Employers brace for another year of healthcare cost increases

By Paige Minemyer – Employers' healthcare costs are set to climb yet again in 2027, with analysts at Aon projecting an increase of 9.5%. This would make for the fourth straight year in which costs increased by or close to double digits, according to the report released Thursday. A 9.5% increase would lift the average costs to more than $19,000 per employee. As costs rise, employers are deploying a number of strategies to mitigate the expenses. And while they're considering shifting more of that cost onto workers, for now, employers still absorb most of the cost, averaging 82%. Read Full Article...

HVBA Article Summary

1. Employer and employee spending are both rising in 2026: The article says average total plan cost per employee for 2026 is expected to be $17,562, representing an 8.3% increase from 2025. It also reports employers are expected to pay $14,432 of that amount, an 8.8% increase versus their average contribution in 2025. The piece indicates that, despite rising costs, employers are still covering the majority share of costs on average.

2. Cost-sharing pressure shows up most in out-of-pocket spending: The story reports employees’ total cost sharing in 2026 is expected to average $5,297, combining premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, which is up 7.9% from 2025. It adds that the biggest increase for employees is out-of-pocket spending, which rose 10.2% to $2,167. These figures suggest that employee affordability concerns are increasing even as employers continue to fund most of the overall premium and plan cost.

3. Other surveys also point to steep increases ahead: The article notes a separate survey from WTW released the same week, and references a Wall Street Journal report describing the potential increase as the largest spike in nearly two decades. According to the article, the WTW survey found employers expect healthcare costs to increase by 11.1% next year. The piece also includes a WTW leader’s view that the trend is “utterly unsustainable,” highlighting the strain rising costs place on benefit strategy and broader financial planning.

AI isn’t cutting broker jobs. Here is what it is doing instead

By Will Johnson – The fear of job elimination spurred by artificial intelligence was palpable at every insurance industry conference this year. But there’s a more alarming trend no one is talking about: We are poised for a demographic shift that could leave millions of Americans without a broker or advice to help navigate a complex and costly insurance market. Read Full Article...

HVBA Article Summary

1. Demographics, not automation, is framed as the bigger risk: The article argues that the insurance industry may face an advice shortage because many brokers are nearing retirement while demand for guidance remains high. It describes this as a looming capacity problem that could affect consumers and employers trying to navigate an increasingly complex market. The piece positions conference chatter about AI-driven job loss as potentially distracting from this longer-term workforce issue.

2. Broker work has become more complex and time-consuming even before AI: The author lists multiple sources of operational strain—carrier market exits, more verification steps during enrollment, and a growing variety of group coverage models—that add administrative burden to brokers’ day-to-day work. These factors are presented as limiting brokers’ ability to serve clients and grow, regardless of whether AI is adopted. The article suggests that these constraints could eventually harm service quality for individuals and businesses that rely on broker support.

3. AI is presented as a way to expand brokers’ capacity and services rather than replace them: The article contends that automating routine tasks (including via AI Voice, SMS, and workflow automation) could allow brokers to respond faster and redirect time toward higher-value activities. It also argues that lower administrative costs could enable brokers to offer broader help beyond health insurance, such as addressing coverage gaps, financial questions, and care navigation needs. The author cites a report from Ramp to support the idea that heavy AI adoption can correlate with job creation, especially when workflows are redesigned.

Misleading marketing of supplemental health plans exposed by Georgetown study

By Allison Bell – A team at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms has published a report that could show that the old war over supplemental health insurance products is about to flare back up. Amy Killelea and other health policy specialists at the university had a team of "secret shoppers" use two fictional consumer profiles to connect with 20 sales representatives through web-based health insurance lead-generation websites. Read Full Article... ^{_{(Subscription required)}}

HVBA Article Summary

1. Secret-shopper findings raise concerns about how “gap-filler” products are pitched: Georgetown researchers used two fictional consumer profiles to contact sales representatives via web-based lead-generation sites and found marketing that, according to the report, often framed limited-benefit products as substitutes rather than add-ons. The article says reps frequently steered the shoppers toward products like fixed indemnity and short-term policies even when the shoppers’ situations suggested they could access ACA exchange coverage. The report’s authors argue that the way these products are presented can affect whether consumers understand benefit limits and exclusions. The findings are positioned as evidence likely to intensify scrutiny of sales practices in the individual market for these products.

2. Eligibility for ACA coverage and special enrollment was a key friction point in the interactions described: In the scenarios, both fictional shoppers qualified for special enrollment periods, yet the article says some representatives did not mention that option. The report also describes instances where sellers did not clearly flag how exclusions—such as preexisting condition limits—could affect someone with a condition like diabetes. The researchers say the “public market” was sometimes characterized negatively, with messaging suggesting healthier people should avoid it. Taken together, the article indicates the report views these tactics as potentially misleading or incomplete guidance for consumers.

3. Policy and employer implications could extend beyond the individual market: The article suggests the report’s release may signal renewed state and federal debate over rules governing supplemental products, including critical illness, hospital indemnity, and short-term insurance. It notes that changes to regulation could matter for employers and benefits advisors because many supplemental products are sold through voluntary benefits and worksite channels. The piece also points to growth in arrangements like ICHRAs as a potential driver of expanded marketplaces where supplemental benefits could be sold alongside major medical coverage. That expansion could increase attention on marketing standards and disclosures across both individual and employer-adjacent distribution.

Merck, Moderna’s personalized cancer vaccine slows recurrence in phase 3, setting up approval push

By Darren Incorvaia – Merck & Co. and Moderna's personalized mRNA cancer vaccine has successfully lengthened recurrence-free survival (RFS) when paired with Keytruda for patients with high-risk skin cancer. The phase 3 win sets the partners up to potentially seek accelerated approval. Read Full Article...

HVBA Article Summary

1. Phase 3 endpoint success, but details not disclosed yet: The companies said the personalized mRNA vaccine intismeran autogene (V940/mRNA-4157) combined with Keytruda met the primary endpoint of improving recurrence-free survival versus Keytruda alone in high-risk melanoma. They also reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on a secondary endpoint related to survival without distant metastasis. However, they did not share specific numerical results in the announcement. The trial is continuing to enable a later assessment of overall survival.

2. Large adjuvant melanoma study design and safety update: The INTerpath-001 trial enrolled 1,137 patients whose cutaneous melanoma had been surgically removed and compared the combination regimen with Keytruda alone. The companies said the therapy showed no new safety signals in this phase 3 study. Intismeran is individualized, designed to encode mRNA instructions targeting up to 34 tumor-specific targets per patient. The approach aims to direct the immune system toward neoantigens found in each patient’s tumor.

3. Regulatory strategy and investor expectations for effect size: Merck and Moderna said they plan to present the data at an upcoming international medical meeting and to engage regulators about filing submissions for the combination. Moderna executives have indicated that a positive interim analysis could support an accelerated review, though the company previously sought accelerated approval in 2024 and was turned down by the FDA. Analysts have outlined benchmarks for a favorable readout, including Citi’s suggestion that an RFS hazard ratio at or below 0.72 would be positive and 0.65 would represent a clearer win. The article also notes prior phase 2 results and highlights that phase 3 performance could be “compressed” versus earlier studies due to broader enrollment and timing factors.

Rethinking ACA coverage in the wake of rising costs

By Susan Rupe – Enrollment in the Affordable Care Act marketplace is down while premiums and out-of-pocket costs are up – a combination of factors that creates opportunities for brokers to provide clients with affordable plans that meet their needs. “Disruption always creates opportunity,” said Michael Papuc, national health sales director at The Brokerage Inc., during Health Agents for America’s 2026 Agent Summit. He noted that adults aged 18-34 make up 36% of those who dropped ACA coverage, while enrollees are migrating from silver to bronze plans to save money. Read Full Article...

HVBA Article Summary

1. Broker focus shifts as affordability pressures grow: Speakers at Health Agents for America’s 2026 Agent Summit framed rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs as a catalyst for agents to reassess how they advise clients. The discussion emphasized helping consumers find coverage that better matches their budgets and needs, rather than treating marketplace plans as the default. The article presents this as an opportunity for brokers to be more proactive and solutions-oriented in plan comparisons and education.

2. Potential policy changes could alter who the ACA primarily serves: Daniel Cruz argued that if subsidies are rolled back, the ACA may function more as a safety-net market, with consequences for plan pricing and access. He described concerns such as narrower provider networks and greater cost-sharing for enrollees, alongside higher premiums. The article contrasts this with the idea that a “private market” mix of products could fill perceived gaps for some consumers.

3. Non-ACA options require careful explanation and disclosure: Gaylan Hendricks and Cruz both stressed that agents should present both ACA and non-ACA alternatives and clearly communicate what each product does and does not cover. Hendricks highlighted that disclosures are sometimes handled in a way clients may not fully understand, which can undermine decision-making. The article suggests that agents who explain tradeoffs and renewal features plainly may be better positioned during open enrollment conversations.

When and where you send open-enrollment information matters

By Lee Hafner – As open enrollment approaches, now is a good time to assess whether your current strategy for sending important and timely information is as structured and effective as it could be. A recent survey by electronic signature platform Sign.com of 519 employees who "regularly send, review or sign contracts" revealed that sending documents on certain days and in specific time windows improved turnaround and overall workflow. Twenty-six percent said sending documents on Monday produces the highest same-day turnaround, and 44% said between the hours of 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. is the best time to send a contract. Read Full Article... ^{_{(Subscription required)}}

HVBA Article Summary

1. Timing patterns from a Sign.com employee survey: The article cites a Sign.com survey of 519 employees about when sending contracts yields the fastest responses. It reports that Monday and late morning (9 a.m. to 12 p.m.) were most associated with quicker same-day turnaround. By contrast, the results suggest Friday and late afternoon were least preferred for sending documents. The piece frames these findings as relevant for benefits teams trying to move time-sensitive materials quickly during open enrollment.

2. Habit-driven sending decisions may slow outcomes: The story notes that over half of decision-makers say their teams still choose send times based on habit rather than a deliberate strategy. Christina Petushenko of Sign.com argues that poorly timed requests increase “cognitive load,” which can compound and contribute to delays. The implication is that even small scheduling choices can affect responsiveness when employees are juggling many tasks. The article positions data-informed timing as a way to reduce friction for both employees and HR teams.

3. Channel coordination and measurement for open enrollment: Beyond timing, the article emphasizes assessing delivery methods so benefits information is not fragmented across emails and portals. Adnan Malik, CEO of Software Finder, says scattered communications can make employees piece details together, raising the risk of confusion, missed deadlines, or incomplete enrollment. He recommends using internal metrics—such as email open rates, portal activity, enrollment patterns, survey feedback, and employee questions—to identify what works. The piece suggests HR teams can test small changes and build a communication strategy around observed employee behavior.

Screening for Confidence Tailors GLP-1 Care

By Devyani Gholap – Perceived competence — patients’ confidence in their own ability to manage their weight — emerged as the single strongest psychosocial marker of GLP-1 treatment success, distinguishing groups more reliably than motivation, cravings, stress, or self-monitoring. Patients with increased confidence described greater self-efficacy, including consistent strategy use and a sense of behavioral control, while patients with less confidence reported greater behavioral struggle — a pattern researchers say supports embedding brief confidence screening into routine GLP-1 care. Read Full Article...

HVBA Article Summary

1. Confidence stood out after adjustment: In analyses that adjusted for other factors, perceived competence was the only psychosocial measure that significantly differentiated the participant groups. It was lower among adults who were considering GLP-1 use and higher among those who had been on therapy for at least three months and had reached their weight-loss goal. Other measured domains did not show statistically significant between-group separation once the adjustment was applied. This points to confidence/self-efficacy as a potentially efficient screening focus compared with broader psychosocial batteries.

2. Longer-term GLP-1 users showed stronger overall profiles: Participants who had been on GLP-1 therapy for at least three months (including both those who did and did not meet their goals) generally demonstrated more favorable psychosocial and behavioral patterns than earlier-stage or discontinued groups. These patterns included higher perceived competence, greater intrinsic motivation, fewer cravings, and more consistent self-monitoring. By contrast, those considering therapy and those who discontinued without meeting goals were described as having vulnerabilities tied to lower competence and motivation. The group that discontinued after reaching its goal showed a mixed pattern that included higher activity and self-monitoring but also higher stress and worse sleep.

3. Mixed-method design linked numbers to lived experience: The study combined surveys with semi-structured phone interviews across six groups spanning consideration, early use, longer use, and discontinuation. Interview themes aligned with the quantitative findings, with higher-competence participants describing stronger mastery of habit changes and lower-competence participants describing persistent self-doubt and difficulties with weight loss. The authors suggested a practical clinical response: embedding a brief cravings/competence/autonomy screener into routine GLP-1 care and pairing it with follow-ups from nurses or dietitians. Reported limitations included small group sizes, limited diversity and insurance mix, some compounded GLP-1 use, and a cross-sectional design that cannot establish directionality.

Prudential: Benefit Offerings Reflect Company Culture

By Emily Boyle – Benefits can define workplace culture—and even determine whether employees believe culture exists at all—according to Prudential Group Insurance’s latest installment of its “ 2026 Benefits & Beyond” series, published today. The report suggested that the value employees obtain from their offerings are threatened by benefit costs, complexity, and misalignment with employees’ life pressures. Benefits can help employees meet their life challenges or fall short, and retention may be at stake in the latter case. Read Full Article...

HVBA Article Summary

1. Perceptions of culture differ between employers and employees: The report indicates many employers believe their benefits communicate care and reflect company culture, but employee sentiment does not always match those intentions. It highlights a gap between how employers think benefits are perceived and how employees actually feel, with employee views improving when benefits meet current needs. The findings suggest that benefits can serve as a visible signal of culture, but that signal may be weakened when offerings do not align with employees’ situations. This disconnect may influence collaboration, morale, and how a company is viewed by prospective hires.

2. Benefits that address real-life pressures appear linked to stronger satisfaction: Employers more often believe their benefits help across life stages than employees do, pointing to another perception mismatch. The report notes that certain groups—such as women and employees under financial strain—are more likely to say their benefits are not helping them meet challenges. It also suggests that focusing on offerings more commonly present among employees who feel their needs are met (such as paid leave and supplemental health options) could improve perceived value. Overall, it frames cost, complexity, and misalignment as factors that can erode how useful benefits feel.

3. Retention priorities overlap, but desired enhancements vary by demographic: Both employers and employees rank core benefits like medical coverage and retirement plans among the most important for retention, yet there are smaller gaps on benefits such as paid leave. Employees also point to workplace design changes—like alternative work weeks and flexibility—as factors that could increase their likelihood of staying. Interest in specific enhancements differs across generations and household profiles, implying that uniform benefit strategies may leave some groups feeling overlooked. The report argues for designing benefits using multiple lenses so changes are targeted to where they provide the most perceived value and retention impact.