Like everyone, digesting the mid-term election results and what they mean for healthcare dominated my study last week. Notwithstanding other worthwhile stories—like CVS splitting its retail and services conglomerate into two companies and the lawsuit by 6 large employers against UnitedHealth Group alleging fraud—this election, in my judgement, is a tipping point in U.S. politics and every industry it oversees.
Journalists, industry experts and political pundits agree this cycle produced unexpected results:
- A massive shift toward Democratic candidates fueled by affordability concerns among young voters and others.
- A huge turnout that surprised even veteran election watchers, attributable in large measure to the $11 billion spent by campaigns, special interests and wealthy influencers to sway voters.
- An unexpected sweep of contested elections by Democrats (R vs.): as of November 8, in the U.S. Senate from 53R-45D-2I to 44R-54D & 2 undecided, the US House of Representatives from 220R-215D to 162R-254D & 19 undecided, in State Governors’ elections from 26R-24D to 20R-29D with 1 undecided and in state legislatives bodies (from 28R-18D-4 split to 22R-23D-2 split.
- And a surprising White House Chief of Staff change from Susie Wiles, a behind the scenes operative, to Stephen Miller, a well-known, MAGA firebrand.
The financial markets reacted: from election day to Friday, the Nasdaq lost more than 4%, the S&P 500 nearly 3%, while the Dow remained comparatively resilient, declining about 0.5% over the period. And CEOs sounded a cautious tone, indicating their growth plans are unchanged but they’re monitoring election fallout closely.
But the health industry is stunned: not because the election results were directionally different than anticipated but because this magnitude was unforeseen. At the center of this storm are the CEOs of the industry’s trade groups whose representations to the 120th Congress will shape how their organization navigates the industry’s toughest issues—funding, over-regulation, stability. Unlike recent history, trade group proposals will face unprecedented scrutiny in a Congress where a Democrat-dominant coalition believes the health system is underperforming, structurally flawed, inaccessible to many, unnecessarily expensive, fraudulent and wasteful.
In 2009, the Obama administration created the White House Office of Health Reform with the aim of lowering health costs, insuring everyone and improving quality thru 2019 and beyond. A key element in its work was input from the industry’s leading trade groups—the American Medical Association (AMA), American Hospital Association (AHA), America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) and Biotechnology Innovation Association (BIO). Each was represented by its Board Chair and Chief Executive. I served as facilitator. Each was tasked with recommending strategies and tactics that could accomplish the 3 goals for the larger goal of fixing the system. Like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that followed in March, 2010, the effort was productive but the outcome was not achieved. It fell short not because of hanging chads in the law, but the natural gravity of the industry’s trade groups understandable priority to protect their members’ interests first before addressing systemic reforms. That’s what trade association Boards expect their CEOs to do. That hasn’t changed.
When passed, the PPACA enjoyed a recovery-economy (2008 Recession) that benefited from healthcare’s voracious appetite for hiring and spending. It was foundational to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) that funded “shovel ready jobs” and information technology-dependent meaningful use. The industry responded: since 1990, healthcare job growth has increased 131% vs. 39% growth of non-healthcare jobs. In tandem, private capital has taken the front seat in capitalizing the system’s innovations including its hit and miss excursions in value-based care management. And the healthcare’s key trade groups have orchestrated their advocacy agendas to enable profitable growth in each major sector at home and access to markets abroad. That’s fueled forecasts of 5.4% annual growth in the health economy from $5.7 trillion today to $9.0 trillion in 2034. Seriously?
While demand for the industry’s goods and services at home remains strong, the willingness of the U.S. electorate to absorb its business practices seems a major question.
I believe last week’s election results signal a fundamental change in the marketplace that’s grown tired of the industry’s obfuscation of facts and lip-service to affordability. The electorate is asking…
- Why so many healthcare organizations complain of funding issues while executives are paid handsomely and margins for many are enviable.
- Why machine-readable files that are hardly useful are a solution to price transparency
- Why insurance companies can raise premiums, cut benefits and exit communities without obligation.
- Why consolidation that reduces choices and costs more is good for anyone other than the lenders. Investors, advisors and executives who enable them.
- Why the same service delivered the same way in the same market can cost 300% more depending on where it’s delivered and to whom.
- Why doctors whose median incomes range up to 10 times their inflation-adjusted median household income making ($87, 460) are upset about their pay.
- Why drugs, devices, buildings, and technology used in the U.S. cost more at home than abroad.
- Why individuals do not own their own medical records and face obstacles in getting them.
- Why mental, dental and public health are treated as step-children in the healthcare family.
- Why the industry calibrates its economics (and margins) around Medicare reimbursement as a valid surrogate for costs.
- Why the system embraced (and funded) technology for the purpose of getting paid two decades ago but resists interoperability and meaningful use even today.
- Why ownership status—investor owned, private non-profit, religious affiliation or publicly (government) owned matters if all behave alike.
- Why the system is geared toward doing more (volume) rather than doing the right things at the right time and lowest cost.
- Why employers get tax deductions for their employee benefits expenses while paying lower wages to employees simultaneously.
- Why healthcare costs are so damn high.
Every trade group in healthcare is busy recalibrating plans for the lame duck and 120th Congress ahead. Every board chairman is on speed dial with their CEO to take their temperature and check their sleep habits. Each is on speed-dial with its state affiliates recognizing states are ground zero for policy changes. And every trade group CEO is revisiting policy priorities deemed important to their members. But the election results require more.
The U.S. health system’s future is more complicated than its past. Clinical innovations, technologies, political and regulatory trends notwithstanding, its future will be shaped by trends and forces outside its conventional borders. That means trade groups in healthcare must engage new parties in their plans—employers, public health officials, private investors, tech innovators—who likely see healthcare’s future differently than incumbents. And they’re likely unwilling to accommodate the industry’s predilection for incremental change.
This election showed the public’s patience wore thin with MAGA politics and its inattention to affordability. That sentiment extends now to every industry, especially healthcare. It makes the industry’s association CEO job harder but it’s necessary.
Given sometimes unrealistic pressure from members who expect protection from unwelcome changes, the association CEO job might be the worst in healthcare!
Paul
PS: Veteran’s Day is Wednesday– well-deserved recognition of the 17 million living vets whose service is underappreciated. Veterans’ Health is ripe for innovation and desperate for fresh solutions.
Quotables
Washington Post on mid-term vote: “Rural areas, suburbs and major cities all moved toward Democratic candidates by double digits compared with the 2024 election… The critical coalition that fueled Trump’s White House win two years ago, including Latinos and young people, swung back hard toward Democrats.
Midterm turnout is lower than in presidential election years and almost always swings against the party of the sitting president. But these results included new record-high vote shares for Democrats, who won in multiple states for the first time in decades — and in nearly a century in the case of Kansas.”
The voting groups that powered the Democratic sweep – Washington Post
Tufts circle on 2026 vote: “Today’s young voters are the most diverse generation in American history, and their choices at the ballot box in the 2026 midterms reflect that diversity. As in other recent elections, young women and young people of color were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates. At the same time, unlike in 2024, white youth and young men also gave Democrats strong support and helped lead to the overwhelming Democratic vote choice from youth.”
In Shift From 2024, Young Men, White Youth, and Non-College Youth Vote Democratic in 2026 https://circle.tufts.edu/youth-vote-choice-demographics-2026-midterms
KFF analysis of healthcare vote in mid-term:
- “The economy was voters’ top issue in the 2026 midterms, and the cost of living – including the cost of health care – was a key driver of their decisions, as voters pointed to health care costs among their most pressing affordability concerns.
- Midterm voters said the Democratic Party was better equipped than the Republican Party to handle a range of issues, with the Democrats’ biggest advantage appearing on the issue of health care…
- About six in ten midterm voters said they want the federal government to play a larger role in providing health care, including majorities of voters in Maine (65%) and Michigan (57%). In these two states, voters who wanted a larger government role in providing health care made up the overwhelming majority of those who voted for El-Sayed and Jackson.
- In a rebuke of the Trump administration’s health care policies, majorities of midterm voters said these policies have worsened their own health care costs (55%) and the ability of Americans to get the health care they need (56%) – at least four times the share who said the administration made these “better.”
- Blame aimed at the Trump administration over rising health care costs was tied to support for Democratic candidates overall, and among independent voters – a key voting group.”
Health Care in the 2026 Midterm Election | KFF
Herman on health costs: “Voters across the country are furious over the high cost of health care, with resentment rippling across workers who get health coverage through their jobs.
Polls from KFF, Pew Research Center, and CNN show Americans are fixated on health care costs even as prices for gas, groceries, and other necessities soar. That is leading to unprecedented support for more aggressive federal action on health care. A poll from Axios-Ipsos finds a majority of Americans want the government to step in and lower health care costs, with Democrats’ “Medicare for All” ambitions reentering the broader political discourse as the most popular option.
At a minimum, employers are expecting and supporting more federal and state regulation to rein in hospital and drug prices. Health care industry opposition and employer inertia have stymied wholesale changes over the past several decades, but the financial strain on workers and companies has made reform a priority.”
New Yorker on Stephen Miller: “After a historic midterm rout of the President and his party, earlier this week, journalists and pundits finally felt safe positing that the country was entering the beginning of the end of the Trump era. This wasn’t wrong. But Donald Trump now has nothing left to lose. On Friday afternoon, Stephen Miller, his most loyal and aggressive ideologue, was named the White House chief of staff. Just last year, Miller said that the Democratic Party “is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization.”
Miller has long been one of Trump’s most influential advisers. Chiefly, he is the architect of the Administration’s immigration policies, which include violent ICE operations, an executive order to end birthright citizenship, the gutting of the legal-immigration system, the mass detention of tens of thousands of non-criminals, and an open disregard for judicial orders.”.
Stephen Miller Takes the Reins
NEJM on AI-enabled mass surveillance: “The extent to which government and private entities can gather and use personal data on large numbers of people is typically framed as a civil liberties or national security issue. Yet artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the fundamental nature of surveillance in ways that strain existing privacy law and put public health at risk. We believe mass surveillance enabled by AI should be considered an emerging structural determinant of health (i.e., a social, political, environmental, or economic condition that influences the distribution of health and illness throughout a population). Coordination among clinicians, health care administrators, public health institutions, and policymakers could help capitalize on the promise of AI for supporting legitimate public health surveillance while mitigating the technology’s underrecognized harms.”
Quarrtz on AI-enabled job growth: “The impact of A.I. is showing up clearly in one place, however: blue-collar jobs. The data center build out is helping to prop up employment in the construction sector, even as high interest rates have led to a sharp pullback in home building. Demand for chips and other A.I. equipment is also creating jobs in manufacturing, offsetting losses elsewhere in the sector.
The future of that boom now looks uncertain following this week’s election results, however. The plunge in share prices for tech companies on Thursday — partly reversed on Friday — reflected investors’ concern that public backlash to data centers could lead to a slowdown in construction, which could have broader economic implications given the extent to which A.I. has been driving growth.”
U.S. economy added 165,000 jobs in October, beating forecasts
WSJ on election and AI slowdown: “Take a breath. When it comes to trading politics, the truth is that no one knows anything. The scale of the selloff since Tuesday’s election shows just how widespread the belief is that the blue wave that washed Republicans out of Congress will also drown data-center development. Traders and investors think they know a lot.
The moves make sense on fundamental terms only if there’s going to be a near shutdown in data-center development. Shares in memory-chip maker Micron plunged 23% in two days, neocloud data-center operator CoreWeave was down 19% and chip makers Nvidia and Broadcom were both down 12%, amid an artificial-intelligence bloodbath.
There are good reasons for concern, although not because of Congress, which would need a lot of Republicans to vote with the Democrats to override the presidential veto. The problem for AI is new governors who promised moratoria on data centers, including some in states with a lot of construction planned, such as Texas and Ohio.”
Don’t Trust the Market’s Knee-Jerk Reaction to the Midterms – WSJ
JAMA study on medical education changes over the century: “In this study of medical education reports issued over 114 years, 3 basic values emerged: reform medical education, affirm core social and professional values, and protect the profession from outside intrusion. Proposed reform objectives and the means to achieve them displayed both stability and change longitudinally. The time-honored apprenticeship approach to clinical education was unquestioned. Despite a growing body of evidence from the science of expertise, proposed medical education reforms have produced insignificant curriculum change.
STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF WASHINGTON, States’ Lawsuit v. CMS over Medicaid work requirement: Plaintiffs, v. MEHMET OZ, in his official capacity as Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: “H.R. 1’s new eligibility system now threatens to fundamentally transform the Medicaid program—including the ACA expansion—in ways participating States could not have anticipated. Congress could have, but did not, repeal the ACA’s Medicaid expansion in H.R. 1. Instead, it overlaid a novel eligibility system that imposes a work requirement on expansion enrollees. By creating this new eligibility system, H.R. 1 dramatically reshaped and redefined a program designed to provide medical assistance into a vehicle to encourage work, yet did so under the guise of merely amending it. 5. The work requirement will eventually leave millions of former and prospective Medicaid beneficiaries with no place to turn for basic healthcare. In practical terms, this means reduced access to prenatal care for those who are pregnant; interruptions in critical treatment for those with chronic conditions; and suspension of medical screening, diagnostics, and preventative care, all of which can avert serious illness and death. And in a cruel irony, H.R. 1 will also render these individuals less able to work—and expose them to financial catastrophe through increasing medical debt—by depriving them of basic healthcare. 6. The Plaintiff States now have no realistic option but to implement H.R. 1’s new eligibility system.”
Economist on childlessness trend: “The largest 15 countries by GDP are now all below the population replacement rate, including America, China and India. Declining birth rates could cause the world’s population to shrink later this century for the first time since the Black Death killed tens of millions in the 14th century…
The consequences of the baby bust are intuitive: ageing societies will have to rely on a smaller group of youngsters to fuel growth and fund pensions and public services. They are also enormous. Falling birth rates will reshape culture, society and geopolitics. By 2050 Nigeria will overtake America as the third-most-populous country, according to some projections (though such estimates are hotly debated). Low-growth nations could invade one another to expand their numbers and distract from tensions and anxiety at home, Lady Cavendish suggests. She predicts the world will become less peaceful and probably more religious, as “a greater proportion of the planet will live in countries with predominantly Islamic or Christian populations.”
USA Today on young voter turnout in mid-term: “Republicans’ 2024 gains among young voters were reversed in the midterms, as voters under 30 overwhelmingly preferred Democratic congressional candidates.
73% of voters under 30 cast ballots for Democratic midterm candidates for the House of Representatives, and young men swung back to Democrats…25% of young voters cast ballots for Republican candidates
Democrats won 62% of voters ages 30-44 and 52% of those 45-64. Republicans’ strongest age group was Americans 65 and over, who split their votes precisely 50-50 between the two parties… Data from The New York Times’ Voter Trends notes that voters ages 18-29 had a 33-point swing to Democrats, when compared with 2024 votes for Harris, while voters 30-44 had a 24-point swing to Democrats. Voters ages 45-64 had a 13-point swing and voters 65 and older had a 6-point swing… Young people represented about 11% of the electorate, and the young voter turnout rate landed at 27%, according to estimates by CIRCLE, which is 4 points lower than the group’s record-high 31% participation in the 2018 midterms…
Regardless, this year’s 27% turnout for young voters is high when compared with the group historically voting at a rate between 15% to 20% in midterms.
Young voters, including men, swung dramatically back towards Democrats
Economy
BLS: October Jobs report (released November 6): Excerpts:
“The U.S. economy added 165,000 jobs in October; the unemployment rate was 4.1%. Analysts had expected payrolls to rise by 59,000…
The October gain exceeded the average monthly gain of 48,000 over the prior 12 months. Professional and business services added 70,000 jobs, health care added 42,000, and transportation and warehousing added 25,000. Manufacturing employment rose by 19,000.
The bureau also revised earlier months higher. August payrolls now show a gain of 186,000, up from 133,000, and September shows 60,000, up from 29,000. Employment in the two months combined is 84,000 higher than previously reported.
Employment increased in professional and business services, in health care, and in transportation and warehousing. services, in health care, and in transportation and warehousing. Health care added 42,000 jobs in October, higher than the average monthly gain of 31,000 over the prior 12 months. In October, employment gains occurred in hospitals (+16,000), home health care services (+11,000), and outpatient care centers (+5,000).”
Employment Situation Summary – 2026 M10 Results
KFF on household spending: “Housing and food made up nearly half of US households’ spending in 2025, the most in 15 years amid rising rents, homeowner costs and beef prices.
On average, American families spent $1,988 more on the two categories combined than in 2024, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. And that was before the Iran war sent some grocery prices and utility costs surging this year.
At the same time, average pretax income rose 6.4% to $110,847 in 2025, outpacing both inflation and expenditures, the annual Consumer Expenditure Survey shows.
The figures help explain the tension between improving household finances and downbeat views of the economy, and why affordability is a central issue in the upcoming midterm elections. While Americans had more money coming in, more of what they spent went to necessities.”
CEO Confidence Survey: The survey of 435 public and private company CEOs was fielded November 3–5. Key findings:
“Election results offered a lift. CEOs responding before results began coming in rated current conditions 5.2 and their 12-month outlook 5.3. Those responding afterward gave higher ratings of 5.5 and 5.6, respectively. The roughly three-tenths-of-a-point difference is notable, particularly within a matter of hours. Historically, the Index moves just two-tenths of a point on average from one month to the next.
Public-company CEOs buck the trend. Unlike the broader sample, CEOs of publicly traded companies who responded after election results began coming in rated current business conditions lower than those who responded earlier—4.6 versus 5.0. Their 12-month forecasts, however, edged higher, albeit only slightly from 5.0 to 5.1.
Confidence hits a 14-month low. The last time CEOs rated current conditions this poorly was September 2025, amid tariff uncertainty, shifting government policies and concerns about economic growth. More than a year later, many of those challenges remain. And 39% of CEOs now expect business conditions to remain essentially unchanged over the next 12 months, up from 30% in October.”
CEO Confidence Sinks To 14-Month Low But Midterm Results Cushion The Fall
CNN on market response to election: “US stocks soared Wednesday as Wall Street digested the resounding Democrat sweep in the midterm elections and mulled what a divided government will mean for the war with Iran, President Donald Trump’s policy agenda and the AI trade.
The Dow surged 1,569 points, or 3%, and had its best day since April 2025. The Dow also posted its biggest post-midterm elections single-day gain since 1982, according to data from CFRA Research.
The S&P 500 rose 1.58% and had its second-biggest post-midterm elections single-day gain since 1982, following its gain after the 2018 midterms. The Nasdaq Composite rose 1.44%, its biggest post-midterm elections one-day gain since 2018.”
CMS on Physician fee schedule: “The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is prioritizing prevention, strengthening primary care, cracking down on duplicate billing, and reinforcing fiscal stewardship across Medicare. A new final rule advancing payment policies under Medicare Part B modernizes physician payment structures to reward health maintenance and coordinated primary care rather than disjointed, volume-based intervention. Through targeted enhancements to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Shared Savings Program) and fee schedule recalibrations, CMS is shifting the health system’s focus from reactive sick care to proactive healthcare.”
CMS Finalizes CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule to Shift from Sick Care to Healthcare and Curb Waste Nov 4, 2026 www.cms.gov
WTW employer survey based on responses from 471 employers with at least 100 employees, collected between June 22 and Aug. 7. Highlights:
- The share of U.S. employers covering GLP-1s for weight loss fell from 57% to 53%, the first decline in three years. Of the employers that still cover GLP-1s for weight loss, 30% are considering eliminating coverage. Among employers that have dropped or are weighing dropping coverage, 91% cite cost as a reason.
- The shift comes as pharmacy spending becomes the second-biggest cost pressure for employers, cited by 83%, after high-cost claimants at 86%. WTW estimates pharmacy costs will rise 11.5% in 2026, up from 9% in 2025, and that pharmacy accounts for about 36% of total healthcare claims when drugs paid through medical benefits are included.
- Six in 10 employers (61%) said they are unwilling to tolerate significant complexity and member pushback to reduce costs, and in a separate WTW survey, 58% of U.S. employees said they would rather pay higher out-of-pocket costs than accept a plan with more restrictions.
WTW 2026 Best Practices in Healthcare Survey: U.S. employer healthcare costs set to rise at fastest pace in more than two decades https://www.wtwco.com/en-us/news/2026/10/wtw-2026-best-practices-in-healthcare-survey-us-employer-healthcare-costs
Health care is one of the largest and least predictable expenses physicians will face after they stop practicing. Fidelity Investments’ 25th annual Retiree Health Care Cost Estimate puts the figure at $185,500 for a 65-year-old retiring in 2026, a 7.5% jump from last year’s estimate. Fidelity attributes the increase to rising prices for care, greater use of health care services and growing costs tied to chronic conditions
Pitchbook on IPO activity: “Our research argues that the “IPO backlog” is little more than a myth.
- PitchBook’s VC Time to Exit Predictor, which estimates when individual VC-backed companies are likely to exit, gave 254 US companies better-than-even odds of going public by the end of 2025.
- Only 53 did, and just 58 still look likely to list in the next three years.
Nearly 75% of the backlog has raised new funding since 2023, mostly at higher valuations, and deals at Databricks and Scale AI paid out employees and early investors without a listing. The market they were waiting for has also moved on. AI has put pure-play software companies under pressure to prove their value, while a new generation of AI companies, led by Anthropic, has jumped to the front of the line.”
Pitchbook www.pitchbook.com
Study: PE ownership of hospices: “In recent years, for-profit entities, notably private equity, have increasingly acquired hospices. However, little is known about the implications of these acquisitions on patients and Medicare spending. Using 100% fee-for-service Medicare claims, we compared 191 hospices newly acquired by private equity firms between 2018 and 2022 with 1,305 matched control hospices owned by for-profit but not private equity owners. Using a difference-in-differences design, we examined changes in utilization, patient outcomes, and Medicare payment associated with private equity acquisition. After acquisition, average length-of-stay for beneficiaries in private equity hospices increased by 6.3 days relative to the control group, and beneficiaries were more likely to be discharged alive. The share of beneficiaries with dementia increased relative to control. Medicare spending increased by $993 per hospice encounter relative to control, which represented a 5.9% increase from the baseline of $16,922. Selection of beneficiaries requiring less intense care—a profit-maximizing strategy under daily non-risk-adjusted capitated payments—may help explain these findings. Reforming hospice payment may mitigate such patient selection.”
Changes In Hospice Use, Medicare Spending, And Patient Outcomes After Private Equity Acquisition https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2026.00211
Study: Operational scale and insurer profitability: Excerpt from populates the 2026 Sherlock Benchmarks from Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (Blue) and Independent / Provider-Sponsored (IPS) plans.
- “The effect of scale on total expenses (excluding miscellaneous business taxes) or “subtotal” was significant for Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans and for the combination of Blue and IPS universes. Scale did not have a significant effect on total expenses for the universe of Independent / Provider-Sponsored plans.
- IPS plans had fewer functions displaying significant economies of scale. Six functions or subfunctions displayed significant economies of scale, three showed diseconomies. The functions subject to economies of scale comprised 13.2% of administrative costs. The slopes of the curves were such that a doubling of membership led to costs subject to scale that were 77.2% of their costs prior to doubling.
- Applying the combined universe slopes to an administrative cost assumption of $67 PMPM (in line with commercial insured products), we calculate savings of $2.47 PMPM from doubling plan size, or 3.7% of total administration. However, because health insurance has low margins, the effect on combined earnings is much greater, 49.5%.”
Economies of Scale in Health Insurance: 2026 Survey Results | Sherlock Company Navigator
Hospitals
Study: Utilization of alternative sites of care associated with ED visits: Focus: “To describe use and short-term outcomes of emergency department (ED) patients transitioned to noninpatient care settings (ambulatory treatment center [ATC], advanced care at home [ACAH], or emergency department observation unit [EDOU]) compared with inpatient care.
“This study included 26, 618 ED encounters (median patient age, 77 years [IQR, 65-85 years]; 52.6% female). Among 22, 755 unique patients, 87.4% had 1 encounter, 9.8% had 2 encounters, and 2.8% had more than 2 encounters. There were 728 (2.7%), 880 (3.3%), 5133 (19.3%), and 19, 877 (74.7%) encounters in ATC, ACAH, EDOU, and hospital settings, respectively. One-quarter of patients (25.3%) received care in an ATC, ACAH program, or EDOU. Inpatient admission rates were lower for ATC and ACAH encounters than for EDOU encounters…In this cohort study of patients treated in alternative venues of care, one-quarter received care in an ATC, ACAH program, or EDOU. These findings suggest that adoption of novel treatment spaces for appropriately selected patients may allow health systems to focus hospital resources on the patients with the most complex needs.”
