here’s what the top brass made:
Meanwhile, patients across the country report increasing out-of-pocket costs, more aggressive prior authorizations and narrower provider networks. But for these executives, the real measure of success is how high they can push their stock prices and not how many people can afford to see a doctor.
So, What’s Driving the Revenue Surge?
One word: Gouging.
Insurers continued to jack up premiums for their commercial customers and overcharge the government. Despite watchdog warnings, Uncle Sam continues to pour money into private Medicare Advantage plans even as audits and investigations uncover widespread fraud and upcoding. And Medicaid managed care is a gold mine, too. These insurers now dominate state Medicaid contracts and can quietly extract billions through behind-the-scenes ownership of pharmacies, PBMs and providers.
It’s not just health insurance anymore — it’s a monopolized empire.
All that said, to the dismay of shareholders, the big seven insurers have had to admit that so far in 2025, they’ve paid more medical claims than they had expected, which means their profits were down somewhat during the first months of the year. I’ll shed more light on that in a future post. No need for you to shed any tears for them, though, because we’re still talking billions and billions in profits.
So if you’re wondering why your premiums, deductibles and costs at the pharmacy counter keep going up — just look at those 2024 numbers. We all paid more for health insurance and got less for the hard-earned money we had to shovel out for our “coverage.”
And expect even more financial pain (and difficulty getting the care you need) as these companies do all they can to get their profit margins back to where Wall Street wants them.
President Donald Trump has made big promises about fixing American healthcare. Now comes the moment that separates talk from action.
With the 2026 midterms fast approaching and congressional attention soon shifting to electoral strategy, the window for legislative results is closing quickly. This summer will determine whether the administration turns promises into policy or lets the opportunity slip away.
Trump and his handpicked healthcare leaders — HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary — have identified three major priorities: lowering drug prices, reversing chronic disease and unleashing generative AI. Each one, if achieved, would save tens of thousands of lives and reduce costs.
But promises are easy. Real change requires political will and congressional action. Here are three tests that Americans can use to gauge whether the Trump administration succeeds or fails in delivering on its healthcare agenda.
Test No. 1: Have Drug Prices Come Down?
Americans pay two to four times more for prescription drugs than citizens in other wealthy nations. This price gap has persisted for more than 20 years and continues to widen as pharmaceutical companies launch new medications with average list prices exceeding $370,000 per year.
One key reason for the disparity is a 2003 law that prohibits Medicare from negotiating prices directly with drug manufacturers. Although the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 granted limited negotiation rights, the initial round of price reductions did little to close the gap with other high-income nations.
President Trump has repeatedly promised to change that. In his first term, and again in May 2025, he condemned foreign “free riders,” promising, “The United States will no longer subsidize the healthcare of foreign countries and will no longer tolerate profiteering and price gouging.”
To support these commitments, the president signed an executive order titled “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients.” The order directs HHS to develop and communicate MFN price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers, with the hope that they will voluntarily align U.S. drug prices with those in other developed nations. Should manufacturers fail to make significant progress toward these targets, the administration said it plans to pursue additional measures, such as facilitating drug importation and imposing tariffs. However, implementing these measures will most likely require congressional legislation and will encounter substantial legal and political challenges.
The pharmaceutical industry knows that without congressional action, there is no way for the president to force them to lower prices. And they are likely to continue to appeal to Americans by arguing that lower prices will restrict innovation and lifesaving drug development.
But the truth about drug “innovation” is in the numbers: According to a study by America’s Health Insurance Plans, seven out of 10 of the largest pharmaceutical companies spend more on sales and marketing than on research and development. And if drugmakers want to invest more in R&D, they can start by requiring peer nations to pay their fair share — rather than depending so heavily on U.S. patients to foot the bill.
If Congress fails to act, the president has other tools at his disposal. One effective step would be for the FDA to redefine “drug shortages” to include medications priced beyond the reach of most Americans. That change would enable compounding pharmacies to produce lower-cost alternatives just as they did recently with GLP-1 weight-loss injections.
If no action is taken, however, and Americans continue paying more than twice as much as citizens in other wealthy nations, the administration will fail this crucial test.
Test No. 2: Did Food Health, Quality Improve?
Obesity has become a leading health threat in the United States, surpassing smoking and opioid addiction as a cause of death.
Since 1980, adult obesity rates have surged from 15% to over 40%, contributing significantly to chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and multiple types of cancers.
A major driver of this epidemic is the widespread consumption of ultra-processed foods: products high in added sugar, unhealthy fats and artificial additives. These foods are engineered to be hyper-palatable and calorie-dense, promoting overconsumption and, in some cases, addictive eating behaviors.
RFK Jr. has publicly condemned artificial additives as “poison” and spotlighted their impact on children’s health. In May 2025, he led the release of the White House’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) report, which identifies ultra-processed foods, chemical exposures, lack of exercise and excessive prescription drug use as primary contributors to America’s chronic disease epidemic.
But while the report raises valid concerns, it has yet to produce concrete reforms.
To move from rhetoric to results, the administration will need to implement tangible policies.
Here are three approaches (from least difficult to most) that, if enacted, would signify meaningful progress:
Front-of-package labeling. Implement clear and aggressive labeling to inform consumers about the nutritional content of food products, using symbols to indicate healthy versus unhealthy options.
Taxation and subsidization. Impose taxes on unhealthy food items and use the revenue to subsidize healthier food options, especially for socio-economically disadvantaged populations.
Regulation of food composition. Restrict the use of harmful additives and limit the total amount of fat and sugar included, particularly for foods aimed at kids.
These measures will doubtlessly face fierce opposition from the food and agriculture industries. But if the Trump administration and Congress manage to enact even one of these options — or an equivalent reform — they can claim success.
If, instead, they preserve the status quo, leaving Americans to decipher nutritional fine print on the back of the box, obesity will continue to rise, and the administration will have failed.
Test No. 3: Are Patients Using Generative AI To Improve Health?
The Trump administration has signaled a strong commitment to using generative AI across various industries, including healthcare. At the AI Action Summit in Paris, Vice President JD Vance made the administration’s agenda clear: “I’m not here this morning to talk about AI safety … I’m here to talk about AI opportunity.”
FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary has echoed that message with internal action. After an AI-assisted scientific review pilot program, he announced plans to integrate generative AI across all FDA centers by June 30.
But internal efficiency alone won’t improve the nation’s health. The real test is whether the administration will help develop and approve GenAI tools that expand clinical access, improve outcomes and reduce costs.
To these ends, generative AI holds enormous promise:
Managing chronic disease: By analyzing real-time data from wearables, GenAI can empower patients to better control their blood pressure, blood sugar and heart failure. Instead of waiting months between doctor visits for a checkup, patients could receive personalized analyzes of their data, recommendations for medication adjustments and warnings about potential risk in real time.
Improving diagnoses: AI can identify clinical patterns missed by humans, reducing the 400,000 deaths each year caused by misdiagnoses.
Personalizing treatment: Using patient history and genetics, GenAI can help physicians tailor care to individual needs, improving outcomes and reducing side effects.
These breakthroughs aren’t theoretical. They’re achievable. But they won’t happen unless federal leaders facilitate broad adoption.
That will require investing in innovation. The NIH must provide funding for next-generation GenAI tools designed for patient empowerment, and the FDA will need to facilitate approval for broad implementation. That will require modernizing current regulations. The FDA’s approval process wasn’t built for probabilistic AI models that rely on continuous application training and include patient-provided prompts. Americans need a new, fit-for-purpose framework that protects patients without paralyzing progress.
Most important, federal leaders must abandon the illusion of zero risk. If American healthcare were delivering superior clinical outcomes, managing chronic disease effectively and keeping patients safe, that would be one thing. But medical care in the United States is far from that reality. Hundreds of thousands of Americans die annually from poorly controlled chronic diseases, medical errors and misdiagnoses.
If generative AI technology remains confined to billing support and back-office automation, the opportunity to transform American healthcare will be lost. And the administration will have failed to deliver on this promise.
When I teach strategy at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, I tell students that the best leaders focus on a few high-priority goals with clear definitions of success — and a refusal to accept failure. Based on the administration’s own words, grading the administration on these three healthcare tests will fulfill those criteria.
However, with Labor Day just months away, the window for action will soon close. The time for presidential action is now.
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 relieffrom 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.
The recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which makes deep cuts to the Medicaid program, also puts the food assistance that 41 million low-income Americans rely on in jeopardy. Many of the families currently getting food provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) stand to lose that support.
SNAP may well disappear for some families as the federal government moves to trim it. “The cuts are massive and extremely cruel when families need more support, not less,” says Signe Anderson, senior director of nutrition advocacy, at the Tennessee Justice Center in Nashville.
Government food assistance was established during the Great Depression, but it wasn’t until 1977 that the program became more accessible when the requirement that recipients had to pay for a portion of their food stamps was ended. Throughout its history, foes of the program have tried to dismantle it and may have succeeded as a result of provisions in the bill President Trump signed on July 4.
The new legislation calls for cutting spending for food stamps by $186 billion through 2034. “Everyone on food stamps will be affected in some way, and many will lose benefits,” Anderson says. “I don’t think the Congress understands the level of necessity in the community for food, health care and mental health treatment, some for the rest of their lives.”
One major change is being made to work requirements that have historically been part of the Medicaid program, which is administered and partially funded by the states. Anderson points out that under the new arrangements, participants may find the task of enrolling and staying enrolled more onerous. “We see a lot of people cut off already because too many life circumstances make it difficult for them to meet work requirements.”
Indeed when you look at the changes to SNAP, the first word that might come to mind is ‘draconian.’
To receive benefits those new to the program, and those already on it who are between 55 and 64 and do not have dependent children or who have children 14 and older, will have to prove they work. Or they will have to volunteer at least 20 hours a week or enroll in training programs. Parents of school-aged children will now be required to work.
Some five million people, including about 800,000 children and about a half million adults who are 65 and older, could lose their food benefits.
The programs the new law targets have been a lifeline for some. Nikole Ralls, a 43-year-old woman in Nashville, who was once a drug addict but now counsels others who need help, says, “I got my life turned around because of Medicaid and SNAP.”
In a recent memo to state agencies administering the SNAP program, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said she was concerned about what was described as abuse of the waiver system by states, noting that the new approach for the SNAP program would prioritize work, education and volunteering over what the department characterized as “idleness and excessive spending.”
Anderson said, “The public doesn’t understand what hunger looks like and are misinformed about how well-run and streamlined the SNAP program is.”
“Most of the people who can, do work. We have parents working two and three jobs,” Anderson said. For families in this predicament food banks, which have become default grocery stores, may be of little help. They, too, are stretched thin. The Wall Street Journal reported food banks across the country are already straining under rising demand, and some worry there won’t be enough food to meet demand.
HENRY KOTULA 