US Health Insurance Stocks Rally After $25 Billion Federal Boost To Medicare Payments
UnitedHealthcare (UHC) health insurance company signage is displayed on an office building in ... More Phoenix, Arizona on July 19, 2023. (Photo by Patrick T. Fallon / AFP) (Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees Medicare and Medicaid programs, said Tuesday that payments from the federal government to Medicare Advantage plans would increase by 5.06% in its 2026 calendar year, more than double what it proposed in January.
The significant increase is expected to generate $25 billion in additional revenue for the industry, the Wall Street Journal reported.
U.S. health insurance stocks rallied late Tuesday morning, with UnitedHealth Group rising 7%, CVS Health up 8%, Human jumping 10% and Elevance Health up 4%.
The rate increase finalized by the White House Monday is 2.83 percentage points higher than what the Biden administration proposed in January, with CMS attributing the jump to additional health spending data that was not available during the initial proposal.
Mehmet Oz, who hosted The Dr. Oz Show from 2008 to 2022, was confirmed by the Senate last week as CMS administrator.
An increase in the average reimbursement rate means insurers will receive more funding per Medicare Advantage plan recipient and the insurers that offer these plans can then offer more services and bring in additional revenue. The 2026 jump in reimbursements, along with the Trump administration cutting plans to allow Medicare to cover obesity drugs, is a relief for big insurers after the industry's core Medicare business became a drag on profits over the past year. Last year, the government proposed a 0.2% decline in the average reimbursement rate for 2025.
Trump Administration Nixes Plan To Allow Medicare To Cover Obesity Drugs (Forbes)
US health insurers jump as 2026 Medicare payment rates exceed expectations (Reuters)
Trump gives Medicare Advantage a big pay boost (Axios)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UnitedHealth Group reports mixed second quarter earnings, highest MLR ever
UnitedHealth Group (UNH) reported second quarter earnings Tuesday beating Wall Street's expectations on the top line by a small margin, and missing on the bottom line. But its earnings continues a trend of higher-than-expected costs in the industry this quarter. The company reported revenues of $111.6 billion, compared to Wall Street expectations of $111.53 billion, and adjusted earnings per share (EPS) of $4.08, compared to $4.59 expected by the Street. The company also updated its guidance for the full year, after pulling it last quarter. It now expects revenues between $445.5 to $448.0 billion, and adjust earnings at least $16 per share. UnitedHealth's stock was falling in premarket trading on Tuesday, more than 3% after the earnings report released. Industry pressure More patients seeking care means more premiums being paid out and less revenue for health insurers. Typically, insurers aim to be on the lower end of between 80%-85% of the premiums they receive, known as the medical expense ratio. UnitedHealth reported 89.4% this quarter, compared to 84.8% in the first. That number is the highest in the company's history, breaking its 2024 record of 85.5% — which was attributed to higher utilization of care by seniors. Other insurers have reported 90% or more in the second quarter this year — a significant jump from prior quarters, and it's all related to Medicare or Medicaid programs. The marks a continuing trend, which has been plaguing the industry since last year and has taken several stocks for a ride every quarter. Notably, CVS (CVS) saw a hit to its stock after its Aetna Medicare costs came in higher than expected, but then its stock was boosted last quarter as fears of costs were allayed. This quarter, Centene (CNC) and Elevance (ELV) have faced higher-than-expected costs. The hit to UnitedHealth Tuesday appears to be a delayed part of that trend — and the company has acknowledged it, like other big insurers, is surprised by the hit. Especially with the company's focus on revenue management, owning and acquiring companies over the years that would rely on technology to streamline and increase profits. 'UnitedHealth Group has embarked on a rigorous path back to being a high-performing company fully serving the health needs of individuals and society broadly,' said CEO Stephen Hemsley, in a statement. 'As we strengthen operating disciplines, positioning us for growth in 2026 and beyond, the people at UnitedHealth Group will continue to support the millions of patients, physicians and customers who rely on us, guided by a culture of service and longstanding values.' Industry change In addition to the insurance market woes, UnitedHealth has faced internal struggles. Former CEO Andrew Witty was ousted in May, and former CEO and board chair Stephen Hemsley then took the helm. The executive shakeup came after a year of turmoil for the company, including the largest ever cyberattack on its Change Healthcare subsidiary. Meanwhile, the company is still reeling from the death of insurance executive Brian Thompson, who was shot and killed in New York City last year. The incident prompted an awakening in the insurance industry, which faced a backlash for its system of prior authorization requirements that result in denials of care. Several companies, and the Trump administration, have pledged to fix the problems and relax prior authorization burdens for patients. Humana executives said last week during an earnings call that the company would reduce prior authorizations by one-third of the current volume. United Health previously said that it only sees prior authorizations for 2% of total claims and that it will further reduce that amount. UnitedHealth said Tuesday the company is focused on greater transparency with Hemsley leading, and expects to continue offering greater insight into its operations as it rebuilds the company. Anjalee Khemlani is the senior health reporter at Yahoo Finance, covering all things pharma, insurance, provider services, digital health, PBMs, and health policy and politics. That includes GLP-1s, of course. Follow Anjalee as AnjKhem on social media platforms X, LinkedIn, and Bluesky @AnjKhem.
Los Angeles Times
18 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Ending LGBTQ+ health research will leave science in the dark
In recent months, the Trump administration has terminated thousands of federally funded medical research grants, gutting $9.5 billion in critical health science efforts. More than half of those cuts — 1,246 grants worth $5.5 billion — targeted studies focused on LGBTQ+ health. These cuts don't just reflect shifting policy priorities. They also risk limiting the scientific insights that inform clinical care and support the health of all Americans. Beginning in February, thousands of scientists received abrupt notices terminating funding for vital research involving LGBTQ+ populations. The justification? Their research was deemed 'based primarily on artificial and nonscientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives.' One letter even claimed that 'research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans.' The grants that were terminated underwent stringent peer review prior to funding and covered a wide range of important issues — from Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer to caregiver well-being and school safety. In many cases, the common factor cited in their termination was simply the inclusion of LGBTQ+ populations within the research scope. When groups of people are excluded from research, it sends a message about whose health is prioritized. The disproportionate elimination of LGBTQ-focused research is more than a policy decision or political maneuver. It weakens the foundation of evidence-based care. Research is essential to understanding health risks, evaluating treatments and improving care for people who need it most. When research funding is withdrawn, medical care falls behind, and collectively we all suffer. LGBTQ+ people make up nearly 10% of the U.S. population, and long-standing research shows they face significant health disparities. Many of these gaps remain poorly understood because of limited studies. For example, lesbian, gay and bisexual populations experience higher rates of substance use disorders, often beginning in adolescence. LGBTQ+ adults are three to six times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual, cisgender counterparts. The incidence of several cancers is also higher, but we don't have a comprehensive understanding of why. Crucial studies investigating possible causes and risk factors were among those recently terminated. We've seen the consequences of neglecting health disparities before. For decades, medical problems unique to Black Americans were understudied and unsolved. For example, the false assumptions that hypertension can be managed the same across racial groups delayed important insights and limited the development of tailored treatment. These delays resulted in worse cardiovascular outcomes for Black patients compared with their white counterparts. Another historical example of the dangers of excluding subpopulations from research is the Food and Drug Administration's 1977 decision to ban women of childbearing age from clinical drug trials. This guideline created a selection bias against women across the research world and slowed progress in understanding their unique health needs. Though the ban was lifted 16 years later, we remain behind in our understanding of cardiovascular disease management in women, and closing that gap will require decades of focused research. And now the Trump administration is repeating this pattern by deliberately excluding a subgroup of the population from research. The neglect of health disparities among LGBTQ+ patients will continue, to their great detriment. The withdrawal of grant funding specific to this group risks condemning millions of people to dangerous health disadvantages for years to come. This move diminishes the pool of researchers dedicated to solving health problems that affect the LGBTQ+ community, as they are forced to follow other funding lines. Lack of research attention to communities with unique needs, such as the LGBTQ+ population, risks increased marginalization and exacerbates stigma. Stigma has long shaped how public health crises are recognized and addressed. In 1981, U.S. health officials became aware of an emerging disease they called Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. Contracting this disease came with both a death sentence and the stigma of having the 'gay plague.' The condition was eventually understood to be a serious public health issue affecting a broad range of people and was renamed HIV/AIDS. Yet it took nearly five years before President Reagan made major funding available for HIV/AIDS research. Delays in funding, in part because of stigma, slowed scientific progress and contributed to the spread of the epidemic. To ignore the issues facing any one population is to risk potential harm to all of society. All people deserve quality, evidence-based healthcare that addresses their unique physical, psychological and social needs. That is precisely why medical research is a foundational pillar of a functioning healthcare system. Without it, our understanding of diseases and treatments is dependent on outdated, extrapolated or incomplete evidence — which causes harm. By withholding funding for research that includes LGBTQ+ participants, the Trump administration is sending a message that the health of nearly 32 million Americans simply isn't worth the investment of federal dollars. The cost of that decision will be measured in suffering, inequity and lives lost — not just within the LGBTQ+ community, but across the entire healthcare system. Haley Stepp is the research program manager at the George Washington University School of Nursing. Kathleen Griffith is a professor at the George Washington University School of Nursing and School of Medicine and Health Sciences.
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump says he's not ‘seeking' summit with Xi
President Trump said that he is not looking for a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, pushing back on reporting that the tariff talks this week could set the groundwork for a meeting with his counterpart. 'The Fake News is reporting that I am SEEKING a 'Summit' with President Xi of China. This is not correct, I am not SEEKING anything!' Trump said on Truth Social. 'I may go to China, but it would only be at the invitation of President Xi, which has been extended. Otherwise, no interest! Thank you for your attention to this matter.' Talks between the U.S. and China are going on in Stockholm this week with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his counterparts, which marks the third round of talks between the two nations. The meeting could set up an extended tariff truce, which could lead to a meeting with Trump and Xi later this year, NBC News reported. China and the U.S. are facing an Aug. 12 deadline following agreements announced in May and June that brought down mutually imposed triple-digit tariffs. For other trading partners, Trump has set an Aug. 1 deadline for the resumption of tariffs. 'We have a good relationship with China,' Trump said Monday. 'China's tough.' The president last month said Xi was 'extremely hard to make a deal' with and the two leaders have had a fraught relationship in recent years.
