THCB

Categories

Category: Health Policy

This One Weird Trick Can Fix U.S. Healthcare

By OWEN TRIPP

Creating a healthcare experience that builds trust and delivers value to people and purchasers isn’t a quick fix, but it’s the only way to reverse the downward spiral of high costs and poor outcomes

Entrepreneurs like to say the U.S. healthcare system is “broken,” usually right before they explain how they intend to fix it. I have a slightly different diagnosis.

The U.S. healthcare system is the gold standard. Our institutions and enterprises, ranging from 200-year-old academic medical centers to digital health startups, are the clear world leaders in clinical expertise, research, innovation, and technology. Capabilities-wise, the system is far from broken.

What’s broken is trust in the system, because of the glaring gap between what the system is capable of and what it actually delivers. Every day across the country, people drive past world-class hospitals, but then have to wait months for a primary care appointment. They deduct hundreds for healthcare from each paycheck, only to be told at the pharmacy that their prescription isn’t covered. While waiting for a state-of-the-art scan, they’re handed a clipboard and asked to recap their medical history.

This whipsaw experience isn’t due to incompetence or poor infrastructure. It’s the product of the dysfunction between the two biggest players in healthcare: providers and insurers, two entities that have optimized the hell out of their respective businesses, in opposition to one another, and inadvertently at the expense of people.

Historically, hospitals and health systems — including those 200-year-old AMCs — have dedicated themselves fully to improving and saving lives. I’m not saying they’ve lost sight of this, but until recently, margin took a back seat to mission. With industry consolidation and the persistence of the fee-for-service model, however, providers’ hands have been forced to maximize volume of care at the highest possible unit cost, which in turn has become a main driver of the out-of-control cost trend at large.

This push from providers has prompted an equal-and-opposite reaction from insurers. Though the industry has been villainized (rightly, in some cases) for a heavy-handed approach to utilization management and prior authorization, insurers are merely doing what their primary customers — private employers — have hired them to do: manage cost. Insurers have gotten very good at it, not just by limiting care, but also through product innovation that has created more tiers and cost-sharing options for plan sponsors.

Meanwhile, healthcare consumers (people!) have been sidelined amid this tug-of-war. Doctors and hospitals say they’re patient-centered, and insurers say they’re member-centric — but the jargon is a dead giveaway. Each side is focused on their half of the pie, and neither is accountable for the whole person: the person receiving care and paying for care, not to mention navigating everything in between.

It should come as no surprise that trust is falling. Only 56% of Americans trust their health insurer to act in their best interest. Even trust in doctors — the good guys — has plummeted. In a startling reversal from just four years ago, a whopping 76% of people believe hospitals care more about revenue than patient care.

Loss of Trust in Healthcare Providers

Hospitals in the U.S.
are mostly focused on…
⏺  Caring for patients⏺  Making money


Source: Jarrard/Chartis (2025)

This trust deficit is the root cause of so many healthcare problems. It’s the reason people disengage, delay and skip care, and end up in the ER or OR for preventable issues. When a good chunk of the population falls into this cycle, as they have, you end up with the status quo: unrelenting costs and deteriorating outcomes that is dragging down households, businesses, and the industry itself.

There’s no quick fix. Despite what my fellow entrepreneurs might say, no one point solution or technology (no, not even AI) can rebuild trust. The only way to reverse the downward spiral is by serving up a modern experience that is genuinely designed around people’s needs.

Continue reading…

Patrick Quigley, Sidecar Health

Patrick Quigley is the CEO of Sidecar Health. It’s a start up health insurance company that has a new approach to how employers and employees buy health care. Sidecar is betting on the radical pricing  transparency idea. Instead of going down the contacting and narrow network route, Sidecar presents average area pricing and individual provider pricing to its members, and rewards them if they go to lower cost providers (who often are cheaper). How does this all work and is it real? Patrick took me through an extensive demo and explained how this all works. There’s a decent amount of complexity behind the scenes but Sidecar is creating something very rare in America, a priced health care market allowing consumers to choose–Matthew Holt

Tracy DeTomasi, Callisto

Callisto is a non-profit tech company that helps survivors of sexual violence identify repeat offenders. The company was started a few years back by Jess Ladd and Tracy DeTomasi took over as CEO a few years back, It focuses on college campuses where 90% of assaults are perpetrated by repeat offenders, who on average commit 6 offenses. And 90% of assaults are not reported, Callisto is working providing an anonymous solution with Tracey also giving a demo of how it works. This is a  tough conversation about a difficult topic.–Matthew Holt

When Star Ratings Backfire: How CMS Could Better Support Health In Medicare Advantage

By EMMANUEL ANIMASHAUN

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Star Ratings system represents a cornerstone of quality assessment in Medicare Advantage (MA), designed to empower consumers with transparent information while rewarding plans that deliver superior care. Yet recent developments, particularly the seismic downgrading of Humana’s ratings reveal an unintended consequence: a system created to measure and incentivize quality may now be actively undermining it.

The Humana Case: Symptom of a Broader Problem

In 2025, Humana’s Medicare Advantage star ratings collapsed, with only 25% of members remaining in four-star or higher plans, down from 94%. This wasn’t due to declining clinical performance but resulted from CMS’s “Tukey outlier deletion” statistical adjustment implemented with minimal industry consultation. The change raised performance thresholds, causing Humana to lose billions in Quality Bonus Payments and $4 billion in market value. Humana’s legal challenge, arguing that CMS violated the Administrative Procedure Act through non-transparent processes, was denied. Other insurers including UnitedHealthcare and Centene also share concerns about methodological rigidity and that the rating system may have diverged from its purpose of improving patient care.

Perhaps more striking are the cases of Elevance and SCAN, which further illustrate how rigid metrics can distort assessments of actual care quality. In March 2023, both insurers were penalized after allegedly missing a single CMS “secret shopper” phone call, a call they claim was never received. The downgrade cost them tens of millions in Quality Bonus Payments and triggered legal challenges. As SCAN’s CEO wrote, the sanction came despite strong clinical performance and patient outcomes. A federal judge later ruled in favor of SCAN in June 2024, prompting CMS to recalculate the Star Ratings across all Medicare Advantage plans. This episode underscores a key concern: when measurement hinges on unverifiable administrative moments, it may end up punishing rather than promoting quality.

How Quality Measurement Can Undermine Actual Quality

The Star Ratings system aggregates over 40 metrics across preventive care, medication adherence, member experience, and customer service. However, it disproportionately rewards process compliance and documentation over health outcomes. Plans can excel by optimizing coding, maximizing documentation, or boosting survey participation without delivering better care. This misalignment diverts resources from genuine health innovations. Research from an NBER working paper even found that better-rated plans aren’t statistically better at keeping patients alive than lower-rated ones, raising fundamental questions about whether the system measures what truly matters for patient health.

Even more concerning is that MA contracts with higher proportions of dually eligible, disabled, or racially diverse members consistently score lower, not because they provide inferior care, but because the scoring system inadequately adjusts for social risk factors. A JAMA Health Forum study highlighted how plans serving more Black beneficiaries had lower star ratings even when controlling for other factors. This structural bias effectively penalizes plans doing the challenging work of serving populations with complex needs, creating a perverse disincentive to focus on health equity.

The uncertainty from frequent changes in star rating computation could also pose severe implications for strategic planning for companies. When a company like Humana loses billions due to a technical recalibration, it sends a troubling message: long-term investments in quality improvement may not yield returns if measurement methodologies change unpredictably. This volatility makes strategic planning difficult and discourages sustained investment in quality initiatives.

The Real-World Impact on Patients

These methodological shortcomings do not just affect health plans’ bottom lines; they have tangible consequences for Medicare beneficiaries. When plans lose Quality Bonus Payments (QBPs), they often must scale back valuable supplemental benefits like transportation assistance, dental coverage, or in-home support services, or increase plan premiums, as Avalere Health suggests. McKinsey estimates CMS rating changes could cost plans over $800 million in bonuses, reducing resources available for such benefits.

Continue reading…

Medicaid Budget Cuts: Hospitals will bear the burden, we will pay the price

By LINDA RIDDELL & THOMAS WILSON

Recent discussions over Medicaid budget cuts invite us to look more deeply into the house-of-cards that, when it collapses, will hit the states and low-income households hardest. But we will all be harmed.

Some states get 80% of their Medicaid funding from the federal government, as a recent Wall Street Journal article, “Medicaid Insures Millions of Americans. How the Health Program Works, in Charts” pointed out. Even states relying less on federal funds will be hard pressed to shift their resources to replace the federal share. The ripple effects are clear: states are likely to reduce Medicaid enrollment, forcing low-income people to skip care or find free care, and hospitals will shift resources to cover care they are not paid for. Dollars cut from Medicaid do not vanish; they simply shift to different corners of the healthcare system. Ouch!

A Deep Dive into the Facts

Fact 1. Low-Income Households Already Spend More of Their Income on Health Care: Recent Consumer Expenditure Survey data reveals that the lowest 20% of households—roughly corresponding to those enrolled in Medicaid—saw the share of their income spent on healthcare (red in Figure below) rise from 8% in 2005 to 11% in 2023. In contrast, the highest-income 20% devoted only 2% in 2005, rising to about 4% of their income to healthcare in 2023.

Fact 2. Necessities Consume a Majority of Low-Income Households’ Income: Low-income households spend about 57% of their income on essentials like food and housing (blue in figure). This leaves little to nothing for other expenses. These families have an almost inelastic budget where any additional expense, even one as critical as medical care, forces painful trade-offs. In contrast, high-income households have from 38% to 53% of their income (purple in figure) left over after meeting all basic and other costs.

Fact 3. Affordable Care Act Led to Reduced Uninsured ED Visits: In 2016 — two years after Affordable Care Act provisions took effect —  many states expanded Medicaid, and all introduced health insurance exchanges. These changes brought emergency department visits by uninsured patients down by half—from 16% to 8%.

Fact 4. Uncompromising Obligations at Hospitals: Under the U.S. Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), hospitals must treat and stabilize every patient who arrives, regardless of their ability to pay. With around 70% of all hospital admissions arriving via the ED, a surge in uncompensated care in the ED will directly affect admission rate, the hospital’s core function.

Examining the Key Inferences

Inference 1. Rising Uninsured Populations: Cutting Medicaid budgets is likely to lead to states shrinking enrollment and boosting the number of uninsured individuals.

Inference 2. A Resurgence in Uninsured ED Visits: If Medicaid budget cuts reduce enrollment, the previously achieved reductions in uninsured ED visits could return to the high rates seen before the ACA.

Inference 3. Hospitals Caught in the Crossfire: Budget cuts will force hospitals to provide more uncompensated ED care. The response is likely to be reducing staff, the hospital’s largest cost center  — a move that directly affects the quality and timeliness of both primary and specialty services. Washington state offers a cautionary tale, where hospital leaders predict longer wait times and lower service levels due to state budget cuts.

Broad Impacts Beyond the Numbers

The health system must pick up the $880 billion slack, not by magically creating money but by shifting resources from other programs.  The healthcare system has its priorities set by the budget scramble–not by the community’s health needs. Health disparities between the rich and poor will widen, and progress made on having more people insured will reverse.

Staff cuts will lengthen wait times and decrease service quality, not to mention they will burn more people out of their health service jobs. The ripple effects of Medicaid cuts will eventually touch all who seek medical care and pay for health insurance.

A Call for Political and Community Action

Now, more than ever, it is time for political stakeholders to recognize that the real cost of Medicaid cuts is borne not just by states but also by communities. Stakeholders, policymakers, community leaders, and the general public must stand up for their own interest in having a sustainable health care funding approach.

Toward a More Equitable Future

The case against Medicaid budget cuts is not merely about dollars and cents—it is about the future of our healthcare system and the health of millions of Americans. Cutting Medicaid benefits may create short-term savings on paper, but it undermines the health infrastructure that serves everyone.

A thoughtful and balanced approach would protect vulnerable populations while ensuring hospitals remain viable centers of care, especially for rural areas. In rural communities, the health sector creates 14% of jobs; rural hospitals are generally the largest employer and since they serve more Medicaid and Medicare patients, they will be the hardest hit by these budget cuts.

The shift in where healthcare dollars are spent could change every layer of healthcare delivery—from the ED’s ever-growing responsibility to inpatient admissions to primary care’s dwindling resources. It is a call for all of us to rethink how healthcare is funded and to stand in solidarity with those at risk of being left without medical care.

Looking Ahead

Beyond the immediate fiscal challenges, this issue invites a broader discussion on healthcare reform. How can we restructure funding to improve efficiencies? Could community health cooperatives or expanded telehealth services help lessen adverse effects?  These questions deserve robust debate and decisive action.

In these turbulent times, every stakeholder—from local communities to federal policymakers— needs to find solutions that prioritize human health over short-term budget tactics. The stakes are high, and the choices made today will shape healthcare access and quality for decades to come.

Linda Riddell, MS is a population health scientist specializing in poverty and is the founder of Gettin’ By, a training tool helping teachers, doctors, case managers, and others work more effectively with students, patients and clients who are experiencing poverty. Thomas Wilson, PhD, DrPH is an epidemiologist focused on real-world issues and board chair of the non-profit Population Health Impact Institute 

A Proud Republican Who Faced Off A Party Leader. . .and Won!

By MIKE MAGEE

This past week, Trump’s posting of himself as The Pope surfaced once again David French’s classic Christmas, 2024, New York Times column titled “Why Are So Many Christians So Cruel?”

As I wrote at the time, “French and his wife and three children have experienced the cruelty first hand since he openly expressed his opposition to Donald Trump during the 2016 Presidential campaign. That resulted in threats to his entire family by white supremacists who especially targeted his adopted Ethiopian daughter. Ultimately, he was “cancelled” by his own denomination, the small (approximately 400,000 members), Calvinist “Presbyterian Church of America”.

Over the past week, American politicians of every stripe have debated what exactly was Trump’s motive in debasing the Papacy as Pope Francis was being laid to rest. Three main theories have emerged. 

1.      As a malignant narcissist, Trump could not bear the fact that Pope Francis was stealing his limelight.

2.      Trump was appealing to conservative Christian Evangelicals who are strongly opposed to the Papacy on theological grounds.

3.      Trump was appealing to conservative Catholics like New York Post columnist Charles Gasparino who says, “… we respect Trump more than the socialist Pope.” 

Of course, there likely are elements of truth in each of these. But I prefer to fall back on my New York City high school training and believe that this is the product of a dull witted school yard bully who thought this was funny. 

This is not to say he has the courage to claim ownership. (Obviously this doesn’t get posted without his approval.) No. He lies to your face, saying:

“I had nothing to do with it, Somebody made up a picture of me dressed like the pope, and they put it out on the internet. That’s not me that did it, I have no idea where it came from — maybe it was A.I. But I have no idea where it came from.” 

With his blessing, the image was posted at 10:29 PM on May 02, 2025 on his Truth Social account.

Continue reading…

Medicaid Should be Abolished. But Not Like This!

By MATTHEW HOLT

A long time ago in a different country, there was a landslide election from a population looking for change. And change they got. Americans had been campaigning for national health care since 1917. There had been failures in 1933 and 1946 and 1961. But in 1965 they got it. Sort of.

But a weird thing happened in the Congress. Out of the political sausage making came a plan that “Cared” for those over 65. While another plan came out that “Aid”ed the poor. (Stole that from the wonderful Adimika Arthur). Weirder still, the Medicare program was and is a Federally-funded program. The Medicaid program was a state-administered program, even though it was at least half funded by the Feds. 

That meant that Medicaid was always vulnerable to the whims of states. Of course many states already had demonstrated dismal records in how they treated their poorer and minority populations in the past (think slavery, Jim Crow, KKK, separate schools, drinking fountains, buses…you get the idea).

So while Medicare became the savior program for anyone who made it to 65, and later for those who were disabled or had kidney disease, Medicaid was a program for poor people that then got treated poorly. (Stole that from Jonathan Cohn). And right now in 2025 it is under severe threat yet again.

Before we get to that threat, it’s worth looking at the program. Medicaid has evolved and now covers most nursing home care (for “poor” seniors), care for the disabled, and even pays Medicare Part B premiums for people too poor to pay their own.  It also covers health insurance for poor people under 65 and in those states that accepted ACA Medicaid expansion, that’s a considerable number. Of course these are people under an imaginary line that makes them too poor to buy on the exchanges set up by the ACA. And usually Medicaid includes the CHIP program, an insurance program that covers poor children set up under Clinton in 1997.

This chart from the venerable KFF shows that while 75% of people on Medicaid are, poor, under 65, and not classified as disabled, 50% of the money goes to those who are not.

This all results in a bizarro world in which there is one Federal government program for people over 65 and the disabled, and then an entirely different state-based one, which spends 1/2 of its money on people who are over 65 and disabled and who are also in the Federal program. This is plain stupid and always has been.

Of course there is more to it than that.

Continue reading…

Welcome to the (U.S. Science) Apocalypse

By KIM BELLARD

I’m starting to feel like I’m beating a dead horse, having already written a couple times recently about the Trump Administration’s attacks on science, but the hits just keep on coming. Last Friday, for example, not only did the Administration’s proposed 2026 budget slash National Science Foundation (NSF) funding by over 50%, but Nature reported that the NSF was ceasing not only making new grants but also paying out on existing grants.

Then this week, at an event called “Choose Europe for Science,” European leaders announced a 500 million euro ($566 million) program to attract scientists. It wasn’t specifically targeted at U.S. scientists, but the context was pretty clear.

Sudip Parikh, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, called the proposed budget cuts “a crisis, just a catastrophe for U.S. science.” Even if Congress doesn’t go along with such draconian cuts and grant approval resumes, Dr. Parikh warns: “That’s created this paralysis that I think is hurting us already.” 

One NSF staffer fears: “This country’s status as the global leader in science and innovation is seemingly hanging by a thread at this point.”

Nature obtained an internal NSF April 30 email that told staff members “stop awarding all funding actions until further notice.” Researchers can continue to spend money they’ve already received but new money for those existing or for new grants are frozen “until further notice.” Staff members had already been told to screen grant proposals for “topics or activities that may not be in alignment with agency priorities.”

NPR reports that some 344 previously approved grants were terminated as a result, as they “were not aligned with agency priorities.” One staffer told Nature that the policy had the potential for “Orwellian overreach,” and another warned: “They are butchering the gold standard merit review process that was established at NSF over decades.” Yet another staffer told Samantha Michaels of Mother Jones that the freeze is “a slow-moving apocalypse…In effect, every NSF grant right now is canceled.”

No wonder that NSF’s director, Sethuraman Panchanathan, resigned last week, simply saying: “I believe I have done all I can.” 

If you think, oh, who cares? We still have plenty of innovative private companies investing in research, so who needs the government to fund research, then you might want to consider this: new research from American University estimates that even a 25% drop in federal support for R&D would reduce the U.S. GDP by 3.8% in the long term. And these aren’t one-time hits. “It is going to be a decline forever,” said Ignacio González, one of the study’s authors. “The U.S. economy is going to be smaller.”  

If you don’t believe AU, then maybe you’ll believe the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, which estimates that government investments in research and development accounted for at least a fifth of U.S. productivity growth since World War II. “If you look at a long period of time, a lot of our increase in living standards seems to be coming from public investment in scientific research,” Andrew Fieldhouse, a Texas A&M economist and an author of the Dallas Fed study, told The New York Times. “The rates of return are just really high.”

It’s no wonder, then, that European leaders see an opportunity.

Continue reading…

Tom Knight, HealthcareDiversion.org

Tom Knight is the Chairman of HealthcareDiversion.org, a nonprofit that is trying to educate about the topic of drug theft from facilities. This happens both because medical professionals are addicts (and victims themselves) and also because of organized crime and resale. The consequences are awful, with patients receiving water instead of analgesic drugs, getting infections and often dying. And of course there’s a lot of liability and problems for those facilities when these issues are found out. What’s worse is that this problem is rampant. Tom has built a database to show just the tip of the iceberg of the problem. So come on a journey to a terrible health care problem you’ve never thought of that almost certainly affects you–Matthew Holt

Pope Francis Links to Scalia on Due Process: The Case Made by a Skadden Litigator

By MIKE MAGEE 

The Pope’s passing interrupted an epic battle between Trump and the rest of the civilized world over whether America remains a society “under the law.” Critical to the rule of law is the principle of “Due Process,” as described in not one, but two Amendments to our Constitution. 

The Fifth Amendment states that no inhabitant shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” 

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War and Emancipation, uses the same eleven words, called the “Due Process Clause,” to describe a legal obligation of all states. 

In arrogantly ignoring any pretense of “Due Process” last week by deporting accused (but not proven) alleged gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia to an El Salvador top security prison along with 220 others, and ignoring a court order to return the planes while still in flight, Trump basically thumbed his nose at America’s legal system. This was a bridge too far, even for some of his political supporters in Congress. 

With that case still in litigation, the Administration tried to repeat the publicity stunt with another group of accused aliens this past weekend and was slapped down by the Supreme Court in an unanimous decision. 

What Trump is learning the hard way is that without “Due Process” the law profession might as well hang up its shingle. Trump thought he had Chief Justice Roberts in his pocket when he purposefully allowed himself to be caught on a hot mic as he passed the Chief Justice on his way to deliver the 2025 State of the Union Address. His words for the camera, “Thank you again. Thank you again. Won’t forget it.”  were intended to signal to the world, He owes me big time, and I own him. 

A common “Due Process” thread connecting these two current events (the Pope’s death and the illegal deportation of Kilmar Albrego Garcia)  includes another Supreme Court Justice – Antonio Scalia. Catholic and trained by Jesuits, he shared a common lineage with Pope Francis, the first Jesuit ever to lead the Catholic Church. Other Justices also share this Jesuit educational parentage including Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch. 

But Francis and Antonin have a second historical connection. Pope Francis, the day before the 2025 State of the Union address, publicly labeled the immigration policies of the incoming President and Vice President, “a disgrace.” More recently, the Vatican spoke out in opposition to last weeks El Salvador imprisonments. Part of criticism tracks back to the lack of “Due Process.” 

Glaringly obvious today, this was just one arm of an aggressive Project 2025 campaign against America’s Legal Profession. By late March, multiple DC based law firms pledged allegiance to the Trump Administration to avoid being barred from entering Federal buildings to represent their clients. Some members of the targeted firms resisted. For example, Skadden associate, Rachel Cohen, resigned from her firm in protest, stating, “It does just all come around to, is this industry going to be silent when the president operates outside the balance of the law, or is it not?” 

Continue reading…