Prescription drug denials by private insurers in the United States jumped 25 percent from 2016 to 2023, according to a new analysis of more than four billion claims… compiled for The New York Times by the medical data company Komodo Health, shows that denial rates rose from 18.3 percent to 22.9 percent….
Experts who have studied denials said the skyrocketing costs of popular new weight loss medications and greater automation of the claims process with artificial intelligence may have contributed to the rising rejection rates…
Prior authorization was responsible for about 10 percent of denied claims in the Komodo data. The analysis found that the most common reason for a drug claim to be rejected was that a refill had been requested “too soon,” before the patient was eligible for more medication…
Pricey new GLP-1 weight loss drugs like Ozempic, and other blockbuster medications, may have led insurers to increase restrictions on other drugs as they grappled with ways to offset those growing costs.
My take: Insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit managers are increasing their denials of medications. Presumably, much of this increase is driven by the pursuit of higher profits rather than the pursuit of better patient outcomes.
PMG Santos et al. NEJM 2025; 393: 105-107. Who Will Care for America? Immigration Policy and the Coming Health Workforce Crisis
This article outlines the role of undocumented immigrants in our health care system with a focus on home health aides. Given the increase in the numbers of Americans older than 65 yrs, 56 million in 2020 and projected to be 80 million in 2030, current immigration policies will worsen the severe health care worker shortages.
An excerpt:
Immigrants are a vital part of the U.S. health care system: at least one in five U.S. health care workers is foreign-born, including 29% of physicians, 17% of nurses, and 24% of direct care workers…Data suggest that most (if not all) foreign-born physicians and nurses are naturalized U.S. citizens or lawfully permanent residents. In contrast, of the 37% of foreign-born direct care workers who are noncitizens, nearly half may be undocumented.4 This divergence is at least partly attributable to policies that streamline pathways to legal permanent residency or citizenship for some but not all immigrants…
As federal policies threaten to further destabilize the direct care workforce, nonimmigrants are unlikely to fill the resulting void. Direct care workers assist with household chores as well as bathing, dressing, and toileting — thereby enabling frail, older adults and those with disabilities to live safely at home….The physically demanding nature of direct care work, combined with low pay and high susceptibility to exploitation, makes these roles unattractive to U.S.-born and highly skilled foreign-born workers…
This is not the first time that immigrants have helped fill critical health care roles that were unattractive to U.S.-born workers…the Exchange Visitor Program in 1948, allowing Filipino nurses to obtain temporary work visas. Later, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 allowed Filipino nurses to stay in the United States permanently…
Federal officials could effectuate immigration reform in a way that secures our borders while addressing labor shortages. Instead, current policies threaten to further shrink this essential workforce, maligning and driving out hard-working immigrants at the expense of an aging America…compromising care for older adults and the health care system at large…
The recent deportation of immigrant health care workers is our canary in the coal mine: policymakers must act swiftly, or risk endangering the health of us all.
My take: I doubt the consequences of mass deportation have been carefully considered amid the heated rhetoric. There is saying, often attributed to Otto von Bismarck: “Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. A wise man learns from the mistakes of others.” As such, it appears that we are destined to learn from mistakes rather than avoiding them.
ECF Brown. NEJM 2025; 393; 1-3. Defining Health Care “Corporatization”
This blog has had many posts detailing the many flaws in the U.S. health care system. While the U.S. expends more per capita than any other country, our life expectancy is 4 years less than similar countries in Europe and Canada.
This article in the NEJM is the first of a series examining the ‘corporatization’ of health care and potential ways to improve health care delivery.
Excerpts:
The percentage of hospitals owned by companies controlling three or more hospitals increased from 11.6% in the 1980s to 56.1% today…and now nine megahospital chains own more than 50 hospitals each.
In the early 1980s, three quarters of U.S. physicians owned their practice, whereas in 2023 a similar proportion of physicians was employed by hospitals or corporate entities, including private equity funds.
Insurance conglomerates, such as UnitedHealthcare and CVS–Aetna, now control physicians, home care, pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Horizontal hospital consolidation has been pursued for the promise of economies of scale and market power…
The term “corporatization” now refers to the general trend throughout the health care industry toward higher levels of integrated control by consolidated profit-seeking enterprises… First is the elevation of profit generation as the primary goal of the health care enterprise…the primary duty of the corporation is to maximize shareholder profits. Shareholder primacy subordinates the interests of other stakeholders, such as patients, the health care workforce, or the community…
Even nonprofit hospitals can become corporatized as they grow in size and organizational scale…powerful nonprofit health systems may come to prioritize revenue over patient and community welfare, evidenced by inflated prices, insurance network exclusions, medical debt–collection actions against patients, facility closures in low-income areas, and cuts to staffing levels and pay.
The second key element of corporatization is consolidation… Conglomerates’ market dominance, diversification across platforms, and change in locus of control insulate them from reputational or market discipline…
Corporatization has produced a system that is incredibly profitable for investors but increasingly unaffordable, inaccessible, and uncaring for everyone else — in other words, it has created a Gilded Age of medicine.5 …Corporate control over medical practices and the drive for profit have undermined many clinicians’ professionalism, autonomy, trust, and morale…
Traditional health policy interventions such as antitrust enforcement, tax subsidies and exemptions, prohibitions on the corporate practice of medicine, and payment reforms have not stopped the rise of the corporation in health care, owing to lax enforcement, political capture, and sophisticated regulatory workarounds…
Confronting corporatization may require a fundamental reorientation of the industrial organization of the health system… Future health policy efforts must confront the fundamental question of whom our health care system is meant to serve: corporate giants or the members of our society as a whole.
Since taking over as the top US health official in February, Robert F. Kennedy Jr has overseen radical changes that have alarmed many public-health experts…His mission, he says, is to ‘Make America Healthy Again’. “We are the sickest nation in the world,” he said in March, “and we have the highest rate of chronic disease.” His diagnosis holds some truth, say public-health specialists and analysts. Relative to other similarly wealthy nations, the United States has the shortest life expectancy despite spending the most on health care…And researchers agree that high rates of chronic disease, including heart disease and obesity, are key contributors to Americans’ higher death rates, as Kennedy emphasizes.
But researchers say that Kennedy — widely known as RFK Jr — has mostly ignored other leading causes of death and ill health, including car accidents, drug overdoses and gun violence…
Life expectancy in the United States was closer to the average for its peers around 1980 and gradually improved, according to KFF’s analyses. The gains were driven partly by a drop in smoking and increased use of cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins…
Overall, chronic conditions — heart disease, cancer, stroke and respiratory disease — take up four out of five spots on the country’s list of biggest killers…One of the biggest drivers of those deadly conditions is obesity, say researchers. As of 2022, about 42% of adults were considered obese in the United States, compared with 27% in the United Kingdom and 5.5% in Japan. Obesity increases the risks of developing diabetes, heart disease, cancer and many other conditions. “The US has, particularly around diet, obesity and overweight, adopted unhealthier lifestyles at a higher rate than our country peers,” Bollyky says…
The problems caused by chronic disease are compounded by poor health care. Compared with a group of similar high-income countries, the United States is the only one that lacks universal health-insurance coverage… Lack of health insurance, high costs and other barriers prevent people from getting diagnoses and treatment early on…
The other big contributors to lower life expectancy in the United States — and what really sets the country apart, researchers say — are high death rates from substance misuse, car accidents, suicide and homicide (see ‘Varied causes’). These tend to kill people of working age…All told, the death rates in working-age people mean that one 5-year-old out of every 20 — or roughly one in every school class — will die before the age of 45, according to Angus’s calculations. The comparable figure is one in 50 in the United Kingdom and one in 100 in Switzerland…
Health spending in the United States was about US$13,000 per person in 2023, according to a KFF analysis. That compares to an average of about $7,000 per person in similar large, well-off countries…
Boosting rather than cutting spending on disease prevention is “where the big gains are to be made on population health” [Reginald Williams, a health-policy specialist at the Commonwealth Fund says his] first priority would be to expand health coverage. In the United States, around 8% of people lack health insurance, compared with around 1% or less in similar high-income countries. The second, he says, would be to invest more in primary care — the physicians and other health professionals who are the first port of call for patients, and who deal with disease prevention and management…
Tackling the high death rates from overdoses and guns, meanwhile, would involve addressing entrenched social and political issues such as gun ownership, poverty, unemployment and inequality.
My take: Despite big promises from politicians, there are no quick fixes for improving our national health. Improving health care access would help but this does not address deaths due to firearms, drug overdoses and to car accidents.
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.
gutsandgrowth 