
Sponsored by: Nashville Health Care Council
For leaders charting their fall conference schedule, we're excited to put Nashville Healthcare Sessions on your radar!
Sessions returns for its fourth year from September 13-15, bringing together execs from incumbents, innovators, investors, and more for honest dialogue on the decisions shaping strategy, capital allocation and growth.
Attendees will collaborate with other high-caliber folks from an impressive blend of orgs from across the ecosystem like HCA, JPM, General Catalyst, CVS, DaVita, and Turquoise Health, just to name a few from last year.
We’ll be on the ground covering the conference and look forward to reconnecting with many of you there! The event is limited to 1,400 attendees, so be sure to snag a ticket soon.
If you're interested in sponsoring the newsletter, let us know!
👋 Welcome to my Sunday recap of healthcare news. Q1 earnings season kicked off this week, and given the results, I’d imagine quants everywhere are contemplating whether they know a good meteorologist to bring on staff to predict upcoming storms (ok, perhaps not surprisingly, it actually appears they already have them). Meanwhile, I found myself deep in theoretical musings this week while reading an Ezekiel Emanuel piece on the sacrifices we’d need to make for better healthcare, and how to square those thoughts with the NYT article on the excesses of the No Surprises Act. Escalating political headwinds for two key AI efforts (WISeR and the Utah medication refill pilot) round out the top headlines from a busy week. Let’s dive in more below!
- Kevin
Q1 EARNINGS SEASON
Early Q1 Takeaways: Weather Patterns, Payor Outperformance, and Provider Underperformance

If you were stuck in one of the major snowstorms that hit this country in January / February, I’d forgive you if you weren’t thinking to yourself at the time: I wonder what impact this will have on Q1 healthcare earnings season? Yet, as it turns out, the answer to that question was: a lot! People being snowed in for a few days drives down care delivery utilization enough to make an appearance in both payor and provider earnings, as it did this quarter.
On the payor side, United, Elevance, and Molina all reported this week, with stock prices up 7% to 19%. All reported a combination of early favorable cost trend and operational improvements driving outperformance, with UHG and Elevance raising full-year guidance, while Molina seems on a trajectory to do so as well after Q2. On the other side of the coin, HCA saw its stock drop 11% on the week after reporting on Thursday that the late-January snowstorm (as well as an abrupt end to flu season) drove lower-than-expected volumes.
I’d place a friendly wager that we continue to see similar results playing out across Q1 results in the industry, with payors and risk-bearing groups hinting at seeing favorable trend in Q1, while providers aim to get back on track after a slow January.
Given all that, the stock market reaction this week strikes me as a bit of an overreaction, on both sides. It feels like even within Q1, dynamics have reverted back to expectations after a dislocation in January. Here’s a bit more on each of those key earnings calls, starting with HCA, which offered some fascinating insights into the business:
HCA:
HCA stock dipped this week after missing Q1 expectations, driven by flu and the January storm — it noted that respiratory admissions were down 42% and respiratory ER visits were down 32% year-over-year. February and March appear to have rebounded, and the rest of the year remains in line with guidance. Between the slow end to flu season and the storm, it caused a $180 negative impact on EBITDA in the quarter for HCA. This impact was offset by a $120 positive development in unexpected state supplemental payment programs from Georgia and Texas. HCA seems to expect another meaningful win here in Florida, even if analysts seemed a bit concerned about how long it is taking CMS to approve the grandfathered application. HCA noted a 15% drop in ACA coverage in the quarter, at the low end of its expectations, but also reported an uptick in patient pay among individuals with ACA coverage. There was a brief discussion about HCA’s North Carolina market and how it is recovering from Hurricane Helene — it is lagging behind profitability expectations. Demand is higher than expected, but HCA is incurring higher expenses as it struggles to recruit staff. Meanwhile, the payor mix is off in the market because of the commercial market dislocation post-hurricane. It’s an interesting lens into the ripple effects of storms like this in a market.
Elevance:
Elevance raised guidance for the year after its outperformance in Q1 given the operational outperformance it is seeing. Elevance noted this is due to a few reasons: revamped leadership structure, AI in clinical, operational, and admin workflows, and integrating CareBridge and home health capabilities into a single risk-based model in Carelon. Elevance seems pleased with medicaid cost management, citing targeted care coordination efforts, clinical oversight of the ABA market, and predictive analytics to identify members with substance use disorder. In MA, Elevance is tracking to 2%+ operating margin for 2026 and is working with CMS on its enrollment freeze; currently expecting to resolve that without any impact on the business. In ACA, Elevance expects 1.2 million members, above its initial outlook, although it is not yet revising its expectation of 900k given market uncertainty. Lastly, Elevance seems to be seeing strong momentum in commercial insurance sales. It noted that it has a very strong pipeline at near-record levels for 2027. They also noted that they’re seeing wins among clients who are consolidating carriers — Elevance is replacing multiple carriers. It was interesting to see Elevance play down the Second Blue Bid opportunity on this call, noting that while, for 2026, it was a big boon for Elevance, the majority of its growth is from other sources.
Molina:
Molina outperformed in Q1 on better-than-expected trend performance, but didn’t raise guidance for the year. Molina’s earnings featured an interesting breakdown of medical cost trends and how they develop over time — with Molina noting that in 2025 it reported a 7.5% trend in Medicaid, with 2.5% of that being acuity shift from redeterminations. Molina noted on this call that the acuity shift went away in late 2025, and it is assuming a 5% trend for 2026 as a result. Also in Medicaid, Molina noted higher-than-expected attrition, as it is seeing more Medicaid disenrollments than anticipated in a handful of states, specifically California, Illinois, and Texas. It now expects a “same-store” decline of 6% membership in 2026, up from 2% previously. In Medicare, Molina seems pleased with its repositioning of the Medicare book into D-SNP, HIDE and FIDE products only, and while it hopes to move its MAPD business to another strategic entity, it will shut it down if not. In the ACA business, membership came in slightly higher than expected at 305k, but it feels good about the profile, and expects to be cautious on pricing heading into 2027. There was an interesting discussion of “low utilizers” in Molina’s Medicaid book, with Molina suggesting that people with coverage who are not using it is at an all-time low, with those members having moved out of its book over the past several years.
UHG:
United beat analyst expectations and raised full-year guidance, as all of its major business segments outperformed. UHC reported that its pricing initiatives are paying dividends in Medicare, while Medicaid continues to work through pressure in rates from states. UHC noted that underlying utilization trends appear consistent with 2025, while it is seeing modest favorability in trend. Optum Health significantly outperformed in the quarter, attributed to operational improvements and the reshaping of its VBC contract portfolio. Interesting to note the operational improvements in the FFS business, with a 12% YoY increase in patient-facing hours in the organization. The OptumRx update was brief, noting the important role the PBM plays as complex, high-cost, specialty drugs come to market. Optum Insight highlighted its AI capabilities while noting its “untapped potential”, with Optum Real again cited as an example. Optum Financial acquired Alegeus Technologies, a platform for managing HSA / FSA dollars, another good indicator of the momentum around consumer-directed payments.
MUSING
A tough question: what sacrifices are we willing to make for better healthcare?
Ezekiel Emanuel wrote a good blog post this week that posed a challenging question for healthcare leaders: What are you willing to sacrifice for a better healthcare system?
If you’re looking for some fodder for deep thinking this weekend, I’d encourage this.
The article posits that each part of the industry tends to think about what it needs to do better, which is generally some form of being paid better rates so it can do more. Instead, he suggests that we already pay too much for healthcare in the US and that leaders need to collectively consider what they’d be willing to give up. The collective component is important here — while payors, providers, and pharma often point fingers at each other in a way that is reminiscent of that Spiderman meme, ultimately, they’d all need to sacrifice together.
Emanuel offers a number of reasonable suggestions in the piece — no direct-to-consumer pharma advertising, PBMs moving to a pass-through transparent system, site-neutral payments for hospitals, and insurers capping out-of-pocket expenses, among others. He also raises the point that consumers of healthcare need to sacrifice as well — things like longer wait times, fewer hotel-like amenities in hospitals, and fewer brand-name drugs coming to market each year.
The iron triangle rears its head again here — if we are trying to address the costliness of healthcare, inevitably, the levers to pull will revolve around access and/or quality. And that is ultimately the challenge in all of this, as, societally, we are unable to have the hard conversations about those trade-offs at this juncture.
If I’m certain of one thing, it’s that while I find this to be a fascinating intellectual exercise, it will remain an intellectual exercise. There is a 0.0% chance that we stack our hands and proactively agree to a rational, collective set of sacrifices to change the course here. Instead, we’ll all continue bickering about getting what we need, all while driving the car straight off the cliff. Someone else can always figure out how to pick up the pieces later.
NB: In the spirit of thinking outside the box, I’m going to attempt to make a case to Martin tomorrow on TGR that what I would be willing to give up as a consumer of healthcare is… actually being ok with paying more for healthcare in this country. I don’t think I have a conceptual issue with living in a country that spends ~18% of GDP on healthcare. I get that other countries spend less; that’s cool. I also get that there’s a reason why people come here from around the world for high-end healthcare. So, I’d actually be ok with that number going up, so long as we are trading off better quality and access for that, as the iron triangle would suggest should happen. In exchange for getting paid more, payors, providers, and pharma agree to move away from the low-value nonsense that happens today and actually move towards the notion of abundant healthcare that gets bandied about sometimes. If healthcare moves to 25% of GDP with better access to high-value care, I’d be cool with that.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
Dr. Norman Rowe, a plastic surgeon with offices in New York and Florida, advertises on his website that breast reduction surgery usually costs between $15,000 and $25,000.
But these days, his practice sometimes earns $440,000 for the procedure.
The New York Times certainly didn’t bury the lede in its article this week on the No Surprises Act, highlighting how the outcomes of the Independent Dispute Resolution process seem a bit… befuddling. Certainly, there are legitimate and longstanding gripes about underlying payor/provider relationships that led to the existence of the NSA and IDR processes.
While that is true, this NYT article also highlights the lawsuit Dr. Rowe is facing and how his practice won $1.4 million in awards from five surgeries, including one for $440,000, as described above. Congress doesn’t seem to care about this outcome yet, with Senator Cassidy (one of the authors of the No Surprises Act) quoted in the NYT reporting as saying of the outcomes for providers:
”If they’re winning, it’s because the insurance companies are not coming back with a reasonable thing,” he said.
So while it appears DC hasn’t noticed this yet, the Independent Dispute Resolution process seems like one of the leading examples of how wasteful spending takes root in healthcare and grows like a weed. Again, I understand there is a conversation to be had about what payors are paying providers and whether the payor offers are reasonable. At the same time, I do not think Dr. Rowe’s plastic surgery business is having any issues with collecting payments. It appears salmon sperm facial injections for Mar-a-Lago parties are quite profitable, because, why not?
What started as a logical attempt to solve a friction point in payor/provider negotiations has quite literally conjured up a cottage industry out of thin air — one that is apparently doing well enough to have formed its own trade group, which seems like a sure sign this is here to stay, despite the lawsuits and exposés flying around about the excesses of this program.
Kinda wild to juxtapose reading Zeke Emanuel’s article above with this story. When I talk about being cool with paying more for high-value care… this isn’t exactly what I had in mind.
Other Top Headlines
OpenAI is launching a new clinical search tool for clinicians. In an interview with Endpoints, OpenAI's head of health, Nate Gross, noted that it is targeting clinicians who don’t have access via enterprise relationships. It’s hard not to note here that Gross was formerly the co-founder of Doximity, and seemingly that statement clarifies that. It’s worth checking out the interview here for thoughts on OpenAI’s strategy more generally.
The issues facing Utah’s pilot for AI-based medication refills with Doctronic escalated this week, as Utah’s Medical Licensing Board sent a letter to the Office of AI Policy strongly recommending the program's immediate suspension pending further discussion. The concern is exactly what you might expect — the Medical Board is responsible for keeping people safe and moving forward without its approval puts people at risk. I personally find that argument pretty unconvincing — when I chatted with Doctronic’s Dr. Adam Oskowitz just after the pilot was announced, he walked through why Doctronic’s approval is almost certainly safer than the standard of care today. Doctronic leadership went further in a post this week with a blog post titled “The Status Quo Is the Biggest Risk.” Among other things, it notes doctors are still reviewing every medication prescribed as part of the Utah pilot, while it earns the right to operate autonomously. I find Doctronic’s argument quite compelling here, but at the same time, I still think it is a losing argument given the politics of pissing off the Medical Board.
A Senator in Washington state has issued a report slamming the WISeR model and the issues it has faced in the state since it rolled out earlier this year. The report referred to WISeR as “an administrative labyrinth for WA hospitals and doctors.” It cites increased wait times, suggests that AI is denying care, and that the model is putting profits over patients. It’s interesting that the noise out of Washington state is so loud compared to the other states where WISeR is being piloted — it makes me curious whether these are issues other states are having, or are isolated to Washington state. If these issues are broader, it seems like another example of a logical program thwarted by the politics at hand.
A new AI healthcare accelerator, Treehub, is launching alongside an early-stage venture fund, AI Health Fund, also focused on healthcare AI investments.
After a rumor last week, IKS Health acquired TruBridge for up to $565 million. TruBridge provides RCM and EHR for the rural healthcare market.
EHR platform ModMed acquired Bonsai Health, an AI patient engagement platform. ModMed will deploy Bonsai’s engagement capabilities to its customer base of specialty practices.
Featured Jobs
Founding Strategy & Operations at Valerie Health, a front office AI solution for independent provider groups. Learn more.
$150K - $200K | Hybrid (SF)
Managing Director of New Ventures - Cedars-Sinai at Redesign Health, a role dedicated to the new joint Digital Innovation Platform with Cedars-Sinai. Learn more.
Hybrid (LA)
Director, Strategic Programs & Solution Design at Sage, a care platform for senior living communities. Learn more.
$180K - $200K | In-office / Hybrid (NYC)
Managing Director of New Ventures at Redesign Health, a venture and applied technology firm. Learn more.
Hybrid (SF or NY)
Director, Strategy & Operations at Oura, a wearable device company. Learn more.
$165K - $236K Hybrid (SF)
Contact us to feature roles in our newsletter.
Funding Announcements
Courier Health, a company that helps pharma companies manage patient experiences, raised $50 million. Oak HC/FT led the round. Courier cites some impressive outcomes for pharma companies — 15% - 20% increases in patient starts, 10% - 12% increase in 6-month persistency, and 5x - 7x increases in team productivity. Seems like a very logical opportunity to support drugs coming to market at high price tags.
Tava Health, a behavioral health startup, raised $40 million. Centana Growth Partners led the round. The press release notes that Tava is repositioning from a mental health network to a full-stack platform. Tava is in-network for 90% of the commercially insured market, working with 200 health plans.
Amperos Health, a denial management and revenue recovery platform for providers, raised $16 million. Bessemer led the round. Amperos serves 3,000 clinical locations and reports it has recovered $700 million in revenue across 500,000 claims for its providers. It is seeing 22% higher revenue recovered per claim at a 50% lower cost.
Zocalo, a community health worker model for Hispanic populations, raised $15 million. The press release notes Zocalo has grown revenue 4x YoY and expanded from 2 regional health plan contracts in 2024 to 12 in 2025. Zocalo is currently working with Medicaid Managed Care orgs like Anthem Blue Cross and Health Net, and is working on Cal AIM.
Coral, a company automating administrative workflows, raised $12.5 million. Lightspeed and Z47 led the round. Coral is working to automate patient intake processes that currently rely on fax machines.
Almanac Health, an AI platform for clinical decision support, raised $10 million. F-Prime led the round.
What I’m Reading
An editorial in Nature Medicine suggested that evidence supporting AI tools is lagging behind adoption, and that the evidence should be presented in scientific journals like Nature Medicine. Despite feeling like I should be getting a circular reference error after writing that sentence, I can’t disagree with the sentiment.
Last weekend, a WSJ editorial piece highlighted how Viz.ai’s algorithm is helping to identify strokes earlier. It is expanding beyond strokes to implement other pathways, citing 55 that are now available on the platform from a variety of companies, including Microsoft. The article notes that 90% of Viz.ai’s care pathway uses have been triggered by EHR data, which is an interesting stat. VIz.ai notes it is essentially replacing 90% of the work of providers.
An article in SF Standard highlights how doctors earning $375k a year in San Francisco are taking second jobs training AI models to boost their salaries, noting that the high cost of living in the Bay Area is driving many doctors (40%) to do so. The article also notes the median income in San Francisco is $140k.
KFF’s Larry Leavitt pondered whether health insurance companies are responsible for the ills of our health system in JAMA Forum this week. It does a nice job of wading into the complicated role insurers play, pondering what institutions we collectively entrust with oversight of healthcare spending in this country.
Bloomberg’s John Tozzi told the story of Claimable, a startup that has raised $10 million from Mark Cuban and others. I find it interesting to think about how the business model will need to evolve over time, as patients are currently paying $50 per appeal, which doesn’t exactly support VC math. The article notes that Claimable is starting to sign contracts with pharma as a business model moving forward. That move seems both logical for a business owner and entirely inconsistent with Cuban’s populist schtick on social media.
HTN Content
Community Brain Trust: Earnings season coverage, FDA begins process of easing peptide restrictions, legal standards for digital patient consent, and more. Read here.
Weekly Health Policy Briefing: A real tragedy of the commons situation in the IDR process and state-level "public options.” Read here.
The Grand Roundup: Digital vs consumer health participation in ACCESS, maternity care unbundling, Abridge and clinical intelligence, Yuzu's pivot to power alternative plans, peptide market, price transparency, AI-driven risk adjustment funding, and more.
Maternity care unbundling: why the global payment bundle is ending and what it means for innovation, costs, and access | Neel Shah (Maven Clinic)
From AI scribing to clinical intelligence: how Abridge is expanding its role across the clinical encounter | Shiv Rao
Why a connected device company is well positioned for CMMI's ACCESS model | Patrick Sheehan (Withings)
From building an alternative health plan to powering them: what Yuzu learned and why they pivoted | Russell Pekala & Will Gillach
Why so few patients access palliative care, and how Empassion is addressing that | Robin Heffernan (Empassion)
Want to comment or share feedback?
If this newsletter was forwarded to you, subscribe here or see more from Health Tech Nerds.

