Healthcare Brew covers pharmaceutical developments, health startups, the latest tech, and how it impacts hospitals and providers to keep administrators and providers informed.

Healthcare Brew

A pink piggy bank with a black umbrella standing out of the top of it sitting on a small desk with a grey background

Health Insurance

illustrated headshot of caroline catherman, healthcare brew reporter

Caroline Catherman

Healthcare Brew delivers the latest news and trends in healthcare.

healthcare-brew.com

As people across the country consider their 2026 health insurance options, there’s a massive elephant in the room: Some aren’t thrilled with the industry right now.

, global research and advisory firm Forrester found only 54% of 12,036 insurance customers describe health insurers as trustworthy.

 of consumers were satisfied with their coverage, that is the past.

Forrester found waning trust may impact business. Survey results included in the report show that of 7,512 customers, those with less trust in their insurer were 10.3x more likely to switch insurers compared to high-trust customers, up from 2.4x more likely in 2024.

“As consumer choices expand, including not buying health insurance, the risk of churn becomes more pronounced,” Forrester Principal Analyst Arielle Trzcinski told Healthcare Brew.

Over the last few years, allegations of health insurers’ wrongdoings have come to the forefront, Katherine Hempstead, senior policy advisor for nonprofit the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, told us.

 that found UnitedHealthcare had pressured clinicians to follow algorithms that cut off certain patient care. 

“That kind of reporting has left a really bad taste in peoples’ mouths and confirmed a lot of suspicions,” Hempstead said. “[Insurers] have to do a lot of work to undo that damage.”

Since then, many health insurers have talked the talk in an effort to bridge the divide. In June, UnitedHealth and other major health insurers 

, which 93% of physicians say delays patient care, according to a 2024 American Medical Association survey.

, however, found 6 in 10 adults feel it’s “not too likely” or “not at all likely” health insurance companies will follow through.

Trzcinski said she’s talked to some insurers who are walking the walk, too.

Other survey results in the report show that, of 562 adults, only 53% felt they understood claim decisions. Trzcinski said Forrester client 

 is an example of a company “overhauling” the explanation of benefits to include more straightforward language.

Trzcinski also pointed to Blue Shield of California, which has committed to answering “at least 80% of prior authorization requests in near real time” in 2027. Prior authorization “typically” takes 24 to 72 hours, according to a page on the insurer’s website last updated in October. (Specific data on this is not required to be published and thus hard to track.)

“Health insurers must put in the hard work to repair trust and their brand image. Rebuilding trust and improving brand experience is much more than just a marketing campaign or a messaging problem,” Trzcinski said.

Illustration of a business man getting rained on by downward arrows.

Trust in health insurers ‘nearing the point of no return,’ survey finds

You can’t trust anyone these days, apparently.

Cassie McGrath

It was May 2011 when then-Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin signed a “universal and unified health system” act into law and the state began developing plans for broad public health coverage.

—to accomplish what had previously been impossible: establish a single-payer health system in the US.

Single-payer systems are a type of universal healthcare that work by having one entity—in this case, the Vermont government—pay for residents’ healthcare through taxes and other public funding. These plans can eliminate the need for private health plans, with countries like Canada, England, Germany, Singapore, Sweden, and Taiwan already offering this kind of insurance.

The hope is if one big group is negotiating costs, then spending would generally come down, as that negotiator would have more power and it would require less administrative work for providers.

Now, Oregon is looking to become the first successful state to implement universal healthcare.

To understand what’s going on in the Beaver State, we must first go back to 2019 when it established a task force for universal healthcare.

In 2022, that task force released a report with early insights into how universal healthcare could work in the state, projecting it would cost an estimated $980 million less in 2026 than the existing healthcare system.

The next year, at the recommendation of the task force, the state legislature created a follow-up Universal Health Plan Governance Board (UHPGB) to make a “comprehensive plan to finance and administer” universal healthcare in the state.

The board has until September 2026 to present that plan.

 are already on a health plan of some kind, according to the Oregon Health Authority, but UHPGB Executive Director Miriam McDonell said many people are underinsured, meaning they have some coverage but don’t use their health plan because care is still too expensive.

This aligns with national trends, too: Nonprofit the 

 about 1 in 4 US adults have health insurance but are considered underinsured.

So while most people in Oregon have some kind of coverage, McDonell said it doesn’t accurately demonstrate “the affordability of healthcare” or “the stress that it’s putting on families.”

The goal is to establish “unified financing,” McDonell said, meaning pulling together state, county, and federal funding to remove the need for private health plans (with some exceptions, like for beneficiaries receiving insurance through the Department of Veterans Affairs).

McDonell said the hope is for the publicly funded plan to be “desirable and less expensive” so Oregon-based employers wouldn’t need to have their own offerings anymore.

UHPGB is looking to understand how much the plan would cost, working with consulting group Milliman to conduct a review of healthcare spending data from 2023, McDonell said. This differs from Vermont, where the payment plan was to be determined after the law passed.

 are also looking to establish universal health plans, and 

 to make sure they build out the best options, though an established system is not yet in place in either state.

Taking many years to build out the plan is intentional, McDonell said, as there are a lot of different moving pieces and UHPGB wants to make sure to get it right.

“We’re in it for the long term,” McDonnell said.

 Vermont’s plan was doomed from the start, as the law never spelled out exactly how the single-payer plan would be paid for. By 2014, the program was nixed before anyone got coverage.

These days, Vermont is still facing high insurance costs, ranking 

 for how much residents spend, according to a study from personal finance company WalletHub. Nearly 20% of a household’s median monthly income (roughly $1,275 on average for silver-level plan premiums) is spent on health insurance.

But current Vermont state Rep. Brian Cina told us he isn’t giving up on universal healthcare.

For now, he said the state is focused on trying to cut costs as much as possible, including through the independent Green Mountain Board, which was established back in 2011 alongside the single-payer care act to keep healthcare spending down.

Cina said now that there’s an effort to “control costs” for healthcare, he hopes it will put the state in a position to afford single-payer insurance and “provide more of a universal program” in the future.

The Oregon state board has until next September to present its official plan.

Nearly 15 years ago, Vermont failed to pass universal healthcare. Now Oregon is looking to do it successfully 

The Oregon state board has until next September to present its official plan. 

Maia Anderson

Ever wonder what entices an executive to jump ship and join a new health system? For Amy Perry, Banner Health’s insurance arm caught her eye.

Perry joined the Arizona-based nonprofit health system as president and COO in November 2021 and took the reins as president and CEO in July 2024. Before joining Banner, she was SVP of integrated care delivery and CEO of New Jersey-based Atlantic Health’s hospital division for four years.

Banner is Arizona’s largest health system and consists of 33 hospitals that handle roughly 6.4 million clinic visits per year and have more than 55,000 employees. The system brought in $15.6 billion in revenue in 2024.

Perry told Healthcare Brew the fact that Banner has its own health plan with about 1.2 million members was a big part of the reason she took the job, as she sees provider-sponsored health plans, or PSHPs, as a “really important approach to healthcare.”

PSHPs are health insurance companies that are owned, either partially or fully, by a health system, hospital, or other provider group. The largest example is the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, which has more than 12.6 million members and is run by Kaiser Permanente, a California-based health system.

As of 2022, 197 health systems in the US (or 31%) have PSHPs, according to healthcare analytics firm Trilliant Health.

PSHPs help health systems move away from a 

Healthcare’s reliance on sick people to generate revenue is a primary reason costs keep rising, according to Perry.

“When we are able, as health systems, to get premium revenue, we can actually save money when people stay well. It’s almost a completely shifted paradigm,” she said.

About 74% of Banner’s revenue came from the fee-for-service side of the health system and about one-quarter (or about $4 billion) came from premiums in 2024, Perry said.

“I’m just a fervent believer that we’ve got to find a way to migrate, as health systems, toward more of this at-risk, premium-based care,” she said.

However, it’s not easy to be both insurer and provider, according to Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy officer at healthcare research organization Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

That’s because providers are typically incentivized to do more higher-cost procedures while payers try to keep costs down.

“When you’re trying to do both jobs, it can create a conflict,” Hempstead said.

Some large hospitals, including Northwell Health, the largest health system in New York, have 

 to create PSHPs. Northwell blamed high risk adjustment payments for why it shuttered its PSHP, CareConnect Insurance Company, in 2017, Fierce Healthcare reported. 

Perry acknowledged how hard it is to run both a health system and an insurer, saying “it’s very difficult to live in both worlds.”

However, despite the challenges, there are also upsides, she added, such as premium revenue that allows the health system to invest in chronic disease management and other things “you wouldn’t even consider on the fee-for-service side because there’s simply not enough funding.”

But premium revenue hasn’t shielded Banner from broader industry headwinds like Medicaid funding cuts and 

President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law on July 4, is set to 

 by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Perry said Banner is bracing for a reality in which some services may have to be cut.

“We have a significant commitment to Medicaid patients and the service lines, but at the same time, there’s only so much we can do if we are scaled back,” Perry said. “Access will be affected, not only in clinics but in emergency rooms.”

To prepare for the cuts, which will take effect 

 over the coming years, Banner is “battening down the hatches like most health systems and trying to reduce our expenses as much as possible,” she said.

Tariffs on products like aluminum and steel already cost Banner roughly $23 million as of September, according to Banner’s SVP of Finance Adrienne Moore, and the health system expects that figure to be less than $35 million by the end of 2025.

In addition to navigating Medicaid cuts and tariffs, one of Perry’s top goals as CEO involves a $1 billion investment in technology the health system plans to pay over the course of five years, she said.

As part of that initiative, Banner created its own ChatGPT-like program called BannerWise via a 

 with AI company Anthropic to analyze data from things like physician notes and pathology results, Modern Healthcare reported earlier this month. Perry told Healthcare Brew this will help providers use the health system’s data “in a more strategic and analytical way.”

Beyond investing in technology, Perry said she’s very focused on connecting with the communities the health system serves in the near term.

“If we’re able to do that and we do it successfully over the next five years, I’m going to be one happy CEO,” Perry said. 

A woman, Amy Perry, Banner Health CEO, cutout and contained in an abstract shape while breaking the frame.

Banner Health CEO Amy Perry on running a health system with an insurance business

From health insurance to Medicaid cuts, Perry dishes on her first year leading Banner Health.  

Banner Health CEO on running a health system with an insurance business

In the world of prior authorization reforms, an insurance “gold card” may sound like a golden ticket. But some providers say the shine wears off fast.

, offered by UnitedHealthcare and states like Arkansas and Texas, allows providers with a track record of approved prior authorizations to bypass some of the process’s hurdles. And there are a 

 of hurdles. Prior authorizations take up an average of 13 hours of a physician’s week, according to a 2024 American Medical Association (AMA) 

A Sept. 4 press release from United claims a 40% increase in the number of provider groups qualifying this year compared to the year before, though United didn’t provide Healthcare Brew with the actual number.

But despite the program’s growth, gold cards don’t seem to be making a huge impact. Only 3% of providers in Texas qualified for the state’s gold card in December 2024, according to the Texas Department of Insurance. And an AMA survey published in August 2024 found just 8% of 1,000 physicians contracted with health plans that offered programs like gold cards.

“It’s a simple, elegant concept,” Kavita Nair, professor of neurology and pharmacy at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, told Healthcare Brew. “Lots of the appeal gets lost in the actual operationalization.”

UnitedHealthcare’s program requires provider groups to have been in network for the last two consecutive years and have done at least 10 eligible prior authorizations annually with an approval rate of 92% for both years to get gold card status for a medical code.

Those who qualify submit an advance notification for a procedure through the same online portal, phone system, or fax process they would otherwise use to submit a prior authorization request. Unlike prior authorization, it doesn’t require clinical information. They then receive notification that no additional information is needed, according to a United FAQ page.

United said in its press release that 94% of the “most active gold card users” it surveyed said they’re satisfied overall and the program has reduced administrative tasks. United did not provide the number surveyed.

But to Nair, it feels like a “bait and switch” that gold card providers still have to submit a request through a portal before doing a procedure. 

“You’re still making folks go through hoops. You’re just saying ‘We’re not asking for additional clinical documentation,’” Nair said. “I guess we’ll take any steps that we don’t have to do, but it’s not creating the kind of meaningful impact that it could create.”

It’s also hard for independent groups to measure the exact impact these prior authorization reforms have, Kaye Pestaina, director of patient and consumer protection for the nonpartisan health policy research organization KFF, told us.

“We always have a barrier in terms of getting access to prior authorization data for commercial insurance,” Pestaina said.

Caduceus, Healthcare medical symbol on gold card.

As health insurance gold card programs grow, criticism persists

It’s a golden ticket…with fine print.

As gold card programs grow, criticism persists

About 1.3 million people could lose health insurance in 2026 due to marketplace and Medicaid changes in the 

, the independent Congressional Budget Office estimated Aug. 11.

 ways of paying for healthcare will have 1.3+ million more potential customers amid a “perfect storm” of insurance coverage losses, Sabrina Corlette, founder and director of the Georgetown University Center on Health Insurance Reforms, told us.

 protections, allowing them to charge some customers less in exchange for covering less.

Though some analysts argue these plans offer a good alternative to people who might otherwise go uninsured, the American Hospital Association says their growth could increase the billions of dollars per year hospitals and health systems spend on uncompensated care if these plans stick patients with medical bills they can’t pay.

“We’re going to see a lot more people experiencing medical debt, and the [healthcare] system is not going to be able to absorb all of that,” Molly Smith, group VP of public policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA), told us.

If a patient’s non-ACA plan can’t cover their expenses and they can’t pay, it “erodes the relationship” between patients and hospitals, Ariel Levin, AHA’s director for coverage policy, told us.

(Patients’ trust in hospitals is already low, down to 40% in January 2024, according to a July 2024 JAMA Network Open 

Not to mention, hospitals sometimes waste time and resources going through the traditional billing process for these plans, which often fails, Levin said.

 in the journal Health Affairs Scholar, administrative expenses for 5,639 hospitals were $166 billion, or 17% of total expenses.

“This is obviously a huge problem for hospitals,” Levin added.

In theory, if a patient knows what they’re getting into with these plans and is able to foot the medical bill themselves in the case of an emergency expense, hospitals still get paid. But 8 out of 31 sales representatives for these plans engaged in “potentially deceptive” marketing, like claiming a preexisting condition was covered when it wasn’t, in a 2020 secret shopper 

 from independent watchdog the Government Accountability Office.

Deceptive marketing can lead members to think they have full insurance coverage, then get shocked by hefty bills for 

, both of which ACA-compliant plans are required to cover.

And that marketing seems to be ramping up again.

“Purveyors of these products and arrangements will take advantage of shifts in public policy or periods of consumer confusion to market their products, often deceptively, to try to drive people to buy more,” Corlette said.

Insurance alternatives like healthcare sharing ministries—arrangements defined as nonprofits, not insurance, where members with shared religious beliefs pay a fee each month to cover each others’ medical bills—are using policy changes as a marketing hook to make their case to customers.

“With new ACA restrictions taking effect, many Americans are reevaluating their healthcare options. HCSMs offer a values-based, cost-sharing alternative,” a July 9 

 from self-described healthcare sharing ministry NetWell reads.

On Aug. 15, neither the release nor the main page of NetWell’s website disclosed that this arrangement isn’t insurance, though a small link at the bottom of the site led to disclaimers. After Healthcare Brew reached out for comment, the organization added a line to its main page saying it “is not an insurance company but a religious healthcare sharing ministry.”

A nondenominational crowdfunding company, 

, made a case for the benefit of its plans in a July 21 

 where it argues its ACA-exempt arrangement “shines for healthy families or individuals losing ACA subsidies.” CrowdHealth’s post specifies in the third paragraph that it isn’t insurance.

Netwell and CrowdHealth didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Promotional efforts will likely ramp up more when the ACA marketplace open enrollment period begins Nov. 1 and people see their 

If enough people are swayed away from the marketplace, 

 say the growth of arrangements like short-term, limited-duration plans could alter the risk pool and drive up premiums, which are already expected to 

Close up of a healthcare cross in a transparent box with "low cost" and "buy now!" stickers.

Insurance alternatives ramp up advertising ahead of ACA changes

With millions potentially set to lose coverage in 2026, it may just be their time to shine. 

 to rise 9% in 2026, it seems employers and patients alike can’t expect a slowdown in spending anytime soon.

 have been proposed to establish price transparency about healthcare costs, so patients can know what they’re expected to pay up front.

Now, Trillium Health is giving a look into the numbers.

The healthcare analytics company published last month a 

 (2,659 hospitals and 3,491 ambulatory surgery centers across the nation) that provides some insight into these rising costs.

The report used data provided through the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) 

, a 2020 regulation that requires health plans to share out-of-pocket cost information and negotiated rates. The idea was to give patients information about how much they’re expected to pay before care is delivered.

But when payers started reporting this information in July 2022, the data was hard to sort through due to the “complexity and extremely large” files, 

, which monitors health spending, reported in February. Trillium Health sorted through the data, and ultimately found great variation in what hospitals, payers, and patients spend on the same care.

While patients who are publicly insured pay rates set by CMS, commercially insured patients’ rates are individually negotiated between insurance companies and providers. As a result, patients with different health plans get billed different amounts for the same procedure.

For example, the report looked at negotiated rates for six inpatient treatments like coronary bypass, bowel movement procedures, and hip, knee, and ankle surgeries. Among 101 hospitals in Pennsylvania, UnitedHealthcare’s negotiated rates for a bowel procedure involving a complication or comorbidity could cost anywhere from $18,066 to $87,457.

There was even price variation within some hospitals, the report found. At Tufts Medical Center in Boston, the negotiated rates for a coronary bypass involving major complications or comorbidities were $95,989 with Aetna and $144,204 with United, according to the report.

The report also found care largely costs less at ambulatory surgery centers compared to outpatient hospital departments (e.g., $1,179 compared to $3,633, respectively, for a colonoscopy). This difference in price presents an annual $4.5 billion in “potential savings” for colonoscopies at ambulatory centers, according to the researchers.

Here are a few other things worth noting:

US health spending in 2023 was $4.9 trillion, or $14,570 per person.

Spend in the US is 139% higher than Switzerland, which has the next-highest spend per person.

The report found “no observable correlation” between cost and quality of care at 10 providers featured on three 

Large scale pill with a price tag attached lays on top of the US map. (Credit: Anna Kim)

Report: Healthcare costs could vary greatly depending on the health plan

Trillium Health pored over CMS data and found great variation in what patients pay for care, depending on their insurer. 

Another day, another example of CVS not beating the vertical integration 

Last month, Aetna enacted a new policy for its commercial medical plans mandating drugs be supplied by third-party specialty pharmacies under CVS, the health plan’s parent company, and shipped directly to suppliers. Previously, these facilities have purchased drugs for patients independently and billed for them under a health plan’s medical benefit.

The policy, effective as of July 1, is a sign of vertical integration and puts infusion centers in a difficult financial position that could eventually lead to their closure, experts told Healthcare Brew.

Now, five drugs treating conditions like multiple sclerosis, uncontrolled asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis for Aetna patients are covered under a pharmacy benefit, meaning they will be delivered from a CVS specialty pharmacy.

An easy way to understand the challenges for infusion centers is comparing it to if customers brought their own steak to a restaurant and asked a chef to cook it, Robert Gelfand, founder and president of New York treatment facility American Infusion Centers, told us.

“Part of the business model we operate on is being able to buy the medication and bill for it,” Joshua Katz, director of Massachusetts-based medical clinic the Elliot Lewis Center, said. “If the specialty pharmacy buys the drug and bills for it, that eliminates that source of revenue for us. It’s hard to be profitable.”

Gelfand said his center runs on “relatively modest profits” and policies where a company yields higher returns on a few drugs (which can turn into more and more over time) like this are “insidious.”

 found clinics could lose out on nearly $2,000 per month if their drugs are delivered via an insurance company (aka “bagging”) rather than when they directly purchase the drugs. The study showed on average a $300+ per month rise in out-of-pocket payments for patients under the bagging method as well.

Right now, CVS is in the spotlight, but Gelfand is worried this kind of policy could spread to other drugs or payers. If it does, his business may no longer be able to sustain itself, he said, and may even be at risk of closure.

He may need to stop taking Aetna patients due to these financial challenges, Gelfand added.

Working with specialty pharmacies is also a “big administrative burden” on infusion centers, Katz said, as it requires phone calls, benefits verification, and shipment coordination. Without specialty pharmacies, the infusion centers can simply order drugs on their own.

If there’s a problem with drug temperatures or a drug is contaminated during shipment, or if a delivery is sent to the wrong address, the infusion center isn’t allowed to substitute a medication with another drug they have on hand, Elliott Warren, executive director of advocacy group Infusion Providers Alliance, said.

Considering that many patients at infusion centers have serious illnesses, Warren said he’s worried quality of care will suffer.

“It’s another example of a big payer and insurance company standing between a physician and their patient, all for, frankly, their own self-interest,” he said.

The Infusion Providers Alliance was informed about the policy before it went into effect and 

 on June 12 to Aetna outlining the group’s concerns, highlighting potential patient care, cost, legal, and supply chain issues.

When asked about the reasons behind the new rule, CVS spokesperson Phil Blando told us in an emailed statement the policy will allow the pharmacy chain “to better control the cost of the drugs and keep premiums more affordable, while still providing members with safe, convenient access” to certain drugs.

In recent years, CVS, UnitedHealth, and Cigna have 

 the healthcare industry. Essentially, these top three companies, which control 80% of the prescription medicine market, can set the cost of drugs while also operating the pharmacies that dispense them.

The infusion center leaders said this new Aetna policy is another practice in which CVS is pushing business into its own specialty pharmacy arm through beneficiaries covered under its health plan.

“It’s a theoretical death knell for infusion centers,” Glefand said.