Is short-term health insurance back on the menu? Feds may allow more options

By Allison Bell - Hard-pressed employers might have something different to offer workers, or departing workers, in 2026: a suggestion that they buy short-term health insurance. The U.S. Labor Department joined with the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S Department of Health and Human Services to put out a statement Thursday that blesses use of "short-term, limited-duration insurance" policies that last more than three months. Read Full Article… ^{_{(Subscription required)}}

HVBA Article Summary

1. Biden Administration’s 2024 Short-Term Insurance Rules and Non-Enforcement Policy: In 2024, the Biden administration finalized federal regulations limiting short-term health insurance policies to a maximum duration of three months, with no extensions. However, the Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services departments have now announced they will not prioritize enforcement of this three-month limit. This decision effectively allows insurers in many states to revert to the earlier Trump-era standard, under which short-term policies—often renewable—could last up to 36 months, significantly expanding their potential role in the health insurance market.

2. Structure and Market Characteristics of Short-Term Plans: Short-term health insurance plans are regulated primarily at the state level and are not subject to Affordable Care Act requirements. As a result, they can deny coverage to applicants with pre-existing conditions, charge higher rates based on health status, impose strict annual benefit caps, and exclude certain essential health benefits. They may, however, offer lower deductibles than ACA-compliant plans, making them attractive to some consumers. Availability varies widely: some states have banned them outright, while others allow broad sales, leading to significant differences in consumer access and protections.

3. State Variations and Industry Reactions: Health policy experts and industry stakeholders suggest that the new non-enforcement approach could restore pre-2024 market conditions in states that are supportive of short-term plans, such as Texas, enabling insurers to resume multi-year offerings. In contrast, insurers may still face legal and regulatory challenges in states with restrictive rules. Supporters argue the policy could give small employers and certain individuals more affordable options, while critics warn it risks creating uneven consumer protections, leaving gaps in coverage, and undermining ACA-compliant plan participation.

Hospital associations ask HRSA to extend 340B rebate pilot's comment, application windows

By Dave Muoio - Hospital and health system groups are skeptical the Trump administration will have enough time to weigh and incorporate providers' concerns before opening its 340B rebate pilot program up to drugmaker applicants. In a letter sent to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), which oversees the controversial subsidy program, seven provider associations requested HRSA extend the timeline for stakeholder comments and give itself a broader window to consider public comments. Read Full Article…

HVBA Article Summary

1. HRSA’s Pilot Timeline and Structure: The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) plans to launch a limited rebate model pilot for 340B drugs on Jan. 1, 2026, replacing upfront discounts with post-purchase rebates. Under HRSA’s current schedule, comments are due Sept. 8, manufacturer applications by Sept. 15, and approvals by Oct. 15. The pilot will cover 10 CMS-selected drugs, require rebate payments within 10 days of providers’ data submission, and prohibit passing administrative costs to hospitals.

2. Stakeholder Disagreements Over Timing and Impact: Hospital associations are urging HRSA to extend deadlines, arguing the current schedule gives hospitals too little time to prepare compared to drugmakers. They warn that rebate delays could create financial strain for safety-net hospitals. Drugmakers, while supporting the pilot, want it expanded and see it as a way to improve transparency and reduce duplicate discounts.

3. Safeguards and Concerns: HRSA’s pilot includes protections such as prohibiting rebate denials over suspected diversion or duplicate discounts without OPA review, and allowing hospitals to report rebate delays. While some experts view this version as more favorable to hospitals than prior drugmaker-led efforts, open questions remain about interactions with state laws, potential administrative burdens, and whether the model could set precedents for broader program changes.

GLP-1 drugs and those who take them | Explainer

By Ron Southwick - GLP-1 drugs haven’t been around for all that long, but they have proven to be very popular with Americans struggling with their weight. Nearly 12% of Americans have taken GLP-1 drugs for weight loss, according to a new RAND report. And the report found another 14% of Americans say they are interested in using GLP-1 drugs to drop some weight. RAND engaged nearly 8,800 Americans in the survey in April and May of 2025. Read Full Article…

HVBA Article Summary

1. Usage by age and gender: GLP-1 drug use is most prevalent among women aged 50–64, with one in five (20%) reporting they have tried them, compared to 16.8% of men in the same age range. Women aged 30–49 also show higher usage rates (15%) than men of the same age (7.2%), though overall use is lower in this younger group. For adults over 65, men are slightly more likely to have used GLP-1 drugs than women (13.5% vs. 12.8%), indicating age and gender patterns vary across demographics.

2. Overall adoption and public sentiment: Among Americans aged 50–64, 18.5% have tried GLP-1 drugs, while in the 30–49 age group the figure stands at 11.2%. Despite this uptake, the majority of Americans remain hesitant—about 74% of those surveyed said they do not plan to take these drugs—suggesting that while interest is significant in certain groups, widespread adoption is far from universal.

3. Side effects and severity: A notable portion of users report experiencing side effects: 52% have had nausea, 34.3% diarrhea, and 19.8% vomiting. While most describe these symptoms as mild, a meaningful minority report more severe reactions, with 9% experiencing serious nausea and 7.5% facing severe diarrhea. This highlights that while side effects are common, the level of severity varies among individuals.

Popular AI Chatbots Are Spreading False Medical Info, Mount Sinai Researchers Say

By Katie Adams - Commonly used generative AI models, such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek R1, are highly vulnerable to repeating and elaborating on medical misinformation, according to new research. Mount Sinai researchers published a study this month revealing that when fictional medical terms were inserted into patient scenarios, large language models accepted them without question — and went on to generate detailed explanations for entirely fabricated conditions and treatments. Read Full Article…

HVBA Article Summary

1. Hallucination risk from false inputs: Mount Sinai researchers found that introducing a single fabricated medical term into a chatbot prompt can cause it to generate authoritative but incorrect information. Adding a cautionary reminder that some details may be inaccurate reduced hallucinations by roughly 50%, based on testing with six popular large language models.

2. Benefits and growing role of AI in healthcare: Despite the risk of misinformation, generative AI is increasingly valued for its ability to streamline administrative tasks, summarize patient reports, and support clinical decision-making, especially during a clinician burnout crisis. Use of these tools is expected to expand as healthcare AI startups attract major investment and government attention.

3. Need for safeguards and oversight: Experts stress that broader adoption must be paired with stronger safety measures, ongoing human oversight, and attention to AI safety. While initiatives from organizations and companies focus on responsible use, some see gaps in policy emphasis, underscoring the importance of mitigating harmful outputs like hallucinations.

NABIP urges regulators to standardize level-funded health plans

By Allison Bell - Level-funded health plans are a great alternative to fully insured group health coverage, but the plans can be confusing. Susan Rider and David Smith, representatives from the National Association of Benefits and Insurance Professionals, are preparing to give state insurance regulators that message next Tuesday in Minneapolis, at the summer national meeting of the National Association of Insurance Regulators. Read Full Article… ^{_{(Subscription required)}} 

HVBA Article Summary

1. Standardization & Transparency Goals: NABIP is calling on state regulators to create consistent, standardized definitions for key level-funded plan terms such as “administrative” and “stop-loss.” They also want regulators to ensure that employers sponsoring these plans receive thorough and comprehensible data on how the plans operate, including clear explanations of payment arrangements, how service providers like PBMs are compensated, and detailed breakdowns of the differences between billed amounts and paid amounts for each claim.

2. Employer Understanding & Legal Fit: NABIP members are concerned that some marketers present level-funded plans as if they are essentially the same as fully insured plans, without making clear the significant differences—particularly the nature of stop-loss insurance versus traditional high-deductible coverage, common exclusions such as work-related injuries, and the low probability of receiving rebates. They also highlight that, in some cases, existing federal or state legal frameworks may not be well-suited to address the unique characteristics of level-funded plans.

3. Market Growth & Risk Management: The use of level-funded plans has grown rapidly among smaller employers looking to gain more control over coverage design and potentially lower costs by sidestepping certain state benefit mandates. While major insurers like UnitedHealth see this trend continuing due to rising fully insured plan costs, carriers such as Voya stress a disciplined approach, avoiding employers with small stop-loss budgets and high claims risk. Despite the appeal of possible experience-based rebates, NABIP notes that fewer than 20% of employers in these plans actually receive them, reflecting a gap between expectations and reality.

US FDA moves to boost domestic drug manufacturing after Trump push

By Reuters - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration [last] Thursday announced a new program to speed up construction and review of drug manufacturing plants in the country to boost domestic drug supply. The program, called FDA PreCheck, aims to streamline review of domestic pharmaceutical plants and eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements, in line with President Donald Trump's executive order in May to shift manufacturing of drugs to the United States. Read Full Article…

HVBA Article Summary

1. Program Goals and Incentives: The FDA’s PreCheck initiative aims to boost domestic drug manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign sources by offering shorter review times for marketing applications from companies aligned with national priorities. The program is designed to strengthen the resilience of the U.S. drug supply chain.

2. Program Structure and Implementation: PreCheck follows a two-phase process—first, enhanced communication with the FDA during facility design, construction, and pre-production; second, early feedback and pre-application meetings to streamline manufacturing and quality control processes. A public meeting to discuss the program is scheduled for September 30.

3. Industry and Policy Context: Major pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Johnson & Johnson, have pledged billions toward U.S. expansion. In parallel, the Trump administration has floated imposing tariffs of up to 250% on pharmaceutical imports to encourage domestic production.

Will the Arkansas PBM Law Survive A Judge’s Rejection?

By Marissa Plescia - As greater scrutiny envelops the largest pharmacy benefit management companies, one thing is clear: They are not going to give up without a fight. And in that existential battle, they just notched a major win. Last week, U.S. District Judge Brian Miller blocked an Arkansas law (Act 624) that would have banned PBMs from owning and operating pharmacies in the state. Read Full Article…

HVBA Article Summary

1. Legal Challenge and Injunction: Arkansas’ Act 624, aimed at limiting pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBM) ownership of pharmacies, was temporarily blocked after a federal judge found it likely violated the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause and conflicted with federal TRICARE rules. The court ruled the law discriminated against out-of-state companies and would cause irreparable financial harm to PBMs.

2. State and Industry Responses: Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders vowed to appeal, framing the law as a fight against inflated drug prices and PBM market control, while PBM companies and their lobby praised the injunction as protecting patient access to care and pharmacies. Legal experts are split on the law’s viability, with some doubting it can survive constitutional challenges, and others believing it regulates corporate structure rather than interstate commerce.

3. Broader Policy Context: The case underscores growing national attention to PBM practices, with several federal bills proposed to address pricing transparency, PBM compensation models, and spread pricing. Experts emphasize that lasting reform likely requires congressional action rather than a patchwork of state laws, although state efforts continue to signal urgency to federal lawmakers.