How Much Longer Will Americans Wait for Real Health Reform?

By Trudy Lieberman – Kudos to Merrill Goozner, former editor of Modern Healthcare, for spotlighting a grim but important story on his Substack column GoozNews. “A year spent degrading health” is a damning picture of the U.S. health care system, which has been on a tenuous path that traces back before passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and the Clinton administration’s health care reform attempt in the early 1990s. Read Full Article...

HVBA Article Summary

1. Rising Concerns Over Health Care Costs: The article reports that health care expenses have become Americans’ leading financial worry, with Kaiser Family Foundation polling showing that roughly two-thirds of respondents are more concerned about health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs than other everyday expenses such as food, housing, utilities, or gasoline. This finding suggests that affordability challenges are affecting a broad portion of the population and contributing to growing public concern about the sustainability of current health care costs and access to necessary medical services.

2. Impact of Policy Changes on Insurance Coverage: According to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cited in the article, approximately 1.2 million households lost health insurance coverage during the 2026 enrollment period after enhanced Affordable Care Act premium subsidies expired following congressional action. These coverage reductions occurred in states using the federal insurance marketplace and illustrate how changes in federal subsidies and legislative decisions can directly influence enrollment levels and the affordability of private health insurance plans.

3. Ongoing Debate Over the Future of U.S. Health Programs: The article discusses broader concerns about the stability and long-term direction of major U.S. health programs, including the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, particularly in light of proposed funding reductions and policy reforms. It places these developments within a continuing national debate over health care access, program funding, and whether the United States should pursue structural reforms such as expanded public coverage or movement toward a more universal health care model.

HHS takes another swing at drug discount overhaul

By Maya Goldman – The Trump administration is doubling down on efforts to revamp the federal discount drug program — a major flashpoint between Big Pharma and hospitals. Why it matters: The so-called 340B program has been mired in litigation, most recently over administration efforts to let drugmakers carry out price reductions through rebates instead of cutting prices at the front end. Read Full Article...

HVBA Article Summary

1. Renewed Push for 340B Rebate Model: The Health Resources and Services Administration is seeking feedback on a proposal that would require hospitals and clinics to pay full price for drugs upfront, with rebates issued later if they qualify for discounts. This approach is intended to address concerns about transparency and potential misuse of the 340B program. However, providers argue that such changes could disrupt their cash flow and increase administrative burdens, especially as they face other financial pressures.

2. Legal and Stakeholder Challenges: Previous attempts to implement a rebate-based model were blocked by a federal court due to insufficient stakeholder input. The Department of Health and Human Services has since withdrawn its initial pilot and dropped its appeal, but the new notice signals a continued interest in pursuing reform. Any future changes will require a formal proposal, a public comment period, and at least 90 days' notice to providers, reflecting ongoing legal and procedural hurdles.

3. Diverging Industry Perspectives: Pharmaceutical companies support the rebate model as a way to enhance oversight and prevent what they see as double-dipping by some providers. In contrast, hospital groups and community health centers are pushing back, warning that the proposed changes could impose significant costs on facilities serving vulnerable populations. Some are advocating for legislative exemptions and extended comment periods, indicating the likelihood of further debate and potential legal action.

Following Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling, Trump pivots to new temporary tariffs

By Dave Muoio – In a 6-3 ruling handed down Friday morning, the Supreme Court determined that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when imposing the sweeping trade tariffs that have become a cornerstone of his administration’s foreign and economic policy. Despite the top court's rebuke, the president has made it clear he doesn't intend to walk away from the levies. Friday evening, Trump signed orders imposing 10% tariffs for 150 days on most imported goods under separate statute that he said the following day would be raised to 15%. Pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients are among the goods exempted from the temporary duty, according to the order. Read Full Article...

HVBA Article Summary

1. Limits on Presidential Tariff Authority: The Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not provide the president with authority to impose tariffs, emphasizing that Congress must clearly and explicitly grant such powers. The justices found that the administration’s reliance on emergency economic authority to justify broad tariffs went beyond the law’s intended scope and violated principles requiring major economic decisions to be authorized by Congress.

2. Industry and Supply Chain Implications: Healthcare and life sciences organizations had warned that the tariffs could lead to higher purchasing costs, supply chain disruptions, and increased prices for hospitals and patients. While many health systems avoided significant short-term financial impacts due to multiyear contracts and efforts to shift sourcing to lower-tariff countries or domestic manufacturers, industry groups viewed the ruling as reducing long-term cost uncertainty and operational risk tied to trade policy changes.

3. Continuation of Tariffs Through Alternative Authorities: Although the Court invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA, the administration quickly repealed those measures while introducing new tariffs under other statutory authorities, including Sections 122, 232, and 301. These actions suggest tariff policy will remain a central trade tool moving forward, while unresolved questions—particularly whether companies may receive refunds for previously paid tariffs—could create significant financial and administrative challenges for importers and federal agencies alike.

Hospital CEO says most ACA exchange patients don't pay their deductibles

By Allison Bell – Soaring deductibles and coinsurance costs could cause big problems for patients with Affordable Care Act exchange plan coverage — except that most patients with ACA exchange plan coverage aren't actually paying much of the big out-of-pocket bills. Kevin Hammons, the chief executive officer of Community Health Systems, a large hospital company, talked about the patient financial responsibility reality gap problem Thursday, during a conference call with securities analysts. Read Full Article... ^{_{(Subscription required)}}

HVBA Article Summary

1. Higher ACA Premiums and Expected Enrollment Decline: Premiums for Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange plans have risen notably for 2026, leading analysts to project a meaningful drop in enrollment once coverage payment grace periods end. During its fourth-quarter earnings discussion, Community Health Systems executives said the anticipated enrollment decline is unlikely to significantly affect hospital operations because exchange-plan patients make up a small share—less than 5%—of the company’s overall patient mix.

2. Low Revenue Collection from Exchange-Plan Patients: Company executives emphasized that ACA exchange enrollees often access care through hospital emergency departments and frequently struggle to meet co-pay and deductible obligations. As a result, hospitals historically recover limited revenue from these patients, reflecting broader industry challenges in collecting medical debt and reinforcing the view that losing exchange-plan volume may not materially reduce hospital income.

3. Broader Implications for Employer Coverage Models and Provider Supply: The article suggests that patient financial responsibility requirements embedded in individual and family coverage may distort healthcare cost and utilization data relied upon by employers, benefits advisors, and policymakers. If employer adoption of individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs) accelerates and leads to larger-than-expected reductions in hospital revenue, it could create financial pressure on providers and potentially contribute to a decline in healthcare service availability over time.

Analysis-Big Food Pours Millions Into Rebrands as Obesity Drugs Reshape US Demand

By Sriparna Roy and Juveria Tabassum – Global food and beverage companies from PepsiCo to Coca-Cola are focusing on shorter ingredient lists and smaller pack sizes in 2026 as more people take appetite-suppressing GLP-1 drugs for weight loss. Companies that previously took a wait-and-see attitude now ⁠see GLP-1s as here to stay. So far this year, nearly three dozen companies outside the healthcare industry have mentioned GLP-1 drugs or weight loss on their earnings conference calls, up from 14 for the same period a year ago, and just five two years ⁠earlier, according to LSEG data. Read Full Article...

HVBA Article Summary

1. Food Industry Responds to GLP-1 Drug Trends: Major food and beverage companies are adapting their product lines in response to the growing use of GLP-1 appetite-suppressing drugs. These adaptations include reformulating products with simpler ingredient lists, introducing smaller portion sizes, and investing in higher-protein and nutrient-dense foods. The shift reflects a recognition that consumer eating habits are changing due to the widespread adoption of these medications.

2. Significant Financial and Strategic Investments: Companies such as PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kraft Heinz, and General Mills are increasing capital expenditures and redirecting research and development budgets to align with new consumer preferences. Examples include PepsiCo's launch of the "Simply NKD" line and testing of mini-meal options, as well as Kraft Heinz's $600 million investment to revitalize staple brands. These moves indicate that the industry views the impact of GLP-1 drugs as a long-term trend requiring substantial strategic shifts.

3. Noticeable Changes in Consumer Behavior: Data from PwC and other sources show that GLP-1 users are consuming significantly fewer calories, with notable reductions in dessert and alcohol intake and increased consumption of fresh produce. Family grocery baskets are shrinking, and single-person households are seeing even greater declines in food purchases. Industry leaders and analysts suggest that these behavioral changes are only beginning to reveal the broader effects of appetite-suppressing drugs on the food market.

Your Mind Can Make Muscles Stronger, Here’s How

By Kimberly Drake – Arnold Schwarzenegger used to visualize his biceps growing “as big as mountains” before heavy lifting sessions. It wasn’t just for show. The bodybuilding legend was tapping into a now scientifically-backed phenomenon known as the “mind-muscle connection.” From thinking about movement to “psyching up” before a workout, research has revealed that muscle strength and performance start in the brain, and that can play a powerful role in unlocking your hidden strength, if you know how to tap into it. Read Full Article...

HVBA Article Summary

1. Neural Adaptation Drives Early Strength Gains: Early increases in strength from resistance training are largely driven by nervous system adaptations rather than immediate muscle growth. The brain improves its ability to recruit and coordinate muscle fibers, allowing individuals to lift more weight before noticeable muscle size changes occur. These neurological improvements explain the rapid progress commonly seen at the beginning of a training program.

2. Mental Preparation Enhances Physical Performance: Techniques such as visualization, motivational self-talk, and psyching up before exercise can meaningfully improve strength and performance by increasing focus and neural activation. The article cites research showing performance improvements of up to 65 percent, and a 2020 study found participants who visualized lifts improved performance by up to 15 pounds, compared with 5 pounds in non-visualization groups. Proper mental preparation can enhance effort and muscle activation, though excessive arousal may reduce technique quality.

3. Mental Training Supports—but Does Not Replace—Physical Exercise: Mental rehearsal, or motor imagery, can increase strength by activating movement-related brain pathways even without physical exercise. A 2025 study reported a 22 percent strength increase in older adults using imagined training, while earlier research showed 35 percent gains from mental practice compared with 53 percent from physical training. While these strategies can support rehabilitation and improve muscle activation, long-term strength development still requires consistent physical training, recovery, and nutrition.

Take back control: How employers can regain power over healthcare spending

By Paul Dumas – The cost to insure a family of four now exceeds $35,000 per year. That figure has nearly tripled over the past two decades, far outpacing both wages and inflation — and with medical costs rising by roughly 8.5% annually, employers are increasingly left footing the bill. Next year, the cost of health care per employee is expected to climb an average 6.5%. For self-insured employers, who have a fiduciary responsibility to manage their healthcare plans wisely, this isn't just expensive; it's unsustainable. Read Full Article... ^{_{(Subscription required)}}

HVBA Article Summary

1. Data Ownership and Transparency: Employers are encouraged to take control of their health claims data to identify inefficiencies, fraud, and opportunities for cost savings. Without access to this data, organizations may be unable to detect overpayments or spot trends that could inform preventive care strategies. The article highlights that even large companies can be blindsided by opaque billing practices, underscoring the importance of data transparency for all employers.

2. Contract Clarity and Flexibility: Understanding and negotiating clear, auditable contracts with brokers, carriers, and pharmacy benefit managers is essential for cost control. Many employers unknowingly agree to terms that obscure fees or limit their ability to seek better value, which can lead to unnecessary expenses. By insisting on transparency and flexibility, employers can better guide employees toward cost-effective care options and realize significant savings.

3. Leveraging Independent Providers and Direct Contracting: Employers, regardless of size, can benefit from contracting directly with independent practitioners and facilities to reduce costs and improve care quality. The article notes that independent providers often offer lower prices, faster access, and better outcomes compared to traditional networks. By embracing innovative network designs and direct primary care models, employers can both lower expenses and enhance employee health benefits.