THCB

Categories

Category: Health Policy

A ridiculously stupid letter from a health insurer

By MATTHEW HOLT

It’s hard to imagine but I may now be in possession of the stupidest letter I’ve ever received from an American health insurance company–-and I’m the guy who got five identical letters on one day from Blue Shield of California telling me that they had changed my primary care doctor when I had initiated the change.

A little backstory.  As those you’ve been following along with my various telenovelas may remember that last year I was diagnosed with a failing heart valve.  I also have a failing left knee due mostly to snowboarding into a tree 24 years ago.

I was attempting to put off doing anything about the heart valve for as long as possible because it sounds painful and unpleasant, and I was hoping that I could go ahead with a knee replacement so that my snowboarding can continue apace. My doctors are at UC San Francisco and they agreed that I should have the knee replacement on July 6th, assuming that my heart valve had not got much worse. On June 16th I went into UCSF for a bunch of knee replacement pre-workup and they also checked my heart.

However, my new insurance company, thanks to my wife’s new job, is Cigna. Those of you in California may know that Cigna was having a big dispute with the University of California Health system and that its contract with them was due to expire on June the 30th of this year. Why a health plan and a big provider organization have contracts that expire in the middle of the year when the employers and people who use the health plan network buy them on an annual basis starting in January I don’t know –  and it’s ridiculously stupid. But let’s not get distracted cause I’m not talking about that here!

Because of the fact that they’d be out of network, the ortho team made the obvious suggestion that I move the knee replacement a little earlier, In fact it was planned for June the 22nd. This did not upset me too much as you may have seen that some corrupt Italians have organized a soccer tournament that would give me plenty of games on TV to be entertained by while I was lying around recovering.

Sadly one of the pretests I had on June 16th was an echocardiogram that indicated that my heart valve was in even worse shape than it had been earlier in the year.  After quite a lot of back and forth between the cardiac team, the knee team and the anesthesia team, everyone agreed to put off the knee surgery until we figured out my heart.

Meanwhile sometime late on Thursday the 25th or early on Friday the 26th of June, UC Health and Cigna stepped back from the brink and came to an agreement that will continue the UC system being in Cigna’s network.

Which all brings me to July 6th when I received a letter from Cigna

This is the one that contains more stupidity per square inch than any other communication I’ve had from an insurance company.

Continue reading…

AI and Professional Nursing: On a Collision Course

By JEFF GOLDSMITH

In his wonderful and pragmatic new book, A Giant Leap, Dr. Robert Wachter cautions his professional colleagues that simply confiscating potential administrative and clinical staffing savings created by AI could foster a whirlwind of negative consequences for healthcare enterprises.

Nowhere is the explosive potential for reaction to AI incursions into care delivery greater than in nursing, hospitals’ largest single professional expense category. Hospitals employ more than 1.8 million Registered Nurses (RNs) and another 400 thousand non-RN nursing personnel. RNs alone are more than 30% of the hospital salaried workforce, and more than 40% of overall staff costs.

Nursing productivity is a central issue in overall hospital performance, and a key intervening variable both in clinical quality and patient satisfaction. So the capacity of AI to improve nursing productivity will be a core issue in determining AI’s effect on overall hospital operating performance.

There is clearly room for improvement. Studies have shown that nurses spend only 25-30% of their work hours in direct patient care activities. AI’s potential for alleviating the huge administrative burden damaging nursing productivity might be the biggest benefit AI could provide. AI could materially increase nursing time at the bedside, increasing both patient and nursing satisfaction.

However, AI could also reduce hospitals’ nurse headcount, a factor which could, in turn, reduce nursing union membership, the largest and fastest growing single category of hospital employees’ union membership. Almost 18% of all hospital employed RNs are members of labor unions (AFSCME, AFT Healthcare, National Nurses Union, etc. and their local affiliates). Union dues from nurses represent hundreds of millions in annual income to the unions that represent them.

Nursing unions’ most visible public policy initiative, which appeared first in California twenty years ago, was getting its state legislature to mandate nurse to patient staffing ratios in hospitals. These were designed to compel hospitals to hire more nurses with the intention of improving patient safety. What the ratios actually did was throw more nursing bodies at broken processes and systems. These laws had the important collateral benefit of assuring a “guaranteed income” in union dues from more nurses employed by hospitals subject to these ratios!

Formal (though less comprehensive) mandates for nurse staffing ratios have since spread to Oregon, Massachusetts and New York, with legislation pending in Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Michigan, Minnesota and Washington State. The research on the intended qualitative benefits of California’s state-mandated ratios confirm the expected benefits to patients, though the studies relied upon correlational analyses vs. states without the ratio mandate, not pre- and post- studies of the ratios’ effects on patient care.

Other studies concluded that the ratios pushed up both RN numbers and compensation vs other job categories as well as damaging hospitals’ operating margins relative to states lacking the mandates. The point-counterpoint of these studies gives one a sense of an issue rapidly becoming politicized.

Continue reading…

THCB Spotlight: Warris Bokhari, Claimable

One of the most interesting follows on Linkedin is Warris Bokhari from Claimable. He’s a British MD, who has had stints not only as a doc in the UK, but also as a health tech and health insurance exec in the US. But now he’s at war with the system, in particular working for patients to overturn denials from insurers using AI. But what exactly is the big picture aim, and how does Warris think that he’s going to fix American health care? We had quite the discussion and we sort of agree, but also don’t. Great discussion and transcript is below the video–Matthew Holt

This was such a great discussion I wanted to publish the transcript. The way I do that is to copy the Youtube generated transcript and drop it into Claude to smooth it over. I then read it and if I think it’s made an error, dip back into the video and listen to what actually happened and make a correction. This is all code therefore for me saying I think this transcript is pretty accurate but it might have a bunch of AI and human generated mistakes.

THCB Spotlight: Warris Bokhari, CEO of Claimable

Continue reading…

How The Patient Rights Revolution Builds on America’s 1776 One

By MICHAEL MILLENSON

It took 129 years for the inalienable rights proclaimed in America’s Declaration of Independence to apply to the rights of patients in relationship to their doctors.

In 1905, an Illinois appellate court ruled in favor of a woman who’d sued her surgeon for performing a hysterectomy without disclosing in advance what procedure he was doing. The court declared in what became one of the foundational principles of informed consent that “under a free government,” all citizens had the right to know what a doctor planned to do to their body before he did it, no matter how “skillful or eminent” the physician.

Today, in the era of artificial intelligence chatbots and data democratization, the lessons of America’s 1776 political revolution continue to be reflected in the push for patient rights.

The most important lesson pertains to power. The American colonists learned from hard experience that those holding power rarely concede it voluntarily. Similarly, every advance in information sharing with patients can be linked to sustained economic or legal pressure.

Just as the British genuinely believed they practiced “benign colonialism,” the surgeon who performed a hysterectomy on 40-year Parmelia Davis to treat her epilepsy not only believed deceiving her was necessary for her health, but might also have cited as support the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics. Patients, the code then declared, should not allow their own ”crude opinions” to obstruct “prompt” obedience to the doctor.

Although that admonition was subsequently axed, patient rights remained minimal for decades.

Continue reading…

Good News: Teen Pregnancies Hit New Low In the US

By MIKE MAGEE

Last week, policy wonks from the right and the left, finally found a topic they could agree on – Kids are no longer having (as many) kids.

Specifically, teen pregnancies dropped an additional 10% in the US in 2025. This is an acceleration of a trend which began two decades ago. Teen births peaked in America in 1991 with 62 births per 1000 girls/women age 15 to 19. In 2025, the rate was below 12 per 1000, a drop of 80%, with the majority of that (72%) occurring since the 2008 Great Recession.

Obviously, this is “good news” for these young women according to Congressional reports. And most agree the causes are multifactorial, and include gains in health education, declines in sexual activity in youth, access to contraception and the Plan B pill, and expanded economic and professional opportunities for women in society.

But for societies worldwide, leaders look on with angst as the birth rates in their nations have broken through the replacement line, with deaths exceeding births. This “replacement rate” is roughly 2.1 births per woman. The CDC recently reported that without immigration, the 2023 total fertility rate was only 1.6 births per woman (1,616 per 1000 women over a lifetime).

Since 2007, trend lines have pointed decidedly downward. In that year, there were 4,316,233 births in the U.S. In 2025, American women gave birth to only 3,606,400 newborns (a 23%) decline.

Continue reading…

Oceans, Away

By KIM BELLARD

It probably didn’t show up on your calendar, but Monday was World Ocean Day. It’s a day meant to catalyze “collective action for a healthy ocean and a stable climate,” and has been around since 2002 (although the U.N. didn’t officially recognize it until 2008). Its website claims a network of over 2,000 organizations, in 180 countries.

I wish we had more to celebrate.

Many have recognized the irony of humans calling our planet “Earth,” when, in fact, 71% of its surface is covered with water. Even more amazing, oceans account for 99% of the biosphere. We come from the ocean and still owe much of our existence to it.

Unfortunately, these are not good times for oceans, and we’re to blame. The most recent World Ocean Assessment from the U.N. highlights:

  • The ocean matters to everyone, everywhere;
  • The ocean is under intensifying stress;
  • Climate change is transforming conditions;
  • Biodiversity is declining across nearly every marine habitat;
  • Pollution is widespread and increasing;
  • Ocean food systems are threatened.

The report concludes: “The coming decade is decisive: without rapid, coordinated global action, ocean health will continue to decline, threatening climate stability, biodiversity resilience, food security, livelihoods and the wellbeing of billions.”

I think about this in light of last month’s announcement by the National Science Foundation that it was “descoping” the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) Major Facility, beginning next week. That’s a $368 million deep-ocean observation system “that delivers real-time data from more than 900 instruments to address critical science questions regarding the world’s oceans.” Some 900 instruments will be removed, in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

Continue reading…

Good News on the HIV Front

By MIKE MAGEE

In a 1996  JAMA editorial Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg MD wrote “Our fight with microbes is far from over …odds are tipped in their favor…they outnumber us a billion fold, and mutate a billion times more quickly…pitted against microbial genes, we humans mainly have our wits.”

Now three decades later, our scientists remain in a “battle of wits” with this amazing viral foe, but even without a vaccine, have maintained a slide edge for humanity. Experts recently confirmed that we are unlikely to have a vaccine bullet by 2030. And it’s not because we haven’t tried. There have been more than 250 official HIV vaccine trials, with fewer than 10 making it past the safety threshold to test efficacy – and the best performer only had a moderate success rate in triggering some immunity in 31%.

HIV is just a bad actor according to Professor Anna Durbin at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins. To start with, it embeds its chemistry in the host’s DNA genome, blurring the boundaries between “self” and “non-self.” Most of our successful vaccines focus in on a protein portion of the virus envelop or capsule. But the HIV virus has a “glycan shield” – a protein envelope that incorporates around 95 different sugar molecules which shield or disguise the viral protein from detection by our immune system. As one expert described it, “The immune system’s antibodies approach the virus and effectively see a blurry cloud of sugars rather than the vulnerable protein underneath.”

The second problem is the virus’s “sloppy gene duplication” is riddles with mutations. This yields dozens of different versions each with endless subtype variations. This is not typical disciplined viral behavior. Today’s measles viral genome for example is nearly identical to its late 20th century version.

And finally, HIV’s favorite target for invasion is the CD4 lymphocyte, otherwise known as the “Helper T-cell.” That happens to be the cellular key that unlocks our entire immune apparatus. This virus effectively decapitates the lead generals of our defensive force. And yet, we’re gaining on the virus. How have we done it?

First, by focusing on two “work-arounds” that trigger “passive immunity” without the help of our own immune machinery. Three decades ago, breakthrough discoveries first offered a glimmer of hope in the form of antiretroviral medications. With a variety of different combined therapy approaches, HIV/AIDS emerged as “no longer a death sentence,” but a chronic disease, like diabetes, that could be managed. In the modern era, this effective approach has spawned PrEP, or “Pre-exposure Prophylaxis,” – a preventive regimen for HIV negative individuals who are at risk of contracting HIV.

Continue reading…

What Happens When Insurance Companies Become More Powerful Than Medicine?

By MATTHEW ZACHARY

The American healthcare system behaves exactly as its incentives tell it to behave. That sentence sounds almost boring until you follow it to its logical conclusion.

Insurance companies now influence clinical decisions more aggressively than many physicians. They shape hospital consolidation. They determine startup viability. They influence venture capital allocation. They dictate which drugs succeed commercially. They pressure physician behavior through reimbursement design. They decide who accesses diagnostics, rehabilitation, home care, specialty drugs, imaging, mental health services, and sometimes whether a patient gets enough time left on Earth to watch their kid graduate college.

And somehow we still spend an astonishing amount of time talking about apps.

I have spent almost 30 years inside this machine as a brain cancer survivor, nonprofit founder, media mogul, healthcare conference producer, policy advocate, and accidental anthropologist of American institutional failure. I have watched every corner of healthcare promise transformation. Precision medicine. Digital therapeutics. Patient engagement. AI. Consumerism. Value based care. Coordinated care. Interoperability. Navigation. Ambient listening. Population health. Personalized medicine. Blah blah blah,.

Meanwhile millions of Americans spend their afternoons arguing with an insurance company employee named Chad who has never met them but somehow possesses the authority to overrule their oncologist.

At some point we need to admit the obvious. Innovation stopped driving healthcare years ago. Insurance drives healthcare now.

That realization sits underneath every chapter of my new book, We the Patients: Understanding, Navigating, and Surviving America’s Healthcare Nightmare. I wrote it because after decades inside the system I finally understood something uncomfortable. Americans think they are angry about healthcare costs, wait times, medical debt, or inaccessible care. They are. But underneath all of that sits a deeper fury most people struggle to articulate.

People understand, instinctively, that somebody they never elected now controls enormous portions of their lives during moments of maximum vulnerability.

That changes a country.

Continue reading…

You call this a system?

image.png

By TOMMY BEVERIDGE

Just like the Holy Roman Empire was none of those things, America’s health care system is neither health care, nor a system. Both are in fact decentralized commercial arrangements clothed in things that sound good, like Holy-Romanness, or Consumer-driven Health Care. Rather than health care, we have a patchwork of consumer products and government subsidies designed to pay a vast cadre of individuals and interests to perhaps incidentally provide health care. To even call it a system would imply something centrally coordinated, which no one in their right mind would do.

It feels hopeless. Health insurance is expensive, arbitrary, and capricious. It profits off of slices of an ever-growing pie, regardless of margins. The providers we cannot live without often charge whatever the market will bear. On top of this, the government, directed by laws written by politicians unwilling to upset powerful interests, has spent the past two decades pushing complex payment ideas with little result except a growing ecosystem of consultants specializing in gaming such incentives. Then there are the consultants— arms dealers in both sides of a war, selling hospital systems software that helps them bill as much as they can for their work, and health insurance companies software that helps them deny claims wherever they can.

We all know this. It’s the learned helplessness about it all that gets me. Sometimes a sob story about chemotherapy denied enters the zeitgeist, or the tale of a lone vigilante taking out a health care executive, but mostly we just take the 7 percent annual premium increases and deductible hikes with a stiff upper lip. Meanwhile, few of the players: payer, provider, government, or software slinger, put American’s health at the top of their agendas. Customer satisfaction? Maybe. Public ire? Occasionally. Shareholder value? Certainly. But our actual health?  

Something that isn’t health care or a system can’t be a health care system. Not when this how we pay for care:

Continue reading…

The Uninsured Crisis: Letter from Arizona

By EMMANUEL SARKEES

Arizona consistently ranks among the states with the highest uninsured rates in the nation. Over 800,000 residents lack health coverage, a number shaped not by failure, but by a consistency of structural, geographic, financial, and linguistic barriers that have been poorly addressed for decades. What makes Arizona’s situation this severe is that the demographic makeup, geographic issues, policy history, and high uninsured rate do not exist as separate problems, but as a link of issues where each difficulty increases the next.

In the United States, health insurance is not just a financial factor, but it is the primary mechanism through which people gain access to healthcare. Without insurance, an annual checkup becomes a pricey luxury, a chronic illness becomes undealt with, and a slight emergency can devastate someone’s life finances. This can be seen at its highest in Arizona, where Arizona ranks 43rd in the nation for its uninsured rate at 10.3%, carrying higher rates of disease mortality and late stage sickness as a result.

Who Arizona’s Uninsured Actually Are

One of the most common misconceptions about uninsured communities is that they are mostly unemployed. In Arizona, that is simply not accurate. A huge part of the state’s uninsured population works full time in agriculture, construction, and food service, where there is a shortage of health benefits. Although coverage is technically available through an employer, the costs to maintain these benefits are often too high in relation to their earnings. This leaves a large group of people in an unfortunate circumstance: they make too much to qualify for AHCCCS, Arizona’s Medicaid program, but too little to afford insurance plans. They fall into a coverage gap that lacks a current policy built to close it.

The data is also clear that the consequences do not distribute evenly. Hispanic and Latino residents are uninsured at higher rates than white Arizonans, while Native American and Indigenous people endure similar circumstances, surged through the federal government’s history of underfunding tribal healthcare and the fact that these communities often live in remote areas where there is a lack of healthcare infrastructure. Geography adds to this further, as uninsured rates are highest in rural and border areas like Yuma, Santa Cruz, Apache, and Navajo, communities that already greatly lack economic opportunities and healthcare infrastructure compared to urban areas like Phoenix and Tucson.

What Happens When People Can’t Get Care

All of these barriers have real consequences. Conditions that are quite easy and simple to treat become serious issues by the time they are finally caught. Social factors like insurance status stand as one of the greatest predictors of whether someone gets cancer and whether they survive it. Late stage cancer diagnoses are not just bad luck, but in some cases, are dependent on whether the patient was able to access the routine checks that would have easily caught it earlier.

Chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension are another area where being uninsured causes serious, life-altering harm. These conditions need to be managed consistently with regular checkups and medication. Uninsured people often cannot afford visits or medication, so the conditions go unmanaged and worsen over time. A striking example: GLP-1 medications increased 442% in price between 2021 and 2023, creating a market three times larger than cancer spending, with list prices reaching $1,400. The fundamental issue is not just prices, but a system where everyone is focused on maximizing revenue rather than patient outcomes.

When uninsured patients consistently resort to the emergency room because of a lack of options, those costs do not disappear.

Continue reading…