Congress passing the controversial One Big Beautiful Bill Act could leave millions without insurance and lead to at least 16,000 annual preventable deaths, according to research published in Annals of Internal Medicine…
Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a professor and founding head of the division of medical ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, told Healio that the authors’ “warnings about what will happen should the Big Beautiful Bill go through have to be taken very seriously.”
“I think the fallout in terms of impact on Medicaid populations … people losing coverage who would then lose access [to health care] is morally staggering and unacceptable,” he said. “We are taking some of the most vulnerable people in society … and cutting back what is often somewhat meager benefits to begin with…”
A brief recently published by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation also examined the potential impact of Medicaid cuts. Researchers revealed that, if the bill passes, national health care spending would drop by $797 billion over the next 10 years… They found that physicians would see an $81 billion cut, but hospitals would see the biggest decline in spending, at $321 billion.
Enactment of the House bill advanced in May would increase the number of uninsured persons by 7.6 million and the number of deaths by 16 642 annually, according to a mid-range estimate…These estimates may be conservative. They rely on CBO’s assumption that states would replace half of the federal funding shortfall…Medicaid cuts would likely also increase uncompensated care, stressing hospitals and safety-net clinics and causing spillover effects on other patients…
ACA boosted enrollment to more than 90 million. Today, despite its many shortcomings, Medicaid enjoys wide support from the electorate and serves as the foundation of the nation’s health care safety net. The cuts under consideration, intended to offset the cost of tax cuts that would predominantly benefit wealthier Americans, would strip care from millions and likely lead to thousands of medically preventable deaths.
My take: Yogi Berra is attributed with the saying, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” While this is true, it is highly likely that huge cuts in Medicaid funding will result in huge numbers who lose health insurance with subsequent increases in mortality and other adverse outcomes.
CP Duggan, ZA Bhutta. NEJM 2025; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2503243. “Putting America First” — Undermining Health for Populations at Home and Abroad
This article initially lays out the historical context of U.S. involvement in global health dating back to aiding famine in Belgium (1917), WHO (1948), USAID (1961). Also, the CDC and NIH have played important roles following WWII. Subsequently, the commentary outlines the impact of dismantling U.S global health efforts. In the two related articles cited afterwards, it is clear that the cuts to foreign aid and other DOGE activities may result in millions of deaths and at the same time expand the federal deficit.
An excerpt:
In the initial months of the Trump administration, numerous executive orders have led to a chaotic dismantling of U.S. foreign-assistance and global health efforts. These orders have already had, and will continue to have, severe adverse effects on vulnerable populations globally. But they also have serious implications for people in the United States…
Often missing from these success stories are the financial and health-related benefits these programs have had in the United States….One of the earliest and most fundamental examples of reciprocal innovation was the discovery and implementation of oral rehydration therapy (ORT)…Widespread use of ORT has helped drive substantial reductions in childhood deaths from diarrhea and has led to a new standard of care for childhood diarrhea in high-income countries and to commercial products in the United States…
Perhaps no program epitomizes these dual advantages better than the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Early in the HIV epidemic, the NIH promoted multinational scientific collaborations to identify the virus, develop effective treatments, and implement global prevention and treatment programs, which led to PEPFAR’s creation in 2003. PEPFAR has saved 26 million lives, and economic growth in countries with PEPFAR programs has benefited the United States and other trading partners…[and] have contributed enormously to current knowledge about HIV and AIDS.
Another essential initiative, the FIC — the NIH institute responsible for supporting research training and partnerships in global health — has …directly benefited health in the United States by advancing early cancer detection and the development of sickle cell disease therapies, point-of-care diagnostics for infectious diseases, and treatments for child malnutrition. More than three quarters of FIC grants involve a U.S. grantee or investigator, which further emphasizes the institute’s direct benefits to the U.S. economy…
Since U.S. foreign assistance accounts for about 1% of the federal budget, we are skeptical of cost-savings–based arguments for its elimination…
The Trump administration’s gutting of USAID and other foreign-assistance programs marks a break from decades of evidence-based practices that have improved lives throughout the world. In addition to pushing millions of people into poverty and leading to an estimated 160,000 or more avoidable child deaths each year,4 these reforms will undermine health and the economy in the United States…
Withdrawal from the WHO reduces the United States’ ability to influence reform and restructuring of the world’s global health coordinating body. The elimination of U.S. funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, also endangers the health of vulnerable populations internationally and in the United States…
Critical to the success of advocacy efforts will be evidence of the ways in which the withdrawal of foreign aid and global disengagement undermine health and economic well-being in the United States and threaten global health and economic security.
My take: By the time the extent of the damage is understood, it will be too late to fix what this administration has destroyed. The toll in terms of death and suffering both in the U.S. and abroad will be hard to justify and not further the aim of making ‘America First.’
Related articles:
D Wallace-Wells, NY Times 5/8/25: The $200 Billion Gamble: Bill Gates’s Plan to Wind Down His Foundation “He is committing the foundation to 20 more years of generous aid, more than $200 billion in total, targeting health and human development…The news comes at a time that will seem to many as a perilous one, given the Trump administration’s recent assault on foreign aid and indeed on the idea of global generosity itself….The journal Nature suggested that an overall cessation of U.S. aid funding could result in roughly 25 million additional deaths over 15 years.”
J Riedl, The Atlantic 5/8/25: The Actual Math Behind DOGE’s Cuts “As an effort to meaningfully reduce federal spending, however, DOGE remains wholly unserious…The DOGE website now claims $165 billion in savings. However, it still details only a fraction of the supposed cuts, and earlier accounting errors have given way to new ones…Even assuming that the website’s stated savings have become twice as accurate as they were in February, annual savings would reach perhaps $15 billion, or 0.2 percent of federal spending…Total federal outlays in February and March were $86 billion (or 7 percent) higher than the levels from the same months a year ago, when adjusted for timing shifts. This spending growth—approximately $500 billion at an annualized rate—continues to be driven by the three-quarters of federal spending allocated to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, veterans’ benefits, and interest costs. These massive expenses have been untouched by DOGE’s focus on small but controversial targets such as DEI contracts and Politico subscriptions…The bad news is that the project seems quite likely to expand long-term budget deficits. Slashing IRS enforcement will embolden tax evasion and reduce revenues by hundreds of billions of dollars over the decade. Laying off Department of Education employees who ensure collection of student-loan repayments will increase the deficit. Illegally terminated federal employees are already being reinstated with full back pay, leaving the government with little to show for its trouble besides mounting legal fees…None of this is to say that DOGE has failed. Musk might not have followed through on his unfocused and evolving promises to eliminate payment errors, balance the entire budget, and implement regulatory reform. But he has successfully given the White House cover to purge and intimidate the civil service, helped Congress justify exorbitant tax cuts, rewarded MAGA voters with revenge against their perceived enemies, and granted himself the ability to access sensitive government data and possibly ensure his companies’ continued government contracts. Sure, annual budget deficits remain on track to double over the next decade. But if you thought DOGE was really about cutting costs, you were never in on the joke.”
View of the Chattahoochee River from Don While Memorial Park, Sandy Springs, Ga
ECF Brown et al NEJM 2025; 392: 1148-51. Partnerships between Pharmaceutical and Telehealth Companies — Increasing Access or Driving Inappropriate Prescribing?
This recent commentary discusses the upsides and pitfall of online platforms launched by pharmaceutical companies that direct users to websites run by telehealth companies.
An excerpt:
Proponents highlight the potential for pharmaceutical–telehealth partnerships to facilitate access to prescriptions for some patients, such as those in rural areas…. Virtual consultations can be cheaper and less time-consuming for patients than in-person appointments. For stigmatized conditions such as obesity, patients may be more likely to seek care …
But partnerships between drug and telehealth companies have prompted concerns as well…about the risks these arrangements pose in terms of inappropriate prescribing, inadequate follow-up care, and unnecessary spending on brand-name medications.1 There is also concern that telehealth advertisements, including those on social media, may be misleading, since they sometimes lack disclosures of a product’s risks and contraindications.
The key law governing these relationships in the United States is the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). The AKS is intended to prevent and penalize the use of financial incentives for patient referrals or other arrangements that encourage clinicians to provide inappropriate or unnecessary health care, thereby increasing government expenditures…
Under the AKS, a pharmaceutical company cannot compensate a telehealth company or its affiliated clinicians on the basis of the number or monetary value of prescribed products. Nor may a telehealth company pay a pharmaceutical company for making patient referrals…
The OIG also noted several characteristics of telehealth arrangements that heighten the risk of an AKS violation. These characteristics include patient recruitment using targeted advertising (including on social media), insufficient patient evaluation or follow-up, and steering of patients toward specific treatments without adequate consideration of clinical appropriateness or alternatives…
More information about the nature of financial arrangements between pharmaceutical and telehealth companies should be reported. Such reporting could be mandated as part of an expansion of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act.
My take: There needs to be closer scrutiny of the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and affiliated telehealth companies. While the online telehealth partnershps improve access, the current set up is likely to promote inappropriate care.
This article is a terrific review of care cost drivers in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) but it does not actually have useful information on how to make the costs of care sustainable.
Key points:
The most recent data from the United States (U.S.) estimated that the prevalence of IBD was 0.7% of the population, representing 2.39 million individuals living with IBD…the annual cost of IBD in the U.S. approximates $50 billion
All studies demonstrated a shift over time from costs associated with hospitalizations to costs of medications
The costs of prescription drugs for IBD vary significantly worldwide… A particular outlier among high-income countries is the U.S., where manufacturers set prices freely. The lack of nationwide price regulation, coupled with the fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and prolonged market exclusivity periods, result in U.S. drug prices that exceed, on average, international prices by several-fold…Even when insurers are successful at negotiating discounts, patients seldom benefit, as costsharing paid at the point-of-sale is based on the full, non-discounted price
Using a “top-down” clinical paradigm, guidelines suggest starting biologic medications early to induce remission of moderate-to-severe IBD, thereby reducing risk of complications, surgeries, and hospitalizations and improving quality of life.55,58 A randomized controlled trial demonstrated a clear benefit in steroid-free and surgery-free remission among patients randomized to top-down vs step-up care (79% vs 15%; P < .0001) [PROFILE study]
In terms of improving cost sustainability, here is what the authors propose “Strategies for cost reduction in the clinical treatment of IBD”:
My take: This article highlights the cost drivers in IBD but does not identify a path that appears to help address affordability.
This article is one of 11 articles in special issue discussing the future of IBD care.
This newsletter explains why Walgreens is collapsing. My concern is that even a company as big as Walgreens had hardly any control over the declining reimbursements for their pharmaceutical sales. They had to accept the reimbursement due to a lack of leverage related to the consolidation of insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Without intervention to reverse the ongoing consolidation of these companies (as well as hospitals), patients will face fewer choices and higher costs. Physician groups will face existential business threats.
Here’s an excerpt from the newsletter:
Walgreens is America’s second-largest drug store chain, and has been a public company for more than 100 years… it has closed a thousand stores since 2018, and plans to shut 1,200 more this year…
The real reason Walgreens, and the pharmacy business in general, is dying, is because of a failure to enforce antitrust laws against unfair business methods and illegal mergers…Moreover, even today, the other financial numbers from Walgreens aren’t bad. Sales aren’t going gangbusters, but the number is basically increasing, and so are the number of 30-day prescriptions, even though they’ve cut the number of stores every year since 2017…
But in its main line of business – pharmaceuticals – Walgreens doesn’t set prices. Insurance companies do. And there’s the rub…Walgreens gets a set reimbursement from that consumer’s insurance company for that medication. How much does it get? Well, those insurance company’s contract with what’s called pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to manage negotiations with pharmacies…
Theoretically, both sides have some leverage in this negotiation. If a pharmacy chooses not to accept the prices and terms offered by those PBMs, then consumers who have an insurance company that uses that PBM just won’t go there…Pricing wasn’t a big problem for Walgreens when there were lots of PBMs, because it had the ability to say no if the deal was unreasonable, and still maintain a flow of customers…Today, there are really only three PBMs – Express Scripts, Caremark and OptumRx – serving 80% of customers…
In 2015, the big three, with their market power, began lowering reimbursement rates on pharmacies and charging a host of new fees…
PBMs, however, are engaged in a sort of industry-specific arson. And we can see this dynamic by looking at independent pharmacies writ large, nearly one in three of whom have closed in the last ten years. Today, 46% of U.S. counties now have pharmacy deserts, meaning no pharmacies at all…
326 pharmacies have closed since December of 2024.Why is that month significant? Well, that’s the month Elon Musk tanked legislation to address some of the monopolistic squeezing that PBMs are putting on pharmacies and consumers.
Related explanation of PBMs (Dr.Glaucomflecken): The Middlemen of Healthcare (includes useful organizational flowchart)
PA Ubel et al. NEJM 2025; 392: 729-731. Out of Pocket Getting Out of Hand — Reducing the Financial Toxicity of Rapidly Approved Drugs
Key points:
In 2023, the median list price of new drugs was $300,000 per year. The FDA does not consider drug cost as part of its approval process.
Many new drugs have uncertain benefits despite FDA approval. “Since the FDA is authorized to approve drug labeling, it could consistently require that labeling indicate when a drug’s approval was based on results from uncontrolled trials or from trials with surrogate measures…might reduce the chances that patients, seeing that a drug has FDA approval, will mistakenly assume that it has been proven to provide substantial benefits..[however] . In the face of serious illness, people frequently prefer action to inaction, even when they would ultimately be harmed by taking action.”
Optimally, “congress would need to pass legislation giving the agency authority to consider financial harms when making decisions about drugs with unclear benefits, and the FDA would need to gain expertise in evaluating the budgetary implications of new drugs.”
My take: The financial burdens of newer medications leave patients unable to afford other necessary medical and non-medical expenses. This is especially problematic when a new medication offers minimal benefit.
E Park. NEJM 2025; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2501855. Medicaid on the Chopping Block
An excerpt:
A top priority for Congress and President Donald Trump is extending and expanding tax cuts expiring at the end of 2025…Republican leaders in the House intend to make at least $880 billion in Medicaid cuts over 10 years to offset some of the tax cuts’ $4.5 trillion cost…
Medicaid, however, is more essential than it has ever been. It provides affordable, comprehensive health coverage to more than 72 million low-income Americans1…Medicaid covers about 40% of all children and births in the United States. It covers more than one third of people with disabilities and 44% of children with special health care needs…
Medicaid is especially vital for rural communities. Residents of small towns and rural areas disproportionately rely on Medicaid…
Under many of these proposals, states would face drastic reductions in federal Medicaid funding….states would have to choose among three painful options. They could dramatically raise income and sales taxes. They could deeply cut other parts of their budgets, such as budgets for K–12 education and higher education, which account for about 43% of states’ own spending. Or — the option most states would have to choose — they could slash their Medicaid programs by substantially narrowing Medicaid eligibility, restricting benefits, making it harder for eligible people to enroll in and renew coverage, and making sharp cuts to already low reimbursement rates for hospitals, physicians, and nursing homes.
As a result, many low-income children, parents, people with disabilities, older adults, and others would be at risk for becoming uninsured and forgoing needed care…As opposition becomes increasingly public, widespread, and vocal, congressional Republican leaders could ultimately view severe Medicaid cuts as too politically difficult and decide they need to drop them from budget reconciliation.
My take: This article elaborates on all the ways that Congress could curtail Medicaid spending. Ultimately, all of them will leave the states with additional costs if they are to maintain current coverage levels. Even with the proposed cuts to Medicaid, the tax cut plan is projected to add two trillion dollars each year during this administration.
Related article: 3/2/25 Patricia Murphy, AJC: Medicaid cuts from Washington would gut this Georgia pediatrician’s practice (behind paywall) “A South Atlanta pediatrician [Dr. Dorsey Norwood] says 85% of her patients are covered by government health care program…For at least one Georgia pediatrician, cutting Medicaid benefits for her young patients would leave a wound in her practice that even she couldn’t heal.”
In this sample of 113 pediatric patients with IBD, 77% of initial denials for biologic therapy were ultimately approved.
The median time to receiving medication was 18 days, with administrative time (prior authorization and appeal) requiring a median of 180 min.
More than half (60%) of patients experienced adverse outcomes or worsened quality of life due to delays in treatment.
My take (borrowed in part from authors): “Barriers to treatment by payors, of which 77% are ultimately approved, result in substantive treatment delay, patient harm, and hospitalization.” While 18 days (or more) may not seem like a lot, it is when you know the right therapy at the outset and delays lead to suffering and worsened outcomes. In addition, the insurance companies and PBMs (pharmacy benefit managers) know that exhausting valuable physician/office staff time is a disincentive. It makes physicians determine whether it is worth the fight.
For those of you with an interest in improving our healthcare system, I highly recommend either Eric Topol’s Ground Truths Podcast with Mark Cuban or the transcription of their discussion. Both can be found here: Mark Cuban: A Master Disrupter for American Healthcare
Mark Cuban describes the expansion of his generic pharmacy business Cost Plus Drugs. But the main focus is on other aspects of healthcare like pharmacy benefits managers, insurance companies and improving patient access.
“So a big part of my time these days is going to CEOs and sitting with them and explaining to them that you’re getting ripped off on both your pharmacy and your healthcare side….”
“Because when you see stories like we’ve all seen in news of a big healthcare, a BUCA healthcare (Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), UnitedHealth, Cigna, and Aetna/CVS) plan with all the pre-authorizations and denials, typically they’re not even taking the insurance risk. They’re acting as the TPA (third party administrator) as the claims processor effectively for whoever hired them. And it goes back again, just like I talked about before. And as long as CMS hires or allows or accepts these BUCAs with these plans for Medicare for the ACA (Affordable care Act), whatever it may be, it’s not going to work. As long as self-insured employers and the 50 million lives they cover hire these BUCAs to act as the TPAs, not as insurance companies and give them leeway on what to approve and what to authorize and what not to authorize. The system’s going to be a mess, and that’s where we are today.”
In response to a post by Elon Musk that Americans are not getting a good deal with their healthcare expenditures, Mark Cuban posted the following:
“Because we’re cutting out all those ancillary costs and credit risk, I want Medicare pricing. Now the initial response is, well, Medicare prices, that’s awful. We can’t do it. Well, when you really think about the cost and operating costs of a hospital, it’s not the doctors, it’s not the facilities, it’s all the administration that cost all the money. It’s all the credit risks that cost all the money. And so, if you remove that credit risk and all the administration, all those people, all that real estate, all those benefits and overhead associated with them, now all of a sudden selling at a Medicare price for that hip replacement is really profitable.”
He also describes how his employees pay premiums but no additional costs and how to get to universal health coverage. “Why do we need insurance companies if they’re not even truly acting as insurance companies?“
“After receiving intense backlash, a health insurance provider has rolled back its plan to implement a new policy that would have limited its coverage for anesthesia used during procedures…According to a description of the policy on Anthem’s website, billing guidelines would change in some states beginning in February 2025 to cap the amount of anesthesia care the company would cover based on time limits pre-set by the insurer…This would mean that if a patient’s procedure ran long, the insurer would not pay for the care.”
“The proposition concerned not only members of the public, who began making tongue-in-cheek comments online about being woken up mid-surgery to swipe a credit card, but professional organizations, doctors and lawmakers alike.‘
[The goal was] “implementing practices to “safeguard” its insured against “potential anesthesia provider overbilling”…“This is just the latest in a long line of appalling behavior by commercial health insurers looking to drive their profits up at the expense of patients and physicians providing essential care,” said ASA president Donald E. Arnold”
My take: The surprising part about this story is that the policy was reversed before implementation. Insurance companies are adept at implementing cost-saving policies that do not consider the health consequences.
gutsandgrowth 