I was in the 10th grade at Tyner High School in Chattanooga when Medicaid passed as Title XIX of the Medicare and Medicaid Act of 1965. It was the cornerstone of President Johnson’s War on Poverty providing federal funding to states to facilitate access to the health system Americans along with dependent children, seniors, blind, and disabled individuals with insufficient income.
Medicaid, then as now, was the understudy to Medicare. It was understandable: per capita costs for caring for seniors were three times those in Medicaid, and aging was the tsunami health officials saw. In the 60-years since, Medicare has become the arbiter for federal reimbursement in every setting where seniors received services. It has enabled hospitals and specialty care to expand and limited preventive and primary care to the bare minimum. And its version of managed care, Medicare Advantage plans, now enroll over half its 70 million enrollees. It’s ridden on the back of federal policy, while states have been left to fend for themselves in Medicaid. But that’s changing.
While Medicare has gotten the majority of attention from hospitals, physicians, insurers and drug companies historically, it is Medicaid that’s taking center stage in the U.S. health system. Here’s why:
- Scale: When Medicaid was enacted in 1966, it enrolled, 4 million, or 2% of the entire population. Today, it enrolls 74 million, or 21%. Enrollment has grown as a result of three factors: changes in eligibility that states control, slower wage growth and shrinking health benefits in working class populations, and the Affordable Care Act’s federal inducement for Medicaid expansion that passed referenda in 40 states. It’s a huge program.
- Clinical focus: Medicaid forces attention to mental health in communities, schools and workplaces. It is ground zero for the historic lack of integration of public health programs (i.e. housing, food security, financial insecurity) with local health services. It is an unwelcoming front door to the health system for 40% of America’s children where maternal and child health, behavioral health and essential services are unavailable. And it’s the nation’s lab for ageism, loneliness and anxiety. Notably, private Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) are firmly seated at the steering wheel of care coordination in state Medicaid programs covering 72% of enrollees already. Long before Medicare Advantage, community-based and private MCOs were prominent in Medicaid because they’re inclined to focus on whole-person care, not just doctors and hospitals.
- Structure: Medicaid forces states to prioritize investments in healthcare vs. education, homeland security, roads and parks. Medicaid forces state legislatures to regulate private managed care operators who contract to coordinate care for enrollees to assure care is evidence-based, accessible and appropriately priced and delivered. And the federal government’s financial participation enables its control of Medicaid funds to states that do not appropriate resources as it deems necessary. The collaboration or dissonance between states and federal health policies is pronounced in Medicaid.
- Politics: Medicaid allows partisans in Red and Blue states to defend their positions. Democrats, for example, promote income inequality as the root cause of the health system’s lack of affordability necessitating Medicaid as an imperfect but necessary solution. They see work requirements as a GOP mechanism to reduce enrollment. Republicans, by contrast, associate Medicaid with welfare that’s beset with fraud, waste and abuse and think it a money-pit for dubious operators. And leaders in both camps acknowledge bureaucratic flaws in Medicaid but fall short in fixing them.
Much of this can be traced to deep-seeded beliefs about Medicaid that span generations. In my focus groups with working age adults, the majority believe the U.S, economic system is more challenging for lower-income, uneducated and non-white populations. A significant number associate Medicaid with ‘welfare’ and believe waste and fraud prevalent though the intensity of these views varies widely.
In my surveys, Medicaid enrollees are slightly more likely to agree the health system is broken and favor government intervention than other groups. And the majority in every insurance, age, household income and region agree the system’s unnecessarily expensive and significantly more focused on profits than patient care. They see Medicaid as part of a complex system that’s unfair, unaffordable and unnavigable.
My take:
The public’s views about Medicaid are complicated: the majority believe everyone regardless of income or insurance status should have access to the system, and there’s consensus the system in its current form will not survive. The majority of voters regardless of party label believes Medicaid needs to be fixed but no consensus on how or by whom.
Results from Medicare’s cost containment efforts—accountable care organizations, alternative-payment models, value-based purchasing, price transparency et al—have been mixed. By contrast, Medicaid initiatives in states ranging from payment integrity programs to changes in state directed payment policies have produced significant savings necessary to surviving the $1 trillion, 10-year cut to federal Medicaid funding in the Big Beautiful Bill.
Medicaid is the health system’s most important platform for applying evidence to care cost-effectively from cradle to grave.
Paul
PS: Please note the special Medicaid citations in today’s report. I believe it is the program that will make or break the U.S. health system long-term. Thanks for reading.
Sections in today’s report:
- Quotables
- Hospitals
- Medicaid
- Polling
- Population Health
Quotables
PWC on health cost increases: “Health plans are projecting the highest medical cost trend in nearly two decades, with commercial healthcare cost trend expected to rise to 9% in 2027. The increase reflects the convergence of several powerful forces reshaping the healthcare landscape. These inflators include provider adoption of AI-enabled revenue optimization tools, growing provider reimbursement pressure, rising pharmacy spending, sustained growth in behavioral health utilization, and escalating out-of-network payment disputes under the No Surprises Act. Without macro health cost deflators, payers and employers face mounting pressure to act.
The challenge now is not simply understanding what is driving healthcare costs higher, but whether health plans can deploy cost-of-care strategies quickly and effectively enough to slow the trajectory before affordability, coverage, and access come under greater strain across the healthcare system.
Hospital and related services inflation spiked in early 2026 to post-pandemic highs, reaching 7.59% year over year in February. “
Behind the numbers 2027: Medical cost trend is expected to hit 9%, highest in 17 years. Can cost management strategies bend the trend? https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/health-industries/library/behind-the-numbers.html
Alan Tisch, Atria Health on system reform: “People have basically become resigned to the fact that healthcare sucks, it’s going to get more expensive, access will get worse. All of the incentives in our healthcare system are to treat sick people, and the sicker people are, the more money everyone makes. There’s not even a billing code or a system for preventive healthcare. Doctors, scientists and technologists lost control. Healthcare is the only system on earth where both sides of the marketplace are wildly unhappy.
This system isn’t scaling, so split healthcare and sick care into two systems: one of them reactive care covered by employer and government, the other one a prevention allowance—a 20% allocation. . .. Consumers choose where they spend it. At-home genetic or blood tests. Prenuvo body scans. Ro. Wearables. Amazon’s One Medical. Artificial intelligence over time can peruse the data, find patterns and change the interpretation and action layers.
I think it can work in healthcare because the current system’s not working. Costs are going up for government payers, employers, and I think you’re starting to see massive cracks in that. To change the population level, we need to change the model. We need to change the incentives.”
The Case for Preventive Healthcare – WSJ
Paragon on hospital costs: “In The Hospital Cost Crisis, Paragon shows why hospitals are drivers of health care unaffordability: The fundamental problem is that government policies subsidize consolidation, weaken competition, narrow consumer choice, and undermine efficiency. If policymakers are serious about making health care more affordable, hospital prices need to be at the center—not the periphery—of the debate. The path to more affordable health care is not greater government intervention, but reversing the government policies that have made hospitals larger, less competitive, and more expensive.”
Economist on culture and religion: “Cultures and religions do very well to steal from each other. The modern notion that everyone ought to stay in their cultural paddock—which is made on the left by people worried about “cultural appropriation” and on the right by those who fear the corrupting effects of immigration and Islam—leads only to stodgy irrelevance. Bending, borrowing and adapting are the keys to success. The only problem is that they make for less gripping cinema. “
What did the Romans ever do for Christianity?
Health Affairs on AI and costs: “With proper measurements and comprehensive consideration, AI represents a substantial technological advancement with the capacity to lower medical inflation and increase value. Whether it does turns on reforms that span AI’s health care applications: data governance that facilitates development of AI tools; payment methods that allow innovators to capture some of the value they create; and regulatory pathways that don’t saddle AI with constraints built for humans or older, static technologies.”
CPI June 2026: Comparing data for key CPI categories in June 2026 CPI report:
The overall CPI index increased 3.5% in June vs. + 5.1% for hospitals, 3.3% for shelter, 15.7% for energy, 3.0% for food, and 35.1% for shelter:
| Relative
Importance |
June 25-
June 26 |
May 26-
June 26 |
|
| All Items | 100.00 | +3.5 | -0.3 |
| Food | 13.4 | +3.0 | +0.2 |
| Energy | 7.8 | +15.7 | -4.9 |
| All Items less Food and Energy | 78.8 | +2.6 | 0.0 |
| Shelter | 35.1 | +3.3 | +0.1 |
| Physician | 1.7 | +2.4 | -0.2 |
| Hospital | 2.1 | +5.1 | +0.1 |
| Medical Care Commodities | 1.4 | -2.1 | -0.2 |
Consumer Price Index News Release – 2026 M06 Results
Hospitals
U of Chicago study: Not for profit hospital investment income: “Hospitals rely on investment income to bolster bottom lines and generate capital to complement operating income. The rising use of investment returns to support nonprofit hospitals with community obligations has drawn critical scrutiny from Congress and others, along with questions about whether guardrails are needed to limit what types of investments are acceptable and to direct how hospitals use the proceeds. Takeaways:
- Nonprofit hospitals are expanding their portfolios The value of nonprofit hospital investments grew 57% to nearly $300 billion from 2010 to 2023. This illustrates their increased participation in financial markets and the expanding role markets play in hospital operations.
- Hospitals are shifting toward alternative investments Investment holdings in publicly traded securities grew to $197 billion in 2023, compared with $145 billion in 2010. However, publicly traded securities made up about 16% of hospitals’ assets in 2023, a decline from 19.1% in 2010. Other securities made up 9.3% of assets in 2023, compared with 8.8% in 2010.
- Investment income is more volatile than net patient revenue
- Annual investment income growth rates swung from -16% to 113% during the time period analyzed. Net patient revenue remained relatively stagnant over the same years.
Nonprofit hospitals are leaning more on investment income – Modern Healthcare
Study: Hospital inducements to physicians: Researchers analyzed 32 CPT codes across cardiology, gastroenterology, orthopedics and urology, comparing site-of-care decisions and total service costs across four physician affiliation models: unaffiliated private practice, private equity-affiliated practice, corporate and hospital. Findings:
“Interestingly, when we overlaid the impact of physician affiliation model, the relationship between cost and practice model began to emerge. The likelihood analysis showed that PE-affiliated physicians were most likely to provide a given service in the lower-cost settings (ASC and office combined) for 29 of the 32 codes analyzed, including four ties. In aggregate across the 32 codes assessed, PE-affiliated physicians were most likely (63%) – and hospital-affiliated physicians, least likely (37%) – to provide care in a lower-cost setting.
A closer look at provider market consolidation and the role of private capita
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/health-economics-policy-and-law/article/closer-look-at-provider-market-consolidation-and-the-role-of-private-capital/51CFB587F9051D52DDC5C3B73C444404
Medicaid
KFF on enrollment: Enrollment in Medicaid reached 74.3 million in March—a decrease of 4.8 million (6%) in the prior 12 months. Total Medicaid/CHIP enrollment has decreased in every state since March 2025 ranging from a 20% decrease in Indiana to a less than 1% decrease in Iowa. Per KFF:
- “67.1 million people enrolled in Medicaid and 7.2 million people enrolled in CHIP. Since March 2025, Medicaid enrollment has decreased in all states while CHIP enrollment has increased in 19 states (AL, AR, CA, CT, DE, FL, HI, IL, MO, ND, NE, OK, RI, SC, TN, VT, WA, WI, WY). Between February 2020 and March, 2026, total enrollment of changes ranged widely: from a decrease of 18% in MT to an increase of 53% in NC.
- Child has decreased in all states from March 2025 through March 2026. Adult enrollment has decreased in all but 6 states (IA, MO, NC, OK, SD, and WY)
- Total Medicaid/CHIP enrollment was 4% higher in March 2026 compared to enrollment in February 2020, prior to the pandemic. However, in the 49 states and DC with complete enrollment data by age, the number of children enrolled in Medicaid/CHIP declined by 445,000 or 1% from February 2020 to March 2026.”
KFF.org
Managed Mental health in Medicaid: “Medicaid managed care organizations now sit at the center of the nation’s response to the adolescent mental health crisis. Medicaid finances most behavioral health care for children and adolescents and covers roughly half of all US youth, the majority of whom are enrolled in managed care.4 As rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide-related emergency department (ED) visits have climbed during the past decade, responsibility for organizing networks, ensuring access, and coordinating behavioral health services increasingly rests with Medicaid managed care organizations.
Meanwhile, the Medicaid managed care organization market has consolidated rapidly over the course of the past two decades. In 2006, locally governed plans covered 57% of enrollees, but by 2022, five large national parent firms—Centene, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), UnitedHealth Group, Molina Healthcare, and CVS Health—accounted for approximately 50%. These five firms (which we refer to as “national parent firms” throughout) manage coverage for millions of children,9 underscoring their central role in shaping Medicaid’s behavioral health system.
Prior research on insurer consolidation has focused largely on commercial and Medicare Advantage markets, where competition can influence premiums and pricing. In contrast, within Medicaid managed care, capitation rates are set administratively by states, and enrollee cost sharing is minimal, shifting competition away from premiums and toward network configuration, service management, and enrollee mix. As a result, the implications of consolidation for access and utilization, particularly in behavioral health, remain less well understood.
Little is known about how national parent firms are shaping responses to the youth mental health crisis. Operating at a multistate scale, these firms may respond differently to financial incentives than do smaller, state-based managed care organizations. Economies of scale may support investment in data systems, care coordination, and innovation, whereas pressure to deliver predictable margins may encourage standardized utilization management and shifts toward lower-cost modalities, potentially constraining flexibility in meeting community or developmental needs.
Study: State Medicaid fraud investigations 2014-2021: “Despite the tremendous waste due to Medicaid fraud and abuse, not much scholarly attention has been paid to state variation in the investigations. This study explores the factors influencing variations in Medicaid fraud and abuse investigations across U.S. states, with a focus on the role of All-Payer Claims Databases (APCDs) and state political context…” The impact of APCDs is statistically significant, suggesting its association with more fraud and abuse detection. A Democratic governor tends to be associated with fewer Medicaid fraud investigations. The findings of this research demonstrate that the operation of APCDs can influence the number of Medicaid fraud investigations conducted by Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs). Moreover, political discretion plays a role in the number of state investigations into Medicaid fraud and abuse.”
Proposed rule on Medicaid payment rates: “This proposed rule describes alternatives to modify the limit on the total payment rate and other requirements for State directed payments in Medicaid managed care. We propose these changes based on our authority to interpret and implement section 1902(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (the Act) with respect to prepaid inpatient health plans and prepaid ambulatory health plans, and section 1903(m)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, which require that contracts between States and managed care organizations to provide payments under a risk-based contract for services and associated administrative costs that are actuarially sound. This rule also proposes to set a limit for certain targeted Medicaid payments in Medicaid fee-for-service. We propose this change based on our authority to interpret and implement section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act with respect to certain targeted Medicaid payments which require that payments be consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area.”
Medicaid Program; Medicaid Managed Care State Directed Payments and Medicaid Fee-for-Service Targeted Medicaid Practitioner Payments May 22, 2026 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/22/2026-10292/medicaid-program-medicaid-managed-care-state-directed-payments-and-medicaid-fee-for-service-targeted
APG Statement on State Directed Payments in Medicaid: “APG fully supports appropriate oversight of financing of all forms of health coverage, including Medicaid, and shares CMS’s commitment to fiscal accountability. At the same time, APG recognizes that State-Directed Payments (SDPs) have been a vitally important mechanism to preserve beneficiaries’ access to care by directing managed care organizations (MCOs) to pay above-Medicaid rates to specified types of health care providers. APG is concerned that, in its blunt-instrument approach to limiting such payments, the proposed rule will cause many more physicians and other clinicians to cease providing care to Medicaid patients, making it impossible for MCOs to maintain adequate networks of providers to care for patients. Implemented as currently proposed, the rule would also imperil the operating model of APG groups — which depends on providing high quality and cost-effective care to insured patients, whose coverage is provided by entities with which provider groups can negotiate appropriate payment arrangements.
Along with multiple other parties that have considered the rule, APG also believes that, as currently written, its provisions would exceed Congressional direction; introduce significant operational uncertainty; harm beneficiaries’ access to care, including high quality and cost-effective care; and thwart the ongoing progress within the health care system toward value-based care.
Medicaid in prison health: “
For decades, federal Medicaid dollars were prohibited from paying for most health care provided to people while they were incarcerated. Instead, that cost was paid by the counties and states.
But health care behind bars is often underfunded and inadequate. Courts have ordered improvements in roughly half of state prison systems.
Many people leave incarceration with untreated mental illness, substance use disorders, chronic disease and few easy ways to connect to care once they return to the community. Research shows that they face sharply elevated risks of death in the first weeks after release, particularly from overdose.
In 2018, Congress directed federal health officials to work with states on ways to improve care for people leaving prison and jail. States started requesting waivers to allow them to cover certain services 30-90 days before release, and the Biden administration gave 19 states permission to move forward, with eight states and Washington D.C. also seeking approval.
States Want to Bring Medicaid Behind Bars. Federal Changes Are Making That Harder. – Tradeoffs
Polling
Harris Poll: opinions about the stock market:
- Two-thirds of Americans (65%) wrongly believe that a growing stock market means the economy is growing as well.
- Two in five (38%) don’t know the economy and stock market aren’t the same thing.
It’s more than simple misconceptions, but a larger trend of Americans feeling the stock market isn’t for them. A third say they would “have higher financial returns focusing more on gambling than today’s stock market” – jumping to nearly half of Gen Z (44%) and Millennials (46%).
Even beyond the misconceptions, the stock market hasn’t worked for regular Americans. Both the Dow Jones and Nasdaq are also up this year, yet only a small number of Americans got a payday, given half of the stock market is owned by the top 1% compared to the bottom 50% owning 1% of the market.”
America This Week: Latest Trends from The Harris Poll
KFF Health Tracking Poll (April 14-19, 2026): Key Takeaways
- “64% of adults are worried about being able to afford health care costs, on par with the share who now worry about gas and transportation costs (64%) and outranking other economic concerns. In January 2026, prior to the start of the U.S. conflict with Iran, gasoline and transportation costs ranked at the bottom of household financial worries. Now, gas prices share the top spot with health care costs as the biggest financial worry adults face for themselves and their families.
- Lowering out-of-pocket costs ranks as the most important change insured adults say they would like to see from their health insurance. When given a list of possible changes that could be made to their health insurance, half (46%) of insured adults choose lowering their out-of-pocket costs as most important, more than twice the share who cite eliminating prior authorization (22%). Fewer say other possible changes such as getting more value for what they spend (13%) and having more choice in providers (12%) would be most important to them.
- Health costs also loom large in the upcoming midterm elections. About nine in ten voters say the issue will influence their decision to vote and who to vote for in the 2026 midterm elections, with majorities saying it will have a “major impact” on both areas (55% and 61%) …
- Voters give the Trump administration low approval ratings on its handling of the cost of health care and are more likely to trust the Democratic Party (37%) over the Republican Party (26%) on addressing this issue. Fewer than half of voters approve of the administration’s handling of cost of health care (33%) and the cost of prescription drugs (41%).
- The Republican Party holds an advantage on addressing fraud and waste in government health care programs, which has been a key messaging strategy during the second Trump administration. One-third of voters say they trust Republicans on this issue compared to a quarter who say they trust Democrats. Notably, on most issues asked about, sizable shares of voters say they trust neither party.
KFF Health Tracking Poll: Health Care Costs and the Midterms | KFF
West Health-Gallup poll: employee retention and health insurance benefits: Findings from a nationally representative study conducted Oct. 27 to Dec. 22, 2025, with 5,660 U.S. adults (aged 18 and older) drawn from the Gallup Panel. Note: 2,322 respondents were employed and rely on employer-sponsored health insurance as their primary source of coverage. Highlights:
“Job lock is on the rise amid broader healthcare affordability challenges. About half of Americans report difficulty consistently paying for needed medical care or prescriptions, and 51% say they are worried about their ability to afford healthcare over the next 12 months, the highest level in five years…
Among those who report personal or household medical debt, 44% say they are staying in an unwanted job for insurance, more than double the rate of those without medical debt (21%). Those who have borrowed money in the past year to pay for healthcare expenses are also more likely to report staying in unwanted jobs (37% among those who have borrowed vs. 22% among those who have not).
Even more striking, nearly half of those who report healthcare expenses as a “major financial burden” (48%) say they are staying in a job to maintain their health insurance. The same is true for 53% of individuals who experience “a lot of stress” in their daily lives due to the cost of healthcare.
Rates of job lock peak at 27% among those in households earning $48,000 to less than $90,000 a year and tend to be lower among those earning higher incomes.
These findings point to a broader challenge for policymakers: When access to affordable healthcare is tied to employment, workers may feel compelled to stay in jobs that no longer meet their personal or professional needs. The effects extend beyond morale — reducing labor market efficiency, upward mobility and quality of life. With coverage tied to employment, a growing share of American workers report making career decisions based on insurance rather than opportunity.”
One in Four U.S. Employees Locked in Jobs for Health Insurance
Population Health
Ohio State Poll: Primary care use: Per the poll 1,006 adults commissioned by Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center:
- 71% of adults ages 18-29 have a primary care physician (PCP), compared with 97% of adults 65 and older.
- Instead of calling their PCP for non-emergency issues, more than a third of young adults head to urgent care first, compared with 68% of older adults who go to their regular doctor.
Ohio State survey finds 3 in 10 young adults don’t have a doctor; if they do, most don’t see them https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/mediaroom/pressreleaselisting/primary-care-101
JAMA Study: School shootings: “We examined 30-year trends (1994-2023) and subgroup patterns in school firearm carriage among US 12th-grade students to guide population-specific prevention approaches.
Among 64,775 US 12th-grade students,) 2.2% (0.1%) reported firearm carriage to school across 1994-2023. Overall carriage decreased from 1994 to 2023….
Although school firearm carriage decreased overall, non-Hispanic Black students experienced no decrease over the 30-year study period. In the recent period, subgroups exhibiting higher-risk carriage included male students, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black students, and students without a college-educated parent… Amid increasing school-based shootings, carriage alone may not fully capture pathways to school firearm violence. School-based policies alone may be insufficient when firearm carriage reflects community violence exposure and safety concerns beyond school grounds. Pediatric primary5 and emergency care settings can serve as additional prevention touchpoints for these subgroups by identifying firearm-related risks beyond carriage, including motivations for carrying to and from school, perceived access, or exposure to firearm use or violence.”
Study: Obesity intervention comparative effectiveness: The prevalence of severe obesity continues to increase among US adolescents and young adults (AYAs), underscoring the need for effective weight management strategies. Concurrently, the clinical landscape of obesity treatment options has rapidly evolved with the uptake of highly effective glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), in addition to the established modality of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), in adults and adolescents…
“GLP-1 RA use among AYAs seeking obesity care increased substantially (88.2% to 96.1%) from 2022 to 2026, outpacing MBS utilization, which declined markedly (11.6% to 3.7%). These findings suggest a rapid shift in treatment pathways, with pharmacotherapy increasingly functioning as the initial intervention for youths with obesity. Combined therapy remained rare throughout the study period (0.2%), with most individuals initiating GLP-1 RA before MBS. Persistent differences across sex and races and ethnicities suggest heterogeneity in treatment pathways rather than uniform disparities in access. We could not determine from these data whether the decline in MBS was associated with substitution by pharmacotherapy, differences in insurance coverage, changes in referral practices, or evolving patient preferences.”
American Health Association on Coffee consumption: “There is good news for coffee drinkers: Up to five cups of the brew a day are safe for most adults and may even have benefits for heart health, according to a new scientific statement by the American Heart Association.
Downing between about three to five 8-ounce cups of joe daily, or around 400 milligrams of caffeine, is linked to a lower risk of heart disease, heart failure, stroke and Type 2 diabetes, according to the AHA’s statement, which was published Monday in the journal Circulation. “
Five Cups of Coffee a Day Is Fine for Most Adults, Heart Association Says – WSJ
CDC: Measles update: CDC has recorded 2,318 cases for the year. The vast majority of those sickened are under 20 years old and are either unvaccinated or their status is unknown. There have been no recorded deaths.
South Carolina, Utah, Texas, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania and Arizona represent 84% of the total. 23 states — plus D.C. — have seen three or fewer cases, per the CDC.
Measles cases in the U.S. during the first seven months of this year have surpassed all of 2025’s tally, setting a new three-decade high.
CDC.gov
Study: venture capital-backed maternal health startups:
“In this cross-sectional study of 172 venture capital–backed maternal health startups identified from 2014 to 2022, $977.5 million was collectively raised during the study period and the health care category raising the most capital was maternal and fetal health diagnostics ($520.1 million). The most common company type was virtual or hybrid wraparound pregnancy care and few startups mentioned health equity or maternal mortality or accepted Medicaid.
Results of this study suggest that venture capital–backed startups are filling gaps in pregnancy care delivery and while startups have the potential to facilitate needed innovation, few focus on low-income populations or health equity.”
Study: Inequity in Medicare value-based model beneficiaries: “Beneficiaries who received care through voluntary CMS payment models tended to be White, not dual eligible, and residents of less disadvantaged areas. These results advance prior findings from individual models, establishing that beneficiaries who received innovations in care delivery through voluntary value-based payment models have differed from those who did not. These differences may be due to selective participation in payment models by clinicians and health care organizations with greater projected financial gains, which may be correlated with beneficiary characteristics.8–10
In addition to posing a threat to generalizability of model results, our findings of systematic differences between participants and nonparticipants also challenge the internal validity of such experiments. Sociodemographic differences between beneficiaries treated by participants vs nonparticipants may confound attempts at accurate causal comparisons, which policymakers should anticipate in the design of future models.”
Gibbons: Bankruptcies in 2026 YTD: “Chapter 11 filings in the healthcare sector from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2026, for companies with more than $10 million in liabilities (“Healthcare Bankruptcy Filings”).
The report shows that the pace of filings in H1 2026 sits around the quarterly average of~12.5 since 2019, with 12 filings in Q1 2026 and 14 filings in Q2 2026. Filing activity in the most recent four quarters clusters around the long-term average, which follows a period of relative volatility in quarterly volumes across 2024 to 2025.
By size, the smaller-sized cases in the research (companies with $10 million–$50 million in liabilities) saw activity growth that indicates a potential for that cohort to finish the year 57% higher than 2025, from 23 filings in 2025 to 36 in 2026F. Activity across cases with higher liabilities ($50 million and higher) in H1 2026 is trending flat or lower than 2025.
By subsector, Clinics/Physician Practice bankruptcies comprised almost 30% of healthcare filings in H1 2026, with the subsector’s activity levels in 2026F on pace to reach their highest level since 2019. Other subsectors saw bankruptcy activity levels trending flat or declining over 2025:
Healthcare providers face a widening divide as Medicaid cuts, uncompensated care, and reimbursement pressures define the next chapter – even as workforce challenges persist.
Healthcare Bankruptcy Filings Stabilize in the First Half of 2026, but Medicaid and Policy Reforms Are Set to Intensify Financial Pressure https://gibbinsadvisors.com/research/healthcare-bankruptcy-filings-stabilize-in-the-first-half-of-2026-but-medicaid-and-policy-reforms-are-set-to-intensify-financial-pressure
Hospital Price Transparency Bill Advances in the Senate | MedPage Today
AI savings in healthcare:: “An analysis of case studies in 12 domains for health care organizations by economics scholars and industry consultants estimates that the impact of full adoption of three artificial intelligence technologies (generative AI, natural language processing, and machine learning) could generate between US$439 billion and US$811 billion in annual net value (approximately 5.7%–10.6% of total U.S. health care expenses) and offers details on which stakeholders and which operational domains could see the greatest impact.
Artificial intelligence (AI) offers the potential to improve productivity and reduce waste across the U.S. health care system. Quantifying achievable value from AI technologies can inform organizational strategies and national spending projections. This study aimed to estimate the annual run-rate net value achievable within 5 years through full adoption of AI use cases across major health care stakeholders and domains without compromising quality or access. “
The Value Opportunity from Artificial Intelligence in U.S. Health Care Spending | NEJM Catalyst
